- This topic has 933 replies, 47 voices, and was last updated 2 years, 4 months ago by
.
- Posts
Douglass wrote:
Quote I'd like to suggest an alternative version.
I am looking for an alternative original transcript of the book of Luke. I am sorry I was not more clear in my request. I ask because as far as I know one does not exist. If it did or even was substantially rumored to exist I would mention it as I did previously with the book of Matthew.
So brother Kerwin, you want to stick to inconsistencies than rationally thinking?
How can you bring out historical Jesus in the midst of so many inconsistencies in those stories developed 50 to 65 years after their actual happennings?Hi GM,
WE know truth aligns in the scriptures.
We do await the full revelation of some things.
But we do not doubt that scripture is true and prefer our thoughts.Thanks for such agreement. Let us be with open heart and mind to receive the truth that is to be revealed in full by God who holds the truth.
Thanks and peace to you
AdamHi GM,
Trust God.
He takes care of His Word.
And He leaves a few challenges so we can be as cunning as the serpents who adjusted small parts.Quote (gollamudi @ July 02 2009,12:51) So brother Kerwin, you want to stick to inconsistencies than rationally thinking?
How can you bring out historical Jesus in the midst of so many inconsistencies in those stories developed 50 to 65 years after their actual happennings?
I am looking for evidence and you are producing none. That is why I leveled the challenge to produce an early transcript of Luke that does not have the virgin conception story included. In return all I have heard from you is speculation. I can speculate quite a few things and the vast majority of them will be false no matter how reasonable I make them sound. What I am asking is “do you have and evidence to back up your speculation?”Hi brother Kerwin,
Do you still belive in virgin birth even after it is well debated of the misapplication of Isa 7:14 by Matthew?
If Jesus has no physical father do you think God was his literal father?
Don't you think Mary who was betrothed to another man can not give birth to a son who belongs another?
Don't you get such tensions when you being a learned person believe such developed stories by writers of First and third Gospels?Personally I find the whole idea of virgin birth a sales job by early gentile Christians designed to make Jesus more acceptable to the Romans who often viewed their heroes or leaders as having some sort of divine parentage. Now parthenogenesis is possible, it is found in the natural world but only in lower orders of life. “Parthenogenesis is a particular form of asexual reproduction in which females produce eggs that develop without fertilization. parthenogenesis is seen in aphids, rotifers, and some other invertebrates, as well as in some plants. Among vertebrates, there are several genera of fish, amphibians, and reptiles that exhibit differing form of asexual reproduction, including true parthenogenesis, gynogenesis, and hybridogenesis, an incomplete form of parthenogenesis. ” (courtesy of bio-medicine .org) So let us suppose that the Holy Spirit tweaked Mary's egg to develop without fertilization, note this makes more sense then a non-physical spirit impregnating a physical being; Jesus then would genetically be all Mary's. Since Joseph is the one from David's line and he is not involved in Jesus' procreation then Jesus would not be of the line of David which would conflict with other scripture. It would make more sense if he was Joseph's biological son. Note just because Jesus would be of totally human parentage would not mean that he wasn't sent by God or blessed with a superior spirit. I don't see why being born just like the rest of us takes away anything from his message or mission. In some ways it make him all the more remarkable. Those who truly look for divine wisdom don't need created theatrics.
Scripture is a collection not a solitary work. They were written over many years in many languages by many anonymous authors. They were translated and compiled by men often with political agendas. Some works are poetry and songs and obvious allegory so are difficult to take at face value. That some are inspired I have no doubt, yet others seem nonsensical. That is why like any work they must be critically examined and not held as the verbatim word of God, for obviously they are not.
No, most of the books I read have known authors and dates when written or published. Though some like the I Ching have sketchy backgrounds and arguments as to who the original authors were and who translated them in a correct fashion; in this they are much like scripture. What they all have in common both my so called books on philosophy and scripture is that none of them came from the mouth of God. I think if we want a book close to what would be the word of God we should all be reading books on mathematics.
Quote (Cato @ July 26 2009,11:08) Personally I find the whole idea of virgin birth a sales job by early gentile Christians designed to make Jesus more acceptable to the Romans who often viewed their heroes or leaders as having some sort of divine parentage. Now parthenogenesis is possible, it is found in the natural world but only in lower orders of life. “Parthenogenesis is a particular form of asexual reproduction in which females produce eggs that develop without fertilization. parthenogenesis is seen in aphids, rotifers, and some other invertebrates, as well as in some plants. Among vertebrates, there are several genera of fish, amphibians, and reptiles that exhibit differing form of asexual reproduction, including true parthenogenesis, gynogenesis, and hybridogenesis, an incomplete form of parthenogenesis. ” (courtesy of bio-medicine .org) So let us suppose that the Holy Spirit tweaked Mary's egg to develop without fertilization, note this makes more sense then a non-physical spirit impregnating a physical being; Jesus then would genetically be all Mary's. Since Joseph is the one from David's line and he is not involved in Jesus' procreation then Jesus would not be of the line of David which would conflict with other scripture. It would make more sense if he was Joseph's biological son. Note just because Jesus would be of totally human parentage would not mean that he wasn't sent by God or blessed with a superior spirit. I don't see why being born just like the rest of us takes away anything from his message or mission. In some ways it make him all the more remarkable. Those who truly look for divine wisdom don't need created theatrics.
Hi brother Cato,
It's a wonderful way to explain the so called virgin birth of Jesus. Yes you are right in saying if at all virgin birth was proved Jesus can only be a son of Mary and not God literally. If God is literal father of Jesus then it would be controdictory as per Jewish law Mary being betrothed to Joseph and can not have a child of another.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
