Why was a “virgin birth” necessary?

[S-word]

Quote...raybo...As for "The Virgin" statement

There was no virgin statement in the bible. Isaiah said that an unmarried woman would conceive. Matthew, in translating the words of that prophecy used the Greek word “Parthentos,” which carries the basic meaning of Girl and denotes ‘Virgin’ only by implication.

And as Matthew was translating the words of the Lord recorded by Isaiah, that an unmarried woman would conceive Etc, he was in no way implying that Mary was a virgin at the time that she conceived. A few minute before, she was, but not at the time she conceived.

The first time that the word ‘Virgin” was used in reference to the birth of Jesus was when the Greek was translated into Latin in the Fourth century A.D, which erroneous translation carried on into the English translations of today.

The Joseph who is the biological father of Jesus is not the Joseph, whose genealogy is recorded in Matthew. This Joseph who is the step-father of Jesus, did not consummate his union with the unmarried Mary until after she had birthed the first of her three biological sons. This Joseph is the son of Jacob, who is descended through the genetic line of Solomon the only surviving son sired by King David to Bathsheba, who had previousely birthed three sons to her Husband Uriah, who were Shimea, Shobab, Nathan, before Solomon her youngest son, who David sired in consoling Bathsheba at the loss of their first son..

Just as Isaac, who, like Jesus was born of God’s promise according to the working of the Holy Spirit, and who, like Jesus, was offered up as a sacrifice by His Father on the same mountain upon which Jesus was crucified; he, Like Jesus, was born of a brother and sister relationship, as Abraham and Sarah, the biological parents of isaac, were both sired by the one father (Terah), but born of different Mothers.

And so it was with the biological parents of Jesus, Mary and her half brother Joseph, were the children sired by Heli the Levite who is descended through the genetic line of Nathan the son of Bathsheba and Uriah, who had married into the tribe of Levi, as Bathsheba was the daughter of Ammiel the son of Obed-Edom a descendant of Moses the Levite through his second wife who was the daughter of Hobab the Kennite. She was the Mother of the 40 year old Caleb the Son of Jeppuniah at the time of her union with the 80 year old Moses. The right to the throne of David comes through the daughter of David who married the priest and prophet Nathan, for Jesus is high priest in the line of succession to Melchizedek who is both King and priest.

This Joseph who is the biological father of Jesus, is Joseph the Levite from Cyprus, who more than likely met his half sister Mary for the very first time at the family gathering wherein they had all come to rejoice with Elizabeth because of her pregnancy in her old age, and it is doubtful that they knew at that time that they shared a common biological Father, and undoubtedly there would have been a strong spiritual attraction drawing them to each other.

This Joseph from Cyprus, was later surnamed Barnabus and it is most probably from His true father, that Jesus was taught from the books of Enoch and from where his disciples learned of the collapse of this universal body into the great abyss or Black Hole from which it originated, after which God would create a new heaven and a new earth. For as Peter says, "The universe shall roll up as a scroll Etc."

This Joseph who was surnamed Barnabus, had a sister by the name of Mary, who was the adopted mother of the youngest and dearest disciple of Jesus whom he had surnamed “Son of Thunder".

And after the death of Jesus, Barnabus=Joseph the Levite, took his sister and young John who had been surnamed “Mark,” which name means “Hammer,” and took them up into the land of Pamphylia, where, in the town of Ephesus, the ancient grave sites of Mary and John, can still be visited today.

And so, no my friend, I am not in agreement with you as to your previous post, But your words are becoming more down to earth and you are getting closer to the truth. I pray that you will remain under the protection of the holy name of God and increase day by day, in wisdom , knowledge and insight, and remember always, that

You are who you are, and may you never lose sight
Of the fact that you are who your are, day and night
You're not who you were, nor who you will be
For "Who I Am," is the name that thy God gave to thee.

As you are not 'today' where you were yesterday in your ever evolving understanding of God. I do not expect to find you 'tomorrow' where you are today. May the Lord My God bless you, and may you receive your share of the hidden Manna, and become a joint heir with our brother who has been anointed as our high priest and King, Jesus the anointed one: "anointed=Christ".

 

[logician]

"Moyers: But the Christ came like you and I did."

"Campbell: Yes, but of a virgin. And then, according to Roman Catholic doctrine, her virgiit was restored. So nothing happened physically, you might say. What is symbolically referred to is not Jesus' physical birth but his spiritual significance. That's what the virgin birth represents. Heroes and demigods are born that way as beings motivated by compassion and not mastery, sexuality, or self-preservation.
This is the sense of the second birth, when you begin to live out of the heart center. The lower three centers are not to be refuted but transcended, when they become subject to and servant to the heart."

Joseph Campbell - The Power of Myth

So, in essence, a real physical virgin birth in nonessential.

 

[sojourner]

My question was, "And after your critical analysis=exegesis of the scripture in question you have found that Luke was comparing Jesus with Caesar Agustus: and from where, may I ask, have you gleaned this great insight?"

so I'll ask again, "where in the scripture in question, which is the gospel of Luke, are the lines and verses that you believe are the evedience that Luke was comparing Jesus with Caesar Augustus, and that this is not just another figment of your imagination?

As to joining your company of exegetists, no thasnks mate. You stick with it, but myself, I will continue to put my faith in the spirit under whose controll were the authors of the books of the Bible, and who is therefore the only one able to reveal what he had written by his chosen scribes.

Read chaps. 1 and 2. I've explained all of this before in an earlier post (#142). I'm not going to repeat myself.

 

[sojourner]

It is not my opinion that Isaiah said that an unmarried female would conceive and bear a child, it is a Biblical fact, but there are many who hold to the erroneous and laughable opinion that Isaiah actually said that a “Virgin” would conceive etc.

Yes, Isaiah says that. It's also a big mistake to assume that the author was talking about Jesus.

The Words of the Lord were recorded in Hebrew by his prophet Isaiah, and the Hebrew language has a specific term for “virgin” which is “Bethulah” a word that Isaiah did not use, but instead, used the Hebrew word “Almah” which means, “Concealment: Unmarried female” which was the message that the Spirit wished to convey through his prophet. This is Biblical

So? Not cogent to your point.

Knowing that Matthew was translating the words of the Lord as recorded by his prophet and knowing that the Lord directed his prophet to say that an unmarried woman would conceive etc, we can be absolutely sure that Matthew was in no way implying that she was still a virgin after she had conceived in her womb. This is Biblical

We don't know any such thing. It's Biblical, but it's eisegetical. In those days, the writers were not copying word-for-word. They got a jist of what they were reporting. In any case, we're not sure whether Matthew meant "virgin" or "young woman." It's intriguing, but, again, not cogent to a theological understanding of "why a virgin birth was necessary."

Although she was still an unmarried woman when she gave birth to the first of her three biological sons, as it is written in Luke 2: 5, that Joseph the step father of Jesus, went to Bethlehem to register with Mary who was promised in marriage to him.

You've succeeded in moving from Isaiah to Matthew, and now you've made a second move to Luke. Exegesis doesn't do this, because it creates a mish-mash of meaning. We begin to jam together several different traditions to come up with kind of a "fake" tradition (like the shepherds and wise men all showing up at the manger at the same time.) Why in the world can't we pick one gospel and stick with it, until we discover what the author meant?

The reason that they were not yet at that time married, was because Joseph the son of Jacob from the tribe of Judah, did not consummate their union until she had given birth to the biological son of her half Brother Joseph the son of Heli, as recorded in Luke 3: 23. Joseph the Levite who was the biological Father of Jesus, was a descendant of Nathan the prophet, the son of Uriah and Bathsheba of the tribe of Levi, who married David’s daughter. Making Jesus a descendant of the King through whose genetic line the Promised Messiah would be born. This is Biblical

It's your inference from what is written in the Bible -- again, not exegesis.

Whether you like it or not, the word ‘virgin’ in reference to the birth of Jesus, was not introduced into the New Testament until the fourth century, when the scriptures were translated from the Greek into Latin.

Doesn't matter what I like or dislike. It is what it is. The technical term of "virgin" is a later translation, but most people agree that a young, unmarried woman would be a virgin. In any case, I don't think "virgin" particularly matters. What really matters (at least in Luke), is that Mary was a young, unmarried woman.

And whether you like it or not, the genealogy of Jesus in Luke 3: 23, and we can ignore the later interpolation in brackets (As was supposed) for Jesus is the son of Joseph, the son of Heli, who comes through the line of Nathan the prophet who was the stepson of David; as the only child sired by David to Bathsheba that survived, was Solomon. Whereas the genealogy of the step father of Jesus, who was Joseph the son of Jacob, comes down through the genetic line of Solomon, the half brother to Nathan. This is Biblical

It's also neither scientific, nor a textbook. It's generally considered that the geneaology is, simply, factually wrong, deliberately written that way to make a theological point. It's when we don't employ exegesis that we get way off the track with passages like this.

1st John, 4: 1-3,

Here we go again.

2nd John, verse 7,

and again! this is blatant proof-texting.

Where would you find a deceptive teaching that has been spread throughout the entire earth which refuses to acknowledge that Jesus the anointed one came as a human being?

The gospels all agree that Jesus was a human being. Everyone I know (with the exception of atheists) think that Jesus was a human being. You get no argument from me here on this point. But the post proves nothing, except that you can take up a lot of written space with proof-texting.

 

[S-word]

Quote...Sojourner... Yes, Isaiah says that. It's also a big mistake to assume that the author was talking about Jesus.

So what you are saying is that Matthew made a big mistake in assuming that the prophecy of the Lord recorded by Isaiah, related in any way to the birth of Jesus; Interesting.

Quote: S-word
The Words of the Lord were recorded in Hebrew by his prophet Isaiah, and the Hebrew language has a specific term for “virgin” which is “Bethulah” a word that Isaiah did not use, but instead, used the Hebrew word “Almah” which means, “Concealment: Unmarried female” which was the message that the Spirit wished to convey through his prophet. This is Biblical

Quote...Sojourner... So? Not cogent to your point.

S-word...My Point is that nowhere in the Bible does it state the Jesus was born of a virgin, and I believe that my statement above is compelling and powerful evidence (Cogent) of this absolute fact.

Quote: S-word
Knowing that Matthew was translating the words of the Lord as recorded by his prophet and knowing that the Lord directed his prophet to say that an unmarried woman would conceive etc, we can be absolutely sure that Matthew was in no way implying that she was still a virgin after she had conceived in her womb. This is Biblical


Quote...Sojourner... We don't know any such thing. It's Biblical, but it's eisegetical. In those days, the writers were not copying word-for-word. They got a jist of what they were reporting. In any case, we're not sure whether Matthew meant "virgin" or "young woman." It's intriguing, but, again, not cogent to a theological understanding of "why a virgin birth was necessary."

S-word...I am not using my own ideas in explaining the biblical text written by Matthew, who, you have stated, had made a big mistake in assuming that the prophecy of the Lord as recorded by Isaiah had anything to do with the birth of Jesus, which is your own idea (eisegesis) and is not shared by any Christian denomination of which I am familiar with.

What I have written is a Biblical fact, Matthew used the Greek word “Parthenos” which carries a basic meaning of Girl and denote ‘Virgin’ only by implication, in translating the Prophecy of the Lord through Isaiah , that a young unmarried woman would conceive etc, which in no way implies that she was a virgin when she conceived.

Was she a virgin before the act by which she conceived, Yes: but not when she conceived in the only way in those days that a woman could conceive a child who was a human being, but perhaps you do not believe that Jesus came as a human being, but was an eternal god who took on the form of a human being for a nano second relative to his eternal existence, this is not a human being.

Quote: S-word
Although she was still an unmarried woman when she gave birth to the first of her three biological sons, as it is written in Luke 2: 5, that Joseph the step father of Jesus, went to Bethlehem to register with Mary who was promised in marriage to him.


Quote...Sojourner... You've succeeded in moving from Isaiah to Matthew, and now you've made a second move to Luke. Exegesis doesn't do this, because it creates a mish-mash of meaning. We begin to jam together several different traditions to come up with kind of a "fake" tradition (like the shepherds and wise men all showing up at the manger at the same time.) Why in the world can't we pick one gospel and stick with it, until we discover what the author meant?

S-word...I’m not really interested in what you exegetists do. I am quoting from the Book which has but one author, and whose scribes while under his control, wrote the book of Isaiah, the gospel of Matthew, and the gospel of Luke etc, etc, etc.
The author who had Matthew record that the wise men never turned up in Israel until Jesus was almost two years old, and nor would they have found Jesus in Bethlehem of Judea, as Luke informs us that after they had performed the ceremony of Purification as required by the Law of Moses 41 days after the birth of the child, they had returned to Nazareth, which can be seen from Bethlehem of Galilee, which town today is called "Beitlahm' and also can be seen from the magnificent Hellenistic city of Sepporhus in which so many families lost their lives inthat city and its surrounding districts in 4B.C., when Jesus was about two years old.

Like I said before, you stick with your exegetist mates, Myself, I’ll continue to follow every day the spirit who once said to me, “Come my child, come and see, the story book God wrote for thee.

And so I wandered far away through regions yet untrod __ As I followed him each day, through the manuscript of God __ And oh sweet knowledge have I found in every niche and crook __ As God’s spirit leads me by the hand through Eli’s living book__ And the greatest secret I have found, and It stands out like a mountain__ Is that Sin is but a little desert, within God’s greater fountain...BY...S-word.

Quote: S-word
The reason that they were not yet at that time married, was because Joseph the son of Jacob from the tribe of Judah, did not consummate their union until she had given birth to the biological son of her half Brother Joseph the son of Heli, as recorded in Luke 3: 23. Joseph the Levite who was the biological Father of Jesus, was a descendant of Nathan the prophet, the son of Uriah and Bathsheba of the tribe of Levi, who married David’s daughter. Making Jesus a descendant of the King through whose genetic line the Promised Messiah would be born. This is Biblical


Quote...Sojourner... It's your inference from what is written in the Bible -- again, not exegesis.
Matey, when the bible says that Joseph knew her not until after she had given birth to her first born son, then I am convinced that the union had not been consummated, and when it is said in Luke 2: 5, that Joseph went to register with Mary, who was promised in marriage to him, not married to him, but promised (Exegesis that my friend) in marriage to him, then You can rest assured that they were not married in the eyes of my God.

 

[S-word]

Quote: S-word
And whether you like it or not, the genealogy of Jesus in Luke 3: 23, and we can ignore the later interpolation in brackets (As was supposed) for Jesus is the son of Joseph, the son of Heli, who comes through the line of Nathan the prophet who was the stepson of David; as the only child sired by David to Bathsheba that survived, was Solomon. Whereas the genealogy of the step father of Jesus, who was Joseph the son of Jacob, comes down through the genetic line of Solomon, the half brother to Nathan. This is Biblical



Quote...Sojourner... It's also neither scientific, nor a textbook. It's generally considered that the geneaology is, simply, factually wrong, deliberately written that way to make a theological point. It's when we don't employ exegesis that we get way off the track with passages like this.

S-word... But I suppose the genealogy in Matthew is factually correct, or is it? For It would appear that according to you, just about everything recorded in the bible is factually wrong, I don’t know why you even bother to waste your valuable time reading it mate.
I notice that you didn’t want to record the words of my next two quotes which speak of John’s warnings to the faithful, that the deceivers who refused to acknowledge that Jesus came as a human being were beginning to spread their false teachings throughout the entire known world even in his day.


Quote:S-word
1st John, 4: 1-3,

Quote...sojourner...Here we go again.

Quote: S-word
2nd John, verse 7,

Quote...sojourner...and again! this is blatant proof-texting.

S-word...All that I am guilty of here, is quoting the words of the beloved disciple of Jesus, who warned the people of his day, that the prophesied teachings of the Anti-Christ which refuses to acknowledge that Jesus came as a human being,and which would be spread to the four corners of the earth, had already raised its ugly head, even in his day.

Quote:s-word
Where would you find a deceptive teaching that has been spread throughout the entire earth which refuses to acknowledge that Jesus the anointed one came as a human being?


Quote...sojourner...The gospels all agree that Jesus was a human being. Everyone I know (with the exception of atheists) think that Jesus was a human being. You get no argument from me here on this point. But the post proves nothing, except that you can take up a lot of written space with proof-texting. S-word... Before continuing, you appear to have side stepped my question which I will here repeat, "Where would you find a deceptive teaching that has been spread throughout the entire earth which refuses to acknowledge that Jesus the anointed one came as a human being? And now we can continue.

I realise that the gospels agree that Jesus was a human being, and I realise that none of the apostles saw him as anything other than a human being who was chosen by God as the first fruits; the first of many brothers who are to be joint heirs with him in the new creation.

I know also that Mark and John, Both begin their account of the Chosen heir of Godhead at the Baptism, when the human being Jesus, was filled with the spirit of the Lord as the voice from heaven was heard to say, as recorded in the more ancient authorities of Luke 3: 23, “You are my beloved in whom I am well Pleased, This day I have begotten you.” And totally ignore the physical birth of Jesus which the deceivers would have you believe was the greatest of God’s miracles that was performed at that time.

No my friend, the greater majority of Christians do not even know the Jesus who was preached by the apostles, they have been so deceived by the disciples of the Anti-Christ who, even in the days of John were preaching their fairytale Jesus who had lived from all eternity and who, in the womb of a virgin, formed for himself a human like body, in which he might experience the death of that body only, as he, the Immortal god could not die, in fact, the death of that body, may even have been an exhilarating experience to a god who has lived, and would continue to live, from all eternity, even unto all eternity.

 

[S-word]

Read chaps. 1 and 2. I've explained all of this before in an earlier post (#142). I'm not going to repeat myself.

No my dear friend, you explained nothing in your post number 142, you made a stament there that Luke compares Jesus to Caesar Augustus, but you have not explained how you have come to this conclusion. and so once again I shall repeat my question.

"where in the scripture in question, which is the gospel of Luke, are the lines and verses that you believe are the evedience that Luke was comparing Jesus with Caesar Augustus, and that this is not just another figment of your imagination?

In your explaination to this question, please don't worry about having to repeat yourself, as so far, you have not given an explaination.

Or perhaps you might repeat the words of Jordan St Francis, which is as follows, "The Gospels are far more sublime pieces of work than to have every point stated explicitly." What a cop out that was.

 

[raybo]

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Virginity

some more stuff... on the term!

 

[Anti-thesisofreason]

So, in essence, a real physical virgin birth in nonessential.

I think in this case it is the symbolism of the virgin birth that is important, at least that is what I get from it. Symbolism is a highly effective way to communicate with the unconscious mind which is where much of the real spiritual work is done (in my opinion).

Unfortunately we are so mired in the idea that anything worth thinking about has to be backed up by physical, provable, undeniable evidence that we more often miss the point.

 

[GiGi Lindsey]

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.

Some stories are a bit of a stretch.
Here's one, tell me what you think.
The god Kneph impregnated the Virgin Queen by holding a cross to her lips. From her Pharoahs were born.

 

[Syphros]

Simply put, the whole context of virginity and purity, is propaganda to reinforce the authority of the Church.

If Jesus was not pure (in the sexual sense), born of the pure, perfect in every way: then surely he CANNOT be the son of god.