- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Forum,
I will no longer discuss the issues in this thread. I have done something very unwelcome in this community and I no longer wish to continue.
towshab
Hi:
Sometime back sometime ago, I asked God if there were any scriptures which attested to the virgin birth of our Lord and His Christ in the Old Testament, and he showed me that there were two and they are as follows:
Quote Genesis 3:15
And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.And,
Quote Psalms 110
110:1
<Psalm of David.] The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool *.Jesus to the Pharisees shows that he is the Son of God and not of a man's sperm in the following as he refers to Psalm 110:
Quote 22:41
While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them,
22:42
Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he ? They say unto him, The Son of David.
22:43
He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying,
22:44
The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool *
22:45
If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?The promise to David was:
Quote 7:12
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.
7:13
He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever.
7:14
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:
7:15
But my mercy shall not depart away from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away before thee.
7:16
And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee: thy throne shall be established for ever.To Solomon God states:
Quote 2 Chron. 7:17
And as for thee, if thou wilt walk before me, as David thy father walked, and do according to all that I have commanded thee, and shalt observe my statutes and my judgments;
7:18
Then will I stablish the throne of thy kingdom, according as I have covenanted with David thy father, saying, There shall not fail thee a man to be ruler in Israel.
7:19
But if ye turn away, and forsake my statutes and my commandments, which I have set before you, and shall go and serve other gods, and worship them;
7:20
Then will I pluck them up by the roots out of my land which I have given them; and this house, which I have sanctified for my name, will I cast out of my sight, and will make it to be a proverb and a byword among all nations.
7:21
And this house, which is high, shall be an astonishment to every one that passeth by it; so that he shall say, Why hath the LORD done thus unto this land, and unto this house?
7:22
And it shall be answered, Because they forsook the LORD God of their fathers, which brought them forth out of the land of Egypt, and laid hold on other gods, and worshipped them, and served them: therefore hath he brought all this evil upon them.We know that Solomon was disobedient but for David's sake, God did not take the kingdom away from Solomon but after Solomon's death, He took away 10 tribes of the Kingdom and gave them to Jeroboam and gave the tribes of Judah and Benjamin to Rehoboam Solomon's son, and there were successors from this line until the curse on Jeconiah and there was not another on the throne of David until Jesus our Lord. Well Jesus was not born of the sperm of man, but as Psalm 110 attests by implication He is the Son of God. And as I have already shown, Jesus makes this point to the Pharisees by virture of David's words speaking by the Spirit of God in this Psalm.
And so somehow the promise to David had to be fulfilled through Mary the Mother of Jesus as the scripture in Genesis states the “seed of the woman”.
There is an assumption by those who argue against Jesus being the Messiah that “Only gene-carrying descendants are considered as legal descendants but my understanding is that this not necessarily true.
Both geneologies make reference to the virgin birth. Matthew states: “and Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ”. Luke says “And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Heli.
Matthew states that Joseph was the son of Jacob, and so how was he then the son of Heli?
Perhaps through a levirite marriage. The scriptures state the following relative to this type of marriage.
Quote Numbers 27
27:1
Then came the daughters of Zelophehad, the son of Hepher, the son of Gilead, the son of Machir, the son of Manasseh, of the families of Manasseh the son of Joseph: and these are the names of his daughters; Mahlah, Noah, and Hoglah, and Milcah, and Tirzah.
27:2
And they stood before Moses, and before Eleazar the priest, and before the princes and all the congregation, by the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, saying,
27:3
Our father died in the wilderness, and he was not in the company of them that gathered themselves together against the LORD in the company of Korah; but died in his own sin, and had no sons.
27:4
Why should the name of our father be done away from among his family, because he hath no son? Give unto us therefore a possession among the brethren of our father.
27:5
And Moses brought their cause before the LORD.
27:6
And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
27:7
The daughters of Zelophehad speak right: thou shalt surely give them a possession of an inheritance among their father's brethren; and thou shalt cause the inheritance of their father to pass unto them.
27:8
And thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a man die, and have no son, then ye shall cause his inheritance to pass unto his daughter.And,
Quote 36:6
This is the thing which the LORD doth command concerning the daughters of Zelophehad, saying, Let them marry to whom they think best; only to the family of the tribe of their father shall they marry.
36:7
So shall not the inheritance of the children of Israel remove from tribe to tribe: for every one of the children of Israel shall keep himself to the inheritance of the tribe of his fathers.
36:8
And every daughter, that possesseth an inheritance in any tribe of the children of Israel, shall be wife unto one of the family of the tribe of her father, that the children of Israel may
enjoy every man the inheritance of his fathers.
36:9
Neither shall the inheritance remove from one tribe to another tribe; but every one of the tribes of the children of Israel shall keep himself to his own inheritance.
36:10
Even as the LORD commanded Moses, so did the daughters of Zelophehad:One of the more concise statements of how this would apply here, is by J Stafford Wright in Dict. of New Test. III 662:
“Mary's father (Heli?) had two daughters, Mary and the unamed wife of Zebedee (John 19:25, Matt 27:56). If there were not sons, Joseph would become son of Heli on his marriage, to preserve the family name and inheritance…(which accounts for Mary marrying a man of the family of David).
So the summation if this is true, Jesus got his genes from Mary and his legal standing (in the royal heir line) from Joseph (thru the marriage).
Some of the above discussion is stated with help from an article entitled “Response to the Fabulous Prophecies of the Messiah at http://www.christian-thinktank.com/fabproof4.html
God Bless
Quote (Towshab @ Oct. 28 2007,10:56) Forum, I will no longer discuss the issues in this thread. I have done something very unwelcome in this community and I no longer wish to continue.
towshab
I think you have done a great service to point out the inconsistencies between the canonical gospels. Many of the devout I have discussed such issues with either deny them without reference, or are entirely ignorant of them presumably because they have bought the bait, hook, line and sinker from a preacher in a church somewhere.Stuart
Quote (acertainchap @ Oct. 28 2007,14:07) Ok so now I want to hear why you believe there are flaws in the Bible and explain what they are.
Should we start with the giants mentioned in Genesis then again in Numbers, which survived the flood yet left no archeological evidence?Stuart
Some have come to the conclusion that the giants mentioned in Genesis are none other than the dinosaurs which I can say that I personally agree to.
Peace Stu.
94,
I was personally blessed by what you have shared. I have believed all along that Jesus was not the result of a human sperm. I'm not quite sure why folks want to believe that he is? At any rate, thank you for bringing your understanding to the board. It's helped me tremendously.
Love to you and your family,
MandyQuote Some have come to the conclusion that the giants mentioned in Genesis are none other than the dinosaurs which I can say that I personally agree to.
Peace Stu.What exactly are you saying here?
Quote (acertainchap @ Oct. 28 2007,14:29) Some have come to the conclusion that the giants mentioned in Genesis are none other than the dinosaurs which I can say that I personally agree to.
Peace Stu.
Genesis clearly says that the giants were present alongside humans. It also says they were the product of angels having intercourse with human women, so they must genetically have been at least 50 human. Humans have only been around for 200,000 years give or take a bit. Dinosaurs have not held sway for 65 million years. How do you square all this with your giants=dinosaurs hypothesis?Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Oct. 28 2007,22:36) Quote (acertainchap @ Oct. 28 2007,14:29) Some have come to the conclusion that the giants mentioned in Genesis are none other than the dinosaurs which I can say that I personally agree to.
Peace Stu.
Genesis clearly says that the giants were present alongside humans. It also says they were the product of angels having intercourse with human women, so they must genetically have been at least 50 human. Humans have only been around for 200,000 years give or take a bit. Dinosaurs have not held sway for 65 million years. How do you square all this with your giants=dinosaurs hypothesis?Stuart
http://paranormal.about.com/od/mysteriousremains/a/aa060605.htmInteresting Morningstar.
I have not seen any of this before.
I am anxious to hear Stu's comments if he watches these videos.Tim
Since others want me to continue, I saw yet another contradiction in the resurrection accounts. This one is powerful because the contradiction takes place in the same book and chapter!
——————–
Luk 24:12 Then arose Peter, and ran unto the sepulchre; and stooping down, he beheld the linen clothes laid by themselves, and departed, wondering in himself at that which was come to pass.
——————–
At this point notice that Peter did not encounter Jesus. He only found the empty tomb and then left. Notice what happens later
——————–
Luk 24:34 Saying, The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon.
——————–
Where? Not in Luke! In fact none of the gospels have Jesus appearing to Peter (Simon) personally. The best clue we have to this is 1 Cor 15:5
——————–
1Co 15:5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
——————–
Anyone notice a problem with this verse? Other than the fact that it is not supported in the gospel accounts? Paul says Jesus appeared to 'the twelve'. When Jesus was resurrected there was only 11 apostles! The 12th after Judas was not chosen until after Jesus ascended. So Paul has no clue, he is going by oral legend. Maybe he doesn't even know about Judas!The Christian bible has some nice philosophy but it fails miserably as a historical text.
Quote (Towshab @ Oct. 29 2007,12:34) Since others want me to continue, I saw yet another contradiction in the resurrection accounts. This one is powerful because the contradiction takes place in the same book and chapter!
——————–
Luk 24:12 Then arose Peter, and ran unto the sepulchre; and stooping down, he beheld the linen clothes laid by themselves, and departed, wondering in himself at that which was come to pass.
——————–
At this point notice that Peter did not encounter Jesus. He only found the empty tomb and then left. Notice what happens later
——————–
Luk 24:34 Saying, The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon.
——————–
Where? Not in Luke! In fact none of the gospels have Jesus appearing to Peter (Simon) personally. The best clue we have to this is 1 Cor 15:5
——————–
1Co 15:5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
——————–
Anyone notice a problem with this verse? Other than the fact that it is not supported in the gospel accounts? Paul says Jesus appeared to 'the twelve'. When Jesus was resurrected there was only 11 apostles! The 12th after Judas was not chosen until after Jesus ascended. So Paul has no clue, he is going by oral legend. Maybe he doesn't even know about Judas!The Christian bible has some nice philosophy but it fails miserably as a historical text.
what do think of this prophcey ?..TowshabZec 8:23 Thus saith the LORD of hosts; In those days [it shall come to pass], that ten men shall take hold out of all languages of the nations, even shall take hold of the skirt of him that is a Jew, saying, We will go with you: for we have heard [that] God [is] with you.
This all seems to be over the twelve goverment seats, one from each tribe,… yet the seats of Judah, wish to hold firm to the first born… birth rights, and teach as to claim the christ, Jacobs wives, and first Son, and his being tricked into marrage by his uncle, many things can be discovered from then , his waiting 7 years to receive the appointed wife, and her first born? that shall bring forth christ, you can see the birth records changed around, even in the OT, according to the hand writers wishes??
LOL… ENDS UP we are in amongest a very old argument, inticed to keep it rolling…and its BEComing A BIT OF A stail bitter JOKE..too meQuote (Towshab @ Oct. 29 2007,12:34) Since others want me to continue, I saw yet another contradiction in the resurrection accounts. This one is powerful because the contradiction takes place in the same book and chapter!
——————–
Luk 24:12 Then arose Peter, and ran unto the sepulchre; and stooping down, he beheld the linen clothes laid by themselves, and departed, wondering in himself at that which was come to pass.
——————–
At this point notice that Peter did not encounter Jesus. He only found the empty tomb and then left. Notice what happens later
——————–
Luk 24:34 Saying, The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon.
——————–
Where? Not in Luke! In fact none of the gospels have Jesus appearing to Peter (Simon) personally. The best clue we have to this is 1 Cor 15:5
——————–
1Co 15:5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
——————–
Anyone notice a problem with this verse? Other than the fact that it is not supported in the gospel accounts? Paul says Jesus appeared to 'the twelve'. When Jesus was resurrected there was only 11 apostles! The 12th after Judas was not chosen until after Jesus ascended. So Paul has no clue, he is going by oral legend. Maybe he doesn't even know about Judas!The Christian bible has some nice philosophy but it fails miserably as a historical text.
Towshab, my reply is getting off the discussions subject to some degree, so I will reply to your post in a more appropriate discussion.https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….ry80843
Quote (t8 @ Oct. 28 2007,21:25)
Towshab, my reply is getting off the discussions subject to some degree, so I will reply to your post in a more appropriate discussion.https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….ry80843
Hi T8,Your link is broken.
Hi Towshab:
It seems to me, knowing that there is no doubt that Jesus is the Messiah, that your time would better spent in studying to determine how God through the account of the virgin birth of His Son and his Christ kept his promise to David.
God Bless
Quote (942767 @ Oct. 28 2007,23:05) Hi Towshab: It seems to me, knowing that there is no doubt that Jesus is the Messiah, that your time would better spent in studying to determine how God through the account of the virgin birth of His Son and his Christ kept his promise to David.
God Bless
Hi 942767,I'm afraid I do not follow. I do not believe any part of this statement. I do not believe in a virgin birth nor do I believe Jesus was the Messiah.
Outside of Matthew and Luke, who else supports the idea of the virgin birth? Paul does not, he must not have even known about it.
——————–
Rom 1:3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;Gal 4:4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
——————–
In fact had the virgin birth not been mentioned, Jesus would have had more of a case of having a legitimate genealogy. That is another reason I think Matthew (and maybe Luke) actually tried to show he wasn't the Messiah. They seemed to drop hints all over the place. Since Joseph was not his father according to Matthew and Luke he did not come from the seed of David through Solomon. Of course there are other issues with the genealogies outside of the virgin birth but it makes it even more impossible for Jesus.
Matthew 11:25-27
At that time Jesus said, “I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this was your good pleasure.All things have been committed to me by my father.
No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.
Earthly wisdom is no comparison to a revelation from the true Messiah.
Quote (Towshab @ Oct. 29 2007,16:25) Quote (942767 @ Oct. 28 2007,23:05) Hi Towshab: It seems to me, knowing that there is no doubt that Jesus is the Messiah, that your time would better spent in studying to determine how God through the account of the virgin birth of His Son and his Christ kept his promise to David.
God Bless
Hi 942767,I'm afraid I do not follow. I do not believe any part of this statement. I do not believe in a virgin birth nor do I believe Jesus was the Messiah.
Outside of Matthew and Luke, who else supports the idea of the virgin birth? Paul does not, he must not have even known about it.
——————–
Rom 1:3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;Gal 4:4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
——————–
In fact had the virgin birth not been mentioned, Jesus would have had more of a case of having a legitimate genealogy. That is another reason I think Matthew (and maybe Luke) actually tried to show he wasn't the Messiah. They seemed to drop hints all over the place. Since Joseph was not his father according to Matthew and Luke he did not come from the seed of David through Solomon. Of course there are other issues with the genealogies outside of the virgin birth but it makes it even more impossible for Jesus.
Nathan was a replacement for Solomon…perhaps….because the offence of King David taking Bathsheba… from another man of war, and becoming the air to throne. over the top of the first born to David…Mary was pure, without blame..to be acused..raising the King
God chooses whomever he pleases for the “King” “don't step on the King of Gods choice and make him nothing”
even to the point of an age was and is dedicated to his coming and his life destroyed…that is the BC…and he came and born from the womb of a woman…..a Man child…a soul under the covenant of King David, to live forever
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
