The Virgin Birth

[Solo]

So anything that goes into the mysteries of the kingdom of God is Gnostic and is hence wrong? I show you pearls, and you rebuke me for doing so.

No, anything that goes into the mysteries of the kingdom of God is not gnostic, but those things that are gnostic do not describe the mysteries of the kingdom of God.

You may look at my showing you the error of your position as a rebuke, I look at it as a correction.

 

[PDoug]

No, anything that goes into the mysteries of the kingdom of God is not gnostic, but those things that are gnostic do not describe the mysteries of the kingdom of God.

You may look at my showing you the error of your position as a rebuke, I look at it as a correction.

Okay. Point to something in Pistis Sophia, and show where it is wrong. Or easier still, point to something in the Gospel of Thomas, and show me where it is wrong.

 

[jgredline]

So anything that goes into the mysteries of the kingdom of God is Gnostic and is hence wrong? I show you pearls, and you rebuke me for doing so.

Anything that is pure exists in harmony with God. It does its will, and it loves God. I witness purity everyday in my life. A man is pure when he is assailed by wickedness at every turn, and remains standing in uprightness. But a man is pure at his core (i.e. in his fundamental actions) – not necessarily around his edges (Matthew 7:3). After all, how can you tell from afar that a man is being subjected to testing if you do not see the roof of his house bend a little, and the shutters squeak in the winds of testing (Matthew 7:24-25)?

Jesus and God Almighty are separate but one. I.e. they are separate individuals, but they are one and the same by virtue of their God union.

Yes. Someone who has faith is born again (John 3:5-7).

Read here for why those who have faith are gods.

Goodness
Lets look at the context of that verse...This verse is famous among the ''CULTS'' of by which; by your teaching of doctrines from demons comes from and a lack of understanding because you don't have the Holy Spirit as is evident by your false teaching....

John 10:22-38
22 Now it was the Feast of Dedication in Jerusalem, and it was winter. 23 And Jesus walked in the temple, in Solomon’s porch. 24 Then the Jews surrounded Him and said to Him, “How long do You keep us in doubt? If You are the Christ, tell us plainly.â€Â
25 Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in My Father’s name, they bear witness of Me. 26 But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep, as I said to you. 27 My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. 28 And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father’s hand. 30 I and My Father are one.â€Â
31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone Him. 32 Jesus answered them, “Many good works I have shown you from My Father. For which of those works do you stone Me?â€Â
33 The Jews answered Him, saying, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God.â€Â

34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, “You are godsâ€Â’? 35 If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), 36 do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’? 37 If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; 38 but if I do, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, that you may know and believe that the Father is in Me, and I in Him.â€Â

OK, real quick to debunk and to show you that you are teaching heresy....

There was no doubt in the minds of those Jews that Jesus was claiming to be God

10:34–36 Quoted from Ps. 82:6 where God calls some unjust judges "gods" and pronounces calamity against them. Jesus’ argument is that this psalm proves that the word "god" can be legitimately used to refer to others than God Himself. His reasoning is that if there are others whom God can address as "god" or "sons of the Most High," why then should the Jews object to Jesus’ statement that He is "the Son of God" (v. 36)....
This very short commentary comes via John MacAurthur.....

 

[PDoug]

10:34–36 Quoted from Ps. 82:6 where God calls some unjust judges "gods" and pronounces calamity against them. Jesus’ argument is that this psalm proves that the word "god" can be legitimately used to refer to others than God Himself. His reasoning is that if there are others whom God can address as "god" or "sons of the Most High," why then should the Jews object to Jesus’ statement that He is "the Son of God" (v. 36)....
This very short commentary comes via John MacAurthur.....

So because John MacAuthur says what he says I am wrong? As I indicated before, looking at this from another angle: an offspring of a creature is always the same creature, therefore a son of God is necessarily God. (You can read here for more information.) How are you any different from evolutionists who say we came from primates? Why are you party to the Catholics who deliberately hid many, many scirptures that plainly state that men are seeds of God planted in this universe, to be grown up as mighty gods? So many people refuse to have genuine faith, and remain controlled by their carnal selves, and reject righteousness as a result when they see it.

 

[jgredline]

So because John MacAuthur says what he says I am wrong? As I indicated before, looking at this from another angle: an offspring of a creature is always the same creature, therefore a son of God is necessarily God. (You can read here for more information.) How are you any different from evolutionists who say we came from primates? Why are you party to the Catholics who deliberately hid many, many scirptures that plainly state that men are seeds of God planted in this universe, to be grown up as mighty gods? So many people refuse to have genuine faith, and remain controlled by their carnal selves, and reject righteousness as a result when they see it.

Doug
You are wrong because the scripture says you are wrong.
Now your preaching the gnostic Gospel of Thomas.....and Pistis Sophia ?
Now I do know this about you. Since you are preaching another Gospel this makes you a liberal false teacher. 1 tim 4:1 1 Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons,



Heresy from the Gospel of Thomas

7 Jesus said, "Lucky is the lion that the human will eat, so that the lion becomes human. And foul is the human that the lion will eat, and the lion still will become human."

12 The disciples said to Jesus, "We know that you are going to leave us. Who will be our leader?"

Jesus said to them, "No matter where you are you are to go to James the Just, for whose sake heaven and earth came into being."


13 Jesus said to his disciples, "Compare me to something and tell me what I am like."

Simon Peter said to him, "You are like a just messenger."

Matthew said to him, "You are like a wise philosopher."

Thomas said to him, "Teacher, my mouth is utterly unable to say what you are like."

Jesus said, "I am not your teacher. Because you have drunk, you have become intoxicated from the bubbling spring that I have tended."

And he took him, and withdrew, and spoke three sayings to him. When Thomas came back to his friends they asked him, "What did Jesus say to you?"

Thomas said to them, "If I tell you one of the sayings he spoke to me, you will pick up rocks and stone me, and fire will come from the rocks and devour you."

 

[Vic C.]

Oy vey! Lets get it right. Lets NOT use extra Biblical writings to form doctrine or distort it. Use it only when and if it supports the Bible. Using stuff like Thomas, Mary, etc. will do nothing but usher in confusion and we know where that leads. :-?

Now I'm going back to watch the Brian Setzer Orchestra Christmas Extravaganza Concert. :-D

 

[AHIMSA]

Its rather clear that the birth narratives do not refelect historical material.

Mark is not aware of them, neither is Paul who says that Jesus was "born under the law". Paul use of the word "law" is very pointed and consistently represents the flesh under the cosmic power of sin and death. This suggests that he believed Jesus was conceived like every other human being.

John doesnt mention the birth narratives at all because he's pretty much eliminating all human aspects of Jesus all together. The way his gospel reads, one practically imagines that Jesus just appears on earth like a flicker of light in the dark, fully formed and fully aware of himself. Having an infant Jesus doesnt make sense with his gospel, because then Jesus would have to gain understanding of his divinity.

Matthew and Luke have important differences in their birth narratives, so much so that they are not reconcilible.

Rome doesn't take censuses by having people travel back across the country to the home of their ancestors. It doesnt make any sense at all. In an a well documented era, there is nothing to suggest this was a Roman practice. (as it makes no sense if you think about it). Clearly Luke was just trying to get his Jesus into Bethlehem to link him to David. Matthew has Jesus begin in Bethlehem (has no census) to link him to Jesus but adds the slaughter of the innocent and the escape to Egypt (not found in Luke) to link Jesus to Moses (consistent with his description of the Sermon on the Mount, not found in Luke). If Rome was taking a census does it make sense that it would allow Herod to start arbitrarily slaughtering children? Furthermore, Luke has Jesus and John the Baptist related, not found anywhere else in the bible and is clearly an attempt to subvert the baptist and minimalize the embarassment of his presence. (John skips the baptism of Jesus completely for this same reason)

 

[PDoug]

Doug
You are wrong because the scripture says you are wrong.

What scriptures say that I’m wrong? In fact Paul’s letters are scattered with references about the godship of man, and the fact that all men who have faith make up the only begotten son. You look at things, but you don’t see anything.

Now your preaching the gnostic Gospel of Thomas.....and Pistis Sophia ?
Now I do know this about you. Since you are preaching another Gospel this makes you a liberal false teacher. 1 tim 4:1 1 Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons,

Isn’t the gospel the message about the salvation of man via faith in God? Don’t the Gospel of Thomas and Pistis Sophia contain that message? How then am I preaching a false gospel?

Heresy from the Gospel of Thomas

7 Jesus said, "Lucky is the lion that the human will eat, so that the lion becomes human. And foul is the human that the lion will eat, and the lion still will become human."

The above means, lucky are the angels the man will consume within his soul, those angels will become one with that man. Foul is the man the wicked carnal self will consume, those spirits will profit nothing from it.

12 The disciples said to Jesus, "We know that you are going to leave us. Who will be our leader?"

Jesus said to them, "No matter where you are you are to go to James the Just, for whose sake heaven and earth came into being."

The above means, no matter where you go, you should always abide by the instructions (general or otherwise) of James the Just, for whose sake (along with all men who have faith) heaven and earth came into being.

13 Jesus said to his disciples, "Compare me to something and tell me what I am like."

Simon Peter said to him, "You are like a just messenger."

Matthew said to him, "You are like a wise philosopher."

Thomas said to him, "Teacher, my mouth is utterly unable to say what you are like."

Jesus said, "I am not your teacher. Because you have drunk, you have become intoxicated from the bubbling spring that I have tended."

And he took him, and withdrew, and spoke three sayings to him. When Thomas came back to his friends they asked him, "What did Jesus say to you?"

Thomas said to them, "If I tell you one of the sayings he spoke to me, you will pick up rocks and stone me, and fire will come from the rocks and devour you."

What is the issue with the above scripture? Did Jesus not give the keys to heaven and earth to his disciples? Doesn’t that mean Jesus gave all men access to the awesome power of God? Didn’t Jesus access his God given power through his word? Why then is it difficult to believe that Jesus told Thomas powerful words, which if he spoke, would have caused what Thomas claimed would have happened?

 

[jgredline]

PDOUG
Let me ask you something to be clear...
Are you saying that the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas and Pistis Sophia are inspired?

What about the other Gnostic Gospels? Are they inspired as well?

Should those Gnostic Gospels have been in the cannon of scripture?

Please let me know what you believe....

 

[PDoug]

PDOUG
Let me ask you something to be clear...
Are you saying that the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas and Pistis Sophia are inspired?

Absolutely! In fact they are authentic quotations / dialogues of Jesus.

What about the other Gnostic Gospels? Are they inspired as well?

Generally yes. (I haven’t read all of them.) Also the texts in the Nag Hammadi Library, as well as the texts here, are inspired.

Should those Gnostic Gospels have been in the cannon of scripture?

Ideally they should have been recognized as legitimate scriptures, and they should have been given to whomever wanted to read them, that showed signs that they really were of God – Matthew 7:15-20. I don’t believe hiding these scriptures from those who do not have faith is an issue today. The fact that they are showing up all over the Internet and in a manner consistent with the following scripture, indicates it is okay with God for this to happen now.

Book of Enoch

Chapter 93

8 And after that in the sixth week all who live in it shall be blinded,And the hearts of all of them shall godlessly forsake wisdom.

And in it a man shall ascend;And at its close the house of dominion shall be burnt with fire,And the whole race of the chosen root shall be dispersed.

9 And after that in the seventh week shall an apostate generation arise,And many shall be its deeds,And all its deeds shall be apostate.

10 And at its close shall be electedThe elect righteous of the eternal plant of righteousness,To receive sevenfold instruction concerning all His creation.

I believe it is proper for everyone today to know much of the content in gnostic texts if they want – though only the elect will know all the mysteries of God and his creation.

 

[jgredline]

:roll: :o :roll: :o
OK, I will be back with my answers. Doug
How is about you start a new thread on this in the appologetics section so we do not hijack this thread anymore than it has been..

 

[PDoug]

:roll: :o :roll: :o
OK, I will be back with my answers. Doug
How is about you start a new thread on this in the appologetics section so we do not hijack this thread anymore than it has been..

What would you like the title of the new thread to be?

 

[tim-from-pa]

Here we go again. It's nearing Christmas time and another Virgin Birth debate. Actually, although I am a Christian, but Quath admittedly is not, I agree with Quath! You see, my message is directed to the more liberal crowd calling themselves Christian. There is no way one can call themselves a Christian and yet deny the virgin birth. At least Quat denied it and takes a non-Christian position. If one denies it, that's the position they must also take, because if Jesus was of the seed of Joseph, he'd be a cursed Messiah by God's own admission. I cannot imagine any Messiah who would save the world, and yet be cursed!

 

[jgredline]

The Gnostic Gospels. Are they inspired?
and then create an OP.

 

[DaScribe]

[/quote]If one denies it, that's the position they must also take, because if Jesus was of the seed of Joseph, he'd be a cursed Messiah by God's own admission. I cannot imagine any Messiah who would save the world, and yet be cursed!

Deuteronomy 21:23
His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day; (for he that is hanged [is] accursed of God;) that thy land be not defiled, which the LORD thy God giveth thee [for] an inheritance.

Galations 3:13
Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed [is] every one that hangeth on a tree:

I'm not saying I disagree with your position, just your statement.

 

[cyberjosh]

Absolutely! In fact they are authentic quotations / dialogues of Jesus.

Great. Now I can say I've met two Neo-Gnostics. I just hope this one isn't a medium for demons like the last one I met. She was also a little spacey when it came to the "secret spiritual relevations of Jesus" that she had learned from the Gnostic Gospels.

 

[jgredline]

Great. Now I can say I've met two Neo-Gnostics. I just hope this one isn't a medium for demons like the last one I met. She was also a little spacey when it came to the "secret spiritual relevations of Jesus" that she had learned from the Gnostic Gospels.

Cyber
I wish I could say I have only met two gnostics, but allas I have met many over the years and they are all mediums for the devil.

 

[cyberjosh]

Its rather clear that the birth narratives do not refelect historical material.

That must be why there is a geneology of Jesus to show his lineage legally, and yet why Jesus implied that he could not possibly be the Son of David physically and why the Jews spread a rumor about him that he was born illegitimately. It is clear that the circumstances of Jesus' birth were quite unique.

Mark is not aware of them, neither is Paul who says that Jesus was "born under the law". Paul use of the word "law" is very pointed and consistently represents the flesh under the cosmic power of sin and death. This suggests that he believed Jesus was conceived like every other human being.

Not at all. Jesus was born under the auspices of the law yet found to be blameless, and Jesus came that he should fulfill the law thus had to be under the law. Though he did excercise his right as lord.

John doesnt mention the birth narratives at all because he's pretty much eliminating all human aspects of Jesus all together. The way his gospel reads, one practically imagines that Jesus just appears on earth like a flicker of light in the dark, fully formed and fully aware of himself. Having an infant Jesus doesnt make sense with his gospel, because then Jesus would have to gain understanding of his divinity.

John had a different intention for his Gospel. He showed Jesus' divine origins first to stress his divinity, not to deny his humanity. John actually shows us some of the most human images of Jesus of all the Gospels. For whatever purpose he chose not to begin with Jesus' birth. That would have been a historical record and as you can well see John was largely obsessed with dialogue and theological content, and it takes up the majority of his Gospel.

Matthew and Luke have important differences in their birth narratives, so much so that they are not reconcilible.

That can be debated, but that's another thread. Actually I think there has already been one made for this topic somewhere.

Rome doesn't take censuses by having people travel back across the country to the home of their ancestors. It doesnt make any sense at all. In an a well documented era, there is nothing to suggest this was a Roman practice.

I'll look into this but I'll bet I can prove you wrong. I am very much the student of Biblical Archeology though I have mostly limited myself to Old Testament period Biblical Archaeology, though I have done some NT studies in that area. I have always seen a consistant pattern of historical accuracy in the Bible's accounts from a historical and archaeological perspective (and I infact have written a 15 page paper on that before) and I have no reason to think that it has broken that chain of accuracy anywhere.

Clearly Luke was just trying to get his Jesus into Bethlehem to link him to David. Matthew has Jesus begin in Bethlehem (has no census) to link him to Jesus but adds the slaughter of the innocent and the escape to Egypt (not found in Luke) to link Jesus to Moses (consistent with his description of the Sermon on the Mount, not found in Luke).

Luke was a stickler for entire historical detail, as you can tell because he wrote Acts, and so he includes the census record and all. Matthew just wants to jump in straight to Jesus' birth, he is not concerned about mentioning the census. Matthews account also fits in between the verses of Luke's account without any problem.

If Rome was taking a census does it make sense that it would allow Herod to start arbitrarily slaughtering children?

How in your reasoning are those two things even connected? How was Rome not even able to control one of their own Prefects, Pontius Pilate, from attacking a large group of unarmed Samaritans at Mt. Gerizim (as Josephus records)? Yet he did.

Furthermore, Luke has Jesus and John the Baptist related, not found anywhere else in the bible and is clearly an attempt to subvert the baptist and minimalize the embarassment of his presence.

As if their kinship even matters. You are wallowing in conjecture and bias.

(John skips the baptism of Jesus completely for this same reason)

Oh and what reason would that be? That John the Baptist was embarrassed to be around Jesus?

 

[cyberjosh]

I wish I could say I have only met two gnostics, but allas I have met many over the years and they are all mediums for the devil.

I understand what you are saying but when I said that I meant it literally. She was into actual divination and confessed (bragged?) to being a "professional medium for spirits" for several years. That about explained all her views for me. I believe these other people are just decieved and not necessarily dabbling actively in divination per se.

 

[PDoug]

Cyber
I wish I could say I have only met two gnostics, but allas I have met many over the years and they are all mediums for the devil.

As I've indicated several times before, the way you know someone is of God is by his fundamental goodness (Matthew 7:15-20). If a man claims goodness, but what he does does not match his claims, he is false - otherwise he is true. On this account, almost everyone is false (Catholics, Protestants, Gnostics, etc.) because almost no one bears fruit.