Virgin born

Helen, I have never denied what the use of the word "virgin" meant in the New Testament scriptures. I'm sure it was planted in later and proper verbage was used to indicate she was a virgin.

My last post has my main argument for the "seed" of David and Joseph being the father. I think this is much stronger a position than a virgin birth with patched up, incomplete, mix matched virgin birth references. There are clear OT support for Joseph being the bio father of Christ, but none for a virgin birth except an unclear, generalized Gen 3:15.

[ August 16, 2002, 10:59 AM: Message edited by: post-it ]

 

Standard Biblical exegetic rule: the New Testament explains the Old.

Mary was a virgin. Of course you can throw out the entire account of Joseph's angelic visitation, but then you are playing the same game the Jesus Seminar group did: judging what God can do by what man understands. That is DEFINITELY putting the creation above the Creator!

And that is PRECISELY what Paul mentions as leading to all kinds of sin in Romans 1.

 

Actually, I think David Cooke or I were the ones to bring up the issue first.

Regardless, though, this is a forum for discussing theological issues. Since a considerable number of Christian (including baptist) scholars think this issue is debatable; it is obviously one worthy of civil discussion in this kind of format.

Raising the issue, and pointing to the considerable evidence to question the veracity of the account, should not constitute "slinging mud" in a theological discussion forum. It certainly shouldn't open the poster up to attack or to having their Christianity challenged.

Personally, I assume that the people who respond so vehemently and viciously are the ones who feel that their faith is so unstable that even the tiniest bit of questioning will topple it. As a result, they respond like cornered animals.

Joshua

 

In my opinion the Hebrew is even stronger. Naarah and B'thuwlah do not always mean virgin, but can mean widow. God did not use either of these words to describe the appointed carrier of His Holy One. Both Naarah and B'thuwlah, when the intended meaning is a true physical virgin, require qualifying language, ie; Gen. 24:16, Judges 21:12....God used Almah because it needed no qualification. (See Matt 1:23 for the Holy Spirit Inspired Translation of the Hebrew 'alma.')

 

Exactly where in Isaiah prophecy did someone use the word Holy One. Again, I don't have a real problem with the translation of the word, but the meaning of the prophecy is what is in question in Isaiah. No one has yet to show why the "virgin birth" was the real issue of the prophecy when it is obvious that it was used simply as a "time factor" for the real prophecy of the change in Government (rulers). Further, there is nothing to indicate this birth was referring to Christ unless you just want to believe it did. You still have to answer that the "boy" did not know right from wrong.

 

I believe Isa 7 contains a prophecy that was given and fulfilled during Ahaz's lifetime, that a young woman would conceive, and call the child Immanuel. I do not believe the prophecy when given, or primary fulfillment, was about a "virgin" - or else there was a virgin birth other that Christ's! But I also believe that Matthew, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and using Midrashic hermeneutic principles, found "fulfillment" of this passage in Christ: even a "better" fulfillment, by pointing out that Mary was more than a "young woman", she was a "virgin" as well! But demanding "virgin" in Isa 7:14, although seemingly making a stronger case for Christ (according to modern, gentile thinking), breaks in the context of the entire chapter and the primary fulfillment of the prophecy.

This is a Jewish hermeneutic known as Midrash, and was a completely valid approach to interpreting and applying scripture in Matthew's day, even though it seems strange in our day. Basically, the concept is that Jesus is so amazing, he not only fulfilled prophecies directly about him, he also "fulfilled" prophecies and events that were about someone/something else.

For example, in Matt 2:15 Matthew finds "fulfillment" in "Out of Egypt have I called my son" - yet this is from Hos 11:1, the context being Israel leaving Egypt in the past, not Jesus leaving Egypt in the future. Another example is in 2:23 where Matthew says "that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene." One of the Midrashic rules was that words with similar sounds could be connected. This prophecy, in western, gentile thinking, cannot be found in the OT. But once one understands how Matthew is applying Midrash, it doesn't take long to find the prophecy in Isa 11:1 - the word translated "Branch" in the KJV is "netser" which sounds like "nazarene". Midrash allows Matthew to make these connections to build a stronger case for Christ according to Jewish rules of interpretation. Also examine Matt 2:17-18, which is from Jer 31:15, and original context is nothing about the events in Matt 2 because the next verse indicates Ramah was weeping because the children were taken and held in the land of the enemy (but would return). Again, Matthew under inspiration applies Midrashic interpretation techniques to show how "fulfillment" is found in Christ's life.

 

Thanks, Joshua.

What makes me angry is not what you think. It is the way liberals like you can shake up the faith of other Christians and cause so much confusion. The Bible is VERY clear about Mary being a virgin. Again, look at Joseph's reaction if you are having trouble with the words themselves!

It doesn't really matter whether or not you liberals approve of Matthew's use of the Isaiah prophecy. Matthew was the Jew! He was the author! He was the one bar mitzvah'd! Who are you to second-guess what he knew to be true?

Why do you think John 3:16 says "only begotten"?
Or "one and only" (depending on your translation).

The evidence, if you actually read the Bible, stacks up past ignoring, past finding excuses for, past nay-saying.

It is your choice to refuse it, but that doesn't mean it's not there!

 

Post-it, if Joseph was the earthly father of Christ, then Christ would have partaken of the sin nature.

Also, just because you think Gen. 3:15 is general, or you don't understand it, or whatever, doesn't mean that the passage doesn't stand as truth.

The "seed" refers to a particular descendant. Just as in Abraham's "seed", all the nations of the earth would be blessed.

The same is true of David. It was his particular "seed" that would carry the scepter for an eternal kingdom.

The same is true of Mary. Her descendant, or "seed", is Christ.

Now, the Isaiah passage was a reference and promise to the perpetuality (is that a word?) of the Davidic line which was feared to be lost with the invading armies nearby. God reaffirms His promise of the continued line by having a supernatural conception for a supernatural King. This of course was Christ.

The Isaiah passage is also to be seen as progressive revelation. God didn't just dump everything at once upon Adam. He revealed His plan in stages. Gen. 3:15 most definitely is a virgin birth promise. Isaiah 7:14 would further specify that the miraculous conception and birth would come through a Jewish virgin.

The Holy One reference is in Luke's account. It is more than interesting that the primary designation in Isaiah to the Messiah is Holy One. So Luke used that thang cawwed a brain and was able to correctly put 2 and 2 together.

When the evidence is examined and weighed, all Christians affirm the virgin birth of Christ.

 

OK! I know every one was waiting for me to come in and really stir up the hornets nest.

Just kidding!

Just about all the Scripture verses have been brought up and discussed back and forth. And sometimes started getting a little hot.

Here is another way of approaching this.

Seed of the woman + Seed of the man = Human with sin nature.

So was it the seed of the woman or the man that was Divine? I think neither, because of so much attention that God has given to the young virgin/maiden, nothing is said about the actual seed of a man.

Also, God said that He knew us before we were formed in the womb. So, if the seed of both were involved, then what happened to the identity of the person that was concieved? Was it pushed aside or just wasn't there, to make room for Jesus. Because if you want to use the seed of both, one of them had to be of Divine nature. Again, nothing like this, is even hinted to in the Word of God.

And all of the ways discussed, would take a miracle to have Jesus come into this world. Now, using the seed of man and woman, would go against God's Word of "for all have sinned and come short of the Glory of God".

So, going back to the virgin birth, with the conception of the Holy Spirit, thus you have a Divine nature and not a sinner.

Like I said, what ever way it was, would take a miracle. The virgin birth doesn't go against God's Word.

"It is always better to stand up for conservatism, then to fall into liberalism" Justified Version

 

What kind of Spiritual Science supports that a woman's egg contains no sin nature. And that male sperm contains original sin. I think if anything, the stronger argument could be made that original sin nature is passed down through the woman according to Gen.

Or are we now jumping to the assumption that the Holy Spirit implanted a fertilized egg from heaven into Mary. If that was the case then why even use a woman's womb, surely God could have finished the cloning of himself without the use of a girl.

So what is the exact belief on this conception thing? A Sinless Egg or God Clone?

 

Someone speak up before I get this new "Jesus was a Clone" argument developed in my mind. To be truly sinless, he had to be a clone from God. I'll see if it can be supported in scripture before putting it out.

 

No that is not what I did, by any stretch. This is a forum for discussing theological issues (and in particular the Bible) - as per the forums name. The historicity of the virgin birth is a legitimate one in biblical studies, but for some reason some people here cannot even discuss the topic calmly and sensibly without: getting vitrioloic, questioning others' salvation, and making the attacks personal.

The only explanation I can think of for their inability to carry on rational, civil dialogue is that they feel threatened or insecure. In my experience, that's what those kinds of knee-jerk reactions mean. Saying that someone's vitriolic language reflects insecurity does not, however, meant that I think they are not saved.

Helen - regarding your charge that liberals like me "shake up the faith" and cause "confusion" - I strongly disagree. It seems to me that your strident insistence that real Christians must interpret the Bible the way you do does far more damage to the gospel.

In the end, you will draw into your tent the people who need the a literally interpreted, inerrant Bible. I will draw into mine the ones who do not. In Heaven, we'll likely discover it's the same tent.

Joshua

[ August 17, 2002, 08:52 AM: Message edited by: Rev. Joshua Villines ]

 

No matter how the conversation started, saying that someone who compares scripture against scripture "evil" is just plain nuts.

I am convinced that most Christians believe the virgin birth, as told to us in the scriptures.

I have recommended this board to friends, but they won't come here because they have to argue things like the virgin birth. We could have otherwise edifying conversations here, but no. We have to defend what the bible says against what liberals tell us. Over and over, page after page. And the same few folks tell us that if we really knew what we were talking about, we would doubt plain biblical truth, only because it goes against human reasoning.

The virgin birth was a miracle. And IMO, we should treasure it, not cast doubt on it.

And I'm NOT leaving.

 

I stated that it could be used for evil when the outcome of comparing scripture against scripture was done incorrectly. In other words, to arrive at a preconceived idea then exclude others that don't believe your interpretation. If the use of this technique is then put to a believer that must accept it or is damned, as you have stated, then it is EVIL EVIL EVIL.

In effect Mr. Curtis, you manipulated Gods word which is in itself not evil, but to then to say that I am not a Christian if I won't accept your "scripture against scripture" technique is very Evil since it tends to "chase" people away from Christianity.

[ August 17, 2002, 09:32 AM: Message edited by: post-it ]

 

Wrong again, Post-it.

When you encourage people to doubt what is plainly put forth in God's Holy word, you are putting souls at jeopardy. Not yours, mind you. I fully believe in the etrnal security of the believer. But the folks who have not heard.

I compared scriture agains scriture, and came up with the Bible being right about the virgin birth. I don't see how that is evil. I encourage every Christian on Earth to embrace the virgin birth. I fail to see the evil in that.

I don't dout the liberal poster's salvation. Not at all. But I find their desire to see souls saved highly suspect.

 

I always thought that part of accepting the Baptist Doctrines, was accepting the Virgin Birth?

So if you don't accept the Virgin Birth, then what in the world are you guys doing on a Baptist Board?

And bringing your LEVEN with you!

And then, why in the world would you even want to be called Baptist?

"It is always better to stand up for conservatism, then to fall into liberalism" Justified Version

[ August 17, 2002, 09:49 AM: Message edited by: Justified ]

 

Thanx, Justified. I thought all the Bible Believers were still asleep.

I always considered the virgin birth one of the fundamentals of our faith.

I'll give a little on the non-issues, but this is a biggie. The miracle of the virgin birth, how could you question it yourself, never mind encouraging others to ?

The hour truly is late.

 

the devils first attack was against the word of God. he still uses that line. thus the argument does virgin mean virgin? liberals who have been trained under the intellects down at the places of higher learning will always question the simple teaching of the bible. dont forget they come by it naturaly they get it from their father

 

their father

The Devil?

"It is always better to stand up for conservatism, then to fall into liberalism" Justified Version