- This topic has 1,478 replies, 55 voices, and was last updated 2 years, 9 months ago by
.
- Posts
Hi Malcolm,
Paul makes it plain in 1Cor 7 that married people have a responsibility to satify the needs of the other. Animals respond to odours and pheromones and do not get to think about reproduction surely.Jesus is only of the dust if he is of Mary. A new creation of God is not of the dust.
Quote Jesus is only of the dust if he is of Mary. A new creation of God is not of the dust. I was unaware of that rule, where is it stated in the bible?
I read that Adam was of the dust – a creation of God.
Jesus body was of the dust, He was of God, not of God and Mary…Hi Malcolm,
We know from scripture that the body of Adam was dust, into which was blown the breath of God[gen 2.7]
We do not know from scripture what you state, that the body of Jesus was a newly created one, and we do not know that it was in any way from dust. To state that he is still from the dust is to lack basis in scripture surely?If Jesus was conceived in Mary, like John was in Elizabeth, then we know that he is indeed from the dust through Mary.
We know from scripture that the new birth is a new creation. It is a creation patterned after the image of the second Adam. He is also said to be the firstfruits from among the dead, we being the dead (dead in trespasses and sin). The firsborn among many brethren, which we are a part of the many, who are conformed to his image, by a spiritual rebirth.
ROMANS 11:16
For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches.Who is the firstfruit spoken of here? It is Christ who was made out of the lump of Israel.
So does that mean we are saved by Jewish blood?
Of course not – we are saved by the blood of God (Acts 20:28).
Now when we say the 'blood of' it is referring to life stream – lineage.
Jesus was the blood of God, the son of God, the seed of God.
Jesus' lineage is the Spirit of God.LUKE 2:48-29
And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing.
And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?Jesus was the Word, the Truth, the Light, the Life of God expressed in a son. He always corrected the error – so clearly he was not the son of Joseph – he corrects that error right here. Mary was his mother, as any woman that carries the child and bears it into the world is called the birth mother.
That he was the son of God and not of God and Mary is made very clear in the scriptures.
Hi Malcolm,
I agree with much of what you say. But I believe the most important sonship of Christ and the most attacked, was in the beginning, not the stable.
1Cor 15.39
'All flesh is not the same, but there is one flesh or men, and another flesh of beasts..”15.20
“But now Christ has been raised , the firstfruits of those who are asleep. For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection from the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive”
15.44
“it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body”
15.49
And just as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly”
15.46
“However the spiritual is not first but the natural; then the spiritual. The first man is from the earth, earthy. The second man is from heaven”As I read it Jesus was like us, a natural earthy man as the natural is first. All men are of the same flesh. So he too was like the first man.
He, like us, was sown a natural body and was raised and has now a spiritual body. We are raised to immediately have a spiritual body but before he was taken to heaven his was still the old one.
The man from heaven is Jesus on his return and does not directly relate to his first visit to earth, though he came from heaven then too. It relates to his new physical spiritual body such as we will have and we will be like to him, when we are raised.
Quote (Nick Hassan @ May 18 2006,03:42) Hi Malcolm,
I agree with much of what you say. But I believe the most important sonship of Christ and the most attacked, was in the beginning, not the stable.
1Cor 15.39
'All flesh is not the same, but there is one flesh or men, and another flesh of beasts..”15.20
“But now Christ has been raised , the firstfruits of those who are asleep. For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection from the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive”
15.44
“it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body”
15.49
And just as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly”
15.46
“However the spiritual is not first but the natural; then the spiritual. The first man is from the earth, earthy. The second man is from heaven”As I read it Jesus was like us, a natural earthy man as the natural is first. All men are of the same flesh. So he too was like the first man.
He, like us, was sown a natural body and was raised and has now a spiritual body. We are raised to immediately have a spiritual body but before he was taken to heaven his was still the old one.
The man from heaven is Jesus on his return and does not directly relate to his first visit to earth, though he came from heaven then too. It relates to his new physical spiritual body such as we will have and we will be like to him, when we are raised.
Amen to that. Jesus Christ came in the flesh.
As to the statement of Paul's : that which is natural is first – after that which is natural.
We must bear in mind the context upon which he makes this statement.
He is addressing the question as to 'how are the dead raised and what body do they have?'So in relation to that question – the natural body comes before the spiritual.
And the sons of God are sown first in a natural body which is raised in a spiritual.However – in the universal sense there were celestial bodies long before any earthly bodies appeared in my humble opinion.
For there existed a heavenly host before the earth we live in was formed – I believe.Quote (Nick Hassan @ July 06 2006,10:46) Hi semmy,
Here is a thread on the conception of Jesus.
Hi RR:I have started reading the article at the link you provided. And so far so good, but I came across the explanation given for Micah 5:2 and thought that the reasoning that Christ has roots going back to Adam is wobbly as the same is true for all mankind. Anyway, back to the link!
http://www.geocities.com/oneseekinglight/virginbirth#Item1
Quote 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.” (Yahshua’s roots go all the way back through David and Abraham to Adam)
Cubes
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)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. In contrast to the Messiah who had an origin, the true God is without origin.
2. The ancient Jews read this verse and realized that it spoke of the birth and birthplace of the Messiah. One of the few things the Jews at the time of Jesus did understand about the Messiah was that he would be born in Bethlehem (Matt. 2:3-6). Yet of the Jews who read, studied, and understood the verse, there is no record that any of them concluded from the wording that Jesus had to be “God incarnate.”
3. The context of Micah makes it clear that the “ruler” from Bethlehem will not be God. This ruler will be born, and have “brothers.” No Jew ever thought God could be born, and the thought of the Creator of the Heavens and earth having brothers was absurd to them. These verses are speaking of God’s anointed king, and the Word declares, not that this ruler will be God, but rather that Yahweh will be “his God” (v. 4). Thus, this text of Micah is clear: a child will be born in Bethlehem and the Israelites will be his brothers, but he will grow up to deliver and rule the nation and stand in the strength of Yahweh his God.
Morgridge, p. 120
Racovian Catechism, pp. 69-71
From the Book – One God & One Lord
Micah 5:2On the link: http://www.geocities.com/oneseekinglight/virginbirth#Item1
I found this:
“5 to be registered with Mary, his betrothed wife, who was with child
Reinterpretation:
to be registered with Mary, who was promised in marriage, his wife, being large with child. (using IGNT)
The above reinterpretation indicates that Mary and Joseph had married before their trip to Bethlehem”.“REinterpretation” Doesn't make sense: To be registered with Mary (If they were married Mary would not have registered at all) Who was promised in marriage. Then they move the word his from in front to “behind” promised.
5 to be registered with Mary “his promised wife” Not promised in marriage his wife” who was with child. The scripture says Nothing to suggest that Joseph and Mary were already married. Just the word betrothed means promised the next word is wife. Put them together and you have “PROMISED WIFE” IF THE WOMAN IS PROMISED THEN SHE IS NOT YET YOUR WIFE.
If Mary were already Joseph's wife then there would be no need to mention betrothed (promised).
Would not the scripture say “to be registered with Mary his wife” But even that doesn't make sense because Mary would not have registered! There were no women's rights back then 🙂
Just because the trinty is false doen't mean that the whole Gospel has wholes in it! Is Jesus the only begotten of the Father? Yes Jesus is the only begotten of Jehovah. Then none of the prophets were begotten of the Father.
Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have eternal life.
The point of the scripture is to show that Mary registered because she was not yet Joseph's wife and was with child. Not Joseph's child because they were not yet married!
Quote (Ramblinrose @ July 14 2006,23:04) Cubes 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)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. In contrast to the Messiah who had an origin, the true God is without origin.
2. The ancient Jews read this verse and realized that it spoke of the birth and birthplace of the Messiah. One of the few things the Jews at the time of Jesus did understand about the Messiah was that he would be born in Bethlehem (Matt. 2:3-6). Yet of the Jews who read, studied, and understood the verse, there is no record that any of them concluded from the wording that Jesus had to be “God incarnate.”
3. The context of Micah makes it clear that the “ruler” from Bethlehem will not be God. This ruler will be born, and have “brothers.” No Jew ever thought God could be born, and the thought of the Creator of the Heavens and earth having brothers was absurd to them. These verses are speaking of God’s anointed king, and the Word declares, not that this ruler will be God, but rather that Yahweh will be “his God” (v. 4). Thus, this text of Micah is clear: a child will be born in Bethlehem and the Israelites will be his brothers, but he will grow up to deliver and rule the nation and stand in the strength of Yahweh his God.
Morgridge, p. 120
Racovian Catechism, pp. 69-71
From the Book – One God & One Lord
Micah 5:2
Mic 5:2
But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, [4480, 6924; Heb. qedem qêdmâh] from everlasting. [4480, 3117, 5769; Heb. ‛ôlâm ‛ôlâm]Psa 93:1-2
The LORD [YHWH] reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the LORD [YHWH] is clothed with strength, wherewith he hath girded himself: the world also is established, that it cannot be moved. 2 Thy throne is established of old:[4480 qedem qêdmâh], thou art from everlasting.[4480, 5769; Heb. ‛ôlâm ‛ôlâm]Isa 63:16
Doubtless thou art our father,1 though Abraham be ignorant, of us, and Israel acknowledge us not: thou, O LORD, [YHWH] art our father, our redeemer; thy name is from everlasting.[4480, 5769 Heb. ‛ôlâm ‛ôlâm]Exactly the same Hebrew words are used to describe YHWH's eternality.
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
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.
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?
You slipped in the words 'has been determined', but I don't see that in the original wording. Please explain.
Quote (Is 1:18 @ July 15 2006,19:50) 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
Correction. God made all things through Yahshua.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. Is Jesus the only begotten of the Father?
Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have eternal life.If you would like you could change scripture to say Sons. But then Romans says Jesus is the “first” among many bretherns.
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.
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.
I think that's right. It appears to me that this is what the Bible affirms. I see no mention of a pre-incarnation begettal. Others claim this, but they have no scripture to substantiate it. Then they accuse trinitarians of adhering to unscriptural doctrines. The apparent hypocracy is not lost on me.Quote Is Jesus the only begotten of the Father?
Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have eternal life.
Is Jesus unique? Yes. Is Jesus a son? Yes.Quote If you would like you could change scripture to say Sons. But then Romans says Jesus is the “first” among many bretherns.
My point was that although there are many “sons” of God, Jesus unique to them in His ontology, God is in a metaphysical category by Himself in that regard. Yahshua is infact their Creator. Afterall, how many “sons” existed with God 'in the beginning' i.e. before creation?Kenrch, how many gods do you serve?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
