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?

[JoeyKnothead]

From the OP:

Can you be saved if you deny the virgin birth?

No.

Many, to nigh be most of Christians're still keen to legislate your rights away.

[Divine Insight]

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, ....

So do you believe the bible or not?

If not, then why are you worried about what's supposedly required for salvation?

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 3 by Divine Insight]

Does it matter if he believes or not? Although this debate has been raging for I dare say 2000 years. Seems like the virgin people been a winning that debate for a while now. I guess the point I surmise he is trying to make is that if it is not necessary for salvation why such vociferous enforcement of that line of ideology.

I reckon that quite a few people who have debated on this site render those that don't see the divinity of Jesus through a virgin birth are not christian etc etc.

Perhaps though another question why suspend reason and logic to defend something that is not explicitly necessary for salvation?

[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?

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 5 by OnceConvinced]

Well I guess its magic either way, but we could surmise that Jesus had the right mother and father i.e. Mary and Joseph to fulfill the magical requirements of transposing the god entity into its body. Sort of like those video game rituals where there is a chosen one that must be sacrificed on X day at X hour so that a reincarnated god could usurp this individuals body. Also the bible speaks of stars aligning so I reckon that had something to do with it to.

[Divine Insight]

Let's not forget also that ancient people knew nothing of genetics. They had no clue that a woman produces an egg and the man supplies the sperm and together the offspring is a combination of the mother's and the father's genetic material.

Instead, they believed in a 'homunculus'. A fully formed miniature human that is supplied entirely by the man and merely incubated by the woman. This was a very patriarchal society. Only the fathers contributed to the offspring, not the mothers.

So a virgin birth by a woman who was "impregnated" by God would be seen as nothing more than a woman who served as an incubator for God's Son. There would be nothing in Jesus that actually came from Mary. Mary would have simply been a volunteer incubator for God's Son. Jesus would have them come 100% from God.

Mary would have no more to do with Jesus than Joseph in any "genetic" sense.

If they actually knew about genetics they probably would no longer believe in demigods. I don't think the people who wrote the Gospels rumors were prepared to believe that Jesus was "half man". Or that he got half of his genetics from Mary and only the other half from God. In fact, that very thought would have probably been considered blaspheme at that time. You can't have Jesus being half Mary and half God.

That's certainly not going to work in a male-chauvinistic society. That would leave Joseph clean out in the cold altogether.

They clearly were not aware of genetics or this demigod myth probably would have never even gotten off the ground.

They were most likely thinking in terms of a "homunculus" even if they didn't actually have that term yet. They probably had that concept in mind. The actual term wasn't invented until about the 17th century, but the idea was probably much older.

I'm sure they imagined God planting an in-tact Jesus into Mary's womb.

Not merely fertilizing one of HER eggs.

Even if they knew about eggs, I'm sure they would imagine God having started with a completely empty egg and supplying 100% of Jesus into that egg. I'm sure they would never allow for Jesus to be half God and half Mary.

[Overcomer]

Yes, the virgin birth is an essential doctrine of Christianity. Here's why:

People in Old Testament days sacrificed animals for their sins. However, those sacrifices did not eradicate their sins. They only covered them temporarily. That meant people had to perform sacrifices over and over. And the animals sacrificed had to be unblemished.

Only a human being could atone for the sins of humanity once and for all. Such a human being would have to be "unblemished". In human terms, that means he had to be free of sin. However, all human beings are born with sin natures that we cannot change.

To get around that problem, the Holy Spirit moved in Mary. Jesus, as the second person of the Triune Godhead, came to earth as both God AND man. As God, he was sin-free. This makes him the one and only being who could atone for the sins of humanity. If he had a human father as well as a human mother, he would not have been sin-free and he would not have been able to die in our place and provide salvation for us.

This is why Christ and Christ alone is the way to God and eternal life. This is why the virgin birth is an essential doctrine.

You will find that mainline Christian churches agree on the primary doctrines, that is, the doctrines that are essential to salvation. They are: The Trinity, Jesus as the Second Person of the Trinity, Jesus coming to earth as God Incarnate, Jesus dying and being raised from the dead to atone for our sins, salvation by faith in Christ and Christ alone, the infilling of the Holy Spirit who is the third person of the Trinity, and the expected return of Christ.

They disagree on secondary doctrines such as baptism by full-immersion vs. sprinkling, gifts of the Spirit, etc. But these are not essential to salvation.

As for people in that day and age being "stupid" about eggs, sperm, DNA, etc., they knew very well that it took a male and a female of a species to create life. They would understand that a birth without a man in the picture was a miracle -- just as we understand it today. Knowing about DNA would not change that in any way.

[Divine Insight]

As for people in that day and age being "stupid" about eggs, sperm, DNA, etc., they knew very well that it took a male and a female of a species to create life. They would understand that a birth without a man in the picture was a miracle -- just as we understand it today. Knowing about DNA would not change that in any way.

People as late as the 17th century were that "stupid". They knew that a man had to impregnate a woman. But they believed that the entire fetus came from the man in the form of a fully devolved miniature human called a "Homunculus". They believe that the child came from the man entirely and the woman was just an incubator. In fact, when Gregor Mendel discovered that both the male and the female contribute genetic material to the offspring he was scoffed at and branded as being the one who is "stupid".

But Gregor Mendel was right, as we all know today.

So if people were this stupid clear up to the 17th century they were surely that stupid back in the days of Jesus.

Yes, the virgin birth is an essential doctrine of Christianity. Here's why:

People in Old Testament days sacrificed animals for their sins. However, those sacrifices did not eradicate their sins. They only covered them temporarily. That meant people had to perform sacrifices over and over. And the animals sacrificed had to be unblemished.

That is exactly right. This is the foundational superstition of Christianity. Christianity is a religion that is entirely based upon the idea that sacrificing "unblemished" animals will atone your sins. And this it the superstition of the Old Testament. One of the many reasons why I reject the Old Testament as being absurd, by the way.

Only a human being could atone for the sins of humanity once and for all. Such a human being would have to be "unblemished". In human terms, that means he had to be free of sin. However, all human beings are born with sin natures that we cannot change.

I agree that this is indeed the Christian superstition without a doubt. You've nailed it to be sure. Although there are Christian denomination that reject these superstitious ideas. But I agree with you that this is indeed the central superstition of Christianity.

To get around that problem, the Holy Spirit moved in Mary. Jesus, as the second person of the Triune Godhead, came to earth as both God AND man. As God, he was sin-free. This makes him the one and only being who could atone for the sins of humanity. If he had a human father as well as a human mother, he would not have been sin-free and he would not have been able to die in our place and provide salvation for us.

But this whole superstition brakes down entirely in the Jesus Story. Jesus was not "Sacrificed to God" as an atonement by men. On the contrary he was brutally and disrespectfully humiliated, beaten and nailed to a pole on charges of blaspheme against God. So Jesus was not a sacrificial lamb being sacrificed to God by men with the intent of atoning their sins.

This is why Christ and Christ alone is the way to God and eternal life. This is why the virgin birth is an essential doctrine.

And there are so many reasons why this superstition doesn't hold water.

If Jesus was God then it's not even remotely remarkable that he would be without sin. After all it's God himself who hates sin. Therefore Jesus would never be tempted by sin in the least. How could Jesus be tempted by something that he hates?

Jesus could not be both God and Man. Because by being God Jesus would need to have divine knowledge. Jesus would have no need to have "faith" because Jesus would know the truth of reality. But no man has that knowledge. Therefore Jesus could not have been a man. He may have had the physical body of a man, but if he was God then he was as far from being a man as he could possibly be.

Jesus could have never have known what it was like to be a man if he was God. Because there never would have been a point when Jesus was uncertain of anything.

Also, if Jesus was God, then it would have been impossible for Jesus to have failed in his "mission". For if Jesus was God and he failed, then God would have failed. So once again, this makes Jesus a totally trivial gesture because Jesus could not have possibly failed. Nor could he even have had the capability of ever sinning. If Jesus was God and Jesus fell to the temptation of sin (which is absurd to begin with because God supposedly hates sin so how could he have ever been tempted to sin in the first place?), and so it would not have even been remotely surprising that Jesus would never sin. UNLIKE a man, Jesus would have never even been attracted to sin. Therefore Jesus could not have even been sexually attracted to women, because if he was, then he would have had sin in his thoughts, but Jesus himself taught that to even think of a sin is the same as committing it. So Jesus could not have had the same temptations as men. And if that's true, then Jesus could not be said to have ever been a "man".

Just because he was a God who was incarnated into a man's body wouldn't make him a man. In order to actually be a man, he would need to experience all of man's frailties, temptations, and desires, etc. So this whole superstitious claim that Jesus was both 100% God and 100% man is clearly a bogus claim that cannot be true. It would be impossible to be both 100% God and 100% man simultaneously because those two states of being are incompatible with each other.

So these superstitions fail miserably.

You will find that mainline Christian churches agree on the primary doctrines, that is, the doctrines that are essential to salvation. They are: The Trinity, Jesus as the Second Person of the Trinity, Jesus coming to earth as God Incarnate, Jesus dying and being raised from the dead to atone for our sins, salvation by faith in Christ and Christ alone, the infilling of the Holy Spirit who is the third person of the Trinity, and the expected return of Christ.

They disagree on secondary doctrines such as baptism by full-immersion vs. sprinkling, gifts of the Spirit, etc. But these are not essential to salvation.

The idea of Jesus being raised from the dead also flies in the face of atoning sins.

To begin with, the wages of sin is death, it's not being badly beaten or nailed to a poll. There was never any proclamation in this religion that the wages of sin was to be given a spanking or a beating. The wages of sin is death. And Jesus would not have even needed to die a brutal death to pay the wages of sin.

But this requires that the death is permanent. It's spiritual death. You don't get resurrected in 3 days and then ascend to heaven to be granted eternal life with God in paradise.

Jesus did not suffer the "wages of sin", on the contrary, he was awarded precisely what every Christians dreams and hopes for. Jesus was awarded precisely the gift of eternal life that is reserved for saints and those who have been atoned of sins. So there's no way that it can be said that Jesus 'paid' the wages of sin for all of humanity. In fact, Jesus didn't even pay the wages of sin for even one single person. He didn't die spiritually and permanently. He was risen and given eternal life, the reward of saint, not the wages of sin.

So these superstitious fables don't even remotely make any sense.

They blow it on many levels. Not the least of which was having a multitude of other saints being resurrected with Jesus by being physically jostled from their graves, and physically climbing out of them in their physical bodies. Just as Jesus was supposedly resurrected in a physical body (not a spiritual body).

In fact, at the end of the story Jesus even takes his physical body with him as he magically ascend to heaven taking his physical body with him. This implies that he would need his physical body in heaven. Otherwise why bother taking it with him?

This also implies that heaven is in a certain physical direction, and not in an entirely other dimension. After all, why would he ascend upward into "heaven" instead of simply fading away and just disappearing into another dimension?

Clearly these fables contain so many absurdities and errors. They aren't even consistent with their own claims about what heaven and spirituality are supposed to be about.

None of this works. Nor can it be made to work in any rational sense.

This is precisely why this religion is clearly false. It cannot be anything more than a collection of very poorly thought out superstitions.

And just look where it came from: It came from a time and place where superstitions of demigods, and magical miracles were very commonplace. Islam was basically born from this same religion and they believe that there prophet rode a flying horse to heaven.

You had claimed that these people back then weren't that "stupid" but I'm afraid that they have indeed proven you wrong. They were indeed that stupid, without a doubt.

[slayer]

[Replying to post 3 by Divine Insight]

So do you believe the bible or not?

Yes, and no...since some parts I think are true, and other parts I think are false.

If not, then why are you worried about what's supposedly required for salvation? Think

Well if fundamentalists can err with respect to what's required for salvation, that might indicate to the reader that the bible's message of salvation is so difficult to discern that not even those who profess to be born again and thus have extra help from the Holy Spirit can figure it out, leaving unbelievers with perfect justification to just ignore the impossible.

Do you think the NT teaches that belief in the virgin birth of Jesus is required for salvation? If so, show this from the NT. Do not quote NT passages that speak about the virgin birth as a fact. Quote only the NT passages that specify that belief in that doctrine is required for salvation.

if you cannot think of a bible verse that teaches that belief in the virgin birth is essential to salvation, then maybe you need to be open to the possibility that, for all your fundie dogmatism, you got something in the bible 100% wrong.

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