Why A Virgin Birth?

Author: ethang5 ,

Topic's posts

Posts in total: 53
  • ethang5
    ethang5 avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 4,457
    3
    3
    6
    ethang5 avatar
    ethang5
    Ever wonder why Jesus had to come by a virgin birth? There is a concrete reason.

    The virgin birth is unique in that it is the only miracle concerning Jesus' earthly ministry that was without witnesses.

    In fact, neither Jesus or anyone else during His life time is recorded as mentioning or knowing He was virgin born.

    Do be able to do what He was sent to do, Jesus HAD to be virgin born.

    The bible says Adam sinned and became spiritually dead. Thus, according to the rule set up during creation, "Everything after its kind", Adam could only have spiritually dead offspring. (Forget original sin, it is unbiblical)

    To save mankind, Jesus not only had to redeem us from our past and future sins, but from our spiritually dead state.

    The bible calls Jesus the "new man" and contrasts Him with Adam whom it calls the old man. Our line of ancestry went back to Adam, who was spiritually dead.

    Jesus had to break that line, and start a new line, spiritually alive, and then somehow hook us into that lineage. 

    So Jesus became God's first born of the new line, and all who believe on Him, He will kill, (be crucified with Him), recreate, (be born again) and resurrect (on the last day)

    Had Jesus had an earthly mother and father, he would Himself have been in Adam's line. For a new line, Jesus could not be a genetic descendant of Adam.

    That is why Jesus birth had to be of the Holy Spirit. It was not just a miracle for the sake of a miracle.

    It had to be in order for the salvation plan God designed to work. So for born again Christians today, our line of ancestry terminates in Jesus, not Adam.

    That is why the bible says we already have eternal life, because anyone born in Jesus' line is like Jesus. Eternal. And the bible calls us Saints, because saints are what the line of Jesus produces.

    It is a great, wonderful and selfless thing Jesus did for us. So we adore Him, and we thank Him, and we praise Him. Because while we were yet sinners, dead in sin, He loved us and died for us.

    He made the first move, when we didn't deserve it, and came down into a world we had polluted into a hellhole, to save us
  • EtrnlVw
    EtrnlVw avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,206
    2
    3
    4
    EtrnlVw avatar
    EtrnlVw
    --> @ethang5
    The bible says Adam sinned and became spiritually dead. Thus, according to the rule set up during creation, "Everything after its kind", Adam could only have spiritually dead offspring. (Forget original sin, it is unbiblical)

    Glad you brought this up in this manner. Original sin is a misconception, it's not that we pay for what Adam chose to do rather it is the very nature of man coming into this world to be spiritual dead, or spiritually inept. And you see that all over the place, you can really see how spiritually inept people are especially in a forum like this. Most people don't realize spirituality is not just about some bizarre irrelevant beliefs, there's actually a real objective and progression/growth.
    I would go as far as to say we didn't even need Adam as a literal figure to make us spiritually dead, so really we don't need to put any blame on anyone for any of our shortcomings. That wasn't really the point behind the Adam and Eve account. Adam and Eve are representative of Mankind, so whatever they did was inevitably representative of ourselves not them as separate humans.

  • Deb-8-a-bull
    Deb-8-a-bull avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 980
    2
    2
    3
    Deb-8-a-bull avatar
    Deb-8-a-bull
    I read the first four and a bit paragraphs.
    Try beating that.

    Thank you.
    Thanks.



  • ethang5
    ethang5 avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 4,457
    3
    3
    6
    ethang5 avatar
    ethang5
    As I started to learn more about Christian doctrine, I became more interested in religious doctrine in general and decided to research the doctrines of other religions.

    Also, because by that time I had come across the atheist charge of, "If you had been born in.............. you'd be............

    What shocked me was how much more intricately complex and logical Christianity was. It had concepts and ideas other religions didn't even approach.

    The more I compared the religions through study, the more obvious it became that Christianity was different.

    Every detail of Christian doctrine is supported by, and tied to, another detail that gives a new understanding when viewed as a whole. Nothing is simply window dressing. Every part has a logical explanation for its existence.

    With Christianity, one can do the "If/then" logical test and it passes. The "if/then" logical test is a simple logical operand to test if a logical argument is sound.

    Simple examples would be:
    *If a chicken lays an egg, then the creature inside that egg will be a chicken.

    *If Jesus is God, then He could not be killed.

    *If the Holy Spirit is the third PERSON in the Trinity, then He should be recorded as speaking.

    So we test....
    If Jesus had to graft us into a new line of ancestry away from Adam, then He could not come from Adams line, and must have been born of a virgin.

    If we share in Christ's crucifixion, then we  share in Christ's resurrection too.

    If Christ was to be the first new man in the non-adamic new line, then He could not genetically father any children with a daughter of Eve.

    If we are not genetically born into the family of God through Christ, then we must be adopted into the family of God.

    Check them. Each is true as each "if/then" argument above is specifically laid out in the bible.

    Here is a more complicated "if/then" argument for the road....
    IF
    the life is in the blood (says the bible)
    If marrow makes blood (says science)
    If Jesus' blood is what saves us (says the Spirit)
    THEN
    Jesus' bones that housed the marrow making that precious blood could not possibly be broken.

    Psa 34:20 - He keepeth all his bones: not one of them is broken.
    Psa 91:11 - For he shall give his angels charge over you, to keep you in all your ways.
    Psa 91:12 - They shall bear you up in their hands, lest you dash your foot against a stone

    Jesus would not be allowed to stumble and fall.

    Jhn 19:31 - The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for that sabbath day was an high day,) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away.
    Jhn 19:32 - Then came the soldiers, and brake the legs of the first, and of the other which was crucified with him.
    Jhn 19:33 - But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs:

    Its all there. Its all true.
  • Deb-8-a-bull
    Deb-8-a-bull avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 980
    2
    2
    3
    Deb-8-a-bull avatar
    Deb-8-a-bull
    Yeah but.
     
    Who could ever possibly know what it is you might make your god tell you next?


  • ethang5
    ethang5 avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 4,457
    3
    3
    6
    ethang5 avatar
    ethang5
    --> @Deb-8-a-bull
    You could. I bet your delusion can do it.

    You currently think I made a book that is older than me by 2,000 years say what I want it to say.

    That sounds like powerful delusion Deb.

    Who could ever possibly know? Sounds like you could genius. Got any 1,000 year old books you want me to change for ya?

    (Lol. I swear Gentle Reader, I do not pay this Einstein to set them up for me to knock them down. This is all real.)
  • Deb-8-a-bull
    Deb-8-a-bull avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 980
    2
    2
    3
    Deb-8-a-bull avatar
    Deb-8-a-bull
    You are being silly now ethang.  
    I know full well you didn't make the 2000 year old book.
    God did. 

    God got guys to write stuff down for him from time to time,  then he got another bunch of guys to compile it into a book for him to leave for you.  

    I am not stupid. 

    Good game. 
    Good game. 


  • ethang5
    ethang5 avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 4,457
    3
    3
    6
    ethang5 avatar
    ethang5
    --> @Deb-8-a-bull
    I know full well you didn't make the 2000 year old book.
    You must have realized it after you posted.

    I am not stupid.
    Deluded doesn't mean stupid.

    Who could ever possibly know what it is you might make your god tell you next?
    Maybe that God got guys to write stuff down for him from time to time? That then he got another bunch of guys to compile it into a book for him to leave for me?

    Lol. Wait, did I make my God tell me that or did you say it?
  • Dr.Franklin
    Dr.Franklin avatar
    Debates: 31
    Forum posts: 8,121
    4
    5
    11
    Dr.Franklin avatar
    Dr.Franklin
    I wondered this too, good post
  • Tradesecret
    Tradesecret avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 719
    2
    2
    5
    Tradesecret avatar
    Tradesecret
    --> @ethang5
    Ever wonder why Jesus had to come by a virgin birth? There is a concrete reason.
    Yes, and agreed. 

    The virgin birth is unique in that it is the only miracle concerning Jesus' earthly ministry that was without witnesses.
    It certainly was unique. Yet, I suspect the Holy Spirit was a witness at the time - as indeed Mary probably was as well. In history we also have the witness of both Matthew and Luke who recorded it - and Isaiah who prophesied about it.

     In fact, neither Jesus or anyone else during His life time is recorded as mentioning or knowing He was virgin born.
    Although there is no recorded evidence of this in the NT I would not concede the point.  I think Mary knew, So did Joseph and I also expect that Jesus knew as well. Matthew and Luke both record it - and Jesus himself calls himself the Son of God and the Son of Man. He was also born in Bethlehem, but I don't recall Jesus talking about that either. Nor do I recall any of the disciples or other letters mentioning it too. 

    Do be able to do what He was sent to do, Jesus HAD to be virgin born.
    This is probably correct. 

    The bible says Adam sinned and became spiritually dead. Thus, according to the rule set up during creation, "Everything after its kind", Adam could only have spiritually dead offspring. (Forget original sin, it is unbiblical)
    I agree the Bible tells us Adam sinned and died. Was it physical, spiritual or covenantal? I favour the latter. I am not persuaded that "everything after its kind" is referring to spiritual death or even covenantal death. I do agree that all of Adam's children inherited the estate of death - which he received in his own death of being cut off from the tree of life. I don't agree that so called original sin is unbiblical. It may well not be the best term for what happened to Adam, but the concept is clear.
     
    To save mankind, Jesus not only had to redeem us from our past and future sins, but from our spiritually dead state.
    Jesus the saviour redeems his people from sin and sins.  This is the distinction that some on this site have found it difficult to distinguish. Jesus' death covers not only sins - all sins past present and future, but also the estate of sin - that which I would term original sin. 

    The bible calls Jesus the "new man" and contrasts Him with Adam whom it calls the old man. Our line of ancestry went back to Adam, who was spiritually dead.
    Where does the bible call Jesus the "new man". He is called the final Adam. All humanity traces its lineage back to Adam. And the natural corollary to that is all humanity has inherited Adam's estate of death in sin. 

    Jesus had to break that line, and start a new line, spiritually alive, and then somehow hook us into that lineage. 
    Agreed, Jesus did need to break that line. He was something new and different. I am not sure I like the word "hooked", I think I prefer the notion of adoption rather than hooked. 

    So Jesus became God's first born of the new line, and all who believe on Him, He will kill, (be crucified with Him), recreate, (be born again) and resurrect (on the last day)
    I am not sure of that line. It sounds rather "out there". I agree that Jesus was the first born of this new line. And it is also true that those who trust in him become part of his family - being reconciled to the Father through Jesus in his death and resurrection. His children need to be born from above - and be resurrected in him. 

    Had Jesus had an earthly mother and father, he would Himself have been in Adam's line. For a new line, Jesus could not be a genetic descendant of Adam.
    Jesus did have an earthly mother, her name is Mary. His father was the Holy Spirit. Joseph was his step father. Jesus was adopted into Joseph's line - in order to be the Son of David. Jesus was descended from Adam. Luke 3:38. Jesus was fully man and he was fully God. He had a human mother and he had divine father. He was genetically descended from Adam, through Mary. He was titularly descended from David through Joseph. If you are correct, then Jesus was only Fully God. He was not fully human. (If that is not what you are saying, then please explain more fully how he can be fully human and not be genetically descended from humans.) 

    That is why Jesus birth had to be of the Holy Spirit. It was not just a miracle for the sake of a miracle.
    I am not persuaded of your argument. I think it has flaws in it. I think it is true that Jesus had to be fathered by the Holy Spirit. I also agree that it was not just a miracle for the sake of it - and for it to have something to do with Jesus being a new line - I can work with that. but I reject (at least until I can be shown otherwise) that it was to demonstrate he was not genetically descended from humans. 

    It had to be in order for the salvation plan God designed to work. So for born again Christians today, our line of ancestry terminates in Jesus, not Adam.
    No, again I disagree. It is not the case to be so - in order for God's salvation plan to work.  What your argument does not deal with and I am sure you will in due course, is the humanity of Christ. How he struggled with the concept of sin without sinning. Why he needed to rely on the Holy Spirit. It also does not deal with Paul's problem, sinning when we don't want to - sanctification. If our ancestry terminates in Christ and not Adam, then Christians ought not to sin any more.  This is not the case. In Christ, we are reconciled to God - through covenant life. Yet it is because we remain descended from Adam genetically that we continue to sin.  


    That is why the bible says we already have eternal life, because anyone born in Jesus' line is like Jesus. Eternal. And the bible calls us Saints, because saints are what the line of Jesus produces.
    Yes, the Bible does say we have eternal life. Amen. We are however being transformed more and more to be conformed to his image. And it is true that we are Saints. Yet, I don't agree that there is a logical step or connection between your argument above and this truth. Not in relation to Jesus being born of a virgin anyway. Nor being descended from genetic humans. 

    It is a great, wonderful and selfless thing Jesus did for us. So we adore Him, and we thank Him, and we praise Him. Because while we were yet sinners, dead in sin, He loved us and died for us.
    Yes this is true. 


    He made the first move, when we didn't deserve it, and came down into a world we had polluted into a hellhole, to save us
    Again this is absolutely true. 

    Thanks Ethang, for this topic.  I think much of what you have contributed is good. I just cannot come at parts of it. In particular, Jesus not being descended genetically from Adam. Nor that Mary was not his genetic mother. It is true that only in Jesus can we be reconciled back to the Father - and that only by trusting him can we be truly redeemed and have our sins and sin forgiven.  We must be born again - because we cannot save ourselves. Yet Jesus is FULLY MAN and he is FULLY GOD. This cannot be the case if Jesus is not descended genetically from Adam. 
  • ethang5
    ethang5 avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 4,457
    3
    3
    6
    ethang5 avatar
    ethang5
    --> @Tradesecret
    Thanks for this thoughtful post TS. This is what the religion board ought to be! I'm putting finishing touches on my reply, its coming shortly.
  • Tradesecret
    Tradesecret avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 719
    2
    2
    5
    Tradesecret avatar
    Tradesecret
    --> @ethang5
    HI Ethang5,

    I am looking forward to your response. Thanks for your thoughts as well.



  • Tim_Tam
    Tim_Tam avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4
    0
    0
    0
    Tim_Tam avatar
    Tim_Tam
    --> @ethang5
    .....This is what the religion board ought to be!......
    Do you really think that the religion board ought to be promulgating the idea of a completely outlandish and insulting myth about a mythological hero who was born to a virgin wife?

    And then discussing it as if it were real and being worthy of discussion in the first place?
  • ethang5
    ethang5 avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 4,457
    3
    3
    6
    ethang5 avatar
    ethang5
    --> @Tim_Tam
    Hi Willows. Yes I do.

    That is the purpose of the board. If you don't like the topic, go find another board.

    No one is under your dumb delusion, and everyone is free to discuss what they want. No one has to do what you want.

    You don't decide what is worthy of discussion. That is part of the reason you were banned, and your compulsive sock puppetry proves you were worthy to be banned.

    Please, go find a life.
  • Tim_Tam
    Tim_Tam avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4
    0
    0
    0
    Tim_Tam avatar
    Tim_Tam
    --> @ethang5
    No one is under your dumb delusion, and everyone is free to discuss what they want. No one has to do what you want.

    Quite right.
    And I have never made any such pretense that anyone has to do what I want.

    You initiated a discussion and surely I have a right to offer my view without being derided in such a way.

    Perhaps you may wish to consider your response and reply to fellow human beings in a more human manner.
  • ethang5
    ethang5 avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 4,457
    3
    3
    6
    ethang5 avatar
    ethang5
    --> @Tradesecret
    Thanks for waiting TS. Now to your points.

    Yet, I suspect the Holy Spirit was a witness at the time - as indeed Mary probably was as well. In history we also have the witness of both Matthew and Luke who recorded it - and Isaiah who prophesied about it.
    I meant human witnesses. We learned about it after the fact, but did not witness it, though we are witnesses for it in that we testify Christ.

    ...but I don't recall Jesus talking about that either. Nor do I recall any of the disciples or other letters mentioning it too.
    Correct. There was no need to. Unlike other miracles, it's main purpose was not to validate that Jesus had come from God, but was needed for the inner mechanics of the plan of salvation.

    I am not persuaded that "everything after its kind" is referring to spiritual death or even covenantal death.
    I agree. "After its kind" is referring to a state, not to any kind of death. For example, ducks give birth to ducks because "duck" is a state of being. The state of duckness so to speak. Ducks can only reproduce ducks, or to be more precise, ducks can only reproduce others in the same state as they are, and that is the state of duckiness. (Sorry, no better words)

    I don't agree that so called original sin is unbiblical. It may well not be the best term for what happened to Adam, but the concept is clear.
    We were born in the same state Adam was, but we did not inherit his sin. No one is charged with the sins of their parents.

    Ezekiel 18:20: “The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself

    Jesus' death covers not only sins - all sins past present and future, but also the estate of sin - that which I would term original sin.
    Then we agree, but use different terms. I don't call it original sin because first, the term causes confusion, it makes people think we are being charged with Adam's sin, and second, the bible clearly says children do not inherit the sins of their parents.

    I am not sure I like the word "hooked", I think I prefer the notion of adoption rather than hooked.
    The bible itself used the word adopted, so we have no real disagreement here. "Hooked" referred to how were were adopted into the new line. I could have said "grafted" as Jesus did in John, but our young audience today may not be as familiar with horticulture as Jesus' audience was in His day.

    So Jesus became God's first born of the new line, and all who believe on Him, He will kill, (be crucified with Him), recreate, (be born again) and resurrect (on the last day)

    I am not sure of that line. It sounds rather "out there".
    Of course it does. God's plan of salvation is intelligent brilliance. But every point in my argument can be verified with verses. If you ask, I'll cite them.

    Jesus was descended from Adam. Luke 3:38.
    Luke 3:23 says, And Jesus.....being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph.

    Jesus did have an earthly mother, her name is Mary.
    A mother in the sense that she birthed Him. But I will give you two reasons why Jesus could not have been the genetic child of Mary.

    His father was the Holy Spirit. Joseph was his step father.
    All true. But if Mary's egg was used for Jesus, then it was the Holy Spirit who fertilized Mary's egg with the other 23 chromosomes, and this would lend credibility to the gross atheist's charge of God having sex with Mary. Jesus' divinity was not because of His genetics. Jesus was divine despite His humanity.

    But there is another, more profound reason Mary's egg could not have been used which I will come to shortly.

    If you are correct, then Jesus was only Fully God. He was not fully human. (If that is not what you are saying, then please explain more fully how he can be fully human and not be genetically descended from humans.)
    OK. (I'm so used to people not thinking here that your rational responses are making me swoon) : )

    ...how he [Jesus] can be fully human and not be genetically descended from humans
    Was Adam genetically descended from humans? No.
    Was Adam genetically human? Yes.

    The book of Romans goes to pains to show us that God created a New Line of Humans with Jesus! Fully human, but not from the line of Adam.

    2Co 5:17 - Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

    If you remember the account in Genesis, Eve was created using the cells of Adam. Thus Eve had the same genetics as Adam. She was essentially a female clone of Adam! (Some interesting thoughts about man and wife being one here!)

    And this is the more profound reason Mary's egg could not have been used, Mary's egg was from the same tainted line as Adam.

    Gen 2:23 - And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

    ...I reject (at least until I can be shown otherwise) that it was to demonstrate he was not genetically descended from humans.
    But does Jesus need to be descendent from Adam to be human? No, for Adam was fully human and yet not descendent from any humans.

    God is able to create ex nihilo, that is, God does not need raw materials to create, He can create from nothing.

    You are correct in thinking that Jesus had to be fully human, the bible says so, but you are wrong in thinking that the only way He could be fully human was to use the genes of Adam (or any of his descendants, including Eve)

    If our ancestry terminates in Christ and not Adam, then Christians ought not to sin any more. This is not the case.
    This very question was posed in the Bible by Paul!

    Rom 6:2 - God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?

    And the full answer deserves a whole thread on its own.

    Rom 7:18 - For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.

    Our ancestry has changed, but our corrupt flesh has not.

    Instead of going into it now, because it will make an already long post unwieldy, let me suggest some reading material and we can tackle it in another thread or after we have settled most of the current topic.

    Read Romans chapters 3 to 7

    Yet it is because we remain descended from Adam genetically that we continue to sin. 
    Rom 8:7 - Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
    Rom 8:8 - So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.

    Are you sure? Does the Bible say that it is ancestry of Adam that causes us to sin? Adam was not descendant from any human, and he continued to sin. So did  Satan.

    We don't need to be descendant from humans to have a tendency to sin. But we can come back to this topic later.

    I just cannot come at parts of it. In particular, Jesus not being descended genetically from Adam. Nor that Mary was not his genetic mother. It is true that only in Jesus can we be reconciled back to the Father - and that only by trusting him can we be truly redeemed and have our sins and sin forgiven.  We must be born again - because we cannot save ourselves. Yet Jesus is FULLY MAN and he is FULLY GOD. This cannot be the case if Jesus is not descended genetically from Adam.
    I hope you will agree I've demonstrated that this can indeed be the case if Jesus, as the Bible tells us, is the first human in a new line created purposely for the adoption of His new sons and daughters in Christ. 

    Jesus had to be fully human, true, but to be so, He did not have to be descended from Adam.

    Adam did not gain the genes that made him human from anyone but God, exactly the same with Jesus. The difference with Jesus is that He was not ONLY human.

    Thanks Ethang, for this topic.
    And thank again you for your thoughtful reply. I like how you clearly state what you disagree with and why you disagree with it. That forces me to think.
  • ethang5
    ethang5 avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 4,457
    3
    3
    6
    ethang5 avatar
    ethang5
    --> @Tim_Tam @Willows
    Quite right.
    And I have never made any such pretense that anyone has to do what I want.
    Which is why we ignore your stupid contention that we should not discuss religion because you find it outlandish and insulting.

    You initiated a discussion and surely I have a right to offer my view without being derided in such a way.
    No moron. You have no right. First, you are illegally here. You have been banned for repeated stupidity.

    Second, your view is irrationally stupid in that it says religion is not a worthy topic for the religion board. Too stupid for a reasoned reply.

    Third, you always felt you had a right to deride Christians in such a way. Well, I feel I have a right to deride you in such a way. Sue me

    Perhaps you may wish to consider your response and reply to fellow human beings in a more human manner.
    When a human being responds, I will reply in a human manner. For you, you get what you deserve. Don't cry now. I tried to warn you many times, you were resistant to good sense.

    You're still taking the path of stupidity. And as promised, I'm still here for you. You are a sick compulsive moron. You will be treated as one.

    Go back to hari loser, he's your class.
  • Iced_Vovo
    Iced_Vovo avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 5
    0
    0
    0
    Iced_Vovo avatar
    Iced_Vovo
    --> @Tradesecret
    I think it is true that Jesus had to be fathered by the Holy Spirit.
    In order for such to happen, surely Mary would have had to be either raped by God or; Mary had consensual sex with God, thereby committing adultery before she even consummated her marriage.

  • Iced_Vovo
    Iced_Vovo avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 5
    0
    0
    0
    Iced_Vovo avatar
    Iced_Vovo
    --> @ethang5
    The book of Romans goes to pains to show us that God created a New Line of Humans with Jesus! Fully human, but not from the line of Adam.
    If Jesus was the first of a new line of humans, is there evidence that Jesus married and had children? And if so, would Jesus and his siblings commit incest in order to continue the lineage?  


    God does not need raw materials to create, He can create from nothing.

    If God could create Jesus from nothing, why would He stage a sham birth for his son, who would be illegitimate anyway since the mother was married (unconsummated) to another man?
  • EtrnlVw
    EtrnlVw avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,206
    2
    3
    4
    EtrnlVw avatar
    EtrnlVw
    --> @Iced_Vovo
    In order for such to happen, surely Mary would have had to be either raped by God or; Mary had consensual sex with God, thereby committing adultery before she even consummated her marriage.

    Thinking with your head in your pants again?
    The point behind the virgin birth is that there was never any sex involved I mean come on grow up. If that scenario is at all true God (Holy Spirit) does not have sexual organs to begin with, the womb was miraculously conceived, miracle.... In other words no sex.
  • EtrnlVw
    EtrnlVw avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,206
    2
    3
    4
    EtrnlVw avatar
    EtrnlVw
    --> @Iced_Vovo
    If God could create Jesus from nothing, why would He stage a sham birth for his son, who would be illegitimate anyway since the mother was married (unconsummated) to another man?

    I disagree with Ethan a bit here Willard (although I'm open to consideration), because one, I don't take a literal interpretation of Genesis on how man was created so I believe in order to have a physical body it must be developed through a physical giver, this is the process of life here. While it is a process, it's still a process originated/generated by the Creator. So although God can create from essentially an empty platform, things are created though processes, "building blocks". 
    The physical body of Jesus was developed within the womb of Mary, Jesus needed a physical body to be in the physical world and therefore a physical mother. However, the soul of Jesus was placed within that womb, but no seminal fluid was needed for this conception. The Holy Spirit was able to manipulate the womb to conceive...without sexual relations. While this was a miracle apart from the norm, it's not really the same as creating a physical body from dirt, a birth without a male partner is not always an impossibility...although unheard of. 
  • Tradesecret
    Tradesecret avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 719
    2
    2
    5
    Tradesecret avatar
    Tradesecret
    --> @Iced_Vovo
    I think it is true that Jesus had to be fathered by the Holy Spirit.
    In order for such to happen, surely Mary would have had to be either raped by God or; Mary had consensual sex with God, thereby committing adultery before she even consummated her marriage.
    Rape requires penetration of a sex organ or a finger and must be done without consent. The Scriptures indicate several things. Firstly, the Holy Spirit is a spirit. This means ipso facto - no physical body parts including fingers, or sexual parts. Secondly, there is no evidence whatsoever that consent was required or denied. God DID not have sex with Mary. 

    And since there was no sex- either physically or in the mind, there was no adultery. The Bible simply does not suggest otherwise. 

    Now, I concede that for most people in the world and in history, that they are conceived by an act of sexual intimacy. Yet, even in our modern age, 1 in 20 persons in Australia are now conceived without sex. We used to call them test tube babies - now IVF. Yet, Jesus was not a test tube baby even of a divine type. 

    This was not a Sperm fertilising an Egg. This was God bringing the Son of God into this world - joining him to humanity through a woman. 

    Jesus is the Son of God who also became the Son of Man through his birth. This is the only thing ever added to God - humanity. 

    Yet, I still disagree with Ethang. Yes, this was a new line. Indeed God had now entered himself into the line of humanity - in order to bring humanity into his own line.  I don't agree that Jesus was not genetically descended from Adam or from Mary. There is no question anywhere in the Scriptures that Mary was not his biological mother. It seems to me that unless Jesus was in the same line as Adam, then for the Scriptures to claim that he endured all temptation in the same manner as the rest of humanity, is a redundant and meaningless statement. If he was simply a surrogate baby and used Mary as means of birth then it brings all sorts of complications into his humanity.  

    I also consider that if God was simply going to do a new thing, he should simply have created a new human, Jesus and not gone to the bother of having him born as a baby in a virgin's womb. Why do something so different? He created Adam from the dirt apparently as a fully mature adult. Why make Jesus in the womb? 

    It seems to me that this means something. Adam was never GOD and Man. Jesus is. This is important. But I will discuss this further in my response to Ethan.
  • Tradesecret
    Tradesecret avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 719
    2
    2
    5
    Tradesecret avatar
    Tradesecret
    --> @EtrnlVw
    I disagree with Ethan a bit here Willard (although I'm open to consideration), because one, I don't take a literal interpretation of Genesis on how man was created so I believe in order to have a physical body it must be developed through a physical giver, this is the process of life here. While it is a process, it's still a process originated/generated by the Creator. So although God can create from essentially an empty platform, things are created though processes, "building blocks". 
    The physical body of Jesus was developed within the womb of Mary, Jesus needed a physical body to be in the physical world and therefore a physical mother. However, the soul of Jesus was placed within that womb, but no seminal fluid was needed for this conception. The Holy Spirit was able to manipulate the womb to conceive...without sexual relations. While this was a miracle apart from the norm, it's not really the same as creating a physical body from dirt, a birth without a male partner is not always an impossibility...although unheard of. 
    Interesting perspective.  I don't have an issue with the interpretation of Genesis where man was made or recreated out of dirt.  Yet, I do think on balance that Jesus was genetically related to Mary. I don't think sin is transmitted genetically but that is a different matter.  And I don't think the teaching on original sin (which I noticed you do not agree with) teaches transmission by genetics. I think your second paragraph here is more in line with what I accord with - although I am open to change if persuaded. Ethan's view is an interesting one as well and I need more time to consider it fully. Yet, it seems to me that it requires sin to be transmitted genetically, which he also noted was not the case. After all, if sin is not transmitted genetically, then why the issue with Jesus being genetically related to Adam or Mary. He seems to suggest we needed something new. Yet, there is a disjunct between what he says about sin not being transmitted genetically and Jesus not being genetically related to Mary. I am still working that one through. 
  • EtrnlVw
    EtrnlVw avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,206
    2
    3
    4
    EtrnlVw avatar
    EtrnlVw
    --> @Tradesecret
    Interesting perspective.

    Thanks

     I don't have an issue with the interpretation of Genesis where man was made or recreated out of dirt. 

    Well in my opinion it's a metaphorical statement not a literal one. Man being made from the dust of the ground is the same as saying we are made from star dust. It just means we were created by the same elements as everything else. If God made humans from dirt then why did he ever stop? if the talking snake in Genesis was literal why did it ever stop talking to people lol? I mean at some point we have to embrace the obvious. Same situation here....
    Ecclesiastes 3:20 20 "All go to the same place; all come from dust, and to dust all return".

    We didn't literally come from dust, its just a figurative way of saying something that has some truth to it.

    Another point is that science brings to the table evidence that the human species far predate Adam and Eve, so again, I doubt they were the first humans, meaning it's a figurative story. Adam and Eve are representative of mankind as a whole, not the first humans God created, we know that the human species evolved. So evolution here is a creative process involved. The serpent being representative of temptation ect ect...

    Yet, I do think on balance that Jesus was genetically related to Mary. I don't think sin is transmitted genetically but that is a different matter.  And I don't think the teaching on original sin (which I noticed you do not agree with) teaches transmission by genetics. I think your second paragraph here is more in line with what I accord with - although I am open to change if persuaded. Ethan's view is an interesting one as well and I need more time to consider it fully. Yet, it seems to me that it requires sin to be transmitted genetically, which he also noted was not the case. After all, if sin is not transmitted genetically, then why the issue with Jesus being genetically related to Adam or Mary. He seems to suggest we needed something new. Yet, there is a disjunct between what he says about sin not being transmitted genetically and Jesus not being genetically related to Mary. I am still working that one through.

    It's weird, although I wouldn't use the description we have a "genetic" weakness that interpretation could work on some level. I think taking into account what I said above that Adam and Eve are representative of Mankind, its more to do with the imperfect nature of man and all its weaknesses then anything to do with Adams choices in the account specifically. Though it's not a physical genetic problem per say, its a moral dilemma, just the nature of being human in a fallen world having to make choices while dealing with desires and urges mixed with emotions, genetics just happen to also be something we inherit. I think the soul entering the physical world it naturally inherits problems, which is why it seems we have to work ourselves out of them, or embrace salvation as a means to progress. No matter how we look at it Jesus certainly was developed in the womb of Mary, so his physical body must have carried her genes.
    However we could still argue that Ethan has a legit point being that the Holy Spirit manipulated the womb, so there's still some truth to what he's saying, maybe on more of a spiritual level. I don't know what I'm saying about that lol, just bouncing around ideas here.

  • EtrnlVw
    EtrnlVw avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,206
    2
    3
    4
    EtrnlVw avatar
    EtrnlVw
    --> @Tradesecret
    I don't have an issue with the interpretation of Genesis where man was made or recreated out of dirt. 

    I think you should have a problem with a literal interpretation of that. Starting with the point I brought up above. If you don't see something in real life taking place like humans arising from dirt and animals talking then that's the time to realize that scripture uses figurative language, it's not always literal. It's okay to embrace that, no one is forcing you to look at it as a literal statement so why would you? It also confuses people when they translate something like this poorly, then we have to bridge all the inconsistencies and absurdities when it never had to be that way. 

    Scripture weaves in and out of literal and figurative writing, so it is important to line up what you are interpreting with reality otherwise everything gets weird. It also becomes a problem when you say the book says this, and the evidence says another thing. I'm not forcing a figurative interpretation rather it's quite clear and obvious, spiritual texts use a lot of figurative language and metaphorical stories to convey points, analogies, symbolism ect ect.