Luke,Matthew,and the virgin birth

hillsbororiver · June 15, 2006, 03:53:35 PM

So on your authority the Gospels of Matthew and Luke are null and void?

You can just skate past this extremely well researched version, and its comment on word usage? (Commenting on Isaiah 7:14)

Rotherham's sidenote to the root Hebrew word translated virgin in this verse;

"It is true that the Hebrew word here is almah and not bethula; but an examination of all the occurrences of the former shows it is synonymous with the latter and properly means virgin"

I think I will stick with this (Matthew, Luke & Rotherham) for now, but thanks for your input.

Joe

hillsbororiver · June 15, 2006, 04:04:25 PM

Quote from: gmikalchemist why don't you tell us where you get your information that Matt etc aren't the inspired word of God??

Also, what is your byline saying?

I get the feeling you are stringing us along, playing with us as it were.

Gena,

He has this cloak and dagger thing going complete with ever changing and secret identities, if this is what he desires, so be it. It is just that I won't be playing secret agent dungeons and dragons any more.

Take care,

Joe

Daniel · June 15, 2006, 04:06:15 PM

alchemist

Still really don't get the problem, forget I asked at all alchemist. I can be a bit dense in trying to understand where someone is coming from. . You all continue on if you'd like.

Daniel

mercie · June 15, 2006, 04:06:16 PM

Quote from: hillsbororiverSo on your authority the Gospels of Matthew and Luke are null and void?

You can just skate past this extremely well researched version, and its comment on word usage? (Commenting on Isaiah 7:14)

Rotherham's sidenote to the root Hebrew word translated virgin in this verse;

"It is true that the Hebrew word here is almah and not bethula; but an examination of all the occurrences of the former shows it is synonymous with the latter and properly means virgin"

I think I will stick with this (Matthew, Luke & Rotherham) for now, but thanks for your input.

Joe

The Book of Rotherham , the 5th book of the Gospels?

Joe, your sounding a little frayed around the edges. :wink:

Have a Great evening

shibboleth · June 15, 2006, 04:09:33 PM

Unless you have some concrete proof that Matthew and Luke are corrupt, I will keep on believing in a LITERAL virgin birth of Jesus. I don't think the accounts are pretty straight forward.
1.Mary was engaged, not married, to Joseph
2.Mary and Joseph had not had sex. ( Before they came together )
3.Joseph knew he wasn't the father of the babe because he wanted to protect Mary from public disgrace. If it was his babe, he would have married her.
4.An angel told Joseph the Holy Ghost would impregnate Mary.

As I said before, I don't know what I'm missing. Even if there is another spiritual meaning, that doesn't negate the truth about the physical aspect of this scripture.

ciy · June 15, 2006, 04:13:05 PM

Interesting that John the Baptist was also of the lineage of David. His mother and father had never had a child before like Abraham and Sarah. I guess he could be called another virgin birth since he was the first and it was a miracle birth. And his mother Elizabeth was either the 2nd or 1st to receive the Holy Ghost in the NT.

It is also interesting that all men through John would believe. He said there is one that stands among you which you do not know. Was that the new man in him? In Matthew chap 3 it appears John and Jesus baptised each other. Some of this in John chap 1 and Luke chap 1 is a little puzzling. Maybe we have to get rid of that veil of flesh in order to see the hidden truth.

There are pearls hidden everywhere and we are promised that we will not find God in this life unless we seek for him with all of our heart.
ciy

mercie · June 15, 2006, 04:14:33 PM

Quote from: shibbolethUnless you have some concrete proof that Matthew and Luke are corrupt, I will keep on believing in a LITERAL virgin birth of Jesus. I don't think the accounts are pretty straight forward.
1.Mary was engaged, not married, to Joseph
2.Mary and Joseph had not had sex. ( Before they came together )
3.Joseph knew he wasn't the father of the babe because he wanted to protect Mary from public disgrace. If it was his babe, he would have married her.
4.An angel told Joseph the Holy Ghost would impregnate Mary.

As I said before, I don't know what I'm missing. Even if there is another spiritual meaning, that doesn't negate the truth about the physical aspect of this scripture.

Does anyone have Concrete Proof the scriptures are what they are and why we are to Believe them.

Can not offer you that, ones has to respect where Each of us are In the Understanding of the Scriptures be it literally or Spiritually.

Or else we fall out.

Ray and Mike have been a Lesson for us all.

jennifer · June 15, 2006, 04:20:32 PM

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.

alchemist · June 15, 2006, 04:25:51 PM

Gone for a few minutes and I seem to be attacked all over the place.A cloak and dagger thing come on I like your post Joe.And shiboleth do you have proof that the gospel of peter or thomas are not true?And as for stringing you people along,kind of,I couldn't just come out and say everything I knew otherwise you wouldn't have listen to me.

Come on everybody(maybe everybody)when you first read what I said you thought I was crazy but as it went along it made you start to wonder didn't you?

Maybe it was a bad idea to come back here.

longhorn · June 15, 2006, 04:31:49 PM

alchemist, Did you smoke alot of pot back in the 70's?

Longhorn

alchemist · June 15, 2006, 04:51:12 PM

Quote from: jenniferAlchemist,
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.

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 · June 15, 2006, 04:55:02 PM

Quote from: longhornalchemist, Did you smoke alot of pot back in the 70's?

Longhorn

Insults?Fine then,I leave this thread alone then.You people are on your on.

jennifer · June 15, 2006, 05:48:16 PM

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 · June 15, 2006, 05:54:30 PM

: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 · June 15, 2006, 05:58:27 PM

Quote from: jenniferAnd 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.

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

jennifer · June 15, 2006, 05:59:25 PM

Daniel,
Thanks for the confirmation. I hope he is only wanting us to prove him wrong in a test of our faith.
Grace be with you.

Daniel · June 15, 2006, 06:00:50 PM

Joe, thanks for clearing that up, I didn't think that sounded like something you would do. But I was a bit surprised to see you take up an argument with yourself :lol:

Peace

Daniel

hillsbororiver · June 15, 2006, 06:01:14 PM

Quote from: 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

LOL, although I do get fed up with myself almost daily sometimes more, I can assure you this was not one of those times. The identity post was more the result of hurrying through something and not verifying the result.

My apologies,

Joe

Sorin · June 15, 2006, 06:03:24 PM

Quote from: hillsbororiver
Quote from: jenniferAnd 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.

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

That's what I thought you did Joe. But I wasn't quite sure. I was a bit confused to be honest with you. :lol:
Thanks for clearing that up.

Sorin

hillsbororiver · June 15, 2006, 06:03:40 PM

Quote from: DanielJoe, thanks for clearing that up, I didn't think that sounded like something you would do. But I was a bit surprised to see you take up an argument with yourself :lol:

Peace

Daniel

Ahhh Daniel, you got me, I finally snapped and went bonkers, the personality split in half, maybe next time I will come back as a Druid.

Just kidding, it truly was a stupid moderator mistake.

Joe