The Virgin Birth

[Windmillcharge]

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

Why do you expect Mark and John's gospels to include the details of Jesus's birth?

You claim, without evidence that the virgin birth is a pagan fable.
There are no pagan myths that match the biblical account. Those that show a resemblence can also be shown to be late copies of the biblical story.

You referr to John Spong's book as if it is a reliable authority, rather than the recounting of false un proven stories that attempt to distroy Christianity. What you read is your choice, but do read books that support Christianity as well.

To help you in this try Are the Birth Narratives in Luke and Matthew Late Additions? | Cold Case Christianity

 

[GodsGrace]

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.

First of all, I know about literal thinking. I'm sure that many things are written in the OT because the Hebrews, Jews and Israelites attributed everything to God once He revealed Himself to them. Even things He did not do, which is why we have Him causing calamity in the OT.

The NT, otoh, is a testimony to what was seen. 1 John 1. It's not a history book, as you surely know, but the story of a man who changed the time from BC to AD.
And yet, we read books and trust those who tear Christianity down, as is the custom to do nowadays.

I asked you how old Mary was when she got married because it's accepted that she was very young, a "virgin", as young girls were called and as they had to be if they wanted to marry respectfully - which Mary did after Joseph had the dream to marry her and he DID NOT KNOW HER until Jesus was born.

So Mary had to be about 15 or 16 years old. Do you suppose she had another baby BEFORE having Jesus? No. She married Joseph and Jesus was her first baby.
It doesn't take a theologian to figure this out.
Luke 1:48, but you don't believe Luke. Even IF it was added later, it definitely had to be based on something...right?

The first Father of the Church who wrote about Mary is St. Ignatius of Antioch († c. 110). He defended the veracity of the humanity of Christ against the docetists by affirming that Jesus pertained to the line of David because he was born of Mary. Jesus was conceived by Mary – He came from her – and this conception was virginal, and pertains to the most hidden mysteries in the silence of God.


Ignatius a.d. 30–107
And God the Word was truly born of the Virgin, having clothed Himself with a body of like passions with our own. He who forms all men in the womb, was Himself really in the womb, and made for Himself a body of the seed of the Virgin, but without any intercourse of man.
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians Chapter X.—The reality of Christ’s passion.


Justin Martyr a.d. 110–165


For they who affirm that the Son is the Father, are proved neither to have become acquainted with the Father, nor to know that the Father of the universe has a Son; who also, being the first-begotten Word of God, is even God. And of old He appeared in the shape of fire and in the likeness of an angel to Moses and to the other prophets; but now in the times of your reign, having, as we before said, become Man by a virgin, according to the counsel of the Father, for the salvation of those who believe on Him, He endured both to be set at nought and to suffer, that by dying and rising again He might conquer death. And that which was said out of the bush to Moses, “I am that I am, the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, and the God of your fathers,” this signified that they, even though dead, are yet in existence, and are men belonging to Christ Himself. For they were the first of all men to busy themselves in the search after God; Abraham being the father of Isaac, and Isaac of Jacob, as Moses wrote.
The First Apology Chapter LXIII.—How God appeared to Moses.

P.S. When Paul spoke about scripture he was, of course, speaking about the OT.
And what did the OT say of the virgin birth?
Isaiah 7:14
"Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel.

 

[evotell]

The Gospels are not eye witness accounts. Part of the book of Acts is. They are stories which was the Jewish way of writing things and never intended to be interpreted literally.

The 1st Gospel was Mark who wasn't a follower of Jesus, so how is that an eye witness report. It is widely know among theologians that the gospel of Mark was a collection of Peters memoirs. Its also know that Matthew and Luke were partially copied from Mark. Its also know that the first 2 chapters Mark & Luke that mention the Virgin Birth were added later by pagan priests. No where does Paul or John mention the virgin birth, its not mentioned in the book of revelation. If this is the corner stone on which Christianity is built down you think it would be on every page from every writer ?

Paul new almost knowing of Christ. We have to remember that the Bible has been radically tampered with, we also need to remember who would be benefit from having it tampered with and why. So beware of taking it literally it will lead you into error.

 

[kit]

I believe Mary and Elizabeth were quite capable of telling the birth stories. And I do not doubt the testimony of women whom God entrusted to bare and raise JtheB and Jesus. Given the role of women in passing on stories and traditions in that era of Judaism it shouldnt really come as a surprise that Mary and Elizabeth either spoke directly to Luke, or he interviewed their kin. Scripture tells us that Mary was made family with John by Jesus, so she wasn't outside the networks.

 

[VictoryinJesus]

They are stories which was the Jewish way of writing things and never intended to be interpreted literally.

You say this yet have a thread going based off the "literal" interpretation that David had many wives, and so should you. I looked up the book you recommended: "Sex at Dawn is a great book if your interested in viewing the topic outside a fundamentalist perspective." And read the reviews, that is as far as I went. Comparing man to beast: chimpanzees and apes as a defense for feeding sexual desire...do you not see, that yes, we were once all beast. So I am not here to judge you. But God gives us a new heart that is no longer of the "beast."

I believe you when you say you love God and have a personal relationship with Him. If you have this love spilling over you want to share with others; instead of adding to your wives... There are far better ways. 1 Corinthians 4:14-16
[14] I write not these things to shame you, but as my beloved sons I warn you . [15] For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.

This world desperately needs fathers.

As far as whether Mary was a virgin or not...I give up debating with your flip-flopping between "it can't be literal" and "you have to trust facts when there is no historical evidence".

 

[evotell]

You say this yet have a thread going based off the "literal" interpretation that David had many wives, and so should you. I looked up the book you recommended: "Sex at Dawn is a great book if your interested in viewing the topic outside a fundamentalist perspective." And read the reviews, that is as far as I went. Comparing man to beast: chimpanzees and apes as a defense for feeding sexual desire...do you not see, that yes, we were once all beast. So I am not here to judge you. But God gives us a new heart that is no longer of the "beast."

I believe you when you say you love God and have a personal relationship with Him. If you have this love spilling over you want to share with others; instead of adding to your wives... There are far better ways. 1 Corinthians 4:14-16
[14] I write not these things to shame you, but as my beloved sons I warn you . [15] For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.

This world desperately needs fathers.

As far as whether Mary was a virgin or not...I give up debating with your flip-flopping between "it can't be literal" and "you have to trust facts when there is no historical evidence".

In the end we all have to choose what it is we believe and if your happy with your position as I am then its all good.

 

[ScottA]

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.

Such a debate, seemingly having millennia on the side of doubt, is perhaps futile. If the ancient scriptures are not convincing, of which there are, certainly the claims of their fulfillment by Jesus, called the Christ, are no better. But of course...nothing is impossible for God.

And the argument about being of pagan origins, is not valid. If one believes in God at all...nothing begins with pagan origins - nothing: "In the beginning God..."

No, I would suggest that under such suspicions, a sting...is more likely than the claims of hearsay, skepticism, or doubt. Meaning, with or without an actual virgin birth...as long as God is the architect of His creation, there is most certainly something in the works. What is it then? That is the real question...and the better topic.

 

[Triumph1300]

The 1st Gospel was Mark who wasn't a follower of Jesus

So, who did he follow?

 

[Triumph1300]

Paul new almost knowing of Christ.

I guess you mean to say: "Paul knew almost nothing of Christ".?
Is that what you are saying?

 

[Helen]

So, who did he follow?

Love the avatar. Where you been? Missed you.

 

[Triumph1300]

I was looking for our Italian poster friend and the US Street Pastor.

Love the avatar. Where you been? Missed you.

 

[evotell]

I guess you mean to say: "Paul knew almost nothing of Christ".?
Is that what you are saying?

Yes that's correct, he knew nothing of the virgin birth, and most of the events leading up to Chris death.

 

[Triumph1300]

Yes that's correct, he knew nothing of the virgin birth, and most of the events leading up to Chris death.

Well, that's an absurd statement to make.
The Damascus Road experience was both a conversion and a call. It was a conversion away from his previous life as a zealous persecutor of Jesus' followers and it was a call to a new life advancing the cause of the new movement with even more vigour than he had shown before. Now, with boundless energy, Paul preached the gospel of the Christ crucified for the sins of all people far and wide, beginning at Jerusalem and continuing all the way to Rome.

 

[evotell]

Well, that's an absurd statement to make.
The Damascus Road experience was both a conversion and a call. It was a conversion away from his previous life as a zealous persecutor of Jesus' followers and it was a call to a new life advancing the cause of the new movement with even more vigour than he had shown before. Now, with boundless energy, Paul preached the gospel of the Christ crucified for the sins of all people far and wide, beginning at Jerusalem and continuing all the way to Rome.

Can you point me to the verse where Paul talks about the virgin birth please

 

[Triumph1300]

Paul never explicitly refers to Jesus’ virgin birth nor does he ever name either Mary or Joseph.
What he does affirm is that Jesus pre-existed before his human birth and subsequently gave up his divine glory through his birth as a human being.
He writes that Jesus “though existing in the form of God” emptied himself and took on human form, “being made in the likeness of humankind” (Philippians 2:6-7). He says further “though he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor, so that you by his poverty might become rich” (2 Corinthians 8:9).

Had the future apostle ever seen or heard Jesus in person? While we lack any direct evidence, there are several considerations that may favor the idea that Paul had possibly seen Jesus prior to the crucifixion. First, Paul had been a resident of Jerusalem as a child (Acts 22:3) and was also there years later to approve of Stephen’s stoning (Acts 8:1). The presence of Paul’s nephew in Jerusalem after Paul’s conversion (Acts 23:16) suggests that Paul and his family had resided there for some time. Jesus was known to have visited Jerusalem (Mark 11:11; John 2:13;5:1). It is quite possible that Paul could have seen Jesus or heard Him speak during one of Jesus’ several trips there.

 

[pia]

Paul never explicitly refers to Jesus’ virgin birth

Whether it is or isn't written in all the gopels and /or letters, this one thing is for sure....If she had not been, none of this would have been possible, whomever she was, if you don't believe her name to be Mary...
As you may know the Law permitted them to have their High Priest ( who had to be as pure as possible) offer up an unblemished young lamb once a year for Israels sin ...The lamb had to be without any defect whatsoever and had to be a 'virgin' too, no mix at all.....then that blood upon the mercy seat would cover them for one more year...
When God decided it was time for Him to come clean up mans mess; once for all, He chose a young virgin, who accepted the Word ( Gods seed ) from the angel, that she should bear a Holy Child...She accepted the 'seed' into herself and once the Holy Spirit came 'upon' her and added the 'power' to change that 'seed' from spirit into flesh, that 'seed' from God became a living sperm, and thereby produced a Son unto God, who by this, then became Father....
The other very important thing He did, was that the 2nd. and last Adam had to be born from blood and water, which the mother would have given out of her body at His birth.....Gods angels are NOT born of blood and water, which is an important difference in this whole plan, and will be at the end....
This was no mean feat, this !!!....God enabling basically Himself as His Word,into becoming flesh and blood in order to give rise to Gods New Creation, one which supersedes Adam AND the angles, and will finally reveal the manifold wisdom of God, in how He went about all of this, when at times it seems almost unfathomable, the way God did it...The way He made mankind spirits clothed in flesh and why...One day He will make it all plain and clear for us to see, but until then we will have to take Him at His Word, whatever Word of His, that each of you have had confirmed within your spirits....No doubt books could be written of all that God did and accomplished by and through becoming human...Before, during and after this, and all it means to us and to Him, now that He HAS done it...
I certainly hope you will push into Him and seek Him for help in this regard, so you can have it revealed to you....One other thing in this same regard, a lot of people have come out with this notion that Jesus got married and had children and those descendants are living today and that's how He's still alive, how utterly odd ( at least to me )......If He had married, He would have become impure as far as His 'work' was concerned, and He would have no longer been a pure and unblemished sacrifice....By that alone one must dismiss such claims.....I have been horrified how many people I have met who believe this, and I really don't meet that many people lol

 

[GodsGrace]

I guess you mean to say: "Paul knew almost nothing of Christ".?
Is that what you are saying?

Did you get married??

 

[GodsGrace]

The Gospels are not eye witness accounts. Part of the book of Acts is. They are stories which was the Jewish way of writing things and never intended to be interpreted literally.

The 1st Gospel was Mark who wasn't a follower of Jesus, so how is that an eye witness report. It is widely know among theologians that the gospel of Mark was a collection of Peters memoirs. Its also know that Matthew and Luke were partially copied from Mark. Its also know that the first 2 chapters Mark & Luke that mention the Virgin Birth were added later by pagan priests. No where does Paul or John mention the virgin birth, its not mentioned in the book of revelation. If this is the corner stone on which Christianity is built down you think it would be on every page from every writer ?

Paul new almost knowing of Christ. We have to remember that the Bible has been radically tampered with, we also need to remember who would be benefit from having it tampered with and why. So beware of taking it literally it will lead you into error.

I think you're speaking to me. You should use the Reply feature.

I'm sure you've read 1 John 1. Are you saying John is not an eye witness?
John was with Jesus for His entire ministry.

Mathew. Most theologians accept that Mathew, the Publican, wrote the book of Mathew. He was also with Jesus for His entire ministry and is an eye witness.


Mark

Mark was much younger than the other writers. His mother was a prominent follower of Jesus Christ. Acts 12:12 tells us that her house in Jerusalem was used as a meeting place for other disciples. From this verse we also learn that her son’s full name is John Mark.

Mark was also a follower of Jesus Christ but would likely have been in his teens when the Lord was in Jerusalem. He may have seen and listened to the Savior on occasion. After the Resurrection, as the Savior’s message was beginning to be spread, Mark traveled with the Apostle Paul. He then accompanied the Apostle Peter to Rome and stayed by him while he was in prison. Mark is known as Peter’s interpreter, both in speech and in writing. As a fisherman from Galilee, Peter may not have spoken Greek fluently, so Mark interpreted for him.

In his book, Mark wrote down the observations and memories of Peter, one of the original Apostles. Mark’s book reflects Peter’s interest in spreading the gospel among the Gentiles.


Luke

Luke is an interesting writer because he did not know Jesus Christ personally. He became a follower after the Lord’s death, when Paul taught him the gospel. Luke had been a physician, but he left that profession to travel with Paul. He had the opportunity to talk with many of the Apostles as well as others who were eyewitnesses to special events or moments in the Lord’s life. In
the first few verses of his book, Luke says that he is going to write the things that eyewitnesses and other teachers of the gospel had to say about the Savior. Apparently he had the opportunity to talk to many who were present when the Savior taught or performed miracles.

One of the most amazing stories Luke wrote about was the birth of the Savior. Elder Bruce R. McConkie (1915–85) of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles says that Luke probably got his information
about Jesus’s birth from Mary herself.2

Who were the other people Luke interviewed about Jesus Christ? The list would have been long. Many of the people who knew the Savior would still have been alive and would have remembered such important times in their lives. Paul mentions that about 500 people saw the Savior after His Resurrection and that most of them were still alive when he was writing to the Corinthians (see 1 Corinthians 15:6).

I trust all four. Our faith is based on what the 4 writers tell us.
What else could our faith be based upon? Those who write about what happened 2,000 years ago today? The youtube preachers with new and incorrect teachings?
Do you trust these persons more than the original 4 writers and also the Early Church Fathers which I had posted for you?

It's your prerogative, but it's incorrect.
If you're happy with it, fine. A statement you made to @VictoryinJesus .

However, I could then say the same for you and you should stop convincing others of your incorrect ideas and just be happy with them.

 

[GodsGrace]

Can you point me to the verse where Paul talks about the virgin birth please

Luke talks about the virgin birth.
Luke 1:30
"Do not be afraid Mary, you have found favor with God"
NASB

Do you suppose Mary would have found favor with God if she had just married Joseph but had children from another man?

Why does this interest you so much?

 

[VictoryinJesus]

Was Jesus Christ born from above? Did He break the veil of flesh or not? Was Jesus not the promise made to Abraham?

Galatians 4:26-27
[26] But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all. [27] For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband.

Children born of God and free. Regardless of one believes of Mary, it doesn't and will never change the fact that Jesus Christ was born from above. Of a virgin(free). Unless I'm wrong in my understanding of what the scripture says? Isn't that the point: that He(God) went before us and we walk in His path?

Galatians 4:28-31
[28] Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.