Virgin Birth

[I ETA PI]

If Jesus was a virgin birth by Mary, then why do the geneaologies in Matthew 1-2, and Luke 1-2, use Jesus' geneology through Joseph to demonstrate that Jesus was the heir to King David?  

Wouldn't that be false?  If Joseph wasn't the father of Jesus, then why would they trace the geneology of Jesus through Joseph to King David and Abraham (Luke goes back to Adam), to show Jesus as the legal heir to the throne of Israel?

[OzmO]

I read someplace, and i could be mistaken, cuase it was a while ago, but there was a ritual, or practice by the Essenes  of newly weds not having sex for a year once they are married.  But the theory was that Joseph and Mary did have sex during that year and Jesus was born and Mary was supposed to still be a virgin.....hence a virgin birth.


Of course this is not true becuase everything in the bible is 100% true even if it doesn't male sense becuase it is the 100% word of god......as some believe.

[Butterbean]

If Jesus was a virgin birth by Mary, then why do the geneaologies in Matthew 1-2, and Luke 1-2, use Jesus' geneology through Joseph to demonstrate that Jesus was the heir to King David?  

Wouldn't that be false?  If Joseph wasn't the father of Jesus, then why would they trace the geneology of Jesus through Joseph to King David and Abraham (Luke goes back to Adam), to show Jesus as the legal heir to the throne of Israel?

I think you mean Matthew 1 and Luke 3:23-38?  If that's not correct I apologize.

Joseph was still His "legal" father.

From what I've learned, the genealogy in Matthew  is traced through Joseph, who was Jesus' legal (but not natural) father.  This shows Christ's legal right to the throne of David.  Matthew was written mainly to the Jews to reveal to them that Jesus was/is their Messiah. 

The genealogy in Luke is supposedly traced through Mary, His mother.  Luke is written mainly toward the gentiles.

[OzmO]

I think you mean Matthew 1 and Luke 3:23-38?  If that's not correct I apologize.

Joseph was still His "legal" father.

From what I've learned, the genealogy in Matthew  is traced through Joseph, who was Jesus' legal (but not natural) father.  This shows Christ's legal right to the throne of David.  Matthew was written mainly to the Jews to reveal to them that Jesus was/is their Messiah. 

The genealogy in Luke is supposedly traced through Mary, His mother.  Luke is written mainly toward the gentiles.

Legally or symbolically? 

Is there proof of this?  Or is it just assumed?

Looks assumed to me, but i could be wrong.

Because he's not in the "blood line" and wouldn't that be a serious thing in those times?

In a way, if Jesus was born to this family he'd be like right in the middle of politics wouldn't he?  David was a great and important king and now the nation of the Jews is under Roman control and the ruling family is long disposed.......sounds like an excellent setting for rumors of a revolution spurred by the rightful ruling family.  there is sure to be a loyal following who think the House of David should rule....especially if the story of David is well documented in the holy Hebrew scriptures......

[Tre]

Mary was NOT a virgin.

Joseph (he hopes) fucked Mary, Mary got pregnant, and then Mary gave birth to the kid who became Jesus. 

But it makes for a better story to say she was a virgin. 

[Purge_WTF]

Mary was NOT a virgin.

Joseph (he hopes) fucked Mary, Mary got pregnant, and then Mary gave birth to the kid who became Jesus. 

But it makes for a better story to say she was a virgin. 

  Ask your doctor if Paxil is right for you.

[Butterbean]

Legally or symbolically? 

Is there proof of this?  Or is it just assumed?

Looks assumed to me, but i could be wrong.

Because he's not in the "blood line" and wouldn't that be a serious thing in those times?

Mary was also from the bloodline of David.

In a way, if Jesus was born to this family he'd be like right in the middle of politics wouldn't he?  David was a great and important king and now the nation of the Jews is under Roman control and the ruling family is long disposed.......sounds like an excellent setting for rumors of a revolution spurred by the rightful ruling family.  there is sure to be a loyal following who think the House of David should rule....especially if the story of David is well documented in the holy Hebrew scriptures......

I may not be understanding what you are saying but David lived about 900 years before Jesus.  There were a lot of families born w/in that bloodline that more than likely weren't involved in politics.  Joseph was a carpenter. 

[OzmO]

Mary was also from the bloodline of David.



I may not be understanding what you are saying but David lived about 900 years before Jesus.  There were a lot of families born w/in that bloodline that more than likely weren't involved in politics.  Joseph was a carpenter. 

let's say based on the Gospels Joseph was a carpenter but of the line of David and Jesus was born and started the movement he did.  It would be viewed a political movement by most being that he is of the line of David.   His message would be like that of Gandi, non violent, but alarming to the current authorities none the less.  Why do you think they are always talking about "the line of David" ?   If he is the son of God what does it matter what line he is from?

[Butterbean]

let's say based on the Gospels Joseph was a carpenter but of the line of David and Jesus was born and started the movement he did.  It would be viewed a political movement by most being that he is of the line of David.   His message would be like that of Gandi, non violent, but alarming to the current authorities none the less.  Why do you think they are always talking about "the line of David" ?   If he is the son of God what does it matter what line he is from?

It matters to the Jews that believe in the Old Testament Prophecies that their Messiah would come from the bloodline of David.

But re: it being viewed as a political movement that's true.  This is why when Jesus died on the cross, the Jews rejected Him as being the Messiah because most of them WERE looking for a political "savior."  Something about they don't realize that He WILL be a political "savior" at His 2nd Coming.  The first time He came, he came as a "spiritual" savior.

[I ETA PI]

It is also often claimed that the idea of a vigrin Mary wasn't really created until around 330 or so....before then, it wasn't mentioned. 


Both Luke and Matthew trace through Joseph.  At least in the bible I saw this weekend...it was in a church pew, so I hope it was a correct bible.

[the Pure Majestic]

It is also often claimed that the idea of a vigrin Mary wasn't really created until around 330 or so....before then, it wasn't mentioned. 


Both Luke and Matthew trace through Joseph.  At least in the bible I saw this weekend...it was in a church pew, so I hope it was a correct bible.

The Virgin birth was pretty clearly added 100's of years after Jesus died.  I doubt even hardline Christians will argue that. 

Revelations is the fun stuff though.  Since so much of that is ludicrous, christians won't even debate it.  They'll just pretend that book means nothing.

[loco]

The Virgin birth was pretty clearly added 100's of years after Jesus died.  I doubt even hardline Christians will argue that. 

This was written 100's of years after Jesus?

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."

Immanuel = "God with us"

More like 100's of years BEFORE Jesus was even born. 

And the Gospels were written before 70 AD, within 40 years of Jesus' crucifixion. 

[the Pure Majestic]

This was written 100's of years after Jesus?

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."

Immanuel = "God with us"

More like 100's of years BEFORE Jesus was even born. 

And the Gospels were written before 70 AD, within 40 years of Jesus' crucifixion. 

No, that is from the OT. 
The virgin birth was attached to Jesus to justify him as the messiah. 

When the gospels were written, and when they were changed to better suit the prophecy are totally different. 

[loco]

No, that is from the OT. 

Yes.

The virgin birth was attached to Jesus to justify him as the messiah. 

Yes, it was attached to Jesus because that is whom the prophet Isaiah was speaking of.  That's whom the writer of Isaiah was writing about. 

When the gospels were written, and when they were changed to better suit the prophecy are totally different. 

The gospels were changed?  When and by whom?

[the Pure Majestic]

Yes.

Exactly.  By being in the OT, it was BEFORE Jesus was born.

Yes, it was attached to Jesus because that is whom the prophet Isaiah was speaking of.  That's whom the writer of Isaiah was writing about. 

Exactly again.  When writing about Jesus, they realized it would help their cause to claim that Jesus matched the prophecy.  This was not done until the mid 300's.   

The gospels were changed?  When and by whom?

Every fucking time they've been written, and every fucking edition printed. 

Is your Bible in Aramaic? 

Was your "Gospel of John" written by hand from John?

[Butterbean]

Revelations is the fun stuff though. 

Are you pretty familiar w/that?

[loco]

Exactly.  By being in the OT, it was BEFORE Jesus was born.

Exactly again.  When writing about Jesus, they realized it would help their cause to claim that Jesus matched the prophecy.  This was not done until the mid 300's.   

Is that a fact?  Or simply a conspiracy theory?  Got any evidence to back that up?

Every fucking time they've been written, and every fucking edition printed. 

So, after the invention of the printing press, the Gospels were changed every time that they were printed?

Is your Bible in Aramaic? 

The New Testament was originally written in Greek.

Was your "Gospel of John" written by hand from John?

John says in his gospel that he is the one who testifies of these things.  Any reason not to believe him?  If so, then why believe any ancient writings?  Why not just toss ancient history out the window?

If we want to disregard the New Testament, then we must also disregard other ancient writings by Plato, Aristotle, and Ceasar.  This is because the New Testament documents are better preserved and more numerous than any other ancient writing.  Because they are so numerous, they can be cross checked for accuracy...and they are very consistent.

There are presently 5,686 Greek manuscripts in existence today for the New Testament.  If we were to compare the number of New Testament manuscripts to other ancient writings, we find that the New Testament manuscripts far outweigh the others in quantity.

Just one example:

Aristotle's ancient writings date 384-322 B.C..  The earliest copy we have is from 1,100 A.D..  The approximate time span between original & copy is 1,400 years.  We have only 49 copies.

Ceasar's ancient writings date 100-44 B.C..  The earliest copy we have is from 900 A.D..  The approximate time span between original & copy is 1,000 years.  We have only 10 copies.

The New Testament on the other hand dates 1st Cent. A.D. (50-100 A.D.).  The earliest copies we have are from 2nd Cent. A.D. (130 A.D.).  The approximate time span between original & copy is less than 100 years.  We have 5,686 copies.

[the Pure Majestic]

Is that a fact?  Or simply a conspiracy theory?  Got any evidence to back that up?

So, after the invention of the printing press, the Gospels were changed every time that they were printed?

The New Testament was originally written in Greek.

John says in his gospel that he is the one who testifies of these things.  Any reason not to believe him?  If so, then why believe any ancient writings?  Why not just toss ancient history out the window?

If we want to disregard the New Testament, then we must also disregard other ancient writings by Plato, Aristotle, and Homer.  This is because the New Testament documents are better preserved and more numerous than any other ancient writing.  Because they are so numerous, they can be cross checked for accuracy...and they are very consistent.

There are presently 5,686 Greek manuscripts in existence today for the New Testament.  If we were to compare the number of New Testament manuscripts to other ancient writings, we find that the New Testament manuscripts far outweigh the others in quantity.

Just one example:

Aristotle's ancient writings date 384-322 B.C..  The earliest copy we have is from 1,100 A.D..  The approximate time span between original & copy is 1,400 years.  We have only 49 copies.

Ceasar's ancient writings date 100-44 B.C..  The earliest copy we have is from 900 A.D..  The approximate time span between original & copy is 1,000 years.  We have only 10 copies.

The New Testament on the other hand dates 1st Cent. A.D. (50-100 A.D.).  The earliest copies we have are from 2nd Cent. A.D. (130 A.D.).  The approximate time span between original & copy is less than 100 years.  We have 5,686 copies.

The best part of all of this is that you had to go online and reference all this stuff, with dates for accuracy, probably taking you quite some time. 

Now tell me, are you doing this to convince me?  Or to convince yourself? 

Have you read the earliest copies of the new testament?  If you haven't read them for yourself, then how can you speak with any authority as to what they say, and how it may differ from your current version of the bible? 

[loco]

The best part of all of this is that you had to go online and reference all this stuff, with dates for accuracy, probably taking you quite some time. 

Now tell me, are you doing this to convince me?  Or to convince yourself? 

Have you read the earliest copies of the new testament?  If you haven't read them for yourself, then how can you speak with any authority as to what they say, and how it may differ from your current version of the bible? 

Are you going to answer my questions or are you just going to avoid them?

Do you have any evidence to back up your conspiracy theory?

So, after the invention of the printing press, the Gospels were changed every time that they were printed?

So, according to you,  the New Testament was written in Aramaic?

Do you have any good reasons to doubt that John wrote the Gospel of John?

I posted some facts about the New Testament manuscripts as compared to other ancient texts.   Yes, these are facts. 

Yes, I have been reading the Bible, different versions of it, in different languages for many years.  And yes, they are all consistent.

Yes, there are many seminaries that possess some of the ancient, Greek copies of the New Testament.

Did you know that all Presbyterian ministers are required to learn Hebrew and Greek before they can graduate from seminary?

So yes, both the Old and the New Testament mention virgin birth 100's of years before you say they did.  If you have any proof to the contrary, please do show us because I'd love to see it.   

[the Pure Majestic]

Are you going to answer my questions or are you just going to avoid them?

Do you have any evidence to back up your conspiracy theory?

So, after the invention of the printing press, the Gospels were changed every time that they were printed?

So, according to you,  the New Testament was written in Aramaic?

Do you have any good reasons to doubt that John wrote the Gospel of John?

I posted some facts about the New Testament manuscripts as compared to other ancient texts.   Yes, these are facts. 

Yes, I have been reading the Bible, different versions of it, in different languages for many years.  And yes, they are all consistent.

Yes, there are many seminaries that possess some of the ancient, Greek copies of the New Testament.

Did you know that all Presbyterian ministers are required to learn Hebrew and Greek before they can graduate from seminary?

So yes, both the Old and the New Testament mention virgin birth 100's of years before you say they did.  If you have any proof to the contrary, please do show us because I'd love to see it.   

Do you have proof that the New Testament mentions virgin birth before 330 AD? 

Where do you get the idea that I said John didn't write his gospel?  I asked if your bible was hand written by John.  It's not.  It's a printed version that has been transfered into many different languages, through many variations. 

Have you heard of a man named King James?  I believe he has a 'version' of the bible too. 


And yes, each time a new version of the bible is printed, it is changed.  Each new language, each new version, etc. 
Is the version I can read at church this sunday hand written, word for word, in the language it was originally written? 

Have you ever read an American book printed in German?  It's very different.  The translations aren't 100%. 

Have you read the earliest versions of the New Testament?  Do you have John's handwritten gospel available to you?  Unless you have these exact versions in front of you, available for you to read in person, you have no backing.  You can go to google and copy anything you want.  But, that doesn't mean a thing.

[Butterbean]

Revelations is the fun stuff though. 

Do you feel you're pretty familiar w/that?

[the Pure Majestic]

Do you feel you're pretty familiar w/that?

Thank you!

[Butterbean]

Thank you!

 

Revelations is the fun stuff though.  Since so much of that is ludicrous, christians won't even debate it.  They'll just pretend that book means nothing.

I don't think it means nothing and I'd like to talk about it if you are interested.

[the Pure Majestic]

I don't think it means nothing and I'd like to talk about it if you are interested.

Are double negatives one of your Christian tricks of confusion?  Because I have no clue what you're saying.

[columbusdude82]

This was written 100's of years after Jesus?

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."

Immanuel = "God with us"

More like 100's of years BEFORE Jesus was even born. 

And the Gospels were written before 70 AD, within 40 years of Jesus' crucifixion. 

Hold it there. You know better than to quote Isaiah.

The original Isaiah says "young woman" will get pregnant. Moreover, that is in a prophecy for Isaiah to King Ahaz of Judah. Isaiah was talking about events in the king's time. This has nothing to do with the "messiah".

The greek mis-translation of Isaiah used the term "virgin" instead of "young woman." Imagine how easy it is to get the words "maid" and "maiden" mixed up. Matthew misused that greek mistranslation of Isaiah.

The only reason Jesus "had" to have been born of a virgin is because the writer of the gospel of Matthew was reading a bad greek translation of Isaiah.