Featured Is Andy Stanley Ho-Humming the Virgin Birth?

Absolutely indicates no earthly father. If she was married and sexually active, no one would believe Joseph was not the father. The curse of sin: So it is the man in your view that transmits the curse? The woman is a sinner as well, why not both. The seminal(natural) headship view is that the man passes it on, however you indicated you hold to the "federal" view. So would it be that having no human father would disconnect him from the headship of Adam? Thus allowing him to be the "2nd Adam", a new federal head. Or would you say that since he was conceived by the Holy Spirit coming on Mary, that the santificating(i may have made this word up...hahaha) power would prevent the curse from being passed on to the human nature of the God-man?

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

You've missed the point. God was not required to do things a certain way - God is not bound by any higher authority or our theology.

Your error is one of arrogance. You are taking your theology and trying to impose it on God to claim what He can or cannot do.

Ah, throwing out the "L"-word instead of actually reading the text like I suggested. Crack open your Bible and read the passage. The virgin birth of Isaiah 7 is meant to be a sign to King Ahaz that God was with Judah (see Isaiah 7:10-17). The child that is born, named Immanuel (v.14), will not be very old before the enemies of Judah as destroyed.

This is the FIRST meaning of the passage. If it is "liberal" to actually read the Bible and believe it, then we all need to be liberal! How could the virgin birth of Jesus 700 YEARS later be a sign to Ahaz who was facing a military threat?

I don't know what you mean by "traditionally" and "majority interpretation" of the passage, unless you think the King James mistranslation of the text is somehow authoritative. If so, then the text must claim that there were TWO virgin births - one in the days of Isaiah and one in Bethlehem to Mary.

For what it's worth, while the LXX renders the Hebrew word for "young woman" with a word for a woman who is sexually inexperienced, the Hebrew word "almah" which relates to youth.

I meant both actually. I avoided using the word prophecy in that context because the common meaning of prophecy among many is that it is always about the future. The problem I was discussing with you involved that same error.

So you have been carefully following Andy Stanley's sermons, raised this question all by yourself and then found an article to quote to support your view? I sincerely doubt it.

You are being dishonest here. No one has said the virgin birth of Jesus is unimportant. Don't you dare try to paint me as someone who is denying anything.

It is not so much about importance in terms of knowledge, but in terms of strategic evangelism and discipleship, it is a lower priority than the resurrection.

I didn't think ANY seeds of doubt were planted. He simply acknowledged that some may struggle with the idea.

Acknowledgement of how difficult it is for the modern (and ancient) mind to understand the ways of God is hardly planting seeds of doubt.

 

Matthew is probably quoting the LXX, not the Hebrew.

But if we try to interpret Isaiah 7 solely by the way Matthew takes the passage, then there was a virgin birth (of Immanual) first, then Jesus 700 years later.

 

Eve sinned.

Sin is part of the human condition, male and female.

The fullest expression of your view is found in Roman Catholicism and leads to the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary.

 

Eve did sin, you are correct. But to be fair to TCassidy, his view is much different than the Catholic view. His view is that without a human father, he is severed from the headship of Adam as the federal representative who brought Orginal sin on us all as our representative. Jesus is than able to establish a new federal headship. He is our new, sinless representative. Hence the 2nd Adam. TCassidy is not attempting to convey Mary was sinless. I gave him an opportunity to go there and he didn't. He is just conveying that Adam is one who orginal sin is transmitted though.



Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

Who would "alma" apply to for inital fullfillment. Two common views is Ahaz's son or Isaiah's son. But Hezekiah was already born and the definition of "alma" would no longer apply to Isaiah's wife. Motyer's and Young's commentary on Isaiah support that "alma" was never used, even outside of the OT, to refer to a married woman. Is the first "Immanuel" known to us? I only see one fullfillment of the prophecy and that is Jesus.

I do agree "alma" doesn't have to mean virgin, but it usually would. I also dont get worked up over the RSV translation of "alma".

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

If No Virgin Birth, Jesus had Orignal Sin, was a liar/deceiver, we are still lost in our sins!
MUST keep Virgin Birth, or else God and Jesus lied to us, all are still lost!

 

His humanity would have had the taint of Original Sin without VB though! Wouldhave been dosqualiied as Messih...

 

All of this does not actually explain how the virgin birth of Jesus would be a sign to Ahaz. That's the plain meaning of the passage.

 

Does it have to be of virigin. Say a woman was previously married, but husband died. Could the Holy Spirit come upon and form God in the flesh? How does her being a virgin prevent orginal sin? In the federal and natural headship views, the lack of a human father would sufficiently prevent the curse of orginal sin.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

Some of us has never seen the doctrine of original sin in the scripture, and therefore do not hold to it.

Whether or not Jesus was born of a virgin (He was) has NO bearing on whether or not Jesus was a "liar/deceiver" (He's not).

 

No, as there was an immedite fulfillment of that time, young woman, and the Holy Spirit allowed Matthhew to tie it also to virgin in ultimate fulfillment!
Jesus HAD to come Virgin Born to have Godincarnated as Jesuso he indeed had "tied/bound" HImself to doin it that specific way!

 

Jesus would inherit sinful mature though...

 

H ewould have been if was born in a natural fashion though!

 

But what sign did Ahaz receive? We know of no qualifing birth by an "alma". Was the prohecy false in Ahaz's day or just unknown? If it was Hezekiah, then Isaiah is predicting somthing that had already happened, which is no prediction at all. And Isaiah would not be able to refer to his wife as "alma".

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

Was the birth of the child the sign or was the defeat of Syria and Israel of verse 17?

 

There was an mediate fulfillment of the young woman in his time, but also greater fulfillment of Virgin born Messiah.