The importance of a virgin birth

[Priestley]

freelance lover

Priestley

Stargirl8480

Priestley

Stargirl8480

I was thinking of that myself recently. Haha.
Whether she was or not, Jesus came of it. But I agree with Priestley.

It certainly has implications. I mean, part of the reason we say that Jesus was perfect is because he had to have been perfect from the start in order to be a sinless sacrifice.

That's true. even if Mary wasn't a virgin, it wasn't lust, and it wasn't sin.

But lust is the driving force behind procreation and reproduction. Jesus says that lusting is adultery. Adultery is sin. This presents problems as to the nature of Jesus' conception and birth and has implications for his status.

So is all lust sinful? Lust is defined as "intense sexual desire". I would argue that we are intended to lust for our spouse. So is sex, even within marriage sinful?

The answer I have for you is that, in English versions of the Bible, Jesus didn't specify between unbetrothed and betrothed women when he spoke of men lusting after women.

How this relates back to what I have said previously is that it is commonly argued that immaculate conception is immaculate because it isn't the product of sexual union, which suggests that sex and lust for one's spouse is somehow imperfect and sinful and the offspring from it a product of that sin. Somehow Jesus' words are twisted to support this idea that Jesus had to have been born spirit and nothing. confused  

[Fushigi na Butterfly]

I'd never thought of that. eek It's true though- to call Jesus' immaculate conception immaculate because He wasn't the product of a union between a man and woman somehow implies that sex is somehow dirty/wrong/sinful. Though, perhaps in His case, since Joseph and Mary were only betrothed and not yet married, it would be the case.  

[freelance lover]

Fushigi na Butterfly

I'd never thought of that. eek It's true though- to call Jesus' immaculate conception immaculate because He wasn't the product of a union between a man and woman somehow implies that sex is somehow dirty/wrong/sinful. Though, perhaps in His case, since Joseph and Mary were only betrothed and not yet married, it would be the case.

This was my thinking. Though that also raises another question- does the marriage happen during the ceremony, or during the actual sex? Because the Bible says some things that would imply that sex is the actual marriage. That's why so many people argue against premarital sex- if you sleep with someone then you are married, so if you have another partner later on you're commiting adultery.  

[Ixor Firebadger]

freelance lover

Fushigi na Butterfly

I'd never thought of that. eek It's true though- to call Jesus' immaculate conception immaculate because He wasn't the product of a union between a man and woman somehow implies that sex is somehow dirty/wrong/sinful. Though, perhaps in His case, since Joseph and Mary were only betrothed and not yet married, it would be the case.

This was my thinking. Though that also raises another question- does the marriage happen during the ceremony, or during the actual sex? Because the Bible says some things that would imply that sex is the actual marriage. That's why so many people argue against premarital sex- if you sleep with someone then you are married, so if you have another partner later on you're commiting adultery.

You know, I've kind of always wondered that myself. But, then wouldn't that kind of render the whole marriage ceremony thing kind of useless? I mean, it's nice to celebrate it with family and make that public statement, but is it really necessary?  

[Fushigi na Butterfly]

I feel another topic coming on~~ xd  

[Priestley]

To get this back on topic, Joseph must have been concerned to discover that the woman he loved was already with child. I don't know which is more amazing: that Joseph remained calm and cared for a child that wasn't his, or that it was God's kid.

What does make me wonder is how, by law of inheritance, Mary had to have an immaculate conception otherwise Jesus wouldn't have been of the line of David. Mary would have joined another line if she had a partner before Joseph.  

[Fushigi na Butterfly]

That calls into question quite a few things then. It seems that her being a virgin at the time of Jesus' birth is actually necessary then.  

[Priestley]

Fushigi na Butterfly

That calls into question quite a few things then. It seems that her being a virgin at the time of Jesus' birth is actually necessary then.

Unless Jesus was illegitimate (I hate that word).  

[crazybrain 1]

I for one sincerely doubt that jesus was illegitimate. The lineage of Jesus is recorded in two places: Matthew 1:1-17 and Luke 3:28-38. Most biblical scholars assume that Luke is referring to the genealogy of Mary and that the genealogy recorded in Matthew is of Joseph. The Matthew genealogy follows Joseph's line (Jesus' legal father), through David's son Solomon. Luke follows Mary's line (Jesus' blood mother), through David's son Nathan.

Through both of these lines, Jesus Christ is David's descendant and is eligible to be the promised Messiah. Tracing a genealogy through the mother's line is somewhat unusual, but the virgin birth is unusual as well.  

[Priestley]

crazybrain 1

I for one sincerely doubt that jesus was illegitimate. The lineage of Jesus is recorded in two places: Matthew 1:1-17 and Luke 3:28-38. Most biblical scholars assume that Luke is referring to the genealogy of Mary and that the genealogy recorded in Matthew is of Joseph. The Matthew genealogy follows Joseph's line (Jesus' legal father), through David's son Solomon. Luke follows Mary's line (Jesus' blood mother), through David's son Nathan.

Through both of these lines, Jesus Christ is David's descendant and is eligible to be the promised Messiah. Tracing a genealogy through the mother's line is somewhat unusual, but the virgin birth is unusual as well.

Well, the virgin birth is strange in that it's biologically improbable, nigh impossible. But, as is commonly coined, "everything is possible with God".

What problems would come about by Jesus being blood son of both Mary and Joseph? Would that make him illegitimate or is it more a case of arguing that only something 'holy' from Heaven would be worthy of sacrifice and able to redeem from sin?  

[crazybrain 1]

Jesus was the blood son of Mary, (and God depending on what you believe), not both Mary and Joseph. Joseph in effect adopted Jesus making him the legal hier to Joseph's lineage from David, while also being a blood descendant of David through his mother, Mary. I wouldn't think there would be a problem.

As for there being a need for a 'holy' sacrifice, that goes back to the old testament. When people would sin, and people have always sinned (depending on what your beliefs are), they would take a sacrifice to a priest, who would check that the animal was a fit sacrifice for God. Sacrificial animals, (whether they were bulls, lambs, doves, what ever), were raised from birth to be without blemish. These animals were taken care of. They were let inside the house if it was too cold outside, they were washed to make sure there wasn't a blemish to the animals fur. They had to be pure, because they were offerings for God. Jesus comes around preaching that he is to be a sacrifice for all the nations, (and depending on what you believe, he is) well, he wouldn't be a fitting sacrifice if he wasn't perfect. The virgin birth is what sets him apart from the rest of humanity. Being a direct descendant from God, he has none of the inherent sin nature that the rest of the human race suffers from.

That is why the virgin birth is so significant. Not only was it a miracle, but if shows that Jesus was divine in origin, and that he was the perfect sacrifice for mankind.  

[Priestley]

crazybrain 1

Jesus was the blood son of Mary, (and God depending on what you believe), not both Mary and Joseph. Joseph in effect adopted Jesus making him the legal hier to Joseph's lineage from David, while also being a blood descendant of David through his mother, Mary. I wouldn't think there would be a problem.

As for there being a need for a 'holy' sacrifice, that goes back to the old testament. When people would sin, and people have always sinned (depending on what your beliefs are), they would take a sacrifice to a priest, who would check that the animal was a fit sacrifice for God. Sacrificial animals, (whether they were bulls, lambs, doves, what ever), were raised from birth to be without blemish. These animals were taken care of. They were let inside the house if it was too cold outside, they were washed to make sure there wasn't a blemish to the animals fur. They had to be pure, because they were offerings for God. Jesus comes around preaching that he is to be a sacrifice for all the nations, (and depending on what you believe, he is) well, he wouldn't be a fitting sacrifice if he wasn't perfect. The virgin birth is what sets him apart from the rest of humanity. Being a direct descendant from God, he has none of the inherent sin nature that the rest of the human race suffers from.

That is why the virgin birth is so significant. Not only was it a miracle, but if shows that Jesus was divine in origin, and that he was the perfect sacrifice for mankind.

While this is all very informative, I'd ask you to reread my post again because you failed to answer the questions.  

[Lindsey B3]

Hey I know that I just came here out of no where but I was reading the post and it looks to me that he answered your question. Jesus wasn't a biological son of Joseph he was the biological son of God, Joseph just adopted him.  

[`apple dumpling]

Lindsey B3

Hey I know that I just came here out of no where but I was reading the post and it looks to me that he answered your question. Jesus wasn't a biological son of Joseph he was the biological son of God, Joseph just adopted him.

How is Jesus the biological son of God when no DNA came from God. I would argue God doesn't have DNA, Jesus simply came into being within the womb. That's always been my understanding, anyway.  

[Fushigi na Butterfly]

Lindsey B3

Hey I know that I just came here out of no where but I was reading the post and it looks to me that he answered your question. Jesus wasn't a biological son of Joseph he was the biological son of God, Joseph just adopted him.

Priestley wasn't asking how Jesus was related to Joseph or considered a descendent of David- he was asking why it would be a problem if Jesus was actually a blood descendent of Joseph as well, ie: conceived the way every other human being is.