The Great Deviation: The Virgin Birth Doctrine

Biblical Model for Conception

man-woman-conceptionIn Genesis 4:1 we’re told, “Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and brought forth Cain and said, I have gained a man through God.”

This provides a model for us: a man knows a woman, and with the help of God, she conceives and brings forth a child.

MAN  +  WOMAN  +  GOD’s HELP  =  CHILD

 

We see examples of this model being played out throughout the Bible in the young and old, or more specifically in the old and young. 

The Old: Abraham and Sarah

In the beginning we read that God made a promise to Abraham in his old age regarding his seed.

And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect. And I will make my covenant between me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly. And Abram fell on his face: and God talked with him, saying, As for me, behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations. Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for a father of many nations have I made thee. And I will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee. And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee. And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God. (Genesis 17:1-8 KJV)

God told Abraham that Sarah, in her old age, would bear a son to him a year ahead of time.

And God said unto Abraham, As for Sarai thy wife, thou shalt not call her name Sarai, but Sarah shall her name be. And I will bless her, and give thee a son also of her: yea, I will bless her, and she shall be a mother of nations; kings of people shall be of her. Then Abraham fell upon his face, and laughed, and said in his heart, Shall a child be born unto him that is an hundred years old? and shall Sarah, that is ninety years old, bear? (Genesis 17:15-17 KJV)

And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him. And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation. But my covenant will I establish with Isaac, which Sarah shall bear unto thee at this set time in the next year. (Genesis 17:19-21 KJV)

And then we’re told “the LORD (YHVH) visited Sarah and the LORD (YHVH) did to Sarah as he spoke.” (Gen 21:1)

What did YHVH do?

We’re told in the very next verse, “And she conceived and bore to Abraham a son in old age at the set time according as the Lord spoke to him”. (Gen 21:2)

The natural assumption is the model laid out previously in Genesis 4:1 took place. Abraham *knew* Sarah, and with the help of YHVH she conceived.

We’re never told that Abraham knew her, but that is the logical conclusion knowing both the promises made and the Biblical model already established, let alone the natural process we have all witnessed throughout life.

The Old: Zechariah and Elizabeth

In the New Testament we read that an angel of the LORD (YHVH) appeared to Zechariah in his old age and told him that Elizabeth, in her old age, would bear him a son.

There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth. And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless. And they had no child, because that Elisabeth was barren, and they both were now well stricken in years. (Luke 1:5-7 KJV)

But the angel said unto him, Fear not, Zacharias: for thy prayer is heard; and thy wife Elisabeth shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call his name John. (Luke 1:13 KJV)

Promises were then made to Zechariah by God concerning this child.

And thou shalt have joy and gladness; and many shall rejoice at his birth. For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother’s womb. And many of the children of Israel shall he turn to the Lord their God. And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord. (Luke 1:14-17 KJV)

And then we’re told that Elisabeth conceives and she credits YHVH with her conception.

“And after those days his wife Elisabeth conceived, and hid herself five months, saying, Thus hath the Lord dealt with me in the days wherein he looked on me, to take away my reproach among men“. (Luke 1:24-25)

Again, the natural assumption is the Biblical model took place. Zechariah *knew* Elizabeth, and with the help of YHVH she conceived. We’re never told that Zechariah knew her, but that is the logical conclusion.

Later, after the child is born, Zechariah gives the following word of the Lord to those around him concerning the promises made to him by God:

And thou, child, shalt be called the prophet of the Highest: for thou shalt go before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways; To give knowledge of salvation unto his people by the remission of their sins, Through the tender mercy of our God; whereby the dayspring from on high hath visited us, To give light to them that sit in darkness and in the shadow of death, to guide our feet into the way of peace. (Luke 1:76-79 KJV)

The Young: Isaac and Rebekah

Back in the beginning, when Isaac was 40 years old, Rebecca as a young maiden and virgin was espoused to Isaac, but for almost 20 years she remained childless. (Genesis 24; 25:20)

We’re told Isaac prayed to YHVH concerning Rebecca his wife, and YHVH heard him, and his wife Rebecca conceived in her womb. (Genesis 25:21)

Do we not assume that Isaac *knew* Rebecca, and with the help of YHVH she conceived? Again, this is a logical conclusion based on the aforementioned model, as well as the promise that was made to Abraham specifically concerning the seed of Isaac.

And God said to Abraam, Yea, behold, Sarrha thy wife shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call his name Isaac; and I will establish my covenant with him, for an everlasting covenant, to be a God to him and to his seed after him. (Genesis 17:19 Brenton)

Also notice, it was 20 years from the time Rebecca was espoused to Isaac to the time she actually conceived.

The Young: Joseph and Mary

In the New Testament we read an angel of the LORD (YHVH) appeared to Mary, who was espoused to Joseph, of the house of David, and told her she would conceive and bear a son, who would be given his father David’s throne.

And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary. And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be. And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. 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: And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. (Luke 1:26-33 KJV)

And then later we’re told Joseph takes Mary to Bethlehem to be registered, and it is revealed that she is pregnant at that time.

And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David:) To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child. (Luke 2:4-5 KJV)

Has the Biblical model changed? Were there promises made concerning this child?

The angel mentioned “David’s throne”, and we read in the Old Testament of promises made to David concerning his seed and his throne.

Now therefore so shalt thou say unto my servant David, Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I took thee from the sheepcote, from following the sheep, to be ruler over my people, over Israel: And I was with thee whithersoever thou wentest, and have cut off all thine enemies out of thy sight, and have made thee a great name, like unto the name of the great men that are in the earth. Moreover I will appoint a place for my people Israel, and will plant them, that they may dwell in a place of their own, and move no more; neither shall the children of wickedness afflict them any more, as beforetime, And as since the time that I commanded judges to be over my people Israel, and have caused thee to rest from all thine enemies.

Also the LORD telleth thee that he will make thee an house. And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever. I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men: But my mercy shall not depart away from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away before thee. And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee: thy throne shall be established for ever. (2 Samuel 7:8-16 KJV)

Given these, why would we not assume Joseph knew Mary in this case?

??        MAN  +  WOMAN  + GOD’s HELP  =  CHILD     ??

If you notice between chapters 1 and 2, we see there is a passage of time, but we’re not told how much has transpired between the promise made to Mary and the fruition of it.

And the child [John the Baptist] grew, and waxed strong in spirit, and was in the deserts till the day of his shewing unto Israel. And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed. (Luke 1:80-2:1 KJV, clarification mine)

What if it was something like 20 years that passed, similar to the other most notable espoused relationship between a man and a virgin, Isaac and Rebekah?

In a separate New Testament account, we are given a genealogical record to demonstrate the Messiah Jesus/Yeshua to be the son of David, the son of Abraham. (Matthew 1:1-17)

The author clearly understood the promises made to Abraham and Isaac and their physical seed after them, and then also the promise made to David concerning his physical seed. Why else mention this genealogical record?

Following this record, we read how the birth of  Yeshua came to be: Joseph, during the time of his wife’s pregnancy, did not want to make a show of her and minded to send her away. But the angel of the LORD (YHVH) appeared to him, and told him to take her home with him, assuring him that what was begotten in her was of the Holy Spirit. (Matthew 1:18-20)

Again, why is it assumed that the Biblical model was changed in this case? Why would we not assume Joseph knew Mary as the catalyst for her conception? And why is it assumed the reason for Joseph’s mindset was due to an idea that he was not this child’s father?

I’ll tell you why I think it is. It’s because we’ve been taught the Biblical model changed.

The Great Deviation: The Virgin Birth Doctrine

We’ve inherited lies from our fathers. We’ve been exposed to doctrines of demons. And many of us have never even considered the possibility that the Biblical model of conception remained in tact.

According to Wikipedia, “The virgin birth of Jesus is the belief that Jesus was conceived in the womb of his mother Mary through the Holy Spirit without the agency of a human father and born while Mary was yet a virgin.”

I propose the original model still stands, and I plead with all who will lend an ear to reconsider the traditions and teachings of man and test them against the Scriptures.

Sadly, the writings of the New Testament have been mishandled to justify Mary is a perpetual virgin through the conception and birth of her firstborn. Mary is propped up as the physical seed of David, reducing Joseph to a mere guardian for the Messiah, yet there is no Biblical evidence for any of this.

Mary is hailed as “the mother of God” and Joseph is shunned as the legitimate father of his own child. How upside down is that?!

Promises were made by God with mankind concerning man’s physical seed.

Why would He change the Biblical order of a man knowing a woman as the catalyst for conception with Joseph and Mary, given these promises made to the men who came before them?

Why would He discard the man and deify the woman? Why would He bastardize the Messiah?

I don’t believe He would do any of these things, let alone that He did. I believe these notions came from the Adversary, by way of the Virgin Birth Doctrine, and they have been passed down from generation to generation, and the nations have been deceived.

My heart’s cry is for those who have ears to hear, let them hear what the Spirit of YHVH has to say.

Restore the Biblical order surrounding Yeshua’s conception, and recognize the fulfilled promises made by YHVH God to those who came before him.

About Carrie Wigal

Homesteading Wife, Homeschooling Mom and perpetual Bible student, continually taking the road less traveled. (@messyanic)
This entry was posted in Jesus / Yeshua, John the Baptist, Virgin Birth Doctrine. Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to The Great Deviation: The Virgin Birth Doctrine

  1. Sandra says:

    This is good!!!

  2. Sherry T says:

    The assumption probably comes from the basis for divorce laid out in the OT, in Deuteronomy 24… As well as Yeshua’s own words about divorce.

    The thing is, I don’t think YHVH meant to “do away” with the paradigm… Nor did He mean to deify Mary, since she’s barely mentioned after… Only that He wanted to exalt Himself as /the/ Father.

    The genealogy mentioned in Matthew can also be explained by how Matthew was written to Jews, who prized genealogy and phrases like, “Rabbi Ben taught Rabbi David, who taught Rabbi Gideon, who taught Rabbi Matt…” It was how they’d identify honourable authority. If your lineage ( or teacher ) had honour, you would have honour.

    • Carrie Wigal says:

      The more I’ve been looking at the opening of Matthew, the more convinced I get that the author sought to convey the point that YHVH kept his promises concerning the physical seed of Abraham and David.

      First, he outlines the 14 generations between Abraham and David, highlighting the thin threads with some of the men in that line. Remember, it was prophesied that Judah should not have the scepter depart from him, yet it was Saul, of a different tribe, who was first chosen to be King. But then David was chosen after Saul was rejected.

      Then, he outlines 14 generations from David to the carrying away to Babylon, when it looked like the covenant with David had ceased. But then…he reveals 14 generations from the carrying away to Babylon to Yeshua, the Messiah, demonstrating the promises made to both Abraham and David regarding their *physical seed* were kept.

  3. Duane Dennis says:

    Hi Carrie, first let me say how wonderful a time I had at the gathering, hope to get together with you all again soon.

    Concerning your studies on the virgin birth, I see it this way as well, and I wanted to add, for your consideration, my take on the genealogies in Matthew and Luke. In Mat, it ends with Joseph and adds his wife Mary. In Luke running toward Adam it begins with Joseph. It doesn’t say anything at all about Mary’s lineage. Since she was first cousin to Elizabeth, let us assume she was of Levi, as were Elizabeth and Zechariah. This would give Yahushua the lines of both Yehudah and Levi, qualifying him as King of Righteousness(Malchi) and (Zadoch). Hebrews 6:20. I have material here at home, though I,ll have to hunt for it high and low, (LOL), which shows there was an unbroken line of Melchisedec priests from Shem through Zechariah to Yahushua. He, Yahushua being the last and eternal.

    • Carrie Wigal says:

      Hi Duane! It was great meeting and hanging out with you at the camp-out; I’m so glad you came. And yes, I hope we can get together again soon, too.

      Thanks for commenting. I don’t know what to make of any significance of Yeshua being of the line of Levi through Mary other than that it is interesting. Hebrews indicates that he is not considered a Levite (and I think that’s because the bloodline is reckoned through the man). As far as Melchisedec priests, that in itself would be an interesting study since we have so little in the Bible to go on. I’d be open to hear more about what you have on it. Feel free to email me about it sometime or we can talk face to face on it if you like. 😉

  4. Gary Elliott says:

    Carrie,

    You selectively use verses from Luke and Matthew in your argument, and ignore others from both books which contradict your ideas. You cite Luke 1:26-33 to show that Joseph was a descendent of David and promises about David’s throne, but omit verse 34 where Mary asks how this can be (that she will conceive as announced by the angel in v. 31 ) because she does not *know* a man, and the angel’s reply in verse 35, “…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.”

    The angel’s explanation of God’s part in Mary’s conception is remarkably unlike anything recorded in Scripture regarding the opening of barren wombs in the other examples you cite (Abraham and Sarah, Zechariah and Elisabeth, and Isaac and Rebekah). I believe you are correct that it is implied, although not stated, that these other men *knew* their wives, and they conceived as a result. I believe you incorrect in implying that Joseph *knew* Mary, who was not yet his wife, to whom he was only espoused at that time (verse 27).

    Why would the angel declare Mary “highly favored” and “blessed among women” (verse 28) if she were to become pregnant by her intended before their marriage? Why would Elisabeth say to Mary, “Blessed are thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb…” if Mary was pregnant by a man and unmarried (verse 48)? When Mary replies to Elisabeth, “For he that is mighty hath done to me great things; and holy is his name…” (verse 49) do you think she is talking about Joseph?

    Your description of how “the birth of Yeshua came to be” cites Matthew 1:18-20, then you pose the question, “Why would we not assume Joseph knew Mary as the catalyst for her conception?” Incredibly, your description omits “…before they came together…” that is, before they were married, before they cohabited, before Joseph *knew* her, Mary “was found with child of the Holy Ghost” (verse 18). This states very plainly that the child was of the Holy Ghost.

    You ask, “And why is it assumed the reason for Joseph’s mindset [I presume you mean to send Mary away when she was found to be pregnant] was due to an idea that he was not this child’s father?” A much better question is why you would assume that this “just man” (verse 19) would put Mary away for being pregnant before their marriage with his child, instead of marrying her immediately to legitimize their child?

    You also omit the angel telling Joseph plainly (verse 20) that the child is “of the Holy Ghost.” That’s twice in the four verses you cite that you completely ignore God’s explanation of how the birth of Yeshua came to be.

    You also omit verses 22 and 23, speaking of fulfilled prophecy that “…a virgin shall be with child,” not a girl who had been *known* by her espoused husband, verse 24 which tells us that after all this Joseph “…took unto him his wife…” which I think means took her to live with him in his home, and verse 25, which clearly states that he “…*knew* her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son…”

    Scripture tells us that Joseph was the “supposed” father of Jesus (Luke 3:23), that is, people thought Joseph was the father of Jesus (Luke 4:22; John 1:25; John 6:42).

    Your post begins with the “Biblical Model for Conception,” which simply affirms the way God created mankind to naturally procreate, with acknowledgment that God can close and open wombs, and you return to this theme of the model several times:
    “Has the Biblical model changed?”
    “Again, why is it assumed that the Biblical model was changed in this case?”
    “… we’ve been taught the Biblical model changed.”
    “… many of us have never even considered the possibility that the Biblical model of conception remained in tact. I propose the original model still stands…”
    “Why would He change the Biblical order of a man knowing a woman as the catalyst for conception with Joseph and Mary…”

    Your question really is why God would do something supernatural: Why would the infinite, all-powerful, all-knowing, I Am, the only Supernatural One, Who spoke the natural universe — the space, matter, energy, and time continuum — into existence by the power of His word, Who created mankind and human reproduction, decide to enter into His creation, into humanity in a supernatural way? (Instead of following your Biblical Model of Conception. Instead of limiting Himself to the natural process He established for us. Instead of operating within the confines of the box you want to place Him in.)

    I hope you don’t take offense, but to be blunt, your question sounds a bit silly.

    You go on to explain that we believe the case of Joseph and Mary (I would say the case of Mary and Yeshua) is exceptional (supernatural!) because we have inherited lies, the traditions and teachings of man, and have been exposed to doctrines of demons. Then you “plead with all who will lend an ear to… test them against the Scriptures.”

    Carrie, you have ignored God’s explanation of how “the birth of Yeshua came to be” in the very verses you cited, as well as other surrounding verses in those passages of Scripture. I believe in the virgin birth of Yeshua based upon God’s clear revelation to us in His Scriptures, where He tells us plainly that He intervened in human history, into mankind, in a supernatural way. Although I don’t want to limit God, I can’t conceive of any other way He could have done it, naturally.

    I tried to stick to your questions, ideas, and Scriptures cited without going off, but I must say here that if you don’t believe in the virgin birth, you will have numerous and profound doctrinal and theological problems with Scripture, and indeed, with being a Believer and follower of Yeshua. Just a few, for example:
    Why does John say Yeshua was in the beginning? He was with God? He was God?
    That all things were made by Him?
    How can Yeshua claim He is the Son of God?
    How can He claim He came down from heaven?
    How can God say that Yeshua is His Son?
    How could Yeshua perform miracles (supernatural acts)?
    How can He be the “last Adam?”
    How can He be sinless?
    How could He be a perfect sacrifice?
    How could He be resurrected from the dead?
    How can He be the “firstborn from the dead?”

    If Yeshua was not who He claimed to be, who Scripture says He was (the Son of God, and the son of Mary by the Holy Ghost), then today we wouldn’t even know anything about Him. In His own time He would have been considered just a liar like the Pharisees said (Matt. 27:63) or a lunatic like some of His own family and friends thought (John 7:3-5; Mk. 3:21), and wouldn’t have even mad a footnote in history. He would have been just another of thousands of nameless men crucified by the Romans. We know the name Spartacus because of the rebellion he led against Rome, but we wouldn’t know of Yeshua. He wouldn’t have had any followers who “… turned the world upside down…” (Acts 17:6).

    I do agree with you that there are plenty of doctrines of demons and false traditions of men being propagated. The ideas that Mary was a perpetual virgin and the “mother of God” are Roman Catholic baloney with no Scriptural foundation. As we already saw in Matt. 1:25, Joseph *knew* Mary after Yeshua was born, and Scripture names four of Yeshua’s brothers, and also mentions sisters (Mark 6:3).

    Carrie, at the conclusion of your post you say, “My heart’s cry is for those who have ears to hear, let them hear what the Spirit of YHVH has to say.” I would just turn that around and say, “May you hear and believe what the Spirit has to say through His written word about the Living Word.”

    Yours in Yeshua Ha’Mashiach,
    Gary

    • Carrie Wigal says:

      Hi Gary,

      Thank you for your well thought out comment.

      First, let me say, I’ve been working behind the scenes putting together a series on what I’ve learned from my study of the Bible as it relates to the Virgin Birth Doctrine, which covers way more than what is addressed in this post.

      I’ll be unfolding that series over the course of several weeks in our weekly Online Bible Study starting next week (Feb, 19, 2017). Perhaps you can join us. The format is set up to be a 45-minute presentation, followed by a round-table discussion of the subject presented. (My intention is to record these sessions and post them online here after each one.)

      But I’d like to address the points you raised in this comment here. (I sincerely appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts on this, and doing so respectfully. Thank you.)

      1. Re: Luke 1:34

      I don’t believe Mary is referring to a man *through which the child will come*, because clearly she knows she is espoused to Joseph, and he is from the house of David. Naturally, her thought would be that Joseph would be the father of this child.

      I believe she is speaking of a man like the one described to her in what her future child will become. Notice, the angel’s reply says, *therefore* and refers back to “that holy thing which shall be born of thee”.

      Keep in mind that Mary is kin to Elizabeth, of the house of Levi, and there has not been a man on David’s throne since the Babylonian captivity. Furthermore, there has not been a man ruling over the whole house of Jacob since Solomon. So this notion of Mary bringing forth a king of that magnitude was probably incredibly shocking to her.

      2. RE: espousal

      From what I understand based on what I’ve read in Torah, once a woman is espoused to a man, she is technically his. No other man could have her…she was off limits. So the natural assumption is that if it was prophesied that she was going to have a child, the child would come by way of her being known by the man to whom she belonged.

      3: RE: the phrase “came together”

      It seems that you understand that phrase to be a reference to their marriage, which I’m sure is the common thought, but it seems to me at this point that it is likely referring to Joseph’s journey down to Bethlehem for the census mentioned in Luke 2.

      If you notice in Matthew 2:1, we’re told the child was born in Bethlehem. So if Joseph, was thinking of “sending her away” or “dismissing her”, being righteous and not wanting to make a show of her or exposing her, but then the angel encouraged him to “take her to him”, saying that which was begotten in her was of the Holy Spirit (as in ordained by God), and Joseph’s doing so, where was he “taking her to him”? Many assume the reference there was to either *taking her in marriage* or *taking her home with him*. But their home was in Nazareth. How did the baby come to be born in Bethlehem?

      Note in Matthew 1:18, it says, “Of Jesus Christ, the *birth* was thus…”. The author was unfolding the *birth* of the Messiah, not his conception. At the onset of the story there, she is identified as being espoused to Joseph, and she was found to be with child from/by/through/of [the] Holy Spirit (or “spirit holy”). The conception had already taken place.

      {Whether this was saying the Spirit of God enabled her to conceive, or that the spirit of this child was holy, the fact remains she had conceived a child, who was prophesied to be a “son of David” by Gabriel in Luke 1}

      At this point, Joseph was deciding whether or not *to take her with him* (“paralambano” – G3880) or not.

      Keep in mind, Zechariah, the priest, prophesied just a few months after Mary was visited by the messenger, that a horn of salvation was being raised up in the house of David, and it was commonly understood by the religious leaders of that day that the Messiah was to be born in Bethlehem (Matthew 2:3-6). And then a census was decreed, and those of the house of David were travelling to Bethlehem to be enrolled. I imagine there was likely a buzz about the town in those days, given the fact they were under Roman rule, awaiting the Messiah to deliver them from their enemies.

      4. RE: the supposed father of Jesus (Luke 3:23)

      Given the context, Jesus had just been declared God’s “son” after having been baptized by John. It seems to me that the people were reasoning as to how he might be called “the son” of God. They understood him to be the son of Joseph, but then their reasoning went “of Heli, of Matthat, of…” all the way up to “of God”. That’s what my understanding of the reference “as was supposed” is referring to, not whether or not he was truly the son of Joseph. (If they were simply questioning his physical father, why would they give that whole long list of names going all the way back to God?)

      5. RE: the questions that arise if you don’t believe in the virgin birth

      Yes, those questions need to be answered if one doesn’t believe the virgin birth, and I’ve been seeking out (and finding) those answers in the Bible for several years now. Most folks, however, will have a very difficult time seeing any other explanation than the ones they currently have through the paradigm of the Virgin Birth.

      This is why I find it is crucial to get to the bottom of the Biblical soundness of the Virgin Birth doctrine. Too much is riding on a thin thread of sketchy verses that seem to support an unnatural conception.

      Again, if you have the time and interest, I encourage you to join us for this seven session series and remain open to prayerfully consider what is being shared. If nothing else, it will be very informational.

      Thank you again for your comment.

      Shalom to you as you continue to seek our Father and walk in His ways,
      Carrie

  5. Gary Elliott says:

    Carrie,

    I don’t feel your Bible study is going to be a study of Scripture to see what you can learn from it, to see where it takes you, to seek the Spirit of Truth to lead you into truth, but that you have a presupposition and you are going to bend Scripture to make it fit your ideas. As you say on your home page, “So, I have chosen to act as the Prosecutor in the case for the Natural Order and the expectation concerning the Messiah, utilizing the entire Biblical text to challenge this doctrine and ultimately dismantle it.”

    Just a couple of examples of bending Scripture:
    Regarding “know” in Luke 1:34, I can’t believe you’re trying to sell us that Mary isn’t talking about sexual relations. I think you will be hard pressed to find any Bible translation or paraphrase supporting your interpretation of what Scripture is saying. This isn’t teaching or preaching from any pulpit (your “…lies from our fathers… doctrines of demons”), this is what the best Biblical Greek scholars over many centuries have determined the text says.

    Regarding “came together” in Matt. 1:18, I would say the same thing. The translations of scholars outstanding in their field over the past two thousand years do not support your reading, and you are out standing in your field alone, or at least I hope so.

    Regarding the “lies” we’ve been taught, how far back do you suppose the lies go? The earliest Christian creeds extant (Nicene, 325 A.D., Constantinopolitan, 381 A.D.) state Jesus is the Son of God, begotten of the Father. These creeds weren’t made up during the councils, but codified doctrine which had been handed down for the preceding two centuries.

    I am trying to get my mind around what would be left of orthodox Christian faith if Jesus were the natural offspring of Joseph and Mary, and my early conclusion is that really nothing would be left. It seems that what you are seeking to “ultimately dismantle” is orthodox, Biblical faith in Jesus, the Son of God. Instead of wrestling Scripture, you could write a “DaVinci Code”-type novel, but instead of Jesus eloping with Mary Magdalene to France, you could have Joseph impregnating Mary before they were married, and a massive cover-up by the Church, encompassing all your lies and doctrines of demons.

    Like I said in my previous post, if He were just a man, we wouldn’t even know anything about Jesus of Nazareth… He wouldn’t have made even a footnote in history. Actual events of history do not support your theory.

    “Too much is riding on a thin thread of sketchy verses that seem to support an unnatural conception.” Wow! The verses supporting a supernatural conception are actually quite clear, and that Jesus was not just a man is supported by virtually the rest of the New Testament, as well as 2,000 years of history.

    Instead of trying to show how Jesus had to be Joseph’s son, it might make a better study to try and understand how Jesus the Son of God could be heir to David’s throne. Jesus touches on this idea Himself in Matt. 22:41-45, and Peter says something about it in Acts 2:25-36. I haven’t tried to study that out, but it comes to mind.

    I will try to keep you, and those following your series, in prayer.

    Gary

    • Carrie Wigal says:

      Gary,

      What I am presenting on the Virgin Birth in the next few weeks is *the result of* *my* Bible study. Yes, it is slanted, because I am demonstrating what I have come to learn through my study.

      I will be presenting Scripture all throughout in a step-by-step manner, and folks are welcome to counter any or all points along the way, but the idea is to focus on one point at a time, starting from the beginning.

      Foundations matter. They come first, and they need to be secure in order to handle all that is built on top of them.

      What is the Virgin Birth doctrine founded on? Not the Old Testament.

      The children of Israel in Jesus’ day were familiar with the Old Testament…that was their foundation. Everything they heard and saw would have been filtered through that paradigm, so we need to read and see through that lens.

      Most of Christianity is founded on the New Testament *divorced* from the Old Testament. I believe that’s a problem. So, I’m seeking to demonstrate how the two portions of the Bible fit together with the Old flowing into the New.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *