Please explain to me the birth of Jesus.

[Bini]

I'm confused. I understand that Jesus was born of a virgin. But why? Why was Jesus born of an immaculate conception instead of the natural process of procreation that everyone else goes through? What was the importance of this? Would it have made any difference if Jesus were the biological son of man? And since Mary was impregnated by God, wouldn't that mean Jesus was not just a man but part god as well?

[Just_A_Guy]

And since Mary was impregnated by God, wouldn't that mean Jesus was not just a man but part god as well?

That's the clincher, right there. The answer is "yes", because no one less than a God could have resurrected Himself and thus overcome death. And no one less than a God could have walked into Gethsemane and do what Jesus did.

I'm confused. I understand that Jesus was born of a virgin. But why?

I think it was so that there would be no doubt to anyone that Jesus was indeed the son of God, and not of man.

Why was Jesus born of an immaculate conception instead of the natural process of procreation that everyone else goes through?

Just to be technical: "Immaculate conception" is not an LDS doctrine; it is the Catholic teaching that Mary was conceived by a kiss and not . . . the old-fashioned way. According to this line of thinking, Mary was therefore free of the Original Sin (another Catholic doctrine Mormons don't embrace) and was sufficiently pure to serve as the mother of the Son of God.

[Traveler]

Because of Mary Jesus was able to suffer and die. Because G-d the Father was Jesus’ father, Jesus was not subject to the fall and had power over death.

The term “virgin” did not mean the same thing at the time of Jesus that it means today.

The Traveler

[mnn727]

The term “virgin” did not mean the same thing at the time of Jesus that it means today.

But by the time J.S> translated the BoM it did.

Virgin means virgin

[Just_A_Guy]

But by the time J.S> translated the BoM it did.

Virgin means virgin

I'll see your Joseph Smith and raise you a Brigham Young.

(I kid, I kid . . . )

[deseretgov]

Jesus had to have qualities of God. He had to be able to die at a time of His choosing(semi-immortal?). If not then He would have died going through the suffering in the garden. He couldn't have completed the atonement if he was completely mortal.

He also had to have qualities that would allow Him to live a sinless life.

But another interesting point the Strangites make is that Joseph had to be His father so that He could be a legitimate descendant of David.

So why not say God they took from Joseph. Then used that element to mix with Mary, and then altered the genetic structure to have divine qualities. I makes little difference to me.

[Moksha]

I realize that some LDS thought is open to speculation, but it is my understanding that we subscribe to the notion that Jesus was both fully God and fully Human.

[marts1]

This is amazing that for the first time in my life, I asked myself this same question yesterday and here I'm reading about it today!

[Wisc]

What I think is interesting is that there truly is opposition in ALL things. And concerning the birth of Jesus one of the opposing forces is the pegan concept of demi-gods. Amazing how many myths revolve around men born of women impregnated by gods. Clash of the Titans released this week is a good example. And besides the fact that it is a story about a demigod who is the offspring of Zeus and son of a mortal woman there is a direct opposition to the example of Heavenly father in a scene between Zeus and his demigod son Perseus.

Let me lay it out (and this is not an attack on the movie. I think its an entertaining movie)

Clash of the Titans:

1. About a man/god born of mortal mother and king of the gods, Zeus

2. The gods' immortality is "fed" by the prayers and worship of men. (they need US)

3. When the evil god and brother of Zeus, Hades is unleashing the Kraken upon man to force them back into submission, Zeus tries to intercede ONLY for Perseus and offers him alone an escape to Mt Olympus as a god. The rest of mankind is simply "getting what they had comming to them"

The Gospel:

1. About a man/god born of a mortal mother and the most high God (Heavenly Father)

2. God does not need us, for His glory is His own and our prayers and worship are for Our benefit to grow closer to Him.

3. When sin and death separated man from eternal life and when a rebel child of Heavenly Father sought to destroy us, God sent His son to die and suffer and atone in place of all other men. Offering all an escape to the Heavens.

Interesting isnt it

[LocalFarms]

Jesus had to have qualities of God. He had to be able to die at a time of His choosing(semi-immortal?). If not then He would have died going through the suffering in the garden. He couldn't have completed the atonement if he was completely mortal.

He also had to have qualities that would allow Him to live a sinless life.

But another interesting point the Strangites make is that Joseph had to be His father so that He could be a legitimate descendant of David.

So why not say God they took from Joseph. Then used that element to mix with Mary, and then altered the genetic structure to have divine qualities. I makes little difference to me.

But isn't Mary a descendant of David herself?

[bytebear]

I need to point out that Immaculate Conception in Catholicism does not refer to the conception of Jesus, but the conception of Mary. In other words, Mary was of an immaculate nature to be the vessel for the body of Jesus. LDS believe Mary was special, yes, but not in any perfect immaculate sense.

But, the simple answer is, Jesus' literal father is God. And Mary was a virgin in a very literal sense. How you decide to reconcile those two concepts is up to you.

Edited April 9, 2010 by bytebear

[Traveler]

But by the time J.S> translated the BoM it did.

Virgin means virgin

Personally I like the ancient understanding of Virgin better than the morden concept. I believe Joseph Smith felt the same but left the term consistent with the Bible so that those that study the scriptures in debth rather than read the surface will find treasure of great value each time they ponder and seek.

The Traveler

[Traveler]

I realize that some LDS thought is open to speculation, but it is my understanding that we subscribe to the notion that Jesus was both fully God and fully Human.

I have never read the fully G-d and fully human concept in scripture or LDS doctrine. I sometimes think there is a mixing of conflicting terms that bring about more confusion and misdirection than just speaking clearly and plainly in terms that are meant to be directly understood.

John tells us that Jesus was G-d. I find nothing to indicate that Jesus was subject to the fall as is every other human - and that would, in my mind exclude Jesus from being fully human like everyone else.

The Traveler

[Moksha]

John tells us that Jesus was G-d. I find nothing to indicate that Jesus was subject to the fall as is every other human - and that would, in my mind exclude Jesus from being fully human like everyone else.

The Traveler

So was that part about Jesus being born to human Mary just extraneous? What about that Son of Man talk in the Bible or even that much LDS touted part of suffering in the Garden?

[volgadon]

We don't know what Mary's lineage was. The whole thing about the genealogy in Luke being Mary's is a nice sentiment, but really has little to support the notion.

[Dravin]

So was that part about Jesus being born to human Mary just extraneous? What about that Son of Man talk in the Bible or even that much LDS touted part of suffering in the Garden?

I'd like to point out concerning the Son of Man (not to be confused with son of man):

Wherefore teach it unto your children, that all men, everywhere, must repent, or they can in nowise inherit the kingdom of God, for no unclean thing can dwell there, or dwell in his presence; for, in the language of Adam, Man of Holiness is his name, and the name of his Only Begotten is the Son of Man, even Jesus Christ, a righteous Judge, who shall come in the meridian of time.

The title the Son of Man as applied to Christ has nothing to do with Adam/being born of a human (via Mary) but comes from his Father as Christ was the Son of the Man of Holiness.

Edited April 9, 2010 by Dravin

[LocalFarms]

We don't know what Mary's lineage was. The whole thing about the genealogy in Luke being Mary's is a nice sentiment, but really has little to support the notion.

Thanks. I can't remember where I heard Mary was a descendant of David. Probably on a forum like this one or my mom or something

[Landy77]

There are many people that can probably explain this better than me but I will give it a shot. Yes Jesus was born from a virgin. This makes Jesus not a decendant of Adam and Eve but the literal son of God. Mary did not have the physical action of being impregnated. An angel of the lord came down and told her she would conceive a child and his name would be Jesus. (All this is in the bible, I don't know the verses off the top of my head). This does make Jesus part of God. That is why he is refered to as the son of God and part of the god head. We have God the father, Jesus the son of God and the holy spirit. Because we are the children of God we can also consider us apart of God also. I hope this helps. I hope someone here can help with the verse references.

[Wingnut]

But isn't Mary a descendant of David herself?

I've heard that as well.

We don't know what Mary's lineage was. The whole thing about the genealogy in Luke being Mary's is a nice sentiment, but really has little to support the notion.

I've also tried to study it a little myself but couldn't come up with anything conclusive, either.

Thanks. I can't remember where I heard Mary was a descendant of David. Probably on a forum like this one or my mom or something

I think I heard it in a Sunday School class, but that's not always 100% reliable either.

[Traveler]

So was that part about Jesus being born to human Mary just extraneous? What about that Son of Man talk in the Bible or even that much LDS touted part of suffering in the Garden?

All of these things are important and add understanding but are not complete. For example there was no mediator between Jesus and G-d the Father. That is quite a difference in access from every other individual born into this world.

The Traveler

[MarginOfError]

I've heard that as well.

I've also tried to study it a little myself but couldn't come up with anything conclusive, either.

I think I heard it in a Sunday School class, but that's not always 100% reliable either.

I suspect you read it in the following:

Two genealogical records, purporting to give the lineage of Jesus are found in the New Testament, one in the first chapter of Matthew, the other in the third chapter of Luke. These records present several apparent discrepancies, but such have been satisfactorily reconciled by the research of specialists in Jewish genealogy. No detailed analysis of the matter will be attempted here; but it should be born in mind that the consensus of judgment on the part of investigators is that Matthew's account is that of the royal lineage, establishing the order of sequence among the legal successors to the throne of David, while the account given by Luke is a personal pedigree, demonstrating descent from David without adherence to the line of legal succession to the throne through primogeniture or nearness of kin. Luke's record is regarded by many, however, as the pedigree of Mary, while Matthew's is accepted as that of Joseph. The all important fact to be remembered is that the Child promised by Gabriel to Mary, the virginal bride of Joseph, would be born in the royal line. A personal genealogy of Joseph was essentially that of Mary also, for they were cousins. Joseph is named as son of Jacob by Matthews, and as son of Heli by Luke, but Jacob and Heli were brothers, and it appears that one of the two was the father of Joseph and the other the father of Mary and therefore father-in-law to Joseph. That Mary was of Davidic descent is plainly set forth in many scriptures; for since Jesus was to be born of Mary, yet was not begotten by Joseph, who was the reputed, and according to the law of the Jews, the legal, father, the blood of David's posterity was given to the body of Jesus through Mary alone." (Jesus the Christ chapter 7)

[Wingnut]

I don't remember ever reading that, but it makes sense. Thanks. I think I did hear in it a SS class once, tried to find it in the scriptures (exclusively), and concluded that whomever taught it to me might have learned it from secular writings of the day.

[Seminarysnoozer]

I'm confused. I understand that Jesus was born of a virgin. But why? Why was Jesus born of an immaculate conception instead of the natural process of procreation that everyone else goes through? What was the importance of this? Would it have made any difference if Jesus were the biological son of man? And since Mary was impregnated by God, wouldn't that mean Jesus was not just a man but part god as well?

My opinion (not gospel) is that the physical body is part of the veil that does not allow the spirit to be itself, that creates the test we are in. It's kind of like covering the chalk board and putting away the text books before the test begins. It wouldn't be much of a test if we could see all the answers we learned about in the pre-existence. Jesus did not need to participate in the test but He had a specific mission here.

I feel, our personalities and our abilities are mostly predicated by the body and not the spirit. If the spirit were equally powerful with the body or any significant portion of influence over our actions then there would never be anything like Alzheimer's disease or Kluver-Bucy syndrome. But, obviously (at least to me) when someone has Alzheimer's they cannot be themselves because the body is more influential in this existence in determining personalities and likes and dislikes. Read the story of Phenias Gage, his personality changed from a single injury to the brain. We find ourselves in this existence with a certain set of personalities and talents that were given to us for specific testing and specific opportunity for growth.

Just like the child with Down's or the child that dies before the age of accountability there are certain spirits that don't need testing but simply need to acquire a body. I think Jesus would fall into that category even more than the child with Down's syndrome. So the way to let Jesus not have the veil and the allow the spirit more power than the body is to give him a 'closer to perfection' body, like the ones Adam and Eve had in the garden. Just like Adam and Eve, with a perfect body one can see God in the flesh, in other words, one can see spiritually. And Jesus needed to see spiritually to complete His mission on Earth. Yes, there was a part of his body that was of man, so he still had to overcome temptations in this world. But the half that was from perfection allowed His spirit to have greater control and influence over His personality, His thoughts and actions, more in line with what His spirit would do.

[Moksha]

All of these things are important and add understanding but are not complete. For example there was no mediator between Jesus and G-d the Father. That is quite a difference in access from every other individual born into this world.

The Traveler

Different or not, how do you come to the conclusion that Jesus was solely God and not both Man and God?

[mikbone]

I'll repost my answer from a previous thread.

http://www.lds.net/forums/lds-gospel-discussion/19761-conception-jesus-christ.html

Well, from a Medical point of view, strictly based on the technical definations:

Fertilization - the union of sperm from the father and Ovum (egg) from the mother, combining the genetic material, if successful this creates a viable embryo

Begotten, beget - To Father, Sire

Conception - Implantation of the fertilized egg or embryo into the Uterine wall.

Born, Birth - Delivery of the child from the mother's uterus to the outside world.

Alma 7:10 And behold, he shall be born of Mary at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers, she being a virgin, a precious and chosen vessel, who shall be overshadowed and concieve by the power of the Holy Ghost, and bring forth a son, yea, even the Son of God.

As I read this:

1) Mary delivered the child Jesus.

2) Mary was a virgin (no coitus).

3) Mary was a precious and chosen vessel (objectively, this suggests that Mary was a surrogate mother).

4) The Holy Ghost assisted in the conception of the embryo (the Holy Ghost delivered the embryo of Christ onto the wall of Mary's Uterus).

5) Christ is the Son of God. (Elohim or God the Father begat or sired Jesus).

One final defination:

Surrogate Mother - A woman who bears a child for another person, either through artificial insemination or by carrying until birth another woman's surgically implanted fertilized egg.

I don't think that Christ's biologic mother was the Virgin Mary or any of the mortal woman that were contemporary of Mary. I want to believe that Christ's biologic mother was someone who was co-equal and intimate with God the Father. His eternal wife no less. This line of thought necessairly begets more questions...

Edited April 10, 2010 by mikbone