It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: glend
Also two of the Gospels don't mention the virgin birth, neither did Paul/Saul. If someone was verified to be born of a virgin wouldn't that have been an exceptionally noteworthy event to preach? The Gospels that do mention the virgin birth sadly disagree with whom fathered Joseph (Matthew 1:2-17 and Luke 3:23-38). So if those Gospels cannot even get genealogy right, we can presume the inaccuracy occurred because they were written long after the event (aka folklore and not eye witness accounts). With no virgin birth, no original sin, is Jesus still the son of GOD. Or does he face a demotion to an ordinary man that did extraordinary things. For me this is the greater message, that anyone can attain spiritual enlightenment by conquering their demons. This message has unfortunately been lost in TODAYS christianity. So one needs to ask themselves, is TODAYS Chrisitianity a religion that teaches enlightenment or a cult that denies it. Your call.
Please clarify the geneaology problem you have in your above post.
The Gospels that do mention the virgin birth sadly disagree with whom fathered Joseph (Matthew 1:2-17 and Luke 3:23-38). So if those Gospels cannot even get genealogy right, we can presume the inaccuracy occurred because they were written long after the event (aka folklore and not eye witness accounts).
You really don't like the fact that the Bible is imperfect and contains legitimate contradictions, do you? It is not an issue of erroneous MSS. or poor translation, the FACT is that the two don't agree. Why not just say that it is true, since it is. Most Christians don't fear contradictions in genealogy of Jesus to the point they deny ACTUAL FACTS. Why do you?
Lets take a step back. The virgin birth was introduced to christianity in Matthew and Luke to try unite the virgin birth of Jesus to the prophency in Book of Isaiah (Matt 1:22-23) but in doing that, they made a mistake. In Isaiah 7:14, "hinei ha'almah harah veyoledet ben" is "behold (hineih) the young woman (ha - the almah- young woman) is pregnant (harah) and shall give birth (ve-and yoledet-shall give birth) to a son (ben)". They mistranslated "almah" as "virgin" instead of "young woman". Virgin in hebrew is "betulah" (See here).
Good points Seede but they would have surely had access to the Greek Septuagint at the time and that also includes the virgin mistranslation. Also Matthew 21:2-7 donkey and colt aims to tie Jesus to Zechariah 9:9 "See, your king comes to you, righteous and victorious, lowly and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey" Whereas the other three Gospels understand the hebrew singularilty of a donkey in Zechariah 9:9, Mathew does not, introducing a secondary colt. But if the original gospel was written in Hebrew the scribes could have mistranslated the original gospel of Matthew as was done in Septuagint. And then got over zealous expanding on the virgin birth etc. Without the original text in Hebrew we can never be certain.
Also Matthew 21:2-7 donkey and colt aims to tie Jesus to Zechariah 9:9 "See, your king comes to you, righteous and victorious, lowly and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey" Whereas the other three Gospels understand the hebrew singularilty of a donkey in Zechariah 9:9, Mathew does not, introducing a secondary colt.
There is only one Messiah, but there are two comings and two aspects of his ministry. The Messiah came the first time to provide atonement for sin.
Jesus didn't die for your attonement because Jews don't believe in original sin. So his death, although unfortunate, was just the ending of his life (one door closes, another opens). Something none of us can escape from.
Was Mary the Mother of God?
The angel who informed her of the coming miraculous birth did not say that her son would be God. He said: “You are to conceive and bear a son, and you must name him Jesus. He will be great and will be called Son of the Most High. . . . The child will be holy and will be called Son of God.”—Luke 1:31-35, JB; italics added.
Heb. 2:14, 17, JB: “Since all the children share the same blood and flesh, he [Jesus] too shared equally in it . . . It was essential that he should in this way become completely like his brothers.” (But would he have been “completely like his brothers” if he had been a God-man?)
The New Catholic Encyclopedia says: “Mary is truly the mother of God if two conditions are fulfilled: that she is really the mother of Jesus and that Jesus is really God.” (1967, Vol. X, p. 21) The Bible says that Mary was the mother of Jesus, but was Jesus God? In the fourth century, long after the writing of the Bible was completed, the Church formulated its statement of the Trinity. (New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, Vol. XIV, p. 295; see page 405, under the heading “Trinity.”) At that time in the Nicene Creed the Church spoke of Jesus Christ as “very God.” After that, at the Council of Ephesus in 431 C.E., Mary was proclaimed by the Church to be The·o·toʹkos, meaning “God-bearer” or “Mother of God.” However, neither that expression nor the idea is found in the text of any translation of the Bible. (See pages 212-216, under “Jesus Christ.”)