Jeaniam

I guess we could all talk a lifetime of what we think on stuff couldn't we? :)

I'm not sure God ever meant it to be so confusing for us but then again I think He wanted us to think.

Can you imagine Him scratching His head at times when reading our posts.

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 am claiming that Melchisedec was a type of Christ.

We know nothing of Melchisedec's parentage...therefore he is "without father and mother"

Christ, as God the Son, is (outside of His physical incarnation) eternal. "I AM"

Both are identified as having eternal priesthoods outside of the levitical order.

As priests, both would offer sacrifices to God the Father. Melchisedec is identified as having accepted Abraham's offering...Christ is identified as having offered Himself as a an eternal sacrifice (thus the referencee to Rev 5:6)

And the kicker is that Melchisedec is called the "king of Salem (peace)" and Christ is identified as the "prince of peace"

The thing is that if one accepts the doctrine of the Trinity this typology is perfectly obvious. If not, then Heb 7:3 is very problematic.

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

I've seen the case for "virgin conception and virgin birth"

and the case for "virgin conception but not virgin birth",

and find a strong case for the first, and a rather weak case for the second by comparison.

I find one needs to reach for obscure possible meanings and ignore the more direct ones

in order to reach it. That's acceptable to me when the direct meaning is obviously

contradictory, but otherwise I see no reason to do that.

Naturally, everyone's welcome to make up their own minds.

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.

I must admit the idea of John giving birth once was funny enough but three times.

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.

Hi shifra,

You make some good and important points. I've read some helpful books lately dealing which dug deep

into some of loving the "agape" way and staying emotionally and spiritually balanced.

The whole thing about loving ourselves and God as ourselves might lead us to think that if we don't love ourselves

very much then it will be hard to love others or God very much. If our gas tank is empty, it is hard to do much

for anyone. There's a lot of truth to this, though I've seen a lot of vain selfish Christians who can't get past taking

care of their own selves.

On the other hand, you have folks who's self worth seems to be totally tied to how

much they do for others, and who end up burned out and uninspired - this is the other side of supposed "agape"

love gone too far. Agape love seems to live best somewhere in the middle between vanity and being a slave for

others.

I think that the "free indeed" that Christ came to give us is a place that can be found. Not just a land of milk and honey

that we'll see in a distant biblical administration. But also a real place possible in the here and now of emotional

and spiritual health and true connection to God where we are blessed in a deep way and want the same for others.

If we can get there, then we can at least some of the time do the right things for the right reasons.

-CS

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.

No need to correct yourself Jean.

It was much more interesting when John said he had given birth three times.

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

Hmmm...first things first - God hasn't ignored our "sin". Not at all. It's been dealt with in a very complex and long term plan of action. There's no ignorance or allowance. Because it WASN'T allowed, something had to be done.

To love as God has would mean that harmful behavior would be taken seriously and handled. It's what Jesus Christ died for. Forgiven by God, through Christ - what's that mean? That the harmful behavior is okay now, all cleaned up, go ahead and do whatever, allow whatever, God will take care of it all in good time?

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

aaahhh yes..his coming....another perspective..and a big one...

does he not come when our eyes are opened

does he come for all at once or every person in order

at his timing, it will happen for sure, for some it already has and continues

as a thief in the night, and then the trumpets will sound soon

there are only 7 tones, with different pitches in each

is the ear open to pick up it's sound................the many

7 tones, 7 colors with many hues, 7 angels ready to open up

his coming..if God is 'in the air' he is already here

his coming will not be noticed by those that he is not coming to

and the dead understanding will be raised to life in wisdom and temperance..

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

http://www.askrealjesus.com/D_NEWVISITOR/howsitehelpyou.html

A STONE of stumbling and a ROCK of offense lies in the scriptures....

As well as the TRUTH...but Truth comes FIRST then we see it in the scriptures.

And in the writings of many that write today.

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.'

Forgiving is always appropriate, it's unappropriate when pressured to forgive..

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.

Understand, yet see nothing contradictory about Christ being who he was and how he came about there.

And I go back to how big of a deal bearing Christ would be. That would have trumped Josephs concern over cultural issues in a second. Also God in his foreknowledge knew who Mary would become married to so He knew Joseph would be the right man also.

Nothing thus far has proven it was not Christ's seed and it was not a virgin conception.

(I really wish this system would allow a new post to be a new post)

'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.

The thing is- you're both taking it as a "leap of faith" that those ARE the marriage customs,

correctly quoted. Perhaps they are, perhaps they are not, but without a source, they're opinion

and hearsay. Unsourced statements are how we got vpw playing for the Sheboygan Redskins,

according to one website.

The main case for Joseph and Mary doing the horizontal hucklebuck before Jesus' birth

seems-so far-to rest on unsourced statements from vpw and a few other people-

and I have no guarantee THEIR source was not vpw.

Is there a documentable source asserting this was a possibility?

If so, can you post it or something?

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 started thinking about sinless blood why it was necessary to redeem mankind.

This guy has an interesting article, scroll down, especially about the part of blood and Holy Spirit.

I haven't fully read it yet, but it looks interesting and may contribute to the discussion.

Its food for thought.

http://www.newgateministries.com/jerusalem...a-of-jesus.html

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 Jeaniam! As I get older I sometimes have trouble remembering what I said five minutes ago let alone two days past. :)

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.

Thank you Larry.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

And I'm still trying to figure out how we think Mary was married to Joseph when she became pregnant with Christ. Where did we establish espoused did not mean engaged?

Also why wouldn't the angel go to Joseph and tell him of this wonderful and unique situation involving his soon to be wife. And that would not have taken the responsibility of Mary telling Joseph away either.

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.

Wouldn't it be logical for Mary to tell Joseph herself? She had a visit by an angel. She was going to bear the Christ child. Why wouldn't she convey this very special information to Joseph? Especially knowing the law.

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.

Likeaneagle, by all means share what you can come up with.

I am pretty sure “innocent blood” is a figure of speech since others are referred to that way. Christ as THE innocent blood simply means it is emphatic he never committed sin.

Deu 19:9 If thou shalt keep all these commandments to do them, which I command thee this day, to love the LORD thy God, and to walk ever in his ways; then shalt thou add three cities more for thee, beside these three:

Deu 19:10 That innocent blood be not shed in thy land, which the LORD thy God giveth thee [for] an inheritance, and [so] blood be upon thee.

I have looked into sin in the blood and don’t find a single reference to it. Doesn’t mean yea verily it isn’t there, but I sure can’t find it.

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.

I get it Jean. You want me to:

A--think like you

or

B-- shut up

I'm not going to do either. I think you are boundary jumping, which I DO NOT respect.

What ever you Iams get out of the Bible, it is sure not social skills.

Since you can't seem to get beyond me not basing everything on your interpretastion of the Bible--which I'm obviously not required to do--you are going on ignore like your spouse.

I lived through TWI of the nineties. Once was enough.

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.

Actually -- No I can't. Without going over each and every verse you cited I'll just focus on two --

Matthew 1:18 (KJV)

18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

Your explanation following this verse:

"Mary was engaged to Joseph, and they hadn't been married, honeymooned, or done the

horizontal hula. Naturally, Mary knew this, and Joseph knew this. God Almighty knew this.

Unless anyone was spying on them, that's pretty much everyone who KNEW this."

Then you quoted verse 19:

19 (KJV) And Joseph her husband, being a righteous man and not wanting to disgrace her, planned to send her away secretly.

How did Joseph go from being engaged to Mary in verse 18 to being her husband in verse 19?

The key word of course is the word "espoused" which in our culture means one thing but, in the culture of that time meant another. I won't bore you with the details 'cause it really doesn't matter. Just going on common sense alone in reading verse 18 it should arrest your attention that if Mary was found with child BEFORE they were engaged you would have to ask yourself two questions -- 1) Who discovered she was pregnant? and 2) If the answer logically was Joseph based on the context then -- Why would Joseph marry her only to consider divorcing her? I'll await patiently your answer to these two questions and on how you reconcile verse 19 with verse 18 making your explanations more sensible.

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).

before they came together-

this meaning has not been established either

pure blood-

not found in bible

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?'

Typical bully behavior John. When you cannot logically counter a point....just throw in your your whine and perpetual drivel about women and double standards and the lack of fairness....

Pretty sorry when non christians behavior is more christian than the proclaimed christian.

All the quoting and backing of scriptures to prove your point means nothing when you are using them to bully and antagonize...scripture doesn`t make bad behavior or lack of understanding correct.

I think I have discovered the perfect way to deal with your posts. I don't read them!!!

I would accept that...but would add that the bible believers don't either.

Then you would have to find a way to persude me that I should happily get offered.

I agree with the first part.

The second part would lead to one he!! of an interesting discussion. I can be very persuasive. And you thought I didn't have a sense of humor.

Since someone keeps derailing this thread to have a personal non convsersation with me, I decided to reply after some thought. I was going to pm this, but since the thread has been derailed a bunch of times...

It is a discussion forum, not a Jeaniam-said-it-so-the-discussion-is-over forum.

Since you name dropped Wordwolf, maybe you should read his posts to see how he interacts with non Christians. He is never scolding or insulting, his words are not personally denigrating, yet he still stands for what he believes. Nor have I ever seen him pick out a poster to jump again and again.

To me your reaction to a non Christian poster seems extreme, weird and rude. Also, damatic! If it continues on other threads etc, I will consider it stalking, and say so!

Self proclaimed ( gosh I forgot to hire a proclaimer to announce me!), illogical, unable to make a meaningful contribution--and yet I still have as much right to post here as you do. And some people will read what I post. All your scolding or reproof or whatever that is, doesn't make me stop. So what's the point? Ego? Perceived personal authority to rid the forum of unbelieving posters?

Maybe you should email Pawtucket to demand an affirmation of (your)faith before people can post. And you can run to hubby and tell him the evil unbeliever was mean to you. Run to your like minded believers and tell them you've been fighting in spiritual warfare.

You've done nothing to make me care for what your opinion might be--done the opposite, in fact.

Actually, I agree with a number of the things you've said and a number of the points you've made, but my point is still that without an external source to tell you whether you're right or wrong in any of your assertions, you are doing yourself the same thing that you complain about in TWI. You are setting yourself up as the standard and saying that any doctrine that you don't like must be wrong, but you have nothing to base your belief on. You are basically saying 'Trust me, I'm spiritual', the same thing you objected to in TWI. If you or any other poster quoted the Koran or any other text, I could respect that, although I might disagree with it. Agape or arrogance, indeed. And my goal isn't necessarily to make you stop, but to challenge you to prove what you say with something of more substance than you have so far. Part of what you and I disagree on is that to you this is a matter of one PERSON'S opinion versus another PERSON'S opinion. To me this is a question of understanding GOD'S opinion which is far greater than what you or I think.