The virgin birth of Jesus - through His mother Mary - is one statement widely accepted as a key component of Christian doctrine. It is also highly contested by non-Christians, cults and Christian spin-offs.
Take a second look at the gospel message. The key focus in the gospel is that God sent His Son, the man Jesus Christ into the world to die on the cross for our sins.
The key here is this - that God sent His Son. The method of which He sent His Son is not the priority - it is the act itself.
The Blueprint:
Chapter 4:
Chapter 4 opens up with a short discussion of what is important to Christians - drawing a comparison of the statements of "Jesus is Lord" vs "Jesus lived in Galilee". Where both are irrefutable truths, one is crucial to know and believe, the other is a mere statement with little importance to the overall Gospel truth.
Similarly, the virgin birth is true, yet of little importance to the overall gospel message.
However, it is one of the crux points of the Christian faith, thus justifying its' inclusion in the statement of faith that many Christian organisations make.
There is no doubt in the fact of Jesus's birth. Where the virgin birth itself is only recorded in Matthew and Luke, we do see evidences of it in other parts of the gospel. In Mark, for example, it is recorded that the people of Galilee call Him the son of Mary, rather than the son of Joseph. Also, they give snide comments about illegitimate children in His presence.
That leaves us enough Biblical proof that Joseph is not the father of Jesus.
The next question is, how can we know for sure from Scripture that Jesus is indeed conceived by the Holy Spirit, and not by another man?
In addition to the gospel accounts themselves, also Isaiah 7:14 - "Therefore the LORD Himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call Him Immanuel"
If Jesus is indeed God's sign to the people of the world that the Kingdom of God has come, then He is that child.
Beyond that, the supernatural nature of Christ - fully man, fully God - complements His supernatural birth. His supernatural resurrection and rising up into heaven complements it.
So, why attack this doctrine?
1. It makes no sense for a virgin to give birth. Duh.
2. To undermine Jesus's birth through such supernatural means would be to undermine His identity.
Some warped views: Jesus was God projecting His image as a man / Jesus was a man who was so perfect God took Him up to heaven etc... this kinda nonsense.
Part 2
The next important truth to take away from the virgin birth is this - Mary is but another human.
Many people, Catholics and cults alike, take Mary to be "extra blessed" because of this miracle. The fact is, Mary is but the instrument of God's miracle - and she knows it, declaring herself the Lord's servant (Luke 1:38)
Furthermore, Jesus Himself rejects her as having any significance to the gospel work - preaching that whoever hears and does the work of the Lord is His mother / brother.
Take a second look at the gospel message. The key focus in the gospel is that God sent His Son, the man Jesus Christ into the world to die on the cross for our sins.
The key here is this - that God sent His Son. The method of which He sent His Son is not the priority - it is the act itself.
The Blueprint:
Chapter 4:
Chapter 4 opens up with a short discussion of what is important to Christians - drawing a comparison of the statements of "Jesus is Lord" vs "Jesus lived in Galilee". Where both are irrefutable truths, one is crucial to know and believe, the other is a mere statement with little importance to the overall Gospel truth.
Similarly, the virgin birth is true, yet of little importance to the overall gospel message.
However, it is one of the crux points of the Christian faith, thus justifying its' inclusion in the statement of faith that many Christian organisations make.
There is no doubt in the fact of Jesus's birth. Where the virgin birth itself is only recorded in Matthew and Luke, we do see evidences of it in other parts of the gospel. In Mark, for example, it is recorded that the people of Galilee call Him the son of Mary, rather than the son of Joseph. Also, they give snide comments about illegitimate children in His presence.
That leaves us enough Biblical proof that Joseph is not the father of Jesus.
The next question is, how can we know for sure from Scripture that Jesus is indeed conceived by the Holy Spirit, and not by another man?
In addition to the gospel accounts themselves, also Isaiah 7:14 - "Therefore the LORD Himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call Him Immanuel"
If Jesus is indeed God's sign to the people of the world that the Kingdom of God has come, then He is that child.
Beyond that, the supernatural nature of Christ - fully man, fully God - complements His supernatural birth. His supernatural resurrection and rising up into heaven complements it.
So, why attack this doctrine?
1. It makes no sense for a virgin to give birth. Duh.
2. To undermine Jesus's birth through such supernatural means would be to undermine His identity.
Some warped views: Jesus was God projecting His image as a man / Jesus was a man who was so perfect God took Him up to heaven etc... this kinda nonsense.
Part 2
The next important truth to take away from the virgin birth is this - Mary is but another human.
Many people, Catholics and cults alike, take Mary to be "extra blessed" because of this miracle. The fact is, Mary is but the instrument of God's miracle - and she knows it, declaring herself the Lord's servant (Luke 1:38)
Furthermore, Jesus Himself rejects her as having any significance to the gospel work - preaching that whoever hears and does the work of the Lord is His mother / brother.
Comments
Post a Comment