The "Necessity" of the Virgin Birth

[annsni]

Ann, if it so clear in scripture, why is there so much debate and book written about it?

I may believe the fundamental truths, but they are not always that clear.

Cheers,

Jim

There is so much debate and books written about the question as to whether Jesus even existed - if He rose from the dead and if there even IS a God. Debate does not mean it's not clear.

 

[Jon-Marc]

Saying the virgin birth wasn't necessary is like saying that God was wrong in having Jesus born of a virgin in my opinion.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Saying the virgin birth wasn't necessary is like saying that God was wrong in having Jesus born of a virgin in my opinion.

Jon you're absolutely right on this matter. I don't think its a speculative issue. The virgin birth was necissary on several fronts.

 

[DHK]

How is Jesus sinless when born to a sinful woman, called Mary? Was she also sinless? Did she miss original sin?

Cheers,

Jim

Mary was used by God in one time in one place in history for a purpose. She is not to be exalted above measure. She simply was a vessel used by God. God could have used any other virgin young lady at that time but he chose to use Mary; after all he had to choose someone.

To use an illustration (as inadequate as it may be), Mary's womb was simply flesh. It was made of atoms and molecules. Meat, in and of itself is not sinful. If you cut yourself so that a piece of skin comes off, are you throwing away sin along with the skin? Is their sin in the skin? Does sin reside in the flesh--in every piece of dandruff that you shed, in every hair that falls out, in every nail that is cut, in every drop of blood that is shed with every small cut, etc. Is that what the sin nature is all about? Does it reside in my flesh, per se? If that is true, then if I go on a diet my sin nature will decrease, right? :laugh:
But that is not the case. Small guys are just as depraved as big guys.
The sin nature does not reside in the flesh, per se. The sin nature had nothing to do with Mary's womb. Mary was a vessel used of God.

Into that womb came a child which was conceived of the Holy Spirit.
"In Adam's fall; we sinned all." (McGuffey's Reader)

Our sin nature is passed down through Adam. Because Christ was conceived of the Holy Spirit and not of Joseph (or a man), there was no sin nature to inherit. And therefore from conception to death he was fully man--throughout the whole process. In every way one can look back and say that Christ was completely man. From conception onward. Thus the necessity of the virgin birth--he did not inherit the sin nature, and could not have inherited the sin nature, else he would have been a sinner and would not have been able to die for our sins.

The "original sin" of Mary is a red herring. The sin nature is passed through Adam.

 

[DHK]

The necessity of the Virgin Birth. It was necessary for this reason also:

[FONT=&quot] Jer. 22:24-30 shows that the curse of Jechoniah demanded the virgin birth.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]a. The Lord's promise to David (2 Sam.7:16): Thine house and thy kingdom shall be established forever before thee: thy throne shall be established forever."[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]b. Several generations later Jehoiachin (Coniah) was cursed (Jer.22:30): Thus saith the Lord write this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days; for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting on the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]c. The physical link was cursed by God.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]d. Joseph, the legal father of Jesus, was of this cursed line.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]e. The solution: Mary was a descendant of Nathan, another son of David (Lk.3:31).[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]f. There was no other way that the Lord Jesus could have escaped the curse. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy of the virgin birth is the only way the Lord could be true to His promise to David and His curse on Jehoiachin.[/FONT]

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Mary was used by God in one time in one place in history for a purpose. She is not to be exalted above measure. She simply was a vessel used by God. God could have used any other virgin young lady at that time but he chose to use Mary; after all he had to choose someone.

To use an illustration (as inadequate as it may be), Mary's womb was simply flesh. It was made of atoms and molecules. Meat, in and of itself is not sinful. If you cut yourself so that a piece of skin comes off, are you throwing away sin along with the skin? Is their sin in the skin? Does sin reside in the flesh--in every piece of dandruff that you shed, in every hair that falls out, in every nail that is cut, in every drop of blood that is shed with every small cut, etc. Is that what the sin nature is all about? Does it reside in my flesh, per se? If that is true, then if I go on a diet my sin nature will decrease, right? :laugh:
But that is not the case. Small guys are just as depraved as big guys.
The sin nature does not reside in the flesh, per se. The sin nature had nothing to do with Mary's womb. Mary was a vessel used of God.

Into that womb came a child which was conceived of the Holy Spirit.
"In Adam's fall; we sinned all." (McGuffey's Reader)

Our sin nature is passed down through Adam. Because Christ was conceived of the Holy Spirit and not of Joseph (or a man), there was no sin nature to inherit. And therefore from conception to death he was fully man--throughout the whole process. In every way one can look back and say that Christ was completely man. From conception onward. Thus the necessity of the virgin birth--he did not inherit the sin nature, and could not have inherited the sin nature, else he would have been a sinner and would not have been able to die for our sins.

The "original sin" of Mary is a red herring. The sin nature is passed through Adam.

I love it you are a Catholic blood hound! Anything that sounds Catholic you sniff it out!

 

[Revmitchell]

Mary was used by God in one time in one place in history for a purpose. She is not to be exalted above measure. She simply was a vessel used by God. God could have used any other virgin young lady at that time but he chose to use Mary; after all he had to choose someone.

To use an illustration (as inadequate as it may be), Mary's womb was simply flesh. It was made of atoms and molecules. Meat, in and of itself is not sinful. If you cut yourself so that a piece of skin comes off, are you throwing away sin along with the skin? Is their sin in the skin? Does sin reside in the flesh--in every piece of dandruff that you shed, in every hair that falls out, in every nail that is cut, in every drop of blood that is shed with every small cut, etc. Is that what the sin nature is all about? Does it reside in my flesh, per se? If that is true, then if I go on a diet my sin nature will decrease, right? :laugh:
But that is not the case. Small guys are just as depraved as big guys.
The sin nature does not reside in the flesh, per se. The sin nature had nothing to do with Mary's womb. Mary was a vessel used of God.

Into that womb came a child which was conceived of the Holy Spirit.
"In Adam's fall; we sinned all." (McGuffey's Reader)

Our sin nature is passed down through Adam. Because Christ was conceived of the Holy Spirit and not of Joseph (or a man), there was no sin nature to inherit. And therefore from conception to death he was fully man--throughout the whole process. In every way one can look back and say that Christ was completely man. From conception onward. Thus the necessity of the virgin birth--he did not inherit the sin nature, and could not have inherited the sin nature, else he would have been a sinner and would not have been able to die for our sins.

The "original sin" of Mary is a red herring. The sin nature is passed through Adam.

And 2+2=4.............

 

[Aaron]

A sign of what?

God's deliverance of Israel.

 

[Aaron]

The "original sin" of Mary is a red herring. The sin nature is passed through Adam.

The sin nature is not a "thing" that is passed. The sin nature is the lack of something—life, and Mary could no more impart life than could Joseph.

 

[webdog]

The sin nature is not a "thing" that is passed. The sin nature is the lack of something—life, and Mary could no more impart life than could Joseph.

Wrong again. I have a sin nature, and eternal life.

 

[ccrobinson]

Let me see if I get what you're saying.

A sin nature is passed to me through my father. But, it's not something that's actually passed to me, it's something that isn't passed, say a "life nature", for lack of a better term. This would mean that my "sin nature" is my original nature. This further means that everybody's original nature is a "sin nature", which means that Adam's original nature was a sin nature. Which, of course, means that God created Adam with a sin nature, then pronounced his creation as "very good". Then, after creating Adam, and all of us, with a sin nature, condemned us for having the very nature that he gave us in the first place.

What have I missed? Because this looks like a contradiction of Scripture and makes God out to be very cruel and unjust.

 

[DHK]

Let me see if I get what you're saying.

A sin nature is passed to me through my father. But, it's not something that's actually passed to me, it's something that isn't passed, say a "life nature", for lack of a better term. This would mean that my "sin nature" is my original nature. This further means that everybody's original nature is a "sin nature", which means that Adam's original nature was a sin nature. Which, of course, means that God created Adam with a sin nature, then pronounced his creation as "very good". Then, after creating Adam, and all of us, with a sin nature, condemned us for having the very nature that he gave us in the first place.

What have I missed? Because this looks like a contradiction of Scripture and makes God out to be very cruel and unjust.

Not quite. When Adam was created, he was created in the image and likeness of God. When God looked upon all that He had created, it was very good. Then Eve was tempted; Adam sinned. The image and likeness of God, through the fall was marred. What is passed on through generation to generation is that likeness we have of God (not physical of course), but it is marred by sin. It is a sinful nature. Not until we receive our glorified bodies will the curse be removed. Hence Paul says "we wait for the redemption of our bodies."

 

[Jim1999]

Is that all people? You mean male and female are born in sin and trespasses? Is that at conception?

Cheers,

Jim

 

[DHK]

Is that all people? You mean male and female are born in sin and trespasses? Is that at conception?

Cheers,

Jim

Is there any other meaning to:

Psalms 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

which in the NET Bible is translated this way:

(Psa 51:5) Look, I was guilty of sin from birth,
a sinner the moment my mother conceived me.

 

[Jim1999]

Jesus, the man, was born of a woman called Mary.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[ccrobinson]

Not quite. When Adam was created, he was created in the image and likeness of God. When God looked upon all that He had created, it was very good. Then Eve was tempted; Adam sinned. The image and likeness of God, through the fall was marred. What is passed on through generation to generation is that likeness we have of God (not physical of course), but it is marred by sin. It is a sinful nature. Not until we receive our glorified bodies will the curse be removed. Hence Paul says "we wait for the redemption of our bodies."

So, you're saying that the sin nature is something that's passed, but Aaron is saying that it's something that isn't passed.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Well, I certainly think that Jesus could have indwelt the newly created human body without yet another soul being created. I don't think that would have been a problem for the One who creates souls.

So then God would have had to suspend the natural means of procreation, which is exactly what he did. That's the point ... It was necessary. Natural human procreation brings into existence a body and a soul ... every time. If Joseph and Mary had naturally conceived Jesus, he would have had a body and soul ... and then another soul that was pre-existent. That's the way it works.

I agree - yet God could have certainly chosen to do such.

No God could not have chosen to do such. The Redeemer of mankind had to be a man, not a rock, or the offspring of a rock. He partook of flesh and blood just like the children to atone for sin.

 

[Pastor Larry]

So, when is original sin imposed on the human birth? It can't be at conception. Jesus was fully God and fully man, yet without sin, because the very presence of God precludes the presence of sin.

Sin is passed at conception. (Aaron says it isn't passed, but Romans 5:12 seems pretty clear.)

Jesus was not conceive in sin because he was conceived by the Holy Spirit, not Joseph. Mary was conceived in sin.

Sounds like we need some elementary Christology here.

 

[OldRegular]

Christ's virgin birth is a necessity on (2) levels:

1. It fulfills a specific prophecy that pointed to the coming Messiah. If Jesus was not born of a virgin (speaking literally, as some translate the terminology "young girl" which is an extremely poor rendering) He could not be the promised Messiah.

2. The virgin birth is essential to Jesus being free from "original sin" that is passed down generationally in a "biological" sense. If Jesus is conceived in the "traditional" manner, He would have been subject to being born with a nature tainted with a sin nature. If that is accepted, then even if Jesus lived a "sinless" life behaviorally, He could not have gone to the cross as the perfect lamb of God, making atonement impossible.

You are absolutely correct on both points! I cannot believe that anyone on this "Christian" Forum would question the necessity of the Virgin birth.

Is the Virgin birth of Jesus Christ essential? The answer is a very definite yes! If Jesus Christ were not born of a virgin then Scripture is not trustworthy and we have no assurance that Jesus Christ is indeed the sinless Son of God who could atone for our sins. Martyn Lloyd-Jones writes of the birth of Jesus Christ as follows: “As the Lord’s divine nature had no mother, so His human nature had no father.” [page 262 of God the Father, God the Son]

The Second London Confession of Faith [1677/1689] the best Baptist Confession of Faith ever written and the model for the Philadelphia Confession of Faith speaks of the Incarnation as follows:

“The son of God, the second Person in the Holy Trinity, being very and eternal God, the brightness of the Father’s Glory, of one substance and equal with Him; Who made the world, Who upholdeth and governeth all things He hath made; did when the fullness of time was come take upon Himself man’s nature, with all the essential properties, and common infirmities thereof, yet without sin; being conceived by the Holy Spirit in the womb of the Virgin Mary, the Holy Spirit coming down upon her, and the power of the Most High overshadowing her, and so was made of a woman, of the tribe of Judah, of the Seed of Abraham and David according to the Scriptures; so that two whole, perfect, and distinct natures were inseparable joined in one Person; without conversion, composition, or confusion; which Person is very God and very Man; yet one Christ, the only mediator between God and man.

The Lord Jesus in His human nature thus united to the divine, in the Person of the Son, was sanctified, annointed with the Holy Spirit above measure; having in Him all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge; in whom it pleased the Father that all fullness should dwell.”

 

[webdog]

Is there any other meaning to:

Psalms 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

which in the NET Bible is translated this way:

(Psa 51:5) Look, I was guilty of sin from birth,
a sinner the moment my mother conceived me.

Yes, the other meaning is figurative, that David was conceived in a fallen world (which I believe to be the correct rendering, not the way the NET has stated). If it's literal, as you suggest, then we must also take another Psalm literally, Pslam 58:3 which states we are sinners from birth. Which is it, from conception or birth?