Why was a “virgin birth” necessary?

[Jordan St. Francis]

I am not saying that Joseph had anything to do with it. I'm not contesting that point. Rather, I am taking issue with your statement that:

He was already a fetus developed by the Holy Spirit, and that fetus was " Placed into" Marys womb. Much simular to a " Test tube baby", which came from another source but was placed into an incubator, and the carrier gave birth to it. It was already alive, but just needed a Womb to grow in.

The question is, do you think Mary made any physical contribution to Jesus?

 

[mickiel]

I am not saying that Joseph had anything to do with it. I'm not contesting that point. Rather, I am taking issue with your statement that:



The question is, do you think Mary made any physical contribution to Jesus?

Well yes she did, her womb. Without a poloroid camera,one can only speculate on what other " Physical contributions she made." Did he look like her, I don't know? Its within possdibility, but he didNOT look like a white man, he was middle eastern, which many cannot accept. Perhaps dark skinned, but not for sure, because they run the gamet of colors in humanity even unto this day. She made a physical contribution, but I think she was a good choice from God. A good mother for this incredible event.

Peace.

 

[Jordan St. Francis]

Ok. I really mean in the sense that Jesus shared Mary's DNA. That she was not a mere "incubator", but that Jesus was "flesh of her flesh".

 

[S-word]

You were doing well with the whole "betulah" and "almah" thing... but it doesn't seem to have occurred to you that the child Isaiah spoken of was born more than 700 years before Jesus... because the sign was for someone 700 years before Jesus... and that the prophecy in Isaiah had nothing whatsoever to do with Jesus.

I'll go along with that, my argument was that the Hebrew term 'Almah," which according to Youngs Analytical Concordance to the Bible, means "Concealment...unmarried female" can in no way be translated as "Virgin" and If the christians attempt to use that prophecy to verify their false and rediculous teaching of a virgin birth, then they're up the proverbial creek without a paddle.

But when you come to understand the prophesies, you will realise that in many cases they have a double time frame to them, the time around the the life of the prophet, which proves to the people that he was a man of God and not a false prophet and the future period, way beyond the life fo the prophet and people of the day when it was proclaimed.

 

[raybo]

Wow, this is getting good.

logician,

You wrote, "...there is simply no reason a virgin birth was necessary."

Assuming this was a valid conclusion and not an attempt to stir the water, this one would like to ask, "Was it your methodology of thinking that had come to reason, that if divine is divine... all things are possible. If so, and remaining in this, why then the virgin?"

This thinking of course would not be inclusive to you, if this was the premise of your post; but here's another look at the same issue. If creation is to be considered for analysis, and creator is all powerful, all seeing... Would the dynamics of the manifestation be controlled or true to itself?

Further and most important, would such depth of reason (All Knowing) be beyond contradiction?

With this, let me ask you to consider, "As mankind breached the protocols and conveyance for holy union and relationship... with creator; this had to have been known by creator. Since man was not all knowing... something was gonna give. As this plays out and it is hoped, and as it was known, that in order for mankind to acquire insight in this, he will need to have a hand (a divine hand) to get it right.

Questions: Wouldn't the protocol to reestablish that divine relationship require the same opposite measure that would not oppose the division or break-up in the first place. Further, any and all reconciliation would require an acceptance or righteousness, so as not to impose or contradict the reasons for the initial breach. Then, the will to choose for both parties to reconcile would need to be established. Yet, all of this must happen before mankind became all knowing, and understanding of the consequences.

logician,

There is a claim that you are atheist on your title. In most cases i have found that is good. Better to know this or that, than to think you are somehow all knowing about all things. That is to say "belief" in what cannot be fathomed is not much of a belief or truth. Most all relying on a thing called faith! For the atheist, a faith that "it" cannot be figured out. For the seeker a faith that "it" can. One faith not weighing over the other... at least for a time.

With these considerations: I believe, in my unknowing, that there is a high probability that there was a reason for a virgin birth. "To stay consistent with everything else given." One might even think, not so much perhaps for mankind, but a necessity for the divine to get it done rightfully, while the rest of creation watches.

What that full reason is, who knows... perhaps that will be shared here. Good question!!

Now... what's taking so long??? That is where mankind can take credit. :sarcastic

If you were to believe in such things.

 

[S-word]

Wrong again.

Jesus was crucified at Golgotha, OUTSIDE OF JERUSALEM.

Isaac was brought up by Abraham on Mt. Moriah, at the exact place where the altar was in the Holy Temple IN JERUSALEM.

Yeh, righto mate, who bin teachin you. Golgotha is at the summit of the northern end of the long backed mountain of Moriah, check it out.

 

[Anti-thesisofreason]

Mithras was not born of a virgin. He was made fully formed from the side of a rock.

My bad you are correct.

 

[mickiel]

Ok. I really mean in the sense that Jesus shared Mary's DNA. That she was not a mere "incubator", but that Jesus was "flesh of her flesh".

Well I think its correct to say he was flesh of her flesh. And yes I agree she was not just a mere " Carrier", perhaps I went too far in that, God choose her to give birth AND raise Jesus up through his adolesence years. So she was a mother who was picked because of her characther also, not just her body. But keep note of the things I said anyhow.

Peace.

 

[S-word]

Originally Posted by S-word

You are of course refering here to the stepfather of Jesus whose genealogy is recorded in Matthew, and he is Joseph the son of Jacob of the tribe of Judah, having descended through Solomon.

He, who was the father of Marys second born child 'Joseph' of whom we know so little, did not have any sexual relations with Mary until after she had given birth to the first of her three biological sons, I believe that everyone knows that this Joseph is not the biological father of Jesus.

The Joseph that I am refering to is the Joseph that is mentioned in the genealogy of Jesus, the one who is the biological father of Jesus and the half brother to Mary the daughter of Heli who is a Levite and is descended through Nathan the priest who was the half brother to Solomon and stepson and son-in-law of King David.

Nathan, was the biological son of Uriah the Hittite who had married into the tribe of Levi, having married Bathsheba the daughter of Ammiel the son of Obed-Edom who was a descendant of Moses the Levite through his second wife who was the daughter of Hobab the second father-in-law to Moses whose grandson Jonathan, was taken to the land of the North by the Danites: of whom none are mentioned among the 144000 chosen ones who are chosen from the 12 tribes named after 12 of the 13 children of Jacob.

This Joseph, who was a Levite from Cyprus, apparently met Mary while she was visiting their cousin Elizabeth, where many members of the family had gathered to rejoice with the old woman. It is there that Mary who, until then had been a virgin, was to fall pregnant, which conception was concealed beneath the wings of the Lord of spirits which had overshadowed the righteous act in obedience to the Holy Spirit. It is very unlikely that Mary knew at that time that this Joseph had been sired by her father. From Young's Analytical Concordance to the bible, "Almah":...Concealment...unmarried female.

This Joseph who was the half brother to Mary who had adopted John whom Jesus had surnamed 'Son of Thunder, took his sister and John who was surnamed "Mark" which means "Hammer" up north into the land of Pamphillia, where in the town of Ephesus, the grave sites of Mary and John can still be visited today.

I have no idea what you're talking about. None of this is either explicit, nor implicit in scripture. Have you been watching too many Jim Carey movies?

No mate, I haven’t been watching too many Jim Carey movies, I believe that the reason you’re so ignorant to the truth in God’s word and find it so hard to understand it, is because you have been reading too many fairytale stories told by the deceptive disciples of the Anti-Christ, who refused to acknowledge that Jesus came as a human being, which deceivers, John had warned were in the world already in his day, the deceivers who introduced the fantasy story of a virgin birth.

But Jesus, as is revealed in scripture, had been born of the flesh as all are born, then in his life on earth he made his prayers and requests with loud cries and tears to God who could save him from death. It was because he was humble and devoted that God heard him, and even though he was a descendant of Isaac=Israel and therefore A son of God, he learned through sufferings to be obedient to our in dwelling father and saviour. And it was after he had become perfect that our saviour declared him to be high priest in the line of succession to Melchizedek, of course Jesus did not take upon himself the honour of High priest, instead, God made him high priest after he had been brought to perfection with these word, “You Are my Son, Today I have become your Father.

After he had been brought to perfection through suffering, the Lord was then able to use him as an obedient vessel in which he could reveal himself to the world, being assured that his obedient servant would say nor do anything other than that which was commanded by our Father and saviour.

Our Saviour who has raised Jesus from death and is able to raise also, we who are chosen as joint heirs to the man Jesus, who the Lord God has chosen as the cornerstone to his new temple in which He will dwell on earth among mankind instead of within the inner most sanctuary of the body of mankind which is the current temporary Tent in which he now dwells while he awaits the creation of his New glorious Temple of Light.

So let’s look at that which is apparently beyond your ability to comprehend, and perhaps we may be able to shed more light on the truth of those statements and be a little more explicit in order that you may realise that what I have said is due my dedication to God’s word, and has nothing at all to do with Jim Carey Movies. I see that you can’t seem to write without adding your usual spurt of sarcasm, which you will always receive back two fold.

First of all I stated that you were referring to Joseph the son of Jacob from the tribe of Judah, who is a descendant of Solomon through King David and Bathsheba. You were referring to this Joseph whose genealogy is recorded in Matthew and that genealogy has nothing to do with the genealogy of Jesus.

This Joseph, who never knew Mary sexually until after she had birthed her first born son, who, although being the step father of Jesus, could in no way, have been the biological father of Jesus. and as I have stated, everyone, even little children know that this Jesus of whom you were referring to, is not the biological father of Jesus.

Am I right? I’ll await your answer before continuing.

 

[logician]

logician,

You wrote, "...there is simply no reason a virgin birth was necessary."

Assuming this was a valid conclusion and not an attempt to stir the water, this one would like to ask, "Was it your methodology of thinking that had come to reason, that if divine is divine... all things are possible. If so, and remaining in this, why then the virgin?"

This thinking of course would not be inclusive to you, if this was the premise of your post; but here's another look at the same issue. If creation is to be considered for analysis, and creator is all powerful, all seeing... Would the dynamics of the manifestation be controlled or true to itself?

Further and most important, would such depth of reason (All Knowing) be beyond contradiction?

With this, let me ask you to consider, "As mankind breached the protocols and conveyance for holy union and relationship... with creator; this had to have been known by creator. Since man was not all knowing... something was gonna give. As this plays out and it is hoped, and as it was known, that in order for mankind to acquire insight in this, he will need to have a hand (a divine hand) to get it right.

Questions: Wouldn't the protocol to reestablish that divine relationship require the same opposite measure that would not oppose the division or break-up in the first place. Further, any and all reconciliation would require an acceptance or righteousness, so as not to impose or contradict the reasons for the initial breach. Then, the will to choose for both parties to reconcile would need to be established. Yet, all of this must happen before mankind became all knowing, and understanding of the consequences.

logician,

There is a claim that you are atheist on your title. In most cases i have found that is good. Better to know this or that, than to think you are somehow all knowing about all things. That is to say "belief" in what cannot be fathomed is not much of a belief or truth. Most all relying on a thing called faith! For the atheist, a faith that "it" cannot be figured out. For the seeker a faith that "it" can. One faith not weighing over the other... at least for a time.

With these considerations: I believe, in my unknowing, that there is a high probability that there was a reason for a virgin birth. "To stay consistent with everything else given." One might even think, not so much perhaps for mankind, but a necessity for the divine to get it done rightfully, while the rest of creation watches.

What that full reason is, who knows... perhaps that will be shared here. Good question!!

Now... what's taking so long??? That is where mankind can take credit. :sarcastic

If you were to believe in such things.

I really don't see a point in this post.

 

[logician]

Mithras was not born of a virgin. He was made fully formed from the side of a rock.

I'd say the two events were about equally likely.

 

[Jordan St. Francis]

I'd say the two events were about equally likely.

That's fine, but there is a good deal of literature promoting supposed similarities between the Christ story and other ancient myths- some of which have a basis and others which are very stretched or outright fabrications. It's important when we speak of a "crucified Osiris or Krishna" or the "Virgin-birth of Mithras" that we refrain from deliberately wording these myths in Christian language, which is misleading. Let these myths speak on their own terms.

 

[tigrers99]

I'll go along with that, my argument was that the Hebrew term 'Almah," which according to Youngs Analytical Concordance to the Bible, means "Concealment...unmarried female" can in no way be translated as "Virgin" and If the christians attempt to use that prophecy to verify their false and rediculous teaching of a virgin birth, then they're up the proverbial creek without a paddle.

But when you come to understand the prophesies, you will realise that in many cases they have a double time frame to them, the time around the the life of the prophet, which proves to the people that he was a man of God and not a false prophet and the future period, way beyond the life fo the prophet and people of the day when it was proclaimed.

It is very, very, interesting that there are 26 words in the Old Testament that are translated into English as the word virgin, but 2 of those words in the Hebrew are different from the other 24. These 2 words almah are virgins that are prophesied:


(Gen.24:12-20
12 Then he prayed, "O LORD, God of my master Abraham, give me success today, and show kindness to my master Abraham. 13 See, I am standing beside this spring, and the daughters of the townspeople are coming out to draw water. 14 May it be that when I say to a girl, 'Please let down your jar that I may have a drink,' and she says, 'Drink, and I'll water your camels too'-let her be the one you have chosen for your servant Isaac. By this I will know that you have shown kindness to my master."
15 Before he had finished praying, Rebekah came out with her jar on her shoulder. She was the daughter of Bethuel son of Milcah, who was the wife of Abraham's brother Nahor. 16 The girl was very beautiful, a virgin; no man had ever lain with her. She went down to the spring, filled her jar and came up again.
17 The servant hurried to meet her and said, "Please give me a little water from your jar."
18 "Drink, my lord," she said, and quickly lowered the jar to her hands and gave him a drink.
19 After she had given him a drink, she said, "I'll draw water for your camels too, until they have finished drinking." 20 So she quickly emptied her jar into the trough, ran back to the well to draw more water, and drew enough for all his camels.


(Isaiah 7:13-14)
13 Then Isaiah said, "Hear now, you house of David! Is it not enough to try the patience of men? Will you try the patience of my God also? 14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.

 

[Poisonshady313]

I'll go along with that, my argument was that the Hebrew term 'Almah," which according to Youngs Analytical Concordance to the Bible, means "Concealment...unmarried female" can in no way be translated as "Virgin" and If the christians attempt to use that prophecy to verify their false and rediculous teaching of a virgin birth, then they're up the proverbial creek without a paddle.

I'm with you there.

But when you come to understand the prophesies, you will realise that in many cases they have a double time frame to them, the time around the the life of the prophet, which proves to the people that he was a man of God and not a false prophet and the future period, way beyond the life fo the prophet and people of the day when it was proclaimed.

I'm not so sure about that. I believe that prophecies that were made for a given time were meant for that given time, whether it was specifically long ago, or for some indeterminate time in the future... the events have to match the prophecy. There's no way for Isaiah 7:14 to occur at any any time after the time is was meant for, 700+ years before the time of Jesus. It wouldn't make sense... you'd have to ignore and leave out many details... that would make it meaningless.

 

[S-word]

I'm with you there.

I'm not so sure about that. I believe that prophecies that were made for a given time were meant for that given time, whether it was specifically long ago, or for some indeterminate time in the future... the events have to match the prophecy. There's no way for Isaiah 7:14 to occur at any any time after the time is was meant for, 700+ years before the time of Jesus. It wouldn't make sense... you'd have to ignore and leave out many details... that would make it meaningless.

Wooh back there matey, I can give a list of as yet unfulfilled prophesies that could not be contained in one post.

Malachi 4: 1 and 5; The Lord Almighty says, "The day is coming when all proud and evil people evil burn like straw.On that day they will burn up and there will be nothing left of them_______But before the great and terrible day of the Lord arrives, I will send to you the prophet Elijah etc.

This is one of but many, many prophesies still waiting to be fulfilled, or are you suggesting that this has already occured?

Malachi 3: 1-2; The Lord Almighty says, I will send my messenger to prepare the way for me. Then the Lord you are looking for will suddenly come to his Temple. The messenger you long to see will come and proclaim my covenant."
But who will be able to endure the day when he comes? Who will be able to survive when he appears.

Surely you do not believe that this prophecy was fulfilled with John the Baptist, or do you?

 

[mickiel]

The virgin birth was required only to keep Jesus body from being intwined with any kind of the residue of sin. Its just that simple. I know others will try to complicate this, but its just that simple. Jesus was human, but he was NOT a normal human. In case this is not simple, then simply produce to me ANY other human who has lived with God as a Spirit being, then was reduced to an embyronic cell by the Holy Spirit, then placed, already constructed, within a human womb.

This has NEVER happen before, will NEVER happen again. Jesus was NOT a normal human. Therefore the circumstances of his birth were not normal. His conception was not normal. What Mary had in her womb was not a normal fetus.

So God had to prepare a " Certain vehicle" for Jesus entrance into humanity, and virginity was chosen, which suggest to me a " Neccessity."

Peace.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The virgin birth was required only to keep Jesus body from being intwined with any kind of the residue of sin. ... This has NEVER happen before, will NEVER happen again.

You forgot about Filbert. :yes:

 

[S-word]

It is very, very, interesting that there are 26 words in the Old Testament that are translated into English as the word virgin, but 2 of those words in the Hebrew are different from the other 24. These 2 words almah are virgins that are prophesied:

(Gen.24:12-20
12 Then he prayed, "O LORD, God of my master Abraham, give me success today, and show kindness to my master Abraham. 13 See, I am standing beside this spring, and the daughters of the townspeople are coming out to draw water. 14 May it be that when I say to a girl, 'Please let down your jar that I may have a drink,' and she says, 'Drink, and I'll water your camels too'-let her be the one you have chosen for your servant Isaac. By this I will know that you have shown kindness to my master."
15 Before he had finished praying, Rebekah came out with her jar on her shoulder. She was the daughter of Bethuel son of Milcah, who was the wife of Abraham's brother Nahor. 16 The girl was very beautiful, a virgin; no man had ever lain with her. She went down to the spring, filled her jar and came up again.
17 The servant hurried to meet her and said, "Please give me a little water from your jar."
18 "Drink, my lord," she said, and quickly lowered the jar to her hands and gave him a drink.
19 After she had given him a drink, she said, "I'll draw water for your camels too, until they have finished drinking." 20 So she quickly emptied her jar into the trough, ran back to the well to draw more water, and drew enough for all his camels.

S-word...The Hebrew word used here in verse 16, in reference to Rebecca, Is the Particular Hebrew term for "Virgin," which is "Bethulah".


(Isaiah 7:13-14)
13 Then Isaiah said, "Hear now, you house of David! Is it not enough to try the patience of men? Will you try the patience of my God also? 14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.

S-word... The Hebrew word "Almah" which means "Concealment: unmarried female,
used here in Isaiah 7: 13-14;, has been erroneousely translated in the older English translations as "Virgin".

Go back and read my post 112 in this thread and you will find that this has been covered. In genesis 24: 16; in reference to Rebecca, "Bethulah," the Hebrew word for "virgin" is used.

In Genesis 24: 42-43; when the servant of Abraham is recounting his story to the household of Laban, before sitting down to the meal that had been prepared, he says, "When I came to the well today, I prayed, 'Lord God of Abraham, please give me success in my mission. here I am at the well. When a young woman comes out to get water etc." See the 'Bible Sociaty's Chain Reference Bible,' 'The New English Bible,' and other more modern translations and you will find that in genesis 24: 43, they have all translated the Hebrew word "Almah,' correctly as "Young Woman," which is erroneousely translated in older English translations as "Virgin".

Here, in verse 43, the servant is not referring to Rebecca, he has not even met the young virgin, nor does he know at that time whether a girl by the name "Rebecca" even exists, and here "Almah," the Hebrew word for "unmarried female" is used.

Like I have said previously, in every instance if the Old Testament where the Word "Almah" is used, it is referring to an unmarried woman, where ever Isaiah refers to a "VIrgin," he uses the particular Hebrew term "Bethulah,' which he does not use in his famous prophecy, "A young unmarried female will conceive and bear a son etc."

If it was the Lord's intention to convey the message that a "Virgin" would conceive, he would have had Isaiah use the Hebrew word "Bethulah," which he did not: The Lord is not as dumb as you people think he is, he knew exactly what he wanted his prophet to say.

 

[raybo]

I really don't see a point in this post.

Seems clear enough!

With these considerations: I believe, in my unknowing, that there is a high probability that there was a reason for a virgin birth. "To stay consistent with everything else given." One might even think, not so much perhaps for mankind, but a necessity for the divine to get it done rightfully, while the rest of creation watches.

logician,

One would think a logician is familiar with consistency. Even as human nature shows itself to be nothing much better that chaos... to find any measures of consistency in it... should not be overlooked.

Have we not done so by asking the question in the first place? Alas! In the chaos this is one measure of consistency that is found.

 

[S-word]

By definition, the descendant of a priest cannot be the Messiah. So either Jesus isn't the Messiah, or you have to figure out something else.

S-word...You don't pay attention to what I have said Do you?

Read any of my posts and you will find that nowhere have I ever said that Jesus was the Messiah: the obedient servant that our saviour promised Moses that sometime in the future he would raise up from among the Israelites; an Israelite who would do and say only that which our saviour would command him, in order that our indwelling saviour might reveal himself and the great sacrifice that he would Pay for the sins of mankind.

1Timothy 1:1, From Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by order of God our Saviour=Messiah, and Christ Jesus our hope. Acts 3:13; "The God Of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Who is our saviour), has given divine glory to his servant Jesus."
Acts 17: 31; "For He (God our saviour) has fixed a day in which he will judge the whole world with Justice by means of a man He has chosen. He has given proof of this to everyone by raising that man from death." No mate, I know that our saviour is Enoch who at the age of 365 was taken by God, See Genesis 5: 23, and who has never experienced death ,See Hebrews 11: 5: The only exception of all mankind to have ascended to the throne of Godhead, see John 3: 13.

Melchizedek is the high priest and King of Salem.

Hebrew 5: 4-10; "It is only by God's call that a man is made a high prioest----as Aaron was". Jesus did not take upon himself the honour of being high priest, but after he had been brought to perfection through his sufferings God (Our saviour) declared him to be high priest in the line of succession to Melchizedek with these words, "You are my son, today I have become you Father."

quote=Poisonshady313...I'm sure you'll try to figure out something else... I'm also sure Jesus isn't the messiah.

S-word... I have no need to figure out anything else, as I have always proclaimed that Jesus was but the obedient servant of our Lord and saviour, His earthly image through whom the Lord who sits in the throne of Godhead within the creation, revealed himself to the world.

And when our saviour, who, like David, the King of blood, comes to fight for his people as he has fought in times Past, they will look to him and see the one whom they had peiced, and he will defeat the enemies that surround his holy city of Jerusalem and bring into subjection to his chosen heir, all the nations of the world, and they will bow to His chosen heir who will rule in peace for one thousand years.

quote=Poisonshady313....This thread isn't debating that.....

to answer the question, Why was a virgin birth necessary? In purely religious terms, it wasn't, and it never happened.

It was necessary for Christianity to figure out how to justify calling Jesus the messiah when his recorded family history proves he could never be, or even hope to be the messiah.... especially after distorting Jewish scripture to make it fit a virgin birth that was unnecessary to begin with.

The notion that we are all held accountable for Adam's sin is NOT found in the Torah. It was invented by Christianity. The notion that a virgin must give birth is NOT found in the prophets. It was invented by Christianity.

Ever since entering this forum in August of 2008, I have always claimed that Jesus was the biological son of Heli's two children Mary and her half brother Joseph who are the descendants of Nathan the half brother of Solomon, who were both born of bathsheba, but to differnt Fathers. The biological Parents of Jesus as recorded in Luke 3: 23, Mary and her half brother Joseph the children of Heli the Levite, Like Abraham and Sarah, the biological Parents of Isaac who like Jesus was born of God's promise, according to the efforts of the Holy Spirit, were both sired by the one father 'Terah' to different mothers. And by the way, Isaac and Jesus were offered up as a sacrifice by their Fathers on the same mountain of Moriah, which you have disputed.

Before you attempt to attack my posts again, first read what I have said in relation to the subject that is being debated.