₦airaland Forum

frosbel:
Hmm, okay oo.

The Drunkard begin's to agree

You are a dishonest fellow, why not paste the link to the article from where you got this comment. Stop plagiarising friend.

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aiia/virginbirth.html

You're extremely stupid if you think I'd restrict myself to a single source of information. And thanks for the link you posted I'll be sure to read on what they have there. I would have listed sources, but the last time I did, I got banned.

*Modified*
I've gone through the link you posted and I can't find anythin' related to my posts. Do you smoke weed? Or is atheism driving you nuts. Please do see a doctor quicly you need medication

Anyway, let me forgive you and comment.

Paul wrote his letters way before the gospels so your argument falls flat on it's face . I repeat if he never questioned it or refuted it then he must have held one of the core doctrines of our faith in very high regard and reinforced it to the churches. Yet he did not, despite being the apostle to the gentiles. He left them in confusion as to the veracity of the virgin birth.

Dude I know the page where you copied most of your rebuttals from, the fact that I am not posting it here means I'm trying at best to turn you off your stupidity.
Now back to the argument
The bolded confirms my first assertion that you lack cognitive and deductive skills. Where did I state that Paul's letter came after the gospels?

I think I'll take the attack approach which 'lld yeild this question
If Paul did not write about the virgin Birth, does it prove the other accounts where it was written in the bible wrong?

hahaha, I am sure most of your church going folk will disagree. To them without the virgin birth Jesus would not have been sinless and therefore the following miracles and signs would have been inconsequential.
Paul mentioned the resurrection, atonement, salvation and many other core doctrines but not once did he mention the foundation of all these doctrines, i,e the Virgin Birth

Confusion has gone on a riot.

Your Insanity is quite annoying to say the least. Yes the virgin birth conforms that Jesus is a Diety but his ressurection is what brought about salvation. Paul did not have to mention the foundation of the doctrines because someone else had.
If you're a physics students and you're in your final year, would your lecturer go back to teaching you basic elementary physics? No, why? Because someone has taught you before. Even though it was paramount that you know the origin, someone else had cleared the issue.

I don't want verses thrown at me, I want logical deductions based on these verses in your own words.

Waiting..................

Then you're foolish for quoting bible verses answering other person

malvisguy212:
brother, ignore him, he is an atheist, he got this write up from this site http://www.patheos.com/blogs/unreasonablefaith/2008/06/why-i-deny-the-virgin-birth-of-jesus/#comments

I know bro, I just want to take him to school. And probably advice him to go write Jamb again maybe he'd develop on his cognitive skills should he give the Varsity system a second chance.

frosbel:
What is the Word of GOD ?

Then No you can't be saved. As it is, the devil is sitting on you farting and laughing while at it.

Your comprehension skills are abysmal, go back and read that article again.

See tis' half baked polytechnic graduate dey talk. What has tis' got to do with what I pasted.. You're level of insanity intrigues me to no end.

frosbel:
So the early church believed the same thing and yet , none of the greatest apostles Paul did not deem it fit to be reemphazise this core doctrine for the future churches ? It was good for the early church but not good for the later church, right ?

The feeding of the thousand multitude, did they have to re-emphasize? No
The raising of Lazarus the dead, did they have to re-emphasize? No
Why because the single account was deemed to be perfect as the virgin birth only proved the divinity of Jesus.
In Conclusion
Objections against the validity of the virgin birth are based mostly on preconcieved notions - in the main, that the miraculous is impossible. There is no reason, other than pre-conceived notions, to reject it as historical; and to be fair, no reason other than own's own perceptions to accept it as such. It simply depends on our starting point.

I asked you a few questions but you either were dumbfounded with no answers or dishonest and dogmatic in your belief of myths.

Now, help me answer these questions again :

1. Who was the Father of Jesus, Holy Spirit or God the Father ?
2. Was Jesus an adopted Son to Joseph or a real blood Son ?
3. Show me in the entire old testament where mention is made of a virgin birth apart from Isaiah 7.
4. Why would a prophecy be made to a King about a specific event and be fulfilled in Isaiah 8 only to be again fulfilled hundreds of years later in a totally unrelated event.
5. If Mary thought Jesus was God and that there was a virgin birth, why did she ponder his words in her heart not knowing his mission on earth, why did his brethren not talk about it.
6. Why are the 2 biographies in Matthew and Luke contradictory.

Straw Man detected. Nevertheless I had answerd most of this in my previous posts under my previous username (BossTTDiamonds) before the Mods banned me for rebuttalin' an argument.

frosbel:
Okay, I don't believe in the virgin birth but I believe in Yeshua. Do you consider me saved ?

Do you believe in the word of God?

Look at this dunce , grin , what are you talking about.

The devil is sitting on you. You have yourself fooled.
Please do remeber to format your copy and paste articles before you post them here, it's quite annoying and stressful having to align and format the normal Jibberish you copy and paste.

frosbel:
What students, students of what? and who is their teacher, I hope not you, lol. Paul's letters and epistles were written and recorded closer to the time of Jesus than Matthew and Luke. Does it not shock you that Paul did not mention one of the most important tenets of our faith ?? You try to sweep this under the carpet while stifling debate and expect people to just agree with your gross illogic for the sake of orthodox harmony. I say nay, Paul, Peter, James, Thomas etc never once mentioned a virgin birth because it is a LIE and a concept concocted very much later by so called 'church' fathers.

Since your argument still stands at "Paul never made mention of the virgin birth in any of his writings about the person of Jesus Christ." even though I had given an answer to this before, I'll try my best once again to try give simple basic answers.
You see silence on an issue does not necessarily build a case against it and Paul’s failure to mention the word ‘virgin’ does not mean that Mary was not a virgin. There are support to show that Paul was “alive and quite familiar with the Gospel accounts written by Matthew and Dr. Luke (a physician!)—and yet never questioned or refuted it”. A Christain theologist (Boice) also states that Paul and Luke were companions and that Luke wrote about Paul’s travels, yet there is no evidence of Paul rebutting this belief and Luke’s accounts of the virgin birth.
I think for clarity purposes, it is worth highlighting some points, *pardon my straw man*. Let's look at some differences between the virgin birth and the resurrection. As we’ve already seen, the latter was the focus of the Christian message and was also essential theologically. Paul wrote that ‘if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile’, but the virgin birth plays no such theological role. So the fact that Paul doesn’t discuss it doesn’t seem surprising. If still you're not convinced then the followin' questions should
How did Mary become pregnant? (Matt. 1:20; Luke 1:34-35)
How do we know Jesus wasn’t the son of Joseph? (Matt 1:18; Matt 1:25)
The Jews said to Him, “We were not born of fornication” (John 8:41). What were they implying?
In Jesus’ day, people were known by their father's name, unless his identity was in question. How do the townspeople refer to Him in Mark 6:3?
Why is Jesus’ absolute holiness so critical to our faith? (1 John 3:5; 2 Cor. 5:21)

frosbel:
Hahaha, total rubbish !!!
So if it was not seen to be significant then, why is it significant now and why would such a major doctrine be formed from an insignifant event ?

I take back my words, you're not stupid; definately not stupid. You are possessed by retarded Ghosts.
You lack everythin' it takes to comprehend simple basic statements. I can't phantom in my wildest phantasmagoria how you could end up tis' empty.
You're level of cluelessness is sky high.

Other Questions :

1. Who was the Father of Jesus, Holy Spirit or God the Father ?
2. Was Jesus an adopted Son to Joseph or a real blood Son ?
3. Show me in the entire old testament where mention is made of a virgin birth apart from Isaiah 7.
4. Why would a prophecy be made to a King about a specific event and be fulfilled in Isaiah 8 only to be again fulfilled hundreds of years later in a totally unrelated event.
5. If Mary thought Jesus was God and that there was a virgin birth, why did she ponder his words in her heart not knowing his mission on earth, why did his brethren not talk about it.
6. Why are the 2 biographies in Matthew and Luke contradictory.


Oya, over to you.

Oh! You've seen your argument holds no water, so you've opted for the straw man's fallacy. Two can play tis' game you know..

frosbel:
And then you go on to say it was assumed , what !!!!! What about the future believers who would come after, how could they believe in this 'truth' if there was no substantial evidence in scripture , except for a falsely interpreted scripture in Isaiah7 and 2 contradictory biographies in Matthew and Luke. Who are you kidding.


Think, Think and Think with your brain.

For your mind now you go dey feel like one don. You even copy their precept join. Wetin' nor even concern the argument. You are a dumb young man.
I'd rebuttal the argument nevertheless

You're claiming (opps sorry!!! The author you copied the article from claimed) only Matthew and Luke mention it (even though, some early manuscripts of Luke implied that the virgin birth is an interpolation into the gospel, Matthew never really mentions a miraculous conception, only a providential one). But this doesn't bother you since you dont regard the word of God and since you simply takes for granted/condescend a united "early church" which we can safely assumed all to have believed the same things. Thus if Luke mentions it, Jude must have believed it, too. This is merely a reflection of the fundamentalist dogma of the harmony of scripture.

frosbel:
Problem oriented letters ?? . Is this one of the buzz words you invented to confuse your students ?

If you're havin' problems understandin' the statement "Problem Oriented letters", there's the search engine google to the rescue. And no my students understand the words perfectly, they have sound cognitive and deductive skills. Your teachers on the other hand only God knows.

I put it to you that your case is weak, flawed and untenable in the light of overwhelming evidence. If as you and your cohorts say , that one cannot be saved if he/she does not believe in the virgin birth , it has to be in the bible somewhere, no ? You cannot form a major doctrine that is not supported by the main apostles of Christ.

I don laugh tire at the bolded statement. Where did I and my cohorts (Who be the cohorts self) say that one cannot be saved if an unbeliever does not believe in the virgin birth?
This is the effect of this polytechnic institutions ya'll attend. You copied an article and you did not even care to read and edit it's content to suit your purpose, rather you'd copy and paste it as it is; showin' further that you're stupid and lack proper reasoning

frosbel:
Man reproduces through the creative decree of God and if God wanted to bring a Son into the world why did he not just create him instead of having to defy the laws of nature . I find it very interesting that someone can claim to be intelligent and believe in this myth.

Are you for real? I'm sure other atheist 'lld be knockin' their head on their keyboard readin' this, wondering what planet you're from.
The bolded shows you're quite stupid to say the least.
Who created the law of nature is the question? Is God controlled by the laws of nature? Is God answerable to you or nature? I look forward to the day you begin' to use your brains, and honestly I'd consider you sue your brains for non-support.

No need to get emotional

Oh! Really. Normally I should weep for you, but I can't spare the fluid

frosbel:
Hmm, you lost me here. Which part of "make pregnant; fertilize" do you not understand, lol.

Let's see what fertilization means :

" Human fertilization is the union of a human egg and sperm, usually occurring in the ampulla of the uterine tube. The result of this union is the production of a zygote, or fertilized egg, initiating prenatal development. Scientists discovered the dynamics of human fertilization in the nineteenth century" - Wikipedia

Duh !!!!

You have acted very silly again..This I'd say is
Hypocrisy at it's peak.The bolded words has once
again' exposed your red herring. Fertilize(ation) and
Human fertilization, do they mean the same thin'. This games ya'll play by creatin' locution so you can turn the arumegnt in your favour does not work here.

Now , how does your god impregnate Mary since he does not produce sperm ?? You mean your god went against his laws for procreation and fertilised the egg with what ?? SMH @ Ignorance.

It's just as I've said previously, if you believe in the
existence of God, you'd believe God is Omnipotent and
such a thin' is not hard for God to do. Plus since your
assertion above has been flawed, this also is flawed.
You can refer to my previous posts, and if you still
want to further question the authority of God, I'd suggest you go read Isiah Ch 45 vs 11; God had
rebuttaled you long ago before you we're birthed
"Thus says the Lord, the Holy One of Israel and his
Maker: 'Will you question me about my children, or
command me concerning the work of my hand?'
" (RSV)

shadowgwalker:
yes!!because they are working with different principles... you can't come to a biology class and start using physics to defend your ignorance.
you can't see darkness and call it darkness without proof.

Darkness does not exist, the situation is called the "absence of Light". The same way atheism does not exist, it's simply called "The lack of the belief in God".

@OP.. You know you sound really stupid right?