1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Virgin born

Discussion in '2000-02 Archive' started by C.S. Murphy, Aug 14, 2002.

  1. David Cooke Jr

    David Cooke Jr New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Messages:
    516
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think it is dangerous to elevate the words of a mere person like you and me to the level of Christ. It was a human decision to include Paul's words as scripture. His writings may help us but they will never be on equal footing with Jesus.
     
  2. Bro. Curtis

    Bro. Curtis <img src =/curtis.gif>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    22,016
    Likes Received:
    487
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I read Post-it's reply, and I wanted to puke. Chritsianity is simply, God sending his son to die our sinful death. If Jesus was just a man, the his death means nothing.

    The way modern man understands it, with his very limited understanding, it is impossible for a virgin to concieve. That is why it's a miracle.

    Psalm 118:8
    Psalm 40:4
    Psalm 84:12
    1 Timothy 4:3

    And Post-it also seems to accuse people who do believe in it of having less intelligence than him.

    I don't see how anybody having the Holy Spirit inside them could encourage others to doubt the virgin birth. It makes me sick :mad: :mad:
    :mad:
     
  3. C.S. Murphy

    C.S. Murphy New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2002
    Messages:
    2,302
    Likes Received:
    0
    David please don't defend post it, you do his attempts to undermine the scriptures a diservice when you post that he means no harm. Give him the credit due his mission. I will not attack his posts on this thread as I have declared that I wouldn't but you are a different matter. 2 Tim 3:16 once again settles the question of paul's writings, I would think people would get the message. Now when you follow your argument that all scripture other than words of Christ are added by man do you discredit Moses words, what about Isiah, what about Peter. How far will you go. And yes I believe that those who deny scripture are against the Church, when you can look at post it's rantings and say it's o.k he doesn't deny Christ it's sad. As I said this morning I know you guys don't accept Pauls words but what he said in Romans 1:22 works well here.
    Murph
     
  4. post-it

    post-it <img src=/post-it.jpg>

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2002
    Messages:
    1,785
    Likes Received:
    0
    Just clean up after yourself.
    I agree 100%! This has nothing to do with a requirement for a virgin birth.

    Some people see the a Jesus in a taco and if you tell them it is not real they come up with about the same lame argument you just did here. Jesus face isn't in a tortilla (but could be) and Jesus wasn't born of a virgin (but could have been). Both or either could be true or false and it not support Christ's Deity.
    Please provide proof of this accusation.
    This is usually the response when the person I'm discussing a topic with can't defend their position. I guess it is easier to claim I'm godless or damned, than think about the subject and provide a decent argument. What's next, name calling?

    PreachTheWord has been the only person to give one decent argument with the Gen 3:15 verse. Everyone else just damned the Liberals for even dare to question the concept. We would all be Catholics if that didn't happen some time ago.
     
  5. Bro. Curtis

    Bro. Curtis <img src =/curtis.gif>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    22,016
    Likes Received:
    487
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Post-it, I don't need to defend my position. The Bible does it just fine.
     
  6. post-it

    post-it <img src=/post-it.jpg>

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2002
    Messages:
    1,785
    Likes Received:
    0
    Are you really a pastor? How can you say this when you should know that it was the Church that denied tons of scripture as they tried to clean up the Gnostic lies etc, then again and again, they cut out scripture over time. Then in other places they added scripture. So by your own words you are saying that the Church is against the Church.

    Did you take any formal training? If not, and that isn't really a negative thing, but I would suggest that you bone up on Church History a little more.

    You can also drop your indirect attack on me as I support scripture with good reason and evidence. I argue against ignorance whether it is from atheists or my brothers in Christ. All ignorance hurts the church, from within and without.

    I follow Biblical teaching which instructs us to test, not follow in blind ignorance and acceptance. That is how cults and false religions flourish. Yes, I am wrong at times and people here have helped me change some of my views, but most of them have come from a lifetime of following and learning from the Holy Spirit.

    [ August 16, 2002, 01:17 AM: Message edited by: post-it ]
     
  7. post-it

    post-it <img src=/post-it.jpg>

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2002
    Messages:
    1,785
    Likes Received:
    0
    As it does my view. I'm sure you are right on some subjects and could be right on this one, but you could also be wrong on this one.
     
  8. Bro. Curtis

    Bro. Curtis <img src =/curtis.gif>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    22,016
    Likes Received:
    487
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I don't consider myself, or you, in a sense of right or wrong. I consider the Bible right. It does not matter what you or I say, it's what the Bible says.

    And the Bible says "virgin". Over and over. Comparing scripture with scripture supports the virgin birth.

    It's not dependant on whether or not I agree with it. I am dependant on it. I submit to it, and trust it for what it says. I do not doubt the word of God. It's a real pity that some do.
     
  9. post-it

    post-it <img src=/post-it.jpg>

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2002
    Messages:
    1,785
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, this is called circular reasoning and is evil(intent to harm) based reasoning.
    I believe it was Martin Luther who doubted scripture in the same vain as you define "doubt". So yes, one can doubt scripture as did early Theologians in their search for truth. Even today, question of truth in certain scripture arises yearly.

    I don't doubt the Word of God, once it is supported by scripture as true words of God, the virgin birth is not supported much less well supported.

    [ August 16, 2002, 01:47 AM: Message edited by: post-it ]
     
  10. Bro. Curtis

    Bro. Curtis <img src =/curtis.gif>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    22,016
    Likes Received:
    487
    Faith:
    Baptist
    So now I'm evil ? I don't get you Post-it.

    Comparing scripture with scripture is far from evil. I do believe it's a command.

    It's far too easy to get angry and post something that I have to come back and edit. Maybe I just shouldn't talk to you.

    [ August 16, 2002, 03:39 AM: Message edited by: Mr. Curtis ]
     
  11. Helen

    Helen <img src =/Helen2.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    11,703
    Likes Received:
    2
    This thread is absolutely incredible. Why not fling actual mud at your computer screens, folks?

    Or consider the option of going back to Bible.

    I read ONE post (and I'm so sorry I don't remember who posted it) which mentioned Genesis 3:15.

    YES. The seed of the woman. That is virgin birth, folks. No possible options.

    The Isaiah prophecy is the one which is often said to be doubtful about it meaning virgin, as the word there is 'alma,' meaning 'young girl.' The presumption was, however, that young girls were virgins!

    Matthew wrote his gospel to show the Jews how Jesus fulfilled prophecy, so they would understand that Jesus was the Messiah. Matthew would NOT have used anything that the Jews would have disagreed with regarding the meaning of words. When, in Matthew 1:23, Matthew refers to the Isaiah prophecy, he quotes it using the Greek word "parthenos", meaning 'maiden,' or 'unmarried daughter,' which is virtually synonymous with virgin and, in fact, is simply a form of the word "parthenia" meaning "maidenhood; virgin."

    Is this word used as virgin explicitly in other places in the New Testament? Absolutely!

    Luke 1:26-27
    In the sixth month, God sent the angel Bagriel t Nazareth, a town in Galilee, to a virgin [parthenos] pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin's [parthenos] name was Mary.

    1 Corinthians 7:25-38
    Now, about virgins [parthenos]: I have no command from the Lord, but I give a judgment as one who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy. Because of the present crisis, I think that it is good for you to remain as you are. Are ou married? Do not seek a divorce. Are you unmarried? Do not look for a wife. But if you do marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin [parthonos] marries, she has not sinned. But those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this.

    What I mean, brothers, is that the time is short. From now on those who have wives should live as if they had none; those who mourn, as if they did not; those who are happy, as if they were not; those who buy something, as if it were not theirs to keep; those who use the tings of the world, as if not engrossed in them. For this world in its present form is passing away.

    I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord's affairs -- how he can please the Lord. But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world -- how he can please his wife -- and his interested are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin [parthenos; note this is mentioned as separate from simply being unmarried] is concerned about the Lord's affairs. Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world -- how she can please her husband. I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord.

    If anyone thinks he is acting improperly toward the virgin [parthenos] he is engaged to, and if she is getting along in years [this is definitely not a young girl, then!], he should do as he wants. He is not sinning. They should get married. But the man who has settled the matter in his own mind, who is under no compulsion but has control over his own will, and who has made up his mind not to marry the virgin -- this man also does the right thing. So then, he who marries the virgin does right, but he who does not marry her does even better.


    2 Corinthians 11:2
    I am jealous for you with a godly jealousy. I promised you to one husband, to Christ, so that I might present you as a pure virgin to him.

    Is there ANY question about the way Paul was using this word? I think not.

    There are a number of other times 'parthenos' is used in the New Testament. It always means a woman who is not defiled via sex. The one exception to that meaning is in Revelation 14:4.

    The virgin birth of Christ is not simply tradition, as I hope it is clear from the passages above! It is a biblical doctrine and has been traditionally accepted that way. It is not the tradition which validates it, though, but the Bible itself.
     
  12. Bro. Curtis

    Bro. Curtis <img src =/curtis.gif>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    22,016
    Likes Received:
    487
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I almost did. I have edited my response, and will bow out now.

    My humble apologies for letting my emotion cloud my judgement. Thanx for a great post, Helen.

    [ August 16, 2002, 04:28 AM: Message edited by: Mr. Curtis ]
     
  13. Daniel David

    Daniel David New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    5,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    I really would like to see David or Josh or Post-it to respond to the Genesis 3:15 passage I mentioned. Others have mentioned it, but none have tried to counter it.

    It is also interesting to note that the LXX used the greek word for virgin when translating Isaiah 7:14.

    This whole idea of Christianity "borrowing" from other religions is not a logical argument at all and any person (fundy or lib) should be ashamed of themselves for employing such stuff. The Genesis 3 account predates all of it.

    Let me give an example.

    Superman -
    Only son from a distant area
    More than a mere human
    Was sent among the people to show them the light
    His earthly father wasn't his actual father
    He died (Superman 2 when he surrendered his power) and rose again to defeat the workings of the evil trinity...

    The list could go on. So, do I have to say that the Superman story is legitimate or that it really "borrowed" from Christianity or whatever just because of similarities? One could just as easily point out alot of discrepancies between the two.

    Oh and by the way, I love Superman.
     
  14. C.S. Murphy

    C.S. Murphy New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2002
    Messages:
    2,302
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes Post it believe it or not I am a Pastor. Our Church is doing quite well despite my narrow view of scripture. Formal training yes but not a Dr. or even seminary just simple Bible college. Sometimes I would like more until I read Joshuas post on how everyone at Mercer voted that the Virgin birth wasn't important. You seem to attempt to enrage people, why? I don't feel that the scripture should be questioned. That is just my view but I feel it Biblical.
    Murph
     
  15. David Cooke Jr

    David Cooke Jr New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Messages:
    516
    Likes Received:
    0
    Its not logical or persuasive to use Paul's writings to prove his writings are authoritative.
    You are starting from the assumption that every book in the canon was approved by God and authored by God. God wasn't at the "canon" meetings to cast a vote. MEN DECIDED WHAT WORKS WERE INCLUDED IN THE BIBLE. As for who I defend, I'll defend you just like I defend Post-it when I think its warranted. Remember, I disagree with his position, but I think its wrong to blast him when he still believes that Jesus is the resurrected Lord and obviously has spent time studying the scriptures and has done so rationally and with what appears to be an honest open heart.
     
  16. David Cooke Jr

    David Cooke Jr New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Messages:
    516
    Likes Received:
    0
    2 Timothy 4:2,
    I read the section of Genesis you mentioned. I din't get the support for the virgin birth you mentioned. BTW, I still believe the virgin birth, I just don't see Genesis 3:15 supporting it.
     
  17. Daniel David

    Daniel David New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    5,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    David, I know you say you believe in the virgin birth. The reason I lump you and Josh and others together is because if you don't believe it to be necessary to the identity of Christ, I wonder about where your faith is really resting.

    In Genesis 3:15, the "seed of woman" is mentioned. A woman doesn't have a "seed". That is the part the man plays in this thing called procreation. The "seed" is singular. The promise includes a singular person born of a woman (take notes Post-it) that would crush satan.

    Luke, himself being a doctor, correctly observed that what Mary was carrying was the Holy. My NKJV includes "One" in italics to say - Holy One . He understood it to be the Gen. 3:15 reference.
     
  18. Helen

    Helen <img src =/Helen2.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    11,703
    Likes Received:
    2
    David,

    Men did not decide what books belonged in the Bible. That also was under God's control. The councils confirmed it as a matter of necessity against heresies and heretics and a plethora of false writings.

    God has used men all along: to write the Bible, to copy the Bible, to accept the Bible, to translate the Bible. And although we know there are copyist errors and and possibly some intentional ones from those denying the divinity of Christ when the Masoretic was being done, this does not invalidate the fact that God Himself was not out of the picture at all!

    And by the way, if you look at the end of 2 Peter you will find that Peter considers Paul's letters Scripture...
     
  19. post-it

    post-it <img src=/post-it.jpg>

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2002
    Messages:
    1,785
    Likes Received:
    0
    2 Timothy 4:2, I apologize for misquoting in an earlier post. I said that PreachTheWord had made the only good argument for the virgin birth by quoting Gen3:15, when in fact it was you that made that post. Sorry.

    However, I still have a problem with the "seed" of woman, verses the seed of David which even Christ himself admitted. one is true and one is false. If Gen 3 is talking about Christ, then how did the seed of David also get into Mary? This is the whole reason for listing the generations of Joseph in Matt., it shows HIS seed going back to David, so why show this if his seed never got planted? Then therr are the many verses which support the seed of David which could have only come from Joseph. The prophecies are also much more direct and clear.
    2Sam 7:12-13
    Ps 89:3-4
    Ps. 132:11

    So we have importance being put into to areas which oppose each other. One supports Joseph as biological seed provider and one supporting a midnight rape of a young girl by a supposed "Spirit". I'm afraid if my daughter told me a man (supposed angel) woke here up at night and told here that a Spirit was about to have sex with her and not be afraid, I wouldn't buy it. I would call the cops. I can accept Joseph and the his seed line as prophecied in a very direct, clear, and understandable fashion, but not the other.

    Gen 3:15 could also support some other scenarios since the head being crushed may or may not have occurred yet and the virgin birth may or may not have occurred yet.

    That is the problem with generalized Nostradamic style prophecy. It can never really be known if the event we eventually link to it is really the one it was talking about. How many times has "wars and rumors of war" been used to predict the end times? Every year since Christ died.

    When give clear prophecy and generalized undefined prophecy, if they conflict, which these do, then we toss out the weak muddied one. Bye Bye, virgin birth.

    Thanks Helen, for calming the mud slinging. I think my shirt is ruined already though [​IMG] .

    [ August 16, 2002, 10:32 AM: Message edited by: post-it ]
     
  20. Helen

    Helen <img src =/Helen2.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    11,703
    Likes Received:
    2
    Post-it, it is heresies like the one you are proposing that got the mud going in the first place; and it IS heretical.

    Look at the rest of my post. Parthenos means virgin. It is the same as the following hypothetical conversation:

    You: Your grandchild is staying with you?

    Me: Yes, she is.

    You: Is there trouble with her marriage or something?

    Me: Oh goodness no! She's just a girl!

    Now, I didn't say she was a virgin, did I? But did you get ANY other meaning out of it that would not be in line with the strong implication that she, being 'just a girl' meant that?

    'Parthenos' is an even stronger word with a stronger implication. There is no other meaning for it. It is the word both Matthew and Luke use referring to Mary, the word Paul uses describing how he wants the church to be for Christ, as well as the word used a number of times to specifically refer to a woman who has not yet had sex!

    There is NO OTHER POSSIBLE MEANING for this word when applied to Mary, especially in terms of the culture of the time. For when Joseph THOUGHT she might have had sex outside of marriage, he made plans to divorce her. It took angelic intervention to convince him that Mary was still OK.
     
Loading...