- This topic has 933 replies, 47 voices, and was last updated 2 years, 7 months ago by
.
- Posts
Thanks brother Kerwin,
I already know that site. It is irrelevant for me since I believe Jesus was born to human parents.Quote (gollamudi @ June 02 2010,11:53) Thanks brother Kerwin,
I already know that site. It is irrelevant for me since I believe Jesus was born to human parents.
Adam,I was not arguing one way or another on who were Jesus parents but just pointing out that according to Jewish traditions an adopted child is treated as a natural child. This accounts for the geneology in Matthew that some consider to speak of the line of Joseph even though Joseph is not stated to be Joseph's son.
I happen to agree that Jesus had only human parents. Though in his case that was only one parent, his mother. He had no genetic father. God is just the father of his spirit. Joseph claimed him as his own.
Quote (kerwin @ June 02 2010,17:05) . He had no genetic father. God is just the father of his spirit. Joseph claimed him as his own.
This is where I differ with most of you here. If God is the Father of Jesus' spirit why not yours since your spirit also resulted from God? Unless you believe the so called original sin and transmission of sin through sexual union, there is no logic of virgin birth. Even Job says no one born of woman is righteous then where is the question Jesus was born without sin even with the so called virgin birth? I don't see any logic in such arguments. I only see writers of Matthew and Luke incorporated such ideas into their writings which were prevalent among the early Christians.Hi GM,
Logic rules?
You have presented no evidence for additions to scripture so why should we hear you?Adam,
This might come as a surprise but God does things without telling human beings why he does them. The bottom line is that he is always right. So if he does something then why would I say he would not do it because he had no motive when I simply do understand his motivation? That is one of the hidden things of God. He did not tell me why the Anointed One was born to a virgin but I agree with Matthew in that the words of Isaiah 7:14 are as good an explanation as any even if they are not directly speaking of the event.
There also is more than one variation on the tenet of original sin. I do believe that the spirit of mankind was corrupted by the original sin of Adam and Eve. That spirit inclines humanity to sin and because of that inclination all men sin there was not a righteous man on the face of Earth when Ecclesiastes 7:20 was written. As you point out at the time Job was written it was also true. In fact only Jesus was without sin even though he was tempted as we are and that is because his faith was complete, if not mature, Habakkuk 3:4. Whether or not Jesus had a genetic father is irrelevant to that.
God is the father of anyone who is reborn in the Spirit but because we have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God unlike Jesus we are called sons and not the Son. The angels who like Jesus have not sinned are called sons as well and that is because of Jesus’ position of authority as King of everything in heaven and on earth. He is God’s Son which is equivalent to stating he is a prince to God’s king. You can call him an heir though he will not literally inherit anything as God will not die or stop being God.
Quote (kerwin @ June 02 2010,18:10) Adam, This might come as a surprise but God does things without telling human beings why he does them. The bottom line is that he is always right. So if he does something then why would I say he would not do it because he had no motive when I simply do understand his motivation? That is one of the hidden things of God. He did not tell me why the Anointed One was born to a virgin but I agree with Matthew in that the words of Isaiah 7:14 are as good an explanation as any even if they are not directly speaking of the event.
There also is more than one variation on the tenet of original sin. I do believe that the spirit of mankind was corrupted by the original sin of Adam and Eve. That spirit inclines humanity to sin and because of that inclination all men sin there was not a righteous man on the face of Earth when Ecclesiastes 7:20 was written. As you point out at the time Job was written it was also true. In fact only Jesus was without sin even though he was tempted as we are and that is because his faith was complete, if not mature, Habakkuk 3:4. Whether or not Jesus had a genetic father is irrelevant to that.
God is the father of anyone who is reborn in the Spirit but because we have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God unlike Jesus we are called sons and not the Son. The angels who like Jesus have not sinned are called sons as well and that is because of Jesus’ position of authority as King of everything in heaven and on earth. He is God’s Son which is equivalent to stating he is a prince to God’s king. You can call him an heir though he will not literally inherit anything as God will not die or stop being God.
It is purely your interpretation. I don't see any thing God did for Jesus like that. I only interpret Jesus' birth as normal birth if at all he was an historical person who preached and practiced Judaism. He never invented another religion which could deviate form the monotheism of his forefathers.Adam,
It is true that I hold both Matthew and Luke to be reliable witnesses because their teachings are consistent with the good news of the Messiah and the rebirth in spirit. I have no shame in this as I believe is speaks that my soul hungers and thirsts for righteousness which is a blessing from God. Since I hold them to be reliable it follows that I believe their testimony about the virgin conception and birth of Jesus is true. In order to believe otherwise I would need firm evidence to prove it was false and frankly I have heard none though I have heard quite a bit of spin and expressions of unbelief that God can do anything but evil and does it for his own good and righteous reasons without choosing to explain himself to man.
As to Jesus preaching and practicing the true form of Judaism I have no doubts. Jesus did not preach a new religion but rather the coming of a new covenant with God. It was only later, after his death, resurrection, and ascension, that the message of the new covenant itself was preached. It is the message of the new covenant that I study.
It is also true that there are many false teachings that claim to be true that are both adhered to and taught by those that are ignorant, corrupt, or both. I cannot do anything about them and since God does not they have a purpose in his good and righteous plan.
The “Immanu'él prophecy” (Y'shayahu 7:14)
(by Prof. Mordochai ben-Tziyyon, Universitah Ha'ivrit, Y'rushalayim)Let me make one thing clear from the very outset: this article is not about whether or not a miraculous “virgin birth” occurred in the closing years of the first century BCE (or at any other time, for that matter); I really DO NOT CARE whether one did or not. It's completely irrelevant. This article addresses a very different question: did one of the Hebrew prophets prophesy that a “virgin birth” was going to occur? The writer of the new testament book “Matthew” claims that the prophet Y'shayahu did – at 7:14 – but is this REALLY what that verse says?
Whenever christians discuss Y'shayahu 7:14, they invariably zoom in on just two details, namely the word al'mah and the supposed “meaning” of the prophetic name Immanu'él. They seem to be pathologically incapable of even thinking about any of the other words in the verse. But, in focusing exclusively on these two details, they overlook (intentionally or otherwise) several important aspects of the exact language used in the verse, which results in a completely erroneous translation – and this leads inexorably to a bizarre and ridiculous “interpretation” of the verse. Their reading of it is, of course, biased by the dishonest way in which it is quoted by the gospel-writer “Matthew” (at 1:22-23), but this is no excuse for mistranslating the verse in its source location.
The Hebrew text of Y'shayahu's statement (at least the small part of it that is misquoted by “Matthew”) reads as follows:
Was the girl “Mary” portrayed in the “gospel” stories a virgin or wasn't she?
Please gothrough this link you find it : http://mordochai.tripod.com/virgin.html#top
Adam,
Why waste my time on hearsay as I very much doubt your source has a way to test whether Mary was a virgin 2000 or so years ago.
The question is do you believe what the eyewitness of the period report or not?
In addition do you believe God can cause a child to be conceived in the womb of a version?
Quote (gollamudi @ June 02 2010,17:38) This is where I differ with most of you here.
I think I need to point this out.You differ with all main doctrines in scripture.
Why do you think it is important to differ?
It should be that the truth wins no matter what. Differing for the sake of differing or to be different doesn't make sense.
Quote (gollamudi @ June 18 2010,16:40) The “Immanu'él prophecy” (Y'shayahu 7:14)
(by Prof. Mordochai ben-Tziyyon, Universitah Ha'ivrit, Y'rushalayim)Let me make one thing clear from the very outset: this article is not about whether or not a miraculous “virgin birth” occurred in the closing years of the first century BCE (or at any other time, for that matter); I really DO NOT CARE whether one did or not. It's completely irrelevant. This article addresses a very different question: did one of the Hebrew prophets prophesy that a “virgin birth” was going to occur? The writer of the new testament book “Matthew” claims that the prophet Y'shayahu did – at 7:14 – but is this REALLY what that verse says?
Whenever christians discuss Y'shayahu 7:14, they invariably zoom in on just two details, namely the word al'mah and the supposed “meaning” of the prophetic name Immanu'él. They seem to be pathologically incapable of even thinking about any of the other words in the verse. But, in focusing exclusively on these two details, they overlook (intentionally or otherwise) several important aspects of the exact language used in the verse, which results in a completely erroneous translation – and this leads inexorably to a bizarre and ridiculous “interpretation” of the verse. Their reading of it is, of course, biased by the dishonest way in which it is quoted by the gospel-writer “Matthew” (at 1:22-23), but this is no excuse for mistranslating the verse in its source location.
The Hebrew text of Y'shayahu's statement (at least the small part of it that is misquoted by “Matthew”) reads as follows:
Adam,You used a Rabbi as a source earlier and that Rabbi pointed at the scripture where Abraham is commanded to sacrifice his son Isaac as a hint that the Passover would later occur. Now when the writers of the New Testiment use the same method of interpretation that Rabbi did you choose to critisize them. You are not being consistent but rather cherry picking what you wish to believe and what you do not without and real evidence supporting your choices.
Hi brother Kerwin,
That's what I say here that there is no difference between the writers of NT and today's religious interpters/writers. I am not biased towards these writers also. I am criticising the illogics behind them.Quote (t8 @ June 19 2010,19:19) Quote (gollamudi @ June 02 2010,17:38) This is where I differ with most of you here.
I think I need to point this out.You differ with all main doctrines in scripture.
Why do you think it is important to differ?
It should be that the truth wins no matter what. Differing for the sake of differing or to be different doesn't make sense.
Hi brother T8,
I am not an expert in theology rather I am a student of researching the scriptures. I differ with most of the mythological elements in the Gospels as well in other writings in the Bible. I am learning God from Jewish perspectives that is pure monotheism of Bible.Thanks and peace to you
AdamQuote (gollamudi @ June 19 2010,16:27) Hi brother Kerwin,
That's what I say here that there is no difference between the writers of NT and today's religious interpters/writers. I am not biased towards these writers also. I am criticising the illogics behind them.
Adam,I have to agree that some of todays writers as well as the New Testiment writers were prone to use mystic interpretation of scriptures but that does not make them wrong.
But it has caused innocent believers to get offended rather fumble by those so called secret understandings. You see even in this forum the havoc is very clear no one like other's view why?
By the way I like your patience in continuing the debate on these contraversial threads of mine.
Thanks and peace to you
AdamAdam……… be careful of the Jewish Faith, because they are indeed biased in there beliefs and reject New Testament and Jesus, as the one, GOD was using to work salvation in the earth, they tend to trust in there traditions and Just the Old (first) testament. I am not saying (ALL) that they believe is wrong because it is not, they truly do believe in (ONLY) ONE GOD as you and I and many here do.
However they reject Jesus, and that is not a good thing Brother. I know fore a fact the majority do, i have spent a lot of time among the Jews and much discussion with them in there synagogues and with there Rabies and have debated scriptures with them and I dearly love them and have many close Jewish friends to this day. Don't let go of your (fundamental) Faith in GOD and His WORK through JESUS who is The CHRIST our brother. He is more important than Moses and the Law His Faith in GOD, is what our FAITH needs to be, The exact same, be careful not to lose your trust in Christ Jesus as the anointed one of GOD who Moses Said GOD would Send , I believe you will not anyway, but send this to you out of LOVE Brother.
peace and love to you and yours Adam…………………………..gene
Quote (gollamudi @ June 19 2010,17:33) But it has caused innocent believers to get offended rather fumble by those so called secret understandings. You see even in this forum the havoc is very clear no one like other's view why?
Adam,It is true that people can be offended because of lack of understanding and the four biographies tells of such happening with Jesus on a number of occasions. Even the Samaritan woman at the well took a while to understand what Jesus was teachings and some did not catch on in the pages of scripture.
It is the nature of sin within us that causes division among us even though it does use our ignorance or corruption to do so. The goal for all true followers of God is to overcome that nature of sin. Not many, if any, have yet achieved that goal. I conclude patience is required as well as love and hope.
Your fellow student,
Kerwin
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
