Virgin born

Isaiah 7:14. A VIRGIN shall conceive.

The Apostolic Writings may have at one time
been in the control of the RCatholic Church, but
the Tanakh was carefully guarded by those to
whom our God gave guardianship of it--the
Jews. To claim that the virgin birth is an inven-
tion of the RCC would be to say that the Jews
let the RCC mess with the Tanakh, an idea
which, at best, is ludicrous.

The Jews kept their Bibles totally separate
from the Christian Bible, with even the books
in a different order and the verse-numbering
different. They did not give a hoot what the
Christians did with their Bibles. Yet, when
you read the Jewish Bibles, there it is: that
a virgin, if you understand the ancient culture
and the terminology, shall give birth.

A Catholic invention? Not quite! It was the
invention of our God, the Father. To claim
that our Lord's birth was anything other than
a virgin birth is to strip Him of His deity, of
His sonship to our God as the only begotten,
as part of the godhead. It is to deny the scene
at the Temple when He was circumcized. It is
to deny the scene in the Temple after His bar
mitzvah. It is to deny what He said to Peter
when he testified that our Lord was the Messiah.
It is to deny the significance of the scene at the
crucifixion. It is to deny Him His place at the
right hand of the Father.

I understand the faith of those who say they
would believe in Him whether or not there was
virgin birth--that is strong faith and one I do
not think I have. But to deny His virgin birth and
to call it a RCC invention horrifies me and is to
me, in this case, the sign of a contentious spirit
and one that seeks attention through such dec-
larations.

 

I don't blame you for rejecting certain warm/fuzzy myths that have been interjected into the life story of our Savior. But really even this one is too obvious a pagan implant. It opens the whole "holy mother" worship practice invented thousands of years before Christ. Wasn't it Horus that was the devine child born to his virgin mother that started myth. I'm sure it was the most popular one. A search on "virgin birth myths" on the internet would most likely show many others.

The Catholics have taken so many pagan rituals and beliefs and stuffed them into our Bible and belief system, that some can't or won't go to the trouble of questioning them. Hey, we are talking about our immortal soul that is on the line here. I see no problem with examining scripture with already admitted inventions and pagan worship blending from the Catholics, can we say Christmas Tree, how about Easter? Praying to the Saints, the "Virgin Mary"?

Again, for me this doesn't bring into question the divinty of Christ, how could it? Divinity doesn't exist because someone is born of a virgin unless you know that for a fact. The only facts that we have that prior Gods were born of virgin births, so I don't think that supports this hypothisis of Divinity. I just don't see God using a known pagan myth to establish Christ's Divinity through a virgin birth.

There is one way that the virgin birth could be true and that is only if the prior "virgin births" are also true and that thes infants born in Ancient Egypt were truly God incarnate on earth. I just can't buy that either. But this would almost have to be true or at least have an extremly high problablilty of being true to support Jesus' birth of a virgin also true.

How else can we explain these prior virgin births of God incarnate?

 

Post --

Why are you consistantly so condescending
and contentious? And why do you automatically
assume that the rest of us have not heard of
these myths? And why do you think that a
pagan myth would turn our God's head from
His original plan conceived from before the
Creation? And why would you think that satan
would not recognize that plan, setting up such
myths in order to attempt to thwart our God's
intention?

 

I think that modern Bible scholars will disagree with your this argument. The interpretation is that the word is "Maiden" not "Virgin". There was another Jewish word that meant virgin and it was not used in this passage. And while even this may or may not be the best argument, I don't think that it matters much since this passage is not in any way predicting the significance of the Christ but it was at most, a sign to signify a change in the rulers over the country. The prophecy was one in which the "important" event at the time of his childhood was what was being related here, otherwise the author would have given some importance to the "child" instead of the "virgin or maiden birth" as just a "time marker".

The other problem with trying to make this fit into Christ’s birth is that the child was given to doing wrong. I don't believe that Jesus sinned at any point since his birth. This child didn't know right from wrong. When read in context, one can't help but see the twist that the later writers put into this passage to help support their implanted myth.

 

You have fallen, then, for certain theologian
myths, and for that, I am sorry. Very sorry.

 

Sorry, I picked that trait up from others on this board. Don't take anything I write personally, it isn't meant to be. I just get frustrated when I read posts that make generalizations that lead to the poor condition our church is in today.

Here is a recent example: "You have fallen, then, for certain theologian
myths, and for that, I am sorry. Very sorry."

If I were you, I wouldn't want to open up that can of worms since you are now saying that Satan could have also interjected many false teachings into the Bible itself. And to the degree that we can't know what is truth and what is not. Giving Satan that much power over man would bring doubt to the entire Bible. I don't think that is the case here.

Following your argument out in example, if it were true that Satan created these prior events, then God would have know about it and designed a better plan so that these exact speculations wouldn't come up. Further if Satan is that powerful, maybe the Jews have it correct and Satan invented the whole Jesus/Christ part of the Bible to trick people into worshiping a "false God" the exact thing that old testament God hated most.

This is where that type of argument can go and why it doesn't hold water?

[ August 15, 2002, 10:27 AM: Message edited by: post-it ]

 

Post, the virgin prophecy did not originate in Is. 7:14. It originated in Gen. 3:15. Are you familiar with the "seed of woman" passage? From what I remember of that talk my mommy gave me and the biology book, the woman doesn't have the "seed".

God started the prophecy. False religion crept up and used a mixture of truth and twisted it into their own concoction. So the Egyptians and everyone else "borrowed" from the Gen. 3:15 prophecy and claimed it for themselves to promote their god.

This stuff is soooooo basic. 2 Cor. 2:14.

___

Romans 1:16

 

Dear Folks,
I would like to comment.
I think some of these questions are being asked because of such books being written by
a person named Jack Miles. I checked out two of his, and while he makes some interesting
remarks, I noticed something quickly. He apparently does not believe the Word of God.
But he does grab the readers attention with his tantalizing views, but the views are not
carried out to fruition before he goes on to another topic.

Because his books are
getting a lot of attention, I think many questions have arisen.
Seekers will find the Truth.
God bless you all.

 

DiscipleofJesus,

I have no idea who Jack Miles is, but the question of the historical authenticity of the virgin birth is a very old one in biblical studies, and one of the earliest topics of higher criticism.

As Post-It has accurately pointed out, the virgin-birth motif was a common one in the mythologies of the region, and was quite possibly incorporated into the Christian tradition. Its absence from Mark is a strong argument for that.

Nevertheless, as I said, I believe it because the Church has traditionally believed it and because its presence or absence has not real theological significance. To give you an idea of how normative such ambivalience is in my baptist circle, while a seminary student I did a straw poll in one of my theology classes (at a baptist seminary mind you) on this particular issue ("Raise your hand if you believe in the virgin birth"). Less than half the class raised their hands, but there was no real dissension. Just a general shrugging of shoulders, then we moved on.

Joshua

 

Post--

As usual, you have twisted my words to say
things I never said, just as you have with others'
words on this board. Of course, I was not
ignorant of the fact that you would do this. At
the least, if you want some shred of credibility,
don't go into a someone's quotation and change
it, as you did mine.

 

Dear Rev. Joshua,
Greetings in the Name of Jesus.
That was absolutely shocking.
Wow.

 

Re-read Post-its' reply. He doesn't attack anything. He affirms that Jesus is the Son of God. He merely states his belief that the virgin birth is unlikely. He also states that if it is a lie, it was created by man, not God, for God is the author of truth. If God can make heirs out of stones, surely he can make a savior out of flesh and blood.
By the way, calling this "an attack on all of what Christianity stands for" is ridiculously hyperbolic. Christianity as I understand it stands for loving God, loving one's neighbor, and spreading the Gospel as Christ directed. By the way, if you can point to any part of the Gospels where Jesus affirmed the virgin birth and called it part of the Gospel message I'd like to see it.
We need to differentiate between those who differ from us on some theological issues and those who are enemies of the church.

 

I thought I used your quote word for word. What are you saying that I "changed"?

 

YOU know EXACTLY what you did! You do not
need to ask. But for the sake of others reading
here, I am very curious why you changed the
word I typed as "satan" to "Satan"? If you be-
lieve you have the freedom or right to change
such things in a quotation without explanation
of what you are doing and why, then you have
No credibility.

[ August 15, 2002, 11:41 AM: Message edited by: Abiyah ]

 

Sorry, I picked that trait up from others on this board. Don't take anything I write personally, it isn't meant to be. I just get frustrated when I read posts that make generalizations that lead to the poor condition our church is in today.

Here is a recent example: "You have fallen, then, for certain theologian
myths, and for that, I am sorry. Very sorry."

If I were you, I wouldn't want to open up that can of worms since you are now saying that Satan could have also interjected many false teachings into the Bible itself. And to the degree that we can't know what is truth and what is not. Giving Satan that much power over man would bring doubt to the entire Bible. I don't think that is the case here.

Following your argument out in example, if it were true that Satan created these prior events, then God would have know about it and designed a better plan so that these exact speculations wouldn't come up. Further if Satan is that powerful, maybe the Jews have it correct and Satan invented the whole Jesus/Christ part of the Bible to trick people into worshiping a "false God" the exact thing that old testament God hated most.

This is where that type of argument can go and why it doesn't hold water?</font>[/QUOTE]This is the post in which you changed what i
wrote.

 

Ohhhhh well, that really wasn't me changing it. It was spell check. I usually copy everything over to Word then write my answer, then spell check the entire highlighted reply including anything the other person wrote. My spell check only spells Satan with a capital S. By the way can the name Satan be spelled with a small s, I wasn't aware of that. If it can how did that still change anything you stated?

More importantly, why are we discussing this, it isn't part of the thread? A Red Herring comes to mind.

Let's stick with the topic, ok?

 

I accept your explanation; however, you know
that you completely changed what I had said in
your posts this morning to mean something I
never said, stretching things so out of shape
that they were unrecgnizeable. When you did
this, then I saw the quotation changed, of course
you were suspect. No red herring at all and
completely within the subject, since you twisted
my words.

Yes, satan can be spelled with a lowercase s.
Those who spell it that way have a good reason.

As far as I am concerned, my conversation with
you is over. It makes no sense to continue.

 

I think Paul would want anything he said to be subordinate to anything that Jesus said. At least, he felt that way if he was a Christian.

 

While his mere words would be subordinate, what Paul was moved by God to write is just as authoritative. Hey, I am not ashamed of the gospel. What did you expect me to post?

Romans 1:16

[ August 15, 2002, 01:16 PM: Message edited by: PreachtheWord ]