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.
I think there are some places in the bible that make it clear that the sin nature is passed down through the male. And seeing how wicked so many males are, I am not surprised by it. Sorry guys, but I do think men are more sinful than women, generally.
That is interesting, because for much of Christian history, the idea that Eve supposedly brought sin into the world was used as an excuse for the subjugation of women.
Since I don't believe the Garden of Eden story is a factual account but rather a way to explain our separation from God, neither view holds much water with me. We are sinners by nature, male and female. Why? I'm not sure, and I don't think it really matters.
And to be clear and stay on topic, NO, count me with those who don't think that belief in the virgin birth is a requirement to be a Christian.
This one appears to have been an early perception intended originally to increase the "stature" of the man as opposed to the message, and is clearly a part of the transformation of "the Way," or the relationship with God and man taught by Jesus, into a religion that could be administered by self-appointed "priests."
It stems from a transformation of "young woman" into "virgin" and seems to have been at least in part a nod to the "goddess" religions of the time (See Graves The White Goddess).
A later use of the idea appears to have been to strengthen the perception of Jesus as "the perfect sacrifice" in the barbaric "substitution atonement" theory that will be covered in later threads.
The end desired result of the Bible is to be counted as a pure virgin who gives birth on firstfruits. All flesh is female and all flesh would rule. But the person who would become a submissive virgin to the will of her betrothed will be found pregnant as a pure virgin having known no man, and they shall give birth to fully grown men who are called,'' Firstfruits.''
''Behold, the Lord has created a new thing in the Earth, a woman shall encompass a man.''
One thing that may be of interest is the holdover in Hebrews of the idea that Jesus became the son of God rather than being born as such: Heb 1:5 " 5For to which of the angels did He ever say, "YOU ARE MY SON, TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU"?
The Pharisees saw Jesus raise Lazarus from the dead, and went out to plot his death. It doesn't matter what one sees or experiences or reads. If their hearts are evil and unrepentant, they will never believe, even if they see someone rise from the dead.
The Pharisees saw Jesus raise Lazarus from the dead, and went out to plot his death. It doesn't matter what one sees or experiences or reads. If their hearts are evil and unrepentant, they will never believe, even if they see someone rise from the dead.
I am not sure how that relates to the virgin birth. Explain?
This is an illustration of how so many threads that COULD be interesting on this forum crash and burn into petty arguments. If you don't agree that it's possible or likely that the story of the virgin birth could have been concocted, just say so. A smarmy response is unnecessary.
In fact, he did "just say so," and supported it. You simply don't like what he said.
One thing that may be of interest is the holdover in Hebrews of the idea that Jesus became the son of God rather than being born as such: Heb 1:5 " 5For to which of the angels did He ever say, "YOU ARE MY SON, TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU"?
In fact, he did "just say so," and supported it. You simply don't like what he said.
No he didn't. You seem not to have understood the difference between saying that Mary lied and saying that reporters may well have made up the idea for their own purposes. Do you have anything to the point to contribute?
In fact, he did "just say so," and supported it. You simply don't like what he said.
No. I don't like the WAY he said it. He twisted the point of the OP to make it sound as if the OP was focused on calling Mary a liar.
He could easily have said, "Well, as a person who believes in the inerrancy of the Bible, I believe that the exchange recorded in Luke between Mary and the angel is factual, and I don't believe it was added on as an embellishment." He has the right to state that.
Instead, he attacked the integrity of the OP, which is to what I objected. There are precious few theological discussions on this forum that don't devolve into name-calling and nastiness, and nateswift has started what could be an interesting series to bridge discussions between literalists and non-literalists. I'd like it to continue.
This thread is not about me, people. I don't have to defend or justify my question to the OP. Now why don't you all just address the topic?
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.
