The Virgin Birth

[Revelations won]

Greetings to all,


It is interesting to see the many and varied suppositions, guesses, speculations, calculations and deductive conclusions that so many arrive at when the clear fact is that all of these are based on fragmentary evidence or the private interpretation of others. Note: this was a topic originally discussed in the Apologetics forum.

Is it not clearly time for all to put away all these supported conception theories? God does not always give us a complete account of things, but does give us understanding based on our spiritual preparedness. (The last time I checked it appears that God usually gives us the answers needed line upon line and precept upon precept.) They vast majority have placed their own self determination,ined "gag order" upon themselves and have by their own choice refused to receive further revelation from God. With this man made approach, man has therefore closed the window of knowledge which could otherwise be obtained only by recvelation from God.

Therefore man is left to his own deductive "private" interpretation and reasoning by this approach which results in the "blind leading the blind" quagmire.

The Jewish leaders of the day falsely accused Christ of being a "bastard child " born out of wedlock. Many today also hold to this same self imposed blind conclusion.

My position is clearly that "Jesus Christ is the only legitimate son of God born of the Father in the flesh." Having said that, it is obvious that "Mary is first and foremost the wife of God the father." For anyone to argue otherwise one would also place themselves in the same "private interpretation" which the the Jewish leaders placed themselves.

Kind regards,
RW

[Eddie Ramos]

Greetings to all,


It is interesting to see the many and varied suppositions, guesses, speculations, calculations and deductive conclusions that so many arrive at when the clear fact is that all of these are based on fragmentary evidence or the private interpretation of others. Note: this was a topic originally discussed in the Apologetics forum.

Is it not clearly time for all to put away all these supported conception theories? God does not always give us a complete account of things, but does give us understanding based on our spiritual preparedness. (The last time I checked it appears that God usually gives us the answers needed line upon line and precept upon precept.) They vast majority have placed their own self determination,ined "gag order" upon themselves and have by their own choice refused to receive further revelation from God. With this man made approach, man has therefore closed the window of knowledge which could otherwise be obtained only by recvelation from God.

Therefore man is left to his own deductive "private" interpretation and reasoning by this approach which results in the "blind leading the blind" quagmire.

The Jewish leaders of the day falsely accused Christ of being a "bastard child " born out of wedlock. Many today also hold to this same self imposed blind conclusion.

My position is clearly that "Jesus Christ is the only legitimate son of God born of the Father in the flesh." Having said that, it is obvious that "Mary is first and foremost the wife of God the father." For anyone to argue otherwise one would also place themselves in the same "private interpretation" which the the Jewish leaders placed themselves.

Kind regards,
RW

I find it odd that you have arrived at such a conclusion by using the Bible's own hermeneutic of "line upon line and precept upon precept". But what it seems that you have failed to do is to harmonize your conclusion on the scriptures as a whole, making your final conclusion, your own private interpretation. No where do we read that Mary had to be the wife of God because at no time was a marriage consumated in a marriage bed, as it is with a husband and wife. In order to know this of Mary, we need to understand what took place to in order for her to conceive and see if God uses any language whatsoever that alludes to any type of intimacy.

The first thing we read is that Mary had found favor in the eyes of God. This of course is language of salvation, as the word "favor" is the word "grace".

Luke 1:30–34 (KJV 1900)
And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. 31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. 32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: 33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. 34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?

Now God is going to explain how Mary will conceive, not having known a man.

Luke 1:35 (KJV 1900)
And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

So, when we look up the word "come upon thee" in reference tot he Holy Ghost, we can see that this language also relates to salvation.

Acts 1:8 (KJV 1900)
But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.

And the word "overshadow" (which only appears 5 times in the New Testament) is used in a way which ties into the Word of God. So, we can see that the description of how Christ was conceived has everything to do with the language of salvation. In other words, Christ was conceived physically, the same way every true child of God wasd conceived spiritually. Born again by the word of God.

1 Peter 1:23 (KJV 1900)
Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible(seed), by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

Because Christ is God in the flesh, he did not need to be born again, as we fallen humans did. But we can see that the process was the same. The seed to bring about life was none other than the incorruptible seed of the Word of God.

The second problem you face is that Mary was espoused to Joseph, this means they were husband and wife because the betrothal period began the commitment of marriage, the same way the true believers are espoused (betrothed) to Christ the groom. Even though we have not yet reached the marriage ceremony stage, he is still our husband the same way Joseph was the husband of Mary. It was during this time that she became with child. If you're claiming that she was married to God, then she would be an adulteress under God's own law.

Deuteronomy 22:23–24 (KJV 1900)
If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; 24 Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour’s wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.

Also, there is no scripture that gives anyone reason to believe that Jesus was a bastard child because the same Pharisees that people claim accused Jesus of being a bastard child (which they didn't) openly acknowledged that he was the son of Joseph. I know this last part was not your own claim, but just for clarification in case somone actually thought that.

John 6:42 (KJV 1900)
And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?

[Revelations won]

Dear Eddie,

Thank you for your response. I ask a few questions to better clarify your response so that I may respond more accurately.

You said "Luke 1:30–34 (KJV 1900)
And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. 31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. 32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: 33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. 34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?"

You should clearly understand that this divine communication to Mary was at the the pre-conception sage.

My first question to you is:

Was "Jesus Christ the son of God the Father who is the "Highest"?

Second question:

You said: "Because Christ is God in the flesh, he did not need to be born again, as we fallen humans did. But we can see that the process was the same. The seed to bring about life was none other than the incorruptible seed of the Word of God. " Did Christ in his premortal state have a body of flesh and bone? I ask this because it appears that you suggest that he did not need to be born again.

My third question to you is:

You said: "The second problem you face is that Mary was espoused to Joseph, this means they were husband and wife because the betrothal period began the commitment of marriage, the same way the true believers are espoused (betrothed) to Christ the groom. Even though we have not yet reached the marriage ceremony stage, he is still our husband the same way Joseph was the husband of Mary. It was during this time that she became with child. If you're claiming that she was married to God, then she would be an adulteress under God's own law.

So in response to your above statement I would ask where do you get your information the Mary actually conceived during the time of their engagement? Is there a scripture that so states this to be the case?

My fourth question is:

Are you implying that Joseph was the father of Jesus? If so why were Joseph and Mary both stoned to death according to the law as you quoted inDeuteronomy?

"Deuteronomy 22:23–24 (KJV 1900)
If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; 24 Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour’s wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.

I look forward to your responses.

Kind regards,
RW

[Eddie Ramos]

Dear Eddie,

My first question to you is:

Was "Jesus Christ the son of God the Father who is the "Highest"?

I'd be glad to answer as best as I am able. Jesus Christ was absolutely the Son of the Father. As far as the Father being the "highest", that position is denoted in the scriptures, especially by Christ himself.

John 14:28 (KJV 1900)
Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

But the problem I find most of the time, is that people always lean on particular scriptures which declare a position that they want to believe. And in approaching the Bible this way, God, in his infinite wisdom, provides them with what they seek. But He does this as both a test and a snare. A test, because he wants to see if the Bible student will follow his own way of understanding the Bible, or if they will follow God's own methodology (as laid out in the scriptures) for coming to a harmonious truth.

2 Timothy 2:15 (KJV 1900)
Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

And a snare, because the Word of God was written to be a stumbling stone to those who do not truly possess the Spirit of God.

1 Peter 2:7–8 (KJV 1900)
Unto you therefore which believe he (Christ) is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, 8 And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.

But what happens when we dare to seek for truth (and are able to in fact see it) is that we wil understand that the Almighty JEHOVAH, the Highest, humbled himself because he was the only one who could pay for the sins of those he chose to redeem from the curse of the law. He did this by emptying himself of all his glory, which is the reason JEHOVAH, as the Christ, always spoke as if he were beneath the Father. And in the person of Christ, he was. The Almighty JEHOVAH became as a servant in the flesh. How humbling is that?

Philippians 2:5–8 (KJV 1900)
Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: 8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

Acts 20:28 (KJV 1900)
Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

So, when we put al the pieces together, the only conclusion which harmonizes with all the the Bible has to say on this matter is that the Christ is JEHOVAH in the flesh.

Jeremiah 23:6 (KJV 1900)
In his days (In the days of Christ) Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his name (Christ's name) whereby he shall be called, JEHOVAH OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.

The name of the Christ is JEHOVAH.

Second question:

You said: "Because Christ is God in the flesh, he did not need to be born again, as we fallen humans did. But we can see that the process was the same. The seed to bring about life was none other than the incorruptible seed of the Word of God. " Did Christ in his premortal state have a body of flesh and bone? I ask this because it appears that you suggest that he did not need to be born again.

By "born again", we need to establish that this was a requirement for any sin cursed human being (mankind) to enter into the kingdom of God. This is explained in this account:

John 3:3–8 (KJV 1900)
Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. 4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born? 5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. 8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

God defines the term, "born again", not as a physical rebirth but as a spiritual rebirth. Notice that Nicodemmus took Christ's words at face value, as if he were speaking plainly? But He wasn't, because Christ did not speak without parables. So, Christ reiterates what he said the first time, but this time adds that unless one is born (again) of water (which is the gospel) and the Spirit (meaning the indwelling of the Holy Spirit), he cannot enter the kingdom of God. So, the term "born again" refers to salvation which is the resurrection of our dead soul, but this time it's been born again into life everlasting because this new soul can never sin again, thus it can never die.

So, to answer your question, Christ always had a body of flesh and bones since before the world began. We can know this by many different ways. First, the Bible tells us that Christ is the image of the invisible God (Col 1:15). And in the beginning, mankind was created in the image and likeness of God, yet because God is invisible, we understand that we were created after the image of Christ himself. Because Christ was the firstborn of every creature.

Secondly, the many appearances throughout the Old Testament, has what the Bible refers to as, "the angel of the Lord" appear. Yet, thourough study reveals that this angel of the Lord was always Christ himself. And one example that comes to mind is in Judges 13, when the angel of the Lord came to visit the wife of Manoah and then later also Manoah, and told them that they would essentially give birth to Samson. Well, the whole time this "angel" was speaking with them, they thought he was a man, a prophet of God. It wasn't until he ascended in the flames that they realized he was God himself and so they feared for their lives because they saw God (face to face). But what ties this account with Christ is the name this angel gave, he said his name was "secret". BUt the word the translators chose here is a very poor choice because it conceals a very important truth. This word "secret" is actually the word "wonderful".

Isaiah 9:6 (KJV 1900)
For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given:
And the government shall be upon his shoulder:
And his name shall be called Wonderful, Counseller, The mighty God,
The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.


There are many more exmaples that can be given thyat prove that Christ had a body of flesh and bones prior to his virgin birth, such as the atonement which took place from the foundation of the world (before the world began).

My third question to you is:

You said: "The second problem you face is that Mary was espoused to Joseph, this means they were husband and wife because the betrothal period began the commitment of marriage, the same way the true believers are espoused (betrothed) to Christ the groom. Even though we have not yet reached the marriage ceremony stage, he is still our husband the same way Joseph was the husband of Mary. It was during this time that she became with child. If you're claiming that she was married to God, then she would be an adulteress under God's own law.

So in response to your above statement I would ask where do you get your information the Mary actually conceived during the time of their engagement? Is there a scripture that so states this to be the case?

Yes, here it is:

Matthew 1:18–25 (KJV 1900)
Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. 19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily. 20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. 21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins. 22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, 23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. 24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: 25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

My fourth question is:

Are you implying that Joseph was the father of Jesus? If so why were Joseph and Mary both stoned to death according to the law as you quoted inDeuteronomy?

"Deuteronomy 22:23–24 (KJV 1900)
If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; 24 Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour’s wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.

I look forward to your responses.

Kind regards,
RW

No, I was saying that it was believed, by those who rejected that Jesus was the Christ (meaning born of a virgin as the prophecy foretold) that he was believed to be the son of Joseph. He, of course wasn't.

Luke 3:23 (KJV 1900)
And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,

Matthew 13:55 (KJV 1900)
Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?

But hypothetically, even if Joseph was the actual father of Jesus, the law of Deuteronomy 22:23-24 would not apply to them, as "the man" that finds her and lies with her would be a third individual that is not her betrothed. In this case, Mary (the betrothed) and the third individual would die. Joseph would be blameless. I bring this up as a hypothetical because this is actually what Joseph thought took place. He thought that MAry, his betrothed wife, laid with another man and became with child. But, because he was a just man, he didn;t want to make Mary a public example, meaning have her stoned to death. He instead had another option which the law allowed which was to put her away.

[JehovahsWitness]

Mary is first and foremost the wife of God the father. ...

Where is this in the bible? Mary is only ever referred to as wife of Joseph, so which scripture speaks of Mary as being ... "first and foremost the wife of God the father"?

[myth-one.com]

Mary is first and foremost the wife of God the father.

We are instructed to pray to "our Father which art in Heaven." So God the Father is in Heaven.

If God is in Heaven, then He has no wife as there is no marriage in the Kingdom of God in Heaven:

For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven. (Mark 12:25)

God created marriage to produce families. The sexual act within marriage procreates the human race. In the Kingdom of God, there are no humans and thus no marriage. There we will be like the angels which live forever. Since angels live forever, there is no need to reproduce themselves; and thus no need for marriage.

[Revelations won]

Dear Eddie Ramos,

I respond to you by agreeing with several views you have stated. I agree that HE CHRIST IS THE LITERAL SON OF GOD THE FTHER IN THE FLESH.

I have one question for you.

Is Christ the legitimate son of God the Father?

kind regards,
RW

[Revelations won]

Dear JW,

I respond to your question in good Hebrew fashion by asking a question for clarification.

Was Jesus Christ the LITERAL and LEGITIMENT Son of God the Father?

kind regards,
RW

[Eddie Ramos]

Dear Eddie Ramos,

I respond to you by agreeing with several views you have stated. I agree that HE CHRIST IS THE LITERAL SON OF GOD THE FTHER IN THE FLESH.

I have one question for you.

Is Christ the legitimate son of God the Father?

kind regards,
RW

I don´t seem to receive any notification of your (or anyone's) reply unless you quote me in your reply (I don´t know how to change that setting). This is why I totally missed your response. Now, before I answer your question, I do hope that wherevever you are taking this question, that you have taken into consideration my previous responses to your other questions. Too often biblical answers are ignored for the sake isolating a particular doctrine and I'd prefer not to do that in every thread.

While the Godhead is past our finite understanding, all we can conclude is based on the information God uses to describe His deity. One of the ways God has decided to reveal His deity is in the form of The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit, yet these three are one God. The Son, therefore, is said to have been begotten of the Father, so the answer to your question is, yes, Jesus Christ is the legitimate Son of God the Father. But we must always keep in mind that we (as finite fallen human beings) cannot take our same limitations and apply them to our inifinite creator, God. Like the fact that human conception requires intimacy between a male and a female. But God is not limited in such ways, as I will show below.

Psalm 2:7–9 (KJV 1900)
7  I will declare the decree:
The LORD hath said unto me (unto Christ), Thou art my Son;
This day have I begotten thee.
8  Ask of me,
And I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance,
And the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.
9  Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron;
Thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel.

As we'll see, Psalm 2:7 is a prophecy of Christ's resurrection from the dead, because raising from the dead is like being born again.

Ephesians 2:5 (KJV 1900)
Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us (made us alive; saved us) together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved)

1 Peter 1:3 (KJV 1900)
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again (born again) unto a lively hope by (meaning, through) the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,

Romans 6:4–5 (KJV 1900)
Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life (this is eternal life through salvation). 5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:

Now, here is the historical fulfilment of Psalm 2:7:

Acts 13:32–33 (KJV 1900)
And we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers, 33 God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.

So, again, the rainsing from the dead is being equated with having been begotten of God, thus being declared to be His Son. This is also exactly the way salvation worked in the life of every elect. We became sons the moment we (having been dead in sins) were raised to spiritual life.

But, Christ's death, burrial and resurrection, in order to be become the Son of God, was a historical fulfilment. I point this out because what most people miss is the fact that even before Christ was born of a virgin, he was declared to be the Son of God. Yet as I mentioned earlier, the prerequisite for being called a Son was to raise from the dead.

Romans 1:3–4 (KJV 1900)
Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; 4 And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by (meaning, through) the resurrection from the dead:

This then raises a question. How then could Jesus be called the Son of God before dying on the cross and raising again? The answer is because Christ died and rose again to make payment for sins before the world began, and not at the cross.

Hebrews 4:3 (KJV 1900)
For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world.

This is why God called him His Son long before the New Testament resurrection.

Luke 1:35 (KJV 1900)
And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
"Declared to be the Son of God...BY the resurrection from the dead" (Rom 1:4).

Matthew 3:17 (KJV 1900)
And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
"Declared to be the Son of God...BY the resurrection from the dead" (Rom 1:4).

I hope you can see the mistake of thinking that just being physically born of a woman in order to fulfill prophecy is what allowed Christ to be declared to be the Son of God, because it wasn't. His resurrection from the dead is what brought about the relationship of Father and Son, as it did with every elect of God.

[JehovahsWitness]

Dear JW,

I respond to your question in good Hebrew fashion by asking a question for clarification.

Was Jesus Christ the LITERAL and LEGITIMENT Son of God the Father?

kind regards,
RW

Il not sure what you mean by literal , if by literal you mean was YHWH (Jehovah ) responsible for his life , then yes on both counts.