The Virgin Birth

[DaScribe]

PDoug, I think you misunderstood me. I am saying there are some things that are miraculous by our standards but are within the confines of the "natural law" of the creation. There are other times when God just chooses to step in. For you to think that you can bind God with rules is limiting Him. How can you profess to understand what "rules" God abides by when He says his ways are beyond our understanding?

 

[PDoug]

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.

Jesus is in fact a created being. He simply created himself. What do I mean? The spiritual make up of beings is similar to their physical make ups. A spiritual being is made up of many supporting beings (kind of like systems within a body), and each one of these supporting beings is identified as the main being. When Jesus said that the Father and Him are one, Christ meant that there were spirits given to him by the Father, who were part of the Father. Therefore because Jesus had parts of the Father within him, he and the Father were one - meaning that parts of him and the Father made up a single being.

Now when Jesus took on the form of flesh, a part of his original self came down, and was used to create the man Jesus. Jesus was therefore existing above, as well as here on earth at the same time. That is why I said Jesus created himself.

 

[PDoug]

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.

If there was no wickedness in Christ’s flesh, he could not have been killed, because nothing good can be destroyed. This is why when someone has faith, nothing can touch his soul, but his body can be destroyed.

 

[mlkdvd]

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

Because the G-d of Israel does not lie or go back on His oaths. The oath He made with King David is crystal clear (cf. Psalm 132:11). Davidic kings must come from the male bloodline of David and Solomon. Saying that G-d can create a fertilized egg in Mary is begging the question; a bit of sophistry actually. G-d may be able to create such an egg, but He cannot lie. So either the Messiah is to be a biological son of a son of David, and carry David's Y-chromosome, or G-d went back on His promise to David.

 

[PDoug]

PDoug, I think you misunderstood me. I am saying there are some things that are miraculous by our standards but are within the confines of the "natural law" of the creation. There are other times when God just chooses to step in. For you to think that you can bind God with rules is limiting Him. How can you profess to understand what "rules" God abides by when He says his ways are beyond our understanding?

When all is said and done, God is by nature a lawful being, and acts according to His own law.

 

[DaScribe]

When all is said and done, God is by nature a lawful being, and acts according to His own law.

And when all is said and done, none of us can claim to know what laws God defines for Himself.

 

[Solo]

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

I have no problem with John 3:5-7, but I do have a problem with your comment below:

PDoug wrote, "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."

Your statement has a gnostic twang to it, does it not?

 

[PDoug]

I have no problem with John 3:5-7, but I do have a problem with your comment below:

PDoug wrote, "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."

Your statement has a gnostic twang to it, does it not?

If someone is born of the Father and of the Holy Spirit, doesn’t the Holy Spirit have to be feminine? How can a male produce with a partner, without the partner being female? Also note the following scripture:

Proverbs 8

1 Does not wisdom call out?
Does not understanding raise her voice?

2 On the heights along the way,
where the paths meet, she takes her stand;

3 beside the gates leading into the city,
at the entrances, she cries aloud:

4 "To you, O men, I call out;
I raise my voice to all mankind.

.
.
.

32 "Now then, my sons, listen to me;
blessed are those who keep my ways.

If someone who has faith is the son of the Father and Holy Spirit, doesn’t, per the scripture above, Wisdom and the Holy Spirit have to one and the same, and the mother of that person?

 

[PDoug]

Solo,

One last thing. Please note the scripture below:

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.'

If the Spirit gives birth, doesn't that mean the Spirit is female?

 

[Solo]

Solo,

One last thing. Please note the scripture below:

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.'

If the Spirit gives birth, doesn't that mean the Spirit is female?

No.

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. John 1:14

We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not. 1 John 5:18

 

[PDoug]

No.

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. John 1:14

We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not. 1 John 5:18

Begetting a son is not the same as giving birth to a son. Men beget sons all the time, but only women give birth to them.

 

[Rick W]

Because the G-d of Israel does not lie or go back on His oaths. The oath He made with King David is crystal clear (cf. Psalm 132:11). Davidic kings must come from the male bloodline of David and Solomon. Saying that G-d can create a fertilized egg in Mary is begging the question; a bit of sophistry actually. G-d may be able to create such an egg, but He cannot lie. So either the Messiah is to be a biological son of a son of David, and carry David's Y-chromosome, or G-d went back on His promise to David.

Wouldn't the Pharisees and Jewish high priests have known if Christ's bloodline was improper? Surely they could not prove the bloodline false or that would have been the means of disproving Christ as the Messiah, who He claimed He was. They had to find another way to eliminate the threat since they couldn't find fault with the bloodline.

If they couldn't do it then how can anyone think they can today? Or are we smarter than those Pharisees and Jewish high priests desperately trying to preserve their high positions?

 

[Solo]

Begetting a son is not the same as giving birth to a son. Men beget sons all the time, but only women give birth to them.

And your point in the light that God begat Jesus, with Mary being his mother?

 

[PDoug]

And your point in the light that God begat Jesus, with Mary being his mother?

That the Holy Spirit is female, and is the mother of all men who are the sons of God.

 

[Solo]

That the Holy Spirit is female, and is the mother of all men who are the sons of God.

And God the Father begat Jesus Christ through conception of the Holy Spirit, and Mary was not in the picture at all?

 

[PDoug]

And God the Father begat Jesus Christ through conception of the Holy Spirit, and Mary was not in the picture at all?

All indications are that Jesus was physically born of Joseph and Mary, and was spiritually born of the Father and the Holy Spirit.

 

[Solo]

All indications are that Jesus was physically born of Joseph and Mary, and was spiritually born of the Father and the Holy Spirit.

Thank you for the position that you hold, a gnostic one at that. Now I know why your doctrines sounded out of focus most of the time. Good luck.

 

[PDoug]

Thank you for the position that you hold, a gnostic one at that. Now I know why your doctrines sounded out of focus most of the time. Good luck.

My position is that of the truth. If it is gnostic as well, it is because gnosticism and the truth are one and the same. Besides, my actions and my intelligence are good, and hence bear witness of my authentic faith - Matthew 7:15-20.

 

[DaScribe]

PDoug,

I have no problem with speculating, but when you start making speculations which may or may not be correct and hold them as doctrine you run the risk of creating your own subjective religion.

I do agree with you about the Holy Spirit being the "female side" of God, but I do not attempt to build unique perspectives by overexerting that understanding. When you start building your own doctrines, you become a hostage to them and end up trying to make things fit your doctrine. Know these things, but leave it at that. As the Martial Artists say, "Learn it, then unlearn it."

 

[PDoug]

PDoug,

I have no problem with speculating, but when you start making speculations which may or may not be correct and hold them as doctrine you run the risk of creating your own subjective religion.

I do agree with you about the Holy Spirit being the "female side" of God, but I do not attempt to build unique perspectives by overexerting that understanding. When you start building your own doctrines, you become a hostage to them and end up trying to make things fit your doctrine. Know these things, but leave it at that. As the Martial Artists say, "Learn it, then unlearn it."

As I’ve said repeatedly (not in this thread) a person must ensure that he has faith correctly, for the sake of his salvation, and to ensure that he can distinguish the truth from the untruth (1 Corinthians 2:12). The above is everything. After a person makes the above the foundation of everything he does, then he can go off and seek first the kingdom of God – i.e. all the mysteries of the Godhead. The fact that the Holy Spirit is female is absolutely basic. There are vast mysteries for us to discover, as the levels of our discoveries dictate our statuses in the kingdom of God. That is the point of us being here. Every human being is a seed of God, and when he has faith, and is combined with the Holy Spirit, he becomes a true son of God, and is then charged with establishing his stake in God’s kingdom.

Highly regarded by the Father will be the man who does not rest until he finds the greatest and holiest mysteries. But cursed also will be this man, for he will, and must suffer greatly to receive his prize.

Do I think I’ve gone too far? There are many things I would like to discuss, but I simply can’t – because no one would accept them (1 Corinthians 2:13-14). That is why Christ only told the mysteries of God to his disciples (Mark 4:10-12), and why the Catholic Church threw them out. A person must faith correctly to see that I’ve not gone too far, and that my pointing out this superficial error about a physical, virgin birth, hardly means anything in the grand scheme of things. God’s perfection is seen at the heart of things, not necessarily at their edges. God allows wickedness to affect the edges of things, to bear evidence that those things have been subject to testing. So no one should therefore be upset about this inaccuracy in the scriptures.