The Virgin Birth

[Triumph1300]

So, is that your answer to Scott...?

Well, yes.
Just my idea of why it was a virgin birth.
What do you think about it?

 

[Helen]

Ok , just checking....

 

[Triumph1300]

Shouldn't you be in the kitchen this time of the day?

 

[Helen]

Shouldn't you be in the kitchen this time of the day?

Now it is 9.pm and time I was 'closing shop' and headed to bed to read.

Anyway...our "big meal" is at afternoon 1pm
Evening is just light snacks.
In and out of the kitchen quickly.lol

 

[ScottA]

If the virgin birth of Jesus is untrue, then the story of Jesus changes greatly; we would have a sexually promiscuous young woman lying about God’s miraculous hand in the birth of her son, raising that son to declare he was God, and then joining his religion.

But if Mary is nothing more than a sinful con artist then neither she nor her son Jesus should be trusted.

I certainly agree. But it is a good idea to consider the significance of a virgin birth in God's design for salvation, just as it is for considering the significance of referring to Jesus as the "Lamb" of God, or any other parable use of language. It should be a revelation.

 

[Triumph1300]

Amen to that, Scott.

 

[Helen]

But it is a good idea to consider the significance of a virgin birth in God's design for salvation, just as it is for considering the significance of referring to Jesus as the "Lamb" of God, or any other parable use of language. It should be a revelation.

Okay. And......?
So......Do you have it , to share with us ?

 

[epostle1]

Exodus 34:20 – under the Mosaic law, the “first-born” son had to be sanctified. “First-born” status does not require a “second” born.

Ezek. 44:2 – Ezekiel prophesies that no man shall pass through the gate by which the Lord entered the world. This is a prophecy of Mary’s perpetual virginity. Mary remained a virgin before, during and after the birth of Jesus.

Mark 6:3 – Jesus was always referred to as “the” son of Mary, not “a” son of Mary. Also “brothers” could have theoretically been Joseph’s children from a former marriage that was dissolved by death. However, it is most likely, perhaps most certainly, that Joseph was a virgin, just as were Jesus and Mary. As such, they embodied the true Holy Family, fully consecrated to God.

Luke 1:31,34 – the angel tells Mary that you “will” conceive (using the future tense). Mary responds by saying, “How shall this be?” Mary’s response demonstrates that she had taken a vow of lifelong virginity by having no intention to have relations with a man. If Mary did not take such a vow of lifelong virginity, her question would make no sense at all (for we can assume she knew how a child is conceived). She was a consecrated Temple virgin as was an acceptable custom of the times.

Luke 2:41-51 – in searching for Jesus and finding Him in the temple, there is never any mention of other siblings.

John 7:3-4; Mark 3:21 – we see that younger “brothers” were advising Jesus. But this would have been extremely disrespectful for devout Jews if these were Jesus’ biological brothers.

John 19:26-27 – it would have been unthinkable for Jesus to commit the care of his mother to a friend if he had brothers.

John 19:25 – the following verses prove that James and Joseph are Jesus’ cousins and not his brothers: Mary the wife of Clopas is the sister of the Virgin Mary.

Matt. 27:61, 28:1 – Matthew even refers to Mary the wife of Clopas as “the other Mary.”

Matt. 27:56; Mark 15:47 – Mary the wife of Clopas is the mother of James and Joseph.

Mark 6:3 – James and Joseph are called the “brothers” of Jesus. So James and Joseph are Jesus’ cousins.

Matt. 10:3 – James is also called the son of “Alpheus.” This does not disprove that James is the son of Clopas. The name Alpheus may be Aramaic for Clopas, or James took a Greek name like Saul (Paul), or Mary remarried a man named Alpheus.

People will blindly jump to accept the "later additions" theory with no regard to who these pagan priests might be, or when these "later additions" took place, ignoring the fact that Marian doctrines developed at the same time the canon of scripture developed, and the doctrine of the Trinity.

"Later additions" are accepted but Early Church Fathers, written within 1-3 centuries are not??? This is insane revisionism. Period.

 

[n2thelight]

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.

Isaiah 7:14 King James Version (KJV)
14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

 

[Nomad]

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.

That is not a valid argument in any way, shape or form. How many times does something need to be mentioned in Scripture to be true? The answer is quite clear. Once is sufficient. Any more than that is a bonus.

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.

I noticed you didn't bother to provide any documentation to substantiate your "overwhelming evidence." Care to do so now?

 

[aspen]

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.

Ok.

Let’s say you are right.

The virgin birth is not supported by scripture and was introduced, borrowed from paganism.

This means little to you, based on your post, but it has huge ramifications for Christians who view the Bible literally. If we are going to speak freely about this topic, i think we need to discuss how it may affect our neighbors.

For literalists, taking one part of the Bible and throwing it aside, discounts the entire Bible. The result is often not what modernists hope for - enlightenment! Freedom from fear based religion! Mythbusting equaling freedom to experience God instead of clinging and grasping at the human scaffolding in the scriptures!

Perhaps that happened for you - good for you. The reality is, most people who do not cling harder, throw away their faith. You need to ask yourself if you are willing to attach that millstone. If you do not believe me, look at the countless exfundamentalists across the internet. Not claiming that fundamentalist Christians and Mormons hold similar beliefs, but it is relevant to mention that 80% of exLDS members become athiests when they embrace the deconstruction of their churches’ teachings.

Now, for a modernist who may not believe in enternal punishment, you may think that a person without faith in fairytales is better off. I believe this is shortsighted. Instead, you should ask yourself; will fighting tooth and nail to pantse the literalist help them love perfectly? In my experience it does the opposite. Stripping a person of their spiritual constructs - no matter how ridiculous they may seem to you, is almost a guarantee of promoting bitterness and distrust.

Christianity is the perfecting of loving others, not proving opinion.

 

[Helen]

Excellent @aspen

 

[GodsGrace]

Ok.

Let’s say you are right.

The virgin birth is not supported by scripture and was introduced, borrowed from paganism.

This means little to you, based on your post, but it has huge ramifications for Christians who view the Bible literally. If we are going to speak freely about this topic, i think we need to discuss how it may affect our neighbors.

For literalists, taking one part of the Bible and throwing it aside, discounts the entire Bible. The result is often not what modernists hope for - enlightenment! Freedom from fear based religion! Mythbusting equaling freedom to experience God instead of clinging and grasping at the human scaffolding in the scriptures!

Perhaps that happened for you - good for you. The reality is, most people who do not cling harder, throw away their faith. You need to ask yourself if you are willing to attach that millstone. If you do not believe me, look at the countless exfundamentalists across the internet. Not claiming that fundamentalist Christians and Mormons hold similar beliefs, but it is relevant to mention that 80% of exLDS members become athiests when they embrace the deconstruction of their churches’ teachings.

Now, for a modernist who may not believe in enternal punishment, you may think that a person without faith in fairytales is better off. I believe this is shortsighted. Instead, you should ask yourself; will fighting tooth and nail to pantse the literalist help them love perfectly? In my experience it does the opposite. Stripping a person of their spiritual constructs - no matter how ridiculous they may seem to you, is almost a guarantee of promoting bitterness and distrust.

Christianity is the perfecting of loving others, not proving opinion.

Great post.

 

[ScottA]

Okay. And......?
So......Do you have it , to share with us ?

The use of virgin birth by God is a demonstration or like the saying by Christ, "The kingdom of heaven is like..." The same is true of His use of the term "Son of Man" as opposed to referring to Himself as the Son of God. In fact, the two together, are like bookends wherein lies salvation.

The "Son of Man" shows the first step of salvation as [even Jesus] being born of the flesh. Then virgin birth shows the last step being born of the spirit of God.

These are the things He preached, also stating, that "the last shall be first, and the first last", meaning that even though He himself was born of a virgin [first] and then lived as the Son of Man [last]...these things would come in the opposite order for us - because - unlike Him who descended first and then ascended, we were first lost then found.

 

[Helen]

Thank you ...I agree, now that you say it...I probably couldn't have put it into words. @ScottA

 

[verzanumi24]

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.

That's flawed reasoning.

 

[epostle1]

Just because something is absent in one verse(s) does not mean it is nonexistent.

 

[Dcopymope]

So, is that your answer to Scott...?
Quote - "What would be God's purpose be behind the Virgin birth? "

It had to be a virgin birth because it was the only way that the sacrifice would be without blemish. This means the sacrifice had to literally be born of God which we know of as "the word made flesh" Jesus Christ, who was God in the beginning. He is the "first born" of God of every creature from the dead giving him preeminence in all things. He is before all things, the creator of all things visible and invisible and it is by him and him alone that all things persist. It is by his blood that we can enter into the holy place. To @evotell and other "believers" denying the virgin birth, let this all sink in. Your very salvation depends on the birth of Jesus being a supernatural one.

(1 Peter 1:18-21) "Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; {19} But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: {20} Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you, {21} Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God."

(Hebrews 10:16-22) "This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; {17} And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. {18} Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin. {19} Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, {20} By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh; {21} And having an high priest over the house of God; {22} Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water."

(Hebrews 9:11-14) "But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; {12} Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. {13} For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: {14} How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?"

 

[jaybird]

the only issue i have ever had with the virgin birth is it makes Jesus not one of us and if He is not one of us how can He be the perfect example.