- This topic has 933 replies, 47 voices, and was last updated 2 years, 4 months ago by
.
- Posts
gollamudi,
Your piece starts our with a lie as The word עַלְמָה can either mean a young woman or a virgin.
Even then you must consider that the Greek manuscript is older and therefore considered more reliable.
Hi brother Kerwin, If you close your eyes to the truth you will never see light. Virgin birth was the most contraversial topic even in the time of early christians like Justin Martyr. Ebionites never believed this so called virgin birth. Being a non-trinitarian you want to believe that. I can't help but laugh.
Quote (gollamudi @ Jan. 23 2010,11:34) Hi brother Kerwin, If you close your eyes to the truth you will never see light. Virgin birth was the most controversial topic even in the time of early Christians like Justin Martyr. Ebionites never believed this so called virgin birth. Being a non-trinitarian you want to believe that. I can't help but laugh.
You should be careful not to use a lie, or in this case a half truth, to advance your argument. It makes people doubt you credibility.I chose to believe what the manuscripts our modern bible are based on until I see evidence that they are false. You have presented any.
I also question if you understand the message that Jesus and his followers taught. In Matthew 1:21 the angel told Joseph that Jesus came to save his people from their sins. That statement shows an awareness of the true message of gospel if you understand it correctly. At the same time he is telling Joseph that Mary's pregnancy was a miracle.
Quote (kerwin @ Jan. 23 2010,16:48) You should be careful not to use a lie, or in this case a half truth, to advance your argument. It makes people doubt you credibility.
Where is the lie here brother Kerwin?Quote (gollamudi @ Jan. 23 2010,12:06) Quote (kerwin @ Jan. 23 2010,16:48) You should be careful not to use a lie, or in this case a half truth, to advance your argument. It makes people doubt you credibility.
Where is the lie here brother Kerwin?
I already pointed it out in a previous post. The Jewish word you state only has one definition has more than one and in some cases it means virgin. That lie is more of a half truth as all the pertinent information was not included.Another souce goes like this…
“Whom shall we believe?” is the second vexing question scholars must face concerning the virgin birth. The issue is important because we find clear internal disagreement on the matter of the virgin birth within the New Testament itself. In a seldom discussed (or preached on) passage in the New Testament, Paul2 warns Timothy not to occupy himself “with myths and endless genealogies which promote speculations rather than the divine training that is in faith” (1 Timothy 1:4). Paul believes that Christian teachers who propagate such stories fail to understand “either what they are saying or the things about which they make assertions” (1 Timothy 1:3–7). If we ask what Paul could possibly be describing as “myths” in close association with “genealogies,” the virgin birth stories immediately come to mind. Only Matthew and Luke contain virgin birth stories and genealogies—in close proximity. Since widespread scholarly consensus dates the authorship of Matthew and Luke to about 85 A.D., about 20 years after the death of Paul (c. 65 A.D.), Paul would not have been familiar with their writing. But he may have been familiar with an already developing tradition concerning Jesus’ virgin birth—and considered it to be both fanciful and harmful to faith!
Moreover, Paul’s written Greek does not seem equivocal when he describes Jesus as “descended from David according to the flesh [kata sarka]” (Romans 1:3). Similarly, both Matthew and Luke trace Jesus’ Davidic ancestry through Joseph (Matthew 1:1–16; Luke 3:23–38), which would, after all, be meaningless if Joseph were not Jesus’ father.3
It seems likely, therefore, that the author of 1 Timothy was familiar with the tradition of the virgin birth developed in Matthew and Luke (though perhaps in circulation earlier than either)—and rejected it! We are left with three choices: (1) reject both 1 Timothy and the birth stories of Matthew and Luke; (2) accept one and reject the other; or (3) accept one literally (Paul’s warning to Timothy against speculation) and accept the other poetically (Matthew and Luke’s virgin birth stories)—as a symbolic but not a factual statement. Since the first two chapters of both Matthew and Luke are filled with poetry, a poetic interpretation of their virgin birth accounts may provide an instructive line of approach.
It is also important to recognize that not only does Paul seem to reject the virgin conception stories, but Mark (the earliest Gospel), John (the latest Gospel), and the earliest Church (in Acts) never mention the idea at all. In addition, there is not in the New Testament a single recorded instance of Jesus calling people to follow him, and qualifying that call with the provision: so long as you believe in my virgin conception. But, more important than belief or disbelief is understanding the meaning of these stories.
What is meant when Jesus is called the “Son of God”? This question is a critical challenge to Christian theologians. The ancient world in which and for which the New Testament was originally written was saturated with Greek culture (the consequence of the conquests of Alexander the Great, plus the inherent superiority and attractiveness of that civilization to most peoples who experienced it). In Greek thought sonship was understood to be primarily a matter of biology, a matter of being from the same substance. Both Luke (who was a gentile) and Matthew (who quotes from the Greek version of the Hebrew Bible) were writing for readers of Greek. The virgin birth stories may be best understood as accommodations to this Greek idea that a son is like his father because he is of the same stuff. Jesus, it was reasoned, was God manifest in the flesh because he was, in part, of divine substance. Several centuries later, in 325 A.D., this approach was confirmed in the Credo of the Council of Nicea, which described Jesus as “being of one substance with the Father.”
In Hebrew thought, however, sonship was understood not primarily as a matter of biology, but as a matter of obedience. Indeed, a “stubborn and rebellious son,” not obedient to his parents, could be delivered by them for execution: “Then all the men of the city shall stone him to death with stones, so you shall purge the evil from your midst” (Deuteronomy 21:18–21). Theologically, this meant that Israel’s election as “the sons of the Lord your God” was immediately followed by the injunction “you shall not … (Deuteronomy 14:1). If the people disobey, God may hide his face from his children (Deuteronomy 32:19, 20), sell them into slavery (Isaiah 50:1), or announce to them that “you are not my people, and I am not your God” (Hosea 1:9).Gollamundi,
The virgin conception is not directly linked to the message of salvation. It is indirectly linked only as it proves that Joseph is not the father of Jesus.
John and Mark did not see it as important in their biographies of Jesus while Matthew and Luke did. Luke was probably just doing what he was commissioned to do while Matthew was speaking to the Jewish people who at that time I believe saw more in genealogy than the Gentiles.
Otherwise, I do not see where the other writers had reason to address the issue.
Quote (kerwin @ Jan. 23 2010,18:32) Gollamundi, The virgin conception is not directly linked to the message of salvation. It is indirectly linked only as it proves that Joseph is not the father of Jesus.
John and Mark did not see it as important in their biographies of Jesus while Matthew and Luke did. Luke was probably just doing what he was commissioned to do while Matthew was speaking to the Jewish people who at that time I believe saw more in genealogy than the Gentiles.
Otherwise, I do not see where the other writers had reason to address the issue.
If Joseph is not the father of Jesus then why the so called gealogies of Joseph brought out by both Matthew and Luke's writers?Quote (gollamudi @ Jan. 23 2010,14:29) Quote (kerwin @ Jan. 23 2010,18:32) Gollamundi, The virgin conception is not directly linked to the message of salvation. It is indirectly linked only as it proves that Joseph is not the father of Jesus.
John and Mark did not see it as important in their biographies of Jesus while Matthew and Luke did. Luke was probably just doing what he was commissioned to do while Matthew was speaking to the Jewish people who at that time I believe saw more in genealogy than the Gentiles.
Otherwise, I do not see where the other writers had reason to address the issue.
If Joseph is not the father of Jesus then why the so called gealogies of Joseph brought out by both Matthew and Luke's writers?
I can try to speculate. The two genealogies are different so I believe the second one is through marriage and Joseph is named the son of Hali because he is Hali's son in Law as Hali has not son's of the flesh.I can try to test that hypothesis through looking at the Greek language. It seems that the word translated son is “huios” which is probably equivalent to “offspring”. If we take that literally then it would mean Jesus is literally the offspring of Joseph. I am going to state that Luke was most likely not making that claim. That means that if the other Greek words translated “Son” in Luke's genealogy of Jesus are the same word it means they could means son in another sense than of the flesh.
I can also point out that if Heli had no sons then the inheritance would go through the daughters who were required to marry someone of their own tribe. This would explain how Jesus was considered David's Son even though he had no father.
All that proves is my hypothosis remains plausible.
I did look at the context and when Matthew gives the genealogy he appears to actually intent in showing the generations that separate major events in the history of Israel. On the other hand when Luke list the Genealogy is is in reference to God stating “You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased.” Luke then traced Jesus' line all the way back to when God created Adam.
Quote (gollamudi @ Jan. 23 2010,15:20) Ha ha it is mere speculation which I don't need to believe in.
I did not state you had to believe in my speculation. On the other hand you do have to believe Jesus is the Anointed One.Adam………Make a study of the SEVENTY WEEK PROPHESY written by DANIEL. It will confirm Jesus as the Messiah, not matter what the JEWS say. Don't let some little misunderstanding in scripture trip you up. Jesus is the Messiah brother.
Zec 12:9…> And I will pour upon the house of DAVID< and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications:and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourns for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.
This is the fate of those Jews who rejected Jesus , when they come to see and understand their error by rejecting Jesus as the Messiah.
Be careful Adam, don't get caught up in their rejecting of Jesus, it can have devastating consequences. We are saved by or through the Blood of Christ Jesus and nothing less.
peace and love to you and yours…………………..gene
Hi brother Gene,
Zech 12:9 has not been fulfilled so far. It will be fulfilled in the last days when all Jewish people will be filled with God's spirit and be led by Messiah who will establish a political knigdom to them. Daniel's 70 weeks' prophecy has already been dealt in my other posts.Thanks and love
AdamQuote (gollamudi @ Jan. 25 2010,11:42) Hi brother Gene,
Zech 12:9 has not been fulfilled so far. It will be fulfilled in the last days when all Jewish people will be filled with God's spirit and be led by Messiah who will establish a political knigdom to them. Daniel's 70 weeks' prophecy has already been dealt in my other posts.Thanks and love
Adam
You fail to remember that for God a day is a thousand years and a thousand years is a day. In short it is the last days and has been thousand of years. God is immortal and his sense of time is not our sense of time. A true Jew should realize that.On the other hand we do know Scripture testifies the Spirit of Holiness was poured out on the Jewish people at Pentecost long ago and is even now being poured our on both the Gentiles and the Jews.
As for Daniel, I assure you that the daily sacrifice has been abolished though I do not know about the abomination that causes desolation being set up. I figure that is from my lack of knowledge rather than an error in prophecy.
Hi brother Kerwin,
You say that the prophecy of pouring of God's Spirit was fulfilled at Pentecost in Acts, so what about the remaining part of the prophecy of Joel 2:28-32 ?
….”The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the coming of the great and awesome day of the Lord. And it shall come to pass that whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved. For in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there shall be deliverance, as the Lord has said, among the remnant whom the Lord calls”Jews often blame Christians for misinterpreting their scriptures. So this one also proves that they are right.
Quote (kerwin @ Jan. 26 2010,01:20) As for Daniel, I assure you that the daily sacrifice has been abolished though I do not know about the abomination that causes desolation being set up. I figure that is from my lack of knowledge rather than an error in prophecy.
What Does Daniel Relate To?
Link : http://www.uhcg.org/HoI/Dan9.htmlPlease read the above article you will fully understand how Christianity had played with Dan 9 to prove Jesus as Messiah.
Quote (gollamudi @ Jan. 27 2010,22:36) Hi brother Kerwin,
You say that the prophecy of pouring of God's Spirit was fulfilled at Pentecost in Acts, so what about the remaining part of the prophecy of Joel 2:28-32 ?
….”The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the coming of the great and awesome day of the Lord. And it shall come to pass that whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved. For in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there shall be deliverance, as the Lord has said, among the remnant whom the Lord calls”Jews often blame Christians for misinterpreting their scriptures. So this one also proves that they are right.
Even a Jew should admit that with God a day is a thousand years and a thousand years is a day, see Psalms 90:4. That day is simply still in progress.Please note that though what I stated is true I am but a student and have done little study on this specific item. I also know there was darkness at the time of Jesus' death but I do not believe that is what the prophecy spoken through Joel was speaking of.
As for Jews accusing Christians of misinterpreting scriptures. “He who lives in a glass house should be careful not to throw stones.” The Jews of today are mostly a evolved form or the Pharisees of Jesus' day and even then they were known to misinterpret scripture even to the point of being unwilling to aid those in trouble on the Sabbath day.
Quote (gollamudi @ Jan. 27 2010,23:11) Quote (kerwin @ Jan. 26 2010,01:20) As for Daniel, I assure you that the daily sacrifice has been abolished though I do not know about the abomination that causes desolation being set up. I figure that is from my lack of knowledge rather than an error in prophecy.
What Does Daniel Relate To?
Link : http://www.uhcg.org/HoI/Dan9.htmlPlease read the above article you will fully understand how Christianity had played with Dan 9 to prove Jesus as Messiah.
I have not looked into Daniel. I do not follow the teaching that 1 day equals 1 year. I tend to go by the events mentioned instead.About the abomination that causes desolation on the wing of the temple I am going to state that there is a mosque set up in the temple courtyard and a Islamic shrine stand at the site of the temple. I have heard there might have been a pagan temple also set up there at one time. The problem I have with any of these being the abomination is that I do not see how they caused desolation.
Your source uses a different version of Daniel then I have. I have not looked into whether that version is consistent with the ones discovered in the Dead Sea Scrolls or not. From what I have found out so far Daniel 9 is not well covered and the only other early manuscripts are from somewhere around the 10th Century A.D. There appears to be no way to resolve this controversy.
Adam…….the author ties Daniel to the Book of Revelations, Now if we are to discount Daniels Messiah (anointed) relationship to Jesus, what about the book of Revelation , Where Jesus is quoted as saying He was once alive and was dead and is alive for ever more. Who in history has accomplished that if not Jesus (ONLY), And if you accept Jesus as the son of GOD and i assume you do Then why not accept him as the Messiah (anointed) of GOD. What is the problem with that. So what if every little detail is not exactly perfect, do one thing discount the whole thing concerning Jesus, as the (ANOINTED) ONE of GOD. Do you disbelieve all the eye witness of him all the apostles and all the writings concerning Jesus as our Lord and Anointed of GOD? If you follow the reasonings of the Jew's you will come to not even believe in Jesus at all as Most of them don't. As i told you before beware of the leaven of the Jew's, They have reject Jesus and GOD rejected them also. He drove them out of there land and sent a sword after them. They were dispersed into the world for their unfaithfulness to GOD, as Well as Israel was also. Some have returned but most have not. Adam don't throw the baby out with the wash brother. Jesus is the ONLY true access to GOD the FATHER, never lose site of that.
peace and love to you and yours ADAM…………………gene
Hi brother Gene,
Thank you very much for your warnings on Jewish people. But I am only arguing the basic Christians doctrines from the Jewish point of view. Not that I have already become a Jew. You might have noticed how I am bringing much material on Jewish polemics. The problem with Christianity is, it doesn't give full pledged answers for our queries. For example you take Jesus' preexistence, no Jew can believe that their Messiah will be a preexistent spirit being or god-man. Even they don't agree with the so called virgin birth of Jesus. Often some of the non-trinitarians like Unitarians quote Jewish way of interpretation of the Bible. But they fail to stick fully to Jewish views on their Messiah. I find lot of gaps in non-trinitarian interpretations. Therefore I now start viewing things from otherside of faith. As for rejecting Jesus,by the Jews, I still feel we can not fully blame Jews for their ignorance. Infact they are more justified in their interpretations on Jesus for not fulfilling any major prophecies of their Messiah. We christian only quick enough to blame them but don't sympathise their arguments.Please read some books on Jewish views on Christianity I can guarunty that you you will not be deviated from the true foundation that God laid in us. But you will realise their difficulties in accepting Jesus as their Messiah.
Peace and love
Adam
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
