- This topic has 933 replies, 47 voices, and was last updated 2 years, 4 months ago by
.
- Posts
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Dec. 12 2008,09:56) Hi not3,
Two arms and two legs.
O you mean his mighty importance in the eyes of God
Indeed.
I've missed your sarcasm. No one does it like you do, Nick.Yes, two arms and two legs, however, as to his spirit he was proclaimed the Son of God.
You and I will have to wait for our adoption.
Ordinary? No, no I'm afraid anything but.
Meerkat
In response to the virgin birth;
Jesus came to be the ransom for Adam, through Adam sin entered into the world, and all are cursed with death. Adam was flesh in nature, Jesus was spirit in nature. Spirit can not die, therefore Jesus had to become one of us, flesh. We seem to have no problem believing God can change us in to spirit beings, why then should it be a problem to change a spirit being, Jesus, in to flesh?
That is what happened, Jesus was all flesh, not spirit, not both, Heb. 2:16.
Also, no other human could have died for Adam, even if there had been someone without sin. He could have only died for one, and then had to remain in the grave in his stead. That is what a ransom is, an exchange, trading places with the one in the grave by taking on his sins. The wages of sin is death, Rom. 6:23.
God took away his spirit body, and gave him a flesh body, and God needs no sperm to do that either. Life comes from the father, for us through the sperm, not so for God. Jesus was without sin, and without the curse of death, but he was born in sin. Mary was selected to be the vessel to bear the son of God, she was a virgin, but she was not sinless herself, Rom. 3:23. She also had children by Joseph her husband, Mat. 13:55,56.
You ask, how can the Holy Spirit be the Father of Jesus, if the Holy Spirit was a person, he should be the Father of Jesus according to the scripture, Luke 1:35.
The Holy Spirit is not a person, he is God's Holy Spirit, we all have a spirit, 1 Cor. 2:11, we call it a mind; only God's Mind/Spirit is Holy, ours is not, Phil. 2:5.
If you feel you can't trust the word of God, the Bible, then who can you trust? The Bible should be your source were you prove all things, if what you were told is so, Acts 17:11.
Jesus is not of the seed of David, he is of the linage of Judah through Mary. What is the seed of David, is it not flesh? Of the seed of David simply means being flesh; was he not also of the seed of Abraham, Heb. 2:16?
It was God's Holy Spirit that raised up Jesus from the dead, Acts 13:10, Rom, 8:11.
For Jesus to become our savior, he had to become first one of us, 1 Cor. 15:46, flesh, after his death and resurrection he became spirit again.
The first man of the earth, Adam; the second man from heaven, Jesus, v.47.
Verse 49 speaks of the first resurrection of the saints.
To be in the spiritual kingdom, you have to be in the first resurrection.
No, we are not to study scripture to see if it is true; we are to study scripture to see if what we were told is true, Acts 17:11.
The best attitude is as you have stated, search the scriptures until you find the answers, just don't forget to ask God to help you, Luke 11:9,10 and Ps. 2:6.
The priestly line was of the tribe of Levi, Jesus is of the tribe of Judah, read Hebrews the seventh chapter.
Jesus never had to overcome the curse of death, he was not affected by coming from the heavenly Father.
Meerkat, I got as far as page 19, if there are any specifics let me know, if I can I will help.Georg
Hi Georg,
The mind is not the spirit any more that the heart or body is.
The mind must be transformed by renewal.Tiffany,Dec. wrote:[/quote]
Georg,Hmmm …….
It seems that you have a theory worked out and have scripture to support it but I have found that all opposing theologies can be supported with scripture e.g preterism/futurism, eternal torment/universal salvation, trinity/one God, it just depends on which scriptures you pick vs which you ignore or explain away.
What I am looking at is to find the truth not pick a theology then support it with scripture. Theologies and ideas are good we are to use our intellect but we are also the follow the lead of the Holy Spirit.
To start with one thing jumped out at me
You say
Quote Jesus is not of the seed of David, he is of the linage of Judah through Mary. What is the seed of David, is it not flesh? Of the seed of David simply means being flesh; was he not also of the seed of Abraham, So that means that any male, who is flesh has a right to the throne.
From what I can gather the prophecies concerning the messiahs birth were about limiting it down to only one who had the right to the throne.
2Sa 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.
2Sa 7:13 He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever.
2Sa 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:
2Sa 7:15 But my mercy shall not depart away from him, as I took [it] from Saul, whom I put away before theeFor brother Kerwin and Sis Kathi,
This is the wonderful thread on virgin birth. But I can't agree with both of you on virgin birth.I thank brother Kerwin for his patience in explaining me in details. But I don't see any necessity of virgin birth since Jesus has to be a child of Adam and to be one like us. I don't see any mythological virgin birth is required for Jesus to be born sinless. The basic concept of Original sin itself is another mythology. The Oldest Gospel and the latest Gospel writers never believed these myths and even St Paul the earliest recorder of New Testament never claimed any virign birth. Please see the following arguements on virgin birth;
1. The story of the Virgin Birth is found only in the
introductory portion of two of the four Gospels–Matthew and
Luke–and even in these the story bears the appearance of
having been “fitted in” by later writers.2. Even Matthew and Luke are silent about the matter after
the statements in the introductory part of their Gospels,
which could scarcely occur had the story been written by and
believed in by the writers – such action on their part being
contrary to human custom and probability.3. The Gospels of Mark and John are absolutely silent on the
subject; the oldest of the Gospels–that of Mark–bears no
trace of the legend; and the latest Gospel–that of
John–being equally free from its mention.4. The rest of the New Testament breathes not a word of the
story or doctrine. The Book of Acts, generally accepted as
having also been written by Luke, ignores the subject
completely. Paul, the teacher of Luke and the great writer
of the Early Church, seems to know nothing whatever about
the Virgin Birth, or else purposely ignores it entirely – the
latter being unbelievable in such a man. Peter, the First
Apostle, makes no mention of the story or doctrine in his
great Epistles – which fact is inconceivable if he knew of
and believed in the legend. The Book of Revelation is
likewise silent upon this doctrine which played so important
a part in the later history of the Church. The great
writings of the New Testament contain no mention of the
story, outside of the brief mention in Matthew and Luke,
alluded to above.5. There are many verses in the Gospels and Epistles which
go to prove, either that the story was unknown to the
writers, or else not accepted by them. The genealogies of
Joseph are cited to prove the descent of Jesus from David,
which depends entirely upon the fact of Joseph's actual
parentage. Jesus is repeatedly and freely mentioned as the
son of Joseph. Paul and the other Apostles hold firmly to
the doctrine of the necessity of the Death of Jesus, his
Rising from the Dead and his Ascension into Heaven, etc.
But they had nothing to say regarding any necessity for his
Virgin Birth or the necessity for the acceptance of any
such doctrine. They are absolutely silent on this point,
although they were careful men, omitting no important detail
of doctrine. Paul even speaks of Jesus as “of the seed of
David.” (Rom. 1:3.)6. The Virgin Birth was not a part of the early traditions
or doctrine of the Church – but was unknown to it. And it is
not referred to in the preaching and teaching of the
Apostles, as may have been seen by reference to the Book of
Acts. This book, which relates the Acts and Teachings of the
Apostles, could not have inadvertently omitted such an
important doctrine or point of teaching. It is urged by
careful and conscientious Christian scholars that the
multitudes converted to Christianity in the early days must
have been ignorant of, or uninformed on, this miraculous
event – which would seem inexcusable on the part of the
Apostles, had they known of it and believed in its truth.
This condition of affairs must have lasted until nearly the
second century, when the pagan beliefs began to filter in by
reason of the great influx of pagan converts.7. There is every reason for believing that the legend arose
from other pagan legends, the religions of other peoples
being filled with accounts of miraculous births of heroes,
gods, and prophets, kings and sages.8. That acceptance of the legend is not, nor should it be, a
proof of belief in Christ and Christianity. This view is
well voiced by Rev. Dr. Campbell, in his “New Theology,”
when he says “The credibility and significance of
Christianity are in no way affected by the doctrine of the
Virgin Birth, otherwise than that the belief tends to put a
barrier between Jesus and the race, and to make him
something that cannot properly be called human…. Like many
others, I used to take the position that acceptance or
non-acceptance of the doctrine of the Virgin Birth was
immaterial, because Christianity was quite independent of it;
but later reflection has convinced me that in point of fact
it operates as a hindrance to spiritual religion and a real
living faith in Jesus. The simple and natural conclusion is
that Jesus was the child of Joseph and Mary and had an
uneventful childhood.” The German theologian, Soltau, says,
“Whoever makes the further demand that an evangelical
Christian shall believe in the words 'conceived by the Holy
Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary,' wittingly constitutes
himself a sharer in a sin against the Holy Spirit and the
true Gospel, as transmitted to us by the Apostles and their
school in the Apostolic Age.”And this then is the summing up of the contention between the conservative school of Christian theologians on the one side – and the liberal and radical schools on the other side. We have given you a statement of the positions, merely that you may understand the problem.
I hope these statement may stir us for more critical view of our New Testament.
Peace to all
AdamHi brother Nick,
I am sorry I am disappointing you by my posts. You might have noticed by this time that I am reading my Bible with a more critical view. I just can't accept everything available in the Bible as it is. As many in this forum also noticed that our Bible is having many controdictions(holes) on doctrines and concepts. Therefore there is no ending for our lengthy debates. We have to find a solution that either we are wrong or the scriptures. I see that NT is the most vulnerable part of the Bible where Greek and Pagan influence secretly entered into our Bible and separated Christianity from the basic Jewish Monotheism.All these myths like Virgin Birth, Original Sin, Trinity, Preexistence etc. are created by men during earliest centuries of Christianity. I find them utter confusion and failure on understanding the God of the Bible.
Hope you will understand my agony.
Peace to you
Adamgollamudi,
I have not heard of any manuscripts of Matthew or Luke that do not include the accounts of the Virgin birth and in at least Luke's account there is a whole lot more than just the virgin conception related.
Still in prophecy it is said this will be a sign to you and I can not see how a woman giving birth is a sign unless there is some miraculous connection.
The Ebionites are reported as not believing in the virgin birth and they had a gospel of Matthew that is reportedly different than the version we have now but I know of no transcripts of it being found as of yet. There are some aspects of the Ebionites that appear to make them legitimate but others not so much. Still what we know of them is what their foes tell us of them.
Have you done any research to confirm the reports you have heard?
Hi brother Kerwin,
I know nobody will agree with my views on deviating from the faith on Virgin Birth. Certainly many scholars like Rudolf Bultmann, Raymond E. Brown, John A.T. Robinson, John Shelby Spong etc. have argued on this issue that no literal Virgin Birth is possible except to create Jesus as incarnation of God or sinless man based on Oiginal sin concept. If you are interested, few links are given below;1. http://www.awitness.org/essays/virgin.html#twi
2. http://www.athmaprakashini.com/virginbirth3.htm#top
3. http://mb-soft.com/believe/txo/virginbi.htm
4. http://www.elijahnet.net/modern%20rabbis.htmlThanks and peace to you
Adamgollamudi,
Personally I believe that the tenet that there was no virgin birth is a Jewish myth put out by false Jews to disprove Jesus is the Messiah. What sign is Isaiah speaking of if not for a virgin being with child. Can you think of any other sign(miracle) that is being spoken of in Isaiah 7:14? The only other possibility is that the child will be called “God with us” and I do not believe that is the sign but rather what the sign is pointing to.
Hi brother Kerwin,
Please see this another argument on Isa 7:14;Virgin Birth debate:
1. http://z11.invisionfree.com/Yeshua_Quest/index.php?showtopic=271
2. http://forum.jerusalemperspective.com/viewtop….n+birthPlease participate if you want.
Thanks
AdamQuote (gollamudi @ April 29 2009,16:22) Hi brother Kerwin,
Please see this another argument on Isa 7:14;
Sounds exactly like the Jewish myth. The witness in question is not being completely honest. The word “almah” has more than one meaning and is pretty much the same as “maiden” in the English language. Scripture uses it 7 times and the online lexicon makes the point that at no time can it be proved the women in question is not a virgin.Your source failed to indicate what miracle Isaiah was speaking of and according to a Jew a sign is a miracle.
Here is source.
I read the top link and it is another Jewish source that labels the genealogy of Jesus to be a fraud. It then goes on to call Matthew a liar for quoting a a saying of the prophets that no one can verify the source of at this time. It then states the Greek translation of the Old Testament is of questionable accuracy.
It makes the point that the Hebrew language has a specific word for virgin so why use one that is not specific. The problem with that argument is that English also has a word for virgin but maiden is still used to mean it on occasion.
Still I thought the argument was interesting but I have my doubts Isaiah was calling his son “quick to the plunder, swift to the spoil” Immanuel. I was more interested in chapter 8 verse 8 which also mentions “Immanuel”.
When I have time I will try to look more into it.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
