Is It Necessary to Believe in the Virgin Birth?

[Avatar4321]

The virgin birth story is no longer tenable -- assumes some scholastic knowledge of the subject .
However , it was required in order to carry through the Egyptian , Horus story/myth which the whole of the NT desperately tries to reproduce.

As I've pointed out before, modern science could impregnate a virgin. If anything, the virgin birth is far more tenable now than it ever was.

But modern science could not impregnate a virgin with god's jizz, bro.

They could if they had it. Though it seems rather inappropriate to use such crass terminology to describe one of the greatest miracles in the history of the World.

If modern science can do it now, I see no reason to believe an all knowing, all powerful God would be unable to do it 2000 years ago.

God can do amazing things. He may have done it in a similiar way we can do things now with invetro, or He may know an even better way. Who knows? I dont need to. But I dont see how it's far fetch.

 

[editec]

Is it necessary to believe that Athena sprang fully grown from the head of Zeus?

Come on now, this is really important stuff!

 

[G.T.]

It's not crass for one who doesn't believe in said story, though, bro.

But your point in re: to Science is inane. You're equating science with an entity written to be Divine. You don't see how it's far fetched? It's not far fetched because women can be fertilized without sex, it's far fetched because there's no scientific proof that God exists.

 

[there4eyeM]

So being possessed by a spirit makes you at the same time always right and never responsible. Smooth move.

 

[Derideo_Te]

[edited for the purposes of clarity only - no intention to alter context intended - DT]

There is a reason Christ used "Son of God" and "Son of Man" interchangibly. The dirty little secret in the scriptures is that God and man are the same species. We are simply in different stages of development.

4) If Christ isn't the Son of God as He claimed, then yes, Christianity would be untrue. Christ is either who He claimed to be or He is a false teacher/mad man. There is no middle ground for it.

It was blasphemy for Jesus to call himself the "Son of God".

It was Paul who started Christianity as we know it today based upon the claim that Jesus was the "Son of God". What is curious is that this is the same Roman whose mission was to destroy the Jewish faith. What better tool could there be than to create a Jewish "Messiah" and start a competing religion that blamed the Jews for the death of the Messiah.

 

[LittleNipper]

[edited for the purposes of clarity only - no intention to alter context intended - DT]

There is a reason Christ used "Son of God" and "Son of Man" interchangibly. The dirty little secret in the scriptures is that God and man are the same species. We are simply in different stages of development.

4) If Christ isn't the Son of God as He claimed, then yes, Christianity would be untrue. Christ is either who He claimed to be or He is a false teacher/mad man. There is no middle ground for it.

It was blasphemy for Jesus to call himself the "Son of God".

It was Paul who started Christianity as we know it today based upon the claim that Jesus was the "Son of God". What is curious is that this is the same Roman whose mission was to destroy the Jewish faith. What better tool could there be than to create a Jewish "Messiah" and start a competing religion that blamed the Jews for the death of the Messiah.

The Romans crucified Jesus. Christianity is the ultimate completion of the Jewish faith. All the early Christians were almost entirely of the Jewish faith. Jesus said, "Before Abraham was,"I am." He was calling himself God. It is not blasphemy for God to call himself God. And only God himself has the right to judge who is or isn't His begotten Son.

 

[there4eyeM]

And Islam falls on exactly this point. The Koran cannot speak of Jesus as a prophet and respect him unless it accepts what he said, which it does not.

 

[Derideo_Te]

[edited for the purposes of clarity only - no intention to alter context intended - DT]

There is a reason Christ used "Son of God" and "Son of Man" interchangibly. The dirty little secret in the scriptures is that God and man are the same species. We are simply in different stages of development.

4) If Christ isn't the Son of God as He claimed, then yes, Christianity would be untrue. Christ is either who He claimed to be or He is a false teacher/mad man. There is no middle ground for it.

It was blasphemy for Jesus to call himself the "Son of God".

It was Paul who started Christianity as we know it today based upon the claim that Jesus was the "Son of God". What is curious is that this is the same Roman whose mission was to destroy the Jewish faith. What better tool could there be than to create a Jewish "Messiah" and start a competing religion that blamed the Jews for the death of the Messiah.

The Romans crucified Jesus. Christianity is the ultimate completion of the Jewish faith. All the early Christians were almost entirely of the Jewish faith. Jesus said, "Before Abraham was,"I am." He was calling himself God. It is not blasphemy for God to call himself God. And only God himself has the right to judge who is or isn't His begotten Son.

At the time it was blasphemy punishable by death for any Jew to call himself the "Son of God". Since there was no Roman law broken the only "crime" that Jesus had committed worthy of the death penalty was blasphemy. The Roman Governor found Jesus innocent of plotting against Rome so he had no reason to crucify him. However that decision was unpopular and likely to cause a riot so he handed over the decision of his guilt to those who believed him to be guilty of blasphemy. For Jews of strict fundamentalist belief at the time they were just upholding their faith in their Deity and they had every right to do so according to the 10 Commandments. If the Romans had released him they would probably have stoned him to death instead.

 

[editec]

Is It Necessary to Believe in the Virgin Birth?

Only if your 14 year old daughter is knocked up.

Then it is really helpful to believe in that fairy tale.

 

[BecauseIKnow]

[edited for the purposes of clarity only - no intention to alter context intended - DT]

There is a reason Christ used "Son of God" and "Son of Man" interchangibly. The dirty little secret in the scriptures is that God and man are the same species. We are simply in different stages of development.

4) If Christ isn't the Son of God as He claimed, then yes, Christianity would be untrue. Christ is either who He claimed to be or He is a false teacher/mad man. There is no middle ground for it.

It was blasphemy for Jesus to call himself the "Son of God".

It was Paul who started Christianity as we know it today based upon the claim that Jesus was the "Son of God". What is curious is that this is the same Roman whose mission was to destroy the Jewish faith. What better tool could there be than to create a Jewish "Messiah" and start a competing religion that blamed the Jews for the death of the Messiah.

The Romans crucified Jesus. Christianity is the ultimate completion of the Jewish faith. All the early Christians were almost entirely of the Jewish faith. Jesus said, "Before Abraham was,"I am." He was calling himself God. It is not blasphemy for God to call himself God. And only God himself has the right to judge who is or isn't His begotten Son.

Who handed him over to the Romans?

 

[BecauseIKnow]

And Islam falls on exactly this point. The Koran cannot speak of Jesus as a prophet and respect him unless it accepts what he said, which it does not.

And you are 100% positive that's what he said and no one else wrote that?

 

[BecauseIKnow]

[edited for the purposes of clarity only - no intention to alter context intended - DT]

There is a reason Christ used "Son of God" and "Son of Man" interchangibly. The dirty little secret in the scriptures is that God and man are the same species. We are simply in different stages of development.

4) If Christ isn't the Son of God as He claimed, then yes, Christianity would be untrue. Christ is either who He claimed to be or He is a false teacher/mad man. There is no middle ground for it.

It was blasphemy for Jesus to call himself the "Son of God".

It was Paul who started Christianity as we know it today based upon the claim that Jesus was the "Son of God". What is curious is that this is the same Roman whose mission was to destroy the Jewish faith. What better tool could there be than to create a Jewish "Messiah" and start a competing religion that blamed the Jews for the death of the Messiah.

The Romans crucified Jesus. Christianity is the ultimate completion of the Jewish faith. All the early Christians were almost entirely of the Jewish faith. Jesus said, "Before Abraham was,"I am." He was calling himself God. It is not blasphemy for God to call himself God. And only God himself has the right to judge who is or isn't His begotten Son.

He didn't say 'I am', he said 'I Have'.

 

[there4eyeM]

It was blasphemy for Jesus to call himself the "Son of God".

It was Paul who started Christianity as we know it today based upon the claim that Jesus was the "Son of God". What is curious is that this is the same Roman whose mission was to destroy the Jewish faith. What better tool could there be than to create a Jewish "Messiah" and start a competing religion that blamed the Jews for the death of the Messiah.

The Romans crucified Jesus. Christianity is the ultimate completion of the Jewish faith. All the early Christians were almost entirely of the Jewish faith. Jesus said, "Before Abraham was,"I am." He was calling himself God. It is not blasphemy for God to call himself God. And only God himself has the right to judge who is or isn't His begotten Son.

He didn't say 'I am', he said 'I Have'.

Link (and this better be good!).

 

[there4eyeM]

And Islam falls on exactly this point. The Koran cannot speak of Jesus as a prophet and respect him unless it accepts what he said, which it does not.

And you are 100% positive that's what he said and no one else wrote that?

I'm not a Christian, so it is not an article of faith for me, but I am entirely convinced that if anything he said was properly recorded, this is. Why would he say such a thing? He knew it meant trouble. Either he was wrong, and thus not a prophet, or he was what he said he was, and, thus, not a prophet, either, but something else entirely.

 

[LittleNipper]

It was blasphemy for Jesus to call himself the "Son of God".

It was Paul who started Christianity as we know it today based upon the claim that Jesus was the "Son of God". What is curious is that this is the same Roman whose mission was to destroy the Jewish faith. What better tool could there be than to create a Jewish "Messiah" and start a competing religion that blamed the Jews for the death of the Messiah.

The Romans crucified Jesus. Christianity is the ultimate completion of the Jewish faith. All the early Christians were almost entirely of the Jewish faith. Jesus said, "Before Abraham was,"I am." He was calling himself God. It is not blasphemy for God to call himself God. And only God himself has the right to judge who is or isn't His begotten Son.

At the time it was blasphemy punishable by death for any Jew to call himself the "Son of God". Since there was no Roman law broken the only "crime" that Jesus had committed worthy of the death penalty was blasphemy. The Roman Governor found Jesus innocent of plotting against Rome so he had no reason to crucify him. However that decision was unpopular and likely to cause a riot so he handed over the decision of his guilt to those who believed him to be guilty of blasphemy. For Jews of strict fundamentalist belief at the time they were just upholding their faith in their Deity and they had every right to do so according to the 10 Commandments. If the Romans had released him they would probably have stoned him to death instead.

Find the LAW of Moses that Jesus broke.

 

[LittleNipper]

It was blasphemy for Jesus to call himself the "Son of God".

It was Paul who started Christianity as we know it today based upon the claim that Jesus was the "Son of God". What is curious is that this is the same Roman whose mission was to destroy the Jewish faith. What better tool could there be than to create a Jewish "Messiah" and start a competing religion that blamed the Jews for the death of the Messiah.

The Romans crucified Jesus. Christianity is the ultimate completion of the Jewish faith. All the early Christians were almost entirely of the Jewish faith. Jesus said, "Before Abraham was,"I am." He was calling himself God. It is not blasphemy for God to call himself God. And only God himself has the right to judge who is or isn't His begotten Son.

He didn't say 'I am', he said 'I Have'.

No Jesus didn't. He said, "I am."
John 8:58 ►


New International Version (©1984)
"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!"

New Living Translation (©2007)
Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, before Abraham was even born, I Am!"

English Standard Version (©2001)
Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.”

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am."

Holman Christian Standard Bible (©2009)
Jesus said to them, "I assure you: Before Abraham was, I am."

International Standard Version (©2012)
Jesus told them, "Truly, I tell all of you emphatically, before there was an Abraham, I AM!"

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

Aramaic Bible in Plain English (©2010)
Yeshua said to them: “Timeless truth I speak to you: Before Abraham would exist, I AM THE LIVING GOD.”

GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
Jesus told them, "I can guarantee this truth: Before Abraham was ever born, I am."

King James 2000 Bible (©2003)
Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

American King James Version
Jesus said to them, Truly, truly, I say to you, Before Abraham was, I am.

American Standard Version
Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was born, I am.

Douay-Rheims Bible
Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say to you, before Abraham was made, I am.

Darby Bible Translation
Jesus said to them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

English Revised Version
Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

Webster's Bible Translation
Jesus said to them, Verily, verily, I say to you, Before Abraham was, I am.

Weymouth New Testament
"In most solemn truth," answered Jesus, "I tell you that before Abraham came into existence, I am."

World English Bible
Jesus said to them, "Most certainly, I tell you, before Abraham came into existence, I AM."

Young's Literal Translation
Jesus said to them, 'Verily, verily, I say to you, Before Abraham's coming -- I am;'

 

[CMike]

I consider myself to be a Christian, but I do not place much importance on the idea of a virgin birth. After all, if Jesus did not have any other chromosomes, he would have been a female clone of Mary. This also raises the question of whether Jesus was a human being who died on the Cross or a representation of God with a temporary mortal body. If the latter, why was his body removed from the Tomb and how did it ascend into Heaven?

However, I also think that the above questions in no way diminish the authenticity of His teachings. Where have I gone wrong? Am I still a Christian?

For nearly two millennia the Church has insisted that the Hebrew word almah עַלְמָה can only mean “virgin.” This is a vital position for defenders of Christianity to take because Matthew 1:22-23 translates alma in Isaiah 7:14 as “virgin.” The first Gospel quotes this wellknown verse to provide the only “Old Testament” proof text for the supposed virgin birth of Jesus. The stakes are high for Christendom. If the Hebrew word alma does not mean a virgin, Matthew crudely misquoted the prophet Isaiah, and both a key tenet of Christianity and the credibility of the first Gospel collapses.

How accurate is this Christian claim? The only place to explore this assertion is in the Jewish Scriptures. If the Hebrew word alma means virgin, then each usage in the Bible must be either a clear reference to a virgin or at the very least appear ambiguous. The word alma appears in the Jewish Scriptures seven times in the feminine and twice in the masculine. If even one reference refers to a woman who is clearly not a virgin, then Matthew’s rendition of Isaiah 7:14 becomes untenable.

The word Alma which the christian misinterpreted means young maiden not virgin. I believe the New international version of the christian bible has corrected that misinterperation

Alma means young maiden. Betula lmeans virgin.

 

[CMike]

The Romans crucified Jesus. Christianity is the ultimate completion of the Jewish faith. All the early Christians were almost entirely of the Jewish faith. Jesus said, "Before Abraham was,"I am." He was calling himself God. It is not blasphemy for God to call himself God. And only God himself has the right to judge who is or isn't His begotten Son.

At the time it was blasphemy punishable by death for any Jew to call himself the "Son of God". Since there was no Roman law broken the only "crime" that Jesus had committed worthy of the death penalty was blasphemy. The Roman Governor found Jesus innocent of plotting against Rome so he had no reason to crucify him. However that decision was unpopular and likely to cause a riot so he handed over the decision of his guilt to those who believed him to be guilty of blasphemy. For Jews of strict fundamentalist belief at the time they were just upholding their faith in their Deity and they had every right to do so according to the 10 Commandments. If the Romans had released him they would probably have stoned him to death instead.

Find the LAW of Moses that Jesus broke.

Deuteronomy 13

 

[LittleNipper]

At the time it was blasphemy punishable by death for any Jew to call himself the "Son of God". Since there was no Roman law broken the only "crime" that Jesus had committed worthy of the death penalty was blasphemy. The Roman Governor found Jesus innocent of plotting against Rome so he had no reason to crucify him. However that decision was unpopular and likely to cause a riot so he handed over the decision of his guilt to those who believed him to be guilty of blasphemy. For Jews of strict fundamentalist belief at the time they were just upholding their faith in their Deity and they had every right to do so according to the 10 Commandments. If the Romans had released him they would probably have stoned him to death instead.

Find the LAW of Moses that Jesus broke.

Deuteronomy 13

Jesus never suggested another god. He always pointed only to the Father.

 

[CMike]

[edited for the purposes of clarity only - no intention to alter context intended - DT]

There is a reason Christ used "Son of God" and "Son of Man" interchangibly. The dirty little secret in the scriptures is that God and man are the same species. We are simply in different stages of development.

4) If Christ isn't the Son of God as He claimed, then yes, Christianity would be untrue. Christ is either who He claimed to be or He is a false teacher/mad man. There is no middle ground for it.

It was blasphemy for Jesus to call himself the "Son of God".

It was Paul who started Christianity as we know it today based upon the claim that Jesus was the "Son of God". What is curious is that this is the same Roman whose mission was to destroy the Jewish faith. What better tool could there be than to create a Jewish "Messiah" and start a competing religion that blamed the Jews for the death of the Messiah.

The Romans crucified Jesus. Christianity is the ultimate completion of the Jewish faith. All the early Christians were almost entirely of the Jewish faith. Jesus said, "Before Abraham was,"I am." He was calling himself God. It is not blasphemy for God to call himself God. And only God himself has the right to judge who is or isn't His begotten Son.

That is utterly rediculous.

Christianity has nothing to do with Judaism.