Examining the Doctrine of the Virgin Birth and Other Doctrines

[yeshuaslavejeff]

It is not helpful to make wild allegations against anyone who posts something.

When you post directly contrary to Jesus, directly opposed to Scripture,
it would be wildly irresponsible to let you continue.
All we can do though is warn you and let others know of your far flung heresy.

 

[StTruth]

When you post directly contrary to Jesus, directly opposed to Scripture,
it would be wildly irresponsible to let you continue.
All we can do though is warn you and let others know of your far flung heresy.

Perhaps you forget that this forum is for controversial Christian theology. I have in my readings encountered scholarly works which I find to be rather controversial and that is why I post it here so that Christians can discuss them. But you are disrupting the discussion by making allegations of heresy and false accusations that I'm going against Jesus etc.

If you think what I have posted about the views of scholars is wrong, you are most welcome to argue against it. Raving and ranting isn't appropriate behaviour in a forum. But if you are unable to argue, you might want to just wait and see what arguments others might come up with. You don't have to say anything if you have nothing to say that can contribute to the discussion.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

heresy is NOT Christian Theology, controversial or not.
Jesus and the Apostles NEVER say to tolerate it in any way, but warn strictly against it.
Just "being here" it can and does shipwreck or prevent the true progress of faith for some, since many others "passing by" might read it and be deceived by it as you have been.

 

[StTruth]

heresy is NOT Christian Theology, controversial or not.
Jesus and the Apostles NEVER say to tolerate it in any way, but warn strictly against it.
Just "being here" it can and does shipwreck or prevent the true progress of faith for some, since many others "passing by" might read it and be deceived by it as you have been.

Your job is to police the Controversial Christian Theology forum to see if there is anything heretical? The thread I started which you hated so much is only about the bad blood between St Paul and the real apostles. There are at least two threads in this Controversial Christian Theology forum with the title "Paul the Heretic". Did you go round disrupting those threads?

But if you think you can show why these ideas from scholars are wrong, you are most welcome to post something but please make sure it's rational, sane and civil.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

But if you think you can show why these ideas from scholars are wrong

Others have already showed you/posted/ , several times,
and "gave up" because you were not and are not seeking the truth.

As long as you(anyone) trust heathen, you cannot be God's friend nor disciple nor a follower of Jesus.

If you want to learn, stop posting heresy and defiled thoughts
and start asking God for help, seeking Him, and just listening to Scripture.

 

[StTruth]

Others have already showed you/posted/ , several times,
and "gave up" because you were not and are not seeking the truth.

You know that's a lie so why do you state it? It's patently obvious that you don't enough about the Bible to contribute to any meaningful discussion and all you can do is to make false accusations. If you really believe in God I urge you to abandon your lies and seek only what is pure and true.

 

[Stillicidia]

There were two holy things people overlook.

Jesus was brought low, and was brought to earth. The least he can have is a birth of relative purity.
Also before he was killed, he named John the son of Mary, which was very significant holy-wise, because he is of God, not of Mary.

Examining the scripture, if Mary laid with no man, how would she not be a virgin when given Jesus?

 

[StTruth]

There were two holy things people overlook.

Jesus was brought low, and was brought to earth. The least he can have is a birth of relative purity.
Also before he was killed, he named John the son of Mary, which was very significant holy-wise, because he is of God, not of Mary.

Examining the scripture, if Mary laid with no man, how would she not be a virgin when given Jesus?

Thanks. I can see what you mean. Putting aside the speculation whether Mary lay with any man, do you think the Isaiah prophecy required a Virgin birth?I'm not concerned about what we think. I'm concerned only about what the Bible says.

 

[Stillicidia]

The topic of Isiah would bring up Immanuel. I have no idea what Immanuel would mean or signify. I should think I simply don't know the matter, however. There may be a purpose for it, but it's lost on me.

Reasoning it out with myself, that Isiah is an old book. It would be prophetic, but for Jesus? Yes if you know how Jesus was. He liked sweet things. Isiah says he would have honey and milk to know only the good things. Jesus gave us our sweet tooths.

 

[Geralt]

stick to the thread topic, 'virgin' birth or virgin conception and that is the testimony of mary herself, Luke 1:34

if you have no disagreement with that verse, then if you want you can open a separate thread for my other conclusion.

Don't just say "obviously". You need authority for your proposition that "without the virgin birth, christ cannot be proven of divine origin, thus tainted with sinful nature." You can't just say something without showing the basis of why you are saying that. If your basis is Scriptural, please give me the chapter and verse.

 

[StTruth]

stick to the thread topic, 'virgin' birth or virgin conception and that is the testimony of mary herself, Luke 1:34

if you have no disagreement with that verse, then if you want you can open a separate thread for my other conclusion.

Look at the title of the thread that I created. It's not as narrow as you think. It's legitimate to ask you whether you think the Isaiah prophecy pertaining to our Lord's birth specifies that Mary has to be a virgin. If you refuse to answer that question, that's fine. I don't understand those who refuse to answer simple questions. I am prepared to answer any question you may have.

 

[Geralt]

jesus did not wrote the gospel, but those who heard him and understood how he said it and so they wrote it. you might be right, but you are injecting a flavor of your own speculation in that event, and distrust in how the writers and witnesses heard Christ said it. there is your error.​

I did not say John 3 is puzzling. English may not be your native language and I apologise if my earlier post was not clear enough for you. I will try to say it again clearly. What I'm saying is that scholars have shown that Jesus could not have said those words in John 3:3 because there is no such double meaning in Aramaic where the word in Koine Greek "ανωθεν" can mean "again" which is what Nicodemus understood it to mean and "from above" which our Lord actually meant. As we know, Jesus would have spoken Aramaic and not Koine Greek and so, according to these scholars, that conversation could not have taken place. I hope this is now clear to you?

 

[Geralt]

why bind yourself with speculating a prophecy that has happened already ? mary was a virgin, she said so herself. so its a waste of everyone's time including yours if you doubt Isaiah's passage was correctly interpreted, unless of course you find Isaiah in error. have you ever think you might be the one in error yourself ?​

Look at the title of the thread that I created. It's not as narrow as you think. It's legitimate to ask you whether you think the Isaiah prophecy pertaining to our Lord's birth specifies that Mary has to be a virgin. If you refuse to answer that question, that's fine. I don't understand those who refuse to answer simple questions. I am prepared to answer any question you may have.

 

[StTruth]

why bind yourself with speculating a prophecy that has happened already ? mary was a virgin, she said so herself. so its a waste of everyone's time including yours if you doubt Isaiah's passage was correctly interpreted, unless of course you find Isaiah in error. have you ever think you might be the one in error yourself ?​

Why do you not understand my simple statements? I did not say Isaiah was wrong. I said St Matthew quoted the Septuagint instead of the Hebrew Bible when he read the Isaiah prophecy. It's the Septuagint (a translation of the Hebrew Bible into Greek) that is in error; not Isaiah's prophecy. Can you understand that? It's really quite simple if you think about it.

 

[Greg J.]

So, even if I can show to you that the Isaiah prophecy makes absolutely no mention of the requirement for our Lord to be born of a virgin, you have still somehow decided that Jesus had to be born of a virgin to be able to save you? What caused you to decide that Jesus had to be born a virgin?

That explanation is what the link in my first post is to. Here it is again.

 

[Stillicidia]

Jesus is too holy to be born from an adulterer. Try to fit your mind around how they think a little bit with this.

 

[StTruth]

Jesus is too holy to be born from an adulterer. Try to fit your mind around how they think a little bit with this.

I'm surprised at how your mind works. Why would a non-virgin birth be a birth to an adulterer to you? How does adultery come in? What on earth are you thinking of?

 

[Greg J.]

Jesus is too holy to be born from an adulterer. Try to fit your mind around how they think a little bit with this.

Jesus was too holy to even come to earth. Nevertheless, he was born from a lineage of sinners. Mary's lineage is traced in Luke 3:23-38. (Joseph's lineage in Matthew 1:1-16)

 

[Stillicidia]

He comes from the line of David, why call them sinners.

I didn't call anyone an adulterer. I said what I meant, and meant what I said.

 

[dqhall]

A large number of people claim to have a personal relationship with God. Others gave testimonies about being saved from all manner of vice and sin through the works of the Holy Spirit. Believing in Santa Clause is not a requirement of Christianity. You may not need to believe the flood of Noah covered the earth above Mt. Ararat or that eating an apple caused the fall of mankind in order to find God. If apples were that bad, they would not have them in your grocery store. You may need to find parts of the Bible that might bring about positive change in your life. Greater than being negative about Christianity is the realization that there is an omnipotent being in the universe.

Some do not believe God can do miracles. This is a mistake. As Jesus taught, "Seek first the Kingdom of Heaven." Many have rejected laws and sayings against murder, adultery, perversion, theft and false witness merely because they were in the Bible. These people wandered in sin. Some overdosed on drugs. Some were killed while trying to kill others. The wages of sin is death.