Why Would God Choose A Married Woman To Give Birth To His Son? (grace, translation)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well now this is going to be interesting, I have also heard that at the time that this child, Jesus was born,Mary and Joseph were not married and it wasn't until afterwards that they supposedly got married, I guess that would mean she had this child out of wedlock, but that's just one of the stories I've heard about this. Don't know how true that is.
Actually, according to Matthew 1, Joseph took Mary home as his wife before Jesus was born, but did not have sexual relations with her until after his birth. So no, Jesus was not born out of wedlock. It wouldn't have mattered anyway. He was not the product of human conception anyway.
Doesn't make the situation any better. He impregnated a woman, committed to another man.
So therefore, a married woman cannot be artificially inseminated by a doctor using the sperm of another man? Or, the sister of an infertile married woman cannot be inseminated with the sperm of the husband, because it would be adultery?
Is this what you believe? You would say this to a woman considering artificial insemination?
Would a veterinary who artificially inseminates a horse be guilty of bestiality?
So therefore, a married woman cannot be artificially inseminated by a doctor using the sperm of another man? Or, the sister of an infertile married woman cannot be inseminated with the sperm of the husband, because it would be adultery?
Is this what you believe? You would say this to a woman considering artificial insemination?
Would a veterinary who artificially inseminates a horse be guilty of bestiality?
The doctor is not impregnating her with his own child( I hope). He has their permission , with her and her husbands knowledge.
If you have this line of reasoning about the conception, than logically, you must then believe that a fertility doctor who implants an embryo in a woman is guilty of adultery, or a veterinary who inseminates an animal is guilty of bestiality. What if the fertility doctor is a woman? Would this be a case of lesbian adultery? So you see, your line of reasoning doesn't reach a logical conclusion.
Neither does your reasoning. You assume the bible is authoritative in the first place and then make all your assertions based off this.
Matthew/Luke were not there at the event so to claim it as fact is a stretch. As for the examples you used, strawmen, in all cases the sperm donor is/was real.
Read a bit in John and you will see that his siblings did not believe in him and surely such a magnanimous event as immaculate conception would have been discussed around the dinner table? It was not!
Actually, according to Matthew 1, Joseph took Mary home as his wife before Jesus was born, but did not have sexual relations with her until after his birth. So no, Jesus was not born out of wedlock. It wouldn't have mattered anyway. He was not the product of human conception anyway.
Well now here's something that's confusing and maybe you can explain this, originally when Joseph found out that Mary was with child while they were only betrothed to one another, he was planning on divorcing her originally, but I guess he got convinced to marry her after all, so as not to embarrass her. So my question would be, when did they get married? Before or after the child was born, because accordingly he didn't know her, in the biblical sense, until after the first male child was born, so would that constitute her having a child out of wedlock if Joseph is not the father?
The OP's question is something I have always wondered about and one of the reasons I always thought that if the story had any semblance of truth, that Joseph was a cuckolded moron and Jesus simply a bastard child of a prostitute.
For what appears to me to clearly be one of the most sexually repressed religions, I find it funny to think that such a main part of the Christian religion started out with a tart and a fool.
Couldn't god have just made a baby (himself by the way) and had a stork drop (himself) off on Mary's doorstep? Why put (himself) in a womb and go through the whole pregnancy? Do you think he was bored in there?
The Bible tells us that Mary and Joseph were a couple when Mary became pregnant even though she was a virgin. When you really think about this situation it raises some interesting questions. If Joseph really hadn't had sexual relations with Mary and then she informs him that she is pregnant wouldn't you think that Joseph would be a little upset and maybe even leave her? Also, why would God commit what appears to be adultery with a woman who already had a husband and then expect that man to raise this child as if he were his own? And what would any man think if his wife informed him that she was pregnant but that she hadn't been sleeping around and that it was actually God's baby so he shouldn't be upset about it?
You haven't read the story and so you aren't informed
Mary was engaged, formally and legally, but not yet taken as wife.
Mary was a virgin, and the flesh body of the New Man was formed in her womb. The body, only, was formed in the womb of the virgin in the same manner that the first man, Adam, was formed in the earth, but He who incarnated in that body of prepared flesh was not of Adam flesh. That body was made brand new, by the power of the Holy Spirit forming it as a New Creation; and the Living Spirit, Christ, incarnated into that prepared body of flesh; and so He came as our Kinsman, to be our legal Redeemer.
The body of flesh was nurtured by Mary, but she was not the mother of His Person/being, nor did she contribute to his flesh body's creation. The Son of God has no beginning, no father, no mother, no genealogy, as Hebrews 7 states. He is YHWH from heaven, come in flesh of a New Creation, fully human being body; to be the Firstborn of the second Man, and the only brother, in that flesh body, to the Adam creation race; and therefore legal Kinsman of Adam; who has the power and the will to ransom the Adam creation race, back, for the Glory to indwell.
Couldn't god have just made a baby (himself by the way) and had a stork drop (himself) off on Mary's doorstep? Why put (himself) in a womb and go through the whole pregnancy? Do you think he was bored in there?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrBlueSky_
I think a better question is - why would a being capable of creating the universe need a "son" to do his dirty work in the first place?
In order to be a sufficient sacrifice for sin he had to be human, and he had to come from the line of David.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
