Virgin Birth questioned: the implications

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Luk 1:29 "But she was greatly troubled ..."

There's a shred ....

Read it again. She was troubled by the sudden appearance of Gabriel. Once she got over that, she readily agreed.

Luke 1.26 Now in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city in Galilee called Nazareth, 27 to a virgin engaged to a man whose name was Joseph, of the descendants of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary. 28 And coming in, he said to her, “Greetings, favored one! The Lord is with you.” 29 But she was very perplexed at this statement, and kept pondering what kind of salutation this was. 30 The angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary; for you have found favor with God. 31 “And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name Him Jesus. 32 “He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David; 33 and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and His kingdom will have no end.” 34 Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I am a virgin?” 35 The angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God. 36 “And behold, even your relative Elizabeth has also conceived a son in her old age; and she who was called barren is now in her sixth month. 37 “For nothing will be impossible with God.” 38 And Mary said, “Behold, the bondslave of the Lord; may it be done to me according to your word.” And the angel departed from her.

Great scriptures! Too bad nobody on AltViews believes them.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Quote Luke: "to a virgin engaged to a man"

So she wasn't even married. And even if she was willing (who could say no to God) it was a statutory violation of a teen. At least that's how we would judge it today.

Let's face it, the virgin birth paints God in a bad light. That's why we should see it like we see that Mary was the mother of God today, compliments of the RCC. Both are mythic symbology ... and not literal.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

So she wasn't even married. And even if she was willing (who could say no to God) it was a statutory violation of a teen. At least that's how we would judge it today.

Let's face it, the virgin birth paints God in a bad light. That's why we should see it like we see that Mary was the mother of God today, compliments of the RCC. Both are mythic symbology ... and not literal.

Of course she was not married. She was chaste. She was engaged to be shortly married, perhaps within days.

You assume she was a teen, and perhaps so, but why is it a statutory violation? She willingly agreed. Are you serious? People say "no" to God all the time.

There is no mythic symbology. It is absolutely literal. This was the way God chose. Get over it mon!

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Of course she was not married. She was chaste. She was engaged to be shortly married, perhaps within days.

You assume she was a teen, and perhaps so, but why is it a statutory violation? She willingly agreed. Are you serious? People say "no" to God all the time.

There is no mythic symbology. It is absolutely literal. This was the way God chose. Get over it mon!

Great response bro Ohio. Score 50 - 2, your favor.

Personally, maybe we should look at the virgin birth as it appears to have been to Mark, John, and Paul. Those that have experienced the Spirit of Christ aren't in need of such things as the virgin birth to prove their faith.

Experiencing the Spirit of Christ requires no such proof to validate that Jesus was the Son of God. So the virgin birth doesn't need to be true or not.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

Great response bro Ohio. Score 50 - 2, your favor.

Personally, maybe we should look at the virgin birth as it appears to have been to Mark, John, and Paul. Those that have experienced the Spirit of Christ aren't in need of such things as the virgin birth to prove their faith.

Experiencing the Spirit of Christ requires no such proof to validate that Jesus was the Son of God. So the virgin birth doesn't need to be true or not.

Virgin birth is a literal misnomer. Mary was no longer a virgin when Jesus was born. She was deflowered by the Holy Spirit. She agreed to it. It was fornication by human standards. Apparently the Holy Spirit and Mary get a pass. The event requires a suspension of the ethical which is paradoxical. The early Christians loved a good paradox or was it God?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

Virgin birth is a literal misnomer. Mary was no longer a virgin when Jesus was born. She was deflowered by the Holy Spirit. She agreed to it. It was fornication by human standards. Apparently the Holy Spirit and Mary get a pass. The event requires a suspension of the ethical which is paradoxical. The early Christians loved a good paradox or was it God?

This is sick. Is your mind in the gutter?

Let's look at the Gospel record ...

The angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God." -- Luke

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

This is sick. Is your mind in the gutter?

What are you saying? It's a divine miracle. I thought you believed in it.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Personally, maybe we should look at the virgin birth as it appears to have been to Mark, John, and Paul. Those that have experienced the Spirit of Christ aren't in need of such things as the virgin birth to prove their faith.

Experiencing the Spirit of Christ requires no such proof to validate that Jesus was the Son of God. So the virgin birth doesn't need to be true or not.

Two gospels record the virgin birth. Matthew's account focuses on the fulfillment of OT scripture, since he was a Jew and wrote primarily for the Jews. Luke, however, was a Gentile physician under the tutelage of Paul, and wrote primarily to a Gentile audience. Their accounts have nearly no overlap which really supports the demands for independent witnesses. The fact that there were two accounts is significant to me.

A while ago I saw an astronomical study of the Star of Bethlehem that the Magi followed. It's pretty incredible. It astronomically dates the birth of Jesus. The symbolism was fascinating. Only God, the creator of the universe, could have arranged for the "stars" to announce the coming of the promised Messiah. This 21st century documentary provided overwhelming evidence to validate Matthew's account. Some of you folks demand "scientific" proof, and this is the closest thing we have.

Interestingly, the heavenly constellation does not point to Mary's conception, but rather to the actual birth of Jesus. It seems that God never wanted to highlight what happened to Mary at conception, but what happened to His Son. Jesus basically lived His whole life on earth with all those around Him convinced He was Joseph's son. Legally He was Joseph's son, and the genealogy shows us this. His brothers and sisters had no clue what was about to happen to their big brother when He turned thirty. I believe that due to financial hardship and Joseph's death, Jesus basically worked day and night to support His mother and younger siblings, so that His own marital status would remain a non issue.

No one can say that Luke and Matthew stole their accounts from Mark. Their research into the events surrounding the birth of Jesus proves this. No one was plagiarizing their own gospel record. Of course their is much overlap on special events, but the uniqueness of each is proof alone.