The Torah tells us Jesus is not the Messiah it prophesies?

[angels4u]

4 minutes ago, soonsister said:

Oh, I have. In the first post I stated I am a member of a bible study group. A member received the article I linked in an email because they're involved in many study groups concerning scripture apparently. And that is what caused concern. The contents of the article. Because we're suppose to be of a faith that is rooted in the Hebrew scriptures concerning God and Messiah.

That's why I was looking for input on certain key points brought forth in this discussion by others. Including the  claim that Jesus was born of an unclean woman and that he was a sinner at birth.

 

 

 

Why wasn't Jesus born with original sin?

by Matt Slick

If all people have original sin and Jesus was a human being, then didn't Jesus need to have had a sin nature?

Before we can answer this question, we need to know what the term "original sin" means.  This is a term used to describe the effect of Adam's sin on his descendants (Rom. 5:12-32). Specifically, it is our inheritance of a sinful nature from Adam. The sinful nature originated with Adam and is passed down from parent to child. We are by nature children of wrath (Eph. 2:3).  So, if we inherit our sinful nature from our parents, then Jesus, who had Mary as a parent, must have had a sin nature.  Right?  Not necessarily.  I believe that the sin nature is passed down through the father.  Let me explain.

Some Bible commentators, with whom I agree, hold the position that the sin nature is passed down through the father.  Support for this position is found in the fact that sin entered the world through Adam, not Eve.  Remember, Eve was the one who sinned first.  However, sin did not enter the world through her.  It entered through Adam. Rom. 5:12 says, "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned." The concept behind this is called Federal Headship.  This means that a person (a father) represents his descendants.  We see this concept taught in Heb. 7:9-10, "And, so to speak, through Abraham even Levi, who received tithes, paid tithes, 10for he was still in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him." We see in Hebrews that Levi, a distant descendant of Abraham, is said to have paid tithes to Melchizedek when Abraham was the one offering the tithes, not Levi.  What this means is that there is biblical support for the idea that the sin nature was passed down through the father.  Since Jesus had not a literal, biological father, the sin nature was not passed down to Him.  However, since He had a human mother, he was fully human but without original sin.  Jesus has two natures:  God and man.  Col. 2:9 says, "For in Him dwells all the fullness of deity in bodily form." Jesus received His human nature from Mary, but He received His divine nature through God the Holy Spirit.  Therefore, Jesus is both God and man.  He was sinless, had no original sin, and was both fully God and fully man.

 

[angels4u]

Mary was indeed born out of an unclean women and need Jesus to be her Savior!

 

‘When a woman gives birth and bears a male child, then she shall be unclean for seven days, as in the days of her menstruation she shall be unclean.Lev.12:2

[soonsister]

15 minutes ago, angels4u said:

Mary was indeed born out of an unclean women and need Jesus to be her Savior!

 

‘When a woman gives birth and bears a male child, then she shall be unclean for seven days, as in the days of her menstruation she shall be unclean.Lev.12:2

 Ezekiel 18.

The Book of Ezekiel comes after Leviticus.

[soonsister]

Luke 2:22 "their purification" or "her purification"? A Test-Case for Faith Vs. Reason Dr. Daniel B. Wallace

[Ezra]

1 hour ago, soonsister said:

I'm seriously wondering if I made a mistake seeking here.

soonsister,

To revert back to your question regarding the OT Scriptures and how they establish that Jesus is the Christ, if you have a good Bible with marginal references, those in themselves will show you the truth.

Let's take one passage as an example (Mark 1:1-3):

1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God;

2 As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.

3 The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.

By saying "as it is written in the prophets" Mark immediately connects the OT to the Gospel.  What was he quoting?

Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the LORD of hosts. (Malachi 3:1).

The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the LORD, make straight in the desert a highway for our God. (Isaiah 40:3).

As you can see, whoever tried to limit our knowledge of Christ to the Torah (first five books of the OT) had a deceptive agenda, but even the Torah is full of references to Christ as King of the Jews (also the Prophet who would be greater than Moses).

I shall see him, but not now: I shall behold him, but not nigh: there shall come a Star out of Jacob, and a Sceptre shall rise out of Israel, and shall smite the corners of Moab, and destroy all the children of Sheth... Out of Jacob shall come he that shall have dominion, and shall destroy him that remaineth of the city. (Numbers 24:17,29).

[soonsister]

7 minutes ago, Ezra said:

soonsister,

To revert back to your question regarding the OT Scriptures and how they establish that Jesus is the Christ, if you have a good Bible with marginal references, those in themselves will show you the truth.

Let's take one passage as an example (Mark 1:1-3):

1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God;

2 As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.

3 The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.

By saying "as it is written in the prophets" Mark immediately connects the OT to the Gospel.  What was he quoting?

Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the LORD of hosts. (Malachi 3:1).

The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the LORD, make straight in the desert a highway for our God. (Isaiah 40:3).

As you can see, whoever tried to limit our knowledge of Christ to the Torah (first five books of the OT) had a deceptive agenda, but even the Torah is full of references to Christ as King of the Jews (also the Prophet who would be greater than Moses).

I shall see him, but not now: I shall behold him, but not nigh: there shall come a Star out of Jacob, and a Sceptre shall rise out of Israel, and shall smite the corners of Moab, and destroy all the children of Sheth... Out of Jacob shall come he that shall have dominion, and shall destroy him that remaineth of the city. (Numbers 24:17,29).

 

I was not expecting that reply. Thank you so much.

I love those connections. And I will certainly seek out a bible like you describe. One with references in the margins. Is there a particular version that is closest to the original that you know of? While we're on the topic also of bible purchasing?

Remember the Torah book of Deuteronomy? Deuteronomy 18:15 & 18-19?  The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own brothers. You must listen to him... The LORD said to me: ... I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers; I will put my words in his mouth, and he will tell them everything I command him. If anyone does not listen to my words that the prophet speaks in my name, I myself will call him to account.

 

[other one]

1 hour ago, soonsister said:

I happened on a website sponsored by a messianic who claims the virgin birth is a pagan interpolation into the scriptures. And who in that regard denies the annunciation.

I think that combined with other resources that attempt to incorporate the discipline of Lexicography so as to say the Matthew translation is a misinterpretation of Isaiah 7  make for the confusion I encountered in the article.

I think what is concerning is that the article I posted attempts to say that Jesus was not Messiah. And it says that he was just a man born of a woman.

Which unfortunately, is what is being argued here  by some.

Because if Jesus was born to take the sins of the world upon himself, I have to wonder how a sinner would be anointed to do that? And by God who's grace toward the worlds sinners began the entire thing.

It appears as if we discount one factor in the study of soterology,that is Jesus' divinity, we have to then question all of it. And if a mere man was who Jesus was, then we're all living a lie in faith.

Though that would go a long way to explain that school of thought that argues God's grace is impermanent. And that we have to work to do good to find ourselves approved by God so as to enter his grace after life.

As I said, I'm here to find the truth. Or at least learn what the scriptures truly mean to say. I appreciate your input in that regard. Thank you.

 

PM me the website URL and I'll look into it and see if I can show you where they are wrong.

Most of the pagan stories that people are talking about virgin births really aren't when you get inside thier real teaching.  But unless you are just bored to death it's not worth researching

 

[soonsister]

I shall do that thank you.

 

[Neighbor]

6 hours ago, soonsister said:

Did my request shut down the discussion?

No, not at all. I am trying to arrive fashionably late to the party.  Am just starting to look around, before breaking into conversation.

 

 

[Guest shiloh357]

4 hours ago, Zach said:

I see you are newer than me here, so I'll take it easy. Look, you are espousing a doctrine you were taught by some Church, in others words they told you "how" certain scriptures are to be interpreted. I don't judge you for it or declare you to be wrong. I just encourage you to  realize there is more than one acceptable way to interpret a number of passages and to keep the minors the minors and the major the majors.

No, there is only one to correctly interpret Scripture.   The virgin birth is not a minor.  It evidences Jesus' Deity and it didn't come from a church, but from Scripture.    The OT and NT affirm the virgin birth.