1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Why Do Some Doubt The Deity of Christ?

Discussion in 'Biblical Debates' started by iris89, Dec 27, 2004.

  1. linwood

    linwood Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2004
    Messages:
    7,049
    Ratings:
    +861
    Hope makes a good point. The Matthew passage doesn't really use the word "virgin". It simply states that they had not "come together" which I think signifies the same thing.

    Not at all.

    The Greek translated as "come together" merely means they weren`t married ..

    1) to come together
    a) to assemble
    b)
    of conjugal cohabitation
    2)
    to go (depart) or come with one, to accompany one

    http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/4/1109052383-974.html

    I do not read Greek nor will I pretend I do.
    I am simply using a concordance for my information.
    If someone here disputes the use of this term I will accept their input.

    No*s, If you`re reading this thread, have you any input?


     
  2. Linus

    Linus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2004
    Messages:
    1,211
    Ratings:
    +132
    The implication is still there. They were "betrothed" (NASB) but had not come together. Any way you want to translate it, the implication is that she was a virgin. Remember the culture of the time. Virginity was important, especially in women. Most references to people being young, or maidens, probably refered to virginity. That's probably why the greek translations render it that way both in the Isaiah passage, and in Luke's account of the birth of Jesus. The implication was there, so they probably went ahead and wrote it in.
     
  3. linwood

    linwood Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2004
    Messages:
    7,049
    Ratings:
    +861
    "probably refered to virginity."

    What evidence do you base this on?

    "Most references to people being young, or maidens, probably refered to virginity."

    What evidence do you base this on?

    "That's probably why the greek translations render it that way both in the Isaiah passage, and in Luke's account of the birth of Jesus."

    I`ve already shown it was nothing more than a translation error in the Isaiah passage and given reference to one of the men who mistranslated it stating it was so.
    I will however accept any evidence to the contrary .
    So lets not confuse the issue.


    I`ll take a look at the account in Luke a bit closer.
     
  4. Linus

    Linus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2004
    Messages:
    1,211
    Ratings:
    +132
    My evidence is the historical context which I have mentioned several time before. You say that the Isaiah passage is translatied to "virgin" incorrectly in the Greek, and Im not disagreeing with you. But what I'm saying is that the original Hebrew word, which translates to something like "young woman", necessarily indicates virginity. Why? Because of the cultural implications of the word itself. Like I said, virginity was important, just as it is today in that area. By saying that someone was a young person, it could have been that they were necessarily implying virginity. Why else would it matter what age she was? Why else would the text mention her being a young woman?
     
  5. linwood

    linwood Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2004
    Messages:
    7,049
    Ratings:
    +861
    "But what I'm saying is that the original Hebrew word, which translates to something like "young woman", necessarily indicates virginity."

    Why when there is another word that definitively means virgin: a woman who has not had intercourse?
    Why are there two words at all if they both have the same implication?

    "By saying that someone was a young person, it could have been that they were necessarily implying virginity."

    You have nothing to base this on but your own version of revealed faith.
    the text does not indicate it nor does the definition of the word.

    If "almah" can be used as"virgin" then why is it not used in this context elsewhere instead of "bethulah"?

    "Why else would it matter what age she was? Why else would the text mention her being a young woman?"

    To describe her.
    When is the last time you read any story where one of the founding characters was not given at least a cursory description?

    If you can find another verse in a different context where "almah" is used to describe a virgin I`ll re-think my thinking .

    Until then I have no reason to do so.
     
  6. iris89

    iris89 Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2004
    Messages:
    434
    Ratings:
    +21
    THE ACCOUNTS OF THE GENEALOGIES OF JESUS (YESHUA) CHRIST:



    Many wonder why the genealogies that Matthew and Luke gave for Jesus (Yeshua) are completely different. But there is a reason, let's examine the facts and reasons;



    The genealogy of Matthew is concerned first and foremost, to show that Jesus was the Messiah directly descended from the royal house of David, and of the seed of the patriarch Abraham, to whom the divine promises were first given. See Matthew 1:1-18, "The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham. 2 Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judah and his brethren; 3 and Judah begat Perez and Zerah of Tamar; and Perez begat Hezron; and Hezron begat Ram; 4 and Ram begat Amminadab; and Amminadab begat Nahshon; and Nahshon begat Salmon; 5 and Salmon begat Boaz of Rahab; and Boaz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse; 6 and Jesse begat David the king. And David begat Solomon of her [that had been the wife] of Uriah; 7 and Solomon begat Rehoboam; and Rehoboam begat Abijah; and Abijah begat Asa; 8 and Asa begat Jehoshaphat; and Jehoshaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Uzziah; 9 and Uzziah begat Jotham; and Jotham begat Ahaz; and Ahaz begat Hezekiah; 10 and Hezekiah begat Manasseh; and Manasseh begat Amon; and Amon begat Josiah; 11 and Josiah begat Jechoniah and his brethren, at the time of the carrying away to Babylon. 12 And after the carrying away to Babylon, Jechoniah begat Shealtiel; and Shealtiel begat Zerubbabel; 13 and Zerubbabel begat Abiud; and Abiud begat Eliakim; and Eliakim begat Azor; 14 and Azor begat Sadoc; and Sadoc begat Achim; and Achim begat Eliud; 15 and Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob; 16 and Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. 17 So all the generations from Abraham unto David are fourteen generations; and from David unto the carrying away to Babylon fourteen generations; and from the carrying away to Babylon unto the Christ fourteen generations." (American Standard Version; ASV)



    Whereas the genealogy given by Luke stresses the fact that Jesus was the perfect man. Luke gives the genealogy of Mary, not Joseph. The legal title to the throne came through Joseph, Jesus' adoptive father. Luke's genealogy is different. It is given in reverse order from Matthew'. Luke goes back to David and then back to Adam. Luke gives Mary's story and this is clearly her genealogy. The royal blood of David flowed in her veins also, and Jesus blood title to the throne of David came through her. Luke makes it clear that Joseph was not the. father of the Lord Jesus Christ but God is. See Luke 3:23-38, "And Jesus himself, when he began [to teach], was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the [son] of Heli, 24 the [son] of Matthat, the [son] of Levi, the [son] of Melchi, the [son] of Jannai, the [son] of Joseph, 25 the [son] of Mattathias, the [son] of Amos, the [son] of Nahum, the [son] of Esli, the [son] of Naggai, 26 the [son] of Maath, the [son] of Mattathias, the [son] of Semein, the [son] of Josech, the [son] of Joda, 27 the [son] of Joanan, the [son] of Rhesa, the [son] of Zerubbabel, the [son] of Shealtiel, the [son] of Neri, 28 the [son] of Melchi, the [son] of Addi, the [son] of Cosam, the [son] of Elmadam, the [son] of Er, 29 the [son] of Jesus, the [son] of Eliezer, the son of Jorim, the [son] of Matthat, the [son] of Levi, 30 the [son] of Symeon, the [son] of Judas, the [son] of Joseph, the [son] of Jonam, the [son] of Eliakim, 31 the [son] of Melea, the [son] of Menna, the [son] of Mattatha, the [son] of Nathan, the [son] of David, 32 the [son] of Jesse, the [son] of Obed, the [son] of Boaz, the [son] of Salmon, the [son] of Nahshon, 33 the [son] of Amminadab, the [son] of Arni, the [son] of Hezron, the [son] of Perez, the [son] of Judah, 34 the [son] of Jacob, the [son] of Isaac, the [son] of Abraham, the [son] of Terah, the [son] of Nahor, 35 the [son] of Serug, the [son] of Reu, the [son] of Peleg, the [son] of Eber, the [son] of Shelah 36 the [son] of Cainan, the [son] of Arphaxad, the [son] of Shem, the [son] of Noah, the [son] of Lamech, 37 the [son] of Methuselah, the [son] of Enoch, the [son] of Jared, the [son] of Mahalaleel, the [son] of Cainan, 38 the [son] of Enos, the [son] of Seth, the [son] of Adam, the [son] of God." (ASV).



    Also, notice the accounts run in opposite chronological order to each other.

    To read the remainder, go to as too long for here:

    THE ACCOUNTS OF THE GENEALOGIES OF JESUS (YESHUA) CHRIST:

    http://www.network54.com/Forum/390732


    Your Friend in Christ Iris89
     
  7. linwood

    linwood Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2004
    Messages:
    7,049
    Ratings:
    +861
    "Luke gives Mary's story and this is clearly her genealogy"

    Thats as clear as Clam Chowder, New England style.
     
  8. painted wolf

    painted wolf Grey Muzzle

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2004
    Messages:
    15,370
    Ratings:
    +1,653
    I still havent gotten an answer to my questions... my doubts remain.
    now I have a new question to add to the list.

    Does pedegree realy make one holy?

    wa:do
     
  9. iris89

    iris89 Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2004
    Messages:
    434
    Ratings:
    +21
    Hi Everyone

    Some ask questions that make no sense as they are not explained by the asker, such as,
    [quote}Does pedegree realy make one holy?[/quote]Which of course is not answerable without explaination as it could be taken in a 100 different ways as it is not inclusive.

    Your Friend in Christ Iris89
     
  10. Master Vigil

    Master Vigil Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Messages:
    5,746
    Ratings:
    +607
    I understand completely what painted wolf is asking iris. Just because jesus was descended from david, does that automatically make him holy? Does blood line have anything to do with it? I think it makes perfect sense. But maybe thats because i can think out of my own little box.
     
  11. linwood

    linwood Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2004
    Messages:
    7,049
    Ratings:
    +861
    "I understand completely what painted wolf is asking iris. Just because jesus was descended from david, does that automatically make him holy? Does blood line have anything to do with it? I think it makes perfect sense. But maybe thats because i can think out of my own little box."

    Just for clarity I`d like to point out that the authors of the later gospels included these two genealogies in order to make the necessary claim for Jesus as the Christ and or the King of the Hebrews.

    In order for Jesus to actually fullfill all the prophecies he would have to be sent from God AND be a descendent of the line of David.

    So the genealogies are irrelavent to the OP considering their existence is to provide evidence of Jesus`s lineage to David, not God.

    They have nothing to do with his divinity or lack thereof

     
  12. painted wolf

    painted wolf Grey Muzzle

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2004
    Messages:
    15,370
    Ratings:
    +1,653
    But if Jesus is more justified as being a Deity than Hiawatha, who was also said to have been born a direct child of creator. Or for that matter Imhotep.
    Is Jesus more of a diety, simply because he has a 'better' pedigree?

    I think it does have to do with his divinity... it is often mentioned that Jesus was decended from David, it must have something to do with his being worthy of being called devine.
    Would Jesus be less 'devine' if he didn't have that pedegree?
    Without pedegree he can't be 'the Christ' right?

    wa:do
     
  13. iris89

    iris89 Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2004
    Messages:
    434
    Ratings:
    +21
    Hi Everyone

    It is quite clear that what I said was correct as shown by some poster's post,
    [quite]I understand completely what painted wolf is asking iris. Just because jesus was descended from david, does that automatically make him holy? Does blood line have anything to do with it? I think it makes perfect sense. But maybe thats because i can think out of my own little box.[/quote]They took things completely different with respect the question than I would have due to its being ill defined. No theologian or Bible scholar that I know of would ever take that question to refer to Jesus (Yeshua) having been in an earthly sense a descendent of David having anything to do with his pedigree. To do so is to completely over look the facts as presented in Matthew 1:18-25, "Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found with child of the Holy Spirit. 19 And Joseph her husband, being a righteous man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily. 20 But when he thought on these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. 21 And she shall bring forth a son; and thou shalt call his name JESUS; for it is he that shall save his people from their sins. 22 Now all this is come to pass, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying, 23 Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, And they shall call his name Immanuel; which is, being interpreted, God with us. 24 And Joseph arose from his sleep, and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took unto him his wife; 25 and knew her not till she had brought forth a son: and he called his name JESUS." (American Standard Version; ASV). It would be clear that God (YHWH) had had the life force of his only begotten son put in the womb of the Virgin Mary; hence, any pedigree he would have, this of course being a bad usage of the word, would be due to his real father was. You should learn the scriptures.

    Consider these facts about Jesus (Yeshua) and his relationship to his real Father (YHWH), that is his pedigree to use this bad expression for this purpose.
    1 Corinthians 15:22-28, "For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. 23 But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; then they that are Christ's, at his coming. 24 Then [cometh] the end, when he shall deliver up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have abolished all rule and all authority and power. 25 For he must reign, till he hath put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy that shall be abolished is death. 27 For, He put all things in subjection under his feet. But when he saith, All things are put in subjection, it is evident that he is excepted who did subject all things unto him. 28 And when all things have been subjected unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subjected to him that did subject all things unto him, that God may be all in all." (ASV).



    Here we note in verse 28, "And when all things have been subjected unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subjected to him that did subject all things unto him, that God may be all in all" which clearly shows two important Bible truths;



    (1) That when all things have been subjected unto him, then shall the Son [Jesus (Yeshua)] also himself be subjected to him [his Father, Almighty God (YHWH)] that did subject all things unto him. Clearly showing that his Father, God (YHWH) had subjected his kingdom to is son, Jesus (Yeshua) for a limited time. In fact, as shown in verse 27 he subjected everything to his son, Jesus (Yeshua) except of course himself [God (YHWH)] as the Bible clearly states, ", it is evident that he is excepted who did subject all things unto him." So it is clear that the contrived item, , "NO ONE IS WORTHY OF GOD'S KINGDOM EXCEPT GOD HIMSELF" is NOT true or fact.



    (2) That Jesus (Yeshua) is NOT co-equal with his Father, God (YHWH) as clearly shown by the fact that he "the Son also himself be subjected to him that did subject all things unto him, that God may be all in all." So if you comprehend the Bible this fact would be self evident, that the son, Jesus (Yeshua) is subordinate just from 1 Corinthians 15:28. But this fact is stated in many places.
    Now let's look at Daniel the 7 th. chapter, Daniel 7:9-14, "I beheld till thrones were placed, and one that was ancient of days did sit: his raiment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like pure wool; his throne was fiery flames, [and] the wheels thereof burning fire. 10 A fiery stream issued and came forth from before him: thousands of thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him: the judgment was set, and the books were opened. 11 I beheld at that time because of the voice of the great words which the horn spake; I beheld even till the beast was slain, and its body destroyed, and it was given to be burned with fire. 12 And as for the rest of the beasts, their dominion was taken away: yet their lives were prolonged for a season and a time. 13 I saw in the night-visions, and, behold, there came with the clouds of heaven one like unto a son of man, and he came even to the ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. 14 And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all the peoples, nations, and languages should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed." (ASV).



    Here in this scripture God (YHWH) is spoken of as the ancient of days and verse 14 says, "And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all the peoples, nations, and languages should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed" now note it says that a kingdom was given to him, yet no one can give a kingdom to God (YHWH) so obviously this is speaking about his son, Jesus (Yeshua) Christ..



    This fact was highlighted by the great Bible scholar, Theodore Bezq, as follows:

    .

    For more information and to really start learning, go to:

    http://www.network54.com/Forum/390732

    Your Friend in Christ Iris89
     
  14. painted wolf

    painted wolf Grey Muzzle

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2004
    Messages:
    15,370
    Ratings:
    +1,653
    So why is Jesus more devine than Hiawatha or Imhotep?

    wa:do
     
    • Like Like x 1
  15. Faust

    Faust Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2004
    Messages:
    350
    Ratings:
    +68
    The genealogies are relevant because they are meant to show that Jesus is a direct descendant of David and therefore fulfills the OT prophesy. The messiah is supposed to be a direct descendant of King David.
    However the genealogies show that Joseph is a direct blood descendant of David, and that means that if Jesus is a direct blood descendant of king David he is the biological son of Joseph! This therefore contradicts Marys conceiving of the Holy Ghost which would in the Christian tradition make Jesus a diety and one part of the Holy Trinity.
    So which one is it ? Are the geneologys incorrect therefore nullifying the claim of descendance to David ? Or was Jesus actually fathered by Joseph meaning he wasn't fathered by the Holy Ghost?
    As far as Luke goes Luke 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being ( as was supposed ) the son of Joseph, is a confirmation that Joseph is the biological father of Jesus. The geneology is not stated to be that of Mary and can not be misinterpreted as such unless one is grasping at straws.
    This is the key to the entire Christian religion!
    Faust.
     
  16. linwood

    linwood Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2004
    Messages:
    7,049
    Ratings:
    +861
    You`re right Faust, they are relevant in that context.
    I hadn`t been thinking along the "mortal" lines when pondering his divinity.

    If there had only been one genealogy or both had been in agreement I`d say it would have been better evidence for Jesus`s biological bloodline at the least.
    Considering the source.

    Since they do not agree and the theory that one is actually Marys is utterly ridiculous I don`t think they have any bearing on his divinity.
    They cannot be trusted so they must be tossed out when making such considerations.

    So they`re back to being irrelevent but for a different reason.

    :)
     
  17. iris89

    iris89 Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2004
    Messages:
    434
    Ratings:
    +21
    Hi Everyone

    One poster asked the following dumb question,
    This is ridiculas. Jesus (Yeshua) is the only begotten son of the Creator (YHWH) that is why. For more information, go to:

    http://www.network54.com/Forum/390732

    and,

    The Ransome

    http://www.network54.com/Forum/389818

    Another poster said,
    FIRST, The Bible clearly shows he was NOT the biological son of Joseph in Matthew 1:18-25 previously quoted and at Luke 3:23, "Now it came to pass, when all the people were baptized, that, Jesus also having been baptized, and praying, the heaven was opened, 22 and the Holy Spirit descended in a bodily form, as a dove, upon him, and a voice came out of heaven, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased. 23 And Jesus himself, when he began [to teach], was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the [son] of Heli," (ASV) Note, it says supposed since he really was not, get real.

    SECOND, He was fathered neither by the Holy Spirit, God's (YHWH's) active force or power nor by Joseph.

    THIRD, He was part of no trinity. Read the facts at:

    Trinity, the Facts

    http://www.network54.com/Forum/388928


    FOURTH, he had existed in heaven before the earth was created, check John 8:54-58, "Jesus answered, If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing: it is my Father that glorifieth me; of whom ye say, that he is your God; 55 and ye have not known him: but I know him; and if I should say, I know him not, I shall be like unto you, a liar: but I know him, and keep his word. 56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day; and he saw it, and was glad. 57 The Jews therefore said unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? 58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was born, I am." (ASV). He existed before Abraham as he himself testified so as I previously said God (YHWH) had his active life force placed into the womb of the Virgin Mary by his power known as the Hoyl Spirit. So Joseph was only his foster father. Get real.

    All these comments show is a very low level comprehension of the Bible, i.e., on a 1 st. Grade level at best. You need to learn about the Bible and Biblical subjects which your comments and questions show you lack understanding. for assistance, go to the following:

    Creation, the Wonderful Things of God:

    http://www.network54.com/Forum/thread?forumid=388168&messageid=1108233348&lp=1108233952

    and,

    Discourse on Salvation;

    http://www.network54.com/Forum/thread?forumid=388172&messageid=1108235125&lp=1108235295

    and,

    Bible Canon & Bible Data

    http://www.network54.com/Forum/388559

    and,

    Trinity, the Facts

    http://www.network54.com/Forum/388928

    and,

    STANDARDS ARE PROMULGATED NOT PROVEN BUT USED:

    http://www.network54.com/Forum/thread?forumid=388559&messageid=1108382158&lp=1108382158

    and,

    Civilization & the Bible

    http://www.network54.com/Forum/thread?forumid=388559&messageid=1108382063&lp=1108382063

    and,

    Details on Bible Canon:

    http://www.network54.com/Forum/thread?forumid=388559&messageid=1108381517&lp=1108381780

    and,

    THE ACCOUNTS OF THE GENEALOGIES OF JESUS (YESHUA) CHRIST:

    http://www.network54.com/Forum/390732

    and,

    The Ransome

    http://www.network54.com/Forum/389818



    Your Friend in Christ Iris89
     
  18. linwood

    linwood Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2004
    Messages:
    7,049
    Ratings:
    +861
    The question is entirely valid.
    Dumb is the way some people behave when confronted with something that doesn`t fit into their spoon-fed theology.

    Who said he is the only begotten son of God?
    Other than the Bible?

    I have already de-bunked this claim in post # 153.
    You have not addressed the fact that both Matthew and Luke onbviously based thier writing on the septugant since they both re-wrote the same mistranslation for Virgin found only in that source.
    Please address this before continuing to submit fallacy as evidence.

    I can assure you I read none of your links.
    If you want to put forth an idea please do so in this thread as i`m tired of following your obviously biased poorly researched essays.
     
  19. Melody

    Melody Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2004
    Messages:
    3,261
    Ratings:
    +558
    I'd love to frubal you for this but I need to pass it around more. :)
     
  20. Master Vigil

    Master Vigil Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Messages:
    5,746
    Ratings:
    +607
    "This is ridiculas. Jesus (Yeshua) is the only begotten son of the Creator (YHWH) that is why. For more information, go to:"

    Sorry, your claim is rediculous. You give absolutely no proof except for the bible (Which is in no way proof.) You are using circular arguments. (What it says in the bible is true because of what the bible says.) Again, look outside of your little box, stop linking us to more of your horrible posts, and started doing real research and maybe learn something.
     
Loading...