The Virgin Birth

[_Yoda]

I think the fascination with the whole First Born thing is a product of ancient birth rates. So many children died at birth, I think it gave an over importance to the first born that actually lived. I see no reason for Christ's status as the First Born to be of any significance, since death at that point was immaterial. I think this is one of those manmade doctrines leftover from the ancients... kinda like Joseph's concept of plural marriage.

You could be onto something there. I hadn't really thought about the First Born significance in those terms.

However, I do think that Christ was definitely chosen as the Redeemer, and, in that sense, different from the rest of us. He was given special keys and powers to die for us, suffer for our sins in the Garden, and be resurrected. I just don't see how all of these things would have to be predicated by a "virgin" birth. Why should "Godly DNA" have any bearing on Christ being the Savior?

Well, that will be fun.

Actually, I think it will be.

You notice I invited DCP and Will....not Bob and BC. Of course, Bob and BC are welcome to participate as long as they can behave themselves.

I know that Will has been a pistol here in the past, but as a friend to me, I'm trusting him to be cool.

I'm also very much looking forward to my buddy, Gaz's comments.

[_Yoda]

An interesting discussion. I would ask why The Messiah needed to be divine and mortal and conclude that if there is at least one reason then he must have been both divine and mortal. If he was partly divine (0.000001 to 99.99999%?) then he must have been, in some fashion, created as a partially divine being. (I am one of those has never heard over the pulpit or who has ever believed that God had sex with Mary but the divinity could have been transfered in any way God chose and if God told me that he did it a certain way then I would believe it. My guess would be that Mary's egg was fertilized with the Father's DNA but I have no idea really. I also have no problem with Jehova's being an quick learner and getting down all but the mortal parts of Godhood before being born mortal. I also think that virgin meant pure, which would include sexual purity; I think that my wife is virgin in that respect as is virgin olive oil.)

So here are my questions (what can the reader add):

Did God the Father need to sacrifice a divine being for the sake of all his mortal children? Deeper, did it require someone with the ability to create life and to take life and to be a sinless sacrifice?

Could anyone but a divine being die on demand?

Could any one but a divine being resurrect himself?

Could any one but a divine being be sinless?

Are there other considerations?

If these are divine characteristics and any of these characteristics is a requirement for God's plan then Jesus or someone will have to be part divine in order to fulfill God's plan. This is independent of any "understandings of the day", then or now; though traditions are fascinating.

You ask some great questions! Thanks for participating!

I suppose my question is....Does Jesus' divinity have to be determined based on DNA? Could they not just as easily be determined based on some sort of blessing by God? And could this not have been done before Christ entered the womb?

[_BobAliceEve]

I suppose my question is....Does Jesus' divinity have to be determined based on DNA? Could they not just as easily be determined based on some sort of blessing by God? And could this not have been done before Christ entered the womb?

As far as I know, the only valid paternity test is DNA however I am open to considering another paternity determiner if you are able to offer one. This being, it seems to me, had to be God's Son and not someone else's son otherwise God had no right to, in the Abrahamic tradition, type, and shadow, sacrifice him? Yes, that is a question.

[_Yoda]

As far as I know, the only valid paternity test is DNA however I am open to considering another paternity determiner if you are able to offer one. This being, it seems to me, had to be God's Son and not someone else's son otherwise God had no right to, in the Abrahamic tradition, type, and shadow, sacrifice him? Yes, that is a question.

But the Abrahamic tradition is an Old Testament law...the lower law. The ushering in of Christ is the ushering in of the higher law.

It is the higher law that many of the people during Jesus' time found unfathomable. They were too caught up in laws of Moses, and the letter of the law. Christ introduced the spirit of the law.

Examples:
The parable of the Good Samaritan
Jesus and the woman at the well
Jesus telling the adulteress to go and sin no more.

[_harmony]

As far as the divinity thing is concerned, LDS doctrine says we're all children of God. So we all have divinity in us (some of us have it simply because our mothers made awesome divinity candy... others of us ... well, you know). So we all, by that definition, could have been the Redeemer.

[_BobAliceEve]

But the Abrahamic tradition is an Old Testament law...the lower law. The ushering in of Christ is the ushering in of the higher law.

You may be in error in the above statement. The Old Testament law started with Moses when the higher law which Abraham followed was rejected. Let me know if I am in error or misunderstood your comment.

[_BobAliceEve]

As far as the divinity thing is concerned, LDS doctrine says we're all children of God. So we all have divinity in us

There is a difference, I believe, between being a spirit child of God which we all are and the "Only Son in the flesh". Have I missed your point?

[_Yoda]

But the Abrahamic tradition is an Old Testament law...the lower law. The ushering in of Christ is the ushering in of the higher law.

You may be in error in the above statement. The Old Testament law started with Moses when the higher law which Abraham followed was rejected. Let me know if I am in error or misunderstood your comment.

I misspoke here...sorry.

My understanding, though, is that animal sacrifice and the story of Abraham commanded to sacrifice Issac was symbolic of the sacrifice of Christ.

When Christ came, he fulfilled the lower law, doing away with the need for animal sacrifice, etc.

I still don't see how Jesus not being a physical son of God would make the sacrifice less significant. Jesus was still the firstborn spiritual son of God, the chosen redeemer, and born through the lineage of David. God would certainly have the ability to bestow upon Jesus any type of godly power necessary to fulfill his destiny as the Messiah.

[_harmony]

As far as the divinity thing is concerned, LDS doctrine says we're all children of God. So we all have divinity in us

There is a difference, I believe, between being a spirit child of God which we all are and the "Only Son in the flesh". Have I missed your point?

What do you think is the difference?

[_BobAliceEve]

DNA.

Spirit matter has no DNA. We are spirit children of Father. He formed (not birthed) our spirit bodies (may not even require a Mother?) of existing spirit matter.

Christ is a completely mortal offspring (through Mary's and Father's unique DNA) and is "The Only Begotten of the Father in the flesh". However, he is much more!!

The more is that:
3) he had the ability to die by choice
2) he had the ability to resurrect himself
1) he had the ability to be sinless

No other mortal has any of those qualities.

If I missed your point or did not communicate my understanding effectively then I will gladly try again. I thank you for your question.