> General Discussions
Luke,Matthew,and the virgin birth
alchemist:
--- Quote from: jennifer ---Alchemist,
To dispute the virgin birth means you either do not understand what the holy spirit is or do not accept the fact that literal physical relations between a man and woman produce offspring that are sinful.
One of the prophesies concerning Jesus in the OT states he would be sinless and without guile: Isa. 53:9. The fulfillment of this statement is repeated in 1 Pet. 2:22. Are you now suggesting that 1 Pet. 2:22 should also be questioned?
The Hebrew word almah is Isa. 7:14 means "a young woman" and in the context of the Tanakh always "a young woman of unsullied reputation", which is why the Jewish translators of the Septuagint, the Greek version of the Tanakh, prepared 200 years before Jesus' birth, rendered this word into Greek as parthenos, "virgin"; this is the word used in Matt. 1:23.
Looking at this another way, the OT speaks of Jesus as having eternal existence: Mic. 5:1(2). The fulfillment of this statement can be seen in John 1:1,14, and John 8:58, Eph. 1:3-4, Col. 1:15-19, and Rev. 1:18.
Again, the OT states Jesus would be the Son of God: Ps. 2:7, & Prov. 30:4. This fulfillment is stated in Matt. 3:17, and Luke 1:32. Are you now going to also dispute the Psalms and Proverb prophesies?
Finally, how do you conclude that the entire gospel of Luke & Matthew are corrupt and not inspired by God. Can you give some examples? I'm sure that if you searched diligently you would find there to be witnesses to back up every statement made in these two gospels.
In conclusion, it really boils down to 1 John 5:9- If we accept human witness, God's witness is stronger, because it is the witness which God has given about his Son.
Grace be with you.
--- End quote ---
I'll try to answer them in order Isa.53:9 he was free of sin but what is being born of a virgin have to do with it,and peter is questioned but it a difficult one to figure out so I kind opf think this scripture is true but it still has nothing to do with the virgin birth.I've looked at the history of Isa 7:14 and it is more properly maiden or young woman no matter how you look at it,read the previous post I put up about it.
"Looking at this another way, the OT speaks of Jesus as having eternal existence: Mic. 5:1(2). The fulfillment of this statement can be seen in John 1:1,14, and John 8:58, Eph. 1:3-4, Col. 1:15-19, and Rev. 1:18."
You don't know whats so funny about what you just did with all of the passages you piched out in this paragraph.
Agian this has nothing to do with the virgin birth.
Yes,he was the son of god,and was moses,noah,ect. and did you know mark15:39 calls him a son of god,the is a mistranslation.
I did not say the ENTIRE gospels are corrupt if I did it was a mistake I'll correct but I did say they weren't inspired by god.Did you know they weren't written by luke or matthew and if you want refence I'll give it to you and there are parts that seem to me like it came from paganism(vai virgin birth) there isn't that much more proof I can offer but can you give me evidence that there not corrupt?
And this isn't for anything but if want it here:
1 John 5:9. Read "God, that he hath testified" instead of "God which he hath testified". L T Tr A W WH N N
1 John 5:10. Add "of God" after "hath the witness". L
1 John 5:10. Read "in him" instead of "in himself". T Tr A WH N HF
1 John 5:10. Read "he that believeth not the Son" instead of "he that believeth not God". L
alchemist:
--- Quote from: longhorn ---alchemist, Did you smoke alot of pot back in the 70's?
Longhorn
--- End quote ---
Insults?Fine then,I leave this thread alone then.You people are on your on.
jennifer:
Alchemist,
I'll try to reply to your question about what does being born of a virgin have to do with being free from sin. In a nutshell, it's like being born into the New Jerusalem from above.
First off, can we agree with as offspring of Adam and Eve, we have all inherited sin? If we agree, then how is it that the Scriptures point out that Jesus was sinless and without guile if he wasn't conceived by the Holy Spirit?
So you are saying that Matthew & Luke are not inspired scriptures, and that they were not written by them? I would be interested in whom your references that prove them corrupt.
What translation are you using for 1 John 5:9-10? I'm quoting from the Complete Jewish Bible.
Mine reads:
5:9-If we accept human witness, God's witness is stronger, because it is the witness which God has given about his Son.
5:10-Those who keep trusting in the Son of God have this witness in them. Those who do not keep trusting God have made him out to be a liar, because they have not trusted in the witness which God has given about his Son.
What do you understand the spiritual virginity to mean?
And finally, having just read the Prayer Requests before I returned to this forum, I was suprised to read you, hillsbororiver, reintroducing yourself as alchemist. Are you also still one of the moderators of this web-site?
Is this whole thing some kind of joke?
May God's Grace come back to you.
Daniel:
:lol: I saw the same thing Jennifer, then I saw Joe getting fed up with Joe and thought,
"I'm just going to back off let him discuss this with himself" :lol:
Don't know whats up really :lol:
Peace
Daniel
hillsbororiver:
--- Quote from: jennifer ---And finally, having just read the Prayer Requests before I returned to this forum, I was suprised to read you, hillsbororiver, reintroducing yourself as alchemist. Are you also still one of the moderators of this web-site?
Is this whole thing some kind of joke?
May God's Grace come back to you.
--- End quote ---
Joke? No. More like a mistake on my part, I moved alchemist's post from another thread and messed it up leaving my name as the poster. I just removed it.
I take this Forum a little more serious than pulling some stunt like that and I am truly sorry if I confused anyone.
Thank you for bringing this to my attention,
Joe
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version