Do you believe in the Virgin Birth of Christ?

Most Christians believe and most Christian denominations teach – “Can a person reject the Virgin Birth and still be a Christian? The answer is no. The Virgin Birth was never meant to stand alone. It is not a random truth plucked from thin air. God never says, "Pick and choose what you want to believe." The story of Jesus is a seamless garment woven by the Holy Spirit. Take out his miraculous birth and you have ripped the whole garment to shreds. (I guess that means if Jesus Christ was not born of a virgin then Jesus Christ cannot have divinity and to me that limits the power of God the Father.}

Christianity is not just a collection of random truths, any one of which could be dropped with little harm. It is true, and truth is a whole. Consequently, a diminution at any point inevitably affects the rest, given enough time. When we begin to drop this doctrine or that doctrine, even though we cannot see at the time how it will affect the rest, it nevertheless does affect the rest.

History teaches us that when men begin to doubt the Virgin Birth, they do not stop there. One doubt leads to another until the Jesus they believe in is not the Jesus of the Bible. In truth, the Virgin Birth is no more miraculous than the Resurrection. They stand or fall together. (I think God expects us to question, Thomas did!)

Do I understand it? No.

Do I believe it? Yes.

Why? Because the Bible teaches it and because it makes perfect sense. (Does it really make perfect sense if so then why do we Christians claim there are many things that we will not truly understand on earth?}

Can we still believe in the Virgin Birth? We can and we must.”

Joseph doubted Mary’s story about the birth of Christ. It is true that the Bible says he believed Mary after an angel appeared to him in a dream, but initially he doubted. Does doubt alone about the Virgin Birth make it impossible for you to be a Christian? I am sorry, but I do not think so!

Do I think it is enough to doubt the Virgin Birth because We have no eyewitness accounts, no doctor confirmations, no DNA samples. This may sound ridiculous, but many use this as an argument to not believe in the Virgin Birth.

The fact that Paul, the earliest New Testament author, never mentions the Virgin Birth gives credence to some for not believing. We do rely on Paul rely for much of Christian theology, it is a bit strange he did not mention it. Paul refers to Jesus’ birth twice (Rom 1:3; Gal 4:4) and never says he was born of a virgin or of different means than anyone else. You would think that would be important. Did Paul think that Jesus birth was natural and conventional?

Between 49 and 55 CE, Paul recorded the first known written reference to Jesus' birth. In Galatians 4:4, he writes: "But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law." If he knew that Jesus had been conceived by a virgin, the information would have been of importance. Paul would have undoubtedly replaced "woman" with "virgin", or made some other change to show that the birth was miraculous. This passage was written some 45 years before the gospels of Matthew and Luke were written, and 55 to 62 years after Jesus' birth.  Can you blame some Christians for having doubts about the Virgin Birth?

Again, In about 57 CE, Paul wrote his only other reference to Jesus' birth. In Romans 1:1-3 he writes: "I Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle and separated onto the gospel of God...concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh."

The phrase "of the seed of David" strongly indicates that Paul believed Jesus to be the son of Joseph, because Matthew traces Jesus' genealogy from David to Joseph. The phrase "according to the flesh" seems to imply a natural, normal conception and birth.

Paul does not write anything about Jesus' family in any of his Epistles except for a single reference in Galatians 1 to James, the head of the Jewish Christian church in Jerusalem. Paul called James "the Lord's brother" -- an individual with whom he had many disagreements.  I know conservative scholars claim Christians called everyone brother/sisters then.

The virgin birth is also not in Mark, the earliest gospel, or in John, the only other gospel not based on Mark. Why is such an important story left out of all the early sources? This certainly causes some to doubt the Virgin Birth.

“Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.” (Isaiah 7:14)

Some scholars say “virgin” was a mistranslation in the Septuagint (the Greek translation the gospel writers used), and should have been translated “young woman.” That means the story might have been based on a mistranslation! Again a cause for some to question the Virgin Birth.

Was the Virgin Birth story an honest mistake: Most liberal theologians and biblical historians believe that the authors of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke copied the belief in a virgin conception from a Greek mistranslation in Isaiah 7:14 The Hebrew word "almah" (young woman) was translated in error to the Greek word for virgin? This is perhaps the most commonly accepted explanation among skeptics, secularists, and religious liberals.

It is true there were others that claim to be born of a virgin with divine fathers before Jesus. Jesus was not the first said to be born of a virgin. Mut-em-ua, the virgin Queen of Egypt, supposedly gave birth to Pharaoh Amenkept III through a god holding a cross to her mouth.

Ra, the Egyptian sun god, was said to be born of a virgin. So was Perseus, Romulus, Mithras, Genghis Khan, Krishna, Horus, Melanippe, Auge and Antiope.

In the ancient world, great men were born of divine fathers and human mothers. Alexander the Great and the Roman emperor Augustus were great men and said to have divine fathers. Jesus was also a great man, so he too must have a divine father.

The virgin birth may have been copied from a Roman fable: Livy, a famous Roman historian, had written a very popular book on the history of Rome that was widely circulated in the first decades of the 1st century CE.  In it, he explained that Mars, the Roman God of war, fathered twins Romulus and Remus, the original mythical founders of the city of Rome. Their mother was Silvia, a Vestal Virgin. Some Christian groups may have slightly modified this fable and adopted it as their own, in an attempt to show that Jesus was a person of very great importance -- an individual at least as important as the founders of Rome.

These stories may cause those that know history and legends to doubt the Virgin Birth.

The report of a Virgin Birth didn’t appear until over 50 years after it supposedly happened. Why? If ancient history is recorded by word of mouth and there was recorded history before the Virgin Birth appeared why did he take so long to record it?  How do you answer that to remove ones doubt about the Virgin Birth without adding your own personal opinion? There are no facts to stand on.

Would we believe a similar story if it happened in 2016?  Most of the people today would never, ever, believe it.

Imagine if a teenage girl in your neighborhood claimed that her pregnancy was due to God impregnating her and that she was still a virgin. Would you believe her? Or would you think she was lying or mentally ill?

Why then are some Christians so judgmental, bias and claim without any doubt that if you do not believe in the Virgin Birth you cannot be a Christian and you are destine for Hell?

Most liberal theologians do not believe in the doctrine of the virgin birth.  Skepticism about the virgin birth is not a recent development, as evidenced by a 1823 quote by Thomas Jefferson: "The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter." the membership of mainline and liberal denominations like the United Church of Christ, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Presbyterian Church, USA, etc. tend to be significantly more conservative than their ministers and theologians. Belief in the virgin birth is much higher among the laity than the clergy in these denominations.  

The Virgin Birth may have been copied from another religion.  History records that various religions claimed virgin births: Buddha was born of the virgin Maya after the Holy Ghost descended upon her. The Egyptian God Horus was born of the virgin Isis; as an infant, he was visited by three kings. In Phrygia, Attis was born of the virgin Nama. A Roman savior Quirrnus was born of a virgin. In Tibet, Indra was born of a virgin. He ascended into heaven after his death. Greek deity Adonis was born of the virgin Myrrha, many centuries before the birth of Jesus. He was born "at Bethlehem, in the same sacred cave that Christians later claimed as the birthplace of Jesus." In Persia, the god Mithra was born of a virgin on DEC-25. An alternative myth is that he emerged from a rock. Also in Persia, Zoroaster was born of a virgin. In India, there are two main stories of the birth of Krishna, one of the incarnations of Vishnu, and the second person within the Hindu Trinity. In one story, Krishna was said to have been born to his mother Devaki while she was still a virgin. In the other, he had a normal conception and birth. Is it really fair for Christians to judge non-believers of the Virgin Birth as lunatics.

Why was the Virgin Birth story delayed in being told.  Some say no respectable Jew would have ever condescended to buy into a Greek/Babylonian mythological base for an account dealing with the birth of the Messiah." This may explain why the story of the virgin birth first appeared in the Gospel of Matthew. It was written circa 80 CE at a time when most Christians were converts from Paganism who had been taught about virgin births in their former religions.

The Virgin Birth story was inspired by the Hebrew Scriptures: Throughout the Old Testament, we hear of the very unusual births of Ishmael, Isaac, Samson and Samuel. Usually prior to the birth, an angel appears to the parent-to-be; the latter is afraid; the message of an upcoming birth is given; objections are raised; and a sign is given. Matthew and Luke could have replicated the essence of these stories, and added a Virgin Birth as proof that Jesus' birth was beyond simply unusual; it was a miracle. This would establish Jesus at a much higher status than the four famous figures from the Hebrew Scriptures. Without a miraculous birth, Jesus might have been considered to be only equal in stature to those heroes.

Only the Gospels of Matthew and Luke contain references to the Virgin Birth.  In John 1:45 they refer to Jesus specifically as "the son of Joseph" and in 6:42 the townspeople ask, "Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know?" If the author(s) of John believed in the miracle of the Virgin Birth, why would it not have been mentioned somewhere in the gospel of John, and why was Joseph allowed to stand as Jesus' father on two occasions and no attempt to clarify the statement was made.

Do I believe the Virgin Birth was possible – YES!  Do I believe you must believe it in order to be a Christian – NO!  Until I am shown in the Bible that you must believe in the Virgin Birth in order to have your sins forgiven, receive salvation or spend eternity with God I will continue to believe it is not necessary to believe in the Virgin Birth.

Religion can be harmful!

Religion can be harmful!

Religion can be dangerous because it is usually run by men. Religion usually ends up in the hands of a few men that determine the interpretation of God’s words for us; they make all the rules and traditions that we are to follow. Religion is often fueled by fear and it is anchored in our conscious. Our conscious can be right or wrong. Our conscious has generally been shaped by some type of religion, a religion that we have been taught by men. We tend to listen more to men of the church than the Holy Spirit. Religious followers tend to turn to men of the church rather than God when in doubt.

There are usually a group of dedicated followers that are dependent on a group of men to understand where they stand with God. These men determine who will go to hell and heaven by how they interpret God’s words.

Jesus did not come to improve or extend the legalistic temple model of religion.  Jesus came to start something new. I have only recently realized this during a serious bout of bad health that kept me in bed for approximately six weeks. I once believe Jesus did not come to establish a new religion (Christianity), but to improve the Jewish religion. I no longer believe that.

I now believe Jesus came to establish something entirely new. Something without thousands of rules and traditions made by man, but one simple commandment LOVE! One simple law LOVE! One simple rule LOVE! This one law is what all our decisions should be based on.  When we are not sure what we are to do we should ask ourselves what love requires of us?

Jesus did not come to establish a place (a House of the Lord).  Jesus came to establish a new movement of people. Jesus came to establish a movement that was for all people for all times. It was a movement that was to be focused on people (one another) not the temple or a church building.

Jesus did not want the old mixed with the new, but unfortunately man has mixed the old temple ways with the new Jesus movement and they have ruined what Jesus came to establish. The only thing that counts is faith expressed through love, love expressed for other people. Too many are trying to express love through a denomination (a church building) a denomination or building created by man not Christ.

Our bodies are TEMPLES, our bodies are sacred, and no building or denomination is more sacred than we are. Our bodies are holy and contain the Spirit of God.

The early Christians had only one thing and that was an extraordinary love for one another. They had no Bible not even the Old Testament.  They followed one law LOVE ONE ANOTHER! They put the person next to them ahead of themselves.

Constantine, an emperor, built the first churches.  He passed a law churches did not have to pay taxes so all the rich people started turning their property into churches to avoid taxes.  They would take in orphans and overnight Christianity became inseparable from the empire.  Christianity became more empire than Christianity. Men then began to determine how God’s word would be interpreted by all.

The Nicene Creed was the results of a political issue. Some believed Christ received his Divinity as a reward for what He accomplished on earth and other believed He was born with his Divinity. Constantine did not want the debate to continue. Constantine who was not a theologian put out an edict all material relating to Jesus not being born Devine should be destroyed and if not destroyed the person holding it will be put to death. Thereafter believing the wrong thing was a crime. Christians arrested Christians for believing the wrong thing. Man became the gate keeper to heaven and hell and in many instances it remains that way in 2016.

We Christians talk about the Crusaders killing pagans, but few know we also killed Jewish men, women and children for crucifying Christ and taking all their possessions. Hitler was not the first to take revenge on the Jews. This all followed the Council of Trent. It was all done in the name of God.

1517 Martin Luther wanted to reform the Church not destroy it. Scripture not the Church became the authority and the Protestant movement began. We began to move back to the command to love, but we have never really returned to the original movement Christ came to establish among people. In my opinion denomination is still more important to many than love and we see this in the denominations anti-gay movement just as the church was pro-slavery and segregation. The Church denominations still use the Bible as weapon instead of an instrument of love. Protestants and Catholics continue to beat people over the head with their interpretations of the Bible today.

What we see as sin has been shaped by man. Some feel guiltier about missing Mass or church services than mistreating others. Some fear over the eternal life of their child who dies and was not baptized because of the interpretation of men and not God. Putting water on the head of anyone does not determine if they go to heaven or not.  Does other people’s failure make you feel superior instead of making you sad if it does you do not love as Christ commanded us to?

If everyone got up thinking God is fine with me and now I must make myself fine with others the world would be what Jesus Christ wanted it to be filled with LOVE? If you truly love others you are in line with the Gospel. If you love like Christ commanded you will love God. Love will be the basis for your interpretation of God’s word.

When we begin to live by God’s command and not man the people of the world will know we are Christians by our love.

STUDY-PRAY-READ-LISTEN TO ALL SIDES-TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION WHAT IS BEST FOR OTHERS- THEN THINK FOR YOURSELF.

Is there a purgatory?

The Bible does not mention the exact word “purgatory,” but instead it makes reference to a place which one could understand to be what Catholics refer to as purgatory.  To claim that just because the word purgatory does not exist in the Bible does not necessarily mean such a place does not exist at all. 

The word “Trinity” is never found in the Bible and some wonder whether this is a Biblical doctrine or not, but the absence of a term used to describe a doctrine does not necessarily mean the term is not Biblical. The issue is does the term accurately reflect what the Scripture teaches? 

Protestant churches teach the doctrine of the Trinity, as well as Catholics.  If other denominations teach the concept of Trinity then why do other denominations immediately reply there is no purgatory simply because the word purgatory is not found in the Bible?  Why do they deem one word valid and the other not based on the word appearing in the Bible?  Purgatory or Trinity both are words not found in the Bible.

The Bible contains references to many other Christian doctrines, but fails to call them out by name. One might as well deny that there is something called the Bible because no such name is found in the Bible.  If we are going to use the basis for validity of a doctrine on the word used to describe that doctrine being found in the Bible then we might as well deny incarnation because the exact word is not found in the Bible. 

The name does not make the place; the place must exist first, then we give it a name.  Catholics call this place “purgatory” because it means “a cleansing place.” Catholics believe that purgatory is the place that souls are purged of small sins, which prevent their immediate entrance into Heaven. 

Catholics will tell you in Matthew 5:26 and Luke 12:59 Christ is condemning sin and speaks of liberation only after expiation (death), “Amen, I say to you, you will not be released until you have paid the last penny.” Now we know that no last penny needs to be paid in Heaven and from Hell there is no liberation at all; therefore, they say the reference must apply to a third place.

Catholics would also say in Matthew 12:32 it states, “And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.”   Here Jesus speaks of sin against the Holy Spirit.  The implication is that some sins can be forgiven in the world to come.  We know that in Hell there is no liberation and in Heaven nothing imperfect can enter.  Sin is not forgiven when a soul reaches its final destination because in heaven there is no need for forgiveness of sin and in hell the choice to go there is already made.

Catholics would go on to say in Revelation 21:27 “…but nothing unclean will enter it, or anyone who does abominable things or tells lies.”  The place that is to be entered (the place to which this passage refers) is heaven (read the text around it for context). 

It is hard for me to state beyond a shadow of doubt there is no purgatory when the Bible clearly implies a place for an purification after we die in the many passages which tell that God will reward or punish according to a person’s life.

It was explained to me, “After shouting at the neighbor about their dog, the angry and stress filled man walks into his house, had a heart attack, and died having just committed a small sin in the final moments of his life.  Remember, this man is Christian and justified by the Lord, yet he committed a sin and died before he could repent.  Does he go to heaven or does he go to hell or does he go to purgatory?  Are all sins created equal?  No, all sins are not equal and justified men of the Lord can make mistakes and sin”.  I believe God is just and would not send anyone to hell in a case like this, therefore I do not agree with the premise of purgatory.  

Catholics most likely would say that it is foolish for me to believe that Christ on the cross covered all my sins, past, present and future, but that is exactly what I believe.  If that is not the case then why did Christ go to the cross in the first place?   I do not believe Christ and the cross relieves me of my responsibility to not sin and I think it is foolish for anyone to think that it does.  Christ on the cross gives no one a license to sin.  I simply have a hard time believing purgatory is part of Gods plan for justice. 

I do not believe gifts or services rendered to the church, prayers by the priests, and masses provided by relatives or friends on behalf of the deceased can shorten, alleviate or eliminate any journey of the soul to a place called purgatory.  I take responsibility for my sins and I believe everyone else must do the same.  God’s judgment of me is only about me and no human being can fix my past after I am dead or before I die.  For me to believe any different seems to me to mean I have a misunderstanding of the atonement of Christ and adds insult to the finished work of the cross. 

I believe the suffering of Christ on the cross paid for all believers’ sins and I do not believe we need to make another suffering sacrifice.  On the cross Jesus said, “It is finished,” (John 19:30).  In the Greek, this was an accounting term which meant a debt was paid in full.  If the payment for our sins was paid in full on the cross, then how could purgatory be a reality?  Hebrew 9:27, “Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment.”

I personally do not believe in purgatory, but I will admit there are hints of such a place in the Bible and there are more than hints in the Bible that there is not.  I do not believe anyone is going to go to hell based on what they believe about purgatory, therefore I doubt if the subject is worth debating.  It is just one of the differences Catholics and Protestants have that we will argue about until the end of time, instead of focusing on the beliefs we have in common.

In closing I will confess I taught the doctrine of purgatory for many years because that was what I was taught and I believed at the time.  Now that I am retired and have far more time to study scripture on my own and have more freedom  I have come to doubt the need for a purgatory.