Jeaniam

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

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.

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.

In Matthew 1:18- '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.' 19-' Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily.' I think the meaning is plain here; Mary was found to be pregnant, Joseph, who knew that he couldn't be the father, assumed that she had been unfaithful to him and was minded to take the more merciful way of dealing with the situation that was prescribed in the Law (stoned or put away) had to be told by the angel that Mary's pregnancy was the result of supernatural action, and to not fear taking her unto him. I don't know what was the prescribed penalty for premarital sex on the part of the man in the Law, but when I get time I'll look it up.

I am still of the belief that God created sperm in Mary that impregnated on of her eggs and resulted in Jesus Christ. Mark, if your question is, how did He do that? I'm going to take refuge in an old VPWism and say that if God didn't tell us then we don't know, and guessing in a case where it can't be verified or refuted is not helpful.

Funny.

Certainly, they can, but without that they have no way to know if what they think, reason, decide is true or not. What if I decide that the correct way to worship God is by offering you as a burnt offering. Without the Bible you have no way to discern that I am wrong. Well, that isn't what I said.

I remember Takit but I don't have any of their music. For some reason I just didn't care for it. I'll check around withn some of my friends though.

Yes, but since you are not a Christian and don't believe in the Bible, you have no basis to say that the way I treat non- Christians is wrong.

Not particularly. I once came within the skin of my teeth of being excommunicated and probably still have been consigned to hellfire and damnation by one so-called Christian group. I'll look up your book on Amazon. It sounds like an interesting read whether I agree with it or not.

In my experience the people who really walk with agape don't regard it as being a super power, but they bring great meaning to the verse about whoever would be chief among you shall be the servant of all. They don't waste their time arguing about the definition of it; they are too busy living it. Unfortunately, too many times that includes me.

It occurs to me that by expressing your opinion that what people in TWI practiced was not love without having any Biblical foundation to back up your opinion you are doing the same thing that you object to in YWI. What Jesus Christ did in the temple when he overturned the tables of the moneychangers to me looks extreme and cruel, but I still believe that God told him to do it, because the Bible says he always did the will of the Father. It seems to me that your self-proclaimed non-Christian status limits your ability to make any meaningful contribution to this topic; as WordWolf said in a different context. It may be that some concepts of love are universal, as you say, but since you don't go to the Bible as source of truth, at best your statements are guesses; some of your guesses may be right, some may be wrong, but that is all they are, guesses, and as such I put them under a higher level of scrutiny than some other people's posts who do use the Bible to back them up.

If all mankind are the children of God by creation and are in no need of the new birth to attain sonship then Jesus Christ died for nothing. So once again, while all mankind may be 'children' of God through creation, in this day and time God requires the new birth to really have sonship. It is also clear that although Jesus Christ LOVED all men equally, he did differentiate in how he treated people even within the disciples. For example, he took only the twelve up the Mount of Transfiguration, and only Peter, James, and John all the way to the top. Likewise in the Garden of Gethsamane. I agree that God (the Heavenly Father) OFFERS the ability for agape to all mankind as He offers the new birth to all amnkind, but that does not mean that all mankind is going to accept it.

Both Matthew and Luke contradict that. In Matthew 1:18, it says clearly that Mary was pregnant (with child of the Holy Ghost) before she had sexual relations with Joseph; and in Luke 1:34, Mary asks the question of the angel, 'How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?' She didn't know ANY man including, but not limited to, Joseph. Good post, WordWolf. You make a strong case for Mary still being a virgin at the time of Christ's birth, although I still think there are verses that could be taken either way.

This is the first I've heard of your book. Can you give me a general idea of what it covers? I've been called a heretic enough times for it not to bother me much, so if I were you I would probably shrug it off (as others have said).

I am not attempting to intimidate you or anyone else, nor is it a matter that I don't care for what you post. I have checked two secular dictionaries for their definition of agape and between them they contain seven definitions of agape and all of them contain the word 'Christian'. I am still not sure that I understand the logic behind someone who claims to not be a Christian getting involved with a thread that even some secular sources consider a 'Christian' topic. I don't really desire to use the ignore feature in regards to your posts, since at least some of your posts make good sense. And, no, Oakspear, I don't claim to have done anything close to an exhaustive word study. Interesting point about 1 John.

That may well be, but I fail to see why you're getting involved in a discussion of agape, since it is a Christian concept and is mentioned in the Bible if you're not a Christian and possibly don't believe in the Bible. It may be that this particular thread would have been better opened on the doctrinal forum. This should not be interpreted as an attempt on my part to tell you that you are unwelcome just an attempt to point out a certain amount of illogic.

Without trying to say authoritively that the Joseph in Matthew is Mary's husband, it still seems to me that the geneology in Matthew is more than likely that of Mary. It is the only one that mentions Mary at all, whereas the geneology in Luke says clearly that Joseph is the son of Heli. It seems to me to be significant that assigning Luke's geneology to Mary didn't occur until the fifteenth century. I suppose it doesn't really matter in the context of this discussion. There is no disputing that Mary is Jesus' mother.

I agree that agape is not a love where one benefits and another is destroyed. Even Jesus Christ (the greatest example of agape that lived) was benefitted. God seated him at His own right hand. That sounds like a pretty good reward to me. Yes, you can think for yourself, and should, but when what you think cannot be backed up by the Bible or is in direct contradiction with it, then what you have is pretty flimsy.

I have a Companion Bible and I read the appendix about the geneologies. I notice that not only does Bullinger count David twice but he also claims that Heli was the father of Mary, not Joseph, in Luke.

We have some friends who still talk to us from TWI 1, none from TWI 2. Some of our good friends stayed in when we left and the friendship fizzled. The dividing line usually was our children. Most of the people knew how to point fingers at them but nobody had any suggestions for what would bring them deliverance.

I'd love to come but I live in Missouri and we went to Florida last year. Maybe another time.

Well said pond and no, you don't write like an idiot.

Oh, once or twice, but on those occasions his decisions turned out to be the right thing to do, and it became obvious that he was fulfilling his duty to look out for his family to the best of his ability, not just being an arbitrary jerk. I learned a lot about trusting his judgment on those occasions.

Great thread; very moving. Really glad you had the idea, likeaneagle. My father served for the duration of WW11, contracted MS, and eventually passed away as a result of his service. Thanks very much.