Important Announcement

See here for an important message regarding the community which has become a read-only site as of October 31.

 
Post Reply
Page 7 of 7  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Switch to Forum Live View Was Jesus literally born of a virgin human woman?
3 years ago  ::  Dec 22, 2014 - 3:48PM #61
Judyr
Posts: 10

Without the virgin birth, there would have been no resurrection!


From the beginning to the end of his life in human form, Jesus overturned all so-called material laws and demonstrated the higher laws of God, Spirit. To my understanding, bringing out the harmony and power of God's creation is not a "miracle", but is divinely natural. 


Jesus proved his God-given dominion and authority. He healed the sick, reformed the sinner, gave sight to the blind, mobility to the lame, hearing to the deaf, fed thousands of people with only a few loaves and fishes, provided the tax money from a fish's mouth, walked on the waves and raised the dead - including his own resurrection. He had complete authority over all the limitations of matter and material laws. His virgin birth was simply the pre-cursor to all the rest and is entirely consistent with all his great works. My penny's worth. Cool


Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Dec 28, 2014 - 5:01PM #62
slate
Posts: 228

Very interesting discussion.  When I read these types of discussions, I always think what would Jesus say?  I believe he would dismiss the concern about these things and focus on whether or not we are following his teachings. He would regard one who follows his teachings over one who stresses belief. He would declare that the one who follows his teaching is the one who really believes in him.  What good is it to believe in the virgin birth if we do not follow his teaching?   

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Dec 29, 2014 - 2:06PM #63
Judyr
Posts: 10

Dec 28, 2014 -- 5:01PM, slate wrote:

Very interesting discussion.  When I read these types of discussions, I always think what would Jesus say?  I believe he would dismiss the concern about these things and focus on whether or not we are following his teachings. He would regard one who follows his teachings over one who stresses belief. He would declare that the one who follows his teaching is the one who really believes in him.  What good is it to believe in the virgin birth if we do not follow his teaching?   


Good point Slate. I think Jesus absolutly wanted us to follow his teachings - and that includes his works, as well as his words.


Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Dec 29, 2014 - 2:54PM #64
Stumbler
Posts: 347

Dec 28, 2014 -- 5:01PM, slate wrote:


Very interesting discussion.  When I read these types of discussions, I always think what would Jesus say?  I believe he would dismiss the concern about these things and focus on whether or not we are following his teachings. He would regard one who follows his teachings over one who stresses belief. He would declare that the one who follows his teaching is the one who really believes in him.  What good is it to believe in the virgin birth if we do not follow his teaching?   




And yet, his teachings include statements, implied or explicit, about who he was, and thus what to believe about him. In fact, isn't one of his teachings to believe in him? The distinction between "belief" and "following the teaching" is artificial. I'll grant that there's no record of Jesus teaching anything about the virgin birth, but there's plenty of record of his teaching what to believe.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Dec 29, 2014 - 3:45PM #65
RJMcElwain
Posts: 3,013

Dec 28, 2014 -- 5:01PM, slate wrote:


Very interesting discussion.  When I read these types of discussions, I always think what would Jesus say?  I believe he would dismiss the concern about these things and focus on whether or not we are following his teachings. He would regard one who follows his teachings over one who stresses belief. He would declare that the one who follows his teaching is the one who really believes in him.  What good is it to believe in the virgin birth if we do not follow his teaching?   





Absolutely agree. In fact, I'm slowly evolving to the point that I wonder if "theology" should be allowed in Churches, based on some of what is passed along as "Gospel". This is based on the fact that  Paul's writings and the Gospels were not put on papyrus until long after Jesus. And we have no idea how many editings occurred after the originals. Short verse: The new Testament is theology, not history. OTOH, Jesus' message comes through pretty clearly.


Love your neighbor as yourself. End of story.

Robert J. McElwain

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." (Supposedly)Thomas Jefferson

"He who is not angry when there is just cause for anger is immoral."
St. Thomas Aquinas

One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. Plato
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jan 02, 2015 - 3:38PM #66
Stumbler
Posts: 347

Dec 29, 2014 -- 3:45PM, RJMcElwain wrote:


Absolutely agree. In fact, I'm slowly evolving to the point that I wonder if "theology" should be allowed in Churches, based on some of what is passed along as "Gospel". This is based on the fact that  Paul's writings and the Gospels were not put on papyrus until long after Jesus. And we have no idea how many editings occurred after the originals. Short verse: The new Testament is theology, not history. OTOH, Jesus' message comes through pretty clearly.


Love your neighbor as yourself. End of story.




This is pretty weak. Most of what we accept as "history" was not recorded until much longer after the events than all of the canonical NT writings. People today are still recording the testimony of Holocaust survivors, and it is appropriately regarded as history, even though it's now 70 years since the events took place. Will you say that their stories are ideology, not history?


The notion that "Love your neighbor as yourself" sums up the entirety of Jesus's message doesn't hold up to critical scrutiny. For one thing, this teaching wasn't even original or particularly noteworthy. If that's all Jesus was teaching, nobody would have bothered to record it. It was standard rabbinic material.


And, contrary to your claim, we do have some idea of how much editing took place after the originals, by looking at how much took place afterwards and projecting backwards. The answer is: Not much. Although there were many textual variants, even Ehrman concedes that the great majority of them are minor varations in spelling, etc. Only two significant modifications to the NT text have been found, from all the early manuscripts and fragments.


He taught a bit more than what is contained in one line from Leviticus.

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 7 of 7  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook