Virgin Birth questioned: the implications

Timotheist · 05-23-2015, 10:22 AM

INTRODUCTION

I hope this thread serves as a worthwhile companion to "Virgin Birth questioned: the research".

Let's discuss here the questions that come to mind about the person of Jesus if he was born of Joseph instead of the Holy Spirit.

Here are only a few of the many major questions we should discuss:

1) If Jesus was born a man, how was he also the Son Of God?
2) If Jesus was born a man, did he sin? How can he be qualified to be our Savior if he was a mere man?
3) Can I still be a Christian and not believe in the Virgin Birth?

I find this subject fascinating, and I have given it much thought over the past two years. And I am still here, believing in my Savior, the Firstborn of the New Creation.

Yours in Christ

OBW · 05-23-2015, 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Timotheist

INTRODUCTION

I hope this thread serves as a worthwhile companion to "Virgin Birth questioned: the research".

Let's discuss here the questions that come to mind about the person of Jesus if he was born of Joseph instead of the Holy Spirit.

Here are only a few of the many major questions we should discuss:

1) If Jesus was born a man, how was he also the Son Of God?
2) If Jesus was born a man, did he sin? How can he be qualified to be our Savior if he was a mere man?
3) Can I still be a Christian and not believe in the Virgin Birth?

I find this subject fascinating, and I have given it much thought over the past two years. And I am still here, believing in my Savior, the Firstborn of the New Creation.

Yours in Christ

This will probably be a little like a wet rag on the whole thing. Probably some will reject it and move on with the inquiry.

I don't know all the answers other than there was a prophecy that indicated the Messiah would be born of a virgin. Whether than happened in the strictest sense (which is how the account reads) or was like the original account which was actually mentioning a "young woman" rather than a woman who had never had any kind of sex could be relevant. And it may or may not be a good point for debate.

But whether any of it makes Jesus less a savior seems to forget that if the man Jesus can be absolutely man, yet absolutely God in any sense, then whether there was a human father is irrelevant other than with respect to the prophecy of the virgin birth. I find nothing within a contemplation of the divine, being the one who created everything and set the laws of biology, physics, etc., that would prohibit him from doing anything he blanket blank well pleases. He could have just appeared with a completely human body. He could have become the life force within a completely human person (with a human mother and father). He could also have been the product of the union of the Holy Spirit with an otherwise unfertilized human egg within a woman and arrived in that manner.

If he is actually God.

It is also notable that there is no record that Jesus claimed a virgin birth. Not suggesting it did not happen, but that it was never provided as a basis for his being God in the form of a man.

The thing is that if God is who we assert that he is, the questions about "how can that be?" are answered by "because God did it."

But if how it all happened is so terribly important, then maybe the RCC is not so "out there" to suggest that Mary also needed to be born of a Virgin, or something a lot like that.

And maybe God is as god-like as we think.

It is a little like considering the implications of a 6-day creation, a 6,000 year creation, a much longer creation, or even a creation that, while directed, looks a lot like a big bang followed by billions of years of evolution. None of these create or destroy the reality of God. That is the reason they were buried in a simplistic few words that essentially said "I did it." And if planned, even what we call evolution could have been the tool used. Not necessarily survival of the fittest, but progression by intention.

And we question whether the God that could create all of this could be our savior just because he decided to do part of his divine work while housed in a human body? I do not see this kind of inquiry as really establishing much. Unless he is not so all-powerful. May be he can only save if he is not really so human. Or if his lineage is just so.

Sounds like a pretty limited God.

That there is God who created all and who allows us to wallow along in rebellion against him without immediate retribution, but who can save us from that retribution is a matter of faith. Logic fails. Apologetics fail. It is not provable.

But with faith it is knowable.

Timotheist · 05-23-2015, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

He could have become the life force within a completely human person (with a human mother and father).

Out of the options you listed, I like this one. For it is consistent with the gospel we call John, and John has proven itself to me to be the most reliable source of truth.

When did "the Word become flesh", according to John? I like this question, for the author threw it out there in the opening salvo, but did not allude to it directly again in the subsequent historical record.

Until recently I had always assumed that this was a reference to Jesus' birth. But if one looks at John as a single work, a complete gospel, with the author not knowing he was writing one of four, the answer to the question is that the Word became flesh at Jesus' baptism.

The record says that the Baptist did not know Jesus before the baptism, but declared Jesus to be the Son of God immediately upon witnessing the Spirit descending upon him. This was when the Word became flesh (unless we throw out John's narrative along with the others).

This is when the Son descended from heaven (John 3:13). My assertion is that the author understood that the man Jesus became one with the Son at this point in the man's life.

Fun to think about, and to me this makes the man Jesus as human as you and me, with the same old man/new man struggle that Paul describes in Romans.

(I will save the discussion of Isa 7:14 for another time, although the discussion is an important one.)

awareness · 05-23-2015, 03:25 PM

Good posts so far. I'll just poke some thoughts out here, prolly a little at a time, concerning the virgin birth.

The virgin birth is important to those that believe Jesus was/is God, for obvious reasons.

The virgin birth could have been important when competing with the mythologies of the time, that already had virgin, or miraculous, births long before Jesus. Legend has it, in fact, that, Alexander the Great was born of a virgin, 350 yrs before Jesus ... the one that Hellenized the whole region, resulting in the Septuagint, and the gospels being written in Greek.

Right now , if we continue this subject, and I hope we do, for clarity, I would like to ask you bro Tim (may I call you that?): Can you please list what you believe to be the order the gospels were written in ... earliest first? Or do you just accept the canonical order?

Timotheist · 05-23-2015, 04:10 PM

Awareness, your question is covered in my blog, but to repeat it here:

John was likely first (although there is lots of debate on this out there)
Mark a close second
Luke and Matthew likely written in parallel, without each other's knowledge.

And yes, calling me Tim is fine.

Dave · 05-23-2015, 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Timotheist

Awareness, your question is covered in my blog, but to repeat it here:

John was likely first (although there is lots of debate on this out there)
Mark a close second
Luke and Matthew likely written in parallel, without each other's knowledge.

And yes, calling me Tim is fine.

I am not sure where you come up with John being the first gospel. It is well held it was the last. Also, it doesn't make any sense having John as the first gospel with all of the gnostic teachings included. In addition, many of Mark's statements were copied in Matthew and Luke although I have never heard they were copied at the same time. Any sources?

awareness · 05-24-2015, 06:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Timotheist

Until recently I had always assumed that this was a reference to Jesus' birth. But if one looks at John as a single work, a complete gospel, with the author not knowing he was writing one of four, the answer to the question is that the Word became flesh at Jesus' baptism.

I realize that it appears that you aren't settled on this conclusion, and maybe this is neither here nor there, but, adoptionism was declared a heresy early on in the 2nd c. and reject by the orthodox at the First Council of Nicaea.

The confusion seems to come from the lack of clear definition in the record. It's not even clear when the adoption occurred. Was it at Jesus' baptism, at his resurrection, or at his ascension, or even possibly at his transfiguration?

As a result of the lack of scriptural clarity, adoptionism continues to resurface from time to time, thru the years.

Are you re-awakening it bro Tim?

Timotheist · 05-24-2015, 07:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave

I am not sure where you come up with John being the first gospel. It is well held it was the last.

I do not agree that it is "well held" that it was written last. It very well may be true that the version we have today was edited at a later date, drawing from material that was recorded by the eyewitness.

But I have three main reasons for arguing for an earlier date:

1) This author was the only one who seemed to know anything about Passover and the High Sabbath that followed.
2) He did not have any Virgin Mary stuff in it, which was already popular by the end of the first century.
3) He claims to be an eyewitness. Not ready to call him a liar just yet.

I also am not taking a firm stand on this. My faith has evolved and maybe someday I may achieve your level. But I will not get there by reading modern authors. I stick to my analysis of documents that have been preserved from the first and second centuries.

I don't have a "source" that claims parallel authorship of Matthew and Luke. It seems pretty obvious to me that these were written without knowledge of each other. About the only two things that are common between their accounts of the virgin birth are the assertion of virginity and the star overhead.

Timotheist · 05-24-2015, 07:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by awareness

I realize that it appears that you aren't settled on this conclusion, and maybe this is neither here nor there, but, adoptionism was declared a heresy early on in the 2nd c. and reject by the orthodox at the First Council of Nicaea.

The confusion seems to come from the lack of clear definition in the record. It's not even clear when the adoption occurred. Was it at Jesus' baptism, at his resurrection, or at his ascension, or even possibly at his transfiguration?

As a result of the lack of scriptural clarity, adoptionism continues to resurface from time to time, thru the years.

Are you re-awakening it bro Tim?

If it turns out to be true that the Virgin Mary story came about through a combination of a bad translation and a generation or two of Hellenistic influences, then it does not surprise me that anything other than that would be declared a heresy.

In my defense of my statement regarding when the Word became flesh, I point to Paul's theology. Summarizing:

1) Our Christian life is described as a new life entering into our being and struggling with the old life. This does not happen at our birth but after our regeneration (symbolized by baptism)
2) This new life is the Holy Spirit, which has God's nature and is God.
3) The result of this indwelling is sanctification, become holy, being transformed into God's image, etc.

This sounds like "adoptionism" to me. Paul was a heretic, then.

Jesus was the firstborn, and we are his brethren. I submit that his path to becoming blameless was similar to the opportunity we have. I fail in this regard because I cannot overcome my old nature. He did not, and yes, I do believe this was not by accident. I believe enough in predestination to understand how the man Jesus would have been selected to be our Savior before he was born.

But thanks for your comments. This is exactly what I had in mind for this thread.

Tim the adoptionist heretic.

awareness · 05-24-2015, 07:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Timotheist

Tim the adoptionist heretic.

lol ... at least you have a good sense of humor about it. We're all heretics to somebody. And who can trust the orthodoxy and proto-orthodox?

And as far as your struggle with the "old man" goes, I've seen no sign anywhere in Christendom that the old man really dies. Not even in the Eastern Orthodox, who believe in theosis ... unless funny hats and such is a sign of it.

One obvious sign that the old man lives on is in our tribalistic nature. Tribalism seems to never die ... and it's clearly of "the old man."

There's been none that have been transformed into Christ since Jesus. There's been only one Christ. How are we to become like Christ since we can't be born of a virgin? And who has had a dove descend upon them?

Timotheist · 05-24-2015, 07:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by awareness

There's been none that have been transformed into Christ since Jesus. There's been only one Christ.

Of course you are correct on this point. Jesus obviously had some kind of advantage over us, but I am suggesting the process for His sanctification was the same as ours. (I hate to use the word 'process' on this forum).

Regarding the fact that there have been 2000 years of subsequent failures to successfully achieve the status of "blamelessness", I have but this to say. The Bride will be blameless, and Revelations foretells of a population called "blameless" that will be marked in the last days.

I am of the belief that there will be a generation of 144,000 success stories one day.

Paul obviously had this hope for Timothy in the oft-quoted:

"Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you entirely; and may your spirit and soul and body be preserved complete, without blame at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ."

Of course that was a different Timothy

awareness · 05-24-2015, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Timotheist

I do not agree that it is "well held" that it was written last. It very well may be true that the version we have today was edited at a later date, drawing from material that was recorded by the eyewitness.

But I have three main reasons for arguing for an earlier date:

1) This author was the only one who seemed to know anything about Passover and the High Sabbath that followed.

This doesn't date anything.

Quote:

2) He did not have any Virgin Mary stuff in it, which was already popular by the end of the first century.

Good point ... but doesn't date the book with no shadow of doubt.

Quote:

3) He claims to be an eyewitness. Not ready to call him a liar just yet.

Please quote where he claims to be an eyewitness ... and explain who the "we" are.

Quote:

I also am not taking a firm stand on this. My faith has evolved and maybe someday I may achieve your level.

What level would that be?

Quote:

But I will not get there by reading modern authors.

If you get "there" at all ... wherever there is. Maybe we can get there together.

Quote:

I stick to my analysis of documents that have been preserved from the first and second centuries.

That's lots of ground to cover. I'm still digging at it. Maybe we can help each other.

Quote:

I don't have a "source" that claims parallel authorship of Matthew and Luke. It seems pretty obvious to me that these were written without knowledge of each other. About the only two things that are common between their accounts of the virgin birth are the assertion of virginity and the star overhead.

That funny star. Must have been a spaceship to move like that.

Okay, from what I've learned:

Yes there has been much scholarly debate as to when the gospels were written. However, for what it's worth, the scholarly consensus is:

Mark first.

Matthew and Luke next - using Mark as a source, and "Q", and "M" for unique to Matthew, and "L" for unique to Luke.

John last, around the end of the 1st c., or beginning of the 2nd. Maybe by a Johannine School of students of John, in Ephesus ... coincidentally -- maybe, maybe not -- right where Heraclitus coined the Greek word Logos 500 yrs prior.

It will always be debated. What's wrong with not knowing ... and what's wrong if the gospels were written by men ... who weren't eyewitnesses?

Mark got from Peter, it is said, and Matthew and Luke clearly quotes Mark in places word for word. Luke admits he's not an eyewitness. And John's claim don't make no sense. And they're all written in the third person, with Jesus also speaking in the third person.

Timotheist · 05-24-2015, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by awareness

adoptionism was declared a heresy early on in the 2nd c. and reject by the orthodox at the First Council of Nicaea.

Actually, when I read about "adoptionism" last year, I was actually excited by the discovery, that a belief that is similar to mine existed at the very time in question.

It is too bad that their works were not preserved for today's analysis. The majority gets to write the history, and this majority set the stage for Mary worship.

awareness · 05-24-2015, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Timotheist

It is too bad that their works were not preserved for today's analysis. The majority gets to write the history

The majority burned all those books.

Quote:

and this majority set the stage for Mary worship.

You mean Mary THE MOTHER OF GOD. The majority also set the stage for the worship of the Holy Foreskin (skin of God left behind when Jesus ascended). Look it up. As recent as 1982.

UntoHim · 05-24-2015, 04:02 PM

Congrats Harold, I think you broke your old world record of going one year without mentioning the holy foreskin. Ok, today starts the first day of the next streak!

awareness · 05-24-2015, 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Congrats Harold, I think you broke your old world record of going one year without mentioning the holy foreskin. Ok, today starts the first day of the next streak!

Oh! Ya caught that! But didn't catch the request to move Timotheist's blog to a thread on AltVs.

Timotheist set it up and I had to knock it out of the park. And ... it's the nature of the Holy Prepuce to pop back up every now and then.

Timotheist · 05-24-2015, 05:56 PM

I am waiting for one of you to notice the "golden shower" reference on the 'research' thread

Timotheist · 05-24-2015, 06:14 PM

Back to the "Word became flesh" subject for a minute.

Trypho had this to say to Justin Martyr while they were talking about the virgin birth:

"Do not now suppose that I am endeavouring, by asking what I do ask, to overturn the statements you have made; but I wish to receive information respecting those very points about which I now inquire. Tell me, then, how, when the Scripture asserts by Isaiah, ‘There shall come forth a rod from the root of Jesse; and a flower shall grow up from the root of Jesse; and the Spirit of God shall rest upon Him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and piety: and the spirit of the fear of the Lord shall fill Him:' (now you admitted to me that this referred to Christ, and you maintain Him to be pre-existent God, and having become incarnate by God's will, to be born man by the Virgin) how He can be demonstrated to have been pre-existent, who is filled with the powers of the Holy Ghost, which the Scripture by Isaiah enumerates, as if He were in lack of them?"

To paraphrase:

"Why would Jesus need to have the Spirit come down on Him if
He was already God by birth?" (my words)

Good question.

awareness · 05-24-2015, 06:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Timotheist

I am waiting for one of you to notice the "golden shower" reference on the 'research' thread

Completely missed that. Thanks for pointing it out. Post #9 has lots of meat in it ('tis best milk drinkers shy away).

Seems I'm dominating AltVs. Maybe I like the sound of my own voice. It's doesn't help that you're hot on it, making it hard to keep up with your pace. Thanks for that. Obviously we've got lots to cover. Let's stay at it.

I'll babble on on your other thread ... Thanks again ...

OBW · 05-25-2015, 05:19 AM

Unless the inquiry is part of an endeavor to decide whether or not to believe, what does "getting it right" on this point do for us? Those that think that a certain way is important will see what they think is important. Those think it is another will select those. But if the only point was virgin birth and the line of David, and that was mostly to show the Jews a fulfilled prophecy, then if no one was questioning the rest until later, what do we suppose it means if it is one way or the other? Maybe the lack of clear information is evidence that it is not important to us. God is God and the fact of the God-man is the thing, not the manner in which he made it happen.

Just like creation. We get this very incomplete description which suggests to me that the details are not important, yet we find a need to force it to be one way or another. It is either as a litmus test to determine who is in and who it out, or a basis for proving or disproving God. Yet the available information does neither. In our present inquiry, it just provides an outcome — God living as a man.

Some have insisted that certain ways have certain meaning, but is that true or just an overlay that fits with a certain presumption of how it MUST actually be. Where is the must asserted? Is this just one more need for man to assert his own requirements on God rather than allowing God to be God?

A sort of making God in our image. "If this is the way it happened then I can believe. Otherwise I cannot."

zeek · 05-25-2015, 07:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Timotheist

INTRODUCTION

I hope this thread serves as a worthwhile companion to "Virgin Birth questioned: the research".

Let's discuss here the questions that come to mind about the person of Jesus if he was born of Joseph instead of the Holy Spirit.

Here are only a few of the many major questions we should discuss:

1) If Jesus was born a man, how was he also the Son Of God?
2) If Jesus was born a man, did he sin? How can he be qualified to be our Savior if he was a mere man?
3) Can I still be a Christian and not believe in the Virgin Birth?

I find this subject fascinating, and I have given it much thought over the past two years. And I am still here, believing in my Savior, the Firstborn of the New Creation.

Yours in Christ

The first implication that results from questioning if the virgin birth stories are historically true is that the historical veracity of the Bible as the inerrant Word of God. That's why fanatical dogmatists cannot dispassionately bear such questioning and have historically ex-communicated, tortured and killed people who engage in such questioning. Thankfully, we live in a country where religious freedom and freedom of speech are constitutionally guaranteed. Since today is Memorial Day I think it is fitting to remember that people have given their lives for that freedom. So, let's continue to question and see where it leads us. I will consider the other implications you listed and post my responses later.

Timotheist · 05-25-2015, 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

Unless the inquiry is part of an endeavor to decide whether or not to believe, what does "getting it right" on this point do for us?

We can't get it all right. But we can try.

(at risk of being moved to the new vent thread, but I will not use all caps or red ink)

Christianity is a joke. It is not evolving with the intelligence of the populace.

I do not find fault in Ohio's stance, for he is just being obedient to what he has been taught to believe. Most of us have been brainwashed since our youth that to be a Christian you must also accept as part of your faith that the Bible is the WORD OF GOD.

The Jews laugh at our New Testament, echoing the concerns of 2nd century Trypho. I once tried to act as Justin Martyr to a Jew and he could not get past Matthew. He criticized the text every which way to Sunday. I saw that I was not going to get anywhere with him.

The secular people laugh at us. We hold onto these traditions and that does not work anymore. There is way too much Biblical criticism out there for anyone to read.

We need to evolve for Christianity to survive. 'Evolve' is not the right word: we need to take the next step in reformation.

We need to publicly embrace the Bible for what it is: a flawed depiction of Christ Jesus. We need to own that. We need to change the names of the gospels and get off these tired traditions. We need to be able to admit that the virgin birth may very well have been a well-intentioned fabrication of a generation of post 70 AD gentile Christians who were weak on Judaism and the Hebrew language, apparently unable to distinguish between the Jewish heritage and the Greek alternative they were trying to fight against.

Clement of Rome used the mythical beast Phoenix as a God-given example of the truth of the resurrection. He was only one generation away from Paul.

I am sorry, but it is silly to insist that the New Testament is a canon of 100% inspired truth.

The world has moved on.

OBW · 05-26-2015, 05:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Timotheist

Christianity is a joke. It is not evolving with the intelligence of the populace.

Maybe the problem with Christianity is not that it is not evolving with the intelligence of he population, but rather that as we get smarter, we think we have to change it and have made it into something that it is not. The only things that "don't work" are not faith in Christ and the following of righteousness, but the things we do that are something else. That ranges from how we "do worship" to the penchant on both sides of the political spectrum to use government as a proxy for our own acts of love for our neighbor with the result that we become subsumed in the government and our testimony tied to the totality of what the government does and does not do.

And it includes the need to determine what is the truth about the things that are not mentioned. Seems more like a modern day inquiry in the number angels on the head of a pin — something of no real value — than a quest to live in the manner in which we were/are commanded. I guess anything to distract us from our failure at actually obeying is the ticket. Or something to discredit things not said so we don't have to obey. "Police speed, so I can too." "How could Mary have been pregnant without a man?" As if the God who made it all is too feeble to handle that however he wants.

Of course, if Christianity is simply the mess that we look at now, then it is a joke. But if at its core it is something else and the baggage can be dropped, then underneath there is a truth that can continue without the need for an evolution of faith. Rather a steadfastness of faith.

Once we carve it back to that core, there is no longer a need to figure out the things that are not detailed for us.

awareness · 05-26-2015, 09:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Timotheist

(at risk of being moved to the new vent thread, but I will not use all caps or red ink).

No shouting (caps) and red anger (red ink) earns no move to The Venting Thread.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bro Tim

Christianity is a joke.

Lee said it was Christless ... and Judaism is Satanic, and Catholicism is demonic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bro Tim

It is not evolving with the intelligence of the populace.

But Lee may have been taking us back to the dark ages.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bro Tim

I do not find fault in Ohio's stance, for he is just being obedient to what he has been taught to believe. Most of us have been brainwashed since our youth that to be a Christian you must also accept as part of your faith that the Bible is the WORD OF GOD.

I was taught that the Bible was THE word of God before I was able to read a word of it.

And I love bro Ohio. He's got tenacity and sticktoitiveness. He lasted 30 yrs in the LC. And compared to me came out only recently. I look back to those recent years after the LC and am able to at least walk a little bit in his shoes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bro Tim

The Jews laugh at our New Testament, echoing the concerns of 2nd century Trypho. I once tried to act as Justin Martyr to a Jew and he could not get past Matthew. He criticized the text every which way to Sunday. I saw that I was not going to get anywhere with him.

The Jews today aren't Hellenized like 2000 yrs ago. They don't understand supporting Christianity with the Greek myths. Today the Greek myths, as well as all the other grand ancient myths, are all dead. No one believes them ... no one that can be taken seriously that is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bro Tim

The secular people laugh at us.

We look like we are believing in cartoons ... like the virgin birth story, descending doves, stars moving at the speed of walking, burning bushes, people coming up out of the graves and walking around, and all the like ... today we've got comic books like that ... who needs Bible criticism?

Quote:

Originally Posted by bro Tim

We need to evolve for Christianity to survive.

Now you sound like Bishop John Shelby Spong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bro Tim

'Evolve' is not the right word: we need to take the next step in reformation.

And that wasn't The Recovery?

Quote:

Originally Posted by bro Tim

We need to publicly embrace the Bible for what it is: a flawed depiction of Christ Jesus.

Yeah, it doesn't even tell us what made Jesus laugh.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bro Tim

The world has moved on.

Thank God or I would have been burned at the stake long ago. And being raised in the Southern Baptist church that, started in support of hold slaves, would be hold slaves today, as the Bible condones.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bro Tim

I am sorry, but it is silly to insist that the New Testament is a canon of 100% inspired truth.

Timotheist · 05-26-2015, 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

Maybe the problem with Christianity is not that it is not evolving with the intelligence of he population, but rather that as we get smarter, we think we have to change it and have made it into something that it is not.

And what if I provided evidence of manuscript modifications that suggest at best a well-intended correction, at worst a willful conspiracy to change the original author's message?

Here is today's Mark 1:11, recording what happened at Jesus' baptism:

and a voice came out of the heavens: "You are My beloved Son, in You I am well-pleased." (Mar 1:11 NAU)

But here is what an earlier manuscript says:

and a voice came out of the heavens: "You are My beloved Son, Today I have begotten You."

The second version is a direct quote of Psalm 2:7, the first is not. Therefore I declare the second to be the original text with a confidence of 99%.

It also makes sense from a document organization standpoint. The author started with the baptism, because to him nothing before that mattered.

And no surprise to me, Matthew and Luke follow the modified Mark.

I report, you decide.

But I will have to ask you to trust me when I say that I had already pretty much made up my mind that Jesus became the Christ at His baptism, via the descent of the Spirit, thus being born again, before I discovered this little gem.

It emboldens me that I am on the right track. Unless you want to discredit the earlier author as also not knowing "the truth" (you are free to do that), I think this needs to be given thoughtful consideration.

Awareness beat me to the punch, but there were a minority group of Christians in the second century who were making this point, and they were declared heretics.

Ohio · 05-26-2015, 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Timotheist

But I will have to ask you to trust me when I say that I had already pretty much made up my mind that Jesus became the Christ at His baptism, via the descent of the Spirit, thus being born again, before I discovered this little gem.

And just who was Jesus before He became the Christ? And where does it say Jesus was "born again?"

Ohio · 05-26-2015, 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Timotheist

Here are only a few of the many major questions we should discuss:

1) If Jesus was born a man, how was he also the Son Of God?
2) If Jesus was born a man, did he sin? How can he be qualified to be our Savior if he was a mere man?
3) Can I still be a Christian and not believe in the Virgin Birth?

1) He was the Only Begotten Son of God because God was His Father, He is the eternal Word which became flesh at conception.

2) He never sinned. He knew no sin. He can be our Savior because His blood was sinless, and was an acceptable sacrifice to God, redeeming us by completely paying our debts to the law of God. He can regenerate us because He is also the eternal God.

3) The Bible does not specifically demand faith in the Virgin Birth as an item of salvation. Romans requires us to confess with our mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believe in our heart that God has raised Him from the dead.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Timotheist

Let's discuss here the questions that come to mind about the person of Jesus if he was born of Joseph instead of the Holy Spirit.

There is no evidence that He was actually the son of Joseph. Luke's genealogy begins by saying, "being as was supposed the son of Joseph." In the Nazarene synagogue, his friends and family all thought they knew Him, saying "Is this not Joseph's son?"

Timotheist · 05-26-2015, 05:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

And where does it say Jesus was "born again?"

Of course you know there is no direct statement to this effect, but Jesus said to Nicodemus that he needed to be born again of the Spirit. John the Baptist witnessed the Spirit coming down at Jesus' baptism, and thus declared him to be the Son of God. So all that is missing is the phrase "like Me" when Jesus described this process to Nicodemus. But of course the entire theme of John's gospel deals with being born again, and Jesus promised a similar experience to his disciples once He finished the process Himself.

Another way to answer your question is: Mark 1:11, the original version.

zeek · 05-26-2015, 07:14 PM

Ohio stated:

Quote:

There is no evidence that He was actually the son of Joseph. Luke's genealogy begins by saying, "being as was supposed the son of Joseph." In the Nazarene synagogue, his friends and family all thought they knew Him, saying "Is this not Joseph's son?"

On the contrary, according to both Matthew and Luke it is Joseph, not Mary, who is descended from David (Mary’s descent is not mentioned), and therefore it is as Joseph’s son that Jesus is of the royal line. Unless Joseph is legitimate in the role of Jesus’ father, even though he is not the biological father, then Jesus is illegitimate in the role of messianic Son of David. What then would be the basis for Paul to claim for Jesus in Roman 1: 3 "Concerning His Son, who came out of the seed of David according to the flesh"? So then, the answer to the question, Is this not Joseph’s son?, is legitimately yes.

Ohio · 05-26-2015, 07:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Timotheist

Of course you know there is no direct statement to this effect, but Jesus said to Nicodemus that he needed to be born again of the Spirit. John the Baptist witnessed the Spirit coming down at Jesus' baptism, and thus declared him to be the Son of God. So all that is missing is the phrase "like Me" when Jesus described this process to Nicodemus. But of course the entire theme of John's gospel deals with being born again, and Jesus promised a similar experience to his disciples once He finished the process Himself.

Another way to answer your question is: Mark 1:11, the original version.

John the Baptist witnesses the Spirit coming down, but it was the Father who declared, "This is my beloved Son, in Whom I delight." -- Mt 3.17; Mark 1.11; Luke 3.22. This is perhaps the strongest verse in scripture proving the virgin birth to all those at the Jordan river.

John, on the contrary, declared "Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world."

Your speculation about "like Me" far exceeds any concerns one might have about the virgin birth.

Timotheist · 05-26-2015, 07:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

John the Baptist witnesses the Spirit coming down, but it was the Father who declared, "This is my beloved Son, in Whom I delight." -- Mt 3.17; Mark 1.11; Luke 3.22. This is perhaps the strongest verse in scripture proving the virgin birth to all those at the Jordan river.

Kinda funny. Your response to my answer where I cite the original text of Mark 1:11 is to quote the text of the modified Mark.

Better read your John again. The Baptist is the one who declares Jesus to be the Son of God in that account.

Timotheist · 05-26-2015, 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

3) The Bible does not specifically demand faith in the Virgin Birth as an item of salvation. Romans requires us to confess with our mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believe in our heart that God has raised Him from the dead.

Also kinda funny. We are both Christians yet you are bothered by my belief in a natural birth.

It's a riddle wrapped in an enigma, or something like that.

awareness · 05-26-2015, 08:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Timotheist

But here is what an earlier manuscript says:

and a voice came out of the heavens: "You are My beloved Son, Today I have begotten You."

Oh my goodness our dear bro Timotheist has perchance been seduced by the dreaded Bart Errorman, or other modern textual critics. Or maybe he's just been reading the Net Bible, or most of the early church fathers :

Ehrman:
the Spirit descends upon Jesus in the form of a dove, and a voice comes from heaven. But the manuscripts of Luke’s Gospel are divided concerning what exactly the voice said. According to most of our manuscripts, it spoke the same words one finds in Mark’s account: “You are my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased” (Mark 1: 11; Luke 3: 23). In one early Greek manuscript and several Latin ones, however, the voice says something strikingly different: “You are my Son, today I have begotten you.” Today I have begotten you! Doesn’t that suggest that his day of baptism is the day on which Jesus has become the Son of God? Couldn’t this text be used by an adoptionist Christian to make the point that Jesus became the Son of God at this time? As this is such an interesting variant, we might do well to give it a more extended consideration, as a further illustration of the complexities of the problems that textual critics face. The first issue to resolve is this: which of these two forms of the text is original, and which represents the alteration? The vast majority of Greek manuscripts have the first reading (“ You are my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased”); and so one might be tempted to see the other reading as the alteration. The problem in this case is that the verse was quoted a lot by early church fathers in the period before most of our manuscripts were produced. It is quoted in the second and third centuries everywhere from Rome, to Alexandria, to North Africa, to Palestine, to Gaul, to Spain. And in almost every instance, it is the other form of the text that is quoted (“ Today I have begotten you”). Moreover, this is the form of text that is more unlike what is found in the parallel passage in Mark. As we have seen, scribes typically try to harmonize texts rather than take them out of harmony; it is therefore the form of the text that differs from Mark that is more likely to be original to Luke. These arguments suggest that the less-attested reading—“ Today I have begotten you”— is indeed the original, and that it came to be changed by scribes who feared its adoptionistic overtones.
- Ehrman, Bart D. (2009-01-23). Misquoting Jesus (pp. 158-159). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition. - (Bold mine.)

Net Bible:
Luke 3:21 (Net Bible) - 3:21 Now when60 all the people were baptized, Jesus also was baptized. And while he was praying,61 the heavens62 opened, 3:22 and the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form like a dove.63 And a voice came from heaven, “You are my one dear Son;64 in you I take great delight.”65
- Footnote 65: Instead of “You are my one dear Son; in you I take great delight,” one Greek ms and several Latin mss and church fathers (D it Ju [Cl] Meth Hil Aug) quote Ps 2:7 outright with “You are my Son; today I have fathered you.” But the weight of the ms testimony is against this reading.

Ehrman again:
Clement indicates that at Christ’s baptism a voice from heaven came forth as a witness to the Beloved, saying “You are my beloved Son, today I have begotten you.” The quotation represents a slight conflation, but the second half clearly derives from the Lukan account.
- Ehrman - The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture

The Gospel of the Ebionites: Epiphanius, Pan. 30. 13, 7-8. The gospel provides a clear conflation of the three Synoptic accounts of the voice from heaven. When Jesus comes out of the water he hears the voice of God (quoting Mark), “You are my beloved Son . . . .” The voice then adds (,”today I have begotten you.” This text must derive from Luke,
- Ehrman - The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture

Church Father:
On my side I advance the passage where the Father said to the Son, “Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten Thee.” If you want me to believe Him to be both the Father and the Son, show me some other passage where it is declared, “The Lord said unto Himself, ‘I am my own Son, today have I begotten myself.’” (Tertullian - Against Praxeas 11)

Sorry for the length. I thought we might like to learn more about Tims' present adoptionistic conviction, to maybe see deeper into why he holds to it, at this stage of his journey and research into scriptural matters.

Ohio · 05-26-2015, 08:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Timotheist

Kinda funny. Your response to my answer where I cite the original text of Mark 1:11 is to quote the text of the modified Mark.

Better read your John again. The Baptist is the one who declares Jesus to be the Son of God in that account.

So ... I should read my John, but your Mark!

And ... if we reject the virgin birth, then we must declare Matthew and Luke to be frauds. What are we left with?

Ohio · 05-27-2015, 04:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Timotheist

Also kinda funny. We are both Christians yet you are bothered by my belief in a natural birth.

It's a riddle wrapped in an enigma, or something like that.

Most Christians would question the salvation of one who rejected the virgin birth.

After all, if you don't believe in Christmas, you may be a heretic.

Timotheist · 05-27-2015, 04:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by awareness

[COLOR="Blue"]Oh my goodness our dear bro Timotheist has perchance been seduced by the dreaded Bart Errorman, or other modern textual critics. Or maybe he's just been reading the Net Bible, or most of the early church fathers

You can accept this or not, but I have never even heard of Ehrman until you guys brought him up on this thread. But if I had read him first, I might have discounted it. Nothing like doing your own research to give you conviction.

And let's please stop with the "adoptionist" label (I know, I played along with it). I don't know much about them, and do not know what other things they promoted. Also the term itself has a connotation to it. I am not saying that Jesus is "God's adopted Son", if that is what is meant by the term.

I bet even Ehrman did not know about this item I found:

Peter failed to mention to Mark the time Jesus told Peter to "pull his Titus", and then laughed hysterically.

Ohio · 05-27-2015, 06:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Timotheist

Christianity is a joke. It is not evolving with the intelligence of the populace.

This sets off sirens and flashing lights in me. It sounds just like Lee to judge the entire body of Christ with a single off hand comment. Perhaps there is something wrong with your eyesight.

awareness · 05-27-2015, 07:26 AM

. . . . . . duplicate

awareness · 05-27-2015, 07:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

Most Christians would question the salvation of one who rejected the virgin birth.

Yes, just check out the Fundamentalist thread here on AltVs ... It's fundamental #2, right after Bible inerrancy.

Those Princeton dudes were wrong about #1 and are maybe wrong on #2 too.

Ohio · 05-27-2015, 08:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by awareness

Yes, just check out the Fundamentalist thread here on AltVs ... It's fundamental #2, right after Bible inerrancy.

Those Princeton dudes were wrong about #1 and are maybe wrong on #2 too.

That Princeton dude friend of yours now is the acting MOTA.

Ohio · 05-27-2015, 08:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by awareness

Ehrman:
the Spirit descends upon Jesus in the form of a dove, and a voice comes from heaven. But the manuscripts of Luke’s Gospel are divided concerning what exactly the voice said. According to most of our manuscripts, it spoke the same words one finds in Mark’s account: “You are my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased” (Mark 1: 11; Luke 3: 23). In one early Greek manuscript and several Latin ones, however, the voice says something strikingly different: “You are my Son, today I have begotten you.” Today I have begotten you! Doesn’t that suggest that his day of baptism is the day on which Jesus has become the Son of God? Couldn’t this text be used by an adoptionist Christian to make the point that Jesus became the Son of God at this time? As this is such an interesting variant, we might do well to give it a more extended consideration, as a further illustration of the complexities of the problems that textual critics face.
- Ehrman, Bart D. (2009-01-23). Misquoting Jesus (pp. 158-159). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition. - (Bold mine.)

Leave it to Ehrman to find an interesting variant to develop another of his wild theories. If Errorman would simply read Paul's discourse in Antioch of Pisidia, then he would learn that "this day" in all the above verses refers to the day of resurrection.

In "one early Greek manuscript and several Latin ones," Errorman draws such an interesting conclusion? Latin manuscripts?!? And he calls himself a textual critic? Oh how I would like to see him go toe-to-toe with Dr. Philip Comfort!

C'mon man!

awareness · 05-27-2015, 09:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

If Errorman would simply read Paul's discourse in Antioch of Pisidia, then he would learn that "this day" in all the above verses refers to the day of resurrection.

Some adoptionists did claim that Jesus was adopted at his resurrection ... as some claimed it was at his transfiguration.

And y'all thought I was hard to pin down.

awareness · 05-27-2015, 09:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

That Princeton dude friend of yours now is the acting MOTA.

Are you talking about Ehrman or Kangas .... ?

Ha

zeek · 05-27-2015, 09:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zeek

On the contrary, according to both Matthew and Luke it is Joseph, not Mary, who is descended from David (Mary’s descent is not mentioned), and therefore it is as Joseph’s son that Jesus is of the royal line. Unless Joseph is legitimate in the role of Jesus’ father, even though he is not the biological father, then Jesus is illegitimate in the role of messianic Son of David. What then would be the basis for Paul to claim for Jesus in Roman 1: 3 "Concerning His Son, who came out of the seed of David according to the flesh"? So then, the answer to the question, Is this not Joseph’s son?, is legitimately yes.

No one answered my post, probably because they have no answer. According to Matthew and Luke, Mary conceived as a divinely impregnated virgin betrothed to Joseph, a descendant of David. If there was no biological relationship between Joseph and Jesus, how is Joseph's genealogy relevant to the claim that Jesus is the Davidic Messiah? Why are the genealogies of Joseph in Matthew and Luke not meaningless exercises? Several people here maintain that there are no real problems to the genealogies, virgin birth and Bethlehem place of birth stories only unbelievers quibbling over minor points. It seems they wish to hide their heads in the sand and ignore real problems that confront any reasonable person reading these stories.

OBW · 05-27-2015, 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Timotheist

And what if I provided evidence of manuscript modifications that suggest at best a well-intended correction, at worst a willful conspiracy to change the original author's message?

Here is today's Mark 1:11, recording what happened at Jesus' baptism:

and a voice came out of the heavens: "You are My beloved Son, in You I am well-pleased." (Mar 1:11 NAU)

But here is what an earlier manuscript says:

and a voice came out of the heavens: "You are My beloved Son, Today I have begotten You."

The second version is a direct quote of Psalm 2:7, the first is not. Therefore I declare the second to be the original text with a confidence of 99%.

You have failed to realize that it is only those who have to have things their way, and not God's way, who will care between those. Either way, Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.

And even if the second is the proper reading, the other is not invalidated. And even if the second is proper, it does not close the door on the eternal position of the Son in the Godhead, only specifies something concerning his presence within the man Jesus. But even if we accept this understanding, it makes the event at age 12 in the Temple interesting if he was not already God yet was so thoroughly able to confound the teachers of the law.

But even at that, it does not contradict the actual claims of the Bible, just the positions of man.

My point about what we are making out if it is just underscored by your need for perfection on something that I cannot find as being truly important.

Ohio · 05-27-2015, 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

My point about what we are making out if it is just underscored by your need for perfection on something that I cannot find as being truly important.

The point was alluded to before. If Jesus was just an ordinary Jew, though a true descendent of the lineage of David, who was "adopted" by God either at Baptism, on the mountain with Moses and Elijah, or some other notable time, then He must be a sinner like the rest of us, and therefore His death on the cross cannot redeem us. It then becomes a life-changer, and thus Christianity is fraudulent, the basic supposition of AltViews.

Bart Erhman and others have slid down this slippery slope and landed in the lake of agnosticism and atheism.

This is the implication of Adoptionism, the denial of the virgin birth.

awareness · 05-27-2015, 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

This is the implication of Adoptionism, the denial of the virgin birth.

I don't think I can document it but prolly that's why it's in the five fundamentals of the fundamentalist creed.

Ohio · 05-27-2015, 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by awareness

I don't think I can document it but prolly that's why it's in the five fundamentals of the fundamentalist creed.

Based on these verses and others ...

1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
2 Hereby know you the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
3 And every spirit that confesses not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof you have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

I John 4

awareness · 05-27-2015, 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

Based on these verses and others ...

1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
2 Hereby know you the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
3 And every spirit that confesses not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof you have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

I John 4

But wouldn't Joseph being Jesus' biological father mean that Jesus Christ came in the flesh?

OBW · 05-27-2015, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

The point was alluded to before. If Jesus was just an ordinary Jew, though a true descendent of the lineage of David, who was "adopted" by God either at Baptism, on the mountain with Moses and Elijah, or some other notable time, then He must be a sinner like the rest of us, and therefore His death on the cross cannot redeem us. It then becomes a life-changer, and thus Christianity is fraudulent, the basic supposition of AltViews.

Bart Erhman and others have slid down this slippery slope and landed in the lake of agnosticism and atheism.

This is the implication of Adoptionism, the denial of the virgin birth.

And on this point I must agree. It is important. So we have eliminated certain possibilities.

And note that while I questioned the importance, I did point to evidence that "this day" was not the beginning of God in the man Jesus because of the Temple at age 12. It stands as functionally contradicting the particular reading, or at least forcing a different meaning onto it besides "this is where Jesus became God."

And a point I had wanted to make on the issue of he age of any manuscript . . . . If the oldest one we have says "X" but all the others say "Y," yet none of them are the original, then why do we think that the multitude of copies going to so many places that say "Y" are wrong and the single is the correct one? In a world of copies, the frequency of discovery of a particular reading seems to be more important than age. If there had been many different copies of about the same age all of which said "X" and them many different copies some years later, all of which said "Y" then we might have a different consideration.

zeek · 05-27-2015, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

Based on these verses and others ...

1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
2 Hereby know you the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
3 And every spirit that confesses not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof you have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

I John 4

I don't know anybody who is not "in the flesh." Do you? If Jesus was a human being he was "in the flesh." A bigger issue is what Jesus stands for. If he stands for loving his enemies then I'm prochrist. If he stands for killing people because they disagree with his dogma, then I'm antichrist.

OBW · 05-27-2015, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God

This says Jesus Christ came in the flesh, not:

That Jesus Christ was introduced into existing flesh, or
Jesus, already being flesh, became the Christ.

Those are distinctly different, and Jesus is labeled as synonymous with Christ, therefore not an earned or added title, but a fact of his person. Period.

OBW · 05-27-2015, 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zeek

I don't know anybody who is not "in the flesh." Do you? If Jesus was a human being he was "in the flesh." A bigger issue is what Jesus stands for. If he stands for loving his enemies then I'm prochrist. If he stands for killing people because they disagree with his dogma, then I'm antichrist.

I will agree with what people make Jesus out to stand for. And like Gandhi, there are many who make him out to be what you would rather avoid. (same for me)

But as to everyone being "in the flesh," that is not quite the same thought when the idea is that Jesus Christ is God who was before there was a lump of human flesh that housed Jesus Christ. (Yeah, I know. the Son did not have the name "Jesus" before he became flesh.)

But the manner in which the statement in v.2 is given indicates that Jesus Christ, who is being declared to be the Son of God, and being God, came in the flesh, not "was added to flesh."

That still leaves the problem of those who want him to be a bigot and very unloving. Like those Westboro Chipmunks.

"This changes everything.
You hate you! You hate you! . . . ."

zeek · 05-27-2015, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

I will agree with what people make Jesus out to stand for. And like Gandhi, there are many who make him out to be what you would rather avoid. (same for me)

But as to everyone being "in the flesh," that is not quite the same thought when the idea is that Jesus Christ is God who was before there was a lump of human flesh that housed Jesus Christ. (Yeah, I know. the Son did not have the name "Jesus" before he became flesh.)

But the manner in which the statement in v.2 is given indicates that Jesus Christ, who is being declared to be the Son of God, and being God, came in the flesh, not "was added to flesh."

That still leaves the problem of those who want him to be a bigot and very unloving. Like those Westboro Chipmunks.

"This changes everything.
You hate you! You hate you! . . . ."

Yes, I hope you agree with me that you cannot accept a Jesus that stands for anything less than unconditional love.

Please explain what you mean by "God" and how it is possible for a human being to be that.

UntoHim · 05-27-2015, 04:21 PM

Since the title of the thread is "Virgin Birth..", which is a part of the Gospel, which is a part of the Christian canon, let's go upon the assumption that we are speaking of the Judeo-Christian God of the Judeo-Christian scriptures. If Timotheist or zeek want to start a thread "define God" then we can take up that ginormous topic on such a thread. As far as your question "how it is possible for a human being to be that", well this is pretty theologically involved issue, which we can explore on this thread. But if your going to be insisting upon scientific proofs, well that's a non-sequitur on LCD...even in the la la land of Alternative Views.

zeek · 05-27-2015, 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Since the title of the thread is "Virgin Birth..", which is a part of the Gospel, which is a part of the Christian canon, let's go upon the assumption that we are speaking of the Judeo-Christian God of the Judeo-Christian scriptures. If Timotheist or zeek want to start a thread "define God" then we can take up that ginormous question on such a thread. As far as your question "how it is possible for a human being to be that", well this is pretty theologically involved issue, which we can explore on this thread. But if your going to be insisting upon scientific proofs, well that's a non-sequitur on LCD...even in the la la land of Alternative Views.

Your assumption begs the question. What is the conception of God of the Judeo-Christian scriptures? Many Jews have perennially rejected the idea of a virgin birth based on their conception of God. That throws the idea of a "Judeo-Christian God" into question. Then there are the various conceptions of the church's creeds, theologians and, of course, lets not forget Witness Lee's. I don't know where OBW comes down on the issue. So I think it was a fair and relevant question.

Non-sequitur refers to a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement. Logic is universal.Therefore, LCD can't have a special standard of non-sequitur.

If you reject science, what standard of evidence to you go by? I think in a discussion like this preponderance of evidence is good enough in most cases and that's well below a scientific standard. Of course, when scientific evidence is available on an issue that is possibly observable, what trumps it but better scientific evidence?

Timotheist · 05-27-2015, 06:21 PM

Boy, I go to work, come home, and I have to spend 20 minutes to catch up.

1) It has been suggested more than once that I am an Ehrman fan. I am not familiar with his work. What is his agenda? Is he attempting to reform, or is he attacking belief in Christ? VERY big difference. All I know at this point is that we overlap in questioning the virgin birth.

2) The collective response to my rant is disheartening. Now I am another Witness Lee. I take offense.

3) OBW suggests that the lack of multiple copies of the other version of Mark makes it suspect. Yet Justin Martyr used this version and he was writing his stuff in the middle of the second century. Perhaps when the adoptionist view was declared heresy, an attempt was made to destroy these copies. Certainly plausible, and no, I cannot back this conjecture up.

4) Today it was also suggested that I am somehow attempting to redefine the Son and the Godhead. Where did I suggest anything of the kind? Nowhere. Jesus and the pre-existing Son became one at Jesus’ baptism. Nothing has changed in my definition of God.

5) Regarding the canon. Let’s review the approximate order of the Mary dogma that developed in these early centuries. (The order is pure speculation on my part. I am sure one of you will help me out on this.)
a) Mary was a virgin
b) No wait, Mary was also without sin
c) No wait, Mary did not die and was taken up to heaven.
d) Now we have a tidy little trinity family in heaven: a Father, a Mother, and a Son
e) And we should now pray to Mary to intercede for us.

At times during this chain of events, spurious manuscripts were invented to create a false paper trail. Some of Ignatius’ works were completely rewritten, inserting “Maryology” (my word) into the early history. They even fabricated letters alleged to contain a dialogue between Mary and Ignatius.

Now also somewhere in this chain of events the canon was established. Why should we put such a heavy trust in the canonization when this decay was occurring at the same time?

The Protestant movement quickly refuted b) thru e) with due haste. But a) was left alone. Why? Because this step was canonized.

Okay, please continue what your were discussing.

And yes I am very much an ex LCer. Grew up in the place in the Texas area.

awareness · 05-27-2015, 07:58 PM

As far as I'm concerned you're doing fine bro Tim.

Okay, as UntoHim pointed out -- discounting his ad hominem la-la-land remark -- the virgin birth is in the gospels, 2 of them anyway, and the gospels are in our canon, so Mary was a virgin when a teen mother.

But how did Mary wind up a virgin in heaven?

Let's face it, there's made up stories about Mary's virginity. So when did the made up stories begin and where did they end?

UntoHim · 05-27-2015, 08:12 PM

Hi Timotheist,

Yes, at times things do move rather fast around here!

I think you already made your interest (or lack thereof) in Bart Ehrman pretty clear. I don't think the last poster to mention him was referring to your postings.

I don't see where anyone was saying that you art attempting to redefine the Son and the Godhead. If you're referring to OBW's post you may want to take a second look. But you are certainly welcome to ask him to clarify.

Quote:

a) Mary was a virgin
b) No wait, Mary was also without sin
c) No wait, Mary did not die and was taken up to heaven.
d) Now we have a tidy little trinity family in heaven: a Father, a Mother, and a Son
e) And we should now pray to Mary to intercede for us.

This is actually Catholic theology and I'm not sure how it applies to anything taught or practiced in the Local Church. The virgin birth has been an accepted doctrine since the earliest days of the Church. Some early teachers did deny this, but if the earliest creeds and earliest writings of many of the church fathers are any gauge, then it appears that the majority viewed the virgin birth as recorded in the Gospels as valid. Of course the Catholic Church went off the deep end with all sorts of unbiblical tales.

So where does this all leave us today? In my view we can either take what is recorded in the New Testament, we can embellish what is recorded with all sorts of wild and unbiblical speculations, or we can simply just put it in the category of a myth perpetrated by the followers of a fraud. I'm sure some out there can think of other categories, but being that were over 2,000 years after the fact (as it were), I think our options are limited. But hey, this is Alternative Views, so there's always room for one more alt view!

Timotheist · 05-27-2015, 08:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

This says Jesus Christ came in the flesh, not:

That Jesus Christ was introduced into existing flesh, or
Jesus, already being flesh, became the Christ.

Those are distinctly different, and Jesus is labeled as synonymous with Christ, therefore not an earned or added title, but a fact of his person. Period.

The Greek word translated "has come in" in IJo 4:2 is a very general word denoting both "coming" and "going". Here is the breakdown of the usage of the word in the NAU:

Meaning: to come, go
Origin: a prim. vb.
Usage: arrival(1), arrived(1), brought(1), came(225), come(222), comes(64), coming(87), entered(2), expected(3), fall(2), falls(1), give(1), go(1), going(2), grown(1), lighting(1), next(1), turned(1), went(18).

So "entered" and "turned" are both valid uses, but so is "went".

Even if you use the most popular word "came" I could just as easily translated this as "came into" as "came in". There is no Greek word "in" in this verse.

So we must look at the context. I looked this over and the sin John is alluding to here is denying that Jesus Christ was a real person, as opposed to a a fabrication, a myth, or a little-g 'god' or 'spirit'. He was not being any more specific than that. I highly doubt that he was saying anything about his state at birth, and that you must believe anything about his state at birth.

I think you need more evidence than this that the original apostles believed that Jesus was born the Christ. Such a profound 'truth' would have to be mentioned at least once, don't you think?

Again, the apostles lived in a day before Matthew and Luke were written. You read the Acts, and you see that both Peter and Paul, when preaching the gospel, started "with John" (the Baptist) and went from there.

awareness · 05-28-2015, 05:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Timotheist

The Greek word translated "has come in" in IJo 4:2 is a very general word denoting both "coming" and "going". Here is the breakdown of the usage of the word in the NAU:

Meaning: to come, go
Origin: a prim. vb.
Usage: arrival(1), arrived(1), brought(1), came(225), come(222), comes(64), coming(87), entered(2), expected(3), fall(2), falls(1), give(1), go(1), going(2), grown(1), lighting(1), next(1), turned(1), went(18).

So "entered" and "turned" are both valid uses, but so is "went".

Even if you use the most popular word "came" I could just as easily translated this as "came into" as "came in". There is no Greek word "in" in this verse.

So we must look at the context. I looked this over and the sin John is alluding to here is denying that Jesus Christ was a real person, as opposed to a a fabrication, a myth, or a little-g 'god' or 'spirit'. He was not being any more specific than that. I highly doubt that he was saying anything about his state at birth, and that you must believe anything about his state at birth.

I think you need more evidence than this that the original apostles believed that Jesus was born the Christ. Such a profound 'truth' would have to be mentioned at least once, don't you think?

Again, the apostles lived in a day before Matthew and Luke were written. You read the Acts, and you see that both Peter and Paul, when preaching the gospel, started "with John" (the Baptist) and went from there.

I've been asked directly by Christians if I believe Jesus came in the flesh, like it's a final question, a litmus test, of whether I'm a true Christian or not (or an Antichrist).

The answer is, I'm not a docetist, or of those that believe(d) Jesus only appeared to be in the flesh.

1 John, written at the end of the 1st c. or beginning of the 2nd, was clearly a polemic against the heresy of docetism.

OBW · 05-28-2015, 06:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Timotheist

The Greek word translated "has come in" in IJo 4:2 is a very general word denoting both "coming" and "going". Here is the breakdown of the usage of the word in the NAU:

Meaning: to come, go
Origin: a prim. vb.
Usage: arrival(1), arrived(1), brought(1), came(225), come(222), comes(64), coming(87), entered(2), expected(3), fall(2), falls(1), give(1), go(1), going(2), grown(1), lighting(1), next(1), turned(1), went(18).

So "entered" and "turned" are both valid uses, but so is "went".

We've had these kinds of discussions on other words before. Since the writing is part of a narrative, and not an exercise in encoding secrets, the common usage is almost always the more likely usage in the scripture. The entire message of the Messiah is that he came, not went. While we heard for years Lee tell the whole of Jesus' ministry from birth, through crucifixion, burial and resurrection, all the way to ascension, the ascension (or leaving — went) is not always included. Whether he remains with us "always until the end of the age" or has ascended to the right hand of the Father is an exercise in the omnipresence of God.

But the points being made in the passages are that the person Jesus was God born into flesh. So dragging out the little-used meanings of a word from way down the list is more like an exercise in intentional obfuscation than serious scholarship. You can't "just as easily" say something from way down the usage list is the meaning. Given the context and clear intent, while the word possibly has that meaning, it is not plausible. Just like it is remotely possible that a very localized tornado broke the window in my car and ripped the air bags out while leaving everything else intact. But it is not plausible. Much more likely a thief. (Or in the context of this forum, a zeef.)

Ohio · 05-28-2015, 06:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Timotheist

5) Regarding the canon. Let’s review the approximate order of the Mary dogma that developed in these early centuries. (The order is pure speculation on my part. I am sure one of you will help me out on this.)
a) Mary was a virgin
b) No wait, Mary was also without sin
c) No wait, Mary did not die and was taken up to heaven.
d) Now we have a tidy little trinity family in heaven: a Father, a Mother, and a Son
e) And we should now pray to Mary to intercede for us.

I was waiting for someone to use Catholic exaltation of Mary to rebut the virgin birth. God has instructed us to believe His word, not the traditions of the church. We could go on and on about Mary worship, but that's not the point. That Mary was a virgin was prophesied by Isaiah and fulfilled, recorded by Luke and Matthew.

awareness · 05-28-2015, 06:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

That Mary was a virgin was prophesied by Isaiah and fulfilled . . .

No, it was prophesied in Hezekiah 4:2 (look it up). Isaiah, it's been established, didn't mention "virgin." That was a mistranslation in the LXX. If Matthew and Luke had been true to their Judaism, and not fallen for Hellenization, they would have known that too, and would have known what we know today. Clearly, in their zeal they jumped the gun, or the shark. And then it was twisted and solidified when we made their mistake scripture. So now we're forced to accept a mistake as the word of God.

And then the Chaloic church followed the first logical step, starting with "virgin," so Jesus was God, to the next, that Mary was the mother of God, to the next, Mary being bodily lifted up to heaven, and to the final logical step, she's now the holy mother in heaven, and ... AND ... guess what??? ... she's still a virgin.

I'll be darn. All from a slip of a pen, so to speak.

UntoHim · 05-28-2015, 07:46 AM

Harold, as usual you are all washed up on your biblical facts.

Firstly, I'll just ignore your "Hezekiah 4:2" reference because it's not, and never has been, part of the accepted canon by the Jewish or Christian scholars.

Secondly, the translation of Virgin is NOT a mistranslation. The ORIGINAL Hebrew word עַלְמָה `almah, can mean BOTH (NOT necessarily either) young woman and virgin. The context of Isaiah 7 CLEARLY INDICATES THAT OF A YOUNG, UNMARRIED VIRGIN GIRL. In fact the use of this word almah is almost exclusively referring to a young, unmarried virgin girl. CONTEXT IS KING! When in doubt...CONTEXT, CONTEXT CONTEXT!

The Septuagint, the pre-Christian Greek translation of the Jewish Scriptures, took the Hebrew word almah, which can mean both young woman and virgin, and rendered it parthenos, which more explicitly and exclusively denotes virginity. It’s impossible to know exactly what the original hearers of Isaiah’s prophecy thought it meant, but it’s clear that the later translators thought the prophet meant virgin, not merely young woman.

If the prophesy of Isaiah 7:4 is simply referring to a young woman who engages in sex and conceives well then it is not a prophesy at all, now is it? What kind of miraculous deed of God is this?

Sorry, I've already made it clear, we are NOT going down the Catholic doctrine path here on this forum. IT IS IRRELEVANT TO OUR DISCUSSIONS. The Local Church of Witness Lee did not teach any of these Catholic doctrines. So unless we have any ex Local Churcher's who have converted to Roman Catholicism let's leave all the Catholic stuff off the table.

Ohio · 05-28-2015, 08:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by awareness

No, it was prophesied in Hezekiah 4:2 (look it up). Isaiah, it's been established, didn't mention "virgin." That was a mistranslation in the LXX. If Matthew and Luke had been true to their Judaism, and not fallen for Hellenization, they would have known that too, and would have known what we know today. Clearly, in their zeal they jumped the gun, or the shark. And then it was twisted and solidified when we made their mistake scripture. So now we're forced to accept a mistake as the word of God.

And then the Chaloic church followed the first logical step, starting with "virgin," so Jesus was God, to the next, that Mary was the mother of God, to the next, Mary being bodily lifted up to heaven, and to the final logical step, she's now the holy mother in heaven, and ... AND ... guess what??? ... she's still a virgin.

I'll be darn. All from a slip of a pen, so to speak.

Just because Rome embellished Mary worship for centuries, does not make the Gospels acc. to Matthew and Luke untrue. Just because David Koresh embellished Revelations in Waco, does not make the Bible prophecy untrue.

Let's look at Isaiah 7.14 ...

Quote:

Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

There are a good number of significant points which must be considered:

The action was taken by the Lord Jehovah Himself -- that which was "begotten in her was of the Holy Spirit."
This was a sign to Israel, a marvelous wonder greater than the Passsover, whether they accepted it or not. One day they will.
A virgin conceived. Isaiah was not talking about spurious mythologies, nor young girls getting pregnant. What kind of sign would that be? Why do we need the Lord Himself?
His name was Immanuel. His name was "God with us." God Himself was now a part of humanity, part of His creation. God was now with us.

Dave · 05-28-2015, 09:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Harold, as usual you are all washed up on your biblical facts.

Firstly, I'll just ignore your "Hezekiah 4:2" reference because it's not, and never has been, part of the accepted canon by the Jewish or Christian scholars.

Secondly, the translation of Virgin is NOT a mistranslation. The ORIGINAL Hebrew word עַלְמָה `almah, can mean BOTH (NOT necessarily either) young woman and virgin. The context of Isaiah 7 CLEARLY INDICATES THAT OF A YOUNG, UNMARRIED VIRGIN GIRL. In fact the use of this word almah is almost exclusively referring to a young, unmarried virgin girl. CONTEXT IS KING! When in doubt...CONTEXT, CONTEXT CONTEXT!

The Septuagint, the pre-Christian Greek translation of the Jewish Scriptures, took the Hebrew word almah, which can mean both young woman and virgin, and rendered it parthenos, which more explicitly and exclusively denotes virginity. It’s impossible to know exactly what the original hearers of Isaiah’s prophecy thought it meant, but it’s clear that the later translators thought the prophet meant virgin, not merely young woman.

If the prophesy of Isaiah 7:4 is simply referring to a young woman who engages in sex and conceives well then it is not a prophesy at all, now is it? What kind of miraculous deed of God is this?

Sorry, I've already made it clear, we are NOT going down the Catholic doctrine path here on this forum. IT IS IRRELEVANT TO OUR DISCUSSIONS. The Local Church of Witness Lee did not teach any of these Catholic doctrines. So unless we have any ex Local Churcher's who have converted to Roman Catholicism let's leave all the Catholic stuff off the table.

I find it mindboggling that you can dismiss the history of the Catholic Church as a point of discussion. In 1517 Martin Luther promoted his 95 theses which means that up until that point there was 1500 years of the development and the practice of the Catholic Church. If you read 1 Clement (approx. 95AD) who was the bishop of Rome at the time you can see it's development only to be further crystallized by Constantine. WL spoke of the Catholic Church in disparaging terms but also all of its Protestant children. While the Protestant Reformation was in the eyes of WL the beginning of the recovery the question is always "recovery from what"...the indulgences paid for forgiveness of sin. Let's not forget that the Catholics for all their warts preserved important documents and are a part of the Christian history. You can't just wipe 1500 years away and say "never mind?...it's not relevant...forget their interpretations. Where do Christians get the history of the Trinity, the divine nature of Christ etc but from the Catholic Church? Are you saying that we can't discuss the "doctrine" of the Trinity or the divine nature of Christ because it is part of the Catholic history? All Christian history is relevant for discussion and WL referred to the history of the Church repeatedly.

UntoHim · 05-28-2015, 09:52 AM

Timotheist has brought forth a topic: Virgin Birth questioned. The virgin birth is told of in the original Gospel. It is not the 2nd or 3rd century invention of later generations of Christians. Even the contemporary Jews in Jesus' day knew of the claim of the virgin birth. (cf: John 8 where that Pharisees told Jesus "we were not born of sexual immorality" - this was clearly meant as a snide stab at the claim of Jesus' virgin birth) All the extra-biblical claims of the Roman Catholic church are quite irrelevant to the questions and implications of the actual virgin birth as prophesied in the Old Testament and portrayed in the Gospel.

I'm somewhat incredulous why anyone on this forum would want to get into Catholic doctrine. Don't we have enough on our plate with the teachings and practices of the Local Church? Besides, if one thinks that the virgin birth itself is a myth perpetrated by Jesus' early followers, why do we need to get into Catholic doctrine that was developed much, much later. What's the point?

Let's let Timotheist lead the conversation.

awareness · 05-28-2015, 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Timotheist has brought forth a topic: Virgin Birth questioned. The virgin birth is told of in the original Gospel. It is not the 2nd or 3rd century invention of later generations of Christians. Even the contemporary Jews in Jesus' day knew of the claim of the virgin birth. (cf: John 8 where that Pharisees told Jesus "we were not born of sexual immorality" - this was clearly meant as a snide stab at the claim of Jesus' virgin birth) All the extra-biblical claims of the Roman Catholic church are quite irrelevant to the questions and implications of the actual virgin birth as prophesied in the Old Testament and portrayed in the Gospel.

I'm somewhat incredulous why anyone on this forum would want to get into Catholic doctrine. Don't we have enough on our plate with the teachings and practices of the Local Church? Besides, if one thinks that the virgin birth itself is a myth perpetrated by Jesus' early followers, why do we need to get into Catholic doctrine that was developed much, much later. What's the point?

Let's let Timotheist lead the conversation.

Yes, because he don't seem to be the type to take John 8:41 and make wild claims, like it means the scribes and Pharisees knew of Jesus' virgin birth. That's similar to how the RCC embellished scripture on the virgin birth.

awareness · 05-28-2015, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Harold, as usual you are all washed up on your biblical facts.

Firstly, I'll just ignore your "Hezekiah 4:2" reference because it's not, and never has been, part of the accepted canon by the Jewish or Christian scholars.

Secondly, the translation of Virgin is NOT a mistranslation. The ORIGINAL Hebrew word עַלְמָה `almah, can mean BOTH (NOT necessarily either) young woman and virgin. The context of Isaiah 7 CLEARLY INDICATES THAT OF A YOUNG, UNMARRIED VIRGIN GIRL. In fact the use of this word almah is almost exclusively referring to a young, unmarried virgin girl. CONTEXT IS KING! When in doubt...CONTEXT, CONTEXT CONTEXT!

The Septuagint, the pre-Christian Greek translation of the Jewish Scriptures, took the Hebrew word almah, which can mean both young woman and virgin, and rendered it parthenos, which more explicitly and exclusively denotes virginity. It’s impossible to know exactly what the original hearers of Isaiah’s prophecy thought it meant, but it’s clear that the later translators thought the prophet meant virgin, not merely young woman.

If the prophesy of Isaiah 7:4 is simply referring to a young woman who engages in sex and conceives well then it is not a prophesy at all, now is it? What kind of miraculous deed of God is this?

Sorry, I've already made it clear, we are NOT going down the Catholic doctrine path here on this forum. IT IS IRRELEVANT TO OUR DISCUSSIONS. The Local Church of Witness Lee did not teach any of these Catholic doctrines. So unless we have any ex Local Churcher's who have converted to Roman Catholicism let's leave all the Catholic stuff off the table.

Here's how your post should have looked:

Quote:

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Harold, as usual you are very keen on your biblical acumen.

Thanks for your tip on "Hezekiah 4:2." It is fully accepted by the Jewish and Christian scholars.

Secondly, the translation of Virgin is NOT a mistranslation. It's just that The ORIGINAL Hebrew failed to use the word betulah, which is the Hebrew word for virgin, and because of the context of Isaiah 7 used, עַלְמָה `almah, a young woman. Yes Almah can mean a young virgin girl, and can mean BOTH, but Isaiah didn't mean virgin or he would have used betulah.
...CONTEXT, CONTEXT CONTEXT!

The Septuagint, the pre-Christian Greek translation of the Jewish Scriptures, took the Hebrew word almah, which can mean both young woman and virgin, and rendered it parthenos, which more explicitly and exclusively denotes virginity, failing to see that parthenos should be translated from betulah, not almah. It’s impossible to know exactly what the original hearers of Isaiah’s prophecy thought it meant, but it’s clear that the later translators thought the prophet meant virgin, not merely young woman. But they were human and got it wrong.

If the prophesy of Isaiah 7:4 is simply referring to a young woman who engages in sex and conceives well then it is not a prophesy at all, now is it? That's because it applies to the times when Isaiah was written.

Sorry, I've already made it clear, we are NOT going to accept the whore of Babylon, the RCC, here on this forum. But it can't be helped. IT APPEARS IRRELEVANT TO OUR DISCUSSIONS, BUT BECAUSE THEY COOKED UP THE CREEDS WE AGREE WITH, AND THE BOOKS WE ACCEPT AS THE CANON, WE CAN'T IGNORE THEM.

Even The Local Church of Witness Lee used what the RCC founded.

But let's try to leave the whore of Babylon out of it as much as possible.

Ha

Ohio · 05-28-2015, 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Let's let Timotheist lead the conversation.

Good luck trying to get anyone on AltViews to cooperate!

Ohio · 05-28-2015, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by awareness

Yes, because he don't seem to be the type to take John 8:41 and make wild claims, like it means the scribes and Pharisees knew of Jesus' virgin birth. That's similar to how the RCC embellished scripture on the virgin birth.

Don't see the connection. Like comparing hairbrushes to porcupines.

The whole point of the discussion, as you can see from the context, is who is your father.

Quote:

I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and you do that which you have seen with your father. They answered and said to him, Abraham is our father. Jesus said to them, If you were Abraham's children, you would do the works of Abraham. But now you seek to kill me, a man that has told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this Abraham did not do. You do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We're not illegitimate children born out of sexual immorality; we have one Father, even God.

UntoHim · 05-28-2015, 11:27 AM

So Harold, we already know that you think Ehrman's made you a Greek scholar, and now you're some Hebrew scholar as well? Please try to do more than google searches before you try to debunk something. You're clueless my man. You're still fun and entertaining, but clueless. You wouldn't know the correct interpretation of an ancient Hebraic Prophesy if it came up and bit you in the butt. But hey, ignorance of what the VAST majority of scholars, from ancient to modern, have written concerning any particular prophesy has never stopped you from your crusade of debunking the Bible.

Virgin is the correct translation. Just because you beat the bushes a little and found some liberal scholar/theologean with some letters after his name to say otherwise will never change that fact. Again, you apparently don't believe in ANY supernatural, miraculous act of God, so quibbling over the proper translation of this particular word is much ado about nothing.

awareness · 05-28-2015, 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

Don't see the connection. Like comparing hairbrushes to porcupines.

The whole point of the discussion, as you can see from the context, is who is your father.

Bro Ohio, you make strong arguments. I respect that.

And I understand the "from the Father" approach. I grew up with it ... and even at one time believed that Witness Lee was getting "from the Father."

But, where in the following quote that you provided does it even imply anything about the virgin birth of Jesus:

Quote:

Originally Posted by gospel of John

I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and you do that which you have seen with your father. They answered and said to him, Abraham is our father. Jesus said to them, If you were Abraham's children, you would do the works of Abraham. But now you seek to kill me, a man that has told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this Abraham did not do. You do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We're not illegitimate children born out of sexual immorality; we have one Father, even God.

Where??? If we're talking the plain word of scripture where is anything, or even and implication, of the virgin birth.

Talk about putting the Bible on a torture rack, until you make it say what you want it to say.

The Jews don't believe in virgin births, that's a Greek thing. So in the context in John why would they even be thinking of a virgin birth?

As UntoHim states, I'm really dumb (but entertaining - at least). Please, I'm begging you, and UntoHim also -- I'm tired of learning from the internet, with its shallow reporting and lies -- educate me with the best evidence or propositions you have. Have mercy on this idiot clown.

And UntoHim, the internet is not necessary to learn about "betulah, almah, and parthenos. It can be found by using Bible software. Where did you learn about it? Here on this thread?

Timotheist · 05-28-2015, 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

We've had these kinds of discussions on other words before. Since the writing is part of a narrative, and not an exercise in encoding secrets, the common usage is almost always the more likely usage in the scripture. The entire message of the Messiah is that he came, not went.

(dot dot dot)

But the points being made in the passages are that the person Jesus was God born into flesh. So dragging out the little-used meanings of a word from way down the list is more like an exercise in intentional obfuscation than serious scholarship. You can't "just as easily" say something from way down the usage list is the meaning. Given the context and clear intent, while the word possibly has that meaning, it is not plausible.

OBW, either you did not read my post carefully, or you quoted part of my post out of context deliberately in order to try and score points. (I will assume the former)

I said I could have used the word "entered", etc, but I did not.

You are suggesting I did something very typical of Witness Lee: playing with the translation to make theological points. I did not do that. I did an honest analysis of the context and admitted to myself (and to you) that the context of the verse would NOT let me make that claim.

I determined that the author was simply asserting that Jesus was a real human being. I did not try to "pull a Witness Lee" on you.

The verse does not support my position.

But, neither does the verse support your interpretation.

Are you willing to admit that?

Ohio got one thing right: It should NOT be a requirement for my faith to believe in the virgin birth. Yet you seem to be claiming that I John is making that a requirement.

Timotheist · 05-28-2015, 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Secondly, the translation of Virgin is NOT a mistranslation. The ORIGINAL Hebrew word עַלְמָה `almah, can mean BOTH (NOT necessarily either) young woman and virgin.

UntoHim,

Please show me an example elsewhere in the Old Testament where the word 'almah' should be translated as 'virgin'.

The Hebrew language had a specific word for 'virgin' and that usage was consistent in 50 cases as shown here:

<01330> bethulah (143d)
Meaning: a virgin
Origin: from an unused word
Usage: maidens(1), virgin(32), virgins(17).

Perhaps your dictionary is catering to tradition. Head's up on that.

Ohio · 05-28-2015, 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by awareness

But, where in the following quote that you provided does it even imply anything about the virgin birth of Jesus:

Quote:

I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and you do that which you have seen with your father. They answered and said to him, Abraham is our father. Jesus said to them, If you were Abraham's children, you would do the works of Abraham. But now you seek to kill me, a man that has told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this Abraham did not do. You do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We're not illegitimate children born out of sexual immorality; we have one Father, even God.

Where??? If we're talking the plain word of scripture where is anything, or even and implication, of the virgin birth.

You are missing the point my friend. A number of posts were put forth on these threads claiming that Joseph was the father of Jesus. Remember them? Remember the genealogies that included Joseph and not Mary?

OK, then why would the Jewish leaders attack the legitimacy of the birth of Jesus, accusing Him of being a bastard child? Why would they do this unless rumors were already floating around that Joseph was not his real father.

That is why UntoHim quoted this verse.

zeek · 05-28-2015, 06:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UntoHim

[COLOR="Navy"]So Harold, we already know that you think Ehrman's made you a Greek scholar, and now you're some Hebrew scholar as well? Please try to do more than google searches before you try to debunk something. You're clueless my man. You're still fun and entertaining, but clueless. You wouldn't know the correct interpretation of an ancient Hebraic Prophesy if it came up and bit you in the butt.

The above is a flagrant ad hominem attack. In other words, the argument is against the person of Awareness rather than the truth of his proposition.

Quote:

But hey, ignorance of what the VAST majority of scholars, from ancient to modern, have written concerning any particular prophesy has never stopped you from your crusade of debunking the Bible.

Where is your documentation of this "VAST majority of scholars" that support your position? How "VAST" is the majority? 99%? 90%? Can you even show that there is a majority of scholars that support your position?

Quote:

Virgin is the correct translation. Just because you beat the bushes a little and found some liberal scholar/theologean with some letters after his name to say otherwise will never change that fact. Again, you apparently don't believe in ANY supernatural, miraculous act of God, so quibbling over the proper translation of this particular word is much ado about nothing.

That is a flatly unsupported assertion. As this article documents, Awareness didn't invent the controversy that you wish to deny. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2288917.html

There's a simple explanation for Isaiah's prophesy. When Isaiah wrote, a long-standing Syro-Israelite alliance against Judah (2 Kings 15: 37) had recently resulted in an all-out invasion of Judah led by Rezin of Damascus and Pekah of the northern kingdom of Israel (2 Kings 16: 6, 2 Chronicles 28: 5). Isaiah ties the prediction of Immanuel’s birth to the threatened invasion by saying: “For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land whose two kings you have a horror of shall be forsaken” (Isaiah 7: 16). Subsequent events were to show Isaiah correct, confirming that the sign referred to something that took place within a few years, not 750 years later.

Ohio · 05-28-2015, 06:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zeek

The above is a flagrant ad hominem attack. In other words, the argument is against the person of Awareness rather than the truth of his proposition.

Now is that a "Flagrant 1" foul or is that a "Flagrant 2" foul being assessed to UntoHim?

That is crucial because a "Flagrant 2" foul requires UntoHim to be ejected immediately from the game and escorted by security staff to the locker room. Either way awareness still gets two foul shots, and he gets to take the ball out.

Now if referee Crew Chief Igzy looks carefully at the replay film, and decides that it is not a flagrant foul at all, then we can continue with "hack-an-awareness" fouls all night long, since he rarely makes a free throw.

zeek · 05-28-2015, 07:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UntoHim

[COLOR="Navy"]Timotheist has brought forth a topic: Virgin Birth questioned. The virgin birth is told of in the original Gospel. It is not the 2nd or 3rd century invention of later generations of Christians. Even the contemporary Jews in Jesus' day knew of the claim of the virgin birth. (cf: John 8 where that Pharisees told Jesus "we were not born of sexual immorality" - this was clearly meant as a snide stab at the claim of Jesus' virgin birth)

So, UntoHim, why isn't fathering a child out of wedlock as it is alleged the Holy Spirit did, not considered fornication? Must we simply take it on faith that it isn't or do you have some explanation?

awareness · 05-28-2015, 07:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zeek

Awareness didn't invent the controversy that you wish to deny. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2288917.html

Oh UntoHim likes to pick on Awareness, and even override my position of MOTA of AltVs.

from zeek's link:

"In the modern era, belief in the accuracy of Isaiah 7:14 became a proxy for faith in the Virgin birth, which itself remains a fault line between liberal and conservative Christians."

What fault line. Anybody see any fault line anywhere?

awareness · 05-28-2015, 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Timotheist

I bet even Ehrman did not know about this item I found:

Peter failed to mention to Mark the time Jesus told Peter to "pull his Titus", and then laughed hysterically.

Well are you ever gonna let us in on the inside joke. I'm keenly interested in anything that made Jesus laugh, and hysterically would be icing on the cake.

I could use a good laugh ... lay it on me.

Timotheist · 05-28-2015, 07:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by awareness

Well are you ever gonna let us in on the inside joke. I'm keenly interested in anything that made Jesus laugh, and hysterically would be icing on the cake.

I could use a good laugh ... lay it on me.

I messed it up with my bad memory of very recent posts... do you get it if I make him say "Pull my Sparks"?

I understand if you don't get it. Not everybody knows what "pull my finger" means to many a kid growing up in my part of the country.

awareness · 05-28-2015, 08:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Timotheist

I messed it up with my bad memory of very recent posts... do you get it if I make him say "Pull my Sparks"?

I'd catch on quicker if it was on the Passing Gas thread ...

And I think "Pull my finger" is pretty much a universal meme.

Thanks for the explanation ....

UntoHim · 05-28-2015, 08:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zeek

The above is a flagrant ad hominem attack. In other words, the argument is against the person of Awareness rather than the truth of his proposition.

Sorry, but Harold is management now, the same rules don't apply. Besides, if I didn't give him a bad time he would start to think I didn't care.

Quote:

Where is your documentation of this "VAST majority of scholars" that support your position? How "VAST" is the majority? 99%? 90%? Can you even show that there is a majority of scholars that support your position?

So you're going to make the virgin birth simply a matter of "my position"? You flatter me my friend. My documentation is the glorious Gospel, and as with all the major items of the Gospel, you can take it or leave it. Alternative Views is the perfect venue for you to leave it. Sorry, don't have the time or interest to give you a free lesson on how the VAST majority of scholars have interpreted any of the major prophesies concerning Jesus Christ. It's kind of like me asking you to show if the majority of the crowd Dave hangs with believes in global warming....duh

Quote:

That is a flatly unsupported assertion. As this article documents, Awareness didn't invent the controversy that you wish to deny. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2288917.html

Wow, let's see....that bastion of eternal truth called "The Huffington Post" verses the sacred scriptures and the common interpretations of the VAST MAJORITY of scholars over thousands of years. Hhhmmmm, I'm not a betting man, but I'll take the odds on the VAST MAJORITY.

Quote:

There's a simple explanation for Isaiah's prophesy. When Isaiah wrote, a long-standing Syro-Israelite alliance against Judah (2 Kings 15: 37) had recently resulted in an all-out invasion of Judah led by Rezin of Damascus and Pekah of the northern kingdom of Israel (2 Kings 16: 6, 2 Chronicles 28: 5). Isaiah ties the prediction of Immanuel’s birth to the threatened invasion by saying: “For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land whose two kings you have a horror of shall be forsaken” (Isaiah 7: 16). Subsequent events were to show Isaiah correct, confirming that the sign referred to something that took place within a few years, not 750 years later.

If you put half the effort you put into denying and attempting to debunk the truth of the glorious Gospel into simply acknowledging it, you would be a fine Christian and biblical apologist. As it stands, you're like me with the English language...you know just enough to be dangerous (mostly to yourself, but to others as well).

zeek · 05-28-2015, 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UntoHim

So you're going to make the virgin birth simply a matter of "my position"? You flatter me my friend. My documentation is the glorious Gospel, and as with all the major items of the Gospel, you can take it or leave it. Alternative Views is the perfect venue for you to leave it. Sorry, don't have the time or interest to give you a free lesson on how the VAST majority of scholars have interpreted any of the major prophesies concerning Jesus Christ. It's kind of like me asking you to show if the majority of the crowd Dave hangs with believes in global warming....duh

In other words, after castigating Awareness for not knowing what the VAST majority of scholars think, it turns out you don't know either.

Quote:

Wow, let's see....that bastion of eternal truth called "The Huffington Post" verses the sacred scriptures and the common interpretations of the VAST MAJORITY of scholars over thousands of years. Hhhmmmm, I'm not a betting man, but I'll take the odds on the VAST MAJORITY.

Huffington Post actually cites a few reputable scholars that support Awareness' view. That's a few more than you produced to support your view.

Quote:

If you put half the effort you put into denying and attempting to debunk the truth of the glorious Gospel into simply acknowledging it, you would be a fine Christian and biblical apologist. As it stands, you're like me with the English language...you know just enough to be dangerous (mostly to yourself, but to others as well).

I'm actually not trying to debunk the virgin birth. I mean, this is the "implications" thread so tell me, what are the implication? How would it change things one way or another if it is true or not? I am merely examining the issue, and reaching tentative conclusions based on the evidence. I can't say with certainty that it didn't occur. It's merely that the preponderance of evidence that I've seems is unconvincing to me.

There are so many unanswered questions. For example, it never occurred to me before tonight, but have you ever thought about this? Matthew 1:20 says "But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost." Thus, isn't strange that, according to the angel, Jesus was fathered not by God the Father but by the Holy Ghost?

awareness · 05-29-2015, 09:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zeek

isn't strange that, according to the angel, Jesus was fathered not by God the Father but by the Holy Ghost?

Oh c'mon bro! You know the answer to that! Lee pretty much nailed that down, i.e. "they are all mixed up together -- son=father, father=son, father=spirit, spirit=father, son=spirit, spirit=son -- and they are all wrapped up in ... abracadabra ... voila: The Son" (my rendition).

But still, back to topic. Whether it was the Spirit, or if Lee's right, the son

, that conceived Jesus, it sure wasn't Joseph. So was it God that interfered with the prophesy of the Davidic lineage, stepping in for Joseph? How dare He! Or maybe God is in the Davidic line. The fixes that.

Given the obvious meddling that went on, down thru the ages, in the mss of Matthew 1, can we know anything about it for certain? Can we even know for certain Mary's marital status, when Jesus was conceived, by God, coming in the form of the holy spirit?

And how was Jesus 100% God and 100% human? Do people really believe that nonsense? Show me a bucket, any bucket, that's filled with 100% oil and 100% water and then maybe I'll believe it.

OBW · 05-29-2015, 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by awareness

But still, back to topic. Whether it was the Spirit, or if Lee's right, the son

, that conceived Jesus, it sure wasn't Joseph. So was it God that interfered with the prophesy of the Davidic lineage, stepping in for Joseph? How dare He! Or maybe God is in the Davidic line. The fixes that.

Isn't this the reasoning for the alternate genealogy that traces to Mary? Tracing to Joseph satisfied those who needed the male line to be as required, even if it is arguable that Jesus was effectively adopted by Joseph, not from his seed. Meanwhile, Mary was also the offspring of David, so the humanity of Jesus was from David.

BTW. I recently ran across something that indicated that with in the Jewish belief, or more rightly their rules, a person born of a Jewish mother is a Jew no matter the father while being born of a gentile mother is not Jewish no matter the father. Seems backwards, and I wondered if this was a mistake, or maybe only a more recent thing. But it would seem to have some meaning in the discussion concerning the genealogy if it was always understood that way. (Of course, that would make Obed — son of Boaz and Ruth, the Edomite — not a Jew even though his son, Jesse, and grandson, David, would have been as long as Obed married a Jewish woman.)

zeek · 05-29-2015, 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by awareness

Oh c'mon bro! You know the answer to that! Lee pretty much nailed that down, i.e. "they are all mixed up together -- son=father, father=son, father=spirit, spirit=father, son=spirit, spirit=son -- and they are all wrapped up in ... abracadabra ... voila: The Son" (my rendition).

But still, back to topic. Whether it was the Spirit, or if Lee's right, the son

, that conceived Jesus, it sure wasn't Joseph. So was it God that interfered with the prophesy of the Davidic lineage, stepping in for Joseph? How dare He! Or maybe God is in the Davidic line. The fixes that.

Given the obvious meddling that went on, down thru the ages, in the mss of Matthew 1, can we know anything about it for certain? Can we even know for certain Mary's marital status, when Jesus was conceived, by God, coming in the form of the holy spirit?

And how was Jesus 100% God and 100% human? Do people really believe that nonsense? Show me a bucket, any bucket, that's filled with 100% oil and 100% water and then maybe I'll believe it.

As Ohio alluded to in a post yesterday when speaking of the Cross, objectively speaking Christian theology is all nonsense. The virgin birth seems to be based on an inspired misreading of the Isaiah 7:14. The Israelites had no expectations, biblical or otherwise, of a messiah who would be born of a virgin. But, under the influence of Hellenism some Diaspora Jews may have held a non-biblical miraculous messianic expectation.

Ohio · 05-29-2015, 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zeek

As Ohio alluded to when speaking of the Cross, objectively speaking [The Greeks pioneered objective thought] The Faith is all nonsense. The virgin birth seems to be based on an inspired misreading of the Isaiah 7:14. The Israelites had no expectations, biblical or otherwise, of a messiah who would be born of a virgin. But, under the influence of Hellenism some Diaspora Jews may have held a non-biblical miraculous messianic expectation.

Don't attach my name to your comment that "The Faith is all nonsense."

How can you so characterize the Israelites with one swooping statement? Learn that from some internet scholar on Huffington Post?

The Jews were all over the place, over all of time. The N.T. constantly portrays battles between the Jews over Jesus Christ. Not even the Sanhedrin was of one mind concerning who Jesus was.

Ohio · 05-29-2015, 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by awareness

And how was Jesus 100% God and 100% human? Do people really believe that nonsense?

Absolutely!

And there's a whole lot more "nonsense" that I believe in too.

zeek · 05-29-2015, 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

Don't attach my name to your comment that "The Faith is all nonsense."

How can you so characterize the Israelites with one swooping statement? Learn that from some internet scholar on Huffington Post?

The Jews were all over the place, over all of time. The N.T. constantly portrays battles between the Jews over Jesus Christ. Not even the Sanhedrin was of one mind concerning who Jesus was.

I revised my statement to clarify my intent. Now it reads "As Ohio alluded to in a post yesterday when speaking of the Cross, objectively speaking Christian theology is all nonsense." As for my "swooping statement", show me where I'm wrong if you can.

awareness · 05-29-2015, 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

Isn't this the reasoning for the alternate genealogy that traces to Mary?

Please help me bro OBW (or anyone else) where does the bible speak of Mary's Davidic line? I'm feeling really clueless about it.

zeek · 05-29-2015, 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

Absolutely!

And there's a whole lot more "nonsense" that I believe in too.

I've noticed. Are you going to get mad at yourself now for being rude to yourself? Perhaps you should ask UntoHim in red letters if he can use his new software to fix it so you can ignore yourself.

awareness · 05-29-2015, 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zeek

I've noticed. Are you going to get mad at yourself now for personally attacking yourself? Perhaps you should ask UntoHim in red letters if he can use his new software to fix it so you can ignore yourself.

I'd rather see a "Like" and "Dislike" button.

zeek · 05-29-2015, 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by awareness

I'd rather see a "Like" and "Dislike" button.

Emoticons aren't good enough for ya? See the thumbs up sign?

awareness · 05-29-2015, 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

Absolutely!

And there's a whole lot more "nonsense" that I believe in too.

Maybe it's:

"The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit."

Timotheist · 05-30-2015, 08:01 AM

The Implications: Part I

Now that the initial shock has somewhat abated, I will initiate a series of posts that will show you the effects this discovery has had on my reading of the gospels. I will say up front that these posts will approach the topic more from a subjective standpoint, admittedly relying on my own personal logic (the smell test). I will back up the logic with citations where it makes sense to, but the 'research' thread is more appropriate for that.

The Baptism

I am not going to rehash the research on this subject on this thread. I want to now focus on the implications of the natural birth narrative as opposed to that of virgin birth.

Natural birth – The baptism of Jesus is a critical part of the narrative. The Spirit descending upon Jesus brought the Logos to him.

Virgin birth – The baptism of Jesus is less significant. Jesus was already God. The incident served primarily to kick-off Jesus’ ministry, and to introduce/support the practice of baptism for the rest of us.

The author of Matthew was obviously aware of his conundrum, and attempted to fix things in this way:

But John tried to prevent Him, saying, "I have need to be baptized by You, and do You come to me?"
But Jesus answering said to him, "Permit it at this time; for in this way it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness." Then he permitted Him.

This is a weak argument on the author's part, lessening the significance of the event.

John’s author makes an unequivocal statement that the Baptist did not know who Jesus was before the baptism. This is a direct contradiction that cannot be explained with “harmony” arguments.

Luke addresses the conundrum in a completely different fashion.

Matthew and Luke were aware that the Baptist’s purpose was to introduce the Christ, so they were forced to push back the John-Jesus relationship to an earlier point in time. Matthew takes their relationship back to an undefined point in time. Luke goes all the way back, as back as you can go.

In comparing these passages, I find the John/Mark narrative to better pass the subjective “smell test” on this topic.

OBW · 05-30-2015, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Timotheist

The Implications: Part I

Now that the initial shock has somewhat abated, I will initiate a series of posts that will show you the effects this discovery has had on my reading of the gospels. I will say up front that these posts will approach the topic more from a subjective standpoint, admittedly relying on my own personal logic (the smell test). I will back up the logic with citations where it makes sense to, but the 'research' thread is more appropriate for that.

The Baptism

I am not going to rehash the research on this subject on this thread. I want to now focus on the implications of the natural birth narrative as opposed to that of virgin birth.

Natural birth – The baptism of Jesus is a critical part of the narrative. The Spirit descending upon Jesus brought the Logos to him.

Virgin birth – The baptism of Jesus is less significant. Jesus was already God. The incident served primarily to kick-off Jesus’ ministry, and to introduce/support the practice of baptism for the rest of us.

The author of Matthew was obviously aware of his conundrum, and attempted to fix things in this way:

But John tried to prevent Him, saying, "I have need to be baptized by You, and do You come to me?"
But Jesus answering said to him, "Permit it at this time; for in this way it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness." Then he permitted Him.

This is a weak argument on the author's part, lessening the significance of the event.

John’s author makes an unequivocal statement that the Baptist did not know who Jesus was before the baptism. This is a direct contradiction that cannot be explained with “harmony” arguments.

Luke addresses the conundrum in a completely different fashion.

Matthew and Luke were aware that the Baptist’s purpose was to introduce the Christ, so they were forced to push back the John-Jesus relationship to an earlier point in time. Matthew takes their relationship back to an undefined point in time. Luke goes all the way back, as back as you can go.

In comparing these passages, I find the John/Mark narrative to better pass the subjective “smell test” on this topic.

I would seen that the baptism was a matter of revelation of who he was. Prior to his baptism, we hear nothing of Jesus since he was 12. Now John the Baptist has been speaking out at the Jordan, declaring that the Messiah is coming, and baptizing people in preparation. Jesus comes unannounced and submits to the same baptism, simultaneously being announced as Messiah by John, and "My beloved Son" by the voice of God. And with that his ministry begins.

Digging for a lot of otherwise unstated meaning is just decoder ring stuff that is not worth a lot.

And the "facts" here besides being recorded in the Bible, are not proved anywhere, so faith that it is true is required. If you need scientific proof, it will not come. And it will not be found in linguistic inquiry.

Timotheist · 05-30-2015, 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

And the "facts" here besides being recorded in the Bible, are not proved anywhere, so faith that it is true is required. If you need scientific proof, it will not come. And it will not be found in linguistic inquiry.

Sorry, my "faith" will not let me accept large portions of Matthew and Luke without challenge. All of the added material before the baptism is suspect, requiring supporting evidence. So much to cover in that list, but the suspect material includes:

The virgin birth and the stories surrounding it. It does not help that Matthew and Luke have almost nothing in common in these chapters. To accept both stories as 'gospel' takes more faith than I have.

Herod going on a baby-killing spree because he wanted to keep the Messiah from being born. No reference to the deed elsewhere in the NT or credible evidence in historical documents. I challenge the story as factual in any form. This includes the assertion that Jesus lived in Egypt.

The age 12 story is suspect, but does not add or take away much from the story. I only mention it in this list because you brought it up. It does seem to be agenda-driven, trying to prove that Jesus knew who he was before being baptized.

Why do you think I should accept these stories "on faith"?

Ohio · 05-30-2015, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Timotheist

Sorry, my "faith" will not let me accept large portions of Matthew and Luke without challenge. All of the added material before the baptism is suspect, requiring supporting evidence. So much to cover in that list, but the suspect material includes:

The virgin birth and the stories surrounding it. It does not help that Matthew and Luke have almost nothing in common in these chapters. To accept both stories as 'gospel' takes more faith than I have.

Herod going on a baby-killing spree because he wanted to keep the Messiah from being born. No reference to the deed elsewhere in the NT or credible evidence in historical documents. I challenge the story as factual in any form. This includes the assertion that Jesus lived in Egypt.

The age 12 story is suspect, but does not add or take away much from the story. I only mention it in this list because you brought it up. It does seem to be agenda-driven, trying to prove that Jesus knew who he was before being baptized.

Why do you think I should accept these stories "on faith"?

I always become concerned when others need to discard huge sections of scripture to confirm their theories.

The stories in Matthew and Luke are complementary, not conflicting. If they were identical, then we should be suspicious.
I love the reference book Halley's Bible Handbook. Henry Halley had a real love for archeological explorations. He used a number of them to rebut long standing "proofs" that the Biblical record was false. He was convinced that if historians and archeologists would just keep digging, then every clain in the Bible would be proved.
The entire bible is agenda driven! It is God's agenda, not ours, so we cannot arbitrarily delete verses that suite our agenda.

OBW · 05-30-2015, 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Timotheist

Sorry, my "faith" will not let me accept large portions of Matthew and Luke without challenge. All of the added material before the baptism is suspect, requiring supporting evidence. So much to cover in that list, but the suspect material includes:

The virgin birth and the stories surrounding it. It does not help that Matthew and Luke have almost nothing in common in these chapters. To accept both stories as 'gospel' takes more faith than I have.

Herod going on a baby-killing spree because he wanted to keep the Messiah from being born. No reference to the deed elsewhere in the NT or credible evidence in historical documents. I challenge the story as factual in any form. This includes the assertion that Jesus lived in Egypt.

The age 12 story is suspect, but does not add or take away much from the story. I only mention it in this list because you brought it up. It does seem to be agenda-driven, trying to prove that Jesus knew who he was before being baptized.

Why do you think I should accept these stories "on faith"?

If your goal is to arrive at religion that is simply verifiable history and science, then you are wasting your time with Christianity. While there are many things that may make sense on their own, a whole lot of it only makes sense if you accept something that is not provable as true. It is something that must be accepted as an axiom. Something stated that has to be accepted to move forward. But having accepted that one thing, or more righty those specific things, the rest falls into place. If instead you need to prove them, then you can't get to the next step and it falls apart.

And the amount of unprovable that you must accept is way less than it was in the LCM because Lee would not only accept so many (probably most of all) of the unprovable things actually in the Bible, he kept redefining what was actually there and asking us to go along without question.

But if you have to prove it in a modernistic, test of observable phenomenon and events that can then prove or disprove a theory, you can only be disappointed because it is not observably true. We don't believe it because we can prove it is true, we have faith that it is true and therefore believe it.

Or maybe the only evidence is that of changed lives. And since it is too evident that those who don't want to believe will look for any evidence that something didn't change to ignore anything that did, then it still comes back to belief. But I see the difference in lives. As someone on another forum some years back said, "look, the lame walk and the blind see." He wasn't talking about a Benny Hinn special. He was talking about the fact of changes in the lives of the people we saw each week. Not always dramatic on a weekly basis, but noticeable over time.

I'm not interested in a partial gospel of the maybe God and maybe man that was called Jesus that appears to have lived a long time ago that taught some very good things, and maybe did some miracles (or maybe didn't). I'm not interested in the Bible that is gutted to where it only includes the parts that are scientifically verifiable 2,000 years after the fact.

But if that is what you want, then you are looking for a different religion.

And I guess Alt Views is the place for that inquiry. And if that is what you are looking for, why even bother with the virgin birth. It's just too "out there" for anyone in their right mind to buy. Unless they have faith that it is true. It would take an act of God. So either you think God is capable of pulling it off, or you don't. I choose to believe.

Timotheist · 05-30-2015, 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

If your goal is to arrive at religion that is simply verifiable history and science, then you are wasting your time with Christianity.

I am sorry, but your characterization of my research is false. I am not using science to "prove" anything. I use proximity to the events in question as my primary dipstick. I hope you accept that the Acts and Paul's epistles are verifiably the most proximate, followed closely by Mark, John fits in there somewhere, and finally Matthew and Luke. It is not until you get to Matthew and Luke that the virgin birth is embraced.

And a similar pattern exists in the writings of the "church fathers": Clement of Rome, Mathetes, Barnabus, and Polycarp never mention the VB. It is not until you get to Ignatius that the subject came up.

And once it came up, that's pretty much all they talked about. Ignatius or his immediate, unnamed, mentor must have been the MOTA (probably a non-Jew studying the LXX) and invented stories designed to fit prophecy.

"Out of Egypt I called My Son" = Jesus lived in Egypt.

Too bad the passage is referring to Israel leaving Egypt and is not set in a prophetic context.

I have a lot of evidence and faith to back me up. I will take that over simply "faith".

And again, my thesis is that Christianity needs to reform. I am not worried about you. I am worried about the Jew I once tried to convert and failed.

Also, I can just as easily turn your argument back on yourself: why does God have to enter flesh via virgin birth? Why should I limit his power in that manner? Your point is moot.

Ohio · 05-30-2015, 05:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Timotheist

Also, I can just as easily turn your argument back on yourself: why does God have to enter flesh via virgin birth?

Why should I limit his power in that manner?

The Law of God required a sinless sacrifice to shed its blood in our place. If Jesus was not born of a virgin, then God, according to His own righteous law, must condemn us all.

Who is limiting His power? It was according to the eternal counsel of the Godhead that His Son would be born of a virgin, live as a real Israelite, die a gruesome death on the cross, be resurrected on the third day.

Actually Timotheist it is you who are limiting His power by denying what He has done, using age old speculations to attack the veracity of the written word of God.

Timotheist · 05-30-2015, 05:27 PM

My post was directed to OBW. My point is that either side of the debate could be said to be putting limitations on God's power. It is not a debate tactic that I would have used, but OBW has tried it more than once on these threads.

I will try not to use "you" anymore...

Timotheist · 05-30-2015, 05:32 PM

The Implications: Part II

Continuing my subjective analysis of the life of Jesus.

The Temptation

Immediately the Spirit impelled Him to go out into the wilderness.
And He was in the wilderness forty days being tempted by Satan; and He was with the wild beasts, and the angels were ministering to Him. (Mar 1:12-13 NAU)

(A brief aside: This is all that Mark says about the temptation. Matthew and Luke elaborate with similar embellishments, drawing from a common source [about time]. I have no reason to declare these additions in error, yet I will observe in passing that the temptation is not recorded at all in John.)

The point of this post is to consider the implications of a natural birth vs a virgin birth.

Natural birth – The temptation was an immediate test of the old man. A necessary step, passing this test meant that the recently baptized Jesus was submitting his will to the indwelling Son. In theory, the old man Jesus could have failed, but he overcame.

Virgin birth – The temptation of Jesus seems less significant of an event. Jesus was already the sinless Godman: how could He fail? Having this occur immediately after the baptism has little significance. Like the baptism, it smacks of being for demonstration purposes only. He wanted to provide us with evidence that he could withstand Satan.

Again, this is a subjective analysis. My “smell test” method favors the natural birth.

Ohio · 05-30-2015, 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Timotheist

The Implications: Part II

Continuing my subjective analysis of the life of Jesus.

The Temptation

Immediately the Spirit impelled Him to go out into the wilderness.
And He was in the wilderness forty days being tempted by Satan; and He was with the wild beasts, and the angels were ministering to Him. (Mar 1:12-13 NAU)

(A brief aside: This is all that Mark says about the temptation. Matthew and Luke elaborate with similar embellishments, drawing from a common source [about time]. I have no reason to declare these additions in error, yet I will observe in passing that the temptation is not recorded at all in John.)

The point of this post is to consider the implications of a natural birth vs a virgin birth.

Natural birth – The temptation was an immediate test of the old man. A necessary step, passing this test meant that the recently baptized Jesus was submitting his will to the indwelling Son. In theory, the old man Jesus could have failed, but he overcame.

Virgin birth – The temptation of Jesus seems less significant of an event. Jesus was already the sinless Godman: how could He fail? Having this occur immediately after the baptism has little significance. Like the baptism, it smacks of being for demonstration purposes only. He wanted to provide us with evidence that he could withstand Satan.

Again, this is a subjective analysis. My “smell test” method favors the natural birth.

What is the NAU? Is that Nestle-Aland / UBS (NU)?

Methinks your "smell test" method stinketh.

Is that how you racked up 50 points?

Timotheist · 05-30-2015, 06:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

What is the NAU?

BibleWorks uses that abbreviation for the Updated New American Standard version. I use that version as my preferred source. It stinketh less than the King James or the RCV.

Timotheist · 05-30-2015, 06:39 PM

The Implications: Part III

Continuing my subjective analysis of the life of Jesus.

The Transfiguration

Six days later, Jesus took with Him Peter and James and John, and brought them up on a high mountain by themselves. And He was transfigured before them;
and His garments became radiant and exceedingly white, as no launderer on earth can whiten them.
Elijah appeared to them along with Moses; and they were talking with Jesus. (Mar 9:2-4 NAU)

(The transfiguration event is recorded in Mark, repeated in Matthew and Luke, but does not appear in John. However, the event is referenced in 2 Peter, providing strong support.)

The point of this post is to consider the implications of a natural birth vs a virgin birth.

Natural birth – Like the temptation, the transfiguration was a genuine test. Whereas the temptation was a test of the man’s will, the transfiguration was a test of the level of his sanctification, occurring toward the end of his life. Passing this test meant that the old man had become sanctified in spirit, soul, and body. He demonstrated that he was blameless. Only a sanctified body can reflect the glory of God without frying. Jesus the new man proved himself ready to be permanently glorified.

Virgin birth – Like the temptation, this event seems to be primarily for our benefit. Jesus was already the sinless Godman. He had no need to be sanctified: of course he would shine like the sun. So this was not a test. He wanted to provide the witnesses further proof of his status as the Christ.

No surprise: I favor the natural birth.

awareness · 05-30-2015, 08:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Timotheist

The Implications: Part III

Continuing my subjective analysis of the life of Jesus.

The Transfiguration

Six days later, Jesus took with Him Peter and James and John, and brought them up on a high mountain by themselves. And He was transfigured before them;
and His garments became radiant and exceedingly white, as no launderer on earth can whiten them.
Elijah appeared to them along with Moses; and they were talking with Jesus. (Mar 9:2-4 NAU)

(The transfiguration event is recorded in Mark, repeated in Matthew and Luke, but does not appear in John. However, the event is referenced in 2 Peter, providing strong support.)

The point of this post is to consider the implications of a natural birth vs a virgin birth.

Natural birth – Like the temptation, the transfiguration was a genuine test. Whereas the temptation was a test of the man’s will, the transfiguration was a test of the level of his sanctification, occurring toward the end of his life. Passing this test meant that the old man had become sanctified in spirit, soul, and body. He demonstrated that he was blameless. Only a sanctified body can reflect the glory of God without frying. Jesus the new man proved himself ready to be permanently glorified.

Virgin birth – Like the temptation, this event seems to be primarily for our benefit. Jesus was already the sinless Godman. He had no need to be sanctified: of course he would shine like the sun. So this was not a test. He wanted to provide the witnesses further proof of his status as the Christ.

No surprise: I favor the natural birth.

Bro Tim, natural birth or virgin birth, isn't the outcome the same?

zeek · 05-31-2015, 12:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by awareness

Bro Tim, natural birth or virgin birth, isn't the outcome the same?

Good question bro. How do the implications change if Jesus is deified at his baptism or resurrection versus at conception? Furthermore, now that Timotheist is on the slippery slope of rejecting some NT scriptures as fallible, I don't get his criteria for rating the historically accuracy of the gospels? While the historical Jesus of Nazareth lies behind John, but he seems further removed than in the synoptics. John is the most symbolic of the gospels.

Anyway, whether any are historically accurate or not, they can be understood as metaphorically meaningful. At that point the question becomes what are they saying to you? There are other stories beside the birth narratives, like the one about Jesus walking on water and calming the storms which seem more like allegories than historical accounts. We should seek to answer what these stories are saying to us personally. If we can't then maybe they aren't speaking to us anymore. If that's the case is the problem with us or the text?

Timotheist · 05-31-2015, 07:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by awareness

Bro Tim, natural birth or virgin birth, isn't the outcome the same?

Nope.

With the Hellenized gospel, unbelievers laugh at us.

With the gospel of John, and the theology of Paul, there is a better chance for the gospel to spread.

That the "outcome" of Jesus is the same in either case does not matter.

--------------------------------

There should be only two statements for the faith:

Believe in Jesus, who showed us the way.

It is strongly encouraged that you pursue sanctification.

The other items in the creed or the list on this forum are unnecessary distractions.

This includes trying to define God (trinity or otherwise), and we don't need a statement on the validity of the "scriptures"

I want at least one "Amen" on this one.

zeek · 05-31-2015, 08:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Timotheist

Nope.

With the Hellenized gospel, unbelievers laugh at us.

With the gospel of John, and the theology of Paul, there is a better chance for the gospel to spread.

That the "outcome" of Jesus is the same in either case does not matter.

Two substantial passages in which Paul commented on who Jesus was are Romans 1: 1–6 and Philippians 2: 5–11. In the first passage he states that Jesus was ‘descended from David according to the flesh and designated Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead’. Paul says Jesus was ‘designated’ Son of God only at the time of the resurrection. Like the baptismal hypothesis, this is ‘adoptionist’ Christology. Paul seems to be saying that Jesus was adopted by God as Son, not born that way.

The second passage appears to go to the other extreme. According to Philippians 2: 5–11, Jesus was ‘in the form of God’ before he was born, but then he took on ‘the form of a slave, being born in the likeness of men’. Paul continues, ‘and being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death’. God ‘highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name’, that is, Lord. Paul doesn't use the word ‘Son’ here. Instead we have the word ‘form’: Jesus was in the form of God, then he was in the form of a slave, i.e., in human form.

Is Paul saying that Jesus was neither truly divine nor truly human, that he was only in the form of each successively? In any case, the passage asserts that Jesus was pre-existent and in some sense divine, but that he became human before being exalted even higher than he had originally been, to the status ‘Lord’.

How do you reconcile the two passages? And, how can they be reconciled with the virgin birth hypothesis? If they can't be reconciled to the latter accounts, what do you recommend, removing the virgin conception accounts from the Bible?

Whatever you make of those stories they are an important part of the Christian tradition. Perhaps we should think about how these stories can be "recovered" so that they speak to people with 21st century sensibilities.

awareness · 05-31-2015, 08:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Timotheist

Nope.

With the Hellenized gospel, unbelievers laugh at us.

With the gospel of John, and the theology of Paul, there is a better chance for the gospel to spread.

That the "outcome" of Jesus is the same in either case does not matter.

--------------------------------

There should be only two statements for the faith:

Believe in Jesus, who showed us the way.

It is strongly encouraged that you pursue sanctification.

The other items in the creed or the list on this forum are unnecessary distractions.

This includes trying to define God (trinity or otherwise), and we don't need a statement on the validity of the "scriptures"

I want at least one "Amen" on this one.

Well okay:

Amen!

I guess ... for now.

Timotheist · 05-31-2015, 08:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zeek

Two substantial passages in which Paul commented on who Jesus was are Romans 1: 1–6 and Philippians 2: 5–11. In the first passage he states that Jesus was ‘descended from David according to the flesh and designated Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead’. Paul says Jesus was ‘designated’ Son of God only at the time of the resurrection. Like the baptismal hypothesis, this is ‘adoptionist’ Christology. Paul seems to be saying that Jesus was adopted by God as Son, not born that way.

The second passage appears to go to the other extreme. According to Philippians 2: 5–11, Jesus was ‘in the form of God’ before he was born, but then he took on ‘the form of a slave, being born in the likeness of men’. Paul continues, ‘and being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death’. God ‘highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name’, that is, Lord. Paul doesn't use the word ‘Son’ here. Instead we have the word ‘form’: Jesus was in the form of God, then he was in the form of a slave, i.e., in human form.

The second passage may go to the other extreme using whatever translation you are using. Here is the New American Standard translation:

6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,
7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.
8 Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.
(Phi 2:6-8 NAU)

Take a look at the Greek and you will find this a fairer translation. The word "born" does not appear in the text, and he was not found in appearance to be a child.

Your comparison, however, of Romans and this passage is still a good point.

I defend both passages as true using the impregnation/delivery argument.

Jesus was infused with God's nature at his baptism, and the resurrection completed the delivery.

awareness · 05-31-2015, 08:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Timotheist

Nope.

With the Hellenized gospel, unbelievers laugh at us.

With the gospel of John, and the theology of Paul, there is a better chance for the gospel to spread.

This is why for as long back as I can remember the rule of thumb for a new believer was: read the gospel of John.

But you can't claim that the author of John wasn't Hellenized. John opens with a concept straight out of the Greek city Ephesus -- where it is said John was written, coincidentally, maybe, maybe not -- 500 yrs prior to Jesus. Clearly the author of John borrowed from the pre-Socratic philosopher Heraclitus, who coined the word, and the concept.

But that's okay, Jesus was born, raised and died, during the Hellenistic period. God chose that period ... just like He chose the pagan priest king of Salem, Melchizedek (back in Genesis 14).

Timotheist · 05-31-2015, 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zeek

Two substantial passages in which Paul commented on who Jesus was are Romans 1: 1–6 and Philippians 2: 5–11. In the first passage he states that Jesus was ‘descended from David according to the flesh and designated Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead’. Paul says Jesus was ‘designated’ Son of God only at the time of the resurrection.

Yes but John the Baptist declared him the Son of God at his baptism.

Tim is the son of Bob. Did I become the son of Bob at my conception or my birth? It is only a question of importance in the abortion debate. Otherwise it is silly to argue the point.

In trying to state when Jesus became the Son of God (baptism or resurrection) it is equally unimportant.

The "Spirit of holiness" that raised Jesus from the dead was the same Spirit that came down at his baptism. There were not two visitations of the Spirit: one at his baptism and another at his resurrection.

Likewise the Spirit that raised Jesus lives in me, and it is by this same Spirit that I will be resurrected. I am both a child of God now, and will become a child of God at my resurrection.

My birth as a human was ordained by an act nine months earlier. Jesus' resurrection was assured when the Spirit entered him at his baptism.

This why both Paul and the Baptist are correct.

The reason why the debates rage on is due to the perversion introduced by Matthew and Luke. Now we debate all kinds of things as a result. Because of the perversion, we read John 1:14 as referring to Jesus' birth instead of reading it in the context of John 1:12-14. We argue whether or not "Jesus is God". We ignore or belittle the significance of Jesus' baptism, because we moved the "conception" up the timeline to his natural birth.

Why would the Spirit need to come down on God (or even the Son of God, if you make a distinction)? Trypho asked this question of Justin Martyr. Let's hear any of you try to answer it. C'mon, we've had 1900 years to come up with an answer.

zeek · 06-01-2015, 11:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Timotheist

Yes but John the Baptist declared him the Son of God at his baptism.

Tim is the son of Bob. Did I become the son of Bob at my conception or my birth? It is only a question of importance in the abortion debate. Otherwise it is silly to argue the point.

You're the one that brought it up. Isn't that what this whole thread is about?

Quote:

In trying to state when Jesus became the Son of God (baptism or resurrection) it is equally unimportant.

Or at conception or from eternity I suppose. I any case, we have to take the writer's word for it.

Quote:

The "Spirit of holiness" that raised Jesus from the dead was the same Spirit that came down at his baptism. There were not two visitations of the Spirit: one at his baptism and another at his resurrection.

Same one that, it is proposed, conceived Jesus with Mary too.

Quote:

Likewise the Spirit that raised Jesus lives in me, and it is by this same Spirit that I will be resurrected. I am both a child of God now, and will become a child of God at my resurrection. My birth as a human was ordained by an act nine months earlier. Jesus' resurrection was assured when the Spirit entered him at his baptism. This why both Paul and the Baptist are correct.

Or not. It's totally a matter of faith.

Quote:

The reason why the debates rage on is due to the perversion introduced by Matthew and Luke. Now we debate all kinds of things as a result. Because of the perversion, we read John 1:14 as referring to Jesus' birth instead of reading it in the context of John 1:12-14. We argue whether or not "Jesus is God". We ignore or belittle the significance of Jesus' baptism, because we moved the "conception" up the timeline to his natural birth.

The reason the debate rages on, is because of enormity of the claim relative to the paucity of evidence to support it. These miraculous events were all recorded only by believers in Jesus as the Christ the Son of God. Therefore, they require faith. Scholars can do no better than estimate the historical probability of any of it. The most probable historical fact in the life of Jesus is that he was crucified.

Quote:

Why would the Spirit need to come down on God (or even the Son of God, if you make a distinction)? Trypho asked this question of Justin Martyr. Let's hear any of you try to answer it. C'mon, we've had 1900 years to come up with an answer.

Quote:

Here's Witness Lee's answer:
The Holy Spirit’s conceiving of Jesus in 1: 35 was essential, related to the divine being, the divine person, of Jesus. The essence of the Holy Spirit’s divine element in the conception of Jesus was unchangeable and irremovable. However, the Holy Spirit’s descending upon Jesus here was economical, related to the ministry, the work, of Jesus. The power of the Holy Spirit for the ministry of Jesus (4: 14, 18; Matt. 12: 28) could be removed from Him, depending on the need for it. It was in such an economical way that God forsook and left Jesus while He was carrying the sinners’ sin in dying for them on the cross (Matt. 27: 46). The Holy Spirit in power descended upon Him here, but He had the Holy Spirit in essence from His birth; and while the Holy Spirit in power was descending upon Him, He was existing with the Holy Spirit in essence.

Matthew 3:16-17 says:

Quote:

When Jesus was baptized, he immediately came up out of the water. Heaven was opened to him, and he saw the Spirit of God coming down like a dove and resting on him. A voice from heaven said, “This is my Son whom I dearly love; I find happiness in him.”

I think it was a mystical experience that Jesus had at his baptism that he related to his disciples. There is no adequate scientific explanation for these experiences. He saw a heavenly vision and heard God speak to him. The experience was Jesus' realization of God's presence as his source and ground. The Spirit as a dove resting on Jesus symbolizes his selection and calling as peacemaker and redeemer.

Ohio · 06-02-2015, 05:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Timotheist

Yes but John the Baptist declared him the Son of God at his baptism.

And Peter declared Him the Son of God on the mountain. The Roman centurion declared Him to be the Son of God too on the cross.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Timotheist

In trying to state when Jesus became the Son of God (baptism or resurrection) it is equally unimportant.

If it is "equally unimportant," why won't you accept the whole Bible which identifies Jesus as the Son of God at conception?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Timotheist

The "Spirit of holiness" that raised Jesus from the dead was the same Spirit that came down at his baptism. There were not two visitations of the Spirit: one at his baptism and another at his resurrection.

And likewise this same Spirit of God visited Mary at her conception. (Matt 1.18, 20; Luke 1.35)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Timotheist

The reason why the debates rage on is due to the perversion introduced by Matthew and Luke.

Debates have raged since the dawn of time. Didn't Cain kill Abel over one? Needless to say, the "perversion" did not come via Matthew and Luke.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Timotheist

Now we debate all kinds of things as a result. Because of the perversion, we read John 1:14 as referring to Jesus' birth instead of reading it in the context of John 1:12-14. We argue whether or not "Jesus is God". We ignore or belittle the significance of Jesus' baptism, because we moved the "conception" up the timeline to his natural birth.

I don't know how you read the Bible, but I read John 1.12-14 in context of John. John 1.12-13 refer to those who "receive Him," and is the end of a sub-section which started with John 1.10, while John 1.14 is a direct continuation of John 1.1-5 concerning the Word of God.

Timotheist · 06-02-2015, 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zeek

Here's Witness Lee's answer:
The Holy Spirit’s conceiving of Jesus in 1: 35 was essential, related to the divine being, the divine person, of Jesus. The essence of the Holy Spirit’s divine element in the conception of Jesus was unchangeable and irremovable. However, the Holy Spirit’s descending upon Jesus here was economical, related to the ministry, the work, of Jesus. The power of the Holy Spirit for the ministry of Jesus (4: 14, 18; Matt. 12: 28) could be removed from Him, depending on the need for it. It was in such an economical way that God forsook and left Jesus while He was carrying the sinners’ sin in dying for them on the cross (Matt. 27: 46). The Holy Spirit in power descended upon Him here, but He had the Holy Spirit in essence from His birth; and while the Holy Spirit in power was descending upon Him, He was existing with the Holy Spirit in essence.

I was eventually going to initiate a discussion of WL's interpretation. Thanks for bringing it up.

For the sake of this discussion, let's call it the "dual visitation of the Spirit". I think that is a fair summary description of Lee's doctrine, but if the group takes offense and wants to call it something else, I am fine by that.

I also want to note that Lee did not invent this on his own, it is actually a fairly common point that is made in pre-Lee literature.

There are fundamentally two places where the dual visitation model is used.

1) The Virgin Birth followed by the Baptism, as you already pointed out.
2) Used to describe the experience of the disciples: the private provision of the Spirit as described in John, followed by the public outpouring at Pentecost in the Acts.

The same argument is used to explain both passages. The first was a matter of "life", the second a matter of "empowerment".

The trouble I have with this explanation is that it seems to me to be a contrivance designed to "harmonize" the texts in both places.

1) As you know, I have rejected the virgin birth, favoring a single visitation model.
2) I also reject the notion that John and the Acts each went to the trouble of describing one visitation but failing to mention the other. The most reasonable explanation is that they are both describing the same event, but that their descriptions do not match up.

Using my rules, it is difficult to pick one side or the other as the 'truth'. If I were to take sides, then I favor Acts over John on this one.

And why do I reject the dual visitation model? Simply this: there is no justification for this model to be found in the Acts or in any of the epistles.

If it were true, it is of theological importance, and I would expect Paul to bring it up somewhere. Yet he did not.

Neither does The Acts support the model. Over and over it describes the Spirit's interaction with a person as a single event, simultaneously bringing salvation and empowering the believer with gifts.

I had already decided against the dual visitation model as an explanation for the John/Acts disharmony a long time ago.

It has only been recently that I now also reject the model as applied to Jesus.

Timotheist · 06-02-2015, 07:03 PM

The Implications: Part IV

Continuing my subjective analysis of the life of Jesus.

The Garden

And He said to them, "My soul is deeply grieved to the point of death; remain here and keep watch."
And He went a little beyond them, and fell to the ground and began to pray that if it were possible, the hour might pass Him by.
And He was saying, "Abba! Father! All things are possible for You; remove this cup from Me; yet not what I will, but what You will." (Mar 14:34-36 NAU)

This event is recorded in Mark, repeated in Matthew and Luke, but does not appear in John. I will note in passing that Luke contains this embellishment:

Now an angel from heaven appeared to Him, strengthening Him.
And being in agony He was praying very fervently; and His sweat became like drops of blood, falling down upon the ground. (Luk 22:43-44 NAU)

But the point of this post is to consider the implications of a natural birth vs a virgin birth.

Virgin birth – This is a tough passage to read. Jesus was the sinless Godman: why the last minute hesitation? He was BORN for this moment. It is why He came. Perhaps His frustration with the disciples’ lack of faith or strength made Him have second thoughts about saving the human race? (I have actually heard this explanation more than once).

Natural birth – This was the last gasp of the old man, the flesh. It was the final test. Jesus passed the test and submitted his will to the indwelling Father, thus remaining one with Him. Passing this final test proved his soul was now truly blameless. He was found worthy to be the Firstborn. At his resurrection, He would be “reborn”, declared the begotten Son of God, completing the process that started at his baptism.

He would go on to provide the Holy Spirit to the rest of mankind, enabling them of the opportunity to overcome as He did.

The natural birth narrative makes more subjective sense, passing my “smell test”.

Summarizing these four observations. The Jesus of natural birth is someone we can relate to, someone that went through the same experiences that we had and are having. The key difference is that he overcame: most of us (perhaps all of us to date) have not overcome to the extent that he did. But then again we were not predestined for this role.

zeek · 06-03-2015, 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Timotheist

And why do I reject the dual visitation model? Simply this: there is no justification for this model to be found in the Acts or in any of the epistles.

If it were true, it is of theological importance, and I would expect Paul to bring it up somewhere. Yet he did not.

Neither does The Acts support the model. Over and over it describes the Spirit's interaction with a person as a single event, simultaneously bringing salvation and empowering the believer with gifts.

I had already decided against the dual visitation model as an explanation for the John/Acts disharmony a long time ago.

It has only been recently that I now also reject the model as applied to Jesus.

I like the term "model" in this context. It reminds me of "model-dependent realism" which is the way scientists like Stephen Hawking views his theories. He recognizes that reality always exceeds human produced theories. I call that reality, which no one really grasps "God." Anyway, there are obviously different ways of looking at the Jesus of scriptures, and you are trying to outline one way. My question is, how do you decide? As I understand it, historians use the concept of historical probability which isn't the same as statistical probability which can rarely be calculated for historical events. So they weigh the evidence in terms different historical possibilities and see which possibility seems preponderant. Scholarship-informed judgment is involved.

Now, most secular historians view the world naturalistically meaning they have rejected supernatural explanations as improbable and they bring that assumption to their analysis as a presupposition. From a naturalistic standpoint not only was there not likely a literal virgin birth, but Jesus didn't likely see a literal dove or hear a literal voice from a literal heaven. You don't seem to be parsing the matter in this naturalistic way. But, you are drawing a line on how far you will go with supernatural explanations. That's interesting and I would like to see you elucidate how that works for you further.

According to historical consensus, Paul was the earliest writer in the NT and we probably have only a fragment of his thought on matters. He rarely comments on Jesus life or teaching other than his death and resurrection. He makes no mention of Mary let alone a virgin birth. From what he does say, it appears that he thought that Jesus was a natural descendant in the line of David. But, those who wish to see the bible as a unified harmonious whole use the wiggle room left by the ambiguity of Paul's words to insert extra-biblical resolutions of the conflicts. Why the need to have all of the NT writers agree on everything or else chuck one or the other book out of your Bible?

awareness · 06-03-2015, 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Timotheist

The same argument is used to explain both passages. The first was a matter of "life", the second a matter of "empowerment".

That's it. That's the word replacement for adoption.

OBW · 06-03-2015, 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Timotheist

Using my rules, it is difficult to pick one side or the other as the 'truth'. If I were to take sides, then I favor Acts over John on this one.

And why do I reject the dual visitation model? Simply this: there is no justification for this model to be found in the Acts or in any of the epistles.

If it were true, it is of theological importance, and I would expect Paul to bring it up somewhere. Yet he did not.

Neither does The Acts support the model. Over and over it describes the Spirit's interaction with a person as a single event, simultaneously bringing salvation and empowering the believer with gifts.

I had already decided against the dual visitation model as an explanation for the John/Acts disharmony a long time ago.

It has only been recently that I now also reject the model as applied to Jesus.

This is quite a novel approach. Reject the source and turn to the commentators. In this day and age, you are taking quite a contrary position to declare that Paul is the source and the rest is suspect. So many have set Paul aside as suspect because they can't figure out how to reconcile him with the gospels.

And if I had to take one side or the other, I would side with the gospels over Paul.

I don't see it that way. But I to generally take the gospels as the core of our belief and the epistles as commentary. Sort of like the Jews viewed the Pentateuch, and some of the prophets, as God's word and the rest as commentary. A little flippant, but the idea is that if you are finding something that is not in the "source" materials (the gospels for the NT) but only gleaning it from the commentary (epistles) then it could be suspect. However, if it is in the source but not in the commentary, that is fine. No need to comment on everything. But the commentary is very meaningful in that it provides explanation by those who were considered qualified to comment. Not suggesting it should not be scripture or that God did not breathe it out. Just that it is seldom, if ever, truly unique. Rather it provides application of the out and out Word of God.

And the word of God (bible) is not the Word of God (Christ). Not saying the Bible is suspect. But it is not the Word of God. That is how I see it. The Word of God is God. The Bible is not God, but is from God. At some level, not a lot of distinction. But not identical.

But within the Bible are parts that are clearly words directly from God. "Thus saith the Lord." And the words recorded from the mouth of Jesus. (Of course I see that you simply reject them as theological musings of the writers.)

Timotheist · 06-03-2015, 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zeek

But, you are drawing a line on how far you will go with supernatural explanations. That's interesting and I would like to see you elucidate how that works for you further.

Quite right. Over in my "Timotheist exposed" blog I give several examples where the added text in Matthew and Luke embellish the text of Mark with supernatural events. Earthquakes, voices from heaven, etc. Since many of these supernatural events were added to the Mark text, it makes them highly suspect.

Did not get into it yet, but angelic appearances have also become a warning sign to me. I like John and Mark because they are light on the supernatural in comparison.

Going back to Mark 1:11, which I have discussed at length. "This is my beloved Son..." I was trying to be careful with my words. I say it is the intent of the author to apply significance to the baptism, but it is in discord with John. There is no voice out of heaven in John, just the Baptist's testimony that he was instructed privately to look for the Spirit. John's gospel is more reasonable, believable.

But I am not declaring John to be without error, either. It just smells less bad.

I earlier argued an earlier date for John relative to the other gospels because I want that to be true. I will admit that I do not have history to back me up on that. But later or not, it seems to be a more honest attempt at recording history.

Timotheist · 06-03-2015, 08:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

But I to generally take the gospels as the core of our belief and the epistles as commentary.

I do, too, but I take Mark as the original of the synoptics, and question the additions of Matthew and Luke. If the additions are at least supported by Paul and the other books, then I accept them as reasonable.

But if they cause confusion and, even worse, change the story then I reserve the right to challenge the material.

Regarding the early chapters of Matthew and Luke, not only are they suspicious for many reasons, they are not even consistent with each other. They tell completely different stories that defy harmony. I feel cheated that I was raised to take a harmonious approach to reading this material.

I used to take Luke over Matthew because the Matthew account is too incredible to believe. But after doing my research, I now highly question Luke.

OBW, you are a difficult one to figure out. You accept that there are errors, but hold on to the most egregious one. Take out the VB and the NT is much more consistent with itself, which I have endeavored to point out. The chaos drops by a tremendous factor, leaving not very much to debate about.

The end result is the same: Jesus is the Holy Son of God. Why hold onto this material when it has clearly been added to Mark? Why cleave to the VB when it did not start showing up in other Christian writings until very late in the 1st century?

Ohio states a belief that Mary kept it a secret, revealing it later. These authors never make that claim: they jump right to Isaiah, citing Greek text because they did not know Hebrew. After 70 AD, the Jews were scattered, and the remaining Gentile church took over. These looked at the destruction of Jerusalem as God's judgement for killing the Christ, and they stopped listening to the Jews. It is amazing how fast the Virgin Birth started weaving its way into their beliefs as a result.

And it was not too long after that that they stopped arguing against the Greeks over the resurrection and started adopting the Greek afterlife.

aron · 06-04-2015, 04:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Timotheist

These authors never make that claim: they jump right to Isaiah, citing Greek text because they did not know Hebrew.

Either I fundamentally misunderstand you, or you misunderstand the text timeline, or you have information that I don't.

My information is that the LXX, the Greek text, was composed (translated from Hebrew) several centuries before Christ. The current Hebrew "Masoretic" text came several centuries after the LXX. The original Hebrew text was gone by the time the Masoretic text came out (ca 700 AD). So what Isaiah said in the original Hebrew we don't know, but to suggest that the LXX was a corruption of the Masoretic is simply wrong. The LXX came first chronologically, by a mile. How could it corrupt something that only existed after it came out? The Hebrew Masoretic text didn't exist then the NT authors were composing.

Are you suggesting that there is another, alternate, "pure" Hebrew text that existed alongside the Greek, which the NT authors by-passed, in favor of the corrupt LXX, which original Hebrew text then was lost, only to have the current Masoretic Hebrew text come about, translated from the Greek LXX, which new translation - surprise - had the same "pure" Hebrew rendering as the vanished original? Too convoluted by far. And entirely too hopeful, a hope based on nothing.

Either the LXX corrupted the original Hebrew and then the Masoretic corrupted the LXX, or the LXX faithfully captured the Hebrew (at least in Isaiah) and the Masoretic corrupted the LXX. But to suggest that the LXX corrupted the Masoretic cannot stand, because the LXX pre-existed the Masoretic by a long shot.

Ohio · 06-04-2015, 06:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Timotheist

Regarding the early chapters of Matthew and Luke, not only are they suspicious for many reasons, they are not even consistent with each other. They tell completely different stories that defy harmony. I feel cheated that I was raised to take a harmonious approach to reading this material.

I used to take Luke over Matthew because the Matthew account is too incredible to believe. But after doing my research, I now highly question Luke.

Ohio states a belief that Mary kept it a secret, revealing it later. These authors never make that claim: they jump right to Isaiah, citing Greek text because they did not know Hebrew. After 70 AD, the Jews were scattered, and the remaining Gentile church took over. These looked at the destruction of Jerusalem as God's judgement for killing the Christ, and they stopped listening to the Jews. It is amazing how fast the Virgin Birth started weaving its way into their beliefs as a result.

What troubles me are some of your ungrounded claims. I have harmonized the Matthew and Luke accounts, and their might be some unanswered questions, but each accounts provides information we otherwise would never have known. Each provides a unique vantage inspired by the Spirit. Defy harmony? Try it, I did.

Matthew too incredible to believe? That could be said about every book of the Bible. If it is not incredible, then why do we need faith? We are told to believe in that which we have not seen, and then promised much blessing when we do believe. Once we start paring away that which is "too incredible," what kind of Bible will we have left?

At numerous times the record states that Mary "kept these matters in her heart." It is well accepted that she was widowed by the time Jesus was 30 years old and began to serve. I have explained that Jesus never brought attention to his mother during His ministry because of the obvious complications. How is Mary supposed to prove that she was still a virgin up until her first birth, and by that time she had a half dozen more kids? The word must have leaked out, however, after Jesus preached that God was His Father, and then the Pharisees claimed He was a bastard. Jesus and the other N.T. writers made it clear that the "proof" of the virgin birth was not some ObGyn exam, but His word, His works, and His resurrection.

For me, believing the Bible is far easier than believing some of what is written on AltViews.

awareness · 06-04-2015, 07:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

Jesus and the other N.T. writers made it clear that the "proof" of the virgin birth was not some ObGyn exam, but His word, His works, and His resurrection.

Jesus and the other N.T. writers? That sounds funny. Which books were written by Jesus?

And talking about ObGyn exam, in the apocryphal Gospel of James Salome goes to check Mary to see if after she gave birth to Jesus if she still had her hymen. But when she slides her finger in to check fire comes out and burns her hand off (Poor Joseph after that).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

For me, believing the Bible is far easier than believing some of what is written on AltViews.

Well we're not claiming AltVs are inspired of God.

Inspiration solves all the problems. Then yes, Jesus wrote all the books, including the Septuagint. And bro Aron, the Septuagint had sources back in the circa 2nd c. or it was written out of thin air.

If we believe all of it was inspired by God then all the questions vanish into thin air. Then even if the Bible has changed down thru the millennia God did it.

The only question we're left with then is, why did God drop out of writing class?

Ohio · 06-04-2015, 08:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by awareness

Jesus and the other N.T. writers? That sounds funny. Which books were written by Jesus?

Who said Jesus wrote? You pickin on my writing?

Quote:

Originally Posted by awareness

And talking about ObGyn exam, in the apocryphal Gospel of James Salome goes to check Mary to see if after she gave birth to Jesus if she still had her hymen. But when she slides her finger in to check fire comes out and burns her hand off (Poor Joseph after that).

Why do you read nonsense like that?

awareness · 06-04-2015, 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

Who said Jesus wrote? You pickin on my writing?

Yep, I'm nitpickin' .....

Quote:

Why do you read nonsense like that?

It gives me a window into how they thought back then. And it's obvious that they liked cartoons. Didn't you read comic books? I did. And I'm a fan of mythology.

Where I see a common motif : no hero is great until the mythmakers put their pens down ... if they ever do.

aron · 06-04-2015, 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aron

Too convoluted by far. And entirely too hopeful, a hope based on nothing..

p.s. I like to write, as is probably plain. Unfortunately sometimes I like to write too much, and think too little, and looking back realize that I may be rather insulting. So I apologize if my comment was rude.

The LXX vs the Masoretic is not a simple issue. Someone could write their PhD on the subject, having studied the texts in Ugaritic, Syriac, Greek, and Hebrew, and make a thesis, and find a half-dozen other people coming to entirely different conclusions in their respective theses. So my characterization of the development of the LXX and Masoretic was probably inaccurate and overly simplistic, as I felt Timotheist's was (assuming he meant what I was reading in his statement).

I don't think there's any evidence that Jewish scholars in AD 700 deliberately corrupted the Word of God in the Masoretic text to downplay scriptures pointing to Jesus as Messiah. Nor have I seen any evidence that the Greek translators imposed their own cultural mores and mythologies. But we do see in the NT terms like "gates of Hades" and "Tartarus" which certainly derived some meaning from Greek myths. So a kind of unconscious "coloring" of the texts is not impossible.

As far as discrepancies in the gospels, I know of Judas meeting two different fates, both unpleasant, but mutually exclusive. He couldn't have died both ways, could he? Other than that, I know John's gospel has a different initial calling narrative than the synoptics. You wouldn't even know that many of them were fishermen until the end of the fourth gospel. But that doesn't mean one is "wrong" or "incorrect" and the other is "right" or "correct" or "trustworthy". You just have multiple witnesses of the same event, telling different aspects of the same story, many years later. Some of the accounts like Luke's gospel appear to have been collected second- or third-hand. So discrepancies don't make any account untrustworthy, to me.

Timotheist, besides Judas Iscariot dying twice in quite different ways, what are the irreconcilable differences that you see in the gospels? And why must one choose one sole account as contrary to, or mutually exclusive of, another(s)? I'm rather ignorant on this subject.

Ohio · 06-04-2015, 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aron

As far as discrepancies in the gospels, I know of Judas meeting two different fates, both unpleasant, but mutually exclusive. He couldn't have died both ways, could he?

I never had a problem with this. The minor conflict is over who actually bought the field.

Matt 27.5 says Judas threw the silver down and went out and hung himself. Acts 1.18 says he fell headlong, bust his gut, and they gushed out. I reconciled these verses by considering that someone cut him down with the corpse striking some sharp object, at which point his guts all spilled out, which must have been quite an horrific scene.

Acts says that Judas acquired the land with the coins, while Matthew indicates the chief priests bought the field with Judas' money. So officially Judas did not buy it directly, but since he paid for it, he effectively "bought it."

Anyway, back to our regularly scheduled program concerning the virgin birth.

Timotheist · 06-04-2015, 04:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aron

My information is that the LXX, the Greek text, was composed (translated from Hebrew) several centuries before Christ. The current Hebrew "Masoretic" text came several centuries after the LXX. The original Hebrew text was gone by the time the Masoretic text came out (ca 700 AD). So what Isaiah said in the original Hebrew we don't know, but to suggest that the LXX was a corruption of the Masoretic is simply wrong.

The passage I quoted from "Dialogue with Trypho" states without a doubt that Trypho claimed that the LXX was wrong and that "young woman" was the proper wording. This dialogue occurred around the year 150. Trypho was obviously not quoting from the Masoretic text. But I will do some more research as you raise a valid question. Don't know if I will be able to find a good answer. The Trypho statement is the oldest evidence I have so far.

This debate has been going on for 2000 years. I try to avoid relying on other people's research, but sometimes I have to.

[UPDATE]: Turns out the Trypho evidence is about the earliest. In general authors who claim not to have an agenda decide with the Jews over the Christians.

Timotheist · 06-04-2015, 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by awareness

The only question we're left with then is, why did God drop out of writing class?

This is an argument I have been tempted to use myself, but since it is a rhetorical question, I try to avoid it.

I will say only this: I wonder if Jesus was not a prolific author BECAUSE he was the Son of God. Can you imagine how people would have treated these manuscripts? Pray-reading them would have just been the tip of the iceberg.

At the risk of tacky humor, maybe this is what happened to his books: "Thy words were found, and I did eat them".

Timotheist · 06-04-2015, 05:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aron

Timotheist, besides Judas Iscariot dying twice in quite different ways, what are the irreconcilable differences that you see in the gospels? And why must one choose one sole account as contrary to, or mutually exclusive of, another(s)? I'm rather ignorant on this subject.

"Irreconcilable" is a strong word. But there are many instances that stretch credulity. Just read Matthew and Luke's opening verses side by side and start counting cases that show harmony vs instances of disharmony (one account claiming something independent of the other)

For example, kings from the east or shepherds coming to worship Mary's child is not an "irreconcilable" difference. Both could have happened, but taking all of these examples and summing them up leads me to the conclusions I have made.

Timotheist · 06-05-2015, 04:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

But within the Bible are parts that are clearly words directly from God. "Thus saith the Lord." And the words recorded from the mouth of Jesus. (Of course I see that you simply reject them as theological musings of the writers.)

I resent your extrapolation (again). Show me a case where I rejected Jesus' words as recorded in the epistles.

If you want to counter my research, then use research in return. We will learn nothing with argumentative extrapolations.

OBW · 06-05-2015, 05:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Timotheist

I resent your extrapolation (again). Show me a case where I rejected Jesus' words as recorded in the epistles.

You did mean gospels, right? Jesus words are very limitedly mentioned in the epistles, therefore you have either made a typing error, or dodged the issue.

My problem is that in one of the posts in one of these threads in the past few days you essentially suggested that the writers of the gospels, specifically the synoptics, seemed to have just ruminated over their theological considerations years later and then wrote down Jesus as saying and doing what fit to their ideas. Unfortunately, I have not found the place. And I may have incorrectly attributed it to you (though I doubt it). I now wish I had the time to respond to that particular statement when I read it the first time.

In any event, you are clearly happy to eliminate more of the Bible than Lee did in your search for a Jesus you can believe in. And read the epistles without the underpinning of the gospels on which they are based and grounded to get there. Many have tried this in the past. Nee and Lee were among them.

aron · 06-05-2015, 05:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Timotheist

"Irreconcilable" is a strong word. But there are many instances that stretch credulity. Just read Matthew and Luke's opening verses side by side and start counting cases that show harmony vs instances of disharmony (one account claiming something independent of the other)

The very fact that there is disharmony indicates to me multiple sources, which indicates multiple witnesses. All of which strengthens the idea that there was this guy named Jesus who really made a big impact on a lot of people at the same time.

How Judas Iscariot died and whether an angel really struck Herod's side who fell down, eaten by worms is not central to the story as I see it. So your long effort to draw out differences and find one "superior" (my terms) witness which then can be used to discredit the others seems like a double-edged sword. It is good that you can see things from another perspective and fellowship with a Jewish, atheist, or Muslim neighbor. But how to do so in a way that doesn't cause the majority of the Christian flock to become unhappy?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Timotheist

For example, kings from the east or shepherds coming to worship Mary's child is not an "irreconcilable" difference. Both could have happened, but taking all of these examples and summing them up leads me to the conclusions I have made.

Our great witness today includes the idea that we receive one another. So:
1. Try to make your point simply. Is there any one or several sections that make your case, or do you need 25 sections to infer a point which you then have to work back onto the rest of the text to come to your conclusion? Few people will grant you the grace to go that far on the journey.
2. Explain why your own personal narrative came to include this story. It is your story.
3. Put out the weaknesses and alternatives to your argument, succinctly and cogently if possible. If people see that you are open to others, they will be open to you. It is the classic "do unto others" theme here. If you concede, others will be encouraged to concede as well.
4. How does this idea have value? How does it enhance the Christian conversation? How does it enhance the Christian witness to the unbelieving world?

(note: I think you've already done points 2 and 4 pretty well. I just included them for comprehensiveness [my version, anyway - haha]).

awareness · 06-05-2015, 07:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aron

How Judas Iscariot died and whether an angel really struck Herod's side who fell down, eaten by worms is not central to the story as I see it.

To me we're chopping at the leaves and ignoring the root.

This is the virgin birth implications thread. What's the implications if the virgin birth wasn't true? Does it affect or salvation here today? I know it will make a difference to the Jesus is God folks, but it won't be a fatal blow. Does the virgin birth either way, happened or not, have anything to do with receiving the Spirit today; with being born again, or living by the Spirit?

The other implication effect is what I'll call the ify-land. Questioning the virgin birth is questioning that the Bible is the word of God. Denying it means the Bible is not trustworthy.

And that brings us into ify-land. Where we can't be certain of anything.

I realize I don't have room to talk. I'm a member of the three amigos on AltVs -- Awareness, zeek, & Dave -- and we've all talked against inerrancy of scripture, based just upon as much as 400,000 variants in the mss (maybe more).

We're honest about that. So let's be honest with questioning the virgin birth, and all its implications.

aron · 06-05-2015, 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by awareness

To me we're chopping at the leaves and ignoring the root.

This is the virgin birth implications thread. What's the implications if the virgin birth wasn't true? ... let's be honest with questioning the virgin birth, and all its implications.

I'm asking what is the textual basis to question the virgin birth idea? Because some of the gospels feature it and some don't? Timotheist seems to think that if there is any discrepancy between the narratives then one of them must be false. So if John's gospel didn't mention the virgin birth, and Paul didn't feature it doctrinally, then Timotheist (as I understand the argument) is saying that synoptic accounts of the virgin birth are suspect.

I'm saying that eyewitness accounts can differ, especially years after the fact, and conveyed second- and third-hand, without one of them being wrong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by awareness

And that brings us into iffy-land. Where we can't be certain of anything..

Not me. I have lots of certainty. Let me give an analogy. I've never been to Kathmandu, Nepal, but the "Google Earth" feature allows me to check it out. Before the internet days, I could find an entry in the Encyclopedia Britannica. So I have a fair amount of certainty that the place actually exists. There are witnesses and I trust them because they are corroborated.

How do I know George Washington crossed the Delaware? Multiple witnesses. How do I know Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon? Multiple witnesses. How do I know Hannibal crossed the Alps? Multiple accounts. How do I know that in the NT there was a "James the elder" (brother of John) and a "James the lesser" brother of Jesus? Multiple accounts stretching back into antiquity.

So I know there was a Rome (just as there is today), a Jerusalem (ditto), and so forth. Some of the smaller details might be in dispute, like which recension of the LXX closely matches the Masoretic Hebrew of the Orthodox Psalms or whatever. But the big picture never changes. Love God, love your neighbor. And Jesus is the Lord.

It's really not that confusing.

Ohio · 06-05-2015, 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by awareness

This is the virgin birth implications thread. What's the implications if the virgin birth wasn't true? Does it affect or salvation here today? I know it will make a difference to the Jesus is God folks, but it won't be a fatal blow. Does the virgin birth either way, happened or not, have anything to do with receiving the Spirit today; with being born again, or living by the Spirit?

To me the identity of Jesus Christ is a matter of life or death. If I accept that Jesus is God, he redeemed me on the cross from my sins, He rose from the dead to give me life, then the virgin birth may be a non-issue which it seems to be in the Acts and the epistles in the early church.

But if the virgin birth is recorded in two of the Gospels as the fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy, and I reject it, then I begin to question other aspects of who He is. Then I open the door for other questions, like Eve did in the garden. Did Jesus really live? Is He just a regular sinner like me? Did He really die on the cross? How could He rise from the dead? Isn't that a little ridiculous? How can I be sure of anything?

But don't listen to me. Timotheist made it clear that I have been well indoctrinated since my youth. Perhaps it was my mom's Christmas scene that got be going.

awareness · 06-05-2015, 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aron

Because some of the gospels feature it and some don't? Timotheist seems to think that if there is any discrepancy between the narratives then one of them must be false. So if John's gospel didn't mention the virgin birth, and Paul didn't feature it doctrinally, then Timotheist (as I understand the argument) is saying that synoptic accounts of the virgin birth are suspect.

Maybe he can correct me but I think he said something like the miracles are addins and so are suspect.

OBW · 06-05-2015, 02:48 PM

I'm going to join aron and quote myself.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

Unfortunately, I have not found the place. And I may have incorrectly attributed it to you (though I doubt it). I now wish I had the time to respond to that particular statement when I read it the first time.

And while I definitely read what I mentioned (I didn't just dream it), it does not seem to be within this forum that I can find.

I guess I read something somewhere else and have since attributed it to Timotheist. I will apologize for that.

But I do think that his positions and rules about what to take are correct or incorrect, and the tendency to dismiss Matthew and Luke to a great degree, makes for a method of textual criticism that is not a lot different that what someone else must have said.

Unlike the early history of the earth and man contained in very brief and metaphorical narratives in Genesis, from what I can see, the birth of Christ is not something to pass off as Hellenistic fluff added to make the Greeks happy. While my version of a reliable, even fully trustworthy Bible does not rise to the level of what is currently called "inerrant," I do think that it is fully consistent with status as our scripture, and not selectively so. I will admit that I think that certain parts are simply part of the narrative and not necessarily required for the revelation of God, but even those are not leading to something that is wrong, as T seems to suggest (or more truthfully, declare to be how he looks at it under his rules).

In other words, a scripture that is not "The Word of God" in the way that we so often say it in a nearly idolatrous way is not necessary to be fully scripture and profitable for teaching. Whether, as some think, the words were inspired by God to be written, or generally inspired by God thematically (and I sort of assume that some parts are more one way and others the other), they are the scripture and are fully useful for our understanding and learning.

The idea that we need to create fancy algorithms of priority, precedence, harmony with other accounts to decide which parts to keep and which to give the boot makes the whole thing subject to my own whim. I don't care how strongly anyone thinks they can standardize the rules. People will see things differently and conclude that different parts are in and other are out. The result is a Bible by multiple committees. And we will once again underscore the notion that the printing press, the Bible, and broader education has not led to more unity in understanding, but vastly more disharmony. As someone overstated it, the Bible + millions of independent readers = thousands (if not millions) of divisions.

Timotheist · 06-05-2015, 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by awareness

This is the virgin birth implications thread. What's the implications if the virgin birth wasn't true? Does it affect or salvation here today? I know it will make a difference to the Jesus is God folks, but it won't be a fatal blow. Does the virgin birth either way, happened or not, have anything to do with receiving the Spirit today; with being born again, or living by the Spirit?

Thank you. And I hope you all know my answers to these questions.

But now we get a little insight into the post-Paul generation's (years 60 to 100) dilemma. They read Paul's epistles and I presume they had Mark (at least the short version). They understood from these documents that Jesus was without sin, who died for our sins, etc.

But when asked "How could Jesus not have sinned? He was a man like us, right? How can he be the Son of God?", they were having difficulty answering the questions. Explanations like "Well he was born a sinner like us, but became sinless via the indwelling Spirit of God" were met with skepticism.

So Isaiah 7:14 (LXX version) came to the rescue. Now they had an answer to the question that annoyed them: Jesus was BORN that way. Sweet. That is why he did not sin.

Once the idea took hold it did not matter that Jews argued that the passage referred to Hezekiah and that the word "virgin" was not a proper translation.

Thus "Matthew" and "Luke" were born. Apparently the stories developed in two different localities (they did not have summer and winter trainings yet), so the result was disharmony.

The end result is the same, but the beginning changed.

If there is any divine intervention at all, it is that BOTH of these documents were declared to be canon. If only one of them had, I would not have started these threads. But when you have two documents with completely different filler material added to Mark (I am speaking here strictly of the pre-baptism accounts), then I can see the paper trail that indicts them.

Ohio · 06-05-2015, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

My problem is that in one of the posts in one of these threads in the past few days you essentially suggested that the writers of the gospels, specifically the synoptics, seemed to have just ruminated over their theological considerations years later and then wrote down Jesus as saying and doing what fit to their ideas. Unfortunately, I have not found the place. And I may have incorrectly attributed it to you (though I doubt it). I now wish I had the time to respond to that particular statement when I read it the first time.

Here is one post in which Timotheist implied such hand-waving make-up-the-story on-the-fly ...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Timotheist

You are finally getting it

John: he did not know Jesus before the baptism, but afterward it was a completely different story.

Mark: no comment one way or the other. Wanted to quote Psalm 2:7 but Peter and Paul had already used it for proof of resurrection.

Matthew: We need to fix Mark: let's throw in evidence of foreknowledge: "I have need to be baptized by you." Because the baptism was just for show.

Luke: No wait. Let's have him leap in the womb.

Matthew and Luke, the original "virgignostics", causing disharmony in the gospels.

(traditional names used for convenience)

zeek · 06-05-2015, 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Timotheist

Thank you. And I hope you all know my answers to these questions.

But now we get a little insight into the post-Paul generation's (years 60 to 100) dilemma. They read Paul's epistles and I presume they had Mark (at least the short version). They understood from these documents that Jesus was without sin, who died for our sins, etc.

But when asked "How could Jesus not have sinned? He was a man like us, right? How can he be the Son of God?", they were having difficulty answering the questions. Explanations like "Well he was born a sinner like us, but became sinless via the indwelling Spirit of God" were met with skepticism.

So Isaiah 7:14 (LXX version) came to the rescue. Now they had an answer to the question that annoyed them: Jesus was BORN that way. Sweet. That is why he did not sin.

Once the idea took hold it did not matter that Jews argued that the passage referred to Hezekiah and that the word "virgin" was not a proper translation.

Thus "Matthew" and "Luke" were born. Apparently the stories developed in two different localities (they did not have summer and winter trainings yet), so the result was disharmony.

The end result is the same, but the beginning changed.

If there is any divine intervention at all, it is that BOTH of these documents were declared to be canon. If only one of them had, I would not have started these threads. But when you have two documents with completely different filler material added to Mark (I am speaking here strictly of the pre-baptism accounts), then I can see the paper trail that indicts them.

"Paper trail?" "Indicts them." You seem to assume that the gospels are presenting a legal case or that they were written as objective, factual histories. Why do you think that?

Timotheist · 06-05-2015, 06:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zeek

"Paper trail?" "Indicts them." You seem to assume that the gospels are presenting a legal case or that they were written as objective, factual histories. Why do you think that?

What a strange question. I am presenting a case for indictment, with lots of evidence. I have looked into the NT, the writings outside the NT, and here I am postulating a motive. Don't see the defense in this case holding up very well.

zeek · 06-05-2015, 07:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Timotheist

What a strange question. I am presenting a case for indictment, with lots of evidence. I have looked into the NT, the writings outside the NT, and here I am postulating a motive. Don't see the defense in this case holding up very well.

I applaud you for your independent thinking and research. But, what makes you think any of the text is a historically accurate record?

UntoHim · 06-05-2015, 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zeek

I applaud you for your independent thinking and research. But, what makes you think any of the text is a historically accurate record?

For Tim: Welcome to Alt Views, where NOTHING is considered a given...except of course that the alternative views posted here are to be considered as absolute truth, even though they can't be scientifically proven...but that's ok because they are the opinions of the one with an alternative view...which makes their opinion truth! How convenient!

For zeek: Maybe the very same reasoning that makes him conclude that the virgin birth is an "added miracle" leads him to believe that the majority of the NT record is historically accurate? Just sayin....

zeek · 06-05-2015, 09:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UntoHim

For Tim: Welcome to Alt Views, where NOTHING is considered a given...except of course that the alternative views posted here are to be considered as absolute truth, even though they can't be scientifically proven...but that's ok because they are the opinions of the one with an alternative view...which makes their opinion truth! How convenient!

Now UntoHim, you will notice I didn't state that the gospels are or are not historical, factual records. And I didn't state my own opinion about it one way or the other. I simply asked why Timotheist supposes that some are. People throughout history have written all kinds of claims, some have been demonstrated true others false. Whether we agree with him or not, Timotheist made a definite case against the probability of virgin conception. But, why accept any of the stories as probable without a sound reasons for doing so? And if one considers some historically probable and others not, why?

Take the story that Jesus turned water into wine for instance. I know of nowhere in any other text that such an incident is reported, not in the other gospels and not in the epistles of Paul, or the other NT books and certainly not in any non-Christian literature of the period. So, there is no independent verification of the story. Where did the story come from? Is it intended to be a factual account? Are there other possibly more plausible explanations for its existence? How do you or Timotheist or I or anyone else here know? And, if we don't know, what then? If faith enters in, what does it require of us? Timotheist has already left the safe haven of unjustified belief in inerrancy. Does that eliminate the possibility of saving faith? Or are there other reasonable bases for faith? Inquiring minds like mine want to know.

Quote:

For zeek: Maybe the very same reasoning that makes him conclude that the virgin birth is an "added miracle" leads him to believe that the majority of the NT record is historically accurate? Just sayin....

Well it wouldn't be the same reasoning because he gave some specific arguments for deciding against the virgin conception that would not apply elsewhere. But, since many of us were indoctrinated into The Faith before we reached the age of reason, why assume that people have reasons for believing these things at all if they don't tell us what they are? Others had dramatic adult conversions after which they came highly suggestible and accepted all manner of dubious teachings about the Bible from charismatic leaders, who upon further investigation have proven to be untrustworthy. Sound familiar? Anyway because those people were instructed not to think, they may not have good reasons for believing what they do either. It would be mistake to assume that any of us have sound reasons for what we believe if we don't present them.

Timotheist · 06-05-2015, 11:33 PM

Sorry Zeek, could not grasp the meaning of your question without more context.

I get it now. But it is past 1 AM. Will give this some thought tomorrow.

awareness · 06-06-2015, 05:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

The idea that we need to create fancy algorithms of priority, precedence, harmony with other accounts to decide which parts to keep and which to give the boot makes the whole thing subject to my own whim. I don't care how strongly anyone thinks they can standardize the rules. People will see things differently and conclude that different parts are in and other are out. The result is a Bible by multiple committees. And we will once again underscore the notion that the printing press, the Bible, and broader education has not led to more unity in understanding, but vastly more disharmony. As someone overstated it, the Bible + millions of independent readers = thousands (if not millions) of divisions.

The Bible must not be "the word" spoken of in the 17th chapter of the 4th book of the NT (Tim's gold standard book).

Obliviously, freeing the Bible up from the grips of the RCC didn't/doesn't bring about the oneness in the account mentioned in the prayer by Jesus. Jesus must be speaking of a different word.

Which blows even our dear brother Timotheist out of the water too, by discounting not just the virgin birth -- and the books Matthew and Luke -- but the whole thing. We - he - must be turning the Bible into something it's not.

awareness · 06-06-2015, 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UntoHim

For Tim: Welcome to Alt Views, where NOTHING is considered a given...except of course that the alternative views posted here are to be considered as absolute truth, even though they can't be scientifically proven...but that's ok because they are the opinions of the one with an alternative view...which makes their opinion truth! How convenient!

Hey Untohim. Untohim offers his alternative view, which is truth ... of course ... too ... cuz it's on AltVs ... which is the basis of all scientific truth.

zeek · 06-06-2015, 08:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UntoHim

For Tim: Welcome to Alt Views, where NOTHING is considered a given...except of course that the alternative views posted here are to be considered as absolute truth, even though they can't be scientifically proven...but that's ok because they are the opinions of the one with an alternative view...which makes their opinion truth! How convenient!

Awareness--UntoHim's statement is pure hyperbole and fallacious because he is ironically attacking a strawman. On the main forum I see more claims of absolute truth than here. Inerrantism is a claim of absolute truth for every word of the Bible. Subjectivity is truth. I experience therefore I am. Being itself is a mystery. Objective truth I mainly characterize in terms of probability which is the antithesis of absolute truth. Why would UntoHim mischaracterize my position so? He was after all intervening in the dialogue between Timothesist and myself. Maybe the only way he can understand my position is by projecting his own onto it as if the only alternative to absolutism [his] is another absolutism[mine]. I guess I shouldn't complain. Accusing me of absolutism is better than the ad hominem attacks he usually makes on you. Of course he generalized his criticism to Alt Views so the implication is that you and possibly others are included in it as well.

awareness · 06-07-2015, 05:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zeek

Awareness--UntoHim's statement is pure hyperbole and fallacious because he is ironically attacking a strawman. On the main forum I see more claims of absolute truth than here. Inerrantism is a claim of absolute truth for every word of the Bible. Subjectivity is truth. I experience therefore I am. Being itself is a mystery. Objective truth I mainly characterize in terms of probability which is the antithesis of absolute truth. Why would UntoHim mischaracterize my position so? He was after all intervening in the dialogue between Timothesist and myself. Maybe the only way he can understand my position is by projecting his own onto it as if the only alternative to absolutism [his] is another absolutism[mine]. I guess I shouldn't complain. Accusing me of absolutism is better than the ad hominem attacks he usually makes on you. Of course he generalized his criticism to Alt Views so the implication is that you and possibly others are included in it as well.

But we love him ....

Timotheist · 06-07-2015, 06:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by awareness

The Bible must not be "the word" spoken of in the 17th chapter of the 4th book of the NT (Tim's gold standard book).

I hope I have not given the impression that I consider the 4th gospel to be "the truth", so as to be the equivalent of divinely inspired 'words'.

As I have stated multiple times in my blog, when Mark and John agree on something, that is as close to the "truth" as one can hope to get. To state that I have found the truth would be a lie, for I do not have that assurance.

But I will state that I am pretty sure I am much closer to capturing the thoughts of the first generation of believers than the inerrancy enthusiasts.

To address Zeek's questions:

"where do I stop questioning?" seems to be what you are asking. It is a good question, and I do not discount it. To say I have not had thoughts along the lines of total annihilation of the gospels would be a lie as well.

But this is where faith comes in for me. I am not ready to become an agnostic. I see in Paul's epistles a gospel that makes sense (although I do not consider him completely without flaws). And Paul existed. Whether he was struck blind on the road or received his knowledge by other means is not that important to me. But he had it going on.

As far as history goes, I accept that the early Christians were forced to embellish the history with miracles in order to compete with the Greeks.

I don't think it was done necessarily intentionally by the authors. What we see is a record of oral statements made by those who claimed to speaking for the "Spirit". It was a gradual development based on one "white lie" compounded with the next.

We saw a similar progression in the "oneness" doctrine of the LC. Started off innocently enough, just wanted to be distinguished from poor Christianity. It evolved from there within a single generation into the extreme views of today.

awareness · 06-07-2015, 07:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Timotheist

. . . As I have stated multiple times in my blog, when Mark and John agree on something, that is as close to the "truth" as one can hope to get. . . .

This reminds me of Bart Ehrman's life long quest to get at the actual words of God, by seeking to get down to the actual words in the autographed copies of the gospels. In vain, of course.

As may also be your quest to get as close to the truth as possible.

As I see it, Christianity early on was very diverse. And the records of that diversity was lost by : one, when Jerusalem was sacked by the Romans in 70 a.d., and two, by early church fathers burning all the books that weren't "The Truth."

That makes it very hard to get close to the truth of what was really going on circa 2000 yrs ago.

Quote:

Originally Posted by T

But I will state that I am pretty sure I am much closer to capturing the thoughts of the first generation of believers than the inerrancy enthusiasts.

Maybe ... maybe not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by T

. . . "where do I stop questioning?" seems to be what you are asking. It is a good question, and I do not discount it. To say I have not had thoughts along the lines of total annihilation of the gospels would be a lie as well. . . .

Of course you're not going to do that. Unless we find another trove of documentation, like was found at Nag Hammadi in 1945, explaining more about what was going on back then, the gospels are the only sound records we've got. Tossing them is not a realistic option.

As a result, the questions will keep going on long after we're gone, and will never stop.

As I've stated, this questioning only leads to iffy-land. And iffy-land is very scary for many. We want, we seek, we need, we even obsess, for certitude. Witness Lee once delivered that for me.

But I have to announce, and even invite, that iffy-land is not as bad as it looks from inside the bubble of certitude-land.

There's a grand mystery out there. It's wonderful and awesome. And it's my experience that God is faithful to pull all the props and rugs out from under all that we put our faith in other than Him. And faith in God is the only way to go. It's really all we've got. That "iffy" is our certitude. The quicker you get use to it the better off you'll be.

Timotheist · 06-07-2015, 07:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by awareness

As I've stated, this questioning only leads to iffy-land. And iffy-land is very scary for many. We want, we seek, we need, we even obsess, for certitude. Witness Lee once delivered that for me.

But I have to announce, and even invite, that iffy-land is not as bad as it looks from inside the bubble of certitude-land.

There's a grand mystery out there. It's wonderful and awesome. And it's my experience that God is faithful to pull all the props and rugs out from under all that we put our faith in other than Him. And faith in God is the only way to go. It's really all we've got. That "iffy" is our certitude. The quicker you get use to it the better off you'll be.

I agree with you up to a point. But when a great big nasty "iffy" like the virgin birth does so much damage to the gospel, in terms of making it even more a stumbling block to the Jews and a fallacy to the Greeks, that I think we need to make a stand.

Own the error. Admit it. You don't have to claim to know all the truth in order to do this.

Simplify the faith. Belief in the text is not a requirement. Belief in a specific definition of God (trinity, triune, whatever) is not a requirement. Belief in a virgin birth is definitely not a requirement.

Even a statement defining the afterlife is not a requirement, although I have made it one of my missions to get the Hell(enism) out of there as well.

Don't follow the temptation to define a "creed". This is only necessary for debate's sake.

Only two statements of the faith are required in my opinion. The Christ showed us the way to salvation. It is strongly suggested that you devote your life to sanctification, maturing the new man, getting a head start on the life to come.

awareness · 06-07-2015, 08:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Timotheist

I agree with you up to a point. But when a great big nasty "iffy" like the virgin birth does so much damage to the gospel, in terms of making it even more a stumbling block to the Jews and a fallacy to the Greeks, that I think we need to make a stand.

Own the error. Admit it. You don't have to claim to know all the truth in order to do this.

Simplify the faith. Belief in the text is not a requirement. Belief in a specific definition of God (trinity, triune, whatever) is not a requirement. Belief in a virgin birth is definitely not a requirement.

Even a statement defining the afterlife is not a requirement, although I have made it one of my missions to get the Hell(enism) out of there as well.

Don't follow the temptation to define a "creed". This is only necessary for debate's sake.

Only two statements of the faith are required in my opinion. The Christ showed us the way to salvation. It is strongly suggested that you devote your life to sanctification, maturing the new man, getting a head start on the life to come.

Great post. You started out on the ground and ended up shooting thru the stratosphere. I guess with my iffy=certitude I have no room to talk.

Hey, we're all virgin birth atheists.

There's claims of virgin births today (about .08 - women). But no one believes them.

Ordinary events require evidence. Extraordinary events require extraordinary evidence.

So if a woman today claims hers is a virgin birth, we can examine dna evidence to prove her wrong, using ordinary evidence. And we do. No one believes virgin births happen today. That's way far too far-fetched for our modern educated minds to believe.

But some of us can believe Jesus was born of a virgin. A lot really. We agree it was an extraordinary event, but can't even prove it with ordinary evidence. And there's zero extraordinary evidence for it.

So ... In the end we're all virgin birth atheists.

Ohio · 06-07-2015, 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Timotheist

I agree with you up to a point. But when a great big nasty "iffy" like the virgin birth does so much damage to the gospel, in terms of making it even more a stumbling block to the Jews and a fallacy to the Greeks, that I think we need to make a stand.

Own the error. Admit it. You don't have to claim to know all the truth in order to do this.

There is nothing in the N.T. that shows me that God is the least bit concerned about His Son being the "stumbling block" to the Jews and a "fallacy" to the Greeks. He just don't seem to care at all. It was His pre-planned eternal counsel that His only begotten Beloved Son would hang painfully and shamefully on a tree just outside of the "holy" city Jerusalem in order to redeem those who would believe. I f you don't like it, that your problem. Please don't shoot the messenger.

Contrary to your wild assertions, the virgin birth never did any damage to the Gospel, any more than His claims to bring salvation to the Gentiles (Luke 4. 24-30) or being the great "I am," both of which almost got Him killed by the Jews.

Paul in his first letter to Corinth made it clear that the Jews seek signs, and it was a multitude of signs and wonders that God gave them. The birth, the life, the words, the death, and the resurrection of Jesus contained far more signs and wonders than could ever be recorded in the Gospels. Every one of the disciples, including His mother, His neighbors, His brothers and sisters, and His school teachers could all have written a Gospel about Him. All different, all wonderful. God gave His chosen people all the signs they needed to believe that His Son was the promised One.

You don't like His birth? You don't like the way God planned to bring His Son into the world? And you want God to change what He did to make it more accommodating to the Jews and the Greeks?

Ohio · 06-07-2015, 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by awareness

Ordinary events require evidence. Extraordinary events require extraordinary evidence.

So ... In the end we're all virgin birth atheists.

Extraordinary events require reputable eye-witnesses to report them, and faith on our part to believe them.

So ... in the end you should speak for yourself.

awareness · 06-07-2015, 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

Extraordinary events require reputable eye-witnesses to report them, and faith on our part to believe them.

So ... in the end you should speak for yourself.

I do apologize to you bro Ohio. I can't speak for you and shouldn't.

I was speaking generally. Allow me to become specific.

Do you, bro Ohio believe:

That, Chrishna (Hindu) was born of a chaste virgin called Devaki, a Hindu belief?
That, Buddha was begotten of God and born of a virgin whose name was Maya?
That, the virgin Codom was impregnated by divine sun beams, a ancient Siamese belief?
That, in 3468 B.C (before Christ), in China, Lao-Tsze was born of a virgin, who was black in complexion and as beautiful as a Jasper?
That, the Egyptian Horus and Ra were born of virgins?
And do you believe, the .5% of women in America today that have claimed to have had virgin births?

Speak for yourself bro Ohio. Do you believe any in my list?

aron · 06-08-2015, 04:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by awareness

I do apologize to you bro Ohio. I can't speak for you and shouldn't.

I was speaking generally. Allow me to become specific.

Do you, bro Ohio believe:

That, Chrishna (Hindu) was born of a chaste virgin called Devaki, a Hindu belief?

Speak for yourself bro Ohio. Do you believe any in my list?

Bro awareness,

I can't speak for Ohio, but let me also be specific,

Do you believe that, yesterday at around 7:30 am local time, give or take a minute or two, that a 45 year-old man ate a bowl of Post Toasties in Aberdeen, Washington?

Please consider this question carefully, because the fate of civilization as we know it may hinge upon your answer.

aron · 06-08-2015, 04:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Timotheist

I agree with you up to a point. But when a great big nasty "iffy" like the virgin birth does so much damage to the gospel, in terms of making it even more a stumbling block to the Jews and a fallacy to the Greeks, that I think we need to make a stand.

Own the error. Admit it. You don't have to claim to know all the truth in order to do this.

Simplify the faith. Belief in the text is not a requirement. Belief in a specific definition of God (trinity, triune, whatever) is not a requirement. Belief in a virgin birth is definitely not a requirement.

I wouldn't say, "Own the error. Admit it." That's too strong; there doesn't seem to be conclusive 'proof' either way. Paul was wise when he said, "Let each man be persuaded in his own mind." I think there's enough room under the tent of faith for us all. We don't have to separate into dogmatic camps.

I like the work that you've done, and that you've made it public here on the forum, and endured the slings and arrows. We should be allowed to question everything. I don't particularly follow your argument that where there's difference or divergence, then one (or both) accounts are "error", but at least we should be open to question, and think, and decide.

For those readers who are unfamiliar, every summer there are two indoctrination festivals for LC children. The one for grade-schoolers is called "Summer Camp" and the one for high-schoolers is called "Summer School of the Truth". I was serving at Summer Camp, and the woman running it, an elder's wife, told the children that dinosaur bones had been hidden in the earth by Satan, to cause people to turn away from God. She scoffed, "Everyone knows that there were no dinosaurs."

When you're 8 or 10 years old, unfortunately you have to take it. But at some point you should be able to question, and think for yourself, and "be persuaded in your own mind."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Timotheist

Only two statements of the faith are required in my opinion. The Christ showed us the way to salvation. It is strongly suggested that you devote your life to sanctification, maturing the new man, getting a head start on the life to come.

For me, there's certainty of a God who loved us and sent His only begotten Son. While we were yet sinners Christ died for us. I simply refuse to yield on this point. It is my faith. Therefore I try to behave, and prepare myself by "getting a head start on the life to come", not because I'm a good person, but because the Son told us to. It was His command - "As I've obeyed the Father, so you should obey My commands." And if He told us to love one another, well so be it. Then love one another. Deal with it. It was His commandment.

But beyond that, going into the minutae of the record (which I admittedly love and even obsess over), we shouldn't be too dogmatic. The Pharisees loved to strain gnats, but missed the camel.

Ohio · 06-08-2015, 05:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by awareness

I do apologize to you bro Ohio. I can't speak for you and shouldn't.

I was speaking generally. Allow me to become specific.

Do you, bro Ohio believe:

That, Chrishna (Hindu) was born of a chaste virgin called Devaki, a Hindu belief?
That, Buddha was begotten of God and born of a virgin whose name was Maya?
That, the virgin Codom was impregnated by divine sun beams, a ancient Siamese belief?
That, in 3468 B.C (before Christ), in China, Lao-Tsze was born of a virgin, who was black in complexion and as beautiful as a Jasper?
That, the Egyptian Horus and Ra were born of virgins?
And do you believe, the .5% of women in America today that have claimed to have had virgin births?

Speak for yourself bro Ohio. Do you believe any in my list?

Let me speak for millions of believers down thru the centuries ....

nope
uh ... no way
never
not a chance in hell
nonsense
absolutely not

... and don't talk to me about artificial insemination or some such thing. The conception of Jesus had no human sperm whatsoever. And don't ask me to "prove" it scientifically in some laboratory. And don't even ask me how one sperm with a tail can mate with one egg and make a new person -- that in itself is one of the greatest miracles performed by God every day all around the globe!

awareness · 06-08-2015, 06:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

Let me speak for millions of believers down thru the centuries ....

nope
uh ... no way
never
not a chance in hell
nonsense
absolutely not

So my point was true. We're all virgin birth atheists, including you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

... and don't talk to me about artificial insemination or some such thing. The conception of Jesus had no human sperm whatsoever. And don't ask me to "prove" it scientifically in some laboratory. And don't even ask me how one sperm with a tail can mate with one egg and make a new person -- that in itself is one of the greatest miracles performed by God every day all around the globe!

Well I'll give you that. How a person is produced from two little bitty things is a miracle that happens everyday (way too much now, btw : 19 and counting).

And you also are right "millions of believers down thru the centuries" have not been atheists of the virgin birth of Jesus. So belief in the virgin birth of Jesus has a lot of mass and momentum.

Which means, our bro Timotheist has his work cut out for him.

Maybe he was kicked out of the LC for disbelief in the virgin birth. That would have done it.

Ohio · 06-08-2015, 08:08 AM

I got this off the web, abbreviated slightly. It appears to be source material for one or more posters on this thread since all'ya'all say the same thing ...

Quote:

Why I Deny the Virgin Birth of Jesus

June 20, 2008 by Daniel Florien

The test read positive. Ayesha’s face flushed; tears formed in her eyes. She was trapped. She would be killed. She was a stain on her family’s honor. Amir, her soon-to-be husband, would turn her in as soon as he found out. She knew she deserved death. The shame was unbearable.
That night she had a vision. The brightness blinded her at first, but gradually she saw an angelic face and it said, “Ayesha! You are favored indeed by Allah! For God himself is the Father of your child. Do not be afraid. He will be great and be called the Son of the Most High.”
The next day Ayesha told her fiancé that God had impregnated her, she was still a virgin, and an angel had told her this. Would you believe Ayesha?

An ancient book says a man 2,000 years ago was born of a virgin and was sired by God himself. I once believed this, because I believed the Bible — a book I thought God himself wrote. I was wrong. Here are five reasons why I no longer believe in the virgin birth.

1) There is no reliable evidence.
We have no eyewitness accounts, no doctor confirmations, no DNA samples … Ordinary events require evidence, but extraordinary events require extraordinary evidence. By any classification, the virgin birth is an extraordinary event, yet there is no evidence to support it. We have no eyewitness accounts, no doctor confirmations, no DNA samples — we have nothing except a couple references in the Bible that were written many decades after the event occurred.

2) The earliest references are late and sparse.
Why is such an important story left out of all the early sources?
Probably because it hadn’t been made up yet. Paul, the earliest New Testament author, never mentions the virgin birth. For someone who we rely upon for much of Christian theology, it is an odd omission. Paul refers to Jesus’ birth twice (Rom 1:3; Gal 4:4) and never says he was born of a virgin or of different means than anyone else. You’d think that would be important. The virgin birth is also not in Mark, the earliest gospel, or in John, the only other gospel not based on Mark.

Why would the story be made up? Perhaps to fulfill an old prophecy of a virgin birth, which the Gospel of Matthew cites: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. (Isaiah 7:14) Some scholars say “virgin” was a mistranslation in the Septuagint (the Greek translation the gospel writers used), and should have been translated “young woman.” That means the story might have been based on a mistranslation! It seems likely the virgin birth was created to boost the authority of Christianity through prophecy and compete with rival gods who were born of virgins.

3) It’s the same old myth.
The claims of Jesus’ birth are no different from any of the other virgin birth legends. It doesn’t have any more evidence or appear to be any more likely. Why believe it over the others?

4) Is it more likely to be a lie, or to be true?
“It is therefore at least millions to one, that the reporter of a miracle tells a lie.” -- Thomas Paine, American revolutionary and author, said “Is it more probable that nature should go out of her course, or that a man should tell a lie? We have never seen, in our time, nature go out of her course, but we have good reason to believe that millions of lies have been told in the same time; it is therefore at least millions to one, that the reporter of a miracle tells a lie.”

A betrothed teenage girl finds out she is pregnant. The father is not her soon-to-be husband, and he knows this. In her society, the penalty for this prescribed by God is death by stoning. What does she do? She claims an angel appeared to her and told her God impregnated her, and that she is now carrying the Son of God. Now what is more likely, that she is lying or telling the truth? Even if Mary claimed this herself, we would not believe her. Now consider that the story didn’t appear until over 50 years after it supposedly happened. The likelihood of the virgin birth being true is very, very, very low.

5) We would never, ever, believe this today.
Imagine if a teenage girl in your neighborhood claimed that her pregnancy was due to God impregnating her and that she was still a virgin. Would you believe her? Or would you think she was lying? If she insisted on it being true, we would put her in a mental hospital.

Why does this change just because Jesus’ birth happened 2,000 years ago? There is no evidence in favor of it. Even if Mary herself claimed it, there would have been every incentive to lie about it since the only alternative was death. Again, why would anyone believe this?

* * *

We have seen this incredible claim has no reliable evidence and no early Christian sources. There were claims of virgin births before Jesus, and Jesus’ virgin birth was probably invented to compete with those claims. It is far more likely to be a lie than true. And we would never believe anyone who claimed such a thing today. Because of these reasons, I have no choice but to deny the virgin birth of Jesus — and all other claims of virgin births and divine fathers.

Why did you guys all make so many posts on this thread? You could have just opened with this quote and get it over with.

awareness · 06-08-2015, 08:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

I got this off the web, abbreviated slightly. It appears to be source material for one or more posters on this thread since all'ya'all say the same thing ...

Why did you guys all make so many posts on this thread? You could have just opened with this quote and get it over with.

Wow! You done it. What I couldn't do. I searched and searched the web for a modern day person making the claim of her virgin birth and couldn't find one. But I would have, if I had found it, used your link.

I liked:
4) Is it more likely to be a lie, or to be true?
“It is therefore at least millions to one, that the reporter of a miracle tells a lie.” -- Thomas Paine, American revolutionary and author, said “Is it more probable that nature should go out of her course, or that a man should tell a lie? We have never seen, in our time, nature go out of her course, but we have good reason to believe that millions of lies have been told in the same time; it is therefore at least millions to one, that the reporter of a miracle tells a lie.”

Thanks much bro ....

Ohio · 06-08-2015, 09:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by awareness

Wow! You done it. What I couldn't do. I searched and searched the web for a modern day person making the claim of her virgin birth and couldn't find one. But I would have, if I had found it, used your link.

I liked:
4) Is it more likely to be a lie, or to be true?
“It is therefore at least millions to one, that the reporter of a miracle tells a lie.” -- Thomas Paine, American revolutionary and author, said “Is it more probable that nature should go out of her course, or that a man should tell a lie? We have never seen, in our time, nature go out of her course, but we have good reason to believe that millions of lies have been told in the same time; it is therefore at least millions to one, that the reporter of a miracle tells a lie.”

Thanks much bro ....

And because people lie every day, we should not believe the Bible. Is that your final argument?

Romans 3.4 -- May it never be! Rather, let God be found true, though every man be found a liar, as it is written, "THAT YOU MAY BE JUSTIFIED IN YOUR WORDS, AND PREVAIL WHEN YOU ARE JUDGED."

awareness · 06-08-2015, 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

And because people lie every day, we should not believe the Bible. Is that your final argument.

If it's written by Peter, definitely ...

of which it is said Mark got his gospel from and so calls that book into question. But not Matthew and Luke ... that I know of. So the virgin birth must be true.

Timotheist · 06-08-2015, 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aron

I don't particularly follow your argument that where there's difference or divergence, then one (or both) accounts are "error", but at least we should be open to question, and think, and decide.

Bro aron,

Don't want to rehash old posts, but my thesis is that Mark and John together testify against Matthew and Luke. I find "both in error" because the VB does not hold up when compared against Mark, John, the Acts, and all the epistles, and for many of the 1st century writers.

Ultimately, I do not care what you believe, but who you believe in. I am not worried that anyone who holds onto the VB is saved or not.

Yet I am worried that taking a stand on inerrancy (which lies at the root of this discussion), is an unreasonable requirement that we pile on to those to whom we preach.

I recently did a speed-read of the Acts as part of this research. This time, I noted something I never really cared to notice before. It was refreshing to see how the gospel was preached. They did not say you had to believe in a creed. They did not preface the gospel to the Greeks by first having them open "the Word of God". They did not refer to a Father, Son, and Spirit. They kept the message simple and let the Spirit take care of the rest.

awareness · 06-08-2015, 08:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Timotheist

They did not refer to a Father, Son, and Spirit. They kept the message simple and let the Spirit take care of the rest.

Well now. Is that still going on? Or has "referring?" taken over? Did the Spirit give up the ghost, and quit taking care of "the rest?" What is the rest you are referring to?

Was "the rest" the books of Acts itself, which is telling stories long after the fact?

zeek · 06-08-2015, 08:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

And because people lie every day, we should not believe the Bible. Is that your final argument?

Romans 3.4 -- May it never be! Rather, let God be found true, though every man be found a liar, as it is written, "THAT YOU MAY BE JUSTIFIED IN YOUR WORDS, AND PREVAIL WHEN YOU ARE JUDGED."

Nice one bro. Touche!

Be true to your presuppositions!

aron · 06-09-2015, 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by awareness

What is the rest you are referring to?

I would think that you of all people might pick up on what he's laying down: that carefully chosen phraseologies and formulae aren't going to swing wide the gates of bliss. If you need him to make a formulation of it, and bash you over the head with it until you get it, that act itself becomes the formula. It won't work. Which is, I think, what he's saying. Maybe we'll have to conclude that you don't get it, and just move on.

Ohio · 06-09-2015, 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Timotheist

Bro aron,

Don't want to rehash old posts, but my thesis is that Mark and John together testify against Matthew and Luke. I find "both in error" because the VB does not hold up when compared against Mark, John, the Acts, and all the epistles, and for many of the 1st century writers.

Ultimately, I do not care what you believe, but who you believe in.

By your theories, the Beatitudes (Sermon on the Mount) recorded in Matthew and Luke are "both in error" because they are not recorded in Mark or John. The prophecies contained therein also go by the wayside. Like I said before, I would have to strike out half my Bible in order to satisfy your hypothesis and its necessary conclusions.

It gets pretty difficult to separate out "what you believe, but who you believe in." Everybody believes in God, save for "the fool who says in his heart there is no God," but for some it is a "higher power," while others prefer the "man upstairs," etc. The Bible does not clearly differentiate the who from the what. That's just one of those neat little sayings that really means nothing. Like they say, if you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything.

The virgin birth defines who Christ, the Son is. The Gospel of John defends the virgin birth, not by drawing attention to Mary, but by making clear Who His Father is. And as Paul says, "Great is the mystery of godliness, He was manifested in the flesh." To reject the virgin birth is to reject who Christ, the Son is -- just another sinner like you and me, who happened to die on a tree.

Timotheist · 06-09-2015, 05:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

By your theories, the Beatitudes (Sermon on the Mount) recorded in Matthew and Luke are "both in error" because they are not recorded in Mark or John.

Of course the context of my statement is the virgin birth, not the entire books.

Over in my private blog I addressed my research into Luke's description of the afterlife, which is contained ONLY in Luke.

In that instance I gave Luke the benefit of the doubt because I found a passage in Ezekiel that supports the Lazarus and the rich man parable.

The virgin birth does not hold up, as there is no supporting evidence from earlier documents.

There is no reason to doubt the sermon on the mount.

Ohio · 06-09-2015, 06:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Timotheist

Of course the context of my statement is the virgin birth, not the entire books.

Over in my private blog I addressed my research into Luke's description of the afterlife, which is contained ONLY in Luke.

In that instance I gave Luke the benefit of the doubt because I found a passage in Ezekiel that supports the Lazarus and the rich man parable.

The virgin birth does not hold up, as there is no supporting evidence from earlier documents.

There is no reason to doubt the sermon on the mount.

Sounds to me like you have decided to pick and choose what you happen to like from scriptures. When God says what you like to hear, then you happen to say it is from God. Otherwise you question it, kind of like the serpent in the garden, "did God really say?"

I'm not sure how you can discard the opening chapters from Matthew and Luke, but then select what you like from the rest of the book. Apparently, if they "stole" the story from Mark, then you can accept it as legitimate. And it seems to me that your whole theory is based on an obscure variant manuscript from Mark 1.11, which is clearly repudiated by Paul's message in Acts 13.33.

You are on shaky standing my friend. You have lots of issues to address before your theory can even begin to hold water. How about starting with the Lamb of God? Jesus, the common sinner, cannot be Him. Are you now still waiting for the promised One? How can a regular guy like you and I redeem mankind of its debt to the law of God? If Jesus was "born again" at His baptism as you hypothesize, then why can't I be the redeemer too, since I was born again and baptized? My salvation was so dramatic back in the day that I felt the Father smiled on me and said, "this is now my son." All the angels in heaven were singing and shouting for joy.

So many questions ... so few answers ... I think I'll stick with the original.

Who would be martyred for a sinner like your Jesus? Sorry Timotheist, but you are preaching "another Jesus." Even if you were an angel from heaven, I would not accept it. Read Galatians chapter one. Twice Paul says "let him be accursed" who brings a gospel other than the one we have received.

aron · 06-10-2015, 05:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

You are on shaky standing my friend. You have lots of issues to address before your theory can even begin to hold water. How about starting with the Lamb of God? Jesus, the common sinner, cannot be Him. Are you now still waiting for the promised One? How can a regular guy like you and I redeem mankind of its debt to the law of God? If Jesus was "born again" at His baptism as you hypothesize, then why can't I be the redeemer too, since I was born again and baptized? My salvation was so dramatic back in the day that I felt the Father smiled on me and said, "this is now my son." All the angels in heaven were singing and shouting for joy.

Timotheist's hypothesized "non-virgin birth" Jesus doesn't have to be a sinner. He, even naturally conceived, was the singular One who believed in God, and behaved accordingly, and did God's will to a "jot and tittle." We the disobedient sinners see this One and by our faith in Him are saved. We are accounted righteous by believing into His righteous acts, including the death of the cross. The conception and birth is not a righteous act and is excluded.

Please note that I am not agreeing with Timotheist's hypothesis, nor disagreeing. Just saying that the idea itself doesn't make Jesus a sinner. Jesus is singular, righteous, and holy. We don't become Messiahs by our baptism into His name. We are sinners, redeemed and reborn. He is the sinless One. He is the spotless Lamb of God. Spotless before and after baptism.

zeek · 06-10-2015, 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

The virgin birth defines who Christ, the Son is.

If it's a crucial doctrine then how is it that neither Mark nor John nor Paul nor Peter found it necessary to mention it? It isn't necessarily true by logic. Is who you are defined by how you were born? To accept that would annul you ability to create who you are by virtue of freely choosing. It's a fatalistic assertion which renders life over the moment it starts.

Quote:

The Gospel of John defends the virgin birth, not by drawing attention to Mary, but by making clear Who His Father is.

John never mentions a virgin birth. For John, Jesus is explicitly the pre-existent Logos. Christ's relationship as Son to the Father is eternal not something that depends on a virgin birth in time.

Quote:

To reject the virgin birth is to reject who Christ, the Son is -- just another sinner like you and me, who happened to die on a tree.

Not necessarily. You seem to think a virgin birth is necessary because you were taught the doctrine of original sin. You bring that church doctrine as a presupposition to your reading of the New Testament. Can you show that the author of Mark believed that doctrine? John preaches the doctrine of pre-existence as does Paul in Philippians. Where in the Bible is the mechanism by which the virgin birth negates original sin explained? I don't think it is. It's an extra-Biblical doctrine that was propounded by theologian Augustine of Hippo centuries after the New Testament books were written. But, it became an important an plank in Church dogma. So, you are sticking to the fundamentals in the face of the evidence.

That's what one has to do to hold to the orthodox dogma literally [which is the only way for a fundamentalist]. First one must accept the dogma as the ontological bedrock--unquestionable foundation upon which everything depends. Then one must hold to these truths despite their apparent absurdity against scientific and historical probability and ethics.

zeek · 06-10-2015, 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

You are on shaky standing my friend. You have lots of issues to address before your theory can even begin to hold water. How about starting with the Lamb of God? Jesus, the common sinner, cannot be Him. Are you now still waiting for the promised One? How can a regular guy like you and I redeem mankind of its debt to the law of God? If Jesus was "born again" at His baptism as you hypothesize, then why can't I be the redeemer too, since I was born again and baptized? My salvation was so dramatic back in the day that I felt the Father smiled on me and said, "this is now my son." All the angels in heaven were singing and shouting for joy.

This argument suffers the fallacy of begging the question. What evidence indeed is there that Jesus was sinless or that he redeemed anyone? What we have in the Bible are the propositions that he was and that he did. The orthodox faith requires that a person believe these propositions based on an incomplete and contradictory record of the relevant events. The miracle of faith is that people actually do believe it.

Ohio · 06-10-2015, 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aron

Timotheist's hypothesized "non-virgin birth" Jesus doesn't have to be a sinner. He, even naturally conceived, was the singular One who believed in God, and behaved accordingly, and did God's will to a "jot and tittle." We the disobedient sinners see this One and by our faith in Him are saved. We are accounted righteous by believing into His righteous acts, including the death of the cross. The conception and birth is not a righteous act and is excluded.

Please note that I am not agreeing with Timotheist's hypothesis, nor disagreeing. Just saying that the idea itself doesn't make Jesus a sinner. Jesus is singular, righteous, and holy. We don't become Messiahs by our baptism into His name. We are sinners, redeemed and reborn. He is the sinless One. He is the spotless Lamb of God. Spotless before and after baptism.

We are all sinners. How in the world can some guy come along to become the "singular One who believed in God, and behaved accordingly, and did God's will to a 'jot and tittle?'" It has never happened since the dawn of time, nor will it ever, but Joseph and Mary had those "special genes" which they somehow passed on to Jesus. Funny thing is that none of their other boys and girls "believed in God, and behaved accordingly, and did God's will to a 'jot and tittle.'" Why would that be? Why would Jesus be so different?

Timotheist and I are discussing two entirely different phenomena concerning the Lord Jesus. He thinks at Jesus' baptism He was born the Son of God and thus could perform a multitude of signs and wonders. I say that Jesus was born of the Spirit in a chaste virgin so that He could live a sinless life, doing the Father's will, and fulfilling the law of God perfectly. Thus He was qualified to become our Redeeming Lamb of God. At baptism He was "inaugurated" for His ministry.

I have tried to answer, albeit somewhat imperfectly at times, every assertion Timotheist has made. He, however, has not even tried to respond to my most serious concerns, other than saying that I have scored only 2 points against his 50 to date.

I want a new referee. Timotheist Donaghy is not working for me.

Timotheist · 06-10-2015, 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

I have tried to answer, albeit somewhat imperfectly at times, every assertion Timotheist has made. He, however, has not even tried to respond to my most serious concerns, other than saying that I have scored only 2 points against his 50 to date.

I want a new referee. Timotheist Donaghy is not working for me.

I have tried to respond to your concerns, but I will admit to not bothering to answer the ones where you simply cite verses from Matthew and Luke and state they are good enough. I need more than that. Those opening chapters mean nothing to me now. They are a waste of good scroll.

The most valid point you have made is how a mere man could become sinless. I have tried to answer that. You say it can't be done, but Paul believed that Timothy could pull it off. Explain in your own words what Paul meant regarding Timothy's sanctification, and then let's talk.

Ohio · 06-10-2015, 06:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Timotheist

I have tried to respond to your concerns, but I will admit to not bothering to answer the ones where you simply cite verses from Matthew and Luke and state they are good enough. I need more than that. Those opening chapters mean nothing to me now. They are a waste of good scroll.

The most valid point you have made is how a mere man could become sinless. I have tried to answer that. You say it can't be done, but Paul believed that Timothy could pull it off. Explain in your own words what Paul meant regarding Timothy's sanctification, and then let's talk.

What verses are you referring to?

This is what Paul said concerning Christ: "Him who did not know sin, God made sin on our behalf, that we might become God's righteousness in Him." II Cor 5.21

Sanctification and other spiritual blessings are bestowed upon the children of God in Christ, but this is all based on Christ. Jesus knew no sin! Hence He could be the Lamb of God. On the cross, God made Him sin on our behalf. Our vessel, so cleansed, could then be sanctified, useful to the Lord. With every heavenly blessing, God must see us in Him. Without Him as our redeemer, we all perish. We must all pay the wages of our sins, including Paul, Timothy, and all the apostles, which is death.

Timotheist · 06-10-2015, 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

What verses are you referring to?

This is what Paul said concerning Christ: "Him who did not know sin, God made sin on our behalf, that we might become God's righteousness in Him." II Cor 5.21

I Thes 5:23

Which person is more qualified to be our Lamb, one who overcame his sinful nature, or one who was born with a sinless nature? I prefer the former.

I assert that God made the his Son "sin" by inserting him into a human being at his baptism.

Ohio · 06-11-2015, 03:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Timotheist

I Thes 5:23

Which person is more qualified to be our Lamb, one who overcame his sinful nature, or one who was born with a sinless nature? I prefer the former.

I assert that God made the his Son "sin" by inserting him into a human being at his baptism.

Other verses make it clear that reconciliation occurred on the cross, not at baptism.

Only a sinless Man, who overcame sin, is qualified to be the Lamb of God. You have arbitrarily provided false choices to choose from.

OBW · 06-11-2015, 06:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Timotheist

I Thes 5:23

Which person is more qualified to be our Lamb, one who overcame his sinful nature, or one who was born with a sinless nature? I prefer the former.

I assert that God made the his Son "sin" by inserting him into a human being at his baptism.

So you are saying that you don't like the God/Jesus that the Bible presents, so you create a different one?

Since the beginning, man has been making God in his image, according to his likeness.

zeek · 06-11-2015, 07:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

Since the beginning, man has been making God in his image, according to his likeness.

Right, and the Bible is at the top of the list of instances where man made God in his image.

awareness · 06-11-2015, 09:21 AM

If the virgin birth of Jesus was made up why was it made up?

Was it an attempt to cover for Jesus getting baptized by John, who baptized for "remission of sins?"

Or was it a seed, a early beginning, of the idea of original sin; by virtue of his virgin birth only Jesus didn't have that?

Or was it to defeat the early Gnostics, who held to the total depravity of the flesh; by virtue, again, of his virgin birth Jesus didn't have that either?

Or was it an attempt to gain the gentile pagans, who had divine humans on their coins; by virtue of his virgin birth Jesus had that.

Ohio · 06-11-2015, 10:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by awareness

If the virgin birth of Jesus was made up why was it made up?

Was it an attempt to cover for Jesus getting baptized by John, who baptized for "remission of sins?"

Or was it a seed, a early beginning, of the idea of original sin; by virtue of his virgin birth only Jesus didn't have that?

Or was it to defeat the early Gnostics, who held to the total depravity of the flesh; by virtue, again, of his virgin birth Jesus didn't have that either?

Or was it an attempt to gain the gentile pagans, who had divine humans on their coins; by virtue of his virgin birth Jesus had that.

Or did it actually happen the way the gospels record it?

Could it be? Could it really be? Is our God really able to do what was prophesied? Could Jesus really have been born as the Son of God (and the Son of Man) as the bible records?

Inquiring minds need to know. Believing hearts know the answer!

zeek · 06-11-2015, 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by awareness

If the virgin birth of Jesus was made up why was it made up?

a]Was it an attempt to cover for Jesus getting baptized by John, who baptized for "remission of sins?"

b]Or was it a seed, a early beginning, of the idea of original sin; by virtue of his virgin birth only Jesus didn't have that?

c]Or was it to defeat the early Gnostics, who held to the total depravity of the flesh; by virtue, again, of his virgin birth Jesus didn't have that either?

d]Or was it an attempt to gain the gentile pagans, who had divine humans on their coins; by virtue of his virgin birth Jesus had that.

Multiple choice. You forgot:

[e] it actually happened the way the gospels record it [Ohio's pick]

f] some combination of two or more of the above

g] all of the above

h] none of the above

aron · 06-11-2015, 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

So you are saying that you don't like the God/Jesus that the Bible presents, so you create a different one?

I think he's saying that the Bible presents two narratives that don't sync, and one of them makes more sense than the other.

That argument I understand, but one has to do a close reading of the text to say, "These accounts don't match. One of them has to be off." My problem is that I'm not able to do the fine parsing of the gospels to come to the same conclusion, that these various accounts can't sit together in the same New Testament.

It's like if you have a long event, stretching over 3 years, with multiple witnesses, and multiple subsequent conversations about what the witnesses saw. And 15 years later they all write down the stories. Yes there will be discrepancies. Does that mean any of the accounts are fatally flawed? Timotheist says yes. I can't follow his argument enough to either agree or disagree.

But I don't see inaccuracies or inconsistencies in the NT as being fatal to the narrative. Nor do I see stretching the argument (if Timotheist is doing so here) to be fatal to his faith. "Let each one be persuaded in their own mind". I don't agree with him but he's not being blasphemous to the Christian faith. He's just (overly?) fixated on the differences in the gospels, and that Paul doesn't back some of them up. But I don't think it's bad to notice and point it out.

Ohio · 06-11-2015, 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aron

I think he's saying that the Bible presents two narratives that don't sync, and one of them makes more sense than the other.

I have not seen anything substantial in the NT that "don't sync." Oh sure, there are a number of questions about "how can this be? I don't understand?" but nothing contradictory. Timotheist goes back to this obscure rendering of Mark 1.11 and launches a wild theory to support it. He basically closes his eyes to all the problems it creates, while forging forward with his theory. He makes Mark "rule," at the expense of Matthew and Luke. He purports that John is supported, but that would alsways be the case since John charts an entirely different view. He says that Paul vindicates his theory, and yet Paul directly undermines (Acts 13.33) Tim's foundational argument (Mark 1.11 NAU).

Then Timotheist claims that all of my arguments are null and void since I merely quote scripture, which he has long ago discredited. If we go back to his opening posts, we find that he bases everything he believes on some Trypho, who supposedly lost an argument.

awareness · 06-11-2015, 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

Or did it actually happen the way the gospels record it?

Could it be? Could it really be? Is our God really able to do what was prophesied? Could Jesus really have been born as the Son of God (and the Son of Man) as the bible records?

Inquiring minds need to know. Believing hearts know the answer!

Yes ... God done it is a solid answer. God deflowered a married teenage virgin. Wow! Was she even married when He did it? If not God deflowered a single teenage virgin.

He'd be facing the law today. And prolly a long prison sentence. Unless he was a member of the '19 and counting' Dugger family.

Ohio · 06-11-2015, 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by awareness

Yes ... God done it is a solid answer. God deflowered a married teenage virgin. Wow! Was she even married when He did it? If not God deflowered a single teenage virgin.

He'd be facing the law today. And prolly a long prison sentence. Unless he was a member of the '19 and counting' Dugger family.

Don't you consider that a chaste virgin in Israel giving birth to the long awaited Messiah to be one of the greatest privileges of all time? Where is a shred of evidence that Mary felt she was taken advantage of?

Don't you take anything seriously?

awareness · 06-11-2015, 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

Where is a shred of evidence that Mary felt she was taken advantage of?

Luk 1:29 "But she was greatly troubled ..."

There's a shred ....

Ohio · 06-11-2015, 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by awareness

Luk 1:29 "But she was greatly troubled ..."

There's a shred ....

Read it again. She was troubled by the sudden appearance of Gabriel. Once she got over that, she readily agreed.

Luke 1.26 Now in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city in Galilee called Nazareth, 27 to a virgin engaged to a man whose name was Joseph, of the descendants of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary. 28 And coming in, he said to her, “Greetings, favored one! The Lord is with you.” 29 But she was very perplexed at this statement, and kept pondering what kind of salutation this was. 30 The angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary; for you have found favor with God. 31 “And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name Him Jesus. 32 “He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David; 33 and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and His kingdom will have no end.” 34 Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I am a virgin?” 35 The angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God. 36 “And behold, even your relative Elizabeth has also conceived a son in her old age; and she who was called barren is now in her sixth month. 37 “For nothing will be impossible with God.” 38 And Mary said, “Behold, the bondslave of the Lord; may it be done to me according to your word.” And the angel departed from her.

Great scriptures! Too bad nobody on AltViews believes them.

awareness · 06-11-2015, 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

Quote Luke: "to a virgin engaged to a man"

So she wasn't even married. And even if she was willing (who could say no to God) it was a statutory violation of a teen. At least that's how we would judge it today.

Let's face it, the virgin birth paints God in a bad light. That's why we should see it like we see that Mary was the mother of God today, compliments of the RCC. Both are mythic symbology ... and not literal.

Ohio · 06-11-2015, 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by awareness

So she wasn't even married. And even if she was willing (who could say no to God) it was a statutory violation of a teen. At least that's how we would judge it today.

Let's face it, the virgin birth paints God in a bad light. That's why we should see it like we see that Mary was the mother of God today, compliments of the RCC. Both are mythic symbology ... and not literal.

Of course she was not married. She was chaste. She was engaged to be shortly married, perhaps within days.

You assume she was a teen, and perhaps so, but why is it a statutory violation? She willingly agreed. Are you serious? People say "no" to God all the time.

There is no mythic symbology. It is absolutely literal. This was the way God chose. Get over it mon!

awareness · 06-11-2015, 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

Of course she was not married. She was chaste. She was engaged to be shortly married, perhaps within days.

You assume she was a teen, and perhaps so, but why is it a statutory violation? She willingly agreed. Are you serious? People say "no" to God all the time.

There is no mythic symbology. It is absolutely literal. This was the way God chose. Get over it mon!

Great response bro Ohio. Score 50 - 2, your favor.

Personally, maybe we should look at the virgin birth as it appears to have been to Mark, John, and Paul. Those that have experienced the Spirit of Christ aren't in need of such things as the virgin birth to prove their faith.

Experiencing the Spirit of Christ requires no such proof to validate that Jesus was the Son of God. So the virgin birth doesn't need to be true or not.

05-23-2015, 03:25 PM	#4
awareness Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 8,064	Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications Good posts so far. I'll just poke some thoughts out here, prolly a little at a time, concerning the virgin birth. The virgin birth is important to those that believe Jesus was/is God, for obvious reasons. The virgin birth could have been important when competing with the mythologies of the time, that already had virgin, or miraculous, births long before Jesus. Legend has it, in fact, that, Alexander the Great was born of a virgin, 350 yrs before Jesus ... the one that Hellenized the whole region, resulting in the Septuagint, and the gospels being written in Greek. Right now , if we continue this subject, and I hope we do, for clarity, I would like to ask you bro Tim (may I call you that?): Can you please list what you believe to be the order the gospels were written in ... earliest first? Or do you just accept the canonical order? __________________ Cults: My brain will always be there for you. Thinking. So you don't have to. There's a serpent in every paradise.

05-23-2015, 04:10 PM	#5
Timotheist Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Huntsville, AL Posts: 424	Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications Awareness, your question is covered in my blog, but to repeat it here: John was likely first (although there is lots of debate on this out there) Mark a close second Luke and Matthew likely written in parallel, without each other's knowledge. And yes, calling me Tim is fine.

05-24-2015, 04:02 PM	#15
UntoHim Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον For God So Loved The World Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 3,793	Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications Congrats Harold, I think you broke your old world record of going one year without mentioning the holy foreskin. Ok, today starts the first day of the next streak! __________________ αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων ἀμήν - 1 Peter 5:11

05-24-2015, 05:56 PM	#17
Timotheist Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Huntsville, AL Posts: 424	Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications I am waiting for one of you to notice the "golden shower" reference on the 'research' thread

05-24-2015, 06:14 PM	#18
Timotheist Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Huntsville, AL Posts: 424	Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications Back to the "Word became flesh" subject for a minute. Trypho had this to say to Justin Martyr while they were talking about the virgin birth: "Do not now suppose that I am endeavouring, by asking what I do ask, to overturn the statements you have made; but I wish to receive information respecting those very points about which I now inquire. Tell me, then, how, when the Scripture asserts by Isaiah, ‘There shall come forth a rod from the root of Jesse; and a flower shall grow up from the root of Jesse; and the Spirit of God shall rest upon Him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and piety: and the spirit of the fear of the Lord shall fill Him:' (now you admitted to me that this referred to Christ, and you maintain Him to be pre-existent God, and having become incarnate by God's will, to be born man by the Virgin) how He can be demonstrated to have been pre-existent, who is filled with the powers of the Holy Ghost, which the Scripture by Isaiah enumerates, as if He were in lack of them?" To paraphrase: "Why would Jesus need to have the Spirit come down on Him if He was already God by birth?" (my words) Good question.

05-23-2015, 10:22 AM	#1
Timotheist Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Huntsville, AL Posts: 424	Virgin Birth questioned: the implications INTRODUCTION I hope this thread serves as a worthwhile companion to "Virgin Birth questioned: the research". Let's discuss here the questions that come to mind about the person of Jesus if he was born of Joseph instead of the Holy Spirit. Here are only a few of the many major questions we should discuss: 1) If Jesus was born a man, how was he also the Son Of God? 2) If Jesus was born a man, did he sin? How can he be qualified to be our Savior if he was a mere man? 3) Can I still be a Christian and not believe in the Virgin Birth? I find this subject fascinating, and I have given it much thought over the past two years. And I am still here, believing in my Savior, the Firstborn of the New Creation. Yours in Christ

05-25-2015, 05:19 AM	#20
OBW Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: DFW area Posts: 4,382	Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications Unless the inquiry is part of an endeavor to decide whether or not to believe, what does "getting it right" on this point do for us? Those that think that a certain way is important will see what they think is important. Those think it is another will select those. But if the only point was virgin birth and the line of David, and that was mostly to show the Jews a fulfilled prophecy, then if no one was questioning the rest until later, what do we suppose it means if it is one way or the other? Maybe the lack of clear information is evidence that it is not important to us. God is God and the fact of the God-man is the thing, not the manner in which he made it happen. Just like creation. We get this very incomplete description which suggests to me that the details are not important, yet we find a need to force it to be one way or another. It is either as a litmus test to determine who is in and who it out, or a basis for proving or disproving God. Yet the available information does neither. In our present inquiry, it just provides an outcome — God living as a man. Some have insisted that certain ways have certain meaning, but is that true or just an overlay that fits with a certain presumption of how it *MUST* actually be. Where is the must asserted? Is this just one more need for man to assert his own requirements on God rather than allowing God to be God? A sort of making God in our image. "If this is the way it happened then I can believe. Otherwise I cannot." __________________ Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel

05-27-2015, 07:26 AM	#38
awareness Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 8,064	Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications . . . . . . duplicate __________________ Cults: My brain will always be there for you. Thinking. So you don't have to. There's a serpent in every paradise.

05-27-2015, 04:21 PM	#55
UntoHim Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον For God So Loved The World Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 3,793	Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications Since the title of the thread is "Virgin Birth..", which is a part of the Gospel, which is a part of the Christian canon, let's go upon the assumption that we are speaking of the Judeo-Christian God of the Judeo-Christian scriptures. If Timotheist or zeek want to start a thread "define God" then we can take up that ginormous topic on such a thread. As far as your question "how it is possible for a human being to be that", well this is pretty theologically involved issue, which we can explore on this thread. But if your going to be insisting upon scientific proofs, well that's a non-sequitur on LCD...even in the la la land of Alternative Views. __________________ αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων ἀμήν - 1 Peter 5:11

05-27-2015, 06:21 PM	#57
Timotheist Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Huntsville, AL Posts: 424	Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications Boy, I go to work, come home, and I have to spend 20 minutes to catch up. 1) It has been suggested more than once that I am an Ehrman fan. I am not familiar with his work. What is his agenda? Is he attempting to reform, or is he attacking belief in Christ? VERY big difference. All I know at this point is that we overlap in questioning the virgin birth. 2) The collective response to my rant is disheartening. Now I am another Witness Lee. I take offense. 3) OBW suggests that the lack of multiple copies of the other version of Mark makes it suspect. Yet Justin Martyr used this version and he was writing his stuff in the middle of the second century. Perhaps when the adoptionist view was declared heresy, an attempt was made to destroy these copies. Certainly plausible, and no, I cannot back this conjecture up. 4) Today it was also suggested that I am somehow attempting to redefine the Son and the Godhead. Where did I suggest anything of the kind? Nowhere. Jesus and the pre-existing Son became one at Jesus’ baptism. Nothing has changed in my definition of God. 5) Regarding the canon. Let’s review the approximate order of the Mary dogma that developed in these early centuries. (The order is pure speculation on my part. I am sure one of you will help me out on this.) a) Mary was a virgin b) No wait, Mary was also without sin c) No wait, Mary did not die and was taken up to heaven. d) Now we have a tidy little trinity family in heaven: a Father, a Mother, and a Son e) And we should now pray to Mary to intercede for us. At times during this chain of events, spurious manuscripts were invented to create a false paper trail. Some of Ignatius’ works were completely rewritten, inserting “Maryology” (my word) into the early history. They even fabricated letters alleged to contain a dialogue between Mary and Ignatius. Now also somewhere in this chain of events the canon was established. Why should we put such a heavy trust in the canonization when this decay was occurring at the same time? The Protestant movement quickly refuted b) thru e) with due haste. But a) was left alone. Why? Because this step was canonized. Okay, please continue what your were discussing. And yes I am very much an ex LCer. Grew up in the place in the Texas area.

05-27-2015, 07:58 PM	#58
awareness Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 8,064	Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications As far as I'm concerned you're doing fine bro Tim. Okay, as UntoHim pointed out -- discounting his ad hominem la-la-land remark -- the virgin birth is in the gospels, 2 of them anyway, and the gospels are in our canon, so Mary was a virgin when a teen mother. But how did Mary wind up a virgin in heaven? Let's face it, there's made up stories about Mary's virginity. So when did the made up stories begin and where did they end? __________________ Cults: My brain will always be there for you. Thinking. So you don't have to. There's a serpent in every paradise.

05-28-2015, 07:46 AM	#65
UntoHim Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον For God So Loved The World Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 3,793	Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications Harold, as usual you are all washed up on your biblical facts. Firstly, I'll just ignore your "Hezekiah 4:2" reference because it's not, and never has been, part of the accepted canon by the Jewish or Christian scholars. Secondly, the translation of Virgin is NOT a mistranslation. The ORIGINAL Hebrew word עַלְמָה `almah, can mean BOTH (NOT necessarily either) young woman and virgin. The context of Isaiah 7 CLEARLY INDICATES THAT OF A YOUNG, UNMARRIED VIRGIN GIRL. In fact the use of this word almah is almost exclusively referring to a young, unmarried virgin girl. CONTEXT IS KING! When in doubt...CONTEXT, CONTEXT CONTEXT! The Septuagint, the pre-Christian Greek translation of the Jewish Scriptures, took the Hebrew word almah, which can mean both young woman and virgin, and rendered it parthenos, which more explicitly and exclusively denotes virginity. It’s impossible to know exactly what the original hearers of Isaiah’s prophecy thought it meant, but it’s clear that the later translators thought the prophet meant virgin, not merely young woman. If the prophesy of Isaiah 7:4 is simply referring to a young woman who engages in sex and conceives well then it is not a prophesy at all, now is it? What kind of miraculous deed of God is this? Sorry, I've already made it clear, we are NOT going down the Catholic doctrine path here on this forum. IT IS IRRELEVANT TO OUR DISCUSSIONS. The Local Church of Witness Lee did not teach any of these Catholic doctrines. So unless we have any ex Local Churcher's who have converted to Roman Catholicism let's leave all the Catholic stuff off the table. __________________ αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων ἀμήν - 1 Peter 5:11 Last edited by awareness; 05-28-2015 at 10:37 AM.

05-28-2015, 09:52 AM	#68
UntoHim Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον For God So Loved The World Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 3,793	Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications Timotheist has brought forth a topic: Virgin Birth questioned. The virgin birth is told of in the original Gospel. It is not the 2nd or 3rd century invention of later generations of Christians. Even the contemporary Jews in Jesus' day knew of the claim of the virgin birth. (cf: John 8 where that Pharisees told Jesus "we were not born of sexual immorality" - this was clearly meant as a snide stab at the claim of Jesus' virgin birth) All the extra-biblical claims of the Roman Catholic church are quite irrelevant to the questions and implications of the actual virgin birth as prophesied in the Old Testament and portrayed in the Gospel. I'm somewhat incredulous why anyone on this forum would want to get into Catholic doctrine. Don't we have enough on our plate with the teachings and practices of the Local Church? Besides, if one thinks that the virgin birth itself is a myth perpetrated by Jesus' early followers, why do we need to get into Catholic doctrine that was developed much, much later. What's the point? Let's let Timotheist lead the conversation. __________________ αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων ἀμήν - 1 Peter 5:11

05-28-2015, 11:27 AM	#73
UntoHim Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον For God So Loved The World Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 3,793	Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications So Harold, we already know that you think Ehrman's made you a Greek scholar, and now you're some Hebrew scholar as well? Please try to do more than google searches before you try to debunk something. You're clueless my man. You're still fun and entertaining, but clueless. You wouldn't know the correct interpretation of an ancient Hebraic Prophesy if it came up and bit you in the butt. But hey, ignorance of what the VAST majority of scholars, from ancient to modern, have written concerning any particular prophesy has never stopped you from your crusade of debunking the Bible. Virgin is the correct translation. Just because you beat the bushes a little and found some liberal scholar/theologean with some letters after his name to say otherwise will never change that fact. Again, you apparently don't believe in ANY supernatural, miraculous act of God, so quibbling over the proper translation of this particular word is much ado about nothing. __________________ αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων ἀμήν - 1 Peter 5:11

05-30-2015, 08:01 AM	#98
Timotheist Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Huntsville, AL Posts: 424	Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications The Implications: Part I Now that the initial shock has somewhat abated, I will initiate a series of posts that will show you the effects this discovery has had on my reading of the gospels. I will say up front that these posts will approach the topic more from a subjective standpoint, admittedly relying on my own personal logic (the smell test). I will back up the logic with citations where it makes sense to, but the 'research' thread is more appropriate for that. The Baptism I am not going to rehash the research on this subject on this thread. I want to now focus on the implications of the natural birth narrative as opposed to that of virgin birth. Natural birth – The baptism of Jesus is a critical part of the narrative. The Spirit descending upon Jesus brought the Logos to him. Virgin birth – The baptism of Jesus is less significant. Jesus was already God. The incident served primarily to kick-off Jesus’ ministry, and to introduce/support the practice of baptism for the rest of us. The author of Matthew was obviously aware of his conundrum, and attempted to fix things in this way: But John tried to prevent Him, saying, "I have need to be baptized by You, and do You come to me?" But Jesus answering said to him, "Permit it at this time; for in this way it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness." Then he permitted Him. This is a weak argument on the author's part, lessening the significance of the event. John’s author makes an unequivocal statement that the Baptist did not know who Jesus was before the baptism. This is a direct contradiction that cannot be explained with “harmony” arguments. Luke addresses the conundrum in a completely different fashion. Matthew and Luke were aware that the Baptist’s purpose was to introduce the Christ, so they were forced to push back the John-Jesus relationship to an earlier point in time. Matthew takes their relationship back to an undefined point in time. Luke goes all the way back, as back as you can go. In comparing these passages, I find the John/Mark narrative to better pass the subjective “smell test” on this topic.

05-30-2015, 05:27 PM	#105
Timotheist Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Huntsville, AL Posts: 424	Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications My post was directed to OBW. My point is that either side of the debate could be said to be putting limitations on God's power. It is not a debate tactic that I would have used, but OBW has tried it more than once on these threads. I will try not to use "you" anymore...

05-30-2015, 05:32 PM	#106
Timotheist Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Huntsville, AL Posts: 424	Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications The Implications: Part II Continuing my subjective analysis of the life of Jesus. The Temptation Immediately the Spirit impelled Him to go out into the wilderness. And He was in the wilderness forty days being tempted by Satan; and He was with the wild beasts, and the angels were ministering to Him. (Mar 1:12-13 NAU) (A brief aside: This is all that Mark says about the temptation. Matthew and Luke elaborate with similar embellishments, drawing from a common source [about time]. I have no reason to declare these additions in error, yet I will observe in passing that the temptation is not recorded at all in John.) The point of this post is to consider the implications of a natural birth vs a virgin birth. Natural birth – The temptation was an immediate test of the old man. A necessary step, passing this test meant that the recently baptized Jesus was submitting his will to the indwelling Son. In theory, the old man Jesus could have failed, but he overcame. Virgin birth – The temptation of Jesus seems less significant of an event. Jesus was already the sinless Godman: how could He fail? Having this occur immediately after the baptism has little significance. Like the baptism, it smacks of being for demonstration purposes only. He wanted to provide us with evidence that he could withstand Satan. Again, this is a subjective analysis. My “smell test” method favors the natural birth.

05-30-2015, 06:39 PM	#109
Timotheist Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Huntsville, AL Posts: 424	Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications The Implications: Part III Continuing my subjective analysis of the life of Jesus. The Transfiguration Six days later, Jesus took with Him Peter and James and John, and brought them up on a high mountain by themselves. And He was transfigured before them; and His garments became radiant and exceedingly white, as no launderer on earth can whiten them. Elijah appeared to them along with Moses; and they were talking with Jesus. (Mar 9:2-4 NAU) (The transfiguration event is recorded in Mark, repeated in Matthew and Luke, but does not appear in John. However, the event is referenced in 2 Peter, providing strong support.) The point of this post is to consider the implications of a natural birth vs a virgin birth. Natural birth – Like the temptation, the transfiguration was a genuine test. Whereas the temptation was a test of the man’s will, the transfiguration was a test of the level of his sanctification, occurring toward the end of his life. Passing this test meant that the old man had become sanctified in spirit, soul, and body. He demonstrated that he was blameless. Only a sanctified body can reflect the glory of God without frying. Jesus the new man proved himself ready to be permanently glorified. Virgin birth – Like the temptation, this event seems to be primarily for our benefit. Jesus was already the sinless Godman. He had no need to be sanctified: of course he would shine like the sun. So this was not a test. He wanted to provide the witnesses further proof of his status as the Christ. No surprise: I favor the natural birth.

06-02-2015, 07:03 PM	#121
Timotheist Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Huntsville, AL Posts: 424	Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications The Implications: Part IV Continuing my subjective analysis of the life of Jesus. The Garden And He said to them, "My soul is deeply grieved to the point of death; remain here and keep watch." And He went a little beyond them, and fell to the ground and began to pray that if it were possible, the hour might pass Him by. And He was saying, "Abba! Father! All things are possible for You; remove this cup from Me; yet not what I will, but what You will." (Mar 14:34-36 NAU) This event is recorded in Mark, repeated in Matthew and Luke, but does not appear in John. I will note in passing that Luke contains this embellishment: Now an angel from heaven appeared to Him, strengthening Him. And being in agony He was praying very fervently; and His sweat became like drops of blood, falling down upon the ground. (Luk 22:43-44 NAU) But the point of this post is to consider the implications of a natural birth vs a virgin birth. Virgin birth – This is a tough passage to read. Jesus was the sinless Godman: why the last minute hesitation? He was BORN for this moment. It is why He came. Perhaps His frustration with the disciples’ lack of faith or strength made Him have second thoughts about saving the human race? (I have actually heard this explanation more than once). Natural birth – This was the last gasp of the old man, the flesh. It was the final test. Jesus passed the test and submitted his will to the indwelling Father, thus remaining one with Him. Passing this final test proved his soul was now truly blameless. He was found worthy to be the Firstborn. At his resurrection, He would be “reborn”, declared the begotten Son of God, completing the process that started at his baptism. He would go on to provide the Holy Spirit to the rest of mankind, enabling them of the opportunity to overcome as He did. The natural birth narrative makes more subjective sense, passing my “smell test”. Summarizing these four observations. The Jesus of natural birth is someone we can relate to, someone that went through the same experiences that we had and are having. The key difference is that he overcame: most of us (perhaps all of us to date) have not overcome to the extent that he did. But then again we were not predestined for this role.

06-05-2015, 11:33 PM	#152
Timotheist Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Huntsville, AL Posts: 424	Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications Sorry Zeek, could not grasp the meaning of your question without more context. I get it now. But it is past 1 AM. Will give this some thought tomorrow.

06-11-2015, 09:21 AM	#189
awareness Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 8,064	Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications If the virgin birth of Jesus was made up why was it made up? Was it an attempt to cover for Jesus getting baptized by John, who baptized for "remission of sins?" Or was it a seed, a early beginning, of the idea of original sin; by virtue of his virgin birth only Jesus didn't have that? Or was it to defeat the early Gnostics, who held to the total depravity of the flesh; by virtue, again, of his virgin birth Jesus didn't have that either? Or was it an attempt to gain the gentile pagans, who had divine humans on their coins; by virtue of his virgin birth Jesus had that. __________________ Cults: My brain will always be there for you. Thinking. So you don't have to. There's a serpent in every paradise.

06-11-2015, 09:36 PM	#207
awareness Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 8,064	Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications Now c'mon boys ... calm down. Bro Ohio don't run off. You've been standing strong and doing outstanding. And where's OBW and a response to us making God in our image? There's some high peak conceptions there ... that should be discussed. Anyway, you are right bro Ohio. By talking in a human way about the virgin conception we're being sick. And I think we'll all agree, if we're honest, that it's not fair to judge the people and times of 2000 yrs ago by today's standards. But human standards are human standards. Virgin or not there has to be a reason God chose for Jesus to come out of Mary's vaginal canal. He could have, for example, if He was in a miracle mood, have had Jesus just appear out of Mary's womb, in the form of a ball of light, of Shekinah glory, so there'd be no passing thru that awful disgusting -- very human -- vaginal canal. But He didn't. The message, by passing thru the vaginal canal, is clearly that, Jesus was very human. Score one for Timotheist. __________________ Cults: My brain will always be there for you. Thinking. So you don't have to. There's a serpent in every paradise.

06-13-2015, 07:06 AM	#219
Timotheist Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Huntsville, AL Posts: 424	Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications In honor of Aron, I present the words of Christ as recorded in Psalm 51 Be gracious to me, O God, according to Your lovingkindness; According to the greatness of Your compassion blot out my transgressions. Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity And cleanse me from my sin. For I know my transgressions, And my sin is ever before me. Against You, You only, I have sinned And done what is evil in Your sight, So that You are justified when You speak And blameless when You judge. Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me. Behold, You desire truth in the innermost being, And in the hidden part You will make me know wisdom. Purify me with hyssop, and I shall be clean; Wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow. Make me to hear joy and gladness, Let the bones which You have broken rejoice. Hide Your face from my sins And blot out all my iniquities. Create in me a clean heart, O God, And renew a steadfast spirit within me. Do not cast me away from Your presence And do not take Your Holy Spirit from me. Restore to me the joy of Your salvation And sustain me with a willing spirit. Then I will teach transgressors Your ways, And sinners will be converted to You. (Psa 51:1-13 NAU) I feel no need to re-read this using my own words. I will only note in passing that this is the ONLY place in the OT where the term "Holy Spirit" is used to describe God's personal presence in someone's life. It is a Messianic Psalm.

06-15-2015, 07:26 AM	#256
awareness Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 8,064	Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications So cute that we're discussing the virgin birth and you boys bring up quantum physics. But okay. The world of quantum physics is a world of infinite possibilities, which makes the virgin birth a physical possibility ... no supernatural intervention required. After all, parthenogenesis happens elsewhere in nature. So it could happen in primates every now and then. But only one resulted in the birth of God. __________________ Cults: My brain will always be there for you. Thinking. So you don't have to. There's a serpent in every paradise.

06-24-2015, 05:44 AM	#274
zeek Member Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Florida Posts: 4,223	Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications The problem with looking at scripture only from the standpoint of historical-critical methods is that those methods often close off thought to questions of ultimate meaning. I feel there's also a need to be able to read the Bible post-critically in terms of our living relationship to God and our life-world. __________________ Ken Gemmer- Church in Detroit, Church in Fort Lauderdale, Church in Miami 1973-86

07-05-2015, 08:28 AM	#275
awareness Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 8,064	Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications This would fit on the Fundamentalist thread but it also fits here. Seems to be a real Christian we have to believe in the virgin birth: In 1909, there was heated debate in the New York Presbytery about whether or not to ordain three men who refused to assent to the doctrine of the virgin birth of Jesus. (They did not deny the doctrine outright, just said that they were not prepared to affirm it.) The majority eventually ordained the men; the minority complained to the General Assembly and it was this complaint that would form the basis of the subsequent controversy. Under the order of the Presbyterian Church in the USA, General Assembly was not authorized to accept or dismiss this complaint. It should have demitted the complaint to the presbytery, and could have done so with instructions that the presbytery hold a heresy trial. The result of this trial could then be appealed to the Synod of New York and from there to the General Assembly. However, the 1910 General Assembly, acting outside its scope of authority, dismissed the complaint against the three men and at the same time instructed its Committee on Bills and Overtures to prepare a statement for governing future ordinations. The committee reported, and the General Assembly passed the Doctrinal Deliverance of 1910. This Deliverance declared that five doctrines were "necessary and essential" to the Christian faith: The inspiration of the Bible by the Holy Spirit and the inerrancy of Scripture as a result of this. The virgin birth of Christ. The belief that Christ's death was an atonement for sin. The bodily resurrection of Christ. The historical reality of Christ's miracles. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundam...undamentals.29 __________________ Cults: My brain will always be there for you. Thinking. So you don't have to. There's a serpent in every paradise.

12-26-2015, 08:59 AM	#288
Timotheist Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Huntsville, AL Posts: 424	Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications Yesterday, as I reluctantly celebrated the virgin birth of Jesus with my family, I was troubled this year more than others.

12-26-2015, 09:41 AM	#289
UntoHim Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον For God So Loved The World Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 3,793	Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications I just thought of something ironic Tim. When you were in the Local Church you were probably bothered at the celebration of Christmas from other Christians. Now you're bothered again, but this time for much different reasons. Poor guy, you can't win for losin. Happy holidays anyway my dear friend. __________________ αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων ἀμήν - 1 Peter 5:11

12-26-2015, 12:21 PM	#291
UntoHim Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον For God So Loved The World Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 3,793	Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications The implications of the virgin birth are huge. If Joseph and Mary were liars, and Jesus was born out of fornication (which is what many Jews of the day claimed because they had obviously heard about the claims of Jesus and his earliest followers) then he was NOT the Son of God, nor the Savior of the world. Then there is NO GOSPEL. THERE IS NO CHRISTIANITY. Paul's emphasis was on the other end of the life and times of Jesus Christ, the resurrection. Of course you don't believe in the resurrection for the same reason you don't believe the virgin birth - because it can't be shown by science. Paul clearly and strongly argued that if there is no resurrection THERE IS NO GOSPEL. "WE ARE ALL DEAD IN OUR SINS." The virgin birth and the resurrection are BOTH totally and absolutely dependent upon the same thing - WITNESSES. In the case of the virgin birth we really only have two witnesses - Joseph and Mary. In the case of the resurrection we have hundreds upon hundreds. THE GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST IS TOTALLY AND ABSOLUTELY DEPENDENT ON THE TESTIMONY OF THESE WITNESSES. PERIOD. END OF STORY. Believe these witnesses or don't believe these witnesses. But you are not going to get away with saying there were not witnesses....at least not on this forum you are not. The virgin birth is part of the prophesies in the Old Testament. The virgin birth was part of THE ORIGINAL GOSPEL as spread by the original apostles. Most people who deny the virgin birth also deny the resurrection. There is a very good reason for this of course. THEY DO NOT BELIEVE THAT JESUS CHRIST WAS THE SON OF GOD. And if Jesus Christ was not the Son of the living God, the creator of heaven and earth, then there is NO GOSPEL, NO CHRISTIANITY. Happy Holidays! __________________ αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων ἀμήν - 1 Peter 5:11

12-26-2015, 03:35 PM	#292
Timotheist Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Huntsville, AL Posts: 424	Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications For the record, I believe in His resurrection. And he is the Son of God, the pre-existing Son having descended on the man Jesus at His baptism, becoming one with him.

12-26-2015, 06:35 PM	#293
UntoHim Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον For God So Loved The World Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 3,793	Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications Hi Tim. Thanks for the explanation. So the very same God - the creator of heaven and earth - was incapable of having a virgin conceive, but was capable of having his "son" (please explain what you mean by "pre existing son") descend upon a human being (who presumably was born out of fornication from an unwed girl) and thus become "the Son of God"? And I thought Local Church doctrine was convoluted __________________ αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων ἀμήν - 1 Peter 5:11

12-27-2015, 12:02 AM	#295
Intothewind Member Join Date: Dec 2014 Posts: 243	Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications No records exist of parthenogenesis in humans, or even mammals. Parthenogenesis does occur in reptiles, fish etc. But in these cases the offspring are invariably females since they are exact clones of their mothers. Ok, back to the peanut gallery i go.

12-27-2015, 09:23 PM	#305
zeek Member Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Florida Posts: 4,223	Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications A rational reading of the Gospels supports the conclusion that Jesus was a biologically ordinary human being. What made him a son of God was his relationship with God and the life he led as a result. Reason requires demythologizing the Gospels of their superstitious and supernatural content including the virgin birth narratives. The historical core of the accounts centers on the life and work of a man whose example can be transformational if it takes hold of you. __________________ Ken Gemmer- Church in Detroit, Church in Fort Lauderdale, Church in Miami 1973-86

01-03-2016, 07:19 AM	#311
UntoHim Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον For God So Loved The World Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 3,793	Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications Do you know anything about the earliest church fathers, Timmy? Oh, I forgot, Polycarp and Ignatius are not recorded in the fossil record so you don't recognize them! Do you study the Old Testament prophesies, using sources that actually know what their talking about? That are scholars in the original languages? Dude, you've been hanging around Harold and Bart Ehrman too much. Ok, ok, give me your "evidence at hand" anyway. __________________ αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων ἀμήν - 1 Peter 5:11

01-05-2016, 03:41 PM	#328
Timotheist Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Huntsville, AL Posts: 424	Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications Is it really necessary for the Christ to have been born of a virgin to be our Savior? Isn't it a much more interesting feat to have been born a natural human and to have overcome his nature? In the same way that the rest of us are supposed to do. By the indwelling Spirit. Why does the firstborn of a new creation have to be different than the secondborn?