BellaOnline Forums Religion and Spirituality Bible Basics Virgin Birth of Jesus discussion

The Christian idea of a virgin birth is derived from the verse in Isaiah 7:14 describing an "alma" as giving birth. The word "alma" has always meant a young woman, but Christian theologians came centuries later and translated it as "virgin." This accords Jesus� birth with the first century pagan idea of mortals being impregnated by gods.

However, it is not said that the Messiah has to be of a virgin.

In fact, if we look at the Jewish Tanakh (bible), we see the "requirements" of the Mashiach (messiah):

There are a wide variety of opinions on the subject of when the mashiach will come. Some of Judaism's greatest minds have cursed those who try to predict the time of the mashiach's coming, because errors in such predictions could cause people to lose faith in the messianic idea or in Judaism itself. This actually happened in the 17th century, when Shabbatai Tzvi claimed to be the mashiach. When Tzvi converted to Islam under threat of death, many Jews converted with him. Nevertheless, this prohibition has not stopped anyone from speculating about the time when the mashiach will come.

Although some scholars believed that G-d has set aside a specific date for the coming of the mashiach, most authority suggests that the conduct of mankind will determine the time of the mashiach's coming. In general, it is believed that the mashiach will come in a time when he is most needed (because the world is so sinful), or in a time when he is most deserved (because the world is so good). For example, each of the following has been suggested as the time when the mashiach will come:

if Israel repented a single day;
if Israel observed a single Shabbat properly;
if Israel observed two Shabbats in a row properly;
in a generation that is totally innocent or totally guilty;
in a generation that loses hope;
in a generation where children are totally disrespectful towards their parents and elders;

The mashiach will be a great political leader descended from King David (Jeremiah 23:5). The mashiach is often referred to as "mashiach ben David" (mashiach, son of David). He will be well-versed in Jewish law, and observant of its commandments (Isaiah 11:2-5). He will be a charismatic leader, inspiring others to follow his example. He will be a great military leader, who will win battles for Israel. He will be a great judge, who makes righteous decisions (Jeremiah 33:15). But above all, he will be a human being, not a god, demi-god or other supernatural being.

It has been said that in every generation, a person is born with the potential to be the mashiach. If the time is right for the messianic age within that person's lifetime, then that person will be the mashiach. But if that person dies before he completes the mission of the mashiach, then that person is not the mashiach.

Beloved readers, I am going to get intense. I love you all in the name of Christ, and I want you all to stand on solid rock in your faith. Check up on what I'm gonna tell you. Look these things up in your Bible.

First, where does anyone read that James was older than Jesus? Let's have a verse reference on that one, okay? (there are lots of Jameses in the NT, so be careful).

Second, no other wife is mentioned for Joseph, and no other wife for Joseph is required to render the text sensible.

Third, let's get back to Bible Basics. Speculations from one end of the spectrum to the other are thick all over the internet and in endless books. But this forum is about what the Bible teaches: Luke 1:31 and 34...an angel tells Mary she will conceive in her womb and bring forth a son, Jesus. She asks him how this can be since she does not know a man. In verse 35 the angel says the Holy Spirit will overshadow her and that the Holy One to be born will be called the Son of God. Crystal clear and unequivocal if you just read the plain meaning of the verse.

And yes, Jesus had brothers and sisters. Matthew 1:25 says clearly that Joseph did not know her (kept her a virgin) TILL she had brought forth her firstborn son. The plain implication is that they consummated the marriage after that, and that implication is supported by his brothers being named and his sisters mentioned in Matthew 13:55-56.

To come up with alternate interpretations of these passages, you have to trust what some scholar says, or what the Roman Catholic church has declared, over the plain reading of Scripture, when there is just no reason to do that.

These events were real, on-the-planet happenings. They matter immensely, and it is critical to understand them accurately. Remember what Lynn said: in order for Jesus' death on the cross to truly pay for the sins of the whole world (his whole reason for coming to earth), he had to be sinless. He had to be God, and he was (and is!). A man born of man and woman would not qualify as a perfect sacrifice. Only the God-man, born of a virgin, would do. I cannot stress enough the importance of this doctrine. If you are not prepared to believe this truth, then you do not believe Christianity is true. You believe perhaps something similar to Christianity that is more comfortable for you, but it is not the truth.

Please study the Word. The days are coming when you will desperately need to know without a doubt that the Object of your faith is real, and that his Word is true.

I would have to agree with you here Jase.

In Isaiah 7:14, Hebrew means maiden, not virgin. Isaiah 7:14 explanation

btw... I am just adding to the conversation. I am not meaning any disrespect. I am just adding my uniquely jewish thoughts to the process

In a previous post I said: some religious scholars say that the the word "virgin" was mistranslated in the Septaugint, the Greek translation that the gospel writers used and should have said "young woman". so this means the story could have been based on a mistranslation.

LeeAnn you said:
By the way, you might've noticed that "some religious scholars" often have agendas of their own, and are not the least interested in confirming anything positive about Scripture.

So couldn't the same thing be said about the Bible we follow today? After all the gospel of Judas is left out, the gospel of Thomas is left out and even the gospel of Jesus Himself is left out. Why is that? Why do the powers that be leave those out?

Also, Jesus was Jewish. Are we wrong for not being Jewish? If not, how come?

Why do we celebrate Christmas on Dec. 25?

Why is Easter always celebrated the first Sunday after the Spring solstice?

Well, LeeAnn, I read through the entire New Testament last night and in the version I have, I could find very little mention of James, the brother of Jesus. Now I am very curious just where I did read about James being the older brother of Jesus.

My younger brother and I had this discussion several years ago and thru research my brother found that James was an older brother, but was from Joseph's first wife who died. I will have to find out if my brother can remember where he found that bit of info.

Here is a link to some info I just found on the subject:

James, Brother Of Jesus


Here is another link with info:

James The Apostle

From Wikipedia:
James, Stepbrother

Stepbrother
The most commonly held belief by Eastern Orthodox and Catholics alike is that James was the stepbrother of Jesus.[citation needed] The Protevangelium of James assumes the Greek nature of Jewish practices during this period in history and says that Mary was betrothed to an older relative in order to preserve her virginity (he could not have had sex with her, it would have been incest); that Joseph already had children - James was already a boy when Jesus was born. The Protevangelium of James is one of the earliest documents (AD 150) and although it was not included in scripture, its traditional testimony was accepted by the early church.[citation needed]

Wild and woolly assertions breaking out all over the place.

Would you not say "maiden", "young woman", and "virgin" have been understood to be synonymous, in most times and cultures EXCEPT, notably, our own? And yes, of course, I know many a "young woman" pretended to be virgin when she was not, especially in cultures when it was critical for her marriageability or even her life. Nonetheless, virginity was assumed for maidens and young women, until they were married. That's how it was supposed to be in the cultures we're talking about.

Regardless, I'm more interested in why people want to insist that Jesus needn't be born of a virgin? What's the motivation for that?

Phyllis, that first link about James was really good. The problem with the Wikipedia quote is this: "The most commonly held belief by Eastern Orthodox and Catholics alike..."
I write Bible Basics from a 'plain old Bible' point of view. Both Eastern Orthodox and Catholics put far more stock in what post-Biblical authorities declare than most conservative Christians do. The Roman Catholic Church, for example, decided at some point that Mary had to be "ever virgin". So, they had to explain away Jesus' brothers and sisters in some manner. Don't make up stuff about Mary, and you don't have to do that.

The Protevangelium of James is not in the Canon. There are good reasons to stick with the books recognized as canonical. If I can ever get out of the forum tonight, I'll finish the article I'm writing about that (for tomorrow!).

Again, I'm more interested in why people want to invent this back story. Why is not the plain reading in the NT books good enough? I really don't get that. If someone can shed some light on what's behind that mindset, I'm interested to understand it. To me it seems like being "tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine", which can serve no purpose but to distract us from the central truth and person of Jesus Christ.

I'm not ignoring your questions/objections, Vance. I'll get to Jewishness, Christmas, and the Easter fiasco, all in good time. Not today.