Actually, I did a search and there was one entry for Newman, but he is not quoted at all and no reference was made there to Newman’s The Development of Doctrine of Christian Doctrine. I only point this out because I believe you might find it quite useful, as I stated, in order to better understand the Catholic view of the relationship of faith and reason.

As for the “comprehensive” treatment of scriptural evidence regarding the virginity of Mary on your website, it does not, in fact, deal with the issue I have raised, namely that the infancy narratives confirm each other and that Matthew clearly teaches the virginal conception, regardless of any philological discussions of his quotation of Isaiah.

Futhermore, in Wixted’s discussion of the “Virgin Birth” he is tellingly silent in regard to external evidence. He imposes his own interpretation on texts using an analysis that only would have plausibility if that was the way the communities who first read the scriptures received them, and if, further, the Church had in some sense retained that belief; however, detached from historical context and from the clear tradition of exegesis, Wixted gives only an artificial impression of plausibility.

Catholics are not Protestants. I really think you should read Newman.

Furthermore, Wixted, plays word games, basing his arguments almost entirely upon a contrived use of philology, gathering evidence where it helps his case, and ignoring it where it does not. For instance, when he talks about the use of ginosko in Luke 1:34 he attempts to reduce Luke’s usage to purely intellectual understanding, even though Luke prefaces the whole account with the fact that Mary was betrothed to Joseph, but had yet begun to live with him, and even though there is a clear linguistic tradition within scripture regarding the use of “knowledge” to describe sexual relations (all of which he conveniently fails to mention). In fact, the same Greek verb is used in Matthew 1:25, also in reference to Mary and Joseph that indubitably refers to the absence of carnal knowledge:And he knew (eginosken) her not till she brought forth her first born son (also, conveniently remaining unmentioned by Wixted).

This is only one example of his specious reasoning; I could address many more. Quite honestly, I would only do that if it was helpful to you personally. From an intellectual point of view, I don’t find Wixted’s arguments the least bit compelling.

I particularly dislike his attempt to sell us a bill of goods on St. Joseph’s dream. He wants us to believe that the angel told Joseph to take Mary as his wife because the alleged adulterous conception was part of God’s plan, all based on his narrow and isolated philological considerations. And then he suggests that those doubtful of his brilliance become free of prejudice.

Ain’t that a peach!

In fact there is other material on the website that is much broader in scope, and coincidentally some articles will be added shortly that deal with secular and ecclesiatical history and prophecy.

I think your points about biblical texts have been dealt with comprehensively in the articles in the “Doctrine of virgin birth” section on the website.

Incidentally, if you use the “search” facility on the website, you will see Cardinal Newman is quoted there, and Irenaeus and Monsignor Knox have some prominence.

You have a curious website dedicated to the removal of the ignorance separating people from the truth. There seems to be much of what you would consider ignorance, but little of what you would consider truth. That focus is significant, I believe.

I would suggest that if you intend to use Mr. Wixted’s arguments, you would be well advised to understand the Catholic position somewhat better than he. To this end you might study the relationship between scripture and tradition and the role the Pope and the bishops have in maintaining the purity of the faith (See the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation). You might also take time to read Cardinal John Henry Newman’s “An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine.” This latter might help to illustrate in a way directed to the modern mind what Catholics understand to be the relationship between faith and reason. I don’t expect you to agree with any of it, but it might be helpful for you to understand better what we actually believe.

I have learned to pay attention more to a man’s subjects than predicates, so again, I find it curious that of all the subjects Mr. Wixted could have covered, he has dedicated so much time to refuting the Virgin Birth.

I will say that I thought Mr. Wixted’s piece on interjector’s techinques is incisive and very helpful for perfecting the art and science of debate. One nearly always has to deal with someone with an axe to grind.

In that regard, your contention that Matthew and Luke in no way assert anything remotely approximating a virginal conception belies your own freedom from prejudice:

The virgin birth story is founded on the verse in Matthew’s gospel which quotes Isaiah’s prophecy. The churches claim Matthew did not quote from the original Hebrew Old Testament, but rather from a Greek translation of the Hebrew (which mistranslated the “young woman” in Isaiah’s prophecy as “virgin”). If this claim is correct, it would mean that Matthew saw the birth of Jesus as the fulfilment of a prophecy that does not exist in the Old Testament!

Further, it is claimed that Luke’s gospel describes the virginal conception of Jesus. This claim relies on giving selective interpretations to certain words when they are applied to Jesus. However where these same or similar words are applied to others in the Bible, no one suggests there is a virginal conception in those instances.

Matthew and Luke had a good reason to record the circumstances relating to Jesus’ birth, but it had nothing to do with a so-called virgin birth.

Both Luke’s narration of the Annunciation (1:26-38, esp. vv. 35-37) and the verse 18 of the second chapter of Matthew which immediately precedes his quotation from Isaiah, make it clear that that the New Testament does, in fact, assert a virginal conception. Your reference to the Catholic admissions that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew does not seem to support your argument, because the reference to that prophecy, as an authoritative text worthy to be quoted to Matthew’s Hebrew readers, makes no sense at all unless he is doing so in support of his contention that Mary was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit. Regardless of what either the Hebrew or Greek said, it is clear what Matthew believed it meant. Furthermore, in Luke the dialogue between the angel and the Virgin, with the latter’s one well-placed question and the answer She receives, make no sense at all unless the evangelist is making a point of asserting a virginal conception.

In fact, this is how the Church from the beginning has understood the scriptures. (See again, please, the relationship between scripture and tradition.) For example, St. Justin (+ 165) gives testimony of this in Dialogus cum Tryphone (100) when he states became man by the Virgin. St. Irenaeus (+ c. 200) also asserts it as an article of Faith in Adversus haereses (I, 10, 2), stating that the Church spread throughout the world has received the faith from the apostles, including the truth that in accordance with the prophecies of the Old Testament His birth was “from a virgin.” Many more examples from the early Church can be marshaled, but I think this is sufficient to show that your contention the New Testament does not assert the Virginal Conception is false.

I would be less curious about your focus on the removal of ignorance, rather than the promotion of truth, if you did not take your argument against the Virgin Birth all the way back to the infancy narratives, which clearly does not serve your argument.

http://www.wallsofjericho.info/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=14&Itemid=26

and, similarly the debate on TheologyWeb:

Forum — General Theistics 101
Thread — Does the Bible teach that Mary was a virgin when Jesus was conceived?

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/forumdisplay.php?f=160

There is a tradition that Saint Joseph was born (not conceived) without Original Sin also, as being second in dignity after Our Blessed Mother and St. John the baptist.

I have a similar inking that I wanted to bring out in the “heart” post.

BTW, great post on your site.

I have some inklings about adding a mystical component to this, regarding those who are to image male and female-I’ll post that on my blog. Looking forward to the heart, and sharing this with many of my Catholic Male friends! God bless you Father!

Thanks for the kind words. I am happy to publish in any way I can.

As an aside, while quickly glancing through some of the dialogue about *The Nativity* on Jimmy Akin’s blog that you directed us to, I read how you said there were only two people born without sin, Mary and Jesus. This is how I always understood it. However, as someone mentioned on another thread here, some contend that St. John the Baptist was also born without sin.

I don’t know if this is the text you are referring to:

My comments on Our Lady’s Queenship need to be taken in the context of my review and of my other statements in this string. Of all the people who ever lived, only two were completely without sin.” Only two were completely heroic.

At least in this particular text I was careful to qualify myself by saying “completely without sin,” which is the case only in the persons of Jesus and Mary. St. John was born, but not conceived without sin.

If there is another text that states otherwise, it is probably due to an awkward formulation.