• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Why the Virgin Birth?[w:46]

Logicman

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 21, 2013
Messages
23,086
Reaction score
2,375
Location
United States
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
The virgin birth of Christ is recorded in the Books of Matthew and Luke (Mark and John begin their Gospels when Jesus is fully grown). And rather than being an unimportant event and doctrine in some people's eyes, the virgin birth is critically essential to Christianity, for it defines who Jesus is (God), and it fulfills important Biblical prophecies, which will be discussed in this thread.

As Matthew writes in chapter 1:

20 But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. 21 She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.”

22 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet (Isaiah 7:14): 23 “The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel” (which means “God with us”).
 
Last edited:
Because, at the time, it was essential to keep up with Old Testament prophesy and that was a generally (easily?) accepted idea for the origin of other gods. To start a new club (religion) you must make it appealing to those that are currently members of other clubs and to conform with other popular notions of what constiitues a divine miracle.
 
the issue is with the translation of the term "virgin."


Jesus was Mary's first born, not the result of some spiritual artificial insemination. Being the first born son was a big deal in those days, as he stood to inherit the family's wealth. Daughters didn't count, as they were just chattel anyway, and subsequent sons were of lesser importance.

So, the virgin birth, while not a miracle, was still important to the culture of the time.
 
This idea is baseless though. If that's all that virgin means, then why would Mary be confused about how she could become pregnant?
 



The text in scripture is pretty clear that Joseph had not "known" her, and that her conception was divine. Unless you just want to ignore what the bible says about it, in which case we would be kind of departing from theology and delving into skepticism instead... and this isn't really that forum.
 
Jesus had to be born of God to be the perfect, sinless sacrifice. All other men and women were sinful, according to Romans, etc.

The Old Testament also said in Jeremiah 23:5-8 that there would be one descendant of King David who would be called "THE LORD (JEHOVAH) OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS." "But of Him [God] are you IN CHRIST JESUS, who of God is made unto us... RIGHTEOUSNESS...." 1 Corinthians 1:30
 
Mary has to be a virgin to satisfy the prophecy of virgin birth. However, there is some controversy about NT writers incorrectly understanding the word "maiden" in the prophecy.
 
Morton said:
Mary has to be a virgin to satisfy the prophecy of virgin birth. However, there is some controversy about NT writers incorrectly understanding the word "maiden" in the prophecy.
Click to expand...

No - there's no confusion. She was a virgin, that's the entire point.

See it this way:

Two people are to be married.
The girl is pregnant.
- Any child born under that situation is considered to be born of sin.

Jesus could *not* be conceived in sin (sex before marriage, or sex outside of a committed relationship).

Do you think anyone would have accepted the concept of "Jesus" and so on if she was just "a young maiden?"

No.

Virginity doesn't mean as much today as it *used to* - but that was pretty significant back then. Not a petty aside.
 
Maybe to make it more "family friendly"? Removes sex from the image? The Bible is a pretty carefully engineered document. There are some big plot flaws and some suspension of dibelief required but this is a guidebook that predate government and thus was government for quite a while.
 
Morton said:
Mary has to be a virgin to satisfy the prophecy of virgin birth. However, there is some controversy about NT writers incorrectly understanding the word "maiden" in the prophecy.
Click to expand...

Nope. The original Hebrew word for virgin in Isaiah 7:14 was 'almah,' which is found 7 times in the Old Testament. In each instance it refers to a morally chaste young girl. Rebekah was an 'almah,' and at the time she was a virgin also. It was translated into Greek by Hebrew / Greek scholars as 'parthenos,' which also means virgin.
 
Logicman said:
Like Mithra emerging from a rock. It's myth. No virgin birth there. LOL!

Jesus was a real, historical person though.
Click to expand...

That is debatable. The claimed circumstances of his conception are at best highly dubious.
 

Well, there is also a line of thought which says that in the culture of the time, and among the religious sect that Mary was a member of, a virgin was a woman who had not given birth previously, rather than what our culture considers a virgin today. Iow, virginity wasn't a sexual state of being, but a state of being childless.
 
virgin mary(jesus's mother ) isnt supposed to act like a bitch according to god l think :mrgreen:

l am not kidding ,if she is a holy figure in christianity she shoulndt have sex with anyone like other sisters
 

What do you think that "How shall this be done, because I know not man?" means? Sounds pretty distinct from not having given birth previously.
 
Manc Skipper said:
You say that like it was a bad thing.

His existence is debateable. His virgin birth is no more credible than all the others.
Click to expand...

many apostles were inspired by jesus to write the bible


all of them were just schizophrenic enough to claim that jesus existed ??
 
phattonez said:
What do you think that "How shall this be done, because I know not man?" means? Sounds pretty distinct from not having given birth previously.
Click to expand...

It very easily could have been a mistake in translation.

Isaiah 7:14, in Hebrew means maiden, not virgin. Therefore, it is not a prophecy. | Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry
 
Manc Skipper said:
You say that like it was a bad thing.

His existence is debateable. His virgin birth is no more credible than all the others.
Click to expand...

Well, pick out your best "ONE" from 'the others' and let's take a good look at it. Lay it out for me.
 
lizzie said:
It doesn't matter where the passage is. The point is that the term "virgin" was likely misinterpreted.
Click to expand...
It does matter because Luke wasn't written in Hebrew. Hebrew was a dead language by the time Luke was written.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…