- This topic has 933 replies, 47 voices, and was last updated 2 years, 4 months ago by
.
- Posts
Quote (gollamudi @ July 27 2009,19:57) Quote (Cato @ July 26 2009,11:08) Personally I find the whole idea of virgin birth a sales job by early gentile Christians designed to make Jesus more acceptable to the Romans who often viewed their heroes or leaders as having some sort of divine parentage. Now parthenogenesis is possible, it is found in the natural world but only in lower orders of life. “Parthenogenesis is a particular form of asexual reproduction in which females produce eggs that develop without fertilization. parthenogenesis is seen in aphids, rotifers, and some other invertebrates, as well as in some plants. Among vertebrates, there are several genera of fish, amphibians, and reptiles that exhibit differing form of asexual reproduction, including true parthenogenesis, gynogenesis, and hybridogenesis, an incomplete form of parthenogenesis. ” (courtesy of bio-medicine .org) So let us suppose that the Holy Spirit tweaked Mary's egg to develop without fertilization, note this makes more sense then a non-physical spirit impregnating a physical being; Jesus then would genetically be all Mary's. Since Joseph is the one from David's line and he is not involved in Jesus' procreation then Jesus would not be of the line of David which would conflict with other scripture. It would make more sense if he was Joseph's biological son. Note just because Jesus would be of totally human parentage would not mean that he wasn't sent by God or blessed with a superior spirit. I don't see why being born just like the rest of us takes away anything from his message or mission. In some ways it make him all the more remarkable. Those who truly look for divine wisdom don't need created theatrics.
Hi brother Cato,
It's a wonderful way to explain the so called virgin birth of Jesus. Yes you are right in saying if at all virgin birth was proved Jesus can only be a son of Mary and not God literally. If God is literal father of Jesus then it would be controdictory as per Jewish law Mary being betrothed to Joseph and can not have a child of another.
It is wrong to limit God or what He can or cannot do!
IreneI agree, but find it is scripture that tends to limit God making him instead of the supreme great unmanifest maker of the universe who is beyond our human understanding into a human like character full of negative emotions like grief, anger and jealousy. Genesis as I have mentioned in another thread even says he thinks he made a mistake. The font of all life and power, jealous.. of what, the whole idea is absurd. Yes it is wrong to limit God as scripture evidently does. Thanks for bringing up this point.
Quote (Nick Hassan @ July 27 2009,12:23) Hi Cato,
The words of Jesus are life and spirit to believers.
Did God mouth your vain philosophies?
No God certainly never mouthed my “vain” philosophies. What I point out is that God did not write scripture either. Even what we are told are the words of Jesus weren't written by Jesus himself, but are other's recollections of such made many years later. I am sure those recollections were made with perfect recall and without bias and translated and compiled later without error and prejudice; that is why we have only one version of the Bible and are all in agreement with its meaning is it not?Hi Cato,
The Spirit of God reminded these men years later of every word and action taken by Jesus in utter and exact detail.
This is one of the greatest evidences that there is a God and he lives and works through men.
Jesus told us the work of the Spirit was to remind us of the words of JesusQuote (Nick Hassan @ July 28 2009,07:06) Hi Cato,
The Spirit of God reminded these men years later of every word and action taken by Jesus in utter and exact detail.
This is one of the greatest evidences that there is a God and he lives and works through men.
Jesus told us the work of the Spirit was to remind us of the words of Jesus
Hi brother Nick,
If the Spirit of God was the inspiration of all the writers of N.T, there would not be any inconsistencies as we have noticed today. Please once again I beg you not to impute blame to God for human bias and errors.Peace to you
AdamHi GM,
So your ideas of inconsistency has proven the Spirit did not inspire the scriptures and those ideas now form the basis of scriptural understanding?
Wake up.Quote (Nick Hassan @ July 28 2009,07:06) Hi Cato,
The Spirit of God reminded these men years later of every word and action taken by Jesus in utter and exact detail.
This is one of the greatest evidences that there is a God and he lives and works through men.
Jesus told us the work of the Spirit was to remind us of the words of Jesus.
Right, the Spirit of God himself came to these men and gave them “every word and action taken by Jesus in utter and exact detail”. How do you know this? If God's spirit truly did this I think there would be a little more of Jesus' life, words and travels then are in the gospels and less of the inconsistencies.Quote (Cato @ July 27 2009,23:27) I agree, but find it is scripture that tends to limit God making him instead of the supreme great unmanifest maker of the universe who is beyond our human understanding into a human like character full of negative emotions like grief, anger and jealousy. Genesis as I have mentioned in another thread even says he thinks he made a mistake. The font of all life and power, jealous.. of what, the whole idea is absurd. Yes it is wrong to limit God as scripture evidently does. Thanks for bringing up this point.
Greetings Cato…..Human emotions are part of our creation they make up the essense of our spirit….As you know God created man in his image….I would think it logical to assume God also can possess these atributes….The most telling being his mercy and the other being his judgement…TJ……….i agree God the FATHER exhibits many of our emotions and a tributes. His Judgments and intellect is at a higher level then our, but his desire is that we grow in these understandings and gives us (HIS) Spirit (intellect) to bring this about in our lives. IMO
peace and love to you and yours…………………..gene
Quote (theodorej @ July 29 2009,01:41) Greetings Cato…..Human emotions are part of our creation they make up the essense of our spirit….As you know God created man in his image….I would think it logical to assume God also can possess these atributes….The most telling being his mercy and the other being his judgement…
Yes human emotions were part of our creation.
I don't know that we were created in God's image or what that really means exactly. I think it is we who tend to make God human-like because we have a hard time dealing with what would be undefined and beyond our limited understanding.
If God has the full gamut of human emotions I think they would be a bit more tempered and refined then mortal man who has yet to seperate the dross of imperfection from his golden potential.
Even if God was emotionally anthropomorphic the OT still makes little sense:
Jealousy? If I am the only real God, and I have supreme power, wisdom and knowledge what is their to be jealous of? Judgement? I created man, his makeup, complete with his imperfections and placed same in a world I likewise created and then I say, well their not doing what I wanted, I'm sorry I made them so I will wipe them from the earth along with the animals and plants (who as far as we know do not make moral decisions). Sounds like God made some sort of mistake either in design or in his predictions of their behaviour. I don't believe God makes mistakes. No the OT makes God sound more like the pagan gods of the various pantheons then the great unmanifest perfect creator I believe he really is. God exists outside of creation and is not bound by our limited perceptions.Quote (Nick Hassan @ July 29 2009,07:37) Hi Cato,
Does He need your advice?
No not at all, nor did I think I was giving advice per se. We were having a respectful, intellectual dialogue, on matters of scripture and spirituality is all. I recognize my beliefs are essentially heresy for the mainstream believers and I certainly hope I don't offend anyone or their sensibilities. As far as Theodore, to whom the post you question was addressed to, I feel he is quite willing and able (as evident in his other posts) to discuss, elaborate and/or defend his own viewpoints without aid.The So-called “Virgin Birth”
——————————————————————————–
Christians have always argued for Jesus' virgin birth, but also argue he was descended from David. Nevertheless, this overlooks that if virgin born, Jesus' 'father' Joseph, albeit descended from David, would have had no connection with his conception, and his only human connection would have been through/by/with Mary; however she was of the Aaronic line (ie. she was related to Elizabeth who was of Aaronic descent – Luke l:6, l:36). As Aaron was of the tribe of Levi, but David was of Judah, then Jesus, if virgin born, could therefore not be of Davidic descent and could not therefore be the messiah which demanded Davidic descent. Furthermore, this would contradict all the New Testament statements that Jesus was a descendent of David – Matthew l:l, 12:23, 15:22, Mark l0:47, Romans l:3, Revelation 5:5.
Jesus didn't take on 'David's line' through Joseph being his 'adoptive father' as Rom l:3 makes quite clear, ie. “descended from David according to the flesh”.So there is a problem; Jesus was either of David's line – but that means he wasn't virgin born (ie. Joseph having to have been responsible for his conception), or he was virgin born, but that precludes him being of the Davidic line (because only Mary was involved in his humanity and she was not of the Davidic line) – so he couldn't have been the Messiah/Christ as the New Testament teaches.
The virgin-birth story is only found in two of the twenty-seven New Testament writings, and in Luke, the style of writing indicates the part that relates the story, was written after the following 22 chapters by a different author, and added on to the beginning of Luke afterwards. Furthermore the Catholic Jerusalem Bible admits that Matt most likely had its virgin birth story added to it also. In fact Luke conflicts sharply with Matthew, eg. (i) Luke has the birth in the time of the governor Quirinius (Luke 2:2, 3-7), whilst Matthew has it in the time of Herod, but the rule of these two never coincided or overlapped. The Christian “explanation” for this involving the Ramsay inscription regarding Quirinius as dummvir, is futile.
Both Luke and Matt have other major differences, eg. Matthew says the family fled from Judea immediately to Egypt after the birth (2:4-l4) to avoid Herod and stayed there until he was dead and even on returning, they avoided Judea in the south. However according to Luke, after the birth, the family calm went to Jerusalem in Judea and then up to Galilee (2:21-22,39). It is worthwhile noting that the only census known about (Luke has the journey to Bethlehem because of this) as one in 6 AD. Long after Herod died, and indeed long after Christians claim Jesus lived.
The only reason that Matthew's author seems to have the virgin-birth story is because he misunderstood an O.T statement (Isaiah 7:l4) that he read as messianic (which it isn't) and referring to a virgin birth (which it doesn't). With regard to Isa 7:l4, it is simply the story of Isaiah saying to king Ahaz of Judah that by the time that a young girl had conceived and her baby was born, the present threat from Syria would be over – 7:l4-17. There is NOTHING messianic about it at all.
As, in this, the child was to be called Emmanuel which means 'God with us', but the name 'Jesus' (actually, this is Greek for the Hebrew Jehoshua) means 'Yahweh is salvation', Jesus was therefore not called by the name Emmanuel and did not fulfil this 'prophesy'; however Matt's author misunderstood this. As Isa 8:3-4 says how Isaiah went immediately and impregnated his wife, and the prophesy is again made saying that before the child could even talk, Syria would by smashed by Assyria, it appears the Isa 7:l4 prophesy relates to Isaiah's own wife/child and does not have any messianic connotations.
In reality there is nothing miraculous in Isaiah's saying; he is only saying a woman (or in the Greek – a virgin) would conceive. It doesn't take too much to realise what has to happen for a virgin to conceive a child. He doesn't say that a girl who would give birth to the child would still be a virgin after conception. The author of Matthew was using the Septuagint 'LXX' – the Greek version of the Hebrew Bible compiled in the second century BC for the Greek- speaking Jews of the Diaspora – ie. living outside Palestine. It is generally accepted that some parts are very good, but in others it is faulty, eg. Daniel is such a poor translation in the LXX, the Jews wouldn't even use it.
The Hebrew word in Isa 7:l4 for the woman/'virgin' is “almah” and means NOT a virgin, but a young woman; it is in the LXX that it is rendered 'virgin' and there is the additional fact that in the Greek the root doesn't even necessarily mean a girl who has not had sex, but 'denotes fullness or the like – fully developed”. The word actually used here has nothing to do with the virgin state.
As the Gospel writers used the LXX, they could not have been Palestinian Jews (ie. the apostles as stated in the Gospels) or they would have obviously used the Hebrew text and not made such errors.
Matt's author couldn't have been the apostle of that name as he wasn't a Palestinian Jew (nor either an eyewitness as he had to use Mark as a source to write his Gospel). He also makes other errors, eg. in 27: 9-l0 he says he is quoting Jeremiah but in fact he's quoting Zechariah ll:l2-l3. It is very apparent that the Gospel writers were NOT Palestinian Jews, but either Jewish Christians of the Diaspora or Gentile-Christians. In the case of Mark's author there has to be doubt whether he had even set foot in Palestine in view of the historical, chronological, geographical and theological errors he makes about first cent. Palestine.
But this is where it continues to be manifestly absurd. Jesus was supposedly a true Jew – a direct descendent of Abraham through David (Matthew 1), the Jewish Messiah, the Son of David (Matt 21:9), the 'lion of the tribe of Judah' (Rev 5:5) and yet whenever he quoted the Old Testament, according to the Gospels that is, he quoted the GREEK LXX version ! Furthermore, in some cases the Hebrew original of the LXX text he is quoting would not support the argument he is making, ie. because of the LXX's inaccuracies. In Mark 7:l-23 Jesus does this; although it would seem the LXX would support the point Jesus is making to the Pharisees, the Hebrew original in fact would not.
So we are asked to believe that Jesus – a true Hebrew Jew – chose to use the Greek translation of the Old Test. and furthermore, was unaware of the fact that he was using a passage that in reality was faulty and in the original would say something completely different, and be quite inappropriate for his argument, but according to the Gospels, he floored his orthodox Jewish opponents with this – a mistranslation of their own scriptures – and they did not challenge this ! The same applies with James (supposedly Jesus' brother and leader of the Jewish-Christian community in Jerusalem) in Acts 15 – he uses
the LXX to support his argument, although the Hebrew original says something quite different and would not support his argument, and yet all the Jews in the audience didn't comment on this !!! Obviously as the writers of the Gospels & Acts were not Palestinian Hebrew-speaking Jews, they had to use the LXX but didn't realise the errors they were making.
Therefore, the bad news is that firstly the virgin birth is disproved by the Bible itself, and secondly, there is no written eyewitness testimony for Jesus' supposed life.
The situation is adequately summed up by Professor Fuller, Professor of New Testament, Union Theological Seminary, New York. (A Critical Introduction to the New Testament):
“Of the 27 books of the
New Testament only the authentic Pauline epistles are, strictly speaking, the testimony of an apostolic witness. And even Paul…was not a witness of the historical Jesus.Since the earliest witnesses wrote nothing…there is not a single book in the New Testament which is the direct work of an eyewitness of the historical Jesus…” (page 197).
Quote (gollamudi @ Oct. 09 2009,02:55) The So-called “Virgin Birth” ——————————————————————————–
Christians have always argued for Jesus' virgin birth, but also argue he was descended from David. Nevertheless, this overlooks that if virgin born, Jesus' 'father' Joseph, albeit descended from David, would have had no connection with his conception, and his only human connection would have been through/by/with Mary; however she was of the Aaronic line (ie. she was related to Elizabeth who was of Aaronic descent – Luke l:6, l:36). As Aaron was of the tribe of Levi, but David was of Judah, then Jesus, if virgin born, could therefore not be of Davidic descent and could not therefore be the messiah which demanded Davidic descent. Furthermore, this would contradict all the New Testament statements that Jesus was a descendent of David – Matthew l:l, 12:23, 15:22, Mark l0:47, Romans l:3, Revelation 5:5.
Jesus didn't take on 'David's line' through Joseph being his 'adoptive father' as Rom l:3 makes quite clear, ie. “descended from David according to the flesh”.So there is a problem; Jesus was either of David's line – but that means he wasn't virgin born (ie. Joseph having to have been responsible for his conception), or he was virgin born, but that precludes him being of the Davidic line (because only Mary was involved in his humanity and she was not of the Davidic line) – so he couldn't have been the Messiah/Christ as the New Testament teaches.
The virgin-birth story is only found in two of the twenty-seven New Testament writings, and in Luke, the style of writing indicates the part that relates the story, was written after the following 22 chapters by a different author, and added on to the beginning of Luke afterwards. Furthermore the Catholic Jerusalem Bible admits that Matt most likely had its virgin birth story added to it also. In fact Luke conflicts sharply with Matthew, eg. (i) Luke has the birth in the time of the governor Quirinius (Luke 2:2, 3-7), whilst Matthew has it in the time of Herod, but the rule of these two never coincided or overlapped. The Christian “explanation” for this involving the Ramsay inscription regarding Quirinius as dummvir, is futile.
Both Luke and Matt have other major differences, eg. Matthew says the family fled from Judea immediately to Egypt after the birth (2:4-l4) to avoid Herod and stayed there until he was dead and even on returning, they avoided Judea in the south. However according to Luke, after the birth, the family calm went to Jerusalem in Judea and then up to Galilee (2:21-22,39). It is worthwhile noting that the only census known about (Luke has the journey to Bethlehem because of this) as one in 6 AD. Long after Herod died, and indeed long after Christians claim Jesus lived.
The only reason that Matthew's author seems to have the virgin-birth story is because he misunderstood an O.T statement (Isaiah 7:l4) that he read as messianic (which it isn't) and referring to a virgin birth (which it doesn't). With regard to Isa 7:l4, it is simply the story of Isaiah saying to king Ahaz of Judah that by the time that a young girl had conceived and her baby was born, the present threat from Syria would be over – 7:l4-17. There is NOTHING messianic about it at all.
As, in this, the child was to be called Emmanuel which means 'God with us', but the name 'Jesus' (actually, this is Greek for the Hebrew Jehoshua) means 'Yahweh is salvation', Jesus was therefore not called by the name Emmanuel and did not fulfil this 'prophesy'; however Matt's author misunderstood this. As Isa 8:3-4 says how Isaiah went immediately and impregnated his wife, and the prophesy is again made saying that before the child could even talk, Syria would by smashed by Assyria, it appears the Isa 7:l4 prophesy relates to Isaiah's own wife/child and does not have any messianic connotations.
In reality there is nothing miraculous in Isaiah's saying; he is only saying a woman (or in the Greek – a virgin) would conceive. It doesn't take too much to realise what has to happen for a virgin to conceive a child. He doesn't say that a girl who would give birth to the child would still be a virgin after conception. The author of Matthew was using the Septuagint 'LXX' – the Greek version of the Hebrew Bible compiled in the second century BC for the Greek- speaking Jews of the Diaspora – ie. living outside Palestine. It is generally accepted that some parts are very good, but in others it is faulty, eg. Daniel is such a poor translation in the LXX, the Jews wouldn't even use it.
The Hebrew word in Isa 7:l4 for the woman/'virgin' is “almah” and means NOT a virgin, but a young woman; it is in the LXX that it is rendered 'virgin' and there is the additional fact that in the Greek the root doesn't even necessarily mean a girl who has not had sex, but 'denotes fullness or the like – fully developed”. The word actually used here has nothing to do with the virgin state.
As the Gospel writers used the LXX, they could not have been Palestinian Jews (ie. the apostles as stated in the Gospels) or they would have obviously used the Hebrew text and not made such errors.
Matt's author couldn't have been the apostle of that name as he wasn't a Palestinian Jew (nor either an eyewitness as he had to use Mark as a source to write his Gospel). He also makes other errors, eg. in 27: 9-l0 he says he is quoting Jeremiah but in fact he's quoting Zechariah ll:l2-l3. It is very apparent that the Gospel writers were NOT Palestinian Jews, but either Jewish Christians of the Diaspora or Gentile-Christians. In the case of Mark's author there has to be doubt whether he had even set foot in Palestine in view of the historical, chronological, geographical and theological errors he makes about first cent. Palestine.
But this is where it continues to be manifestly absurd. Jesus was supposedly a true Jew – a direct descendent of Abraham through David (Matthew 1), the Jewish Messiah, the Son of David (Matt 21:9), the 'lion of the tribe of Judah' (Rev 5:5) and yet whenever he quoted the Old Testament, according to the Gospels that is, he quoted the GREEK LXX version ! Furthermore, in some cases the Hebrew original of the LXX text he is quoting would not support the argument he is making, ie. because of the LXX's inaccuracies. In Mark 7:l-23 Jesus does this; although it would seem the LXX would support the point Jesus is making to the Pharisees, the Hebrew original in fact would not.
So we are asked to believe that Jesus – a true Hebrew Jew – chose to use the Greek translation of the Old Test. and furthermore, was unaware of the fact that he was using a passage that in reality was faulty and in the original would say something completely different, and be quite inappropriate for his argument, but according to the Gospels, he floored his orthodox Jewish opponents with this – a mistranslation of their own scriptures – and they did not challenge this ! The same applies with James (supposedly Jesus' brother and leader of the Jewish-Christian community in Jerusalem) in Acts 15 – he uses
the LXX to support his argument, although the Hebrew original says something quite different and would not support his argument, and yet all the Jews in the audience didn't comment on this !!! Obviously as the writers of the Gospels & Acts were not Palestinian Hebrew-speaking Jews, they had to use the LXX but didn't realise the errors they were making.
Therefore, the bad news is that firstly the virgin birth is disproved by the Bible itself, and secondly, there is no written eyewitness testimony for Jesus' s
upposed life.The situation is adequately summed up by Professor Fuller, Professor of New Testament, Union Theological Seminary, New York. (A Critical Introduction to the New Testament):
“Of the 27 books of the New Testament only the authentic Pauline epistles are, strictly speaking, the testimony of an apostolic witness. And even Paul…was not a witness of the historical Jesus.
Since the earliest witnesses wrote nothing…there is not a single book in the New Testament which is the direct work of an eyewitness of the historical Jesus…” (page 197).
gollamudi,Do you believe Jesus was resurrected?
The virgin birth of Jesus: Fact or fable?
Sponsored link: http://www.religioustolerance.org/virgin_b.htm
Conflicting quotations showing the diversity of beliefs about the virgin birth:
“The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.” Thomas Jefferson, 1823. 1“There can be no doubt as to the Church's teaching and as to the existence of an early Christian tradition maintaining the perpetual virginity of our Blessed Lady and consequently the virgin birth of Jesus Christ. The mystery of the virginal conception is furthermore taught by the third Gospel and confirmed by the first.” Catholic Encyclopedia 2
“Larry King, the CNN talk show host, was once asked who he would most want to interview if he could choose anyone from all of history. He said, 'Jesus Christ.' The questioner said, 'And what would you like to ask Him?' King replied, “I would like to ask Him if He was indeed virgin-born. The answer to that question would define history for me'.” From Just Thinking, RZIM, Winter 1998. Cited by ChristianAnswers.net 3
“Although the virgin birth cannot be understood as a historical-biological event, it can be regarded as a meaningful symbol at least for that time.” Hans K�ng, “On Being a Christian,” 4
“Matthew's Gospel was written in about AD 80-90 for Christians who were not of Jewish provenance – that is, Gentiles who had no knowledge of Isaiah's original Hebrew. For them, the passage announced, unambiguously, the fulfillment of an ancient prophecy: the miraculous birth of a divine being. But the prophet himself and readers of his original Hebrew sentence regarded it as a quite specific allusion to the historical circumstances of Isaiah's age – and would have found its mutation in Greek into one of the foundations of Christian doctrine quite baffling.” Geza Vermes, discussing Isaiah 7:14 5
“The virgin birth of Jesus Christ is the root from which everything the New Testament says about him grows. … Both Luke and Matthew state it up front as a fact, which they are convinced explains the unusual nature of the man, Jesus, and the amazing things he said and did.” 6
“The virgin birth is an underlying assumption of everything the Bible says about Jesus. To throw out the virgin birth is to reject Christ's deity, the accuracy and authority of Scripture, and a host of other related doctrines that are the heart of the Christian faith. No issue is more important than the virgin birth to our understanding of who Jesus is. If we deny Jesus is God, we have denied the very essence of Christianity.” John F. MacArthur, Jr. 7
Overview:
From about 80 CE to the present time, most Christian faith groups have taught that Yeshua of Nazareth (Jesus Christ) was conceived and born by his mother Mary, while she was still a virgin. They believe that this happened by the action of the Holy Spirit, without an act of sexual intercourse.Further:
Roman Catholicism has taught the doctrine of perpetual virginity — that Mary lived, gave birth to Jesus, and remained a virgin through her entire life.
Islam also teaches that Mary was a virgin when she conceived Jesus.
Some of the early leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints — by far the largest of the Mormon denominations — taught that God has a physical body, and that he came down to earth, engaged in sexual intercourse with Mary, and conceived Jesus. However, this was never made an official church teaching and is rarely heard today, outside of statements by anti-Mormon groups who often claim that God engaging in sexual intercourse with Mary is current LDS Church teaching.The Anglican Communion, Eastern Orthodoxy, Protestantism and Roman Catholicism have taught the “virgin birth,” although the term “virgin conception” would be much more accurate. This has long been one of the Christianity's foundational beliefs, along with the inerrancy of the Bible; the God's inspiration of the authors of the Bible; the atonement, resurrection, and the anticipated second coming of Jesus, etc. All of the commonly used major ancient church creeds have also mentioned the virgin birth.
There is an incompatibility between belief in the virgin birth and the messiahship of Jesus:
The virgin birth implies that the actual father of Yeshua was the Holy Spirit.
Numerous places in the Hebrew Scriptures state that the coming messiah was to be of the House of David.Thus:
If Yeshua is the messiah, then he could not have been born of a virgin; he would have had to have a father who was of the House of David, and
If Jesus was born of a virgin, then he could not have been the messiah, because his father — the Holy Spirit — was not a human descendent of the House of David.Most modern liberal theologians have generally rejected the virgin birth. They regard it as a religious myth that was added to Christian belief in the late first century CE and was triggered by a Greek mistranslation of the book of Isaiah from the original Hebrew. Its purpose was to make Christianity more competitive with contemporary Pagan religions in the Mediterranean region, most of whom featured their founder having being born of a virgin. Without the claim of a virgin birth, it is unclear whether Christianity could have survived.
Various polls have found that about 80% of American adults believe in the virgin birth of Jesus. This exceeds the total number of American adults who identify themselves as Christian or Muslim. In fact, 47% of non-Christian adults also believe in the virgin birth. 8
Gallamudi-
You surprise me. In readiing some of you earlier posts, you seemed as if you were humbly seeking an answer to this question. It seems that now, because you haven't received an answer, you're taking a hard line stance on this topic. (Please correct me if I'm wrong)
Which parts of the Bible are true, and which are fabricated lies? Perhaps you should post these so that I scissor out the sections of scripture that are true from the ones that are missleading. Wait a minute, before doing that perhaps we should take a peek at II Peter 1:21.
I would agree that there are verses in the Biblical text that need research to ferret out the truth, but it seems that because you don't have a “fast food” answer to a few verses of scripture in Matthew and Luke, you're willing to relegate a Biblical concept (which, understood in its proper light, has a great bearing on the vallidity of several other verses) to a fictitious lie.
So once again, which verses relating to the birth record of Jesus can we keep, and which ones do we toss? Aside from the obvious verses inferred by your posts, do we also toss out Luke 1:34 and 35? and Matthew 1:22-25 along with Isaiah 7:13-15? I guess while we are at it, we might as well throw the confession of Peter in Matthew 16:16 (insight given to Peter by direct revelation from The Father) out the window as well.
Isn't this getting a bit silly? May I suggest taking a look at and considering the research work listed in the following link before posting any more of your ideas on this topic?
Patrick
http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Christ-our-promised-seed/dp/0910068429
Hi Nick,
I believe in the virgin conception. There's a few things to be understood about oriental marriage customs as well as some one other matter relating to birth and conception before this matter clears up in a logical way.
The angel in Matthew 1 told Joseph to “fear not to take unto thee thy wife” (have sexual relations with her) in the dream Joseph had. There were 4 phases to marriage in the EAST. The first phase was the initial coming together of the families. (May I recomend a short read book that you will find very helpful in understanding this. It's called “Light Through an Eastern Window”, by Bishop K.C. Pillai. google it.
The second phase was the engagement ceremony, whereby the groom would say the following words to the bride : “In my father's house, there are many mansions [apartments], Do not worry, I go to prepare a house for you, and if I go, I will return.” After uttering these words, the groom would go off to prepare (or build) their new home together near the residence of his father.
I need to leave now…I'll get back to this
Let me back up a little from the last post, as I believe I need to fill in some blank spaces.
Bear in mind, these four separate components of the marriage ceremony usually were separated by time.. It could have taken months from the time of the family announcement to the betrothal (or engagement) ceremony, and then another (brief) time span from the betrothal to the actual wedding ceremony, and then, yet another (brief) timespan from the time of the wedding ceremony to the time when the priest or rabbi would fix the date when the newly-weds could come together for sexual intercourse. This all sounds so strange to our Western minds, doesn't it?
During the betrothal ceremony, the groom would utter the same words that Jesus spoke in John 14 at the Last Supper. Verse 2: “In my Father's house, are many apartments….I go to prepare a place for you. If I go to prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to myself, that where I am, there you may be also.”
After comforting the bride with those words, the groom depart from his bride for a season in order to build the new home where they would dwell. (How significant and sober the occasion must have been when Jesus uttered those words to the apostles in John 14:2, letting them know that he would return to them after his departure. What a word to ease the tension and uncertaintly they were feeling upon hearing that he was departing from them….HE WAS COMING BACK BECAUSE THEY WERE HIS BRIDE !!
The record in Matthew 1:18 says that Mary was betrothed to Joseph. They were officially married at that point (in our culture, the wedding ceremony officiates this; however, in the Eastern culture, the betrothal cermony officiated things, and the subsequent wedding ceremony more closely resembled our reception party in the West. Once again, these two events were usually separated by days.
When the angel told Joseph to “…to take unto thee Mary thy wife”, he wasn't saying “don't be afraid to marry her, because they were already married and living together. The last phase of their marriage, being the time given to have sexual intercourse, was either announced or confirmed by the angel.
I would encourage you to order those two books for you library because they really impart wonderful insights.
Quote (glad tidings @ Oct. 10 2009,08:36) Hi Nick, I believe in the virgin conception. There's a few things to be understood about oriental marriage customs as well as some one other matter relating to birth and conception before this matter clears up in a logical way.
The angel in Matthew 1 told Joseph to “fear not to take unto thee thy wife” (have sexual relations with her) in the dream Joseph had. There were 4 phases to marriage in the EAST. The first phase was the initial coming together of the families. (May I recomend a short read book that you will find very helpful in understanding this. It's called “Light Through an Eastern Window”, by Bishop K.C. Pillai. google it.
The second phase was the engagement ceremony, whereby the groom would say the following words to the bride : “In my father's house, there are many mansions [apartments], Do not worry, I go to prepare a house for you, and if I go, I will return.” After uttering these words, the groom would go off to prepare (or build) their new home together near the residence of his father.
I need to leave now…I'll get back to this
Even though Joseph married Maria, Math. states that He did not know her after Jesus was born.
Math. 1:25 and did not know Her till she had brough forth her firstborn Son, and He called His name Jesus.
Peace and Love Irene
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
