Conception

[Proclaimer]

LORD/Y@hovah I would assume.

[Is 1:18]

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

[Cubes]

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.

[Is 1:18]

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?

[kenrch]

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.

[Is 1:18]

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'?

[kenrch]

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.

[Is 1:18]

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.

[Is 1:18]

Going golfing…..later.

[kenrch]

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.

[Ramblinrose]

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]

[kenrch]

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.

[Ramblinrose]

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.

[Ramblinrose]

Quote (Cubes @ July 15 2006,02:55)

My speculation ASSUMES that one set of the genealogy is Mary's, perhaps the one in Luke.

Cubes

The 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.

[Cubes]

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.

[Cubes]

Quote (Ramblinrose @ July 15 2006,12:28)

Quote (Cubes @ July 15 2006,02:55)  My speculation ASSUMES that one set of the genealogy is Mary's, perhaps the one in Luke. Cubes The 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.

Thanks, RR. I realize that. Who is Heli, do you think? Joseph's mom?

A while back I tried studying these genealogies in Matt and Luke, and it was painstaking. What I noted then is that they appeared to cross over twice, I believe. It formed the mental picture of a DNA strand to me which I thought most fascinating.

I shall have to go over it again as time permits.

[Ramblinrose]

Quote (Cubes @ July 15 2006,07:49)

Thanks, RR.  I realize that.  Who is Heli, do you think?  Joseph's mom?

Hi Cubes

I do not think that Heli is female.  Women only appear to be mentioned in the geneology of Matthew when they are well known characters of the OT and then they are only mentioned alongside their husbands.

[Is 1:18]

Quote (kenrch @ July 15 2006,05:11)

Who said I ignore Jesus!

Hi Kenrch,
I wrote “….ignore Him in prayer“, which is what you do, right? There is a difference, but I don't think it amounts to much really. You chose not to communicate with Him, so yes you are ignoring him in that regard.

Quote

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.

How? The basis for most relationships is communication Kenrch, so what is the basis of your relationship with Jesus?

Quote

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.

I don't dispute Jesus' command. Although it should be noted that He was actually still on Earth when he issued it. Maybe that's significant, maybe not. Was he implying that the Father should be prayed to exclusively – i'm not so sure about that. I gave you some scripture showing why I don't think that is the case, but you apparently ignored it.

Blessings

[Ramblinrose]

Quote

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:

Good idea

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. Quote 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.

The teachings of the sages may have had great influence on the people of that time. Let us look at a couple of verses from Matthew once again.

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. But while he thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.

It is interesting to note that ‘he was only thinking about these things’.  He had taken no action and may have been pondering the teachings of the sages.  Imagine his mental anguish.  Was the child his?  Had Mary been unfaithful to him?  Could this be a miracle of God and my wife has conceived from only one intimacy?

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.   Quote 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.”

I don’t believe Mary would have left baby Yahshua anywhere.  I understand he would be in a manger close to her.  I understand the manger would be wooden and have straw for a mattress. (Was trying to copy a picture to this reply but I could not get it to work. )

Quote

I also find it difficult to believe that the two would get married and that Mary would HASTENED to leave her husband directly after.

I don’t believe they HASTENED to get married as you have said.  It is possible Mary was visited by the Angel just shortly before the final step of their marriage.  It may have only been a matter of a couple of days, perhaps even the night before.

Why did Mary go with haste to visit Elizabeth?  Maybe it was because Elizabeth had hidden herself away and nobody was aware of her pregnancy.

Luke 1: 24  And after those days his wife Elisabeth conceived, and hid herself five months.  

Perhaps she wished to visit Elizabeth to see for herself that what the Angel had said was in fact true.  It would appear that they had a very close relationship for her to stay for such a long period of time (3 months), and this very close relationship could be why she left to visit her so quickly. The joy of knowing that Elizabeth was expecting after having been barren for so long would be a powerful reason to visit her even at this time.  Her leaving after only just having consummated the marriage would also be an indication (according to the sages) that the child was in fact a miracle of God.  

Quote

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.

Joseph is mentioned, as can be seen from the following verses:

Luke 2:41  
His parents went to Jerusalem every year at the Feast of the Passover.
Luke 2:48
So when they saw Him, they were amazed; and His mother said to Him, “Son, why have You done this to us? Look, Your father and I have sought You anxiously.”
Luke 4:22  
And all bare him witness, and wondered at the gracious words which proceeded out of his mouth. And they said, Is not this Joseph‘s son?
John 1:45  
Philip found Nathanael and said to him, “We have found Him of whom Moses in the law, and also the prophets, wrote—Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.”
John 6:42  
And they said, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How is it then that He says, ‘I have come down from heaven’?”

Quote

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.

I agree, not a lot is spoken of Joseph.  I think he is last mentioned when Yahshua was left behind at the age of 12.  Did he die soon after this seeing he is never mentioned again?  This would account for only Mary being mentioned here and there in the rest of the writings.  Joseph may have been much older than Mary when they married which was common back then.  I also expect the death rate for adults through sickness back then was much higher than now.

As I have shown before, both genealogies are shown to be that of Joseph and each time in the birt
h passages it is emphasised that Joseph is of the House of David.  At a quick count his name is mentioned in the new testament about 15 times.  There are other references to him but they do not use his name.  As for Mary, at a quick count her name is said about 17 times and there are other references that do not use her name.  To be fair, not a lot is said about either of them after the birth passages.

Quote

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.

I see the NT writings as being about the Messiah.  The writings focus on Yahshua and his ministry.  The OT spoke of the one to come and how they would know the Messiah from his lineage etc.  The NT shows the fulfilment of these prophecies.

God Bless

[kenrch]

Quote (Is 1:18 @ July 15 2006,11:55)

Quote (kenrch @ July 15 2006,05:11) Who said I ignore Jesus! Hi Kenrch, I wrote “….ignore Him in prayer“, which is what you do, right? There is a difference, but I don't think it amounts to much really. You chose not to communicate with Him, so yes you are ignoring him in that regard. Quote 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. How? The basis for most relationships is communication Kenrch, so what is the basis of your relationship with Jesus? Quote 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. I don't dispute Jesus' command. Although it should be noted that He was actually still on Earth when he issued it. Maybe that's significant, maybe not. Was he implying that the Father should be prayed to exclusively – i'm not so sure about that. I gave you some scripture showing why I don't think that is the case, but you apparently ignored it. Blessings

Is, Is, Is. I said I have a very deep relationship with Jesus. You quoted Mat. 7 :21-22
Mat 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father who is in heaven.
You have to go through Jesus to get into heaven. Not everyone who says Lord lord (that's you) But he that does the will of My Father. You see everything is HIS FATHER.

Mat 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy by thy name, and by thy name cast out demons, and by thy name do many mighty works?

Mat 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
Jesus will say I never knew you who trangress the law.

Jesus said it wasn't He that did anything but the FATHER.
Joh 5:19 Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father doing: for what things soever he doeth, these the Son also doeth in like manner.

It's always those who think they are smart that Miss the simple things perhaps because they are use to people pulling the “wool over their eyes” so they naturaly think that way. The Gospel is plain and simple. There is nothing hard to understand NO MYSTERY except the mystery babylon church that started the doctrine that you adhere too.
The Catholic's started the trinty and her daughters no matter what they call themselves weather it be any of the denominations or a so called Independent obey their mother.

The Father sent Jesus. The Father didn't send Himself!

Joh 5:36 But the witness which I have is greater than that of John; for the works which the Father hath given me to accomplish, the very works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me.

Joh 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father that sent me draw him: and I will raise him up in the last day.
Joh 6:57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father; so he that eateth me, he also shall live because of me.
Joh 5:37 And the Father that sent me, he hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his form
Joh 8:16 Yea and if I judge, my judgment is true; for I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me.
Joh 8:18 I am he that beareth witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me.
Joh 12:49 For I spake not from myself; but the Father that sent me, he hath given me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.
Joh 14:24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my words: And THE WORD WHICH YE HEAR IS NOT MINE, BUT THE FATHER'S WHO SENT ME.

The Father sent His Son.
The Son said He does nothing but the Father does it all.
The words that you hear are the Father's words not the Sons.
The Father didn't send Himself !

The Father and Son are one through the Spirit. The Son prayed to the Father (the Father didn't pray to Himself) that we would be one just as He and the Father are one.
That God would be all in all. Do you understand that. God would be in everybody just as God the Father is in Jesus who, is my God because he is the only begotten of the Father and is the First among many breathern! That's ME.

You on the other hand are confused not knowing the Father from the Son. Because you were brought up with the apostate church's False doctrine of three seperate equal persons in one which is totally Pagan just as Christmas Easter resurrection on Sunday and I'm sure all the rest of the lies.
If you partake of the Mothers table then you are of the Mother harlot. Gee even that's simple!

But as I said because you have been blinded (2 Cor. 4:4) you make things diffi-cult not being able to discern the truth from the lies using your own little mind. Instead of the Mind of Christ who you profess to know.

1Co 2:16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he should instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.

[Author]

Posts