Is the virgin birth essential doctrine

[slayer]

Mainline conservative Christians insist that among the few doctrines that are essential for salvation, the sinner must believe that Jesus was born of a virgin.

Sure, that doctrine is taught in the bible, but since neither Mark, John, Paul nor Jesus ever mentioned it, where did you ever get the idea that believing Jesus was born of a virgin is required for salvation?

Could it be that you got that idea from confident-sounding fundamentalists whose position on the matter you never bothered to seriously check out?

[1213]

Mainline conservative Christians insist that among the few doctrines that are essential for salvation, the sinner must believe that Jesus was born of a virgin.

Sure, that doctrine is taught in the bible, but since neither Mark, John, Paul nor Jesus ever mentioned it, where did you ever get the idea that believing Jesus was born of a virgin is required for salvation?

I think it is not required, but if you believe that God is and that Jesus told the truth, virgin birth is not in my opinion the greatest “unnatural thing�. If person can believe that God is, I don’t see why he couldn’t as well believe that he caused birth of Jesus.

[Divine Insight]

So...how about those bible verses? Should I give you a few decades to find them, or can you admit the obvious?

A few decades? The only time I need is the time it takes to write this post:

John.3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

According to John, if you don't believe in Jesus as the "Only begotten Son of God", then you are condemned already.

So there you have it. If you reject the virgin birth of Jesus as the miraculous "only begotten son of God", then you are condemned. Thus to believe in the virgin birth is paramount to your salvation. Without it, your are condemned already.

For the Bible Tells us so.

See, that didn't take decades to find.

[slayer]

[Replying to post 5 by OnceConvinced]

I'm pretty sure there's no scripture that says you can't be a true Christian if you don't believe in the virgin birth. But then there are many things Christians reckon you should believe to be considered a true Christian. There's lots of fine print. That's why its impossible to determine who the true Christians are.

Having said that though, if you don't believe in the virgin birth then you would have to question whether Jesus was the son of God. The whole virgin birth story requires that it was God who impregnated Mary, not anyone else, other wise he can't be God's son and you must believe he is God's son.

So, if no virgin birth, then you have more questions. How did Jesus become the son of God if not conceived by God? Did God miraculously take a human baby and insert the spirit of his son into it? Did he magically transform the baby that was already in Mary's womb to become Jesus?

Well Acts 13:33 says the day Jesus was begotten by God was the day Jesus rose from the dead, so there is a sense in which Jesus can be god's son without requiring virgin birth.

[slayer]

[Replying to post 8 by Overcomer]

Thanks for your human logic, but because the bible often specifies what is minimally necessary to be saved (Romans 10:9, Matthew 5:20, 19:17, John 8:24), I have a problem with your hypothesis not appearing in the bible in equally specific language.

It seems quite conclusive that if Jesus taught what was necessary for sinners to do to get saved, and if the NT reliably records those words, then the NT should have Jesus requiring belief in his virgin birth using language no less specific than the language he used in the verses cited above.

Jesus never mentions it.
Paul never mentions it.
John never mentions it.
Mark never mentions it.
Nothing in the NT after Luke mentions it.
When Matthew and Luke mention it, they make no more effort to specify it essential to salvation than Matthew specifies that his story of a zombie-resurrection (Matthew 27:52) must be believed to effect salvation.

You will say how could Jesus be a savior of sin without being unblemished? But if a child can be authentically born again without needing to know about more complex doctrines like the Trinity or his relation to the Father in eternity past, then the fact that something is theologically necessary, doesn't argue it is essential belief.

[slayer]

[Replying to post 12 by Divine Insight]

Acts 13:33 says the day Jesus was begotten of God was the day he was raised from the dead. So since the resurrection is a basis for saying Jesus is begotten of God, you can fulfill the requirements of John 3 without believing in the virgin birth.

Also, there is no need for the virgin birth anyway. There is no reason why God impregnating Mary necessitated that she stay a virgin. God assumed the form of a man several times in the OT, and with Luke saying "overshadowed", the act could just as easily have been as physical as sex between two human beings.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 5 by OnceConvinced]

I'm pretty sure there's no scripture that says you can't be a true Christian if you don't believe in the virgin birth. But then there are many things Christians reckon you should believe to be considered a true Christian. There's lots of fine print. That's why its impossible to determine who the true Christians are.

Having said that though, if you don't believe in the virgin birth then you would have to question whether Jesus was the son of God. The whole virgin birth story requires that it was God who impregnated Mary, not anyone else, other wise he can't be God's son and you must believe he is God's son.

So, if no virgin birth, then you have more questions. How did Jesus become the son of God if not conceived by God? Did God miraculously take a human baby and insert the spirit of his son into it? Did he magically transform the baby that was already in Mary's womb to become Jesus?

Well Acts 13:33 says the day Jesus was begotten by God was the day Jesus rose from the dead, so there is a sense in which Jesus can be god's son without requiring virgin birth.

What? That verse has nothing to do with Jesus. I agree that the 'virgin birth is not essential doctrine. But the reference to Psalms simply indicates someone with a theological axe to grind quoted Psalms out of context. It has nothing to do with Jesus except in the imagination of some.

Then he will speak to them in his wrath,
and terrify them in his fury, saying,
“As for me, I have set my King
on Zion, my holy hill.�
I will tell of the decree:
The Lord said to me, “You are my Son;
today I have begotten you.
Ask of me, and I will make the nations your heritage,
and the ends of the earth your possession.
You shall break them with a rod of iron
and dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel.�*
Psalm 2:5-9

This could be about anyone, but most likely the Psalmist himself. This is a good example of the church writers discrediting themselves by stretching too far to make the Tanakh all about Jesus.

I think this is an example of an error that creeps into the thinking of many Christians because they have been raised with what they call "The Bible" which is actually two entirely separate collections. The first is the Jewish Tanakh which they label the "Old Testament." The second is a collection of documents the church decided they liked and bundled together. It is now called the "New Testament." Then they are bound together in leather or cloth or paper and called "The Holy Bible," as if Thomas Nelson, or Zondervan, or Holman stood at God's right hand. This work of man is then cited as if it came down from God himself on stone tablets. The sheer preposterousness of this claim is astounding.


_________________
*BTW, speaking of
"You shall break them with a rod of iron
and dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel,�
Jesus did nothing of the kind. He was a moral leader, a religious teacher who was broken on a cross. He "dashed to pieces" no one.