1.) The miracle was prophesied centries before, that it would occur. [...]
2.) It was not the first time that God brought about an unusual birth. [...]
3.) The wonderfulnesss of the virgin birth of Jesus is consistent with the wonderfulness of His personality. His splendid life, His glorious words and deeds are [b]consistent with His miraculous arrival. [...]
4.) The virgin birth of Jesus Christ is necessary for Him to qualify to be in the Davidic line as the Messiah king. [...] [/b]
All you have done here is lay out what 'fulfilled prophecies' the writers of the Gospels needed to include in their accounts.
Originally posted by FMF [b] 1.) The miracle was prophesied centries before, that it would occur. [...]
2.) It was not the first time that God brought about an unusual birth. [...]
3.) The wonderfulnesss of the virgin birth of Jesus is consistent with the wonderfulness of His personality. His splendid life, His glorious words and deeds are [b]consistent with His miraculous ...[text shortened]... ut what 'fulfilled prophecies' the writers of the Gospels needed to include in their accounts.[/b]
All you have done here is lay out what 'fulfilled prophecies' the writers of the Gospels needed to include in their accounts.
[/b]
Sorry. But I count this theory as a kind of hyper-conspiracy paranoia.
Ie. Whatever was written was skillfully spun to munipulate us in a totally deceptive way, by collective effort, over a very large amount of time.
I don't buy that conspiracy theory, or the Passover Plot, or the Swoon Theory, or any number of other conspiracy theories that the NT writers were were following "cleverly devised myths" (2 Pet. 1:6)
Originally posted by jaywill Sorry. But I count this theory as a kind of hyper-conspiracy paranoia. i.e. Whatever was written was skillfully spun to munipulate us in a totally deceptive way, by collective effort, over a very large amount of time.
Does this mean you also believe in the "miraculous births" described in the scriptures of various other religions?
Originally posted by jaywill Possible typo. that word should be [b]event.[/b]
invent (6 letters) as a typo for event (5 letters) is more like a Freudian slip showing your true belief in the invention of the virgin birth myth. Anyway, you seriously expect anyone to believe that a ghost raped Mary (real name Miriam since she was Jewish and lived in a Jewish land) who subsequently gave birth to her own son/rapist whom she named Jesus even though there is no J in Hebrew (or Aramaic) while science shows us and all experience agrees that it takes a sperm and an egg to begin a human life? You really believe this?
You believe that? (the virgin birth) And if so , why?
Well, firstly I believe it because I have been persuaded that the Bible should be taken at face value. It is not reported as a parable. It is reported as an event [edited] in history. But this virgin birth of Jesus is not an event in a total vacuum. There are some contributing fac ...[text shortened]... st not having the sin nature, yet being a typical man otherwise. I am not positive though.
Some Biblical scholars say the two different genealogies show that Jesus qualifies as a descendent of David, both legally through Joseph and by blood through Mary. This gives two witnesses to His right to the throne of David.
Originally posted by RJHinds Some Biblical scholars say the two different genealogies show that Jesus qualifies as a descendent of David, both legally through Joseph and by blood through Mary. This gives two witnesses to His right to the throne of David.
Not really. What it "gives" us is the fact that one of the two different genealogies is wrong, which means they are just as likely both wrong, i.e. writers of the Gospels recognized a need to include certain material/claims in their accounts, and in this case coming up with different material. The need to link Jesus to a "right to the throne of David" seems to be the priority rather than getting the "evidence" right. A genealogy is not a "witness", and if they are different, as you admit, then their efficacy as "evidence" is questionable.
Originally posted by Phil Hill invent (6 letters) as a typo for event (5 letters) is more like a Freudian slip showing your true belief in the invention of the virgin birth myth. Anyway, you seriously expect anyone to believe that a ghost raped Mary (real name Miriam since she was Jewish and lived in a Jewish land) who subsequently gave birth to her own son/rapist whom she named Jesus e ...[text shortened]... perience agrees that it takes a sperm and an egg to begin a human life? You really believe this?
The real name of Jesus is Yahshua meaning "Yah saves" and "Yah" is the name of God told to Moses. Yah is the same as in "HalleluYah" meaning "Praise Yah" or as is commonly said, "Praise the Lord". Mary, Jesus, and Jew are the English versions of the names that have come down through Greek and latin with a later adoptation of "J" to represent a hard sound of "Y" and "I".
Originally posted by FMF Not really. What it "gives" us is the fact that one of the two different genealogies is wrong, which means they are just as likely both wrong, i.e. writers of the Gospels recognized a need to include certain material/claims in their accounts, and in this case coming up with different material. The need to link Jesus to a "right to the throne of David" seems to b ...[text shortened]... f they are different, as you admit, then their efficacy as "evidence" is questionable.
I know enough about you that there is no need to correct you because you are too ornery to pay attention anyway.
Originally posted by RJHinds I know enough about you that there is no need to correct you because you are too ornery to pay attention anyway.
This is mere deflection on your part. Look, you and I have different beliefs. I'm just calling you out on your use of the word "witnesses" - and indeed your approach to history and to things like evidence and proof. You are entitled to believe what you want about "King David", but your reference to "two witnesses" when you refer to bits of evidence that, in fact, contradict each other, is not legitimate historical argumentation. Just saying, that's all.
Originally posted by FMF This is mere deflection on your part. Look, you and I have different beliefs. I'm just calling you out on your use of the word "witnesses" - and indeed your approach to history and to things like evidence and proof. You are entitled to believe what you want about "King David", but your reference to "two witnesses" when you refer to bits of evidence that, in fact ...[text shortened]... tradict each other, is not legitimate historical argumentation. Just saying, that's all.
Well, I am just saying you are wrong, that's all. 😏
Originally posted by RJHinds Well, I am just saying you are wrong, that's all. 😏
Well, to suggest - as you do - that two bits of evidence that contradict each other constitute "two witnesses" is somehow legitimate historical analysis, is incorrect as far as I am concerned. Do you disagree with this?
Originally posted by FMF Well, to suggest - as you do - that two bits of evidence that contradict each other constitute "two witnesses" is somehow legitimate historical analysis, is incorrect as far as I am concerned. Do you disagree with this?
Yes, because they do not contradict each other. They supplement each other.
Originally posted by RJHinds Yes, because they do not contradict each other. They supplement each other.
There being two different genealogies means that one is wrong, indeed, possibly both. And neither can be described as "witnesses"; not in standard English.
Originally posted by Suzianne What is the point of the virgin birth? Really? Did you really ask that?
Only one of the cornerstones of our faith. That Christ was born without sin.
So maybe you could ease off a little in your blasphemy, please.
😞
"So maybe you could ease off a little in your blasphemy, please."
That is a no no, it is only blasphemy if you believe we live in a magical universe, you cannot seriously expect to impose your doctrine on rational forum members.
Why Y?
18 Aug '12 04:081 edit
Back to Top