mark 3:21 and the virgin birth

[Alabaster]

sorry, i had to add this.... enter the kingdom of heaven? you need a whole lot more than becoming like little children (a metaphor repeatedly used by jesus, which does not mean "stop thinking rationally like an adult")

Mt 5:20
mt 7:21
lk 14:26
lk 14:33
lk 18:22
mt 19:21-23

OK, let's see!

Matthew 5:20 NLT
But I warn you—unless your righteousness is better than the righteousness of the teachers of religious law and the Pharisees, you will never enter the Kingdom of Heaven!

Our righteousness is the righteousness of Christ--received by a complete childlike faith in Him and His work on the cross.

Matthew 7:21 NLT
“Not everyone who calls out to me, ‘Lord! Lord!’ will enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Only those who actually do the will of my Father in heaven will enter.

We can only do the will of God by complete childlike faith in Christ.

Luke 14:26 NLT
If you want to be my disciple, you must hate everyone else by comparison—your father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even your own life. Otherwise, you cannot be my disciple.

Without complete childlike faith we cannot love God in such a great capacity so as to make the love for our families seem like hatred by comparison.

Luke 14:33 NLT
So you cannot become my disciple without giving up everything you own.

You cannot give up all you own for Christ without first having a complete childlike faith in His provision.

Luke 18:22 NLT
When Jesus heard his answer, he said, “There is still one thing you haven’t done. Sell all your possessions and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.â€

It is only because we have shown God we have a faith in Jesus Christ, which is utterly childlike that we will find ourselves tested by God to surrender everything.

Matthew 19:21-23 NLT
Jesus told him, “If you want to be perfect, go and sell all your possessions and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.â€

But when the young man heard this, he went away sad, for he had many possessions. Then Jesus said to his disciples, “I tell you the truth, it is very hard for a rich person to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.

We need a complete surrendering faith of a child first before God will come and test it.

It all comes down to faith.

agreed. never said otherwise. im the one who quoted john 3:16. i dont see what any of that has to do with a virgin birth, or breaking the sabbath or dishonoring his mother. jesus broke OT laws. this is a fact. but jesus did not sin.

It has to do with you trusting the veracity of the word of God and the true identity of Jesus Christ.

my energy is not in doubting. my energy is in thinking. and to be honest, jesus makes it very clear where our energies need to be put ... in charity. that's why he says charity is more important than faith (1 corinthains 13:13)

peace be with you

Works are not as important as faith. Works are the result of faith. Those who express doubt and when offered the truth persist in expressing doubt as an argument---I have doubt about.

 

[doubting thomas]

Works are not as important as faith. Works are the result of faith. Those who express doubt and when offered the truth persist in expressing doubt as an argument---I have doubt about.

i've never doubted that jesus is the son of god. i've doubted that he was born of a virgin. you seem to think only people who share your beliefs can be true christians, but fortunately there are hundreds of christian denominations.


1 CORINTHIANS 13:13: And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.

JAMES 2:14-26
What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? ... faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead. But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds. Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do ... As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.

1 JOHN 3:18: let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed

GALATIANS 5:22-3: But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law

Romans 13:10 love is the fulfillment of the law.

1 John 4:8 Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.

FAITH = LOVE = DEEDS. THIS IS CHRISTIANITY

you seem to want you christianity the easy way. nothing worth having is easy, including faith. doubt is healthy. it makes you stronger when you've overcome it. the only real deeds done out of faith are those done out of love. this is why charity is so important. this is why we are commanded to sell everything we have and give to the poor. this is why we are told to love everyone like our own family. this is why we are told to abondon our biological families, and love everyone as we do them, as we do god.

now let me ask you: have you abandoned your family, as jesus instructs? have you sold all you own and giving it to the poor, as jesus instructs? have you put charity ahead of faith, as paul instructs? you say you are a literalist, yet we learn that:

2 Corinthians 3:6 to be helpful: "Who also has made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter kills, but the spirit gives life."

as a literalist, you are bound to the letter, but not the spirit.

and here we are talking about the virgin birth. one can not be a literalist and be a serious christian:

(Jesus' lineage was traced through David's son Solomon. Mt.1:6.
Jesus' lineage was traced through David's son Nathan. Lk.3:31. the announcement of the special birth came before conception. Lk.1:26-31.
The announcement of the special birth came after conception. Mt.1:18-21. Jesus' parents were told of their son's future greatness. Mt.1:18-21; Lk.1:28-35.
Jesus' parents knew nothing of their son's potential. Lk.2:48-50.The angel told Joseph. Mt.1:20.
The angel told Mary. Lk.1:28.There were 28 generations from David to Jesus. Mt.1:17.
There were 43 generations from David to Jesus. Lk.3:23-31. Jacob was Joseph's father. Mt.1:16.
Heli was Joseph's father. Lk.3:23.
He was to be called Emmanuel. Mt.1:23.
He was called Jesus. Mt.1:25. Joseph, Mary, and Jesus flee to Egypt while Herod slaughters all males under 2 years old. Mt.2:13-16. (Note: Jesus' cousin, John, was also under 2 and survived without having to flee.)
Joseph, Mary, and Jesus did not flee to Egypt, but remained for temple rituals. No slaughter of infants is mentioned! Lk.2:21-39.)

apologetic is all about reconciling this. you need reason to do that. not faith. and i can doubt the virgin birth and still proclaim john 3:16.

 

[doubting thomas]

well just know God bless

but this whole thing was wrong

if you check my link you'll see why

night brother

i'll make it quick and simple:

if you can challenge the translation of "family" i can challenge the translation of "virgin" to mean young mother.

the question remains: can you believe jesus is your savior who died for your sins and not believe in the virgin birth? yes. some people do not believe in the immaculate conception either. big deal.

i believe jesus' family thought him mad. i think the evidence shows this. and i think the evidence show there was no virgin birth

 

[Mike]

i'll make it quick and simple:

if you can challenge the translation of "family" i can challenge the translation of "virgin" to mean young mother.

the question remains: can you believe jesus is your savior who died for your sins and not believe in the virgin birth? yes. some people do not believe in the immaculate conception either. big deal.

i believe jesus' family thought him mad. i think the evidence shows this. and i think the evidence show there was no virgin birth

Do you believe the Bible is Inspired? Do you believe we can take certain scripture and dismiss it? Is this for all of us to decide? I ask because the account of Mary's encounter with the angel makes it very clear that He was conceived before Mary had any relations with Joseph. Do you dismiss this account? Or worse yet, do you accept it and find it possible that she had relations with another man? :shocked! Why would you reject something that is clear?

Luke 1
"34 “How will this be,†Mary asked the angel, “since I am a virgin?†35 The angel answered, “The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called[b] the Son of God. 36 Even Elizabeth your relative is going to have a child in her old age, and she who was said to be unable to conceive is in her sixth month. 37 For no word from God will ever fail.â€
38 “I am the Lord’s servant,†Mary answered. “May your word to me be fulfilled.†Then the angel left her."

Looking at vs. 34, she asks (paraphrasing), "How can I be pregnant? I'm a virgin." You said "virgin" could be translated to "young mother". So, does this make sense?: "How can I be pregnant? I'm a young mother."???


So, you are able to make holes in this scripture, but place your entire disbelief on His Immaculate Conception based on the response of his family in Mark 3. Luke 1 is very straight forward. Mark 3:21 requires a lot of speculation. There have been several explanations in this thread for His family's response in Mark 3, but you appear to dig your heals in your speculation, ignoring the very straight forward account in Luke 1. I just can't understand this approach to scripture.


You said many other Christians deny the virgin Birth of Jesus. Can you name any biblical denominations that hold this belief? This is a core tenet that is in complete agreement by all Christendom. One cannot hold to this and accept scripture as God's Word, IMO.

 

[Free]

i personally find the jesus leaving his family at passover a little troubling as well. if mary was visited by an angel and gave birth a virgin, surely she understands what jesus means by "fathers house". does she forget what the angel told her?

Like I pointed out, those who were closest to him always misunderstood him. It is quite possible that Mary did not fully understand what his being the Son of God actually meant.

So what we have is Mark 3:21 which can have several different meanings, none of which really supports your point.

To add to Mike's point of the use of "virgin":

Mat 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: After His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit.
Mat 1:19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not wanting to make her a public example, was minded to put her away secretly. (NKJV)

The evidence in the NT is overwhelming that Mary was a virgin and that Jesus was conceived in her through the creative power of the Holy Spirit.

the question remains: can you believe jesus is your savior who died for your sins and not believe in the virgin birth? yes.

No. If Jesus was not born of a virgin, if he was merely human and not God in the flesh, his death and resurrection are insufficient for our sins.

 

[Alabaster]

i've never doubted that jesus is the son of god. i've doubted that he was born of a virgin. you seem to think only people who share your beliefs can be true christians, but fortunately there are hundreds of christian denominations.

One cannot know Jesus Christ and not believe He was born of a virgin, as one is calling God a liar. The virgin birth is integral to who the Messiah is, prophesied hundreds of years earlier, recorded in holy scripture. Making up your own little gospel does nothing for you.

you seem to want you christianity the easy way. nothing worth having is easy, including faith.

Faith is not a work.

doubt is healthy.

Where in scripture are we implored to doubt willingly?

now let me ask you: have you abandoned your family, as jesus instructs?

He doesn't.

have you sold all you own and giving it to the poor, as jesus instructs?

He doesn't.

have you put charity ahead of faith, as paul instructs?

He doesn't.

you say you are a literalist, yet we learn that:

2 Corinthians 3:6 to be helpful: "Who also has made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter kills, but the spirit gives life."

as a literalist, you are bound to the letter, but not the spirit.

Who says I deny the Holy Spirit? The scriptures show us how we need His power to live for Christ. Maybe you misunderstand what it is to accept the literal word of God, and knowing the Holy Spirit personally at the same time. There is no contradiction!

and here we are talking about the virgin birth. one can not be a literalist and be a serious christian:

I think you need to explain what your definition of 'literalist' is!

apologetic is all about reconciling this. you need reason to do that. not faith. and i can doubt the virgin birth and still proclaim john 3:16.

Can you know Jesus personally and deny His origin? I think not. He wants to correct you and you are not hearing Him. Why is that? You have created your own version of the gospel---there is no life in it.

 

[Oats]

i dislike the way i was overlooked

oh well turn the words anyway you want

God knows all

 

[Oats]

Like I pointed out, those who were closest to him always misunderstood him. It is quite possible that Mary did not fully understand what his being the Son of God actually meant.

So what we have is Mark 3:21 which can have several different meanings, none of which really supports your point.

To add to Mike's point of the use of "virgin":

Mat 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: After His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit.
Mat 1:19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not wanting to make her a public example, was minded to put her away secretly. (NKJV)

The evidence in the NT is overwhelming that Mary was a virgin and that Jesus was conceived in her through the creative power of the Holy Spirit.


No. If Jesus was not born of a virgin, if he was merely human and not God in the flesh, his death and resurrection are insufficient for our sins.

dude...don't feed the troll

no disrespect Free

but he refused to acknowledge that the word means
Associates or friends


and you are right even if his family denied him, they are faulty humans subject to doubt, just like thomas

 

[Alabaster]

Oats~
He refused a lot of other things too, and I did mention already about the 'friends, companions' meaning. It doesn't mean he is a troll. That is uncalled for.

 

[Oats]

Oats~
He refused a lot of other things too, and I did mention already about the 'friends, companions' meaning. It doesn't mean he is a troll. That is uncalled for.

i think you are wrong

that is a troll like behavior

he won't acknowledge logic

----
but thanks for checking me

Troll (Internet) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

i believe i was right


did you really know what a troll was?

 

[Alabaster]

A troll swoops in, often in the middle of a thread and starts trouble.

If he was a troll, the thread would have been closed.

Your behaviour seems rather trollish, when it comes right down to it, dontcha think?

 

[Oats]

A troll swoops in, often in the middle of a thread and starts trouble.

If h was a troll, the thread would have been closed.

Your behaviour seems rather trollish, when it comes right down to it, dontcha think?

indeed.

stay on topic.
-----

as my link states the meaning of the word is friend or associate.

therefore you have the wrong idea thomas.

if that is the definition why are you still in doubt, thomas.
-----

 

[Alabaster]

indeed.

stay on topic.
-----

as my link states the meaning of the word is friend or associate.

therefore you have the wrong idea thomas.

if that is the definition why are you still in doubt, thomas.
-----

Indeed, we shall, now, thank you.

 

[Oats]

Indeed, we shall, now, thank you.

right on.

----

on topic

We all have doubts even when it seems like we should believe in God things scare us.

we should fear God and be humble like children

 

[doubting thomas]

Do you believe the Bible is Inspired?

yes. but not inerrant.

Do you believe we can take certain scripture and dismiss it?

dismiss? not exactly. but contextualize. i think the jesus seminar has done some good work. i find bart erhman's work very instructive.

I ask because the account of Mary's encounter with the angel makes it very clear that He was conceived before Mary had any relations with Joseph. Do you dismiss this account?

1. Matthew (1:18-21) says that news of Mary’s pregnancy was announced only to Joseph, by an angel in a dream, and only after Jesus had been conceived. Luke (1:26-31) on the other hand, says that Gabriel appeared to Mary while she was awake and explained everything to her before Jesus was conceived. Neither angel cautions silence, so it’s unlikely that one wouldn’t have told the other — and so they can’t both be true.

2. i think if the angel appeared to mary her family would be less likely to doubt jesus. especially when zacharaia and elizabeth, also included in the family of jesus, were also visited by the angel.

3. paul tells us nothing about the virgin birth. this for me is the clincher. if it was so important, he would have written down in his letters. but no, he tells us only that we need believe christ is risen and here to save us of our sins, not that we must believe the in circumstances surrounding his birth. only that we believe the circumstances surrounding his death.

4. what the point of telling us jesus' geneology, telling us how jospeh is descended from david and abraham if jesus is not even related to jospeh by blood? (also note the two very different genealogies in the only two gospels which mention the virgin birth)

Or worse yet, do you accept it and find it possible that she had relations with another man? :shocked! Why would you reject something that is clear?

i think she had relations with her husband. i think that is clear. she had other children. i think it completely possible the son of man was conceived by two human parents.

Looking at vs. 34, she asks (paraphrasing), "How can I be pregnant? I'm a virgin." You said "virgin" could be translated to "young mother". So, does this make sense?: "How can I be pregnant? I'm a young mother."???

the answer stems from a misreading of Isaiah 7:14. THIS is the well documented mistranslation of virgin. the greek septuagint which matthew used translates it as “a virgin shall conceive and bear a son,” but the hebrew word “almah” means “young woman of marriageable age,” not a virigin. "betulah" is the hebrew word for virgin, and it is not used in isaiah. this is the contextualization to which i referred to earlier. i think much of the nativity story was added after the death of jesus, and made to fit certain prophesies from the OT, like his birth in bethlehem (i also have problems with the historicity of the census or the slaughter of babies (which john the baptist somehow survived without fleeing).

So, you are able to make holes in this scripture, but place your entire disbelief on His Immaculate Conception based on the response of his family in Mark 3.

no, i never said nor in any way implied that. i actually argued in this thread that i though the immaculate conception plausible IF the virgin birth happened. i think mary would have been born without sin. jesus is too special, and so is she. remember, my background, as i stated in this thread, is catholicism.

There have been several explanations in this thread for His family's response in Mark 3, but you appear to dig your heals in your speculation, ignoring the very straight forward account in Luke 1. I just can't understand this approach to scripture.

there have been two explanations: 1) family did not mean immediate family or 2) it is in fact rather plausible that his family thought him mad. my problem with (1) is that mark 3 mentions his mother and brothers waiting outside for him. (2) is problematic because i find it implausible that mary or her children could doubt the sanity of jesus based on the alleged circumstances of his birth. the retort to (2) is that i am being anachronistic. i disagree. jesus knew how important family is, which is why he asks much of us to love everyone as much as we love our family. and he does tell his disciples to leave their families.

You said many other Christians deny the virgin Birth of Jesus.

no, i didn't. i only said how fortunate we are to have so many different denominations. that said, there are early christian "heresies" (ebionites, etc) which didn't believe in the virgin birth. there is also a plethora of interesting work on the "adoptionist theology". im not defending any of it. just putting it out there. (it was, after all, the catholic church, in essence, which declared those denying the virgin birth heretics, and we all know what that church had to say about heresy during the protestant reformation)

his is a core tenet that is in complete agreement by all Christendom. One cannot hold to this and accept scripture as God's Word, IMO.

tell that to john shelby spong, a man a greatly admire. im not interested in reading insults about his theology. he is a most decent, gentile and christian man.

i've expressed my own personal theology in other posts in this thread. (and got called a troll for it - eye roll). god is love. he loves us so much that he gave his only son for our sins. and he asks us to love everyone as much as we love god, and from our faith will come our directive to love, and from our desire to love will come our acts of charity. the resurrection is the only miracle im interested in.

 

[doubting thomas]

Like I pointed out, those who were closest to him always misunderstood him. It is quite possible that Mary did not fully understand what his being the Son of God actually meant.

i think that is a very good point, and well taken. but she was told by the angel that jesus was come to save mankind of their sins.

it is entirely possible that family could mean only the brothers of jesus, and that the brothers had trouble believing/understanding, and that mary did understand/believe and is not included in "family". but again, why mention "his mother and brothers" later in mark 3. and why would you not believe your mother?

The evidence in the NT is overwhelming that Mary was a virgin and that Jesus was conceived in her through the creative power of the Holy Spirit.

than why do two gospels and all the letters of paul not mention it. hardly "overwhelming".

No. If Jesus was not born of a virgin, if he was merely human and not God in the flesh, his death and resurrection are insufficient for our sins.

also a good point. unless jesus can still be the son of god and not born of a virgin. we dont say jesus is a demi god like heracles because one of his parents was a god. as we know, that's not how it works. he is both fully human and fully divine. but only has one human parent. and still fully human. i dont see how having two human parents would make him "more" human or "less divine". his "dna", so to speak, is not at issue. he can still be fully divine and fully human and have two human parents. imo.

remember, jesus is said to be a direct descendent of abraham and david though joseph, his father's, line. jesus can't be related to david if he is not even related to joseph (also not the two DIFFERENT genealogies in the only two gospels which bother mentioning the virgin birth)

 

[doubting thomas]

One cannot know Jesus Christ and not believe He was born of a virgin, as one is calling God a liar. The virgin birth is integral to who the Messiah is, prophesied hundreds of years earlier, recorded in holy scripture. Making up your own little gospel does nothing for you.

addressed in last two posts.

Faith is not a work.

exactly! we agree! charity is a work. and charity is more important than faith.

Where in scripture are we implored to doubt willingly?

nowhere. never said it did. only said we can't "choose" god and be blessed with a thinking mind and not be expected to use that thinking mind to choose god. faith eliminates the choice and the thinking.

He doesn't.

that's not actually an argument. the passage i cite would argue otherwise.

He doesn't.

that's not actually an argument. the passage i cite would argue otherwise.

He doesn't.

that's not actually an argument. the passage i cite would argue otherwise.

Who says I deny the Holy Spirit? The scriptures show us how we need His power to live for Christ. Maybe you misunderstand what it is to accept the literal word of God, and knowing the Holy Spirit personally at the same time. There is no contradiction!

again, you need to elaborate, making direct reference to the passages i've cited.

I think you need to explain what your definition of 'literalist' is!

bible is word for word inerrant, and not a human document, subject to human error (much like the RCC perhaps, inspried, but subject to human error)

Can you know Jesus personally and deny His origin? I think not. He wants to correct you and you are not hearing Him. Why is that? You have created your own version of the gospel---there is no life in it.

you need to back that up with scripture and/or argumentation. i have not created my own gospel. ive better understood it and contextualized it to get at the real message. the virgin birth is tangential.

i can't just force myself to believe something. obviously some faith will always be required, but im not about base my entire theology on faith. i want to understand like augustine and aquinas and all the great theologians. reason and christianity have always gone hand in hand






Romans 2:6-7 God will give to each person according to what he has done. To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life.

Luke 11:9-10 And so I tell you, keep on asking, and you will receive what you ask for. Keep on seeking, and you will find. Keep on knocking, and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks, receives. Everyone who seeks, finds. And to everyone who knocks, the door will be opened.

Luke 13:24 Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able.

Deuteronomy 4:29 if from there you seek the LORD your God, you will find him if you look for him with all your heart and with all your

pslams 9:10 And those who know your name put their trust in you, for you, O Lord, have not forsaken those who seek you.

 

[Alabaster]

Luke 1 :27 NIV
to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin’s name was Mary.

Luke 1:34 NIV
“How will this be,†Mary asked the angel, “since I am a virgin?â€

Believe and do not doubt the truth of the word of God...

John 10:27 NIV
Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.â€

James 1:6 NIV
But when you ask, you must believe and not doubt, because the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind.

 

[Alabaster]

Charity is not more important than faith. You cannot love without having the love of God in you, and you cannot have that without faith in Jesus Christ as your Saviour.

If you think love and works of charity are more important, than you are thinking of yourself as a 'doing' rather than a 'being'. You cannot do anything to make yourself acceptable to God.

 

[Alabaster]

bible is word for word inerrant

How you can say that is remarkable, as you stroke out massive portions of truth from within the scriptures that you choose to disbelieve.

i can't just force myself to believe something. obviously some faith will always be required, but im not about base my entire theology on faith. i want to understand like augustine and aquinas and all the great theologians. reason and christianity have always gone hand in hand

This is the basis of your spiritual battle. You are not resting in God, and accepting His truth. You are fighting Him. You must choose to believe. It is all down to faith. Never mind past Christians, but look to God and His word, and seek out believers who believe all that God says and emulate them. You will never find peace with God if you continue to fabricate your own custom-made gospel truth. That is a spiritual error of a monumental proportion. your eternal destiny is weighing in the balance.