The Historical Jesus...

Jesus was a holy man of God, and they referred to teachers of God as sons of God. ISA 7:14 is not about Jesus. There was no virgin birth.

You took the words right from my keyboard

Depends on what you mean.

Yes, the divine Jesus is just as he was described in the Bible. But, I'm making a distinction. We must recognize that the gosples are of great historical value. But we must also understand that they are also theological and not just historical. Jesus is God, Savior of all, Son of David, Messiah, etc. Jesus is all truley that. That is what the gosples focus on. Now, this can call into question... what do think Jesus thought of his death? When did he realize he was the Messiah?

Luvtosew said:

Jesus was a holy man of God, and they referred to teachers of God as sons of God. ISA 7:14 is not about Jesus. There was no virgin birth.

Click to expand...

I agree, that is not about Jesus. But that doesn't dismiss the virgin birth. We must realize that this verse had never been interpreted the way Matthew later saw it to be. Here he was, with a virgin birth. But, nothing in the OT suggest a virgin birth. Matthew eventually saw this verse. Now, any idiot who reads the context knows this is not messianic. Matthew would have been smart enough to see that. But, he needed something for the tradition of the virgin birth, and saw this as the perfect typological passage.

DamonRambo said:

Was the Son of God, just as described in the Bible..

Click to expand...

That's an assertion that proves nothing.

Luvtosew said:

Jesus was a holy man of God, and they referred to teachers of God as sons of God. ISA 7:14 is not about Jesus. There was no virgin birth.

Click to expand...

That's another assertion that demonstrates nothing but the poster's opinion. If I am to engage with you further, I need details of your reasoning to be able to pursue this further.

Luvtosew said:

Jesus was a holy man of God, and they referred to teachers of God as sons of God. ISA 7:14 is not about Jesus. There was no virgin birth.

Click to expand...

The Virgin Birth (Redrafted)


The Christian concept of the virgin birth is derived solely from a mis-translation of a Hebrew word into Greek. The word ‘almah, from the original oracle (Isaiah 7:14) simply means, "young woman" (i.e. any nubile young woman). The Septuagint incorrectly translates this Hebrew word by the Greek word, παρθενος (virgin). Thus the New Testament writers' claim (Matthew 1: 22-23) for a fulfillment of prophecy is inaccurate.
The Hebrew language has a specific word for virgin, bethulah, but Isaiah does not employ it.

In its historical context, the Isaianic passage may be seen as a reaction to completely contemporary events. During a time of trouble and the threat of foreign invasion, the prophet urged King Ahaz to ask Yahweh for a sign and when he refused to do so, told him that Yahweh would give him a sign. This was to be the birth of a child to an anonymous young woman.
The child was to be named, Immanuel. (God is with us) and would grow up to experience the privations resulting from the Assyrian invasion of Judah by Tiglath-Pileser III, predicted by the prophet. The primary reference of the sign was to the original situation in which it was given.

The idea of the historical personage, Jesus of Nazareth (an ascetic Galilean Jewish teacher of the early 1st Century) as an anthropomorphic deity is ultimately derived from Ancient Near Eastern concepts of sacral kingship via later Hellenistic antecedents. Such notions were (and still remain) totally alien to Judaic belief and practice.
The Hellenistic-Roman world had many saviour gods and goddesses depicted in human form. Christian theology added yet another one - conflated and identified with an actual human being and defined within the linguistic terminology of concepts derived from pre-existent, Hellenistic/Jewish belief systems.

Moreover, the major factor in the popularity and growth of the (later) cult of the Virgin Mary, which must be taken into account, was the prevailing deep and wide-spread need for a female object of worship - for a Mother Goddess. Considering the antiquity and pervasion of these Goddess cults throughout the Mediterranean world and the Ancient Near East, it is not surprising that the developing Christian religion found itself unable to suppress such deeply entrenched and manifestly popular devotion.


The current existence of many myths of the divine birth of various ancient heroes such as Herakles, Alexander the Great and others is well attested and must have played an important part in the development of the idea of the virgin birth of Jesus. Pagan myths are very likely to have influenced the New Testament authors in a subtle but no less derivative way. As the ancient Hebrew writers drew on earlier Mesopotamian and Canaanite mythology when describing divine activity in creation, so the related question of the employment of myth in the New Testament when defining similar supposed supernatural intervention cannot be disregarded.

Finally, one pertinent question posed by the Neoplatonist scholar and philosopher Porphyry (232/3-c.305 CE) in his important treatise, Kata Christianōn (Against the Christians) asks how it can be maintained (by Christians) that deity cannot be held to subsist in a statue (as a cult object) but is deemed to reside in the physical body of the man Jesus. Despite the eloquent apologetics and contorted disputations of later Christian theologians, this profound inquiry appears to have found no rational determination. However, in the fifth Century, a dramatic and characteristic answer was provided by the, now predominant, Christian church and the state authorities. Porphyry’s work was condemned at the council of Ephesus in 431 CE and eventually consigned to the flames in 448 CE.

FIRST, if you make a statement like "there was no virgin birth" ... then you are offering an OPINION.
This is simply your opinion. It is not a FACT. You can provide reasons why you believe what you do, but you should not proclaim that you have some special ownership of the truth.

The ONLY people who knew for certain about the details of the birth of Jesus - were his parents. Joseph and Mary.
Unfortunately their testimony is not recorded anywhere. Too bad, really.

It is truth that the idea of "virgin birth" has been suggested by a various cultures. But so what? A great many ideas have been circulated by various cultures. So this does not prove or disprove anything.

If you try to put forwards the idea that Jesus was simply a "normal person", perhaps a very talented "holy man", then this concept will place you at odds with many recorded events in the New Testament. There are direct eye witness accounts of a number of miracles that simply have no explanation by any scientific phenomenon. It is not POSSIBLE for people, including Holy Men, to turn water into wine, to walk on water, or to instantly restore sight to blind people. NOT POSSIBLE.

I understand if you struggle with the concept of who Jesus was ... that is the ESSENCE of the dilemma for all people who read the New Testament. But the many personal accounts do not ALLOW you to minimize Jesus. You can push him back into the 'skin of a normal person'. That is simply NOT a consistent reading of all of the accounts in the New Testament.

So you are left with a personal decision. Jesus "touched the divine", his life had a "divine element to it" ... in a way that no-one else had. You simply believe, or you don't. Hence the words ... The Son of God.

These are my thoughts.

Gideon

Originally posted by gideon123

FIRST, if you make a statement like "there was no virgin birth" ... then you are offering an OPINION.
This is simply your opinion. It is not a FACT. You can provide reasons why you believe what you do, but you should not proclaim that you have some special ownership of the truth.

Click to expand...

Yes it is indeed my opinion - but that opinion is supported by the established facts previously mentioned. The author of the gospel (attributed to Matthew) was incorrect in stating that (the story) of the parthenogenetic conception of Jesus was a fulfilment of a prophetic oracle found in the OT book of Isaiah. This fact can be confirmed by a comparative examination of the NT Greek text, the Septuagint version of Isaiah and the original Hebrew text of the same work. The opinion therefore becomes a corroborated fact. The author of Matthew's gospel (writing in Greek) was evidently unacquainted with the Hebrew language. It must be remembered that the 'Scripture' of the NT Christian writers was the Septuagint. Incidentally, I never claimed any, "special ownership of the truth". That is merely your personal gloss on my remarks.


Originally posted by gideon123

The ONLY people who knew for certain about the details of the birth of Jesus - were his parents. Joseph and Mary.
Unfortunately their testimony is not recorded anywhere. Too bad, really.

Click to expand...

Quite correct, not in the canonical NT - but there is a plethora of apocryphal and pseudepigraphical literature which purports to provide embellishment of the rather sparse accounts in the (so to speak) official record. These have undoubtedly added much variety to pious tradition and later Christian art.



Originally posted by gideon123

It is truth that the idea of "virgin birth" has been suggested by a various cultures. But so what? A great many ideas have been circulated by various cultures. So this does not prove or disprove anything.

Click to expand...

As these ideas (in this specific instance supernatural or divine impregnation) "circulated by various cultures", pre-date the NT narrative by several centuries, then it is surely reasonable to suppose that the later story owes something to - or is dependent upon (to some extent) the earlier ones.



Originally posted by gideon123

If you try to put forwards the idea that Jesus was simply a "normal person", perhaps a very talented "holy man", then this concept will place you at odds with many recorded events in the New Testament. There are direct eye witness accounts of a number of miracles that simply have no explanation by any scientific phenomenon. It is not POSSIBLE for people, including Holy Men, to turn water into wine, to walk on water, or to instantly restore sight to blind people. NOT POSSIBLE.

Click to expand...

No, not really possible indeed! Moreover, I am not in any sense "at odds with" but merely proposing a more rational and non-supernatural interpretation of the narratives and stories found within these ancient texts. It should be realised that the gospels are not precisely historical narratives (i.e. inquiries) into the events they (appear) to be describing.They are more exactly categorised as (somewhat) tendentious accounts produced by the early Christian church to promote and promulgate their own particular preaching and teaching imperatives. In other words to disseminate a theological viewpoint and encourage belief. As literature, they have something in common with aretalogies.

Aretalogy (Greek, αρετη = “virtue” or “worth” and λογοι = prose-writing) is the term applied to an ancient type of biographical writing, which may be briefly defined as the formal account of the remarkable career of an impressive teacher, used as a basis for moral and religious instruction. The preternatural gifts of the teacher often comprised the power to work wonders. Sometimes his teaching brought him the hostility of a tyrant, whom he confronted with courage and at whose hands he suffered martyrdom. The circumstances surrounding his birth often included elements of the miraculous.


Significant representatives of the genre include: Philo Judaeus - On the Life of Moses, The Life of Pythagoras - by Porphyry, and The Life of Apollonius of Tyana - by Philostratus.



Originally posted by gideon123

I understand if you struggle with the concept of who Jesus was ... that is the ESSENCE of the dilemma for all people who read the New Testament. But the many personal accounts do not ALLOW you to minimize Jesus. You can push him back into the 'skin of a normal person'. That is simply NOT a consistent reading of all of the accounts in the New Testament.

Click to expand...

I have no particular "struggle with the concept of who Jesus was". Nor do I wish to, in any way, to "minimise" him.
I perceive (the actual historical personage) Jesus of Nazareth as an early 1st century Galilean/Jewish preacher, teacher and holy man, executed (by the Roman administration in Judaea) for sedition (either claiming or being suspected of claiming) messianic kingship - a capital offence under Roman law.


Originally posted by gideon123

So you are left with a personal decision. Jesus "touched the divine", his life had a "divine element to it" ... in a way that no-one else had. You simply believe, or you don't. Hence the words ... The Son of God.

Click to expand...

This is an obvious entrenched theological position. As you have probably deduced, my sole interest is in history, not theological suppositions.

Coponius said:

Originally posted by gideon123


Yes it is indeed my opinion - but that opinion is supported by the established facts previously mentioned. The author of the gospel (attributed to Matthew) was incorrect in stating that (the story) of the parthenogenetic conception of Jesus was a fulfilment of a prophetic oracle found in the OT book of Isaiah. This fact can be confirmed by a comparative examination of the NT Greek text, the Septuagint version of Isaiah and the original Hebrew text of the same work. The opinion therefore becomes a corroborated fact. The author of Matthew's gospel (writing in Greek) was evidently unacquainted with the Hebrew language. It must be remembered that the 'Scripture' of the NT Christian writers was the Septuagint. Incidentally, I never claimed any, "special ownership of the truth". That is merely your personal gloss on my remarks.


Originally posted by gideon123


Quite correct, not in the canonical NT - but there is a plethora of apocryphal and pseudepigraphical literature which purports to provide embellishment of the rather sparse accounts in the (so to speak) official record. These have undoubtedly added much variety to pious tradition and later Christian art.



Originally posted by gideon123


As these ideas (in this specific instance supernatural or divine impregnation) "circulated by various cultures", pre-date the NT narrative by several centuries, then it is surely reasonable to suppose that the later story owes something to - or is dependent upon (to some extent) the earlier ones.



Originally posted by gideon123


No, not really possible indeed! Moreover, I am not in any sense "at odds with" but merely proposing a more rational and non-supernatural interpretation of the narratives and stories found within these ancient texts. It should be realised that the gospels are not precisely historical narratives (i.e. inquiries) into the events they (appear) to be describing.They are more exactly categorised as (somewhat) tendentious accounts produced by the early Christian church to promote and promulgate their own particular preaching and teaching imperatives. In other words to disseminate a theological viewpoint and encourage belief. As literature, they have something in common with aretalogies.

Aretalogy (Greek, αρετη = “virtue” or “worth” and λογοι = prose-writing) is the term applied to an ancient type of biographical writing, which may be briefly defined as the formal account of the remarkable career of an impressive teacher, used as a basis for moral and religious instruction. The preternatural gifts of the teacher often comprised the power to work wonders. Sometimes his teaching brought him the hostility of a tyrant, whom he confronted with courage and at whose hands he suffered martyrdom. The circumstances surrounding his birth often included elements of the miraculous.


Significant representatives of the genre include: Philo Judaeus - On the Life of Moses, The Life of Pythagoras - by Porphyry, and The Life of Apollonius of Tyana - by Philostratus.



Originally posted by gideon123


I have no particular "struggle with the concept of who Jesus was". Nor do I wish to, in any way, to "minimise" him.
I perceive (the actual historical personage) Jesus of Nazareth as an early 1st century Galilean/Jewish preacher, teacher and holy man, executed (by the Roman administration in Judaea) for sedition (either claiming or being suspected of claiming) messianic kingship - a capital offence under Roman law.


Originally posted by gideon123

This is an obvious entrenched theological position. As you have probably deduced, my sole interest is in history, not theological suppositions.

Click to expand...

coponius,

1. Matthew was not delusional or mistaken. Almah is about a new etymology.
Isaiah 7:14: Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son and shall call his name Immanuel (God is with us)

2. The prophecy to the Messiah was that a young woman and the septuagint used concealed woman. The concealment was that she was betrothed to a man but never had sexual relations for it was forbidden during the time of the betrothal.
The word Behold is hinnah and it denotes a new thing or happening.
There is no contradiction in the original Hebrew or Septuagint.

3. Secular history has to collaborate with biblical history and not vice versa. The false gods of the pagan nations were not around before the knowledge of God and they were fabricated by the enemy himself, Satan through wicked men. Whatever secular art and writing there are, are not always truth. After all, satan is pictured with horns and a forked tail.

4. The apochrypha and such were not a part of the original texts and they were not put in the canon either. Writings such as the Babylonian Talmud and others were rabbinical extremists thwarted by mixing pagan slants to any truth of the bible. These were taught by the rabbis and helped them control the people by adding men's traditions.

5. The gospels were not flawed accounts of history to push their agenda. They were totally true to show what really happened as a part of God unfolding his redemptive plan to man. You have to take in account that the revelation of the plan of God was gradual and not all at once. So if you are trying to discern what happened in historical events without understanding the overall plan of God and how and why dealt with the jews in the fashion that he did according to their covenant etc. then most likely you are going to be drawing conclusions which can be wrong and after all you did say it was your opinion. Opinion doesn't trump truth unless you don't think the source of truth is inerrant such as in this context, the Bible.

6. Jesus is much more than what you say of him. He is more than just a historical fact. The term "Son Of God" had more than a meaning of men being sons of God or angels being sons of God.

7. Your opinion about the virgin birth is from a faulty understanding of the Hebrew and Greek texts and does not agree with the whole plan of God for man. Israel was a chosen nation and came through the loins of Abraham who was a gentile and Israel was chosen to bring for the Messiah to save the world and fulfill Israel's callings and promises in their covenant of which they rejected him because they missed the suffering Savior and wanted a conquering leader. The problem was that they were supposed to repent first and be saved spiritually before the could gain entrance into the Kingdom and before Jesus who was God could reign on the earth with them. Also, Jesus had to be the perfect sacrificial lamb that was spotless. Spotless means he had to be sinless and the only way that that could be accomplished was through the virgin birth.
sIt would better serve you to get into the bible and its history instead of men's fables. Believing in secular history alone is hit and miss and is usually slanted towards dismissing Jesus divinity and the plan of God for man and it elevates man above God. Most people who are not interested in proper biblical theology fall for flawed secular history. Man wants to believe in himself more than God and so he runs away from him when he should be running to him and his word which is truth and the same as him. If one believes in God he has to believe his word for it is one and the same. This is why apochryphas and other secular writings of history can be dangerous. The finite is greater than the finite, the Creator is greater than the created. Jesus was born of a virgin and that is the gospel truth! Jerry Kelso

Coponius said:

The author of Matthew's gospel (writing in Greek) was evidently unacquainted with the Hebrew language. It must be remembered that the 'Scripture' of the NT Christian writers was the Septuagint. Incidentally, I never claimed any, "special ownership of the truth". That is merely your personal gloss on my remarks.

Click to expand...

Coponius

Are you aware that early historian Eusebius wrote this in his Ecclesiastical History concerning the writings of Papias, 'But concerning Matthew he [Papias] writes as follows: So then Matthew wrote the oracles in the Hebrew language, and every one interpreted them as he was able"' (3.39.16).

Papias, bishop of Hierapolis in Phrygia (ca. AD 125)[1], understood that the Gospel of Matthew had originally been written in the Hebrew language. If this is so, Matthew had a more than adequate understanding of the Hebrew language. However, Matthew in Greek used parthenos, which means virgin, while almah in the Isaiah prophetic reference of Isa 7:14 has a broader meaning than virgin - a young woman. It's amazing what the Holy Spirit has done in bringing this precision of Mary, the virgin, rather than Mary, the young woman.

Oz

[1] This date is from F F Bruce 1988. The Canon of Scripture. Glasgow: Chapter House, p. 119.

This posted extract is from 'Jesus the Jew' by Geza Vermes, SCM Press 2001 - pp. 191-192, (highly recommended reading)
and will I am sure assist in clarifying the contemporary situation regarding this matter.


Excursus: son of God and virgin birth

2. Jesus, Son of a Virgin

(a) The meaning of 'virgin'

In both the Greek and Hebrew parlance of the Jews the term 'virgin' was used elastically. It was certainly not confined to denoting men and women without experience of sexual intercourse. The Greek word, could explicitly or implicitly include this meaning, or the main stress could fall on the age of the girl or boy and generally, though not necessarily, on their unmarried state. [115]

As a matter of fact, Greek (and Latin) inscriptions found in the Jewish catacombs of Rome reveal that the word 'virgin' could apply, even after years of matrimony, to either a wife or a husband, probably implying that the marriage in question was his or her first one. A certain Argentia is described as having lived with her virgin husband for nine years; the wife of Germanus lived with her virgin husband for three years and three days. There is also mention of Irene virgin wife of Clodius. [116]

A similar imprecision is manifest in the Greek version of Genesis, where the word for virgin (parthenos) renders three different Hebrew words: bethulah = virgin, na’arah = girl, and almah = young woman. [117]

In Hebrew, biblical and rabbinic, the term bethulah can indicate virgo intacta. The Pentateuch thus describes Rebecca as 'a very pretty girl, a virgin whom no man has known'. The rabbis also explain that a virgin is a woman who has never had sexual intercourse. [118]

Nevertheless, another well-established usage of bethulah associates virginity, not with absence of sexual experience, but with an inability to conceive. A virgin is a girl who has not yet attained puberty. This sort of 'virginity' ends, not with intercourse, but with menstruation. Asking 'Who is a virgin?' the two earliest rabbinic codes, the Mishnah and the Tosephta, answer:

“Whoever has never seen blood even though she is married.” [119]

The Tosephta, reflecting the teaching of the late 1st century CE. Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus adds:

“I call a virgin whoever has not seen blood, even though she is married and has had children, until she has seen the first show.” [120]

The Palestinian Talmud goes even further:

Who is a virgin? According to the Mishnah, whoever has never seen blood even though she is married. – She is said to be a virgin in respect of menstruation but not a virgin in respect of the token of virginity. Sometimes she is a virgin in the latter respect, but not a virgin in respect of menstruation. [121]

(b) Marriage prior to puberty

It was possible, the evidence shows, for a girl to marry and cohabit with her husband before reaching puberty. In fact, it appears to have happened often enough to give rise to a dispute between the two leading rabbinic schools of the 1st century AD, on the subject of whether a bloodstain on the wedding night of a minor (i.e. a virgin in respect of menstruation) should be attributed to the rupture of the hymen or to her first period. The more rigorous House of Shammai settled for the first alternative for the first four nights only. The House of Hillel decided similarly but 'until the healing of the wound'. [122]

Another consequence of such a state of affairs was that a girl could conceive while still a 'virgin' in respect of menstruation, i.e. at the moment of her first ovulation. She could thus become a 'virgin mother'. Inded, in the event of her becoming pregnant a second time before menstruating, she could be, as Eliezer ben Hyrcanus argues, the 'virgin mother' of several children!

Moreover in an age when physiological knowledge was rudimentary and the supreme blessing of fertility was attributed quite rightly to God, the reaction to such an unusual occurrence as pregnancy prior to the onset of puberty would have been to regard it as a particularly miraculous intervention of Heaven. In parenthesis, the consummation of marriage by minors was frowned on by those who considered procreation as the sole purpose of matrimony. For this reason, the Essenes who accepted marriage forbad cohabitation until after the girl had menstruated three times and thus proved herself ready for, and capable of, conception. [123]


References:

[115] G. Delling, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, V (1967) p. 827.

[116] H.J.Leon, The Jews of Ancient Rome (Jewish Publication Society, Philidelphia, 1960) pp. 130, 232,
274-5 (no. 81), 299 (no. 242), 311 (no. 319).

[117] Cf. Genesis, 24: 16, 43. For the rest of the Bible, the Septuagint always translates bethulah as parthenos.

[118] Genesis, 24:16; tSheb. 3:15.

[119] mNid 1:4.

[120] tNid. 1:6.

[121] yNid. 49a.

[122] mNid. 10:1.

[123] Cf. Josephus, BJ, 2, 161.

Luvtosew said:

Jesus was a holy man of God, and they referred to teachers of God as sons of God. ISA 7:14 is not about Jesus. There was no virgin birth.

Click to expand...

luvtosew, What virgin is being spoken of in Isaiah 7:14 if not the Messiah? Jerry kelso and what is your proof that there was not virgin birth at all? Is your belief that he was born naturally with Joseph? What scripture do you have to prove your point and what historical proof do you have to back it up? Jerry kelso

A book I would recommend if people haven't already read regarding the issue of Jesus from a purely historical perspective is

a history of Christianity 2010 Diarmaid MacCulloch

Great book if rather heavy going at times from my own perspective

Coponius said:

The Christian concept of the virgin birth is derived solely from a mis-translation of a Hebrew word into Greek. The word ‘almah, from the original oracle (Isaiah 7:14) simply means, "young woman" (i.e. any nubile young woman). The Septuagint incorrectly translates this Hebrew word by the Greek word, παρθενος (virgin). Thus the New Testament writers' claim (Matthew 1: 22-23) for a fulfillment of prophecy is inaccurate.

The Hebrew language has a specific word for virgin, bethulah, but Isaiah does not employ it.

Click to expand...

Ever heard of synonyms? From what I've read, bethulah has its own vagaries such that had that word been chosen, it would be easy to cast aspersions on its translation to "virgin" as well. That is the nature of all languages.

It's always interesting when a novice tells 72 experts in Hebrew and Greek, people who grew up in the Jewish tradition and intimately familiar with the nuances of Semitic languages, that they translated incorrectly. Whenever I have to speak my own native language of English, I'm always hoping someone who was raised speaking Chinese and has only known English for a short time will be around to correct me. It's very useful.

But, I don't know your background. Maybe you have experience that equals those 72 scholars.

- - -

Or, maybe, just maybe, the fact that the earliest extant examples of Jewish exegesis come from Jesus' own time might mean they were motivated to seek a way to discredit Christians.

Other posters here have quoted these words ...
1.
Isaiah 7:14: Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son and shall call his name Immanuel (God is with us)

Well quoted! The Bible is very clear, both OT and NT, about the virgin birth. Those claims cannot be diluted. You may choose to agree - or disagree. That is your right. But the Bible is abundantly clear about a virgin birth - coming from a woman who did not have sexual relations with her husband to produce the child.

It is important to remember - although the Bible is "in some ways" a historical document ... it is not the Wikipedia Of Ancient History. It is a long narrative document, with history, describing the relationship between God and Man. Therefore, if you are reading the Bible, you need to be humble and to LISTEN to the message. The message is abundantly clear, if you simply take time to read the whole Bible.

People who pick apart the Bible and try to choose one verse to contradict another - never understood the purpose of the book. If you disagree with the premise, then why bother with this behavior?

The words of Christ summarize the whole significance. "I have come to give you life abundantly!" If this is what you desire in your own life - read the Bible with an open heart!!

These words are not an attack on any person. They are an encouragement for all persons to be humble and reverent - two qualities that are noticeably absent from the world today.

Blessings,
Gideon

“Son of God” is not based on the Virgin Birth. It’s a term used for someone who is God’s special representative. I don’t think there’s much question that it was used of Jesus during his life.

However current Christian ideas about Jesus go beyond this. They are based on the experiences and reactions of his followers after his resurrection and ascension. Recent critical scholarship seems pretty convincing that quite a variety of different groups came to think of Christ as in some way preexistent. The best-known is, of course, John 1, where he is the incarnation of the preexistent Word, but there are examples in Paul and other writings.

I think it’s a mistake to see this as all somehow dependent on the Virgin Birth, whatever your feeling about its historical accuracy. Jesus’ incarnation is certainly not solely (or even significantly) dependent upon exegesis of Is 7:14. First, Luke’s presentation of the Virgin Birth isn’t dependent upon Is 7:14. Second, there’s no obvious connection between the various NT presentations of preexistence and the Virgin Birth. If the Virgin Birth vanished from Christian theology it would make virtually no difference to Christology. Historically, John 1 was far more influential on the development of Christology.

Whether you accept some kind of identification between Jesus and a preexistent, divine figure depends upon your assessment of the experience of the early Church. Most Christians accept it, either based on continuing Christian tradition and experience, or a commitment to Scripture. The main problem is for those who want to base Christianity primarily on a critical reconstruction of Jesus’ own teachings, without giving much weight to the religious experience of his followers. But I think Christianity exists because people experience God through Christ, not just because of the teachings of Jesus during his life.

hedrick said:

“Son of God” is not based on the Virgin Birth. It’s a term used for someone who is God’s special representative. I don’t think there’s much question that it was used of Jesus during his life.

However current Christian ideas about Jesus go beyond this. They are based on the experiences and reactions of his followers after his resurrection and ascension. Recent critical scholarship seems pretty convincing that quite a variety of different groups came to think of Christ as in some way preexistent. The best-known is, of course, John 1, where he is the incarnation of the preexistent Word, but there are examples in Paul and other writings.

I think it’s a mistake to see this as all somehow dependent on the Virgin Birth, whatever your feeling about its historical accuracy. Jesus’ incarnation is certainly not solely (or even significantly) dependent upon exegesis of Is 7:14. First, Luke’s presentation of the Virgin Birth isn’t dependent upon Is 7:14. Second, there’s no obvious connection between the various NT presentations of preexistence and the Virgin Birth. If the Virgin Birth vanished from Christian theology it would make virtually no difference to Christology. Historically, John 1 was far more influential on the development of Christology.

Whether you accept some kind of identification between Jesus and a preexistent, divine figure depends upon your assessment of the experience of the early Church. Most Christians accept it, either based on continuing Christian tradition and experience, or a commitment to Scripture. The main problem is for those who want to base Christianity primarily on a critical reconstruction of Jesus’ own teachings, without giving much weight to the religious experience of his followers. But I think Christianity exists because people experience God through Christ, not just because of the teachings of Jesus during his life.

Click to expand...

Hedrick,

1. Without the virgin birth Isaiah 7:14; 9:6-7 there would be no sinless lamb, no mediator for humans according to suffering and being touched by human infirmities Hebrews 4:15 or as Savior of the World John 1:29; John 3:16.

2. Immanuel, God with us Isaiah 7:14; Matthew 1:23 was made possible because the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary Luke1:35.

3. John 1 is about the Word who was Yahweh meaning salvation and he was the Lord God and the Lord of hosts Isaiah 51:15, Jehovah Isaiah 12:2-3 and Holy One of Israel etc.

4. The fulfillment of Jesus was in his humanity and not his deity. He preexisted as God and Yahweh etc. but didn't manifest himself in his role of Christ the Son of God until he came to earth.
Jesus said, Before Abraham was I am! John 8:58.
1 Corinthians 10:4 that rock was Christ in Moses day. This shows Christ pre-existed but not in the role of Christ as the God-Man.

5. The God-Man had to be because it was the only way to have one mediator between God and Man 1 Timothy 2:5.
Identification with God because he was in the Godhead Romans 1:16 and had power to save and forgive sins John 1:29-34 and be worshipped Matthew 2:11; 14:33; 28:9-10; 28:16-17; Luke 24:51-52; John 9:37-38; Hebrews 1:6; Revelation 22:3.
Christ had to be man in order to identify with man and his sufferings Hebrews 4:15.

6. He was something other than man because he was made lower than the angels Hebrews 2:7 so he had to be higher than angels.
Hebrews 2:16; For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. This shows he was neither angel or man for He was God and became the seed of Abraham and this proves the God-Man; fully God and Fully man which could only happen with the virgin birth and the Holy Spirit overshadowing Mary.

7. Christians experience God the Father through Christ as mediator and through Christ death, burial, and resurrection which is the gospel 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 and their relationship with him Philippians 1-21. Jerry kelso

DamonRambo said:

Was the Son of God, just as described in the Bible..

Click to expand...

If someone wrote a book about you DamonRambo, would you be just as described in that book?