The Virgin Birth

[Rick W]

If God created the universe then why is it so hard to accept the fact He created a fertilized egg within the womb of Mary?

 

[Solo]

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.

And the view of the Gnostics marches on, and as in the first century, it is dead wrong; but hey, why not try to rear its ugly head in the modern days where false teachings will abound.

 

[PDoug]

If God created the universe then why is it so hard to accept the fact He created a fertilized egg within the womb of Mary?

Because God is orderly, and He does things according to His law.

 

[samuel]

The Syriac text was discarded long ago, as another Gnostic writing. If you believe anything in the Gospels of Thomas, Philip, Mary, or Paul, Etc, Etc. You are treading on Un-Holy ground. The Nag Hammadi scrolls, dating from around AD 390 very well could be of early Muslim corruption since they magically appeared in EGYPT.

The Codex Sanaiticus, and Vaticanus were at one time the property of the Catholic Church. The Sanaiticus was retrieved from a trash dump at a Monastery near Mt. Saini, the Vaticanus was in the vaults of the Catholic Church until 1850. These are the textual basis for all modern translations.

On the other hand the reason for the big thing about the KJV is not the name of the book, or its old English language, but the source of the text. The translators of 1611 looked at hundreds of scrolls, and Papyri. Form these they selected the majority of the textual evidence that agreed only. These were from the Greek text, not the Syriac that had no multitude of text to compare from only the Sanaiticus, and Vaticanus. Even these two do not agree with one another, and have many very visible changes (yes the RCC did allow the 1611 translators to view the Vaticanus text) This is the reason for the cry “KJVO†not from any snob appeal.

Men of corrupt minds are trying so hard to put God out of the picture, they will try to present anything as the truth. Therefore confusing the weak, and doubtful. In fact satan's crowd is doing a better job of presenting their case, than the Church is the Gospel, to their shame and disgrace.

I know this is a little off subject, but I thought I might give those who quote from such text, a little idea where it came from.

 

[PDoug]

And the view of the Gnostics marches on, and as in the first century, it is dead wrong; but hey, why not try to rear its ugly head in the modern days where false teachings will abound.

Fine. Ignore my gnostic references. But my messages based around John 3:5-7 still stand.

 

[samuel]

The new Spirit that comes with Salvation does not combine with the old Proud, and High Minded Corrupted spirit of man, but is clean and brand new.

Ezek 36:26-27
26: A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.

27: And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.
KJV

 

[mlkdvd]

"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."

That is totally false. You need to be honest and tell the truth. Adoption is a legal fiction, which among the Jewish people always remains a fiction. According to G-d's Torah, blood ties cannot be imagined. So an adopted, or foster child not from the royal bloodline of David and Solomon's male lineage has zero rights to David's throne regardless of the status of the legal guardian. If the Jewish people living in Israel in the 1st century called Jesus "Ben-Joseph" it is because they thought he was Joseph's biological son. If they knew he was not Joseph's literal son they would not have used the patronymic.

 

[BradtheImpaler]

Can anyone address the points TanNinety and I brought up about Mary and Joseph's reactions in Luke?

 

[PDoug]

The Syriac text was discarded long ago, as another Gnostic writing. If you believe anything in the Gospels of Thomas, Philip, Mary, or Paul, Etc, Etc. You are treading on Un-Holy ground. The Nag Hammadi scrolls, dating from around AD 390 very well could be of early Muslim corruption since they magically appeared in EGYPT.

The Codex Sanaiticus, and Vaticanus were at one time the property of the Catholic Church. The Sanaiticus was retrieved from a trash dump at a Monastery near Mt. Saini, the Vaticanus was in the vaults of the Catholic Church until 1850. These are the textual basis for all modern translations.

On the other hand the reason for the big thing about the KJV is not the name of the book, or its old English language, but the source of the text. The translators of 1611 looked at hundreds of scrolls, and Papyri. Form these they selected the majority of the textual evidence that agreed only. These were from the Greek text, not the Syriac that had no multitude of text to compare from only the Sanaiticus, and Vaticanus. Even these two do not agree with one another, and have many very visible changes (yes the RCC did allow the 1611 translators to view the Vaticanus text) This is the reason for the cry “KJVO†not from any snob appeal.

Men of corrupt minds are trying so hard to put God out of the picture, they will try to present anything as the truth. Therefore confusing the weak, and doubtful. In fact satan's crowd is doing a better job of presenting their case, than the Church is the Gospel, to their shame and disgrace.

I know this is a little off subject, but I thought I might give those who quote from such text, a little idea where it came from.

What is so irritating, is that the Catholic Church performed the most egregious of crimes at its onset, by declaring everything not ‘politically correct’ in its sight as being heretic. It did a hatchet job on God’s most holiest works produced by the Holy Spirit, and therefore blasphemed against the Holy Spirit and was cursed from its very beginning.

Do you realize that a variety of works such as the Essene Gospel of Peace, and the Works Of Dionysius The Areopagite, corroborate much of Gnostic texts? Of course the Catholic Church got rid of these scriptures too. You have all been deceived that many texts thrown out by the Catholic Church are corrupt. You must have genuine faith to realize that this is so (1 Corinthians 2:15-16).

 

[Quath]

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.

But the prophecy was "by seed." Which means biological. If Josephs could somehow adopt "by seed" then the cursed king also can not "by seed" have any descendents that could be the messiah.

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.

This wasn't a new thing they could do. They wanted to fulfill prophecy, which is not something you should be able to redefine.

 

[DaScribe]

You have said well in that the soul of a man/woman is literally transformed by the Holy Spirit because man became a living soul from the dirt and the breath of life and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit affects what that person's soul is.

I agree that the Holy Spirit is the "Feminine side" of God and believe that Solomon understood this. I think he often refers to the Holy Spirit as Wisdom. I also think that many try to replace the Holy Spirit with Mary, Mother Earth, or Gaia because they have not understood this.

This is where we differ in opinion. I don't think God had to follow a logical scientific or other systematic pattern to make the virgin birth happen. Just like I don't think there was a scientific method to keep the oil flowing for the widow or the bread flowing out of the baskets.

 

[PDoug]

The new Spirit that comes with Salvation does not combine with the old Proud, and High Minded Corrupted spirit of man, but is clean and brand new.

Ezek 36:26-27
26: A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.

27: And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.
KJV

The carnal self or flesh, is not the spirit seed (that resides in a man’s soul) that I’m talking about. The two are different. The spirit seed is what God breathed into Adam. The flesh is the wicked spirits that dwell in a man, whose only function is to cause him to sin. When a man is born again, his spirit seed is combined with the Holy Spirit who merges with it, so that his spirit seed grows (2 Corinthians 3:18). However the flesh still persists in the body, and a war ensues between the Spirit and the flesh, over the deeds of the soul (Galatians 5:17).

 

[PDoug]

You have said well in that the soul of a man/woman is literally transformed by the Holy Spirit because man became a living soul from the dirt and the breath of life and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit affects what that person's soul is.

I agree that the Holy Spirit is the "Feminine side" of God and believe that Solomon understood this. I think he often refers to the Holy Spirit as Wisdom. I also think that many try to replace the Holy Spirit with Mary, Mother Earth, or Gaia because they have not understood this.

This is where we differ in opinion. I don't think God had to follow a logical scientific or other systematic pattern to make the virgin birth happen. Just like I don't think there was a scientific method to keep the oil flowing for the widow or the bread flowing out of the baskets.

If Jesus caused food to multiply or spoke to a storm and had it subside - it is because it is within God’s law that these things should happen. When Christ said that he gave his disciples the keys to the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 16:19), he meant that it was permissible and lawful that any man should do the things that he did. But God always acts within the bounds of His laws, and just because He is capable of doing anything, He is by nature constrained to act within His own law.

 

[DaScribe]

When the magicians in Egypt replicated the miracles of Moses, it was within the "law". When they could not, they recognized it was the finger of God because it was bigger than the "law".

 

[Rick W]

Fine. Ignore my gnostic references. But my messages based around John 3:5-7 still stand.

So that's why Jesus wanted John the Baptist to baptise Him? Or was His baptism an illustration for us?

John 3:5 Jesus answered, 'Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
John 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
Joh 3:7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

He speaks of us. Not God or even Himself. But us, to us.


Also:
John 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

So by your logic how can spirit give birth to something physical?
Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Then the universe is spiritual? Or is God a pyhsical being giving birth to a pyhsical universe?

Why can't God create a fertilized egg within Mary when He indeed created the ENTIRE universe? And God is spirit.

 

[PDoug]

When the magicians in Egypt replicated the miracles of Moses, it was within the "law". When they could not, they recognized it was the finger of God because it was bigger than the "law".

God’s law is behavior that is done consistent with His will. A man cannot do things with the power of wickedness and act according to God’s will at the same time. The two do not go together. If a man acts under God's power, he is contrained to act lawfully. If a man acts under the power of wickedness, he is constrained to act unlawfully.

 

[Rick W]

Was Jesus a created being?
no

Col 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

He did not create Himself.


Was the man Jesus born of flesh?
yes

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Joh 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

God is spirit and created the physical universe. Why attempt to restrict God's power in saying He could not create the fertilized egg within Mary?

Mary did not conceive by "knowing" a man. She didn't have to.

 

[Rick W]

But the prophecy was "by seed." Which means biological. If Josephs could somehow adopt "by seed" then the cursed king also can not "by seed" have any descendents that could be the messiah.

This wasn't a new thing they could do. They wanted to fulfill prophecy, which is not something you should be able to redefine.

Gal 3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

 

[PDoug]

So that's why Jesus wanted John the Baptist to baptise Him? Or was His baptism an illustration for us?

John 3:5 Jesus answered, 'Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
John 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
Joh 3:7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

He speaks of us. Not God or even Himself. But us, to us.


Also:
John 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

So by your logic how can spirit give birth to something physical?
Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Then the universe is spiritual? Or is God a pyhsical being giving birth to a pyhsical universe?

The physical universe is a mixture of wickedness and goodness – just as we are. God cannot directly beget wickedness – since there is no wickedness in Him to beget. God on the other hand can influence wickedness to act in manners favorable to Himself. (This is in fact the point of the existence of wickedness.) Also, you pointed to a second reason why the Holy Spirit could not have produced a physical substitute for a man’s seed for Mary: because such a substitute would have had to contain wickedness (since the flesh is inherently wicked) – but no wickedness lied within the Holy Spirit.

 

[Rick W]

because such a substitute would have had to contain wickedness (since the flesh is inherently wicked) – but no wickedness lied within the Holy Spirit.

If flesh unites with flesh then wickedness is inherent. But in this case it was not flesh uniting with flesh as in the natural way of things.