[jo kus]

Our Lord Jesus called Jonah a prophet, not a story. And He verified the repentance of Nineveh to the preaching of Jonah.

And I called "Dilbert" a man, when he is a cartoon charecter...We really don't know if Christ was merely refering to a charecter in Jewish Scripture that was intended by the writer to be merely a parable. Personally, I am open to either possibility. It does not matter one way or the other whether there really was a prophet who convinced the entire capital of the Assyrians to suddenly put on sack clothes...

Are you saying the Virgin Birth didn't happen?

Of course I am not saying that!!! I am saying that science will never be able to prove anything regarding the Virgin Birth. This belief is based solely on faith.

That doesn't mean anything (age of the earth based on rock ages). It cannot be proven-only surmise. But the data from which they develop their "theory" could be flawed.

Scientists can figure out the age of materials using various means that can be duplicated over and over. Through such experimentation, they can "surmise" that a rock is a particular age. I am not aware of anything that has cast doubt on the age of the universe - at least it is over 10 billion years old. Even if science was wrong, say only one billion, that still forces us to re-consider our view on the scientific claims of the Scriptures. I personally don't think God is trying to tell us the date of the earth, but using a story, similar to a fable, that explains particular spiritual truths of His love for man and His creation of the universe out of nothing.

If I am wrong, that the earth is actually 6000 years old, how will this effect my spiritual growth and life in Christ? Frankly, it is a big ado over nothing. By refusing to countenance the earth's old age, you are merely making Christians look like foolish anti-science superstituous people. Until the evidence shows the contrary, it is more feasible to consider the creation story as a vehicle to tell God's plan of WHY He created us, and not HOW He created us.

You can't pick and choose which miracle to believe in.

Miracles still happen today - but we are not required to believe in them. Whether Scripture is relating an actual historical accounting of a miracle, or using a literary device to convey something of deeper meaning, it is not always clear. The Church does hold to particular miracles as being historical, such as the resurrection and the Virgin birth of Christ.

Interesting. Every single verse that I've brought up that has historically been interpreted as I have you question; even the statement David made about "my Lord". This was also the text our Lord Jesus referred to in support of Himself

Harley, we are on the same side here! I, too, believe that the Scriptures are pointing to the Messiah. But this takes a different approach to Scripture then a Jew would take. Quite honestly, the OT has different ideas of the Messiah. Very few people considered that he would be God or that he would suffer the death of a crinimal - or hang on a cross. A Sola Scriptura Jew would have a very difficult time coming to believe that Jesus was the Messiah without looking at the Bible from a whole different perspective. Thus, Christianity was an innovation for Jews.

Let's summarize. You don't believe in the Genesis account of creation. You've argued that the Virgin Birth could possibly be done in other ways. You denied Jonah existence even when our Lord stated he was a prophet and preached to Nineveh. And you denied a string of prophetic verses including one our Lord Jesus interpreted. What you have defended was scientists, evolutionists, and flawed teachings.

You can't seem to follow my arguments. I am not holding to any of them per sec. I am merely playing "devil's advocate", looking at Scripture from a Jew's point of view. Quite simply, you claim that Christianity was a natural succession of Judaism. That shows very little knowledge of Judaism and how they looked at Scriptures. Early Christianity had very little success among Jews. It was much more accepted by Gentiles who didn't have the Jewish paradigm.

And as usual, you place people into a little box because you see things black or white - me vs. them. We just don't know if God was intending to give a scientific lesson on how the earth was created. Evidence in nature (which God created, by the way) tells a different story. Since the Scripture is inerrant, it is YOUR reading of it that must be wrong. It must be that God DIDN'T mean to discuss the astrophysics behind how the moon was created...

I never said I didn't believe in the Virgin Birth - I said science cannot prove or disprove it. It is a statement of faith, which, as a Catholic, I accept. And nor did I deny ANY of the prophetic verses. I am saying that the JEWS did not accept them. Perhaps you should read postings more closely before you make such sweeping and false generalizations. Nowhere did I say any of the above that you claim for me.

[HarleyD]

I am saying that science will never be able to prove anything regarding the Virgin Birth. This belief is based solely on faith.

And God creating the universe in six days isn't?

If I am wrong, that the earth is actually 6000 years old, how will this effect my spiritual growth and life in Christ?

Actually I do not believe the earth is 6,000 years old and do believe the earth could very easily be billions of years old. I find this completely compatible with Genesis 1 and 2. There is simply no indication of how long Adam was in the garden. Adam could have existed millions of years. It is my personal belief things evolved around the garden. That would explain how when God told Adam that in the day he eats of the fruit, he will die, Adam knew what dying was. However I should caution you I have never read this viewpoint anywhere and it could be heretical.

By refusing to countenance the earth's old age, you are merely making Christians look like foolish anti-science superstituous people.

Believing in a virgin birth and God raising someone from the dead sounds like foolishness as well. I believe Paul said it was foolishness to the world. And, btw, you're the one who believes that bread and wine gets changed to flesh and blood.

You can't seem to follow my arguments. I am not holding to any of them per sec. I am merely playing "devil's advocate",

Oops...that's the wrong side, jokus. Come back to the light.... :O)

Early Christianity had very little success among Jews. It was much more accepted by Gentiles who didn't have the Jewish paradigm.

And this is where we differ with our soteriology. God isn't interested in numbers. The number of Jews who were converted don't matter. Neither do the Gentiles. You look at it like it wasn't "successful". I look at it as God brought in the right people at the right time. There isn't anyone of His sheep that He lost.

I am saying that the JEWS did not accept them.

Of course the Jews accepted them; at least those who accepted God by faith. They became Christians. The others have no faith and, as we know, it is God who gives us our faith.

[Forest Keeper]

Miracles still happen today - but we are not required to believe in them.

You are if you want to make someone a saint! :) This happens all the time, so you must hold many recent miracles as genuine.

I never said I didn't believe in the Virgin Birth - I said science cannot prove or disprove it. It is a statement of faith, which, as a Catholic, I accept.

Since they did not have in vitro technology, why can't science disprove a virgin birth 2000 years ago?