Bible Study Virgin birth not taken as gospel

[Bob10]

MORE than a third of Church of Scotland ministers do not believe in the virgin birth of Christ, a central tenet of Christian faith.

A Sunday Times survey of kirk ministers found that 37% believe the traditional story of Jesus’s birth, which forms part of the nativity, should not be taken literally.


St Luke’s gospel recounts how Mary was visited by the angel Gabriel and was told that she would give birth to the son of God.

However many ministers said they believed that, like the resurrection, the virgin birth should be interpreted metaphorically rather than as a description of actual events.

Earlier this month the second most senior churchman in England said Britain could no longer be considered a Christian country. David Hope, the Archbishop of York, cited a lack of faith in the virgin birth as an example of the increasing secularisation of the country.


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0% ... %2C00.html

 

[Khristeeanos]

This is why there should be no denominations or government churches.

Each church should be independantly operated.

 

[liafailrock]

I believe in the virgin birth, but I do not appeal to all the spiritual gymnastics many use to justify it. Indeed, when some label me as one that believes in this because I accepted the traditional dogma without thinking about it, I reply with a very pragmatic view of it. In other words, I'd arrive at this conclusion even if I knew nothing of the virgin birth.

For those who deny it, I ask them why they want to even consider following a cursed Jesus? Even if they do not believe in a literal resurrection, there is "something" they believe good about this man Jesus.
When asked, "What do you mean by a cursed Jesus?" Well, once we get past the scholarly-sounding debate on the meaning of the Hebrew word word 'virgin' such as found in Isaiah 7:14, I simply point out Matthew's genealogy mentioning king Jehoiachin (Jechonias) in Matthew 1:11. Then I point out Jeremiah 22:30. Even if they do not believe in Jesus as a literal king any longer, why would one want to follow the teachings of one that Scripture cursed? And even if a curse is considered superficial and meaningless, then why would one want to believe in a Jesus who believed these same scriptures if it degrades him? I find it amazing how the scholarly critics seem oblivious to this passage about the curse. But if one wants to comment from their perspective, it would behoove them to play with a full deck of knowledge.

With a virgin birth, Matthew's genealogy merely becomes his legal linage giving him the right to the throne without the curse. On the other hand, Jesus' human lineage is recorded in Luke, a parallel lineage that bypasses the cursed king.

 

[Confusion]

I'm a little confused on your theory liafailrock...

From what I understand, you say

30 This is what the LORD says:
"Record this man as if childless,
a man who will not prosper in his lifetime,
for none of his offspring will prosper,
none will sit on the throne of David
or rule anymore in Judah."

(Jeremiah 22:30)

to say that Jesus can't follow as King as
Matthew 1:1-17
in the geneology of Christ, assuming from
[/quote]Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers,
3Judah the father of Perez and Zerah, whose mother was Tamar,

But the Jeremiah passage you said is talking to Jehoiachin, son of Jehoiakim king of Judah
As Jeremiah 22:28 states
[quote:5f1eb]28 Is this man Jehoiachin a despised, broken pot,
an object no one wants?

[/quote:5f1eb]

Yet, Jehoiachin has no relation (or any of his ancestors have) to Christ Jesus... so how would that passage say Jesus can not be King, curses him, and contradict him?

I am confused how that passage would have anything to even do with Christ Jesus... If you could explain it more clearly, it would help me.

Thanks and Good Graces
Confusion

 

[liafailrock]

I'm a little confused on your theory liafailrock...

What I was saying about the curse is that if Joseph was Jesus' natural father, then Jehoiachin would be a great, great........ grandfather to Jesus, making Jesus a son of Jehoiachin as well. Since Jehoiachin's offspring was cursed, then so would Jesus be cursed.

 

[Confusion]

o, see... without mentioning Joseph you got me all confused... then again, it goes with the name

 

[evanman]

Could you please show me where Jehoiachin is listed as an ancestor of Jesus, I can't find him mentioned in either Matthew or Luke?

 

[liafailrock]

Evanman:

In Matthew 1:11 it says:

And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon

In Jeremiah 22:28-30, Jechonias is shortened to "Coniah", not an uncommon practice in Hebrew names where the first syllable is dropped:

Is this man Coniah a despised broken idol? is he a vessel wherein is no pleasure? wherefore are they cast out, he and his seed, and are cast into a land which they know not? O earth, earth, earth, hear the word of the LORD. Thus saith the LORD, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah.

Jehoiachin was another name for Jechonias. The last kings of Judah were given different names by the king of Babylon.

 

[evanman]

Jeremiah's prophecy in Chapter 22 is to the King of Judah.

The object of this prophecy is Zedekiah.

 

[liafailrock]

Jeremiah's prophecy in Chapter 22 is to the King of Judah.

The object of this prophecy is Zedekiah.

???????

Regardless to whom this chapter was addressed to, the curse was pronounced on Coniah (v28-30)