Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Tell me what spirit an unbeliever has and how he can discern truth from error in the bible? You can discern good from bad, I agree, but you are far from what the bible calls good and bad, and God does not like, when you call good evil and evil good.
Tell me what spirit an unbeliever has and how he can discern truth from error in the bible? You can discern good from bad, I agree, but you are far from what the bible calls good and bad, and God does not like, when you call good evil and evil good.
Zur, can you clarify your last sentence ... it is self-contradictory so I'm guessing you meant to state your thought differently?
Oh good grief, the "virgin prophecy" thing again!!
ANY Jewish scholar, even the unreputable ones, will tell you that the Jewish word, ALMAH
Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign;
Behold, a young maiden [ALMA] shall conceive, and bear a son,
And call his name Immanuel.
is translated "maiden" [of marriageable age] not "virgin". The early church leaders were trying to promote this myth of the virgin birth to make it more in line with the already-familiar myths of the virgin births of Mithra and Horus so as to make the Christian nativity more acceptable to the pagans they were trying to convert.
Whether Mary was immaculately impregnated or not is not the issue; maybe she was, maybe she wasn't. The issue is that the translators, to promote the virgin birth dogma, seized upon the word "maiden" and turned it into "virgin" on the hypothesis that most "maidens" of marriageable age were expected to be virgins, yet the two do not necessarily co-relate, as fathers whose daughters get pregnant at 14 know perfectly well their daughters are not necessarily virgins at the time they give birth (or before they get pregnant, for that matter )
Additionally, to perfectly fulfill the prophecy why didn't mary and Joseph name Jesus "Immanuel" as the prophecy directed them to? Apparently Mary and Joseph didn't read the Isaiah scroll carefully enough.
This thread started because someone made a statement that the Bible and the events described were unreliable. For people who do not have Christ in them (unbelievers) - this is totally understandable that they would take the rational perspective.
For people who have Christ in them (believers), they should believe the events of the Bible actually took place by faith.
The virgin birth, since you brought it up, absolutely has to have occurred. If Jesus is born by a man and a woman, then He is in Adam, He is no longer sinless, He could not defeat death, and He would not be One with the Father. So it is essential that Jesus was born of a virgin - otherwise there is no hope for anybody to be saved.
So the choice for the unbelievers to take the rational perspective is par for the course. No problem for me.
For the believer, you have to believe in the virgin birth for the hope of eternal life. The fact that He is in us - proves His virgin birth was real. And if God can override the normal process of making babies, then He can also override the Red Sea and have people walk through on dry ground.
This thread started because someone made a statement that the Bible and the events described were unreliable. For people who do not Christ in them (unbelievers) - this is totally understandable that they would take the rational perspective.
For people who have Christ in them (believers), they should believe the events of the Bible actually took place by faith.
The virgin birth, since you brought it up, absolutely has to have occurred. If Jesus is born by a man and a woman, then He is in Adam, He is no longer sinless, He could not defeat death, and He would not be One with the Father. So it is essential that Jesus was born of a virgin - otherwise there is no hope for anybody to be saved.
So the choice for the unbelievers to take the rational perspective is par for the course. No problem for me.
For the believer, you have to believe in the virgin birth for the hope of eternal life. The fact that He is in us - proves His virgin birth was real. And if God can override the normal process of making babies, then He can also override the Red Sea and have people walk through on dry ground.
Dear JC,
Both Enoch and Elijah were born of man and woman, and both were capable of defeating death.
I can't wait for the day when someone can explain to me how a book of questionable authorship, written not as first person accounts but by others decades if not centuries after that fact, translated from one ancient language by another and then another, politically edited, abridged, revised more times than a bad Hollywood script and with little if any contemporaneous and objective third party corroboration could ever be considered a reliable historical document.
Dear JC,
Both Enoch and Elijah were born of man and woman, and both were capable of defeating death.
Paul in Colossians states that Christ is the first born from the dead.
Enoch and Elijah may have left the earth in a different manner - they did not reappear in bodily form. They were not sinless.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
)
