"Virgin Birth" Questions

[Omniskeptical]

Because being called "son of G-d" is what the kings of Israel are called see Psalm 2:7 for David being called G-d's son and 2 Samuel 7:14 for Solomon being called G-d's son. . The NT narrative is trying to establish his claim to the throne of David. This isn't rocket science,

No, it is moron science. David is not a son of god, and the nation had become the uniquely begotten son in the barKochba years. I can't classify it as anything other than the demented ramblings drug-induced gentile shaman calling themselves Judai, and thinking their barkochba was something special.

[Avraham Ibn Ezra]

No, it is moron science. David is not a son of god, and the nation had become the uniquely begotten son in the barKochba years. I can't classify it as anything other than the demented ramblings drug-induced gentile shaman calling themselves Judai, and thinking their barkochba was something special.

As debates go it looks like you can't defend your position beyond name calling and blatant anti Semitic remarks. This conversation is over.

[Teallaura]

Shouldn't you have asked "Did G-d need to cause Sarah to bear Isaac in her old age?" That would be a comparable question to mine. You might want to re-read my OP very carefully. Your question and my initial question are not the same.

The rewording makes no real difference - and I'm not paralleling you usage. The stupid term NEED is the one I want to see how you are actually using it. It's a silly way to refer to God's actions - as I've explained multiple times - but you persist. Either you're just trolling or there's a reason for it. If there's a reason, it should be apparent from your answer to the question so I'll repeat it and even use 'cause' instead of 'make': Did God need to cause Sarah to bear Isaac in her old age?

And to save a little time, the follow up: If so, why?

[Avraham Ibn Ezra]

The rewording makes no real difference - and I'm not paralleling you usage.

Actually it does make a difference. Cause and Make are not necessarily synonyms in this case. hint.

The stupid term NEED is the one I want to see how you are actually using it.

Why are you focused on that word? Why aren't you focused on the phrase "need to cause?"

It's a silly way to refer to God's actions - as I've explained multiple times - but you persist.

It's not really. The problem is what you are focusing on.

Either you're just trolling or there's a reason for it.

Yeah I'm trolling my own thread. Lol

If there's a reason, it should be apparent from your answer to the question so I'll repeat it and even use 'cause' instead of 'make': Did God need to cause Sarah to bear Isaac in her old age?

And to save a little time, the follow up: If so, why?

Since you are being a sport and being civil in this thread I will entertain each of the questions and answer them. Truth be told you hung in there and I like that.

1. Did G-d need the messiah to be born by "virgin birth?"

A. No. G-d, as you stated, doesn't need anything. That is as you say ...a stupid question.

2. Did G-d need to make Sarah give birth to Isaac at an old age?

A. Depends on what you mean by "make." If you mean "make" in a causality sense then, Yes.

3. Did G-d need to cause Sarah to give birth to Isaac at an old age?

A. Yes. The question put forth assumes a prior event or issue and a necessity that has arisen. Sarah was previously Barren and G-d promised Avraham a child through Sarah and a covenant continuing through that child. Hence, in order for G-d to fulfill that promise G-d needed to cause Sarah to conceive and bear a son in her old age.

To make it simple. I asked you In a very non traditional and weird way....is/was a "virgin birth" necessary for the coming of the messiah?

[robrecht]

No, it is moron science. David is not a son of god, and the nation had become the uniquely begotten son in the barKochba years. I can't classify it as anything other than the demented ramblings drug-induced gentile shaman calling themselves Judai, and thinking their barkochba was something special.

I would appreciate it if you would please try not to use offensive language.

[Teallaura]

Actually it does make a difference. Cause and Make are not necessarily synonyms in this case. hint.

The case isn't so precise that the distinction is actually necessary.

Why are you focused on that word? Why aren't you focused on the phrase "need to cause?"

Because its the operative - and if it doesn't exist your question makes little sense.

It's not really. The problem is what you are focusing on.

Is too.

Yeah I'm trolling my own thread. Lol

Quite possibly - starting threads with the intent of being provocative is common troll behavior so the fact that you are the thread starter doesn't eliminate the possibility that you're trolling.

Since you are being a sport and being civil in this thread I will entertain each of the questions and answer them. Truth be told you hung in there and I like that.

1. Did G-d need the messiah to be born by "virgin birth?"

A. No. G-d, as you stated, doesn't need anything. That is as you say ...a stupid question.

2. Did G-d need to make Sarah give birth to Isaac at an old age?

A. Depends on what you mean by "make." If you mean "make" in a causality sense then, Yes.

3. Did G-d need to cause Sarah to give birth to Isaac at an old age?

A. Yes. The question put forth assumes a prior event or issue and a necessity that has arisen. Sarah was previously Barren and G-d promised Avraham a child through Sarah and a covenant continuing through that child. Hence, in order for G-d to fulfill that promise G-d needed to cause Sarah to conceive and bear a son in her old age.

To make it simple. I asked you In a very non traditional and weird way....is/was a "virgin birth" necessary for the coming of the messiah?

This, however, tells me you aren't trolling - and it's appreciated.

You've lost me - I answered this several pages back and you mirrored my answer in #3. The Virgin Birth is a method of authentication. Its 'necessity' arises from God's own prophecies - God creates the need by making the proclamations (we already covered several). Unlike Omni, I don't agree that God 'needed' authentication of any sort - He would have been perfectly in His rights to send a Messiah by FedEx with no label at all, had He so chosen, and we'd still be responsible for recognizing Him. But God chose to foreshadow His coming Messiah and to make Him known by telling us what to look for (however cryptically can be argued). One of those signs was the Virgin Birth.

So what I don't get is why you keep asking the same question? What isn't clear to you?

[Omniskeptical]

As debates go it looks like you can't defend your position beyond name calling and blatant anti Semitic remarks. This conversation is over.

You people call anything anti-Semitic which disagrees with you. The king messiah is a fake ID, and you can't handle it.

[Avraham Ibn Ezra]

This, however, tells me you aren't trolling - and it's appreciated.

You've lost me - I answered this several pages back and you mirrored my answer in #3. The Virgin Birth is a method of authentication. Its 'necessity' arises from God's own prophecies - God creates the need by making the proclamations (we already covered several). Unlike Omni, I don't agree that God 'needed' authentication of any sort - He would have been perfectly in His rights to send a Messiah by FedEx with no label at all, had He so chosen, and we'd still be responsible for recognizing Him. But God chose to foreshadow His coming Messiah and to make Him known by telling us what to look for (however cryptically can be argued). One of those signs was the Virgin Birth.

So what I don't get is why you keep asking the same question? What isn't clear to you?

[Avraham Ibn Ezra]

You people call anything anti-Semitic which disagrees with you. The king messiah is a fake ID, and you can't handle it.

Disagreeing isnt antisemitic. You are trying to conflate and confuse by saying disagreement = Antisemitism and it doesnt.

You did fine until you decided to attack me personally and disparage the Jewish people in your remarks. the problem is that at every turn I have answered and supported my position to you. You still wont address Psalm 2:7 and 2 Samuel 7:14 when it comes to "G-d's son." which I find Hilarious!

Cheers!

[Geert van den Bos]

But God chose to foreshadow His coming Messiah and to make Him known by telling us what to look for (however cryptically can be argued). One of those signs was the Virgin Birth.

How could contemporaries have known that Jesus' mother was still a virgin when she got pregnant? There seems no other way to know than gynaecological investigation. So how could it ever be a sign?

[Teallaura]

The problem I am having is the premises to your conclusion. The answer of "yes" isnt my problem it is the support brought to say that a "virgin birth" is necessary to bring forth the messiah that would lead you to say "Yes." I vehemently disagree as an Orthodox Jew and would say that there isnt anything that would necessitate this type of event.

You're shifting the goalpost at this point - or you are contending that an Orthodox Jew can reasonably hold that there are limits on what God can and cannot do - including creating 'necessities' on His own actions? As a Christian, that is an untenable position - I suspect is is for an Orthodox Jew as well.

And it stems directly from your insistence on the use of 'need/necessity'. That or you think God can't control circumstance - which I doubt.

My position is that a Virgin Birth was 'necessary' ONLY insomuch as God chose to cause it to be necessary. God decided how He would send His Messiah - could have been on eagle's wings, via FedEx, or teleportation but, in His divine wisdom, He picked Incarnation and chose to use Virgin Birth to signify the Child's significance. Are you seriously going to contend that God didn't have the power or the right to do so? If not, then your objection to God having created His own 'necessity' is foolishness.



Women don't have 'seed'. Not really that hard to go from there. You don't have to agree with the interpretation - that's a whole separate argument - but it is one of the supporting passages and has been historically understood to foreshadow a Virgin Birth.

You asked why we view the Virgin Birth as necessary and not how we support it Scripturally. There are better scholars than I that can help you with that. I'm simply explaining how we come to the conclusion. However, I find your rant about the exegesis rather silly - you never asked for that explanation that I recall - you just kept insisting it wasn't 'necessary'.

The connection is that God CAN. There is NOTHING natural in Sarah's childbirth - that's ludicrous. Minus modern medicine or divine intervention old women do NOT suddenly conceive. Sarah was past menopause and her ovaries were mostly spent - she wouldn't have been able to release an egg - let alone prep the womb - unless God caused it happen. If God can reverse menopause then impregnating a woman minus sperm is no biggie for Him. Actually, that's not necessarily the miraculous part - it's long been speculated that a woman could conceive without sperm (there are some natural parallels if memory serves) but the child would necessarily have to be female - the miraculous part is that Jesus was a boy.

I probably should have title the thread "Virgin Birth Questions and Debate" lol That was my mistake and oversight. I am glad we would come to an understanding that I am not trolling or at least not trying to troll.

Shalom,

Avraham Ibn Ezra
Thats my issue.

Would have helped.

[Omniskeptical]

Disagreeing isnt antisemitic. You are trying to conflate and confuse by saying disagreement = Antisemitism and it doesnt.

You did fine until you decided to attack me personally and disparage the Jewish people in your remarks. the problem is that at every turn I have answered and supported my position to you. You still wont address Psalm 2:7 and 2 Samuel 7:14 when it comes to "G-d's son." which I find Hilarious!

Cheers!

Solomon was not a son of God until dead, and there is nothing in the hebrew to imply literal sonship. It is too bad Modern Jews don't notice what few things the OT says about the afterlife. Without sonship, the king messiah may as well be a fake, because the requirements are a fake ID.

There is no way in christianity you can apply sonship to a human being other than Adam or Yeshu without getting laughed.

I tempted to look up the hebrew for begotten now. The hebrew says, "a day I was begetting thee." Bulcrap. The tense seems different from the greek among other things.

[Teallaura]

How could contemporaries have known that Jesus' mother was still a virgin when she got pregnant? There seems no other way to know than gynaecological investigation. So how could it ever be a sign?

They evidently did know there were questions about Jesus' birth ('we don't know who your father was') yet Mary wasn't stoned.

[Geert van den Bos]

They evidently did know there were questions about Jesus' birth ('we don't know who your father was') yet Mary wasn't stoned.

'we don't know who your father was' ???

Matthew 13:55, "Is not this the carpenter's son?"

Luke 4:22,

John 6:42,

Romans 1:3, who was descended from David according to the flesh

[Omniskeptical]

'we don't know who your father was' ???

Matthew 13:55, "Is not this the carpenter's son?"

Presumed to be.

Luke 4:22,

No he wasn't

John 6:42,

In this case, insinuating that the impoverished Mary did not have G-d's uniquely begotten.

Romans 1:3, who was descended from David according to the flesh

But not from Solomon. It is interesting how you ignore Mary's patriarchal line as well.