- This topic has 933 replies, 47 voices, and was last updated 2 years, 4 months ago by
.
- Posts
Hi All,
Here are some notes on virgin birth in different religions:Different Traces Of Virgin Birth In Other Religions And Traditions
1. Different traces in other religions :
a. Virgin birth in Buddhism: In Buddhism the virgin birth concept occupies a central place and the suggestion of immaculate conception is also made. Buddha's future mother, Mahamaya, refrained form sexual activity and other worldly pleasures during the mid-summer festival and was taken off during a dream to the Himalayas. There she was purified by water to remove every human stain before being placed upon a divine couch. Nearby, the future Buddha had become a superb white elephant, and three times he walked round his mother's couch, with his right side towards it, and striking on her right side, he seemed to enter her womb. After the conception, no lustful thought sprang up in the mind of future Buddha's mother. Buddha was carried for ten months in Mahamaya's womb and was delivered as she stood in the sacred Lumbini Grove.
Mahamaya died seven days after giving birth and was reborn in the Tusita Heaven. In this way her immaculate state was preserved because a womb that has been occupied by a future Buddha is like the shrine of a temple and can never be occupied or used again. The meaning usually ascribed to Buddha's birth legend centres on the fact that he chose to be born of a woman so as to become human himself, which would enable him to inspire other humans with the possibility of achieving perfection. Details such as the absence of sexuality, the conception during a dream, the immaculate nature of the birth and the death of the mother immediately afterward suggest a certain docetism in Buddhism.
b. Virgin birth in Hinduism: In Hinduism, the birth of Krishna is attributed as virgin birth. The myth of Krishna elaborates how the divine Vishnu himself descended into the womb of Devaki and was born as her son Krishna. In this, the deity is not only the effective agent in conception, but also the off-spring.
In the Hindu epic 'Mahabharata,' Karna is miraculously conceived and born of the virgin Kunti. Karna's father is the sun god Surya, the light of the Universe, who restores Kunti's maidenhood after the act of conception. Karna is born wearing armour and ear- rings. Like so many other virgin mothers, Kunti hides her child from her family for fear of scandal. The child is placed, like Moses, in a basket in the river and subsequently he is rescued and reared by people of a lower station in life. Later, Kunti is protected from what would be the defilement of the sacred virginity by a curse that is laid upon her husband. There is a hint here of the idea of immaculate conception, an implicit suggestion that Kunti receives the divine seed without experiencing carnal desire. There are several such kind of traces of virgin birth in Hinduism.
c. Virgin birth in Islam: Though Muslims do not believe in God becoming man, they believe in the virgin birth of Jesus. In Quran, there is a record of the birth of Jesus, the prophet. When it was announced to Mary that she would bear a son, she replied, “How shall I have a boy, seeing that man has not touched me. nor have I been a harlot?” (Sura 19:20). The account goes on to say that “so shall it be! Thy Lord has said: `It is easy for me,' and in order that we may make him a sign for the people” (Sura 19:20). Sura 21:91 and 66:12 stated about Mary that “who (Mary) guarded her chastity, so we breathed into her some our spirit.” But modern Muslim writers like Sayyid Ahmad Khan, Tawfiq Sidqi, Parwez and Muhammad Ali deny that the Quran teaches the virgin birth, But others like Maulana Azad, despite some rationalisation, think that Quran accepts the virgin birth.
d. Virgin birth in Judaism: No evidence can be cited in favour of a Jewish expectation of the virgin birth for the Messiah. Isa. 7:14 was not given a Messianic interpretation among the Jews of Jesus' time, unless the use of parthenos in the Greek translation of the Old Testament be regarded as a proof of such an expectation in some quarters of Judaism. There is not the slightest evidence for supposing that Isa. 7:14 was ever interpreted by the pre-Christian Jews as indicating the virgin birth of the Messiah.
Though there is an undoubted miraculous element in the birth of certain individuals in the old Testament period, such as Isaac, these cases are clearly not parallel to the virgin birth of Christ. The very notion of virgin birth was foreign to Jewish thinking, especially at the beginning of the Christian era, when the transcendence of God was more strongly emphasised than through the Old Testament period.
e. Virgin birth in Zoroastrianism: According to Zoroastrianism, the glory of Ahura Mazda (the supreme deity) united itself with Zoroaster's future mother at her birth and rendered her fit thereby to bear the prophet. At the same time a divinely protected stem of a haoma plant was infused with the fravashi of the coming prophet. At the proper time the parents of Zoroaster drank its juices mixed with a potent milk and it contained the material essence of the child about to be conceived. This leads up to his actual physical generation. But his virgin birth assertion is hardly supported by the accounts in the sacred books.
2. Different traces in secular traditions:
a. Assyrian and Babylonian traditions: The inscriptions and literature of Assyria and Babylon all are not without suggestion that some sort of parallel may exist between the myths of these countries and the records in Christian literature. A building inscription speaking of Tukulti-Urta II (890-884 B.C.) tells that the great gods created him in the womb of his mother. Another building inscription describes the activity of the goddess of procreation at the conception of Sennacherib (705-681 B.C.). On one of the cylinder texts, Ashurbanipal (668-626 B.C.) is described as the offspring of the gods. Behind these ideas lie the ancient Sumerian and Akkadian and Babylonian mythologies. The tradition shows that there was great concern of the procreative affairs of the gods. The emphasis of the Assyrian and Babylonian traditions of the mother goddess and the general concurrence of incidents between purely mythological figures portray ideas of origin on a level foreign to New Testament thought. These traditions are extremely flexible in the descriptions of conception.
b. Egyptian tradition: Several historians, Cheyne, Petersen, and Norden placed special emphasis on the relation which the idea of the virgin birth in the Gospels supposedly has with ancient Egyptian religious ideas. In the story of the birth of Horus and in the idea of the divinity of pharaohs great resemblance is thought to be found. The doctrine of the virgin birth was well known in Egypt in connection with the goddess Neith of Sais, centuries before the birth of Christ.
It is of interest to note that in Egyptian birth stories, the agent of conception is God's breath. At its profound level, the virgin birth story is the story of re-creation in which the virgin as the centre of creation receives the divine breath or spirit of the divine in order that a new sacred creation in microcosm might take place. Egyptian thought is extremely more complex and crude than Biblical. A clear analogy to the virgin birth of the New Testament is not to be found in Egyptian traditions.
c. Greco-Roman and Hellenistic traditions: Greco-Roman and Hellenistic traditions are difficult to demonstrate from textual evidence. The legend of Perseus stated that his mother conceived him by Jupiter when he visited her in a golden shower. Stories of the generation of gods and goddesses by other gods and goddesses as in the case of the birth of Apollo by Zeus and Semele, legends of the birth of gods by generation of a god with a mortal woman as in the case of the birth of Hercu
les by the union of Zeus and Alomena, tales of the birth of the heroes through the union of a god with a mortal as in the birth of Ion by Apollo and Creusa, and stories of the birth of emperors as in the legend of Augustus' generation by a serpent- god and Atia, have been regarded as virgin birth by Greco-Roman and Hellenistic traditions. None of these ideas is at all comparable to the Biblical formula.3. Differences between Christian and non-christian virgin births :
There is a striking difference between the Christian and non-Christian traditions. The Christian virgin birth is unique. Christian teaching of virgin birth contains divine conception and human birth without anthropomorphism, sensuality, or suggestions of moral irregularity. This type of virgin birth is to be found no-where in the literature of the world outside the canonical Biblical narratives. Rather than being an idea borrowed from other traditions, it is original with Christianity. The Christian story of the virgin birth is as different from other religious and secular traditions as monotheism is from polytheism. After a careful study of these traditions Louis Matthews Sweet rightly comments:
… I am convinced that heathenism knows nothing of virgin births. Supernatural births it has without number, but never from a virgin in the New Testament sense and never without physical generation, except in a few isolated instances of magical births on the part of women who had not the slightest claim to be called virgins. In all recorded instances, which I have been able to examine, if the mother was a virgin before conception took place she could not make that claim afterwards.
These traditions are nothing more than stories about fornication between divine and human beings, and it is something rationally different from the biblical accounts of the virgin birth.
Please gothrough it and submit your comments
Adamgollamudi wrote:
Quote The New Testament writers like you and me were human beings and they could interpret the O.T as per their understanding.
We have a problem Houston! The problem being that according to scripture the New Testament writers had the Holy Spirit and thus did not have to rely on their own understanding. This of course brings up the interesting point of why they may minor errors such as numbers in their accounts. I can only speculate that perhaps the Holy Spirit allowed them to be limited by their human failing though not by sin. The message of the gospel would therefore be correct even though some minor and irrelevant errors may exist.
gollamudi wrote:
Quote They are prone to make errors as Matthew, Mark, Luke and other writers of N.T made mistakes in narrating the incidents of historical Jesus in accordance with O.T material
What you call errors may not actually be errors as the writer you are accusing of making an error might have a different viewpoint than you yourself are using. I was trying to explain that earlier. We are assuming that Matthew is stating that the scripture in Isaiah 7:14 is a Messianic prophecy but perhaps his reasoning was different and he merely used that scripture because it was true about Jesus even though it was not a prophecy of him particularly. Alternatively it is possible that Isaiah 7:14 is a Messianic prophecy because prophecy can be confusing and will jump from one time period to another without a clear transition.
Luke uses a different method of reasoning since he does not quote Isaiah 7:14 but then Luke’s audience was also different. It also appears the source of their knowledge of Jesus’ birth was different. Luke’s source is almost definitely Mary and perhaps the parents of John the Baptist but Matthew’s source is unknown and includes accounts that must have originated with Joseph as they are events that he was part of. I want you to not the geologies also seem to focus on those separate sources. Still despite being separate writers with different audiences and different sources the two accounts are remarkably alike. Both appear to be legitimate as far as I can tell.
gollamudi wrote:
Quote If you take everything literally like any fundamentalist you will end nowhere in the understanding of Bible. People who take virgin birth literally they may have to add many things to Bible.
I take the virgin conception literally since it appears to be meant to be taken literally and it is a sign that Jesus is a miracle from God. I see no reason though to add anything to the gospel but I also see no reason to subtract from it either. In fact either action is foolishness.
942767(Marty) wrote:
Quote And yes, the body of Christ is God's own flesh and blood. He does not Himself have flesh and blood, but He has begotten as human Son. Do you not believe that God can do this?
If he did that then he would make himself a liar. He stated that the Messiah must be a son of David and if he is God’s son of the flesh then he is certainly not a son of David. Rather of the flesh and spirit of man, Jesus is the complete son of Mary and thus a descendant of David rendering what God promised as fulfilled in him.
942767(Marty) wrote:
Quote As for the virgin birth, salvation is a gift from God, and that puts all men born of the sperm of man in the same category in need of a savior.
Where is that written? I ask because you added to scripture. You might want to consider Job 15:14 which was mentioned earlier in this thread by gollamudi.
942767(Marty) wrote:
Quote The doctrine of original sin is false doctrine.
There is more than one teaching of original sin. Most are false. I believe that because Adam, and Eve, sinned we are cursed to be slaves to sin which is why we need to obey Jesus' teaching in order to be set free from slavery to sin.
How do you explain the scriptures that teach that we are slaves(servants) of sin?
Hi brother Kerwin,
I appreciate your concern on virgin birth and I am thankful to you for your patience in explaning my queries. But I am sorry that I am still not convinced by the need of virgin birth of our Messiah who shared our infirmities in all respects. If Jesus shared our humanity only through Mary when Mary herself was the product of sexual relationship of human parents, what difference it makes if he was born through a natural birth process instead of virginal process? I don't find any logic of virgin birth unless we make it a myth of some incarnation of diety.Thanks and love to you
AdamQuote (gollamudi @ May 20 2009,14:09) Hi brother Kerwin,
I appreciate your concern on virgin birth and I am thankful to you for your patience in explaning my queries. But I am sorry that I am still not convinced by the need of virgin birth of our Messiah who shared our infirmities in all respects. If Jesus shared our humanity only through Mary when Mary herself was the product of sexual relationship of human parents, what difference it makes if he was born through a natural birth process instead of virginal process? I don't find any logic of virgin birth unless we make it a myth of some incarnation of diety.Thanks and love to you
Adam
I certainly don't see your reasoning but I have made that clear previously.Quote (Not3in1 @ May 20 2009,20:00) Heading to bed now….but wanted to say “hi” to you, bro Adam! Love to you and the family!
Mandy
Thanks Sis Mandy,
Nice to see my loving Sis on Heaven net. Have sweet dreams with restful night. Please say something on virgin birth when your are awake.Love to you
AdamAdam………here is something to think about, It could be that GOD wanted Jesus to look a certain way, and therefore had to manipulate His DNA for that Look.
Isa 53:2……> For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is not beauty that we should desire him.
I am not using this as a concrete evidence for a Physical Fatherless berth , but it could be that GOD wanted Him to look a certain way, Not sure though, just makes some since. I do believe Pagan thought has corrupted some of our scriptures though. IMO
peace and love to you and yours brother………………………………gene
Quote (kerwin @ May 20 2009,18:32) 942767(Marty) wrote: Quote The doctrine of original sin is false doctrine.
There is more than one teaching of original sin. Most are false. I believe that because Adam, and Eve, sinned we are cursed to be slaves to sin which is why we need to obey Jesus' teaching in order to be set free from slavery to sin.
How do you explain the scriptures that teach that we are slaves(servants) of sin?
Hi Kerwin:This is what the scripture states:
Quote Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: And it is true “ALL MEN HAVE SINNED”, but the scripture states:
Quote 1Jo 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law. Children may inherit certain traits from their parents, but sin is a spiritual matter. It means one has yielded to temptation to violate God's eternal law.
You ask:
Quote How do you explain the scriptures that teach that we are slaves(servants) of sin? Jesus stated the following:
Quote Jhn 8:34 Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin. If you yield to temptation. your conscience is telling you that it is wrong, and so when you violate your conscience by yielding to the temptation then you are a servant to that sin.
The Apostle Paul states:
Quote Rom 7:14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.
Rom 7:15 For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.
Rom 7:16 If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that [it is] good.
Rom 7:17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
Rom 7:18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but [how] to perform that which is good I find not.
Rom 7:19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.
Rom 7:20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.And so, I explain what you ask by saying that we all have yielded to temptation except for Jesus who could have also yielded to the temptations but he did not, but as infants all including Jesus were born in innocence.
Quote Isa 53:6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all Love in Christ,
MartyHi Kerwin:
I said:
Quote And yes, the body of Christ is God's own flesh and blood. He does not Himself have flesh and blood, but He has begotten as human Son. Do you not believe that God can do this? And you said:
Quote If he did that then he would make himself a liar. He stated that the Messiah must be a son of David and if he is God’s son of the flesh then he is certainly not a son of David. Rather of the flesh and spirit of man, Jesus is the complete son of Mary and thus a descendant of David rendering what God promised as fulfilled in him. What scripture are you quoting that would make him a liar if what I stated is true? Jesus has a Father and a mother. And God is never a liar, and so if what I stated is not true, then I have misunderstood the scriptures.
You completely glossed over the scripture that I quoted that states that Jesus is God's flesh and blood, and so, here it is again:
Quote Act 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. And Jesus had said the following:
Quote Mat 22:41 While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them,
Mat 22:42 Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, [The Son] of David.
Mat 22:43 He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying,
Mat 22:44 The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool?
Mat 22:45 If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?
Mat 22:46 And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any [man] from that day forth ask him any moreMoreover, the scripture states: “For God so love the world that he gave “HIS ONLY BEGOTTEN SON…”. He is unique. There is no other that can make that claim. We as Christians are also born of God, and so, if He were speaking of a spiritual birth that would not make him unique.
I cannot find a scipture which states that specifically states that all men born of the sperm of man is the seed of unrighteousness, but I have been through a personal experience in which God has shown me that this is true. I believe that I can use the following scripture to justify the foregoing statement in that the scripture states:
Quote Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: Romans 5:12 states “all men”, but we know that Jesus is a man but he did not sin.
Quote Hbr 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as [we are, yet] without sin. What in Job 15:14 should I consider? This is a discouse between men who are trying to understand what is going on with Job. There is much truth in these scriptures, but God says to Job here:
Quote Job 38:1 Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said,
Job 38:2 Who [is] this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?I don't know if I have answered all of your questions, but if I haven't, please let me know.
Love in Christ,
Marty942767……..I agree with you, men are not born sinners they become sinners. John plainly said ..> “for all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the pride of life are (FROM the WORLD”). Once we are born into this world we start becoming infected with it, after a certain age, and that is how sin inters into us, its through the world. We are not born with it. IMO.
peace and love to you and yours…………………..gene
942767(Marty) wrote:
Quote Children may inherit certain traits from their parents, but sin is a spiritual matter.
You are misunderstanding me. I am not stating that all man are held guilty of the original sin but rather that like King David’s son we suffer the effects of our father’s sins. Adam and Eve sinned and so the spirit of mankind was corrupted. That corruption is the curse we each have inherited from Adam and Eve. To remove that curse is why Jesus taught that we must be reborn to enter into the kingdom of heaven.
942767(Marty) wrote:
Quote If you yield to temptation. your conscience is telling you that it is wrong, and so when you violate your conscience by yielding to the temptation then you are a servant to that sin.
If you had went earlier in John 8 you would see that Jesus made a promise to set people free from their slavery to sin. If we are already free then Jesus’ would not have had to make that promise nor would he have had to die on the cross so we could enter the new covenant.
In short our corrupt spirit is what made a slave to sin and through faith in Jesus we get a new spirit created like God in true holiness and righteousness.
942767(Marty) wrote:
Quote And so, I explain what you ask by saying that we all have yielded to temptation except for Jesus who could have also yielded to the temptations but he did not, but as infants all including Jesus were born in innocence.
Jesus was a descendant of Adam and so his human spirit was also corrupt and that is why he prayed to God stating not as I will but as your will. In this way he denied himself and submitted to the Holy Spirit that he too had received from God as the firstborn of a new creation.
What do you think of this scripture?
Psalms 51:5(NIV) reads:
Quote Surely I was sinful at birth,
sinful from the time my mother conceived me.942767(Marty) wrote:
Quote What scripture are you quoting that would make him a liar if what I stated is true? Jesus has a Father and a mother. And God is never a liar, and so if what I stated is not true, then I have misunderstood the scriptures.
Luke 1:32(NIV) reads:
Quote He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David,
Jesus is either a physical descendant of David or he is a physical descendant of God since David is obviously not God’s ancestor. Scripture tells us he is a physical descendant of David.
942767(Marty) wrote:
Quote And Jesus had said the following:
Jesus’ point is not to deny he is the son of David since there are times when the child is in fact do lord over the father. It was David that was anointed as king and not his father Jesse. In was Saul that was anointed as king and not his father Kish though like Jesse he was still alive. In both cases God chose to place the child above the father and God also chose to place Jesus above David.
As to the rest of the scriptures you used; you might want to consider them in the light that Jesus is the son of David both of the physical body and the corrupt spirit of man but a Son of God of the Holy Spirit in the same way those that believe in him are sons of God.
I corrected my writing where I mistaken credited my words to Marty. Sorry for the confusion.
Quote (Gene @ May 21 2009,03:15) Adam………here is something to think about, It could be that GOD wanted Jesus to look a certain way, and therefore had to manipulate His DNA for that Look. Isa 53:2……> For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is not beauty that we should desire him.
I am not using this as a concrete evidence for a Physical Fatherless berth , but it could be that GOD wanted Him to look a certain way, Not sure though, just makes some since. I do believe Pagan thought has corrupted some of our scriptures though. IMO
peace and love to you and yours brother………………………………gene
Hi brother Gene,
Thanks for your reply on my query on virgin birth. Infact I do believe that God can do anything as per His wish and will. He can create Jesus from nothing. But my question was if at all Jesus had to be like us human beings in all respects why at all this drama of virgin birth ?The portion you quoted from Isa 53 is talking about Jesus' passion and his utter humility but not his special birth IMO. If Jesus was anointed by the Holy Spirit at Jordan and became Christ then why this so called virgin birth ?
Brother 942767 says that Original sin is false and Jesus could not have been bitten by original sin even by normal birth process then why this another myth called virgin birth ?
John says in 1:12-13 God's children are being born not by natural generation nor by human choice nor by a man's decision but of God. This infact talking about even us the other children. If this is so why at all this virgin birth(again a natural birth) to prove God's fatherhood ?
I believe somewhere these infant narrations of Jesus must have been developed by Matthew and Luke to ascribe special sgnificance to Jesus.
Peace and love to you
Adamgollamudi wrote:
Quote But my question was if at all Jesus had to be like us human beings in all respects why at all this drama of virgin birth ?
You are making a faulty assumption since all human beings are not conceived the same way. In fact there is one documented human being who was half the result of a “virgin birth” and half from normal conception as they are a chimera. I could not find an account of it though I did find this study that concludes it is possible.
Then you have identical twins that are the result of mitosis instead of the normal meiosis.
In other words though meiosis is the main form human reproduction takes other forms also occur as God so wills.
Quote (Gene @ May 21 2009,12:36) 942767……..I agree with you, men are not born sinners they become sinners. John plainly said ..> “for all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the pride of life are (FROM the WORLD”). Once we are born into this world we start becoming infected with it, after a certain age, and that is how sin inters into us, its through the world. We are not born with it. IMO. peace and love to you and yours…………………..gene
Gene,
What! Men are indeed born sinners,Quote In sin did my mother conceive me Either David was born a sinner or his mother was an adultress and David was an illegitimate child. What's your choice?
thinker
Quote (thethinker @ May 22 2009,07:44) Quote (Gene @ May 21 2009,12:36) 942767……..I agree with you, men are not born sinners they become sinners. John plainly said ..> “for all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the pride of life are (FROM the WORLD”). Once we are born into this world we start becoming infected with it, after a certain age, and that is how sin inters into us, its through the world. We are not born with it. IMO. peace and love to you and yours…………………..gene
Gene,
What! Men are indeed born sinners,Quote In sin did my mother conceive me Either David was born a sinner or his mother was an adultress and David was an illegitimate child. What's your choice?
thinker
Hi thethinker:What sin did you commit as an infant?
Love in Christ,
MartyHi Kerwin:
You say:
Quote You are misunderstanding me. I am not stating that all man are held guilty of the original sin but rather that like King David’s son we suffer the effects of our father’s sins. Adam and Eve sinned and so the spirit of mankind was corrupted. That corruption is the curse we each have inherited from Adam and Eve. To remove that curse is why Jesus taught that we must be reborn to enter into the kingdom of heaven. Our parents as well as others may have an influence on what we do, but nevertheless, we have a choice to obey their influence or not, good or bad. We were born into a world where sin undoubtedly is prevelant, and we can blame Adam and Eve that sin entered into the world because of their disobedience, but no, our spirit is formed in us by what we obey. The curse on the human race is the fact that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. In other words, all of us have broken God's law, and the wages of sin is death or separation from God, and if we have violated God's law, He is the only one who can pardon our transgressions. He has chosen to do this by giving us His Only Begotten Son who did not violate but obeyed God's eternal law without sin even unto death on the cross. If he had sinned, then he would also be separated from God, and we would have no hope.
How do you say that his spirit was also corrupt? What does that mean? The sciptures state that he did not sin, and I have a witness within me by the Holy Spirit of God who testifies that God has raised him from the dead declaring him not guilty and me also by virtue of his sacrifice. And so, he has delivered me from the curse of the Law which is to say that I violated God's law and was condemned through my transgressions to death or separation from God.
You say:
Quote Jesus is either a physical descendant of David or he is a physical descendant of God since David is obviously not God’s ancestor. Scripture tells us he is a physical descendant of David. He was both.
You say:
Quote Jesus’ point is not to deny he is the son of David since there are times when the child is in fact do lord over the father. It was David that was anointed as king and not his father Jesse. In was Saul that was anointed as king and not his father Kish though like Jesse he was still alive. In both cases God chose to place the child above the father and God also chose to place Jesus above David. That may be true, but in neither case did their fathers call them Lord in the Spirit. Jesus point was to emphasize that he is the Son of God.
You say:
Quote 942767(Marty) wrote:Quote As to the rest of the scriptures you used; you might want to consider them in the light that Jesus is the son of David both of the physical body and the corrupt spirit of man but a Son of God of the Holy Spirit in the same way those that believe in him are sons of God.
I didn't say this, but Adam states the following:
Quote John says in 1:12-13 God's children are being born not by natural generation nor by human choice nor by a man's decision but of God. This infact talking about even us the other children. If this is so why at all this virgin birth(again a natural birth) to prove God's fatherhood ? Jesus was born not by man's decision to father a child, but it was by God's decision to father a child for the purpose of reconciling mankind to himself. We indeed are born of the Spirit of God, but he is “unique”. He is the “Only Begotten Son of God”. God's decision and act of love. There was no sperm of man involved. The virgin birth is not a myth as some would try to convince us.
Quote Mat 1:20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost You ask:
Quote Psalms 51:5(NIV) reads:Quote Surely I was sinful at birth,
sinful from the time my mother conceived me.I do not believe that it is meant that he was born a sinner because to repeat what I have already stated “sin is the transgression of the law”.
Quote Gen 6:12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth. This states that “all flesh had corrupted his way”, and I believe that that David may have meant:
Quote Psa 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies. (Something like this) “They go astray as soon as they be born”.
No, not born a sinner. They go astray. Just like I did.
Love in Christ,
MartyTo All…….Sin is a learned Behavior, we are (NOT) born sinners we learn to be sinners. Buy being infected from the world as John said.
peace and love………………….gene
Quote (kerwin @ May 21 2009,18:29) gollamudi wrote: Quote But my question was if at all Jesus had to be like us human beings in all respects why at all this drama of virgin birth ?
You are making a faulty assumption since all human beings are not conceived the same way. In fact there is one documented human being who was half the result of a “virgin birth” and half from normal conception as they are a chimera. I could not find an account of it though I did find this study that concludes it is possible.
Then you have identical twins that are the result of mitosis instead of the normal meiosis.
In other words though meiosis is the main form human reproduction takes other forms also occur as God so wills.
Hi brother Kerwin,
Thanks for your reply. I have gone through that page you have posted. It talks about non-human Parthenogenesis(virginal birth). Even science on cloning says that a female can produce another female but not male. But my question was not on God's inability to perform such miracles I was insisting on the necessity of such special birth for our Messiah who was prophesied as human born without any special significance except the misunderstood prophecy of Isa 7:14( which I don't agree to be taken as virgin birth).Thanks and peace to you
Adam
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
