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

Are you Catholic?

And I'm assuming that if you don't, then you must not believe Romans 5, which says that the sin nature is passed down from the father, not through the mother.

 

This is not a difficult concept to grasp. From the very earliest, even from Adam and Eve, this "inherited Adamic nature" has been taught.

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.

The woman does not have a "seed." The Jews recognized that; all mankind have recognized has recognized; thus the uniqueness of this prophecy. It is prophetic of the virgin birth, and of the battle between Christ and Satan. Christ could not be deity without the virgin birth. He was more than just a man. He was conceived of the Holy Spirit, not of a man, and for good reason.

 

Jesus also came in the likeness of sinful flesh, yet he was without sin. I believe it was Jesus who resisted unto blood, striving against sin.

From birth until he was about thirty three and a half years old, how was Jesus able to resist the lust of the flesh?

Remember the lust of the flesh could be something as simple as coveting food.
Lets's don't get carried away here.

Question. Could Jesus, in the likeness of sinful flesh, resist sin because he is the only begotten Son of God born of woman, by the the Holy Spirit?

Was it at the moment he commended his spirit, Holy unto the hands of the Father, the moment he died, he felt forsaken of God, because the sin of the world had been laid on him?

Was the one who died when his spirit, Holy departed from him, because of our sin, unto the hands of the Father the same one who three days and three nights later was quickened by the Holy Spirit.

For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: 1 Peter 3:18

Was it because he received of the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, see Acts 2:33 that by which he was quickened?

Is Jesus the only one begotten of God with woman, indwelt with the Holy Spirit from conception died when that Spirit returned to God who gave it and was renewed by the Holy Spirit?

 

Wrong, the Jews understood the Christ would be God.

Jhn 1:41 He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ.

Jhn 1:45 Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.

Jhn 1:49 Nathanael answered and saith unto him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel.

The Jews understood quite clearly that the Christ or Messiah would be God come in the flesh.

 

Nope. I do not hold to the distinctive teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, nor do I believe that the organization has any more authority than any other Christian enterprise.

I certainly do believe Romans 5, just not your misunderstanding of it. Romans 5 does NOT say that "sin nature is passed down from the father."

It says,

Romans 5:12-14 (NASB)
12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned— 13 for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.

Paul is explicitly using the figure of Adam as a type (see verse 14) to represent humankind (men and women are both created in the image of God and Eve actually sinned first), comparing him to Christ. Sin is carried through both men and women. If it was carried only through men, then women would not die (see verses 12 and 14 again). This misunderstanding of scripture is the genesis of the false doctrines of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary.

 

You are correct that Genesis 3:15 is a prophecy of Jesus's virgin birth, but it does not say one word about the virgin birth being necessary to escape a sin nature, that is a Catholic invention. Scripture says only that his virgin birth was "a sign" (Isa 7:14), to add to that is to add to God's word.

The scriptures say Jesus took part of "the same" flesh and blood as us, that he took on the nature of the seed of Abraham, and that he was made like unto his brethren the Jews in "all things".

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.

Do you know what "the same" means?

Was Abraham's seed born after the so-called "fall"?

Do you know what "all things" means?

You are denying that Jesus came in the flesh, we are warned about this in 1 John 4:1-3

1 Jhn 4:1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

The scriptures say to try the spirits, those that deny Jesus came in the flesh are the spirit of antichrist.

 

Actually, the woman does have a "seed" - the egg. And Genesis 3:15 explicitly says "her seed," so the woman has a seed if you want to take it literally.

Yes, obviously. It points out that there is something unique about the birth. However, it says nothing about a sin nature or that is is allegedly passed down from the father.

I would hate to tell God what He can and cannot do, but I generally agree.

Yes. The Divine paternity of Jesus is much more important than the virginity of Mary.

 

Then you're a heretic.

 

Wow.

Because I reject a Roman Catholic view of Romans 5 because of the text of Romans 5 and related scripture, you're branding me a "heretic?"

When you start name-calling, it only demonstrates that you don't have a relevant argument to make using scripture.

Where is my error in interpreting Romans 5?

Did not Eve sin first?

Did Paul not explicitly state that he is using "Adam" as a type for the basis of his comparison?

Where did Paul explicitly state that a sin nature passes only from fathers to male children? If so, then why do women die? (If female children get a sin nature from their father, then you are forced into a doctrine like the Immaculate Conception - that Mary did not have a sin nature.)

If you are competent enough to declare me a heretic, then please answer my questions.

 

Nope. Just stating the obvious. Anything other than this viewpoint is irrational.

 

Question beg much?

 

I love the non biblical biological formula the Augustinians use keeping Jesus from being fully human :laugh:

Like a recipe you all created. Take one part virgin, add one part deity, blend well, bake at 350 for 9 months...

 

Not begging anything. Unlike your challenge to "Augustinians" just before this post.

 

Yes...it has been settled long ago.....look at it this way....

The BB is seen worldwide by ALL men....and only Winman and Webdog reject the biblical teaching on Romans 3 :23.and romans 5.:thumbs::thumbs:

So...it is case closed:applause:

 

one, what he agreed on was the means, the formula that made Jesus sinless. Follow along.

Two, we are not the only 2 people in this world that hold to roman catholic doctrine. Some of us think its important to come out of the great whore. We are also not fond of creating antibiblical dispensations of salvation for infants and the dd.

 

Let's see what we have here:

Ad hominem attacks:

Begging the question with the nerve to call any other view "irrational":

Argumentum ad populum AND Begging the question:

Looks like those who oppose Winman, Webdog and me have run out of scriptural support and are resorting to rhetorical tricks and logical fallacies.

Not good.

 

You are wrong. The word most of the time refers to "sperm," technically.
It is used 254 times in the Bible, and apart from the few times that it refers to plants it refers to the "seed" of a man--the sperm or generations that proceed from him.
Hence:
Genesis 9:9 And I, behold, I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after you;
--It always refers to the man in this sense, never the woman. The remarkable thing about Genesis 3:15 was that it was not the egg of the woman, it was the "seed." There is an obvious difference.

It is a sign. The sign makes no sense if the virgin birth does not have purpose in it.
Hence:
Isaiah 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.
The reason that He could be called "God with us" is that He was virgin born. The two go together. A maiden giving birth is not a sign. But a virgin giving birth is indeed a sign. And his name is "God with us." It is the only way that God could come into this world without the stain of sin.

If you generally agree then it shouldn't be hard for you to believe that he was virgin born for the very reason of coming into this world without the stain of sin. Everyone else is born with "the adamic nature." There is a reason why our sinful nature is called "adamic" isn't there?

Both have to present.
Mary gives him humanity.
The Holy Spirit gives divinity.
He was fully man and fully God at the same time. He had to be both. Christ never gave up his deity. In order for him to retain his deity he had to be conceived of the Holy Spirit and not of a man.
In order for him to be sinless he could not have been conceived of a man.
In order for him to be a man, he had to born of mankind, i.e., a virgin.

 

Actually, many millions of Christians throughout history have rejected Original Sin.

http://truthinheart.com/EarlyOberlinCD/CD/Doctrine/OriginalSin.htm

The earliest church fathers all believed men had freedom of will, and that the consequence of Adam's fall was physical death only. It was several centuries before the idea of an inherited evil was advanced. It was primarily Augustine who made this theory the accepted doctrine of the Latin church, the Greek church rejected it. Others also rejected this theory, such as the Anabaptists and the Mennonites.

 

That's OK. I stopped caring what any of you think a long, long time ago.

 

webdog

You hold to RC doctrine now???