Explaining The Virgin Birth?

[Subduction Zone]

Of course, knowing that you are approaching it as a non-theistic person, that would be your viewpoint.

But, yes, it was about following God since He said "Don't eat of that tree".

You are wrong when you intimate that I said they were "spiritual". I said they had a "spiritual representation".

They had every tree to eat as well as the Tree of Life but there was one that was designated as "I gave you everything now I ask that you honor me by following my direction. Let me be the Lord of your life" (Theological interpretation)

They decided to go a different route and not follow God.

I don't see any spinning, but I understand that you are trying to view what I am saying with the paradigm of a non-theistic viewpoint. (Which you have every right to do)

Wrong, even a Christian should approach it in a similar manner. One should not be ready to lie for one's beliefs if they are wrong. Spin is not a proper debating technique. And being blind to it may be even worse. It means that one cannot honestly discuss one's beliefs.

So let's just discuss the story, and try to avoid spin.

 

[Kenny]

Wrong, even a Christian should approach it in a similar manner. One should not be ready to lie for one's beliefs if they are wrong. Spin is not a proper debating technique. And being blind to it may be even worse. It means that one cannot honestly discuss one's beliefs.

So let's just discuss the story, and try to avoid spin.

You haven't provided any proof of spin. I can only relegate your position to the paradigm that you base your religion on.

 

[rational experiences]

Trees are known to be spirit originally above the ground floating. They were sacrificed and grounded in God stone. Owning roots as proven patterning to their charged grounding.

Science male theist life historic.supported by the life of wood said to lying theist self. Do not copy this his story. Or else you will be sacrificed.

Males in science pose theory and also answers. Science argues against its own evil human choices. Always has. Science told storyteller theist. Do not do it consciously. Want and personal choice argued and did it anyway

Moral story. Do not be consciously immoral to self. We got lightning struck massive attack destroyed.

Science today. Stone machine mass equals do much radiation. I will copy natural. Natural owns balances of lightning charge. He puts a lot of new radiation chemical transmitters increases gas mass cold removal into burning. Ground water evaporates compensate s for event. Lightning X experiment. Not a machine. Lots more lightning.

Science self quotes. I caused it. Yes. But atmosphere owns the cause.

Atmosphere he says a non physical reaction like inside machine.

No says consciousness. Space is oblivion it is not a machine .

The machine does not own space. Not does the atmosphere. It sits within a space supported by all space. Your own human teaching advice.

The womb space supports a holy life.

Did the mother in science ask for the spirit of life to be sacrificed?

No says the science male. His human science brothers did. Just as stated.

As life was super fried before in a false claim I am allowed. Or I own. No human owns natural history of God.

No man is God. We are just the storyteller. Self advice never historically heeded. If you increase a natural cause. The conscious conclusion is called a self confession. Why sion is in the word to confess.

Wood sacrificed the life. Science tried to ground our spirit like a tree.

It is why Stonehenge blew up trying to ground out the massive ancient electrical lightning attacks in England. Why they said it was the next Jesus life sacrificed historic incident. Built for that purpose.

Ever wonder why the holy wars toppled the science temples?

Science quoted in AI. We built the Jesus attack. The science however was temple pyramid stone conversion into gold. Anu clear being nuclear reaction using underground tunnel system that also blew up collapsed and polluted ground water in system.

You always knew what you did. The Bible was the science confession.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You haven't provided any proof of spin. I can only relegate your position to the paradigm that you base your religion on.

What "proof" is needed. You made a claim that you did not properly support. I pointed out the obvious spin. The Bible does not say what you said that it does.

 

[Kenny]

What "proof" is needed. You made a claim that you did not properly support. I pointed out the obvious spin. The Bible does not say what you said that it does.

You haven't proven that I didn't properly support. You have to be a little better at establishing your points and ask better questions.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You haven't proven that I didn't properly support. You have to be a little better at establishing your points and ask better questions.

Not really. Let's try again.

 

[Kenny]

Not really. Let's try again.

go for it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

go for it.

Can you promise not to spin? Let's deal with the myth as written in the Bible.

 

[YoursTrue]

Christmas is approaching and this made me think about the virgin birth, in Christianity…

So according to scripture, Jesus was conceived by The Holy Spirit - who impregnated his mother, Mary

It did so without engaging in sexual intercourse, so although she was impregnated she remained a virgin

Some issues come to mind that perhaps we could debate and/or discuss:

1. Can this be explained, or must it remain a mystery?
2. Did Jesus exist before his mother was impregnated?
3. How can a human egg be fertilised without sperm?
4. Where did the 50% of Jesus’s DNA that was not from his mother come from, if no sperm were involved?
5. If no sperm was involved wouldn’t that mean that Jesus wasn’t actually conceived?

What I think must have happened is that the Holy Spirit made a zygote materialise in Mary’s womb, which then attached itself to her and turned into the embryonic Jesus

Actually, as I understand it, the holy spirit is not the third person of a trinity.
Mary being impregnated by the holy spirit, is not referring to the third person of God..
In order to understand what the Bible says about God’s holy spirit, it is necessary to see the meaning of the Hebrew and Greek words translated as 'spirit.' Two words, one Hebrew (ruach) and the other Greek (pneuma) are translated as spirit. Both have the meaning of “breath,” or “wind,” and are translated in various ways. For instance, the word “pneumatic” comes from 'pneuma,' such as a pneumatic tire, which means it is a tire full of wind.
Luke 11:13 says, "Therefore, if you, although being wicked, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more so will the Father in heaven give holy spirit to those asking him!” A Greek dictionary shows that is from the word 'pneuma,' and it is clear that there the word is in reference to the 'spirit,' or characteristic motivating a person.
There are others, but we can discuss more perhaps in the future.
You make a good point that God's holy spirit, or active force (unseen) changed Mary's physiological makeup to produce a child without sexual intercourse.

 

[Miken]

My take on the matter of the virgin birth is that Matthew intentionally used the Greek parthenos instead of the Hebrew almah not because it was already considered a messianic prophecy (it was not) but because it served as part of his effort to solve a problem. The problem was that Paul’s pre-existing divine Christ would sound like polytheism to Matthew’s Jewish Christian community.

Paul had described Christ as the Son of God in the same sense as Philo of Alexandria had used the term, as a pre-existent divine entity serving as mediator between God and the world. Philippians 2 carries the strong sense of Philo’s concept and Colossians 1 is even plainer in describing Christ as the agent whereby the world was created. Philo was himself a Jew and naturally a monotheist. Because of this he jumped through philosophical hoops to transform the Platonic demiurge concept he wanted to import into a ‘not another god’. But to an ordinary Jew, this would be polytheism, the ultimate sin. We might mention at this time that when Paul was speaking to a community partly consisting of Jewish Christians (in Romans) he does not have Jesus become the Son of God until the resurrection, avoiding the issue.

Matthew 1 begins with an elaborate genealogy for Joseph, beginning with Abraham, the first Jew, and virtually avalanching down through David, the ‘got to have’ messianic ancestor and through the line of kings, an important notion for Matthew, and up to Joseph himself. Then Matthew tells us that Jesus is conceived in a virgin by the Holy Spirit. That virgin is betrothed to Joseph but nonetheless Joseph is not the biological father. What good then is that genealogy?

I see Matthew pulling off two tricks here. One is that Jesus seems to come into existence at the point of conception, not coming from heaven but a new being. The polytheism aspect is ameliorated. Jesus is literally the Son of God, an already well-established idea, but not literally divine.

The second trick is more subtle. Paul used Philo to make Jesus divine. Matthew uses Philo to make Jesus human, although a very special human. In Philo’s The Cherubim, the idea is discussed of God inspiring pregnancies in mortal women as mentioned in the scriptures, at least according to the exegeses of Philo. He even points to an instance of no human agency being involved. And the most worthy recipient of God’s favors, although not in the human manner, would be a virgin. But the clincher is that, since God needs nothing (a big point in Philo’s thinking), the child would truly and legitimately belong to the nominal father.

Here is what Philo says in The Cherubim

XIII 45 …For he introduces Sarah as conceiving a son when God beheld her by himself; but he represents her as bringing forth her son, not to him who beheld her then, but to him who was eager to attain to wisdom, and his name is called Abraham.

46 And she having conceived, brought forth, not to God, for he alone is sufficient and all-abundant for himself, but to him who underwent labour for the sake of that which is good, namely, for Jacob; so that in this instance virtue received the divine seed from the great Cause of all things, but brought forth her offspring to one of her lovers, who deserved to be preferred to all her other Suitors.

47 Again, when the all-wise Isaac addressed his supplications to God, Rebecca, who is perseverance, became pregnant by the agency of him who received the supplication; but Moses, who received Zipporah, that is to say, winged and sublime virtue, without any supplication or entreaty on his part, found that she conceived by no mortal man.

49 … Sowing for the race of mankind the seed of happiness in good and virgin soil. For it is fitting for God to converse with an unpolluted and untouched and pure nature, in truth and reality virgin, in a different manner from that in which we converse with such.

Jesus is therefore truly and legitimately a ‘Son of David’ – a phrase used often by Matthew – and therefore eligible to be the Jewish Messiah. At the same time, Jesus is the literal Son of God and very special, yet not in the Pauline sense with its intimations of polytheism.

This is why Matthew chose to use the Greek parthenos instead of the Hebrew almah. Not a mistake, not a mistranslation. Intentional and purposeful.

The ironic aspect here is that although it is Matthew’s account that first led to the idea of Mary as the Mother of God, it is not an idea that Matthew would have agreed with.

 

[Brian2]

Tribal lineage is patrilineal.
Where does the NT explicate Mary's lineage?

The New Testament says that Joseph is not the biological father of Jesus. The New Testament also says that Jesus descended from David. This means either the genealogy in Matthew or in Luke is probably that of Mary.
The preferred one is Luke. I can't remember exactly why.
Jesus was legally the son of Joseph, so I guess that means that Jesus was legally from the tribe of Judah.
Jesus would be considered legally a Jew because of Mary. Which tribe would the Jews say Jesus was in assuming God is His Father?

 

[Brian2]

But we know that story is a myth. Supporting a story with a myth implies that that story is a myth as well.

Because you think the story is a myth does not mean that it is and does not mean that "we know" it is a myth.
Even apart from that, myths carry messages even if may not be true.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Because you think the story is a myth does not mean that it is and does not mean that "we know" it is a myth.
Even apart from that, myths carry messages even if may not be true.

It appears that you are saying that others may not be well educated. That may be the case. I am sometimes quite surprised about how little some people know about the world that we live in. I am hoping that you know that there were never only two people.

 

[Brian2]

It appears that you are saying that others may not be well educated. That may be the case. I am sometimes quite surprised about how little some people know about the world that we live in. I am hoping that you know that there were never only two people.

None of us actually know that. That's called a belief.
Even if I say that the body of humans could have evolved along with the body of apes or dolphins, that does not mean that there never were just 2 humans.
With one evolved body, God could have changed it slightly (or not) and then created man by breathing a spirit into the body. Then God could have done exactly what the story says, and put Adam to sleep and taken a rib and formed Eve.

 

[Kenny]

Can you promise not to spin? Let's deal with the myth as written in the Bible.

WOOOOOAAA there Betsy.

Where is your support that it is a Myth?

And I will be a no spin zone.

 

[Kenny]

Wrong, even a Christian should approach it in a similar manner. One should not be ready to lie for one's beliefs if they are wrong. Spin is not a proper debating technique. And being blind to it may be even worse. It means that one cannot honestly discuss one's beliefs.

So let's just discuss the story, and try to avoid spin.

A lot of unsubstantiated statements that seem to have a spin. (if we are going to honestly discuss and not put any spin to it.

1) Intimating that one lies for ones belief without proof
2) that there was a spin in the first place (since no proof was ever offered)
3) Insinuating that one is blind when it just might be you that is blind
4) Suggesting that one cannot honestly discuss one's belief (when the potential is that it is you that is not honestly discussing)

So... let's not put spin and innuendos and just support each position we take or statement we make.

Deal?

 

[Subduction Zone]

None of us actually know that. That's called a belief.
Even if I say that the body of humans could have evolved along with the body of apes or dolphins, that does not mean that there never were just 2 humans.
With one evolved body, God could have changed it slightly (or not) and then created man by breathing a spirit into the body. Then God could have done exactly what the story says, and put Adam to sleep and taken a rib and formed Eve.

This is what is called projection on your part. You may not know. But I do understand the basics of science. That is all that it takes to see that there are mountains of scientific evidence for the theory of evolution and none for creationism. The Garden of Eden myth has to be reinterpreted to an extreme to even consider it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

A lot of unsubstantiated statements that seem to have a spin. (if we are going to honestly discuss and not put any spin to it.

1) Intimating that one lies for ones belief without proof
2) that there was a spin in the first place (since no proof was ever offered)
3) Insinuating that one is blind when it just might be you that is blind
4) Suggesting that one cannot honestly discuss one's belief (when the potential is that it is you that is not honestly discussing)

So... let's not put spin and innuendos and just support each position we take or statement we make.

Deal?

Let's just deal with what the myth says in the Bible. If it does not say "spiritual" then do not use that term. That was spin.

 

[Kenny]

Let's just deal with what the myth says in the Bible. If it does not say "spiritual" then do not use that term. That was spin.

1) You haven't established that it is a myth.

2) I'm sorry... that isn't a spin.

The book in and of itself is spiritual as: 2 Tim. 3:All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,

God is a spirit, and Jesus said John 6:63 The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

So they are spiritual words with spiritual implications given by a Spiritual God. To say that it isn't spiritual would be to deny its origin (which you have every right to do so if you choose)

It is understood that the Tree of Life has a spiritual application as it was said:

"the tree of life also in the midst of the garden;
set there as in the most excellent place, where it might be most conspicuous, and to be come at; for before Adam sinned, as there was no prohibition of his eating of it, so there was no obstruction to it; and as he had a grant to eat of it, with the other trees, it was designed for his use, to support and maintain his natural life, which would have been continued, had he persisted in his obedience and state of innocence, and very probably by means of this chiefly: hence the son of Sirach calls it the tree of immortality,

``The knowledge of the commandments of the Lord is the doctrine of life: and they that do things that please him shall receive the fruit of the tree of immortality.'' (Sirach 19:19)" John Gill

Again... also mentioned:
Rev 2: 7 Whoever has ears, let them hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To the one who is victorious, I will give the right to eat from the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God.

a spiritual application.

So, as you can tell, no spin, supported by scripture by which I subscribe to.

 

[Subduction Zone]

1) You haven't established that it is a myth.

Not in this thread but in others. Of course to understand one must at least learn the basics of science and evidence. Creationists tend to refuse to do so. There is no need to reinvent the wheel 50 times over. If you want to discuss this in a creationism thread I would be glad to do so. But the first thing to do would be to learn the scientific method and the concept of scientific evidence.

2) I'm sorry... that isn't a spin.

The book in and of itself is spiritual as: 2 Tim. 3:All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,

God is a spirit, and Jesus said John 6:63 The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

So they are spiritual words with spiritual implications given by a Spiritual God. To say that it isn't spiritual would be to deny its origin (which you have every right to do so if you choose)

It is understood that the Tree of Life has a spiritual application as it was said:

"the tree of life also in the midst of the garden;
set there as in the most excellent place, where it might be most conspicuous, and to be come at; for before Adam sinned, as there was no prohibition of his eating of it, so there was no obstruction to it; and as he had a grant to eat of it, with the other trees, it was designed for his use, to support and maintain his natural life, which would have been continued, had he persisted in his obedience and state of innocence, and very probably by means of this chiefly: hence the son of Sirach calls it the tree of immortality,

``The knowledge of the commandments of the Lord is the doctrine of life: and they that do things that please him shall receive the fruit of the tree of immortality.'' (Sirach 19:19)" John Gill

Again... also mentioned:
Rev 2: 7 Whoever has ears, let them hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To the one who is victorious, I will give the right to eat from the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God.

a spiritual application.

So, as you can tell, no spin, supported by scripture by which I subscribe to.

And you are back to spinning. Pretty desperately too since you had to rely on a book of the apocrypha.