The Virgin Birth

[evotell]

Understanding what we believe and why is very important as it will help us decide whether or not many of the doctrines presented by Christendom are in fact authentic.

The gospels of Mark and John say absolutely NOTHING about the virgin birth of the Messiah, and throughout assume Yeshua to have been of normal human birth. It is only in the gospels of Matthew and Luke that the pagan fable of the virgin birth is introduced --r and ONLY in the first two chapters of these gospels. The evidence is overwhelming that the first two chapters of Matthew and Luke are later additions by pagan Greek priests who grafted the "Virgin-birth" and "son of God" myths onto the simple, original records of the human-born Messiah who descended from his ancestor David.

So should this change my faith ? No not all, because my faith isn't based in correct doctrine, its rooted in my relationship with the Father. "For I know in whom I have believed" NOT in what I believe.

 

[bbyrd009]

This is another hot potato that I'm sure will create all sorts of reactions with the religious pharisees among us. What's important is we understand where many of our doctrines come from, when they were introduced, by whom and for what pupose.

The gospels of Mark and John say absolutely NOTHING about the virgin birth of the Messiah, and throughout assume Yeshua to have been of normal human birth. It is only in the gospels of Matthew and Luke that the pagan fable of the virgin birth is introduced --r and ONLY in the first two chapters of these gospels. The evidence is overwhelming that the first two chapters of Matthew and Luke are later additions by pagan Greek priests who grafted the "Virgin-birth" and "son of God" myths onto the simple, original records of the human-born Messiah who descended from his ancestor David.

So should this change my faith ? No not all, because my faith isn't based in correct doctrine, its rooted in my relationship with the Father. "For I know in whom I have believed" NOT in what I believe.

you have stated that you outright reject Scripture, long time ago right,
so tbh i'm not even sure why you are even still allowed to post here as a Christian.

not meaning to be rude though, and best of luck

 

[evotell]

you have stated that you outright reject Scripture, long time ago right,
so tbh i'm not even sure why you are even still allowed to post here as a Christian.

not meaning to be rude though, and best of luck

Right, because to be a christian I'd have to be like you eh! Had you responded to my posts with: "That sounds interesting" or Im trying to walk with God and keep an open heart & mind" I may have taken your comments more seriously.

 

[bbyrd009]

Right, because to be a christian I'd have to be like you eh!

um, i think i'm more of a Yahwist prolly, but tbh i'm Asperger's enough (mild-mid) that these social identifications just really have no meaning for me, or at least it is obvious that i don't value them the same as most people do. i def do not go around proselytizing, or looking for codependent affirmations, etc anyway.

and i would let you babysit my kids prolly, etc, i mean i don't take things said here personally or whatever, you strike me as prolly a hoot to have as a friend.

if you were like me i would prolly really hate you lol, isn't that how that works usually?

 

[bbyrd009]

i'm still gonna roast your opinions of truth though, ok, i mean standing in the fire is a hard thing to do, and running from the truth is easy, right. See, no one can make you go back to your other thread and face it, if you don't want to

 

[Helen]

So should this change my faith ? No not all, because my faith isn't based in correct doctrine, its rooted in my relationship with the Father. "For I know in whom I have believed" NOT in what I believe.

Not many people seem to "get" this...they still argue and stress over doctrine until the cows come home....many choose -
Religion over relationship...and have done since the wandering in the wilderness.

 

[evotell]

Not many people seem to "get" this...they still argue and stress over doctrine until the cows come home....many choose -
Religion over relationship...and have done since the wandering in the wilderness.

Wandering in the wilderness, I like it, never thought about that but I believe your right.

 

[Helen]

@evotell As I look at it, only Moses had the face to face relationship with God. The others stood at the bottom of the mountain and said to Moses " You go up.." Even then they could stay the course...they asked Aaron for the golden calf.
" To me" typical of " Give me religion , I don't really want a one-to-one relationship.

I see you are from God's country...which side? I am West...just an hour from Banff.

PS. Oh, I just checked...ha!
We are in below you in Calgary! Will spring ever come????

 

[evotell]

I am frequently in Calgary [Link Removed]

 

[VictoryinJesus]

This is another hot potato that I'm sure will create all sorts of reactions with the religious pharisees among us. What's important is we understand where many of our doctrines come from, when they were introduced, by whom and for what pupose.

The gospels of Mark and John say absolutely NOTHING about the virgin birth of the Messiah, and throughout assume Yeshua to have been of normal human birth. It is only in the gospels of Matthew and Luke that the pagan fable of the virgin birth is introduced --r and ONLY in the first two chapters of these gospels. The evidence is overwhelming that the first two chapters of Matthew and Luke are later additions by pagan Greek priests who grafted the "Virgin-birth" and "son of God" myths onto the simple, original records of the human-born Messiah who descended from his ancestor David.

So should this change my faith ? No not all, because my faith isn't based in correct doctrine, its rooted in my relationship with the Father. "For I know in whom I have believed" NOT in what I believe.

Take away the significance of the virgin birth and you take away that it speaks of what is to come through Christ. To be set apart. To NOT follow the original(Adam). Pure. "Spotless" "without blemish". Take away the virgin birth and you also take away we must also have a virgin birth (Free from the world/set apart). Born of God. Born from above.

2 Corinthians 11:2-4
[2] For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ. [3] But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. [4] For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.

What does a "virgin to Christ" mean to you?

 

[evotell]

Please before you send me another page of Bible verses look at the facts.

The Epistles make no mention of a Virgin Birth, and such comparatively few references as there are to the Messiah in these -- the earliest writings of our New Testament -- do not in any case support the doctrine of his Virgin Birth, and sometimes appear quite incompatible with any such doctrine.

Neither the Epistles, nor the Acts, nor the Revelation refer either explicitly or even implicitly to a Virgin Birth. Some of the references which are made to Yeshua in these books seem to be compatible with the Gnostic doctrines of a divine soul incarnate in an ordinary human body, such as --

"But when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons" (Galatians 4:4-5).

Im happy for you to believe what ever it is you want, but just because you believe it doesn't make it true. Look at the facts.

 

[VictoryinJesus]

Please before you send me another page of Bible verses look at the facts.

The Epistles make no mention of a Virgin Birth, and such comparatively few references as there are to the Messiah in these -- the earliest writings of our New Testament -- do not in any case support the doctrine of his Virgin Birth, and sometimes appear quite incompatible with any such doctrine.

Neither the Epistles, nor the Acts, nor the Revelation refer either explicitly or even implicitly to a Virgin Birth. Some of the references which are made to Yeshua in these books seem to be compatible with the Gnostic doctrines of a divine soul incarnate in an ordinary human body, such as --

"But when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons" (Galatians 4:4-5).

Im happy for you to believe what ever it is you want, but just because you believe it doesn't make it true. Look at the facts.

"the adoption of sons" whose sons?

 

[evotell]

I totally understand where your coming from.

I was a fundamentalist and literal thinker/believer for over 20 years. All I did when people made statements that I disagreed with was send them pages of Bible verses to back up my position. The lights came for me when I started asking a different set of questions. There is NO historical evidence that supports the virgin birth doctrine, what there is a substantial amount of historical evidence that indicates its just not factual. So I either have to consider the evidence or continue believing something that I know not to be true in order to stop my world collapsing. How is that being committed to what true.

 

[VictoryinJesus]

Please before you send me another page of Bible verses look at the facts.

The Epistles make no mention of a Virgin Birth, and such comparatively few references as there are to the Messiah in these -- the earliest writings of our New Testament -- do not in any case support the doctrine of his Virgin Birth, and sometimes appear quite incompatible with any such doctrine.

Neither the Epistles, nor the Acts, nor the Revelation refer either explicitly or even implicitly to a Virgin Birth. Some of the references which are made to Yeshua in these books seem to be compatible with the Gnostic doctrines of a divine soul incarnate in an ordinary human body, such as --

"But when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons" (Galatians 4:4-5).

Im happy for you to believe what ever it is you want, but just because you believe it doesn't make it true. Look at the facts.

It says "damsel" in Isaiah in Hebrew. Matthew 1:23 and Luke 1:27 reference the virgin birth also. I looked in Lexicon and Greek. What translation are you referencing? Please, reliaze I am not good at all the different translations or where the translations began.

 

[evotell]

It says "damsel" in Isaiah in Hebrew. Matthew 1:23 and Luke 1:27 reference the virgin birth also. I looked in Lexicon and Greek. What translation are you referencing? Please, reliaze I am not good at all the different translations or where the translations began.

The historical evidence is overwhelming that the first two chapters of Matthew and Luke are later additions by pagan Greek priests who grafted the "Virgin-birth" and "son of God" myths onto the simple, original records of the human-born Messiah who descended from his ancestor David.

 

[evotell]

My faith isn't based on having correct doctrine, its based on a relationship I have with Father God.

'For I know in WHOM I have believed" NOT WHAT I BELIEVE.

 

[GodsGrace]

Please before you send me another page of Bible verses look at the facts.

The Epistles make no mention of a Virgin Birth, and such comparatively few references as there are to the Messiah in these -- the earliest writings of our New Testament -- do not in any case support the doctrine of his Virgin Birth, and sometimes appear quite incompatible with any such doctrine.

Neither the Epistles, nor the Acts, nor the Revelation refer either explicitly or even implicitly to a Virgin Birth. Some of the references which are made to Yeshua in these books seem to be compatible with the Gnostic doctrines of a divine soul incarnate in an ordinary human body, such as --

"But when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons" (Galatians 4:4-5).

Im happy for you to believe what ever it is you want, but just because you believe it doesn't make it true. Look at the facts.

Two questions...
1. You don't trust the Bible. What do you trust? The person you trust, Jesus, can only be known from what is written about Him in the N.T. where did You learn about Him?

2. How old was Mary when she married Joseph?

 

[evotell]

The Bible as you know is 66 books written by fallen man. It contains, facts, stories, poetry and history. One has to remember that the Bible didn't fall from the sky in finished form, like Christianity it evolved and is still evolving. To correctly understand the Bible which I dont, one has to understand who wrote what and when and what was their agenda. So to answer you question do I trust the Bible, my answer would be some of it yes. Some of it is clearly inspired but much of it isn't. Its all helpful but NOT literal.

Its important to remember that when Paul said that all scripture was inspired the Bible hadn't been written so what was he talking about? Answer to your 2nd question I have no idea.

 

[ScottA]

The Bible as you know is 66 books written by fallen man. It contains, facts, stories, poetry and history. One has to remember that the Bible didn't fall from the sky in finished form, like Christianity it evolved and is still evolving. To correctly understand the Bible which I dont, one has to understand who wrote what and when and what was their agenda. So to answer you question do I trust the Bible, my answer would be some of it yes. Some of it is clearly inspired but much of it isn't. Its all helpful but NOT literal.

Its important to remember that when Paul said that all scripture was inspired the Bible hadn't been written so what was he talking about? Answer to your 2nd question I have no idea.

You are relying on your own understanding.

The word of God, whether the ancient scriptures or the modern bible, are not created by and governed by men, but by the greater providence of God to do His will among men in spite of their weaknesses.

Furthermore, "what is written" and all language was confounded by God Himself at the tower of Babel, for the very reason you sight for your own understanding - that men could not make the claims you now make. No, the scriptures, His word, "is spirit" and "must be discerned spiritually", which is not at all your claim, nor does what you are doing have any precedence before God, except in the negative as the teachings of men and the ways of the world. You are doing the very thing you are speaking out against. You are making radical claims with your only evidence being a contrary record of what you yourself call pagan fallacies. Two wrongs don't make you right - just equally convinced to the contrary.

You got nothing.

 

[evotell]

Its only since I saw the deception in literal thinking that my faith has grown leaps and bounds. A great book to read on the subject is:
Biblical Literalism (A Gentile Heresy) by: John Spong

A little more facts:
When we turn from the Epistles to the earliest of the Gospels, that "according to St. Mark," we still find no reference to the Virgin Birth, or even to the parentage or childhood of the Messiah.

This gospel is -- in all likelihood -- one of the original source documents upon which the other three gospel narratives were based. According to tradition Mark's gospel was said to have been based on the apostle Peter's verbal accounts of the Messiah's life and is sometimes referred to as "Peter's Memoirs." Thus neither the authors of the Epistles, which are the earliest of our New Testament books, nor the authors of the earliest and the latest of our four Canonical Gospels, make any mention of a Virgin Birth.

The whole deception was introduced into Christianity by pagan priests many years later to bring authenticity to Christianity which was competing with other Mediterranean religions at the time.