The Virgin Birth

[DaScribe]

The Bibles that contain those brackets around certian verses, also cannot prove they are not correct. They only state these verses do not appear in some manuscripts. And this is usually refering to the later, and less reliable ones from the Alexandrian text.

Is it not possible these same afore mentioned men, had a hand in the translation of these new Bibles?.

Yes, it is possible that those who added were wrong or those who took away were wrong. Either way someone was wrong. I appreciate your position about the Bible being flawless due to the fact that if you do not draw a hard line, others will try to keep chipping away. However, I think it does a great deal of harm to people who are thoroughly convinced that the Bible is flawless because they were trained that way, and then they find out it is not.

The man who stands in faith is never condemned, but the one who stands in doubt is condemned already.

John 3:18
He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God

Jesus says he is the way, the truth, and the life. The truth shall set you free. There is nothing hidden that will not be revealed.

Are you saying it is wrong to look for answers when you have questions?

 

[TanNinety]

My father is a local celebrity. He is on the radio. We forget about it all the time. It's only when I mention his name, which is my name, or I'm out with him and people recognize him by his voice, that I remember that he is a celebrity.

Even though I can identify with your feelings regarding this I don’t think the analogy quite fits in with Mary and Joseph “getting used to†Yeshua being a celebrity of sorts.

Well lets say you forgot that your dad is a celebrity because you get to be close to him and it is granted that you don’t realize it. And when people recognize him as celebrity, then it is brought to your attention/remembrance of who he is. Would you then get amazed at what he is and not understand why people approach him as if he were a celebrity?

Luke 2:27 …So when Mary and Joseph came to present the baby Yeshua to the Lord as the law required, 28 Simeon was there. He took the child in his arms and praised God, saying, 29 "Lord, now I can die in peace! As you promised me,30 I have seen the Savior 31 you have given to all people.32 He is a light to reveal God to the nations, and he is the glory of your people Israel!" 33 Joseph and Mary were amazed at what was being said about Jesus.

You see Joseph and Mary didn’t remember or realize at what was being said. Their feelings were more of an amazement about what was being said, as if it were news to them.

The sins of the world are passed from generation to generation by our human fathers, because that is the way the blood line is passed on, not through the mother.

If this is true, then don’t we have an unfulfilled prophecy that the Messiah is supposed to be of the descendant of David? Wasn’t that the promise? If Joseph wasn’t the father and the mother’s bloodline does not matter then what becomes of one of the main prophesies?

But I realize this is deviating way off topic. So I will let it rest.

 

[Quath]

Lets look at it in a different way. What if someone was mistaken and thought that Jesus was born from a virgin. Say they wrote it down. Would God stop that from happening? Or in other words, does God stop people from writing lies about him?

If God does not stop lies, then the virgin birth could have just been added. Some people may have thought it fulfilled a prophecy (which it doesn't). God just never corrected it.

If God stops lies, then how do you explain the Book or Mormon, the Quran and the Protestant's revised Bible?

 

[DaScribe]

TanNinety,

Mark 6:52
And he went up unto them into the ship; and the wind ceased: and they were sore amazed in themselves beyond measure, and wondered.

Mar 6:52 For they considered not [the miracle] of the loaves: for their heart was hardened.

[quote:c76a7]Mathew 8:27 But the men marvelled, saying, What manner of man is this, that even the winds and the sea obey him!

[/quote:c76a7]

John the Baptist began to doubt. The disciples abandoned Jesus. Thomas had to physically see Jesus before believing He rose the dead. I'm telling you, people forget.

Quath,

That someone would make up a lie is credible. That someone would make up a lie and no one noticed it, is not. Unless it was not a widely spread thing. The only way that something like the virgin birth could have been added, would have been with the consent of the Church. If that is the case, then that is the case, but based on what I've seen so far, that is clearly not the case.

You have to remember that the Bible is probably the most scrutinized group of documents in the history of man. Whether you believe it or not, you have to respect that is still standing after thousands of years.

I've noticed on your previous posts that you are an atheist. Do really believe there is no God or is it more that you do not trust men enough to commit to any beliefs?

 

[Quath]

The only way that something like the virgin birth could have been added, would have been with the consent of the Church. If that is the case, then that is the case, but based on what I've seen so far, that is clearly not the case.

They way I see the Bible being formed is that when Jesus died, his followers tried to convert other Jews to get ready for the upcoming second Kingdom and the coming of the Son of Man. Most Jews did not believe Jesus was the Messiah. So the followers of Jesus tried to make a case that he was the Messiah. So they tried to fit prophecy to the things he did. If they were not sure if he fit the prophecy, they assumed it and said that he did. (After all, they knew they were not wrong, so he must have done these things.) Some probably believed that the Messiah had to be born of a virgin (though that was not a Messiah propecy). But such a speculation may have stuck.

As they went to try to gather pagans, such a story wouls ressonate with them and they would add in the stuff they knew about virgin births (such as the story of the three wise men). The church did not create a lie, but probably adopted it as it formed.

You have to remember that the Bible is probably the most scrutinized group of documents in the history of man. Whether you believe it or not, you have to respect that is still standing after thousands of years.

I agree, but there are problems authorship, bias, and lack of pagan information about the events.

I've noticed on your previous posts that you are an atheist. Do really believe there is no God or is it more that you do not trust men enough to commit to any beliefs?

I have no belief in any god. I see God as a theory to explain the universe, but I don't see it as a good theory because it doesn't really explain what I see. So I reject it as I reject the theory of Zeus, Odin and other gods.

So it is not so much about my distruct in men as lack of evidence in seeing God. Just as a quick example, God is very active in the Old Testament. He is doing miracles lefty and right. he shows he is superior to Ba'al in a competition. He wrestles people. He talks from bushes. He proves his power to Pharoah. Yet today he is extremely silent. You cancurse him and nothing (where in the Old Testament, he would kill thousands of people for that). You defame him or make fun of him or tell lies about him and there is nothing. So if God did exist, I would have to assume he was the Deity type, not the Christian type.

 

[cyberjosh]

Lets look at it in a different way. What if someone was mistaken and thought that Jesus was born from a virgin. Say they wrote it down. Would God stop that from happening? Or in other words, does God stop people from writing lies about him?

I say yes, since all Scripture is God breathed, but this isn't the place for that discussion.

It may be unnecessary to ask that question though because, in context, Matthew's report of the virgin birth would make sense, seeing that Matthew in his Geneology disqualifies Jesus Christ from having the right of kingship by physical decent (or atleast on Joseph's side), though he does mean to show Jesus as a decendant of David. What on earth am I talking about? I'm talking about how Matthew mentions Johoiachin son of Jehoakim, whose line was cursed to never sit on the throne again. So Christ must be king by another means, not of man but of God. Jesus also implies this quite emphatically when he questioned the Pharisees:

"Now while the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them a question:
"What do you think about the Christ, whose son is He?" They said to Him, "The son of David."
He said to them, "Then how does David in the Spirit call Him 'Lord,' saying,
'THE LORD SAID TO MY LORD,
"SIT AT MY RIGHT HAND,
UNTIL I PUT YOUR ENEMIES BENEATH YOUR FEET"'?

"If David then calls Him 'Lord,' how is He his son?"
No one was able to answer Him a word, nor did anyone dare from that day on to ask Him another question. "

(Matthew 22:41-46)

This creates a fair context for the virgin birth, of Jesus being born not of man but of the seed of the Holy Spirit.

 

[PDoug]

Please note the following:

Gospel of Philip

Some said,Mary conceived by the Holy Spirit, they are in error. They do not know what they are saying.When did a woman ever conceive by a woman? Mary is the virgin whom no power defiled. She is a great anathema to the Hebrews, who are the apostles and apostolic men. This virgin whom no power defiled; the powers defiled themselves. And the Lord would not have said My Father who is in Heaven[Matt16:17] unless he had had another father, but he would have said simply My father.
.
.
.
Those who say they will die first and then rise are in error. If they do not first receive the ressurrection while they live, when they die they will receive nothing. So also when speaking about baptism they say Baptism is a great thing because if people receive it it they will live. Phillip the apostle said, Joseph the carpenter planted a garden because he needed wood for his trade. it was he who made the cross from the trees which he planted. His own offspring hung on that which he planted. His offspring was Jesus and the planting was the cross. But the Tree of Life is in the middle of the Garden.However,it is from the olive tree that we got the chrism, and from the chrism, the ressurrection.

The first excerpt from the scripture above, indicates that the Holy Spirit (who is female) cannot cause another female to be pregnant. Now it is true that the Holy Spirit conceived Christ. But it was a spiritual conception – the same way the Holy Spirit conceives every human being that is born of God.

John 3

5 Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.
6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit.
7 You should not be surprised at my saying, 'You must be born again.'

Therefore all indications are that Jesus was by the flesh, a product of Mary and Joseph, and at the same time, a product of the Father and the Holy Spirit, who are his spiritual father and mother.

As for Mary being a virgin: she was a spiritual virgin - not a physical one. In other words, by virtue of her faith, her soul was undefiled by the wicked spirits (the flesh) which inhabit human beings. All women who have faith are spiritual virgins, and will remain that way until they conceive worlds with their consorts, in the bridal chamber of God.

 

[Vic C.]

:o I wouldn't go there. You will have a hard time proving that Mary was not a physical virgin or that the HS is female. Also, Philip's gospel was not included in the Bible for a good reason; it's not inspired. :-?

 

[PDoug]

:o I wouldn't go there. You will have a hard time proving that Mary was not a physical virgin or that the HS is female. Also, Philip's gospel was not included in the Bible for a good reason; it's not inspired. :-?

There is a reason why the Church, ever since the formation of the Catholic Church, has existed only on milk for food. (E.g. just look at the topics on this web site.) The Catholic Church threw out all the meaty foods. All the authentic scriptures (including this one) that begin to show the mysteries of God, were thrown out in ignorance or malice.

Now you may throw up a caution to your readers about my use of the Gospel of Philip. But Christians will have to deal with many of these thrown out scriptures, if they would like to go beyond basic Christianity - Philippians 2:12. As for the authority of the Catholic Church tossing this (as well as hundreds – if not thousands – of scriptures) out: the church’s persecution of millions of people throughout the centuries attest to their lack of authority - Matthew 7:15-20.

 

[Solo]

There is a reason why the Church, ever since the formation of the Catholic Church, has existed only on milk for food. (E.g. just look at the topics on this web site.) The Catholic Church threw out all the meaty foods. All the authentic scriptures (including this one) that begin to show the mysteries of God, were thrown out in ignorance or malice.

Now you may throw up a caution to your readers about my use of the Gospel of Philip. But Christians will have to deal with many of these thrown out scriptures, if they would like to go beyond basic Christianity - Philippians 2:12. As for the authority of the Catholic Church tossing this (as well as hundreds – if not thousands – of scriptures) out: the church’s persecution of millions of people throughout the centuries attest to their lack of authority - Matthew 7:15-20.

The Scriptures were in place way before the Roman Catholic institution attempted to "hide" the Scriptures from the laity. Not all believers were wrapped up in the hideous derision of the Nicolaitan practices of the Roman Catholic institution.


Here are some sites that give good information concerning the canonization of the scriptures without being too "textbookish".

• Canonization Study Outline
  http://www.christinyou.net/pages/canonscript.html
  
  Simple History of the Bible
  http://ohoh.essortment.com/biblechristiani_rfie.htm
  
  Here is a more in depth look at the canonization of the Bible.
  
  http://www.anabaptists.org/history/howwegot.html

Concerning the gnostic gospel according to Philip being inspired:

• The Gospel of Philip is a late third century Gnostic collection, over 200 years removed from the time of Christ and, therefore, of little historical value.
  
  The Gospel of Mary quotes come from an early third century document of no historical value. Even if these 'gospels' said what Brown suggests they say, since they were written over 200 years after the time of Christ, they have little, if any, historical credibility.
  
  Neither provides any evidence that Jesus married Mary Magdalene..
  
  The actual text from the Gospel of Philip is fragmentary and damaged, so only some words can be made out as follows: “And the companion of the [...] Mary Magdalene [...] her more than [...] the disciples [...] kiss her [...] on her [...]â€Â
  
  Retrieved from http://www.iamnext.com/spirituality/prioryofsion.html

The Nag Hammadi library contains the gnostic gospels which were found in 1945 in Egypt. Wikipedia has information pertaining to these gnostic gospels at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nag_Hammadi_library

• 
  Interest in the Gnostic Gospels increased dramatically in 2003, with the publication of the bestselling fiction novel The Da Vinci Code. Events in the story suggest that the Gnostic Gospels had just as much validity as the accepted New Testament gospels, and that it was just an arbitrary decision by church leaders in the time of Emperor Constantine that excluded them from official status. Scholars generally agree that many of the Gnostic Gospels, by comparison, were not written until generations later, during or after the second century AD although there is a number of well-known exceptions such as the Gospel of Thomas which has been dated as early as 50 AD. Opponents of the validity of Gnostic gospels cite as an analogy, the case of whether it would be more trusted to read a biography of George Washington that was written by one of his contemporaries, or a contradictory account that was written 200 years later.

 

[cyberjosh]

Aside from the Gospel of Philip tangent, has anyone considered the response I gave? Does any one disagree? I would like to get some feedback on that. Thanks.

~Josh

 

[DaScribe]

Aside from the Gospel of Philip tangent, has anyone considered the response I gave? Does any one disagree? I would like to get some feedback on that. Thanks.

~Josh

Josh,

I have heard your arguments before and they seem reasonable to me. If the virgin birth was in the original Mathew and Luke, I don't see why anyone would question it. They might not believe it, but there is no doubt what the gospels say.

I'm honestly puzzled that people would even try to debate the validaty of the virgin birth using the new testament as we know it. To me the only argument worth considering would be if there was proof that the stories of the virgin birth were clearly added after the fact.

Beyond that, its like trying to make pictures out of cloud patterns.

 

[Quath]

I say yes, since all Scripture is God breathed, but this isn't the place for that discussion.

Do you mean that all acripture you currently accept or all scripture attributed to God?

It may be unnecessary to ask that question though because, in context, Matthew's report of the virgin birth would make sense, seeing that Matthew in his Geneology disqualifies Jesus Christ from having the right of kingship by physical decent (or atleast on Joseph's side)

Yeah this brings about a troubling problem. You mention the one where Joseph's geanology disqualifies Jesus from being the messiah if Joseph were the father. But if there is a virgin borth, then Jesus can not be of the seed of David and Solomon (which he would get from having a biological father). So if Jesus has no bilogical father, then he can not be the messiah.

So some people try to get around this by saying that Joseph's other Geanology is really Mary's. However, this opens up several problems. For one, if it were the geanology of Mary, it should say son in law and not son (they had a word for that). So you have to assume the Bible has at least one error. For another, women can not carry lineage. And lastly, this geanology does not go through Solomon, which is required by prophecy.

 

[cyberjosh]

Do you mean that all acripture you currently accept or all scripture attributed to God?

Aggghh, you have no idea how complicated a discussion this is. You will not pin me down to saying that modern translations, or the TR, or the Vaticanus, or the Sinaiticus, or the Bodmer Papyrus, etc., etc. is infallible, because they aren't and have had both accidental and on purpose deviations from the original. I do however believe that with proper study of the earliest readings and a coherent theology that one can realize that much of the texts are uniform in their readings, having an - in comparison - small percentage of deviation from one another, and that very few of the conflicting readings would cause any doctrinal change. But please let us not highjack this thread with gargantuan of a topic. If you wish to discuss it further then perhaps you could start a thread and carry this discussion over there.

Yeah this brings about a troubling problem. You mention the one where Joseph's geanology disqualifies Jesus from being the messiah if Joseph were the father. But if there is a virgin borth, then Jesus can not be of the seed of David and Solomon (which he would get from having a biological father). So if Jesus has no bilogical father, then he can not be the messiah.

Two things, that doesn't mean that Mary wasn't decendant from a legitmate line of David, and more importanty Joseph didn't have to be his biological father. He was legally fully Father, and that's how Jesus was regarded by the people: as the son of Joseph. Jesus illuminated this important detail in the passage I quoted.

So some people try to get around this by saying that Joseph's other Geanology is really Mary's. However, this opens up several problems. For one, if it were the geanology of Mary, it should say son in law and not son (they had a word for that). So you have to assume the Bible has at least one error. For another, women can not carry lineage. And lastly, this geanology does not go through Solomon, which is required by prophecy.

Be careful in saying what the Bible could and couldn't do with women. The Bible broke many a historical and cultural rule about including women in geneologies and giving them exceptional records. The Bible is quite unique.

 

[Rick W]

Be careful in saying what the Bible could and couldn't do with women. The Bible broke many a historical and cultural rule about including women in geneologies and giving them exceptional records. The Bible is quite unique.

I'll say. Joseph and Mary weren't married when she conceived. And the Jews threw that up in Jesus's face. They wanted rid of Him. Bad.

Joh 8:41 Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.

The question of fulfilling prophesy was debated with Christ himself. They wanted to belittle His birth, to prove He was not the Messiah by accusing Him to be illegitimate. They couldn't prove it then and nobody's going to prove it now. The Jews were very rigid about genealogies to make sure they knew their bloodline remained pure. If there was a problem with his lineage I'm quite sure they would have pushed it a lot more than what they did to rid themselves of threat to their high positions, especially the Pharisees. They had a LOT to lose. So if there was a problem with Jesus's genealogy as needed to fulfill scripture you can bet the Jewish high priests AND the Pharisees would have used that to prove He was not who He claimed He was. And that would have been that.
But Christ DID fulfill prophesy. Therein lied their problem with bringing Him down in some legal Jewish fashion. And the wrong geneology would have done just that. End of story.
No, they could prove nothing. Therefore they had to do what they did, bear false witness that His claim to kingship was against Ceasar. If the Pharisees and the Jewish high priests couldn't prove His lineage was improper then what makes anyone think they can do it today?
:smt017

 

[Solo]

http://www.abideinchrist.com/messages/o ... ssiah.html

 

[PDoug]

Even if you guys do not ascribe much value to the Gospel of Philip, the fact of the matter is that Jesus stated a law in the following scripture, and God does not break His own laws.

John 3

5 Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.
6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit.
7 You should not be surprised at my saying, 'You must be born again.'

The law states that the Spirit does not give birth to flesh. Flesh gives birth to flesh, and the Spirit gives birth to spirit. Therefore the Holy Spirit did not substitute for a human male to give physical birth to Christ. She only conceived the spirit Jesus, from the spiritual seed of the Father God. Therefore there is no reason to believe that Joseph was not Jesus' physical father.

As for scriptures not in the Bible, the best Gospel I have seen so far (by far), is the Aquarian Age Gospel of Jesus, the Christ of the Piscean Age. Is it authentic? In my spiritual judgment, it is the most authentic Gospel out there that I’m aware of.

 

[DaScribe]

The law states that the Spirit does not give birth to flesh. Flesh gives birth to flesh, and the Spirit gives birth to spirit. Therefore the Holy Spirit did not substitute for a human male to give physical birth to Christ. She only conceived the spirit Jesus, from the spiritual seed of the Father God. Therefore there is no reason to believe that Joseph was not Jesus' physical father.

Are you saying that humans have no spirits? Clearly they are flesh to flesh, but they do have spirits. If the "law" permits two people to produce a person with a spirit, and all matter came from a spirit(God), "legally" speaking there is no conflict. Beyond that, If you believe God created everything, is it any matter to him to make a virgin with child?

[/quote]

 

[DaScribe]

The virgin birth "conflict" is apparently found in the Syriac text of Mathew. I'm not sure about the book of Luke yet. Mathew 1:16 of that text says"

"Joseph, to whom being betrothed Mary the virgin, begat Jesus, who is called the Messiah."

The other translation of this that I found was
(“Joseph, to whom was betrothed Mary the virgin, fathered Jesus who is called the Christâ€Â).


I'm not impressed with this, but I will see what everyone else thinks.

 

[PDoug]

Are you saying that humans have no spirits? Clearly they are flesh to flesh, but they do have spirits. If the "law" permits two people to produce a person with a spirit, and all matter came from a spirit(God), "legally" speaking there is no conflict. Beyond that, If you believe God created everything, is it any matter to him to make a virgin with child?

Humans are spirit seeds and are analogous to sperm. When someone is born again, the spirit seed which resides in his or her soul, is combined with the Holy Spirit (who is analogous to a woman’s egg), and a spirit plant is born, which grows up to be a mighty tree, housed within the person’s body (Matthew 13:31-32, 2 Corinthians 3:18). Therefore when the following scripture says that a person must be born again, wherein that person becomes a spirit born of the Holy Spirit, it means that the spirit seed within the person’s soul must be combined with the Holy Spirit to form a spirit plant, which may enter the kingdom of God.

John 3

5 Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.
6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit.
7 You should not be surprised at my saying, 'You must be born again.'

Flesh gives birth to flesh with spirit seeds, but the Holy Spirit gives birth to spirit plants – and only spirit plants may enter the kingdom of God. That is the law. Therefore as I said before, the Holy Spirit could not have given birth to the physical Jesus containing within him a spirit seed: that is not the Holy Spirit’s role. The Holy Spirit’s role is to combine with a spirit seed (which must first be produced via the flesh), to produce a spirit plant.