Was Jesus really the son of God?

[Derek]

Why should I believe that passage from Luke over biological principles?

Look up what virgin meant in ancient Greek and Hebrew. It meant young woman. No one ever said that Mary never had sex with Joseph. That's been turned around over the past 2,000 years by well intentioned but wrong people.

Not quite.  The Hebrew word Isaiah used meant young woman.  The Greek word the New Testament used (parthenos) meant virgin.

So what you're saying is that Isaiah predicted a birth from a young woman and not from a virgin as we know it? That means that the Christians who wrote in Greek misunderstood what the word for virgin meant to Jesus and his disciples who would've spoken Aramaic and followed Isaiah religiously. I'm going to look this up, but that is still a moot point. I'm glad you brought this up though.

[Tuck!]

If you believe in the Bible, then yes, he was.

[Derek]

well said ^^ I know I criticize alot of things on here but I do still believe that Jesus was God or the Son of God and my answers are on a forum here in regards to the disciples.

[President Mitt]

Read the Bible.

I'd rather not.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Not quite.  The Hebrew word Isaiah used meant young woman.  The Greek word the New Testament used (parthenos) meant virgin.

Exactly.  Following the original text, the Hebrew, there is no mention of a virgin birth.

[Derek]

Read the Bible.

I'd rather not.

I'd like to explain but what was I referring to? If I said to read the Bible I was probably referring to something that most Christians to not realize is in the Bible because they hardly ever read it.

[Derek]

Not quite.  The Hebrew word Isaiah used meant young woman.  The Greek word the New Testament used (parthenos) meant virgin.

Exactly.  Following the original text, the Hebrew, there is no mention of a virgin birth.

Right and 500 years later it was a different idea (virgin). So if the first Christians were referring to a virgin as we do today, then they weren't well educated in the prophecy. I think that story of the nativity and birth is crock though. A stable was in every house so Jesus could've easily been born at home. Not to mention, the census being referred to in Matthew and Luke didn't happen until 7 or 8 according to some sources. Most striking is that there is a Bethlehem 10 miles from Jerusalem and today it is thought to be the one that is 70 miles away. You didn't travel 70 miles away to count in the census back then. It's a good story and I celebrate Christmas, but the point of Jesus was to die for our sins. All the other imagery and poetry is unnecessary.

[Gustaf]

Not quite.  The Hebrew word Isaiah used meant young woman.  The Greek word the New Testament used (parthenos) meant virgin.

Exactly.  Following the original text, the Hebrew, there is no mention of a virgin birth.

What do you mean the "original text"? The New Testament is written in Greek, isn't it?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

What do you mean the "original text"? The New Testament is written in Greek, isn't it?

he's referring to the Old Testament

Isaiah 7:14 "Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the *young woman* shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call His name Immanuel [which means ‘God with us’]."

Matthew translated this as "virgin", which is not necessarily a contradiction since a virgin can also be a young woman.  The justification for interpreting “young woman” to mean a “virgin” is that God was telling that He Himself was going to give them a miraculous sign.   But there is NOTHING out of the ordinary about a young woman having sex and conceiving and giving birth to a son, and therefore wouldn’t be a recognizable “sign” at all.

And it should be noted that both Matthew and Luke go into explicit detail that Mary conceived Jesus while still a virgin, and there is nothing in the New Testament that contradicts that.  So for any “Christian” to willingly contradict it simply means that the person is not really a Christian.

In fact, for centuries “scholars” did NOT believe the Gospel account that people went to their hometown to register for census, that is, not until an Egyptian papyrus recording a census in 104 A.D. explicitly states that "since registration by household is imminent, it is necessary to notify all who for any reason are absent from their districts to return to their own homes that they may carry out the ordinary business of registration...."  So going back to one’s hometown is backed up by secular history and is completely accurate.

But the real juicy part is that since Joseph was from the tribe of Judah, he would NOT have had an inheritance in Nazareth, which was way too far north of the land given to the tribe of Judah (see map) http://www.biblestudy.org/maps/division-of-promised-land-to-twelve-tribes-israel-large-map.html  so it makes PERFECT sense that Jospeh would leave Nazareth to return to the district where he did have an inheritance!!!  So, since Rome required that everyone return to their home districts to register, Joseph went back to his home district because he had no inheritance in the northern town of Nazareth:

Luke 2:3-4  “And everyone went to his own town to register. 4 So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David.”

It’s all perfectly and completely explained in the text.  But, of course, most of these “scholars” are simply looking to justify their own disbelief and in doing so have lost the ability to interpret very simple passages.

[The Mikado]

Question: Why would you automatically make Isaiah's prophecy about the Messiah when, when he said it to King Ahaz, it would fit perfectly as foretelling the birth of Ahaz's son Hezekiah (who, as the man who helped save Judah from the Assyrians, was certainly a figure worth prophesizing?)

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Question: Why would you automatically make Isaiah's prophecy about the Messiah when, when he said it to King Ahaz, it would fit perfectly as foretelling the birth of Ahaz's son Hezekiah (who, as the man who helped save Judah from the Assyrians, was certainly a figure worth prophesizing?)

actually, it was directed at the whole house of David, not just to King Ahaz:

 13 Then Isaiah said, "Hear now, you house of David! Is it not enough to try the patience of men? Will you try the patience of my God also? 14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel"

also, there are many prophesies in the bible that can be applied to someone in the immediate timeframe and also to the future Messiah.

[Derek]

Prophesies were vague at times too. Isaiah 53 is often thought to be referring to Cyrus. The best case for Jesus being the Son of God is that the disciples claimed that it happened and they would've known for sure unlike people today who did not know their religion's prophet. Also, the women at the tomb is a powerful argument, but I think the church covered that up by having Peter confirm the tomb was empty in the gospels. After all, a woman was not to be worthy of testimony then.