Why was a “virgin birth” necessary?

[raybo]

sojourner,

Regarding consistency and truth. Should the Torah have continued its divine inspiration whereby more insight could be added... running side by side with the fantasy and ramblings of the new agers (new testament); one could have certainly weighed the inspirations between the two. Such things are seldom discussed. I was hoping with s-word, such things could have been. I like his study... if he hasn't become too weary.

 

[sojourner]

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?

 

[mickiel]

Theoretically speaking, why was a “virgin birth” necessary for the supposed Jesus?
He could have been a natural child of Joseph and Mary and still done the same things as outlined in the gospels, there is simply no reason a virgin birth was necessary.

I think God didnot want Jesus conceived from male spamodazoa, but straight from the Spirit of God, so that Jesus wouldnot inherit any traits from a man, but only the traits from his Father God. Which means, God didnot want Jesus cellular level to inherit any human characther flaws. He wanted Jesus to be perfect, so he left no place for sin to enter him at any physical level. No habits, no corruption through his bloodline, no inherited flaws in his geneology.

Jesus was human, but he was not a " Normal human" by any means, he was conceived by the Holy Spirit, which in effect, made him Gods Son from birth. Anyone born like that, is not normal.

Peace.

 

[logician]

I think God didnot want Jesus conceived from male spamodazoa, but straight from the Spirit of God, so that Jesus wouldnot inherit any traits from a man, but only the traits from his Father God. Which means, God didnot want Jesus cellular level to inherit any human characther flaws. He wanted Jesus to be perfect, so he left no place for sin to enter him at any physical level. No habits, no corruption through his bloodline, no inherited flaws in his geneology.

Jesus was human, but he was not a " Normal human" by any means, he was conceived by the Holy Spirit, which in effect, made him Gods Son from birth. Anyone born like that, is not normal.

Peace.

This post makes no sense, as the supposed Jesus did inherit human traits - from his mother.

 

[mickiel]

This post makes no sense, as the supposed Jesus did inherit human traits - from his mother.

Jesus was a " Transplanted lifeform", he was placed into Marys womb by the Spirit. He was already alive and his birth intact, then, he was put into Marys womb. Jesus wasNOT conceived by Mary, he was conceived by the Holy Spirit.

Mary was just used as an incubator.

Peace.

 

[black_jesus]

Jesus was a " Transplanted lifeform", he was placed into Marys womb by the Spirit. He was already alive and his birth intact, then, he was put into Marys womb. Jesus wasNOT conceived by Mary, he was conceived by the Holy Spirit.

Mary was just used as an incubator.

Peace.

So then Mary was not his mother and just a surrogate

 

[Poisonshady313]

Enoch, who at the age of 365, the number of days in a calaendar year, (The one year old unblemished sacrifical Lamb of God) ascended to the tenth heaven where he was stripped of his mortal garment and anointed with the sweet smelling ointment of God which shone with the brilliance of the sun and Behold, he was as one of the glorious ones, where clothed and girded in fire, he was to serve God before the body of Adam into all eternity.

You cannot apply a modern calendar to indicate symbolism in the age of an ancient figure.

Thus... what you said is bogus.

 

[Poisonshady313]

This was the Lord of David, who, in the body of his obedient servant Jesus who was descended through Nathan the priest, the stepson and son-in-law of King David, revealed himself and the great sacrifice that he is yet to pay for the body of his elect and chosen ones of which Jesus was the first to be chosen. But that is another story.

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.

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

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.

 

[Poisonshady313]

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.

Jacob had 12 children. If you want to include any adopted children, he adopted 2 children: Ephraim and Manasseh.

If you're going to speak about this stuff as if you know what you're talking about... please... know what you're talking about.

 

[Poisonshady313]

Jesus Christ says the virgin birth was necessary because how could David have referred to the messiah as his LORD if David were his father? Thus the Christ could not have a father except God.

Sure... Ignore the fact that Psalm 110 did NOT have David referring to the messiah as his lord...

 

[Poisonshady313]

For Just as Isaac the prototype of Jesus, who like Jesus, was offered up as a sacrifice by his father on the very same mountain upon which Jesus was crucified;

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.

 

[Poisonshady313]

Wherever Isaiah refers to a virgin or virgins in the Old Testament, he uses the specific Hebrew term for virgin which is ‘Bethulah,’ or in the case of ‘Virgins, ‘Bethulum.’ Yes I know that it is said that the word ‘Almah,’ is used in the verse where Abraham’s servant sees the young woman coming to the well, who was ‘Rachel the Virgin,’ but the servant did not know at that time who she was nor her sexual status. After that first meeting, the Hebrew ‘Bethulah’ is used in any reference to Rachel before Isaac took her into his tent and consummated their union. The more modern bibles rightfully translate the Hebrew ‘Almah,’ as ‘young woman, or as in Young’s Analytical Concordance to the Bible, (Concealment: unmarried female).

As said previously, Isaiah used the Hebrew word ‘Almah,’ in reference to the conception of the child Jesus in the womb of Mary, which word means (Concealment: unmarried female) and can in no way be translated to mean a ‘virgin:’ erroneously interpreted, Yes, correctly translated, No.

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.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

You were doing well with the whole "betulah" and "almah" thing...

based on the most recent evidence, there is every reason to assume that the two words were effectively synonyms.

 

[Anti-thesisofreason]

No, there isn't, and it might be significant that the Ebionites didn't believe in the Virgin Birth. The Ebionites didn't see Jesus as a God-Man, either.

I doubt that we could say for certain where the legend came from. Personally, I think the theory that Jesus was illegitimate and the legend was cooked up as a sort of cover for that fact is the most fun theory, but it doesn't seem particularly likely. More probably, after Christians (or at least some of them) had come to believe in the divinity of Jesus, they also imagined that there must have been some such miraculous circumstance connected to his conception.

As to origins of virgin births I believe there were many "gods" who were born from virgin mothers. Mithras comes to mind as one. I'm sure given time I can come up with a few more.

 

[logician]

Jesus was a " Transplanted lifeform", he was placed into Marys womb by the Spirit. He was already alive and his birth intact, then, he was put into Marys womb. Jesus wasNOT conceived by Mary, he was conceived by the Holy Spirit.

Mary was just used as an incubator.

Peace.

Wow, this is getting good.

 

[Jordan St. Francis]

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

 

[Enoch07]

It is important because if Jesus had a physical mother and physical father he would have been just a regluar man like you and I. But that isnt the case. Jesus did have a physical mother but God was his direct father, in which this means that Jesus is a Divine being. To accept this makes you Christian. If you dont believe Jesus was Divine then you are not a real Christian. Because Jesus was Divine that is how he gives us salvation to deny his Diviness is to deny your salvation.

 

[mickiel]

So then Mary was not his mother and just a surrogate

A surrogate is a subsitute, Mary was not subsituting for anyone, but she was chosen to " Bear Christ", or carry him in her womb, so that he could be born again into another dimension. So she was Jesus Mother, she gave actual birth to him, but Jesus was not developed in her womb through the sperm of Joseph. 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.

Peace.

 

[Jordan St. Francis]

A surrogate is a subsitute, Mary was not subsituting for anyone, but she was chosen to " Bear Christ", or carry him in her womb, so that he could be born again into another dimension. So she was Jesus Mother, she gave actual birth to him, but Jesus was not developed in her womb through the sperm of Joseph. 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.

This is a heresy- monophysism (or docetism) . According to what you said above, the Lord would only have a single nature- the divine nature. Yet Jesus was both fully human and fully divine. Therefore it was also necessary, in order for him to truly enter in the human condition, to enter into the network of human relations. Mary gave of her own body in order to conceive Jesus, which was nonetheless accomplished by the Holy Spirit.

You are denying that Jesus is the true of son of Mary and saying that he is only the Son of God. Effectively that denies the Incarnation.

 

[mickiel]

This is a heresy- monophysism (or docetism) . According to what you said above, the Lord would only have a single nature- the divine nature. Yet Jesus was both fully human and fully divine. Therefore it was also necessary, in order for him to truly enter in the human condition, to enter into the network of human relations. Mary gave of her own body in order to conceive Jesus, which was nonetheless accomplished by the Holy Spirit.

You are denying that Jesus is the true of son of Mary and saying that he is only the Son of God. Effectively that denies the Incarnation.

I have denied no such thing. In Matt. 1:18, Mary was found to be with child, or pregnant, by the Holy Spirit, not by her husband. I think its heresy to even suggest that her husband had anything to do with it, Joseph in fact didnot want to disgrace her, because he knew he didnot have anything to do with her conception, vs.19. Jesus was the son of Mary, but only because her womb was used by God. Her body was called by God to develop Jesus into the physical world, goodness man, Jesus has been alive far longer than any human. He is the true son of Mary, but not because of Marys ability to conceive through the passing of human spermodazoa. No sperm was passed.

Thus no human meddeling was passed down. I mean you can try to place human meddleing into this, which would include all the things that were passed down from " Our Birth", through our parents, and to do so is just ignorance of what actually took place. You and I are sinful, because it was passed down into our bodys from our parents, which is what David meant in Ps. 51:5; " I was brought forth in sin, and in sin did my mother conceive me." This is the same track ALL humans were born into, you cannot " Humanize Christ", by including him into this delima.

Jesus is " Seperate from Sin", human birth is not. Jesus was a human, but he was NOT a normal human, which is WHY he never sinned. Its WHY he was perfect,. and we are not.

You call what I have explained Heresy, because of your lack of understanding, which I find to be rampant in the common believer.

Peace.