Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
When you post directly contrary to Jesus, directly opposed to Scripture,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.
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.
Others have already showed you/posted/ , several times,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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.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 ?
That explanation is what the link in my first post is to. Here it is again.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?
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)Jesus is too holy to be born from an adulterer. Try to fit your mind around how they think a little bit with this.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?