Virgin born

Josh,

I will not make apology for standing on the Word of God!

I did not say that you were the "servant of Satan", you said that!

[ ITEM 1 ] In other words; you are following man and his traditions?

[ ITEM 2 ] In other words; you believe that words are added to the Word of God?

[ ITEM 3 ] In other words; you believe in other ways of salvation, and don't question false doctrines?



"It is always better to stand up for conservatism, then to fall into liberalism" Justified Version

 

1 - Of course I am following human traditions Justified. Would you rather I follow dolphin or chimpanzee traditions?

2 - I believe that the Scritpures represent the authoritative writings of the Christian tradition and that the books which comprise them are - in places - compilations - rather than the works of single authors.

3 - How is saying that the virgin birth is not a soteriological issue believing in "other ways to salvation." Jesus - virgin born or not - is still the way to salvation.

I will ask you again, Who were you saying is my father?

Joshua

 

BB I think you proved your own point by trying to judge the condition of my heart. Above you mentioned that Jesus had more insight than we did but then you apparently rise to his level of insight by pointing out my weakness. We should all play this cleaner but we don't, shame on us all.
Murph[/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]Nope. I chose my words very carefully. Read it again.

I said that the attacks on post-it reveal the condition of your heart. I didn't say what kind of condition... What I meant was that the attitudes of people who attack post-it are obvious. The attitudes bear witness of the love/non-love of the people who are responding to post-it. If what I said makes you think I was condemning you, it may be your own heart (or the Holy Spirit) convicting you. If your conscience is clear, why are you troubled?

I agree that we should all be nicer. Unfortunately around here the measure of belief seems to be how intensely we attack those who disagree.

 

Joshua Villines said

1 - Of course I am following human traditions Justified. Would you rather I follow dolphin or chimpanzee traditions?
''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

Jeremiah 17:5
Thus says the LORD: "Cursed is the man who trusts in man And makes flesh his strength, Whose heart departs from the LORD.

Psalm 118:8
It is better to trust in the LORD Than to put confidence in man.
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
Joshua Villines said

2 - I believe that the Scritpures represent the authoritative writings of the Christian tradition and that the books which comprise them are - in places - compilations - rather than the works of single authors.
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
2 Timothy 3
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
Joshua Villines said

3 - How is saying that the virgin birth is not a soteriological issue believing in "other ways to salvation." Jesus - virgin born or not - is still the way to salvation.
''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
Galatians 1
6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
9 As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

[ August 19, 2002, 12:31 PM: Message edited by: John3v36 ]

 

John3

1 - The Bible is the collection of our human understanding of the nature and will of God. To study it is to study our tradition - and doing so is focusing on the things of the LORD not the things of humanity. I think you are failing to make a key distinction between focusing on our traditional understanding of God (which - outside of heresies - is the only one we have), and selfishly focusing on that which is mortal and human.

2 - The 2 Timothy passage in no way contradicts what I said.

3 - Again, there is nothing in that Galatians passage about a virgin birth. It is not fundamental to the gospel message. In fact, I can't think of anywhere offhand where Paul even mentions the virgin birth.

Joshua

 

Josh, think outside the box for a second. The Galatians 1 passage doesn't mention the death, burial, or resurrection either. So, I suppose every time the Bible mentions the gospel, it has to include every aspect of it. One cannot just assume that the authors of Scripture (carried by the Holy Spirit) had a little bit of intelligence and assumed that the readers would use a little bit of intelligence. For you libs to constantly come up with these "questions" that need answers for you to in "good faith" accept Christianity is ridiculous. It is foolish. I am all for asking questions and learning and digging for the meaning. I think apologetics is necessary. You libs ask questions not seeking answers. It is almost as though you don't want answers to exist. If they did, you would have to conform your ways. Oh wait, answers do exist and you don't want to conform your ways.

Unbelievable! Everytime someone tries to pry information from a liberal, he has to provide a treatise on what exactly he means by...

For example: inerrancy. How many times do I have to see BB ask for or try to put forth more than one definition?

 

2 Timothy - Can you show me anywhere that Paul even mentions the virgin birth as part of the gospel message?

Joshua

 

Mr. Villiens said:
1 - The Bible is the collection of our human understanding of the nature and will of God. To study it is to study our tradition - and doing so is focusing on the things of the LORD not the things of humanity. I think you are failing to make a key distinction between focusing on our traditional understanding of God (which - outside of heresies - is the only one we have), and selfishly focusing on that which is mortal and human.
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''
Mark 12:24 And Jesus answering said unto them, Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God?
Luke 4:4 And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.
Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' ''''''''''''''''''''
Mr. Villiens said:
2 - The 2 Timothy passage in no way contradicts what I said.
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''
Yes, it does! The virgin birthis part of the scriptures.
1 Timothy 1
6 From which some having swerved have turned aside unto vain jangling; 7 Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm.

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' ''''''''''''''''''''
Mr. Villiens said:

3 - Again, there is nothing in that Galatians passage about a virgin birth. It is not fundamental to the gospel message. In fact, I can't think of anywhere offhand where Paul even mentions the virgin birth.
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' ''''''''''''''''''
He does not need to: on both acounts: The virgin birth is in the gospel and he said " we have preached" not "I have preached"
Galatians 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

Mr. Villiens you are teach another Christ. Not the one the Bible teaches.

2 Corinthians 11:4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.

 

Josh,

You seem to answer this question everytime you've posted on this subject. You also prove the fact that you are corupting the very foundations of Christianity, which is what the liberals like to do!

"It is always better to stand up for conservatism, then to fall into liberalism" Justified Version

 

Justified, are you afraid of straight answers? ...incapable of them? ...too snide and patronizing to provide them?

In my opinion, every post that I make includes in it the fact that I am a child of God (John 1:12). If, somewhere in your smug dissembling, you are trying to say that I am the child of someone else then say it.

Joshua

 

Could it be Satan?
Murph[/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]I've been waiting for this answer too. Since you worded your answer in a question form, are you going to plead a Clinton answer by claiming you didn't say it was Satan, but you asked if it was? This is pretty much what i expected of you. You have lowered yourself once again to a new low. Congradulations.

Well Joshua, you have your answer. He thinks you are the son of Satan!

 

Here is a part of Luke that also just doesn't add up. Now why would someone go to all the trouble of listing the "son of X" back to Adam only to end at Joseph? It could make a case that Joseph might have been the Christ (seed of David), but of course we know that isn't true. Or did it read originally "He was the son of Joseph". and someone inserted "so it was thought". Those 3 words just nullified the entire 15 verses of text. It just doesn't add up!!!

Luke 3:
23Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph,
24the son of Heli, the son of Matthat,
the son of Levi, the son of Melki,
the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph,
25the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos,
the son of Nahum, the son of Esli,
26the son of Naggai, the son of Maath,
the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein,
the son of Josech, the son of Joda,
27the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa,
the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel,
28the son of Neri, the son of Melki,
the son of Addi, the son of Cosam,
the son of Elmadam, the son of Er,
29the son of Joshua, the son of Eliezer,
the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat,
30the son of Levi, the son of Simeon,
the son of Judah, the son of Joseph,
the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim,
31the son of Melea, the son of Menna,
the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan,
32the son of David, the son of Jesse,
the son of Obed, the son of Boaz,
the son of Salmon,[4] the son of Nahshon,
33the son of Amminadab, the son of Ram,[5]
the son of Hezron, the son of Perez,
34the son of Judah, the son of Jacob,
the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham,
the son of Terah, the son of Nahor,
35the son of Serug, the son of Reu,
the son of Peleg, the son of Eber,
36the son of Shelah, the son of Cainan,
the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem,
the son of Noah, the son of Lamech,
37the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch,
the son of Jared, the son of Mahalalel,
38the son of Kenan, the son of Enosh,
the son of Seth, the son of Adam,
the son of God.

 

It is really interesting how so many critics here claim that "liberals" don't give straight answers.

I've gotten a sense from some people, through lots of nasty innuendo, that they think I'm some sort of a liberal -- but no one will say it because they probably sense that it would be easy to disprove and they wouldn't have anything to feel superior about.

Instead, insinuations are made so that no one has to be responsible for their accusations. That's the strategy of the Accuser, not of Christ.

 

Justified, 3v36 and C.S.,
Your comments prove only one thing, you are incapable of having and intelligent conversation about a topic without running sticking your head in the sand and calling everyone else not thinking like you a child of Satan. How foolish and totally inconsistent with the stated intent of this forum. There is a real opportunity to learn while at the same time having a chance to air out your own convictions and you are missing it, BIG TIME!
BTW Galatians 4:4 Paul states that Jesus was born of a women, not a virgin! Does that mean Paul didn't believe in the virgin birth either?!?!?!

 

To deny the Virgin Birth is leaven.

Gal.5:[9] A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.
--------------------------------------------------
I Cor. 5:[7] Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:

 

Matthew 13:33 : The Kingdom of Heaven is like yeast that a woman took and mixed with three measures of flour until it was all leavened.

 

Matthew 13:[24] Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field:

[25] But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way.

[26] But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also.

[27] So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares?

[28] He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up?

[29] But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them.

[30] Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.

[31] Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and sowed in his field:

[32] Which indeed is the least of all seeds: but when it is grown, it is the greatest among herbs, and becometh a tree, so that the birds of the air come and lodge in the branches thereof.

[33] Another parable spake he unto them; The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened.

[34] All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them:

[35] That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world.

[36] Then Jesus sent the multitude away, and went into the house: and his disciples came unto him, saying, Declare unto us the parable of the tares of the field.

[37] He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man;

[38] The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one;

[39] The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels.

[40] As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world.

 

Funny how you see contemporary Christian scholarship as the tares and I see fundamentalism.

I imagine we won't know who is right (if either) in this lifetime.

Joshua

 

Ah, but there's the difference. You see it as "funny." I see it as sad.