Why was a “virgin birth” necessary?

[Poisonshady313]

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?

I never suggested that all prophecies have been fulfilled. I said, there are some prophecies that were meant to be fulfilled in the lifetimes of those the prophecies were directly spoken to, and there are some prophecies that were meant to be fulfilled at some indefinite time in the future.

None of the messianic prophecies have been fulfilled, because the Messiah has not come. I'm saying that Isaiah 7:14 was not a prophecy for 700+ years after it was given.... but that it was meant as a sign to King Ahaz regarding the Kingdoms of Rezin and Pekah, and that it's unreasonable to suggest that that prophecy was meant to be fulfilled at two separate and distinct times.

 

[sojourner]

Issue is being danced around more than a maypole on May Day.

The issue has nothing to do with fulfilling prophecy. The issue has nothing to do with purity. The issue has nothing to do with history. Or science. It has everything to do with theology.

At least for Luke, if you begin at the beginning, Luke is interested in comparing Jesus to Caesar Augustus. Augustus was considered to be deity. Jesus was Deity. Augustus was soter because of his military defeat of Cleopatra's army and ushered in peace for Rome. Jesus was soter because he was to bring peace to Israel. Augustus was from the royal family of Caesar. Jesus was descended from the royal Davidic line. Etc. You get the point of the comparison that's being drawn.
But, after the Annunciation, Luke has Mary, a young woman (assumption is that a young woman would be a virgin, and, therefore, not righteous through childbirth) sing the Magnificat, which blatantly sets Jesus, the new king, the new soter, over Augustus. It's an irony. Here we have a Judean, a female Judean, a young, female Judean, who has not borne children -- the lowest of the low -- proclaiming the overthrow of Rome.

Since Lk was writtne Post-70 (some theorize as late as 125 c.e.), this downfall would have been foremost on the minds of Luke's community.

That Mary was a virgin has nothing to do with purity or miraculous birth. It has everything to do with extending the irony that Luke puts forth.

 

[S-word]

Issue is being danced around more than a maypole on May Day.

The issue has nothing to do with fulfilling prophecy. The issue has nothing to do with purity. The issue has nothing to do with history. Or science. It has everything to do with theology.

At least for Luke, if you begin at the beginning, Luke is interested in comparing Jesus to Caesar Augustus. Augustus was considered to be deity. Jesus was Deity. Augustus was soter because of his military defeat of Cleopatra's army and ushered in peace for Rome. Jesus was soter because he was to bring peace to Israel. Augustus was from the royal family of Caesar. Jesus was descended from the royal Davidic line. Etc. You get the point of the comparison that's being drawn.
But, after the Annunciation, Luke has Mary, a young woman (assumption is that a young woman would be a virgin, and, therefore, not righteous through childbirth) sing the Magnificat, which blatantly sets Jesus, the new king, the new soter, over Augustus. It's an irony. Here we have a Judean, a female Judean, a young, female Judean, who has not borne children -- the lowest of the low -- proclaiming the overthrow of Rome.

Since Lk was writtne Post-70 (some theorize as late as 125 c.e.), this downfall would have been foremost on the minds of Luke's community.
That Mary was a virgin has nothing to do with purity or miraculous birth. It has everything to do with extending the irony that Luke puts forth.

And after your critical analysis 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?

 

[S-word]

I never suggested that all prophecies have been fulfilled. I said, there are some prophecies that were meant to be fulfilled in the lifetimes of those the prophecies were directly spoken to, and there are some prophecies that were meant to be fulfilled at some indefinite time in the future.

None of the messianic prophecies have been fulfilled, because the Messiah has not come. I'm saying that Isaiah 7:14 was not a prophecy for 700+ years after it was given.... but that it was meant as a sign to King Ahaz regarding the Kingdoms of Rezin and Pekah, and that it's unreasonable to suggest that that prophecy was meant to be fulfilled at two separate and distinct times.

Then you don't beleive that John the Baptist who came in the power of the spirit of Elijah to prepare the way for he who was supposed to have been born of a virgin, was a blueprint of Elijah who is yet to come in order to prepare the way for the Lord who has fixed a day in which he will rule the whole world with justice by means of a man he has chosen. And that he has given proof of this to everyone by raising that man from death.

Do you believe that the Messiah is Elijah the firey prophet, who is prophesied to appear before the great and terrible day of God's wrath, or that Elijah is but the messenger of the Messiah and who, like John the Baptist, comes to prepare the way, for the peaceful rule of the Lord?

 

[mickiel]

You forgot about Filbert. :yes:

Sarcasm just runs rampant here, as if it is a language all unto itself. For those interested, go to Theologyweb.com and pull up what I wrote on sarcasm, it may be of intrest to you, I wrote it some years ago.

In order for Jesus to be different from all men, his birth had to be different. Human birth, but yet a devine birth, to set him apart, because he will lead a set apart people, and began a whole new generation of humans destined to be like him, " Perfect", with a devine destiny.

Its just that simple.

Peace.

 

[S-word]

Sarcasm just runs rampant here, as if it is a language all unto itself. For those interested, go to Theologyweb.com and pull up what I wrote on sarcasm, it may be of intrest to you, I wrote it some years ago.

In order for Jesus to be different from all men, his birth had to be different. Human birth, but yet a devine birth, to set him apart, because he will lead a set apart people, and began a whole new generation of humans destined to be like him, " Perfect", with a devine destiny.

Its just that simple.

Peace.

As I have said before, there never was such a thing as a male child that has been born without male semen having been introduced into the uterus of the mother, or into the massive dormant female egg: Massive relevant to the minute living male sperm.

The first time that the word “Virgin” was introduced into the Bible, was when it was translated into Latin, by the body of believers that are under the controll of the deceptive teachings that were founded on the teachings of the enemies of Christ, who refuse to acknowledge that Jesus came as a human being and was the biological son of Mary and her half brother Joseph who were both sired by Heli the Levite who is descended from Nathan the prophet the half brother of Solomon and the stepson and son-in-law of King David.

This Joseph should not be confused with Joseph the step-father of Jesus, who never knew Mary sexually until she had birthed the first of her three biological sons, for he is the son of Jacob from the tribe of Judah and is a descendant of Solomon who like Nathan, was a son of Bathsheba from the tribe of Levi.

Jesus was the first fruits chosen from the body of mankind, and Mankind is the most high in the creation, the Lord of creatures. Jesus was the first of many brothers who are to be joint heirs with Jesus the chosen cornerstone to the new creation that is the glorious and brilliant Light Temple of God that will supersede the old tent of God which is the body of mankind in which, is the current kingdom of God, for the kingdom of God is within you.

But the Son of Man, the new species that comes from man will be the Most High in the creation, which species will gain dominion over all creation, visible and invisible.

Satire in any form, is used to expose the weakness and flaws of others opinions, by ridiculing aspects of their beliefs or the personalities of those you wish to show up as the ignorant persons that you believe they are. This is sarcasm.

The book of Sirach, which is to be found in the Apocrypha of the Old Testament, coupled together with the Book of Job, a number of the Psalms, Parables, Ecclesiastes, and the Wisdom of Solomon, all belong to the Hokmah or Wisdom Literature of the Hebrews. (The Hebrew, ’Mashal’ means, Similitude, parable, or proverb.) ------ In the Book of Sirach, R. H. Charles translation chapter 47 verse 17, it is written concerning Solomon, “By thy songs, parables, dark speeches, and satires, thou didst cause astonishment to the peoples etc. ----

“ Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die. I envy those who are dead and gone; they are better off than those who are still alive. But better off than either, are those who have never been born etc. A man may have a hundred children and live a long time, but no matter how long he lives, if he does not get his share of happiness and does not receive a decent burial, then I say that a baby born dead is better off. Man and animals receive the same ultimate reward, total oblivion, from the dust they came and to the dust they will return.

A wise man is no better off than a fool, the reward for being good is the same as that for doing evil, so don’t be too good or too wise, why kill yourself? We are all going to our final resting place, and although life is useless, the conclusion of the matter is, if you live a religious life you may at least experience some peace in the short span of consciousness that has been allocated to you in this useless life.

So go ahead and eat drink and be merry, drink your wine and be cheerful. It’s all right with God. Enjoy your life with the woman you love, as long as you live the useless life that God has given you in this world. Enjoy every useless day of it, because that is all you will get for all your troubles. Never again will you take part in any thing that happens in the world, because there will be no action, no thought, no knowledge, no wisdom in the world of the dead to where the righteous, the wicked, the wise, and the fools, animal and man, are all going. For the living know that they are going to die, but the dead know nothing.

Solomon’s songs are found in his Book ’Song of Songs’, his parables are found in the Book of Proverbs, his dark speeches are in the ‘Wisdom of Solomon’, and who can read the negative and even depressing words from the book of Ecclesiastes without realising that here is the satirical =sarcasm work of Solomon, aimed at those who believed in neither life after death or the resurrection of the dead.

And yet it is obvious that many so called Christian denominations are blind to this truth, for they pull certain verses from this Satiracle work of Solomon, and twist and distort them as they do with all scripture, in order to use bits of God’s word in an attempt to justify their own false and misleading teachings. Paul knew the value of Solomon’s satirical writings, 1 Cor : 15 verse 32, “For if the dead are not raised to life, then as the old satirical saying goes,” ‘let us eat drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die.’

 

[raybo]

Psalm 110

4 The LORD has sworn
and will not change his mind:
"You are a priest forever,
in the order of Melchizedek."

Jesus plays the role of High Priest once and for all. Abraham's transfer of goods to Melchizedek is seen to imply that Melchizedek is superior to Abraham, in that Abraham is tithing to him. Thus, Melchizedek's (Jesus') priesthood is superior to the Arionic priesthood , and the Temple in Jerusalem is now unnecessary.

The early second century "Epistle of Barnabus" makes much use of the Book of Enoch. Second and Third Century "Church Fathers" like Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Origin and Clement of Alexandria all make use of the Book of Enoch. Tertullian (160-230 C.E) even called the Book of Enoch "Holy Scripture". The Ethiopic Church even added the Book of Enoch to its official canon. It was widely known and read the first three centuries after Christ. This and many other books became discredited after the Council of Laodicea. And being under ban of the authorities, afterwards it gradually passed out of circulation.

S-word,

If your looking for sources of deception it is mentioned above at Laodicea. It is likely the deceiver would wish to discredit and denounce these writings?


As for "The Virgin" statement, that was simply to establish that "The Messiah would be The First Born Son or Eldest Son" and thus the lawful contender to the throne of David, because it is only possible for A First Born Child to be conceived from a virgin; In other words, Miryam (Mary) became pregnant with The Messiah and lost her virginity at the exact same time (her FIRST TIME), thus confirming The Messiah's physical birth (a physical to Spiritual parallel) as a FIRST BORN SON (physical for Miryam and Joseph, but Spiritual for YHVH).

Regardless of all of this, and even IF Joseph's and King David's Seed was supernaturally placed into the virgin womb of Miryam (Mary), Miryam's virginity would still not prove that The Messiah pre-existed or was God. It (IF True) would still only prove that The Messiah was without a doubt The First Born or Eldest Son of Miryam (Mary), and (IF supernaturally conceived) thus not a True Physical Seed of Abraham (Spiritual? Yes! Physical? No!).

S-word,

This is no doubt your point...

Note: Now you can draw your own conclusions, but the following scriptural evidences must be considered:

1) Verse 16 positively identifies Joseph as the father or sire, as does Romans 1:3.
2) Righteousness was not compromised by premarital hanky panky as they Truly Loved one another and got married. This PROVES that YHVH judges the "Intent of the Heart" (Hebrews 4:12). YHVH has always judged the "Intent of The Heart," as YHVH is stable and unchanging.
3) "Parthenos" is a virgin by implication only.
4) Why was Joseph having second thoughts? It appears to me that he was confused? Even Miryam was disturbed at first (verse to follow)!
5) The Holy Spirit is a Righteous Attitude of Love, and not an entity or ghost like god
6) The 'so called' New Testament was canonized only by the one 'universal' pagan church of ROME, which has proved herself to be the 'Prophesied Harlot' of the Book of Revelation. So what did they do with the original Hebrew and Aramaic Epistles? Why would they hide or possibly even destroy the original documents?
There is never a good reason to hide the truth!
7) Verse 25 was definitely mistranslated through a preconceived bias, and required a search of Strong's concordance in order to obtain the correct translation.

The Virgin Birth?

...s-word are you in agreement to this??

 

[blackout]

Why was a “virgin birth” necessary?

Ok. Allegorically/occultically/gnostically speaking,
no one is born to their own christhood by ordinary means.
It cannot come about by the "seeds"/plantings/plottings (teachings) of other men,
it comes from deep within one's own dark, quiet, alone, growing space.
Christhood is borne from within.... in perfect isolation.
Just you, and gOd.

That was my first (and so far only) illuminated thought on the topic.
I like it.

 

[sojourner]

And after your critical analysis 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?

From exegeting the scripture in question. It's plain as the nose on your face. That's what exegesis is: Reading out of a text what's there.
Try it sometime.
Come on.
Join us.
Be one of us...

 

[sojourner]

The first time that the word “Virgin” was introduced into the Bible, was when it was translated into Latin, by the body of believers that are under the controll of the deceptive teachings that were founded on the teachings of the enemies of Christ, who refuse to acknowledge that Jesus came as a human being and was the biological son of Mary and her half brother Joseph who were both sired by Heli the Levite who is descended from Nathan the prophet the half brother of Solomon and the stepson and son-in-law of King David.

This right here is your downfall. It's opinion, and it's eisegetical, having no basis in anything other than conjecture and preconceived notion.

 

[Jordan St. Francis]

The very word "Gospel" has this imperial connotation. Evangelium was the message that the Emperor sent out to be proclaimed as his decree. Regardless of its actual content, it was always, on the face of it, called "good news".

There is much in the Gospel which suggests we should be contrasting the Pax Romana with the Pax Christi.

 

[sojourner]

The very word "Gospel" has this imperial connotation. Evangelium was the message that the Emperor sent out to be proclaimed as his decree. Regardless of its actual content, it was always, on the face of it, called "good news".

There is much in the Gospel which suggests we should be contrasting the Pax Romana with the Pax Christi.

Absolutely.

 

[S-word]

From exegeting the scripture in question. It's plain as the nose on your face. That's what exegesis is: Reading out of a text what's there.

Try it sometime.
Come on.
Join us.
Be one of us...

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.

 

[Jordan St. Francis]

The Gospels are far more sublime pieces of work than to have every point stated explicitly.

 

[logician]

I still have not seen a logical answer as to why a virgin birth was necessary; maybe that's because there is none.

 

[Jordan St. Francis]

Why should it have to be necessary? In order for us to believe it?

We can only theorize why God chose to act in this way. Multiple examples have been given, including the fact that it emphasizes his divine Sonship in a powerful way, emphasizes his separation from sin and- if it has not been mentioned- inverts the story of Creation.

The second Eve, the Virgin, is taken from in order to make the Second Adam- Christ.

 

[logician]

Why should it have to be necessary? In order for us to believe it?

We can only theorize why God chose to act in this way. Multiple examples have been given, including the fact that it emphasizes his divine Sonship in a powerful way, emphasizes his separation from sin and- if it has not been mentioned- inverts the story of Creation.

The second Eve, the Virgin, is taken from in order to make the Second Adam- Christ.

How does it separate him from sin?

 

[Anti-thesisofreason]

I still have not seen a logical answer as to why a virgin birth was necessary; maybe that's because there is none.

"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

 

[Cordoba]

I still have not seen a logical answer as to why a virgin birth was necessary; maybe that's because there is none.

God sent Jesus to guide the lost sheep of Israel

The virgin birth was a miracle from God to the Jews, and a sign to convince them to follow Jesus, peace be upon him

Some did, and others refused .....

 

[S-word]

This right here is your downfall. It's opinion, and it's eisegetical, having no basis in anything other than conjecture and preconceived notion.

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.

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

Matthew, in faithfully translating the words of Isaiah from the Hebrew into the Greek language, which does not have a specific term for “Virgin,” was forced to use the Greek word parthenos which carries the basic meaning of girl, and only denotes “Virgin” by implication, and 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

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.

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

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.

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

1st John, 4: 1-3, “My dear friends, do not believe all who claim to have the spirit (God’s word, for the flesh is of no use at all, it is the spirit that gives life and God’s word as spoken through his servant Jesus, is spirit) , but test them to find out if the spirit they have comes from God. For many false prophets have gone out everywhere. This is how you will be able to know whether it is God’s spirit: anyone who acknowledges that Jesus the anointed one came as a human being has the spirit who comes from God. But anyone who denies this about Jesus does not have the spirit from God. The spirit that he has is from the enemy of Christ=the anti-Christ, you heard that it would come (Prophesied), and now it’s here in the world already.” This is Biblical

2nd John, verse 7, “Many deceivers have gone out all over the world, people who do not acknowledge that Jesus the anointed one came as a human being. Such a person is a deceiver and the enemy of Christ.” This is Biblical.

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?