Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Baptist Discussions' started by Yeshua1, Sep 26, 2013.
wsa that required for him to be qualified to be messiah, or could he had been born naturally?
How many prophecies could he have not fulfilled and still be Messiah?
assume for a moment that there was no prophecy given concerning that ...
Would he still be required to be born as he was, even if not fulfilling that specific prophecy?
IMO no and I think it is relative to what took place in Gen 3 but I do not know just what.
The woman was taken from man for purpose but trespass and sin became involved and brought death to man, yet the sinless one could be born of woman but she had to be a virgin.
Why would he be required to be born in ANY fashion if it wasn't something that came from Scripture in the first place as a requirement?
What you're saying is that he would have had to been born of a virgin even if not prophesied in Scripture. But he was and it did. End of story.
Baloney, Jesus was born of a woman as a sign.
Isa 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
If Jesus had been born of a married woman, no one would believe he was the Son of God. The virgin birth proved he was born of God.
If sin is passed physically (it's not), there is more evidence it is passed through the woman than man in the scriptures.
Job 15:14 What is man, that he should be clean? and he which is born of a woman, that he should be righteous?
Job 25:4 How then can man be justified with God? or how can he be clean that is born of a woman?
The scriptures ask how any man born of a woman can be clean or righteous, implying that he cannot be.
Was Jesus born of a woman?
To the contrary, scripture says the son shall not bear the iniquity of his father.
Eze 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.
The scriptures imply a man born of a woman cannot be clean or righteous, but say a man shall not bear or inherit the sin of his father. If sin is passed physically from a parent to a child, there is far more scriptural evidence that sin is passed by the mother than the father. :laugh:
Folks are silly and superstitious, sin is not something you can inherit, sin is something you do.
You inherit DNA from both parents. Jesus inherited DNA from his mother's father. Jesus could not have been descended from David from God, so he HAD to be descended from David from his mother. And this is exactly what scripture says.
Rom 1:3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
Jesus was "made of the seed of David according to the flesh", and David was a sinner.
Men are not born sinners, men are made upright but choose to become sinners knowingly and willingly when they are of age.
This belief that sin is passed down by the father is silly and nothing but superstition. If sin were passed down from a parent, the scriptures strongly suggest it is through the mother, not the father.
If Joseph was his biological father, conceived by normal sexual act, then he would NOT be the Messiah!
I'm not going to win any friends by saying it, but yes, He "would still be the Saviour" if He was not "virgin" born. Of course, it should go without saying that Jesus was/is not merely a "savior," but He is part of the Triune Godhead. Jesus was incarnated to open the Kingdom of God (or "the heavens") to all in a way that had not been opened previously. His primary mission was not simply to die on the cross to provide forgiveness, but to reconcile humanity to God by calling us into His kingdom to live and reign with Him for all eternity.
But getting back to the subject, we tend to take the modern English meaning of "virgin" and impose it on the scriptures when that is not accurate.
A "virgin" in the Old Testament was simply a young, unmarried woman. It was generally assumed that she would not have had sexual relations, but the Hebrew word that was translated “virgin” in the King James and other translations doesn’t necessarily have that implication. From time to time you will see that the writers of the Old Testament would clarify that not only was the woman a virgin (that is, unmarried), but that she had also never had sexual relations (see Genesis 24:16, Judges 21:12 for example). The word is also used of unmarried women when they HAD been involved in sexual relations (see Esther 2:17, 19 – the King has sexually tried out every woman in his harem – one per night – until he decided that Esther satisfied him more than any other “virgin”).
The meaning is essentially the same in the New Testament. For instance, in the Gospel of Luke, Luke is careful to record that Mary was not only a virgin (unmarried), but that she had not had sexual relations (Luke 1:34).
Now when the translators of of the LXX (the Septuagint - the Greek translations of the Old Testament that was in heavy use in the New Testament era) translated Isaiah 7:14, they in a sense 'added' a shade of meaning in the Greek that implied that the young woman had not had intimate relations with a man. (The actual historical context of Isaiah refers to a contemporary incident that assumes normal sexual relations and not a supernatural birth.) The New Testament writers understood that the prophecy of Isaiah 7:14 had a contemporary meaning as well as a predictive meaning when they discovered that Jesus had been born of a virgin who had not had sexual relations.
It is interesting to note that only the Gospels of Matthew and Luke record the circumstances of the birth of Jesus. It apparently does not rate as something essential for Mark and John to have recorded in their Gospels.
NOW... I realize what I have presented here is going to make some people upset. Let me make my declarations now:
1.) I fully believe that Jesus was born of a virgin who had not had sexual relations before He was born. However, I think we make too much out of Mary's virginity and not enough out of God's paternity. I imagine that one could be virgin-born (in some unusual way like some asexual animals or perhaps some demonic manipulation - for instance, we intervene on a fairly regular basis in fertility treatments where we can insert a "test tube" embryo into a woman who is technically a virgin) and not be the Son of God. Being virgin-born does not necessarily mean that Jesus was divine.
2.) Jesus was clearly divine. His intelligence, His teaching, His special connection with the Father and Spirit, and the testimony of the Father and the Spirit Who raised Him from the dead makes this abundantly clear.
3.) I don't have any trouble believing the Bible. In fact, I have provided biblical citations to demonstrate how the word that is translated "virgin" is used. The Bible has led me to these conclusions.
No, he would not be, and could not be. If he were born "of man," then he would have inherited an "adamic nature," like every man, which means he would have been born a sinner. Christ was born of a virgin in order that he would not be born with the stain of sin which is passed on through the man (thus "the adamic nature").
Pure nonsense, Jesus was made of the seed of David according to the flesh.
Rom 1:3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
We are not living in the dark ages anymore, it is about time folks left off believing pure superstition. We know today that a person gets half their DNA from each parent, and that you inherit one fourth of your DNA from your maternal grandfather.
Jesus could not possibly be the Son of David as he was called from God, he was descended directly from David from his mother. He had David's DNA, and he had Adam's DNA.
This view that sin can be inherited physically is pure bunk with not one word of scripture to support it.
I don't know that we disagreed.
The sign was virgin, woman was it not?
The Christ had to come of a woman in order to get here. And I believe a virgin in order to be the Christ.
DHK right, you are wrong, for ALl are born sinners, as the fall of adam corrupted humanity, and all of us received the penalty/curese of God for the act of Adam!
So was jesus born without a sin nature? Or did he not get one due to never sinning?
Is that same for all of us too?
Wow, you figured that out all by yourself did you? Good for you.
Nevertheless, there is not one word of scripture to support that Jesus was born of a virgin to escape a sin nature. Scripture says it was a sign. If Mary had had relations with a man, then no one would believe Jesus was born of God.
If Mary had not been a virgin, but Jesus had been conceived in her womb by the Holy Spirit, are you saying he would have been a sinner?
Are you saying virgins are not sinners?
This stuff is pure superstition, sin is not something you inherit like blue eyes and blond hair, sin is something YOU personally do.
Sad first century gnosticism has survived all the way to today.
His Humanity was from mary, but his Deity from the father, from God, so He HAD to be supernaturally conceived in order to be both God and man, and without a sin nature!
Why dont you ever interact with what is said? You were given a detailed reply with Scripture, yet you ignore all of it to just parrot the same phrase over again.
To deny that Jesus had to be born as He was is to deny orthodox faith!
You constantly say men are born sinners, yet you have NEVER in the several years I have debated you offered even one verse of scripture to support this, not once.
Jesus took on the nature of the seed of Abraham. Need I tell you that Abraham was born after the so-called "fall" and a sinner?
Heb 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
15 And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.
16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.
17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.
18 For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.
Jesus took part of THE SAME flesh and blood as us. Do you understand what "the same" means?
Scripture says he took on the nature of Abraham's seed, not Adam as many falsely teach.
Scripture says Jesus was made like unto his brethren (the Jews) in ALL THINGS. Do you know what "all things" means?
Oh, forgive me, I forgot I was talking to a Calvinist, you guys think the word "all" means all sorts of things, anything except "all".
What are you talking about?! Nothing in his reply stated this. Discuss what is said, not what you want to hear.
He's doing the best he can.
I think he should get some brownie points for figuring out (all by himself) that if Joseph was Jesus's father then he would not have been the Son of God. :applause: