Do you believe in the virgin birth of Jesus?

[Modbert]

So why do you pretend to be a christain ,Robert, and then misquote the Bible, trash christians and anything remotely christian related. Do you think it gives you more street cred? LOL

Are you Christian? Because if so, it's sad to see you butcher the spelling of your own religion several times.

I don't misquote the bible and trash christians. I trash batshit insane people of all religions and walks of life. Not just people who happen to be batshit insane and Christian.

I'm not pretending to be a Christian. Why would I pretend to be a Christian? For my own amusement? Sorry bub, but other christians don't have the exact same ideas as you.

By the way, still waiting for an answer from my questions while you merely demand them from me. Not really Christian of you is it?

 

[Shadow]

You do realize I've been posting on this thread for most of it and much longer then you're batshit insane ass?

Go back to the kids table Allie and let the civilized people have a conversation. Though I guess Shadow you should go with her since you add nothing to the conversation except demanding answers from others while ignoring questions posed to you.

Awww got to resort to name calling huh. Guess you aren't as smart as you thought you were...big shock..How about you address the fact that you were wrong in the first place.

 

[Agnapostate]

I do not believe in the virgin birth of Jesus because Scripture cannot establish an accurate date of Jesus’s birth. Luke 2:1-5 reports that “And it came to pass in those days that a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered. This census first took place while Quirinius was governing Syria. So all went to be registered, everyone to his own city. Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David, to be registered with Mary, his betrothed wife, who was with child."

Now, Publius Sulpicius Quirinius governed Syria during A.D. 6-9, after Herod Archelaus was banished. Similarly, the census taken during his period of governance occurred in A.D. 6, and Gamaliel mentioned in Acts 5:37 that this caused a violent revolt, (perhaps inspired by religious objections by the Jews in memory of King David’s sinful attempt to do the same thing), a fact that is recorded by the historian Josephus.

But if Jesus was born in A.D. 6, the attempts of Herod the Great to murder him that are recorded in Matthew 2 cannot be accurate, since Herod died in 4 B.C. Hence, there is a discrepancy of about ten years between the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke. Moreover, if we regard the birth date of A.D. 6 as being accurate, Luke’s account that “Jesus began his ministry at about thirty years of age” in Luke 3:23 would seem to be inaccurate.

Hence, it is for that reason that the author of the Gospel of Luke is regarded as having made a mistake, which of course, poses some problems for the conception of the Bible as “infallible” and “divinely inspired.”

2 Timothy is one of the Pastoral Epistles, and is regarded as not having actually been written by Paul. The vocabulary and style used in the Pastoral Epistles, particularly 1 Timothy, are unlike any that were ever used in letters authentically written by Paul. Moreover, the historical references of the Pastoral Epistles are incompatible with the chronology of Paul’s life that is stated in Acts, the false teachings described therein seems to be the Gnosticism of the 2nd century, and it is probable that the church organization structure described in Titus 1:5-7 is far too developed for Paul’s day.

In addition, the author of the Pastoral Epistles has a demonstrably different attitude toward the role of women than Paul does, and the conception of the Pastoral Epistles as letters of Paul could itself be regarded as the incorporation of a false doctrine into Christianity, since so many churches and denominations do not allow women to be ministers. In Galatians 3:28, he writes, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” Yet, 1 Timothy 2:11-15 states, “Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the women being deceived, fell into transgression.”

Now, Paul does not abandon gender roles altogether, but for him to state that “there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus” seems to be profoundly contradictory to a command that women "learn in silence with all submission."

That's an excellent post.

Those who regard the Bible as infallible have never been able to reconcile the two accounts plausibly, given the Quirinius issue.

Also, to add to your commentary on the likelihood that the Pastoral Epistles are forgeries, 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 is likely also a forged passage, added by a later scribe to support the gender roles proscribed by the Pastoral Epistles. Examine the passage: "Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church."

No one disputes that Paul wrote 1 Corinthians, but this passage in particular appears suspicious. Firstly, examine the wider context of the passage.

"How is it then, brethren? Whenever you come together, each of you has a psalm, has a teaching, has a tongue, has a revelation, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification. If anyone speaks in a tongue, let there be two or at the most three, each in turn, and let one interpret. But if there is no interpreter, let him keep silent in church, and let him speak to himself and to God. Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others judge. But if anything is revealed to another who sits by, let the first keep silent. For you can all prophesy one by one, that all may learn and all may be encouraged. And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets. For God is not the author of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints. Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church. Or did the word of God come originally from you? Or was it you only that it reached?If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord. But if anyone is ignorant, let him be ignorant. Therefore, brethren, desire earnestly to prophesy, and do not forbid to speak with tongues. Let all things be done decently and in order."

Why would "Paul" revert from a wider discussion of prophecy in the Church to randomly remark about the role of women in the Church for a few verses, and then go right back to a discussion of prophecy in the Church?

Moreover, in several Greek and Latin manuscripts, verses 34 and 35 are shuffled around to different portions of the text, some inserting the passage after verse 40.

Hence, it is unlikely that it is an original portion of the Bible.

 

[Modbert]

Awww got to resort to name calling huh. Guess you aren't as smart as you thought you were...big shock..How about you address the fact that you were wrong in the first place.

Name calling and the truth are two different things Shadow.

I'm not wrong and you fail to address my questions still.

Do you have any Liberal Views?

 

[Shadow]

Name calling and the truth are two different things Shadow.

I'm not wrong and you fail to address my questions still.

Do you have any Liberal Views?

You are wrong and have been wrong through out this whole thread. Proven by many posters,many times. You are just too full of yourself to admit it,now you want to deflect deflect deflect...

 

[Agnapostate]

It's curious to see that no one here has cared to address the issue that Benthamite brought up, and that I elaborated on.

 

[Modbert]

You are wrong and have been wrong through out this whole thread. Proven by many posters,many times. You are just too full of yourself to admit it,now you want to deflect deflect deflect...

I've been asking you for three pages now, I'm not deflecting. YOU are the one who accused only Liberals of such "horrible acts". So now, I ask you if you hold any Liberal views or are you merely blindly defending one side which is unlogical.

I have not been proven wrong by anyone except people you happen to agree with and feel they are right while you feel I am wrong. I have proven you wrong and you feel the need to deflect, deflect, deflect.

Let me put it this way, if God itself came down from the heavens at this point and told you the Bible was imperfect; you'd yell bullshit and call it some "Liberal trick".

 

[Shadow]

I've been asking you for three pages now, I'm not deflecting. YOU are the one who accused only Liberals of such "horrible acts". So now, I ask you if you hold any Liberal views or are you merely blindly defending one side which is unlogical.

I have not been proven wrong by anyone except people you happen to agree with and feel they are right while you feel I am wrong. I have proven you wrong and you feel the need to deflect, deflect, deflect.

Let me put it this way, if God itself came down from the heavens at this point and told you the Bible was imperfect; you'd yell bullshit and call it some "Liberal trick".

You do realize just because you get the last word in, doesn't mean you win...right Robert LOL.

And If God came down from the Heavens and told you to stop mis quoting the bible. You would say bullshit,I'm doing your work the way I see fit to do it....

 

[Agnapostate]

God doesn't need to come down from heaven. We have enough evidence that the Bible is imperfect.

 

[Modbert]

You do realize just because you get the last word in, doesn't mean you win...right Robert LOL.

And If God came down from the Heavens and told you to stop mis quoting the bible. You would say bullshit,I'm doing your work the way I see fit to do it....

I agree with Agn said above me.

Besides, if God came down from the Heavens and told me to stop quoting the bible the way I have, then I'd listen and comply. You however are so obsessed with your view, arrogance, and being right that you'd continue.

The behavior you've shown throughout this thread isn't really christian of you though. So I think those in glass houses (you) should stop throwing stones.

Or "He is without sin shall cast the first stone."

I'm not misquoting the bible though. Especially when I'm posting full parts.

 

[sky dancer]

You are wrong and have been wrong through out this whole thread. Proven by many posters,many times. You are just too full of yourself to admit it,now you want to deflect deflect deflect...

How about staying on topic? If the poster is wrong, show him how he's misguided. Back up your assertions.

 

[Care4all]

It's curious to see that no one here has cared to address the issue that Benthamite brought up, and that I elaborated on.

because it doesn't matter if the birth date of jesus is not precise in relation to the question of the Virgin birth, imo....

I love watching shows on the history channel about this, and they peg it at about 4 bc through their analysis.... but, so what? the callendar we are on now is different from the one back then and the conversion to this calendar was not perfect....and again, so what if our calendar now is off a few years?

was he born and did he die for all sins, and was he resurrected are the key points among some!



care

 

[Modbert]

How about staying on topic?

Let him continue to be a hypocrite sky. He really has offered nothing to this conversation except insults, mistruths, bullshit, and just agreeing with others work which has been refuted.

 

[Modbert]

because it doesn't matter if the birth date of jesus is not precise in relation to the question of the Virgin birth, imo....

I love watching shows on the history channel about this, and they peg it at about 4 bc through their analysis.... but, so what? the callendar we are on now is different from the one back then and the conversion to this callendar was not perfect....and again, so what if our callenda now is off a few years?

was he born and did he die for all sins, and was he resurrected are the key points among some!



care

Well it is a bit odd when they get even the season of his birth off by 6 months. Though I understand people simply say it's a symbol of his birth more then anything at this point.

 

[sky dancer]

"[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts." Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America.

The quotation by Jefferson Davis, listed above, reflected the beliefs of many Americans in the 19th century. Slavery was seen as having been "sanctioned in the Bible." They argued that:

Biblical passages recognized, controlled, and regulated the practice.
The Bible permitted owners to beat their slaves severely, even to the point of killing them. However, as long as the slave lingered longer than 24 hours before dying of the abuse, the owner was not regarded as having committed a crime, because -- after all -- the slave was his property. 4
Paul had every opportunity to write in one of his Epistles that human slavery -- the owning of one person as a piece of property by another -- is profoundly evil. His letter to Philemon would have been an ideal opportunity to vilify slavery. But he wrote not one word of criticism.
Jesus could have condemned the practice. He might have done so. But there is no record of him having said anything negative about the institution.

Eventually, the abolitionists gained sufficient power to eradicate slavery in most areas of the world by the end of the 19th century. Slavery was eventually recognized as an extreme evil. But this paradigm shift in understanding came at a cost. Christians wondered why the Bible was so supportive of such an immoral practice. They questioned whether the Bible was entirely reliable. Perhaps there were other practices that it accepted as normal which were profoundly evil -- like genocide, torturing prisoners, raping female prisoners of war, forcing rape victims to marry their rapists, executing religious minorities, burning some hookers alive, etc. The innocent faith that Christians had in "the Good Book" was lost -- never to be fully regained. What the Bible says about slavery

This is related to Shadow's post. Sorry that it is off the topic of the virgin birth of Jesus. It speaks to a tangent we all took off on.

 

[Care4all]

here's what scripture says about the virgin birth....

The Annunciation in the Bible
luke:
26 In the sixth month, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, 27to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin's name was Mary. 28The angel went to her and said, "Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you."29Mary was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind of greeting this might be. 30But the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, you have found favor with God. 31You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus. 32He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, 33and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end."

34"How will this be," Mary asked the angel, "since I am a virgin?"35The angel answered, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God. 36Even Elizabeth your relative is going to have a child in her old age, and she who was said to be barren is in her sixth month. 37For nothing is impossible with God."38"I am the Lord's servant," Mary answered. "May it be to me as you have said." Then the angel left her.

 

[Agnapostate]

because it doesn't matter if the birth date of jesus is not precise in relation to the question of the Virgin birth, imo....

I love watching shows on the history channel about this, and they peg it at about 4 bc through their analysis.... but, so what? the callendar we are on now is different from the one back then and the conversion to this calendar was not perfect....and again, so what if our calendar now is off a few years?

was he born and did he die for all sins, and was he resurrected are the key points among some!

care

It's not irrelevant, considering that Scriptural reports of his birth conflict with external sources. This might be excused as a mistake elsewhere, but not in a book that is allegedly "infallible." Scriptural reports of his death also conflict with each other.

 

[Modbert]

That's the thing that has always bothered me about the Bible. Neither God or Jesus who were suppose to be perfect spoke out against slavery.

They said treat your masters with kindness in double so you could try to convert them so they may see the light but never came out and condemned it.

Why? You would think the ownership of one person over another goes against the whole everybody is equal idea.

 

[Modbert]

here's what scripture says about the virgin birth....

The Annunciation in the Bible
luke:
26 In the sixth month, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, 27to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin's name was Mary. 28The angel went to her and said, "Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you."29Mary was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind of greeting this might be. 30But the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, you have found favor with God. 31You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus. 32He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, 33and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end."

34"How will this be," Mary asked the angel, "since I am a virgin?"35The angel answered, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God. 36Even Elizabeth your relative is going to have a child in her old age, and she who was said to be barren is in her sixth month. 37For nothing is impossible with God."38"I am the Lord's servant," Mary answered. "May it be to me as you have said." Then the angel left her.

Was she pregnant then? Sorry for any confusion on my part.

But if the sixth months means June then it's wrong. Evidence today points to Jesus being born in July.

And if she was pregnant? How far along was she? Because if she was, then unless she was 3 months pregnant then giving birth in December would be impossible.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Well......if God were a spaceman, with advanced technology, and did an in vitro fertilization, and had her artificially inseminated.......well......

In that case, it WOULD be a virgin birth.