Conception

[Cubes]

Hi RR:  I've finished reading the article.  There are aspects of it which may require further study but I have a general understanding of what the author proposes.  It made for a restless night, I must admit.  

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?

The scriptural passage establishes well that Joseph had a problem with Mary's pregnancy because obviously he thought her unfaithful and moreover carrying SOMEONE ELSE'S Child.  Just to be on the safe path, we do not need to subscribe to non-biblical tradition to expound on his reasonings here as it can not be deduced anywhere from scripture (unlike the deductions on HOW two people could be related as cousins in the case of Elisabeth and Mary).

I also wonder why God just didn't wait for them to be first married!  He could break in on the honeymoon and have Gabriel speak to both of them, if not just Joseph (Genesis 18), and bypass this whole anguish that Joseph now had to be talked out of in a dream!  Why the elaborate going around technique of FIRST visiting the genealogically insignificant betrothed PRIOR to her marriage, to the genealogically significant JOSEPH upon whom the SON OF MAN establishes his identity! Then have Joseph told after the fact, meanwhile, he is the one carrying the genes.  Something doesn't add up there in our interpretation.

In the genealogy, I have noticed since yesterday that other translations note “Heli” as “Eli” so he does appear to be male.  How's that possible exactly… could it be Joseph's dad and his mother's father?

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. )

You are right.  My mistake.  I have since found out that a manger is portable, more of a trough than a spacious enclosure.  I guess that would be a barn or stable!  Oh well, I guess I have looked at one too many christmas card pictures!  It's good to be corrected though.  It would appear then that a manger could be brought near to Mary indeed, wherever she was.

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.  

I didn't say they hastened to get married there (unless I said so elsewhere), but that she hastened to leave her new husband as it is not the way of newly weds.

I am in agreement that the angel Gabriel's news would be a strong motivator to go visit Elisabeth, with whom she now had something very special in common, and yes, Elisabeth was in hiding.  I am happy to note in the reading that the author also agrees that Elisabeth affirms that Mary was pregnant at the time.

What remains to be established on your side is that they were married at this t
ime, and that Mary had left behind her husband.  The author states that Elisabeth had said nothing about Mary conceiving out of wedlock…. well, Elisabeth knows all about God, angels, miracles (for she was carrying a miracle child herself at an old age) and about Messiah, her Lord, so I believe that it wouldn't have been that difficult to believe in an immaculate conception anymore than that Joseph had sired a child.  So that in and of itself doesn't tell us anything for or against Mary's marital status, except the important fact that Mary was at that time pregnant.  

I must also say that in Mary's song, she affirmed that Christ is from the House of David and was in a position to know that for a fact through the genealogies, perhaps more so than any other person outside of Christ.  She doesn't mention Joseph though at this time.

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’?”

 I would resort to my previous understandings of these verses until proven otherwise, in that, it is not uncommon for guardians to be considered as parents out of regard.  Single parents do it all the time, as do adoptive parents, etc.  A biological parent and relatives out of regard would promote and uphold such regard for the child and say, “your mother” or “your father” when addressing an adoptive parent.

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 birth 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

What I have gathered from reading the article is that one way or another, the Christ must be genetically related to King David to establish the prophecies.  We find that the genealogical records feature Joseph and not Mary, and this must be honestly resolved as it is obviously important for the scriptures to have made the information so amply available.  I see that as the biggest question that we (believers in the virgin birth must answer).

On the other hand, those who believe that Joseph sired our Lord also have other questions as I and others have raised to answer.  Jesus repeatedly referred to God as his Father, and to my knowledge, to no other person.  While it is true that the Israelites considered God to be their Father, so did they acknowledge Abraham and the patriach's.  Jesus acknowledges David by answering to “Son of David” but also did clearly show through the scriptures that he is the Lord of David.  When I hear the words of Messiah, I hear someone who considers YHWH to be his literal Father as opposed to any other.

On the one hand, I am pulled by the prophecies and genealogical records and on the other, I have the dialogue between Mary and Gabriel and the dream of Joseph asking him to take Mary …. as pertaining to the patriachal parentage of Christ.  I am also pulled even more strongly by Christ's own relationship with his Father and the scriptures that speak of his origins… being the eternal life that was with the Father, and that for right now, takes precedence over the earthly things so until I can understand those things….  Jesus said to Nicodemus, John 3:12  If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things? 13 No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man *who is in heaven. And folks, I feel like old Nicodemus right about now.  I only know that … we know that You are a teacher come from God; for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him.”

Nothing is impossible with God.  Whether through Joseph or directly, it is for certain that he sired his Son by his own spirit and that Christ is his express image.  That makes Christ his only begotten son and so giving us the same hope that we through him, can be the sons of God, as “Seeking Scripture” posted in the God's Family thread.    

I don't see either as being impossible for God.  Do you?

[Ramblinrose]

Cubes

Quote

I didn't say they hastened to get married there (unless I said so elsewhere), but that she hastened to leave her new husband as it is not the way of newly weds.

Sorry, my error, my apologies for quoting you wrong.

[Is 1:18]

Quote (kenrch @ July 15 2006,15:13)

Is, Is, Is.  I said I have a very deep relationship with Jesus.

How? What is the BASIS for your relationship with Jesus Ken? It's not a difficult question to answer, I think. Why are you being evasive?

Quote

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!

He he….it's a good thing you know me and my background so well before you made this personal assessment of me. FYI, I am a non-denominational christian, and have been for about half my life.

Quote

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.

No need for this Ken. Let's try and keep personal attacks out of our dialogue.

[Ramblinrose]

Hi Cubes

Quote

Jesus repeatedly referred to God as his Father, and to my knowledge, to no other person.  While it is true that the Israelites considered God to be their Father, so did they acknowledge Abraham and the patriach's.  Jesus acknowledges David by answering to “Son of David” but also did clearly show through the scriptures that he is the Lord of David.  When I hear the words of Messiah, I hear someone who considers YHWH to be his literal Father as opposed to any other.

Apart from the birth passages and the event when he was 12 years old, I don’t recall anything else being mentioned about his family life.  I have already commented that it would appear that Joseph was deceased also.  It would therefore not seem unusual that his father is not spoken of.  Also, apart from the time that Mary came with the family to get him, as they thought he was nuts, and being at his death on the cross, he does not speak of Mary either.  She is referred to only by the writers.

Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are writings about the life of Yahshua the Messiah.  But these writings mainly concentrate on his life from the time he started his ministry at the age of 30.  Yahshua was given the spirit without limit.  He had the deepest spititual relationship I believe any person is able to have with God.  This relationship and his vast knowledge and understanding of God have kept him focused on the job at hand, and have also created a bond between himself and YHWH.  He and YHWH were spiritually ‘one’ and this relationship enabled him to speak of God as his ‘father’.  It is a spiritual relationship but much much stronger for him due to his role as the Messiah.  But Yahshua also spoke of God being our Father and asked us to pray to ‘our Father’.  

Quote

I am in agreement that the angel Gabriel's news would be a strong motivator to go visit Elisabeth, with whom she now had something very special in common, and yes, Elisabeth was in hiding.  I am happy to note in the reading that the author also agrees that Elisabeth affirms that Mary was pregnant at the time. What remains to be established on your side is that they were married at this time, and that Mary had left behind her husband.  The author states that Elisabeth had said nothing about Mary conceiving out of wedlock…. well, Elisabeth knows all about God, angels, miracles (for she was carrying a miracle child herself at an old age) and about Messiah, her Lord, so I believe that it wouldn't have been that difficult to believe in an immaculate conception anymore than that Joseph had sired a child.  So that in and of itself doesn't tell us anything for or against Mary's marital status, except the important fact that Mary was at that time pregnant.

 

Luke 1:39 39 ¶ And Mary arose in those days, and went into the hill country with haste (4710), into a city of Juda;

4710. spoudh spoude spoo-day’; from 4692; “speed”, i.e. (by implication) despatch, eagerness, earnestness:—business, (earnest) care(-fulness), diligence, forwardness, haste.

The words ‘in those days’ does not reflect an urgency and as can be seen above, haste can be translated as ‘eagerness’ and this would not be out of keeping with the meaning of the verse.

The writings do not say when a wedding took place.  It is therefore left up to either party to decide this for themselves.  I prefer to believe that they married before she left to visit Elizabeth.  

Quote

…so I believe that it wouldn't have been that difficult to believe in an immaculate conception…

The belief that Gods fathered children was one of pagan belief not Jewish.  The Messiah was to be a normal human being from the seed of David and the Tribe of Judah through his sons.  This would come about when the fullness of time had come.  I believe the time had come when Yahshua was born.  
In Genesis it speak of ‘The Sons of God coming into the daughters of men’.  This is said to be Angels having sexual relations with human beings.  From other writings in the bible it shows that these angels had gone against God and were punished.

Quote

Jesus acknowledges David by answering to “Son of David” but also did clearly show through the scriptures that he is the Lord of David.

Yahshua is David’s Lord as he is the Messiah and future King.  He holds a position above that of David.

Quote

Nothing is impossible with God.  Whether through Joseph or directly, it is for certain that he sired his Son by his own spirit and that Christ is his express image.  That makes Christ his only begotten son and so giving us the same hope that we through him, can be the sons of God, as “Seeking Scripture” posted in the God's Family thread.     I don't see either as being impossible for God.  Do you?

Luke 1:37  For with God nothing shall be impossible.
This verse is referring to the verse before it:
Luke 1:36  And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.   37  For with God nothing shall be impossible.

The following verses using that same phrase are in regard to who can be saved.

Matthew 19:26  But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.
Luke 18:27  And he said, The things which are impossible with men are possible with God.

I only wish to point out that this phrase has never been used in relation to the birth of Yahshua.

YHWH has spoken through the prophets as to how we will know the true Son of God, the Messiah, our future King.  Do you believe that the current Christian understanding of the birth passages is a fulfilment of these prophecies?

[Cubes]

Quote (Ramblinrose @ July 16 2006,07:31)

Hi Cubes … Quote …so I believe that it wouldn't have been that difficult to believe in an immaculate conception… The belief that Gods fathered children was one of pagan belief not Jewish.  The Messiah was to be a normal human being from the seed of David and the Tribe of Judah through his sons.  This would come about when the fullness of time had come.  I believe the time had come when Yahshua was born.   In Genesis it speak of ‘The Sons of God coming into the daughters of men’.  This is said to be Angels having sexual relations with human beings.  From other writings in the bible it shows that these angels had gone against God and were punished. Quote Jesus acknowledges David by answering to “Son of David” but also did clearly show through the scriptures that he is the Lord of David. Yahshua is David’s Lord as he is the Messiah and future King.  He holds a position above that of David. Quote Nothing is impossible with God.  Whether through Joseph or directly, it is for certain that he sired his Son by his own spirit and that Christ is his express image.  That makes Christ his only begotten son and so giving us the same hope that we through him, can be the sons of God, as “Seeking Scripture” posted in the God's Family thread.     I don't see either as being impossible for God.  Do you? Luke 1:37  For with God nothing shall be impossible. This verse is referring to the verse before it: Luke 1:36  And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.   37  For with God nothing shall be impossible. The following verses using that same phrase are in regard to who can be saved. Matthew 19:26  But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible. Luke 18:27  And he said, The things which are impossible with men are possible with God. I only wish to point out that this phrase has never been used in relation to the birth of Yahshua. YHWH has spoken through the prophets as to how we will know the true Son of God, the Messiah, our future King.  Do you believe that the current Christian understanding of the birth passages is a fulfilment of these prophecies?

Hi RR:

I wish to correct the username of member, “SCRIPTURE SEEKER.”  I had it reversed.  Sorry, dude.

By mentioning that nothing is impossible for God I only meant  to encourage and remind myself of who he is in everything, you know, that he is God of the hills and God of the valleys and depths also, and he can perform his will by any means he chooses.  If we understand that, I believe we can more easily go where he leads.

1 Kings 20:28 Then a man of God came and spoke to the king of Israel, and said, “Thus says the Lord: 'Because the Syrians have said, “The Lord is God of the hills, but He is not God of the valleys,” therefore I will deliver all this great multitude into your hand, and you shall know that I am the Lord.'”

I personally believe that the case for the prophesy and genealogies is a strong one.  Most who name the name of Christ agree that the Son of God/Son of Man, our Lord  Messiah, must come from Adam, be the Second Adam and be related genetically to King David in such a way as to also rightfully be an heir to the Throne.  That is just to be accepted and any attempt to get away from that is kicking against the goads which my legs are too little to do that and I am not going to.

On the One Hand:

[Cubes]

Regarding the Luke 3 genealogy that ends with Heli/Eli being the supposed son of Joseph.

Luke 3:23 Now Jesus Himself began His ministry at about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, the son of Heli,

Again, Most of us have believe(d) that Heli/Eli is the father of Mary and so the father-in-law of Joseph.  Earlier in the discussion I speculated that he could be Joseph's grandfather (i.e. his mother's dad).

To further SPECULATE on how Joseph would have two male parents listed on either side of the genealogy, it is possible that Joseph's own father was Jacob (Matthew 1), thereby making him the rightful heir to the throne of David, but that Jacob died early leaving grandfather Heli to be the guardian and father figure in Joseph's life.  That would make him genetically related to the patriachs in both genealogies… and make him son of Jacob as well as son of Heli.

[NickHassan]

Quote (Ramblinrose @ July 16 2006,02:31)

Hi Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are writings about the life of Yahshua the Messiah.  But these writings mainly concentrate on his life from the time he started his ministry at the age of 30.  Yahshua was given the spirit without limit.  He had the deepest spititual relationship I believe any person is able to have with God.  This relationship and his vast knowledge and understanding of God have kept him focused on the job at hand, and have also created a bond between himself and YHWH.  He and YHWH were spiritually ‘one’ and this relationship enabled him to speak of God as his ‘father’.  It is a spiritual relationship but much much stronger for him due to his role as the Messiah.  But Yahshua also spoke of God being our Father and asked us to pray to ‘our Father’.

Hi RR,
We know that to whom we are obedient shows who our father is, as Jesus showed to the Pharisees that Satan was theit true father.
But is this the ONLY way you see Jesus being a Son of God??

Why would you place so much emphasis on the sonship of Jesus to David
and yet so little on
Jesus being the Son of God??

[NickHassan]

Quote (Is 1:18 @ July 15 2006,02:43)

Quote (t8 @ July 15 2006,01:19) Correction. God made all things through Yahshua. Who is described in Psa 102:25?

Hi Is 1.18,
Yes it is Yahshua and all things were made through him.

Buit this is not evidence of a secret code, that only the clever will spot, that Jesus is his own Father though is it?

[NickHassan]

Hi Is 1.18,
Surely you do agree that Jesus is truly the Son of God?

Do you still think it is another title for God, or part of God?

[NickHassan]

Hi,
What does “immaculate conception” mean?
It is another catholic vocab word that implies human conception is dirty and Jesus could have had no part in it being of pure and perfect nature, a new creation, God Himself, placed in the womb of Mary.
Does anyone agree this is all the truth?.

[kenrch]

Quote (Is 1:18 @ July 16 2006,02:31)

Quote (kenrch @ July 15 2006,15:13) Is, Is, Is.  I said I have a very deep relationship with Jesus.   How? What is the BASIS for your relationship with Jesus Ken? It's not a difficult question to answer, I think. Why are you being evasive? Quote 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! He he….it's a good thing you know me and my background so well before you made this personal assessment of me. FYI, I am a non-denominational christian, and have been for about half my life. Quote 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. No need for this Ken. Let's try and keep personal attacks out of our dialogue.

How? What is the BASIS for your relationship with Jesus Ken? It's not a difficult question to answer, I think. Why are you being evasive?

*How about love! He gave Himself for me. No greater friend does a man have. Who is being evasive? I told you Jesus is my Saviour and that I have a very deep relationship with Jesus. You are trying to make much out of nothing.

He he….it's a good thing you know me and my background so well before you made this personal assessment of me. FYI, I am a non-denominational christian, and have been for about half my life.

*I'm not attacking you. You do think that Jesus is God the Father, don't you? And that God the Father is His Son. If not then I apologize. But you admit being confused when you say you believe in the Catholic doctrine. How do you describe someone who says that his father is his son? You think you are “non-denominational” but you adhere to Catholic doctrine. The Trinity is a Catholic doctrine, is it not? These are not attacks but just (the way I understand ) your standing. There is nothing personal about this conversion that you started. We fight against the prince of the power of the air not each other.

No need for this Ken. Let's try and keep personal attacks out of our dialogue.

*Again this is not personal. If you believe that the Father is the Son and the Son the Father then you certainly aren't seeing very clearly. Like the church that the Trinity doctrine belongs too you like to make things diffi-cult. The Mother of the Trinty dresses in long robes said their “mass” in a dead language has prayer beeds. You by believing the Trinty are sumitting to the Mother of Harlots. It's still simple. But you can't see because you like things difficult. God is not the author of confusion. I say again if you think that the Father is the Son and the Son is the Father then Jesus when praying to His father according to your doctrine Jesus prayed to Himself. Isn't the Trinty doctrine confusing that's why the Catholics have called their confusion a “Mystery”.

[NickHassan]

Hi RR,
You say;
“The belief that Gods fathered children was one of pagan belief not Jewish.  The Messiah was to be a normal human being from the seed of David and the Tribe of Judah through his sons.  This would come about when the fullness of time had come.  I believe the time had come when Yahshua was born.  
In Genesis it speak of ‘The Sons of God coming into the daughters of men’.  This is said to be Angels having sexual relations with human beings.  From other writings in the bible it shows that these angels had gone against God and were punished.”

Yes Jesus was like to us “according to the flesh”
But he was more to him than flesh and he partook of that flesh
God damned angels for going beyond their appointed dominion.
But would you apply rules to God about how He should relate to His creation?

[NickHassan]

Hi Is1.18,
These words do not denote just eternality but are aligned with ROLE surely.
God did not need to be enthroned till He had a created dominion to rule.
He did not always redeem Israel but only after He had created Israel.

[Proclaimer]

I have read some posts here, mainly from Cubes in which RR is quoted.

Can I just confirm that RR is saying that Joseph is the natural father of Christ, in the sense that Joesph knew his wife (or wife to be) and the result was Jesus. Then somehow Joseph forgot about the union. Did I read this correctly?

[NickHassan]

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 1.18,
What do you make of 1 Jn 4.0
“..God has sent his only begotten Son into the world”?

Surely
“only begotten” has nothing to do wih human birth
and
Yahshua was a son before he was sent?

[Is 1:18]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ July 16 2006,22:55)

Quote (Is 1:18 @ July 15 2006,02:43) Quote (t8 @ July 15 2006,01:19) Correction. God made all things through Yahshua. Who is described in Psa 102:25? Hi Is 1.18, Yes it is Yahshua and all things were made through him. Buit this is not evidence of a secret code, that only the clever will spot, that Jesus is his own Father though is it?

My point is Psalm 102:25 was written in exclusive reference to the Most High God, YHWH – and the writer of Hebrews applied it directly to Jesus. It shows that the pre-incarnate logos was the actual executor of the creation event, and is YHWH. According to the writer it is the Father Himself who personally addresses His Son as THE Creator of the cosmos!

[NickHassan]

Hi Is 1.18,
So God, the builder/creator, shows His creation work being done being through the Son?
We knew that.

[Is 1:18]

you've missed the point…..

[Is 1:18]

Quote (kenrch @ July 17 2006,01:39)

How? What is the BASIS for your relationship with Jesus Ken? It's not a difficult question to answer, I think. Why are you being evasive? *How about love! He gave Himself for me. No greater friend does a man have. Who is being evasive?  I told you Jesus is my Saviour and that I have a very deep relationship with Jesus.  You are trying to make much out of nothing.

Hi Ken,
First let me write that I think we've been unnecessarily umnpleasant to eachother over the last few days, and I apologise for my part in that. I think initially you may have mistaken my hurriedly-written posts for aggressive confrontation. I haven't had big windows of time to write contemplative posts with all the niceties. I was intending to sit down on Sat night and write at a measured pace, but then my wife rented 'King Kong'. King Kong is a 3 hour movie.

Okay, with regard to your point above. I disagree that you do have a relationship. Surely this would involve a two-way interaction, communication or some sort. But if you withhold prayed to Yahshua, where is the interaction? You say that the basis is “love” but you can love your car, but it's not possible to have a relationship with it. To my mind 'love' is the outworking of a relationship with Yahshua – not the basis for the relationship itself.

How can you love someone and never tell them so?

Quote

He he….it's a good thing you know me and my background so well before you made this personal assessment of me. FYI, I am a non-denominational christian, and have been for about half my life. *I'm not attacking you.  You do think that Jesus is God the Father, don't you?  And that God the Father is His Son. If not then I apologize.

 
Well I accept your apology Ken, because I have never asserted this. I am not a modalist Ken. If you want to take issue with an aspect of my theology, that's fine, but you need to be accurate in what you take issue with.

Quote

But you admit being confused when you say you believe in the Catholic doctrine.

Really? Where have a written of this confusion. Can I have a quote please?

Quote

How do you describe someone who says that his father is his son?

You would describe this person as an advocate of oneness theology or modalism.

Modalist:
\Mo”dal*ist\, n. (Theol.) One who regards Father, Son, and Spirit as modes of being, and not as persons, thus denying personal distinction in the Trinity. –Eadie. Dictionary.com

Quote

You think you are “non-denominational”  but you adhere to Catholic doctrine.

Ken, do you entirely disagree with everything catholicism teaches? Catholics affirm that there is a God. Do you disagree? I agree with some Catholic doctrines and not others. So what? We all do.

Quote

The Trinity is a Catholic doctrine, is it not?

Yes….and about 99% of all other denominations. It's a mainstream doctrine Ken. The RCC does not have exclusive ownership of it, nor did the doctrine originate from it:

“During the 11th century (the traditional date assigned is 1054, though it was in fact a gradual process over a number of decades) the Church underwent the Great Schism in which the Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodoxy divided over a number of administrative, liturgical and doctrinal issues, most notably the Filioque and papal primacy of jurisdiction. Both the Second Council of Lyons (1274) and the Council of Basel (1439) attempted to reunite the churches, but in both cases the Orthodox rejected the councils. The Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodoxy remain in schism to the present day, although efforts to end the schism are ongoing. Each church claims to be the 'one, holy, catholic and apostolic' church of the Nicene Creed. Some Eastern churches have since been reunited with the Catholic Church, acknowledging the primacy of the pope, and together form the Eastern Catholic (sometimes referred to as “Uniate”) Churches. From: Wikipedia

The doctrine itself was codified Fat the first council of Nicaea in AD 325, fully 700 years prior to the formation of the RCC denomination, as it exists today.

So your previous assertion “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.” is factually incorrect.

Quote

These are not attacks but just (the way I understand ) your standing.  There is nothing personal about this conversion that you started.  We fight against the prince of the power of the air not each other.

Hey Ken, not to make to fine a point to this, but when you start misrepresenting the views of others and then proceed to challenge the erroneous premise, you should not be surprised if they take offense. You should also not be surprised of they take offense to being called small minded etc etc. Having said all that I genuinely like you. You are one of the good guys whi is ON FIRE for Jesus (although you underestimate just Who He is IMO) and I respect your opinion, especially on matters relating to the law, which you know well.

Quote

*Again this is not personal.  If you believe that the Father is the Son and the Son the Father then you certainly aren't seeing very clearly./quote] He he…I agree, and since I don't believe this si I guess my clarity remains intact. Like the church that the Trinity doctrine belongs too you like to make things diffi-cult.  The Mother of the Trinty dresses in long robes said their “mass” in a dead language has prayer beeds.  You by believing the Trinty are sumitting to the Mother of Harlots.  It's still simple.  But you can't see because you like things difficult.

How do I make things difficult? Please be specific. As I already show, the trinity doctrine is not exclusively associated with Catholicism. It was codified centuries before the RCC was created. It actually matters very little to me w
hich denominations hold to it – to me it makes the best sense of all the biblical data we are given on the Father, Son and Spirit. I judge it on merit and it is more meritorious than the others. Simple as that really.

Quote

God is not the author of confusion.

Hmmm, I agree. But let's remember we are dealing with the infinite. Can the infinite be held hostage to a finite limitation? I don't. Seems to me that the people assume that because we are unipersonal beings, and we have only experienced unipersonality in this life, then that must apply to ALL existence, physical and metaphysical. Why? – is there a legitimate basis for this? I can't see one. After 6000+ years of existence humans don't really understand even the basic physical things like time, matter and gravity….Let the Bible speak for itself Ken, don't impose pre-suppositions on it.

Quote

I say again if you think that the Father is the Son and the Son is the Father then Jesus when praying to His father according to your doctrine Jesus prayed to Himself.

This is a really good argument Ken…..for a modalist.

Quote

Isn't the Trinty doctrine confusing that's why the Catholics have called their confusion a “Mystery”.

What the Catholics or any other denomination write is irrelevant to me.

Gotta go, take care Ken.

Is 1:18

[Proclaimer]

Quote (Is 1:18 @ July 18 2006,04:36)

What the Catholics or any other denomination write is irrelevant to me.

Except for the Trinity and interpetations of ontologies that not only Catholics adhere to, but other so-called faiths too.
http://religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=1122

You don't have to go a/the harlot church to be under the influence of Babylon. You only need follow her doctrines.

Those that love God, love his son too. Those who love his son, love the truth because Jesus is the Truth. Those that love the truth, love God.

[Author]

Posts