T1B

Immediately following satan's deception of man, and man's sin, God said to satan......

Gen 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.


The prophet Isaiah later declared............

Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel (Immanuel meaning, God with us).


Why did the Christ (first spoken of in Gen 3:15) need to come...?

1Jn 3:8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.


Why was the virgin birth (first spoken of in Gen 3:15) necessary....?

Because sin has passed to all men, man can not possibly save himself.

Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.



satan, sin death.
Bitter.


Take what is yours.
The Christ.

poptart wrote: The prophet Isaiah later declared............

Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel (Immanuel meaning, God with us).

Or not ....

Again, translation of original Hebrew is "skewed" to fit an alternate purpose.

Check out this site and it's explination of Isiah 7:14.

http://www.messiahtruth.com/is714a.html

The Whistle Is Screaming wrote:

poptart wrote: The prophet Isaiah later declared............

Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel (Immanuel meaning, God with us).

Or not ....

Again, translation of original Hebrew is "skewed" to fit an alternate purpose.

Or not...

Possibly the masoretic text is "skewed" to fit an Anti-Christian agenda. Which would explain the disdain shown at that site for the Septuigent (written well before the birth of Christ, where the greek word parthenos is used). Of course, if the passage in Isaiah wasn't understood at the time to mean virgin, it is doubtful Luke or Matthew would have made an issue of it.

Nice try though.

So it took you a month to come up with that? :-)

The Septuigent is yet another translation of Hebrew. The word in question is used several times in the Torah, yet in only 1 instance do people want to use the translation as "virgin" instead of the more accurate "young woman". Why? There is a more appropriate word for "virgin" in the Hebrew language.

Diogenes wrote:In one instance was it understood at the time to mean virgin, or else Matthew and Luke wouldn't have mentioned it. The Sept. is a greek translation made by Hebrews before the birth of Christ, as opposed to the Masoretic which was written by Anti-Christian Jews after his death. If there was any creative interpretion going on, it is unlikely it was with the Septuigent.

The word "parthenos" has several translations.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/re ... =parthenos

Diogenes wrote:As far as the timing,

I wasn't serious about that Dio.

mvscal wrote:Christians...is there anything they won't believe?

That they may be wrong. :D

True Christains are well aware that they are not perfect mortal beings, however, they do believe wholeheartedly that their glorious heavenly Father is never wrong.

Dio Wrote:
Considering it is possible for modern technology to produce a virgin birth, the concept is not quite as laughable as something like abiogenesis.

Believing in that is just plain stupid.

And for an atheist, nessecary.

RACK RACK RACK

Diogenes wrote:Considering it is possible for modern technology to produce a virgin birth, the concept is not quite as laughable as something like abiogenesis.

Believing in that is just plain stupid.

And for an atheist, nessecary.

Who here has stated they are an atheist?

SCS Wrote:
Who here has stated they are an atheist?

I sure do hope it was Marty cuz I don't want to have to share any part of heaven with a tard like that. :twisted:

mvscal wrote:Considering that that modern technology didn't exist 2,000 years ago, I'd have to say that you are an idiot.

There's something about that quote that just makes me laugh.

mvscal wrote:

Diogenes wrote:Considering it is possible for modern technology to produce a virgin birth, the concept is not quite as laughable as something like abiogenesis.

Considering that that modern technology didn't exist 2,000 years ago, I'd have to say that you are an idiot.

That's because you are a fucking simpleton.

The point is that since we can at this time produce a virgin birth, the idea of the creator of the universe doing it is nothing.

As opposed to random chance performing what our technology can't.




Dumbfuck.

mvscal wrote:

Diogenes wrote:The point is that since we can at this time produce a virgin birth, the idea of the creator of the universe doing it is nothing.

It still requires sperm and an ova.

Actually, no sperm are used in cloning.

Just an ovum and a diploid nucleus from most any body cell (e.g. the skin).

mvscal wrote:This "Virgin" Birth wasn't a clone, though.

Well, we don't know that. Maybe God cloned hisself with Mary's egg :wink:

Would kind of be an interesting tie-in to the whole One-God-In-Three-Persons bit. Just gotta figure out how to work the Paraclete in there...

He was conceived of Mary using midi-chlorians.

I believe that John the Baptist declared Jesus's readings were "off the chart" and that therefore he was the Chosen One.

That's because you are a fucking simpleton.

Spiritually speaking, that is.

tough love wrote:

That's because you are a fucking simpleton.

Spiritually speaking, that is.

Actually he's just simpleminded in general.

Actually he's just simpleminded in general.

Your prolly right, given that his take is on what he can not possible know for sure.

For a person to claim that they do not believe in the invisible is something i'm sure even God can understand, but to take it to the point of sacrilege just to get attention on a message board seems rather simpleminded to say the least.

Why anyone would even chance pissing off the almighty is beyond reason.

tough love wrote: given that his take is on what he can not possible know for sure.

Pot, meet kettle.

:D

TWIS:
Pot, meet kettle.

'Cept i'm not fool enough to tempt fate, is all I am saying.
As for the relationship between man and his creator; at this time in the evolution of this earth, faith is what we got to work with.

mv wrote:
If there is a God and that's a pretty motherfucking big 'IF', the universe is his fifth grade science project collecting dust in his closet.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but God doesn't give a flying fuck about you or what you do or don't believe in.

You think to much of yourself if you actually think you could effect me one way or another.
And that pretty big "IF' of which you speak, is what you should consider next time you run your mouth off bad mouthing the Almighty, if you are not simpleminded.

tough love wrote:Why anyone would even chance pissing off the almighty is beyond reason.

I'm guessing that they do it for the same reason I don't give a flying frig about pissing off Hermes, Zeus, Osiris, Buddha, any of the Hindi pantheon, any of the Native American pantheon, etc....

In their eyes, our God is as fanciful as any of those.

Because I am a Christian, I believe that the 'deities' of other cultures are completely made up critters like Frodo and Spiderman. I also believe that Mohammed was either completely nuts or a con-man (like Joseph Smith, L.Ron Hubbard and Aleister Crowley). Because I am a modern American who believes in religious liberty and being polite, I don't bring up the former points to folks of other faiths.

mvs, I think what TL meant, essentially, was "What if you're wrong?"

What if say in 50 years from now or tomorrow, you find yourself floating above your body and wondering "WTF is going on here? I'm dead! Or, errr, um, at least I thought I was."

Mike Wrote:
Because I am a modern American who believes in religious liberty and being polite, I don't bring up the former points to folks of other faiths.

Exactly.

mv wrote:
Will you riot and threaten me with death?

Can't have anyone "badmouthing" the "Almighty" can we?

I am a person of peace who thinks it is not a good idea for you to be smacking on that which you know not of.
Just in case you are wrong, you may want to tone down on the sacrilege.

mvscal wrote:

RadioFan wrote:mvs, I think what TL meant, essentially, was "What if you're wrong?"

You say that as if it would make any difference. Do you honestly believe that a being that created the entire universe gives a flying fuck whether or not you pile into a building every Sunday and suck his ass?

Fuck that. Fuck him too. Douchebag.

Good point. Here's another, a being that is so powerful and omniscient enough to create the entire universe can basically "give a flying fuck" about whatever that being chooses to give a fuck about.

So, He might.

Tom In VA wrote:

mvscal wrote:

RadioFan wrote:mvs, I think what TL meant, essentially, was "What if you're wrong?"

You say that as if it would make any difference. Do you honestly believe that a being that created the entire universe gives a flying fuck whether or not you pile into a building every Sunday and suck his ass?

Fuck that. Fuck him too. Douchebag.

Good point. Here's another, a being that is so powerful and omniscient enough to create the entire universe can basically "give a flying fuck" about whatever that being chooses to give a fuck about.

So, He might.

Great point.

One problem with the "why the hell would an omnipotent & omniscient being give a rat's ass about YOU" argument is that it's invariably and inevitably coming from a being of limited power and knowledge.

To presume for even a second that the very limited depth of interest, shallow priorities, etc. that we have necessarily apply to a being like God is pretty damned cocky on our parts.

Lot a lot of the bits of christian protoplasm just hangin' out and eating lettuce (to paraphrase George Carlin) are just going on what we devoutly believe to be the glimpses of His will that he has given us incredibly limited, though promising, beings.

mvscal wrote:

RadioFan wrote:mvs, I think what TL meant, essentially, was "What if you're wrong?"

You say that as if it would make any difference. Do you honestly believe that a being that created the entire universe gives a flying fuck whether or not you pile into a building every Sunday and suck his ass?

Maybe not, but in all likelihood, He is far more likely to be concerned about the following:

mvscal wrote:Fuck that. Fuck him too. Douchebag.

If that properly represents your feelings about Him.

mvscal wrote:

Tom In VA wrote:Here's another, a being that is so powerful and omniscient enough to create the entire universe can basically "give a flying fuck" about whatever that being chooses to give a fuck about.

.................
I would expect "God" to be more of a big picture kind of guy.....

You have an awesome way with words. RACK

I'm confident He is. I'm confident He is able to discern those that would pay Him flattery vs. those that are sincere.

RadioFan Wrote:
What if say in 50 years from now or tomorrow, you find yourself floating above your body and wondering "WTF is going on here? I'm dead! Or, errr, um, at least I thought I was.

RACK


At last breath; the mv's are the ones who scream my name the loudest - God