Posted by Mwett on 7/16/2022 3:14:00 PM (view original):
Isaiah 7:14, hundreds of years before it happened :
“Behold, the virgin shall be with child and shall bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,” which translated means, “God with us.”
Do you know the why of the virgin birth's importance to Christianity ? Extremely significant, probably 2nd in line to the resurrection.
Do some homework, find out why. Then come back and tell me it's still a joke to believe it's reality.
I'm sorry, I had every intention of staying out of this thread - for reasons that have borne out in spades - but I have a hard time standing idly by and ignoring such statements as occur here.
You contend the two most important occurrences in the life of Christ, for Christians, are the virgin birth and the resurrection. However, the earliest church didn't even uniformly hold these beliefs. If you read the actual writing of the first-generation followers of Christ - that is, the disciples and apostles that actually knew Jesus and travelled with him during his life - they virtually never discuss either the virgin birth or the resurrection of the body. Even when reading the Bible that has been handed down to us now, assembled long after the death of Christ by evangelists with an agenda, it is clear that neither of these events is to be considered nearly as important to Christians as the crucifixion. You've even referred to this reality in other posts in this thread - through his death Christ accepted the punishment for the sins of humanity and made salvation possible.
The reality is that the virgin birth and physical resurrection of Christ as core facets of Christian doctrine arose for much the same reason as the dating of Christmas and Easter to existing pagan holidays. The polytheist pagans of the Mediterranean who became by far the largest audience for early evangelists believed that gods could only be born from gods. Dionysus/Bacchus, for example, had a mortal mother but was accepted not only as a god but an Olympian because his father was Zeus. Pagans could relate to someone born of a mortal mother being divine if you could establish that he didn't have a mortal father. The same goes for the resurrection - it resonates with existing pagan storylines. For early Christians, particularly those coming from a Jewish background, the spiritual resurrection was the most important thing. Pagans didn't see it that way. The gospels written for a pagan audience, and compiled into a version of the Bible designed with a pagan audience in mind, wound up relying heavily on these doctrines, but they really aren't crucial to the core message that Christ died for the forgiveness of sins, and that he is now with the Father, and that through belief in him people too can reach Heaven.
EDIT: I should clarify that I am not suggesting that you should not believe in the virgin birth or the physical resurrection. I certainly find it more pleasant to believe in the former, and I don't really have a strong opinion on the latter. The point is this: for the first followers of Christ - that is, the people who actually physically followed him around and listened to him speak - these were not priorities. They became priorities of the Church to make its message more appealing to potential converts. If those same doctrines now make the message less appealing, then for the same reason we should deemphasize them rather than trying to force them down people's throats.
7/16/2022 8:09 PM (edited)