The Virgin Birth: Miracle, Heresy or Cover-up?
Comments
-
@Bill_Coley said: "We don't need to doubt each other's faithfulness, or question each other's commitment to Christ, or suggest that the other is denying God".
Bill,
I am seeing what you're writing but can't grasp what you what mean when you out right deny the deity of Christ. Thinking aloud:
What is Christ to Bill?
Who is Bill's Savior?
Is Bill's Savior just a man? If so, can a man save another man?
If Bill's Savior is just a man, is he worthy of worship?
Were there a time Bill's Savior didn't existed?
How does Bill define God? Is God real or a concept?
If Jesus is not God, on what basis do Bill follows and obeys Him?
Christ can't be all that you say he is NOT and Bill still follow HIM.
How can Christ be all that the Bible teaches, better yet, what He said of himself and credit is given to another. This borders on the "unpardonable sin". CM
-
@C_M_ wrote
I am seeing what you're writing but can't grasp what you what mean when you out right deny the deity of Christ.
I would suggest that you, @C_M_ , first define what you mean with "deity of Christ" ... Do you mean "Deity" = "God"? Do you mean the Deity whom Christ himself worshipped as His God and to Whom he prayed? Do you mean that Christ himself was/is a Deity? Do you mean "deity"in the sense of an adjective, such as "divine"? Do you recogniize a difference between "Deity" and "divine" (for illustration, I regard the Scriptures of the Bible to be DIVNIE - specifically, divinely inspired- but I do not regard the Bible to be DEITY?
Once you clarify what you mean when you speak of "deity of Christ", an answer to your questions would be possible; without you defining what you mean with "deity of Chriist" it is really impossible for anyone to really answer your questions
-
@ Wolfgang said:
@CM responses:
Wolfgang, I will say it here, as in other places in these forums:
- Jesus is the eternal Son of God.
- Jesus declared, “ ‘Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father’ ” (John 14:9, NIV ).
- John 3:16: “ ‘For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son.’ ”
The expression “only begotten” is one word in the Greek language:
-- Monogenes, occurring nine times in the New Testament, with five of those references applying to Jesus and all five in the writings of John (John 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9).
- It is significant that all five references occur in the writings of the very author who from the start of his Gospel seeks to establish the deity of Jesus Christ.
- Indeed, he commences precisely on that point: “In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (John 1:1).
It would have been incredible that this Jewish writer would have attributed the title of Deity to someone he considered a created being.
The Deity of Christ
The writers of the NT make it clear that Jesus deserves the divine title of God. With the exception of Luke, all those writers were Jews, strongly monotheistic, and not predisposed to using the Divine titles carelessly. Please note that their testimony to Jesus’ deity sprang from the deepest, Holy Spirit-inspired conviction.
Is not the following passages make the case for Jesus’ deity?
- Matt. 3:3
- John 1:1
- John 1:18
- John 20:28
Matthew 3:3 harks back to Isaiah 40:3, where Isaiah uses the word Yahweh, the most sacred name for God in the Old Testament.
The construction of the John 1:1 passage in the original language leaves no doubt about what John was saying. After His death, Jesus is being expressly called God by one who had been in close association with Him.
In regard to John 1:18, the Greek expression used in the passage calls Jesus, in effect, “the unique God.”
Then how about John 20:28? Was this simply an exclamation, an expression of surprise on Thomas’s part, the same way people today would use the name of God to express astonishment or shock? To come to that conclusion would be to read a modern practice back into the New Testament.
- a. The Jews, careful as they were to stay clear of blasphemy, did not have the expression in their vocabulary.
- b. In addition, the very construction of the passage fights against such an interpretation. The passage says, “Thomas said to him” (NIV).
- c. Thomas, in other words, was addressing Jesus; it was an expression of faith, NOT an exclamation of surprise.
- d. Lastly,
Jesus did not rebuke himshows that He was satisfied with Thomas’s confession.
Furthermore, the New Testament is full of evidence for Jesus’ deity. For example:
- Attributes as eternity and creator-ship applied to Jesus.
- His claim to forgive sins.
- His claim to be the final Judge of the last day.
In addition, we find:
- The name of Jesus associated with that of the Father on a footing of equality, as in the baptismal formula (Matt. 28:19).
- John 14:9, Jesus uses words that would constitute obvious blasphemy on the lips of any other human being: “ ‘Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father’ ” (NIV).
I approve this post based on the unadulterated Word (Bible). Embrace it! CM
-
@C_M_ ... you write a lengthy reply and yet do not really define what you mean with the term "deity" in your expression "deity of Christ". Yet, it would have been rather simple to do so, as I even provided some questions which could have easily served as help for you to understand to what I was referring.
All of what you write above is repetition of a Trinitarian theology position and interpretation of some verses which are often used to supposedly prove Trinity doctrine. A closer look and more careful reading of the verses shows quickly that the verses do not even support the theological claims you made and which you think they teach ....
-
@ CM said:
Wolfgang,
I really didn't answer the your question or you refused to accept the Bible explanation? There is no winning with you. I guess you are going to accuse me of hiding behind the Bible. It seems that nothing I say or sources I share, will make sense to your closed mind on this topic. At lease, you have a good idea where I am coming. "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still". This is alright for now. In the fullness of time, you'll see with new understanding.
I ran across a source, since the last post. It may be of help in your quest to satisfy or abandon the storm within you. Perhaps another voice may have a stronger influence upon you as we move forward. May be you can share why you agree or disagree with him. CM
SOURCE: Wuest, K. S. “The Deity of Jesus in the Greek Texts of John and Paul.” Bibliotheca Sacra 119 (1962): 216-26.
-
I ran across a source, since the last post. It may be of help in your quest to satisfy or abandon the storm within you. Perhaps another voice may have a stronger influence upon you as we move forward. May be you can share why you agree or disagree with him. CM
SOURCE: Wuest, K. S. “The Deity of Jesus in the Greek Texts of John and Paul.” Bibliotheca Sacra 119 (1962): 216-26.
Well, in regards to the topic at hand, it really makes not really a difference whether someone interprets verses in light of the Trinity doctrine while using Greek texts, English or German or whatever other language texts ... the interpbretation will be the same.
Neither John nor Paul knew anything about the Trinity dogma nor did they know anything and thus did not write anything about the God Jesus. Ideas concerning a living being who supposedly is "fully God and fully man" were totally foreign to them (or perhaps known from whatever knowledge they may have had of Babylonian or Greek mythology).
Since John and Paul were both of Israel background and familiar with OT scripture, they were knowledgeable of and apparently believed in the true God as ONE (not two, not three, not more) who was not a man but SPIRIT
-
Back to the OP:
IS The Virgin Birth: Miracle, Heresy or Cover-up?
Is it possible for a virgin birth?
Can God become part of His creation?
What makes it necessary for the incarnation? CM
-
IS The Virgin Birth: Miracle, Heresy or Cover-up?
There was no virgin birth. Scripture does speak of a miraculous conception in Mary prior to her having had sexual relation with her husband Joseph.
Is it possible for a virgin birth?
If Mary did not have any sexual relationship with her husband until after Jesus was born, it would be the case. However, the record in Mt 1:18-25 indicates that Joseph did in fact take Mary unto himself as his wife (that is, consumated their marriage by having sexual intercourse with her.
Can God become part of His creation?
Well, as the Creator has God not always had a part in His creation? In case you mean, whether God can be created and be a creation, my answer would that the Creator can NOT be a created being.
What makes it necessary for the incarnation?
There is no incarnation spoken of in Scrpiture .... thus this question is irrelevant
-
@C_M_ said:
I am seeing what you're writing but can't grasp what you what mean when you out right deny the deity of Christ.
I think "deity of Christ" is an interesting phrase, subject to various meanings. If by contending that I "deny the deity of Christ" you mean I don't believe Jesus was God, then you are correct. See below.
Thinking aloud: What is Christ to Bill?
In my view, "Who is Christ?" is a more precise question. To me, Jesus is the Christ, the person God chose to reveal in human form the fullness of God's will, love, and grace - love so great as to empower Jesus to surrender his life on the cross.
Who is Bill's Savior?
Ultimately, God is the one who authorizes and implements my salvation. I believe God did that - showed me that - in the person of Jesus. Therefore, I call Jesus my savior, for he testifies to and embodies God's saving grace for me.
Is Bill's Savior just a man? If so, can a man save another man?
The "man" (or woman) God chooses to bring the good news of salvation to the world cannot be "just a man (or woman)."
If Bill's Savior is just a man, is he worthy of worship?
"Worship" has different meanings as well. I don't worship Jesus as God (because I don't believe Jesus is God) but I do worship/revere/praise/venerate him as the glorified King of kings and Lord of lords, the one who sits at God's right hand.
Were there a time Bill's Savior didn't existed?
Because I believe God is ultimately my savior, I don't believe there was ever a time when my savior didn't exist. There WAS a time, in my view, when Jesus did not exist: all the time in history before his birth in Bethlehem.
How does Bill define God? Is God real or a concept?
God is the creator of the universe, the one who ultimately decides right from wrong, and life from death. God is the source of all life and love on the earth and in all of creation.
If Jesus is not God, on what basis do Bill follows and obeys Him?
(It's curious to me why CM doesn't refer to me directly, but instead addresses his questions to "Bill.") 😛
I follow Jesus because I believe he is the one God sent to show me the way to life that is abundant and forever.
Christ can't be all that you say he is NOT and Bill still follow HIM.
I find your statement hard to follow, but from what I can glean, my response is that yes, I DO still follow Jesus even though I don't believe he is God. (see previous response)
How can Christ be all that the Bible teaches, better yet, what He said of himself and credit is given to another. This borders on the "unpardonable sin"
I respect but strongly disagree with your views about what Jesus said of himself. I believe he said clearly and repeatedly that he did NOT see himself as God.
I respect but disagree with (and would like to hear more about) your view of how the issues we're discussing border on the "unpardonable sin."
-
Bill,
Thanks for your response. My "thinking out aloud" was a different format of asking questions. I hope you didn't find it offensive? If you did, I apologize. This was not the intention. To be different, yes, but never to be rude. Your candid answers re-enforced my appallment of your views, when it come to Jesus.
If I understood you correctly, Jesus, to you, is a heavenly ambassador or some kind of modified angel with mission to earth. Your views are not new in light of history. Oh, I may have missed it, is Jesus to be worshiped? And, what about the Holy Spirit? Do you hold the same views about Him as you do of Jesus? CM
PS. To reasonably remain faithful to this thread, may I direct you to the thread I started in December 2018, on, What is the Unpardonable Sin? Perhaps, we can pick up this part of the discussion there. I haven't mastered hyperlink yet, bare with me. CM
-
Hi @C_M_ ,
As for the original questions:
IS The Virgin Birth: Miracle, Heresy or Cover-up?
In my perspective a misunderstanding due to interpreting the Hebrew word "עלמה" as "virgin" instead of "young woman", as for the three given options:
I wouldn't call it a miracle for the ones who misunderstood Isaiah 7:14 , because the consistency in claiming that Mary was a virgin could only mean (for them) that God fulfilled his promise, so as God wouldn't lie, that would be expected (according to their point of view) and therefore not a miracle.
I wouldn't call it heresy because the source of this thought is not denial of the truthfulness of God or of his message, they didn't try to disprove or denounce our faith, but rather accept the message with this controversial interpretation due to not understanding the original prophecy in its original language, which was Hebrew. Anyone who can't understand biblical Hebrew could never conclude that he was deceived by the most commonly mistranslated word in the bible, therefore I can't blame them, because I assume, that if they could, they would have tried to validate that information.
Regarding the option it was a cover-up, I would suspect it was the issue for early Catholics, who knew that they could convince Pagan crowds by covering up things that would weaken their claims, but for most modern Christians I could only claim for lack of knowledge, not for a cover up.
Is it possible for a virgin birth? Not according to natural laws, and we should remember that all natural laws were created by God as well.
Can God become part of His creation? No. @Wolfgang gave the best explanation why not (also, God is eternal, therefore God as a creation would not make sense).
What makes it necessary for the incarnation? Nothing. For that question I accept @Wolfgang's answer as well.
Thanks,
ASN_032
-
@C_M_ said:
My "thinking out aloud" was a different format of asking questions. I hope you didn't find it offensive? If you did, I apologize. This was not the intention. To be different, yes, but never to be rude.
No offense taken at all. In cordial, collegial settings such as online forum discussions, I find third person references to the people we're directly addressing to be awkward and unusual... but not offensive.
Your candid answers re-enforced my appallment of your views, when it come to Jesus.
Feeling appalled seems to me to be a curious response - to the point of being an overreaction - to the faith-based theological views of a fellow follower of Christ. I feel bad for you because I can't imagine feeling appalled is a good thing. As you might guess, however, I don't feel bad for myself or about my views.
If I understood you correctly, Jesus, to you, is a heavenly ambassador or some kind of modified angel with mission to earth.
"Heavenly ambassador" and "modified angel" sound like loaded terms to me. I prefer to stick to my previous explanation: Jesus the one God chose or anointed - i.e. he is the "Christ." As Peter told his audience in Acts 2:
- Jesus is a "man" to whom God attested through the mighty works God did through him. (Acts 2.22)
- Jesus died on a cross, by God's design (Acts 2.23) and then God raised him from the dead. (Acts 2.24, 32)
- God exalted/ glorified Jesus in the resurrection (Acts 2.33; Acts 3.13) and in the process, God "made him both Lord and Christ." (Acts 2.36)
All that is to say, Jesus was a human being who accepted God calling on his life, which ultimately was to die for the world. (Matthew 26.39)
If you are still appalled by my point of view, CM, please specify how each of these verses and/or my understanding of them appalls you. In my view, there is nothing mysterious, complicated, or appalling about Peter's words. Nor are Peter's words inconsistent with the vast majority of what Jesus says about himself in the Gospels.
Oh, I may have missed it, is Jesus to be worshiped?
As I wrote in my previous reply to you: "'Worship' has different meanings as well. I don't worship Jesus as God (because I don't believe Jesus is God) but I do worship/revere/praise/venerate him as the glorified King of kings and Lord of lords, the one who sits at God's right hand."
And, what about the Holy Spirit? Do you hold the same views about Him as you do of Jesus?
I understand the Holy Spirit to be a manifestation of God and God's power/authority - basically a synonym for God or God's presence in the world. The Holy Spirit is NOT a human being as was Jesus. The Holy Spirit, therefore, cannot be killed as Jesus was, and could not be raised from the dead as Jesus was. So no, I do not hold the same views about the Holy Spirit as I do about Jesus.
-
@Wolfgang wrote: If Mary did not have any sexual relationship with her husband until after Jesus was born, it would be the case. However, the record in Mt 1:18-25 indicates that Joseph did in fact take Mary unto himself as his wife (that is, consumated their marriage by having sexual intercourse with her.
Matthew 1:25 documents Joseph waited for virgin birth of Jesus to happen before consummating marriage with Mary.
@Bill_Coley wrote: Where in John 8.12 does Jesus use God's name?
In the LXX, Exodus 3:14 has Ἐγώ εἰμι (I, I am) that is spoken by Jesus in John 8:12
@Bill_Coley wrote: John 8.28 - Jesus does nothing on his own; he says only what the Father has taught him. [Jesus is powerless on his own - NOT a divine characteristic.]
Better way to understand John 8:28 is Love does not seek its own (1 Co 13:5) plus Jesus modeled human relationship with God (intense Love that is shows in good works). Doing stuff on my own results in messes while doing stuff with God (using God's Words) results in God's Love being experienced.
John 8:21-30 is a dispute over who Jesus is, which includes Jesus knowing He is from above (not of this world) while humans are from below (of this world), which is a divine characteristic.
Keep Smiling 😀
-
@ Wolfgang,
Here is a direct answer to your question from the Bible: Jesus ascribed deity to himself. See Mark 14:61-64.
I approve this post. CM
-
@C_M_ wrote
Here is a direct answer to your question from the Bible: Jesus ascribed deity to himself. See Mark 14:61-64.
(1) what do you mean with "deity" ? do you mean "deity"" = "God"? do you mean "deity" = "some divine association or characteristic", for example the Scriptures as nispired by God are "divine"/ have their origin with "deity"?
(2) where ni Mk 14:61-64 does Jesus ascribe deity to himself?
-
@C_M_ , I think @Wolfgang asks two important questions. In the the Mark 14 text to which you referred, Jesus DOES claim to be the Christ - God's chosen one - and the "Son of the blessed one," but he does not declare himself to BE "the Blessed one." Matthew's account of the same scene - Matthew 26.62-66 - makes clear that the high priest asks whether Jesus believes himself to be the Son of God, not God godself. Further, Jesus tells the High Priest that he as the Son of Man will one day be seen seated at God's right hand ("the right hand of the Power"). In my view, that's a clear distinction between Jesus and the God at whose right hand he expects to sit. I hope you'll share your understanding of those two passages, and, of course, any other passage(s) you find helpful for the interpretation of them.
-
Mark 14:61-64 and Matthew 26:62-66 document Jesus confirming "Son of God" (human descendant of King David) and describing Himself as the "Son of Man" (prophetic fulfillment of Daniel 7:13-14 vision), who is God (diety) ruling at the right hand of God's throne (two voices on one throne that share one heart, one soul, one strength). The High Priest, Caiaphas, did not believe Jesus was God so Caiaphas tore his robes to show his reaction (belief) that Jesus was a liar, who deserved the death penalty.
Keep Smiling 😀
-
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus wrote
Mark 14:61-64 and Matthew 26:62-66 document Jesus confirming "Son of God" (human descendant of King David) and describing Himself as the "Son of Man" (prophetic fulfillment of Daniel 7:13-14 vision),
So far in harmony with what these scriptures state
who is God (diety)
This s a quickly inserted private assumption not stated anywhere in these scriptures nor anywhere else in the Bible
ruling at the right hand of God's throne (two voices on one throne that share one heart, one soul, one strength). ...
and here again back to what the scriptures state .
The High Priest, Caiaphas, did not believe Jesus was God so Caiaphas tore his robes to show his reaction (belief) that Jesus was a liar, who deserved the death penalty.
This is a false conclusion about Caiaphas ....his reason for tearing his robe was not that he did not believe Jesus was God. Why should he or anyone else there believe that Jesus is God when Jesus did not make any such claim ? Caiaphas did not believe that Jesus was THE SON OF GOD / SON OF MAN and judged that Jesus with his claim to be the Son of God / Son of man was making a false blasphemous statement.
-
@Wolfgang wrote: Why should he or anyone else there believe that Jesus is God when Jesus did not make any such claim ?
Observation: "when" clause reflects belief that prevents understanding any scripture by Jesus and others showing Jesus is God. Belief also prevents understanding Holy Spirit being God. Conversely not understanding Jesus prevents belief in Jesus being God. Hence puzzled about belief why God should have your name written in His Book of Life for entrance into His Holy Heaven (belief prevents knowing Jesus personally).
One God designed a community of Love with three voices sharing one essence (heart, soul, & strength). Three voices demonstrate God's Love plus enables believers to become united in God 😍 Love community design enabled God to be ruling in heaven (God the Father) while The Eternal Word (God the Son) became a human by Holy Spirit (God) miracle in one cell inside Mary that combined God & Man for virgin birth.
Keep Smiling 😀
-
your observations are beside the point and irrelevant ...
-
@Wolfgang wrote: your observations are beside the point and irrelevant ...
What do you mean ?
Comfortable confidence in belief about Jesus not being God can appear as a trinity "conspiracy" that Jesus did not make any such claim (blindly does not understand many scriptural claims by Jesus and others about Jesus being God). For example, Jesus knew He was from above while humans are from below (John 8:23). Isaiah prophesied a son born is Mighty God with us (Isaiah 7:14 & 9:6).
Keep Smiling 😀
-
@CM says:
We seem to be going in circles. Make a careful investigation of NT passages such as Rom 1:3-4; Phil 2:5-11; Col 1:15-20; and Heb 1:1-4, for “the Deity of Christ”. CM
-
None of these 4 passages teaches that Jesus Christ is God / the Deity of Jesus Christ ... as I have mentioned many times before, a careful reading of the texts and their context clearly shows this truth.
It seems that many folks interpret (and perhaps even read) "Son of God" as "God the Son" and then use this false assumption and false interpretation as their basis for any other passage which they would like to support their "holy trinity dogma belief".
![[Deleted User]](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fcddec765be35f238a0844bd23f54b59/?default=https%3A%2F%2Fvanillicon.com%2F8ce8323767a20f0f45db140c4cd2cea1_200.png&rating=g&size=200)
