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

[Ezra]

3 minutes ago, Zach said:

If the virgin birth mattered that much, then why doesn't Scripture make belief in it a prerequisite for salvation? 

Scripture does make this a prerequisite for salvation, but you have wilfully failed to accept that.

If Jesus was not born of a virgin, He would be just another sinner, like every human being.  It is because He was conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost in the virgin Mary's womb that His name was IMMANUEL or EMMANUEL -- GOD WITH US. This was a supernatural conception in which Christ would be the firstborn son of Mary.

Had He been an ordinary man, He could not possibly become the sinless and spotless Lamb of God who would pay for the sins of the whole world.  In order to be the Savior. and to make that one great sacrifice for sins forever, the Lord Jesus Christ had to be both fully God and fully SINLESS man -- the God-Man.  

For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens; (Hebrews 7:26).

Anyone who does not believe this, or refuses to believe this, cannot be saved.  Believing "on the Lord Jesus Christ" includes this fundamental belief of who He is -- both the Son of God and the Son of Man, but also God manifest in the flesh (1 Timothy 3:16).  And He cannot possibly be the Resurrection and the Life (John 11:25,26) if He was tainted with sin (or the sin nature).

[Zach]

3 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

Why does something have to be a prerequisite for salvation for it to be important?   The virgin birth proves Jesus' Deity and the Bible clearly states that Jesus was born of a virgin in both Old and New Testaments.   So why would a follower of Jesus diminish the importance of something the Bible feels is important enough to state more than once?

What is the goal of Scripture but to bring man into a proper relationship with God, therefore one would think the more something is mentioned in Scripture the more important it would be to our relationship with God. The virgin birth is Not clearly mentioned in the Tanach and is mentioned twice in the New Testament; Matthew and Luke. Your favorite apostle Paul never breathes a hint of it. Peter the lead Apostle doesn't mention it. The other two a gospels Mark and John don't bring it up and Jesus' own brothers James and Jude don't say a thing about it.

-yeah, sounds real important-

[Guest shiloh357]

3 minutes ago, Zach said:

What is the goal of Scripture but to bring man into a proper relationship with God, therefore one would think the more something is mentioned in Scripture the more important it would be to our relationship with God. The virgin birth is Not clearly mentioned in the Tanach and is mentioned twice in the New Testament; Matthew and Luke. Your favorite apostle Paul never breathes a hint of it. Peter the lead Apostle doesn't mention it. The other two a gospels Mark and John don't bring it up and Jesus' own brothers James and Jude don't say a thing about it.

-yeah, sounds real important-

It is quite important because if Jesus was not born of a virgin then he has a sin nature.  He would have been born a sinner and a sinner cannot atone for our sins.  It is clearly mentioned in the OT, as well.   Paul never mentions the confession of sin, neither does Peter or anyone else you mentioned.   Does that mean we don't need confess our sins to God?

It is a clear biblical doctrine that Jesus was born of a virgin and is quite important to having a coherent theology of Scripture even if it is not important to you.

[Zach]

11 minutes ago, Ezra said:

Anyone who does not believe this, or refuses to believe this, cannot be saved.

Wow! I think I'll let the words of Jesus handle this one;

"You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to human traditions."

"For you ignore God's law and substitute your own tradition."

"You have disregarded the commandment of God to keep the tradition of men."

(Mark 7:8)

[Zach]

5 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

It is quite important because if Jesus was not born of a virgin then he has a sin nature.  He would have been born a sinner and a sinner cannot atone for our sins.  It is clearly mentioned in the OT, as well.   Paul never mentions the confession of sin, neither does Peter or anyone else you mentioned.   Does that mean we don't need confess our sins to God?

It is a clear biblical doctrine that Jesus was born of a virgin and is quite important to having a coherent theology of Scripture even if it is not important to you.

Confession is all through the Bible, Paul may not mention it but plenty of others do. If confession was only mentioned twice in the entire Bible I'd assume it was not that important, however that's Mot the case.

All that other stuff you posted is just systematic theology; traditions of men.

[Guest shiloh357]

2 minutes ago, Zach said:

Confession is all through the Bible, Paul may not mention it but plenty of others do. If confession was only mentioned twice in the entire Bible I'd assume it was not that important, however that's Mot the case.

All that other stuff you posted is just systematic theology; traditions of men.

Confession of sin to God (the only we confess to)  is mentioned ONE time in the New Testament:  I John 1:9

I didn't give you any systematic theology.  You apparently don't know what systematic theology is.

[soonsister]

 

 

 

 

2 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

It is quite important because if Jesus was not born of a virgin then he has a sin nature.  He would have been born a sinner and a sinner cannot atone for our sins.  It is clearly mentioned in the OT, as well.   Paul never mentions the confession of sin, neither does Peter or anyone else you mentioned.   Does that mean we don't need confess our sins to God?

It is a clear biblical doctrine that Jesus was born of a virgin and is quite important to having a coherent theology of Scripture even if it is not important to you.

 

I've been trying to get that across. But it doesn't seem to be important to Zach.It's the entire foundation of the perfect sinless redeemer who would take the sins of the world on himself when crucified.

If he was a sinner nothing in the gospels would have been possible in matters of redemption of sinners. Because a sinner can't redeem sinners .

 

[Guest shiloh357]

3 minutes ago, soonsister said:

 

 

 

 

 

I've been trying to get that across. But it doesn't seem to be important to Zach.It's the entire foundation of the perfect sinless redeemer who would take the sins of the world on himself when crucified.

If he was a sinner nothing in the gospels would have been possible in matters of redemption of sinners. Because a sinner can't redeem sinners .

 

Precisely.   Some people really don't think things through when it comes to the theological implications of their claims.  

[soonsister]

3 hours ago, Zach said:

What is the goal of Scripture but to bring man into a proper relationship with God, therefore one would think the more something is mentioned in Scripture the more important it would be to our relationship with God. The virgin birth is Not clearly mentioned in the Tanach and is mentioned twice in the New Testament; Matthew and Luke. Your favorite apostle Paul never breathes a hint of it. Peter the lead Apostle doesn't mention it. The other two a gospels Mark and John don't bring it up and Jesus' own brothers James and Jude don't say a thing about it.

-yeah, sounds real important-

Of course it is important. The virgin birth is the key factor in the presence of the son of man, the son of God, being born into the world to forgive sins as he did when he was here. And to take the worlds sins upon himself on the cross.

 

Otherwise as has already been stated, Jesus would have been born in sin because his mother conceived him as a fallen woman who was in sin. Which means Jesus would have needed a savior.

[soonsister]

5 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

Precisely.   Some people really don't think things through when it comes to the theological implications of their claims.  

I have arrived at the conclusion due to explicit evidence in their own words that we're not dealing with an argument that holds theology at a premium. Nor salvation. Nor Jesus Christ.

I started this discussion to seek clarity on Messiah scriptures in the old testament. I'd appreciate it if everyone would proceed in that vein. And kindly ignore the intention of Zach who intends to dismiss the importance and the origin  of Christ himself.

Thank you.