Total Posts:121|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Was Jesus born of a virgin?

Gentorev
Posts: 2,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2016 8:51:36 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
By ignoring the erroneous interpretation and translations of Jerome and others, a quick study of scriptures will prove that the virgin birth is a false teaching.
graceofgod
Posts: 5,090
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2016 10:20:44 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/5/2016 8:51:36 AM, Gentorev wrote:
By ignoring the erroneous interpretation and translations of Jerome and others, a quick study of scriptures will prove that the virgin birth is a false teaching.

the mormons believe God had sex , physical sex with Mary but it was ok because he also took Mary as one of his many wives....

just gotta love those mormons...
JJ50
Posts: 2,144
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2016 10:32:27 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
As IVF hadn't be devised in those far off days, Mary would have conceived in the usual way after having sexual intercourse with a male of the species.
Gentorev
Posts: 2,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2016 11:35:39 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/5/2016 10:19:26 AM, desmac wrote:
Common sense reaches the same conclusion.

But Christians believe in miracles, So how would you convince them that the concept of the virgin birth is not to be found in the uncorrupted word of God.
Gentorev
Posts: 2,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2016 11:48:47 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/5/2016 10:32:27 AM, JJ50 wrote:
As IVF hadn't be devised in those far off days, Mary would have conceived in the usual way after having sexual intercourse with a male of the species.

Correct! The Bible reveals the parents of the man Jesus and they are Mary and Joseph who were both sired by the one father, Alexander Helios=Heli the grand-father of Jesus.

Joseph was and still is a very common name among the Jews, and Joseph the son of Heli as revealed in Luke 3: 23; who is the biological father of Jesus, should not be confused with Joseph the son of Jacob as revealed in Matthew 1: 16; who married the already pregnant Mary.
DPMartin
Posts: 1,096
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2016 5:14:49 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/5/2016 8:51:36 AM, Gentorev wrote:
By ignoring the erroneous interpretation and translations of Jerome and others, a quick study of scriptures will prove that the virgin birth is a false teaching.

Ok then, what"s your quick study that shows that it"s false?
DPMartin
Posts: 1,096
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2016 5:34:45 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/5/2016 11:48:47 AM, Gentorev wrote:
At 1/5/2016 10:32:27 AM, JJ50 wrote:
As IVF hadn't be devised in those far off days, Mary would have conceived in the usual way after having sexual intercourse with a male of the species.

Correct! The Bible reveals the parents of the man Jesus and they are Mary and Joseph who were both sired by the one father, Alexander Helios=Heli the grand-father of Jesus.

Joseph was and still is a very common name among the Jews, and Joseph the son of Heli as revealed in Luke 3: 23; who is the biological father of Jesus, should not be confused with Joseph the son of Jacob as revealed in Matthew 1: 16; who married the already pregnant Mary.

Rather then try to explain what I have forgotten about some time ago when someone mentioned this issue, it been so long ago, hence nothing new:

See this web page for info:
http://www.gotquestions.org...

and if that doesn"t satisfy you, who cares.
plus there is no text that refutes the virgin brith.
12_13
Posts: 1,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2016 8:41:47 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/5/2016 8:51:36 AM, Gentorev wrote:
...quick study of scriptures will prove that the virgin birth is a false teaching.

Please explain how.
Gentorev
Posts: 2,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2016 9:29:08 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/5/2016 8:41:47 PM, 12_13 wrote:
At 1/5/2016 8:51:36 AM, Gentorev wrote:
...quick study of scriptures will prove that the virgin birth is a false teaching.

Please explain how.

Mary was a virgin right up until the act by which she conceived her firstborn son Jesus, who was sired by Joseph ben Heli. See Luke 3: 23.

Isaiah 7: 14; Jewish Translation: Therefore, the Lord, of His own, shall give you a sign; behold, the "YOUNG WOMAN" is with child, and she shall bear a son, and she shall call his name Immanuel.

The emphasis of this prophecy should be in the fact that the child would be called "IMMANUEL=GOD IS WITH US."

Isaiah 7: 14; Erroneous KJV Translation: Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, "THE VIRGIN" shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel.

The Greek word parthenos used in Matthew 1:23 ; is ambiguous but the Hebrew term "Almah" that is erroneously translated in some Christian bibles as "virgin" is absolute, and according to Young"s Analytical Concordance to the Bible, the Hebrew term "Almah," carries the meaning, (Concealment---unmarried female.)

Go to "A Dictionary of Biblical Tradition in English Literature," by David Jeffery.
There you will find written, "Many scholars consider the new Revised Standard Version of the King James translation, which is probably the most widely used version of the English bible today, and considered by most modern scholars to be to be the most accurate translation of the Old Testament. It follows the modern consensus in translating "Almah" as "Young Woman" in Isaiah 7: 14.

In 1973, an ecumenical edition of RSV was approved by both Protestant and Catholic hierarchies, called the common bible. As a matter of fact, I have in front of me, A New English Translation of the Bible, published in 1970 and approved by the council of churches in England, Scotland, Wales, the Irish council of churches, the London Society of Friends, and the Methodist and Presbyterian churches of England. And there in the RSV we read in Isaiah 7: 14; "A young Woman is with child, and she will bear a son." I also have before me The Good News Bible, catholic Study Edition, with imprimatur by Archbishop John Whealon: and on turning to Isaiah 7: 14; It says here, "A young woman who is pregnant will have a son, etc."

But even after admitting that the prophet Isaiah never did say that a virgin would conceive etc, but rather, "A YOUNG WOMAN" who is pregnant will have a son," in Matthew 1: 22; concerning the birth of the child Jesus, "Now all this happened in order to make come true what the Lord had said through the prophet (Isaiah)" they here claim that he said a virgin who is pregnant, which obviously he didn't.

In translating the Hebrew words of the prophet Isaiah, that an "Almah" an "unmarried female" is with child and will bear a son," into Greek, which unlike the Hebrew language, does not have a specific term for "virgin," the authors of the Septuagint and Matthew correctly used the Greek word "Parthenos," which carries a basic meaning of "girl," or unmarried youth, and denotes "virgin" only by implication.

A more accurate rendering of the Greek "parthenos" is a person who does not have a regular sexual partner, a widow with a family of children, would be a "parthenos".

In reference to Hanna who nursed the baby Jesus before Mary performed the ceremony of purification, it is said that Anna was a prophetess who earnestly hoped for the coming of the Messiah, she was an old woman of 84 and had been a widow for seven years, never remarrying, but remaining in her parthenia=unmarried and sexually chaste state, ect, She was a parthenos, but that does not mean that she was a virgin.

To translate something from the Hebrew to the Greek, or from any language to another, one must not lose the essence of the original, and the original was, that "A young woman was with child." Therefore, as the greater majority of churches now admit, that the words of Isaiah, were "A young woman who is pregnant will have a son, etc." Matthew 1: 23; should now read, "Now all this happened to make come true what the Lord had said through Isaiah, "A young woman who is pregnant will have a son, etc." Because they all now admit that those were the words of Isaiah 7: 14.

The Septuagint was a translation of the Hebrew Old Testament into Greek, by Hebrews in Alexandria, before the days of Jesus and they like Matthew, were forced to use the Greek term, "Parthenos" in translating the Hebrew "Almah" Because there was no other word in that Language that they could use for maiden, or young girl, etc.

"Parthenos," was often used in reference to non-virgins who had never been married. Homer uses it in reference to unmarried girls who were no longer virgins, and Homer was the standard textbook for learning Greek all throughout antiquity, so any writer of Greek, including Matthew, who translated Isaiah"s words, that (An unmarried woman would be with child etc) while being well aware of this words versatile and indefinite meaning; was in no way implying that Mary was a virgin.

For the Hebrew has a specific term for "virgin," "Bethulah" which word is used in every instance in the Old Testament where a woman who has never had sexual intercourse with a man is referred to, which is obviously not the case with the unmarried woman/Almah, who is mentioned in Isaiah 7:14.

In Pergamos, as one of the final stages in the quest for enlightenment, the initiated adept would participate in sex with the Temple Virgin/Parthenos.

"Parthenos" did not mean possessing an intact hymen. A parthenos was simply an unmarried woman, a woman who claimed ownership of herself.
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2016 9:51:46 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
If you believe in a talking snake, what wouldn't you believe in as long as someone wrote it in the bible?

I think its more likely a jewish girl told a fib :)
Gentorev
Posts: 2,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2016 10:59:04 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/5/2016 9:51:46 PM, matt8800 wrote:
If you believe in a talking snake, what wouldn't you believe in as long as someone wrote it in the bible?

I think its more likely a jewish girl told a fib :)

And you are entitled to think whatever you wish to think.
Gentorev
Posts: 2,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2016 5:27:06 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/5/2016 9:29:08 PM, Gentorev wrote:
At 1/5/2016 8:41:47 PM, 12_13 wrote:
At 1/5/2016 8:51:36 AM, Gentorev wrote:
...quick study of scriptures will prove that the virgin birth is a false teaching.

Please explain how.


Mary was a virgin right up until the act by which she conceived her firstborn son Jesus, who was sired by Joseph ben Heli. See Luke 3: 23.

Isaiah 7: 14; Jewish Translation: Therefore, the Lord, of His own, shall give you a sign; behold, the "YOUNG WOMAN" is with child, and she shall bear a son, and she shall call his name Immanuel.

The emphasis of this prophecy should be in the fact that the child would be called "IMMANUEL=GOD IS WITH US."

Isaiah 7: 14; Erroneous KJV Translation: Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, "THE VIRGIN" shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel.

The Greek word parthenos used in Matthew 1:23 ; is ambiguous but the Hebrew term "Almah" that is erroneously translated in some Christian bibles as "virgin" is absolute, and according to Young"s Analytical Concordance to the Bible, the Hebrew term "Almah," carries the meaning, (Concealment---unmarried female.)

Go to "A Dictionary of Biblical Tradition in English Literature," by David Jeffery.
There you will find written, "Many scholars consider the new Revised Standard Version of the King James translation, which is probably the most widely used version of the English bible today, and considered by most modern scholars to be to be the most accurate translation of the Old Testament. It follows the modern consensus in translating "Almah" as "Young Woman" in Isaiah 7: 14.

In 1973, an ecumenical edition of RSV was approved by both Protestant and Catholic hierarchies, called the common bible. As a matter of fact, I have in front of me, A New English Translation of the Bible, published in 1970 and approved by the council of churches in England, Scotland, Wales, the Irish council of churches, the London Society of Friends, and the Methodist and Presbyterian churches of England. And there in the RSV we read in Isaiah 7: 14; "A young Woman is with child, and she will bear a son." I also have before me The Good News Bible, catholic Study Edition, with imprimatur by Archbishop John Whealon: and on turning to Isaiah 7: 14; It says here, "A young woman who is pregnant will have a son, etc."

But even after admitting that the prophet Isaiah never did say that a virgin would conceive etc, but rather, "A YOUNG WOMAN" who is pregnant will have a son," in Matthew 1: 22; concerning the birth of the child Jesus, "Now all this happened in order to make come true what the Lord had said through the prophet (Isaiah)" they here claim that he said a virgin who is pregnant, which obviously he didn't.

In translating the Hebrew words of the prophet Isaiah, that an "Almah" an "unmarried female" is with child and will bear a son," into Greek, which unlike the Hebrew language, does not have a specific term for "virgin," the authors of the Septuagint and Matthew correctly used the Greek word "Parthenos," which carries a basic meaning of "girl," or unmarried youth, and denotes "virgin" only by implication.

A more accurate rendering of the Greek "parthenos" is a person who does not have a regular sexual partner, a widow with a family of children, would be a "parthenos".

In reference to Hanna who nursed the baby Jesus before Mary performed the ceremony of purification, it is said that Anna was a prophetess who earnestly hoped for the coming of the Messiah, she was an old woman of 84 and had been a widow for seven years, never remarrying, but remaining in her parthenia=unmarried and sexually chaste state, ect, She was a parthenos, but that does not mean that she was a virgin.

To translate something from the Hebrew to the Greek, or from any language to another, one must not lose the essence of the original, and the original was, that "A young woman was with child." Therefore, as the greater majority of churches now admit, that the words of Isaiah, were "A young woman who is pregnant will have a son, etc." Matthew 1: 23; should now read, "Now all this happened to make come true what the Lord had said through Isaiah, "A young woman who is pregnant will have a son, etc." Because they all now admit that those were the words of Isaiah 7: 14.

The Septuagint was a translation of the Hebrew Old Testament into Greek, by Hebrews in Alexandria, before the days of Jesus and they like Matthew, were forced to use the Greek term, "Parthenos" in translating the Hebrew "Almah" Because there was no other word in that Language that they could use for maiden, or young girl, etc.

"Parthenos," was often used in reference to non-virgins who had never been married. Homer uses it in reference to unmarried girls who were no longer virgins, and Homer was the standard textbook for learning Greek all throughout antiquity, so any writer of Greek, including Matthew, who translated Isaiah"s words, that (An unmarried woman would be with child etc) while being well aware of this words versatile and indefinite meaning; was in no way implying that Mary was a virgin.

For the Hebrew has a specific term for "virgin," "Bethulah" which word is used in every instance in the Old Testament where a woman who has never had sexual intercourse with a man is referred to, which is obviously not the case with the unmarried woman/Almah, who is mentioned in Isaiah 7:14.

In Pergamos, as one of the final stages in the quest for enlightenment, the initiated adept would participate in sex with the Temple Virgin/Parthenos.

"Parthenos" did not mean possessing an intact hymen. A parthenos was simply an
unmarried woman, a woman who claimed ownership of herself.

If Jesus was not born of the flesh as all human beings are, but was supposedly born of a virgin without male semen having been introduced into her uterus, then this would have been the greatest of all miracles, and would have been shouted from the roof tops by all four gospel writers and yet we see that Mark, who is believed to have been the son of Peter, and John, the beloved disciple, who walked and talked with Jesus, ignore the physical birth of Jesus as being totally irrelevant to the story of salvation and begin their account of He, who was sent in the name of the Lord, with the Baptism of the man Jesus, when he was born of the spirit that descended upon him in the form of a dove and the heavenly voice was heard to say, "You are my beloved in whom I am well pleased, Today I have become your father," or rather, "Today I have begotten thee."

Matthew merely translates the Hebrew, Isaiah 7: 14; "A young unmarried woman who IS pregnant will have a son and will name him "Immanuel.""

While Luke simply reveals that the young unmarried 14 year old Mary, was still a virgin over 3 months before she was found to be pregnant.

Due to her obedience to our indwelling ancestral parental spirit, who dwells behind the veil of the flesh, within the inner most sanctuary of his temporary tent/tabernacle, "MANKIND," she conceived in her womb, the child of the father chosen by the Holy Spirit, which act of obedience by the handmaid of the Lord, was concealed in the shadows beneath the wings of the Lord of Spirits.

According to Young's Analytical Concordances to the Bible, the Hebrew "Almah," carries the meaning, "Unmarried female---Concealment."
Gentorev
Posts: 2,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2016 7:01:30 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/5/2016 5:34:45 PM, DPMartin wrote:
At 1/5/2016 11:48:47 AM, Gentorev wrote:
At 1/5/2016 10:32:27 AM, JJ50 wrote:
As IVF hadn't be devised in those far off days, Mary would have conceived in the usual way after having sexual intercourse with a male of the species.

Correct! The Bible reveals the parents of the man Jesus and they are Mary and Joseph who were both sired by the one father, Alexander Helios=Heli the grand-father of Jesus.

Joseph was and still is a very common name among the Jews, and Joseph the son of Heli as revealed in Luke 3: 23; who is the biological father of Jesus, should not be confused with Joseph the son of Jacob as revealed in Matthew 1: 16; who married the already pregnant Mary.

Rather then try to explain what I have forgotten about some time ago when someone mentioned this issue, it been so long ago, hence nothing new:

See this web page for info:
http://www.gotquestions.org...


and if that doesn"t satisfy you, who cares.
plus there is no text that refutes the virgin brith.

Well if that satisfies you young fellow, then it is obvious that you have never studied the scriptures. below is an excerpt from the web page you put forward.

"Some point to these differences as evidence of errors in the Bible. However, the Jews were meticulous record keepers, especially in regard to genealogies. It is inconceivable that Matthew and Luke could build two entirely contradictory genealogies of the same lineage. Again, from David through Jesus, the genealogies are completely different. Even the reference to Shealtiel and Zerubbabel likely refer to different individuals of the same names. Matthew gives Shealtiel's father as Jeconiah while Luke gives Shealtiel's father as Neri. It would be normal for a man named Shealtiel to name his son Zerubbabel in light of the famous individuals of those names (see the books of Ezra and Nehemiah).


First of all, only the record in Luke 3; is the genealogy of Jesus, which genetic line does not come through the cursed line of King Jeconiah. The record in Matthew 1; is the genealogy of Joseph who married the already pregnant Mary, and that particular Joseph is not the biological father of Jesus, but his step-father.

Concerning King Jeconia we read in Jer:22:30: Thus saith the Lord, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah.

No one from the genetic line of Jeconiah could ever rule upon the throne of David.

Shealtiel, who is an ancestor of Jesus See Luke 3: 27; was the biological son of Neria and Tamah.

Tamar, was a female descendant of Solomon, and her 1st marriage was to Naria from the house of Nathan the priest of the tribe of Levi, who was a stepson to David and half brother to Solomon, as they were both the sons of Bathsheba.

Tamar bore two sons to Naria, who were adopted by her 2nd husband, "King Jechonias/Jeconiah."

The only biological son of "King Jeconiah and Tamar," was Zedekiah, who died prematurely in his childhood. The children of Naria of the tribe of Levi, had no legal claim to the throne of King David from the tribe of Judah, but being adopted by King Jeconiah of the tribe of Judah, the sons of Naria (Who were the brethren, "Stepsons" of Jeconiah but not of his seed) were then, according toTorah law, legitimate heirs to the throne of David.

"The Talmud states, "Whoever brings up an orphan in his home is regarded...as though the child had been born to him." (Sanhedrin 119b)." In other words, the adopted child is to be treated as a child born to the father of that house, and any child born to the father of a house of David, through Solomon, is a legitimate heir to the throne of King David.

"Jesus," is a descendant of Nathan, and Nathan is the biological son of Bathsheba and Uriah the Hittite, who became a member of the tribe of Levi by his marriage to Bathsheba the daughter of Ammiel, the son of Obed-edom a descendant of Moses, of the house of Levi, and Jesus was made high priest by the Lord, with these words, "You are my son TODAY I have become your Father" see Hebrew 5: 5.

But through Shealtiel=Salathiel, "the son of Naria the Levite and Tamar," (See Luke 3: 27.) who was the brethren/stepson of King Jeconiah and not of his cursed seed, Jesus the high priest also has a legitimate claim to the throne of David.

Hebrew 5: 10; "And God declared him (Jesus) to be high priest in the line of succession to Melchizedek." Melchizedek held the titles of both King and high priest. Hebrew 5: 5; "In the same way, Christ did not take upon himself the honour of being high priest. Instead, God said to him, "You are my Son; TODAY I have become your Father.""
12_13
Posts: 1,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2016 1:11:00 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/5/2016 9:29:08 PM, Gentorev wrote:
At 1/5/2016 8:41:47 PM, 12_13 wrote:
At 1/5/2016 8:51:36 AM, Gentorev wrote:
...quick study of scriptures will prove that the virgin birth is a false teaching.

Please explain how.

Mary was a virgin right up until the act by which she conceived her firstborn son Jesus, who was sired by Joseph ben Heli. See Luke 3: 23.

Isaiah 7: 14; Jewish Translation: Therefore, the Lord, of His own, shall give you a sign; behold, the "YOUNG WOMAN" is with child, and she shall bear a son, and she shall call his name Immanuel.

The emphasis of this prophecy should be in the fact that the child would be called "IMMANUEL=GOD IS WITH US."

Isaiah 7: 14; Erroneous KJV Translation: Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, "THE VIRGIN" shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel.

The Greek word parthenos used in Matthew 1:23 ; is ambiguous but the Hebrew term "Almah" that is erroneously translated in some Christian bibles as "virgin" ...

Thanks for your effort. Even if we believe that Isaiah is not speaking of virgin, it doesn"t mean that Mary would not have been virgin according to the Bible. According to Gospels Mary was a virgin. Isaiah doesn"t deny that, even if he speaks only about young woman and doesn"t clearly say she will be virgin. Therefore I think your argument doesn"t really hit the targetand and it is not true that the virgin birth is a false teaching. But I can accept that you don"t believe in virgin birth..
DPMartin
Posts: 1,096
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2016 3:26:17 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/6/2016 7:01:30 AM, Gentorev wrote:

Well if that satisfies you young fellow, then it is obvious that you have never studied the scriptures. below is an excerpt from the web page you put forward.


Well old man, you can study the bible until you are blue in the face, and not understand a word of it. Truly it is better to do well with a little then reek havoc with much. And the blood line and how it was recorded and presented in scripture has nothing to do with, whether the virgin birth is true or not. Of which the poster was trying to use.

For the record though, the Lord God of King David promised that the line would be of King David, (where it says that I don"t know at this time) note though, it"s God"s choice, David wasn"t a first born either.

Who is to say that at the time when the church was trying to gather the facts for documentation, there wasn"t a dispute on this matter, and both blood lines where followed through and presented to show no matter what side of the argument, the flesh of Jesus is still the in the blood line of King David. And that is what is important in the understanding of fulfillment in the Word of God to Israel and King David. The rest of it is mood, except to show that Jesus was rightful recipient to the throne in Israel and is the fulfillment of that promise.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2016 3:47:28 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/5/2016 8:51:36 AM, Gentorev wrote:
By ignoring the erroneous interpretation and translations of Jerome and others, a quick study of scriptures will prove that the virgin birth is a false teaching.

Sorry, but the opposite is true.

In fact a close study of the scriptures will show that not only was Jesus born of a virgin, he was not the first to have been so born.

That was a sign given by Jehovah, through ISaiah, to King Ahaz, and therefore must have happened in Ahaz' lifetime.

It also foreshadowed Jesus birth in the same manner, as Matthew points out.

The point is that the only way Jesus could possibly have been conceived, in order to meet the requirement f him being a second Adam was for him to have been conceived in Mary's womb by the action of holy spirit without the interference of an human male.

Do you think for one minute that the God who created the smallest of creatures and who actually wrote their original DNA, could not do something as simple as change the DNA in one of Mary's eggs?

It would have been a very simple task for him or whichever angel he assigned to it, since scripture makes it unlikely in the extreme that he did it himself.

No, again I am sorry but scripture actually shows the precise opposite of what you claim, as does simple logic and reason.
Harikrish
Posts: 11,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2016 4:16:40 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/6/2016 3:47:28 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 1/5/2016 8:51:36 AM, Gentorev wrote:
By ignoring the erroneous interpretation and translations of Jerome and others, a quick study of scriptures will prove that the virgin birth is a false teaching.

Sorry, but the opposite is true.

In fact a close study of the scriptures will show that not only was Jesus born of a virgin, he was not the first to have been so born.

That was a sign given by Jehovah, through ISaiah, to King Ahaz, and therefore must have happened in Ahaz' lifetime.

It also foreshadowed Jesus birth in the same manner, as Matthew points out.

The point is that the only way Jesus could possibly have been conceived, in order to meet the requirement f him being a second Adam was for him to have been conceived in Mary's womb by the action of holy spirit without the interference of an human male.

Do you think for one minute that the God who created the smallest of creatures and who actually wrote their original DNA, could not do something as simple as change the DNA in one of Mary's eggs?

So you believe by simply changing the DNA in one of Mary's eggs would have been sufficient to cause conception. You have just shown how stupid and ignorant you are of how human conception occurs. At 62+ you must be the dumbest senior on DDO.

It would have been a very simple task for him or whichever angel he assigned to it, since scripture makes it unlikely in the extreme that he did it himself.

No, again I am sorry but scripture actually shows the precise opposite of what you claim, as does simple logic and reason.
Scriptures haven't made you any smarter. You have been stuck on stupid at a very early age.
Gentorev
Posts: 2,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2016 6:39:24 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/6/2016 3:26:17 PM, DPMartin wrote:
At 1/6/2016 7:01:30 AM, Gentorev wrote:

Well if that satisfies you young fellow, then it is obvious that you have never studied the scriptures. below is an excerpt from the web page you put forward.


Well old man, you can study the bible until you are blue in the face, and not understand a word of it. Truly it is better to do well with a little then reek havoc with much. And the blood line and how it was recorded and presented in scripture has nothing to do with, whether the virgin birth is true or not. Of which the poster was trying to use.

GENTOREV.......The genealogy of Jesus as recorded in Luke reveals that the biological father of Jesus was Joseph the son of Alexander Helios/Heli who is the grandfather of Jesus, which means that he was born as every other human being is born, of two human parents. Now if you think the blood line which reveals the physical father of Jesus has nothing to do with whether the virgin birth is true or not, then maty you need help.


For the record though, the Lord God of King David promised that the line would be of King David, (where it says that I don"t know at this time) note though, it"s God"s choice, David wasn"t a first born either.


GENTOREV.......You don't know much at anytime do you? God promised David that it would be through his son Solomon that the Kings of Israel would be chosen. BTW, it is recorded in 1st Samuel 17: 12; that Jesse had eight sons, where does David count, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc, etc, not that I would expect you to know at this time.

Who is to say that at the time when the church was trying to gather the facts for documentation, there wasn"t a dispute on this matter, and both blood lines where followed through and presented to show no matter what side of the argument, the flesh of Jesus is still the in the blood line of King David. And that is what is important in the understanding of fulfillment in the Word of God to Israel and King David. The rest of it is mood, except to show that Jesus was rightful recipient to the throne in Israel and is the fulfillment of that promise.

GENTOREV...........The way you refer to "BOTH" blood lines, you seem to think that there are two genealogies of the man Jesus recorded in the scriptures, but the genealogy recorded in Matthew is that of Joseph the son of Jacob, who married the already pregnant Mary, that particular Joseph is not genetically connected to Jesus in any way.

I don't like to debate the scriptures with people who are ignorant to the scriptures, it shows them up to be...WELL....less than intelligent.
Gentorev
Posts: 2,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2016 6:42:05 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/6/2016 4:16:40 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 1/6/2016 3:47:28 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 1/5/2016 8:51:36 AM, Gentorev wrote:
By ignoring the erroneous interpretation and translations of Jerome and others, a quick study of scriptures will prove that the virgin birth is a false teaching.

Sorry, but the opposite is true.

In fact a close study of the scriptures will show that not only was Jesus born of a virgin, he was not the first to have been so born.

That was a sign given by Jehovah, through ISaiah, to King Ahaz, and therefore must have happened in Ahaz' lifetime.

It also foreshadowed Jesus birth in the same manner, as Matthew points out.

The point is that the only way Jesus could possibly have been conceived, in order to meet the requirement f him being a second Adam was for him to have been conceived in Mary's womb by the action of holy spirit without the interference of an human male.

Do you think for one minute that the God who created the smallest of creatures and who actually wrote their original DNA, could not do something as simple as change the DNA in one of Mary's eggs?

So you believe by simply changing the DNA in one of Mary's eggs would have been sufficient to cause conception. You have just shown how stupid and ignorant you are of how human conception occurs. At 62+ you must be the dumbest senior on DDO.

It would have been a very simple task for him or whichever angel he assigned to it, since scripture makes it unlikely in the extreme that he did it himself.

No, again I am sorry but scripture actually shows the precise opposite of what you claim, as does simple logic and reason.
Scriptures haven't made you any smarter. You have been stuck on stupid at a very early age.

Thanks Harikrish, you saved me the trouble.
Composer
Posts: 5,858
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2016 7:48:18 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/5/2016 8:51:36 AM, Gentorev wrote:
By ignoring the erroneous interpretation and translations of Jerome and others, a quick study of scriptures will prove that the virgin birth is a false teaching.

Sorry, but the opposite is true.

In fact a close study of the scriptures will show that not only was Jesus born of a virgin, he was not the first to have been so born.

That was a sign given by Jehovah, through ISaiah, to King Ahaz, and therefore must have happened in Ahaz' lifetime.

It also foreshadowed Jesus birth in the same manner, as Matthew points out.

At 1/6/2016 3:47:28 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
The point is that the only way Jesus could possibly have been conceived, in order to meet the requirement f him being a second Adam was for him to have been conceived in Mary's womb by the action of holy spirit without the interference of an human male.

Do you think for one minute that the God who created the smallest of creatures and who actually wrote their original DNA, could not do something as simple as change the DNA in one of Mary's eggs?

It would have been a very simple task for him or whichever angel he assigned to it, since scripture makes it unlikely in the extreme that he did it himself.

So in your Psychosis an archangel called Mikey managed to get inside/be transferred in to Mary's womb, to become a pretend human called jebus!

Your insanity has no bounds MCB & Co,
wembley
Posts: 58
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2016 8:05:34 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/5/2016 8:51:36 AM, Gentorev wrote:
By ignoring the erroneous interpretation and translations of Jerome and others, a quick study of scriptures will prove that the virgin birth is a false teaching. :

All God's people were born of a virgin long before they woke up in a body called flesh.
Gentorev
Posts: 2,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2016 8:45:24 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/7/2016 8:05:34 AM, wembley wrote:
At 1/5/2016 8:51:36 AM, Gentorev wrote:
By ignoring the erroneous interpretation and translations of Jerome and others, a quick study of scriptures will prove that the virgin birth is a false teaching. :

All God's people were born of a virgin long before they woke up in a body called flesh.

We are all God's people, are you saying some virgin pumped out the entire human race?
wembley
Posts: 58
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2016 9:02:23 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/7/2016 8:45:24 AM, Gentorev wrote:
At 1/7/2016 8:05:34 AM, wembley wrote:
At 1/5/2016 8:51:36 AM, Gentorev wrote:
By ignoring the erroneous interpretation and translations of Jerome and others, a quick study of scriptures will prove that the virgin birth is a false teaching. :

All God's people were born of a virgin long before they woke up in a body called flesh.

We are all God's people, are you saying some virgin pumped out the entire human race? :

ALL God's people were born in His thoughts before He spoke His creation into existence. God's thoughts are the VIRGIN MOTHER.

God's commandment to "Honor they Mother and Father" has nothing to do with the flesh called mom and dad. The Father is our Creator who is totally invisible to His creation and His creation is the virgin Mother where we all exist until we awaken in bodies called flesh. We really don't need to be born of a visible womb of a mother. Adam and Eve weren't born of the womb.
Gentorev
Posts: 2,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2016 9:11:55 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/7/2016 9:02:23 AM, wembley wrote:
At 1/7/2016 8:45:24 AM, Gentorev wrote:
At 1/7/2016 8:05:34 AM, wembley wrote:
At 1/5/2016 8:51:36 AM, Gentorev wrote:
By ignoring the erroneous interpretation and translations of Jerome and others, a quick study of scriptures will prove that the virgin birth is a false teaching. :

All God's people were born of a virgin long before they woke up in a body called flesh.

We are all God's people, are you saying some virgin pumped out the entire human race? :

ALL God's people were born in His thoughts before He spoke His creation into existence. God's thoughts are the VIRGIN MOTHER.

God's commandment to "Honor they Mother and Father" has nothing to do with the flesh called mom and dad. The Father is our Creator who is totally invisible to His creation and His creation is the virgin Mother where we all exist until we awaken in bodies called flesh. We really don't need to be born of a visible womb of a mother. Adam and Eve weren't born of the womb.

So what you are saying, is that YOU=The mind, was born before the body in which You developed, am I correct?
Gentorev
Posts: 2,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2016 12:20:08 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/6/2016 1:11:00 PM, 12_13 wrote:
At 1/5/2016 9:29:08 PM, Gentorev wrote:
At 1/5/2016 8:41:47 PM, 12_13 wrote:
At 1/5/2016 8:51:36 AM, Gentorev wrote:
...quick study of scriptures will prove that the virgin birth is a false teaching.

Please explain how.

Mary was a virgin right up until the act by which she conceived her firstborn son Jesus, who was sired by Joseph ben Heli. See Luke 3: 23.

Isaiah 7: 14; Jewish Translation: Therefore, the Lord, of His own, shall give you a sign; behold, the "YOUNG WOMAN" is with child, and she shall bear a son, and she shall call his name Immanuel.

The emphasis of this prophecy should be in the fact that the child would be called "IMMANUEL=GOD IS WITH US."

Isaiah 7: 14; Erroneous KJV Translation: Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, "THE VIRGIN" shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel.

The Greek word parthenos used in Matthew 1:23 ; is ambiguous but the Hebrew term "Almah" that is erroneously translated in some Christian bibles as "virgin" ...

Thanks for your effort. Even if we believe that Isaiah is not speaking of virgin, it doesn"t mean that Mary would not have been virgin according to the Bible. According to Gospels Mary was a virgin. Isaiah doesn"t deny that, even if he speaks only about young woman and doesn"t clearly say she will be virgin. Therefore I think your argument doesn"t really hit the targetand and it is not true that the virgin birth is a false teaching. But I can accept that you don"t believe in virgin birth..

Neither did the authors of the gospels. Mark and John both saw the physical birth of Jesus as totally irrelevant to the story of salvation and begin their account with the spiritual birth of Jesus, when he came up out of the baptismal waters, and the spirit of our saviour descended upon him in the form of a dove, as the heavenly voice was heard to say: "You are my beloved in whom I am pleased, TODAY I have begotten thee."

Matthew merely verifies the words of Isaiah that a young woman would become pregnant and bear a son who would be called "Immanuel=God is with us, Jesus the chosen host body of our Lord through whom He could reveal his words, his mighty miracles and the awesome sacrifice that he makes for the body of mankind, in which body, he "THE SON OF MAN" develops.

Jesus the servant of the Lord who was obedient even to his cruel death on the stake, See John 3: 14; "For just as Moses lifted up upon a pole the bronze image of the serpent in the wilderness, whose poison was coursing through the veins of God's people, so too, the earthly image of God's only begotten son, had to be lifted up upon a stake also, in order that all those who are dying from the venom of the Old Serpent, only have to turn their eyes to his earthly image which has been lifted up to be saved.

If the Lord had wanted to convey the belief that a virgin would bear a son, he would have had his prophet use the Hebrew word for Virgin, which word is "BETHULAH" the word that is used in every instance in the OT where a woman who has had no sexual contact with a man is referred to, but he didn't. He had Isaiah use the Hebrew "ALMAH", which according to Young's Analytical concordance, means "Unmarried Female with connotations of concealment.

While Luke reveals that Mary was a virgin before she went to visit her aunty Elizabeth, and when after some three months or more, she was found to be pregnant to her half brother "Joseph the son of Alexander Helios" "HELI", who was also the father of Mary by a different mother.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2016 1:03:07 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/7/2016 12:20:08 PM, Gentorev wrote:
At 1/6/2016 1:11:00 PM, 12_13 wrote:


Neither did the authors of the gospels. Mark and John both saw the physical birth of Jesus as totally irrelevant to the story of salvation and begin their account with the spiritual birth of Jesus, when he came up out of the baptismal waters, and the spirit of our saviour descended upon him in the form of a dove, as the heavenly voice was heard to say: "You are my beloved in whom I am pleased, TODAY I have begotten thee."

Matthew merely verifies the words of Isaiah that a young woman would become pregnant and bear a son who would be called "Immanuel=God is with us, Jesus the chosen host body of our Lord through whom He could reveal his words, his mighty miracles and the awesome sacrifice that he makes for the body of mankind, in which body, he "THE SON OF MAN" develops.

Matthew remembers the prophecy of ISaiah, yes, and he likens that prophecy to Jesus birth, I do not get any suggestion that Isaiah's prophecy was directly related to, or predictive of Jesus birth. His birth to a virgin was prophesied elsewhere.

Note that Jesus was never called Immanuel.

However it was essential for the sake of Jesus future sacrifice that he was born of a virgin so that there was no possibility of the interference of human male sperm.

Why?

For precisely the same reasons that animal sacrifices were never enough. The sacrifice had to be the exact equal to Adam, which meant that Jesus had to be born with none of the inherited problems which all humans have without fail.

That meant that the only option open to Jehovah for his son, was to create in Mary's womb a new life, almost certainly using one of her own eggs, but with the DNA rewritten to produce the necessarily perfect child.

Hence virgin birth was a necessity, not a party trick.

Had Jehovah wanted a mere party trick his son could simply have materialised a body, as he did to appear to his disciples after his resurrection.


Jesus the servant of the Lord who was obedient even to his cruel death on the stake, See John 3: 14; "For just as Moses lifted up upon a pole the bronze image of the serpent in the wilderness, whose poison was coursing through the veins of God's people, so too, the earthly image of God's only begotten son, had to be lifted up upon a stake also, in order that all those who are dying from the venom of the Old Serpent, only have to turn their eyes to his earthly image which has been lifted up to be saved.

If the Lord had wanted to convey the belief that a virgin would bear a son, he would have had his prophet use the Hebrew word for Virgin, which word is "BETHULAH" the word that is used in every instance in the OT where a woman who has had no sexual contact with a man is referred to, but he didn't. He had Isaiah use the Hebrew "ALMAH", which according to Young's Analytical concordance, means "Unmarried Female with connotations of concealment.

In the Hebrew mind Unmarried and virgin were absolutely the same in any faithful female. Hence Maiden is also used to denote a virgin.


While Luke reveals that Mary was a virgin before she went to visit her aunty Elizabeth, and when after some three months or more, she was found to be pregnant to her half brother "Joseph the son of Alexander Helios" "HELI", who was also the father of Mary by a different mother.

No, she was not found to be pregnant to Joseph, but as scripture says to holy spirit.

Joseph was not actually the son of Heli, though he is counted as such because Heli was his father in law.

In fact he was the son of one Jacob,as noted at Matthew 1:16. The reason that Luke states he is the son of Heli, his father in law is that Luke is tracing the Matriarchal line, through MAry, no the Patriarchal line as Matthew does.

Luke's doing so shows that Christ was indeed doubly a member of the tribe of Judah. Thus there can be no denying it.
Harikrish
Posts: 11,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2016 1:26:43 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/7/2016 9:02:23 AM, wembley wrote:
At 1/7/2016 8:45:24 AM, Gentorev wrote:
At 1/7/2016 8:05:34 AM, wembley wrote:
At 1/5/2016 8:51:36 AM, Gentorev wrote:
By ignoring the erroneous interpretation and translations of Jerome and others, a quick study of scriptures will prove that the virgin birth is a false teaching. :

All God's people were born of a virgin long before they woke up in a body called flesh.

We are all God's people, are you saying some virgin pumped out the entire human race? :

ALL God's people were born in His thoughts before He spoke His creation into existence. God's thoughts are the VIRGIN MOTHER.

What you are saying is God has a fertile imagination.

God's commandment to "Honor they Mother and Father" has nothing to do with the flesh called mom and dad. The Father is our Creator who is totally invisible to His creation and His creation is the virgin Mother where we all exist until we awaken in bodies called flesh. We really don't need to be born of a visible womb of a mother. Adam and Eve weren't born of the womb.

So your mother never carried you in her womb. Even Jesus was conceived in Mary's womb. Are you saying like Adam you were created from dirt and God's dirty sexual fantasies of a virgin mother?
bulproof
Posts: 25,241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2016 1:43:49 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/7/2016 1:03:07 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
No, she was not found to be pregnant to Joseph, but as scripture says to holy spirit.
You have the DNA report confirming this?
Now you say the spook got his wick wet, is there any evidence the the hymen was ruptured in this process?
You understand that the hymen was designed to be impenetrable from the inside, therefore if the hymen remained unruptured then michael would never have escaped the tomb of the womb.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
ZacGraphics
Posts: 23
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2016 1:51:07 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
The Bible claims so, and Jesus Christ was an actual historical figure.

Whether you wish to believe so or not, this is a very unique claim.
Have you ever heard the story about the hero dying for the villain?