Jeaniam

This is not stated at all anywhere. That's a matter of interpretation.

(I know not at a man at that point. What about afterwards?

Also 'knew her not till Jesus was born does not say that Joseph didn't know her.

This statement was made after conception.)

Doesn't anyone find it interesting that if a virgin was found with child, she should be stoned or put away?

What is a Virgin? And what was to become of the father?

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.

Exactly my point. The only two such actions discussed in scripture.

Now Sunesis brings up a very valid point (and, btw, Sunesis, I think your remarks were brilliant).

She said, in part:

But, in order to be "perfect man" his blood - the perfect, uncorrupted, unblemished blood, unfallen blood - holy blood, the only perfect blood acceptable to be sacrificed to God - like the first man Adam's was - had to be "perfect."

Thus, I think his flesh - was perfect like the First Adam's. I think God made the whole package. None of it came from Mary or Joseph. He came through her.

I do not believe that scripture supports her second point, as there are far too many indicators in scripture that tell us that a descendent of Abraham and a descendent of David will be the Messiah, but it is brilliant nevertheless, as it brings us back to that conundrum. And she is right in her statement that there could be no imputed sin in Christ for him to be the second Adam and to fulfill the prophecy of being the Lamb of God.

And the angel Gabriel announced that this was, in fact, the case. (Take a look at the Greek within Luke 1:30 for amplification of this)

But the issue still exists: how did it happen?

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.

Ssshhhh....don't tell anyone...Jeaniam & I agree

Funny.

That's right, people who don't believe the bible cannot think, cannot reason, cannot come to correct decisions, they can only guess

Yeah Bramble, you obviously cannot think for yourself or read what is written if you're not a Christian...

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.

That's just laughable. I don't have to say how you treat non Christians--it's right out there! You are the one that shows how you treat non Christians.

eDITED BECAUSE i TYP GOOD.

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.

Sigh. Once again, this thread is not about me.

And are you absolutely positive no other non Christians are posting on this thread? Maybe you'd better question everyone! Who knows where one will lurk!

One nice thing--people can see how you treat non Christians, and make their own conclusions about your doctrine.

Agape or Arrogance?

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.

Wordwolf and Jeanism:

Thanks for responding. Well, I have to assume neither of you care if you're called a "heretic" or not.

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.

oh johniam it is YOU that has this special power hmm? again with the granted super power what color is your cape today?

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.

The 'deeper meaning' of agape is what I saw so much of in TWI. This is love. Huh? It wasn't love, it was arrogance in many instances. Oh, but you're not spiritual or mature enough to understand. Trust me, I know...

I'm wary of people who have super spiritual knowledge of love but treat others...not well, because that is how you love someone like that. Its allowed. God told me it would wake them up. It just looks extreme and cruel. Trust me...

Even on this thread we have different definitions of what agape is.

Some say it is love that all humans are capable of.

Some say only born again Christians can love agape.

Some say it is the Love of God in manifestation in the household.

Perhaps the point of the poem was that another human, in a different belief system, far away from Chrsitian and Bible sources, seemed to know something about love.

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.

One of the key problems facing this discussion is that those who are "born again" are invariably self -proclaimed--they say they are and with that they assume the mantle of arbitrators of the public good as well as the "correct" translators [sic] of scripture.

This renders any meaningful discussion difficult at best since any disagreement with their stance automatically means you are A) wrong and B) not "born Again"--

Since I have been wrong before the possibility that I am wrong again is not without merit, even though I don't think I am wrong in this case.

As to being, "born again", definitionally anyone who accepts Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior has the new birth. The "born again" nomenclature is merely a methodology devised by some to elevate themselves to a self perceived higher ground.

So in an effort to get back to track it seems to me, as a Christian, that scripture is very clear.

Heavenly Father created all things through Jesus Christ thus all mankind are His children for without Him there would be no life.

Heavenly Father and His son Jesus Christ have a love that is all encompassing without regard to whether God's creations are worthy, merit or are in anyway deserving of that love.

It is the desire of Heavenly Father that all HIs children exhibit that same agape' love toward each other.

Jesus Christ exemplified that love while on this earth and exhorted and gave us directions in order that we would be able to do the same after His death and ressurection.

Therefore, since all that Heavenly Father offers to his children (read All mankind) He offers to all of them and since Jesus Christ died for ALL , it seems logical and right from my perspective that agape' love is not only possible for ALL to practice but is actually practiced by people all over the world of different religious persuasions.

While the word used to describe the love involved in certain circumstances may not be the Greek agape' ; unconditional, self sacrificing , and altruistic being other words; the practice is not exclusive to any one group of people.

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.

And 'knew her not' could very well apply to another pregnancy or intercourse.

The meaning of 'knew her not' has never been established.

Joseph and Mary had sex, and enjoyed it too before their marriage ceremony.

While Mary was 'overshadowed' and 'in the Spirit'.

And was told before that it would happen-Be it unto me according to thy will.

A person is entirely engulfed while in the spirit-body, soul, mind and spirit.

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 posted because I had something to say. Others don't seem to be offended.

The doctrinal forum is not just for Christian doctrine or Biblical Research. I post down there all the time. So do other nonChristians.

I will not be intimidated into leaving a thread because some folks don't care for what I post ( you are not the first who is offended to post along side unbeliever). It is a open discussion forum, which means people will discuss, and often have widely different ideas on the same subject.

You can always use the IGNORE feature to avoid my posts.

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.

Jeaniam-- you have your opinion about the Bible, I have mine. I am not a Christian and so will not be offering Bible perspectives. This is not a Christian forum so you will run into other perspectives now and then.

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 don't think any one has to argue with God, or accept a doctrine they see as objectionable just because others believe it is the right doctrine. There are plenty of Christians who don't believe in the 'born again' doctrine, after all.

The way I see it, making agape, an active love, into something undefined, complicated and super spiritual, opens doors for abuse in certain situations. How many of us were taught that 'mark and avoid' was the loving thing to do. Some were taught that divorce or tossing a family member out on the street was really 'love' of the spiritual variety. Acts of destruction were called love of the highest order. Teaching children that their ex wife or exhusband parent was 'possessed' was love...

I think agape ( which I believe can be acheived by all humans, not just certain ones) would be a love that benefits both the giver and the receiver--not a love where one sacrifices all they are to anothers benefit, not a love where one benefits and another is destroyed. Something balanced.

Of course I have no 'chapter and verse' for my thoughts, no Greek words--but that doesn't seem to have gotten us very far anyway.

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.

I bet he NEVER really pulled out the wild card..

I have seen other guys do it.. "by God, we're gonna do it THIS way.."

Call me weak, or whatever.. I couldn't do it.

I think some decisions are really not that important. Why even make one? Sometimes a "non decision" is the real answer..

:)

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.

I don't have a problem with the idea that Mary might have had a father and a husband with the same name, since I have frequently observed that John (my husband) is in the unusual position of a man who has a mother, a sister, and a wife who all have the same first name; which has occasionally wreaked havoc on our respective credit reports and led to John and myself owning a rental property in Maine, etc., etc. The word 'husband' in Matthew 1:16 is the word 'aner' which is translated fellow once, husband fifty times, man 156 times, and sir six times according to the Young's concordance, so it seems to me that it is at least possible that it wrongly translated husband in Matthew.

Another spot, I really have no idea exactly what it means; but while I was reading Genesis 3:15 on this thread it struck me that God specifically said the 'seed of the woman' and doesn't mention Adam at all. Of course it is at least possible that when God said 'I will put enmity between thee (the serpent) and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel' that who God was really talking about was Mary, just a guess and I really have nothing Biblical to substantiate that other then the fact that God didn't use Eve's name.

Yeah...my ex wife expected me to be a combination of VP Wierwille, LCM and Jesus Christ...when they fed her with all that twi bull sh *t, she licked the spoon clean...

...and there I was, trying to find my arse with both hands...

Life at Emporia turned out to be like a Freddy Kruger movie for me...It simply wasn't in my nature to bark orders and make demands of my wife. Needless to say, the charade ended during our interim year when she packed her bags and left while I was at work...The ironic part was that her folks sent her to the deprogrammers and she got out before I did...

I wish I knew then what I know now...I would have split lcm's lip with my knuckles.

Yes it really is a shame how many marriages were ruined by the same organisation that claimed to promote healthy marriages. John has always said that when the minister at our wedding said the words 'what God has joined together, let no man put asunder' and 'I now declare you husband and wife' something spiritual happened and he has held firm to that through many temptations to do otherwise. I regret the pain that many of you have gone through. I would they were even cut off that troubled you.

Is God the Father of Adam and Eve? He created them, that seems to be a parental act in my view. What about their descendants... He has no relationship to them, responsibilities? Because Adam and Eve fell?

Many human parents seem to be able to love and care for the children of their erring children...but God can't unless certain conditions of belief are met. That is not unconditional love.

Doesn't seem like a responsible famililial attitude to me.

I think the born again doctrine is an ultra exclusionary doctrine--the 'born agains' love better, think better, know better, act better etc, than any non born agains, in their born again viewpoint. They are the superior humans--the world should follow them, and convert to their beliefs.

I personally do not believe there has been any change in the nature of human beings since the coming of Christ. The world continues on with the good and the bad, and the Christian Church is just as much part of the good and the bad as any other group.

If the born again doctrine is true, why can't their superiority be observed?

Agape can't be pin pointed. An act could be done through Agape, or maybe not...two acts of say, heroism, one might be agape because the hero was Christian but the other not because the hero was Jewish...

Obviously, God feels a sense of responsibility to all human beings (not just believers). He keeps the world turning, rain falling on the just and unjust. I'm sure it would have been just as easy for Him to wipe out the human race at the point of the fall of man, say 'Okay, failed experiment, let's try something different' and move on; but He didn't. He came up with the plan of salvation, spent many centuries executing it just so He could have a family. As pond says it is God's will for all men to be saved, but that doesn't mean they will be.

The born again doctrine may be an ultra exclusionary doctrine, but that is how God set it up in this day and time (and BTW He made it about as easy as He could; men don't have to do anything to earn it, they just have to accept the gift God is giving them); if you don't like it argue with Him. I don't think the born-again ones necessarily think better, love better, know better, act better, etc. than any non born-again ones. Nor do I believe that the Bible says anywhere that they are the superior human beings. In the first century a great deal of the world did follow them and convert to Christian beliefs, but in the first century men and women of God demonstrated the power of God, which a great many Christians for centuries did not. In the first century the DIFFERENCE (not superiority) of a born-again believer was observed through the power they demonstrated. Anyone who has ever seen me angry would be disabused of the idea that I am a superior human being.

I agree that Agape can't really be pinpointed. In 2 Peter 1:7- we are exhorted to add 'to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity (Agape). At what point in this process does brotherly kindness (phileo) become charity (agape)? Is it a sudden event or a slow process whereby the selfish elements in phileo are filtered out and phileo slowly rises to the level of agape? I personally vote for the slow process notion; it's been ongoing in my life for more than thirty years and I still don't think I've gotten there.