Posted on 01/04/2016 9:38:32 AM PST by SweetAkitoRose
A 2013 Harris Poll found that while sixty-eight percent of American adults believe that Jesus is God, or the Son of God, only fifty-seven percent believe in the virgin birth. Disbelief in Jesus being born of a virgin, which is a fundamental tenet of Christianity, in turn implies a belief that the author of the Gospel According to Luke lied when he wrote: The angel Gabriel was sent from God to a town of Galilee called Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man named Joseph…. The angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. Behold you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name him Jesus….†But Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I have no relations with a man?†And the angel said to her in reply, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. Therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God.†(1:26-35; emphasis added)
Biblical scholars use various methods to assess the truthfulness of the New Testament accounts of Jesus. One is the Criterion of Embarrassment, according to which it is human nature to write in a manner that puts the author and his cause in a positive, instead of embarrassing or negative, light. The authors of the canonical Gospels are no exception. And so, with this criterion in mind, it is reasonable for us to infer that biblical passages that place Jesus or His mother in an unflattering light, such as Mary’s premarital pregnancy, are likely to be true.
(Excerpt) Read more at newoxfordreview.org ...
I don’t know the cause of Mr Jenner’s sexual dysphoria (I’m not ruling out spiritual oppression - this stuff isn’t all about genetics) but he certainly used to have testes.
Mary came from the same lineage as Joseph, Jesus was equally the hereditary King of the Jews from his mother’s side — as well as from Joseph, who was married to his mother which made Jesus his legal son and heir. He was true royalty, the rightful King of the Jews, although at that time there was no Jewish monarchy, and Israel was a province of Rome.
I don't need no stinking "science" to prove Who Jesus is.
Agreed! If an article like this could increase my faith, then what would happen to my faith if the article was debunked? It's interesting, but really kind of silly.
He still does.
It would seem that he lacks the courage of his convictions. He'll be back when this current ploy is no longer of any use to him professionally.
Exactly.
The irony is that if there’s all this demand for Jesus to be born of a perfect sinless mother because He’s perfect and sinless, then no way he’s going to be an XX male.
You’re absolutely correct that making our faith dependent on man’s confirmation of Scripture is a dangerous road to take and will lead to disaster.
To a Christian it is very relevant. In fact it is a point of great comfort since a Christian is born from above on a reality plane not readily visible to the eye but nevertheless very real, albeit the outworking of such may take years to be seen in evidence. Joseph gave his name and parenthood to Jesus. Joseph raise the babe up in the Way that He should go, on the human plane.The process of being born from above is analogous to the adoption Joseph offered to the Child. In that regard, Jesus was Joseph's son also, by adoption, just as a Christian is a child of God by adoption and God extending His family name and honor to that born-from-above new creation.
Too often, we are mired in too strict a framework, like accepting ONLY the DNA understanding we have today as the ultimate knowledge of 'how it's done'. But of course we have not a clue how DNA would account for the non-physical 'virtual reality' of the soul and spirit.
Jesus could inherit His title of King through Mary if Mary did not have any brothers to get the birth right. It then will skip down through Mary and into her first born son providing she marries someone from her own tribe. Jesus through adoption also inherits through Joseph. He likely double inherited His titles.
What makes the bible special is the specificity of prophecy throughout the Old Testament. All telling of the messiahs birth, life, death and resurrection. As matter of history, the old testament was translated to Greek in the 3rd century BCE. It was in black and white, so to speak, nearly 3 centuries before the events happened.
Has it occurred to you that the stories might have been written the way they were with knowledge of the prophecies, to MAKE them conform?
Yep. Too many corroborating historical accounts. Also prophecies tend to be contradictory until fulfilled. Time codes were also discovered beginning last century based on fixed historical markers. It’s good to be skeptical, but you need to do your research before blowing it off.
The people who wrote the Bible were Jews and well aware of the Jewish prophecies. If they were telling the story of the Messiah, then it would have to fulfill the prophecies. Thus, they would have an interest in making sure it did, wouldn’t they?
Your missing the point. And no, Jews did not want the suffering servant messiah, they were looking for the conquering king messiah. Please, first clearly understand the message. Then study to see if it makes sense that the message is a confabrication of man or if it contains a message that transcends space and time. Or not, your choice.
Interesting. Thx
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.