Dual Nature of Christ

Viewing 20 posts - 141 through 160 (of 168 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #227202
    mikeboll64
    Blocked

    Quote (kerwin @ Nov. 30 2010,22:22)
    I am not sure that there are not exceptions to the rule that genealogy is only traced through the Mother as:


    Hi Kerwin,

    Since Jesus was not the natural son of Joseph but was the Son of God, Luke’s genealogy of Jesus would prove that he was, by human birth, a son of David through his natural mother Mary. Regarding the genealogies of Jesus given by Matthew and by Luke, Frederic Louis Godet wrote: “This study of the text in detail leads us in this way to admit—1. That the genealogical register of Luke is that of Heli, the grandfather of Jesus; 2. That, this affiliation of Jesus by Heli being expressly opposed to His affiliation by Joseph, the document which he has preserved for us can be nothing else in his view than the genealogy of Jesus through Mary. But why does not Luke name Mary, and why pass immediately from Jesus to His grandfather? Ancient sentiment did not comport with the mention of the mother as the genealogical link. Among the Greeks a man was the son of his father, not of his mother; and among the Jews the adage was: ‘Genus matris non vocatur genus [“The descendant of the mother is not called (her) descendant”]’ (‘Baba bathra,’ 110, a).”—Commentary on Luke, 1981, p. 129.

    There is much more info listed that I didn't post.  Let me know if you would like to peruse it.

    mike

    #227237
    kerwin
    Participant

    Mike Boll,

    I am not seeing where I disagree with Fredrick Louis Godet according to that excerpt.

    I have never heard that the Jews believed that a patriarch does not call one of his descendents Lord. Where did you hear that claim?

    I believe you also address John 1:15 which is worded different than a similar statement found in each of the other gospels which is to the effect of “the one that comes after me is more powerful than me”. I have not been convinced as of yet whether it is a different saying or a rewording of the same. It would take some meditation in God’s presence and study of the meaning of the words involved, including their usage in other scriptures.

    #227277
    terraricca
    Participant

    Quote (kerwin @ Dec. 02 2010,03:17)
    Mike Boll,

    I am not seeing where I disagree with Fredrick Louis Godet according to that excerpt.

    I have never heard that the Jews believed that a patriarch does not call one of his descendents Lord.   Where did you hear that claim?

    I believe you also address John 1:15 which is worded different than a similar statement found in each of the other gospels which is to the effect of “the one that comes after me is more powerful than me”.  I have not been convinced as of yet whether it is a different saying or a rewording of the same.  It would take some meditation in God’s presence and study of the meaning of the words involved, including their usage in other scriptures.


    Mike

    I told you :D :D :D

    #227291
    mikeboll64
    Blocked

    :)

    #227294
    terraricca
    Participant

    Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 02 2010,17:11)
    :)


    Mike

    Kerwin talks to say nothing

    Pierre

    :D :D

    #227303
    mikeboll64
    Blocked

    Hi Pierre,

    There is a reason that Jesus said, “How then can he be his son, if David calls him 'my Lord'?”

    He obviously wasn't talking about some future greatness the Messiah would attain, for he was talking to people who were STILL expecting the Messiah – not knowing that Jesus was he.

    And the Pharisees must have understood the point Jesus was making, for they were stumped and asked him no more questions after that.

    If it was no big deal for David to call his own descendant “my Lord”, then why didn't the Pharisees just say that?  Why didn't they easily answer Jesus' question by saying, “So what?  This Messiah is obviously going to be greater than David – what's the big deal?”

    But they didn't say that at all, did they?  Nope.  They were stumped by the excellent point that Jesus brought up from the very scriptures they were supposed to be experts in.  They had overlooked this plain as day fact for years and years.

    Anyway, when the discussion starts leaning toward illogical and “avoidance” responses, it's time to change the subject.  We'll see how Kerwin does in the scripture by scripture thing I'm doing with him in the pre-existent thread.  I'm going to try to take him through most of the 45 scriptures we've put together…………one by one.

    peace and love,
    mike

    #227306
    terraricca
    Participant

    Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 02 2010,17:47)
    Hi Pierre,

    There is a reason that Jesus said, “How then can he be his son, if David calls him 'my Lord'?”

    He obviously wasn't talking about some future greatness the Messiah would attain, for he was talking to people who were STILL expecting the Messiah – not knowing that Jesus was he.

    And the Pharisees must have understood the point Jesus was making, for they were stumped and asked him no more questions after that.

    If it was no big deal for David to call his own descendant “my Lord”, then why didn't the Pharisees just say that?  Why didn't they easily answer Jesus' question by saying, “So what?  This Messiah is obviously going to be greater than David – what's the big deal?”

    But they didn't say that at all, did they?  Nope.  They were stumped by the excellent point that Jesus brought up from the very scriptures they were supposed to be experts in.  They had overlooked this plain as day fact for years and years.

    Anyway, when the discussion starts leaning toward illogical and “avoidance” responses, it's time to change the subject.  We'll see how Kerwin does in the scripture by scripture thing I'm doing with him in the pre-existent thread.  I'm going to try to take him through most of the 45 scriptures we've put together…………one by one.

    peace and love,
    mike


    Mike

    yes that is true and it is also that the pharisees were claiming to understand scriptures and yet did not catch that knowledge ,this is because of there agenda,not the truth of God,

    Pierre

    Kerwin,you can bring a horse to water but you can not make him drink it,that he has to do for himself,right??

    #227338
    kerwin
    Participant

    Pierre.

    Then you should unstop your ears and open your eyes as I asked a question I wanted to hear the answer to. I then voiced a hypothosis about John 1:15 and expressed a desire to look further into it. In addition I agreed with Mike Bolo's source.

    #227345
    terraricca
    Participant

    Quote (kerwin @ Dec. 02 2010,21:59)
    Pierre.

    Then you should unstop your ears and open your eyes as I asked a question I wanted to hear the answer to.  I then voiced a hypothosis about John 1:15 and expressed a desire to look further into it.  In addition I agreed with Mike Bolo's source.


    Kerwin

    what source do you agree on???

    Pierre

    #227350
    kerwin
    Participant

    Pierre,

    The source I agree with is a quote of Fredrick Louis Godet.

    #227354
    terraricca
    Participant

    Quote (kerwin @ Dec. 03 2010,01:21)
    Pierre,

    The source I agree with is a quote of Fredrick Louis Godet.


    Kerwin

    there is something that amazes me from people ,they say they believe in scriptures as being the word of God ,but they do not trust it so they rely on other men opinions and assessment to accept the scriptures quoted.

    so they will never recieve the true spirit of the knowledge of God ,because they do not rely on God for the understanding but men.

    some do not even believe what they read.

    how will they be saved??
    they have placed they faith in men.
    is that the faith Christ and the apostles preached??

    Pierre

    #227438
    mikeboll64
    Blocked

    Hi Pierre,

    I agree with you in principle, as I also notice many people here who will take the word of the early church fathers or some other mere man over the scriptures themselves.

    But remember that any time you are reading scripture, you are reading a MAN'S best guess at translating what the actual Hebrew and Greek words said. :)

    The man Kerwin is talking about is making a commentary on the culture of the Jews and Greeks who lived in NT times.  He doesn't say anything at all AGAINST scriptures, but sheds some historical light that may explain why Luke didn't mention Mary in Jesus' geneaology.

    peace and love,
    mike

    #227441
    terraricca
    Participant

    Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 03 2010,19:21)
    Hi Pierre,

    I agree with you in principle, as I also notice many people here who will take the word of the early church fathers or some other mere man over the scriptures themselves.

    But remember that any time you are reading scripture, you are reading a MAN'S best guess at translating what the actual Hebrew and Greek words said. :)

    The man Kerwin is talking about is making a commentary on the culture of the Jews and Greeks who lived in NT times.  He doesn't say anything at all AGAINST scriptures, but sheds some historical light that may explain why Luke didn't mention Mary in Jesus' geneaology.

    peace and love,
    mike


    Mike

    many years ago I was reading the scriptures wen it occurred to me ,that what scriptures saying is that if you believe then you have to believe totally not some and not the other,by doing just that you have created doubts ,and in no way will you come to the fullness of the understanding of God word,
    and so Gods spirit can not reach you ,because of your doubts,

    as for mens translations I have said in a other topic,it does not matter,you do not need the entire scriptures to connect to God ,but what you need absolutely, is absolute faith no doubts at all.

    God does not share.if you believe it has to be totally.

    Pierre

    #227442
    terraricca
    Participant

    Mike

    one more thing,the scriptures will release the spirit of Christ ,if you have that kind of faith,without doubts.

    Pierre

    #227465
    kerwin
    Participant

    Pierre,

    Mike Boll was sharing a bit of understanding that he came across and felt the desire to share. I tested the spirit of it and found it agreed with what scripture stated. I let Mike know my conclusions.

    Other than that, Mike Boll, adressed the situation quite sastificatory.

    #227512
    terraricca
    Participant

    Quote (kerwin @ Dec. 04 2010,04:40)
    Pierre,

    Mike Boll was sharing a bit of understanding that he came across and felt the desire to share.  I tested the spirit of it and found it agreed with what scripture stated.  I let Mike know my conclusions.

    Other than that, Mike Boll, adressed the situation quite sastificatory.


    Kerwin

    check this site ,I just found;http://www.ecmarsh.com/lxx/

    Pierre

    #227539
    mikeboll64
    Blocked

    Quote (terraricca @ Dec. 03 2010,14:20)
    Mike

    many years ago I was reading the scriptures wen it occurred to me ,that what scriptures saying is that if you believe then you have to believe totally not some and not the other,by doing just that you have created doubts ,and in no way will you come to the fullness of the understanding of God word,
    and so Gods spirit can not reach you ,because of your doubts,


    Hi Pierre,

    Listen carefully here. :)  Luke does NOT mention Mary (or any other women) in his genealology of Jesus.  That is a scriptural fact.

    The source I quoted was offering a historical reason as to why that MIGHT be.

    So which scripture is it that you mistakenly think I've not  believed, thereby causing “doubt”? ???

    peace and love,
    mike

    #227598
    terraricca
    Participant

    Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 04 2010,22:01)

    Quote (terraricca @ Dec. 03 2010,14:20)
    Mike

    many years ago I was reading the scriptures wen it occurred to me ,that what scriptures saying is that if you believe then you have to believe totally not some and not the other,by doing just that you have created doubts ,and in no way will you come to the fullness of the understanding of God word,
    and so Gods spirit can not reach you ,because of your doubts,


    Hi Pierre,

    Listen carefully here. :)  Luke does NOT mention Mary (or any other women) in his genealology of Jesus.  That is a scriptural fact.

    The source I quoted was offering a historical reason as to why that MIGHT be.

    So which scripture is it that you mistakenly think I've not  believed, thereby causing “doubt”? ???

    peace and love,
    mike


    Mike

    remember we were talking about Kerwin s

    I was not saying anything to you beside to mention that someone has to believe without doubts.

    what is not the case of kerwin.

    Pierre

    #227602
    mikeboll64
    Blocked

    Okay Pierre,

    I must have misunderstood you. Sorry.

    mike

    #227603
    terraricca
    Participant

    Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 05 2010,12:58)
    Okay Pierre,

    I must have misunderstood you.  Sorry.

    mike


    Mike

    :) :) :)

Viewing 20 posts - 141 through 160 (of 168 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

© 1999 - 2024 Heaven Net

Navigation

© 1999 - 2023 - Heaven Net
or

Log in with your credentials

or    

Forgot your details?

or

Create Account