Did Mary have to be a Virgin for Jesus to have been the Christ?

[Radrook]

To me it would have made no difference since I consider the conception immaculate in either case. Perhaps it is the definition of what the word immaculate means to many.
I was taught that immaculate conception in relation to Jesus meant that Adamic sin was not permitted to be part of his DNA. In short, he was genetically spotless as required.

Yes, I was taught that Mary was a virgin when she conceived. Nevertheless, it was he overpowering of the holy spirit which was emphasized and nothing could have gotten in the way of the spirit in its mission to transfer Jesus' life from heaven to Mary's womb in the manner required-not even her virginal or non virginal state.

However, her being a virgin does add a certain honor to the conception since we humans tend to view female virginity as equivalent to purity and find it very appropriate that our Lord and Savior's life should have been transferred in that manner.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

To me it would have made no difference since I consider the conception immaculate in either case.

According to Paul, Jesus was not born but was made, or manufactured. Paul uses the same word for Jesus as he does for Adam. He was made of a woman (Galatians 4:4) and made of David's seed (Romans 1:3). That tradition predates the virgin birth tradition by decades.

Also, the author of Matthew incorrectly cites Isaiah when he mentions the virgin birth. The "virgin" in Isaiah 7:14 is "almah" in the Hebrew which can mean "young woman" instead of "virgin." In fact I think that the word has the former meaning most of the time. However, the author of Matthew could not read Hebrew, and the Septagint (the Greek version) translated the word as "virgin."

Furthermore, a mere casual reading of all of Isaiah 7 shows that the prophecy cannot be about Jesus even if the young woman was indeed a virgin. Isaiah was speaking with King Ahaz who was worried about his city being sacked. Isaiah said that the king's enemies would not prevail, and that the Lord would send a sign as confirmation: that a "virgin" would give birth and name the child Immanuel. Before the child would be old enough to know right from wrong, the king's enemies would fall. The prophecy necessarily succeeded or failed half a millennium before Christ was born. Even if Christ actually was born of a virgin, the author of Matthew is dishonest in citing Isaiah. Lastly, as we all know, nowhere in the entire Bible is Jesus referred to as Immanuel except in this passage of contention.

Perhaps it is the definition of what the word immaculate means to many.
I was taught that immaculate conception in relation to Jesus meant that Adamic sin was not permitted to be part of his DNA. In short, he was genetically spotless as required.

Jesus was descended from Ruth the Moabite (Matthew 1:5, Ruth 1:4). The Moabites are an abomination unto the Lord and are never to be allowed in the assembly of the Lord (Deuteronomy 23:3). Also, a literal reading of Genesis shows that the Moabites are spawned from incest (Genesis 19:30-38). Personally I think that's just a derogatory myth about the origins of people despised by the authors of Genesis (note that Noah also cursed Canaan, the son of Ham). It could, however, be argued that this is a plain record of what happened since the Jewish patriarchs are also said to have had incestuous relations (Abram married his half-sister and Jacob married his first cousins), but I think that these types of relations were more or less acceptable whereas Lot being "raped" by his daughters would've certainly been considered taboo. But these things are speculative so I will go with what the text says. So if Jesus is descended from an incestuous event and has "Moabite DNA" then I do not know how his DNA can be "perfect" or "without blemish." I dispute that the notion of "perfect DNA" is even coherent, but as far as I can tell from what you mean, Jesus' DNA cannot have been what you are saying. Since Ruth was a woman, Jesus' claim to royalty is not compromised by her placement in his lineage, but his DNA is indeed "corrupted." A human's DNA profile is not influenced as a result of which parent is the male and which is the female. In other words, if you have a population of pure Africans and another population of pure Caucasians, a male Caucasian with a female African would produce a child of the same race as would a male African with a female Caucasian.

Yes, I was taught that Mary was a virgin when she conceived. Nevertheless, it was he overpowering of the holy spirit which was emphasized and nothing could have gotten in the way of the spirit in its mission to transfer Jesus' life from heaven to Mary's womb in the manner required-not even her virginal or non virginal state.

However, her being a virgin does add a certain honor to the conception since we humans tend to view female virginity as equivalent to purity and find it very appropriate that our Lord and Savior's life should have been transferred in that manner.

Originally you said that it makes no difference whether he was born of a virgin or not, which I take to mean that you lean toward believing he was not and are taking a diplomatic and cautious approach to phrasing your borderline heretical beliefs. So I agree with what I perceive to be the sentiment of this thread in that, on Christian theology, Jesus probably was not born of a virgin. Jesus could've simply manufactured an avatar body for himself if he desired, and I'd find that to make a whole lot more sense and be a lot less confusing for all parties involved.

 

[Greg J.]

Since this post is a spinoff from another thread, I'll just add my answer to this question as I did there. Jesus was the firstborn of Mary as Scripture indicates in many ways. One of the more simple ways was just that Joseph wouldn't have even gotten to the point where he decided to put Mary away when he found out she was pregnant. Another was that the angel told Joseph to take the child and Mary to flee to Egypt. Therefore, I presume the question of Mary's virginity is a question of who Jesus' father was in regard to his physical realm presence.

Jesus couldn't have been Joseph (or any human's) son, because then he would have been a son of Adam and had a sin nature, and Scripture makes it clear that wasn't the case. This is also confirmed by the fact that to be able to pay for our sins, he had to be without sin (concisely explained here).

 

[Radrook]

According to Paul, Jesus was not born but was made, or manufactured. Paul uses the same word for Jesus as he does for Adam. He was made of a woman (Galatians 4:4) and made of David's seed (Romans 1:3). That tradition predates the virgin birth tradition by decades.

Also, the author of Matthew incorrectly cites Isaiah when he mentions the virgin birth. The "virgin" in Isaiah 7:14 is "almah" in the Hebrew which can mean "young woman" instead of "virgin." In fact I think that the word has the former meaning most of the time. However, the author of Matthew could not read Hebrew, and the Septagint (the Greek version) translated the word as "virgin."

Furthermore, a mere casual reading of all of Isaiah 7 shows that the prophecy cannot be about Jesus even if the young woman was indeed a virgin. Isaiah was speaking with King Ahaz who was worried about his city being sacked. Isaiah said that the king's enemies would not prevail, and that the Lord would send a sign as confirmation: that a "virgin" would give birth and name the child Immanuel. Before the child would be old enough to know right from wrong, the king's enemies would fall. The prophecy necessarily succeeded or failed half a millennium before Christ was born. Even if Christ actually was born of a virgin, the author of Matthew is dishonest in citing Isaiah. Lastly, as we all know, nowhere in the entire Bible is Jesus referred to as Immanuel except in this passage of contention.




Jesus was descended from Ruth the Moabite (Matthew 1:5, Ruth 1:4). The Moabites are an abomination unto the Lord and are never to be allowed in the assembly of the Lord (Deuteronomy 23:3). Also, a literal reading of Genesis shows that the Moabites are spawned from incest (Genesis 19:30-38). Personally I think that's just a derogatory myth about the origins of people despised by the authors of Genesis (note that Noah also cursed Canaan, the son of Ham). It could, however, be argued that this is a plain record of what happened since the Jewish patriarchs are also said to have had incestuous relations (Abram married his half-sister and Jacob married his first cousins), but I think that these types of relations were more or less acceptable whereas Lot being "raped" by his daughters would've certainly been considered taboo. But these things are speculative so I will go with what the text says. So if Jesus is descended from an incestuous event and has "Moabite DNA" then I do not know how his DNA can be "perfect" or "without blemish." I dispute that the notion of "perfect DNA" is even coherent, but as far as I can tell from what you mean, Jesus' DNA cannot have been what you are saying. Since Ruth was a woman, Jesus' claim to royalty is not compromised by her placement in his lineage, but his DNA is indeed "corrupted." A human's DNA profile is not influenced as a result of which parent is the male and which is the female. In other words, if you have a population of pure Africans and another population of pure Caucasians, a male Caucasian with a female African would produce a child of the same race as would a male African with a female Caucasian.



Originally you said that it makes no difference whether he was born of a virgin or not, which I take to mean that you lean toward believing he was not and are taking a diplomatic and cautious approach to phrasing your borderline heretical beliefs. So I agree with what I perceive to be the sentiment of this thread in that, on Christian theology, Jesus probably was not born of a virgin. Jesus could've simply manufactured an avatar body for himself if he desired, and I'd find that to make a whole lot more sense and be a lot less confusing for all parties involved.

According to Paul, Jesus was not born but was made, or manufactured. Paul uses the same word for Jesus as he does for Adam. He was made of a woman (Galatians 4:4) and made of David's seed (Romans 1:3). That tradition predates the virgin birth tradition by decades.

First time I hear of it. Thanks for information.

Also, the author of Matthew incorrectly cites Isaiah when he mentions the virgin birth. The "virgin" in Isaiah 7:14 is "almah" in the Hebrew which can mean "young woman" instead of "virgin." In fact I think that the word has the former meaning most of the time. However, the author of Matthew could not read Hebrew, and the Septuagint (the Greek version) translated the word as "virgin."

Mathew, or the author of Mathew which you insinuate might be other than Mathew, couldn't read Hebrew?
Where are you deriving this idea from?

Furthermore, a mere casual reading of all of Isaiah 7 shows that the prophecy cannot be about Jesus even if the young woman was indeed a virgin. Isaiah was speaking with King Ahaz who was worried about his city being sacked. Isaiah said that the king's enemies would not prevail, and that the Lord would send a sign as confirmation: that a "virgin" would give birth and name the child Immanuel. Before the child would be old enough to know right from wrong, the king's enemies would fall. The prophecy necessarily succeeded or failed half a millennium before Christ was born. Even if Christ actually was born of a virgin, the author of Matthew is dishonest in citing Isaiah. Lastly, as we all know, nowhere in the entire Bible is Jesus referred to as Immanuel except in this passage of contention.

Interesting! Most Jewish scholars consider all the quotes which Christians apply to Jesus from the OT as misinterpretations. So this comes as no particular surprise..

Jesus was descended from Ruth the Moabite (Matthew 1:5, Ruth 1:4). The Moabites are an abomination unto the Lord and are never to be allowed in the assembly of the Lord (Deuteronomy 23:3). Also, a literal reading of Genesis shows that the Moabites are spawned from incest (Genesis 19:30-38). Personally I think that's just a derogatory myth about the origins of people despised by the authors of Genesis (note that Noah also cursed Canaan, the son of Ham). It could, however, be argued that this is a plain record of what happened since the Jewish patriarchs are also said to have had incestuous relations (Abram married his half-sister and Jacob married his first cousins), but I think that these types of relations were more or less acceptable whereas Lot being "raped" by his daughters would've certainly been considered taboo. But these things are speculative so I will go with what the text says.

Yes, there are folks who might take one or the other side of those issues.

So if Jesus is descended from an incestuous event and has "Moabite DNA" then I do not know how his DNA can be "perfect" or "without blemish." I dispute that the notion of "perfect DNA" is even coherent, but as far as I can tell from what you mean, Jesus' DNA cannot have been what you are saying. Since Ruth was a woman, Jesus' claim to royalty is not compromised by her placement in his lineage, but his DNA is indeed "corrupted." A human's DNA profile is not influenced as a result of which parent is the male and which is the female. In other words, if you have a population of pure Africans and another population of pure Caucasians, a male Caucasian with a female African would produce a child of the same race as would a male African with a female Caucasian.

Well, to a person who rejects the creation account as myth such a claim would of necessity be bogus since such a person rejects the idea that mankind suffered a fall from physical perfection. However, those who accept the Genesis account as history, the belief that God could indeed assure that Jesus was in the same pristine condition as Adam when first created is acceptable and would consider your DNA arguments as totally irrelevant.

Originally you said that it makes no difference whether he was born of a virgin or not, which I take to mean that you lean toward believing he was not and are taking a diplomatic and cautious approach to phrasing your borderline heretical beliefs. So I agree with what I perceive to be the sentiment of this thread in that, on Christian theology, Jesus probably was not born of a virgin. Jesus could've simply manufactured an avatar body for himself if he desired, and I'd find that to make a whole lot more sense and be a lot less confusing for all parties involved.

I honestly don't find anything confusing about the account of Jesus being born of a virgin.
Also, please note that I have always accepted the accounts found in the Gospel that he was born of a virgin and still do. So you are reading far more into my words than was intended.

The thread has no intended sentiment or ulterior motive. It merely seeks to find out why some Catholics must demand that Mary be forever virginal though married to Joseph. As I said, I see no reason why God's power to transfer his son's life to a womb would be hindered simply because the woman wasn't a virgin.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

First time I hear of it. Thanks for information.

I only heard of it recently as well.

Mathew, or the author of Mathew which you insinuate might be other than Mathew, couldn't read Hebrew?
Where are you deriving this idea from?

It's a moot point. It doesn't matter if he was able to read Hebrew because he clearly had no access to the Hebrew scriptures (as evidenced by the fact that he thinks Isaiah 7:14 is referring to a virgin and not a young maiden). He worked with the Septuagint.

Interesting! Most Jewish scholars consider all the quotes which Christians apply to Jesus from the OT as misinterpretations. So this comes as no particular surprise..

While Christianity is a hijacking of Judaism, I'm not appealing to their authority. I listed the facts: Isaiah 7 is not and cannot be about Jesus Christ, even if it is depicting a virgin birth.

Yes, there are folks who might take one or the other side of those issues.

I prefer not to take any sides. That way it makes it easier to objectively analyze the facts.

Well, to a person who rejects the creation account as myth such a claim would of necessity be bogus since such a person rejects the idea that mankind suffered a fall from physical perfection. However, those who accept the Genesis account as history, the belief that God could indeed assure that Jesus was in the same pristine condition as Adam when first created is acceptable and would consider your DNA arguments as totally irrelevant.

If Jesus is genetically related to Ruth then Jesus does not have "perfect DNA." If you want to argue that Mary was a surrogate mother and was unrelated to Jesus, then you can salvage his "perfect DNA."

I honestly don't find anything confusing about the account of Jesus being born of a virgin.

Neither do I. I didn't mean I was confused by it. When I said that the virgin birth is confusing for "all parties involved" I was referring to the family unit: Joseph, Mary, and Jesus. Joseph was obviously quite confused the whole time: first he thinks his wife is unfaithful, then he learns that she is a virgin and yet is pregnant, and then he learns that the child coming out is God. Wouldn't that confuse you? Similarly, Mary was certainly confused given that she was a pregnant virgin. Compound that confusion further when she realizes that her son is her heavenly father. Jesus would've been confused as a youth unless you subscribe to the theory that Jesus was born with omniscience. Hence my reasoning that everyone would've been spared this confusion if Jesus was manufactured as a man, in the same way Adam was.

Also, please note that I have always accepted the accounts found in the Gospel that he was born of a virgin and still do. So you are reading far more into my words than was intended.

OK. So you believe the account is true, but you suggest that the virgin birth was not entirely necessary. I would argue that Jesus' entire life on earth was not entirely necessary and that he could've merely taken a human avatar and descended to a lower celestial plane to be crucified. Had he done this before sin entered the world, theology would be a lot simpler.

The thread has no intended sentiment or ulterior motive. It merely seeks to find out why some Catholics must demand that Mary be forever virginal though married to Joseph. As I said, I see no reason why God's power to transfer his son's life to a womb would be hindered simply because the woman wasn't a virgin.

If I was compiling a list of questions for Catholics, this issue wouldn't crack the top 100.

 

[Radrook]

I only heard of it recently as well.



It's a moot point. It doesn't matter if he was able to read Hebrew because he clearly had no access to the Hebrew scriptures (as evidenced by the fact that he thinks Isaiah 7:14 is referring to a virgin and not a young maiden). He worked with the Septuagint.



While Christianity is a hijacking of Judaism, I'm not appealing to their authority. I listed the facts: Isaiah 7 is not and cannot be about Jesus Christ, even if it is depicting a virgin birth.



I prefer not to take any sides. That way it makes it easier to objectively analyze the facts.



If Jesus is genetically related to Ruth then Jesus does not have "perfect DNA." If you want to argue that Mary was a surrogate mother and was unrelated to Jesus, then you can salvage his "perfect DNA."



Neither do I. I didn't mean I was confused by it. When I said that the virgin birth is confusing for "all parties involved" I was referring to the family unit: Joseph, Mary, and Jesus. Joseph was obviously quite confused the whole time: first he thinks his wife is unfaithful, then he learns that she is a virgin and yet is pregnant, and then he learns that the child coming out is God. Wouldn't that confuse you? Similarly, Mary was certainly confused given that she was a pregnant virgin. Compound that confusion further when she realizes that her son is her heavenly father. Jesus would've been confused as a youth unless you subscribe to the theory that Jesus was born with omniscience. Hence my reasoning that everyone would've been spared this confusion if Jesus was manufactured as a man, in the same way Adam was.



OK. So you believe the account is true, but you suggest that the virgin birth was not entirely necessary. I would argue that Jesus' entire life on earth was not entirely necessary and that he could've merely taken a human avatar and descended to a lower celestial plane to be crucified. Had he done this before sin entered the world, theology would be a lot simpler.
If I was compiling a list of questions for Catholics, this issue wouldn't crack the top 100.

It's a moot point. It doesn't matter if he was able to read Hebrew because he clearly had no access to the Hebrew scriptures (as evidenced by the fact that he thinks Isaiah 7:14 is referring to a virgin and not a young maiden). He worked with the Septuagint.

While Christianity is a hijacking of Judaism, I'm not appealing to their authority. I listed the facts: Isaiah 7 is not and cannot be about Jesus Christ, even if it is depicting a virgin birth.

I prefer not to take any sides. That way it makes it easier to objectively analyze the facts.

If Jesus is genetically related to Ruth then Jesus does not have "perfect DNA." If you want to argue that Mary was a surrogate mother and was unrelated to Jesus, then you can salvage his "perfect DNA."

Well, most Jews feel that they have been hijacked in that crafty way you describe. Are you of the Jewish faith?

Neither do I. I didn't mean I was confused by it. When I said that the virgin birth is confusing for "all parties involved" I was referring to the family unit: Joseph, Mary, and Jesus. Joseph was obviously quite confused the whole time: first he thinks his wife is unfaithful, then he learns that she is a virgin and yet is pregnant, and then he learns that the child coming out is God. Wouldn't that confuse you? Similarly, Mary was certainly confused given that she was a pregnant virgin. Compound that confusion further when she realizes that her son is her heavenly father. Jesus would've been confused as a youth unless you subscribe to the theory that Jesus was born with omniscience. Hence my reasoning that everyone would've been spared this confusion if Jesus was manufactured as a man, in the same way Adam was.

Mary was indeed confused.

However, at no time was she told that what she would give birth to was God himself.

So you can strike that off the list of confusion.

Joseph wasn’t confused by what yo describe either. He himself was personally informed that his wife would give birth a to a son who would save his people from their sins. Nothing more.



Luke 1:

30 Then the angel said to her, Mary, do not be afraid; thou hast found favour in the sight of God. 31 And behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and shalt bear a son, and shalt call him Jesus. 32 He shall be great, and men will know him for the Son of the most High; the Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, and he shall reign over the house of Jacob eternally; 33 his kingdom shall never have an end. 34 But Mary said to the angel, How can that be, since I have no knowledge of man? 35 And the angel answered her, The Holy Spirit will come upon thee, and the power of the most High will overshadow thee. Thus this holy offspring of thine shall be known for the Son of God.



BTW

Trinitarian translators capitalized holy spirit in order to push their Trinitarian opinion.

OK. So you believe the account is true, but you suggest that the virgin birth was not entirely necessary. I would argue that Jesus' entire life on earth was not entirely necessary and that he could've merely taken a human avatar and descended to a lower celestial plane to be crucified. Had he done this before sin entered the world, theology would be a lot simpler.

If I was compiling a list of questions for Catholics, this issue wouldn't crack the top 100.

The virgin birth might have been necessary if indeed it was prophesied that he was to be born from a virgin. Also, I see absolutely no reason to cast doubt on Mary’s virginity.

About dying eons before for sin? Never heard of that idea either. Please keep one very important point in mind, before sin entered the world there was absolutely no need for a Ransom sacrifice since mankind was not then in Bondage to Sin and Death. The sacrifice was to release us from that bondage.


Well, funny you should mention Mary as a surrogate. I was taught that death is passed on through the male to all mankind via Adam even though Eve was involved her genetic contribution to our death was zilch. In a like manner, I was taught that Mary had nothing to do with Jesus’ perfection though she would have passed on sufficient genetics to have made Jesus a descendent of Shem, and Abraham, Judah, and David as foretold.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Well, most Jews feel that they have been hijacked in that crafty way you describe. Are you of the Jewish faith?

No.

Mary was indeed confused.

However, at no time was she told that what she would give birth to was God himself.

So you can strike that off the list of confusion.

The fact that she was not told this vital piece of information is why I'm saying she was likely confused.

Joseph wasn’t confused by what yo describe either. He himself was personally informed that his wife would give birth a to a son who would save his people from their sins. Nothing more.

And that was a bizarre turn of events, wasn't it? I suppose I could concede that if I was being abducted by aliens, then maybe I wouldn't be confused about what's going on in that I'd understand I'm being forcibly examined by entities from another planet. But I would certainly say that my normal, day-to-day thought process would be interrupted by this event. Is it wrong to label that as confusion? I would think that Joseph's encounter with an angelic being from another realm would certainly parallel an alien encounter, and so I believe that the word "confusion" fits.

Luke 1:

30 Then the angel said to her, Mary, do not be afraid; thou hast found favour in the sight of God. 31 And behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and shalt bear a son, and shalt call him Jesus. 32 He shall be great, and men will know him for the Son of the most High; the Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, and he shall reign over the house of Jacob eternally; 33 his kingdom shall never have an end. 34 But Mary said to the angel, How can that be, since I have no knowledge of man? 35 And the angel answered her, The Holy Spirit will come upon thee, and the power of the most High will overshadow thee. Thus this holy offspring of thine shall be known for the Son of God.

I do not see how this ties in with your argument.

BTW

Trinitarian translators capitalized holy spirit in order to push their Trinitarian opinion.

I agree that it is a matter of undisputed historical record that the trinity is an ad hoc invention by the church centuries after the apostles died. That doesn't change the fact that the idea is no longer in dispute among Christians. This site has a strict definition of what it means to be a Christian, and you seem to be revealing that you are not a Christian in the eyes of this forum. I don't think you're allowed to argue on behalf of Christianity here if you don't accept some of their tenets. Also, your thread contains no identifiable argument for or against the existence of God. Thus far I think it's enjoyed the privilege that all Christian rule breakers get on this forum, but if you are thought of as a heretic then this thread will get shut down. There is no freedom of expression or free exchange of ideas on this site. I have nothing against free thought and I only use the report button if a post contributes nothing to discussion and also contains personal insults. What you get here is something more like "flee thought" - you know, the idea that one ought to censor ideas contrary to one's own principles. Censorship, in my opinion, was only ever designed for children; Christian culture has abused censorship and subverted its intended purpose.

The virgin birth might have been necessary if indeed it was prophesied that he was to be born from a virgin.

OK, but do you agree now that no such prophecy exists?

Also, I see absolutely no reason to cast doubt on Mary’s virginity.

You are applying skepticism backwards.

About dying eons before for sin? Never heard of that idea either. Please keep one very important point in mind, before sin entered the world there was absolutely no need for a Ransom sacrifice since mankind was not then in Bondage to Sin and Death. The sacrifice was to release us from that bondage.

If God is omniscient and knows that sin will enter the world, then I see no reason to not perform the ritualistic act of redemption preemptively. If God reacts to something, then he is behaving in a way contrary to expectation (why would a spaceless, timeless, omniscient being react to something after it happens instead of taking action before it happens?). If there is little to no evidence that a deity exists, and if this deity's actions make no sense, then it is absolutely irrational to believe in said deity. If, however, you insist that the ritualistic sacrifice would not function properly in a world without sin, then there is no reason that Jesus shouldn't have died right after the fall of man in the garden.

Well, funny you should mention Mary as a surrogate. I was taught that death is passed on through the male to all mankind via Adam even though Eve was involved her genetic contribution to our death was zilch. In a like manner, I was taught that Mary had nothing to do with Jesus’ perfection though she would have passed on sufficient genetics to have made Jesus a descendent of Shem, and Abraham, Judah, and David as foretold.

When you speak of DNA, you're speaking of something that is observable and testable. This is not mystical or spiritual. If you think there is a death gene or a sin gene, the world awaits the discovery. Until then, what you're discussing is both science fiction and fan faction.

 

[StTruth]

This seems to be the same thing I explored on this thread I started in "Controversial Christian Theology". I just read that non-Christians can't post in that forum? Is that true?

 

[Aryeh Jay]

.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

.

 

[doubtingmerle]

was taught that immaculate conception in relation to Jesus meant that Adamic sin was not permitted to be part of his DNA.

If Jesus had DNA, where did it come from? Normally half the DNA comes from the mother and half from the father. Is that what happened with Jesus?

I'm really confused how DNA can specify a being to be God. DNA just specifies the kinds and frequencies of proteins that form in various parts of the body. How can an arrangement of proteins make a person become God?

Did God somehow manufacture a genetic string that he put into a manufactured sperm cell and allowed to inseminate Mary? All this seems very odd.

If half his DNA comes from Mary, and somehow DNA transmits sin, then wouldn't Jesus have gotten sin from Mary's DNA?

If only we had a drop of his blood we could test, what would we find? Would we find strands of non-human DNA which turns out to be divine?

 

[Radrook]

If Jesus had DNA, where did it come from? Normally half the DNA comes from the mother and half from the father. Is that what happened with Jesus?

I'm really confused how DNA can specify a being to be God. DNA just specifies the kinds and frequencies of proteins that form in various parts of the body. How can an arrangement of proteins make a person become God?

Did God somehow manufacture a genetic string that he put into a manufactured sperm cell and allowed to inseminate Mary? All this seems very odd.

If half his DNA comes from Mary, and somehow DNA transmits sin, then wouldn't Jesus have gotten sin from Mary's DNA?

If only we had a drop of his blood we could test, what would we find? Would we find strands of non-human DNA which turns out to be divine?

Please note that I am not a Trinitarian and don't and have never believed Jesus to be God or to have been God. So my understanding of the miraculous conception isn't affected by that concept.

Instead, I was taught that Jesus, in his human form, was the exact equivalent of Adam in his original blameless, physically-and-mentally perfect condition. In short, that Jesus was a perfect human being while on Earth with a mission to relinquish that perfect human life on our behalf.

I was told that in order for Jesus to be born as a human a opposed to being a spirit as he was prior to his human birth, all that was needed was for God to merge that life force with the genetic material in Mary's ovum in such a way that he would be a genuine descendent of David as well as a genuinely perfect human being, not a human son of God as Adam was, but a human Son of God since he is God's only begotten Son.

I had and still don't have any difficulty in imagining that God was capable of transferring a heavenly identity via the materialization of a seed which carried the necessary genetic material to produce the needed fertilization to accomplish such a miracle.

After all, didn't the rebel angels fertilize human females prior to the Flood?
No one ever has difficulty accepting THEIR ability to do that-right? So why the difficulty when God himself attempts it in a Holy way and for a righteous purpose?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

If Jesus had DNA, where did it come from? Normally half the DNA comes from the mother and half from the father. Is that what happened with Jesus?

I'm really confused how DNA can specify a being to be God. DNA just specifies the kinds and frequencies of proteins that form in various parts of the body. How can an arrangement of proteins make a person become God?

Did God somehow manufacture a genetic string that he put into a manufactured sperm cell and allowed to inseminate Mary? All this seems very odd.

If half his DNA comes from Mary, and somehow DNA transmits sin, then wouldn't Jesus have gotten sin from Mary's DNA?

If only we had a drop of his blood we could test, what would we find? Would we find strands of non-human DNA which turns out to be divine?

Radrook said to me that sin is passed on through the males only.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Please note that I am not a Trinitarian and don't and have never believed Jesus to be God or to have been God. So my understanding of the miraculous conception isn't affected by that concept.

Instead, I was taught that Jesus, in his human form, was the exact equivalent of Adam in his original blameless, physically-and-mentally perfect condition. In short, that Jesus was a perfect human being while on Earth with a mission to relinquish that perfect human life on our behalf.

I was told that in order for Jesus to be born as a human a opposed to being a spirit as he was prior to his human birth, all that was needed was for God to merge that life force with the genetic material in Mary's ovum in such a way that he would be a genuine descendent of David as well as a genuinely perfect human being, not a human son of God as Adam was, but a human Son of God since he is God's only begotten Son.

I had and still don't have any difficulty in imagining that God was capable of transferring a heavenly identity via the materialization of a seed which carried the necessary genetic material to produce the needed fertilization to accomplish such a miracle.

After all, didn't the rebel angels fertilize human females prior to the Flood?
No one ever has difficulty accepting THEIR ability to do that-right? So why the difficulty when God himself attempts it in a Holy way and for a righteous purpose?

Hmmm, somewhat surprised by your remark that Jesus is not God and somewhat saw it coming. I guess it always surprises me when a Christian denies Christ's divinity. Jesus was executed for blasphemy because he claimed to be God, so either they executed him based on a misunderstanding or else he was lying to them? But he can't lie if he's perfect, right?

 

[civilwarbuff]

According to Paul, Jesus was not born but was made, or manufactured. Paul uses the same word for Jesus as he does for Adam. He was made of a woman (Galatians 4:4) and made of David's seed (Romans 1:3). That tradition predates the virgin birth tradition by decades.

G1096
Original: γίνομαι
Transliteration: ginomai
Phonetic: ghin'-om-ahee
Thayer Definition:
to become, i.e. to come into existence, begin to be, receive being
to become, i.e. to come to pass, happen
of events
to arise, appear in history, come upon the stage
of men appearing in public
to be made, finished
of miracles, to be performed, wrought
to become, be made
Origin: a prolongation and middle voice form of a primary verb
TDNT entry: 12:21,1
Part(s) of speech: Verb
Strong's Definition: A prolonged and middle form of a primary verb; to cause to be (" gen" -erate), that is, (reflexively) to become (come into being), used with great latitude (literally, figuratively, intensively, etc.): - arise be assembled, be (come, -fall, -have self), be brought (to pass), (be) come (to pass), continue, be divided, be done, draw, be ended, fall, be finished, follow, be found, be fulfilled, + God forbid, grow, happen, have, be kept, be made, be married, be ordained to be, partake, pass, be performed, be published, require, seem, be showed, X soon as it was, sound, be taken, be turned, use, wax, will, would, be wrought.

Wrong on both counts Nihlist Virus.....Nice try to pick the definition that fits the atheistic paradigm

 

[StTruth]

Wrong on both counts Nihlist Virus.....Nice try to pick the definition that fits the atheistic paradigm

Can you just state your argument without looking for a fight? I find it irritating that my fellow Christians always show themselves to be the most quarrelsome in CF. I know you will reply with more insults but can you just be nice? Let's try to put off the old man (especially the ego) and put on Christ. Try to show some love even if it's entirely alien to some of us.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Can you just state your argument without looking for a fight? I find it irritating that my fellow Christians always show themselves to be the most quarrelsome in CF. I know you will reply with more insults but can you just be nice? Let's try to put off the old man (especially the ego) and put on Christ. Try to show some love even if it's entirely alien to some of us.

When someone cherry picks definitions and scripture to support their own paradigm they are being dishonest.....I am just calling a spade a spade.....and providing evidence of it to boot.....something many non-christians fail to do.
If Nihlist Virus want's to know what I am saying he does not need anyone's help.....he knows where the unignore button is......

 

[StTruth]

When someone cherry picks definitions and scripture to support their own paradigm they are being dishonest.....I am just calling a spade a spade.....and providing evidence of it to boot.....something many non-christians fail to do.
If Nihlist Virus want's to know what I am saying he does not need anyone's help.....he knows where the unignore button is......

I'm just asking you to show a Christian's nature. I'm sure you are a lovely person in real life but you are always angry, quarrelsome and nasty on this forum and I think you may not realise it but if your goal is to win over souls for Christ, this is the last thing you should do. Even if you hate some people and would love to see them roast in hell (which I hope you don't), there are many others who will read your posts. I'm sure the testimony we give online is important too.

 

[civilwarbuff]

I'm just asking you to show a Christian's nature. I'm sure you are a lovely person in real life but you are always angry, quarrelsome and nasty on this forum and I think you may not realise it but if your goal is to win over souls for Christ, this is the last thing you should do. Even if you hate some people and would love to see them roast in hell (which I hope you don't), there are many others who will read your posts. I'm sure the testimony we give online is important too.

I hate no man but I will not remain silent when people denigrate and mock my Lord, my King, my God and my Messiah and attempt to lead those with no/weak faith astray.
Gal 5:7
7 You were running the race beautifully. Who cut in on you and stopped you from obeying the truth?
8 Such influence does not come from the one who calls you.

I try to prevent people from cutting in on race runners; and I will be forceful when needed.

 

[StTruth]

I hate no man but I will not remain silent when people denigrate and mock my Lord, my King, my God and my Messiah and attempt to lead those with no/weak faith astray.
Gal 5:7
7 You were running the race beautifully. Who cut in on you and stopped you from obeying the truth?
8 Such influence does not come from the one who calls you.

I try to prevent people from cutting in on race runners; and I will be forceful when needed.

I think I should tell you something. I have just joined CF but before I did so, my friends warned me against it. 3 of my classmates have lost their faith after joining CF. I asked them why and they said the Christians in CF are hostile and obnoxious and many of them don't just attack non-Christians viciously. They attack Christians too who don't agree with them on doctrines or whom they judge to be wrong in some way.

You may be zealous for our Lord and you may want to show why some arguments are wrong but I think that is best done without the insinuations or the second-guessing of the person's motive whether it's to fit what you believe to be his atheistic paradigm or whatever. When you do that, the nastiness is perceived by everyone. Of course you will always have a few similar minded people who are by nature quarrelsome who will laud your every move.

I believe we will be held accountable for what we do online. I believe those who stumbled my classmates on CF will be punished for what they have done. Ultimately, if I find that I can't control myself and my tendency is to be combative and obnoxious online, I will simply stop posting in the forum. It's not worth getting chastised for just some anonymous fun online. I was recently introduced to someone who is now working for Richard Dawkins' group. He used to be a Christian and the person who introduced me to him said that he joined CF when he was around my age. He said if there is one group that makes him hate the Christian faith, it's definitely the Christians on CF.

Readers can perceive nastiness very easily. I always feel uneasy when I see it. And on CF, I always see it only in postings by Christians. For reasons I can't understand, the non-Christians seem not to have the same nastiness. In our quest to 'protect' people from being misled, it's all right to cut out the nasty bits. It's the nastiness that will stumble other Christians. We should also watch and see if sometimes our ego may be in the way. What may start off as some lofty motive to protect weak Christians may soon transform into a desire to protect our ego.

That is why I always think so well of my archdeacon even if some of you think he's theologically wrong. He has not hatred in him. No evil at all. He doesn't taunt, make insinuations or pile insults on anyone. If we are to follow our Lord's definition of how a Christian can be identified, it's those who show love. That's all.