Larry N Moore

I am sorry you’ve spent so much time looking for it and been unable to find it.

That's ok. It took no more than fifteen minutes to do a search of the books I listed.

Really the thrust of the thread isn’t particularly to discount VP.

I guess I shouldn't have said he taught it since I can't document it.

I think we all have done that at one time or another and not only with regards to VP. In earlier days (in this venue) I was called on it quite often.

Now, if it's not too much trouble for you could you cite the section in Romans that you're referring to and maybe a brief explanation of how you understand it?

hmmmm?

perhaps, sometimes,it's better not to know?,ya think?

I wouldn't know but, I think you're right.

Of the following books:

Jesus Christ Our Passover

Jesus Christ Our Promised Seed

The Bible Tells Me So

The New Dynamic Church

The Word's Way

Order My Steps In Thy Word

Receiving The Holy Spirit Today

Power For Abundant Living

And the Way Magazines dating back to Mar/Apr 1973

I can only find one reference (other than the one I previously cited) that mentions "innocent blood" and that is found in The Word's Way:

Conception by the Holy Spirit was the only way Jesus Christ could be conceived. Mary nurtured the body of Jesus in her womb and He became the line of Adam and David according to the flesh. The Holy Spirit contributed the soul-life in the blood of Jesus by way of the sperm. In His arteries and veins there was sinless soul-life. When Judas betrayed Jesus he confessed according to Matthew 27:4, “I have betrayed the innocent blood.” Sin made the original soul-life corruptible, but the soul-life of Jesus was from God.

It may be possible to conclude (and I can see how others might do so) that the phrase "In His arteries and veins there was sinless soul-life." supports the assertion that VP stated "sin nature was in the blood" but, I'll have to give it more thought before I can arrive at the conclusion that that's what he was saying.

WordWolf, perhaps (just perhaps) if you get off your high-horse and answer the questions I put to you before we went down this path our discussion might be more fruitful.

Dude -- I cited a source (one of which mentioned Rev. James Freeman, a compiler of Bible customs) on the subject whereas all I've seen you do is only cite yourself. I suggest you follow your own advice.

Right- check the surrounding exposition. His discussion of why the "innocent" blood is "innocent" SHOULD

have what we're looking for.

Well, I already did that and the subject (in context) concerns the soul-life of man. No place in the body of the book does VP say anything about the "sin nature" of man being IN the blood. I'll check his other writings out (in a bit).

So, Larry gave a source. However, there's no way to confirm that source was ACCURATE,

since there's no documentation, thus no way to confirm it's based on correct information.

I know you're both ready and willing to accept what both sources said, but even if I was,

that STILL doesn't mean what we WANT to believe is CORRECT.

Furthermore, he's relying on them more in further posts now. That's not how proper intelligent

discussion goes, as I'm sure you both can see.

WordWolf, there is a limit to my patience. I would suggest you stop while you're ahead. If "winning" this debate is what you want then -- I declare you the winner!

Might want to cross-check it against the phrase "innocent blood" when he was expounding on

Judas' statement on betraying Jesus. That might be where he gave the sin-blood connection

he held forth.

Ok, I did and this . . .

Children partake of both flesh and blood, but Jesus Christ did not partake of flesh and blood; He only took part. According to the flesh, He was born of Mary; but according to the soul life that was in His blood, He was by divine conception. Thus Judas spoke a truth when he said, "I have betrayed the innocent blood."

. . . is the only place in PFAL that the phrase "innocent blood" is mentioned.

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.

Jeaniam allow me to re-quote a snippet from a previous post regarding the customs of the time.

8. At the end of the celebrations a special canopy was set up in the groom’s chamber and both bride and groom were carried to the nuptial canopy. The friends went home and the marriage was finally consummated. Until the consummation, the bride was always heavily veiled.

It may not be 100% clear but if Joseph and Mary were in their separation period during the time of the Angel's visit to Joseph and he was admonished not to fear to "take unto himself Mary his wife" then it's very possible that it's referring to this section in the marriage customs. Meaning the period where they actually consummate their marriage.

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 an interesting thought! I've read studies where our healing is largely determined by our state of mind. It makes sense. If you're depressed (for example) I can see how that might slow down the process of the body to heal itself.

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.

I think Joseph's concerns were soothed once he received the visit from the Angel. And I think you're right about God knowing Joseph would be the right man to help raise Jesus. Both Mary and Joseph were "righteous" in God's eyes.

In case I'm not being clear let me simply state that I believe Mary and Joseph had sexual intercourse before Jesus was born. What I'm trying to get across (with my other thoughts) is that the emphasis I see in verse 25 with the use of the word "firstborn" is that although Mary bore children for Joseph -- this firstborn -- Jesus -- was not one of them.

As to if Joseph knew (had sex) with Mary prior to Christ's birth I was only implying perhaps in light of the fact it was NOT Joseph's child and the importance of who it was they might have chosen not to have sex until after he was born. But that is all my thinking.

Another thing of "importance" to consider is how important it was (culturally) to have children. Especially male offspring. I can imagine how concerned Joseph might have been to know that his wife was bearing a male child not from his own loins. If they never had any more children his blood-line would not carry on in future generations. To them -- that was a BIG deal.

BTW, I thought Larry gave a source for the marriage customs. Okay, as I was.

You thought correctly Jeaniam.

On this matter of "knew her not" I think the key word on that subject (as I suggested in my other post) is on the word "firstborn". The word ginosko = knew can have a more fuller meaning than just having sexual intercourse. You hinted at this when you implied that it's not possible to impregnate someone who's already pregnant.

Larry, you posted in the other thread you had all that stuff on your computer. Did I mis-read it? VP taught sin in the blood stream in pfal.

Spot, I just did a word search of all the places in PFAL where VP mentions the word blood and at no time did he say that "sin is in the blood stream." I'll double-check that book and check out his other books when I have more time.

It probably wouldn't be a lot of trouble-

providing he has a copy of vpw's books.

If he still has them, he'd need to know which one to reference, and where.

So, it's an easy-sounding request, but may not be at all easy to fill, depending.

Well, fortunately (or unfortunately depending on how you look at it) I have all his books and have them electronically stored on my computer. So it's easier for me to do a search for anything VP might have said in his books. In just doing a cursory word search in the book "PFAL" all I can find in reference to the blood is in regards to the transfer of the soul-life and how the blood had become contaminated. However, I could quote something from him and it might not be what spot has in mind.

Perhaps, spot can quote the section in Romans she/he's referring to. That should be no problem.

Spot, I was composing my post (and doing a little research at the same time) so I didn't see your response until after I hit the "Add Reply" button. Sorry for not knowing your gender and thanks for clearing that up.

Umm

She is being funny, look at the size of the "cup"

Doesn't look abnormal to me. Does it to you? :)

VPW and others taught sin nature is in the blood stream.

If it would not be too much trouble for you can you post in this thread VW's exact wording for this doctrinal teaching.

Eagle, if it would not be too much trouble for you could you post a few excerpts from your book.

My experience has been there is great freedom in not having to know everything all the time.

At one time I use to think that was true but, nowadays I don't know that it is.

It depends at least in part on what is meant by the phrase 'knew her not until Christ was born'.

That is a puzzler Jeaniam. The word "knew" is the Greek word ginosko which is as I recall a experiential type of knowledge. I may be stretching it a bit but, the only thing I can come up with is -- the context is about the firstborn son -- Jesus -- and in that vein Joseph didn't "know" Mary fully in regards to bearing children with her -- hence -- experientially -- until after Jesus was born.

I hope that made some sense to you.

you could simply do a google on his name.

I tried that before I asked the question. I may be mistaken but, I think the Walter Cummins that comes up in a Google search is not the same one of TWI. There are a few hits on him but, most of those are references to his books or his involvement with TWI. Oh well -- it was just a bit of curiosity on my part and I thought someone here that tracks former leaders of TWI would have that sort of info. But like you said -- someone may pop in knowing more.

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

So let me ask this: insofar as one may say "For my part, I forgive LCM and VPW for what they did to the church," what's the practical application of it? Does it mean we no longer mention what they did?

Raf, those are two excellent questions. I've always thought that forgiving others has more to do with your own state of mind and subsequently health, while at the same time beneficial to the minds of others. Maybe the saying "Love your neighbor as you love yourself" comes into play here and in thinking about that principle I can see that anytime you withhold forgiveness it will only further harden your heart and the root of bitterness, like a cancer, will rob you of the love for life.

On the other matter -- well -- I suppose that depends on much you talk about them and with what attitude you approach the subject. All things done in moderation probably won't hurt you too much (if at all) but when the subject seems to consume most of your thoughts and conversations with others maybe it's time to step back and then move forward. I don't know -- maybe that's why God (through Paul) admonishes us in Philippians 3: 13 and 14 "Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before, I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus." It's very easy to miss that mark when your focus is on what people do instead of what Jesus Christ did for people.

Hmm . . . I'm glad you asked these questions.

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, as soon as I recover from my momentary condition of being speechless I'll try to address your questions more fully even though (if I'm not mistaken) I thought I already addressed the first one in a previous post.

Here's a recap of one part of this discussion, with some quotes from me and Larry: <major snip>

WOW!

That exclamatory statement could be misconstrued to imply that your . . . hmm . . . how shall I gently label it? . . . very lengthy resonse -- flabbergasted me. Such is not the case. I'll simply say it left me speechless, which is not to say that nothing comes to mind in response to it. However, the voice of prudence beckons me to say very little on this occasion even though the voice of foolishness is strongly whispering in my other ear. On this occasion, though, the former is much stronger and therefore (feeling rather generous) I will allow you to bask in your moment. I hope you savor it.

Anyone know whatever happened to him? At the time it was announced that LCM would be the new President of TWI I had thought that it should have been Cummins instead.