- This topic has 933 replies, 47 voices, and was last updated 2 years, 4 months ago by
.
- Posts
Quote (Gene @ Oct. 12 2009,23:16) Quote (gollamudi @ Oct. 12 2009,19:23) glad wrote:Gallamudi-
• According to the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus and the disciples ate a Passover meal, following which Jesus was arrested, tried, and crucified [Mt 26.17-21; Mk 14.12-18; Lk 22.7-15]. According to the Fourth Gospel, however, Jesus was executed on the day of Preparation for the Passover [Jn 19.31]. Some theologians speculate that the author of the Fourth Gospel wanted to portray Jesus as the Lamb sacrificed for the new Passover. Was this merely literary license? (For other possible explanations of this discrepancy and the problems associated therewith, see this Web site.)
Adam……..The account can be easily explained, remember a day began at the proceeding evening, So Jesus and His disciples could have eaten this meal together and He could have been killed that same day. Time was kept from evening to evening.peace and love to you and yours………………gene
I don't believe those are gollamudi's words nor does he seem willing to support them. I do not even know if he agrees with them.I believe the author is a ex-pastor who may well be guilty of what is called fault finding. Like most fault finding he may find errors both real and imagined either because of corruption or ignorance. He already confessed that he was guilty for the later while a pastor.
It appears to me as if he jumped to conclusion when he discovered his earlier error thus compounding it.
Hi brother Kerwin,
You always blame for bringing such contradictory material on this site. I agree could you please explain to me how the inconsistencies of our N.T can be avoided?
I request you not to blame me but to explain the questions that I brought forth.Quote (Gene @ Oct. 13 2009,04:16) Quote (gollamudi @ Oct. 12 2009,19:23) glad wrote:Gallamudi-
• According to the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus and the disciples ate a Passover meal, following which Jesus was arrested, tried, and crucified [Mt 26.17-21; Mk 14.12-18; Lk 22.7-15]. According to the Fourth Gospel, however, Jesus was executed on the day of Preparation for the Passover [Jn 19.31]. Some theologians speculate that the author of the Fourth Gospel wanted to portray Jesus as the Lamb sacrificed for the new Passover. Was this merely literary license? (For other possible explanations of this discrepancy and the problems associated therewith, see this Web site.)
Adam……..The account can be easily explained, remember a day began at the proceeding evening, So Jesus and His disciples could have eaten this meal together and He could have been killed that same day. Time was kept from evening to evening.peace and love to you and yours………………gene
But that is not so. It was the Feast of Unleavened Bread the next day, and Jesus died before Sundown. Each day starts on Sundown. So it was on Wednesday before Sundown when He died. If you count 3 days and 3 nights. That brings us to Sundown Saturday. So when Maria and Maria Magdalen,come to His grave early on Sunday morning He had already risen.
It was the night before that they kept Passover. I know all of this, because we kept all of God's Holy Days in the W.W. Church of God. Tell you the truth, even tho they did not have all of the truths, that time I considered to have been the best time of our Lives. There is something about keeping God's Holy Days, that makes you happy.
Peace and Love IreneQuote (glad tidings @ Oct. 13 2009,03:08) Gallumundi, I agree that at times one can get a biased viewpoint from reading dogmatic books. But truth is still truth, and if one is hungry and humbly asks Father to be led into truth, I believe – and know through experience – that He is faithful to answer that type of prayer.
The source of that truth could be a donkey, a little slave girl (as in the record of Naaman) or it could a roughly dressed man like John the Baptist; either way, humility and hunger are the keys. And along this line, is it safe to conclude that truth is ever “old” or “outdated”?
You menttioned the records of Matthew 1 and Luke 3 (the inconsistent geneological data relating to Joseph, Heli, and Jacob). May I exhort you to reconsider them along the lines of this evidence that I was blessed to receive?
The English [KJV] translation from the Greek word ANDRA , which is “husband in Matthew 1:16, is highly questionable. Translation from the Aramaic of Matthew 1:16 (GAVRA) makes a whole lot more sense.
GAVRA means “mighty man”. (The book I mentioned in previous post LIGHT THROUGH AN EASTERN WINDOW, by Bishop K.C. Pillai) gives wonderful insights to this truth. In Eastern culture, a “Gavra” was a father of a household; he was the “mighty man” of the family. A son in a household would not carry this description [see Galatians 4:1]).
The Aramaic translation of the word (which is translated “husband” from the Greek) would be better translated “father” in Matthew 1:16: “and Jacob begat Joseph the father of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, Who is callled Christ.” This reconciles a whole lot of inconsistency with Luke 3: and the record of Heli.
Ferretting this stuff out, one will find that Mary's father was named Joseph, and she happened to have a husband by the same name (two separate men). Therefore, Joseph's father was a man by the name of Jacob just as Matthew 1 16 says. Joseph, the husband of Mary had a father by the name of Heli, just as Luke 3:23 says.
Further proof of the rightness of the translation of the Aramaic word GAVRA to the English word “father” is given in verse 19 of Matthew chapter one. Here, the proper Aramaic word for “husband” (which is BALI , not GAVRA) is rendered in the text : “then Joseph her husband [ Bali ], being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example…”
If that's not enough proof, here's another safeguard YHWH inserted into the text to guard this truth :
The geneology in the gospel of Matthew gives a numerical checklist that YHWH included in order to precisely give the account and validity of Jesus's claim to Messiahship.A summary statement in regards to this geneology begins in verse 17, and it says that there are 14 generations from Abraham to David. Next, it mentions that there are 14 generations from David to the carrying away to Babylon. And finally, there are 14 generations from the carrying away to Babylon to Messiah.
If the Joseph mentioned in Matthew 1:16 were Mary's husband, then one could only account for 13 generations (that is, starting from Salathiel and ending with Jesus). Due to the fact that Joseph (here) is her father, then the geneology goes to 14, just as the Biblical text indicates.
The geneological data listed in Matthew is intended to give Jesus's rightful positon to the throne through Mary, his mother. The descendents from David onwards were the legal candidates to the throne according to I Chronicles 17:11-17 and II Samual 7:12-17.
Grace & peace,
Patrick
This is a well thought out post. I enjoyed it.gollamudi wrote:
Quote I request you not to blame me but to explain the questions that I brought forth.
I do not believe you understand my point. I am an intellectual so I like to discuss such issue but you appear not to be interested in such pursuits and so it is a waste of my time to attempt to engage you in them. I do not have the time.
In the cases you mention the individuals are looking for faults because they do not want to believe that Jesus is the Anointed One. Considering that scripture was written about two thousand years ago and even at that time the language was probably open to interpretation as ours currently is I can see plenty of room to find fault whether it exists or not.
Your sources believe that the writers of the New Testament are liars and I do not see how you can embrace their ideas without sharing that belief. Let’s take the virgin birth scenario. Either Matthew or Luke are telling the truth when they recounting the tale or they are making it up. The only other possibility is someone added it at a later date even though we have no evidence that that is the case. Your claim is like the book Da Vinci Code code that states Jesus and Mary were married and that the Catholic Church covered it up. At least Da Vinci Code admits it is a work of fiction.
You can choose to believe that Jesus was not conceived miraculously if you want just like someone can choose to believe that Jesus and Mary were married but you have no real evidence to support that belief.
I am not even sure if either of those beliefs are damaging to the message of salvation except to the point where they may cause people to doubt the reliability of New Testament witnesses.
BIBLE LISTS OF JESUS’ GENEALOGY
Genesis 1 Chronicles Matthew Luke
and Ruth Chaps 1, 2, 3 Chap 1 Chap 3Adam Adam Adam
Seth Seth Seth
Enosh Enosh Enosh
Kenan Kenan Cainan
Mahalalel Mahalalel Mahalaleel
Jared Jared Jared
Enoch Enoch Enoch
Methuselah Methuselah Methuselah
Lamech Lamech Lamech
Noah Noah Noah
Shem Shem Shem
Arpachshad Arpachshad Arpachshad
Cainan
Shelah Shelah Shelah
Eber Eber Eber
Peleg Peleg Peleg
Reu Reu Reu
Serug Serug Serug
Nahor Nahor Nahor
Terah Terah Terah
Abram Abraham Abraham Abraham
(Abraham)Isaac Isaac Isaac Isaac
Jacob (Israel) Jacob Jacob Jacob
Judah (and Judah Judah Judah
Tamar) (and Tamar)Perez Perez Perez Perez
Hezron Hezron Hezron Hezron
Ram Ram Ram Arni (Ram?)
Amminadab Amminadab Amminadab Amminadab
Nahshon Nahshon Nahshon Nahshon
Salmon Salmon (Salma, Salmon (and Salmon
1Ch 2:11) Rahab)Boaz (and Boaz Boaz (and Boaz
Ruth) Ruth)Obed Obed Obed Obed
Jesse Jesse Jesse Jesse
David David David (and David
Bath-sheba)Solomon Solomon Nathan 1
Rehoboam Rehoboam Mattatha
Abijah Abijah Menna
Asa Asa Melea
Jehoshaphat Jehoshaphat Eliakim
Jehoram Jehoram Jonam
Ahaziah Joseph
Jehoash
Judas
Symeon
Amaziah Levi
Azariah (Uzziah) Uzziah Matthat
(Azariah)Jotham Jotham Jorim
Ahaz Ahaz Eliezer
Hezekiah Hezekiah Jesus
Manasseh Manasseh Er
Amon Amon Elmadam
Josiah Josiah Cosam
Jehoiakim Addi
Melchi
Jeconiah Jeconiah Neri
(Jehoiachin)Shealtiel Shealtiel Shealtiel 3
(Pedaiah) 2Zerubbabel 4 Zerubbabel Zerubbabel
Rhesa
Abiud Joanan
Joda
Eliakim Josech
Semein
Azor Mattathias
Maath
Zadok Naggai
Esli
Achim Nahum
Amos
Eliud Mattathias
Joseph
Eleazar Jannai
Melchi
Matthan Levi
Matthat
Jacob Heli (father
of Mary)Joseph Joseph (Heli’s
son-in-law)Jesus Jesus
(foster son) (Mary’s son)Sorry that the above is garbled.
The difference in nearly all the names in Luke’s genealogy of Jesus as compared with Matthew’s is quickly resolved in the fact that Luke traced the line through David’s son Nathan, instead of Solomon as did Matthew. (Lu 3:31; Mt 1:6, 7) Luke evidently follows the ancestry of Mary, thus showing Jesus’ natural descent from David, while Matthew shows Jesus’ legal right to the throne of David by descent from Solomon through Joseph, who was legally Jesus’ father. Both Matthew and Luke signify that Joseph was not Jesus’ actual father but only his adoptive father, giving him legal right. Matthew departs from the style used throughout his genealogy when he comes to Jesus, saying: “Jacob became father to Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ.” (Mt 1:16) Notice that he does not say ‘Joseph became father to Jesus’ but that he was “the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born.” Luke is even more pointed when, after showing earlier that Jesus was actually the Son of God by Mary (Lu 1:32-35), he says: “Jesus . . . being the son, as the opinion was, of Joseph, son of Heli.”—Lu 3:23.
Since Jesus was not the natural son of Joseph but was the Son of God, Luke’s genealogy of Jesus would prove that he was, by human birth, a son of David through his natural mother Mary. Regarding the genealogies of Jesus given by Matthew and by Luke, Frederic Louis Godet wrote: “This study of the text in detail leads us in this way to admit—1. That the genealogical register of Luke is that of Heli, the grandfather of Jesus; 2. That, this affiliation of Jesus by Heli being expressly opposed to His affiliation by Joseph, the document which he has preserved for us can be nothing else in his view than the genealogy of Jesus through Mary. But why does not Luke name Mary, and why pass immediately from Jesus to His grandfather? Ancient sentiment did not comport with the mention of the mother as the genealogical link. Among the Greeks a man was the son of his father, not of his mother; and among the Jews the adage was: ‘Genus matris non vocatur genus [“The descendant of the mother is not called (her) descendant”]’ (‘Baba bathra,’ 110, a).”—Commentary on Luke, 1981, p. 129.
Actually each genealogy (Matthew’s table and Luke’s) shows descent from David, through Solomon and through Nathan. (Mt 1:6; Lu 3:31) In examining the lists of Matthew and Luke, we find that after diverging at Solomon and Nathan, they come together again in two persons, Shealtiel and Zerubbabel. This can be explained in the following way: Shealtiel was the son of Jeconiah; perhaps by marriage to the daughter of Neri he became Neri’s son-in-law, thus being called the “son of Neri.” It is possible as well that Neri had no sons, so that Shealtiel was counted as his “son” for that reason also. Zerubbabel, who was likely the actual son of Pedaiah, was legally reckoned as the son of Shealtiel, as stated earlier.—Compare Mt 1:12; Lu 3:27; 1Ch 3:17-19.
Then the accounts indicate that Zerubbabel had two sons, Rhesa and Abiud, the lines diverging again at this point. (These could have been, not actual sons, but descendants, or one, at least, could have been a son-in-law. Compare 1Ch 3:19.) (Lu 3:27; Mt 1:13) Both Matthew’s and Luke’s genealogies of Jesus vary here from that found in 1 Chronicles chapter 3. This may be because a number of names were purposely left out by Matthew and possibly also by Luke. But the fact should be kept in mind that such differences in the genealogical lists of Matthew and Luke are very likely those already present in the genealogical registers then in use and fully accepted by the Jews and were not changes made by Matthew and Luke.
We may conclude, therefore, that the two lists of Matthew and Luke fuse together the two truths, namely, (1) that Jesus was actually the Son of God and the natural heir to the Kingdom by miraculous birth through the virgin girl Mary, of David’s line, and (2) that Jesus was also the legal heir in the male line of descent from David and Solomon through his adoptive father Joseph. (Lu 1:32, 35; Ro 1:1-4) If there was any accusation made by hostile Jews that Jesus’ birth was illegitimate, the fact that Joseph, aware of the circumstances, married Mary and gave her the protection of his good name and royal lineage refutes such slander.
The question arises: Why does Matthew leave out some names that are contained in the listings of the other chroniclers? First of all, to prove one’s genealogy it was not necessary to name every link in the line of descent. For example, Ezra, in proving his priestly lineage, at Ezra 7:1-5, omitted several names contained in the listing of the priestly line at 1 Chronicles 6:1-15. Obviously it was not essential to name all these ancestors to satisfy the Jews as to his priestly lineage. Similarly with Matthew: He doubtless used the public register and copied from it, if not every name, the ones necessary to prove the descent of Jesus from Abraham and David. He also had access to the Hebrew Scriptures, which he could consult alongside the official public records.—Compare Ru 4:12, 18-22 and Mt 1:3-6.
The lists made by both Matthew and Luke were comprised of names publicly recognized by the Jews of that time as authentic. The scribes and Pharisees as well as the Sadducees were bitter enemies of Christianity, and they would have used any possible argument to discredit Jesus, but it is noteworthy that they never challenged these genealogies. If either Matthew’s or Luke’s genealogy of Jesus had been in error, what an opportunity it would have been for these opponents to prove it then and there! For until 70 C.E. they evidently had ready access to the public genealogical registers and the Scriptures.
The same is true regarding the first-century pagan enemies of Christianity, many of whom were, like those Jews, learned men who would readily have pointed to any evidence that these lists of Matthew and Luke were unauthentic and contradictory. But there is no record that the early pagan enemies attacked Christians on this point.
Also, both Matthew and Luke achieved their objective, and that was all they needed to do. To prove that Jesus was descended from Abraham and David, it was not necessary to make a new genealogy. All they had to do was copy from the public tables that the nation fully accepted regarding the lineage of David and of the priesthood and all other matters requiring proof of one’s descent. (See Lu 1:5; 2:3-5; Ro 11:1.) Even if there was an omission in these tables, it did not detract from what these Gospel writers intended and indeed accomplished, namely, presenting legally and publicly recognized proof of the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah.
Quote (kerwin @ Oct. 13 2009,18:42) I am not even sure if either of those beliefs are damaging to the message of salvation except to the point where they may cause people to doubt the reliability of New Testament witnesses.
Hi brother kerwin,
I appreciate your careful reply. In fact this is where I am held up in understanding the inconsistencies of our N.T. If some of the narrations in the N.T are not reliable it goes further to doubt even the basic truths of their Christology. That is what my argument about. Do you think Meesiah to be born of a virgin if you say Jesus has to be human like you and me.I think you don't believe in the divinity of Jesus then where is the question of incarnation of God in him?Jesus was declared as Messiah only on his resurrection according to Rom 1:1-3 and also as for most primitive Christology of all (Acts 2 &3). The Gospel writers only imagined Jesus being Messiah even at his birth and developed infant narrations based on O.T prophecies. I don't see any historical base for them. Even the famous N.T Scholar, Fr. Raymond Brown argued in his book 'The Birth of Messiah'.
Please accept truth and don't base your theology on blind belief.
Thanks and peace to you
AdamHi GM,
Scripture is true but your words are suspect.
Jesus was proven to be the Son of God when he was raised uncorrupted.[Rom1, Acts2]God ensured he fulfilled all scriptures about his coming and those of God recognised God in him at work after the Jordan and while he walked among them.
Blind men did better than the sighted at that time.
gollamudi wrote:
Quote Do you think Messiah to be born of a virgin if you say Jesus has to be human like you and me. I think you don't believe in the divinity of Jesus then where is the question of incarnation of God in him?
If I understand your argument correctly you are saying that if Jesus was conceived by a virgin then he had to be divine. I just do not see where that statement is true as I believe both that Jesus is as human as you and me and also that he was born of a virgin. The only divine feature of Jesus is that he has the Holy Spirit living in him. If that makes him divine then anyone who truly believes in him also becomes divine. I am certainly not saying that is the case as such an idea is absurd to me.
gollamudi wrote:
Quote Jesus was declared as Messiah only on his resurrection according to Rom 1:1-3 and also as for most primitive Christology of all (Acts 2 &3).
I am going to disagree with you on this one since according to the accounts in at least one gospel demons were acknowledging him as the Anointed One early in his ministry. The point that was being made in Romans 1 is probably not as straightforward as you believe. It is my opinion is that Jesus being raised from the dead had to do with “the wages of sin is death” and since he did not sin death had no hold on him. That is also why world was condemned by his death. It is true that his lack of sin is what declared him to be the Anointed One. The Jews agree with this idea even though they do not acknowledge Jesus as the Messiah.
gollamudi wrote:
Quote The Gospel writers only imagined Jesus being Messiah even at his birth and developed infant narrations based on O.T prophecies.
I am not sure where you get that idea as I do not even believe Luke referenced the Old Testament prophecies in his accounting of Jesus’ infant narration. On the other hand Matthew, A Jew, did reference it but not according to the Hellenistic reasoning we use today.
gollamudi wrote:
Quote Please accept truth and don't base your theology on blind belief.
My belief happens to be based on the evidence of scripture and I base my trust in scripture on the attributes of God. I choose to trust in the reliability of the witnesses who prove reliable in other ways. Thus it is not considered blind belief. The question is what your belief is based on.
THE DOCTRINE OF THE VIRGIN BIRTH WAS NOT TAUGHT BY THE EARLY CHURCH
Because the traditions of the virgin birth and the legends which venerate Mary have been so much a part of the culture and system of dogma of the church, it could logically be supposed that such traditions and stories and the doctrines which were derived from them would have been widely supported by both canonical and non-canonical literature as well as by documentary or other historical evidence. But no literature or historical records which can be dated before the end of the second century support the dogma of the virgin birth. One should not be too surprised by this. Neither of the birth traditions recorded in the gospels of Matthew and Luke are even mentioned anywhere else in the New Testament. And the doctrine of the virgin birth was not taught by the leaders of the primitive church in Jerusalem.
There is not a single reference — either direct or indirect — to the virgin birth of Jesus in the entire book of Acts. It must be presumed, therefore, that the doctrine had absolutely no place in the preaching of the apostles.
The writer whom we judged to be probably the most scholarly as well as the most able and thorough defender of the dogma of the virgin birth was J. Gresham Machen. Nevertheless, in his discussion of the relation of the birth narratives to the rest of the New Testament, he was forced to conclude: “From the foregoing review of the evidence, it appears that the virgin birth was not known during the early life of Jesus and even after the resurrection probably did not form a part of the missionary preaching of the earliest apostolic church.” [J. Gresham Machen, The Virgin Birth of Jesus, p 263.]
This admission that the doctrine of the virgin birth was not a part of the missionary preaching of the apostles during the period of the early expansion of the church is confirmed by the fact that neither the Christology of Paul nor the theologies of any of the New Testament evangelists depended upon the belief that Jesus was miraculously conceived and subsequently born of a virgin. It will come as a surprise to many Christians that it is actually impossible to fit the doctrine of the virgin birth into the theology of the primitive church — certainly as that theology is stated in the New Testament. Machen was absolutely correct when he admitted that the doctrine of the virgin birth had no place in the preaching of the apostles. Because the earliest apostolic missionaries never mentioned the belief that Jesus was miraculously conceived and subsequently born of a virgin mother, it may reasonably be concluded that they did not think it necessary to endorse it — if in fact they had heard of it.
EXAMINING THE LETTERS OF PAUL
Paul never mentions the virgin birth. He does not even allude to it in connection with the creation or the rationalization of any of his doctrines. The logical conclusion must be that he did not believe that Jesus' birth was unusual. But silence alone cannot prove the absence of belief. So, although it is logical to conclude that Paul did not accept the doctrine of the virgin birth, that conclusion cannot be proved to someone who is unwilling to accept it. To do this would require providing an exegesis of every verse of Paul's writings to the end of demonstrating that none of them supported the theory that Jesus was born of a virgin.
Fortunately it is unnecessary to be so thorough. Assuming that Paul's reasoning is consistent throughout his theology, all one needs to do to determine whether his views can be harmonized with a belief in the virgin birth or whether they preclude such a belief is to analyze a few of his fundamental doctrines as he stated them in letters to certain churches. We have made a rather extended examination of two of his more unique doctrines. That examination requires us to conclude that Paul did not — in fact, could not — believe that Jesus' birth was extraordinary. Our conclusion is based largely upon the fact that Paul argued that Jesus was born just as all other human beings were born, that his birth was “common” to all men.
Galatians 4:4-7
When Paul wrote to the Galatians about the birth of Jesus, he stated: “But when the time had fully come, G-d sent forth his son, born of woman, born under the law . . .” (Galatians 4:4 RSV).
One phrase from this statement deserves particular attention. That phrase is normally translated, “born of woman” — or “born of a woman.” Two translations, however, have the passage read, “born of a human mother.” It seems at first that this translation, found in both The Good News Bible and The New Testament in Modern English, stretches the literal meaning of the original language. But a close scrutiny of these words in their context shows that this is the reading which expresses precisely what Paul intended to say to the Galatians. The Greek word he chose to use here was the word for “married woman” or “mother” [ gune] instead of the word [parthenos]. “Gune” refers normally to a woman who was married and had borne a child. “Parthenos” refers to any young woman of marriageable age. It would be used occasionally of a young woman even after she had been married but had not yet become a mother. The correct reading of Paul's words is, therefore, “born of a human mother.”
It has been argued extensively that Mary's conception was miraculous even though Jesus' birth was perfectly normal. Consequently, the argument runs, it was quite proper to apply the term “gune” to Mary; and because it meant “a married woman who had borne a child,” thus, “a human mother,” then Mary qualified for the designation “gune”, even though she was a true virgin.
The trouble here is that the advocates of the virgin birth read into Paul's statement to the Galatians all those assumptions about Mary being a true virgin. Paul said absolutely nothing here — or anywhere else — to warrant that opinion. Furthermore, it is very questionable whether any of the Galatians had ever heard of either of the birth traditions. And, even if some of them were familiar with at least one, there would surely be others who were not. So it cannot be assumed that the Galatians would read the concept of Mary's virginity into their understanding of this passage. Paul makes no inference here — much less a direct assertion — to the effect that Jesus' conception had been unusual.
Paul was actually claiming precisely the opposite. He was stressing to the Galatians that Jesus had been born of “a human mother” just like everyone else had been. The language Paul used here, especially his word for “woman,” indicates he was convinced that Jesus' birth was perfectly normal in every respect.
It is essential to understand the context here. Paul first explains to the Galatians that in the past “when we were children, we were slaves to the elemental spirits of the universe” (Galatians 4:3 RSV. Then he tells how G-d had concluded that the appropriate time had come for him to send his Son to “redeem those who were under the law” (Galatians 4:5 RSV). He states further that G-d had concluded also that to accomplish this the Son had to become one with those he was coming to redeem. That is, he must be subject to the Law the same as everyone else. This, of course, would require him to be born of woman just as they had been. Paul puts the entire matter into a remarkable statement, one which should be perfectly clear, but which is often misinterpreted. Read how Phillips translates it:
“But when the proper time came G-d sent his Son, born of a human mother and born under the jurisdiction of the Law, that he might redeem those who were under the authority of the Law and lead us into becoming, by adoption, true sons of G-d” (Galatians 4:4-5 Phillips).
Paul is affirming here the reality of Jesus' humanity under the Law. This means that Jesus, like everyone else, was subject to the Law. Paul gives no hint that he believes Jesus was born in a mirac
ulous manner. The impression he gives, and obviously the impression he intends to give, is that Jesus' birth was exactly like that which is common to all men.This passage from Galatians is often pointed to as one of Paul's clearest and strongest statements about the incarnation. We cannot view this statement as going that far. But it is an affirmation that Paul believed that Jesus was the Son of G-d. Had Paul believed in the virgin birth, he surely would have mentioned it to support this understanding. Instead, he tacitly denies a belief in the virgin birth when he equates Jesus' birth to that of all others who had been born “under the law.”
ROMANS 1:3-4
One of the more significant statements of Paul is found in Romans l:3-4. It provides the theological foundation for several of his doctrines which are stated later in his Letter to the Romans. The language of most translations obscures Paul's meaning Somewhat. No translation, we believe, gives an easily understandable and at the same time a fully accurate rendition of what Paul actually said. This is evidenced by the differences in language in the several versions we have been consulting. We have very little trouble with the translation of The New English Bible, except for its inclusion of one phrase. The concept of “the Holy Spirit” is incorrectly introduced into an otherwise brilliant reading. This concept is used here with the meaning it carried a century or so later. Our quarrel with this particular translation is not with the generic meaning of “Holy Spirit” but with the fact that this term is not found in Paul's original language. Paul never refers to “the Holy Spirit” in this passage. Moreover, other translators do not introduce it into their translations. Among the twelve versions we have been using, The New English Bible is the only one in which “the Holy Spirit” appears. Some versions do speak of “the Spirit of holiness,” capitalizing “Spirit,” in the attempt to identify “spirit” as “Holy Spirit.” This cannot be justified, however, because the word Paul used in this context was ‘pneuma.” It is the general word for “spirit.” It must be translated without capitalizing “s”. A few translators have resolved the problem by using “his divine holiness” or an equivalent. Notice how Paul differentiates between the two “levels” of Jesus' person-hood: “It [the gospel] is about his Son: on the human level he was born of David's stock, but on the level of the spirit . . . he was declared Son of G-d by a mighty act in that he rose from the dead; it is about Jesus Christ our Lord”(Romans l:3-4 NEB).
What is important here is that Paul was noting how Jesus had a peculiar relationship with G-d on two levels. On the human level, G-d designated him as “the Anointed One,” that is, as “the Christ.” Paul regularly used the Greek synonym, Christ, for Messiah. On the level of the spirit, G-d declared Jesus to be Son of G-d on the occasion of raising him from the dead.
Paul points out that on the human level (“according to the flesh”) Jesus was qualified to be designated as “the Anointed One.” Paul never uses the Hebrew title “Messias”. But he is constantly adding its Greek synonym “Christ” to Jesus' name. He was thereby stipulating that Jesus was the “Messias.” In Paul's terminology this means “the Christ” by virtue of being born of David's stock.
Answer for yourself: But how had he descended from David? Through his father, Joseph. Because Paul stipulated that Jesus was “of David's stock” he was thereby stipulating also that Joseph was his father. This proves that Paul could not have believed that Jesus was conceived miraculously by the Holy Spirit and was subsequently born of a true virgin – born therefore without a human father. In such a case he would not have been “of David's stock.”
But being eligible to be selected as “The Anointed One” did not automatically make Jesus that. Paul believed that Jesus received that designation when G-d raised him from the dead. Therefore, it was Paul's understanding that Jesus was not really “the Anointed One” prior to his resurrection.
Something else happened when Jesus was raised from the dead. It happened on the level of the spirit. Note how Paul puts it: “. .. on the level of the spirit . . . he was declared Son of G-d by a mighty act in that he rose from the dead: it is about Jesus Christ our Lord” (Romans l:4 NEB). This passage shows clearly that Paul was convinced Jesus was the Son of G-d. It also confirms that Paul believed that Jesus was not to be regarded as the Son of G-d prior to his resurrection. Paul asserts here that Jesus became the Son of G-d at the time of his resurrection.
One must not overlook either of the emphases Paul made in this extremely important — yet often misunderstood — passage. On the human level, Jesus' relationship with G-d was as G-d's Anointed One. But on the spiritual level, his relationship was as Son. This means that Jesus was Son of G-d on the spiritual level. It is significant that Paul believed that both of these relationships were achieved upon the occasion of Jesus' resurrection.
For the purpose of this study, the most important fact which has come to light is that in Paul's view neither Jesus' relation to G-d on the human (physical) level as his “Anointed One” — thus, as the Messiah — nor his relation to G-d on the spiritual level as His “Son,” had anything to do with the manner of his birth. Paul believed that both relationships were achieved when Jesus was resurrected.
This means that according to Paul, Jesus' divine Son-ship — in all its aspects — came neither by virtue of his ancestry nor from his manner of birth but because of and in connection with his resurrection.
ROMANS 5:12-21
Paul presents one of his key doctrines in Romans 5:l2-21. Inasmuch as these verses will be examined thoroughly in a later section, we need only to note here that this passage about the so-called “Second Adam” also precludes Paul's believing in the virgin birth.PAUL’S CHRISTOLOGY
Many volumes have been written for the purpose of stating, or explaining, or defending Paul's Christology. Even if we felt competent to compose an analysis of Paul's doctrine of Jesus as the Christ, no such analysis is needed here. It is only necessary to point out that Paul is completely silent about the virgin birth. This means that the subject is never mentioned or alluded to in any of his Christological passages. The most impressive thing about Paul's silence here is not just that he is completely silent but that he does not say anything in those areas where his silence is inexplicable if he knew of and accepted either of the birth traditions of Matthew and Luke. Paul obviously was able to develop what was to him a complete and consistent Christology without the use of or the dependence upon the concept of a miraculous conception of Jesus and his subsequent birth of a virgin.
EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
The author of The Epistle to the Hebrews, while not an eyewitness (Hebrews 2:3), does have a vivid knowledge of several events in the life of Jesus and in the early church. He was obviously knowledgeable about the contemporary beliefs and activities of the early Christians. But he, like Paul, was completely silent about any understanding that Jesus was born of a virgin.
This early Christian writer emphasized that Jesus was human. If one is surprised by this emphasis, he should know that there was abroad a heresy which insisted that Jesus was entirely divine and not in the least human. However, it was the contention of this New Testament theologian that Jesus assumed his humanity temporarily in order to become a worthy High Priest and thereby be the source of eternal salvation. In the course of his explanation of how Jesus became temporarily human (“for a little while was made a little lower than the angels,” Hebrews 2:9 RSV) this unknown author could have referred to Jesus' birth. Inasmuch as he did not, one must presume that h
e did not consider such a reference to be necessary or even valuable, although the doctrine of the virgin birth could have supported his stated belief that Jesus was “made a little lower than the angels.”Possibly the author of Hebrews did not refer to the birth traditions because he had not heard them. Or it may be that he was aware of them but rejected the claims being made in them because he believed that Jesus' birth occurred in a completely normal way. This can be deduced from the fact that he made Jesus' humanity — his perfect humanity — the basis for his ministry of redemption. It was Jesus' perfect obedience as a human which proved that he was the perfect Son of G-d. It had nothing to do with how he was born.
The gist of the theology of this unknown author is found in the references we pointed to at the beginning of this section. The one verse which expresses his view best is: “For the one who makes men holy and the men who are made holy share a common humanity” (Hebrews 2:ll Phillips).
This early Christian theologian accepts Jesus as a human being as well as a Son of G-d. But he does not predicate Jesus' Son-ship upon a virgin birth. When he states that Jesus and the ones he came to “make holy” “share a common humanity,” he proves that he considers Jesus' birth to have been exactly like that of all other humans. Their humanity was common.
He confirms all of the previous conclusions when he adds later: “Therefore he had to be made like his brethren in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of G-d, to make expiation for the sins of the people. For because he himself has suffered and been tempted, he is able to help those who are tempted” (Hebrews 2:l7-l8 RSV). This entire passage is significant, of course, but the phrase, “in every respect,” must be singled out for emphasis. This generalization does not allow for the exclusion of any phase of Jesus' humanity.
The intent of the author of Hebrews was obviously to prove the perfect humanity of Jesus, a humanity he describes as just like that of all other humans. It must follow that he could not have believed the tenets of the dogma of the virgin birth, a dogma which declares that Jesus was not born like other humans.
THE REMAINDER OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
Because none of the gospel writers, nor Paul, nor any apostle ever mentioned the virgin birth, it is not surprising that neither the Pastoral or Catholic Epistles nor the Apocalypse of John ever refers to it either.
The complete silence of the book of James, however, is a different matter. If the writer of this book was James, the brother of Jesus who became the patriarch of the church at Jerusalem –as numerous scholars believe — then his silence about how Jesus was born must be viewed as saliently significant because it cannot be attributed to ignorance. Had his brother Jesus been conceived in a miraculous way, James would surely have been told of it after Jesus' resurrection if not before.
Or, if the book of James, as now found in the New Testament, is a revision and expansion of the teachings of Jesus' brother James — as some are convinced — then that editor certainly would have confirmed in his revision of the earlier work that Jesus' birth was miraculous if he understood such was the case. However, because there is nothing in the book of James which even hints that there was anything extraordinary about the birth of Jesus, it must be concluded that the author of James — whoever he was — must have believed that Jesus' birth was normal. Our personal view, derived from considerable investigation and reflection, is that the Book of James was written by an early Christian (whether Jesus' brother or not) who was voicing his disagreement with some of Paul's doctrines.
BUT NOT ALL AGREE WITH US….
A few scholars disagree with our claim that the “rest” of the New Testament is silent about the virgin birth. They offer two passages which they insist support the view that Jesus was born in a miraculous manner. The two passages are: I Timothy 3:l6 and Revelation 12.
The problem with the verse in I Timothy is that ancient manuscripts give varied readings for one word. One sentence of the verse reads in The Revised Standard Version: “He was manifested in the flesh” (I Timothy 3:l6 RSV). A footnote reading in that version points out that the Greek word which is translated “he” really means “who.” Moreover, some manuscripts use “G-d” and a few use “which.” If the word “G-d” is used, then the verse supports the doctrine of the incarnation, but it still makes no clear reference to the virgin birth. Phillips seems to have caught the meaning of the verse without using “he,” “which,” or “G-d:” “No one would deny that this religion of ours is a tremendous mystery, resting as it does on the one who showed himself as a human being . . .” (I Timothy 3:l6 Phillips). Not the slightest hint is given here that there was anything out of the ordinary about the coming of the “one who showed himself as a human being.”
In Revelation 12, a pregnant woman is mentioned as a sign visible in the sky. The woman is expected to give birth to a male child who is “to rule all the nations with a rod of iron” (Revelation 12:5 RSV). A few commentators contend that the woman is Mary and the child is Jesus. This interpretation is quite far-fetched. It is based on pure speculation. Other scholars view the woman as representing a variety of things, with the variations of their interpretations so extreme no consensus of opinion could possibly be reached. In any case, no matter what or whom the woman represents, there is no clear reference to, nor even a hint about, a virgin birth. The woman of Revelation 12 is merely a pregnant woman. No reason is given to believe that she became pregnant in an unusual way.
EARLY CHRISTIAN HERESIES
Perversions of the teachings of a great leader begin to appear as soon as he dies. So it is not surprising that several “Christian” heresies arose almost immediately after Jesus' death. Some of them may be lumped together under the general classification of “Gnostic heresies.” We need not consider all or even a majority of them for they had many things in common.
Some Gnostics, such as Cerinthus, who was widely known in the western section of Asia Minor, believed that Jesus was the natural son of Joseph and Mary. His unique teaching was that, although Jesus was completely human, Christ dwelt in the man Jesus. Cerinthus explained that Christ descended upon Jesus in the form of a dove at the time of his baptism. Christ then remained in Jesus all during his earthly life. Jesus was endowed with remarkable powers because of the presence of Christ within him. Christ remained in Jesus' body, Cerinthus claimed, until Jesus was about to die on the cross. Thus, it was really the man Jesus who died and was resurrected.
Cerinthus, who was called a “false prophet” in “The Epistle of the Apostles,” believed that Jesus truly was G-d's Son, but that he became G-d's Son by “adoption.” He did not achieve that status by the manner of his birth, but by virtue of the fact that G-d was willing to adopt him as Son. Some New Testament writers also use the concept of adoption, but certainly not in the manner of Cerinthus. They stress that it was possible for all men to become sons of G-d, but only because G-d could “elect” to “adopt” them as sons.
Some Gnostics were known as “Docetists,” a name derived from a Greek word which means “to seem.” They held that Jesus was not really human, that he never came to earth “in the flesh.” They were convinced that he could not have possessed a material body, because all matter was evil. Flesh, as matter, would therefore be evil. Consequently, the perfect and sinless Christ could not have existed even temporarily in an evil body. This led them to believe that Jesus' body of flesh only seemed to exist. Because Jesus was really divine, he only appeared to have a body like humans. The major deb
ate of Gnostics within their own ranks as well as with orthodox Christians was over whether or not Jesus was born of Mary. (Apparently there is no mention in Gnostic literature of the virgin birth hypothesis).This sketchy review demonstrates that even the defenders of the absolutely unique nature of Jesus disagreed over his origin. Some believed that he was entirely human, born of two human parents, but with Christ living in him after his baptism. And others believed that he was not in the least human but entirely divine; that his body only seemed to be human. These were the extremes. Other views ranged between them.
It is interesting — and we believe significant — that most of the heresies which confronted the early church questioned Jesus' humanity rather than his divinity. A study of the writings of the early church fathers shows that they spent more time trying to prove that Jesus was human rather than that he was divine. Their debate — both among themselves as well as with others — concerned whether Jesus was always divine or whether he became divine at his resurrection. A corollary debate raged over how his divinity related to his humanity. Both of these theological arguments continued for centuries. The resolution of these dichotomies came ostensibly with the creation of the dogma of the Trinity. But unfortunately this resolution proved to be only partial and temporary. A debate continues to this day, but now it centers upon what the creeds which define the Trinity really mean.
OTHER TRADITIONS CONCERNING JESUS’ BIRTH
The narratives of Matthew and Luke were not the only birth stories which were being told during the last part of the first century. Quite a number of such stories appeared in both Jewish and Jewish-Christian communities.
The theme of some of these stories was that Jesus was really an illegitimate child. At least two of them declared that he was the son of a Roman soldier and that Joseph married Mary to give Jesus a father and a name. One tradition even gave the name of the Roman soldier as “Panthera” (or possibly “Pantera”).
This accusation that Jesus was an illegitimate child was repeated for centuries. Even as late as the eighteenth century, Voltaire, a bitter critic of the Christian religion, repeated those allegations as if he were citing documented history. Others, in turn, quoted Voltaire, believing that such a learned man had surely authenticated his information.
A very unusual tradition was related in an early second century manuscript, “The Epistle of the Apostles.” “The Epistle of the Apostles,” M. S. Enslin, The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, Volume A-D, pp l72-3.] Having been translated into English, this document is now called, “The Testament of Our Lord in Galilee.” It purports to record revelations made by Jesus to the Eleven just before he ascended into heaven, revelations made through his answers to questions asked by the apostles. According to this writing, Jesus alleged that he had appeared to Mary as the angel Gabriel and then had entered her body to be born.
The two preceding traditions both claim to explain the origin of the child Jesus. One was eagerly accepted by many of the foes of Christianity. It was given a quasi-historical status by being recorded in Talmudic records. This was the tradition that Jesus was an illegitimate child. The other appeared in a document which claimed to be an authentic Christian writing. In this tradition Jesus is alleged to have said he put himself into Mary's womb.
These illustrations show how wild and ridiculous some of the legends about Jesus' birth were. One could not invent explanations of how Jesus was born more disparate then these two stories along with the biblical traditions. Yet all four are recorded in documents written presumably by Christians in the late New Testament period or shortly thereafter.
THE VENERATION OF MARY
Little is known about the life of Mary the mother of Jesus. This is quite true historically, despite the many legends which originated within the Catholic Church — in all branches – where such stories were needed to support the evolving doctrines of the virgin birth, the immaculate conception, Mary as Mother of G-d, Mary as Queen of Heaven, and related dogmas.
Most of those legends are based upon a few writings composed during the expanding period of the church but not included in the New Testament canon of scripture. They were never accepted officially as “scripture” even by the church which used them. The following are some of the apocryphal works in which legends about Mary are recorded: “Protoevangelium of James (History of James Concerning the Birth of Mary);” “The Gospel of Thomas;” “The Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew;” “The Gospel of the Birth of Mary;” “The Assumption of the Virgin (Liber Transistus);” “The History of Joseph the Carpenter.”] These writings claim to report incidents during the life of Mary. No reputable scholar — neither Catholic nor Protestant — has accorded these works equal authority with the books of the New Testament. Even a cursory examination reveals quickly that these apocryphal documents were written with doctrine and not history in mind. Nevertheless, artists and popular authors have used these writings as if they possessed historic value equal to that of the gospels.
This is probably because the gospels say so little about Mary. They neither tell much about her life nor venerate her in the least. They simply treat her as the natural mother of Jesus. Even in the interpolated birth traditions she is not viewed as an exceptional woman — only as an obedient one.
Outside the interpolated narratives about Jesus' birth, Mary is first mentioned in the account of her visit to Jerusalem with Joseph and Jesus when Jesus was twelve years old. The occasion was the celebration of Passover. During the period of celebrating Jesus, a bright and inquisitive boy, spent most of his time in the temple discussing religious matters with scribes and priests. Although one may wonder how it could have happened, when Joseph and Mary left for home with the rest of the travelers they did not realize that Jesus was not in the group until they had traveled a full day. They returned to Jerusalem, of course, and spent three days locating Jesus. When they finally found him in the temple debating with the leading teachers, Mary chastised him for not letting them know where he was. Jesus defended himself by asking: “But why were you looking for me? Did you not know that I must be in my Father's house?” (Luke 2:49 Phillips). The lack of rapport between Jesus and his parents is shown by the next sentence in Luke's account of this incident: “But they did not understand what he meant” (Luke 2:50 NEB). How could Joseph and Mary not understand that Jesus would likely go to the temple if everything that was stated in Luke's account of Jesus' conception and birth had been true? It is impossible to believe that Joseph and especially Mary would have misunderstood what Jesus meant if they knew that Jesus had been conceived miraculously by the Holy Spirit and if shepherds had told them that his birth had been heralded by the singing of angels. The fact that Luke reports that Jesus' parents did not understand him when he suggested to them that they surely should have known he would be interested in going to the temple argues strongly that he did not believe that Jesus was born of a virgin. This proves that the author who wrote the story about the visit of the boy Jesus to Jerusalem for the Passover — whoever he was – could not have written also the birth tradition found earlier in Luke.]
That Luke believed that Joseph was actually Jesus' father is evidenced by the fact that he treats him as such in this narrative. Twice in the story he calls Joseph and Mary Jesus' “parents.” Once he has Mary referring to Joseph as Jesus' “father.”
Mary is found next at the wedding feast in Cana (John 2:l-11). She, Jesus and the disciples were enjoying the festivities when the wine g
ave out. Mary told Jesus about the problem and then told the servants to do just as Jesus would direct. Whereupon Jesus performed his first miracle, the changing of water into wine. The incident is interesting, but teaches nothing about Mary except that she participated in the social life of the community.According to the Gospel of John, Mary was present at the crucifixion (John l9:25-27). Jesus, dying on the cross, noticed his mother and asked “the disciple whom he loved” to accept her as his own mother. It is surprising that Jesus did not try to see that she was protected and cared for by one of her own sons. Some of them were still living: James, for example (Acts l:l3-l4).
There is a plausible explanation. None of Jesus' brothers or sisters were present at the crucifixion. But, according to John, one of Mary's sisters was with her at the cross. This sister was probably Salome, the mother of James and John, whose father was Zebedee (Matthew 25:56; Mark l5:40). It has always been presumed that it was her son, John, who was “the disciple whom Jesus loved.” In other words, John was Jesus' cousin. So Jesus, on the cross, asked his cousin John to be sure that Mary was cared for.
This explanation, though possible, is still based upon conjecture.
The problem here is that, according to the other three gospels, Mary was not present at the crucifixion. Each of the Synoptic writers records a list of women who were present while Jesus was being crucified. None of these lists include Jesus' mother Mary. Thus, it cannot be stated for sure that she was present at the cross.
Jesus appeared several times after his resurrection and to a considerable number of people. Mary is never mentioned as being among them.
Mary is introduced a few times simply as Jesus' mother.
The scripture tells of two times when Mary did not understand Jesus. Both situations have already been described. The first was when Mary and Joseph discovered their twelve-year-old son in the temple, but did not understand his explanation of why he had gone there (Luke 2:4l-52). The second was when she, along with the rest of her family, came to “take charge” of Jesus because they thought he had lost his mind (Mark 3:2l-3l). Because of this attitude of his family, Jesus was reported to have renounced them in favor of those who do the will of his heavenly Father (Mark 3:3l-35; Matthew 12:46-50; Luke 8:l9-24). We are convinced that these records were edited to make them conform to later beliefs. In any case, the members of Jesus' family eventually became his followers. Mary and his brothers were in the upper room at Pentecost. And James became the leader of the church in Jerusalem.] This is a very weighty argument against the virgin birth. Had Mary known that Jesus was the miraculously conceived Son of G-d she could not possibly have believed that he had become insane.
The very last time Mary is mentioned in scripture is in the account of what happened to the one hundred and twenty disciples who were gathered in the upper room in Jerusalem on the Day of Pentecost. Like the rest, she was fasting and praying while awaiting divine guidance — acting precisely as Jesus had instructed. Her sons were again with her. So, if she had gone with her nephew John after the crucifixion, she did not stay with him. The only thing that can be learned about Mary from this incident is that she was present with those who were “filled with the Holy Spirit.” It must be presumed that this experience came to her as to the others.
This review demonstrates that, except in the birth narratives, Mary is presented only casually in the New Testament. Her veneration had not yet begun. In fact, after her appearance with the one hundred and twenty at Pentecost, Mary drops from sight. She gradually fades into the past. Tradition claims that she died in 63 A. D. That date, however, is mentioned only in sources which must be dated much later.
To say that Mary was not revered in her lifetime is not to say anything against her. It is only to point out that she was not awarded any special recognition before her death. Even the scriptures of the New Testament do not set her apart from other women. No one has any reason, however, to regard her as less than a good and loving mother, interested in all of her children. Jesus respected his father so much he called G-d “abba,” a child's endearing term for father. It corresponds to our “papa.” Surely he respected his mother equally. This is true, no doubt, meven though there were times when neither his family nor any one else really understood him. To those who claim that Mary was “ever virgin” we must ask how the following scriptures can be explained in light of that allegation:
“(Joseph) took Mary home to be his wife, but had no intercourse with her until her son was born (Matthew l:25 NEB).
“All these were constantly at prayer together (in the upper room), and with them a group of women, including Mary the mother of Jesus, and his brothers (Acts l: l4 NEB).
“Then his mother and his brothers arrived . . .” (Mark 3:3l NEB).
“Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James and Joseph and Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters with us? (Mark 6:3 NEB).]
Now, is it beginning to make a little more sense to you?
gollamudi,
Lack of evidence does not prove anything.
The author of Luke also wrote Acts as a companion volume.
Acts 1:1-2(NIV) reads:
Quote In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach until the day he was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen.
Quote (kerwin @ Oct. 13 2009,21:24) gollamudi wrote: Quote Do you think Messiah to be born of a virgin if you say Jesus has to be human like you and me. I think you don't believe in the divinity of Jesus then where is the question of incarnation of God in him?
If I understand your argument correctly you are saying that if Jesus was conceived by a virgin then he had to be divine. I just do not see where that statement is true as I believe both that Jesus is as human as you and me and also that he was born of a virgin. The only divine feature of Jesus is that he has the Holy Spirit living in him. If that makes him divine then anyone who truly believes in him also becomes divine. I am certainly not saying that is the case as such an idea is absurd to me.
gollamudi wrote:
Quote Jesus was declared as Messiah only on his resurrection according to Rom 1:1-3 and also as for most primitive Christology of all (Acts 2 &3).
I am going to disagree with you on this one since according to the accounts in at least one gospel demons were acknowledging him as the Anointed One early in his ministry. The point that was being made in Romans 1 is probably not as straightforward as you believe. It is my opinion is that Jesus being raised from the dead had to do with “the wages of sin is death” and since he did not sin death had no hold on him. That is also why world was condemned by his death. It is true that his lack of sin is what declared him to be the Anointed One. The Jews agree with this idea even though they do not acknowledge Jesus as the Messiah.
gollamudi wrote:
Quote The Gospel writers only imagined Jesus being Messiah even at his birth and developed infant narrations based on O.T prophecies.
I am not sure where you get that idea as I do not even believe Luke referenced the Old Testament prophecies in his accounting of Jesus’ infant narration. On the other hand Matthew, A Jew, did reference it but not according to the Hellenistic reasoning we use today.
gollamudi wrote:
Quote Please accept truth and don't base your theology on blind belief.
My belief happens to be based on the evidence of scripture and I base my trust in scripture on the attributes of God. I choose to trust in the reliability of the witnesses who prove reliable in other ways. Thus it is not considered blind belief. The question is what your belief is based on.
kerwin Jesus did pexsisted His Birth here on earth. He knew were He came from, and what would be at stake if He sinned.
There very good Scriptures that tell me so.
Col. 1:15-17
Rev. 3:14
And the one were Jesus Himself sid this
John 17:5 ” And now O Father glorify Me togher with Yourself with the glory I has with You, before the World was.”
Peace an Love IreneQuote (gollamudi @ Oct. 13 2009,17:20) No evidence yet he only mentioned about Jesus' ministry than his virgin birth in Acts.
What does that tell you as there are other events in Jesus' life that he mentioned in his first volume but not his second. Was Jesus' baptism at the Jordan River mentioned in Acts?If you want please see the first preaching of Peter in Acts 2 you will know for sure that no virgin birth but Jesus appears from Baptism till the crucifixion. Please accept that birth narrations wre added to original Luke later by some scribe than Luke himself.
Gollamudi,
I thought you directed me to Acts 2 to show me that it did mention that Jesus was baptized in the Jordon River but I do not see it there. Do you know anywhere in the book of Acts where Jesus’ baptism is mentioned?
I don’t believe it is and yet that does not mean it did not happen. All it means is that that point was not addressed in the book of Acts.
The same is true of any other event that is mentioned elsewhere but not in the book of Acts.
Adam……….You have brought out some good points, and so has Kerwin. I also believe that the virgin berth story tends to give Jesus a separate individualizing from Us and can cause a separation in our identity with Him as a true Brother Human Being. I have said before that our identity with the exactness of Jesus is critical in our relating with him and GOD the FATHERS work in an ordinary human beings. It does seem that Paul would have mentioned this berth process if it was truly different then ours. Interesting Posts. IMO
peace and love to you and yours………………………gene
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
