Christ Was Born from a Virgin?

[Nicholas]

Mystical thinking and literary interpretation are not the same thing. A spiritual truth can be vieled in text without being whimsical or illogical.

 

Also, mathematics is not science's backbone. Observation is science's backbone. Observations of literary archetypes, cultural mythology, and esoteric observations within the academic field of theology all begin to explain the virgin birth's place in Christianity.

[burning 4 revenge]

if i were looking for religion, i'd be more inclined to be a muslim than a christian

[Moai]

if you don't believe in the bible, why do you believe jesus is god?

 

There is a difference between not believing that the Bible is a collection of irrefutable facts, as if titled "The Bible: A Canonical History of Biblical Times," and rejecting the teachings of the Bible.

 

Of course there is. Most Christians don't think that the Bible is literally true. It is also true that most Christians haven't read it. However, the point of this thread, as I understand it, is how can you be a Christian and reject parts of the Bible?

 

Sacred text is not intended to be studied the same way one would study historical text. Treating the Bible as a historical and objective text is a red herring, and arguing against its value by attacking its accuracy is a straw man argument.

 

Not true. You are not the arbiter of truth as to what Christians believe. There are Christains who post on these boards who believe the Bible to be 100% factual, and the Inspired Word Of God. There are many sects that assert the same. While you may not agree with what some of your fellow Christians believe, it does not follow that they don't believe it.

 

Why are they wrong and you right? And why would I put my faith in a book that is inaccurate? Can't I get just as much spiritual truth from the Vedas, or Zen texts, or the Koran? What makes the Bible sacred in the first place--because men who came before me thought it was true or important?

 

The Bible, while conveying spiritual ideas, also paints itself as historical fact. Why geneologies for Jesus? Why all the "begats" in the Old Testement? Why feature a story of people being freed from bondage that did not occur?

 

I never said I was an expert, but I have read the book in question, and I am not an idiot.

 

What do you mean when you say you have read the book in question? The Gospel? The entire Bible? What language did you read it in? How old were you? What were you thinking about at the time? What background research had you done? Reading the Bible for prayer and studying it for knowledge are different.

 

I read the Bible in English. I read it the first time in my teens, again in school, and maybe ten years ago the last time. I was thinking, "What does this book actually say" the last time I read it.

 

Why do I need background research? Why can't the Bible speak for itself? I have done more "background research" than most Christians have, by the way. How much research do you think that the average believer engages in? Does reading Benny Hinn count as research? How about Jimmy Swaggart? Thomas Aquinas? Augustine? Who counts and why?

 

And yes, reading the Bible for knowledge and reading it for prayer are different. Because I have come to the conclusion that the events in the Bible at worst did not happen, or at best are not described accurately I choose not to read it for prayer, either.

 

I don't think that what Jesus said was all that great, frankly. "Turn the other cheek" is stupid and counter-intuitive. So is "the meek shall inherit the Earth". But that's just my opinion. Millions of people think those ideas are great, but don't seem to practice it much.

 

But I digress.

 

If research and reading in the original language is the only way to understand the Bible, why are tehre so many branches of CHristianity? You must know that they don't agree with each other on these questions, and their scholars know more than even you. How can this be, since you seem to assert that there is a "right" answer with regards to the Bible? Why did Martin Luther think it so important to translate the Bible into German so everyone could read it if one has to do extensive research to understand it?

 

To understand the Bible in its historical context is important, certainly. The ideas in the Bible as interpreted throughout history have shaped the world in which we live. That doesn't make those ideas true or right, nor does it make them false. In order to understand that takes a lifetime of research. One need not know any of that to understand the message of the Bible, though. If that were true, only Bible scholars are going to Heaven. Only Biblical scholars understand Jesus, and Jesus only has meaning in their lives.

 

 

Have you studied all of the religions you so happily reject in favor of yours?

 

What religions have I rejected?

 

Mithraism, Zen Buddhism (actually, all forms of Buddhism), Taoism, Hinduism, various Native American Religions, the religions of the Aztecs and Mayans, Voodoo, Santeria, Islam, deism, Nature, Wicca, the various forms of Polynesian religion, and on and on and on.

 

I think I understand it fine.

 

You don't though. You misunderstand it at a fundamental level, the very second you asserted that the fact that miracles defy rational explanations means that Christianity is in fact irrational.

 

Not what I said. Faith is irrational. That doesn't mean "bad" on "not valuable" but faith and reason are exclusive. Christian apologetics try to bridge that gap, and they fail. They have failed since the dawn of Christianity. That's why Christians are still at it.

 

Miracles by definition have no natural explanation. Because I think that everything that happens has a rational explanation, I do not believe that miracles are possible.

 

Why so many miracles in the past and none now? Why is it axiomatic that the more we understand the world around us the fewer miracles are experienced?

 

You do not understand Christianity at all if you consider virgin birth to be its bedrock, you do not understand the Gospels if you believe they are assertions of Christ's divinity, and you do not understand sacred text in general if you believe their fallibility devalues them.

 

Virgin Birth is not its bedrock, the Divinity of Christ is. The Virgin Birth is necessary for Christ to be Divine. I do not believe in the concept of "sacred" texts, as to assert such a thing is to evaluate all texts everywhere, and then decide which is "sacred" and what is not. Who makes the decision? You? A bunch of priests 1500 years ago? What was their agenda? How can I trust them?

 

And the fallibility of "sacred" texts doesn't devalue them, it just means that they aren't true. That doesn't mean the lessons aren't valuable--fiction can be a great teacher--but it does mean that what is described did not happen.

 

If the Gospels aren't assertions of Jesus' divinity, what are they? Why suggest Jesus rose from the dead? What is the point of that if Jesus isn't Divine? Are you saying that John 3:16 doesn't asert the Divinity of Jesus?

 

If your particualr brand of Christianity allows you to accept the easy things and reject the hard things, good for you.

 

What have I rejected? The belief that scripture is meant to be read letter-for-letter as though completely factual is not dogma. You are incorrect in that assertion.

 

It is for some and not for others. I am curious why believe in Jesus as God at all if the Bible is not letter for letter factual. That is the whole point of this thread. The Gospels don't agree on very much at all. Which is the most accurate and why? Why all the disparity in the first place? If it isn't supposed to be letter-forletter true, why bother writing it down at all?

 

Again, greater men than I have asserted what I am. I didn't make it up, I just agree with them. There are certainly sects that do not assert that the Bible is literally true. If not, then what is the point? Which stories, beliefs assertions in the Bible are true and which aren't? How can you tell? Again, do I have to spend my life in study to figure that out? How can I know which "experts" are right and which are misguided? What if I am wrong?

 

Why do you feel so persecuted by someone who only disagress with you?

 

Persecution? I don't feel persecuted. I know you think your trite observations about religion (which amount to, essentially, "hey, phenomena which is by definition without explanation cannot be explained!") are somehow insightful, but it doesn't seem too threatening to me.

 

Except that you label my observations as "trite" (without evidence) and claim that I am wrong, yet you actually assert nothing yourself. And you referred earlier to strawman arguments: I never said anything like what is in quotes above.

 

I don't think the "phenomena" to which you refer, namely the Virgin Birth ever happened. I need not explain an event that did not occur. If your only exlplanation is, "God did it, and He can do anything" that's great if it works for you. Some of us need a little more evidence than that. I also don't believe Jesus rose from the dead after three days (the Gospels don't even agree on that), or that killing a pidgeon in a clay pot cures leprosy, or just about anything else the Bible says.

 

Just because an explanation fits it does not follow that said explanation is correct or valid.

 

Protestants have very different ideas about the Bible than do Catholics. I am sure that whichever brand of faith to which you subscribe is "right" and the other is misguided and "wrong". They just don't get it. They aren't interested in Christianity at all, right?

 

I've never said one belief about the Bible is right and another is wrong. I have said that there is a right way and a wrong way to study the Bible, or even to frame it contextually in the vast pool of human knowledge that exists. Scholarship, and utilizing it effectively, transcends denomination, or even faith. There are atheists who easily understand the concept of miracles and their place in mythology, and they wouldn't be foolish enough to think that belief systems are threatened by the accuracy of myth.

 

I understand the concept of miracles, I just don't think that a miracle has ever happened.

 

In Jesus' case, they are described to show that He had power, and that He was "special" and Divine. The whole point of the Bible is to get people to accept that Jesus Is Lord. Is it not? Certainly there are lessons in there that teach you to be a good person, to love your neighbor and all that, but if you don't have Jesus it doesn't matter what kind of person you are. Or so Evangelicals believe--and most Protestant sects as well. Catholics get around this by the concept of Works and Confession and Pennance. Again, the major Christian faith don't even agree on that. And that is experts over thousand of years disagreeing, by the way.

 

And belief systems are threatened by the accuracy of myth. Why does nobody believe in Zeus anymore? Why don't islanders believe that land is on the back of a giant turtle anymore?

 

That is exactly why Creationists are so adamant. They know that if the bible isn't literally true, there is no reason for Jesus to exist. Why are they so paranoid about teaching the bible as literally true if that were not the case?

 

Do you have a statue of Shiva in your house? Why not? Do you pray six times a day facing East? Why not? You have no opinion on them because you have never studied them and you have never studied them because you reject them out of hand.

 

I do not have a statue of Shiva in my house that I am aware of. I do not pray six times a day facing East.

 

That doesn't mean that I reject the pantheon of Hindu gods nor do I reject traditional Muslim prayer (which is actually five times a day, not six).

 

Thank you for the correction. I didn't know that because I have zero interest in Islam. Do you accept the pantheon of Hindu gods, then? Was Muhammad Allah's prophet?

 

As for the assertion that I have "never studied" other religions, you are mistaken, but that's not really relevant.

 

Sure it is. Do you study the other religions with the zeal with which you study Christianity? If not, why not?

 

I don't study them because I postulate no diety, so any description thereof is irrelevant. I know more about Christianity because I was once a believer, I live in a Christian country, and took classes in college. I took World Religions for a year, too.

 

But god forbid someone reject YOUR belief system, or ask you to explain it.

 

I am not threatened by people who reject Christianity. I am also not threatened by people who ask to have concepts explained; on the contrary, I'm usually delighted to do it. The very first post I made in this thread I did just that.

 

I was operating under the assumption that someone actually had a question about what Christians believe; I didn't know they were trying to argue ridiculously that Jesus is not divine because his mother had sex.

 

Why is that ridiculous? If that is ridiculous and the Bible says that is the case, is the Bible being ridiculous? You may think that is ridiculous, but millions of believers don't. Why are they wrong?

[Moai]

Jesus must have been without sin in order for His sacrifice on the cross to have any bearing on saving anyone. Isn't that central to Christianity, that Jesus died for our sins?

 

That doesn't follow. How is Jesus' divinity derived from his mother's virginity?

 

You tell me. From what I gather Original Sin is transmitted through sex, as sex is dirty (but necessary). If it isn't, why mention that she was a virgin in the first place? What does the purity of Mary matter at all, then?

 

If Jesus wasn't born of a virgin, then how could He be without sin--as it is through this that Original Sin is transmitted?

 

Once again, Jesus' sinlessness came from his divinity, it did not come from the evasion of Original Sin. You are confusing the Assumption and the Immaculate Conception.

 

But as a man born of woman, He must have had Original Sin. Man has a sinful nature, does he not? Unless, of course, He wasn't the product of intersourse. To be honest, the bible isn't exactly clear on exactly HOW Original SIn is transmitted, but I extapolate that it has to do with the sex act. I am only going by how the Bible describes sex and sexuality, and the fact that Mary being a Virgin is mentioned.

 

If that were true, why bother to translate the Bible into English, since I'll never understand it in the first place?

 

I didn't say you'll never understand it. I just observed that you don't.

 

I think I do. I just reject it. And I don't reject it because of the errancy of the Bible (although it does help). I reject it because I do not believe in the supernatural at all. In any way, shape or form. I also understand that not all Christians accept the Virgin Birth. What I don't understand is why. Why reject that but accept the Resurrection? Why reject the Flood, or the stories of Genesis? What is so special about keeping Jesus as the Messiah, but rejecting all the stuff that surrounds that idea--and in many ways, makes that belief possible? That I do not understand.

 

And why do the Gospels differ so much?

 

Why is "Saving Private Ryan" so much different than "The Thin Red Line" ?

 

Things can be written about the same thing but written for different reasons, by different people, and with different ideas in mind. Once again, the Gospels are not intended to be biographies of Jesus.

 

That is a good point. A Marine in the South Pacific had a much different experience than a member of the 101st Airborne. However, both saw combat, horrible death, and each account from each theater is the same.

 

We can read the history of WWII from various thaters and surmise that the war happened. How can we read the vastly different accounts of Jesus' ministry and hope to get any coherent idea about what actually happened?

 

Making sense of it could take a lifetime. Christian scholars are STILL AT IT.

 

The fact that intellectual curiousity has not been fully satisfied is not indicative of failure to "make sense of it." Theology, like all academic disciplines, is never complete.

 

True, but theologians are tackling the same old questions, not new ones based on answers that came before. The nature of God, for those who believe in one, is a subject of fascination I am sure.

 

Then why include His geneology?

 

Geneology is culturally significant, which is why it might have been considered by Biblical authors. For example, Jesus is related to David, an important King in Israel's history.

 

Joseph is Jesus' father, which is why he's the left side of Jesus' family tree. Sperm has little to do with paternity, at least at this time; consider that many men had sons by concubines, and that their family trees would not be altered because their wife did not contribute to the child's genetics. If that were the case, many kings would not be considered legitimate.

 

I don't agree with those who say that one is for Mary and one is for Joseph, but let's say that it is.

 

I know that Jesus HAD to be related to David or He wouldn't be the Messiah. So, the geneology was included to prove that Jesus was, in fact, one of David's descendants.

 

And if Jesus is a character in a story, fine, but doesn't that also mean He was no Divine, then?

 

I think all of the stories in the Gospels are included in order to demonstrate that Jesus was, in fact, Divine. But maybe I lack the tools to interpret it correctly.

 

Maybe. The Gospels are not a series of arguments for why Christ was the son of God.

 

If a given Christian depended on the Gospels being 100% factually accurate in order to believe in God/Jesus, that person is in bad shape. I wouldn't be surprised if they stopped believing after a simple challenge such as "Hey, people can't walk on top of water!" or "Hey, you can't have a kid unless you have sex!"

 

Ha! Good point again! Most of them don't, which amazes me. If the Gospels aren't written to show the Divinity of Jesus, then what are they for? Why are they referred to as "The Good News"?

 

All I maintain is that Jesus MUST have been born of a Virgin, or He wasn't Divine.

 

It's fine to maintain that. I could maintain that 2+2=5. People who understand mathematics would disagree with me, just as people concerned with theology disagree with your conclusion that the virgin birth is at all related with Christ's divinity.

 

I know there are theologians who disagree, and there are some that agree. I don't assert that it is ONLY the Virgin Birth that makes Jesus Divine, but it is certainly part of it. A big part of it. If the Virgin Birth has nothing to do with Jesus' Divinity, what does?

 

Right here let me say that this is an excellent post of yours, and I am actually asking, I am not trying to be a smartass. I would certainly agree that what most Fundamentalists belive would leave most theologians shaking their heads!

 

It seems you don't accept the Virgin Birth, yet you believe Christ Divine. How? Why? And if you reject the virgin birth, what else do you rejct, and why?

 

I do not reject the Virgin Birth. I do, however, consider the event unimportant.

 

Really? Why? Let me ask again, in all seriousness, if it is unimportant what DID make Jesus Divine?

 

I am only asking questions.

 

There is a notable difference between questions asked in search of answers and questions asked in search of victory. If you really want your question answered, here's your answer, take it or leave it: The accuracy of the account of Jesus' conception does not threaten the idea of his divinity.

 

It is hard to convey accurately the sense with which I ask these questions. Certainly I have been guilty of asking questions in search of victory--but I am not right now, honestly. I am very curious as to how that can be--and not in a rhetorical sense, I mean to ask what event, or idea, or whatever demonstrates Christs divinity, if the Virgin Birth is unimportant?

 

However, one can study religion and not believe it.

 

Some do--but the scholarship goes a little beyond reading "the book" and deciding whether or not you like it.

 

True.

 

To attempt to belittle me or my opinion simply is certainly your right, but also misguided.

 

I'm not belittling you. I'm just underwhelmed by your scholarship. It's cool that you don't believe in God. I'm not driven to convert you. But the conclusions you are drawing about Christianity are incorrect.

 

I apologize for accusing you of belittling me. It seemed as if you were, but from this post I can see that is not the case. I can see where you might be "underwhelmed" by my scholarship, as I am not a theologian, nor am I Catholic or any of the more "rational" faiths--for lack of a better term. I do understand Fundamentalism pretty well, though, and it is their particular take on the Bible that I find fascinating and silly at the same time.

 

I also appreciate that conversion is not your goal. It is not my goal to shake anyone's faith--least of all yours.

 

I do think that if most Christians actually studied what their belief system entails they would reject it.

 

How would you know? What have you studied? Reading the Bible isn't enough.

 

I took the classes I mentioned earlier, as well as Sociology of Religion--not that sociology is any great thing. I am basing that assertion from various encounters I have had with believers. And why isn't reading the Bible enough? Shouldn't it be?---again, honestly asking.

 

In some cases, it's a handicap.

 

On this we agree completely.

 

Imagine if someone read Genesis and all of the sudden they stopped believing in evolution. Not only would they have not made any spiritual progress, they'd also understand less of God's creation, essentially accomplishing the opposite of the scriptural author's intent.

 

I have heard this before, and I agree. A psychiatrist friend of mine said that the Bible is one aspect of knowing God, and understanding the world around you is another.

 

When did I tell them wrong? I didn't recall relating one Bible story specifically.

 

You asked " If you are engaged to a woman who confesses virginity and shows up at your house pregnant (and you never had sex with her) would you believe her when she said that she didn't either?"

 

My point was that you weren't telling the story correctly. The question you asked isn't a situation that paralells the story of Mary and Joseph.

 

You're right, because I left out the angel part, I suppose. I must say if an angel appeared to me I'd accept anything he said. I'm not holding my breath on that happening, though!

[burning 4 revenge]

i still don't understand this contextual christianity. if you don't believe most of the bible is literal, why believe in any of it.

 

flavius said that christianity is like an eggplant in that it absorbs whatever is around it and it takes on new flavors. he is absolutely right. and now christianity wants to absorb modern rationalization to adapt itself to the current state of culture and learning.

[Moai]

Here is a link to a site that claims the Virgin Birth is vitally important:

 

http://www.gotquestions.org/virgin-birth.html

 

It also claims that sin is passed through the father.

 

Here's another one:

 

http://www.lamblion.com/articles/doctrinal/CD/CD-02.php

 

And one more:

 

http://www.athmaprakashini.com/virginbirth.htm

 

Here is a quote from one of them:

 

The virgin birth of Christ plays an absolutely fundamental role in the plan of redemption. It is the one event of Christ's life that has received the greatest amount of attention next to His crucifixion and resurrection. Certainly, next to the resurrection, it is the most debated and controversial doctrine in Christology.

 

The distinctive purpose of the virgin birth of Christ was to free Him from the original sin, in His incarnation. The ordinary processes of transmission of racial heritage were interrupted in His case by the miraculous conception. But one should not assume that the mere fact of a virgin birth would break the entail of sin. The unique circumstances associated with His birth help one to appreciate the fact that Jesus was born without sin.11 Bible declares that He "knew no sin" (II Cor. 5:21); and "in Him there is no sin" (I Jn. 3:5). Satan had nothing in Christ (Jn. 14:30); he has no claim on the sinless Son of God.

[Moai]

Here is another I found interesting:

 

[COLOR=#222220]The Bible is very clear that Jesus was born of a virgin. Isaiah 7:14 prophesied, "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." Matthew 1:23 fulfills this prophecy, "The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel - which means, 'God with us.'"

 

The virgin birth is an essential doctrine. It is the base of a sinless Jesus. Even though Adam and Eve both sinned in the garden (Gen 3:1-19), God placed responsibility for the Fall on Adam in Genesis 3:17-19: "To Adam he said, 'Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat of it,' 'Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life. It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return."

 

Romans 5:12 reiterates this thought: "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned." The Bible is clear that we inherited our sin nature from Adam. That is the reason we all die. In fact, Romans 5:17 says, "For if, by the trespass of the one man. . ." It is evident, according to Genesis 1:26 that Adam was created in God's image and then all of Adam's descendants are in his image (Genesis 5:3).

 

It is important to understand that it is not the mother, but the father who passes on a sin nature to their offspring. So, in order for Jesus to be born without a sin nature, it was essential for Him not to be born of a man. That is why it was necessary for Jesus to be born of the Holy Spirit. Jesus had to be virgin-born, so He did not have Adam's sinful nature, allowing Jesus to die as our sinless substitute! [/COLOR]

 

I also saw a story that 27 of CofE clergy don't accept the virgin birth. Another pointed to this fact as a sign of the Church being in decline, and included this comment:

 

John Roberts, who heads the Lord's Day Observance Society, said: "If you take away the virgin birth you might as well take away the entire Christian message. The miracle of the Christian faith is that God came down to us. If you lose that miracle you lose the resurrection and everything else."

 

It would seem to me that the virgin birth is, in fact central to Christ's Divinity. I would ask in what way is my scholarship lacking, and in what way am I failing to understand the message of the Gospels?

[Joelle]

Yep, what Moai said.

 

Also, mathematics is not science's backbone. Observation is science's backbone.

 

Nope. Science is basically applied mathematics. Every conclusion science makes is from mathematical thinking - measuring & quantifying something over time, defining a phenemenon with an equation, etc. Very mathematically based. The language of E=mc^2 is clearly mathematical. It's algebra. Computer programming, like HTML, is mathematical logic. Successful computer programming codes read like a math proof.

 

Any computer programmer, engineer, scientific researcher back me up on this one. Science is applied mathematics. Math is science's backbone, not observation.

[Nicholas]

However, the point of this thread, as I understand it, is how can you be a Christian and reject parts of the Bible?

 

I read this as the original thread topic:

 

With all due respect, I am highly skeptical of Christ's virginal birth. To me, I consider it a biological impossibility (and to a certain extent, an intellectual absurdity). Additionally, there's practically no evidence to support Christ's virginal birth to convince me otherwise. Christians, enlighten me, please. I'm interested in how you accept Christ's virginal birth as "fact."

 

It seemed to me that the original poster, a skeptical but curious person in search of God, wondered how Christians reconcile the story of Christ's conception with basic biology.

 

I tried to answer it, but by the time I had, you're right, the thread topic had become how can Christianity survive without the doctrine of virgin birth.

 

You ask the question "how can you be a Christian and reject parts of the Bible?" I wouldn't know. I don't reject parts of the Bible.

 

I take the Bible as it is, both the stuff that probably happened (such as the Sermon on the Mount or the Exodus) as well as the stuff that is probably a literary manifestation of a spiritual truth, such as the Creation story. You do not reject the Bible by questioning it or even by doubting it.

 

Not true. You are not the arbiter of truth as to what Christians believe.

 

Um, that's not what I said at all. I wasn't giving instructions on how to be a Christian or how to believe like one. I was only pointing out that there's a certain way to study sacred text academically. Some Christians do it, some don't.

 

It's not limited to Christian texts, and it's academic. It has to do with context, audience, translation, and core concepts of theology within the belief system being studied. Basically, when you read sacred text, you have to first do a basic Who-what-when-where-why, and then delve a little bit deeper into the what and why within the framework of (in this case) Christianity.

 

And why would I put my faith in a book that is inaccurate?

 

I put my faith in a book that is historically inaccurate. I'm not looking for accuracy.

 

Can't I get just as much spiritual truth from the Vedas, or Zen texts, or the Koran?

 

Can you?

 

I've read a little bit of the Quran. Muslims were better stewards of their scripture than Christians. They don't allow it to be translated, and they took really good care of their originals. They also have a different relationship with their scripture than Christians do, and its tied very much into culture and history of Arab people.

 

What makes the Bible sacred in the first place--because men who came before me thought it was true or important?

 

The Bible is sacred literature, the same way as the Qu'ran and the Vedas are sacred literature. Does that make sense?

 

The Bible, while conveying spiritual ideas, also paints itself as historical fact.

 

It's not a historical text. Are there historical books or notes within the Bible? Sure. But it's not to be studied like one would study a history book--a historical text--instead, it is studied the way one would study sacred literature. It's a real academic discipline, and it's notably different than the study of say postmodern literature or war novels or greek plays, etc.

 

Why feature a story of people being freed from bondage that did not occur?

 

What? Are you talking about the Israelites? That did occur.

 

Why do I need background research? Why can't the Bible speak for itself?

 

Let me clarify--you do not NEED background research. You can read the Bible without studying it. Sometimes the Bible does speak for itself--for example, "Love God above all else and love your neighbor as yourself" is pretty self-explanatory. However, most text needs to be interpreted, and some of it, including the Assumption, is not easily understood.

 

If research and reading in the original language is the only way to understand the Bible, why are tehre so many branches of CHristianity?

 

"Scripture" isn't a single text. It's hundreds of texts written by hundreds of different people for different audiences at different times with different goals in mind. Some, when translated into English and read thousands of years after they wer written, are easily understood. Some are not.

 

You said it yourself, most people don't care about studying scripture. Also, I didn't say that reading it in the original language is the only way to understand it. I think the core concepts are universally understood before you even hear about them. You know, those "stupid" ideas like nonviolence and compassion.

 

You must know that they don't agree with each other on these questions, and their scholars know more than even you. How can this be, since you seem to assert that there is a "right" answer with regards to the Bible?

 

I never said I had the right answers. I never gave any right answers. I'm only saying that if you're looking for answers the wrong way, you won't be able to ascertain the answers.

 

One need not know any of that to understand the message of the Bible, though. If that were true, only Bible scholars are going to Heaven. Only Biblical scholars understand Jesus, and Jesus only has meaning in their lives.

 

Good point, and I'm sorry if we got a bit sidetracked. You're right, one need not be a scriptural scholar to "get" Jesus' ministry, nor to understand some of the Bible. However, there is still a wealth of critical information that can be unlocked through scriptural scholarship, and I think if you were in doubt about a Biblical concept, proper study is the best way to root out an answer.

 

 

 

Mithraism, Zen Buddhism (actually, all forms of Buddhism), Taoism, Hinduism, various Native American Religions, the religions of the Aztecs and Mayans, Voodoo, Santeria, Islam, deism, Nature, Wicca, the various forms of Polynesian religion, and on and on and on.

 

 

Not what I said. Faith is irrational. That doesn't mean "bad" on "not valuable" but faith and reason are exclusive. Christian apologetics try to bridge that gap, and they fail. They have failed since the dawn of Christianity. That's why Christians are still at it.

 

Miracles by definition have no natural explanation. Because I think that everything that happens has a rational explanation, I do not believe that miracles are possible.

 

Why so many miracles in the past

[Nicholas]

From what I gather Original Sin is transmitted through sex, as sex is dirty (but necessary).

 

That is not doctrinal, or rooted in theology.

 

The virgin birth and original sin are unrelated. I don't know how else to say that.

 

If it isn't, why mention that she was a virgin in the first place?

 

Beyond the literary/mythological significance of virgin birth, which was already mentioned in this thread, it's also part of the Christ story. It is mentioned for the same reason any other part of the story is mentioned. Even if you believe it to be false, it's still part of the story.

 

Once again, the Gospels are not written proof of Jesus' divinity, and they weren't composed in order to prove to the world that Jesus was divine. The concept of original sin was not known to the Gospel writers, and there is no way they would include the infancy narratives simply to solve the question of Jesus' divinity.

 

Man has a sinful nature, does he not? Unless, of course, He wasn't the product of intersourse.

 

Man has a good nature, as man was created in God's image, and God is good. We are born into a state of sinfulness, and it isn't because our parents had sex.

 

You keep saying I don't answer your questions, but I don't know how else to answer you. You think original sin is something that it is not, and you think that virgin birth and Christ's divinity are related, when in fact they are not. I don't know how to otherwise explain to you how wrong you are.

 

Let's put it this way: Mary was without sin, including original sin. Her parents, however, had sex to produce her. See how sex and original sin are not related? It's not "transmitted" like some kind of spiritual immunovirus. It's just the condition we are born into--it's a Holy way of saying "Life's a bitch."

 

However, both saw combat, horrible death, and each account from each theater is the same.

 

The Thin Red Line is an anti-war movie. Saving Private Ryan is a pro-war movie. That was my point. They're telling the same story a different way.

 

How can we read the vastly different accounts of Jesus' ministry and hope to get any coherent idea about what actually happened?

 

It's tough, if getting a coherent idea of "what actually happened" is your goal. The people back then weren't big on written history, at least the people in Christ's line of fire.

 

That said, the accounts are not "vastly different"--it is not as though Jesus' character or core concepts or even his ministry is altered from account to account. You can pretty much read all four (and more, if you want) and get a good idea of his place in the world.

 

I know that Jesus HAD to be related to David or He wouldn't be the Messiah.

 

Rather, he wouldn't have fulfilled the prophecy. Even though everyone knew that Joseph was related to David, not everyone believed he was the Messiah. Many people still don't consider Jesus to be the Messiah.

 

If the Gospels aren't written to show the Divinity of Jesus, then what are they for?

 

As a whole? Individually? Most were written down during the formation of a long-term Church after the painful realization that when Jesus said he was coming back, he didn't mean soon. The Gospels take many forms--a letter to a friend for example--and they were written with varying degrees of symbolism from Mark's being more of a cut-and-dry transcription of the oral tradition surrounding Jesus (the "hype") to John's which is certainly the most theologically-rich text.

 

Why are they referred to as "The Good News"?

 

The good news, proclaimed in the Gospels, is that God saved the world by sacrificing his only son. This is good news for us.

 

Really? Why? Let me ask again, in all seriousness, if it is unimportant what DID make Jesus Divine?

 

Jesus was not made divine by some event, the way Peter Parker was made into Spider-man. He's just divine, the way Superman is super.

 

The doctrine of the holy trinity holds that Jesus is God and therefore wholly divine. The paschal mystery is that Jesus was also a man, and fully human. The central mystery of Christianity is that Jesus was both man and God.

 

The virgin birth is a literary element of the Christ story, and people who suppose that it has ties to great kings being born of virgins are probably correct. Virgin birth has a mythological association with greatness. It does not, however, have a theological association with avoiding sin. If that were the case, Mary would have had to have been born from a virgin too.

 

I do understand Fundamentalism pretty well, though, and it is their particular take on the Bible that I find fascinating and silly at the same time.

 

Fascinating, silly, and kind of scary. The fundamentalist answer to this question is 'virgin birth is true because it's in the Bible, and it's in the Bible because it's true.'

 

It is not my goal to shake anyone's faith--least of all yours.

 

I apologize for assuming that was your goal. There is a breed of evangelical athiest that wishes to prove definitively that God does not exist, and actively seeks to encourage the abandonment of faith.

 

why isn't reading the Bible enough?

 

It can be enough. Often times it's not, though. Most of it comes from how drastically different we are today.

[flavius]

The way the nicholas post #160 ends it appears he may have had an accident or something...Nicholas, are you okay???

 

Good discussion, you two. Vivid thinking, elegantly worded. I wish I had time to splatter my thoughts all over your thread!

[flavius]

From what I gather Original Sin is transmitted through sex, as sex is dirty (but necessary).

 

That is not doctrinal, or rooted in theology.

 

The virgin birth and original sin are unrelated. I don't know how else to say that.

 

If it isn't, why mention that she was a virgin in the first place?

 

Beyond the literary/mythological significance of virgin birth, which was already mentioned in this thread, it's also part of the Christ story. It is mentioned for the same reason any other part of the story is mentioned. Even if you believe it to be false, it's still part of the story.

 

Once again, the Gospels are not written proof of Jesus' divinity, and they weren't composed in order to prove to the world that Jesus was divine. The concept of original sin was not known to the Gospel writers, and there is no way they would include the infancy narratives simply to solve the question of Jesus' divinity.

 

Man has a sinful nature, does he not? Unless, of course, He wasn't the product of intersourse.

 

Man has a good nature, as man was created in God's image, and God is good. We are born into a state of sinfulness, and it isn't because our parents had sex.

 

You keep saying I don't answer your questions, but I don't know how else to answer you. You think original sin is something that it is not, and you think that virgin birth and Christ's divinity are related, when in fact they are not. I don't know how to otherwise explain to you how wrong you are.

 

 

Moai, I agree w/Nick that there is not a connection between "sinless Jesus" and "virgin-ness of Mary." I know that there is a strong, old tradition that does not agree with us. But let me ask you this: Do you find anything in the Bible that asserts that sinful nature is transmitted because of sexual contact? I have seen how resourceful you can be. What conclusion would YOU reach, just as an objective man examining the text?

[Yamaha]

Matter (divine or otherwise) can not be created out of nothing.

 

Oh, yes it can. This is the science of evolution. The scientific theory ( or fact) is that first there was nothing then there was something. Read up on the theory of the big bang.

[Moai]

From what I gather Original Sin is transmitted through sex, as sex is dirty (but necessary).

 

That is not doctrinal, or rooted in theology.

 

The virgin birth and original sin are unrelated. I don't know how else to say that.

 

According to Scripture, you are mistaken. Jesus could not be born of man, as Original Sin is transmitted through the male. Hence the virgin birth. It was prophesied that the Messiah would be born of a virgin, therefore Jesus HAS to have been born of a virgin.

 

According to wikipedia, and various other websites even a cursory search produced, virgin birth is a core doctrine of the Christian faith. To reject it is to reject orthodoxy.

 

While it is true that some Christians believe it and some don't, there are many that do. Why are they wrong?

 

If it isn't, why mention that she was a virgin in the first place?

 

Beyond the literary/mythological significance of virgin birth, which was already mentioned in this thread, it's also part of the Christ story. It is mentioned for the same reason any other part of the story is mentioned. Even if you believe it to be false, it's still part of the story.

 

And a necessary one, I would think, since it was prophesied that the Messiah would be born of a virgin. I also think that the virgin birth explains how Jesus can be both Divine and human at the same time.

 

Once again, the Gospels are not written proof of Jesus' divinity, and they weren't composed in order to prove to the world that Jesus was divine. The concept of original sin was not known to the Gospel writers, and there is no way they would include the infancy narratives simply to solve the question of Jesus' divinity.

 

They included them to show that Jesus was the Messiah--the same way they included the geneologies in order to show Jesus being descended from David.

 

Man has a sinful nature, does he not? Unless, of course, He wasn't the product of intersourse.

 

Man has a good nature, as man was created in God's image, and God is good. We are born into a state of sinfulness, and it isn't because our parents had sex.

 

No, it is because Adam ate the forbidden fruit, and we are passed that through the male. I looked it up.

 

You keep saying I don't answer your questions, but I don't know how else to answer you. You think original sin is something that it is not, and you think that virgin birth and Christ's divinity are related, when in fact they are not. I don't know how to otherwise explain to you how wrong you are.

 

Well, it is my understanding that Original Sin is why I am going to go to Hell, unless I accept Christ's Divinity. And Christ's Divinity, accprding to prophecy, is tied to his not being born of man--that is, to be born of the Holy Spirit and a woman. Google "virgin birth" and read the sites that come up.

 

I understand how you believe it, but not all (or even most) Christians agree with you. Why? Why are you right and they wrong?

 

Let's put it this way: Mary was without sin, including original sin. Her parents, however, had sex to produce her. See how sex and original sin are not related? It's not "transmitted" like some kind of spiritual immunovirus. It's just the condition we are born into--it's a Holy way of saying "Life's a bitch."

 

MAry was without Original Sin because she lived in a state of grace, which I take to mean God gave her a pass or a pardon while she was alive, in anticipation of having His kid. That's how Catholic.com explains it.

 

However, both saw combat, horrible death, and each account from each theater is the same.

 

The Thin Red Line is an anti-war movie. Saving Private Ryan is a pro-war movie. That was my point. They're telling the same story a different way.

 

How do you figure that Saving Private Ryan is a pro-war movie?

 

How can we read the vastly different accounts of Jesus' ministry and hope to get any coherent idea about what actually happened?

 

It's tough, if getting a coherent idea of "what actually happened" is your goal. The people back then weren't big on written history, at least the people in Christ's line of fire.

 

True. That being the case, we can be skeptical of anything written at that time, right?

 

That said, the accounts are not "vastly different"--it is not as though Jesus' character or core concepts or even his ministry is altered from account to account. You can pretty much read all four (and more, if you want) and get a good idea of his place in the world.

 

Or what the authors thought His place was.

 

I know that Jesus HAD to be related to David or He wouldn't be the Messiah.

 

Rather, he wouldn't have fulfilled the prophecy. Even though everyone knew that Joseph was related to David, not everyone believed he was the Messiah. Many people still don't consider Jesus to be the Messiah.

 

True. But if He isn't descended from David, there is no way He could be the Messiah. He could also be descended from David and not be the Messiah, of course.

 

If the Gospels aren't written to show the Divinity of Jesus, then what are they for?

 

As a whole? Individually? Most were written down during the formation of a long-term Church after the painful realization that when Jesus said he was coming back, he didn't mean soon.

 

Although He did say soon. He said that "this generation shall not pass away before I return" and something about not being able to walk from one end of Jerusalem to the other before He returned. That generation is gone, and I am sure you could walk across Jerusalem several times in 2,000 years.

 

The Gospels take many forms--a letter to a friend for example--and they were written with varying degrees of symbolism from Mark's being more of a cut-and-dry transcription of the oral tradition surrounding Jesus (the "hype") to John's which is certainly the most theologically-rich text.

 

Ok, but don't you have to accept that Jesus was the Messiah BEFORE you get into all of that? Otherwise, why study Jesus at all?

 

Why are they referred to as "The Good News"?

 

The good news, proclaimed in the Gospels, is that God saved the world by sacrificing his only son. This is good news for us.

 

Exactly. And isn't God's son Divine? Isn't the point of the Gospels to show that Jesus was, indeed, God's son?

 

Really? Why? Let me ask again, in all seriousness, if it is unimportant what DID make Jesus Divine?

 

Jesus was not made divine by some event, the way Peter Parker was made into Spider-man. He's just divine, the way Superman is super.

 

I didn't mean what event, I mean what attribute specifically. Superman is super because he is incredibly strong, has x-ray vision, etc.

 

The doctrine of the holy trinity holds that Jesus is God and therefore wholly divine. The paschal mystery is that Jesus was also a man, and fully human. The central mystery of Christianity is that Jesus was both man and God.

 

Yep.

 

The virgin birth is a literary element of the Christ story, and people who suppose that it has ties to great kings being born of virgins are probably correct. Virgin birth has a mythological association with greatness. It does not, however, have a theological association with avoiding sin. If that were the case, Mary would have had to have been born from a virgin too.

 

Not according to Catholic.com, or the vast majority of Protestant faiths. I looked it up.

 

I agree that the rational explanation is that of the way great kings were described, but then Jesus was just a man like us, right? Beyond that, it would make the prophecy from the Old Testement meaningless, too, right?

 

I do understand Fundamentalism pretty well, though, and it is their particular take on the Bible that I find fascinating and silly at the same time.

 

Fascinating, silly, and kind of scary. The fundamentalist answer to this question is 'virgin birth is true because it's in the Bible, and it's in the Bible because it's true.'

 

I know. I shudder when I think about it.

 

It is not my goal to shake anyone's faith--least of all yours.

 

I apologize for assuming that was your goal. There is a breed of evangelical athiest that wishes to prove definitively that God does not exist, and actively seeks to encourage the abandonment of faith.

 

It's true.

 

why isn't reading the Bible enough?

 

It can be enough. Often times it's not, though. Most of it comes from how drastically different we are today.

 

From that can we infer that at some distant point the Bible will cease to be relevant?

[Nicholas]

Could you cite a credible source (not wikipedia) for the following?

 

1. Original Sin is transmitted through the male.

2. It was prophesied that the Messiah would be born of a virgin

 

You just said "according to scripture," but you didn't reference scripture. The concept of original sin is extrascriptural. You won't find details of its transmission in scripture.

 

virgin birth is a core doctrine of the Christian faith.

 

No, it's not. It's unrelated to Christ's divinity, and it's not even a doctrine at all. It's just part of the story.

 

There is no support for the idea that sex creates original sin. Sex isn't inherently dirty or sinful, even to the Catholic Church. Mary's parents had sex, and she was born without original sin.

 

I also think that the virgin birth explains how Jesus can be both Divine and human at the same time.

 

In what way?

 

No, it is because Adam ate the forbidden fruit, and we are passed that through the male. I looked it up.

 

Googled information, especially of a religious nature, is not sorted by accuracy. Original sin is not some x-linked trait we can only get from Dad. Consider once again that Mary's father was involved in the procreative act. Adam is not the only one to eat the forbidden fruit, there is no support for the idea that original sin is heritable through parental sex.

 

And Christ's Divinity, accprding to prophecy, is tied to his not being born of man--that is, to be born of the Holy Spirit and a woman.

 

Where is this prophecy?

 

Nowhere is it prophecized that the Messiah would even be divine. It was always the "Son of Man," not the Son of God, or any such divine figure.

 

MAry was without Original Sin because she lived in a state of grace, which I take to mean God gave her a pass or a pardon while she was alive, in anticipation of having His kid.

 

You do not commit original sin, you are born into it. Mary was without *original* sin because of the Immaculate Conception. She then continued to live in a state of grace ("blessed among women") and then had God's kid, yeah.

 

That being the case, we can be skeptical of anything written at that time, right?

 

Skeptical of what? Their accuracy to the letter? I'm not standing behind the Gospels the same way I would stand behind security tape footage from a palestine 7/11 two thousand years ago. They are derived from oral tradition and should be interpreted as such. There is no religious benefit to ignoring the limitations of scripture.

 

But if He isn't descended from David, there is no way He could be the Messiah.

 

Unless that Prophecy wasn't fulfilled, as many are not. The Ancient Jews did not look upon prophets the same way we look at telephone psychics.

 

There is a difference between a savior and a messiah. Jesus could have still been the son of god (as Christianity holds) without being the Messiah, which is a Jewish concept. And, within the limitations of that concept, Jesus was not the Messiah. He did not deliver Israel from Rome, as perhaps Judas expected him to do. I could talk about this all day.

 

Anyway, to sum it up, whether or not Jesus is the Messiah is an entirely different question than whether or not Jesus was God. The Messiah was not a divine figure, and though Christians consider Jesus to be the Messiah, it's really not up to us.

 

Isn't the point of the Gospels to show that Jesus was, indeed, God's son?

 

I don't know how else to answer that. I gather that you'll think that's their purpose no matter what I say. I'll just continue to assert that the Gospels were not written in order to lend credibility to people who upheld the divinity of Christ.

 

I mean what attribute specifically.

 

Oh, well that's tough. We don't know enough about humanity to specifically outline what it is to be human, let alone a damn thing about what it is to be divine.

 

I would guess among Jesus' human characteristics are his mortality and his charisma, and I would guess his ability to suspend the laws of physics and chemistry to be among his divine attributes.

 

From that can we infer that at some distant point the Bible will cease to be relevant?

 

I hope not!

 

But the fact that some of it has slipped into irrelevance is a good thing. It still has value in the text, though, because part of studying a text is understanding its history and its author and its audience. In fact, some of the ridiculous legalism is enriching, because it sets the stage for Jesus' re-prioritizing of religious thought.

 

Oh, yes it can. This is the science of evolution. The scientific theory ( or fact) is that first there was nothing then there was something. Read up on the theory of the big bang.

 

That's not evolution. That's abiogenesis. Evolution deals with things that are already alive, it doesn't cover the transition between a static earth with no life and single-celled organisms.

[Moai]

Could you cite a credible source (not wikipedia) for the following?

 

1. Original Sin is transmitted through the male.

2. It was prophesied that the Messiah would be born of a virgin

 

You just said "according to scripture," but you didn't reference scripture. The concept of original sin is extrascriptural. You won't find details of its transmission in scripture.

 

Sure. Try Romans 5:12, 17, and 19. Isiah 7:14 describes the Messiah as being born of a virgin. Ephesians 2:3 states that all men are born with a sinful nature, as does Psalm 51:5.

 

I am not sure what you would consider a credible souce--that is up to you. Try "Basic Theology" By Charles Ryrie, p 242. Or "The Encyclopedia Of Religion" s.v. "virgin birth", or "Basic Christian Doctrines" ed. Carl FF Henry.

 

virgin birth is a core doctrine of the Christian faith.

 

No, it's not. It's unrelated to Christ's divinity, and it's not even a doctrine at all. It's just part of the story.

 

There is no support for the idea that sex original sin. Sex isn't inherently dirty or sinful, even to the Catholic Church. Mary's parents had sex, and she was born without original sin.

 

See the scriptures I quoted above. Or do a web search for yourself.

 

I quote: "If one rejects the possibility of miracle in general, as does, e.g., Bultmann, then one must reject the virgin birth as well. But such a generalized rejection of miracle is arbitrary and indefensible on any ground, and it is contrary to the most fundamental presuppositions of Christian thought. The virgin birth is no more miraculous than the atonement or the resurrection or the regeneration of sinners. If miracle is rejected, then nothing important to Christianity can be retained."

 

That is from "Walter Elwell, ed., Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984), 1143-45".

 

I also think that the virgin birth explains how Jesus can be both Divine and human at the same time.

 

In what way?

 

Because He was a combination of the flesh of Mary and the Holy Spirit.

 

You can read the whole article cited above here: http://www.frame-poythress.org/frame_articles/1984VirginBirth.html

 

No, it is because Adam ate the forbidden fruit, and we are passed that through the male. I looked it up.

 

Googled information, especially of a religious nature, is not sorted by accuracy. Original sin is not some x-linked trait we can only get from Dad. Consider once again that Mary's father was involved in the procreative act. Adam is not the only one to eat the forbidden fruit, there is no support for the idea that original sin is heritable through parental sex.

 

I know how to sift through information on the internet. I didn't get that from "Bob's God Website", but from Catholic.com, as well as some Protestant "answers" websites. All of them quoted scripture, which I provided above.

 

St. Augustine is the one who initiated that concept into Christian theology. It is he, using scripture, that describes Original Sin as being passed through semen down the generations through sex. You can disagree with Augustine all you like, but he is certainly a central figure in the development of Christianity, no?

 

It is certainly possible that St. Augustine is wrong. As you know, I don't agree with the concept of Original Sin either, but it is clear that with even a casual investigation into the matter, a great many theologians think that the Virgin Birth is central to the Divinity of Christ.

 

And Christ's Divinity, accprding to prophecy, is tied to his not being born of man--that is, to be born of the Holy Spirit and a woman.

 

Where is this prophecy?

 

Nowhere is it prophecized that the Messiah would even be divine. It was always the "Son of Man," not the Son of God, or any such divine figure.

 

Isiah 7:14.

 

MAry was without Original Sin because she lived in a state of grace, which I take to mean God gave her a pass or a pardon while she was alive, in anticipation of having His kid.

 

You do not commit original sin, you are born into it. Mary was without *original* sin because of the Immaculate Conception. She then continued to live in a state of grace ("blessed among women") and then had God's kid, yeah.

 

Exactly.

 

That being the case, we can be skeptical of anything written at that time, right?

 

Skeptical of what? Their accuracy to the letter? I'm not standing behind the Gospels the same way I would stand behind security tape footage from a palestine 7/11 two thousand years ago. They are derived from oral tradition and should be interpreted as such. There is no religious benefit to ignoring the limitations of scripture.

 

The crux of the matter: If Scripture is limited and fallible, what good is it?

 

But if He isn't descended from David, there is no way He could be the Messiah.

 

Unless that Prophecy wasn't fulfilled, as many are not. The Ancient Jews did not look upon prophets the same way we look at telephone psychics.

 

There is a difference between a savior and a messiah. Jesus could have still been the son of god (as Christianity holds) without being the Messiah, which is a Jewish concept. And, within the limitations of that concept, Jesus was not the Messiah. He did not deliver Israel from Rome, as perhaps Judas expected him to do. I could talk about this all day.

 

Anyway, to sum it up, whether or not Jesus is the Messiah is an entirely different question than whether or not Jesus was God. The Messiah was not a divine figure, and though Christians consider Jesus to be the Messiah, it's really not up to us.

 

Good point. I used the term "Messiah" in the loosest sense, which I will refrain from doing inthe future. You are 100% in the above, IMHO.

 

Isn't the point of the Gospels to show that Jesus was, indeed, God's son?

 

I don't know how else to answer that. I gather that you'll think that's their purpose no matter what I say. I'll just continue to assert that the Gospels were not written in order to lend credibility to people who upheld the divinity of Christ.

 

I can't fathom what other reason there could be. Certainly there are moral lessons in the Gospels as well, and details about Jesus' life, but what are believers supposed to take from them?

 

I mean what attribute specifically.

 

Oh, well that's tough. We don't know enough about humanity to specifically outline what it is to be human, let alone a damn thing about what it is to be divine.

 

I would guess among Jesus' human characteristics are his mortality and his charisma, and I would guess his ability to suspend the laws of physics and chemistry to be among his divine attributes.

 

And why was He able to do those things and nobody else was? How was that power transmitted to Him? I am sure theologians don't agree on that either.

 

From that can we infer that at some distant point the Bible will cease to be relevant?

 

I hope not!

 

But the fact that some of it has slipped into irrelevance is a good thing. It still has value in the text, though, because part of studying a text is understanding its history and its author and its audience. In fact, some of the ridiculous legalism is enriching, because it sets the stage for Jesus' re-prioritizing of religious thought.

 

Certainly. But as you must know, even those who understand Greek and Hebrew differ on the meaning of certain Biblical passages. In answering this post of yours I came across literally hundreds of websites (some lame, some excellent) about the various gospels and their author's meaning.

 

That's not evolution. That's abiogenesis. Evolution deals with things that are already alive, it doesn't cover the transition between a static earth with no life and single-celled organisms.

 

Completely correct. I know you weren't answering me with that, by the way, but it is always nice to see someone else who understands the difference!

[Admiral Thrawn]

Sure. Try Romans 5:12, 17, and 19. Isiah 7:14 describes the Messiah as being born of a virgin. Ephesians 2:3 states that all men are born with a sinful nature, as does Psalm 51:5.

 

I am not sure what you would consider a credible souce

 

I just studied the book of Isiaih 7 today, and that is definately correct, the prophecy about a SIGN of Jesus being the Messiah is that He is born from a virgin.

 

This book of Isiaih reminds me of you Moai. Why? Because King Ahaz was told by the prophet Isiaih, to challenge God for a SIGN to prove that He exists and that He is real. It could be any sign of any depth or height (Isaiah 7:11 "Ask thee a sign of the LORD thy God, ask it either in the depth, or in the height above).

 

If I came up to you, and ask you, Moai, what SIGN would you like for me to substantiatlly prove to you that God exists - what would you tell me? Put yourself in King Ahaz's shoes.

 

His reply is in the following verse 12 "But Ahaz said, I will not ask, neither will I tempt the LORD."

 

HE REFUSED TO ASK THE LORD for a SIGN - because, he would believe in the Lord, with or without a sign.

 

But you know the surprize of this verse --- the real surprize --- God gave him a sign anyway, and it follows in the remaining verses.......

 

One of the SIGNS is a VIRGIN WILL CONCEIVE. This Miracolous birth - or a VIRGIN birth would be the impossible - and would you believe, no matter how many signs God has given people, they still do not believe? The only person whose rightful claim to virgin birth exists is Jesus. No other prophets, religions, or any other spiritual can claim they were born a virgin - and no one else does, authenticating Jesus as Messiah.

 

Other signs or prophetic accounts of king Ahaz can be read in the rest of the chapter.

[superconductor]

No other prophets, religions, or any other spiritual can claim they were born a virgin - and no one else does, authenticating Jesus as Messiah.

September 26, 2002, National Geographic News reported that a shark in a Detroit aquarium laid a clutch of eggs, two of which hatched into baby sharks.

 

The female had not been near a male in over six years. (Not sure if I can post the link here, but if you Google "national geographic," "shark" and "virgin birth" it will undoubtedly come up.)

 

Other virgin births include:

• 
  
• Attis, a son of the virgin Nana;
  
• Buddah was born of the virgin Maya after a Holy Ghost descended upon her;
  
• The Egyptian God Horus was born of the virgin Isis; as an infant, he was visited by three kings;
  
• A Roman savior Quirrnus was born of a virgin;
  
• In Tibet, Indra was born of a virgin. He ascended into heaven after death;
  
• The Greek deity Adonis was born of the virgin Myrrha, many centuries before the birth of Jesus. He was born "at Bethlehem, in the same sacred cave that Christians later claimed as the birthplace of Jesus";
  
• In Persia, the god Mithra was born of a virgin on DEC-25;
  
• Zoroaster was also born of a virgin In India;
  
• The god Krishna was born of the virgin Devaki;
  
• Plato was said to have been the son of Apollo, who impregnated Plato's mother but left her virginity intact;
  
• Jason (of Jason and the Argonauts - NOT the Toronto football team) was borne of the virgin Persephone;
  
• Virgin births were claimed for many Egyptian pharaohs, Greek emperors and for Alexander the Great of Greece;
  
• Greek historian Euripides wrote about virgin births in 410 B.C., when the myth was already very old and very well known

Point is, a virgin birth has always mean to signify some sort of mystical or historically-significant quality that the child will have (or grow into). It has nothing whatsoever to do with the virtue of the person's mother.

[Admiral Thrawn]

September 26, 2002, National Geographic News reported that a shark in a Detroit aquarium laid a clutch of eggs, two of which hatched into baby sharks.

 

The female had not been near a male in over six years. (Not sure if I can post the link here, but if you Google "national geographic," "shark" and "virgin birth" it will undoubtedly come up.)

 

Other virgin births include:

• 
  
• Attis, a son of the virgin Nana;
  
• Buddah was born of the virgin Maya after a Holy Ghost descended upon her;
  
• The Egyptian God Horus was born of the virgin Isis; as an infant, he was visited by three kings;
  
• A Roman savior Quirrnus was born of a virgin;
  
• In Tibet, Indra was born of a virgin. He ascended into heaven after death;
  
• The Greek deity Adonis was born of the virgin Myrrha, many centuries before the birth of Jesus. He was born "at Bethlehem, in the same sacred cave that Christians later claimed as the birthplace of Jesus";
  
• In Persia, the god Mithra was born of a virgin on DEC-25;
  
• Zoroaster was also born of a virgin In India;
  
• The god Krishna was born of the virgin Devaki;
  
• Plato was said to have been the son of Apollo, who impregnated Plato's mother but left her virginity intact;
  
• Jason (of Jason and the Argonauts - NOT the Toronto football team) was borne of the virgin Persephone;
  
• Virgin births were claimed for many Egyptian pharaohs, Greek emperors and for Alexander the Great of Greece;
  
• Greek historian Euripides wrote about virgin births in 410 B.C., when the myth was already very old and very well known

Point is, a virgin birth has always mean to signify some sort of mystical or historically-significant quality that the child will have (or grow into). It has nothing whatsoever to do with the virtue of the person's mother.

 

I'm talking about REAL PEOPLE not fictional entities here.

 

Sure, Virgin birth was first promised on Genesis 3:15 - about the Messiah coming from the seed of woman.

 

So, guess what, the devil had a few strategies to try and thwart this:

 

1) Have his fallen angels have sex with humans to produce hybrid offspring and corrupt the human race by corrupting it's genes. Did not work. The flood in Noah's time destroyed all of them and saved the only pure human beings - Noah and his family.

 

2) Create false religions like the one you have up there to confuse people in counterfeit virgin birth concepts - as instituted by Nimrod and Babylon.

 

3) Inspire a mad king to kill all 2 year old children and under with the hopes of killing the Messiah - as was done by King Herod during the birth of Christ.

 

So, that comes as no suprise. The only true virgin birth that occurred is with Jesus Christ - not a fictional religious entity like the ones above.

[konfused]

WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

I'm trying to find words, but ..... WOW!

[lindya]

WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

I'm trying to find words, but ..... WOW!

 

You can rely on the Admiral to deliver some spicy theological views!

[a4a]

WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

I'm trying to find words, but ..... WOW!

 

There are not words to respond with. One may only sit with mouth agape and wonder how this manifested.

[superconductor]

The only true virgin birth that occurred is with Jesus Christ - not a fictional religious entity like the ones above.

• Plato was real;
  
• Quirrnus was real;
  
• Buddha was real;
  
• Alexander the Great was real;
  
• Egyptian Pharohs were real;
  
• Greek Emperors were real;
  
• Euripides was real (though he wrote about virgin births as an historical and social metaphor, he wasn't borne of a virgin).

Unless, of course, you care to dispute the reality of these people, your argument falls flat.

 

Thank you for playing. Please try again.

[Admiral Thrawn]

• Plato was real;
  
• Quirrnus was real;
  
• Buddha was real;
  
• Alexander the Great was real;
  
• Egyptian Pharohs were real;
  
• Greek Emperors were real;
  
• Euripides was real (though he wrote about virgin births as an historical and social metaphor, he wasn't borne of a virgin).

Unless, of course, you care to dispute the reality of these people, your argument falls flat.

 

Thank you for playing. Please try again.

 

 

It still doesn't change the fact that these are all Nimrodian religions instituted by Nimrod. The first tale is that Nimrod married his mother, and made his mother a goddess, and her son was born, and both mother/son goddesses were worshiped in that format since as a devil inspired religion.

 

Again, the devil is confusing people's minds, and this is part a scheme, as with the other plots to confuse people about virgin birth. Virgin birth was known from the beginning - Genesis 3:15 - where a Messiah who would defeat the devil and has defeated the devil would come from the seed of a woman (hence virgin birth). So, obviously, creating false religions that would confuse this concept would be one of it's priorities.

[superconductor]

It still doesn't change the fact that these are all Nimrodian religions instituted by Nimrod.

No, they're not. You're factually incorrect. Check your sources. With the exception of Buddha, none of these mentioned above are religious icons.