The virgin birth of Christ.

[Guest]

Nipper,
But Jesus was born of Mary, would he not have inherited sin through her?

Do you believe the catholic doctrine of Marys immaculate conception? I have heard stated that many Christians do believe that to preserve Jesus against inheriting sin from her. Myself I think if it was possible for Mary to have been born of two human parents but have an immaculate conception such would be possible for Jesus. Does not mean it happened that way of course.

What do you believe it means to say Jesus was fully human?

(lets skip further comment about rape, the subject does not belong)

I do not believe in the immaculate conception of Mary. Mary called Jesus her Savior ---- And Mary said,"My soul doth magnify the Lord, And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Savior” (Luke 1:46,47). A person who is without sin doesn't need saving. They are already perfect. By using only one human Jesus was a hybrid to say the very least. I believe that Christ seems to have been able to assume a "human" form at various times in the past. Like when God walked with Adam and visited with Abraham... Jesus now has an eternal permanent body like of the kind all the Saved will one day inherit.
The truth seems more likely to be that God wants to be more like US to interact with US at a level closer to US. Whatever, God does it all and we just need to be willing to accept HIM. The work is Christ Jesus'.

[_Mike Reed]

Of course one can wonder if Jesus was conceived by another man. That is an obvious possibility. I find it bizarre to try to establish that possibility by ambiguity in the text. The text does not determine the event.

Indeed. The text does not settle the matter. The matter was only "settled" at a much later point in time--a time when folks were far removed from possibility of inquiring Mary's personal sex life.

I find this particular search for ambiguity a stretch.

Why? Because it simply doesn't fit with your extrabiblical assumption?

Do you really imagine Mary was so naïve as to believe it questionable she be pregnant by sexual relations with man not married to or to some sort of Zeus because she was not married to him?

Whether or not she believed it is irrelevant. If she asked a question, she did so to get an answer. And that answer may or may not have been what she anticipated. But given the fact that heiros gamos was the means by the neighbor's gods impregnated "virgins", then it seems quite likely that she would have understood this possibility.

If Jesus was conceived by a sperm and egg combining then the sperm would have to be a human one.

It was commonly believed that angels could impregnate humans.

The dna would not match up enough to work otherwise.

So you know God's DNA, huh? ;) Besides... first century Israelites knew nothing of DNA.

If one believes there is some special deity about Jesus that would not be the result of through a sperm whatever the source. The sperm would only contribute human biological character.

But again... this is speculation.

As a Christian believer I believe in the virgin birth because it is Christian tradition. I feel quite sure there is no sure knowledge about it available to any of us now. It is just a part of how the early church understood Jesus.

At some point, yes... many Christians did believe in virginal conception. But that doctrine appears to have developed later in Christian history.

Actually I find it easy to conceive of ways to picture Jesus born of a normal male female mating, and being second person of the Trinity at the same time. My imagining alternative scenarios adds to the matter no actual information or understanding that I see however.

I find it interesting that the biblical narrative leaves open (if not reflects) an interpretation for heiros gamos, and that such beliefs that were widely held among their neighbors. Clearly... Origin was so threatened by the pagan myths, that he went so far as to insist that they were Satan's counterfeits. This seems quite telling to me.

[_Mike Reed]

For what it is worth... the intent of my post was not to disprove any particular religion. I wished to simply show that Scripture doesn't settle the matter.

[_Dr. Shades]

The most problematic part of all this is that nowhere does it say that Mary was given a choice in the matter.

[_LittleNipper]

The most problematic part of all this is that nowhere does it say that Mary was given a choice in the matter.

God knew her heart and that is why she was selected. There is no mention of choice for Abraham or David. One is going to become the father of a great nation and the other King of Israel. God simply knows.

[_huckelberry]

he leaves open (if not reflects) an interpretation for heiros gamos, and that such beliefs that were widely held among their neighbors. Clearly... Origin was so threatened by the pagan myths, that he went so far as to insist that they were Satan's counterfeits. This seems quite telling to me.

Mike, perhaps you are assuming I understand your vantage point more than I do. I cannot help but wonder , telling what??

I see Origin as having strict attitudes toward sex and was offended by suggestions that improper sexual relations were the cause of Jesus conception.

It has occurred to me that you could be marking out an area of possiblity for the old Mormon view of God the Father impregnating Mary with his own dna. I see that the scripture does not preclude that. In that frame of thought Gods and angels have dna which would be expected to be fertile with a human woman. If that is what you are thinking I can see a point to your reply to me. I might note that the dna combination would still not be what made Jesus divine. Johns comments about , in the beginning was the word etc.. would still be speaking to the foundation of Jesus divinity. applicable.

But I do not know your intention. Could be another proposal that religion is all about rape. (?)

[_Tobin]

The most problematic part of all this is that nowhere does it say that Mary was given a choice in the matter.

Why is that problematic?

[_Amore]

"Without a parable spake he not unto them."

Do you guys seriously think
1) the Bible is a literal history book, not a symbolic spiritual book?
2) Jesus told of his birth so we could know anout HIS birthday, not to teach a lesson?

Being born again - physically and spiritually - that's what the story's about. Also honor and gratitude of all mothers who share in a divine creative process and get close to painful death in giving birth to all humanity.

[_LittleNipper]

"Without a parable spake he not unto them."

Do you guys seriously think
1) the Bible is a literal history book, not a symbolic spiritual book?
2) Jesus told of his birth so we could know anout HIS birthday, not to teach a lesson?

Being born again - physically and spiritually - that's what the story's about. Also honor and gratitude of all mothers who share in a divine creative process and get close to painful death in giving birth to all humanity.

Mark 4:34 But without a parable spake he not unto them: ... He did not tell them anything without using a parable, though he explained everything to his disciples in private.

[_Dr. Shades]

The most problematic part of all this is that nowhere does it say that Mary was given a choice in the matter.

Why is that problematic?

'Cause it's too close to rape.