Virgin born

I don't believe anyone should answer this until Mr. (or Ms.?) Murphy gives a little more background. Like, who's saying this? What "proves" it? Why go to the trouble of saying that the gospel account is a lie?

I'm not familiar with C.S.' posts (only 34 of them total), but this sounds suspiciously like someone's trying to stir up trouble instead of debate/discuss something....

 

Then perhaps I should simply ask for a little background....

 

I agree. With the controversy on this board and with the influx of liberals moving in, it is nice to know where someone stands.

I don't care what this person posted before, this question sounds and looks like a setup for a hostile playground!

 

"influx of liberals"? You make it sound like a hoard. I've only met a few here. There does seem to be a number of moderates posting though.

 

BBeliever,

Anything to the left would be liberal!

 

Here is my answer...

Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel..

Luke 1: 26 And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth,
27 To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.
28 And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.
29 And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be.
30 And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God.
31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name
JESUS.
32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:
33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.
34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?
35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

Matthew 1: 22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet saying,
23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name
Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

There is nothing else to say.

HankD

 

I don't know of anyone on the board who holds the view that Mary was not a virgin when Jesus was conceived. Some of us have stated that its not necessary to our personal theology that Mary was a virgin when she conceived, and that it would not affect our belief in Jesus as the Christ and the risen Son of God.
I do know that some "liberals" believe that early followers of Jesus tried to bolster their honestly held belief in the diety of Christ by adding the virgin birth accounts in Matthew and Luke, including the Bethlehem and Egypt parts so people would more readily believe Jesus was the Christ. Part of the arguement for that belief is that Isaiah originally said "young maiden", not "virgin" in his prediction but the texts that jews in Jesus' day used said "virgin", so there was no need for Mary to be a virgin but the people of Jesus' day thought so, so they "made" Mary a virgin in the later gospel accounts. Many of these "non-virgin" theorists hold that Joseph was the father, but some say there wasn't even a a Joseph.
Although this (non-virgin) theory is logical enough, its just a theory. Maybe they are right, maybe they are not. I believe Mary was a virgin b/c any "young maiden" of the day was a virgin or she faced stiff rebuke (like a stoning). And the word for "young maiden" sometimes could be used for virgin, or so I am told. Additionally, the Luke and Matthew accounts are actually two different stories that corroborate each other, which in my mind gives them more reliability.
You know, Mary could have been sexually active but not gotten pregnant until she conceived Jesus without an earthly father. But to me, the weight of the evidence points to the traditional virgin birth view. No one has ever lived a life like Jesus. He was special. It only makes sense that he was created "specially".

 

Actually, I was affirming that you were not likely to be a troll since you don't hold the positions they people here expect them to hold.

While it sort of looks like a back-handed way of doing it, there wasn't much of a better way to explain it because SheEagle911 has insinuated that I have been a troll on numerous occasions. If I endorsed you, she would have likely been suspicious since she questioned my identity for supporting others.

I'm sorry if you were offended, but it was the best way to establish your credibility quickly.

 

It looks like I may have unintentionally grouped you with those who have made false accusations. I did not specifically say you have made false accusations (that was intentional) but I can see by what I wrote how someone could come to that conclusion. I am sorry for any damage I may have caused. I simply wanted people to reference the thread where you had participated on the "side" of those who supported the doctrine of the virgin birth.

 

Murph, if my post upset you, then I ask you to take a minute to calm down, and go back and read your original message from the point of view of "I don't have a clue who this person is."

Yes, normally I look at a person's profile to determine a few things about them; however, when I initially responded to you, I was getting ready for work, and didn't take the time to do that this time.

As for Hank being "the only one with the correct answer"--well, he ain't.

I, too, have seen the myriad "theories" on the supposed birth of Christ. Most of them are put out by atheists and other-religion types who simply wish to put Christ down as no different than Mohammed or Buddha.

Me personally, I find it hard to believe you can call yourself a Christian, much less a Baptist, and even consider questioning the virgin birth.

 

David I appreciate your reply but please clear up something for me. Twice above you list your belief in the virgin birth but at the end you say "You know maybe she was sexually active before" I'm not being cute but I must not understand what you are trying to say.

In reference to everyone who has posted kind posts above, thanks but hey I'm not upset. I appreciate what everybody says, I learn alot. Joshua I apologize for thinking you didn't reply, I saw the post about oops my wife was on line but I didn't understand what you meant.
Murph</font>[/QUOTE]The possibility exists that my belief is incorrect, but my belief is that Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus. I am merely stating alternate possibilities that nevertheless run counter to my personal belief that I explained earlier.

 

Did someone say Liberal?

I swear, I heard the word Left!

Ok, I don't believe most of the Catholic (starting with Peter) created dogma and BS they made up to control and convince the ignorant.

The Virgin myth was certainly not started with Christ, it was a traditional lie for others going back many centuries before Christ's birth. Again, why would God create a copy-cat method to usher in the one true God? It just doesn't make sense that he would copy an old outdated satanic trick used in the past.

Now, could God come to earth without being born of a virgin? Yes, and he did through Mary. So what if Joseph stepped up to bat before marriage? It happens all the time, these virgin births seem to be fairly common in every church I have ever attended.

Maybe the masses just couldn't handle the truth back then, but who are we to say how God decides to come to earth? He could have suddenly appeared without any birth, could have come from an grape, he could have been born from sinful seed, but without any sin. We can't make logical sense out of God's action, since he is above logical comprehension.

Could he have been born of a virgin? Yes! But was he? I don't think the evidence supports it. But it doesn't make any difference one way or the other because if it is false, then it was man who created the lie in the Bible, if it is true, it doesn't help support the fact that Jesus is Christ without us being able to prove it. Bottom line: It doesn't matter.

[ August 15, 2002, 12:40 AM: Message edited by: post-it ]

 

Oh, brother

The Bible says virgin, over and over. Is it lying ?

I shore am glad God made me dumb enough to take him at his word.

An attack on he virgin birth is an attack on Christ's deity, is an attack on the Bible, and on all of what Christianity stands for.