You are not logged in.
Isn't the virgin birth of Jesus Christ mythological and scientifically impossible? <BR> <BR><a href="http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aiia/virginbirth.html" target=_top>http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aiia/virginbirth .html</a> <BR> <BR>I love this answer to the question from skeptics and doubters: <BR> <BR><blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1><b>quote:</b></font><p><b><font color="0000ff">Critic's Claim #1 <BR> <BR>The idea of a virgin birth is SCIENTIFICALLY IMPOSSIBLE.</font></b> <BR> <BR>Really? Where have you been for the past 21 years? Ever since in vitro fertilization and embryonic transfer came on the scene in 1978 (not to mention artificial insemination), it is quite possible for a woman who has never experienced sexual intercourse to give birth. <BR> <BR>Of course, the Bible makes it clear that it was Almighty God, not some high-paid gynecologist, who worked the details of Jesus' Divine-Human conception, i.e. “And the angel answered and said unto [Mary], The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.” <BR> —Luke 1:35, KJV. <BR> <BR>Sound miraculous? Of course. But these days, who would deny that miracles occur? And such a 'small' one for the God who created the entire universe! <BR> <BR><!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>
Offline
<font color="0000ff">The offspring produced by parthenogenesis are always female</font> <BR> <BR><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthenogenesis" target=_top>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthenogenesis</a> <BR> <BR>so that method is highly doubtful..... <BR> <BR>but the method of "borrowing stories from the past" might explain things: <BR><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_birth_" target=_top>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_birth_</a>(mythology) <BR> <BR>is the story a fact? or fable? <BR> <BR><a href="http://www.religioustolerance.org/virgin_b.htm" target=_top>http://www.religioustolerance.org/virgin_b.htm</a>
If electricity comes from electrons, does morality come from morons?
Offline
John, the problem with your parthenogenesis idea, this was not a randam act. So that is barking up the wrong tree. Without the virgin birth, the resurrection and the ascension, you don't have salvation. Those points are key.
Offline
Hmmm. Didn't Paul say that it was Jesus and him crucified that was the central message of salvation? Neither he nor Mark, the earliest gospel writers ever mention a virginal birth. <BR> <BR>So, your statement: <b><font color="0000ff">Without the virgin birth, the resurrection and the ascension, you don't have salvation. Those points are key. </font></b> rings quite hollow, as not only those two, but what other NT writers (aside from Matthew and Luke, who were later writers) dared to claim a virgin birth? Why the claim that without the virgin birth you don't have salvation? Where is that requirement ever stated? <BR> <BR>Yes, without the resurrection there would be no Christian church, but whether one believed the virgin birth or not was not a requirement of Christian believers; nor is there any mention of it as an accepted or adopted Christian belief.
Offline
<b><font color="000000">That the conception itself was indeed miraculous appears to rest on a "single attestation", that of Mary. The attestation of the angel to Joseph on the miraculous nature of the conception would not be accepted by many scholars as historiographically valid. </font></b>
Offline
If any ordinary man died on the cross, salvation is a pipe dream. You refuse to STUDY the WHOLE Bible but pick and choose one vantage or view and say he didn't mention about the Shuttle, he must not be a valid prophet, he never saw that coming. How absurd. <BR> <BR>To what end would resurrecting an ordinary man be of any help in the Plan of Salvation, that was from before the foundations of the earth. <BR> <BR>Is your belief this man, ordinary man, Jesus lived a perfect life and can forgive sin, and is going to be the judge of all man kind and will return in the clouds at the end of time, was nothing more than a mere man!!!!!!! Elaine, your age is catching up to you. WooooooooW!!!!
Offline
Basic Christian Beliefs: <BR> <BR><a href="http://christianity.about.com/od/christiandoctrines/a/basicdoctrines.htm" target=_top>http://christianity.about.com/od/christiandoctrine s/a/basicdoctrines.htm</a> <BR> <BR>Notice Jesus Christ, part of the Trinity, became man. How'd that happen Elaine. IF you don't believe it, you can't claim to be a Christian!!!
Offline
And who gave Bob Sands the position of judging who should be called Christian? Anyone who tries to live by Christ's teaching is appropriately called Christian. It is not merely "beliefs" but actions by which we are judged. Try that out in court sometime: "But officer, I believed I was only going 40 mph" (in a 30 mph zone). <BR> <BR>No court will condemn you for your beliefs, which are private and we currently do not have "thought police." Only your actions condemn you both in civil and in religious court.
Offline
<b><font color="0000ff">it is quite possible for a woman who has never experienced sexual intercourse to give birth.</font></b> <BR> <BR>But when and who maintains she is still a virgin? Are you implying that artificial insemination was a well-known procedure in the first century? You've been reading to much sci-fi.
Offline
We do not know how the miracle of Christ's virgin birth happened. You want to understand scientifically all things. That I am willing to accept that may not happen until heaven. <BR> <BR>Elaine, how doe we know what Christian is, without a guide. Is that your mind, or a written word. Where are Christ's teachings found, in oral tradition, a written source. I agree about the actions, but if one throws out the written for their own interpretation of action, what happens?? Anything goes, in about the number of people that have an interpretation or view point. Christianity does have some subjectivity, but also some objectivity. A harmony if you will. <BR> <BR>You want modern science to be found in the Bible, you want evolutionary thought, you want no word against sexual orientation, you want the Bible to read with equality about sexual orientation. Elaine wants a lot. Much knowledge has made thee....
Offline
The Bible is the Christian guide not Elaine and her skeptical reading. Not Bob Sands or Elaine. <BR> <BR>Just remember where Christ's teachings are, the Bible that you and John want to systemataically, with your own logic tear apart. <BR> <BR>Take sexual orientation, the SDA church should not compare our position on sexual orientation with the Sabbath because we want help when we are the minority. That was the position of some in California during Prop 8. The standard is in the Bible, Elaine, not our own desired result, like it or not.
Offline
<BR> <BR>(Message edited by john8verse32 on April 14, 2009)
If electricity comes from electrons, does morality come from morons?
Offline
That was great point, one of the best you have made in the discussion!!!<img src="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/clipart/lol.gif" border=0>
Offline
Elaine, study this article about the necessity of a Virgin Birth: <BR> <BR><a href="http://www.whatsaiththescripture.com/The.Holy.Bible/Reasons7.Virg.Birth.Christ.html" target=_top>http://www.whatsaiththescripture.com/The.Holy.Bibl e/Reasons7.Virg.Birth.Christ.html</a>
Offline
Bob, you take me for a fool, as though I haven't spent years in studying both the Bible and the history of Christianity. When you have written hundreds of pages (for credit), thoroughly documented, on these subjects, maybe you will get more respect for your knowledge. Until then, your limitations are showing. <BR> <BR>You are certainly aware that only two gospels even mention a virgin birth, while all the other NT writers ignore it. If it is of ultimate importance to the Christian, why didn't Paul, who is recognized as the founder of Christianity, ever mention it once?
Offline
Elaine, how could Paul believe Jesus to be the Son of God and our way to eternal life if he ws a normal man conceived by a human man and human woman. You want Paul to draw you a picture of the virgin birth. <BR> <BR><b><font color="0000ff">Galatians 4:4 But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law, <BR></font></b> <BR> <BR>Now that verse if STUDIED shows God's Son born not with a man and woman, but a woman only, and born under the law so He was obligatated to follow the Jewish law until He died, and fulfilled the Old Covenant.
Offline
The expression "born of a woman" is no different than every person who's ever been born. There is nothing Paul says about an unusual birth whatsoever. But, for those who "read into it," they add their own assumptions. <BR> <BR>Weren't you and your brother born of a woman? Nothing unusual about that.
Offline
Elaine, Many people believe that if the expression "born of a woman," were not significant, then there was no need for Paul to even mention it. I can't recall any incidents where a natural man gave birth, can you?
Offline
John, <BR> <BR>I do wish that you had taken time to study the links that I shared. <BR> <BR>Are you ready to search for truth in the same way that you would search for silver or hidden treasure? Or are you just another person with tunnel vision, induced by following blind guides?
Offline
Was Paul intending to make a statement by saying "born of woman" to counter the myths of virgin births that were common in the Greco-Roman culture? "Born of a woman" signifies a very natural birth as the only way any human begins life. He didn't say anything at all about a virginal conception, but a natural birth. <BR> <BR>One can ASSUME many reasons that Mark decided not to mention a word about Jesus until his baptism, or that Paul had never heard the stories of a virginal conception and birth. OTOH, one can assume lots that is not recorded in the Bible. But, shouldn't truthful people stick to what is written and not assume more?
Offline
Elaine, you need to change your sources of study, and be a little more inclusive. This is not my idea, but as I studied the "stuff" that you and John were hurling, I came across this interpretation of that verse. I'll look for the source, but I bet, if you cared, you could find it about as easily on your browser as I could. But ..... <BR> <BR>Here it is under Wesley's notes: <BR> <BR>Gal 4:4 But when the fulness of the time - Appointed by the Father, Gal 4:2. Was come, God sent forth - From his own bosom. His Son, miraculously made of the substance of a woman - A virgin, without the concurrence of a man. Made under the law - Both under the precept, and under the curse, of it. <BR> <BR>Also: <BR> <BR><a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/resources/commentaries/?action=getCommentaryText&cid=7&source=1&seq=i.55.4.1" target=_top>http://www.biblegateway.com/resources/commentaries /?action=getCommentaryText&cid=7&source=1&seq=i.55 .4.1</a> <BR> <BR><blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1><b>quote:</b></font><p>... <BR> <BR>The next phrase, born of a woman, points to the incarnation and full humanity of Jesus. The Son of God was sent to be one with us in our humanity. He was God's Son and he was Mary's son--the one and only God-man. He was also born under law. The phrase under law cannot mean legalism, keeping the law to earn salvation. Jesus certainly did not live his life under the misconception that he had to keep the law to earn his salvation. To be born under law means to be born a Jew under obligation to keep the requirements of the Mosaic law. From his circumcision eight days after his birth to his celebration of Passover with his disciples just before his death, every detail of Jesus' life was under the direction of the law. His perfect obedience to God the Father, as God's Son born of a woman, fulfilled all the requirements of the law. God's Son took our place as a human being to offer a perfect obedience to God on our behalf. <BR> <BR>...<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>
Offline
Hi, Pilgrim... <BR> <BR>on the Gospel of John thread I DID post a site with its rationalizations for the discrepancies between Matt and Luke over how Judas died.... <BR> <BR>problem is that the explanations used by the faithful fall short of being reasonable too often... <BR> <BR>only solution is to give up the concept of innerrance, and accept that the Bible is a collection of individual books written over different periods by different authors, complete with their human foibles and personal and cultural predispositions which probably are at the heart of the inconsistancies noted. <BR> <BR>Only then can one "conflate" all the stories into a meaningful pattern.... but it then exchanges much of its "divine inspiration" in so doing for a humanist understanding of the meaning of Christianity....and that works ONLY after one gives up literal belief in dogmatic Mosesianity.
If electricity comes from electrons, does morality come from morons?
Offline
John, <BR> <BR>Thanks for the response. I just looked at the Gospel of John thread and only saw links to sites that I wold consider to be skeptical of the Bible, with the exception of Olivetree. Perhaps I missed the intended links, if it's not too much trouble, do yo mind posting the site(s) that you are referring to? <BR> <BR>Thanks very much.
Offline
How can Jesus be the Son of God, incarnate, without a virgin birth. It is impossible. He would be the son of an ordinary man. <BR> <BR>In Mark the first verse in the Amplified Version says: <BR> <BR>Mark 1:1THE BEGINNING [of the facts] of the good news (the Gospel) of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. <BR> <BR>then in verse 11: And there came a voice [j]out from within heaven, You are My Beloved Son; in You I am well pleased.(D) <BR> <BR> <BR>Now Elaine, Mark is a Gospel that you and John have been saying does not mention Christ's virgin birth. If these verses, do not suggest or say that he was God's Son, then tell me what you read, how can He be God's Son if another man impregnated Mary??? <BR> <BR>It is true some versions do not have "Son of God" in verse one, but it is definitely declared in verse 11.
Offline
John uses the term: <BR> <BR>dogmatic Mosesianity <BR> <BR>John, from whence do you get that term or when did you coin it. <BR> <BR>Source please, that is not the way you talk. Your plagiarism is showing.
Offline