Quote:
Originally Posted by awareness
This is the virgin birth implications thread. What's the implications if the virgin birth wasn't true? Does it affect or salvation here today? I know it will make a difference to the Jesus is God folks, but it won't be a fatal blow. Does the virgin birth either way, happened or not, have anything to do with receiving the Spirit today; with being born again, or living by the Spirit?
|
Thank you. And I hope you all know my answers to these questions.
But now we get a little insight into the post-Paul generation's (years 60 to 100) dilemma. They read Paul's epistles and I presume they had Mark (at least the short version). They understood from these documents that Jesus was without sin, who died for our sins, etc.
But when asked "How could Jesus not have sinned? He was a man like us, right? How can he be the Son of God?", they were having difficulty answering the questions. Explanations like "Well he was born a sinner like us, but became sinless via the indwelling Spirit of God" were met with skepticism.
So Isaiah 7:14 (LXX version) came to the rescue. Now they had an answer to the question that annoyed them: Jesus was BORN that way. Sweet. That is why he did not sin.
Once the idea took hold it did not matter that Jews argued that the passage referred to Hezekiah and that the word "virgin" was not a proper translation.
Thus "Matthew" and "Luke" were born. Apparently the stories developed in two different localities (they did not have summer and winter trainings yet), so the result was disharmony.
The end result is the same, but the beginning changed.
If there is any divine intervention at all, it is that BOTH of these documents were declared to be canon. If only one of them had, I would not have started these threads. But when you have two documents with completely different filler material added to Mark (I am speaking here strictly of the pre-baptism accounts), then I can see the paper trail that indicts them.