Featured Would Jesus Still be the Saviour if NOT Virgin Born?

Substitute other words and it is immediately obvious this verse is speaking of the mother and not David.

In anger did my mother beat me...

As for Psa 58:3, what did they go astray from??

This is what Peter showed in 1 Peter 2:25;

1 Pet 2:25 For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.

Peter said we were as sheep going astray (a progression away from God), but are now RETURNED to Jesus, the Shepherd and Bishop of our souls.

You cannot return someplace you have never been. I cannot return to England, because I have never been there, but I can return to North Carolina, because I was born there.

Jesus also compared a sinner to a sheep that goes astray, but the sheep was not lost originally;

Luke 15:4 What man of you, having an hundred sheep, if he lose one of them, doth not leave the ninety and nine in the wilderness, and go after that which is lost, until he find it?
5 And when he hath found it, he layeth it on his shoulders, rejoicing.
6 And when he cometh home, he calleth together his friends and neighbours, saying unto them, Rejoice with me; for I have found my sheep which was lost.
7 I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance.

How many sheep did the shepherd have at first? ONE HUNDRED. How many were lost? ZERO. One sheep went astray and became lost, the shepherd searched until he recovered it.

But note that 99 sheep never went astray and need no repentance. Now who in the world could this be? Did Jesus forget the doctrine of Original Sin and that all men are born lost in sin? :laugh:

No, these are persons who have never sinned like the elder son he describes at the end of this chapter. I believe this is speaking of little children who die before they ever have a chance to sin. They are not lost, and they need no repentance.

But note, there is no celebration for these persons, just as the elder son complained that his father never threw a celebration for him. So, these persons are not as highly esteemed as those who were dead and lost that were recovered.

Luk 15:29 And he answering said to his father, Lo, these many years do I serve thee, neither transgressed I at any time thy commandment: and yet thou never gavest me a kid, that I might make merry with my friends:
30 But as soon as this thy son was come, which hath devoured thy living with harlots, thou hast killed for him the fatted calf.

If Original Sin is true (it isn't) then the shepherd would not have had any sheep to begin with, because you believe all men are born lost. Yet Jesus said the shepherd had one hundred sheep originally.

It was also Jesus that said the elder son never sinned against his father at any time and was never lost.

I will believe Jesus, you can believe Augustine and Calvin.

 

Best thought out post of the thread. If, if, if a frog had wings he wouldn't bump his butt. If we had a time machine, we could give machine guns to the twelve apostles and they could have stopped Jesus from being arrested. If Noah had a radar on his ark, he would not have had to send out birds to test for dry land. If Moses had a welder's helmet, he would not have had to hide in the cleft of a rock to see God's passing glory. If Satan had been one of the elect, he would not have argued with God in the book of Job. If God had put his throne next to a wall, there would be no place for anyone to sit at His right hand.

Back to reality, Isaiah and many other passages in the OT testify that this is the way our Savior would be born, of a virgin. That is just the way it is.

 

Words have meanings; most of them more than one meaning. That is a fact that you don't like to admit or to realize. Thus the substitution of another verb is simply a rabbit trail. It doesn't matter.
What does matter is your ridiculous accusation that David, a man after God's own heart, when repenting of his own sin of adultery and murder, would suddenly claim that his mother is an evil person. What a ludicrous eisigeses of this passage!!!!!!
David is not looking to blame his mother for anything.
Nor is he calling his mother names. Will you stoop that low to think that David is calling his mother wicked and evil names, inferring that she was immoral and committing adultery when David was born? This is way over the top!!

Rather David looks into the innermost part of his being admitting that from his birth onward he was a sinner; that there was no part of his life when he was innocent; his whole being and fabric has been affected by the curse of Adam (which he full well knows). Under the law he has sinned. His psalm is a psalm of repentance in which he is repenting of his own terrible sin, not of anyone elses--a terrible position to hold.

Your nonsense I hope. Again your deficiencies in languages is very apparent.

Your choice of word meanings would deny the necessity of the atonement.
Isaiah 53:6 "All we like sheep have gone astray, we have turned everyone to his own way, and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.
--The meaning is that all of us are corrupt with a sin nature; totally depraved and unable to save ourselves. For that reason the Lord laid upon Christ all of our sin. Hence, the atonement.
--If there was a starting point from which we had gone astray, then it were possible that we didn't have to go astray and Christ would not have to die. But that is not the meaning of the passage. We have gone astray (are inherently wicked) because we are sinners by nature.

Peter's writing to Christians. He is using the phrase in a different context.
Again, the word is used differently. Our language is very flexible.

You cannot admit words have more than one meaning.

I am not a Calvinist. I do believe the Bible.
The problem is that you are one very confused individual.

 

Genesis 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

May I ask. What woman? What woman's seed bruised the serpent's head. Is the serpent Satan and how did Paul understand Gen. 3:15 if the following is a reference to Gen. 3:15? And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly.

Do we have a couple of women to consider?

a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars: And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered. and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born. And she brought forth a man child, From Rev. 12:1,2,4,5

Before she travailed, she brought forth; before her pain came, she was delivered of a man child. Isa 66:7

Notice one in pain and travail brings forth a man child and the other delivers a man child before travail and pain came.

Who are the two women? Which woman of the two is spoken of in Rev 12:13

Who are the remnant of the woman's seed in Rev. 12:17

Are they the seed of the woman Paul says God will shortly bruise Satan with?

 

And it would be just as ridiculous for David to argue that he had to sin because he was born with a sin nature, making total excuse for his sin.

Yes, different words mean different things, I was simply demonstrating that this verse was speaking of his mother, not himself. It is believed that David's mother had two children (Abigail and Zeruiah) with Nahash the Ammonite before she married Jesse and bore David. This would have made David the son of a "polluted" woman. Many scholars believe this is what David is referring to in Psa 51:5. David is simply pouring out his disgust for himself here.

But this Psalm is not teaching doctrine, and it is certainly not teaching that all men are born with a sin nature. You are reading that into scripture, adding to God's word.

No, David is simply expressing contempt for himself. As I said, it is believed David's mother had two children with Nahash the Ammonite which would have made her a polluted woman. This made David the "black sheep" in his family.

It is notable that when Samuel came and asked Jesse to bring out all his sons, that Jesse failed to bring out David twice. Only when Samuel persisted did Jesse bring out David. Again, this is because David was considered the black sheep of the family because his mother had relations with a non-Jew. David's brothers had a different mother, they were all tall and handsome, he was short and ruddy.

1 Sam 16:10 Again, Jesse made seven of his sons to pass before Samuel. And Samuel said unto Jesse, The LORD hath not chosen these.
11 And Samuel said unto Jesse, Are here all thy children? And he said, There remaineth yet the youngest, and, behold, he keepeth the sheep. And Samuel said unto Jesse, Send and fetch him: for we will not sit down till he come hither.
12 And he sent, and brought him in. Now he was ruddy, and withal of a beautiful countenance, and goodly to look to. And the LORD said, Arise, anoint him: for this is he.

Nice editorial. Pure baloney, but nicely written.

Peter said we are returned to Jesus because that is exactly the case. You are not a Calvinist, but you argue just like one, you argue that the Holy Spirit doesn't know how to use words properly and does not know how to express himself properly and needs your help.

And when Jesus said the prodigal was alive AGAIN (twice!), Jesus knew exactly what he was saying, he doesn't need your help to attempt to explain away what he said. If men are born dead in sin (they aren't) then it could never be said that men are alive AGAIN.

You just keep on clinging to Augustine and see where it gets you.

 

And God has feathers and trees have hands.

But as to your violence to the text, it is said that our bodies "return" to the dust. When did yours start out as such?

 

The substance our bodies come from comes from the ground. When you eat a hamburger, what did that cow eat? Grass, and where did the grass get it's substance from? The ground.

And I like french fries with my hamburger, where do potatoes get their substance? From the ground.

http://chemistry.about.com/od/periodictableelements/ig/Elements-in-the-Human-Body/

 

So, "return to dust" means you really never left the dust? How can you "return" to something you never left?

 

Before your body was conceived in your mother's womb, you consisted of things she and your father ate, each contributing their part to your conception.

Psa 139:13 For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb.
14 I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.
15 My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.
16 Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.

The substance your body is made from came from the earth. And when you die, your physical body will return to the earth.

And I don't know about you, but I am not in the grave yet. I am not in the ground.

 

You must live at your terminal. I edited my post after you began your response.

The fact of the matter is, that the only body that started out as dirt was Adam's. So, when the Spirit says I will return to the dust, there is no indication that I started there 48 years ago.

Just as returning to the Shepherd and Bishop of my soul does not mean that I started out unastray when I was conceived, and "replenish the earth" doesn't mean the earth started with a human population.

 

No, scripture also shows that we were taken from the dust;

Ecc 12:7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.

Solomon spoke here in future tense. He is speaking of men.

Note that our spirit came from God. This would mean that if we are born evil, that it was God who gave us an evil spirit.

I reject that, scripture says God made man upright, but they have all gone astray.

Ecc 7:29 Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.

And Jesus shows what "going astray" means in Luke 15. It means a person was not lost originally.

Luk 15:4 What man of you, having an hundred sheep, if he lose one of them, doth not leave the ninety and nine in the wilderness, and go after that which is lost, until he find it?
5 And when he hath found it, he layeth it on his shoulders, rejoicing.
6 And when he cometh home, he calleth together his friends and neighbours, saying unto them, Rejoice with me; for I have found my sheep which was lost.
7 I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance.

How many sheep did the shepherd have originally? ONE HUNDRED.

One went astray and became lost, how many sheep did he have now? NINETY AND NINE.

Were the ninety and nine lost? NO.

Jesus here shows that no one is lost at first, but men turn from God and go astray, they become lost.

The same with the silver pieces, originally the woman had 10 coins, but one became lost.

The father had two sons, the prodigal was not lost at first. He packed all his goods and willingly and knowingly left home, this is when he became lost and dead. This is when he joined himself to a citizen of that far country (Satan).

When he repented, he RETURNED to his father.

 

I know how you believe. My point is that your conclusion rests on a gross misconstructions of texts and an illiteracy concerning parts of speech.

 

Give me a break, my interpretations are as simple and literal as you can get.

When Jesus said the elder son did not transgress his father's commandment at any time, I believe it to mean exactly what he said.

When Jesus said 99 persons did not go astray and need no repentance, I take that to mean exactly what he said.

When Jesus said the prodigal son was alive AGAIN, I believe it to mean exactly that.

I am not one who tries to argue that words don't mean what they obviously say as many others do.

If I am twisting or wresting scripture, explain HOW I am doing that. Simply disagreeing with my interpretation is not a valid rebuttal.

I will be back in several hours, I have to go into work for a bit.