What Is The Point Of The Virgin Birth?

[@RayMacHardy]

Hope this speaker shares more.

[@bosse641]

The first Adam fell, and we in him. God made a new start, a new humanity, the second Adam, and in him we can be reconciled with God. The second Adam could not have any connection to the first Adam as he would be tainted, God made him miraculously in the womb of the virgin. Jesus is 100% of God. The spotless lamb of God(YHVH). Amazing grace.

[@paulnavarro3822]

Sir, Scriptures disagrees with you. It should be very apparent that Jesus was a literal DESCENDANT of HUMAN BEINGS, including Adam. Matt 1:1 The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham... Luke 3:38 ...Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God. The Authors of the "origins" of the Lord Jesus describe him as 100% HUMAN Being. There are no corroborating witnesses, e.g., Apostles or Disciples, who actually write a treatise or a letter on the topic, of the supposed, "Deity of Jesus the Christ". My understanding of the term 100% is that it means ENTIRE, WHOLE, and not mixed with anything else. Example: 100% Gold is nothing but Gold. Now, Jesus was (and still is) either 100% Human, as ALL of the writers of NT Scriptures attest, or he was (and still is) 100% God, as YOU suggest, but he CANNOT be both. The 100% God and 100% Man "solution" will not work either because all it amounts to is a 50/50 MIXTURE. Example: 100% milk and 100% coke DILUTES to 50/50 liquid: it is no longer ENTIRE nor WHOLE. Surely, no one believes that Jesus was Half God and Half Man. The writers of Scripture never portray God nor Jesus as a MIXTURE. But you say, "God can do anything." Well, He can only do those things which are not against His own LAWS. So, we must ask ourselves, What did God DO to BEGET a Human Son? According to the accounts given to us by Matthew and Luke, we should be able to make a decisive conclusion. It will not be "rocket science". God apparently used the very same Laws of Natural Human Procreation Process, which He DETERMINED for Mankind, from the beginning. A Male "seed" and a Female "ovum" should COMBINE to CONCEIVE human beings. Firstly, God chose a Human Female, Mary of Nazareth, a virgin, someone who was of "childbearing" age. Mary attested to the fact that she could not "be with child", in the near future, because she "knew no man". She affirmed herself as being of "childbearing" age, i.e., she was OVULATING, as would have been evident to her by her menstrual cycle. Her QUESTION to the heavenly Messenger had to do with the POSSIBLITY of her "being with child", in the near future, without having human male "seed" implanted in her womb. The Angel did not question her LOGIC, nor her COMMON SENSE. BOTH Mary and the Angel understood that a human male "seed" had to COMBINE with Mary's "ovum" in order for her to CONCEIVE a child. The Angel agreed with Mary, which is why he told her HOW God would INTRODUCE the human male "seed" inside Mary's womb. It would be through His Holy Living Creative Power. In other words, God simply CREATED 1 microscopic human male "seed" directly inside Mary's womb, which "seed" broke into Mary's own "ovum", causing a NATURAL CONCEPTION. Women CONCEIVE, and become mothers, when a "zygote" takes place, inside the womb. Men BEGET and become fathers when a CONCEPTION takes place, inside the womb. So, quite simply, God was (and still is) Jesus' FATHER because He PROVIDED the miraculously created human male "seed", inside Mary's womb. A Virgin CONCEIVED a 100% HUMAN Being. There is no, so called, "incarnation" narrative by any Biblical Author, i.e., HOW Jesus was supposedly in Heaven, then traversed the universe to Earth and changed himself, or transformed himself, or took upon himself HUMANITY. No Bible Author writes or explains such a STORY. Taking a verse here and a verse there and building an "argument" for an "incarnation" will not cut it. Such an exercise is called a "straw man" argument. The idea of Jesus being a "God" who came down from Heaven and "took on" human flesh (in whatever manner you may see fit), was a 4th Century Greco Roman "catholic" INVENTION. Prior to that time, ORTHODOX Christians did not see Jesus as "God", nor "a God", nor as a "Deity". Literature from the 2nd and 3rd century, supposedly about "the deity of Jesus", are DEAFENINGLY SILENT. He was seen just as how he was portrayed in Scripture, as a Man, as Adam, and never as God Himself. (edited) The early Saints were CONSISTENTLY in agreement, with what was WRITTEN by the Apostles, about Jesus of Nazareth. He was (and still is) 100% Human Being.

[@bosse641]

@@paulnavarro3822 ....If he was of us in any way he would be a sinner. We are born sinners. It's our fallen nature. You are wrong.

[@paulnavarro3822]

Your "argument" is about a "theological" matter. A "theological" argument is not PROOF of the ONTOLOGICAL origins of Christ. My "argument" is that the WRITTEN accounts about the origins of Jesus NEVER mention any "incarnation" narrative. There is no UNAMBIGUOUS and CONCLUSIVE written evidence by any Biblical Author who actually argues for the so called "deity of Christ". If there is, then, for over 50 years of studying the Bible, I have missed it. Where, my friend, can I find the "argument" by a Bible Author for the "deity of Christ"? Nowhere! Theologically speaking, I agree that "spotlessness" was needed, even as it is WRITTEN in Scripture. Which is why no "seed" from a fallen human man was used. Sin begets sin. It is through Adam (male), not Eve (female), through which the "guilt of sin" is passed down. Also, God has provided only ONE method, or LAW, of PROCREATION for Human Beings. Therefore, God PROVIDED that "spotless" human male "seed". I agree, the Lamb of God, the Lord Jesus Christ was/is "spotless". Jesus had his Father's CHARACTER, pure and holy, undefiled. However, that does not mean he was "God" himself. A Man can be "spotless". Was Adam "spotless"? Yes, he was. However, he FELL. Jesus was TEMPTED, just as was Adam, but he did not FALL, which is what proved him to have been CREATED "spotless". There is no UNAMBIGUOUS and CONCLUSIVE written evidence by any Biblical Author which actually argues for the so called "deity of Christ". If there is, then, for over 50 years of studying the Bible, I have missed it. Where, my friend, can I find the "argument" by a Bible Author for the "deity of Christ"? Nowhere! However, those "theological arguments" can be found in 4th century Greco Roman "catholic" bishops' writings.

[@Ajsirb24]

Thank you so much! Very good lesson! I just wish there was a biblical unitarian church in Springfield MO

[@somebody22222]

It was actually Joseph who was in the line of David, not Mary.

[@SpiritandTruth]

The genealogy in Luke 3 does specify that Joseph was in the line of David, but there is very good evidence that the genealogy in Matthew 1 is of Mary, not Joseph. Thus, Mary would be in the line of David as well. Please see our commentary on Matthew 1:16: www.revisedenglishversion.com/Matt/1/16

[@somebody22222]

@@SpiritandTruth Interesting. Thanks!

[@RefutingUnitarians]

@@somebody22222 To be fair to your original post, the Bible does not say Mary was in the line of David, and we have biblical evidence that may lead us away from that conclusion. First, we know that Mary is related in some way to Elizabeth (Luke 1.36), and we know that Elizabeth is a descendant of Aaron (Luke 1.3), unlike David, who was a descendant of Nashon (Luke 3.31-32 ; Matt.1.4-5). This increases the likelihood that Mary was also in Aaron's line, and not Nashon's. Additionally, it was quite rare to record genealogies of women at the time, and we can see this in the fact that both Matthew's & Luke's genealogies use a paternal line of recordkeeping, not a maternal line. Neither Luke's nor Matthew's genealogy mentions Mary's parents, but both include Joseph in the bloodline. Thus, it would be strange for both authors to include Joseph in their bloodlines, and for neither to include Mary, and to have one or both of the genealogies tracing Mary's bloodline. The supposition that one of the bloodlines could belong to Mary may have originated in apologetics within the church to explain away the discrepancies between Matthew's and Luke's genealogies, but there are other explanations for the discrepancies that make just as much, if not more sense. All of this would also explain why Jesus seems to hint at the possibility that the Christ is not actually a literal son of David. (Matt. 22.45, Mark 12.37)

[@c.c_mac]

HalleluYah!