05-23-2015, 10:22 AM | #1 |
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 |
05-23-2015, 12:29 PM | #2 | |
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DFW area
Posts: 4,382
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
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.
__________________
Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel |
|
05-23-2015, 01:05 PM | #3 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Huntsville, AL
Posts: 424
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
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.) |
|
05-23-2015, 03:25 PM | #4 |
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 |
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. |
05-23-2015, 07:49 PM | #6 | |
Member
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 641
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
__________________
LC 1969-1978 Santa Cruz, Detroit, Ft. Lauderdale, Miami |
|
05-24-2015, 06:56 AM | #7 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,064
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
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?
__________________
Cults: My brain will always be there for you. Thinking. So you don't have to. There's a serpent in every paradise. |
|
05-24-2015, 07:02 AM | #8 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Huntsville, AL
Posts: 424
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
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. |
|
05-24-2015, 07:21 AM | #9 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Huntsville, AL
Posts: 424
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
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. |
|
05-24-2015, 07:39 AM | #10 |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,064
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
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?
__________________
Cults: My brain will always be there for you. Thinking. So you don't have to. There's a serpent in every paradise. |
05-24-2015, 07:54 AM | #11 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Huntsville, AL
Posts: 424
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
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 |
|
05-24-2015, 01:08 PM | #12 | |||||||
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,064
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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.
__________________
Cults: My brain will always be there for you. Thinking. So you don't have to. There's a serpent in every paradise. Last edited by awareness; 05-24-2015 at 01:44 PM. |
|||||||
05-24-2015, 01:40 PM | #13 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Huntsville, AL
Posts: 424
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
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. |
|
05-24-2015, 01:50 PM | #14 | ||
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,064
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Cults: My brain will always be there for you. Thinking. So you don't have to. There's a serpent in every paradise. |
||
05-24-2015, 04:02 PM | #15 |
Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον For God So Loved The World
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,797
|
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, 04:38 PM | #16 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,064
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
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.
__________________
Cults: My brain will always be there for you. Thinking. So you don't have to. There's a serpent in every paradise. |
|
05-24-2015, 05:56 PM | #17 |
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 |
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. |
05-24-2015, 06:25 PM | #19 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,064
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
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 ...
__________________
Cults: My brain will always be there for you. Thinking. So you don't have to. There's a serpent in every paradise. |
|
05-25-2015, 05:19 AM | #20 |
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 |
05-25-2015, 07:38 AM | #21 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,223
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
__________________
Ken Gemmer- Church in Detroit, Church in Fort Lauderdale, Church in Miami 1973-86 |
|
05-25-2015, 03:28 PM | #22 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Huntsville, AL
Posts: 424
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
(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. |
|
05-26-2015, 05:13 AM | #23 | |
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DFW area
Posts: 4,382
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
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.
__________________
Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel |
|
05-26-2015, 09:20 AM | #24 | |||||||||||
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,064
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Cults: My brain will always be there for you. Thinking. So you don't have to. There's a serpent in every paradise. |
|||||||||||
05-26-2015, 05:03 PM | #25 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Huntsville, AL
Posts: 424
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
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. |
|
05-26-2015, 05:14 PM | #26 |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,663
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
And just who was Jesus before He became the Christ? And where does it say Jesus was "born again?"
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
05-26-2015, 05:30 PM | #27 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,663
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
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. 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?"
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|
05-26-2015, 05:33 PM | #28 |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Huntsville, AL
Posts: 424
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
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. |
05-26-2015, 07:14 PM | #29 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,223
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Ohio stated:
Quote:
__________________
Ken Gemmer- Church in Detroit, Church in Fort Lauderdale, Church in Miami 1973-86 |
|
05-26-2015, 07:33 PM | #30 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,663
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
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.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|
05-26-2015, 07:44 PM | #31 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Huntsville, AL
Posts: 424
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
Better read your John again. The Baptist is the one who declares Jesus to be the Son of God in that account. |
|
05-26-2015, 08:01 PM | #32 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Huntsville, AL
Posts: 424
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
It's a riddle wrapped in an enigma, or something like that. |
|
05-26-2015, 08:12 PM | #33 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,064
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
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.
__________________
Cults: My brain will always be there for you. Thinking. So you don't have to. There's a serpent in every paradise. |
|
05-26-2015, 08:31 PM | #34 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,663
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
And ... if we reject the virgin birth, then we must declare Matthew and Luke to be frauds. What are we left with?
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|
05-27-2015, 04:25 AM | #35 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,663
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
After all, if you don't believe in Christmas, you may be a heretic.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|
05-27-2015, 04:36 AM | #36 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Huntsville, AL
Posts: 424
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
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. |
|
05-27-2015, 06:35 AM | #37 |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,663
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
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.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
05-27-2015, 07:26 AM | #38 |
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, 07:35 AM | #39 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,064
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
Those Princeton dudes were wrong about #1 and are maybe wrong on #2 too.
__________________
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, 08:09 AM | #40 |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,663
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
That Princeton dude friend of yours now is the acting MOTA.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
05-27-2015, 08:17 AM | #41 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,663
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
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!
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|
05-27-2015, 09:10 AM | #42 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,064
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
And y'all thought I was hard to pin down.
__________________
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, 09:12 AM | #43 |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,064
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Are you talking about Ehrman or Kangas .... ?
Ha
__________________
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, 09:18 AM | #44 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,223
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
__________________
Ken Gemmer- Church in Detroit, Church in Fort Lauderdale, Church in Miami 1973-86 |
|
05-27-2015, 11:11 AM | #45 | |
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DFW area
Posts: 4,382
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
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.
__________________
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, 11:19 AM | #46 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,663
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
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.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|
05-27-2015, 11:38 AM | #47 |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,064
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
I don't think I can document it but prolly that's why it's in the five fundamentals of the fundamentalist creed.
__________________
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, 12:27 PM | #48 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,663
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
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
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|
05-27-2015, 12:53 PM | #49 |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,064
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
__________________
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, 01:48 PM | #50 | |
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DFW area
Posts: 4,382
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
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.
__________________
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, 01:50 PM | #51 |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,223
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
__________________
Ken Gemmer- Church in Detroit, Church in Fort Lauderdale, Church in Miami 1973-86 |
05-27-2015, 01:55 PM | #52 |
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DFW area
Posts: 4,382
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
This says Jesus Christ came in the flesh, not:
__________________
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, 02:06 PM | #53 | |
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DFW area
Posts: 4,382
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
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! . . . ."
__________________
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, 02:26 PM | #54 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,223
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
Please explain what you mean by "God" and how it is possible for a human being to be that.
__________________
Ken Gemmer- Church in Detroit, Church in Fort Lauderdale, Church in Miami 1973-86 |
|
05-27-2015, 04:21 PM | #55 |
Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον For God So Loved The World
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,797
|
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, 06:11 PM | #56 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,223
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
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?
__________________
Ken Gemmer- Church in Detroit, Church in Fort Lauderdale, Church in Miami 1973-86 |
|
05-27-2015, 06:21 PM | #57 |
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 |
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. |
05-27-2015, 08:12 PM | #59 | |
Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον For God So Loved The World
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,797
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
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:
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!
__________________
αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων ἀμήν - 1 Peter 5:11 |
|
05-27-2015, 08:15 PM | #60 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Huntsville, AL
Posts: 424
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
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. |
|
05-28-2015, 05:26 AM | #61 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,064
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
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.
__________________
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, 06:01 AM | #62 | |
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DFW area
Posts: 4,382
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
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.)
__________________
Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel |
|
05-28-2015, 06:15 AM | #63 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,663
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|
05-28-2015, 06:49 AM | #64 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,064
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
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.
__________________
Cults: My brain will always be there for you. Thinking. So you don't have to. There's a serpent in every paradise. Last edited by awareness; 05-28-2015 at 07:20 AM. |
|
05-28-2015, 07:46 AM | #65 |
Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον For God So Loved The World
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,797
|
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, 08:35 AM | #66 | ||
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,663
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
Let's look at Isaiah 7.14 ... Quote:
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
||
05-28-2015, 09:10 AM | #67 | |
Member
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 641
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
__________________
LC 1969-1978 Santa Cruz, Detroit, Ft. Lauderdale, Miami |
|
05-28-2015, 09:52 AM | #68 |
Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον For God So Loved The World
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,797
|
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, 10:29 AM | #69 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,064
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
__________________
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, 10:55 AM | #70 | ||
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,064
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
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, 11:12 AM | #71 |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,663
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Good luck trying to get anyone on AltViews to cooperate!
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
05-28-2015, 11:23 AM | #72 | ||
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,663
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
The whole point of the discussion, as you can see from the context, is who is your father. Quote:
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
||
05-28-2015, 11:27 AM | #73 |
Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον For God So Loved The World
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,797
|
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 |
05-28-2015, 01:06 PM | #74 | ||
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,064
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
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:
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?
__________________
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, 04:32 PM | #75 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Huntsville, AL
Posts: 424
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
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. |
|
05-28-2015, 05:53 PM | #76 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Huntsville, AL
Posts: 424
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
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. |
|
05-28-2015, 05:54 PM | #77 | ||
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,663
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
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.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
||
05-28-2015, 06:25 PM | #78 | |||
Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,223
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
Quote:
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.
__________________
Ken Gemmer- Church in Detroit, Church in Fort Lauderdale, Church in Miami 1973-86 |
|||
05-28-2015, 06:57 PM | #79 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,663
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
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.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|
05-28-2015, 07:13 PM | #80 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,223
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
__________________
Ken Gemmer- Church in Detroit, Church in Fort Lauderdale, Church in Miami 1973-86 |
|
05-28-2015, 07:27 PM | #81 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,064
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
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?
__________________
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, 07:36 PM | #82 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,064
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
I could use a good laugh ... lay it on me.
__________________
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, 07:41 PM | #83 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Huntsville, AL
Posts: 424
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
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. |
|
05-28-2015, 08:05 PM | #84 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,064
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
And I think "Pull my finger" is pretty much a universal meme. Thanks for the explanation ....
__________________
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, 08:16 PM | #85 | ||||
Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον For God So Loved The World
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,797
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων ἀμήν - 1 Peter 5:11 |
||||
05-28-2015, 10:07 PM | #86 | |||
Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,223
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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?
__________________
Ken Gemmer- Church in Detroit, Church in Fort Lauderdale, Church in Miami 1973-86 |
|||
05-29-2015, 09:36 AM | #87 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,064
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
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.
__________________
Cults: My brain will always be there for you. Thinking. So you don't have to. There's a serpent in every paradise. |
|
05-29-2015, 10:41 AM | #88 | |
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DFW area
Posts: 4,382
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
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.)
__________________
Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel |
|
05-29-2015, 11:13 AM | #89 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,223
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
__________________
Ken Gemmer- Church in Detroit, Church in Fort Lauderdale, Church in Miami 1973-86 |
|
05-29-2015, 11:33 AM | #90 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,663
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
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's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|
05-29-2015, 11:36 AM | #91 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,663
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
And there's a whole lot more "nonsense" that I believe in too.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|
05-29-2015, 11:42 AM | #92 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,223
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
__________________
Ken Gemmer- Church in Detroit, Church in Fort Lauderdale, Church in Miami 1973-86 |
|
05-29-2015, 11:54 AM | #93 |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,064
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
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.
__________________
Cults: My brain will always be there for you. Thinking. So you don't have to. There's a serpent in every paradise. |
05-29-2015, 11:54 AM | #94 |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,223
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
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.
__________________
Ken Gemmer- Church in Detroit, Church in Fort Lauderdale, Church in Miami 1973-86 |
05-29-2015, 11:56 AM | #95 |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,064
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
I'd rather see a "Like" and "Dislike" button.
__________________
Cults: My brain will always be there for you. Thinking. So you don't have to. There's a serpent in every paradise. |
05-29-2015, 03:24 PM | #96 |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,223
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Emoticons aren't good enough for ya? See the thumbs up sign?
__________________
Ken Gemmer- Church in Detroit, Church in Fort Lauderdale, Church in Miami 1973-86 |
05-29-2015, 05:51 PM | #97 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,064
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
"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."
__________________
Cults: My brain will always be there for you. Thinking. So you don't have to. There's a serpent in every paradise. |
|
05-30-2015, 08:01 AM | #98 |
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?"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, 12:37 PM | #99 | |
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DFW area
Posts: 4,382
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
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.
__________________
Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel |
|
05-30-2015, 01:24 PM | #100 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Huntsville, AL
Posts: 424
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
Why do you think I should accept these stories "on faith"? |
|
05-30-2015, 01:58 PM | #101 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,663
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|
05-30-2015, 02:44 PM | #102 | |
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DFW area
Posts: 4,382
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
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.
__________________
Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel |
|
05-30-2015, 04:07 PM | #103 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Huntsville, AL
Posts: 424
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
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. |
|
05-30-2015, 05:10 PM | #104 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,663
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
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.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|
05-30-2015, 05:27 PM | #105 |
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 |
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.(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, 06:24 PM | #107 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,663
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
Methinks your "smell test" method stinketh. Is that how you racked up 50 points?
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|
05-30-2015, 06:27 PM | #108 |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Huntsville, AL
Posts: 424
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
|
05-30-2015, 06:39 PM | #109 |
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;(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. |
05-30-2015, 08:03 PM | #110 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,064
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
__________________
Cults: My brain will always be there for you. Thinking. So you don't have to. There's a serpent in every paradise. |
|
05-31-2015, 12:15 AM | #111 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,223
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
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?
__________________
Ken Gemmer- Church in Detroit, Church in Fort Lauderdale, Church in Miami 1973-86 |
|
05-31-2015, 07:11 AM | #112 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Huntsville, AL
Posts: 424
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
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:
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. |
|
05-31-2015, 08:05 AM | #113 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,223
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
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.
__________________
Ken Gemmer- Church in Detroit, Church in Fort Lauderdale, Church in Miami 1973-86 |
|
05-31-2015, 08:11 AM | #114 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,064
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
Amen! I guess ... for now.
__________________
Cults: My brain will always be there for you. Thinking. So you don't have to. There's a serpent in every paradise. |
|
05-31-2015, 08:20 AM | #115 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Huntsville, AL
Posts: 424
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,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. |
|
05-31-2015, 08:37 AM | #116 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,064
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
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).
__________________
Cults: My brain will always be there for you. Thinking. So you don't have to. There's a serpent in every paradise. |
|
05-31-2015, 12:26 PM | #117 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Huntsville, AL
Posts: 424
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
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. |
|
06-01-2015, 11:21 PM | #118 | ||||||||
Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,223
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Ken Gemmer- Church in Detroit, Church in Fort Lauderdale, Church in Miami 1973-86 |
||||||||
06-02-2015, 05:35 AM | #119 | |||||
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,663
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|||||
06-02-2015, 04:55 PM | #120 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Huntsville, AL
Posts: 424
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
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. |
|
06-02-2015, 07:03 PM | #121 |
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."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.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. |
06-03-2015, 09:37 AM | #122 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,223
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
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?
__________________
Ken Gemmer- Church in Detroit, Church in Fort Lauderdale, Church in Miami 1973-86 |
|
06-03-2015, 10:23 AM | #123 |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,064
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
That's it. That's the word replacement for adoption.
__________________
Cults: My brain will always be there for you. Thinking. So you don't have to. There's a serpent in every paradise. |
06-03-2015, 11:13 AM | #124 | |
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DFW area
Posts: 4,382
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
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.)
__________________
Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel |
|
06-03-2015, 07:08 PM | #125 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Huntsville, AL
Posts: 424
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
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. |
|
06-03-2015, 08:52 PM | #126 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Huntsville, AL
Posts: 424
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
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. |
|
06-04-2015, 04:44 AM | #127 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Natal Transvaal
Posts: 5,631
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
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.
__________________
"Freedom is free. It's slavery that's so horribly expensive" - Colonel Templeton, ret., of the 12th Scottish Highlanders, the 'Black Fusiliers' |
|
06-04-2015, 06:40 AM | #128 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,663
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
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.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|
06-04-2015, 07:23 AM | #129 | ||
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,064
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
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:
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?
__________________
Cults: My brain will always be there for you. Thinking. So you don't have to. There's a serpent in every paradise. |
||
06-04-2015, 08:06 AM | #130 | ||
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,663
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
||
06-04-2015, 10:26 AM | #131 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,064
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Yep, I'm nitpickin' .....
Quote:
Where I see a common motif : no hero is great until the mythmakers put their pens down ... if they ever do.
__________________
Cults: My brain will always be there for you. Thinking. So you don't have to. There's a serpent in every paradise. |
|
06-04-2015, 11:32 AM | #132 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Natal Transvaal
Posts: 5,631
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
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.
__________________
"Freedom is free. It's slavery that's so horribly expensive" - Colonel Templeton, ret., of the 12th Scottish Highlanders, the 'Black Fusiliers' |
|
06-04-2015, 12:05 PM | #133 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,663
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
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.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|
06-04-2015, 04:44 PM | #134 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Huntsville, AL
Posts: 424
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
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. |
|
06-04-2015, 05:13 PM | #135 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Huntsville, AL
Posts: 424
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
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". |
|
06-04-2015, 05:49 PM | #136 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Huntsville, AL
Posts: 424
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
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. |
|
06-05-2015, 04:18 AM | #137 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Huntsville, AL
Posts: 424
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
If you want to counter my research, then use research in return. We will learn nothing with argumentative extrapolations. |
|
06-05-2015, 05:13 AM | #138 | |
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DFW area
Posts: 4,382
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
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.
__________________
Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel |
|
06-05-2015, 05:53 AM | #139 | ||
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Natal Transvaal
Posts: 5,631
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
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:
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]).
__________________
"Freedom is free. It's slavery that's so horribly expensive" - Colonel Templeton, ret., of the 12th Scottish Highlanders, the 'Black Fusiliers' |
||
06-05-2015, 07:57 AM | #140 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,064
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
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.
__________________
Cults: My brain will always be there for you. Thinking. So you don't have to. There's a serpent in every paradise. |
|
06-05-2015, 10:21 AM | #141 | ||
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Natal Transvaal
Posts: 5,631
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
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:
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.
__________________
"Freedom is free. It's slavery that's so horribly expensive" - Colonel Templeton, ret., of the 12th Scottish Highlanders, the 'Black Fusiliers' |
||
06-05-2015, 12:23 PM | #142 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,663
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
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.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|
06-05-2015, 12:53 PM | #143 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,064
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
__________________
Cults: My brain will always be there for you. Thinking. So you don't have to. There's a serpent in every paradise. |
|
06-05-2015, 02:48 PM | #144 | |
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DFW area
Posts: 4,382
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
I'm going to join aron and quote myself.
Quote:
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.
__________________
Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel |
|
06-05-2015, 03:21 PM | #145 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Huntsville, AL
Posts: 424
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
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. |
|
06-05-2015, 05:23 PM | #146 | ||
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,663
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
||
06-05-2015, 06:15 PM | #147 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,223
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
"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?
__________________
Ken Gemmer- Church in Detroit, Church in Fort Lauderdale, Church in Miami 1973-86 |
|
06-05-2015, 06:39 PM | #148 |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Huntsville, AL
Posts: 424
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
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.
|
06-05-2015, 07:00 PM | #149 |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,223
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
I applaud you for your independent thinking and research. But, what makes you think any of the text is a historically accurate record?
__________________
Ken Gemmer- Church in Detroit, Church in Fort Lauderdale, Church in Miami 1973-86 |
06-05-2015, 07:36 PM | #150 | |
Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον For God So Loved The World
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,797
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
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....
__________________
αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων ἀμήν - 1 Peter 5:11 |
|
06-05-2015, 09:05 PM | #151 | ||
Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,223
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
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:
__________________
Ken Gemmer- Church in Detroit, Church in Fort Lauderdale, Church in Miami 1973-86 |
||
06-05-2015, 11:33 PM | #152 |
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. |
06-06-2015, 05:19 AM | #153 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,064
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
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.
__________________
Cults: My brain will always be there for you. Thinking. So you don't have to. There's a serpent in every paradise. |
|
06-06-2015, 11:30 AM | #154 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,064
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
__________________
Cults: My brain will always be there for you. Thinking. So you don't have to. There's a serpent in every paradise. |
|
06-06-2015, 08:54 PM | #155 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,223
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
__________________
Ken Gemmer- Church in Detroit, Church in Fort Lauderdale, Church in Miami 1973-86 |
|
06-07-2015, 05:18 AM | #156 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,064
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
__________________
Cults: My brain will always be there for you. Thinking. So you don't have to. There's a serpent in every paradise. |
|
06-07-2015, 06:01 AM | #157 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Huntsville, AL
Posts: 424
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
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. |
|
06-07-2015, 07:16 AM | #158 | |||
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,064
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
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:
Quote:
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.
__________________
Cults: My brain will always be there for you. Thinking. So you don't have to. There's a serpent in every paradise. |
|||
06-07-2015, 07:58 AM | #159 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Huntsville, AL
Posts: 424
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
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. |
|
06-07-2015, 08:45 AM | #160 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,064
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
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.
__________________
Cults: My brain will always be there for you. Thinking. So you don't have to. There's a serpent in every paradise. |
|
06-07-2015, 02:09 PM | #161 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,663
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
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's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|
06-07-2015, 02:13 PM | #162 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,663
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
So ... in the end you should speak for yourself.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|
06-07-2015, 03:57 PM | #163 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,064
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
I was speaking generally. Allow me to become specific. Do you, bro Ohio believe:
Speak for yourself bro Ohio. Do you believe any in my list?
__________________
Cults: My brain will always be there for you. Thinking. So you don't have to. There's a serpent in every paradise. |
|
06-08-2015, 04:29 AM | #164 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Natal Transvaal
Posts: 5,631
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
I can't speak for Ohio, but let me also be specific,
Please consider this question carefully, because the fate of civilization as we know it may hinge upon your answer.
__________________
"Freedom is free. It's slavery that's so horribly expensive" - Colonel Templeton, ret., of the 12th Scottish Highlanders, the 'Black Fusiliers' |
|
06-08-2015, 04:44 AM | #165 | ||
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Natal Transvaal
Posts: 5,631
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
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:
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.
__________________
"Freedom is free. It's slavery that's so horribly expensive" - Colonel Templeton, ret., of the 12th Scottish Highlanders, the 'Black Fusiliers' |
||
06-08-2015, 05:09 AM | #166 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,663
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|
06-08-2015, 06:55 AM | #167 | ||
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,064
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
Quote:
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.
__________________
Cults: My brain will always be there for you. Thinking. So you don't have to. There's a serpent in every paradise. |
||
06-08-2015, 08:08 AM | #168 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,663
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
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:
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|
06-08-2015, 08:28 AM | #169 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,064
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
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 ....
__________________
Cults: My brain will always be there for you. Thinking. So you don't have to. There's a serpent in every paradise. |
|
06-08-2015, 09:11 AM | #170 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,663
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
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."
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|
06-08-2015, 10:30 AM | #171 |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,064
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
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.
__________________
Cults: My brain will always be there for you. Thinking. So you don't have to. There's a serpent in every paradise. |
06-08-2015, 05:29 PM | #172 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Huntsville, AL
Posts: 424
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
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. |
|
06-08-2015, 08:03 PM | #173 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,064
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
Was "the rest" the books of Acts itself, which is telling stories long after the fact?
__________________
Cults: My brain will always be there for you. Thinking. So you don't have to. There's a serpent in every paradise. |
|
06-08-2015, 08:42 PM | #174 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,223
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
__________________
Ken Gemmer- Church in Detroit, Church in Fort Lauderdale, Church in Miami 1973-86 |
|
06-09-2015, 10:21 AM | #175 |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Natal Transvaal
Posts: 5,631
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
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.
__________________
"Freedom is free. It's slavery that's so horribly expensive" - Colonel Templeton, ret., of the 12th Scottish Highlanders, the 'Black Fusiliers' |
06-09-2015, 12:49 PM | #176 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,663
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
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.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|
06-09-2015, 05:07 PM | #177 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Huntsville, AL
Posts: 424
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
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. |
|
06-09-2015, 06:09 PM | #178 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,663
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
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.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|
06-10-2015, 05:56 AM | #179 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Natal Transvaal
Posts: 5,631
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
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.
__________________
"Freedom is free. It's slavery that's so horribly expensive" - Colonel Templeton, ret., of the 12th Scottish Highlanders, the 'Black Fusiliers' |
|
06-10-2015, 02:18 PM | #180 | ||
Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,223
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
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:
Quote:
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.
__________________
Ken Gemmer- Church in Detroit, Church in Fort Lauderdale, Church in Miami 1973-86 |
||
06-10-2015, 02:36 PM | #181 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,223
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
__________________
Ken Gemmer- Church in Detroit, Church in Fort Lauderdale, Church in Miami 1973-86 |
|
06-10-2015, 05:13 PM | #182 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,663
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
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.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|
06-10-2015, 05:35 PM | #183 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Huntsville, AL
Posts: 424
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
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. |
|
06-10-2015, 06:37 PM | #184 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,663
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
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.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|
06-10-2015, 07:05 PM | #185 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Huntsville, AL
Posts: 424
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
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. |
|
06-11-2015, 03:55 AM | #186 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,663
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
Only a sinless Man, who overcame sin, is qualified to be the Lamb of God. You have arbitrarily provided false choices to choose from.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|
06-11-2015, 06:56 AM | #187 | |
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DFW area
Posts: 4,382
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
Since the beginning, man has been making God in his image, according to his likeness.
__________________
Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel |
|
06-11-2015, 07:03 AM | #188 |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,223
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Right, and the Bible is at the top of the list of instances where man made God in his image.
__________________
Ken Gemmer- Church in Detroit, Church in Fort Lauderdale, Church in Miami 1973-86 |
06-11-2015, 09:21 AM | #189 |
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, 10:04 AM | #190 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,663
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
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!
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|
06-11-2015, 10:14 AM | #191 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,223
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
[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
__________________
Ken Gemmer- Church in Detroit, Church in Fort Lauderdale, Church in Miami 1973-86 |
|
06-11-2015, 10:20 AM | #192 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Natal Transvaal
Posts: 5,631
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
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.
__________________
"Freedom is free. It's slavery that's so horribly expensive" - Colonel Templeton, ret., of the 12th Scottish Highlanders, the 'Black Fusiliers' |
|
06-11-2015, 11:05 AM | #193 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,663
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
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.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|
06-11-2015, 11:07 AM | #194 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,064
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
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.
__________________
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, 11:11 AM | #195 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,663
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
Don't you take anything seriously?
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|
06-11-2015, 12:18 PM | #196 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,064
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
There's a shred ....
__________________
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, 05:00 PM | #198 |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,064
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
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.
__________________
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, 05:18 PM | #199 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,663
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
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!
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|
06-11-2015, 07:04 PM | #200 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,064
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
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.
__________________
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, 07:16 PM | #201 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,223
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
__________________
Ken Gemmer- Church in Detroit, Church in Fort Lauderdale, Church in Miami 1973-86 |
|
06-11-2015, 08:07 PM | #202 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,663
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
A while ago I saw an astronomical study of the Star of Bethlehem that the Magi followed. It's pretty incredible. It astronomically dates the birth of Jesus. The symbolism was fascinating. Only God, the creator of the universe, could have arranged for the "stars" to announce the coming of the promised Messiah. This 21st century documentary provided overwhelming evidence to validate Matthew's account. Some of you folks demand "scientific" proof, and this is the closest thing we have. Interestingly, the heavenly constellation does not point to Mary's conception, but rather to the actual birth of Jesus. It seems that God never wanted to highlight what happened to Mary at conception, but what happened to His Son. Jesus basically lived His whole life on earth with all those around Him convinced He was Joseph's son. Legally He was Joseph's son, and the genealogy shows us this. His brothers and sisters had no clue what was about to happen to their big brother when He turned thirty. I believe that due to financial hardship and Joseph's death, Jesus basically worked day and night to support His mother and younger siblings, so that His own marital status would remain a non issue. No one can say that Luke and Matthew stole their accounts from Mark. Their research into the events surrounding the birth of Jesus proves this. No one was plagiarizing their own gospel record. Of course their is much overlap on special events, but the uniqueness of each is proof alone.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|
06-11-2015, 08:08 PM | #203 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,663
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
Let's look at the Gospel record ... 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." -- Luke
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|
06-11-2015, 08:17 PM | #204 |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,223
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
What are you saying? It's a divine miracle. I thought you believed in it.
__________________
Ken Gemmer- Church in Detroit, Church in Fort Lauderdale, Church in Miami 1973-86 |
06-11-2015, 08:20 PM | #205 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,663
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
Don't play stupid with me. Goodbye. Sorry I took the bait and responded to your nonsense.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|
06-11-2015, 08:32 PM | #206 |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,223
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
No, she consented. But, when human male impregnates a woman out of wedlock that is fornication. Isn't it?
__________________
Ken Gemmer- Church in Detroit, Church in Fort Lauderdale, Church in Miami 1973-86 |
06-11-2015, 09:36 PM | #207 |
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. |
06-12-2015, 10:47 AM | #208 | ||
Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,223
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
So lets look at the verse you cited: Quote:
We do know something about the biology of sexual reproduction, probably more than Luke did. But, apparently your sense of the sacredness of the subject matter prohibits you from discussing how the "virgin birth" is related to conception as we understand it biologically. Fundamentalism thus becomes a thought prohibiting process. Thought stopping was the norm in the Local Church. That won't work on a public forum. The question of how Jesus was conceived isn't answered by Luke. Unless we accept the authority of some priesthood on the issue, we must simply admit that we don't know and I don't see how we ever will. If someone replies "Just accept it" My question is "Accept what"? That Jesus was somehow the "Son of God?" Well, that was the original proposition wasn't it? But, unless we know HOW, we don't know being the "Son of God" means. Thus, the proposition on which many claim our salvation depends, has no rational explanation. We are supposed to believe what we cannot understand.
__________________
Ken Gemmer- Church in Detroit, Church in Fort Lauderdale, Church in Miami 1973-86 |
||
06-12-2015, 11:00 AM | #209 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,064
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
__________________
Cults: My brain will always be there for you. Thinking. So you don't have to. There's a serpent in every paradise. |
|
06-12-2015, 11:07 AM | #210 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,223
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
__________________
Ken Gemmer- Church in Detroit, Church in Fort Lauderdale, Church in Miami 1973-86 |
|
06-12-2015, 06:23 PM | #211 |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Natal Transvaal
Posts: 5,631
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
I suppose that once you figure out the biology of vigin birth you're next going after the chemistry of water into wine and the physics of walking on the sea.
__________________
"Freedom is free. It's slavery that's so horribly expensive" - Colonel Templeton, ret., of the 12th Scottish Highlanders, the 'Black Fusiliers' |
06-12-2015, 06:34 PM | #212 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Huntsville, AL
Posts: 424
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
|
|
06-12-2015, 06:39 PM | #213 |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,223
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
That's even less likely than the probability that any of those alleged events actually occurred.
__________________
Ken Gemmer- Church in Detroit, Church in Fort Lauderdale, Church in Miami 1973-86 |
06-12-2015, 06:43 PM | #214 |
Member
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 641
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Herein lies the problem. The Bible "does not say it" --- it is an interpretation of what is stated both in the new and the old testament. The biology is irrelevant. Water into wine---not possible as far as we know but in time we may find that chemically it is possible but...it is a parable with deeper meaning then simply turning water into wine. Walking on water---not physically possible nor provable...these are stories of Jesus that were repeated many times and true believers sincerely believing them exaggerated the stories and they turned into these miracles which were told decades after Jesus died. Can I prove that, no, but the virgin birth can't be proved nor walking on water etc although it makes more sense and is more reasonable. If you take the leap of faith and just believe then no one can discuss it....it just is.
__________________
LC 1969-1978 Santa Cruz, Detroit, Ft. Lauderdale, Miami |
06-12-2015, 07:35 PM | #215 |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,663
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Post #184 was my attempt to answer.
I really don't understand your question in the context of the virgin birth. Are you saying Timothy became sinless? Sanctification has been discussed at length on the forum along with deification. That's a huge rabbit hole journey to waste my time.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
06-12-2015, 07:36 PM | #216 |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,663
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
aron, omg, do you actually believe that stuff too?!?
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
06-12-2015, 08:09 PM | #217 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,663
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
How do I know it happened except for blind faith. That's right, blind faith! I wasn't there. I can't prove it. Maybe it's all a hoax perpetrated by his loyal sycophants, passed down for generations. Obviously these stories of GW were repeated many times and his true believers sincerely believing them exaggerated the stories and they turned into these miracles which were told decades after ole GW died. How am I supposed to believe in those history books, when they keep rewriting history anyways? Well I'm not buying these old stories any more. I can't prove them. There's no scientific evidence. I went to the Delaware River, and there's no proof that GW was even there. Just another tall tale of American folklore. I'm now gathering evidence to expose this whole GW myth. I know it's an uphill battle, but I'm sure some evidence out there exists to blow this whole scheme sky high. I'm just going to keep looking until I find it! GW is a fraud! I'm thinking that these sincere, but naive, GW story tellers some how got Hellenized along the way. That's right Hellenized, and influenced by Greek mythology. I think I'm on to something. I'll post updates as they surface.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|
06-12-2015, 09:33 PM | #218 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,223
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
__________________
Ken Gemmer- Church in Detroit, Church in Fort Lauderdale, Church in Miami 1973-86 |
|
06-13-2015, 07:06 AM | #219 |
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.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. |
06-13-2015, 07:20 AM | #220 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,663
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
That's what i keep saying about you not being objective, having an agenda, and twisting verses.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|
06-13-2015, 07:26 AM | #221 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Huntsville, AL
Posts: 424
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
Be objective. For starters, please note that the Hebrew word we translate as 'holy' is also the word we translate as 'sanctify'. |
|
06-13-2015, 07:40 AM | #222 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Natal Transvaal
Posts: 5,631
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
I mean, without faith, what's the point of the exercise? To contend over words, and to win arguments?
__________________
"Freedom is free. It's slavery that's so horribly expensive" - Colonel Templeton, ret., of the 12th Scottish Highlanders, the 'Black Fusiliers' |
|
06-13-2015, 08:09 AM | #223 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Natal Transvaal
Posts: 5,631
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
I believe that unless Christ inhabits those words they are largely vain. In this WL and I agreed. He said that they were, on the whole, "natural" and "fallen". Because how can Christ inhabit the words of a sinner? I say, "Because Christ was and is a priest. He always lives to intercede for us." The sinner prays, "God have mercy on me, and wash away my sins." Christ comes alongside (the Paraclete) and says, in effect, "Yes, Father, have mercy and forgive us our offenses and trespasses, even as we forgive others." Without the intervening High Priest, Jesus Christ the Righteous , the prayers are vain. And this Priest can say, "us" because He was indeed one of us. And the Father hears Him because He remained sinless to the end. David's prayer for mercy was effectualized in the Son of David, Jesus Christ.
__________________
"Freedom is free. It's slavery that's so horribly expensive" - Colonel Templeton, ret., of the 12th Scottish Highlanders, the 'Black Fusiliers' |
|
06-13-2015, 08:21 AM | #224 |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Natal Transvaal
Posts: 5,631
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Only Jesus never lost the Holy Spirit. The rest of us failed. That is why our faith is not in ourselves but in Him. My spirit, through sin, was thrust away from the Father, who is holy and good. It was through faith in Jesus Christ that my spirit began the journey home.
__________________
"Freedom is free. It's slavery that's so horribly expensive" - Colonel Templeton, ret., of the 12th Scottish Highlanders, the 'Black Fusiliers' |
06-13-2015, 08:46 AM | #225 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Natal Transvaal
Posts: 5,631
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
"Let us come forward, then, to the throne of mercy." Seems pretty straightforward to me.
__________________
"Freedom is free. It's slavery that's so horribly expensive" - Colonel Templeton, ret., of the 12th Scottish Highlanders, the 'Black Fusiliers' |
|
06-13-2015, 09:12 AM | #226 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Natal Transvaal
Posts: 5,631
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
And those with no faith in anything at all are what? Most rational? Or most nihilistic?
__________________
"Freedom is free. It's slavery that's so horribly expensive" - Colonel Templeton, ret., of the 12th Scottish Highlanders, the 'Black Fusiliers' |
|
06-13-2015, 09:13 AM | #227 | |||
Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,223
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Furthermore, Christianity has had a huge influence on my life. I became a born again Christian at age 19 and at age 24 I became associated with the Local Church for 13 years. Although I am no longer the member of a church, I continue have faith but I don't accept that belief in the fantastical is a valid test of whether or not someone is a true Christian. Rather, it is how well we live the teachings of Jesus.
__________________
Ken Gemmer- Church in Detroit, Church in Fort Lauderdale, Church in Miami 1973-86 |
|||
06-13-2015, 09:31 AM | #228 | ||
Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,223
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Ken Gemmer- Church in Detroit, Church in Fort Lauderdale, Church in Miami 1973-86 |
||
06-13-2015, 10:17 AM | #229 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,064
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
My subject of concern would rather be a study and research of hell in the Bible. That concerns me way more than if Jesus was born of a virgin or not. For obvious reasons.
__________________
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, 12:27 PM | #230 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Huntsville, AL
Posts: 424
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
On the contrary, what the OT does state in many places is that the "days are coming" in which God's people would be made truly holy. e.g. the heart of flesh vs the heart of stone. To OT Israel sanctification was a promise not a reality. I believe this will be accomplished for OT Israel during the Millennial Kingdom. With this in mind, I now repeat that Psalm 51 stands out in that it describes sanctification, and uses the term "Holy" Spirit. Have you ever wondered why the Spirit needed an adjective? I believe the term is meant to distinguish the OT dispensation of the Spirit vs the NT. Jesus was the first to receive the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit was not yet given to the rest of us until Jesus was glorified. Now the adjective makes sense. "Holy" and "sanctification" are forms of the same word in both Hebrew and Greek. The Spirit gives life: the Holy Spirit gives a Holy life, a true child of God. So now let me try again: how was David sanctified by the Holy Spirit while he was alive? He was not. His sanctification is coming. He never had the "Holy" Spirit. Psalm 51 is a foretelling of what it is like to have the Holy Spirit's presence. Psalm 51 is a Messianic prophecy. This revelation came to me only after cleansing my mind of this concept that the man Jesus was incapable of sin. |
|
06-13-2015, 12:33 PM | #231 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,663
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|
06-13-2015, 01:06 PM | #232 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,064
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
Gen 1:2b ... And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. Since you are more than suggesting that Jesus was a sinner like the rest of us, are you also suggesting God sins too, and the Spirit of God in the above verse is not Holy?
__________________
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, 01:21 PM | #233 |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,064
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
I guess I'm just glad that I can tell time without knowing how the clock works.
__________________
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, 01:50 PM | #234 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Huntsville, AL
Posts: 424
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
I will write a paper on this someday. I accept that the introduction is lacking. But Psalm 51 and the opening chapters of Luke are the only times the term is used to describe an interaction of the Holy Spirit with men before Pentecost. Luke is in error. Zacharias and Elizabeth were not filled with the Holy Spirit, because it was not yet time. And Psalm 51 is misunderstood because of Luke and Matthew. I will now repeat the question: how was David sanctified according to Psalm 51? |
|
06-13-2015, 02:12 PM | #235 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,663
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
I thought Lee was bad by discarding James and half the Psalms, but he has nothing on you.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|
06-13-2015, 02:16 PM | #236 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Huntsville, AL
Posts: 424
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
I was long gone by the time Lee commented on James and the Psalms. Sounds kinda hypocritical to promote pray-reading the inspired and inerrant Word of God and then suggesting that parts of it are wrong. I am not that kind of hypocrite. |
|
06-13-2015, 03:46 PM | #237 |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,663
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
The Bible seems to have subjective and objective sanctification. My understanding is that the OT believers in Israel looked forward to the coming Messiah. I have not studied all the instances of sanctification in the OT. Perhaps they experienced it after the Lord announced to them good news after His death.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
06-13-2015, 03:52 PM | #238 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Huntsville, AL
Posts: 424
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
At least go this far with me. If Psalm 51 is is to be applied only to David, then he is writing of a future David, in which the sanctifying (holy) Spirit will create in him a new heart. |
|
06-13-2015, 04:01 PM | #239 |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,663
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
I believe so.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
06-13-2015, 04:05 PM | #240 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,064
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
Tho I'm told the cross works for all time, even for pre-cross believers ... in Gods' eyes.
__________________
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, 04:40 PM | #241 |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Huntsville, AL
Posts: 424
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Redemption is once-for-all. Sanctification is a process with varying levels of success.
|
06-13-2015, 04:52 PM | #242 |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Huntsville, AL
Posts: 424
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
|
06-13-2015, 06:28 PM | #243 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,064
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
Just trying to understand your new premise.
__________________
Cults: My brain will always be there for you. Thinking. So you don't have to. There's a serpent in every paradise. |
|
06-14-2015, 05:18 AM | #244 | |
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DFW area
Posts: 4,382
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
And my comment was made from the viewpoint of someone claiming to be following the God of the Bible, or at least trying to create a God he finds acceptable according to the Bible, even if it means throwing parts of the Bible out so that he doesn't have to deal with all that is revealed. You can question whether the Bible itself is real, or the God contained in it. But if you accept that God as real, and the Bible as what he has left us of his word as an anchor of faith, then when you don't like what you get from that, but like the overall idea, you throw part of the anchor overboard without a rope attached, you now have a different God. Yes, you can get snarky and suggest that the whole thing is just man's imagination. But if you accept that it is not (or ignore the signs that it is), then just picking an choosing the parts you like and excluding the others is not the same as believing in the God that is "revealed" in the Bible.
__________________
Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel |
|
06-14-2015, 07:52 AM | #245 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Huntsville, AL
Posts: 424
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
The New Covenant is better than the Old, and it was forecast by the Old. An even better one is coming, and was forecast by both the Old and the New. This subject is for a different thread, for I am sure that there will be even more diverse opinions on that subject than on the VB. |
|
06-14-2015, 08:18 AM | #246 | |||
Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,223
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
It isn't necessary that God be false for my statement to be true. The Bible's use of anthropomorphism can be read as a way of saying something positive about ultimate reality that the authors could only express that way or chose to express that way.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Ken Gemmer- Church in Detroit, Church in Fort Lauderdale, Church in Miami 1973-86 |
|||
06-14-2015, 08:19 AM | #247 |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,064
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
If you consider theosis bait does that make the virgin birth bait?
__________________
Cults: My brain will always be there for you. Thinking. So you don't have to. There's a serpent in every paradise. |
06-14-2015, 08:33 AM | #248 |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,663
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
But can you read the signs of the time?
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
06-14-2015, 11:56 AM | #249 |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,064
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Not fast enough ... so much so fast makes it impossible to read. I still try. Don't get enough to make up my mind about it tho. I'm in the dark looking for the light switch. Have you found it?
__________________
Cults: My brain will always be there for you. Thinking. So you don't have to. There's a serpent in every paradise. |
06-14-2015, 01:12 PM | #250 |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,663
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Accepting the Bible, including the virgin birth of the Savior, really helps me find my way in the dark.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
06-14-2015, 02:20 PM | #251 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Natal Transvaal
Posts: 5,631
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
__________________
"Freedom is free. It's slavery that's so horribly expensive" - Colonel Templeton, ret., of the 12th Scottish Highlanders, the 'Black Fusiliers' |
|
06-14-2015, 04:23 PM | #252 |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,064
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
How about Sir Arthur Eddington (1882 - 1944) commenting on the Uncertainty Principle in quantum physics:
"Something unknown is doing we don't know what."
__________________
Cults: My brain will always be there for you. Thinking. So you don't have to. There's a serpent in every paradise. |
06-14-2015, 07:29 PM | #253 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,223
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
__________________
Ken Gemmer- Church in Detroit, Church in Fort Lauderdale, Church in Miami 1973-86 |
|
06-15-2015, 04:40 AM | #254 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Natal Transvaal
Posts: 5,631
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
http://www.technologyreview.com/view...-than-thought/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement
__________________
"Freedom is free. It's slavery that's so horribly expensive" - Colonel Templeton, ret., of the 12th Scottish Highlanders, the 'Black Fusiliers' |
|
06-15-2015, 07:13 AM | #255 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,223
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
__________________
Ken Gemmer- Church in Detroit, Church in Fort Lauderdale, Church in Miami 1973-86 |
|
06-15-2015, 07:26 AM | #256 |
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. |
06-15-2015, 08:10 AM | #257 | ||
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Natal Transvaal
Posts: 5,631
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
Quote:
It seems that Niels Bohr was one of the first to really grasp the implications, and the limits of scientific understanding. Bohr realized that the act of measuring and weighing distorts the very thing we measure and weigh! In fact our very intention of determining whether the thing we seek is either energy or matter may affect the result we find. It was as if our "thought" or "intention" sent ripples into the quantum field, and pre-determined the actual finding. I am no expert but my view has been that the experts have been challenged by this for decades. Yet they don't abandon science. Why? Because they have faith in the process. They're willing to accept uncertainty in the short term. And you may say that the probability of scientific hypothesis "x" is bigger than the probability for the hypothesis of "virgin birth" or what-have-you. I merely was making the point that in both cases some amount of faith is needed to advance, to test and measure. So don't give up so quickly; improbability according to our understanding doesn't equal impossibility. I'm not particularly interested in virgin birth, or "miracles" as a subject - I merely note that it seems that the disciples were "astonished beyond measure" frequently in the gospel record. Something interesting possibly happened there! I think Timotheist has some points, and applaud his gumption to pursue them and put them out for public scrutiny. I simply was making a comment on science vs faith. It's not as clear-cut as you may wish it were. Lastly, it turns out that at least some of the biography George Washington was actually myth. Look at Parson Weems and his "I cannot tell a lie" story with the cherry tree. Fabricated, apparently. Yet generations of school children read it in their history primers. And mythmaking, and Hellenization are rather evident in the U.S. Capitol rotunda. George Washington was actually "sonized" or "deified" by his hagiographers. Paid for by tax dollars. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ap..._of_Washington Pretty fascinating stuff. Good Ole George is surrounded by the gods of Commerce, Industry, War, Arts, and so forth. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ap...Washington.jpg So anything's possible; both miracles and myths. And we should pay attention to probability, but my point to zeek was that improbability doesn't equate to impossibility, nor does lack of understanding. Especially when you're dealing with God.
__________________
"Freedom is free. It's slavery that's so horribly expensive" - Colonel Templeton, ret., of the 12th Scottish Highlanders, the 'Black Fusiliers' |
||
06-15-2015, 09:03 AM | #258 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,663
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|
06-15-2015, 11:26 AM | #259 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,064
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
But I've noticed and come to realize that everybody lies. We see that only Jesus wasn't a liar. That means that the writers of the books of the Bible were liars too, like everyone else. Just like Peter. And so based on this, they could have indeed just invented the virgin birth. They could have made it up, and used the Septuagint to give it validity.
__________________
Cults: My brain will always be there for you. Thinking. So you don't have to. There's a serpent in every paradise. Last edited by awareness; 06-15-2015 at 12:43 PM. |
|
06-15-2015, 11:26 AM | #260 |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Natal Transvaal
Posts: 5,631
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
The meta-narrative of the Bible (to me) is that God loves us, and sent His Son. That alone is so fantastic as to put everything on the table. There are simply too many corroborating documents from the first and second centuries (Papias, Polycarp, Clement, etc) to believe that the story of Jesus is a 3rd or 5th century hoax. Something happened there, to make all these people come up with concurrent witnesses.
To me the fact that Judas Iscariot perished in different manners according to different accounts confirms the notion of parallel narratives. The probability of multiple, parallel hoaxes being perpetrated is rather small, methinks. So what happened? In lieu of compelling alternatives, I tend to go with what the angel Gabriel told Mary: "Nothing is impossible with God". (Luke 1:36). That is my experience, as well: with faith, we tentatively and fitfully cooperate with God's will, and anything is possible. But I wouldn't be too dogmatic about the details of the narrative(s), and Timotheist's inquiry probably has some merit. Our faith is strong enough to calmly consider the insights our fellow-travellers bring.
__________________
"Freedom is free. It's slavery that's so horribly expensive" - Colonel Templeton, ret., of the 12th Scottish Highlanders, the 'Black Fusiliers' |
06-15-2015, 11:28 AM | #261 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Natal Transvaal
Posts: 5,631
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parson_Weems A little humor, there.
__________________
"Freedom is free. It's slavery that's so horribly expensive" - Colonel Templeton, ret., of the 12th Scottish Highlanders, the 'Black Fusiliers' |
|
06-15-2015, 11:38 AM | #262 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,064
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
__________________
Cults: My brain will always be there for you. Thinking. So you don't have to. There's a serpent in every paradise. Last edited by awareness; 06-15-2015 at 12:43 PM. |
|
06-15-2015, 02:50 PM | #263 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,663
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
Are you merely looking for reasons not to believe what God gave to us? It seems that you like to read books. Why would you read anything, when you know that every writer was a liar lying to you. With determinations like that, how could you live your life? How could you even go grocery shopping when you know that the owner just lied to you about being open for business, and when you go checkout, the prices on the food were all lies? How can you live your life after you have "noticed and come to realize that everybody lies." Has everybody lied before? Of course. But we need some discernment when to declare, "everybody lies." Politicians -- yes. The writers of the Bible -- no.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|
06-15-2015, 05:10 PM | #264 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Huntsville, AL
Posts: 424
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
And the originator of the story may not have consciously lied either. Just an uneducated flub trying to be a theologian looking at previous flubs. The true error is falsely placing trust in anyone's work and calling it "holy". That should not be a requirement for the believer in Christ. And it really gets me that for 2000 years we have been upholding the authors of Matthew and Luke as "holy" when they were clearly plagiarizing Mark. And all this because some Mary-worshipping team 300 years after the fact insisted that they be canonized. |
|
06-15-2015, 06:37 PM | #265 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,663
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
You made a decision not to investigate the Star of Bethlehem because your mind was made up. In this regard, you differ from Thomas, who doubted, but was open to further evidence. The documentary on the "Star" is just one more example of evidence which exposes those with an agenda. They claim to be open to inquiry, but only that which supports what they want to believe.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|
06-15-2015, 08:47 PM | #266 | |||
Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,223
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
That God or quantum physics makes all thing possible is insufficient warrant for accepting any particular proposition. Given lack of compelling evidence for a supernatural event, a natural explanation is more probable. Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Ken Gemmer- Church in Detroit, Church in Fort Lauderdale, Church in Miami 1973-86 |
|||
06-16-2015, 04:30 AM | #267 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Huntsville, AL
Posts: 424
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
The earliest recorded prayer to Mary is dated to around the year 250. The gradual exaltation of Mary started even before that, as I will show. |
|
06-16-2015, 06:34 AM | #268 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,064
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
First, the presenter, Rick Larson, is a lawyer. Not that all lawyers are liars but, 99.9% of them give the rest of them a bad name. Second, it's produced by Stephen McEveety, who was behind Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ (First Vatican). And finally, it was packed with so many speculations that only those wanting to believe blindly in the inerrancy of the Bible will buy into it. Needless to say, as I stated, it was cute, but I wasn't all that impressed. Thanks for linking it. I love fiction.
__________________
Cults: My brain will always be there for you. Thinking. So you don't have to. There's a serpent in every paradise. |
|
06-16-2015, 08:00 AM | #269 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Natal Transvaal
Posts: 5,631
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
And the fact that the George Washington biography got corrupted by later tale-tellers, who had motives for so doing (The "Manifest Destiny" of the USA and all that), is actually helpful to the discussion. Because we can document the distortion of the George Washington story. It's verifiable. We can track the emergence of accounts like that of Parson Weems, over time. In the case of the gospel accounts, we admittedly have discrepancies. Timotheist seems to think that if two accounts differ, then one of them is made-up. I disagree; I think that when multiple witnesses, tell their views of "what happened", an omission by one doesn't mean something didn't occur. Each witness stresses what is most important to them. But I believe that the fact that the gospels vary, and even different manuscripts of the same gospels vary, points to something important for us today. The idea of the necessity to "believe" is so interwoven into the NT narrative that if one removes it as a later interpolation, the Jesus that I've seen nearly vanishes. Again and again, Jesus said, "Do you believe?" before he would do his miraculous act. And when He went home, He couldn't do anything except heal a few sick people, because nobody believed into Him. So if all that faith, and miraculous activity is a later addition, then it seems to me that it must have been a concurrent series of later additions by multiple tellers. Either there was one, early "Ur-narrative" of embellished accounts (miracles and so forth) that found its way into all four gospels, or Jesus really did some far-out stuff. So what I see is, either you have multiple embellishments by multiple authors developing simultaneously and independently (which I consider to be improbable), or you have one initial hoax which was superimposed upon multiple vectors (James, John, Luke, Peter, Matthew, Mark) who also corrupted/modified the tale (because we all put our own spin on things). Or, at its core, there's some truth there, and some astonishing stuff happened. And yes the accounts got modified. I don't think Judas Iscariot simultaneously hung himself and burst his intestines open. But at its core the most probable thing, for me, is that these events happened, by and large, as we have the documents today. If it is, at its core, a big scam, then it was pretty well done. Because there is a lot of supporting literature. Not only the NT but Irenaeus, Papias, Polycarp, Clement, etc etc. If some one could pull off a scam of those proportions, my hat's off to them. I don't feel too bad about being taken by it, because it was very well done. But I consider that to be, shall we say, quite improbable.
__________________
"Freedom is free. It's slavery that's so horribly expensive" - Colonel Templeton, ret., of the 12th Scottish Highlanders, the 'Black Fusiliers' |
|
06-16-2015, 08:21 AM | #270 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Natal Transvaal
Posts: 5,631
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
And if miracles did in fact occur, why not the miracle of a young woman giving birth? The fiance was going to put her away quietly, to hide the shame, but she said that it was God who did it. So he believed, and took her as his wife. The guy believed. So, sue him, right - the dork, the schmuck. The putz. He believed. I really don't have any problem with this miracle as portrayed. Still, Timotheist has done a good job with his investigation and it's worth considering the texts... and I'll say this in favor of Timotheist's emerging, "alternate" narrative: for all his talk of the "humanity" of Jesus, WL pretty much skipped it in favor of the "Processed Incarnated Father Jehovah" Jesus. Which makes no sense to me, because then the simple pronouns like "I" and "You" don't convey meaning any more. If the text says, "'I' come to do 'Your' will, O God, then that's what it says, not "'I' come to do 'My' will, O 'Me'". Words have meanings and we shouldn't ignore them in favor of our doctrines and theology. "Oh, that was just His 'humanity' speaking to his 'divinity'"..... No; how about He was a real, live human being, on earth, speaking to God His Father in heaven? "Jehovah (My Father) is My ('My' being Jesus the man, the Son of God, the Lamb) Shepherd; I (Jesus a human here on earth) shall not want...." etc. Gosh, a real man. What a shocking notion. At the core of the gospels, there was a real man named Jesus. What a revelation.
__________________
"Freedom is free. It's slavery that's so horribly expensive" - Colonel Templeton, ret., of the 12th Scottish Highlanders, the 'Black Fusiliers' |
|
06-16-2015, 12:19 PM | #271 | ||||||
Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,223
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Ken Gemmer- Church in Detroit, Church in Fort Lauderdale, Church in Miami 1973-86 |
||||||
06-16-2015, 05:07 PM | #272 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Huntsville, AL
Posts: 424
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
Spoiler alert: these men focused on Jesus' humanity. They did call him the Son of God, but they did not speak of miracles other than the resurrection. Of Jesus' life they primarily discussed his willingness to suffer on our behalf. No healing the sick, no turning water into wine, none of that stuff. No talk of Gabriel or Michael or any other angel. Oh, and no virgin birth. |
|
06-22-2015, 07:55 PM | #273 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,064
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
Seems the virgin birth, in the record, developed over time. The only exception is one of our latest records, John. But John doesn't need a virgin birth ; neither adoption at Baptism, or resurrection. John takes what was incarnated in the flesh all the way back before time ever was. No birth required. No exultation needed, after birth. Jesus came from exultation, for the author of John. THAT made Jesus phenomenal. Phenomenal birth. Phenomenal growing up. Phenomenal Baptism. Phenomenal death and resurrection. Phenomenal sitting in heaven, at the right hand of God. Phenomenal Comforter. The whole shebang. But continue bro Tim. Do tell us about the "earliest documents from the Ante-Nicene Fathers collection." I just love learning about this stuff. Before I decide on these matters, I want to look at it from all angles.
__________________
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 |
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 |
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:
__________________
Cults: My brain will always be there for you. Thinking. So you don't have to. There's a serpent in every paradise. |
07-05-2015, 09:00 AM | #276 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,663
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|
07-05-2015, 01:24 PM | #277 |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,223
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Or, perhaps, believe none of them and be a Christian.
__________________
Ken Gemmer- Church in Detroit, Church in Fort Lauderdale, Church in Miami 1973-86 |
07-05-2015, 01:35 PM | #278 |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,663
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
How would you even know what a Christian is?
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
07-05-2015, 02:36 PM | #279 |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,223
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
I wouldn't. To me it would be a matter of faith not knowledge. ...of spiritual reality not mental assent to a list of propositions. It wouldn't matter what I thought about it but what I am. From that it would follow that what a person claims wouldn't matter. What would count is what a person is. God would know that.
__________________
Ken Gemmer- Church in Detroit, Church in Fort Lauderdale, Church in Miami 1973-86 |
07-05-2015, 08:35 PM | #280 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,064
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
But you make a sound observation. Shouldn't there be one more fundamental? You figure, the boys at Princeton, that cooked up these fundamentals, were the smart ones in their day. They were leading theologians that were looked up to as Christian scholars. You'd think they would have included, as the number one fundamental, "You must be born again." Why didn't they? The Wiki article I linked was titled: Fundamentalist–Modernist Controversy Modernity was encroaching into the church. Christian minds were being ginned up by it. Science up to this point, since Copernicus and Galileo, with its archaeological finds, was hammering at and successfully debunking the superstitions of Christian beliefs. Something had to be done. So it became important to define and reestablish what was the minimum of what it means to be Christian. So the five fundamentals were born. And I guess, because these boys were really bright, and that they didn't include being born again, being born again wasn't under attack. The five fundamentals represent what was under attack back in the early days of the 20th century. And I think they are still under attack today.
__________________
Cults: My brain will always be there for you. Thinking. So you don't have to. There's a serpent in every paradise. |
|
07-07-2015, 06:00 AM | #281 | |
Member
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 117
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
Lisbon |
|
07-08-2015, 07:08 AM | #282 |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,223
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Do you, perhaps, see Christianity the same way, Lisbon?
__________________
Ken Gemmer- Church in Detroit, Church in Fort Lauderdale, Church in Miami 1973-86 |
07-08-2015, 07:56 AM | #283 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,663
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
As a side note, we in the GLA LC's viewed "fundamentalists" differently, considering them overly "mental" in their doctrinal stances. I think it was "Toledo Tom" long ago who tagged them "funny mentals."
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|
07-08-2015, 08:00 PM | #284 |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,064
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
I was saved before being taught the fundamentals. In fact, I see it as a bait and switch.
I grew up with an alter call every Sunday. As a result, I heard, over and over again, ad nauseam, "All you need is Jesus." Then I noticed that that wasn't true. Cuz after getting Jesus there's tons more "need" that it turns out is required. And where I grew up the five fundamentals were among them ; besides and adding to Jesus ; additional needs that mysteriously suddenly crop up, after getting "all you need" met by accepting Jesus. Bro Ohio, you bring up that it's possible to believe all five fundamentals, and not be saved. How about the reverse? So let me try saying this -- thanks to UntoHim (management talk) -- as a hypothetical, to make my point. : 1). The inspiration of the Bible by the Holy Spirit and the inerrancy of Scripture as a result of this. I don't believe this.2). The virgin birth of Christ. I don't believe this.3). The belief that Christ's death was an atonement for sin. I don't believe this.4). The bodily resurrection of Christ. I don't believe this.5). The historical reality of Christ's miracles. I don't believe this.Can I still be saved? Or am a really, really, in deep trouble, "un-funny-mental?"
__________________
Cults: My brain will always be there for you. Thinking. So you don't have to. There's a serpent in every paradise. |
07-09-2015, 05:32 AM | #285 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,663
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
How are you "saved," what are you "saved" from, who told you that you were "saved," and why did you need to be "saved?" What does "saved" even mean?
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|
07-09-2015, 07:01 AM | #286 |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,064
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Well I think I need to be saved from funny-mentalism ... given the double entendre, you prolly think so too.
__________________
Cults: My brain will always be there for you. Thinking. So you don't have to. There's a serpent in every paradise. |
07-09-2015, 08:55 AM | #287 | |||
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,663
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I'm sure you understand my first statement since the Bible is full of examples -- parable of tares, story of Nicodemus, disciples in Ephesus (Acts 19), etc. I believed in those 5 "fundamentals," as a child in a Catholic family, long before I was "saved," i.e. converted, born again, born anew, received the Spirit, was washed from my sins, etc. You, however, seem to have a different dictionary. That's why I asked what "saved" means to you. You say that you believe in God, but how do you know anything about what you believe? Is your God the same as the AA "higher power." Is your God a good God? How would you even know when bad things happen all the time?
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|||
12-26-2015, 08:59 AM | #288 |
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 |
Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον For God So Loved The World
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,797
|
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, 11:26 AM | #290 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,064
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
__________________
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, 12:21 PM | #291 |
Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον For God So Loved The World
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,797
|
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 |
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 |
Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον For God So Loved The World
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,797
|
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 |
12-26-2015, 07:50 PM | #294 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,064
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
What our bro Untohim has presented is a gospel by and of a proclamation of faith. It's a secondhand gospel, at best. That can't be helped. Accept it or not. Reap the consequences, if any. But I doubt any consequences result either way for believing or disbelieving in the virgin birth.
__________________
Cults: My brain will always be there for you. Thinking. So you don't have to. There's a serpent in every paradise. |
|
12-27-2015, 12:02 AM | #295 |
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, 06:26 AM | #296 |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,663
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
According to you, since only John in Revelation is concerned with end times, then it's also "no big deal." With this heady logic, most anything in the Bible can be conveniently excised, and so, often appears to be on this sub-forum.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
12-27-2015, 06:31 AM | #297 |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,663
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Then Jesus the man, a sinner like the rest of us at his baptism, also needed to be saved by some unknown Savior.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
12-27-2015, 06:34 AM | #298 |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,663
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
No eyewitnesses either.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
12-27-2015, 09:20 AM | #299 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,064
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
Virgin births claimed by 1 percent of U.S. moms: Study http://www.cbsnews.com/news/virgin-b...us-moms-study/
__________________
Cults: My brain will always be there for you. Thinking. So you don't have to. There's a serpent in every paradise. |
|
12-27-2015, 09:23 AM | #300 |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,064
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
True. The appearance on this sub-forum is that we don't worship the Bible.
__________________
Cults: My brain will always be there for you. Thinking. So you don't have to. There's a serpent in every paradise. |
12-27-2015, 09:27 AM | #301 |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,064
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Hey, I was there and watched my son taken out of his mother by c-section. But I wasn't an eyewitness to his conception, so his biological father might not be me. Who can witness conception ... except the mother ... and I know of cases where even she doesn't know. And given his mother thought Jesus was beside himself, she doesn't seem to remember his conception either.
__________________
Cults: My brain will always be there for you. Thinking. So you don't have to. There's a serpent in every paradise. |
12-27-2015, 09:52 AM | #302 |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,663
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Neither believe nor agree with the Bible either.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
12-27-2015, 09:57 AM | #303 | ||
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,663
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
||
12-27-2015, 05:31 PM | #304 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,064
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
My point exactly. That we're all atheistic of virgin births, just selective as to which ones we're atheistic toward.
__________________
Cults: My brain will always be there for you. Thinking. So you don't have to. There's a serpent in every paradise. |
|
12-27-2015, 09:23 PM | #305 |
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 |
12-28-2015, 06:29 AM | #306 | |||
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,663
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Yes ... definitely ... specifically the death and resurrection of Jesus, which are the absolute greatest events that will ever occur in all history. Our attitude towards these two happenings will determine our own destiny for eternity.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|||
12-28-2015, 07:15 AM | #307 | |||
Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,223
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Ken Gemmer- Church in Detroit, Church in Fort Lauderdale, Church in Miami 1973-86 |
|||
12-28-2015, 07:28 AM | #308 | ||
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,663
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
Quote:
God has also provided us with excellent evidence from a multitude of witnesses. You just don't agree with them.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
||
12-28-2015, 08:27 AM | #309 |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,064
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Witnesses from two thousand years ago is one thing. But an encounter with the living God cinches it ... right bro Ohio?
__________________
Cults: My brain will always be there for you. Thinking. So you don't have to. There's a serpent in every paradise. |
01-02-2016, 02:06 PM | #310 |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Huntsville, AL
Posts: 424
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
|
01-03-2016, 07:19 AM | #311 |
Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον For God So Loved The World
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,797
|
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 |
01-03-2016, 10:17 AM | #312 |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,064
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Cheap shot. But funny. Three days into the new year and we're off to a good start.
__________________
Cults: My brain will always be there for you. Thinking. So you don't have to. There's a serpent in every paradise. |
01-03-2016, 12:17 PM | #313 | ||
Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,223
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Then I suppose I mistook your meaning. I thought that you were implying that a human's eternal destiny is determined by whether or not they believe that Jesus rose from the dead. Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Ken Gemmer- Church in Detroit, Church in Fort Lauderdale, Church in Miami 1973-86 |
||
01-03-2016, 04:57 PM | #314 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Huntsville, AL
Posts: 424
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
Polycarp and Ignatius are not 'original apostles', whom you claim promoted a virgin birth. In truth none of the original 12 nor Paul did. Harold sounds like a fun guy to hang around with, but I have not. And I still have yet to read any Ehrman. My research is my own. And yes, I have read much of the ante-Nicene fathers. The VB did not come into vogue until the 2nd century |
|
01-03-2016, 07:25 PM | #315 | |
Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον For God So Loved The World
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,797
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Tim, my man you are out of your league.
You don't believe the Gospel of the original apostles so why are you bringing them up? I didn't bring them up in my latest post, so why are you? Oh, I know why...because you think you know something about the second generation Christian apostles/scholars/teachers. But of course you are clueless of what they believed and what they taught. I know that because you are popping off about something you are clueless about. Bless you my son. At least you are trying! Harold is lightyears ahead of you Tim. Please go back and read the garbage that he has been posting on this forum for years. Quote:
__________________
αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων ἀμήν - 1 Peter 5:11 |
|
01-04-2016, 08:30 AM | #316 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,064
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Don't know if you mean I've been on the forum longer than Tim, or if you are complimenting me for knowing lots of crap. Anyway, methinks perchance Tim and I are two different galaxies. And his is prettier than mine. My black hole is too big fer its britches. Quote:
And btw, Tim is right about Is. 7:14 and you know it darn well. He's also right about none of the apostles mentioning the virgin birth. Something we can't know for sure cause, also as you well know, Paul doesn't mention it, and that all the gospels are written anonymously. The only hint we have for the author of any gospel is in John, but is stumbled by the word "we," and that gospel doesn't mention it anyway. Look bro Unto, I get your reasoning behind the necessity of the virgin birth to the gospel. I just don't believe it's true. To each his own ... and no big deal either way. I don't think either of us will burn if we're wrong.
__________________
Cults: My brain will always be there for you. Thinking. So you don't have to. There's a serpent in every paradise. |
|
01-04-2016, 08:49 AM | #317 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,663
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
Your interpretation of Isaiah 7.14 is "incredible." You got me thinking, there are lots of young girls around the world today having boys named Jesus and Immanuel. Maybe one of them is the promised Messiah.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|
01-04-2016, 10:30 AM | #318 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,663
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|
01-04-2016, 11:14 AM | #319 |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,223
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
If this is the best you can do, you've got nothing.
__________________
Ken Gemmer- Church in Detroit, Church in Fort Lauderdale, Church in Miami 1973-86 |
01-04-2016, 11:32 AM | #320 |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,663
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
I have Christ, I have everything!
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
01-04-2016, 12:21 PM | #321 |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,064
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Well amen to that. It has a crystal ring to it ... of my local church days, when I was idealistic to a fault.
But mystically I'm still one with that. There's nothing wrong with the universal cosmic Christ. Such as found in the gospel that came to be called John. Or that appeared to Saul, on the road to Damascus, and from thence used his Roman name Paul, prolly to better reach the pagan gentiles. But anyway, aside from the delights in "I have Christ, I have everything," which are abundant, and not to be dismissed, the issue I have is how that works in actual life. "How's that workin' for you," as Dr. Phil would say. From what I have seen, which I agree hint much, Christ doesn't seem to actually be everything. The universal cosmic Christ doesn't, as I've seen more than once, for instance, cure homosexuality. But I don't see the big picture that God is seeing. A born again homosexual, that continues to live that life style may very well go to heaven. After all, Christ died for him or her, as much as for me/us. I'm not vexed with homosexuality. Thank God. I'm vexed with heterosexuality ... which is harder, perchance methinks. We're all vexed in some way, surely. And that's why, maybe, "I have Christ I have everything" rings with a crystal ring to me ... when I'm quiet and hopefully listening to that still small voice. So amen bro Ohio ... sing it out ... "I have Christ I have everything."
__________________
Cults: My brain will always be there for you. Thinking. So you don't have to. There's a serpent in every paradise. |
01-04-2016, 01:34 PM | #322 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,663
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
As far as Christ curing sin, you look at failures and say it doesn't work, I pay more attention to all the wonderful testimonies of His grace. Even Dr. Phil places a high regard on those who have faith, an honest faith, than those who do not.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|
01-04-2016, 03:35 PM | #323 | |
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DFW area
Posts: 4,382
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
I left the link-back out because I do not want to suppose anything negative about the one who wrote it. I am just hoping that we all move beyond "cheap grace." Of course, none of it was cheap. It all required the death of Jesus on the cross. But we treat it as cheap when we abuse it to claim heaven while living like hell. I'm sure that the Arminians have a different view on this. And at times I am not entirely sure that they are completely wrong. (A lot of hedging of bets there.)
__________________
Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel |
|
01-04-2016, 06:14 PM | #324 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,064
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
__________________
Cults: My brain will always be there for you. Thinking. So you don't have to. There's a serpent in every paradise. |
|
01-04-2016, 08:31 PM | #325 |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,223
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
If that's true then good for you. I was referring to your inability to support your position with sound arguments.
__________________
Ken Gemmer- Church in Detroit, Church in Fort Lauderdale, Church in Miami 1973-86 |
01-05-2016, 07:37 AM | #326 |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,064
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Not to speak for bro Ohio, he's more than capable to do his own talking, but, correct me if I'm wrong, isn't it impossible to support positions of faith with sound arguments?
__________________
Cults: My brain will always be there for you. Thinking. So you don't have to. There's a serpent in every paradise. |
01-05-2016, 11:34 AM | #327 |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,223
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
No. I think there are good arguments for faith. But, in the first place, a rational approach to the subject requires defining what we mean by the term. On this forum, as elsewhere in discussions there are different definitions. So often people seem to be using the same word to talk about different things. The same goes for the word God and spirit and a host of other religious words.
__________________
Ken Gemmer- Church in Detroit, Church in Fort Lauderdale, Church in Miami 1973-86 |
01-05-2016, 03:41 PM | #328 |
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? |
01-05-2016, 04:08 PM | #329 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,663
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
Firstly, you have no evidence to support your speculations. Secondly, whole sections of scripture must be conveniently discarded. Thirdly, a natural man is a sinful man who needs a Savior himself. Fourthly, how could He "be" before Abraham? Fifthly, how could a natural man be the perfect Lamb of God? Sixthly, how could He be the Bread of Life? Seventhly, how could He be our Way to the Father? This list is without end.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|
01-05-2016, 04:12 PM | #330 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,663
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
(And, btw, thanks for toning down your otherwise demeaning post.) To be honest, apart from Igzy, UntoHim, and Freedom, I have not come across a "sound argument" on this AltViews.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|
01-05-2016, 04:15 PM | #331 | |
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DFW area
Posts: 4,382
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
But I do accept that the account of the coming of the angel to Mary and to Joseph to be true. And the claim that she did not "know" any man until after the birth of Jesus to also be true. Just not a requirement for faith in Christ and not a requirement for him to be the Messiah, Savior, etc.
__________________
Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel |
|
01-05-2016, 04:58 PM | #332 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Huntsville, AL
Posts: 424
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
My journey has been a tough one, to say the least. My life would be much simpler if I could just go back to accepting the canon on faith. But I see two gospels that are very inconsistent with each other, even though they started with the same source (Mark). This alone is strong evidence that they were not written by firsthand witnesses, but by those from a later generation. The disharmony is evidence of falsehood. And if I am right, the damage caused by the introduction of the nativity is profound. Many generations of Jews have found Matthew in particular to be a stumbling block. The arguments between Justin Martyr and Trypho continue to this day, 1800 years later. Take Matthew and Luke out, replace it with the message of Mark and John about the Spirit coming down upon a man, and you win many more Jews. |
|
01-05-2016, 05:14 PM | #333 |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,223
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
I look for anything positively Christian from you but all I see are snarky comments and nonsense. Your only purpose in posting on Alt Views is to troll. You probably think you're trolling for Jesus. That's sad.
__________________
Ken Gemmer- Church in Detroit, Church in Fort Lauderdale, Church in Miami 1973-86 |
01-05-2016, 05:45 PM | #334 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,663
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
That said, for someone not to believe in the virgin birth is quite a bit different than someone who refuses to believe in the virgin birth. We are responsible for what we know. The former is to be ignorant of who He is, the latter is to reject who He is. I consider this similar to creation. For someone not to believe in God creating all things is quite a bit different than someone who refuses to believe in the Creator. As before, the former is to be ignorant of what He has done, the latter is to flat out reject what He has done, and to ascribe it all to chance.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|
01-05-2016, 05:54 PM | #335 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,663
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
Your "strong evidence" is circumstantial at best. Your theories about later dates of authorship are simply speculative. Regarding the Jews, I have known many who came to Christ. Each of them treasured Isaiah's account of the Savior, including 7.14 and 9.6.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|
01-06-2016, 05:59 PM | #336 |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Huntsville, AL
Posts: 424
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
|
01-06-2016, 06:30 PM | #337 |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,663
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Irrelevant. Orthodox Jews tear Isaiah apart. In fact, they only take the Torah.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
01-06-2016, 07:41 PM | #338 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Huntsville, AL
Posts: 424
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
Unless the Gnostics were right, and knowledge of the truth is how we are saved |
|
01-07-2016, 11:44 AM | #339 | |
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DFW area
Posts: 4,382
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
And when we talk of truth, then we need to look at all truth. There is much that is true, and therefore truth, that is not required for salvation. You don't have to believe that 1 + 1 = 2 to be saved. And you can not be saved even if you believe it. I know that will rile some up. But there is a lot of stuff that we wrap into theology that is true (or at least probably true) that is not required for salvation. In effect, that part is a little like 1 + 1 = 2. And there is a lot that is simply history, often told in ancient ways thereby not entirely telling the story like we expect a 21st century history book to tell it. Believe it — literally or figuratively — or not. Likely is of no spiritual consequence. The question of importance is what we do about the Savior, Christ. The rest is of less importance (with some falling far down the list).
__________________
Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel |
|
01-08-2016, 09:03 PM | #340 |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,223
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
The biggest problem I have with the idea of a literal virgin birth, is that it would result in a god/human hybrid that would not be human, strictly speaking. That is, a divine birth would not result in a biologically ordinary human being like ourselves. He or she would be genetically DIFFERENT than us. Such a being could not set an example for us that we could follow because he or she would have superhuman powers unlike ours. Further, how could a human/god hybrid save ordinary human beings by dying for us? The idea of a biologically ordinary human being who is deified by means of resurrection and ascension after dying in obedience to God's will makes more sense to me.
__________________
Ken Gemmer- Church in Detroit, Church in Fort Lauderdale, Church in Miami 1973-86 |
01-09-2016, 08:09 AM | #341 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Huntsville, AL
Posts: 424
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
A person born with the foreknowledge of who he was and why he was here makes his 'obedience' trivial. Even the crucifixion. |
|
01-09-2016, 09:55 AM | #342 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,663
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
Heretical. John the Baptist was born with "the foreknowledge of who he was and why he was here." Was he also sinless since obedience is so trivial? Was he then also qualified to be the sinless, Lamb of God?
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|
01-09-2016, 11:16 AM | #343 |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Huntsville, AL
Posts: 424
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
John the Baptist was also born a man. He had no foreknowledge of who he was. If Luke implies otherwise, then that is the heresy.
|
01-09-2016, 06:08 PM | #344 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,663
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
Matthew says, "Repent, the kingdom has drawn near." John knew the King was coming. John called for repentance, since One coming after him would baptize in the Holy Spirit and fire, and will be the Judge of all, "burning the chaff with unquenchable fire." Mark repeats this, and draws attention to the lifestyle John lived. John should have been serving in the temple like his father, but rejected it all since he knew who he was, and why he was here. Luke indicates that all the expected John to be Messiah, yet who knew who he was, and why he was here, and pointed them to the coming Messiah, whom he did not yet know. John's gospel shows us how much excitement surrounded the Baptizer. Emissaries continually queried him concerning who he was. He said, "I am a voice crying out in the wilderness," showing us that he fully understood his mission as the fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy, and that the coming Messiah was close at hand. Your comment about Luke's gospel being in heresy displays what a slippery slope you are on Timotheist. In order to push your agenda here, you must continually cut out sections of scripture and even whole books.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|
01-10-2016, 05:21 PM | #345 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Huntsville, AL
Posts: 424
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
I am actually grateful that both were added to the canon. If only one of them were in our NT, I might not have seen it for the plagiarism that it is. |
|
01-10-2016, 06:50 PM | #346 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,663
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
I guess everyone is entitled to their own "beliefs." Btw, millions of God's children have treasured both Luke's and Matthew's gospels over the last 2 millennia. Many of them were willing to be martyred for their beliefs. But, according to our friend timotheist, they are all wrong, and he alone is right, self-right, the "best" kind.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|
01-10-2016, 10:17 PM | #347 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,064
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
But I guess like Ohio indicated, to each his or her own.
__________________
Cults: My brain will always be there for you. Thinking. So you don't have to. There's a serpent in every paradise. |
|
01-11-2016, 05:11 PM | #348 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Huntsville, AL
Posts: 424
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
|
|
01-11-2016, 05:17 PM | #349 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Huntsville, AL
Posts: 424
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
Both add infancy stories to Mark, and these are so different that they defy harmonization. The point I was making is that if only one of these were in the canon, it would be harder to make the case for falsehood. These are definitely NOT two viewpoints of the same 'history'. To insist upon this stretches credibility to the point of ridiculousness. |
|
01-11-2016, 07:59 PM | #350 |
Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον For God So Loved The World
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,797
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
To call the copying of one of the Gospel writers of another "plagiarism" is to show ignorance of one of the most fundamental aspects of biblical study and criticism. Sorry, Tim, but using the term plagiarism here makes it seem like you're not only not in the same ballpark, you're not even talking about the same game, my man. I understand you've been at this for a couple years now, and I don't mean to totally disregard or degrade your efforts, but you just can't make up your own rules as you go along in a discipline that has been going on for thousands of years. Watchman Nee and Witness Lee did this big time, and look at the mess they have made of things!
There is great danger in trying to "reverse engineer" biblical theology. Even, and especially I would say, for for those who would go into such an effort with the most altruistic intentions. Actually, I have no idea of what your intentions are. I assume you are seeking the truth, just like all of us. But the truth is not a moving target, at least biblical truth is not. Of course it's a totally different situation when someone wants to try moving the target by redefining long established notions of what is the canon of scripture and what is not the canon of scripture. Tim, I assume you're aware of the "Q" source, and how it might relate to "the Virgin Birth question"? -
__________________
αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων ἀμήν - 1 Peter 5:11 |
01-11-2016, 08:03 PM | #351 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,663
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
You see duplication and you charge them with plagiarism. You see diversity and you charge them with prevarication. Dream on Theist. Dream on. I've met others like you. They all could be considered the "church of one." Everybody else was wrong but them.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|
01-13-2016, 05:24 PM | #352 |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,223
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
From the standpoint of reason, Timotheist is in good company: "the modern scholarly consensus is that the doctrine of the virgin birth rests on a very slim historical foundation." Bruner, Frederick (2004) [1st ed. 1987], Matthew: The Christbook, Matthew 1-12, Eerdmans, p. 37, ISBN 978-0802811189 as cited in Wikipedia.
__________________
Ken Gemmer- Church in Detroit, Church in Fort Lauderdale, Church in Miami 1973-86 |
01-13-2016, 05:42 PM | #353 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Huntsville, AL
Posts: 424
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
|
|
01-14-2016, 07:06 AM | #354 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,064
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
And Matthew and Luke was working from what they had available to them in their day, which was Mark and other material lost to us. Let's face it, as scientifically impossible as human virgin birth is, the stories of the virgin birth of Jesus was likely going around early on, and was prolly in records Matthew (or whoever) and Luke (again whoever) were working from. So bro TimO, we don't know if the virgin birth was plagiarized cuz we don't have the originals Matt. and Luke were working from. And yes, they should have provided citations. Maybe that's why they didn't sign their work ... and that would included Mark and John, the supposed non-plagiarizers of the virgin birth,
__________________
Cults: My brain will always be there for you. Thinking. So you don't have to. There's a serpent in every paradise. |
|
01-14-2016, 11:48 AM | #355 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,223
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Here are some questions about the virgin birth stories that I have encountered:
Quote:
__________________
Ken Gemmer- Church in Detroit, Church in Fort Lauderdale, Church in Miami 1973-86 |
|
01-14-2016, 02:43 PM | #356 | ||
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DFW area
Posts: 4,382
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
__________________
Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel |
||
01-14-2016, 05:06 PM | #357 |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Huntsville, AL
Posts: 424
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
I also find the second question interesting, and have asked myself the same thing.
Why were the Jewish Christians silent, allowing the pagan influence to spread so rapidly? Perhaps they were not. The documents we have were preserved primarily by the winners of the debate. Much of what we know about the dissenting groups are only gleaned by reading what the "fathers" wrote about them. One such group, as awareness pointed out, were labeled "Adoptionists". They did not believe in the virgin birth, and to my knowledge there are no surviving documents from this group. Perhaps they were Jews, perhaps not. Of course we have the events of 70 AD to put this into perspective. "Jewish" Christians were forced to go underground, leaving the "Roman" Christians in charge. And they got to write the history. |
01-14-2016, 05:08 PM | #358 |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,223
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
But, there was opposition from Jewish Christians who lived during the early centuries of the Christian era. The proto-orthodox church fathers came to refer to them as the Ebionites in their writings. So, that question is based on a false assumption.
__________________
Ken Gemmer- Church in Detroit, Church in Fort Lauderdale, Church in Miami 1973-86 |
01-14-2016, 06:59 PM | #359 | |
Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον For God So Loved The World
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,797
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
I asked you about the "Q" source. You either missed this, chose to ignore the question or you're clueless about it. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it's the first. Questions and issues surrounding the Q source probably belong on "the research" part of these threads, but since many of the questions and issues have already been conflated, and there has been no action on the research thread for quite some time, I would suggest we just combine the two. Lets get back to the basics, shall we? There are virtually no scholars who think that any part of the Gospel of Jesus Christ (The narrative of his life and times and his collected sayings) were recorded in writing during Christ's time on earth, nor during the subsequent 3-5 decades. Aside from the accepted canon of Jewish Scripture (and presumably some rabbinical writings of the time) the Jews at the time of Jesus' life were largely an oral society. The original apostles of Jesus were Jewish, as were the vast majority of the early disciples. Everything was dependent upon eye witnesses. If one did not actually see an event with his own eyes, or hear a spoken word with his own ears, his testimony was suspect at best, and probably considered worthless. And as a regular course of action, it had to be at least two witnesses to confirm an event or spoken word. Even the Lord Jesus followed this principle - "Yet even if I do judge, my judgment is true, for it is not I alone who judge, but I and the Father who sent me. In your Law it is written that the testimony of two people is true. I am the one who bears witness about myself, and the Father who sent me bears witness about me". John 8:16-18. It was at the end of the lives of the first generation apostles and disciples - the original eyewitnesses of the events and direct hearers of the prayers and sayings of Jesus Christ - in which the Gospel was recorded in writing. (Luke did not claim to be an eyewitness but stated clearly: "Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word"-Luke 1:2) It was essential, it was urgent, that the Gospel, the complete Gospel, be recorded in writing before this first generation passed away. The wise and knowledgeable men who decided what was to be included in the canon of the New Testament, and who no doubt had access to many manuscripts which we have since lost, included the Virgin Birth narrative. DEAL WITH IT. Just because it doesn't fit your "Jesus didn't become the Son of God until his baptism" theology, doesn't mean you can pull a Witness Lee and try to remove some major event or recorded words in the accepted canon post facto. END OF RAMBLE.
__________________
αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων ἀμήν - 1 Peter 5:11 |
|
01-14-2016, 11:59 PM | #360 | ||||||
Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,223
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
No rambling there bro. and the best argument from you I've seen in a long time maybe ever. But, you are assuming that because Jesus set the standard of eye-witnesses that the Gospels meet the standard. Luke admits he is not an eye-witness and doesn't tell us where the story came from. For his gospel it would pretty much have to be Mary, but he never states that it is. Assumptions rule. Given the same assumption for Matthew it could be Mary or Joseph but again he doesn't tell us. In fact these gospels were named according to tradition; we don't know who the authors were. So, you can accept the tradition if you choose to, but there is no compelling evidentiary reason to do so. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Ken Gemmer- Church in Detroit, Church in Fort Lauderdale, Church in Miami 1973-86 |
||||||
01-15-2016, 06:00 AM | #361 | ||
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,663
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
Quote:
When they asked him who He made himself out to be, He then answered "I am." Jesus made it plain as day that He was Jehovah standing in front of them.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
||
01-15-2016, 06:47 AM | #362 | ||
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,663
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
Quote:
Since His baptism, which apparently His family missed, Jesus went about preaching the gospel of the kingdom. He was constantly with His disciples and critics like the scribes and Pharisees. The circle of attention freaked His family out, and they attempted to take control of Him and bring Him to His senses. They definitely preferred the "old" Jesus. Unfortunately, their drama outside incited the scribes to proclaim that Jesus has Beelzebub and when He casts out demons, he does it by the ruler of the demons. We have no idea what Mary's state of mind really was. I tend to think that she was merely drug along by the other boys for impact. After 30 years, I'm quite sure that the aging widow Mary loved having the most obedient, most respectful, and most loving oldest son nearby her in Nazareth. Perhaps, and scriptures are silent, she was still grieving the loss of her husband. Now Jesus is gone, the family seems out of control, and every night she is watching her Son on the nightly news. For the next 3 plus years, her life would be a constant whirlwind of excitement and tragedy. But Mary "held all these things in her heart," and one day she would tell the whole story to Matthew, Luke, and others who believed.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
||
01-15-2016, 07:18 AM | #363 |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Huntsville, AL
Posts: 424
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Of course I am aware of the Q material. Not sure why you keep inferring that I am lacking in intelligence or experience in your recent posts. If my knowledge is incomplete, it is only because I insist on doing my own research instead of reading what others have said. If an external source suggests something, I do the digging for myself.
Do you really want to go there? The Q source only strengthens my arguments. If there was another pre-existing source that they drew upon, this pushes their authorship to an even later date. And it also means that instead of being "inspired" in their writing, they copied from not one but two documents. Plagiarists. Of course the Q source could have been a second generation, longer version, of Mark, which makes them only copying one copy of a copy. But to the topic of the VB, apparently even the Q source did not mention it. Otherwise Matthew and Luke would have been more in sync. |
01-15-2016, 07:23 AM | #364 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Huntsville, AL
Posts: 424
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
This story is also problematic. Jesus purposely ditched his parents without telling them where he went? Does not sound like a sinless act to me. He needed to repent and be baptized. |
|
01-15-2016, 07:41 AM | #365 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,663
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|
01-15-2016, 08:39 AM | #366 |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,064
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Eyewitnesses to the virgin conception .... lol ... rotflmao ...
Seems to me that we don't know the support for our convictions so we use what we have to create an imaginary 5th gospel.
__________________
Cults: My brain will always be there for you. Thinking. So you don't have to. There's a serpent in every paradise. |
01-15-2016, 10:59 AM | #367 | |
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DFW area
Posts: 4,382
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
Do you suffer from short-term memory loss? Then you suggest that Paul needs to make reference to it, or confirm it. Why? He did not make any reference to a lot of what is recorded in the gospels. Do you agree with some other Christian teachers that Christianity must be viewed through the eyes of Paul, even when their version of what Paul was seeing contradicted what is recorded as taught by Jesus? (Not that there really is any such thing. Just the claim of such by certain teachers.) But if you are needing Paul to confirm it to insist that it is a doctrine that needs to be believed to be saved, then I would agree that it is not such a doctrine. But not because Paul did or did not comment on it. Last, there is a big difference between a 30-year old leaving home to take on his calling in life and "ditching his parents." This is an inflammatory statement with no basis. It dares to assert that leaving home as an adult is the moral equivalent of ditching your parents. Where do you arrive at that conclusion? Mom is going to be home whether he tells them every detail about where he will be or he does not. I would agree that Ohio's conjecture about Mary's state of mind due to the presumed loss of Joseph and now the absence of Jesus is just that, conjecture. Nothing makes either a factor in how she is portrayed in the brief appearances during Jesus' ministry. They may be a factor, but we have no evidence to say anything about either.
__________________
Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel |
|
01-15-2016, 11:49 AM | #368 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Huntsville, AL
Posts: 424
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
Obviously, if I doubt the VB is true, then this passage follows suit. So where have I contradicted myself? So far in reading all the countering posts on this forum, I have not learned anything that would make me deviate from my method. |
|
01-15-2016, 01:23 PM | #369 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,663
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
Your mind has become a hardened stronghold which picks and chooses which portions of scripture to receive and which to reject. Don't expect to learn anything here.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|
01-15-2016, 01:39 PM | #370 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Huntsville, AL
Posts: 424
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
On this topic, I have found no need to deviate. Jesus is still my Savior. I worship the first man to overcome sin and make the way for us. No doubt he was predestined for this role. He was the right man at the right time. I may fail in my attempt to emulate him, and so will many others. But there will be 144,000 of us who succeed like him in the last days. Blameless. Without sin. Who will not die. Worthy to be the Bride. I will be happy in my supporting role in the world to come. |
|
01-15-2016, 08:41 PM | #371 |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,064
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
You mean 12,000 from each tribe of Israel? So you reject the Virgin Birth, calling Matt. and Luke into question, but have no problem accepting the 144,000 ... that Paul didn't ever mention?
__________________
Cults: My brain will always be there for you. Thinking. So you don't have to. There's a serpent in every paradise. |
01-15-2016, 11:02 PM | #372 | ||
Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,223
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Ken Gemmer- Church in Detroit, Church in Fort Lauderdale, Church in Miami 1973-86 |
||
01-15-2016, 11:12 PM | #373 |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,223
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
According to the story, Mary was visited by an angel and conceived a child without sexual intercourse. Don't you remember lesser events that happened to you 30 years ago? Of course you do. Do you remember where you were when you heard that JFK was shot? I do . So do many others. And there was nothing miraculous about that event. The simplest explanation is that the author of the Gospel of Mark was unaware of the virgin birth story.
__________________
Ken Gemmer- Church in Detroit, Church in Fort Lauderdale, Church in Miami 1973-86 |
01-16-2016, 02:05 AM | #374 | ||
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,663
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
Quote:
2. Read the story please. His parents were not at all astonished that He was teaching in the temple, rather they did not know where He was. Note that they had left Jerusalem without Him, not vice versa. 3. As I said, please read the story. And for that matter, how about reading my posts too?
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
||
01-16-2016, 09:22 AM | #375 | |||
Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,223
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Jesus teaches "Your father in heaven makes the sun to shine on the evil and the good..." Who is he speaking to?
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Ken Gemmer- Church in Detroit, Church in Fort Lauderdale, Church in Miami 1973-86 |
|||
01-16-2016, 09:23 AM | #376 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,064
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
I have to say. Kudos to whoever wrote Luke. He gave us a great story about Jesus. Mythologically embellish perhaps, but not so fantastical that it failed to make the canon of sacred scripture, like other too fantastical books about Jesus. But honestly, the brother just couldn't get things straight and non-conflicting. He proves to be a much better hagiographer than a historian. This birther issue is not just a modern problem, but was a problem early on. Take Luke 2:33, for example: And "Joseph and his mother" marvelled at those things which were spoken of him. (KJV) The manuscripts betray's this verse, as the most authoritative mss has the verse reading, "And his father and his mother marveled. So later scribes had such a problem with Joseph being called Jesus' father, by his mother, that they changed the verse. Get that. Christians will support their convictions to the point of lying, to the point of actually modifying holy writ. WOW! More on Luke as we go along.
__________________
Cults: My brain will always be there for you. Thinking. So you don't have to. There's a serpent in every paradise. |
|
01-16-2016, 10:22 AM | #377 |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,663
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Yeah ... you right.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
01-16-2016, 10:25 AM | #378 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Huntsville, AL
Posts: 424
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
|
|
01-16-2016, 11:20 AM | #379 | |
Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον For God So Loved The World
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,797
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
As usual awareness is all washed up with his "facts". This is vacation Bible School level Greek grammar and sentence structure, and if Harold would actually get his facts from actual biblical language scholars instead of atheists and ultra liberal so-called "scholars", he wouldn't end up posting such non-sense. Interesting how Harold only consults "the most authoritative mss" when it appears to fit his twisted "theology". Well the most authoritative mss clearly state that Jesus Christ was the Son of the living God, creator of Heaven and Earth, was crucified and rose bodily from the dead, ascended to Heaven and is at the right hand of the Father. Does he believe this? Heck no - he calls this all fantasy and myths. On a real good day, he might say the disciples were merely hallucinating (a la Ehrman). Without boring everybody with too much BASIC, FIRST SEMESTER, ELEMENTARY Greek grammar, Harold's claim is much ado about nothing at best, and really is just an embarrassing example of somebody who has an ax to grind and doesn't know what he's talking about. Whether the writer uses "his Father" or THE CLEAR ANTECEDENT stated at the beginning of the chapter in verse 4 ( And Joseph also went up from Galilee) is simply how writers of Koine Greek wrote. To imply some motivation is nonsense.
__________________
αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων ἀμήν - 1 Peter 5:11 |
|
01-16-2016, 02:35 PM | #380 |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,663
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Pretty pathetic for a "believer" to accuse the Lord of this.
Actually it was the parents who left Him behind in Jerusalem during the feast, assuming someone else was with Him.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
01-16-2016, 04:23 PM | #381 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,064
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
Luke 2:33 - So94 the child’s95 father96 and mother were amazed97 at what was said about him. Footnote 96: 96tc Most mss ([A] Θ [Ψ] Ë13 33 Ï it) read “Joseph,” but in favor of the reading ὁ πατὴρ αὐτοῦ (Jo pathr autou, “his father”) is both external (א B D L W 1 700 1241 pc sa) and internal evidence. Internally, the fact that Mary is not named at this point and that “Joseph” is an obviously motivated reading, intended to prevent confusion over the virgin conception of Christ, argues strongly for ὁ πατὴρ αὐτοῦ as the authentic reading here. See also the tc note on “parents” in 2:43. From The Net Bible - Those atheists and liberals.
__________________
Cults: My brain will always be there for you. Thinking. So you don't have to. There's a serpent in every paradise. |
|
01-17-2016, 06:35 AM | #382 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Huntsville, AL
Posts: 424
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
1) He stayed behind when the caravan left (on purpose, if he indeed had business to take care of) 2) He left them hanging for three days, with no attempt to make contact. 3) And he snapped at them when he was caught. My solution to the problem? It did not happen, at least not as told. So I am not "accusing" our Lord of anything. The author is trying to establish Jesus' foreknowledge of his role before his baptism. And perhaps he had another purpose. Parts of the story may indeed be true. Any eyewitnesses to Jesus' childhood would surely recall this traumatic incident. And claims of sinlessness from birth would be challenged. So "Luke" attempts to show that Jesus did not sin, by inferring a higher priority, that of doing his Father's business. The following verse is very telling: "and He continued in subjection to them; " (Luk 2:51 NAS) The problem was, he was not in subjection to them. There is another story about Jesus' youth in which he killed a childhood friend. Could this one be based in part on truth? |
|
01-17-2016, 07:22 AM | #383 |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,223
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
The implication of the virgin birth stories and the story of the child Jesus in the temple is that Jesus was a Divine Being unlike us. Hence, he is a God-man to be worshiped not an example to be followed. Unless God is your biological father, you don't have super-powers like Jesus and you can't do the miracles that he did. These stories taken literally transform Jesus from a historical person into a religious icon. The result: We celebrate Christmas once a year but don't follow the life or plain teachings of Jesus.
__________________
Ken Gemmer- Church in Detroit, Church in Fort Lauderdale, Church in Miami 1973-86 |
01-17-2016, 10:15 AM | #384 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,064
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
However, we're talking the Bible. And 6 chapters into it the sons of God come down to the fair daughters of men and produce the Nephilim. Is that what God did to Mary? Is this another reason the story of the virgin conception is suspect ; that God came down to Mary like the sons of God came to the daughters of men in Genesis 6? If so it makes the virgin conception repulsive. And by the way, Mary was an under age girl. Do we really want to list God as a sexual offender? I say no. But that's just me.
__________________
Cults: My brain will always be there for you. Thinking. So you don't have to. There's a serpent in every paradise. |
|
01-17-2016, 08:56 PM | #385 | |
Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον For God So Loved The World
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,797
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Don't post as if you're some kind of a scholar and you won't get called out as one who is not.
Quote:
The Virgin Birth IS A LONG, LONG ACCEPTED FACT that has been held by Christians since the beginning. Just like our friend Tim you are going to have to just deal with it. Just like the LONG, LONG ACCEPTED FACT that Jesus healed people and even rose them from the dead. Just like the LONG, LONG ACCEPTED FACT that Jesus was resurrected and ascended to the Father. There were witnesses to ALL these things including the Virgin Birth. You don't believe the witnesses. So sorry for that. I really am. I'm also sorry to inform you that you are NOT going to be able to "cross examine" these witnesses post facto on this forum and you know why. Feel free to shoot me a PM if you have any questions about this policy.
__________________
αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων ἀμήν - 1 Peter 5:11 |
|
01-18-2016, 05:49 AM | #386 |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,064
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Untohim, I love you too.
__________________
Cults: My brain will always be there for you. Thinking. So you don't have to. There's a serpent in every paradise. |
01-18-2016, 06:10 AM | #387 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,663
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
Eg that Jesus was a divine being unlike us. Yes, He is a divine being for us to worship, but no, He is not unlike us, because He is also a real man. It seems most unfortunate that you are stuck inside the limitations of your own natural mind.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|
01-18-2016, 11:47 AM | #388 | ||
Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,223
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
Quote:
That Jesus is both God incarnate and a real human is a position is impossible to hold logically. So you throw out logic. Since you have shown you are willing to abandon logic without acknowledging that is what you're doing, why should anyone believe your arguments? The Incarnation is a paradox and a mystery which cannot be explained logically. We should acknowledge as much to avoid the appearance that we don't recognize that we are dealing with an apparent absurdity.
__________________
Ken Gemmer- Church in Detroit, Church in Fort Lauderdale, Church in Miami 1973-86 |
||
01-18-2016, 12:02 PM | #389 | |
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DFW area
Posts: 4,382
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
If two accounts tell different, non contradictory aspects of something not included in Mark, it is rejected because it is not in Mark. Or because the accounts are not identical with each other. Or if they are, they are rejected as plagiarism (one of the other, or of some other source). And if Paul does not comment on it, it is completely out. In #349, referring to the infancy stories, you note that two added the story to Mark (presumptuous that Mark was the source of the basic gospel). Actually, you effectively make a moral argument against Matthew and Luke because of plagiarism, yet insist that anything other than what is in Mark must be confirmed by other sources. And since you reject the "plagiaristic" accounts in Matthew and Luke, is anything in Mark not specifically commented on in another writing, such as by Paul, subject to question? And if so, then you consider Mark highly suspect since no one has commented on all the various accounts, even in the much shorter account in Mark. So you have no base. Just an opinion of which passages should be accepted and which rejected. Or do you claim that Mark is special and not subject to question? In each particular post, you book end your position with statements. But those statements are bookended in other posts with statements that, when collected together, are circular in reasoning. There is no source, only relative positions, but there is no beginning and no end because it eventually wraps upon itself. And faith is never a part of the equation. Only the self-made rules as to how to wander into scripture and decide which ones you like and which you don't like. I'm beginning to think I am dealing with Vizzini.
__________________
Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel |
|
01-18-2016, 03:36 PM | #390 | ||
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,663
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
Quote:
Actually I need more logic to believe that you are a real person, rather than some cyber-rationing artificial intelligence regurgitating characters on the LCD screen, than I do in accepting that Jesus Christ, the Creator of the universe, became a man and died for my sins, and resurrected to give me eternal life. I have far more evidence for that being true, than for you to be a real, live, thinking person. Sorry mister zeek, but I just don't have enough "proof" that you actually exist. Until I can "prove you" by a peer-reviewable, scientific experiment in an approved research facility, I must remain skeptical of your existence.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
||
01-18-2016, 05:05 PM | #391 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,663
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|
01-18-2016, 05:22 PM | #392 | |||||||
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Huntsville, AL
Posts: 424
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
I usually avoid the line-by-line response, but this one warrants it.
Quote:
Quote:
Nope. Only if the material contradicts Paul and other passages. It is my position that the VB contradicts Paul. Quote:
Quote:
I do think the long version of Mark has more flaws than the short version. The biggie is the phrase 'son of God' added to verse one. The stuff about snake-handling is suspect due to its sheer stupidity, indicative of the trend to embellish the stories with unlikely miracles (like the earthquakes in Matthew). Quote:
Nope, as stated above. Quote:
Quote:
no comment. |
|||||||
01-18-2016, 06:27 PM | #393 |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,663
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
I'm sure OBW was referring to the 3 synoptic gospels, and then all his comments above are accurate observations.
So ... according to Timotheist ... Luke and Matthew plagiarized Mark, and then fabricated the rest of their gospels! Millions and millions of Christians have been deceived by them, but you alone got it right! Is this really what you are saying? There's nothing in Paul's writings that contradicts the virgin birth. Didn't we discuss this at length? So what if every single epistle (including James and Jude, His flesh brothers) was completely silent in this matter. Apostle Paul made it clear that, even if one did know Christ in the flesh, we now know Him so no longer. (II Cor. 5.16) Your speculation that Jesus became the Son of God at His baptism has less credibility than if I propose that He became the Son of God at His resurrection. At least I have numerous verses (Psalm 2.7; Acts 13.33; Romans 1.4; Hebrews 1.5; 5.5) to support my "spurious view," and don't need, as you do, to excise huge portions of scriptures. So far in my travels on this forum, I have come across many, like Timotheist, who would like me to remove many "suspicious" books from the New Testament. If I listened to all of these fine folks, my N.T. would contain only the following books: Portions of the gospel of Mark, the gospel of John, Acts, and the first epistle of John. That's all folks!
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
01-18-2016, 08:16 PM | #394 | ||||
Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,223
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Ken Gemmer- Church in Detroit, Church in Fort Lauderdale, Church in Miami 1973-86 |
||||
01-19-2016, 06:45 AM | #395 | |
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DFW area
Posts: 4,382
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
Is there really anyplace that declares there to be any contradiction? Or have we forced our additions onto what the actual account means? We like to think that the man was almost like a body overtaken by an alien in one of those body snatcher movies. Like a bug wearing an Edgar suite. Without looking it up, there is at least one place where it is said that the desires and foibles of the human body were known to Jesus. But he rose above them (my words, not the bible's). How did that work? I don't know. But unless we reject the whole idea of a creator (however it was accomplished), the idea that God can do it how He pleases, even in a manner that seems to contradict our limited understanding, is not a problem. Just like many things we consider contradictory, it is often a lack of facts that make the contradiction seem real. With all the facts, the contradiction ceases to exist. You seem to need all the facts now. We don't have them. As Paul said, we see dimly as through a poor mirror. We think we know what we see. But we can't figure it all out. There is a need for faith. There is plenty of knowledge, but still a need for faith.
__________________
Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel |
|
01-19-2016, 07:28 AM | #396 |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,064
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Untohim made it very clear that I don't matter, so my opinion about the virgin birth doesn't matter a hang.
I get it. I'm extreme. I even claimed that God sexually abuse the under age Mary. But I did it to make a point. I pushed the logic to its logical conclusion. That's because I don't understand how Jesus is "God from God" like the Nicene Creed claims. So maybe those out here that completely believes it can explain how it works. How is it that Jesus came from a woman but is God from God? How did Mary's ovum become fertilized by divine seed, that produced 100% divinity? And if Jesus was also 100% human, how does that work? The egg was divinely inseminated but produced a human. How? Please, those of you that are convinced that it is absolutely true, explain this to me. Please explain the mechanics of it, or biology of it. Cuz my brain short-circuits when I try to figure such a thing out. And Untohim is right. It makes me crazy. So I'm gonna remain crazy if'n y'all don't straighten this out for me. And if ya don't, then Untohim can't hold it against me any longer ... and neither can God. Surely salvation doesn't require us to be illogical ... or does it?
__________________
Cults: My brain will always be there for you. Thinking. So you don't have to. There's a serpent in every paradise. |
01-19-2016, 09:55 AM | #397 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,663
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
Your comments about Mary being "sexually abused" are baseless and cross the line of human decency. I hear comments about what is "logical" from you and zeek. Your "logic" is based on what you believe, or do not believe. Belief and unbelief sets our minds off in different directions. The "logic" you speak of is not the real logic. It is a mystery and a miracle beyond human comprehension that a seed from a man and an egg from a woman could unite and become an altogether new person. I say this is an entirely impossible event, yet it happens every day. Totally "illogical." Furthermore, I have been born of the Spirit of God, and this same Jesus who walked the earth now lives in me. This also is logically impossible, yet it definitely happened to me and to the rest of God's children, even if the rest of the entire world refuses to accept it. God has made us in His own image and likeness, and thus we are a similar species as God. We are more like Him than doctors and psychiatrists will ever know. That is why God could possibly be born of the virgin Mary. The greatest miracles in the history of man are the incarnation and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Both were a divine birth, and both times God was born into humanity.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|
01-19-2016, 01:42 PM | #398 | |
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DFW area
Posts: 4,382
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
And you never give any reason why you think that anyone writing something that confirms or stands consistent in some way is evidence of truth when there are other writings that stand in support of the writings that you dismiss. What makes Paul a good reference but not Barnabas or some other from the early writers. We don't even have a clear understanding of who wrote Hebrews and yet it is taken despite its fairly unique topics and terminology. Or is it? If you like Paul and not Barnabas because those who developed the canon had the same opinion, then why is their opinion not sufficient for Matthew and Luke? You take Mark and John. Most of what is in both is in no other NT writing except for Matthew and Luke, but they are rejected. You make the references to something being confirmed by other writings and in at least one place mentioned Paul. But Paul does not write about much that is covered in either gospel. Other than to make reference to the death and resurrection. And his account of the first Lord's table (which has statements that are not recorded in the gospels). Everything else Paul wrote is mainly about Christian living. That is all consistent with Jesus' teachings on the subject, but it is not identical. Not because they disagreed, but because they were dealing with people whose issues were different. And then maybe that means that you don't really accept all of any book. And if that is the case, then your collection of what is in and what is out, and why, is all the more spurious. You think you have it all organized, but it remains a disjointed mess that is in some ways internally contradictory. If no book remains fully intact, then where is the support that any part of any book is sound and of the inspiration of God? How do you decide which part you do or don't like? I think the answer is in the last word in the previous sentence. It is in what you like. If you like it, you will find a rule that makes it "in." If not, there is a rule that will make it "out." I figure that you have witnessed things that would make many people question their beliefs. While I'm sure not the only issue, I have to assume that at some level you are seeking to create an alternate understanding that can explain those things. But calling on the Lord a lot does not cure the evils of mankind. Neither does the infilling of the Holy Spirit with the evidence of speaking in tongues (my pre-LCM background). But decimating (or worse) the Bible is not required to harmonize the evils of even "saved" people with their claim of belief. We did not become God's marionettes when we first believed. We remain part of the broken in the world. We have a way to escape it during this life. But it does not just go away. Even after soaking up a lot of the LCM's version of "dispensing."
__________________
Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel |
|
01-19-2016, 05:57 PM | #399 | ||||||||||
Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,223
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
and here: https://www.probe.org/where-does-the...n-and-100-god/ and here: http://www.reformationtheology.com/2..._100_man_1.php and it has been made by LCD members. Do you have a problem with it? I do. "100% God and 100% man" is bad math and thus is an absurd proposition. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
If there are other ways of viewing the proposition that are not contradictory, as I believe there are, should we not give them their due consideration? Quote:
Quote:
And, by the way, thank you for giving my statements reasonable consideration. It's a pleasure conversing with you.
__________________
Ken Gemmer- Church in Detroit, Church in Fort Lauderdale, Church in Miami 1973-86 |
||||||||||
01-19-2016, 06:12 PM | #400 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Huntsville, AL
Posts: 424
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
I "accept" Paul and the epistles because they are the earliest writings, those closer to the actual events. The gospels were written after Paul (with the possible exception of Mark). Again, I have discussed this on many posts, yet you continue to invent other motivations. But by "accepting" Paul, I am not attributing his writings as "inspired" words of God, at least not in their entirety. When I put the texts in chronological order, I see a disturbing trend. Miraculous events are added to the narrative with each generation. The VB did not show up until the last two books, along with other miracles that are unlikely to be true. If you go outside the "canon" you see the progression getting even worse. The Infancy Gospel of Thomas takes the VB narrative to new lows by adding some very ridiculous stories about the boy Jesus. It's least ridiculous claim is the very same story that Luke added about the 12-year-old boy who snapped at his parents. Word for word. The evolution of the canon was just that: an evolution. There really was no single council that made a decision. You imply arrogance on my part by assuming I am somehow superior to this convention that never happened. I just live in a time where I can dissent without fear of persecution. It was not like that in those days: you either played along or were killed. |
|
01-19-2016, 07:28 PM | #401 | ||||||
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,064
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Thanks bro Ohio for giving the unexplainable a shot. Sorry for being so hard to deal with.
Quote:
Quote:
But you are right. It's an improper caricature of God. The fact that it insults God argues strongly against the virgin birth. Quote:
Quote:
But we know better now. We do designer fertilization these days. It's not mysterious like it was back 2000 yrs ago, before microscopes, it's completely logical to us ... we can control and manipulate it now. Like telescopes those microscopes are brutal on the Bible ... and on the notion of a virgin birth. Quote:
Quote:
I don't know about such a caricature of God, when talking divine sexual reproduction with a human. But then, maybe you mean that we're all gods, and can have coitus with God. Another weird caricature, wouldn't you say? That all might change when you teach me what real logic is.
__________________
Cults: My brain will always be there for you. Thinking. So you don't have to. There's a serpent in every paradise. |
||||||
01-20-2016, 09:42 AM | #402 |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,223
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
A truly repulsive and blasphemous thought. On the contrary, the virgin conception and birth of Jesus may imply a return to a paradisaical virginal state like Adam and Eve in Eden before the Fall.
__________________
Ken Gemmer- Church in Detroit, Church in Fort Lauderdale, Church in Miami 1973-86 |
01-20-2016, 11:39 AM | #403 | |
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DFW area
Posts: 4,382
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
And I never said that no one claims that this "100% fully" is true. You pointed to three online sites saying exactly that. But their examples from scripture do not support the claim. I talked periodically with one of the staff at Probe over a week-long period many years ago. But the aim of that organization, much like the others, is a misled modernistic, apologetics-driven dive into the dogmas that they hold dear. The verses provided establish that Jesus was a man. He hungered and thirsted. After 40 days alone in the wilderness he needed food. We have no idea what kind of biological urges or other issues were encountered by Jesus as a result of living as a human. They don't tell us. But there is nothing that indicates that there were 2 wills at war (rather than physiological urges which the will of God would recognize and concerning which he would choose correctly). The "fully God and fully man" argument is something forced onto the discussion that I do not see the Bible as doing. There is nothing indicating that Jesus dealt with an unrighteous human will (or even a righteous one for that matter). So parsing through my post makes me wonder. Did you think I was supporting the fully-fully argument and you needed to dispute me? We are referred to the "mind of Christ" by Paul. He does not refer to the "God-mind of Christ" which would stand opposed to the "human-mind" of Jesus. I would suggest that there is really only one mind involved. The man, Jesus was not: Data. A human-looking robot with a programmed mind that could not understand the irrational aspects of the humans that he was part of in appearance only.The fully God and fully man contingent that wants it to be 100% of both would effectively insist upon a complete non-divine human with mind, emotion, and will that also houses the fullness of the godhead (yet only the Son in terms of the three) who also has a mind, emotion, and will. That would of resulted in something that looked more like the two-headed president of the galaxy (in Hitchhiker's Guide) that was constantly at war and for a period with one of the heads removed. You can imagine the arguments that would have the crowds rethinking things when Jesus would say to himself "what did you say?" "exactly what I meant" "oh really?" and so on. Even the reference to Jesus having emotions does not insist that it be human emotion. God was not a cold-hearted being with no emotion. He needed no human body (and all that came with it) to have emotions. Even the reference that Jesus experienced the problems of man does not insist that he was the kind of 100% fully man that those web sites talk about. Maybe, even despite the poor analogy, it was more like the Force. God is in a man. The man is not a robot or a puppet. He has feelings and needs. The God within registers all of it. But what happens with it is controlled by God, not the man. (That makes them sound more separate than I believe they actually were, but I am not sure how perfect any way of describing it is relative to how it really was.) There are no "this is it" statements in here. But from where I sit, the 100% fully-fully crowd is making things up. They are forcing their presumptions onto the scripture. Every one of the verses they use has a context. And from what I could see, none of them helped establish the 100% fully-fully God-man. Jesus was a God-man. I just can't see it as being the one that those people argue for.
__________________
Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel |
|
01-20-2016, 11:45 AM | #404 | |
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DFW area
Posts: 4,382
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
But it is at least somewhat in line with the idea that salvation is not so much about heaven as it is about a return to our place before God in this life.
__________________
Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel |
|
01-21-2016, 11:59 AM | #405 | |||||||
Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,223
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Ken Gemmer- Church in Detroit, Church in Fort Lauderdale, Church in Miami 1973-86 |
|||||||
01-21-2016, 12:10 PM | #406 |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,223
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
I think the idea is supported elsewhere in the New Testament. Virginity is a traditional Christian symbol of purity. That's consistent with the teaching of both Jesus and Paul that it is best course in life is celibacy i.e. to be free from sexual relations altogether. There's no record that Adam and Eve had sex in the garden of Eden. They were both virgins. Sexual intercourse was an outcome of the Fall. So, a virgin birth frees the biography of Jesus from any association with carnal relations that even in marriage are less than the original perfect will of God. The virgin birth begins the advent of Christ, the last Adam, in Edenic purity. That traditional Christian purity is an essential element part of the Christmas story to this day.
__________________
Ken Gemmer- Church in Detroit, Church in Fort Lauderdale, Church in Miami 1973-86 |
01-21-2016, 02:59 PM | #407 | |||||
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DFW area
Posts: 4,382
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
A little like taking the parts of analogies that are actually commented on and not trying to milk every possible factor of the items used in the analogy beyond that. Actually, that was at least one of the items that someone raised probably weeks ago when the idea of fully god and fully man first surfaced. Not sure it was even in this thread and I do not recall who said it. But if you are inferring only to this brief encounter we are having, you are correct. You did not say it. And neither did I. But I am not just answering your questions. I am providing an analysis of the issue as I look through it, thinking through where the various notions would seem to take us. And I do not presume that I have found the answer. At some level, I have found that I know less and have less support than what so many want to declare as doctrinal fact. Quote:
But if Jesus was effectively a marriage of God and man in a single person, having a true human body and even as complete soul does not mean that all aspects of it were there creating internal havoc that the God side of the equation always had to deal with. Could have, but not necessarily. The problem I have with the fully God and fully man argument is not that it couldn't be true. It is that it is being put forward as a "must accept and believe" while I do not see evidence that makes it necessarily so. (Gershwin anyone?) Quote:
This one is of similar origin, but somehow seems of less importance to me. It could be true — fully or partly — but I cannot see that there is support to make it fully so. Therefore to insist upon it is to drive a wedge into the heart of the body of Christ and give it a reason to be even less harmonious. It is far from the only doctrine or other issue that is in that camp. 6-day creation v creation, degradation and restoration v a lengthy creation (of whatever form wanted). Uber Calvinism v Arminianism. And on and on. (I find fault in both and reasonable positions in both.) Quote:
Quote:
I am convinced that there was a man named Jesus in which the Son of God, part of the godhead, lived for somewhere north of 33 years. The accounts provide some evidence that the limitation of human frailty were felt by the combined person due to things like hunger, thirst, fatigue, etc. But I have not come up with a reason that the union needs to look like (fill in the blank). I surely cannot find the evidence of this completely dual person with two minds, wills, sets of emotion, etc. Maybe some aspects in part. But nothing that indicates something approaching the two headed president of the galaxy with added ability on the God side to keep the other completely squashed except where he wanted to let it out for show. (I said it that way because it seems that Lee's version of the three of the trinity seemed to be more of an aspect of show rather than an important distinction or fact.) And my position is that the Son of God, one of the Three of the godhead dwelt in the man Jesus. Not just as an alter ego or like a parasite. But also not in such a way that everything except the appearance of a human was overtaken. That person would never know pain. Would not go through puberty (well maybe not). And so on. And if you can figure out why I need to refine it to the point that I have fairly narrow boundaries around what I think it is, then I will try. In the mean time, I am willing to accept what the scripture actually says and live with it as being less than fully explained.
__________________
Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel |
|||||
01-21-2016, 03:24 PM | #408 | |
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DFW area
Posts: 4,382
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
Besides, there is generally no recording of any times that any man lay with any woman and managed to not conceive a child outside of some of the accounts of rape or other fornication. So whether Adam and Eve (as told in Genesis) had engaged in intercourse prior to the fall is not entirely defined by the fact that there was not an account of it. The brief account of the whole thing is too far from a modern reality show in which they almost follow their subject into the bathroom. Few details. Ultimately made reference to the time that they had sex and got a child (first Cain, etc.) And if you accept some of the alternate notions on the means of creation, it is possible that Adam and Eve were less literal and more figurative. Maybe even to the extent that there was not simply a first couple with no offspring by the time of the rejection of God's rule by man. Don't read anything into this about my position on the subject. My only position is that God created and man rebelled against God. How it happened for purposes of a modern-era history book v the heavily allegorical histories that were the norm at the time is up for debate. And I have no side in the debate other than to say that the picture that the story portrays is the essence of what happened. And that essence is that man rejected God. Or at least his rule. But outside of that one questionable notion about sex pre-fall, I do not find anything particularly problematic or refutable. But also not necessarily supportable as important to the issue. And no one has really dealt with the idea that despite Tim's disdain for Matthew and Luke, and the virgin birth, it may be that one of the important things was that the somewhat dual prophecies that we given long before would be exactly what a devoted Jew would be looking for. And if God is truly who he says he is in the Bible, then a truly virgin birth is entirely possible. Someone recently referred to it as some kind of fornication or rape. But it would appear to have been with consent in any case. And if our morality ultimately aligns with God's, then those ideas must run contrary to that source. One late addition. My comment that it was "nothing more than a thought" was not intended to be any kind of slam. It is not a bad idea on the whole. But I cannot find it to be more than an idea. You mention various apparent principles that could be implied. And it could be true. Then again maybe not. I don't know. Either way there is nothing that makes it so. Just an idea that may have some reasonable connection to what we believe to be true. And do I can do little more with it than note that it could be possible. But as anything definitive, there is not support. Of course I don't think you were saying that it was simply true. Just that it was possible.
__________________
Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel |
|
01-22-2016, 11:06 AM | #409 | |||||||||
Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,223
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Ken Gemmer- Church in Detroit, Church in Fort Lauderdale, Church in Miami 1973-86 |
|||||||||
01-22-2016, 04:33 PM | #410 | |
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DFW area
Posts: 4,382
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
I will start by saying that rather than trying to create specific definitions that need to be made coherent and then finding them contradictory (at least from my way of thinking — or maybe just yours) I find that dealing with the general narrative that each statement is part of, I have some realization that does not require the "figuring out" of what it does not talk about.
But your last statement was a bit of a puzzle. I wasn't even quite sure how to read it. As if I had defined a way to think of Jesus. Or as if my general lack of need for complete understanding is important. Quote:
I believe that the Bible is quite relevant and accurate about its subject matter. But the details of the history of creation, the flood, even a lot of the wars or battle depicted is not necessarily part of it. The subject matter is God. And it is the slow process of bringing a tribe of people from a point far away from God and living in an often unrighteous way into at least a general semblance of righteousness and adherence to the primary laws as given to them. From there Jesus came opening the teachings of God to everyone (not that they are completely excluded before) and also a better way for moving into God's way. For that, there are certain topics in the Bible that are important. Some of it is in the things Jesus said and did. The sermon on the mount laid out a different view of humility, righteousness, justice, etc., than just following the law. And on and on it goes. Some people get the idea that if there is a word in the Bible, it is eternally significant. Even to the extent that using a close synonym is considered heresy. And the thought that the Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic word might not really have been that important is absolutely heretical in their minds. These are the people that will find every reference to aspects of the person of Jesus and try to force a framework on it that is just not there. (Sort of like Lee did on so many things. Like insisting that leaven was evil, therefore having to read the parable of the leaven upside down.) But each discussion is talking about something specific. The things mentioned are for the purpose of the immediate discussion, not every other discussion that had that particular word in it. So a reference to Jesus being thirsty, or whatever, is not provided as a hidden nugget to prove things about the nature of the God-man, but as part of the immediate narrative. (Let's face it, we all get tired. It doesn't mean we are Jesus just because he got tired.) To me the important understanding of Christ is in the things that are actually presented, not in the ones that are not. So when the overall nature of Jesus is never stated in this "100% fully-fully" way, that is not something that is of relevance to my living. It is not relevant to the gospel. It is not relevant to . . . . Asking what it means when I say that I am not sure how thoroughly complete all aspects of the human side of Jesus were is to ask me what I think about U.S. immigration policy. There are things I know about it and things I don't know about it. And there are things I think are important about moving it in either direction. I don't like amnesty yet am not sure that something like that is not what is called for. And thinking I know enough about it to argue red-faced about it with someone who thinks differently is to make my knowledge (and need for knowledge) more than I think is reasonable. In this particular case, I am sure that there is no one who knows everything about how it should be. And even if they did, they would admit to the need for rational thought in applying it in each instance. Similarly, the nature of there being a man that could have operated without the God in him or only most of that man is not something that I am sure really means anything except to those who have decided that it does. I cannot find why it does other than that they say so. If there is one place that I tend to get belligerent, it is where people tell me to just do something because that is the way it is done. I work in taxes and if you tell me to follow a formula, I have to study the formula against the law before I will go along. In this case, I can find no "law" that requires a particular answer. Since it is something about the inner workings of a very unique person (the God-man), I find no reason to try to parse into what is not told to me. It is not something I need to understand what is actually there to understand, believe, and follow.
__________________
Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel |
|
01-22-2016, 05:40 PM | #411 |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,064
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
OBW you seem so sensible about the Virgin Birth. The Bible said it and that settles it.
But Jesus said to judge a tree by its fruits. So: Virgin Birth=Jesus is God. Virgin Birth=Mary is the mother of God. Then ... Mother of God means Mary was assumed bodily into heaven. Then Mary is a perpetual virgin, in heaven. And we can pray to her, and she answer prayers. Some fruit, don't you think?
__________________
Cults: My brain will always be there for you. Thinking. So you don't have to. There's a serpent in every paradise. |
01-24-2016, 05:48 PM | #412 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,223
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
__________________
Ken Gemmer- Church in Detroit, Church in Fort Lauderdale, Church in Miami 1973-86 |
|
01-26-2016, 12:37 PM | #413 | |
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DFW area
Posts: 4,382
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
And as awareness hinted, I am a believer, therefore I believe. But I believe what is there to believe, not what is declared to be there that I cannot see as being there. And I do not see that having complete understanding and belief in certain kinds of things is of eternal importance. Signs were given to those seeking the signs. Prophecies were fulfilled for those who read the prophecies and expected to see them fulfilled. And how historically precise, v how metaphorically consistent certain of those are is a big question. Just like whether there was a literal 6-day creation or it is a metaphor for (sounds redundant) segments of creation that may or may not have overlapped and may have taken millions of years (as we count years). It is the modern mind that has forced historical accuracy onto any writing from much more than 500 years ago. Few writings were what we would accept as historically accurate in the earlier days. That does not make them lies or false. Rather it takes a different kind of process to understand what it is telling us. That does not mean that there are no historically accurate things recorded back then, in or out of the Bible. But which is which is not necessarily that easy to figure out. Yet even with that in mind, I see a picture of God that I find convincing.
__________________
Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel |
|
01-27-2016, 07:52 AM | #414 | |||
Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,223
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Ken Gemmer- Church in Detroit, Church in Fort Lauderdale, Church in Miami 1973-86 |
|||
01-27-2016, 11:36 AM | #415 |
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DFW area
Posts: 4,382
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Not sure.
But I'm sure enough about what is taught to do (rather than to believe and/or argue about). And I am fairly comfortable that after believing, it is the doing that moves us forward, not more detailed believing. So I have less drive to figure out what it means to be a trinity, or God and man, or even how important the virgin birth is to me. Instead I have drive (not enough, but it is what I have) to live as I see I am commanded. That is what was demanded, not better doctrines.
__________________
Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel |
01-28-2016, 11:21 AM | #416 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,663
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
Saying Jesus is not a sinless man born of a virgin, is no different than saying Jesus Christ has not been raised from the dead. If these are not true, then we are all still in our sins, (I Cor 15.17) then the Word did not become flesh, (John 1.1-14) then He was not the mystery of godliness manifested in the flesh. (I Tim 3.16)
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|
01-29-2016, 07:36 PM | #417 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,064
|
Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications
Quote:
So is it any wonder the church of Rome went mythological with the virgin birth, to the mother of God, the bodily assumption of Mary to heaven, and the perpetual virginity in heaven. All they had to do was borrow from the mythologies that were in common currency from those days. It might also explain why some of the early Jewish Christians, that didn't buy into Roman mythology, didn't believe Jesus was born of a virgin. This might also explain why the Biblical record is confusing about it. And why some scribes had to modify it.
__________________
Cults: My brain will always be there for you. Thinking. So you don't have to. There's a serpent in every paradise. Last edited by awareness; 01-30-2016 at 05:00 AM. |
|
|
|