You question is answered in Galatians 3:19 KJV - and all of Galatians 3. Instead of concluding beforehand that the answers aren't in scripture, look to affirm. Watch for the answers, sometimes they're in a different part of the Bible than you think.
Gentile converts had the same law.
- Thread starter CherubRam
- Start date
You question is answered in Galatians 3:19 KJV - and all of Galatians 3. Instead of concluding beforehand that the answers aren't in scripture, look to affirm. Watch for the answers, sometimes they're in a different part of the Bible than you think.
The world that we have always lived in does not allow virgins to give birth. A virgin birth was a metaphor to underline the importance of Jesus. It had nothing to do with Mary's biology.
Believers are often surprised to know this fact of history: In Jesus's day, Caesar was also "born of a virgin," was called "divine" and--literally--known as "Savior of the World." These elevated titles were not only carved into the temple and governmental architecture, they were stamped on the coins that everyone used for commerce in the Roman Empire. The theology of Paul demonstrates he had not yet heard of the tradition that claimed a virgin birth. And he doesn't know about the Empty Tomb tradition, either.
A virgin birth was applied to many heroic figures in Jesus's day. That is the true history of the times, the matrix out of which Jesus's followers did the same thing after his death.
It has always been impossible for any woman to have a baby that was not the product of a human ova and sperm cell.
Last edited:
Yes. Like Matthew, Luke's agenda was to have Jesus born from God instead of the usual way.
You completely miss the very point of Paul's Apostleship; an Apostleship distinct from that of the Twelve, Gal. 2:7-9.
Per Romans 1 thru 3 and 9 thru 11 (the same point which is re-emphasized in Ephesians 2 and 3) Paul's Apostleship among the Gentiles, is among them as Gentiles!
Neither Circumcision in the flesh made by hands, nor Uncircumcision in the flesh, apply in this age, Gal. 5:6.
Per Rom. 1-3; 9-11, the believing remnant of Israel was sealed by God, as His, for their having found (believed on) His Son, Rom. 10.
He then concluded the rest of Israel blind, and temporarily set aside His dealings with that nation according to their covenants and promises, for their unbelief, Rom. 11.
Per those passages, the nation of Israel was concluded under the power of sin with the Gentiles, that God - during this Mystery Age - might not only have mercy on both, and this; absent of the Circumcision distinction, but given this Age's own purpose in Christ, Rom. 8:29-30; Eph. 1; Eph. 3; 2 Tm. 1:8-11.
Nearly 200 years before Christ, the Jews translated the word 'almah' in the LXX/Septuagint by the Greek word 'parthenos' which always means virgin.The word used in Mat 1:23) is the same. The Parthenon is the Greek temple to the goddess Athena, which the Greeks characterized as being a virgin.
.....and the word is Yeshua not the 1930's made up word Yashua.
You were there I take it?
A7, You're such a a "faithful" unbeliever! I like that about you. One "Neg-rep"
coming up!
coming up!
Looks as if we have, a "boatload" of, Pseudo Scholars on this thread?
Luke had a "personal" agenda? What's wrong with you? Only tell me
if you know why, you're this way?
There was nothing temporary about it, for the Israel of God consists of the elect raised from all ages and nations in the resurrection and their mortal children also drawn from all nations who believe in Christ from the last 3.5 years leading to the return of Christ.
Rev.ch 14 ch 7 ch 21.
LA
CherubRam
New member
The Old Testament was written in Hebrew, not Greek. The letter "e" was not used as a vowel in Hebrew until after 200 AD.
Exodus 23:21.
Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions: for my name is in him.
Yah / wah's helper is Yah / shua.
None of us were.
That's why a historical methodology to understand the ancient world must use the evidence, facts and data that were available to any objective viewer during that time and the present.
Only then do historical scholars offer their own conjectures, opinions and interpretations.
And they do it in public for peer and public review.
By the way, there is ample evidence of the same lofty titles applied to Caesar were also applied to Jesus. The birth, the life and the meaning of Caesar was everywhere: it was stamped on the coins we have and has been found carved into the architecture of ancient temples and public buildings.
The Christians knew exactly what they were doing. They appropriated the language of empire and overcame it with a kind of religious ju-jitsu.
Jesus talked about the Kingdom of God "on earth as it is in Heaven." Everyone who heard him knew perfectly well he was pointing to a world where God sits on the throne--not the Roman Emperor.
Luke and Paul's letters show a lot of "anti-imperial" language which used the same words and phrases that the pagan Romans used. And when they did this, they well knew that they were committing high treason.
Ben Masada
New member
Galatians 3:19 is simply a promotion of the Pauline policy of Replacement Theology. Jesus himself said loud and clear: "Of this much a assure you: Until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter of the Law, not the smallest part of a letter shall be done away with until it all comes true. (Mat. 5:18) Has heaven and earth passed away yet? I don't think so.
iouae
Well-known member
There are 613 OT laws, most of which apply to a nation, a tabernacle, a priesthood, justice, laws governing sex, slaves, divorce, and capital crimes. So many sins resulted in death.
I have no problem with the OT laws when we have a nation, priesthood, tabernacle etc.
But there are 1050 commands in the NT. I consider these so much more worthy of the Christian's focus. You can find these listed at...
https://www.cai.org/bible-studies/1050-new-testament-commands
CherubRam
New member
Under the New Covenant, we only need to concern ourselves with the Sabbath and moral commands of God.
If you are talking about certain conditions have to be met, you are talking about something else besides "grace."
CherubRam
New member
Our salvation is not unconditional.
iouae
Well-known member
Right! If Christ kept a law, and went to the trouble of mentioning which law He kept in the writings of the NT, then I believe we ought to keep that law.
He kept the Sabbath so we ought to too.
iouae
Well-known member
When a traffic officer lets you off with a warning instead of a speeding ticket, is he extending grace to encourage you to go and sin some more?