- This topic has 1,478 replies, 55 voices, and was last updated 3 years, 1 month ago by
.
- Posts
Quote (kenrch @ July 15 2006,01:35) Quote (Is 1:18 @ July 15 2006,00:50) Quote (kenrch @ July 15 2006,00:38) Jehovah has many “sons” but only one that was begotten from Him.
Hi Kenrch,
When did the begettal happan?According to the Bible, Jesus made all things in Heaven and Earth – including these sons. They are part of Yahshua's creation.
Blessings
Hi Is,I believe when the Holy Spirit overshowed Mary.
Hi again Kenrch,
A few more questions if you don't mind, so I can better understand your position. Since your understanding is that Yahshua became a son when He took on flesh, I have to wonder what you believe Yahshua was before this? Did He exist? If so, what kind of being was He then? Was He a lower class of being than the Father (before he was a Father, that is)?Blessings
HARD BALL, you guys! Good. May the Father lead us into truth and put to rest all falsehoods!
According to scripture, Joseph married Mary after his dream.
Mat 1:24 And Joseph awoke from his sleep and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took {Mary} as his wife,
Mat 1:25 but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus.Is 1:18: The Nephil in Genesis 6:4 were of `owlam (05769), so here are two extremes of the same word, and we are still in square one.
RR: I have just finished the first part (I am a slow reader). A good job to the author on showing “the Son of Man” aspect of messiah. Nothing to say here, except this:
SPECULATION: (The back burner) Concerning Mary, she COULD be related to Elisabeth thus:
Mary's father COULD be a man from Judah, marries a woman from Levi. His wife (Mary's alleged mother)
has an older brother whose daughter is Mary's cousin, Elisabeth. This would fulfill Mary's heritage of being from Judah and related to Elisabeth from Levi. But again, this is speculation and the true conclusions should be derived from scripture out of the genealogical info provided. My speculation ASSUMES that one set of the genealogy is Mary's, perhaps the one in Luke.Quote (t8 @ July 15 2006,02:51) LORD/Y@hovah I would assume.
Really? That's interesting t8.The writer of Hebrews applied the verse to Yahshua (Heb 1:10). Did you know that?
Now Is. are you trying to trick me?
I serve the God that Jesus prayed too. I go boldly before the thrown and pray to Jesus' Father and my Father. How should we pray? Jesus said pray in this manner: “OUR” Father who art in heaven. So I follow my Saviour's commands.Quote (kenrch @ July 15 2006,03:48) Now Is. are you trying to trick me? I serve the God that Jesus prayed too. I go boldly before the thrown and pray to Jesus' Father and my Father. How should we pray? Jesus said pray in this manner: “OUR” Father who art in heaven. So I follow my Saviour's commands.
Should I take from your bolded statement that it's a 'no'?Posted: July 15 2006,02:34
I was away so let me see I believe your question now is who was Jesus before he was begotten?
He was the Word John 1:1. He was the first created Rev.3:14
Through the Word Jehovah created all things Genesis 1 and Rom. 4:17.Quote (kenrch @ July 15 2006,03:48) Now Is. are you trying to trick me? I serve the God that Jesus prayed too. I go boldly before the thrown and pray to Jesus' Father and my Father. How should we pray? Jesus said pray in this manner: “OUR” Father who art in heaven. So I follow my Saviour's commands.
I see people here frequently use Matt 6:9 as a prooftext to teach that The Father must be prayed to exclusively. I'm not sure this is wise, given that there are several examples of prayer to Jesus in the NT (e.g. Acts 1:24, 25; 7:59-60, 2 Corinthians 12:8, 2 Timothy 4:18, 2 Peter 3:18, Revelation 5:11-14, Revelation 22:3, 4), we are to have fellowship (Gr. koinonia) with him (1 Cor 1:9, 1 John 1:3, 6). Krench, how do you have koinonia with Jesus, if you completely ignore him in prayer? I'm curious.I know that I will never hear these words from Jesus: “…. I NEVER KNEW YOU: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.” (Matt 7:23)
He knows me alright – He hears from me every day.
Quote (Is 1:18 @ July 15 2006,04:40) Quote (kenrch @ July 15 2006,03:48) Now Is. are you trying to trick me? I serve the God that Jesus prayed too. I go boldly before the thrown and pray to Jesus' Father and my Father. How should we pray? Jesus said pray in this manner: “OUR” Father who art in heaven. So I follow my Saviour's commands.
I see people here frequently use Matt 6:9 as a prooftext to teach that The Father must be prayed to exclusively. I'm not sure this is wise, given that there are several examples of prayer to Jesus in the NT (e.g. Acts 1:24, 25; 7:59-60, 2 Corinthians 12:8, 2 Timothy 4:18, 2 Peter 3:18, Revelation 5:11-14, Revelation 22:3, 4), we are to have fellowship (Gr. koinonia) with him (1 Cor 1:9, 1 John 1:3, 6). Krench, how do you have koinonia with Jesus, if you completely ignore him in prayer? I'm curious.I know that I will never hear these words from Jesus: “…. I NEVER KNEW YOU: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.” (Matt 7:23)
He knows me alright – He hears from me every day.
Who said I ignore Jesus! Jesus is my saviour and Lord and my God. He is God of the kingdom until He turns everything over to the Father who is His God. I have a VERY deep and personal relationship with Jesus. Like I said I just follow His commands to pray to “OUR” Father. If you want to ignore His commandment and pray to Him go right ahead. If you pray to Jesus then you are praying to the Son and NOT the Father who the Son said to pray too.t8
Quote (t8 @ July 15 2006,01:17) Quote (Ramblinrose @ July 15 2006,18:04) 1. “Origins” literally signifies a “going out,” hence a beginning or birth, and thus the verse is saying that the birth of the Messiah has been determined, or appointed, from everlasting.
To RR,If origin equals birth, then why is it so hard to accept that Jesus originated in ancient times, not after the scripture was written.
Micah 5:2 But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times. NIV or
Micah 5:2 “But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, Though you are little among the thousands of Judah, Yet out of you shall come forth to Me The One to be Ruler in Israel, Whose goings forth are from of old, From everlasting.” NKJV
I understand the highlighted area to mean that the coming was something future and that this coming has been spoken of since the beginning. Why is something ‘coming forth to him’ if it is already existing with him? I understand that you believe the ‘One to be Ruler in Israel’ is already in existence with him (God), but on close reading I don’t see that this verse indicates that. Prophecy also shows that it is a future event as shown below.
Deut 18:18-19 I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.
2 Samuel 7:12 “When your days are fulfilled and you rest with your fathers, I will set up your seed after you, who will come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom.
Quote I notice that when Anthony Buzzard, his followers, & Unitarians, preach this stuff they always slip in extra words to explain how the meaning shouldn't be taken as it is written. But extra words can easily change the intended meaning to that which itching ears want to hear. E.g., I could say “Jesus is the son of God”. If I changed the word 'the' to 'a' then the meaning has changed somewhat. If I change the meaning of 'the' to 'no', then the meaning has completely changed. Just a subtle little 2 letter word changes everything doesn't it? The above statement is rather confusing. You first infer that these writers 'add' words to change the meaning but then give examples that are 'changing' words. Not sure I understand the relevance of your statement.
Quote You slipped in the words 'has been determined', but I don't see that in the original wording. Please explain. Firstly let me say that 'I didn't slip in any words’. I have quoted a writing (a link to the article is at the base of it). Neither do I understand the writer to be doing so. I understand him to be giving an interpretation of the verse.[/quote]
Quote (Ramblinrose @ July 15 2006,01:36) Kernch Luke 2:5 apograqasyai (to be registred) (5670) sun (with) mariam (Mary) th memnhsteumenh (promised in marriage) (5772) autw (his) gunaiki (wife) oush (who was) (5752) egkuw (with child) (IGNT)
My understanding of the above would be as follows: To be registered with Mary, the one who had been promised in marriage, and was now his wife who was with child.
If Mary were not married to Joseph I understand she would enrol under her father but as she was married to Joseph she would therefore enrol under him.
Ok RR but the point is that Mary was with child BEFORE Joseph married her.Mat 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found with child of the Holy Spirit.
Luk 2:5
(ALT) to register himself with Mary, the woman having been promised to him in marriage, being pregnant.
(ASV) to enrol himself with Mary, who was betrothed to him, being great with child.
(BBE) To be put on the list with Mary, his future wife, who was about to become a mother.
(ESV) to be registered with Mary, his betrothed, who was with child.
(GW) Joseph went there to register with Mary. She had been promised to him in marriage and was pregnant.
(HCSB) to be registered along with Mary, who was engaged to him and was pregnant.
(ISV) He went there to be registered with Mary, who had been promised to him in marriage and was pregnant.
(KJV+) To be taxed583 with4862 Mary3137 his846 espoused3423 wife,1135 being5607 great with child.1471
(KJV-1611) To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.
(KJVA) To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.
(MRC) to be enrolled together with Miriam, his betrothed, who was pregnant.
(Murdock) with Mary his espoused, then pregnant, to be enrolled.
(WEB) to enroll himself with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him as wife, being pregnant.
Quote (kenrch @ July 15 2006,05:45) Ok RR but the point is that Mary was with child BEFORE Joseph married her. One was considered to be married at betrothal. The following article may be of assistance.
Quote Quote from: http://www.mechon-mamre.org/jewfaq/marriage.htm The Torah provides very little guidance with regard to the procedures of a marriage….
Mishnah Kiddushin 1,1 specifies that a woman is acquired (i.e., to be a wife) in three ways: through money, a contract, and sexual intercourse. Ordinarily, all three of these conditions are satisfied, although only one is necessary to effect a binding marriage……
The process of marriage occurs in two distinct stages: kiddushin (commonly translated as betrothal) and nisuin (full-fledged marriage). Kiddushin occurs when the woman accepts the money, contract, or sexual relations offered by the prospective husband. The word “kiddushin” comes from the root Qof-Dalet-Shin, meaning sanctified. It reflects the sanctity of the marital relation. However, the root word also connotes something that is set aside for a specific (sacred) purpose, and the ritual of kiddushin sets aside the woman to be the wife of a particular man and no other.
Kiddushin is far more binding than an engagement as the term is understood in modern customs of the West. Once the kiddushin is completed, the woman is legally the wife of the man. The relationship created by kiddushin can only be dissolved by death or divorce. However, the spouses do not live together at that time, and the mutual obligations created by the marital relationship do not take effect until the nisuin is complete.
The nisuin (from a word meaning elevation) completes the process of marriage. The husband brings the wife into his home and they begin their married life together.
In the past, the kiddushin and nisuin would routinely occur as much as a year apart. During that time, the husband would prepare a home for the new family….
And further – from the essential talmud by adin steinsaltz. pg 130“talmudic law establishes the when a man and woman decide to wed, the man need only say to the woman, in the presence of two witnesses(who establish the legality of the occasion not through testimony but as part of the essence of the ceremony), the she has now become his wife through on of the accepted forms of marriage–symbolic handing over of money, written guarantee, or sexual intercourse. when the act takes place with the concurrence of both parties, a marriage has occurred.
Quote (Cubes @ July 15 2006,02:55) My speculation ASSUMES that one set of the genealogy is Mary's, perhaps the one in Luke.
CubesThe geneologies shown in Mark and Luke differ but in one area they do not. They both show they are the geneology of Joseph.
Luke 3:23-26 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, …
Matthew 1:15-16 And Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob; And Jacob begat Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
Again, it is only speculation to say that one is of Mary.
Hi RR: I am using this method to note my comments/questions as I read because I forget them when I go too far ahead:
Quote 3. The Sages teach that a woman never becomes pregnant on the first intimacy except by a miracle of HaShem. So for Mary to have conceived on the first intimacy would be considered a miracle. Whilst I am not a follower of the teachings of various Rabbis, the point brought forward in the following may have been a common belief of that time. Yevamoth 34a Surely, no woman conceives from the first contact!
Midrash Rabbah – Genesis XLV:4 AND HE WENT IN UNTO HAGAR, AND SHE CONCEIVED (XVI, 4). R. Levi b. Haytha said: She became pregnant through the first intimacy. R. Eleazar said: A woman never conceives by the first intimacy.
I believe that a polling of young women would overwhelmingly show that this is not uncommon. In any case, all life is from God so this is not a valid point IMO.
Quote Mary could still be from the House of David if, for example, Elizabeth’s mother and Mary’s mother were sisters and Mary’s mother married into the House of David and Elizabeth’s Mother married into the House of Aaron the problem is solved. But why are the records so quiet about the house of Mary yet repeatedly state that Joseph is from the House of David? The reason is because even if Mary was from the House of David she carries an egg (ovum) and not a seed and the Messiah is to come from the ‘seed of David’ – through his sons – lineage is always through the fathers. Therefore, knowing which house Mary is from is irrelevant. (See The Seed Argument) Just came across the above in my reading (from the link), second chapter, and thought to share it due to my own speculation earlier on in the thread. I went with an older brother, younger sister relationship of Mary's supposed mom and uncle leading to Mary's relationship with the much older Elisabeth, who is noted to be of the daughters of Aaron.
Quote Was Yahshua born in a stable? The word stable is never used in the whole of the NT. I believe that Mary and Joseph travelled to Bethlehem and stayed with relatives. They stayed in the guest chamber and placed Yahshua in a manger when he was born, as they had no other place to put their newborn son. A manger with soft straw as a mattress would suffice as a small cot for a baby. Point noted regarding scripture not mentioning stable. Still, I seriously doubt that Mary would leave her newborn in a Manger while staying in a “guest chamber.” Most new mothers that I know are quite protective of their young, even wildlife. So my belief is that she was living in the manger too, probably with Joseph. In America at least, a nursery is often prepared before many babies are born and they get to have their own room. However, in many other countries, newborns and infants get to stay in the same room as their mothers… for one thing, they nurse and are breast fed and require frequent changing and the close proximity helps; it also fosters bonding IMO; and not many people can afford the extra room or prefer it in the case of their newborn. Barring any scriptures or definite Hebrew customs to the contrary, I see no reason to think Jewish mothers would not have their newborns nearer to them.
Quote Matt 1:19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not wanting to make her a public example, was minded to put her away secretly. This would have to be one of the most puzzling verses of the birth records. Hadn’t Mary told Joseph of the visit from the Angel? If Joseph knew of the visit why would he want to put her away? It would appear that Mary told nobody – why not? Bearing that in mind let us continue.
Mary returns from visiting Elizabeth after a period of three months and Joseph finds she is with child. He had only consummated the marriage before she left and he has been taught that no women conceives on their first intimacy except by a miracle of God. Has Mary been unfaithful to him? He is considering divorcing her when an Angel appears to him in a dream.
- Yeah, it would seem unusual that Mary shouldn't mention the angelic visit, unless of course she was instructed not to. Perhaps the author address that point later on.
- I also find it difficult to believe that the two would get married and that Mary would HASTENED to leave her husband directly after.
- And I find it hard to believe that Joseph, the man that he is, would FORGET that he consummated his marriage and rather jump to the worse conclusion, removing his involvement so completely in the matter. One has to patch that hole with the first contact miracle pregnancy thing, which is not scripture and not provable that Joseph did believe that.
- Lastly for now, I strongly agree that Christ must be related genetically to King David according to scripture and that Joseph appears to be the one most obviously shown to be connected to the Davidic lineage.
What is of interest though is that, when it comes to speaking of Christ's parents, the scriptures almost always point to his heavenly Father and not to Joseph; secondly, emphasis is made of Mary, his mother, than of Joseph his father. For someone who is not, excuse me to say, genealogically speaking…relevant, she features BIG in his life more so than he. Wasn't it Abraham to whom God first spoke about having a son? Then again, he sought the LORD for an heir.
Still, since Joseph would be the link to David, is it not reasonable to expect more of his involvement in his life? Instead, it wasn't till he thought about putting away Mary did he even get let in on the whole deal by God. While Joseph is emphasized in the genealogy, Mary is more so emphasized in his life.
In contrast, the patriachs featured largely in the lives of their sons, not their mothers. e.g. Abraham and Isaac (as opposed to Sarah and Isaac), David and Solomon (as opposed to Bathsheba and Solomon). Jacob and the twelve as opposed to their mothers and them…. an exception may be Rebecca and Jacob, but even then, Isaac was very close to his intended heir, Esau, but for the selling of his birthright, prophecies and what have yous.
That's all for now.
)
