Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

A Rebuttal to Newsweek's Cover Story on 'The Myths of Jesus'
Christian Post ^ | 12/27/2012 | Jerry Newcombe

Posted on 12/27/2012 3:50:43 PM PST by SeekAndFind

Suppose you were to read an overall negative article about a man who outwardly appeared to be respectable---but then, suppose you found out that, unbeknownst to the readers of the article, it was actually penned by his ex-wife? Wouldn't that make you at least a little suspicious about the article's contents?

So it is with Newsweek's cover story on Jesus (Dec. 17), entitled, "The Myths of Jesus." They show a Nativity scene with bubble quotes asking these questions: "Who Was Jesus?" "How Many Wise Men Were There?" "Did He Have a Wife?" "In a Manger or a Cave?" "Why Bethlehem?" Just in time for Christmas, they choose to stir up doubt.

What the article doesn't tell you is much about the author's (Dr. Bart D. Ehrman) own background. Newsweek mentions him as the author of "Did Jesus Exist?" and "Jesus Interrupted." But he formerly professed to be an evangelical Christian, who writes best-selling books that purport to debunk the reliability of the New Testament, such as "Forged," which postulates that much of the New Testament was forged (a charge easily dismissed).

I'm not saying that Dr. Bart D. Ehrman, a respected scholar and professor of religion at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, can't be fair and balanced per se. But the average reader of Newsweek isn't told about his biased perspective, nor is it hinted. As could be expected, knowing Dr. Ehrman's life work, the article overall leads one to doubt the historical veracity of the Gospels, at least when it comes to the birth narratives.

After writing about a highly suspicious late document about Jesus (c. A.D. 300+)---a document that conservative and liberal scholars would agree is totally questionable---he asks, "Are the stories about Jesus' birth in the New Testament any less unbelievable?" (p. 27).

Of the census in Luke 2 (the one called by Caesar Augustus where "all the world should be taxed"), Ehrman writes, "This is not a story based on historical fact." (p. 28).

Yet Dr. Paul L. Maier of Western Michigan University once told me in a television interview: "When Augustus died, he had two bronze plaques erected in front of his mausoleum in Rome in which he listed the 36 things for which he most wanted to be remembered. Point No. 8: 'I took a census of the Empire three times.'"

Ehrman also mentions the common problem of the two seemingly contradictory genealogies of Jesus (Matthew 1 vs. Luke 3). It's difficult, but not insurmountable. The short answer is that Matthew tells the nativity story from Joseph's perspective and does the same with the genealogy. Luke tells Mary's story and includes the annunciation and the Magnificat (Mary's song). The genealogy in Luke is believed to be that of Mary.

Generally, the Jews did not list women in the genealogies. In their "Biblical Encyclopedia," McClintock and Strong observe that when the blood of the grandfather passed to a grandson through a daughter, the name of the daughter was omitted and the daughter's husband was counted as the son of the grandfather. In Matthew 1:16, Jacob is the father of Joseph. Yet in Luke 3:23, Eli (the father of Mary) is listed as the father of Joseph. The answers to the types of issues Ehrman raises in Newsweek can be answered in standard books like the "Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties" by the late Dr. Gleason Archer.

The bigger issue Ehrman raises is the view that the Gospels may be fine at communicating religious notions, but don't look to them for historical reliability. Of the Gospels in general, Ehrman states: "These are books that meant to declare religious truths, not historical facts." (p. 28). This seems to separate "religious truths" from "historical facts." But Christianity is based on historical facts.

Ehrman asserts, "… these gospel sources, whatever else they are, are not historically reliable descriptions of what really happened when Jesus was born." (p. 28). A friend of mine is an up-and-coming Jesus scholar named Mike Licona, theology professor at Houston Baptist University. Dr. Licona has debated Dr. Ehrman on occasion. I asked Dr. Licona for a few statements about the historical reliability of the Gospels.

He emailed me: "Ehrman's statement that the Gospels are meant to declare religious truths rather than historical facts is overly simplistic and misleading. Luke 1:1-4 and John 21:24 (cf. 1 John 1:1-3) dispel such a position. One may reject what the Gospels report. But to say the authors did not intend to declare historical facts is terribly naive."

Licona also notes, "This is not to say that everything the Gospels reported was meant to be interpreted in a historical sense. Their authors employed the literary conventions of their day just as modern biographers employ those of today. But Ehrman goes too far, and his understanding of ancient biography appears misguided."

There are details about the birth, life, death and resurrection of Jesus that could never be verified by historians. (How could a historian prove a birth by a virgin?) But there are many details that can be verified, and we see the Gospels proving reliable time and again. Not to confuse Easter with Christmas, but if Jesus wasn't raised from the dead---in actual history (if that's a "religious truth," but not an "historical fact")---then Christianity is bogus and ought to be explicitly abandoned. But Jesus did walk out of that tomb, and that's why 2,000 years later, a major news magazine ran yet another cover story about Him, albeit a largely negative one.

_______________________

Jerry Newcombe, D.Min., is co-host of and spokesman for Truth that Transforms with D. James Kennedy (formerly The Coral Ridge Hour). He has also written or co-written 23 books, including The Book That Made America: How the Bible Formed Our Nation and Answers from the Founding Fathers. Jerry co-wrote (with Dr. Peter Lillback) the bestselling, George Washington's Sacred Fire. www.truthinaction.org.


TOPICS: Apologetics; History; Religion & Culture
KEYWORDS: jesus; jesusisgod; myth; newsweek; rebuttal
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-53 next last

1 posted on 12/27/2012 3:51:00 PM PST by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Very fine article. And Mike Licona is a very respected Christian apologist. Newsweek’s choice in selecting writers is why they are no longer in print. They have no credibility.


2 posted on 12/27/2012 3:57:21 PM PST by Salvavida (The restoration of the U.S.A. starts with filling the pews at every Bible-believing church.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

“I’m not saying that Dr. Bart D. Ehrman, a respected scholar and professor of religion at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, can’t be fair and balanced”

Well, I’ll say it then. He can’t be fair and balanced. He’s obviously rejected the New Testament as the Word of God and whatever he writes should be lining a bird cage, at the very most.

Typical baloney fed from many seminary professors these days.


3 posted on 12/27/2012 3:58:01 PM PST by F15Eagle (1 John 5:4-5, 4:15, 5:13; John 3:17-18, 6:69, 11:25, 14:6, 20:31; Rom10:8-11; 1 Tim 2:5; Titus 3:4-5)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Oh, and one more thing for Dr. Bart D. Ehrman:

Get thee behind us, Satan.


4 posted on 12/27/2012 3:59:50 PM PST by F15Eagle (1 John 5:4-5, 4:15, 5:13; John 3:17-18, 6:69, 11:25, 14:6, 20:31; Rom10:8-11; 1 Tim 2:5; Titus 3:4-5)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Ultimately, the only rebuttal necessary is: It’s Newsweek.


5 posted on 12/27/2012 4:05:57 PM PST by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

My wife and I watched Ehrman’s videos on the New Testament several years ago as published by The Teaching Company. We only watched the first several videos as we both concluded that Ehrman was a charlatan. It was stressful just watching those videos which were so full of baloney. In my opinion, he is no Christian. He is a man whom I doubt believes that Jesus is the Son of God. The real tragedy is the the University of North Carolina employs him as a professor in their Theology department.


6 posted on 12/27/2012 4:07:24 PM PST by CdMGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
The shroud of Torrin is what they claim he was buried in. They have tried every way to disprove it and failed. There is no other explanation to how the image was created.
7 posted on 12/27/2012 4:10:16 PM PST by spookie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #8 Removed by Moderator

To: SeekAndFind

“Yet in Luke 3:23, Eli (the father of Mary) is listed as the father of Joseph.....”

Cathoic tradition says the parents of Mary were Joachim and Anna. I believe this comes from some of the early books which did not make it into the Bible.


9 posted on 12/27/2012 4:10:26 PM PST by Gumdrop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #10 Removed by Moderator

Comment #11 Removed by Moderator

To: SeekAndFind
Newsweek folds at the end of the year.

Unless the print edition comes back from the dead in a few days, count this as a victory.

12 posted on 12/27/2012 4:13:14 PM PST by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: spookie

Yes, I read you the first time.


13 posted on 12/27/2012 4:15:50 PM PST by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
A sure cure for Ehrmanism:

Amazon link

14 posted on 12/27/2012 4:16:02 PM PST by fidelis (Zonie and USAF Cold Warrior)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I look forward to Newseak’s cover story “The Myths of Moehamhead”


15 posted on 12/27/2012 4:18:15 PM PST by dynachrome (Vertrou in God en die Mauser)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fidelis

I would also suggest everyone interested in this topic read Dr. Daniel Wallace’s refutation of Bart Ehrman’s book “Misquoting Jesus”. You can find it at the link below.

http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=4000


16 posted on 12/27/2012 4:21:10 PM PST by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

When will they be so inquisitive about Obama’s history?


17 posted on 12/27/2012 4:34:50 PM PST by CrazyIvan (Obama's birth certificate was found stapled to Soros's receipt.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Ehrman also mentions the common problem of the two seemingly contradictory genealogies of Jesus (Matthew 1 vs. Luke 3). It's difficult, but not insurmountable. The short answer is that Matthew tells the nativity story from Joseph's perspective and does the same with the genealogy. Luke tells Mary's story and includes the annunciation and the Magnificat (Mary's song). The genealogy in Luke is believed to be that of Mary.

gosh--i thought this explanation was common knowledge by now... how does Dr. Ehrman not know this?

18 posted on 12/27/2012 4:57:17 PM PST by latina4dubya ( self-proclaimed tequila snob)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
"In a Manger or a Cave?"

"Was Jesus the Original Bat-Man?"

19 posted on 12/27/2012 4:58:14 PM PST by Tanniker Smith (Rome didn't fall in a day, either.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Dr. Bart D. Ehrman needs to know the Truth or he will be with the others who hang their heads in shame when Jesus returns.

http://patburt.com/


20 posted on 12/27/2012 4:58:53 PM PST by stars & stripes forever (Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Jesus is going strong.

Newsweak? Gone and soon forgotten.


21 posted on 12/27/2012 5:03:26 PM PST by Chickensoup (Leftist Totalitarian Fascism coming to a country like yours.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: F15Eagle; Salvavida; SeekAndFind
Thanks for this valuable and timely article.

< One of my RCIA students (I teach a class for adults entering the Catholic Church) gave me a book for Christmas called "Dethroning Jesus," which delighted me with several good clear chapters untangling and debunking Bart Ehrman's Biblical skepticism.

The authors, Darrell Bock and Daniel Wallace, say that Ehrman does have actual scholarship to his credit, but he exaggerates, distorts, and rhetorically twists things to do maximum damage. In short, Ehrman has scholarly cred, but his is far from a scholarly perspective.

Just as an example (one out of many) Ehrman makes huge dramatic claims about Biblical "inaccuracies" (actually, textual variants.) He says there are literally tens of thousands of them (and it's true.) What he doesn't tell you, is that the vast majority of them make no difference whatsoever. No difference in meaning. No difference in emphasis. Zip.

This is because (among other things) some texts were written when there was no standard spelling. It's like reading Canturbury Tales and getting bent out of shape because Chaucer spells the color green, and greene," and "grene." Also many textual variants just transpose words with no change in meaning ("sheep and oxen" vs "oxen and sheep.")

Same deal with historic details: Erhman kicks up huge dust storms about tiny distinctions which actually make no difference; or markets suppositions as if they were facts.

Bock and Wallace's "Dethroning Jesus": antidote to Ehrman. I recommend it.

22 posted on 12/27/2012 5:05:47 PM PST by Mrs. Don-o (Point of clarification.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Tanniker Smith
I get a kick out of the “disputes” that some of these details bring up. And that to some, these “disputes” somehow shine doubt on the whole thing. At Christmastime we had a fun little “quiz” for the Sunday school kids. Like “How many wise men?” (Doesn't say. Was probably an entire caravan of people with the rich, powerful “wise men” to support them on their journey).

“What did the wisemen first say when they saw the baby in the manger?” (Trick question - he was 2 or 3 years old when they got there!), etc......

IIRC the “manger” is the feeding trough - not the “stable”. And the animals were kept in caves. Often they were kept in a room in the home too. I had one preacher I respect that talked about he conjectured that Joseph would have had relatives in Bethlehem, and that being a good Dad, he would have made arrangements with the relatives prior to their trip into town. And probably just used the manger as an impromptu crib. Probably stayed with the animals (”no room for them in the “inn”), but perhaps the manger was brought into the home. (I have a photo of me as a baby in the drawer of a dresser in a hotel room - all padded with towels and a blanket!)

23 posted on 12/27/2012 5:15:07 PM PST by 21twelve (So I [God] gave them over to their stubborn hearts to follow their own devices. Psalm 81:12)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Yet Dr. Paul L. Maier of Western Michigan University once told me in a television interview: "When Augustus died, he had two bronze plaques erected in front of his mausoleum in Rome in which he listed the 36 things for which he most wanted to be remembered. Point No. 8: 'I took a census of the Empire three times.'"

Thank you so much for this post! I have tried to find a historical answer to this point of contention many times. For me, it has never been a question, because Dr. Luke was there, had eyewitnesses, and meticulously recorderd facts accurately and chronologically in his Gospel and in the Acts of The Apostles. So I have believed. Of course, it always come down to the issue of credibility. Does one have:

- total confidence in The Faith, that of The Christ, The Lifegiver and The Truth Embodied, declared in the Documented Account of His Progressive Revelation, The Holy Bible;

or,

- a grasping-at-straws blind clinging to the falsehoods and misdirection of that Old Liar, Satan, the Destroyer?

In my early life, I just dodged the issues, until I could no longer ignore them. Now, being converted, regenerated, and trained as a discipler, I contend for The Faith once-and-for-all-time delivered to the saints, given to that body that increases year after year, century after century, to declare the Good News as His Heralds.

24 posted on 12/27/2012 5:18:59 PM PST by imardmd1 (An armed society is a polite society -- but dangerous for the fool --)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

Very interesting. Thank you.


25 posted on 12/27/2012 5:24:33 PM PST by CatherineofAragon (Support Christian white males---the architects of the jewel known as Western Civilization)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
We need to get a few things straight:

Jonah Code & 70 Weeks of Daniel 1 of 5

Jonah Code & 70 Weeks of Daniel 2 of 5

Jonah Code & 70 Weeks of Daniel 3 of 5

Jonah Code & 70 Weeks of Daniel 4 of 5

Jonah Code & 70 Weeks of Daniel 5 of 5

26 posted on 12/27/2012 5:34:05 PM PST by Errant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: F15Eagle; Salvavida; SeekAndFind
Thanks for this valuable and timely article.

One of my RCIA students (I teach a class for adults entering the Catholic Church) gave me a book for Christmas called "Dethroning Jesus," which delighted me with several good clear chapters untangling and debunking Bart Ehrman's Biblical skepticism.

The authors, Darrell Bock and Daniel Wallace, say that Ehrman does have actual research to offer, but he exaggerates, distorts, and rhetorically twists things to do maximum damage. In short, Ehrman has scholarly cred, but his is far from a scholarly perspective.

Just as an example (one out of many) Ehrman makes huge dramatic claims about Biblical "inaccuracies" (actually, textual variants.) He says there are literally tens of thousands of them (and it's true.) What he doesn't tell you, is that the vast majority of them make no difference whatsoever. No difference in interpretation. No difference in emphasis. Zip.

This is because (among other things) some texts were written when there was no standard spelling. By way of analogy, it's like reading Canturbury Tales and getting hysterically bent out of shape because Chaucer spells the color green, and greene. Also hundreds of textual variants just vary word order with no change in meaning ("sheep and oxen" vs "oxen and sheep.")

Same deal with historic details: Erhman kicks up huge dust storms about tiny distinctions which actually make no difference; or repeatedly thrusts suppositions upon unwary readers as if they were facts.

Bock and Wallace's "Dethroning Jesus": antidote to Ehrman. I recommend it.

27 posted on 12/27/2012 5:43:10 PM PST by Mrs. Don-o (Point of clarification.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: imardmd1
For me, if one of these problems comes up, I try to reconcile it. If I can't, I don't ignore it, but I don't let it shake my faith. The problem could be in the 'facts" presented by the questioner. It could be in his interpretation of the facts. It could be in my interpretation of the Bible; something that I willing to change if presented with evidence from the Bible itself, if after study and prayer I cannot refute it. Hasn't happened that much. In the end, I will ask God Himself one day.
28 posted on 12/27/2012 6:02:52 PM PST by chesley (Vast deserts of political ignorance makes liberalism possible - James Lewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
What the article doesn't tell you is much about the author's (Dr. Bart D. Ehrman) own background. Newsweek mentions him as the author of "Did Jesus Exist?" and "Jesus Interrupted." But he formerly professed to be an evangelical Christian, who writes best-selling books that purport to debunk the reliability of the New Testament, such as "Forged," which postulates that much of the New Testament was forged (a charge easily dismissed).

He bills himself (or did) as now a "happy agnostic". He is in fact a bitter apostate.

29 posted on 12/27/2012 6:53:47 PM PST by Lee N. Field ("You keep using that verse, but I do not think it means what you think it means." --I. Montoya)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tanniker Smith

It was a manger (feedbox) IN a cave that was used to shelter livestock.

Wooden barns were rather scarce in an area with few trees.

And there are as many bats in barns as there are in caves!
LOL

(I know you were being facetious, and am just joining in!)


30 posted on 12/27/2012 8:41:51 PM PST by left that other site (Worry is the Darkroom that Develops Negatives.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind; mgist; raptor22; victim soul; Isabel2010; Smokin' Joe; Michigander222; PJBankard; ...
+

Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:

Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.

31 posted on 12/27/2012 8:44:03 PM PST by narses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind; mgist; raptor22; victim soul; Isabel2010; Smokin' Joe; Michigander222; PJBankard; ...
+

Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:

Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.

32 posted on 12/27/2012 8:44:37 PM PST by narses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Errant
We need to get a few things straight:

So start here...

Then check this out: MICHAEL ROOD, DOOMSDAY PROPHET

Michael John Rood is clearly not a reputable Christian minister and Messianic rabbi as he claims to be, nor is he a reliable source for accurate Bible teaching.. His speculative predictions about end time events, archaeology and other topics have led, and will continue to lead, to more disturbance in the minds of those who accept his theories. His adherence to teachings and practice learned in a cult, and his legalism draw people away from the grace of Jesus Christ which the New Testament teaches. People would be wise to neither accept Rood's teachings nor support his ministry.

If you were around in the '70s and early '80s you might remember the cult 'The Way International' -- that's where this dude got 'ordained'. Just sayin'.

33 posted on 12/27/2012 10:07:43 PM PST by NoCmpromiz (John 14:6 is a non-pluralistic comment.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
When’s Newsweek coming out with a cover story on the myths of Muhammad?
34 posted on 12/27/2012 11:33:31 PM PST by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to Him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chesley
For me, if one of these problems comes up, I try to reconcile it. If I can't, I don't ignore it, but I don't let it shake my faith. ... etc

"Amen!" at least twice. The way is the Word, not the Greater Catechism, or some other uninspired, errant document. But history can sometimes solidly refute speculation, particularly Augustus' bronze tablets for all to see across the known world and across time, irrefutable.

Mary's genealogy is given specifically, though not explicitly stated, where Joseph was not the father in the flesh, her descent from David through Nathan (tribe of Jdah/scepter) cannot be questioned.

But my position here is that Jesus' flesh had no component of her flesh -- that she was a faithful, holy host with a Christ-like yielding of her body ("Lo, I come to do Thy Will, O God!"), accepting a perfect seed implanted by The Holy Ghost -- just as a virgin today could become the host of another couples' seed -- and trusting The God to vindicate her submission against any assertion of illegitimacy.

35 posted on 12/28/2012 2:18:07 AM PST by imardmd1 (An armed society is a polite society -- but dangerous for the fool --)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Salvavida

This is also why they are going online in FULL .


36 posted on 12/28/2012 2:44:14 AM PST by Biggirl ("Jesus talked to us as individuals"-Jim Vicevich/Thanks JimV!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: imardmd1

Well there are two family histories in the infancy chapters. The Gospel of Mathew’s family history is of that of Joseph’s, Mary’s is covered by the Gospel of Luke’s.


37 posted on 12/28/2012 2:48:14 AM PST by Biggirl ("Jesus talked to us as individuals"-Jim Vicevich/Thanks JimV!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Biggirl
Well there are two family histories in the infancy chapters. The Gospel of Mathew’s family history is of that of Joseph’s, Mary’s is covered by the Gospel of Luke’s.

Yes, you are right, and that has been mentioned in this thread. I have personally pored over both, and am not neglecting the Matthew account (Jesus the King of royal Hebrew lineage) but Luke's (Jesus the Son of the Human) where later on in His life the scribes and Pharisees tried to intimate that His conception was premartial, therefore a product of fornication, with perhaps the true father not known for sure.

Of course, the whole Hebrew-institutionalized process of espousal was invoked to make one's descent secure and irrefutable. It is not until our recent past that, under the gentile system, paternity could be fully and inescapably confirmed by DNA testing.

Under the Law, the methodology was given in Deuteronomy 22:13-26. The espousal was a preview of establishment of a contracted marriage, with a truly committed envowed husband and wife, but without consummation until the espousal time elapsed guaranteeing paternity, whence the validating virginity test would be conducted immediately without further contention.

Very obviously Husband Joseph would have justly been allowed to put away/divorce espoused Wife Miriam, but he yielded in faith to the Holy Ghost speaking through Gabriel, thus giving The Anointed One his legal royal title, and fatherly protection, as well as apostle brothers and loyal sisters in the future consummation of their marriage according to the will of The God: "Be fruitful and multiply!" an ordinance to not defer by rhythm or mechanical contraception, nor by unnatural continence/celibacy in marriage or abortion.

38 posted on 12/28/2012 4:12:04 AM PST by imardmd1 (An armed society is a polite society -- but dangerous for the fool --)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: imardmd1
But my position here is that Jesus' flesh had no component of her flesh -- that she was a faithful, holy host with a Christ-like yielding of her body

If that is the case - that Mary was a "holy incubator" then our Lord would have had some type of flesh that was other than human.This view (Nestorianism) of the Incarnation was condemned by the Third Ecumenical Council.

39 posted on 12/28/2012 4:44:07 AM PST by don-o (He will not share His glory and He will NOT be mocked! Blessed be the name of the Lord forever.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: don-o
If that is the case - that Mary was a "holy incubator" then our Lord would have had some type of flesh that was other than human.This view (Nestorianism) of the Incarnation was condemned by the Third Ecumenical Council.

Opinion on both sides of fallible men. God is capable of creating pure, sinless, everlasting male flesh, as he did for Adam before he fell. That I know. I also know that Miriam could not produce the seed (1st complete cell with y-chromosome) from her flesh. Let the 3rd Ecumenical Council struggle with that. But The God could produce Eve from Adam's flesh, removing the y-chromosome in every single cell in her body. She was an Eve, not a Steve.

Carry your thought a little further than the catechismal box which attempts to put humanistic boundaries on The Omniscient, Omnipotent God from simplistic reasoning without spiritual discernment, even contradicting His Holy Scriptures -- trying to push back original sin one generation by the quasilogical but human-reasoned "immaculate conception." That is just making Miriam's mother a "holy incubator" also.

Come on. You'll just have to face the idea that the early divines lacked the further insight lent by discovery of the method by which The God designed replication of Adam's flesh -- the science of meiosis, mitosis, and genetics. Their conclusions are not Spirit-given -- just unworkable hypothecation.

Better yet, how would you come up with the source of His uncorruptible Holy Blood (red blood cells have no DNA, if that is what is in His Blood). I firmly believe all of that Blood is now placed on the True Heavenly Mercyseat, never to die or corrupt, a precious life-giving sin-washing substance continually providing reconciliation. Was that Blood of Miriam? I think not, in my human reasoning, but I believe in His Person and His Blood as living forever.

40 posted on 12/28/2012 5:44:33 AM PST by imardmd1 (An armed society is a polite society -- but dangerous for the fool --)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: latina4dubya
gosh--i thought this explanation was common knowledge by now... how does Dr. Ehrman not know this?

He's going after the "low information" Christian. Shame on him.
When you sin against your brothers in this way and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. 1 Corinthians 8:12

41 posted on 12/28/2012 6:16:28 AM PST by stayathomemom (Beware of kittens modifying your posts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai; Alamo-Girl; wmfights; P-Marlowe; wagglebee
Ultimately, the only rebuttal necessary is: It’s Newsweek.

I agree about this being, "just newsweek".

However, I watched enough of John Scott's(?) piece on the birth of Jesus the other day to know that Fox News is no better. It was on liberal "scholar" after another with nary an attempt to provide the "fair and balanced" other side of the story.

Fox News should have been ashamed, but they're too busy trying to be mainstream to dirty their hands with solid, reliable, conservative scholarship.

42 posted on 12/28/2012 6:45:57 AM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! True supporters of our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: F15Eagle
Typical baloney fed from many seminary professors these days.

This is exactly why pastors coming out today do not know what they are doing. They do not teach prophesy because they are not taught it in school. They refuse to also teach it because they are afraid to scare people. Don't touch Daniel or Revelation, we might scare the old folks. People who do not know Jesus Christ better be scared. For their souls!!!

43 posted on 12/28/2012 6:49:35 AM PST by RetiredArmy (1 Cor 15: 50-54 & 1 Thess 4: 13-17. That about covers it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: RetiredArmy

Yes and many are openly hostile to prophecy. It really is quite amazing to see. I think they could fall for the Antichrist. I see many hoping for a ‘peace deal’ and ‘a two-state solution’.


44 posted on 12/28/2012 8:49:55 AM PST by F15Eagle (1 John 5:4-5, 4:15, 5:13; John 3:17-18, 6:69, 11:25, 14:6, 20:31; Rom10:8-11; 1 Tim 2:5; Titus 3:4-5)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: imardmd1; don-o
I think a good explanation is that the genealogy in Matthew is Joseph's genealogy, which would establish Jesus' legal claim to the throne of David, since, being Joseph's legal (though not biological) heir, he would legally be of the House of David.

Luke's genealogy is through Mary, and goes back to David as well, and further, goes all the way back to Adam.

Mary is the biological mother of Jesus, not just an incubator. For one thing, to be our Savior, He must be true God and true Man. To be true Man has has to actually be the Son of Man, an offspring of the human race, with real ancestors. He has to be one of us according to the flesh (Romans 1:1-3)

"Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ,
called to be an apostle,
set apart for the gospel of God,
which he promised beforehand
through his prophets in the holy scriptures,
the gospel concerning his Son,
who was descended from David
according to the flesh.
"

This fulfills the wonderful prophecy in Genesis 3:15. God says to the serpent:

"I will put enmity between you
and the Woman;
between your seed
and her seed.

He shall crush your head
And you will lie in wait for his heel."

This refers to the coming Savior, and he must be the seed of the woman. This is clearly foretold in Scripture. This is further explained by St. Paul in Galatians 4:4:

"But when the fullness of time
had come,
God sent forth His Son,
born of a Woman,
born under the law
."

Further, the Archangel Gabriel tells Mary (Luke 1:31)

"Behold, Mary,
you will "conceive in the womb
and bring forth a Son."

Conception happens when the mother's "seed" or ovum is fertilized (thereafter called a zygote or embryo) and the young embryo implants itself in his mother's womb. Mary didn't just "bear" Him, she conceived Him --- the "seed of the woman", her offspring, was Jesus --- therefore Mary was His true, bodily, genetic, biologically procreative mother.

45 posted on 12/28/2012 8:54:32 AM PST by Mrs. Don-o (May the Lord bless you, May the Lord keep you, May He turn to you His countenance and give you peace)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: NoCmpromiz
If you were around in the '70s and early '80s you might remember the cult 'The Way International' -- that's where this dude got 'ordained'. Just sayin'

Watch Rood refute the way international and his past views.

Michael Rood and his associates who come from a number of religious beliefs are making great progress in disproving the false teachings of western churchianity and rabbinical Judaism.

And FYI, I do and will continue to support the pursuit of the truth. Unless we question, evaluate, and continue to seek answers, we fall into the unquestioning religious fanatic category where it only depends on who gets to you first.

46 posted on 12/28/2012 9:10:07 AM PST by Errant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Errant
"making great progress in disproving the false teachings of western churchianity"

Always glad to see unorthodox errors refuted by the Church.

47 posted on 12/28/2012 9:32:55 AM PST by Mrs. Don-o ("The Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.” -1 Timothy 3:15)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: xzins

Fox News’ “course correction” is set in now, like fungus in a tree trunk. I don’t expect anything resembling truth out of them since Ailes announced that back in September of 2011. Enough people thought of them as having lost their objectivity when they switched from the slogan “We Report; You Decide” to “Fair and Balanced”, too, and I can’t fault them either . . .


48 posted on 12/28/2012 10:18:32 AM PST by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: F15Eagle

There will be no peace in Jerusalem or Israel until Christ’s foot touches down on the Mount of Olives. Not till. There might be moments, but not peace. God did not agree to a two state resolution. He gave the land to Israel. He will decide that in the end. I fully and 100% support Israel, but not those Arabs that call themselves by a name that never existed until the Romans called that land “Palestine.” Until that time, there had never been a county or people called that.


49 posted on 12/28/2012 10:54:43 AM PST by RetiredArmy (1 Cor 15: 50-54 & 1 Thess 4: 13-17. That about covers it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I have worked within academia for nearly forty years. The idea that scholars are objective and unbiased is totally wrong. Scholars have their own agendas and worldviews. It is important to remember that one does not advance in academia by defending traditional views. You have to find something new and controversial in order to gain notoriety. There is nothing that will call attention to yourself more than attacking traditional Christian beliefs. For those less knowledgeable of biblical scholarship, it is easy to muddy the waters with half-truths.


50 posted on 12/28/2012 12:15:03 PM PST by Nemoque
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-53 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson