Christ Was Born from a Virgin?

[konfused]

Give it up Superconductor. Every other person on Earth knows what you're talking about.

[a4a]

We need the input from a scientologist on this debate.......

[superconductor]

We need the input from a scientologist on this debate.......

Oh, after the debacle that was War of thr Worlds, I don't think that Tom Cruise could really add anything of value...

[a4a]

Oh, after the debacle that was War of thr Worlds, I don't think that Tom Cruise could really add anything of value...

 

 

Tom Cruise was not brought into this world via a virgin birth?

 

oh shoot I forgot he is a "pod person"..... is that a virgin birth?

[burning 4 revenge]

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

 

 

 

" 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."

 

 

 

He might have thought he did, but no-one destroys B4R except B4R

[Nicholas]

I think I lost the argumentative momentum of this thread when I left town.

 

I'll still stand by the claim that original sin is not an infectious disease but rather a condition of humanity derived from our separation from God and not from our mother's sex life.

 

Mary was without original sin, but her parents still had sex. She was not born of a virgin, yet she did not have original sin. I don't see how it gets any clearer than that.

 

Jesus lacks original sin for a different reason. Jesus is God.

 

If you're citing evangelicals who believe that the virgin birth is a core concept of Christianity, I'm neither convinced nor surprised. If your argument is that fundamentalism cannot survive unless Jesus was born from a virgin, I agree 100%

 

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

 

He wasn't a combination of divine and human elements, but rather wholly both. I know that makes no sense, but it's doctrinal.

 

You can disagree with Augustine all you like, but he is certainly a central figure in the development of Christianity, no?

 

Augustine, as well as Catholic.com and other protestant answers websites, engages in apologetics. To do so, they have to do a lot of guesswork and filling in the blanks to reconcile intellect with faith.

 

Though you're quite right in pointing out that it's central to the development of Christianity, it's not the whole picture. We have a broader understanding of myth than Augustine. The virgin birth is a literary element of the Christian story, serving the same purpose it serves in the story of various "great men" in history.

 

It is false, however, to say that people base Jesus' divinity on virgin birth. Not all of the Gospels have infancy narratives, which is evidence enough that Christians have never considered Jesus' divinity to be derived from his unique conception.

 

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

 

We're limited and fallible too. If we were given a giant book with all of the truths of the universe clearly outlined in bullet form, things would be much different. I don't think the Bible represents what God has done to reveal himself to man, but rather what man has done to understand God.

 

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.

 

It's not a valid theological question.

Power was not "transmitted" to him as if bitten by a divine spider.

Jesus is God--the alpha and omega--and his power has always been there.

 

I got a little bit zealous before. My point wasn't that people consider the virgin birth unimportant as though it were a causal coincidence. I'm merely asserting that it is unrelated to the divinity of Jesus, and that Christianity would not be threatened if Jesus was traditionally conceived.

[Alexandra]

Clearly I've been gone for very long, this thread is humongous! Regardless, I only made it as far as page 10 so if the following has already been said I apologise in advance for not simply quoting and adding "Ditto" but...

 

First I believe the OP is looking for a pat on the back at least and quite possibly a few gasps of "OMG I have been a Christian all my life and this one never occured to me, how true! I'm jumping camps right now, screw this!" both of which seem a tad puerile.

 

Second Flavius in particular and a few others in general are brilliant. Bravo.

 

Last but not least some of the replies here that approached the extreme "What great question" scenario the OP was hoping for were unbelievable to the point that I am tempted to question the existence of such extreme naivety. Surely grown up adults can't be pondering this for the first time thanks to LIS...

[Admiral Thrawn]

I'll still stand by the claim that original sin is not an infectious disease but rather a condition of humanity derived from our separation from God and not from our mother's sex life.

 

Mary was without original sin, but her parents still had sex. She was not born of a virgin, yet she did not have original sin. I don't see how it gets any clearer than that.

 

Mary had original sin. Jesus did not have orginal sin. Original sin is passed from a man with original sin, having sex with a woman with orginal sin. But if a man has no original sin, and has sex with a woman, with or without orignal sin, then the seed will also have no original sin. This rule of propagation is derived from scripture (Gen 3:15). So, Mary doesn't necessarily have to be free from original sin for Jesus not to be tainted with original sin.

 

Jesus lacks original sin for a different reason. Jesus is God.

 

His Father, God Almighty, did not have original sin, thus Jesus did not have original sin.

 

It is false, however, to say that people base Jesus' divinity on virgin birth. Not all of the Gospels have infancy narratives, which is evidence enough that Christians have never considered Jesus' divinity to be derived from his unique conception.

 

His 'unique' conception is relevant to bible prophecies of his Messiahship, for example Isaiaih 7:14. (notice Isaiah 7 : (7 + 7) - multiples of 7 - 3 7's, Trinity of 7 - God's number is 7)

 

We're limited and fallible too. If we were given a giant book with all of the truths of the universe clearly outlined in bullet form, things would be much different. I don't think the Bible represents what God has done to reveal himself to man, but rather what man has done to understand God.

 

What a cop-out.

 

I got a little bit zealous before. My point wasn't that people consider the virgin birth unimportant as though it were a causal coincidence. I'm merely asserting that it is unrelated to the divinity of Jesus, and that Christianity would not be threatened if Jesus was traditionally conceived.

 

Sure it would, review the laws of how original sin is transferred.

[superconductor]

I don't think the Bible represents what God has done to reveal himself to man, but rather what man has done to understand God.

What a cop-out.

On the contrary, AT, the way that ancient societies perceived their God (or gods) is often represented in written or oral tradition. The Bible is no exception to that. In fact, the Jewish tradition of the Talmud - basically, the first five books of the Old Testament - is based on the understanding that God handed down the laws to Moses, and Moses in turn handed them down to his followers in the classical oral tradition style. So, in essence, Moses would have had to "translate" those laws into ways that his flock could understand; after all, faithful as they were, they were also simple farming folk and slaves, hardly the types to get themselves immersed in theological and philosophical discussions.

 

This is exactly why the story of the virgin birth is clearly a legendary component of the Bible. Those farmers and slaves and other agrarian types knew of the ancient Greek stories of virgin births - such stories predate Christianity by thousands of years - so the stories of Jesus' virgin birth followed the same literary pattern.

 

Again, that doesn't make the story any less powerful, but it does help to understand that the oral and written tradition that existed prior to the compilation of the Bible had a direct influence on Biblical writings.

[Admiral Thrawn]

On the contrary, AT, the way that ancient societies perceived their God (or gods) is often represented in written or oral tradition. The Bible is no exception to that. In fact, the Jewish tradition of the Talmud - basically, the first five books of the Old Testament - is based on the understanding that God handed down the laws to Moses, and Moses in turn handed them down to his followers in the classical oral tradition style. So, in essence, Moses would have had to "translate" those laws into ways that his flock could understand; after all, faithful as they were, they were also simple farming folk and slaves, hardly the types to get themselves immersed in theological and philosophical discussions.

 

How do you know Moses "translated" them instead of God? God understood the society back then, and that's how He delivered those laws. Moses is a messenger, he didn't make up any laws on his own.

 

This is exactly why the story of the virgin birth is clearly a legendary component of the Bible. Those farmers and slaves and other agrarian types knew of the ancient Greek stories of virgin births - such stories predate Christianity by thousands of years - so the stories of Jesus' virgin birth followed the same literary pattern.

 

We are going up to 4000 BC, way before any Greek empire or influence when you are talking about Moses. References to virgin birth came from the prophet Isaiah, and from my reads on it, are directly from God as a 'sign'.

 

Thus, in my view, these other cultures are counterfeits for what has already been established in the Bible, or what was already known by the master counterfeiter itself, the devil.

 

Again, that doesn't make the story any less powerful, but it does help to understand that the oral and written tradition that existed prior to the compilation of the Bible had a direct influence on Biblical writings.

 

Sure, but you arguements serve to undermine whether or not revelations came directly from God.

[RecordProducer]

Hey, if you're a sucker for god, you'll believe anything!

 

I had an immaculate conception too: my kids were taken out of me with a C-section so my vagina stayed untouched.

[Admiral Thrawn]

Hey, if you're a sucker for god, you'll believe anything!

 

I had an immaculate conception too: my kids were taken out of me with a C-section so my vagina stayed untouched.

 

I'd rather be a sucker for God, than a sucker for a vain woman, and they are plenty of those around. But who can find a virteous woman? And Mary was a good girl.

[superconductor]

We are going up to 4000 BC, way before any Greek empire or influence when you are talking about Moses...

Unfortunately, you're confusing two very different stories. One is about the Exodus, and the other is about the virgin birth.

 

Virgin birth stories far predate the Book of Isaiah, which, scholars estimate, was written sometime in the middle 7th century BC. So any reference to a virgin birth would obviously be influenced by other legends, oral and written traditions, as was the case in Greece and Egypt.

[Nicholas]

Some opinions on here represent a fundamentalist view of Christianity. I'd just like to distance myself from that, and hope that it doesn't derail the discussion too much. It's not that I don't think fundamentalists should have the right to their opinion, I just think it's disingenuous for them to pretend to engage in discussion when its clear that discussion is not their aim.

 

I stand by what I said before.

[Admiral Thrawn]

Some opinions on here represent a fundamentalist view of Christianity. I'd just like to distance myself from that, and hope that it doesn't derail the discussion too much. It's not that I don't think fundamentalists should have the right to their opinion, I just think it's disingenuous for them to pretend to engage in discussion when its clear that discussion is not their aim.

 

I stand by what I said before.

 

 

As usual, you are a cop-out. Why even bother replying then explain that you are coping out?

[superconductor]

As usual, you are a cop-out.

Not a very Christian view, IMHO.

[Nicholas]

It's because I still value all the parts of the discussion that lack you.

[Chris777]

Virgin birth stories far predate the Book of Isaiah, which, scholars estimate, was written sometime in the middle 7th century BC. So any reference to a virgin birth would obviously be influenced by other legends, oral and written traditions, as was the case in Greece and Egypt.

 

If one were to assume that all of the stories were fiction and inspirational to each other, however other possibilities do exist,

 

such as the colleted stories in the Bible being all true, and all other being counterfit deceptions being designed to discredit the true scriptures of God.

I am sure if you already havent pointed it out it has been posted elsewhere that Gilgamesh and other so called flood myths predate the hebrew scriptures, and many are quick to assume that means that they were "inspirational" to the jews. But thats not the only possibility, especially considering Moses Was CHOSEN by God, to record many events that far preceded his own birth, such as the creation, the flood, the tower of Babel etc. Its possible (though not popular, nor likely given a second thought by those interested in condeming scriptures) that God specifically chose the Jews not only as his chosen people, but because he knew they were the only ones that would keep the account unchanged fron its original revelation.

This is my theory granted (as I have never herad it put fourth anywhere else) But it is a distinct possibility, Given that Satan knew much of prophecy as well as the scriptures himself, and he has as always continued to decieve as many as he could.

 

Its easier to believe otherwise since thats what "the crowd"(majority) believes, but the majority has never always been correct, Just the majority. and in our secularized all inclusive world books like the bible can never be what the majority believe, especially if they bother to read what it actually says.