Jeaniam

The immediate context is about circumcision, but the remote context mentions the law, which I still assume from usage to be the law of Moses, not the law of sin and death. There are numerous references to the law of Moses throughout the book of Galatians. I had prepared a lengthy post citing them, but I am experiencing technical difficulties. Does anyone out there know what to do if you receive a page saying 'Forbidden: you are not authorised to use this server, etc'. Pawtucket says it is not because of any greasespot activity on my account but I am computer illiterate, and don't know how to fix it. Thank you, jeaniam

I am relying on what I believe the Bible teaches about the trinity, and even trinitarians concede that the Bible doesn't mention the trinity, but the doctrine of the trinity is a doctrine that 'evolved over time', but somehow they don't see anything wrong with that. Sunesis, you make some valid points in your post, but I don't think the tree of life is a prototype of Christ, because if they had eaten thereof they would have remained forever in an unredeemed state. The tree of life conferred eternal life but had no power to redeem, at least as far as I understand it.

Galatians contasts the law of liberty with the law of Moses, culminating with Gal. 4:30-5:1 &7--'Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman. So then, brethren, we are not childfren of the bondwoman, but of the free. Stand fast therefor in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage (the law of Moses). For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.'

As John would say 'We all THINK about the Word (Bible), it is only when we elevate what we think above what is clearly written that we run into problems'. No, I think God meant the Bible to be simple, so simple that 'not even a fool need err therein.' Yes, sometimes I think he must want to quote Shakespeare, 'What fools these mortals be!'

I don't accept the doctrine of the trinity, and I don't think Heb. 7:3 is that problematic.

My mislabeled post started me thinking about logical as well as Biblical objections to a virgin birth, although, as I have said before, I'm not sure that when it says in Matthew 1:24 & 25--that Joseph 'took unto him his wife; and knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son'; that 'knew' necessarily means sexual activity resulting in pregnancy, since in the record of Sodom and Gomorrah, the word 'know' is used in conjunction with homosexual activity which could not possibly result in pregnancy. On the other hand, I wonder about the discomfort having an intact hymen might cause a woman in labor (since I brought it up), and how much pain would be caused by having an hymen ruptured by something as big in circumference as a baby's head, not to mention that the baby would be travelling in the opposite direction (moving from the inside out instead of from the outside in), as a penis would be. It also occurred to me that it would reassure Joseph's mind, if he were allowed to have sexual relations with Mary prior to Christ's birth and to determine that she really was still a virgin (although pregnant) just as the angel had said. This falls into the category of just what I think and can't be backed up by any Biblical reference.

Well, after three live births and three miscarriages, I think that when the prospect of a fourth child was under discussion, I told him that the only way that was likely to happen would be if this time HE went through pregnancy, labor, and delivery. Needless to say, we still have only three children, and there will be no more. I think a man giving birth would be quite a sight.

CS, You also make some good and important points. However, I think that this is where the definition of agape as 'the love of God in the renewed mind in manifestation' comes into play. I'm not sure that anyone who is truly living agape can end up 'burned out and uninspired' since agape by definition seems to indicate that we have an endless supply at our disposal (the love of God in the renewed mind in manifestation). I am leaving out the phrase 'in the household' since that seems to narrow agape down, and I'm not sure it is accurate.

Yes, I thought someone would enjoy that, although he was at least PRESENT at all three births.

Romans 6 has a great deal to say on this topic. In verse 1-4 it says 'What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? Know ye not, that so many of us were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buries with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.' Romans 6:14&15-- 'For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law but under grace. What then? shall we sin because we are not under the law but under grace? God forbid.' If you read the rest of the chapter, it makes it more clear, but these seem to be the most relevant verses.

...technical difficulties, will try again later

What the heck did you just say? It sounds like a flashback from my dope smoking days.

No, the scriptures are truth then we use the scriptures to discern whether or not what other people say is truth or not. Hebrews 4:12--'For the Word of God is quick (living, not a dead scroll), and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.'

I have been in situations where I was wronged and confronted the person who wronged me and the person responded with: 'I didn't say it (it was an instance of gossiping), and if I did say it, my heart was in the right place, so I'm not sorry for what I said; but you're really screwed up for not forgiving me for what I didn't really do in the first place.' I found that to be a really interesting response.

'Christ's seed'? Can I ask you what you mean by that? I think almost everyone is prepared to concede it was a virgin conception. It seems to be open to doubt when Joseph and Mary first had sexual relations and I think that although the Bible is clear that that didn't happen until it was clear that Mary was already pregnant to avoid confusion about who actually was Christ's Father it doesn't make it 100% clear whether it happened before or after Christ's birth. I find merit in your argument that bearing Christ was such a big deal that they were probably willing to make a few personal sacrifices for it. Good post, thanks. (I'm still trying to figure out this system).

I guess I would differentiate between those people who come to me and apologize and those who continue to believe that they are justified in their error. Forgiveness is appropriate for both groups (and I think is mandated for both groups) at least partly because of what lack of forgiveness would do to the person who persists in holding a grudge; trust is not mandated, and in some cases is not appropriate because to trust leaves yourself open to more damage, as has already been pointed out. I wonder if in the example of the man to whom Jesus said 'Son, thy sins are forgiven thee', the reason he said that is because he recognized that condemnation was holding the man back from receiving the healing that he needed. That's just a thought, and I can't back it up with anything.

Matthew 1:24&25 say--'Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: and knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus.' The contraversy rests on what exactly is meant by the phrases 'took unto him his wife' and 'knew her not till etc.' VPW claimed that 'took unto him his wife' meant that Joseph had sexual relations with Mary, just not sex that resulted in pregnancy which was the meaning of 'knew her not'. I think VPW's claim is open to question since there are other places that the phrase 'knew her' or in at least one verse 'knew him' was used in a context that didn't result in pregnancy. I refer to the goings-on in Sodom when the men of Sodom wanted the angels brought out to them 'so we may know them'. In that context the word 'know' although still sexual could not possibly result in pregnancy for obvious reasons. So, as I said, I think one can make a case for either explanation, and I am not prepared to say definitely which one is accurate without verses that are more clear. BTW, I thought Larry gave a source for the marriage customs. Okay, as I was.

I read most of it and it is interesting. Although I disagree with his final conclusion, because I am still not a trinitarian; much of what he says has value. Thank you for bringing it up.

WordWolf, I think what we have here is a misunderstanding. If I understand correctly, Larry does not dispute the doctrine of a virgin conception; what he disagrees with is your contention that Mary stayed a virgin until the time of Jesus Christ's birth. I think a case can be made for both positions and that there are some verses that are somewhat unclear. It depends at least in part on what is meant by the phrase 'knew her not until Christ was born'. Thanks for your detailed explanation of marriage customs in New Testament times.That was very helpful and answered several questions I had had for some time.

Chatty, Larry explains this in great detail in post 92 on the previous page. Espousal was taken very seriously in the Jewish culture of the day, and required a bill of divorcement to end it, not just a returning of a ring and telling a partner that one had changed their mind. And in Matthew 1:20 an angel does go to Joseph and explain things to him. As far as Mary's responsibility goes, since she was not permitted to speak to Joseph face-to-face during the period of espousal but only through a intermediary, I think her reluctance was totally understandable.

Larry's next post explains this in the explanation of marriage customs of the day. Apparently, the bride and groom were not allowed to speak privately except through the 'friend of the bridegroom' and also the time if separation between a espousal and sexual relations lasted as long as a year; which I wasn't aware of. Tough information to relay through an intermediary.

I guess I was assuming the emphasis on THE innocent blood indicated that Christ was not only innocent of the crime(s) that he was accused of on this occasion, but also innocent of all wrongdoing.

Once again, you didn't get it at all. I never said that. I would like it if you didn't attempt to shut me in the box of your definition of agape. You made up your own definition of agape (which can't even be found in any secular source) and now you're angry because my behavior doesn't match up to it. Since you can't seem to get past me not basing everything on your emotional viewpoint--which I'm obviously not required to do--maybe it's better if you do ignore me; at least intil you're ready to at least argue logically, let alone Biblically.

As you say the key word is espoused which we have been taught in that culture didn't mean engaged, it meant they had been married but had not had sexual relations yet (done the horizontal hula, thanks, WordWolf). I think in that culture the assumption would be that a young girl who had just gotten married for the first time was a virgin unless there was proof to the contrary. Virginity in that culture was (and is) a great deal more important that it is in our present day culture. It seems to suggest that enough time went by for it to be obvious that Mary was pregnant although the time set by the priests had not yet arrived for Joseph and Mary to come together (have sex).

It has never been established 100%, maybe but an explanation has been suggested that satisfies the customs of the times and is logical; that it means there is a period of time (days) between the marriage ceremony and the first sexual encounter that was determined by the priests. Pure blood- yes it is. In Matthew 27:3&4 it says ' Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, saying, I have siined in that I have betrayed the innocent blood.' It doesn't say AN innocent blood, or HIS innocent blood; it says THE innocent blood. The clear inference is that Christ's blood represents the only (since Adam) innocent blood. Further, as a matter of logic, we could ask the question, 'How can Christ's blood cleanse if it is not, in and of itself, clean?'