- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (kerwin @ April 28 2009,12:41) gollamudi wrote: Quote The original Hebrew version of Isa 7:14 does not imply any 'virigin' but only an 'young woman'.
From what I understand the Hebrew word is like the word “maiden” which has multiple meanings. One meaning of “maiden” being a virgin but another being an unwed woman. I would not be surprised to find the Hebrew word is used similarly being in their culture a young unmarried woman was expected to be a virgin.
I take it you believe of the books of both Matthew and Luke are false scripture since both authors clearly testify Mary was a virgin at the time of Jesus’ conception and at least one makes the point Joseph did not have sex with her until after Jesus was born.
gollamudi wrote:
Quote I can even freely believe that Joseph was Jesus' real father thereby making Jesus a real son of David.
Either way Jesus is a male descendant of David, From what I heard Jadishness it traced through the mother’s line and since Jesus was fatherless that would put him in his mother’s tribe. I believe the same thing would occur if his father was a Gentile.
gollamudi wrote:
Quote Many may not agree with me. But if Jesus was really a human like everyone of us these myths are not at all required.
Well considering it is not a myth and God said it would be a sign that a virgin would be with child I am going to disagree with you.
gollamudi wrote:
Quote Even I don't believe in the myth of original sin therefore Jesus being born of virgin again a speculation on Christianity.
I am not familiar with the tenet of original sin so I looked in up and one variation does sound like what I understand from scripture. From what I see there are several variations and a claim that it is not a Jewish tenet because it is not found in the Old Testament. I have to disagree as it is inferred by certain Old Testament teachings. Some of these inferences were used by Paul to explain it to his readers in his letters. I know John also mentions the results in that we are slaves of sin and that Jesus sets us free.
Gollamudi and Kerwin,
Golla, Kerwin is correct in saying that a virgin birth is a clear teaching in scripture and an amazing event as well. See here:Matt 1:18-25
18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: when His mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit.
19 And Joseph her husband, being a righteous man and not wanting to disgrace her, planned to send her away secretly.
20 But when he had considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife; for the Child who has been conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.
21 “She will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins.”
22 Now all this took place to fulfill what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet:
23 “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.”
24 And Joseph awoke from his sleep and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took Mary as his wife,
25 but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus.
NASUI think it is impossible to think that she was not a virgin unless you think this is not scripture, Golla.
Just substitute the word “maiden” for the word “virgin” and it should be made clear to you.
Ask yourself why would Joseph want to “send her away secretly” because he didn't want to disgrace her if he had impregnated her? He supposed her to be pregnant with another man's child since he had not had “relations” with her yet. The angel cleared that up for him and told him not to be afraid, the baby is not from another man but from the Holy Spirit.
Think about it Golla…read it carefully,
KathiMarty,
You and I were writing the same thoughts about the same time, you are just faster than me and I went longer
Blessings,
KathiHi:
The body of Christ is the Holy Temple of God. The Father, himself, has no flesh nor blood. God is a Spirit. God's seed is His Word, and the scripture states “And the Word became flesh”, therefore, the Son is God's own flesh and blood in the person of the Son.
Love in Christ,
MartyHi brother Marty,
God is not flesh and blood. He can not part take in our flesh and blood. He can only beget His children by His Spirit which is His very nature. So Jesus can not be His literal flesh and blood son. St Paul says that Jesus was Son of David according to flesh but not of God. See Rom 1:1-3Peace to you
AdamLightenup said:
Quote Being the firstborn of all creation AND ALSO firstborn from the dead infers being begotten twice, once to original life, the other to life from death. So just because it says He was “begotten” after He died doesn't mean that He wasn't begotten beforehand. I believe He WAS begotten beforehand. Jesus says He was. Read this:
(Jesus is speaking to Nickodemus here)
John 3:16-1816 “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. 17 “For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. 18 “He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
Kathi,
I want to say first that I had to take a couple days off from replying to you directly. I didn't trust myself to be kind. I have very strong feelings against your view that God reproduced Himself.To answer your argument above I need only to say that Jesus was speaking prophetically. Jesus was NOT begotten at the time he spoke those words anymore than he was given on the cross at the time he spoke. Did you catch what I just said? He had just stated that the Son of Man must be lifted up (future). So your argument that he knew Himself to be begotten at the time he spoke is easily dismissed.
thinker
Lightenup said said:
Quote Thinker,
You say that the Son earned the title “only begotten” after He died.
I say that the Son was the only begotten in two different senses…the first and only life by reproduction not creation (with an independant will) apart from the Father which the Father used to create all things IN heaven and ON earth and who was much later sent to inhabit a flesh body so that He could shed blood and become payment for our sin. The second was the first to receive eternal life, incorruptible, immortal after He paid for our sins.Kathi,
Your theory that Jesus was begotten twice doesn't work. This implies that God became his Father twice. It makes no sense. The Bible speaks of no other time that Jesus was begotten except at his exaltation. And it was at that time that God became his Father.Quote For to which of the angels did He ever say; “You are my Son, TODAY I have become your father”? (NIV)
and again:
“I will be to him a Father, and He will be to Me a son
Your idea that Jesus was begotten twice does not work though it is quite creative. No man or anything else becomes a father twice UNLESS he has a second child.
thinker
Lightenup said;
Quote You say that we sharply disagree on the word “firstborn” and what that means in Colossians. Am I saying that correctly?
You also say that “creature” means “mankind.”Here is the Strong's definition:
NT:2937
kti/si$
ktisis (ktis'-is); from NT:2936; original formation (properly, the act; by implication, the thing, literally or figuratively):
(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright © 1994, 2003, 2006 Biblesoft, Inc. and International Bible Translators, Inc.)So with respect to Strong's definition, the Son is the Firstborn of the original formation, i.e. the firstborn of any originally born thing. You do know that the term firstborn literally and most commonly means the first out of the womb…don't you. Yet you want to site the exceptions to the natural meaning of the term instead of considering the simple natural meaning of the term. You insist that we are not to understand the term by what has been displayed through God's creation but exchange the natural meaning for the unnatural. You believe that the Son is the exception to the created norm.
You do realize that Adam was not called a “firstborn” don't you? Adam was created and would be the first-created, not firstborn.
.
Kathi,
Verse 23 says that the gospel was preached to “every creature under heaven.”Would James Strong agree that the gospel was preached to the “original formation”? The word “pasa ktisis” in verses 15 & 23 are the same. Moreover, Paul said that Christ is supreme over all creation (pasa ktisis). Would James Strong agree that Christ rules over rocks and dust and all that? Come on! You are not distinguishing between the lexical meaning of and the exegesis of words. The exegesis of words has to do with explaining them in their immediate context.
fyi: I took Greek in college. So think before you post about the Greek. I say this for your benefit.
Thanks,
thinker
Quote (Lightenup @ April 28 2009,19:56) . I think that the term “heavenly body” is a simile for the term “spiritual body.” Look at this again and tell me what you think: Won't that be cool! We get a cooler body someday. The Son had to give up His cool heavenly body for this very limited earthly body. He in a sense, handicapped Himself. Now He is restored to a heavenly/spiritual body. IMO
God bless ya,
Kathi
Kathi,I believe you are right that Spitirual/Heavenly body can be taken synonomously.
I also gain much more encouragement and enlightenment from this type of dialogue than the ones that are striving to prove specific doctrine.
As if we know!
Blessings,
Seeking
Quote (gollamudi @ April 29 2009,20:13) Hi brother Marty,
God is not flesh and blood. He can not part take in our flesh and blood. He can only beget His children by His Spirit which is His very nature. So Jesus can not be His literal flesh and blood son. St Paul says that Jesus was Son of David according to flesh but not of God. See Rom 1:1-3Peace to you
Adam
Hi GM,
You would be another who would define and limit the works of God?Hi GM,
Scripture has led you to your limited understandings.
Are you now clever enough to turn on scripture and deny it?Quote (gollamudi @ April 29 2009,20:13) Hi brother Marty,
God is not flesh and blood. He can not part take in our flesh and blood. He can only beget His children by His Spirit which is His very nature. So Jesus can not be His literal flesh and blood son. St Paul says that Jesus was Son of David according to flesh but not of God. See Rom 1:1-3Peace to you
Adam
Hi Brother Adam:Always nice to hear from you and to discuss the scriptures with you. I hope that you and your family are doing well.
I am aware of Romans 1:1-3, but every man has a mother and a Father, and the scripture states:
Quote Mat 1:20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. And,
Quote Jhn 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. And,
Quote Jhn 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. And so, from these scriptures we can see that Joseph was not his biological father. God is his Father of his body.
Love in Christ,
MartyHi Adam:
You made the following comment:
Quote St Paul says that Jesus was Son of David according to flesh but not of God. See Rom 1:1-3 But the scripture actually states this:
Quote Rom 1:3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
Rom 1:4 And declared [to be] the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:I believe that there may be a little difference in what you stated and what the scripture states?
Love in Christ,
MartyQuote (SEEKING @ April 29 2009,13:03) Quote (Lightenup @ April 28 2009,19:56) . I think that the term “heavenly body” is a simile for the term “spiritual body.” Look at this again and tell me what you think: Won't that be cool! We get a cooler body someday. The Son had to give up His cool heavenly body for this very limited earthly body. He in a sense, handicapped Himself. Now He is restored to a heavenly/spiritual body. IMO
God bless ya,
Kathi
Kathi,I believe you are right that Spitirual/Heavenly body can be taken synonomously.
I also gain much more encouragement and enlightenment from this type of dialogue than the ones that are striving to prove specific doctrine.
As if we know!
Blessings,
Seeking
Hi Seeking,
I appreciate the spirit in which you write and your insight. Keep it up! I wish there were more of you around here.
God's love,
KathiQuote (Lightenup @ April 29 2009,14:45) Quote (SEEKING @ April 29 2009,13:03) Quote (Lightenup @ April 28 2009,19:56) . I think that the term “heavenly body” is a simile for the term “spiritual body.” Look at this again and tell me what you think: Won't that be cool! We get a cooler body someday. The Son had to give up His cool heavenly body for this very limited earthly body. He in a sense, handicapped Himself. Now He is restored to a heavenly/spiritual body. IMO
God bless ya,
Kathi
Kathi,I believe you are right that Spitirual/Heavenly body can be taken synonomously.
I also gain much more encouragement and enlightenment from this type of dialogue than the ones that are striving to prove specific doctrine.
As if we know!
Blessings,
Seeking
Hi Seeking,
I appreciate the spirit in which you write and your insight. Keep it up! I wish there were more of you around here.
God's love,
Kathi
I'm honored and blessed. Thank you!With some I feel a kindred spirit. You are one of them.
Blessings,
Seeking
Quote (942767 @ April 30 2009,04:44) Hi Adam: You made the following comment:
Quote St Paul says that Jesus was Son of David according to flesh but not of God. See Rom 1:1-3 But the scripture actually states this:
Quote Rom 1:3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
Rom 1:4 And declared [to be] the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:I believe that there may be a little difference in what you stated and what the scripture states?
Love in Christ,
Marty
How are those that believe in Jesus the sons of God?Quote (Lightenup @ April 30 2009,09:42) Thinker,
You have not convinced me…sorry! Good anger management though
LU
Kathi,
I'm not trying to convince you. All those who post here have their minds made up. We all do this just to argue. It is those who watch on the side lines that really get the benefit.thinker
Quote (kerwin @ April 30 2009,10:08) Quote (942767 @ April 30 2009,04:44) Hi Adam: You made the following comment:
Quote St Paul says that Jesus was Son of David according to flesh but not of God. See Rom 1:1-3 But the scripture actually states this:
Quote Rom 1:3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
Rom 1:4 And declared [to be] the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:I believe that there may be a little difference in what you stated and what the scripture states?
Love in Christ,
Marty
How are those that believe in Jesus the sons of God?
Hi brother Kerwin:All of humanity, except for Jesus, were born of the sperm of man, and the scripture states that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. We were all dead or spiritually separated from God in our trespasses of God's eternal law.
The scripture states we must be born again. When we hear the salvation message and we believe, we are born of water (living water) and when we come to God with a repentant heart and we receive the Holy Ghost, we are born of the Spirit.
We are sons of God by the Spirit of adoption.
Love in Christ,
Marty942767(Marty) wrote:
Quote We are sons of God by the Spirit of adoption.
That Spirit is called both the Spirit of Sonship and the Spirit of Christ. Since it makes us sons then how much more does it make Jesus The Son since it is through him that those that believe are made sons.
942767(Marty) wrote:
Quote All of humanity, except for Jesus, were born of the sperm of man, and the scripture states that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.
True in a way but there are quirks in the system since identical twins are actually grandchildren of their father as well as their mother since they are reproduced by mitosis and not in the normal way of fission of gametes.
You are assuming that sperm is needed for reproduction in human beings but that is not necessary as I showed above. Mary would be the original organism and one of her egg cells, or any other cell for that matter, would have become Jesus through a miracle of God brought on by the workings of the Spirit of God with no fusion of separate gametes necessary.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
