- This topic has 933 replies, 47 voices, and was last updated 2 years, 6 months ago by
.
- Posts
Kerwin…..The Jews had a King,” Herod “, and He sought to kill Jesus remember, so they fled into Egypt, and they stayed there till Herod died, and Israel (the northern tribes, 10 each) were already dispersed into Europe the Caucuses and different parts of the world. They were captured by the ancient Assyrians, The Jews (the kingdom of Judah) were conquered by the Persian also by then and were some what dispersed , but still had there Land and there King was Herod. I know what you are saying and it is interesting but needs more clarity i Believe. IMO
peace and love to you and yours………………………..gene
Hi Kerwin & Gene:
It is really difficult for me to believe that this verse of scripture is speaking of Jesus, but nevertheless, the virgin birth is a reality.
I asked God about any other scriptures that confirm the virgin birth of Jesus other than those indicating that he was conceived of the Holy Ghost through the virgin Mary, and the two scriptures that He showed me, were:
Quote Gen 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 Mat 22:41 While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them,
Mat 22:42 Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, [The Son] of David.
Mat 22:43 He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying,
Mat 22:44 The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool?
Mat 22:45 If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?Love in Christ,
MartyHi brother Marty,
Even it is not convincing me to accept that the prophecy of Isa 7:14 can be applied to Jesus. But the logic of Jesus being the seed of woman would apply to Jesus as the son of woman not as to any virginbirth. Please see the woman in Gen 3:15 was not any virgin but she was the wife of Adam. Therefore I don't agree with the logic of virgin birth of Matthew and Luke. Certainly they have developed these infant stories from Jewish Midrash. I hope our brother Gene will also agree with me.Thanks and peace
AdamHi GM,
So the words of the apostles were lies or at least misconceptions?
Surely you will never quote them again.Hi GM.
You said ther offered infant stories.
Does this mean fantasy to you?Or did the write what they did not believe?
Or can you prove the word of God was altered?
If you have no such evidence you should not make accusations.Put up or withdraw it.
Hi brother Nick,
I do not believe in the “literal virgin birth” of Jesus. I simply do not NEED a virgin birth to validate the fact that God was in Jesus reconciling Himself to the world, nor that a virgin birth is necessary for any incarnational stance. Even before the Age of Enlightenment, well before the Newton, Galileo, and the more recent scientific innovations, the virgin birth was looked upon more as a MYTH. Myths are good, necessary, and critical to all societies. Let me explain So, what makes a myth so important in our lives? A myth (mythos) is a sacred story concerning the origins of the world or how the world and the creatures in it came to have their present form. Myths are found in traditional stories of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon.As to the topic the virgin birth was man’s attempt to explain the diety of Jesus!
I submit that neither God nor Jesus need our help in explaining how Jesus became the Christ and more importantly the second person of the trinity for the Christian community. Were it not for four chapters in the Bible (Matthew and Luke: chapters 1 and 2 in each), there would be no virgin birth story, no need for an Annunciation concept, no need for an Immaculate Conception theory, and no Mariology to try and intellectually defend or support.
It is NOWHERE stated in the New Testament that a person must accept the “virgin birth” in order to obtain eternal life. Anyone who states otherwise can be easily proven wrong.
IF Messiah was born of a “virgin” with no earthly father, why is it so rarely mentioned in the New Testament? IF such an event occurred, it would have been an astounding miracle and a subject of frequent discussion! Yet, the New Testament authors(other than Matthew and Luke) virtually never even mention it! This fact alone makes its actual occurrence unlikely.Isn’t it strange that neither the earliest gospel of Mark was silent on the virgin story, that St. John, who is above all the most mystical of all the New Testament writers, never mention it? And why didn’t St. Paul, (in any of his writings or epistles) the earliest of all writers of the New Testament manuscriptes, ever mention a virgin birth? Isn’t it such an astounding historical event to merit at least a mention by the above, or the writer of Hebrews as well?
But I leave you with this thought. Why? Why was there, is there a NEED for such a myth or more importantly for followers of Jesus to demand that a virgin birth be literal and not metaphorical?
Please think over
AdamHi GM,
If it was just man's attempt to explain something then it is not the word of God.
Whom do you now serve?Hi GM,
Are you now confident that you can remove certain parts of scripture that offend you?
People do that when their doctrine is not of God.Hi brother Nick,
That is called as de-mythologing the Kerygma what was first coined by great theologian like Rudolf Bultman.Adam………..I agree with you on Isa 7:14, the word rendered Virgin , is really young women or maiden or Lass, and that scripture was not talking about Jesus as Emanuel but Isiah's son. The berth of Jesus does gives credit to the uniqueness of Jesus, As a second created son, Adam being the first who was uniquely created, and then Jesus the second uniquely created (MAN). I am not sure of the mythology of the story of His berth, but to me He was a pure Human being and not a preexistent demigod or super being of any kind. He came into existence at his Birth Here on earth and anyone who believes otherwise is simply separating Jesus from themselves and are not connected with him no matter what they say or how much they say Lord Lord, or Master Master. His berth does cause some to think him separate from Us, and i believe anything that separates Jesus likeness from us is a false conception. you do have a point brother. IMO
peace and love to you and yours Adam………………………gene
Gene,
I studied whether the child Mahershalalhashbaz was or was not the child mentioned in Isaiah 7:16 and I put down what I found as well as my conclusion. My conclusion is indeterminate as I lacked sufficient evidence to say he was or was not.
Now I can not see how his mother, even if she was a young woman, having a child was a sign of anything for the simple reason that there were most likely young women having children constantly in Judah and anyone could have been the “sign”. On the other hand Mahershalalhashbaz was obviously a sign in himself as God gave him his name for that purpose.
Now for the last point I am assuming that the passage from Isaiah was not a prophecy of Jesus’ birth and the apostle Matthew knew that but chose to use it because it was true of Jesus as well. My argument rests on the idea that Jews use different reasoning the Greeks and therefore Matthew, a Jew, used this techniques while Luke, a Gentile, did not.
Here is an example where Matthew quoted scripture that was not actually speaking of Jesus and yet declares it is.
Matthew 2:15(KJV) reads:
Quote And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.
Matthew is quoting Hosea 11:1 is clearly not a Messianic prophecy but is rather a scripture telling how God called Israel out of Egypt during the time of Mosses. Still it is true of Jesus as well.
I believe some explain this by claiming that scriptures can be fulfilled in more than one way. I am not sure if that thought originated with the Jews or with the Christians.Hosea 11:1(KJV) reads:
Quote When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt.
Now alternatively it is believed that the Lord’s prayer was inadvertently altered when some scribe mistakenly though a note was part of the text and included it. If one scribe made such an error it is always possible that another included notes by someone poorly informed into the text of scripture and that the quotes in question are not really Matthew’s.
I favor the first hypothesis I advanced since the book of Hebrews appears to use the same technique as Matthew.
Quote (gollamudi @ June 20 2009,22:39) Hi brother Nick,
That is called as de-mythologing the Kerygma what was first coined by great theologian like Rudolf Bultman.
Hi GM,
If scripture is mythologised you cannot trust it.
You have to follow yourself and other men.
Such blind leaders finish up in the pit.Quote (gollamudi @ June 20 2009,22:18) Hi brother Nick,
I do not believe in the “literal virgin birth” of Jesus. I simply do not NEED a virgin birth to validate the fact that God was in Jesus reconciling Himself to the world, nor that a virgin birth is necessary for any incarnational stance. Even before the Age of Enlightenment, well before the Newton, Galileo, and the more recent scientific innovations, the virgin birth was looked upon more as a MYTH. Myths are good, necessary, and critical to all societies. Let me explain So, what makes a myth so important in our lives? A myth (mythos) is a sacred story concerning the origins of the world or how the world and the creatures in it came to have their present form. Myths are found in traditional stories of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon.As to the topic the virgin birth was man’s attempt to explain the diety of Jesus!
I submit that neither God nor Jesus need our help in explaining how Jesus became the Christ and more importantly the second person of the trinity for the Christian community. Were it not for four chapters in the Bible (Matthew and Luke: chapters 1 and 2 in each), there would be no virgin birth story, no need for an Annunciation concept, no need for an Immaculate Conception theory, and no Mariology to try and intellectually defend or support.
It is NOWHERE stated in the New Testament that a person must accept the “virgin birth” in order to obtain eternal life. Anyone who states otherwise can be easily proven wrong.
IF Messiah was born of a “virgin” with no earthly father, why is it so rarely mentioned in the New Testament? IF such an event occurred, it would have been an astounding miracle and a subject of frequent discussion! Yet, the New Testament authors(other than Matthew and Luke) virtually never even mention it! This fact alone makes its actual occurrence unlikely.Isn’t it strange that neither the earliest gospel of Mark was silent on the virgin story, that St. John, who is above all the most mystical of all the New Testament writers, never mention it? And why didn’t St. Paul, (in any of his writings or epistles) the earliest of all writers of the New Testament manuscriptes, ever mention a virgin birth? Isn’t it such an astounding historical event to merit at least a mention by the above, or the writer of Hebrews as well?
But I leave you with this thought. Why? Why was there, is there a NEED for such a myth or more importantly for followers of Jesus to demand that a virgin birth be literal and not metaphorical?
Please think over
Adam
Hi Adam,I think you have made some very interesting points here, and I will think it over. I'm not afraid to wonder about stuff like this. It certainly doesn't mean that I am serving a different god if I do – or that I am not being faithful to the Father and his Son by doing so (ridiculous). We have been given brains to contemplate subjects such as these.
So, thank you for your insight!
Love,
MandyHi not 3,
You do get the point though?
There are a few small areas where evidence can be shown that tampering has occurred.
But some foolishly deny scripture by saying it is mythic, allegorised or drawn from pagan sources without any such proofs.We know scripture is sacred being inspired by the Spirit of God so it needs to be treated with far more respect as mere men have no such rights over the words of God.
Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 21 2009,08:25) Hi not 3,
You do get the point though?
There are a few small areas where evidence can be shown that tampering has occurred.
But some foolishly deny scripture by saying it is mythic, allegorised or drawn from pagan sources without any such proofs.We know scripture is sacred being inspired by the Spirit of God so it needs to be treated with far more respect as mere men have no such rights over the words of God.
Our English translated bibles can hardly be described as sacred text. The translations were not done so through men under God's Holy Spirit. We know for a fact that the translators were deceptive and disingenuous forcing their own ideologies into the text.We need to test all things and prove all things, Adam is a dear brother in Christ, who follows such biblical wisdom. He has brought out some very good points, of which we should draw our attention to and consider. I am moved to investigate this topic myself, and search the scriptures thoroughly, Thanks Adam!!
If we cannot trust the Bible, who are we going to trust. If we take line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little, we can come up with the truth. Coming out of the Catholic Church we did believe in a Virgin Birth. But which I do not believe is that She stayed a Virgin, like they do. She had other Children.
Irene
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
