WordWolf

True freedom is being able to read the writings of anyone and have the ability to think through what's taught and make up your own mind.

I agree in the principle.

When someone CLAIMS to have done that, and COINCIDENTALLY agrees with EVERYTHING put forth

by ANY teacher or ANY group,

I am very suspicious they did not TRULY do what they CLAIM they did.

Furthermore,

can one review discussions of a CONTRARY view and CHANGE ONE'S MIND?

That's important to LEARNING and expanding beyond the straitjackets of any group's theology....

Well, Bolshevik, I guess that just goes to show you shouldn't believe everything you're taught, unless it's supported with evidence. If you look at Bullinger's notes on the structure of the Gospel of John you'll see where he states the purpose of that Gospel "is to present the Lord Jesus as God."

That's true. To judge only from Bullinger's writings, he was unquestionably a Trinitarian, and there are no

HINTS, even, that he considered otherwise. The suggestions he "would have changed his opinion" or anything

along those lines were promulgated by those in the top in twi *cough* vpw* cough* to try to make him agree

with EVERYTHING they taught.

Here, again, I wouldn't find it very logical to draw any conclusion absent evidence. Even though VP most assuredly borrowed (that verb probably won't sit well with many) from the writings of Bullinger and others as seen in some of his books it does not follow that he did likewise with every book or article he ever wrote including JCING. If you have evidence showing that he plagiarized someone else's writing (when he wrote JCING) then I'd like to see it.

"his" works, and those he did not (POSSIBLY excepting JCING) were written by the research staff and vpw

left THEIR names off and put "by VPW" on the covers. If you need help finding any of these threads,

pm me and I will point you to a few.

Isn't the "argument" (message) more important than the source? Whenever, someone tries to discredit the source they are generally committing the fallacy called Ad Hominem.

You missed what that post was about.

So far, we've documented the sources for most of "vpw"'s books- books that vpw took chapter by chapter,

or paragraph by paragraph, or word by word from-

EXCEPT JCING.

One might argue that it's only a matter of time, since all the others were found over time.

However, the question is: what materials did he plagiarize to make JCING?

That's a separate question from "is the book any good?" or "is the book making its case?"

So, the book was not being DISCREDITED by vpw's blatant plagiarism there or anywhere else,

at least as regarding the quality of the material on the pages.

(If the supposed author is a cheat, liar, rapist, plagiarist, and so on,

the book itself may still have merit.)

Then we have that gem from WTH:

WW asks you to prove that people have accused VPW of always being anti-trinitarian, and WTH replies with a quote from JCING that does not even remotely address the question. Then he goes on to pretend to cite the introductions to other books. Since it's so difficult to prove a negative, let's ask WTH to establish a positive:

Can you name one book that claims VPW was always anti-Trinitarian?

Your claim was that MOST of his critics made this claim. I'm not asking you to prove that. I'm asking you to prove that ANY of his critics made that claim.

Most of the critic's of the book JCING put forth the argument that VPW was always anti-trinitarian and that was his motivation for writing the book.

Got a source for this claim?

Otherwise, I'm saying you made it up.

It doesn't make sense, either. vpw and JCING critics objected to its main assertion and its conclusions.

They did not care at ALL what his background was like.

They didn't care his MOTIVATION for writing the book-they objected to the book.

Considering how weak an "argument" it makes for something so controversial,

most of us-even those who agree with its conclusions- can see the critics had a point, too.

Nope. I did not make this up.

So, you have a source supporting the claim that

"Most of the critic's of the book JCING put forth the argument that VPW was always anti-trinitarian and that was his motivation for writing the book."?

I bet you don't, and the rest of the post will obfuscate the question...

Apparently you skipped over the Introduction in JCING. (Taken from page 2-3):

"So while studying God's Word for the past several decades, I have always kept the trinity in mind, hoping I would find the key to understanding it, hoping that this wasn't one of God's secrets.

But, through the years, the more and more I carefully researched God's Word for knowledge, the less and less I found to substantiate a trinity. Even though I had always accepted the idea of a three-in-one God, I continually found evidence in the Word of God which undermined a Christian trinity."

Congratulations!

You COMPLETELY FAILED to support your claim that

"Most of the critic's of the book JCING put forth the argument that VPW was always anti-trinitarian and that was his motivation for writing the book"

and attempted to change the subject at the same time!

You demonstrated that you have NO support for your claim of what "most critics" say,

or even ONE critic, let alone 51% of them!

I knew vpw was raised Trinitarian. He'd addressed correspondence before this with a Trinity invocation.

YOU made a claim that critics misrepresented him- and when I asked you to show this misinterpretation,

you did everything to hide FROM any quote from any critic!

Your statement about critics was unsupported, and you elected to distract and change the subject

when asked TO support it.

Logical conclusion: this statement of yours:

"Most of the critic's of the book JCING put forth the argument that VPW was always anti-trinitarian and that was his motivation for writing the book."

Was MADE UP ENTIRELY, and has NO BASIS IN ANY QUOTES FROM ANY CRITICS,

LET ALONE "MOST" OF THEM.

There is VPW's own personal tesitmony regarding his original stance on the doctrine of the trinity. But if you are saying I need to back up the statement of the critic's who claim VPW was always anti-trinitarian, then apparently you have never read the Introduction in any of their books either. They often state and make the claim that VPW was always anti-trinitarian in the Introduction of their books (while aligning his position along with that of Arius) and then go on to refer to VPW as the one who is the: "Johnny-come-lately" to the party (debate) - i.e. saying Arius was the first one who came up with the anti-triniatarian idea of God, and VPW just came along later.

YOU'RE the one who made the claim they said that.

Therefore, YOU'RE the one who needs to support your made-up claim.

Don't pretend I have to find books that I think NEVER EXISTED, to quote

Introductions that NEVER EXISTED, when you're the one who claims they do.

That's not how INTELLIGENT discussions work- the Burden of Proof is on the one

claiming the existence of something.

The only question I would ask the critics is why do they feel the need to distort this fact regarding VPW's own personal "indoctrination" of the trinity from his childhood? The only answer to that is because it helps reinforce their weak doctrinal position - so that question really doesn't need to be asked.

The obvious question is why you feel the need to distort the critics? The obvious answer is that it helps

reinforce your weak position- so that they appear to make weaker arguments than the weak arguments

of JCING.

I have no idea if you've been here with this thread yet or not... I've lurked on it quite a bit, off and on, so please forgive me if you've covered this already...

...I believe in long, slow, deep, soft, wet kisses that last three days.

So do I, Chas!

Feel free to post a quote from a movie whenever you're ready!

=============

What?

For "Sledge Hammer", I would only have recognized one quote:

"Trust me-I know what I'm doing."

Even the one-shot comic book used that line- and put it on the cover, as well.

WordWolf, try as much as I might I can't discover how you came to this conclusion. In fact this statement seems to contradict other comments you made in the same post (which I drew this from). Although Matthew (I'll have to recheck Luke) doesn't actually say one way or the other that Joseph and Mary had sex prior to the birth of Jesus I don't see why (based on the context) one could not logically assume they did.

*sigh*

I'll lay it out again in plain English in a bit.

Although I was always puzzled as to why Jesus was considered a bastard child by members of the community he grew up in. You would think that the family would have kept their mouths shut about Mary's condition and just let everyone think that Jesus was actually Joseph's son. I never really ferreted out my thoughts on this matter 'cause it really wasn't all that important to me.

The upshot-and it's still here somewhere- is that there is NO REASON to think that the members of the community

Jesus grew up in thought he was anyone OTHER than Joseph and Mary's son.

(Except "this is what vpw taught they meant in that ONE reference in John 8",

and "vpw taught that there's some ancient doctrine where illegitimates bar-mitzvah'ed at age 12",

which was a separate discussion that addressed things like

"THERE WAS NO BAR-MITZVAH in that century, and Jesus wasn't going to be bar-mitvahed in the account

at all".)

I can dig for them when I have time, or you can beat me to it.

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?

I can see I'm really going to have to break this down in detail, verse by verse.

I shall, in a bit.

I'd also like to thank people like Oakspear for participating in this discussion on its OWN merits,

that is "If the Bible has a consistent or even semi-consistent explanation, let's see what it is"

rather than shoving his opinion down our throats.

(He has stated his opinion, but hasn't required it to limit the discussion.)

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

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

Do you have a source for an alternate explanation-

"knew her not"- other than "vpw claimed that this is one meaning of this phrase"?

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

as "this is what happened", and not presenting it as "my understanding",

as "this is what I believe happened", or "this is one possibility."

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.

Got a basis for this claim? If so, I WOULD like to see it.

(No, I'm not joking- if you have one, go ahead, I may learn something.)

Not looking for any one to agree with me, I don't care if they do or not.

In fact here at this Greasespotcafe, I am normally not believed or ignored, which is fine with me.

Some do hear wether anyone thinks so or not.

You're free to believe whatever you want, but if you're going to claim it doesn't contradict the

Bible, you'll need to SUPPORT YOUR CLAIM. Otherwise, those who CAN support their claims

will point out that you're engaging in a "leap of faith" that contradicts the Bible.

(Which, of course, you can choose to do, but most people prefer not to do that while

simultaneously claiming to believe the Bible. Disbelievers of the Bible, of course, have no

difficulty contradicting it.)

Making statements of belief without supporting them is by its nature limiting, which would

limit your participation in discussion. I noticed that when I asked you to explain and expand

on one of your claims, you seemed to get indignant and refused to clarify.

That means either "I'm too important to explain"- which is a bad attitude on the internet

in general and the GSC in particular,

or "I don't HAVE an answer and don't want to admit it"-which is also bad for either.

Still your decision, of course...

"That which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost"

This does not exclude the way God set it up for children to be born.

But rather adds to it.

Thing is, the other accounts DID exclude "the way God set it up for children to be born."

Even vpw agreed that all verses must agree with the OTHER verses on the same subject.

So, saying this while IGNORING the other verses suggests your only way to deal with them

contradicting your position is to IGNORE THE VERSES.

You're free to do that, but, again, that's NOT a good thing anywhere, including here.

Arguing the quality of CES and Buzzard's books vs JCING is irrelevant.

I disagree wholeheartedly.

They demonstrate there were other, more INFORMATIVE, ways to handle the same subject.

But if one is trying to make JCING seem more special, then of course one needs to squelch any

discussion of SIMILAR BOOKS TACKLING THE SAME SUBJECT.

At least VP had the guts to write the book knowing what fur would fly.

....NOTHING HAPPENED.

twi was always a small-time player in the big game, a footnote in modern Christianity, something where

an asterisk points to its entire existence.

vpw MANUFACTURED the controversy.

vpw gave the book the most controversial title he could, and made sure it had a HUGE TITLE on the

cover. Don't believe me? MEASURE IT, then measure the cover.

Then compare ANY other twi book. The print on THAT cover was HUGE.

And he picked a yellow-and-black contrast. That's the colour contrast used on traffic signs

because they are the fastest-spotted contrast. All it was missing was blinking lights.

Still, nobody would have heard of it, because nobody was stopping to listen as if vpw was

EF Hutton. So, he had to PUSH the doctrine some more in twi so people would trumpet it,

and manufactured his own little media event- the one where he tried to anger the local churches

and gave away AUTOGRAPHED COPIES of JCING at the same time. (Scroll up for the description.)

vpw went out of his way to TRY to make as much fur fly as possible.

There's even another exway book on the topic: One God; the unfinished reformation, by Bob Carden. I hear it's pretty good, too.

This is the first I've heard of the book, so I don't have anything to say on it.

I've never heard of the author, either, so I've no opinion on him, either.

Weak argument???

Did you even read JCING WW?

Yes.

That's fine with me.

ATTENTION LURKERS: Now's your chance to post a clue WITHOUT FIRST GUESSING ONE!

George

When a word is used figuratively, the literal meaning of the word isn't going to help all that much. However, one can look at the context:

Mary asks the questions "How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?"

The answer is:

"The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee:"

Practically, the results of "coming upon" and "overshadowing", at least in this case, is pregnancy. Obviously, biblically, this is a unique situation, so the word "overshadow" wouldn't necessarily mean impregnate" anywhere else.

Let's look at the same incident as it's reported in the other Gospels.

Matthew 1:18-25.

18Now 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.

19Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily.

20But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.

21And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

22Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,

23Behold,a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

24Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:

25And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS."

Jesus' conception was "before [Joseph and Mary] came together",

"conceived...of the Holy Ghost",

child of "a virgin" "that it might be fulfilled",

and Joseph "knew her not" until after Jesus was born.

So, based on Matthew 1, if one believes Matthew 1, Jesus was unmistakeably the son of Mary,

and God Almighty.

(Mark and John don't address this incident.)

The most detailed answer-as was mentioned previously- as to how this worked was in Luke 1:34-35.

"34Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?

35And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God."

Mary got pregnant without "knowing a man". INSTEAD, "the Power of the Highest overshadowed her",

and as a direct result of that, the holy one born of her shall be called The Son of God.

If one believes the Bible, that's fairly straightforward:

A) Joseph was not Jesus' genetic father.

B) Mary was Jesus' mother.

C) Instead of a genetic father, the power of the Highest overshadowed Mary, and she was pregnant with

Jesus as a result.

If the specifics are not that God Almighty created the male reproductive genetic material that normally

would be contributed by a genetic father,

then the differences are so small as to make it effectively identical.

Or one can just discard the Bible. "I don't care what it says-I don't trust it. I think otherwise."

Which, of course, is anyone's privilege, but it DOES limit one's contributions to discussions like this.

You are interpreting that as meaning impregnating Mary when it is not.

The demonstrated EXPLANATION and demonstrated RESULT disagree with you.

The Spirt overshadowing and coming upon someone is not a new thing.

What is unique is that it happened during intercourse with Joseph.

Mary did NOT dance the horizontal until after Jesus was born.

Which you can choose to discard, of course-but don't expect the rest of us to just follow along.

As the seed of Joseph inpregnated Mary.

Mary was in the spirit, totally.

Sanctified, holy, and a special birth like no other.

Please supply any verses that support this position- that is,

verses that say that Joseph supplied 50% of the genetic material for Jesus' conception.

The verses seem to claim the OPPOSITE.

WordWolf in boldface.

I remember when VPW/TWI put out the challenge for a serious debate on the subject of the Trinity. I believe this was right around the time or shortly after VPW had hung his JCING thesis on the doors of the church from his childhood - pretty much Martin Luther style. VPW said he would debate anyone on the subject, but then as soon as a challenge came up VPW said, "I'm not gonna handle it anymore. (I guess by then he had plenty of challenges to deal with at the time.) I don't have time for this junk. There are men in the ministry who can handle the subject better than me."

[You don't remember 1/2 you think you remember.

Martin Luther posted one set of his 95 Theses with the express purpose of opening discussion.

vpw announced he was going to compile the list of all the verses that say Jesus is the Son of God

and post those at church doors.

According to eyewitnesses, what he did was post a big sign at each door that said

"Jesus Christ: not God, never was, never will be!"

and placed an AUTOGRAPHED copy of JCING there.

Apparently, he was convinced reading it would make SOME difference in a Christian's mind,

although even you are admitting it's insufficient to make its own case.

According to your own account, he claimed to be open to discussion, but as soon

as he was answered, he backed off and did a cut-and-run.

So HE wasn't sufficient to make his own case, EITHER.]

If the CES/STFI book and Mr. Buzzard's book are better, then I guess VPW told the truth in that regard, although I highly doubt either of those books will convince a die-hard trinitarian that JCING any more than VPW's original book did.

A hardcore ANYTHING won't be convinced on ANYTHING whether or not the "argument"

is strong, logical and documented, or weak, speculative and illogical.

That has nothing to do with why anyone WRITES such a book.

Why pretend it does?

Most of the critic's of the book JCING put forth the argument that VPW was always anti-trinitarian and that was his motivation for writing the book.

Got a source for this claim?

Otherwise, I'm saying you made it up.

It doesn't make sense, either. vpw and JCING critics objected to its main assertion and its conclusions.

They did not care at ALL what his background was like.

They didn't care his MOTIVATION for writing the book-they objected to the book.

Considering how weak an "argument" it makes for something so controversial,

most of us-even those who agree with its conclusions- can see the critics had a point, too.

Now that might be the motivation behind these later books written by Buzzard and CES/STFI - to win a debate or an argument, so in that respect those books are probably better than the original book written by VPW.

JCING supposedly addressed and refuted the doctrine of the Trinity.

That's what vpw thought when he left those copies- otherwise, even HE was convinced

all that was show lacking substance.

(If you want to claim that, I'll go along with it.)

The other books-including the one by Buzzard who never had anything to do with vpw or twi-

also supposedly addressed and refuted the doctrine of the Trinity.

THEY, however, actually ADDRESS it in a fashion that holds up under scrutiny.

The only "respect" vpw's book holds up in is readability- and it's possible to make

a readable book that addresses FAR more complicated subjects-

like molecular biology.

If you're "preaching to the converted", JCING is sufficient- but then, if you're

"preaching to the converted", ANYTHING, no matter how shoddy or slipshod-

is sufficient.

It has often been said that the Truth is easily imparted/entreated.

It has often been said "this is a Burger King town and we know how burgers should be."

"Often said" is no guarantee of truth.

It's often said Jesus is God the Son, and you don't believe THAT.

Truth is sometimes easily imparted.

Truth is sometimes complicated, or deep.

Ever try to comprehend all the stages in the process of a light receptor detecting light?

It's true, but hardly "easily imparted."

VPW's orignal work was written from the standpoint of one searching for truth - it is not written from the standpoint of one looking to win a theological debate. The challenge for a theological debate on this subject came about years after VPW's original book was written.

Although vpw obviously believed his own press that it could easily do so...

So before one goes off casually debunking VPW's book as being any kind of credible work on the Trinity, it is important that one recognizes the context and the standpoint from which VPW's book was originally written from. In that context I believe one will find a great and deep appreciation for the work that was initiated by VPW.

Before one goes off and builds a shrine to vpw's book, I find it important that we not

rewrite history and remember what vpw himself thought about it- as demonstrated

by his actions. In THAT context, I believe one will find it was a passable book at best,

masquerading as deep truth.

I am of the opinion if someone wants to debate the doctrine of the Trinity (and it's been attempted numerous times in the Doctrinal section of this board) and if a person already has a diffucult time with VPW's original work on this subject - which is essentially written from the standpoint of a searcher for truth, then they will certainly run into greater difficulty when dealing with the later books written by CES/STFI, etc - which I believe are books written from the standpoint of those who are willing to debate the doctrine of the Trinity with someone.

The readability and user-friendliness IS a legitimate criticism of either of the other 2 books.

However, readability by itself is insufficient to elevate an inferior book to the level of

books which actually MAKE THEIR CASE.

I'm ok with them, provided they are tasteful, and small.

I don't like the "climbing up the arm" type on men OR women.

I suppose even a number of them- discreetly placed and small-

work be seen as fine by me.

Having stated my opinion, people can do whatever they want.

I do recommend not getting a person's NAME tattooed, of course.

"You want a piece of my heart,

You better start from start.

You wanna be in the show?

Come on baby, lets GO!"

You can still participate in "Name That Tune", unless you don't listen to music.

Of late, they've been soft-pedaling it.

It's still in the required doctrine, but not as blatant as in vpw's day.

If you look closely, it still appears in stacks of books when they advertise,

but you can't make out the entire title clearly.

(In other words, they're not proudly flying the flag for the strangers and visitors.)

Not to my knowledge...all vps books where still on the shelf tucked away in a closet and i left in 2000..maybe they will introduce it..

still have mine cause it stills makes perfect sence to me.

I've heard Anthony Buzzard's book and the CES/STFI book both are superior to it.

(And I of course am unaffiliated with either and only know them from the GSC.)

[WordWolf in italics for variety.]

Recently, I got a CD from a person that still really likes Wierwille on Ephesians.

[see trouble yet? I do...]

Specifically, it spoke about "heresy" (not being like minded) and causing division in the church.

["heresy"- "when what you teach contradicts what I teach"]

Prior to that, I had been emailing this person and when I mentioned my book, The Genesis Pursuit, I got a non-response on it on return email, as if I hadn't written this at all, but was told I would be sent a CD. I got the CD and the subject was about heresy and division in the Christian church.

[Naturally, they left out how vpw was really big on being divided from the rest of the

Christian Church, because it's ok if HE did it, but wrong if anyone ELSE does it.

Can you say "hypocrite"? I knew you could.]

I am wondering, from those who read the book, if they believe it was "heresy" and if I am "causing division", or is this a possible attempt to stop me from promoting the book.

I haven't read it, but I'm confident it's neither "heresy" nor "causing division" to REASONABLE

Christians. The UNreasonable ones don't even need an excuse to disapprove- they'll invent one

if you don't provide any.

Of COURSE it's an attempt to stop you from promoting your book.]

Your thoughts, please. I am also wondering if there was any talk of "banning" the book or any leader speaking against it.

[None that I've heard, but naturally, I'm interested in your book now.

Then again, I picked up a copy of the "Satanic Verses" as soon as someone said I shouldn't.]

I must confess, I have not read your book yet.

Still, for someone to send you a CD rather that come right out and give your an opinion makes the person appear to have an agenda.

I'm not saying they do. Maybe that's just the way they are.

It kind of looks to me, though, that contradicting"The Doctor" may be the sore point in this scenario.

If you are confident in what you wrote, I would give it the big "shrug".

just my 2 cents.

That's how I see it, too.

No matter what you do, Im pretty sure someone somewhere will brand you a heretic, It seems to be a fairly popular 'christian' pastime....

It's sorta odd that a Wierwille follower would accuse anyone of 'causing division in the church, since Wierwille so vehemently hated most of christianity, and is himself a posterboy for heresy, but asking a Way follower to make sense never was an easy task.

Write whatever you want, there are about 5.999 Billion other living people that may find something valuable in it, no matter what someone who owns a CD may say

I've been branded a "heretic", too. Mostly by more conventional Christians, but I presume

that some ex-twi'ers have put me on a dartboard by now, if only for the "wonderland" threads.

Heresy --- to whom???

Heresy (imo) is defined by the person/ group leveling the accusation,

and therefore the accusation is (imo) compromised -- since it is from ONE viewpoint.

If you are (and you are) presenting valid points that shoot down docvic/ twi *doctrine*,

certainly they will rally and call you every name in the book. You're a threat to them.

Shucks -- we're ALL heretics here on GreaseSpot Cafe -- as pertains to twi.

The main difference between you and the posters here is ----

you're published, and have an Amazon.com link!!

(Will there be a sequel??)

Obviously a Q/Voyager episode.

You'll need someone who's SEEN those.

"MONDAY I'VE GOT FRIDAY ON MY MIND".

Used to listen to that song every Friday afternoon.

Loved the guitar riff. And that drum changeup towards the end.

Can you document that God directly provided the sperm templelady?

I sent a sample of the dress to the lab. They haven't gotten back with the results yet.

<_<

And exactly how did he do that?

("Who are you, and how did you get in here?"

"I'm the locksmith. And, I'm the locksmith.")

I just don't buy it. I believe Joseph was the sperm provider.

You have a right to your opinion. More power to you.

Yeah, Jesus, really a person.

ALL of us say "Jesus, really a person."

Usually, we add something like "and also The Son of God" or

"and also God the Son" or something along those lines.

We are the 14th generation.

Jesus the Christ said who is my mother, father, brother and sister.

Please elaborate. I don't see how you got there.

I missed something important in-between the question and the answer.

Can you walk me through it?

And there was something in there that the word "husband" was the word "ish" meaning mighty man which could be a husband or a father...

Something like that, anyway.

Good grief, it's amazing what your brain keeps hanging around!

I wonder if I really WAS the only person, upon hearing that answer, immediately heard

"Mighty, mighty, Mighty-Man!"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mighty_Man_%28Television%29

http://www.hbshows.com/site.php?c=./mightymanyukk.htm

I have spent many, many hours studying the genealogy of JC. I found out on the internet there is a tremendous amount of dispute on this topic that has been going on for centuries. I previously posted about Mary’s genealogy…well…a second look.

Matt. 1:16 (KJV) And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

This one goes back to Abraham.

Luke 3:23: And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, was the son of Heli,

OK. I was able to verify “as was supposed the son of Joseph” is in the Greek from multiple sources.

IN NEITHER ACCOUNT OF THE GENEALOGY IS MARY MENTIONED. At all. The fundamentalists want her in there. So, some maintain Helial was Joseph’s father in law and others his uncle and Mary’s father. We have no scriptural proof of either. We have no scriptural proof of a heredity via Mary. That I can find at least. One account gives Helial as Joseph’s father the other Jacob. One goes back to Abraham, the other to Adam. Why the discrepancy between who was Joseph’s father? No one seems to know for sure.

What can we say for a fact? Both accounts for sure pertain to Joseph. Mary could be in there but we don’t have proof. At this point.

Jesus was Joseph’s legal son but not biological. As such, he was a legal descendant of Adam, David, Abraham and others.

I vote we go with what we can prove and know for sure. Put the rest on a back burner.

VPW also taught that in Matthew 1:16 when it says 'And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ', that the word 'husband' should have been translated 'father' of Mary and added that otherwise the generations don't add up to fourteen.

And there was something in there that the word "husband" was the word "ish" meaning mighty man which could be a husband or a father...

I agree about checking what the actual verses say.

In this instance, I think Bullinger (and thus vpw) was correct.

Matthew 1:17

So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations;

and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations;

and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations.

The Matthew lineage is 3 x 14.

1) Abraham

2) Isaac

3) Jacob (aka Israel)

4) Judas/Judah (& his brethren)

5) Phares (& Zara)

6) Esrom

7) Aram

8) Aminadab

9) Naasson

10) Salmon

11) Booz (Boaz)

12) Obed

13) Jesse

14) David (the King)

this completes one set of 14.

1) Solomon

2) Roboam

3) Abia

4) Asa

5) Josaphat

6) Joram

7) Ozias

8) Joatham

9) Achaz

10) Ezekias

11) Manasses

12) Amon

13) Josias

14) Jechonias (& his brethren). Then the carrying away into Babylon.

This completes the second set of 14.

1) Salathiel

2) Zorobabel

3) Abiud

4) Eliakim

5) Azor

6) Sadoc

7) Achim

8) Eliud

9) Eleazar

10) Matthan

11) Jacob

12) Joseph the husband of Mary

13) Jesus who is called Christ.

As written, the count is clearly ONE SHORT of 14, 14, 14.

Matthew 1:17.

"17So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations."

So, is the COUNT wrong? Or is one of the VERSES wrong?

I believe the answer given was correct- the counts are correct- 14, 14, 14.

Luke 3:23-24

"23And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,

24Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph,"

So, that lineage ends

Joseph

Janna

Melchi

Levi

Matthat

Heli

Joseph

Jesus.

Those are obviously not the SAME generations as the first list.

Achim, Eliud, Eleazar, Matthan Jacob, Joseph, Jesus.

Joseph, Janna, Melchi, Levi, Matthat, Heli, Joseph, Jesus.

Doesn't take a Greek degree to see these are 2 different lists.

This means there's at least 2 possible answers.

A) the lists are guesswork and error, and the Bible can't be trusted.

Some of us (not me, but others) find that the acceptable answer.

B) the lists are correct, but mislabelled.

Obviously, there are 2 family lineages, one of Joseph Mary's husband,

one of someone else.

What is what?

Well, the Luke account says Jesus was believed to be ("as was supposed")

to be Joseph's son, Heli's grandson, etc.

The Luke account appears to be Mary's husband's line.

What about the Matthew account?

If the account is supposedly Mary's husband, then there's 2 problems.

1) the lists don't match

2) the NUMBERS don't match- a generation is MISSING.

If the Luke account is Joseph's line,

and the Matthew account is Mary's line,

then the numbers in Matthew should go

7) Achim

8) Eliud

9) Eliazar

10) Matthan

11) Jacob

12) Joseph

13) Mary

14) Jesus

That would mean the Joseph in step 12 was Mary's FATHER, and the word translated

"husband" SHOULD be "father".

Is it possible that Mary's father and husband would have the same name?

Joseph was a common name in Judaism.

If you look at the Luke lineage, there's 2 Josephs in that one, as well.

So, it's certainly PLAUSIBLE.

And it explains the count.

And it explains why there's 2 lineages, if one thinks Scripture is in any way reliable.

On the other hand, I'm open to alternate answers that say

1) the Bible is correct

2) the lists in Matthew are 3 x 14

3) Matthew correctly depicts a lineage, as does Luke

I posed this to some Christians before, and nobody was able to present an answer that

worked equally well with those 3 postulates.

(This is not the case with other ideas I've done that with.)

So, if you've got such an answer, I'd be interested in reading it.

Let me see if anyone can fill this one without hurting themselves....

The Three Musketeers

Julie Delpy

An American Werewolf in Paris

My facts my be wrong because it’s been so many years since I took pfal, but what I remember is vp putting a great deal of emphasis that JC took a part. Didn’t he use Heb. 2:14 to say JC took flesh and not blood? I am thinking he tied that to sin being in the blood and Mary receiving seed (sperm) because of Gen. 3:15.

In any case, Heb 2:14 (NIV) Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death….etc.

Good work, Oakspear. To me, it’s quite clear the verse is saying JC had flesh and blood, and nothing more complicated than that.

Right.

That's what vpw said, and Oakspear explained the meanings without being shackled by

relying on archaic meanings from the KJV, where some words have changed in usage

since 1611, but vpw pretended they didn't when convenient.