Goey
-
Posts
1,862 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
Gallery
Posts posted by Goey
-
-
What the Hay,
quote:
I can't say I am in agreement with everything VPW wrote, only because I haven't read everything he wrote.
Am I reading this right? Does this mean that it is only because you have not read "some" of VPW writings that you cannot say that you agree with "all" of them - implying that you do agree with "all" that you have read?
In any case, this thread has nothing to do with, "bringing up VPW's words just to have something to strive over..."
A claim was made by one poster that the PFAL book is/was God- breathed, and by covenant in 1942 it supersedes the scrptures which are horribly impotent. He further claims that it is only by "mastery" of PFAL that anyone can truly walk with God - implying that no person anywhere who does not "master" PFAL cannot really know God. In other words PFAL is Divine Truth and the God-breathed word and the Bible is a powerless approximation of the Word.
In response to these claims, this discussion is on the vein that if PFAL is indeed the Word of God, then as VPW taught, it must be error free, yet many have doccumented some errors. The one poster claims that these are only "apparent errors". We are attempting to have some dialog concerning these errors in PFAL.
So this thread has little to with anyone "attempting to stand approved before men" or simply to prove VPW wrong just for the sake of argument. The implications of what the one poster has claimed are serious enough that these errors, whether apparent or real, warrant debate and discussion.
BTW, Welcome to GreaseSpot.
Goey
-
Zix,
Thanks, I did look at the Septuigant. In Deut 23: 2 the Greek used is "pornes" and is translated by Brenton as "one born of a harlot".
porn?s Greek for harlot or prostitute.
Goey
-
Rafael,
I am not really saying anything. Just looking at some evidence. No conculsions here either. But if bastard in Deut. means something else than just a child conceived out of wedlock, then the stigma may not have been as great as has been assumed.
In Luke 1, though it would seem that Elizabeth was also privy to Mary's conception.
After her visit from Gabriel, Mary left Nazareth and went to a "city in Juda" to live with Elizabeth for three months. She then returned to Nazareth when she was about three months pregnant but only espoused to Joseph.
Then in Luke 2:4-5 we see Mary and Joseph leave Nazareth for Bethlehem and Mary is "great with child" yet is still only epsoused/betrothed to Joseph. Wouldn't folks in Nazareth have known?
Is is possible that Joseph though to "put her away privily" to save her honor, the antithesis to that was to stick it out with God and accept the stigma that his "son" would be considered by the community as having been conceived before he and Mary were legally married. ?
Just some thoughts.
Goey
-
Rafael,
According to Strongs Hebrew Lexicon, "bastard" is from the Hebrew 'mamzer'
mamzer {mam-zare'}
1174a from an unused root meaning to alienate
Outline of Biblical Usage
1) bastard, child of incest, illegitimate child
a) bastard
b) mixed population (fig.)
c) born of a Jewish father and a heathen mother or visa versa
Is it possible that 'bastard' here in Deuteonomy is referring to a child of incest or a child of conceived a Jew and a heathen such as an Ammonite or a Maobite ( See Verse 22:30 and Verse 23:3) and not just an illigitimate child conceived out of wedlock between two Jews?
Possibly 'bastard' in English does not fully correlate to "mamzer" in Hebrew.
Just a tidbit worth considering.
Goey
-
What is the history of Bar/Bat Mitzvah?
quote:
" TARGET=_blank>http://www.milknhoney.co.il/torah/barmit_history.html
The Bar/Bat Mitzvah custom is not found in the Torah. We do know that throughout history many other cultures and civilizations have had their own ceremony or recognition of puberty. The association of religious obligations and the age of thirteen probably began around the era of the Second Temple (between 516 BCE and 70 CE). It was not until the sixth century CE that there were some beginnings of the Bar Mitzvah customs/ceremony as we know it today. However, the full ritual of Bar Mitzvah was not developed until the Middle Ages. By the thirteenth or fourteenth century, it was the custom to call the 13-year-old boy to the Torah in order to recognize his entry into 'manhood'. He would chant the Torah blessings, all or part of the weekly parasha (Torah portion) as well as a section of Haftarah (an additional reading from the prophets). The young man's father would then recite the following b'racha (blessing):It was also a custom for the boy to give some type of speech or lesson on either the sidra or something from the Talmud. In some form or another these are the elements that still today are included in the Bar Mitzvah today."
Although it was not Bar Mitzvah as is practiced today, according to this source, there was "probably" some kind of religious confirmation of Jewish boys at the time of Christ. The age of 13 is not set in stone - it is probable. According to another source ( Rivkind) Moroccans boys Bar Mitzvah at the age 12.
Karl D. Coke . PHD, like VPW, also believes that Jesus was in Jerusalem for "Bar Mitzvah" and he builds a plausible case, yet makes no reference to 12 years as being the age that illigimate boys celebeated this in Jesus day. Here is the link:
http://www.restorationfoundation.org/6_126.htm
So, it is "possible" that Jesus could have participated in some kind of comming of age ceremony at the time in the record in Luke 2. More evidence of this "possibility" is the record of Jesus having dialog with the the "doctors" in the Temple, which could be seen as similar to the custom of the boys in the Middle Ages making a speech or giving a lesson. However, I can find no reference at all that the age of 12 was reserved for illigitimate boys in regards to any ceremony.
At this point I will move Rafael's point # 1 out of the "actual error" category in regards to PFAL. It now becomes a doctrinal isssue at this point, IMO. Yet there is nothing to support that PFAL is correct on # 2. I count that as speculation without any legitimate supporting evidence.
So you see Mike, it is not too difficult to search these kinds of things. This took me less than 1 hour to do the work on this, and I did not have to do a song and dance routine.
Goey
[This message was edited by Goey on January 17, 2003 at 14:45.]
-
I have seen enough now.
Steve's post does a very good job of summinng up Mike's methods and position. Mike is not here to discuss and exchange he is here to anounce. Mike has made it pretty clear that he is not interested objective examination and dialog concerning PFAL. God knows he has had opportunity.
Mike, you have either ignored my posts, made excuses, or repsonded with little more than mindless blather and rambling twaddle. You have done the same with others.
Mike, with that being said, I will no longer waste my time attempting any kind of dialog with you.
Count Me Out
Goey
-
Mike,
Rafael asked you to deal with two specific things in regards to Luke 2 that VPW stated without basis or proof. These are:
1. That they were in town for bar-mitzvah.
2. That "illegitimate" children were treated differently than other children for the purpose of bar-mitvah.
You did everyting except address these specific claims. As for me, I am not interested in how many months or years of study it will take or how germane is is to the story. VPW thought it was germane, because he used these to prove his point.
quote:
On this page I see that Dr did some 5-senses research, couldn't find a simple documentable answer, DID find one hot clue, but lost it later, and then, in the midst of all Dr's 5-senses confusion (which often well characterizes behind-the-scenes academia) God gave him a revelation "You can trust the lost, "old piece of literature" and the 13 year old shame deal."
Is this your answer? That:
1. VPW found, but then lost an "old piece of literature" about illegitimate boys being taken to Bar Mitzvah at 12.
2. God gave revelation to VPW confirming the accuracy of this literature, saying, " You can trust the lost, "old piece of literature" and the 13 year old shame deal."
Mike, you have got to do better than that. You can't expect too many to take you and your "data" very seriously if you respond to legitimate questions with, "God gave him [VPW] a revelation..." Is this going to be your pat answer?
Goey
-
Apostasia
Forsake - Acts 21:21 (KJV)
Fallng away - II Thesalonians 2:3 ( KJV)
Rebellion - Flavius Josephus, Josephi vita (ed. B. Niese) section 43 (KJV)
Rebellion - Flavius Josephus, De bello Judaico libri vii (ed. B. Niese) book 7, section 164
Rebellion - Flavius Josephus, De bello Judaico libri vii (ed. B. Niese) book 7, section 82
In the Vulgate Jerome translates apostasia into "discessio" which is mostly translated into 'division' from the Latin Classics, as in political divisions.
However, In Acts 20:29 Jerome also translates the Greek 'aphixis" into 'discessio(nem) in the Latin. Aphixis is translated "depart" in the KJV. Aphixis is only used this one time in the NT. In Classical litreature it can mean either arrive or depart.
Acts 20:29 "For I know this, that after my departing..." Refering to either Paul's departing to Jerusalem
English ----------------- Greek --------------------- Latin
Falling away ------- apostaisa ----------------- discessio
Forsake ------------ apsotasia ------------------ discessio
Depart ------------- aphixis --------------------- descissio
If we look at the words translated 'depart' rom the Greek NT.
Apochoreo - Depart - 3
Aperchomai - Depart - 27
Metabaino - Depart - 7
poreuomai - 11
Ok, that enough. (There may be more.)
The only language evidence that I see that might suggest that "apostasia" be translated as "depart" is Jerome's rendering of both 'aphixis' and "apostasia" into the Latin 'descessio'. But this is a very weak linkage. The Latin may have had several meaning for 'descissio', but it seems pretty clear that in the Greek that 'apostasia' and 'aphaxis' are not synonymous. Apostasia in every other ocurence I can find outside of the NT means rebellion. 'Forsake' applies in Acts 21:21 in that these rebelled against Paul's teachings and thererfore forsook him.
It would be an exception and departure in usage for apostasia to mean 'departure' in the sense of a gathering together. There are other words in the Greek that would fit much better if 'departure' were the intended meaning. The context strongly suggests rebellion.
If we are to build or support a doctrine of a premillenial rapture, we need to find other verses.
Wordwolf, literal translations of Greek words are nice, but they quite often do not convey the common usage and meaning. TWI made a lot of mistakes by doing this. - In French, a potato is called a "pomme de terre" . This translates to "apple of the ground". But it is certainly not an apple. Greek is much the same.
Goey
-
I have had several dogs, but the best one I ever had was a mutt - Toby. He was 1/2 Golden Lab and half Australian Shepherd - about 60 lbs. He loved the water and took naturally to both hunting and herding. He was gregarious and extremely good natured.
I got Toby from the animal shelter in 82 when he was 8 weeks old. He died last November at the ripe old age of 19. He was active until just a couple weeks before he died.
He was a loyal friend. I miss him.
Goey
-
Thanks for the birthday wishes folks.
Special thanks Kit for keeping up these things - and to Wacky Funster who took me out to a fine steak and shrimp lunch in San Antonio.
Goey
-
quote:
I’ve repeated demonstrated in many posts, the simplest and most complete of which is “Feelings,†that this tradition provided “Bible†is only approximate. Why do you keep shoving this intractable problem under the rug? Is it because it’s difficult to deal with? ...Tell me how you solve this problem so that you can do your error checking in comparing of PFAL to “the Bible"
You have repeatedly demonstrated your ignornance, closed mindedness and hipocracy more than anything. In PFAL itself your "master", VPW, taught keys to research so that we could "get back to the Word." In light of this, VPW also taught that "The greatest secret in the world today is that the Bible is the revealed word and will of God" - the same Bible that you say is "horribly impotent".
Why it is that VPW himself failed to plainly tell us in PFAL that PFAL itself was greater than the Bible and that God "reissued his Word" in the form of PFAL? After all, if this was true then VPW already had this "fresh revelation" in print and on film for years. Why did he not plainly tell us? Why did it take God 50 years since PFAL was first taught and, 17 years since the death of "the master" for God to send someone to reveal this to the world.
I'll tell you why. Because it is a damned lie - that's why. Pure fiction. Totally absurd and baseless except possibly in the mind of one person - Mike.
Mike, you must feel very privledged to be the only human-being in the entire world to know these "hidden truths" and to have been chosen by God to reveal these things that have been "buried" since VPW got his "revelation" in 1942.
It must be also be very humbling to know that of all the folks in the whole world that you and you alone alone know the real truth and that everyone else in all of Christianity and the world is in error.
You have taken the concept of false prophet to new heights.
Goey
-
Dr. Wierwille taught that the OT was only "for our learning" and that the NT was for "doctrine", distinguishing between the two.
He used Romans 15:4 for his proof text.
Romans 15:4 For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.
However what VPW failed to tell us was that "learning" in Romans 15: 4 is the Greek - didaskalia. This same Greek word is translated "doctrine" 19 times elsewhere in the Bible. This is the only verse where it is translated "learning".
Goey
-
Ethelbert wrote:
quote:
"Everyone needs to quit picking on Mike. He does have some unpopular ideas, but he does have the right to speak them in this forum. It is sad to see the underlying sarcasm in quite a few of the posts."
Oh really? If it has not already been said, "everyone" is not picking on Mike personally, but his ideas and and methods are definitely being challenged - and rightly so.
I might also point out that absolutely no one has interfered with Mike's right to speak in this forum - He has spoken freely without hindrance or obstruction.
And by the same token everyone else has the right to express their ideas as well - even if it means challenging, criticizing or rejecting what another has presented. Let's not mistake criticism of someone's ideas with sarcasm that is intended to wound someone personally.
I agree that Mike's ideas are unpopular, but even more than that, no matter how well-intended, these ideas spit in the face of what many here believe to be true and factual. Do we not have the right to challenge, criticize, reject or even ridicule these ideas?
Ethelbert, who are you to tell "everyone" what they need to do?
BTW, Welcome to Greasespot
Goey
-
Rafael,
I have seen the light!
quote:
Number 1In PFAL, Wierwille writes that David is called “a man after God’s own heart” only AFTER the events in II Samuel related to Bathsheba and Uriah.
In truth, David is called “a man after God’s own heart” in I Samuel, long before he is king, long before he met Bathsheba.
Rafael, remember, the translations come from corrupted remnants and are only approximations they cannot be relied upon. This is why God gave PFAL to VPW - to clear this up.
quote:
Number 2In PFAL, Wierwille writes that there is no word “lama” in the Aramaic.
In truth, there IS such a word in Palestinian Aramaic, the language Jesus spoke. It means “why?”
It may seem that way, but if God said it in PFAL then that is what I'll go with.
quote:
Number 3In PFAL, Wierwille writes that the word “lama” should probably be replaced with “lmna,” “for this purpose,” which is never used in a question.
In truth, “lmna” can be used in a question, something Wierwille acknowledged near the end of his life, and which is acknowledged in TWI’s very own Aramaic Interlinear.
This is five senses data. There must be another explanation. What keys have you applied?
quote:
Number 4In PFAL, Wierwille notes the distinction between “thoroughly” and “throughly.”
In truth, the latter is an archaic form of the former. They mean precisely the same thing (Wierwille failed to follow his own principle of interpreting words according to their Biblical usage).
Words can change meanings over time. God chose to give these two words differing meanings and then reveal this in the RELIABLE revelation of PFAL.
quote:
Number 5In PFAL, Wierwille writes of the difference between the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven.
In truth, the Bible uses these terms interchangeably. There is no difference whatsoever in their usage. Jesus uses them interchangeably. (I debated whether this is a difference in interpretation or a difference in fact. My conclusion is that this is a difference in fact, as it is plain to anyone who cares to look up the parallel usages of the two terms).
Again I must ask, what keys did you apply to PFAL? There is ALWAYS another explanation to APPARENT errors. If you tell me what keys you applied then that will save me some time.
quote:
Number 6In PFAL, Wierwille says “apistia” is the kind of unbelief held by people who don’t know enough to believe, while “apatheia” is the kind of unbelief held by people who’ve heard enough, but don’t care.
In truth, the word “apistia” is used of the disciples after the resurrection (Mark 16:14) and of Israel (Romans 3: 1-3). Neither can be said to have not heard enough to believe.
See my answer to Number 1
quote:
Number 7In PFAL, Wierwille defines “apostle” as one who brings new light to his generation. It may be old light, but it is new to the generation that hears it.
In truth, “apostle” means “sent one.” It does not carry the definition Wierwille applies to it (indeed, such a definition leads one to wonder how the term could apply to more than one person in any given generation, while we KNOW that there were 12 during Jesus’ lifetime, and 13 if we include Jesus himself – the Apostle and High Priest of our confession. Or is it profession? Whatever).
In PFAL, God chose to expand HIS definition of Apostle beyond the meaningless definitions in your interlinear or lexicon. I'll go with God's definition in PFAL. You should too.
Etcetera, Etcetera, Etcetera
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Just joking.
:)-->Goey
-
Some Thoughts
According to Mike, God made a covenant (promise) with VPW in 1942. This is based soley upon VPW's claim that God spoke to him and told him that, "I will teach you my Word like it hasn't been known since the first century, if you will teach it to others." Also according to Mike, the reason that he believes this is because "I, myself, was a beneficiary of the second half of the promise".
As a result of this promise the claim is made that PFAL is the Word of God, and mastery of it is the only way to know God. According to Mike, those who reject PFAL are rejecting God's Word as if it were given directly to them.
There were no witnesses present, VPW when VPW heard God's promise. This claim cannot be confirmed by what Mike calls five-senses knowledge. So this claim should be given no weight according to Mike's own methdology. To give it any credibility because it is in PFAL would make the argument circular. ie, It's true because it is in PFAL, and PFAL is true because God spoke to VPW. - Circular reasoning.
I think that few who took PFAL will deny that they benefited from it. I benefited from it. Yet the fact that I benefited, says nothing to actually confirm the veracity of VPW's claim of God's promise to him in 1942 or that PFAL is the Word of God. Why? Because it is like saying that because I benefited from the "revelations" of Ellen White or Anthony Robbins that they are therefore the Word of God. This is another logical fallacy. Furthermore "benefiting" is subjective.
Mike's theory also negates the scripture that many of us and most of Christiany believe to be reliable when "rightly-divided" as VPW taught - a teaching ot VPW's that Mike seems to have rejected. So this conviently absolves Mike from the duty and responsibility of verifying PFAL's teachings with scripture. In other words, according to Mike, the Bible can only be understood in light of PFAL - PFAL having the greater authority.
On top of all of this, Mike has encouraged everyone to reject historical data or eyewitness accounts that may paint VPW's moral character in a bad light, suggesting that these are all lies or that there are other explanations. Another logical fallacy. Honestly, I would not be suprised if Mike were to claim that VPW was the true Messiah and that the historical Jesus was a fraud. I did not say he said that - only that I would not be suprised.
Mike, some have suggested that you are mentally ill. Well I do not believe that at all. These folks are being nice. I think you are a deceiver and a pervert. If any spirit is guiding you, it is not of the true God. You are howling at the moon - a wolf.
I reject you and your message - It is evil. Consider yourself and your "gospel" rebuked - in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, God's Messiah.
Galatian's 1:8-9 ( KJV)
Gal 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
Gal 1:9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any [man] preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
Get it ?
Goey
-
Mike,
quote:
"Goey, you asked for some simple specifics some time ago. Here’s what I do NOT believe: That Dr is above God, or that Dr is above Jesus Christ. For you all to accuse me of this says to me your reading skills are lacking"
I did not ask you to exlain what you don't believe. My question was to give specifics on what you do believe - "Whose reading skill is lacking?"
Lay it out in plain English - Point by point.
The problem I see is that you seem to be so caught up in the set-up, pre-defense, and pre-qualifying your beliefs, that you have made little effort to plainly lay them out.
So Mike, cut to the chase and tell us what the diamonds and treasures are.
Goey
-
Mike,
One constant theme here is "obedience" - not to God - not to the scriptures - but instead to Dr Weirwille. Specifically to his last teaching where he says to "take and Master PFAL". You say regarding this statement by VPW:
quote:
"I can only obey God's first instruction to master PFAL, and then He can give me the next."
It was VPW who said this, but you say it was "God's first instruction". What shall we conculde then, that VPW is God ? or that God spoke when VPW spoke?
You also posted:
quote:
"This is why God intervened in 1942 to give us the power we need to accurately see His written Word, and to accurately hear His voice in every situation. When we finally do master PFAL we will finally arrive at "all nine all the time."
I take this interventinon to mean the covenant that God supposedly made with VPW that resulted in PFAL.
You also posted in another place:
quote:
"Now where is Christ in my postings? He’s hidden, but he’s revealed to anyone who follows Dr’s final instructions. The mind of Christ was put into those books[PFAL and collaterals] by God Himself so that we could totally absorb it. We will see this Christ only by obedience to God by way of His chosen spokesman. Master PFAL and you’ll see Christ like he “has not been known since the first century.â€
And also:
quote:
"You might say that the mind of Christ is in your Bible. I used to think that, but slowly I realized that my KJV is not really the Bible, only approximation. I’m sure most of us have made corrections in ours and even scratched out a few places to correct some of its flaws. God gave Dr the PFAL revelations to TOTALLY correct this situation for us.""...This is a huge debate: flawed remnants of scripture like the KJV or Stevens Text versus the fresh revelations from the 1942 promise"
Let me sum up what you are saying to us.
1. The scriptures are flawed and Christ cannot be fully known through them
2. To correct this situation God intervened in 1942 and made a covenant with VPW.
3. In 1942 through this covenant God gave PFAL to VPW and made VPW His apostle and prophet.
4. What VPW says in his books and on tape is the Word of God and should be obeyed.
5. PFAL totally corrects the problems with flawed nature of the Bible.
6. As a fresh revelation and for all practical purposes, PFAL supersedes and serves to replace the previous scriptures.
7. PFAL and VPW's other books are the only true and reliable written Word of God
8. It is only through mastery of PFAL and it's collaterals that Christ can be known.
Mike, Can you confirm that my list above is correct? Did I get anything wrong? I want to make sure that I am in no way misrepresenting what you are sharing with us here.
Goey
[This message was edited by Goey on December 28, 2002 at 7:36.]
-
For Windows 98 and 95 Users.
Do you want to change the Windows 98 Logo startup screen? It's easy.
Create a bitmap file in Paint or any other program. Make it 320 X 400 DPI / 256 colors. It can be anything.
After you create it save it to the C: folder. Close Paint, then in Explorer, rename the file to logo.sys. The next time Windows starts this bitmap will be displayed instead of the same old Windows Logo.
---------------------
Want to disable the Windows 98/95 logo screen altogether to see what is happening when that logo screen is just sitting there. Do this.
Open up a command prompt and go to c: Type Then type In the editor under the [options] section, change the line that says logo=1 to logo=0 then save the file.
The next time you start Windows the splash screen will be gone and will not hide the items that load or run from config.sys and autoexec.bat. Don't change the other lines unless you know what you are doing.
Goey
-
This teaching was never "lost". I have read it before. I have a copy of it on my computer.
Ok folks, here is where this is going.
The idea to be presented is that Wierwille's writings are "scripture" and that they are all "god-breathed" and just as valuable if not more so than the Bible itself.
You can bet that Mike will eventually explain it after the song and dance routine.
Next we will learn the great "treasure" that has been lost for 17 years - that the Word of Wierwille is the will of God.
May I bring to rememberance a thread started by RG a while back entitled Can you believe what someone recently told me?
In that thread RG opened with the following:
quote:
Someone recently told me that they believed vpw's books were equivalent to scripture.I couldn't believe it. I utterly and forceably rejected it. That is crazy. What do you think?
Well is seems a though that "someone" is here now - Mike
I have got to think that old Doc Vic, warts and all, might even be rolling in his grave right about now.
Goey
[This message was edited by Goey on December 27, 2002 at 2:16.]
-
I knew BT from Ft Wayne Indiana. He was just 17 or 18 years old and a Branch Leader - go figure.
If he and his wife got out, hopefully it for more than just wanting to buy a house.
Hopefully it has something to do with being tired of running roughshod over people, tired of screaming and yelling - of particitating in TWI's phoney inquisitions and general nastiness.
Hopefullly it has something to do with seeing the errors of their ways - and wanting to change.
Goey
-
RottieGrrrl,
Here is your puppy, reduced to 60%. It still seems to look pretty good. You can save it an then put it up on your AOL page to link up to.
Goey
-
Sorry
Wrong thread - Carry on.
-
Bayou Manchac - Louisiana
Goey
-
Zixar is right.
Changing the CAS/RAS timings can cause problems. But then I did warn about that didn't I? And we are talking about tweaking, aren't we?
I would not do it on a system where the data is super critical.
Changing these timings is kind of like over clocking the processor, it depends upon the tolerences of the individual chip.
One way to test if the system is stable after making these kind of changes it to run a loop test on the memory with Norton or another similar utility. If there are no errors after 3 or 4 cycles of stressing the memory, it will work fine.
Goey
Actual Errors in PFAL
in About The Way
Posted · Edited by Guest
Rafael,
We are using the terms "illegitimate" and "bastard" in a sense that may not be biblical. As you noted, all folks are "legitimate" but acccording Deuteronomy "bastards" are not allowed in the Temple. Clearly this not the case with Jesus. Jesus was not considered a bastard in the biblical sense and was therefore *legitimate* according to the law. He had to be.
So, is the real question is whether the Pharisees thought Jesus was "legitimate", or whether the Pharisees or anyone else believed that he was "born of fornication"?
In Luke 1:36 Gabriel tells Mary, "thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived..." - "Also", implying that Mary had indeed conceived before she left to visit her cousin Elisabeth for three months after which she returned to Nazareth.
Then some time later, in Luke 2:4-5, Mary is "great with child" yet the record says that Mary is still Joseph's "espoused wife". As I understand it according to Jewish tradition, a man and his espoused wife have not yet consumated the marriage. It is also forbidden for a esposued couple to have sex until after the marriage ceremony.
According to the Matthew Henry Study Bible:
Jesus was presumed to be born of a union between Joseph and Mary. When was this union then presumed to have taken place? I suggest that it likely that the Pharisees as well as others who knew them, presumed that union took place while Joseph and Mary were espoused and not yet officially married - according to the source above, an act that was strictly forbidden. Might this presumed act have been called "fornication" by the Pharisees in John 8:41?
Rafael Posted.
Yes, but only assuming that you mean legitimate according to Biblical laws and terms. He may have been presumed to have been "born of fornication" or whatever they called the call the "sin" of an esposed/betrothed couple having sex before the official marriage.
The presumption of Joseph having been Jesus' biological father is irrelevant to Jesus so-called legitimacy. According to Luke, they were still only "espoused" when Mary was "great with child". I see no evidence in the Bible to suggest that Mary and Joseph were anything other than espoused at the time of Jesus' birth.
What ramifications this may have had in biblical times is uinclear - it may have meant little. But in modern times in certain strict areas, it may have been considered a big deal.
This may be a case where confusion is caused by mixing biblical and modern terms modern, or by attempting to correlate biblical situations in modern terms according to modern ideas.
Goey
[This message was edited by Goey on January 19, 2003 at 22:08.]