- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Nick,
My mistake. Thank you for the gentle correction!
By the way, I hate to be lazy, but could you tell me where you are referencing that the color blue represents God?
I wish I could recall but it is one of the little bits of info you pick up over the years. It does give new life to the otherwise strangely detailed books describing the temple in Exodus 26-36 though.
and jacob begat joseph the husband of mary ,of whom was born jesus, who is called christ. Generations from Abraham and David
and before joseph and mary came together she was found with child from the holy ghost. matt ch1v16….ch1v18Welcome Dilemma,
If your point is-keep it simple and believe the Word of God-I agree.Those in the NT who quote the OT do not always read exactly the same. To deny the virgin birth opens another awful can of worms. You have to start calling people liars and deceivers and we put more faith in your own perceptions than is wise?If we were to reject the virgin birth of Christ, would it matter to our faith? Are we rejecting the foundation of out faith in doing so? All I know at this stage is that it does make it possible that Christ was born in sin and that he is an offspring of Adam rather than being the new Adam.
But we know that Christ is the new Adam, the new son of man. If Christ was indeed born of a virgin as the NT says, then is he removed from Adams sin?
I know it is commonly taught that Christ was born of a virgin and therefore he was not born into sin as sin is supposedly passed on by the man. How does one come to this conclusion?
Currently I have no reason to believe that he wasn't born of a virgin as the NT testifies. But I still have questions regarding this matter.
Hi t8
there are several levels to this.,
Ok do you accept the Is 7 prediction as being about Jesus? Only he fits the name Emmanuel as “God with us” as he was filled with the Fathers spirit and reveals the Father to men.
Do you accept it as being also relevant to Hezekiah?
If we do accept that a young unmarried woman will give birth to the saviour, does that say she is a virgin or not a virgin? So to suggest from this quote alone that the whole doctrine is suspect is not a strong argument would you agree? It says neither she was or was not a virgin but if she was not a virgin then it would have been a scandalous situation.
Perhaps in quoting the OT Matthew took some literary license and declared she would have been a virgin as it would have been expected of righteous people to still be a virgin when married. His word is testimony nonetheless as it is in the Word as is his testimony that Mary and Joseph had not lived together and they did not have sexual relations prior to Jeus's birth.
Clearly Joseph initially must have thought otherwise as he knew it was not his child and that is why he was preparing to divorce her quietly. If it had been his child then jewish law would require him to marry Mary.
Would all generations call Mary blessed if she was known to be not a virgin when her child was conceived? Mary herself declared her virginity to the angel [Lk 1.34]so her testimony is relevant too.
So either one must throw out all the scriptures relating to the virgin birth if one was to rejct it as the Isaiah diificulty would not lead to that conclusion I believe.Nick,
Quote So either one must throw out all the scriptures relating to the virgin birth if one was to rejct it as the Isaiah diificulty would not lead to that conclusion I believe. But the question does remain, (as far as the geneology of Yeshua goes), how is Yeshua the legal son of Joseph, and therefore the son of David? Hebrew law does not seem to permit this, which leads to much confusion about a very clear prophecy concerning the Messiah.
Also, along the lines of what T8 has raised, if all flesh is sinful, and therefore unfit for the role as God's sacrificial lamb, then Yeshua could not be of Mary's flesh either, given that it would also be corrupt. So Mary could only be a host body for a new creation entirely outside of the Adamic lineage. Is that what one is saying when one asserts the necessity of the virgin birth?
Hi WIT,
I guess there was no legal challenge to the paternity of Jesus. No other man was accused of lying with Mary, by Joseph or anyone else. She could have been stoned if she had been with another man while engaged to Joseph. She was not accused either by the community of fornication. There was no evidence of sin.Joseph knew he was not the physical parent and knew that the child had been conceived of the Holy Spirit from the message of the Angel which he believed. Joseph was known by the community to be the father of Jesus. He accepted the responsibilty and role of father to Jesus. That is enough legally I would guess.
There is no doubt that Jesus shared the genes of his mother. He was not transported into the womb physically but only in soul and spirit and was conceived physically as the bible says. He fully partook of our humanity in that way so we can follow him.
Hi,
The much more important issue,in my opinion, is whether Jesus was conceived of the Holy Spirit. If Jesus was conceived of a man and Mary then that would contravene more important scriptures. The virgin status of Mary would not change the situation that much though I would not call her a liar.
Jesus would be born like any of us into the effects of Adam's sin-separation from God and His family. We, and Jesus who was like us, are not judged because of Adam's sin but we are born cursed because of it.
We were all born into the natural world, spiritually alone. We suffered the deceits and deceptions, the torments, sicknesses, disasters, pains and frustrations of living in a world ruled by God's enemy, Satan.
Jesus had to partake of all these human things and defeat them and so defeat the earth's ruler and do so without sinning. He brought light into the kingdom of darkness and the light won out.
He left evidence in his creation and His Word for all generations to find the source of that light and to drink of the water that leads to joy and eternal life.
But he had to be like us in every way so he could show us the way and we could follow him. In so doing we can be reborn into his family and escape the curse of the godless empty life and the condemned eternity of the faithless.Hi, In Lev 21.13 talking about the priests there are many marriage restrictions for them and it says “And he shall take a wife in her virginity”
v 14 “.. he is to marry a virgin..”
So if these apply to priests who go into the presence of God how much more important that God chooses a virgin as the mother of Jesus?Quote (Adam Pastor @ Nov. 07 2004,21:09) Jesus scripturally, must be of the seed of David; from bible prophecy the Messiah must come FROM THE SEED OF DAVID or he is not the promised Messiah. However, Jesus was not physically, biologically, a descendant of Joseph.
He was however, physically, biologically, a descendant of Mary which corresponded to him being physically, biologically, a descendant of David i.e. OF THE SEED OF DAVIDThat is, scripturally, he was of the SEED of David via his mother alone.
GOD caused the conception of Jesus. The GOD who made the first Adam of the dust of the earth, is the same GOD who made the Last Adam [of the ovum] of a woman [Gal 4.4]; miraculously making a male human altho' a woman solely has the X chromosome.
Jesus, is legally the son of Joseph as both genealogies show, giving him right to the throne of David.
Jesus, is biologically, according to the flesh the son of David through Mary in fulfillment of 2 Sam 7.12, 1 Chr 17.11, Psa 132.11, Acts 2.30, 13.23, Luke 1.69, Rom 1.3, Psa 89.29,35-37, John 7.42 + all the other verses you quoted.Lastly, here are some websites that go into some detail about Christ's genealogies. …
Hi Adam Pastor,
Do you believe Jesus was not truly of Mary genetically too?
Why does the bible use the word “conceive” of the child then?
Was Mary just a surrogate mother?
Did he have no umbilicus?
Was his birth notably different if he had no placenta or cord?
If Jesus was physically a new creation outside of man why is he called a man in scripture?
Was his flesh superior to ours? Is 53 does not seem to indicate this.
Was his flesh not really part of his nature but he just dwelled in it?
In what way then it is true that he was he like to us in all ways except sin?Quote (Nick Hassan @ Nov. 18 2004,00:08) Hi,
I think it is fair to ask why God chose a virgin birth for Jesus. I expect it was very important to exclude any othe claims to paternity of Jesus.
We know the veil of the temple is representative of the flesh of Jesus. If you look up Exodus it is described as being made of 3 colours. Red for man, Blue for God and Purple for the religious interface between God and Man.
So to fulfill this prophetic view it was necessary for the flesh of Jesus to come from God and Man. Do you agree?
That is not only a fair question to ask but also a very relevant one I believe.
Why a virgin, why through a woman?
By man came death so by a man came resurrection.
Man that is born of woman is of few years and full of trouble…
I think it is fitting that since the conception through Eve spelt death for every one of us, and she was linked to this sin undoubtedly for God increased her pain in conception, it is fitting that God in reconciling Himself to man, also redeemed the woman's status by bringing the Messiah through a woman.
But that is not the only reason why it was done this way. It was necessary that the Law be fulfilled by the death of a perfect sacrifice.
The blood sacrifices of natural lambs only spoke of a better blood to come, a blood of identical nature to ours – human blood.
This blood not only covered sin for a season but took it away completely by a spiritual rebirth made possible through the shedding of this blood and the sending forth of the life contained in that blood upon the believer.
The Law says “life for life”. God could only do it by the life of a kinsman, and that had to be a perfect kinsman, one without sin. So it was impossible for natural man to accomplish this.
God appeared to Abraham as a man (Heb 7:1-3) That was God – for He alone is eternal, without father or mother… In that form He did not redeem us – why? In that form He was without father or mother, eternal, without beginning or end, immortal (undying).
So He had to send His Son into the world made in a form like ours to partake of death, and God dwelling in Him, completely identified with him.
It is God's blood that was in Jesus, no part of it can be Mary's for in Acts 20:28 it tells you the blood that the Holy Ghost (God – the Father of Jesus Christ) has purchased the church with is His own blood. If Mary had any part in that blood (say the egg) then she had a part in the purchase price and the Catholics would be right to make her Theotikus (mother of God).
Personally I do not subscribe to this at all…There are reasons why Jesus came through a virgin womb as the “woman's seed”.
Unless I am misunderstanding the verse in Gen 3:15 – it seems to say that there is a seed of a woman and there is a seed of a serpent.
Jesus would fulfill the woman seed perfectly to what I see.
As for the seed of the serpent, that's another story….Hi Malcolm,
SEED too has two or more meanings.It is a source of life
but also a fruit that that life yields
that can also be itself a food.
Gen 1.11
“..Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed after their kind, and fruit trees bearing fruit, with seed in them, after their kind”Jesus[and all in him] is the seed of the woman who bruises the head of the serpent surely in Gen 3.15 just as the seed of the serpent is the demonic servants of Satan, and not Satan himself. His personal injury in the next sentence is from “he”, who is Jesus himself.
That's right the seed of Satan is not Satan himself but his seed.
And you are right the seed of the woman is Jesus the righteous seed and we are included, and is not God. But the children of God.
Gen 1:11 which you quoted is the seed law of God, it holds true to all life that comes forth from a seed.
The Word of God is a seed. A seed holds the genetic pattern of life that will express that life in a body… And yes you can eat the fruit of a seed and even seed itself.
Both naturally and spiritually…Quote (t8 @ Nov. 28 2004,00:11) If we were to reject the virgin birth of Christ, would it matter to our faith? Are we rejecting the foundation of out faith in doing so? All I know at this stage is that it does make it possible that Christ was born in sin and that he is an offspring of Adam rather than being the new Adam. But we know that Christ is the new Adam, the new son of man. If Christ was indeed born of a virgin as the NT says, then is he removed from Adams sin?
I know it is commonly taught that Christ was born of a virgin and therefore he was not born into sin as sin is supposedly passed on by the man. How does one come to this conclusion?
Currently I have no reason to believe that he wasn't born of a virgin as the NT testifies. But I still have questions regarding this matter.
If we were to reject the virgin birth of Christ, would it matter to our faith?Well for one thing it would break the pattern of the true, the shadows and types of the old testament given by God to be a pattern of a better covenant to come, would be somewhat decimated.
If Jesus was not virgin born then he would be as you say – born in sin.
As such are you suggesting that a man could live a life, being born of sin, that would make it possible for him to be not in sin any longer?
What point then in a rebirth?
What meaning then in the words of Jesus when asked how then can a man be saved?
His answer: for men It is impossible but for God all things are possible…Why does Paul say that by the works of the Law no flesh (not even the son of God's therefore) shall be justified.
How then is he justified? How is he called the Son of God. If he is son in title only then he is no different from us, the suggestion that his natural lineage could in some way make him better or different is quite a claim indeed…If Jesus is no more than a good man, then men by virtue of their own goodness and works can be saved? That doesn't quite fit with the bible as I read it.
What needs to be grasped is an understanding of the nature of sin. We are born in sin, we read that in the bible, yet few understand the nature of man, that mankind is by nature desperately wicked to the core due to sin in the Garden.
The fact that man also has a capacity to do great good, merely serves to illustrate that we are fallen sons of God – like Adam.If we look at the old testament type of Jesus sacrifice we see that in the shadow the worshipper came to the altar of sacrifice and offered an animal in his stead. The priest slaughtered the animal and this death, and the spilling of innocent blood was a covering for the worshipper for one year.
Before the animal got to the altar it was carefully selected so as to be without spot or blemish. Typing the fact that Jesus was to be without sin and therefore innocent of sin, knowing no sin.
The animal was then taken to the altar and slain, here it became sin, or the sin bearer to the worshipper who was identified with the sacrifice.
Jesus who knew no sin became sin for us in the same fashion when he went to the cross as an offering for sin in our place, he became the sin bearer for us, our iniquities were laid upon him, when we identify ourselves with that offering.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
