Does the Bible teach that Mary was a virgin when Jesus was conceived?

[bridgeforsale]

In reply to Armenius-Wesley post #254:

I really do not wish to persist with personal opinions, preferring instead to help "make straight the way of the Lord" by exposing the fraudulent nature of instutionalised religion with its vested interests.

I think it's best if we avoid discussing this topic further. I can already see your starting to drive down a route I really don't feel like joining you in .... sorry.

After all that was the heart of the conflict between Jesus of Nazareth and the Temple Sanhedrin - Individual integrity versus rigid instutionalised formalism.

I affirm unequivocally along with the NT disciples that Jesus of Nazareth as God's anointed agent is the hope and judge of the world.

Jesus of Nazareth by obediently living the values of God in his life - unto his own death - restored to all men the potential for reconciliation with God and to be Sons of God as was Adam before he humbugged himself with self delusion.

Now please let us persist with our difference of theology.

Ben Lomond.

I'm gonna end it here .... just suffice it to say I disagree with you.

[RBerman]

I consider it to be both presumptuous and misguided of you to accuse me of not believing the Bible to be true. I will say it AGAIN very clearly so there can be no misunderstanding: The Bible DOES NOT SAY that Jesus of Nazareth was born of a virgin, or that he was Almighty God incarnated into human form. The Bible affirms that Jesus of Nazareth attained the status of being a “Son of God” by fulfilling his responsibilities to live according to God’s values, even unto his own death. Traditional church creeds and doctrines actually portray erroneous conclusions arrived at from reading Hebrew concepts through a Pagan Greek / Roman mentality. Feel free to accuse me of misunderstanding the Bible (after all THAT is the moot point) but please do not tell me what I do or do not believe.

Fair enough.

2) Mary asked the question she did because she was surprised that she was going to be pregnant without sexual intercourse.

Here you appear to be saying that Mary is not yet pregnant (she was surprised that she was going to be pregnant without sexual intercourse.) If Mary is NOT YET pregnant, and she knew nothing of any Hebrew prophecy of a virgin birth, then to argue that her statement “I do not know a man” is a reference to not having a past sexual relationship in the past, becomes a nonsense.

It's not necessary that Mary even know there is such a thing as prophecy. It's only necessary that Mary know she is a virgin, and that Mary know that virgins do not give birth. Given that scenario, if an angel (or a doctor, or anyone) was to tell Mary that she was going to give birth, it would be perfectly natural for Mary to ask, "How can this be, for I have not known a man?" Prophecy or awareness of prophecy or interpretation of prophecy needn't enter in to it.

You said: ...”Mary was surprised that she was going to have a child "since I have not known a man." “

You have misrepresented what Luke records Mary as saying. Mary did not say "since I have not known a man." She said “How shall this be since I do not know a man.”

...

Your knowledge of the grammar used by Luke is erroneous, but nevertheless reflects what would be convenient for the churches point of view if Luke had said this.

First, I hope you'll forgive me that I don't take you as my authority on how to translate Greek present tense into English in a given context. Second, it shouldn't matter from your perspective whether Mary says "I have not known a man" or "I do not know a man." Either way, the angel tells her that the conception has not yet occurred, but that it will occur because "the Holy Spirit will come upon you." I don't know yet what method you're proposing for Jesus' conception to have occured, but the angel's answer seems awfully flowery if the real answer was some variation of, "your horny fiance will impregnate you before the wedding."

The Greek word “Ginosko” means to be aware of something, have knowledge of or to understand. Luke used the same word over 20 times, and NEVER in the context of sexual connotations.

Irrelevant. It was a well-known idiom for sexual relations among the Hebrews. So what if Luke doesn't use it that way again? That just shows that Luke didn't talk about sex much.

[Ben Lomond]

In reply to RBerman post #257:

Mary's question to Gabriel "How shall this be seeing I do not know a man" - (Luke 1:34) is her direct response to the criteria the child will fulfill as given by Gabriel in the two previous verses (Luke 1:32/33).

Mary's response to Gabriel has absolutely NOTHING to do with sexual connotations.

Just stop and cogitate the situation if you will:

Mary has just been unexpectedly told that she is going to conceive a child at some future time.
This child will inherit the throne of his forefather David.
Mary is betrothed to Joseph (of a line cursed never again to sit on David's throne).

She is obviously perplexed at her apparently difficult circumstances and asks "How can this be since I do not know (am not aware of) a man who can fulfill this criteria.

This matter has been thoroughly discussed in previous posts in this thread, which you have previously refused to review.

Ben Lomond.

[RBerman]

I once again plead guilty to not wading through 17 pages of lengthy posts to separate the wheat from the chaff. Thank you for finally summarizing what you believe is the salient point instead of just complaining repeatedly about me.

As to your content, it's simply a "head in the sand" response to think that when a Hebrew virgin, speaking about her own future childbearing, says "I do not know a man," she's talking about something besides sexual intercourse.

[bridgeforsale]

In reply to RBerman post #257:

Mary's question to Gabriel "How shall this be seeing I do not know a man" - (Luke 1:34) is her direct response to the criteria the child will fulfill as given by Gabriel in the two previous verses (Luke 1:32/33).

Mary's response to Gabriel has absolutely NOTHING to do with sexual connotations.

Just stop and cogitate the situation if you will:

Mary has just been unexpectedly told that she is going to conceive a child at some future time.
This child will inherit the throne of his forefather David.
Mary is betrothed to Joseph (of a line cursed never again to sit on David's throne).

She is obviously perplexed at her apparently difficult circumstances and asks "How can this be since I do not know (am not aware of) a man who can fulfill this criteria.

This matter has been thoroughly discussed in previous posts in this thread, which you have previously refused to review.

Ben Lomond.

Except the discourse between Gabriel and Joseph at Matthew 1:18-25 blows your bizarre theory out the water (sorry to be blunt ... but your theory isn't plausible, or to put it more concisely it's a heretical view).

If you don't believe Jesus was born to a virgin, and conceived by the Holy Spirit, then you don't believe the word of God. Jesus had to be born of God because only God could save mankind. Your theory twists and perverts one of the core tenants of the Christian faith.

You sound like just another in a long line of heretics who don't believe in miracles, and who don't believe anything is possible with God. If you don't believe that then why bother?

[John Goddard]

Except the discourse between Gabriel and Joseph at Matthew 1:18-25 blows your bizarre theory out the water (sorry to be blunt ... but your theory isn't plausible, or to put it more concisely it's a heretical view).

If you don't believe Jesus was born to a virgin, and conceived by the Holy Spirit, then you don't believe the word of God. Jesus had to be born of God because only God could save mankind. Your theory twists and perverts one of the core tenants of the Christian faith.

You sound like just another in a long line of heretics who don't believe in miracles, and who don't believe anything is possible with God. If you don't believe that then why bother?

If I remember, he believes Mary talked to Gabriel, ran out to have a quickie with Heli, then rushed over to Elizabeth to find herself pregnant. Completely ignoring that Matthew says she was a virgin.

Matthew 1:23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

This is how these guys operate, when they think there is a contradiction they insist on using all Gospels to try to discredit them all.

But when they want to cherrypick they insist on using only one Gospel and exclude all others which explain the context of the one.

[bridgeforsale]

If I remember, he believes Mary talked to Gabriel, ran out to have a quickie with Heli, then rushed over to Elizabeth to find herself pregnant. Completely ignoring that Matthew says she was a virgin.

Matthew 1:23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

This is how these guys operate, when they think there is a contradiction they insist on using all Gospels to try to discredit them all.

But when they want to cherrypick they insist on using only one Gospel and exclude all others which explain the context of the one.

John:

Indeed. I would have given a simple Amen to your post ... but I want to add a couple more thoughts regarding such people. If they think it's foolish to believe in a virgin birth then what do they really believe in? If they think God inspired the biblical authors to misrepresent the truth ... then how can they even believe God created our universe?

They start with the virgin birth, then they attack the miracles of Christ, and then of course the inevitable slippery slope of their thinking leads them to question everything. If they don't trust God enough to believe what He told us then they lack faith in God's faithfulness.

The meaning conveyed in both the Luke & Matthew account is simple enough for any child to understand .... so any person who can't find their way to simply accept the veracity of these events as presented cannot be endowed with grace. Their claims to having a semblance of faith can only be psychological delusion (it's not a faith from God).

When I was in law school and took my final exams we were always presented with these fact patterns that were unbelievable. It would go something like this. A guy was crossing a street and was hit by a car. The driver of the car was pregnant and going into labor. After that another car struck the pregnant woman's car. Then when the ambulance showed up its driver was drunk. The ambulance took the injured parties away and the medical technician screwed up and administered the wrong treatment and harmed one of the accident victims. Then the ambulance crashed and everyone inside was injured. The reason the ambulance crashed (besides its driver being drunk) was because a skateboarder negligently skated in front of the ambulance. The skateboarder has been cited for similar negligence in the past, but his parents never acted to prevent his reckless behavior.

You would have to go down this convoluted series of events and figure out who was negligent and if the negligence was proximate cause of the injury. Even if a party is negligent it's not decisive in itself. That negligence must be proximate cause, without too many attenuating factors. If you screwed up one small fact or incorrectly applied the law in any case your entire answer fell apart. These answers might be a half a dozen pages long, so imagine if you got one thing wrong on the first page you would wind up with five pages of worthless babble.

The bible is the same way. Everything in it is interconnected. Without a virgin birth then we have a Mary who was an adulterer and Jesus the product of a sinful relationship (frankly a blasphemous thought). Without acknowledging that God miraculously incarnated Mary we have a Jesus who was not born of God & hence it dilutes the idea that He and God are one. Therefore, it wasn't God saving us ... it was us saving us. Now we can save ourselves, so what do we really need God for?

So when I hear people say these type of things I think I can rightly say they are not Christian. Moreover, I feel a certain compulsion to call it like I see it (particularly when they're spewing crap that might be read by sincere people who might be new to our faith & therefore more impressionable). The internet is a wonderful medium for us .... because it allows us to reach more people than ever before. However, it can also be detrimental because of people like Ben. Paul said at Romans 10:14 that no one can believe unless they hear (or are exposed to the Gospel). Therefore, the faithful are a vehicle of divine grace (obviously there are many aspects of grace, but we are one of them). Therefore, wild assertions like the one presented by Ben should be vigorously challenged and exposed for what they are .... lies.

[John Goddard]

John:

Indeed. I would have given a simple Amen to your post ... but I want to add a couple more thoughts regarding such people. If they think it's foolish to believe in a virgin birth then what do they really believe in? If they think God inspired the biblical authors to misrepresent the truth ... then how can they even believe God created our universe?

I don't know. There are some especially Jews who value the religious culture and traditions, but twist the Bible to fit better with their own otherwise secular views. They come up with natural explanations for miracles, or say they are just parables and metaphors for teaching purposes and never really happened. Or go a gnostic route and say they were all just dreams.

Maybe it is better than rejecting the Bible completely, but in this case I think it may be intellectually dishonest to pick and choose between Gospels, in this case favoring Luke over Matthew, so he can push this pet idea that Mary was given the ok by God to sleep with another man.

Which if God said it was ok may not necessarily be blasphemous, His permission would seem to override adulteress and mamzer implications. But it still ignores Matthew 1:23.

At any rate if I ever see this guy doing the opposite with a different issue and favoring Matthew over Luke, as Powell tried to do with the Bethlehem thread, I'm going to call him on it.

[Daniel Keeran]

The question I ask is: What is the apparent intention of the writer(s)? To communicate that Mary was a virgin at the time of Jesus' conception and that Jesus was a virginal conception? Or to communicat e that another human male impregnated Mary after Gabriel spoke to her?

[one_lost_coin]

wow, Ben 17 pages and you still have no clue, no point, no authority, and try with all your might you still can't change heresy into truth.

[Antony]

Here is an earlier post that is to do with interpreting the Bible. Note the last section is to do with interpreting Mary's question Lk. 1.34.

The Church Fathers

It is a fact of history that Christendom today views the Bible in the mould first fashioned by the Greek “Church Fathers”, with later contribuions from their Latin counterparts.

The Greeks and Latins had a religious heritage that was in stark contrast with that of the Hebrew / Jewish people as expressed in the OT, and the Church Fathers were particularly unsuited to interpret the events and writings centred on the Hebrew / Jewish people.

The essence of their interpretations reflected their Greek heritage, and an objective observer would conclude the Church Fathers saw the Bible through the prism of their own culture rather than through the eyes of the biblical writers.

The Trinity, God in human form, miraculous birth, and so on are the sort of things that do not come naturally out of the Hebrew culture. Other pointers such as the title Pontifex Maximus, of pagan origin and subsequently assigned to the Emperors and then to the popes, only serve to reinforce the evidence about what path the Church followed.


Jewish versus Gentile perceptions

Below are two NT texts which illustrate the different outlooks of Jews and those of Greek heritage. (The Gentiles referred to were located in Asia Minor, in the Greek half of the Empire.) The Jews perceived that the power for men to perform miracles came from God, while the Gentiles saw the miracle workers as gods.

When the multitudes saw the miracle performed by Jesus, “they marvelled and glorified God, who had given such power to men.” (Mt 9:6-8)


However, when the Gentiles saw what Paul had done, “they raised their voices, saying in the Lycaonian laguage, ‘The gods have come down to us in the likeness of men!’ They called Barnabas ‘Zeus’, and Paul ‘Hermes’, since he was their chief speaker.‘ " (Acts 14:11-12)

Interpreting the Bible

Apart from the obvious difficulties of interpreting books written in foreign laguages and about a people in ancient times, the main obstacle for today’s reader is overcoming how he or she has been conditioned to read about Jesus in the Bible.

In order to address this problem, it is important to read texts with a fresh mind and where possible to use the Bible to interpret itself. For example, where you read words or phrases applied to Jesus check how these same words and phrases are used elsewhere in the Bible.

If you do not think you have been conditioned to react in a certain way to words when they are applied to Jesus, then I suggest you do a short test.

First, ask yourself when did Jesus become the “begotten son of God”? If your answer is different to what is stated in Acts 13:33, then ask why did you think what you did?

Second, ask yourself what the term “son of man” means when it is applied to Jesus, and would it convey the same meaning if it was used about someone else in the Bible? Having answered this question, check for yourself whether this term is applied to someone other than Jesus, and if so who applied it to that person.


Using Mary’s question as an example

The angel Gabriel appeared to Mary, who was betrothed to Joseph, and told her that she would conceive and have a son. The angel spoke of a future event. (Lk 1:26-33)

Then Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I do not know a man?” (Lk 1:34)

Most readers have been led to believe Mary is saying, “But how can this come about, since I am a virgin?” In more recent times, many “translations” of the Bible have even taken it upon themselves to render Mary’s question this way.

If you think about it, this interpretation portrays Mary as either very naïve or a simpleton. It has her saying that because she is presently a virgin, she does not know how at some future time she can conceive and have a son.

In order to analyse why Mary asked the question she did, the first thing is to see what prompted Mary’s question.

The angel had just told Mary that this son, among other things, would be given the “throne of his father David”.

We know from Matthew’s gospel that Joseph was descended from David through Jeconiah, and from the book of Jeremiah that God had debarred this line from ever sitting upon the Davidic throne. (Mt 1:11, Jer 22:30) In other words, Joseph could not be the father of the child the angel had just spoken about. No wonder then that Mary asked the question she did.

Mary’s question is very similar to Zacharias’ question that also appears in Lk 1. Zacharias’ question had nothing to do with the mechanics of conception — and neither did Mary’s question!

This post is rather long, so I will not extend the analysis further. However, if you wish to see a detailed analysis of Lk 1, or how Lk 3:23 — when properly translated — names the father of Jesus, then click on

http://www.wallsofjericho.info/index...d=21&Itemid=30

[Ben Lomond]

In reply to Arminius_Wesley, John Goddard and RBerman in recent posts:

It seems to me that some previous postings have indulged in more than their fair share of self righteous “argumentum ad hominem” against me. However, the real pity is that they dare to think that by this method of reply they have answered the thoroughly documented case against the doctrine of “virgin birth.”

Many of the preceding posters to whom I refer have neither answered nor apparently do they comprehend the basic points of the Opening Post of this thread.

I suggest that they read Isaiah 6:9; Jeremiah 5:20 and Ezekiel 12:2 VERY slowly and hopefully they will come to see the danger of being too self-assured in what they proclaim about God’s delegated agent, Jesus of Nazareth. Hopefully they will come to understand the issues which brought Jesus into conflict with the Temple junta and ultimately also led to his judicial murder.

The very fact that Jesus of Nazareth WAS rejected and humiliated by people whom he met in his own day makes it self evident that many Jewish people did not recognize messianic criteria in him. I propose that if Jesus were to reappear to the Christian churches today basing his appeal on similar criteria, then he would again be rejected – this time by Christendom.

I can not overemphasize that it is most important for people today to really understand the mundane and universal nature of the issues which brought Jesus into open conflict with the Temple Establishment lest they also repeat the folly which the Jewish priests perpetrated in Jerusalem in the year 30AD.

The Temple priests who preached Moses physically crucified Jesus. This is a paradox.
The churches today through their erroneous doctrines and distortions about Jesus re-crucify him. This too is a paradox, - but it is also totally consistent.

It is demonstrable and consistent that what the Jewish priesthood did 2000 years ago in Jerusalem to Jesus on a physical level is repeated today by the priesthood of Christendom albeit on an intellectual level. It represents an attempt to destroy the values and issues for which he lived, which are summed up in his quote “The truth shall make you free” (John 8:32).

Some of the responses to me are totally predictable and are really an indication of the conditioned and blinkered mentality with which some people read their Bible.

I will say it yet again VERY slowly, The Bible DOES NOT SAY that Jesus of Nazareth as God’s anointed agent was “born of virgin birth.” People commonly read “virgin birth” conclusions into certain biblical texts because for centuries the churches have conditioned them to think that is what the Bible is saying. Incorrect Bible translations have resulted from translators straying from “word for word” translations and allowing commentary and opinion to enter the translation process thus reinforcing this conditioning process.

The theme of my postings has been constant and is a continuation of Paul’s core message.

1Cor 1:23. “But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumbling block, and unto the Greeks foolishness.”
1Cor 2:2. “ I know not anything among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.”

Where as Paul preached Christ crucified by the Jewish religious Establishment, I take the issue further and affirm that Christ has been intellectually recrucified by the creeds and doctrines of the institutional Christian Churches for the past 1800 years.

“Christ recrucified by the creeds and doctrines of the Christian Churches.” is also the theme of www.wallsofjericho.info.

I again assert unequivocally:

My contention is NOT with the Bible or anything written by any biblical author. My contention is with the CHURCHES who through their creeds and doctrines and for their own vested interests have perverted the message of Jesus of Nazareth and his disciples.

I totally agree with the proposition – “For with Jehovah God NOTHING is impossible” (Luke 1:37), so it is arrant impudence for anyone to accuse me of not believing in Bible miracles.

No OT prophet predicted that Israel’s messiah would be God incarnate in human form or would be “born of virgin birth.”
Quite the contrary the OT prophets developed a profile of a man of virtue who would be delegated by Jehovah God as his agent to intervene in mankind’s affairs.

In fulfilling these prophets Jesus set an example to the world of maintaining one’s integrity under extreme conditions of adversity.

Jesus of Nazareth is not a myth. He was a real historical living MAN who exposed the endemic corruption within the Jerusalem Temple and was subsequently murdered by the men of whose corrupt doctrines and traditions he warned the common people to beware.

Everything that Jesus expounded and exhorted his hearers to do related back to everyday ethical conduct. He did not go around expounding creeds and doctrines about himself that people MUST believe in order to attain the Kingdom of God.

When Jesus challenged the man made “traditions” of the Temple Establishment, which were imposed upon the people to observe - (Matthew 15:9 and Mark 7:13) - he was treated with contempt as any one is today who dares to challenge the man made creeds and doctrines of the churches.

The creeds and doctrines of institutional Christendom truly represent the ultimate pinnacle of satanic subtlety in that they APPEAR to champion the cause of Jesus of Nazareth but in reality they MISREPRESENT the issues and values which brought him into conflict with the Temple Establishment and ultimately led to his cruel judicial murder.

Ben Lomond.
= = = = = = = = = =

[John Goddard]

I will say it yet again VERY slowly, The Bible DOES NOT SAY that Jesus of Nazareth as God’s anointed agent was “born of virgin birth.”

Yes it does.

Matthew 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

Matthew 1:22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,

Matthew 1:23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

[Antony]

I noticed the instant response to Ben Lomond’s lengthy statement ( Post 267) was to quote Matthew 1:21-3. Of course this is Matthew's use of Isaiah 7:14, which the churches have claimed is a prophecy of virgin birth.

Shortly, I will re-print a few earlier posts which show that John the Baptist and other contemporaries of Jesus knew nothing about a prophecy that the anointed would be virgin born. After that we can have a look at what Matthew actually quoted.

But first, I think it is worth spending a bit more time reflecting on Post 267 -

Antony

In reply to Arminius_Wesley, John Goddard and RBerman in recent posts:

It seems to me that some previous postings have indulged in more than their fair share of self righteous “argumentum ad hominem” against me. However, the real pity is that they dare to think that by this method of reply they have answered the thoroughly documented case against the doctrine of “virgin birth.”

Many of the preceding posters to whom I refer have neither answered nor apparently do they comprehend the basic points of the Opening Post of this thread.

I suggest that they read Isaiah 6:9; Jeremiah 5:20 and Ezekiel 12:2 VERY slowly and hopefully they will come to see the danger of being too self-assured in what they proclaim about God’s delegated agent, Jesus of Nazareth. Hopefully they will come to understand the issues which brought Jesus into conflict with the Temple junta and ultimately also led to his judicial murder.

The very fact that Jesus of Nazareth WAS rejected and humiliated by people whom he met in his own day makes it self evident that many Jewish people did not recognize messianic criteria in him. I propose that if Jesus were to reappear to the Christian churches today basing his appeal on similar criteria, then he would again be rejected – this time by Christendom.

I can not overemphasize that it is most important for people today to really understand the mundane and universal nature of the issues which brought Jesus into open conflict with the Temple Establishment lest they also repeat the folly which the Jewish priests perpetrated in Jerusalem in the year 30AD.

The Temple priests who preached Moses physically crucified Jesus. This is a paradox.
The churches today through their erroneous doctrines and distortions about Jesus re-crucify him. This too is a paradox, - but it is also totally consistent.

It is demonstrable and consistent that what the Jewish priesthood did 2000 years ago in Jerusalem to Jesus on a physical level is repeated today by the priesthood of Christendom albeit on an intellectual level. It represents an attempt to destroy the values and issues for which he lived, which are summed up in his quote “The truth shall make you free” (John 8:32).

Some of the responses to me are totally predictable and are really an indication of the conditioned and blinkered mentality with which some people read their Bible.

I will say it yet again VERY slowly, The Bible DOES NOT SAY that Jesus of Nazareth as God’s anointed agent was “born of virgin birth.” People commonly read “virgin birth” conclusions into certain biblical texts because for centuries the churches have conditioned them to think that is what the Bible is saying. Incorrect Bible translations have resulted from translators straying from “word for word” translations and allowing commentary and opinion to enter the translation process thus reinforcing this conditioning process.

The theme of my postings has been constant and is a continuation of Paul’s core message.

1Cor 1:23. “But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumbling block, and unto the Greeks foolishness.”
1Cor 2:2. “ I know not anything among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.”

Where as Paul preached Christ crucified by the Jewish religious Establishment, I take the issue further and affirm that Christ has been intellectually recrucified by the creeds and doctrines of the institutional Christian Churches for the past 1800 years.

“Christ recrucified by the creeds and doctrines of the Christian Churches.” is also the theme of www.wallsofjericho.info.

I again assert unequivocally:

My contention is NOT with the Bible or anything written by any biblical author. My contention is with the CHURCHES who through their creeds and doctrines and for their own vested interests have perverted the message of Jesus of Nazareth and his disciples.

I totally agree with the proposition – “For with Jehovah God NOTHING is impossible” (Luke 1:37), so it is arrant impudence for anyone to accuse me of not believing in Bible miracles.

No OT prophet predicted that Israel’s messiah would be God incarnate in human form or would be “born of virgin birth.”
Quite the contrary the OT prophets developed a profile of a man of virtue who would be delegated by Jehovah God as his agent to intervene in mankind’s affairs.

In fulfilling these prophets Jesus set an example to the world of maintaining one’s integrity under extreme conditions of adversity.

Jesus of Nazareth is not a myth. He was a real historical living MAN who exposed the endemic corruption within the Jerusalem Temple and was subsequently murdered by the men of whose corrupt doctrines and traditions he warned the common people to beware.

Everything that Jesus expounded and exhorted his hearers to do related back to everyday ethical conduct. He did not go around expounding creeds and doctrines about himself that people MUST believe in order to attain the Kingdom of God.

When Jesus challenged the man made “traditions” of the Temple Establishment, which were imposed upon the people to observe - (Matthew 15:9 and Mark 7:13) - he was treated with contempt as any one is today who dares to challenge the man made creeds and doctrines of the churches.

The creeds and doctrines of institutional Christendom truly represent the ultimate pinnacle of satanic subtlety in that they APPEAR to champion the cause of Jesus of Nazareth but in reality they MISREPRESENT the issues and values which brought him into conflict with the Temple Establishment and ultimately led to his cruel judicial murder.

Ben Lomond.[/SIZE]

= = = = = = = = = =

[John Goddard]

I noticed the instant response to Ben Lomond’s lengthy statement ( Post 267) was to quote Matthew 1:21-3. Of course this is Matthew's use of Isaiah 7:14, which the churches have claimed is a prophecy of virgin birth.

Ben Lomond said it's not claimed anywhere in the Bible, therefore he was wrong since Matthew says Isaiah gives prophecy of virgin birth. Spamming his post again won't change that.

It's not just the churches, it's in the Bible, no matter how much he wants to pretend Matthew 1:21-23 doesn't exist.