18 Aug 12
Originally posted by SuzianneDoes it give you pause for thought that comparable miraculous births are a common element in religions across the world and all the way down through history? If it is just an allegory [and a rather commonplace one too], as seems to be the case here, does that not affect the way it which you hold it to be a "cornerstone" of your faith?
As to how we can "buy into it", did I not mention that it was a cornerstone of our faith? And yes, of course it was a miracle.
18 Aug 12
Originally posted by SuzianneSheeesh, look, it is not my intention to get personal. Its sounds as if you are taking this a bit too personally. ( I get emotional on these threads too, but I am not in the slightest bit offended or affected in the sense that I am going to dislike a poster because (s)he has offended my values (or whatever), I like posting and I tell the truth the way I see it ).
As to how we can "buy into it", did I not mention that it was a cornerstone of our faith? And yes, of course it was a miracle.
If Christ was born of the union of a man and a woman, then yes, He would have had the burden of Original Sin. The Sin of Adam, passed on to every normally conceived person. This is the entire point of having a virgin birth and ...[text shortened]... , and whether it is true or not DOES matter to us. (And by "us", I mean Christians. )
A virgin birth seems far fetched and without any other proof (other than the bible) I simply just cant accept it.
It is a cornerstone of your faith. There you go - you've said it - "STONE" .
your Christian thinking is like that of stone. You see it as solid and unshakeable but you are thinking 3-d. (Remember that we have now proven that the majority of the physical universe that we thought was solid is for the most part made up of empty space)
miracle? there are no miracles. Miracles are just occurances that are witnessed by someone that cant attribute it to anything they understand . ( A mobile phone would've been described as a miracle to someone 100 years ago)
The decedent of the whole human race is an ape named "mitochondrial Eve" . She is the mother of us all. This lineage can be traced scientifically. We are not the decedents of two people who were created in the Garden of Eden. That is nonsensical.
18 Aug 12
Originally posted by Phil HillI am glad you understand something I have said. You did not understand anything when jaywill was trying to explain things nicely to you. 😏
When you called me numbnuts I was offended as you were the second Christian here to "insult" me (WWJD). Now I fully understand that you are delusional.
18 Aug 12
3 edits
Originally posted by karoly aczel
You believe that? (the virgin birth) And if so , why?
You believe that? (the virgin birth) And if so , why?
Well, firstly I believe it because I have been persuaded that the Bible should be taken at face value. It is not reported as a parable. It is reported as an event [edited] in history. But this virgin birth of Jesus is not an event in a total vacuum. There are some contributing factors which enfluence me to take it matter of fact style.
1.) The miracle was prophesied centries before, that it would occur. So we were given a "heads up" that a miraculous birth of a special person was on its way.
2.) It was not the first time that God brought about an unusual birth. Abraham and Sarah's birth of Isaac was somewhat a foretaste of what God could do. And a few other places in the Old Testament displayed God's sovereign control over unusual human births and deaths too for that matter.
So when the virgin birth of Jesus arrives, (a singular event in history), we have already seen some manifestation of God's power.
3.) The wonderfulnesss of the virgin birth of Jesus is consistent with the wonderfulness of His personality. His splendid life, His glorious words and deeds are consistent with His miraculous arrival.
This is not the virgin birth of anyone. It is the special birth of a special Person.
4.) The virgin birth of Jesus Christ is necessary for Him to qualify to be in the Davidic line as the Messiah king. If Joseph has actually been the physical father of Jesus that would have disqualified Jesus from being the promised son of David to sit on his throne as the Israelite messiah king.
So Jesus had to be related to David throug a family line, BUT not through the family line which included any male descendents of the dismissed line from Jeconiah. So being related to David through Mary the mother, yet NOT through Joseph the husband of Mary, qualifies Jesus as a legitimate candidate to be the promised Messiah.
Having said all of this, I would add - the New Testament does not seem to hold the virgin birth of Jesus as a necessary belief for salvation. It is not mentioned much except by the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke. It is not nearly as emphasized as His redemptive death and resurrection.
5.) Though I am not sure about this, the virgin of Jesus may have something to do with Jesus Christ not having the sin nature, yet being a typical man otherwise. I am not positive though.