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

You are confused. I am not a Calvinist. I believe in the depravity of man but not the Total Inability of man. I believe that man was born with a sin nature. He is born in sin. I still believe he has the ability to choose Christ or reject Christ, contrary to the Calvinist. God created him that way. That doesn't negate the fact that he was born with a sin nature. No one is innocent of sin by virtue of his sinful nature.

 

Why? I see from reading other posts that others have tried to correct you. If you're not going to listen to them, then you're not going to listen to me and, frankly, I just don't care.

 

I doesn't matter what I believe or you believe, it matters what scripture teaches. You are responsible for the truth that has been presented to you. Study the scripture and let it be your teacher, not just the opinions of other people.

 

All the more reason I don't care what you think.

 

No, actually I'm not. It says "seed of the woman."

"Technically"? Not really. It refers to the genetic material and fluid that was most obviously observed coming from a man. I doubt they knew how the woman's genetic material was given to the fetus. But this is God speaking, and God knew.

Certainly the ancients knew that a woman contributed to the formation of a child since children often have obvious physical, emotional and mental characteristics from both parents. The ancients didn't have the technology to see the things we can, but they were very observant.

Sure. The word is almost always used to refer to the DNA contribution of the man because that could be seen. Yet there is the explicit reference to the "seed of the woman" which you cannot deny. The theoretical DNA contribution of God in the virgin birth of Christ (however that worked) IS NOT "the seed of the woman," so you have a massive problem with your interpretation.

There are all kinds of signs recorded in scripture that don't have massive doctrinal points built on them. Jesus turned water into wine in John 2, but the only dominant doctrinal points built from that sign is an attempted rejection of the plain fact that Jesus created alcohol. (But that's another tired argument for a thousand other threads.)

The reason that I find it hard to believe is that I haven't been able to find the doctrine in scripture since I started looking for it in 1984. I've looked at all of the recommended "proof texts" for it and it is just not there. I try to build doctrine on scripture, not what is fashionable in some ecclesiastical circles or supports certain theologies.

 

Good. May God bless you on your journey of discovery and obedience!

 

Yes, it says that. Now do women have 'seed'?

Yes or no?

The answer is no, and you're using eisegesis on the text to support your argument on that point.

 

I do not recall calling you a Calvinist. Roman Catholics are not Calvinists, and they all believe in Original Sin. I rather believe you still cling to some Catholic doctrine than Calvinist.

I also believe in the depravity of man, but I simply believe men become depraved by choice when they are of age. Men "corrupt" themselves.

Gen 6:12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.

To "corrupt" means to go from a good state to a bad state, as when fruit spoils, or when an honest politician decides to accept a bribe.

The scriptures always show man going from good to bad.

Psa 14:2 The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God.
3 They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

This is the scripture Paul paraphrased in Romans 3 that Calvinists love to claim proves man was born a sinner. It does no such thing, in fact, it refutes that men are born sinners.

Note the word "become". This scripture says men have "become" filthy. That shows a progression from one form to another.

It is like this, if a person was born wealthy, would they tell anyone they had "become" wealthy? NO, because they were always wealthy.

But if you were born poor, but worked hard and invested and earned wealth, would you then tell people you have "become" wealthy? YES.

So, no man is born filthy, but all men have "become" filthy, every man has gone aside (a progression) and become (a progression) filthy.

You will see this over and over again if you simply pay attention.

Isa 64:6 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.

Another famous verse that is often quoted in an attempt to prove we are born sinners that actually refutes this false doctrine.

First, filthy rags. No clothing starts out either filthy or ragged. All clothing is originally clean and not torn. It is our sin that soils and tears our cloak of righteousness we are born in.

Second, we do all fade as a leaf. How do all leaves start out? All leaves start out green, tender and alive, no leaf starts out dried out and faded. It is almost fall now, and the leaves are beginning to fade and fall off the trees, but originally they were green and tender.

Third, the wind takes us away. This is like the leaves that fall to the ground and the winds of winter blow them away. It shows a change of position. They no longer remain where they were, but are taken away.

Now, you might laugh at my interpretation, but spiritual truth is often shown through natural analogies in scripture. And that is what is shown here. We are made upright (Ecc 7:29), but our sins and iniquities soil and tear our righteousness, as a leaf our sin causes us to turn brown and fade away, and our sin carries us away.

Scripture does not show men are born dead in sin, it shows the exact opposite.

 

Yes. Women provide an egg. It is produced by the ovaries and is joined with a man's "seed" to create a new person.

You say no, but the scripture quietly stands there unchanging and says "seed of the woman."

Are you going to accept or reject scripture?

 

Oh boy.

A seed and an egg are completely two separate things. You? You're attempting in all futility to make them the same to win an argument. A woman doesn't have 'seed'. It comes from man alone. In this case from God.

You need to go and grasp this.

SMH at the utter ridiculousness in response to my post.

No wonder the church is in such a mess.

:sleep: :laugh:

 

Well you are reading a modern technical view of human reproduction into an ancient oral language that did not have the scientific knowledge we have today. A man's "seed" was his contribution to creating a child. It consisted of the bodily fluids and the essential DNA materials. It was visible to the ancients and is therefore obviously going to be the primary thing that is referenced by the term.

But the ancients knew that the woman also contributed to the makeup of the child, although they likely didn't know the process. The Hebrew word for seed in the passage "zera" has a feminine ending on it which clearly identified it as pertaining to the woman. Therefore, translating it as her seed is exactly right.

You're assuming motives here. And by the way, it's a false assumption.

Yet, the scripture disagrees. Who is right? You or scripture?

What is the scriptural evidence for this assertion?

Then why doesn't it say it is from God then? That would be very easy to do and would be a more explicit prophecy that the Son of God would crush the serpent's head.

Why don't you believe what is written in the scripture?

I didn't say it, the writer of Genesis did... and he attributed the words to God.

 

Yes, it says that in Genesis, and they are Gods Words, but they are NOT your ridiculous assumptions.

FYI (again) an EGG is not SEED. :wavey:

'Why don't I believe what is written in Scripture'. (ad hominem nonsense) :laugh:

Seed of the woman is specifically the Christ, not the egg of the woman. That you can't see THAT is unfortunate.

Go argue this to someone else, you're on an unsustainable path, and the only thing you have is your absurd and foolish accusation that I don't believe the Word.

I do believe the Word and am thankfully smart enough to know the difference between an egg and seed. You? Not so much.

 

I'm sorry, what have I assumed that I have not backed up by scripture? BTW, thank you for finally admitting what the scripture actually says.

Sure, by modern terminology. But this is not a modern language or context. Humans didn't make eggs in that culture. They knew eggs from fowl, reptiles, fish, and other animals. Using the word "egg" to apply to human reproduction is a relatively modern concept. You can't take that back and impose it on the text. THAT'S eisegesis.

Well I stand corrected now that you have finally admitted that the scripture says "seed" in reference to the woman. Now you just need to apply that information to your theology.

I completely understand that the "seed" of the woman is the Christ. He is also the "egg" of the woman. You are ascribing a false understanding to me.

Yet I'm the only one quoting scripture and explaining the Hebrew. You are simply repeating the same assertions over and over. If you don't want to discuss it, then stop critiquing what I say.

I know the difference too. But that's a modern concept, not an ancient Hebrew one.

There's an ad hominem attack...

May God bless you in your search for understanding.

 

I'll tell you what BB.

Next Spring, go plant yourself a dozen eggs, and we'll plant some 'seed' and get back to me on your 'crop'. :thumbsup:

 

I doubt you have actually read and considered what I've written. I find it hard to believe that you would write a response like this if you had. You seem to be a person who has some sense. This post just makes you look foolish.

 

Psalms 51:5; 58:3
"In sin did my mother conceive me."
"They go astray as soon as they be born speaking lies."

Does the Scripture mean what it says, or do you simply allegorize it away and try to make it mean something else?

 

Should have edited to add don't. Augustine's doctrine is RC.

 

A person becomes a child of the devil when they willingly and knowingly choose to follow Satan. This is shown in the parable of the prodigal son.

At first the prodigal son was not lost, he was at home with his father;

Luk 15:11 And he said, A certain man had two sons:

Was the prodigal son lost here? NOPE. But he willingly and knowingly chose to leave his father. In fact, he rejected his father, asking for his inheritance. You only get your inheritance when your father is dead, so in effect, he was telling his father he was dead to him.

Luk 15:12 And the younger of them said to his father, Father, give me the portion of goods that falleth to me. And he divided unto them his living.
13 And not many days after the younger son gathered all together, and took his journey into a far country, and there wasted his substance with riotous living.
14 And when he had spent all, there arose a mighty famine in that land; and he began to be in want.

As you see, the prodigal willingly and knowingly left his home and went into a far country.

Luk 15:15 And he went and joined himself to a citizen of that country; and he sent him into his fields to feed swine.
16 And he would fain have filled his belly with the husks that the swine did eat: and no man gave unto him.

The prodigal joined himself to a "citizen" of that far country. This is when he became a child of the devil.

But he was not originally lost. And what is more, his older brother never left home, he never went out in sin and became lost.

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.
31 And he said unto him, Son, thou art ever with me, and all that I have is thine.
32 It was meet that we should make merry, and be glad: for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found.

Here, Jesus said the elder brother never transgressed his father's commandment "at any time". I didn't say this, Jesus did.

Did the father rebuke the elder son for saying this? Did he call him a hypocrite? NO, in fact, he confirmed what the elder son said was true. He called him "SON", he said he was "EVER WITH ME", meaning he was never separated by sin from his father, and he said ALL THAT I HAVE IS THINE.

And not only this, he contrasted the elder son to the prodigal who was dead, and is now alive AGAIN (refuting Original Sin), and was LOST but now found.

So, Jesus himself confirms that this elder son never went out in sin and became lost. Now who in the world could this possibly be?

The only reasonable answer is a child who died before they were old enough to sin, as Jacob and Esau were described by Paul in Romans 9:11.

Now being the Calvinist you are, I know you will not accept any of this, you would rather believe the false teachings of Augustine and Calvin than what Jesus Christ himself said in scripture. To each his own.

 

He read it, but would rather be obtuse than admit error. You have applied a proper hermeneutic, not sure he even knows what that is.