As most of you know, I don't believe that the bible is infallible, inerrant, etc. I don't believe that it "fits together like a hand in a glove". However, I can suspend my disbelief for the purposes of discussions like this and can read and reason as if I did.
WordWolf presented it well, IMHO; the bible unquestionably teaches that Joseph was not the biological/genetic father of Jesus. That God somehow was Jesus' father. How he accomplished that is not really addressed (i.e. it doesn't say whether he created a sperm that fertilized an egg, created an embryo that Mary carried to term or any other scenario).
Naturally I believe that this is not necessarily the case, but I don't see how a biblical case can be made for any other position.
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.
To me, when I read things like the RC’s believe Mary was born without a sin nature, it reminds me of the Rubik’s cube. I have spent enough time reading how denominations handle things to see that they handle difficult issues by simply changing theology. VP tended to do the same thing at times by changing the text and Greek. Both methods are like moving the stickers.
Sorry for stepping in here and derailing the thread ( ), but there is one minor little point that I'd like to clarify with you.
The Catholic Church doesn't simply handle difficult issues by changing theology. Including, yes, the dogma of the "Immaculate Conception." The dogma of the "Immaculate Conception" has been held since the earliest times in the Church. It wasn't given the cute little title "Immaculate Conception" Because the Protestants rejected it does not mean, for a moment, that it wasn't originally there. It simply meant that, for one reason or another, they decided to reject it when they broke from the Catholic Church.
You were told that the Catholics invented that dogma in 1854. However, that is not correct. The doctrine has existed since the first century. The Apostolic Constitution, Ineffibalis Deus, published in 1854, was written because the commonly accepted doctrine was under some controversy by people who wished to change it. The document didn't create the doctrine. It confirmed and codified it. In fact, if you were to read the document, you'd find that part of the contents of the document outline the history of the doctrine.
And if you observe the history of Christianity, you will observe that the Church would make issuances in response to heresies or controversies throughout her history. The early Church Councils, in fact, were all convened to deal with these types of controversies.
(And, by the way, as to the subject of the Immaculate Conception, I full well realize that the terms are not used anywhere in scripture. I would, howver, ask you to do a little word study on the term 'charitoo' -- Strong's 5487 -- in scripture. You will find it used in two places: Luke 1:28 and Ephesians 1:6. That, by the way, includes the Septuagint. You may find a little significance there if you consider it a while)
As for whether you choose to believe something, believe something else, or not believe something (or anything), that's your business. I don't care and am not trying to convince you to believe anything at all. I really don't care one way or the other...it's an issue that is between you and your god(s). (I say god(s) not personally in your direction, but out of respect to the non-Christians who participate) But please don't make accusations or comparisons between the Catholic Church and vpw/twi. The two are not comparable and, frankly, VPW/TWI do not deserve to be compared to any authentic Christian confession...they don't deserve that degree of credibility that such a comparison gives them.
Only if you discard both the Matthew and Luke accounts, both of which say Joseph and
Mary did NOT dance the horizontal until after Jesus was born.
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. 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.
No disrespect intended and opposing or differing points of view are certainly welcome by me at least, else no learning can take place. I actually got my information from the internet. Evidently I didn’t check my facts thoroughly enough.
No disrespect intended and opposing or differing points of view are certainly welcome by me at least, else no learning can take place. I actually got my information from the internet. Evidently I didn’t check my facts thoroughly enough.
Understand and no offense taken. There is a lot of disinformation out there. And I have always said that the Catholic Church does a horrible job of educating its adults...thus causing some of that disinformation to actually be spread by individual, uncatechized Catholic adults themselves.
Please don't think I was flaming you...I just wanted to make sure that you understood doctrine is sometimes clarified, doctrine is sometimes applied to new situations that didn't exist in the ancient Church (e.g., artificial birth control), but doctrine is NEVER created out of thin air or arbitrarily changed. At least not by the Catholic Church.
(BTW, I would be interested in your impressions of the word charitoo (5487) and its usage through the Bible. I do believe it is pertinent to the discussion)
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.
You missed a FASCinating discussion here some time ago.
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.)
I don't need the Bible to tell me that God didn't create seed in Mary when it doesn't say it did.
It's the common 'christian' belief that God introduced 'somehow' which is not explained.
I posted the common sense of what happened in the physical and partly in the spiritual.
I cannot remove the beliefs of another no matter how hard I try.
I will not try to prove anything but speak and those who choose to hear can.
I don't mind being challenged and have presented a compelling case if we are to be released from the religous upbringing that we have all had and just THINK, there just might be some real SENSE to the maatter rather then God who is Spirit unseen and invisable, impregnating Mary.
She is blessed above all women because she allowed Joseph to have intercourse with her while in the Spirit, Her entire being being Spiritually renewed as the Sperm entered and became part of her as well.
There is not one soul here that can explain this without being overshadowed and the Spirit coming upon them.
And there it sets for the carnal book worms to fight over while the actual occurence alludes the seemingly wise.
You think you can find the answers in the bible you have more to learn then you think.
You think you can find the answers in the bible you have more to learn then you think.
Actually, I think if you're going to have Biblical discussions it behooves you to at least know what the Bible says. Whether we find answers therein or not it's always a good place to start.
That which is in me is also conceived of the Holy Spirit.
I don't know you well enuf to underestimate you. All I can do is go on what you say in these forums. If I mistakenly misunderstand you I'll be more than happy if you clear up any misconceptions I might have. If what you say makes sense to me I'll be more than eager to apologize for my mistake.
"If the Bible has a consistent or even semi-consistent explanation, let's see what it is." (WW)
Yep.
Mark: “Understand and no offense taken.”
Good I am glad.
“There is a lot of disinformation out there.”
Boy, ain’t that the truth, and a lot of it no better than twi, hence my frustration.
“Please don't think I was flaming you...I just wanted to make sure that you understood doctrine is sometimes clarified, doctrine is sometimes applied to new situations that didn't exist in the ancient Church (e.g., artificial birth control), but doctrine is NEVER created out of thin air or arbitrarily changed. At least not by the Catholic Church.”
I appreciate knowing that. I find it personally VERY challenging dealing with this topic. I know nothing at all except twi and prior to that, don’t smoke, drink, or cuss or I was going to burn in hell forever. I am further handicapped by a flat refusal on my part to even read the Bible for nearly 8 yrs. I have forgotten a lot. This is my first attempt to deal with doctrinal issues.
“(BTW, I would be interested in your impressions of the word charitoo (5487) and its usage through the Bible. I do believe it is pertinent to the discussion)”
I looked it up. Thayer’s gives to compass with favor, pursue with grace, honor with blessings.
Eph. 1:6
To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made (5487) us accepted (5487) in the beloved.
Luke 1:28
And the angel came in unto her and said, Hail, thou that art highly favored, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.
Dadgum, Mark. The first thing I notice in Eph. is change. Not only in status, but spiritual condition!!! Ok. Lights are on, engine is running. What does it mean re Luke??? Am I on the right track? At all?
I think you have it spot on as far as the effect of the special blessing shown in Eph 1:6. That special blessing ("compass with favor, pursue with grace, honor with blessings") comes as a result of our regeneration. (baptism...whether you wish to discuss water vice spirit or both is another issue and not relevant...I speak of God's cleansing)
Since the effects discussed in the passage Eph 1:3 - Eph 1:14 are co-incident with that special blessing (charitoo) provided in Eph 1:6, that is the only reference I have for outlining the Angel Gabriel announcing that Mary had received that blessing with his pronouncement in Luke 1:28. Nobody else is identified with that word...only Ephesians (talking in regards to Christians) and Luke (talking about Mary)
But wait a minute, though...the effects of baptism could not have been available until Christ's death, right? (Rom 6:3-4) (we were baptised into Christ's death)
So now we have a conundrum. Does scripture have a definitive answer?
Since it's scripture, if we accept that scripture is the Word of God, we have to accept it. But do we understand the how?
(Note: for us Catholics, we can refer to what we call the ordinary magesterium, which consists of the body of accepted doctrines passed down from the apostles through time...what is criciticized as "tradition" -- 2 Th 2:15 -- So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter. But this is not a Catholic board, so we need to see if we can figure out some other logical explanation that doesn't require us to go through a bunch of Catholic documents. There, I can't give a good answer...as "First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation," 2 Pe 1:20)
We know, as far as self-aware, intelligent created beings, God has created 3 so far, with a fourth to come (I'm not talking our animal critter type friends here). Its the "Created" aspect I'm interested in here:
1. Angels - all types
2. Adam - Holy, in God's image, holy enough to be able to enter into God's presence - he fell. We can no longer enter into God's
Presence.
3. Christ - the 2nd Adam - holy, able to stand in God's presence.
4. The New Creation to come (us someday - we shall be changed) - not here yet. Will live with Christ in God's presence.
I have no problem with God creating Christ.
If he truly was "The Son of God" he could not be the "Son of Joseph." His flesh, his "sinless" blood, must have been created by God. As the first Adam was created, so was the second. His "seed" or this package, came through David's line, but to truly be the "Son of God" - he must be - God's son.
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.
He was the second Adam - his flesh was a new creation. Unblemished, unfallen - perfect.
He was the unblemished sacrificial lamb to carry the weight of God's wrath and pure, thus acceptable, to be sacrificed for the sins of the world.
Impure, fallen flesh and blood were not "holy" and thus, could not be an acceptable redemption for mankind.
Re: 5487. It’s a verb, past tense. Here’s what Bullinger says about the root word, grace:
“The word denotes specially, God’s grace and favour manifested towards mankind or to any individual, which as a free act is no more hindered by sin than it is conditional upon works. It is the grace of God, because it denotes the relation assumed and maintained by God towards sinful man. It is joined with Christ, because it is manifested in and through Him.”
So, two actions of God’s grace. One toward Mary prior to conception (before the angel appeared); the second toward us before we believed. That’s one commonality.
I can expound on what this is saying if you need help..
But for now Im going back to Bible.cc
Leviticus 12:5 But if she bears a female child, then she shall
But if she bears a female child, then she shall be unclean for two weeks, as in her menstruation; and she shall remain in the blood of her purification for sixty-six days.
bible.cc/leviticus/12-5.htm · Cached page
Leviticus 15:26 'Any bed on which she lies all the days of
Any bed on which she lies all the days of her discharge shall be to her like her bed at menstruation; and every thing on which she sits shall be unclean, like her uncleanness at that time.
bible.cc/leviticus/15-26.htm · Cached page
Leviticus 12:2 "Speak to the sons of Israel, saying: 'When a woman
When a woman gives birth and bears a male child, then she shall be unclean for seven days, as in the days of her menstruation she shall be unclean. Leviticus 12:2 GWT:
COmments made on same page in Bible.cc
15:1-33 Laws concerning ceremonial uncleanness. - We need not be curious in explaining these laws; but have reason to be thankful that we need fear no defilement, except that of sin, nor need ceremonial and burdensome purifications. These laws remind us that God sees all things, even those which escape the notice of men. The great gospel duties of faith and repentance are here signified, and the great gospel privileges of the application of Christ's blood to our souls for our justification, and his grace for our sanctification.
I remember a teaching from about 8 yrs ago pertaining to 'Conception', and it was detailed...the evidence of conception was evident in the verse, primarly the evidence of a unclean bed or something....
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
38
36
42
61
Popular Days
Jun 7
37
Jun 2
34
Jun 8
33
Jun 3
32
Top Posters In This Topic
ChattyKathy 38 posts
Jeaniam 36 posts
another spot 42 posts
Larry N Moore 61 posts
Popular Days
Jun 7 2007
37 posts
Jun 2 2007
34 posts
Jun 8 2007
33 posts
Jun 3 2007
32 posts
Posted Images
Oakspear
As most of you know, I don't believe that the bible is infallible, inerrant, etc. I don't believe that it "fits together like a hand in a glove". However, I can suspend my disbelief for the purposes of discussions like this and can read and reason as if I did.
WordWolf presented it well, IMHO; the bible unquestionably teaches that Joseph was not the biological/genetic father of Jesus. That God somehow was Jesus' father. How he accomplished that is not really addressed (i.e. it doesn't say whether he created a sperm that fertilized an egg, created an embryo that Mary carried to term or any other scenario).
Naturally I believe that this is not necessarily the case, but I don't see how a biblical case can be made for any other position.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jeaniam
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.
Edited by JeaniamLink to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Ssshhhh....don't tell anyone...Jeaniam & I agree
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
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?
Edited by cmanLink to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Sorry for stepping in here and derailing the thread (
), but there is one minor little point that I'd like to clarify with you.
The Catholic Church doesn't simply handle difficult issues by changing theology. Including, yes, the dogma of the "Immaculate Conception." The dogma of the "Immaculate Conception" has been held since the earliest times in the Church. It wasn't given the cute little title "Immaculate Conception" Because the Protestants rejected it does not mean, for a moment, that it wasn't originally there. It simply meant that, for one reason or another, they decided to reject it when they broke from the Catholic Church.
You were told that the Catholics invented that dogma in 1854. However, that is not correct. The doctrine has existed since the first century. The Apostolic Constitution, Ineffibalis Deus, published in 1854, was written because the commonly accepted doctrine was under some controversy by people who wished to change it. The document didn't create the doctrine. It confirmed and codified it. In fact, if you were to read the document, you'd find that part of the contents of the document outline the history of the doctrine.
And if you observe the history of Christianity, you will observe that the Church would make issuances in response to heresies or controversies throughout her history. The early Church Councils, in fact, were all convened to deal with these types of controversies.
(And, by the way, as to the subject of the Immaculate Conception, I full well realize that the terms are not used anywhere in scripture. I would, howver, ask you to do a little word study on the term 'charitoo' -- Strong's 5487 -- in scripture. You will find it used in two places: Luke 1:28 and Ephesians 1:6. That, by the way, includes the Septuagint. You may find a little significance there if you consider it a while)
As for whether you choose to believe something, believe something else, or not believe something (or anything), that's your business. I don't care and am not trying to convince you to believe anything at all. I really don't care one way or the other...it's an issue that is between you and your god(s). (I say god(s) not personally in your direction, but out of respect to the non-Christians who participate) But please don't make accusations or comparisons between the Catholic Church and vpw/twi. The two are not comparable and, frankly, VPW/TWI do not deserve to be compared to any authentic Christian confession...they don't deserve that degree of credibility that such a comparison gives them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
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. 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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
another spot
Mark:
No disrespect intended and opposing or differing points of view are certainly welcome by me at least, else no learning can take place. I actually got my information from the internet. Evidently I didn’t check my facts thoroughly enough.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
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...
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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Understand and no offense taken. There is a lot of disinformation out there. And I have always said that the Catholic Church does a horrible job of educating its adults...thus causing some of that disinformation to actually be spread by individual, uncatechized Catholic adults themselves.
Please don't think I was flaming you...I just wanted to make sure that you understood doctrine is sometimes clarified, doctrine is sometimes applied to new situations that didn't exist in the ancient Church (e.g., artificial birth control), but doctrine is NEVER created out of thin air or arbitrarily changed. At least not by the Catholic Church.
(BTW, I would be interested in your impressions of the word charitoo (5487) and its usage through the Bible. I do believe it is pertinent to the discussion)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Do you have a source for an alternate explanation-
"knew her not"- other than "vpw claimed that this is one meaning of this phrase"?
You STILL haven't SUPPORTED this, and are STILL presenting it as "statement-of-fact",as "this is what happened", and not presenting it as "my understanding",
as "this is what I believe happened", or "this is one possibility."
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.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
*sigh*
I'll lay it out again in plain English in a bit.
You missed a FASCinating discussion here some time ago.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.
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.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
Cool! But could you lay it out a little more plainer. I didn't see your answer to my post herein. :)
Then could you explain (plainly) what John 8: 41 means when they said: "We be not born of fornication."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
The Pharisees accused Jesus of being born as the result of fornication? What could be confusing about that?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
What's being ignored Larry, is common sense.
I don't need the Bible to tell me that God didn't create seed in Mary when it doesn't say it did.
It's the common 'christian' belief that God introduced 'somehow' which is not explained.
I posted the common sense of what happened in the physical and partly in the spiritual.
I cannot remove the beliefs of another no matter how hard I try.
I will not try to prove anything but speak and those who choose to hear can.
I don't mind being challenged and have presented a compelling case if we are to be released from the religous upbringing that we have all had and just THINK, there just might be some real SENSE to the maatter rather then God who is Spirit unseen and invisable, impregnating Mary.
She is blessed above all women because she allowed Joseph to have intercourse with her while in the Spirit, Her entire being being Spiritually renewed as the Sperm entered and became part of her as well.
There is not one soul here that can explain this without being overshadowed and the Spirit coming upon them.
And there it sets for the carnal book worms to fight over while the actual occurence alludes the seemingly wise.
You think you can find the answers in the bible you have more to learn then you think.
Edited by cmanLink to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
Actually, I think if you're going to have Biblical discussions it behooves you to at least know what the Bible says. Whether we find answers therein or not it's always a good place to start.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
I said I'd respond "in a bit".
You'll get FASTER responses right after you start PAYING for them.
Otherwise, I will get back to what I promised to get back to within the timeframe I
promised to do so.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
:lol Touche!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
You underestimate me Larry, common mistake.
No one is to be underestimated.
That which is in me is also conceived of the Holy Spirit.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
I don't know you well enuf to underestimate you. All I can do is go on what you say in these forums. If I mistakenly misunderstand you I'll be more than happy if you clear up any misconceptions I might have. If what you say makes sense to me I'll be more than eager to apologize for my mistake.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
another spot
"If the Bible has a consistent or even semi-consistent explanation, let's see what it is." (WW)
Yep.
Mark: “Understand and no offense taken.”
Good I am glad.
“There is a lot of disinformation out there.”
Boy, ain’t that the truth, and a lot of it no better than twi, hence my frustration.
“Please don't think I was flaming you...I just wanted to make sure that you understood doctrine is sometimes clarified, doctrine is sometimes applied to new situations that didn't exist in the ancient Church (e.g., artificial birth control), but doctrine is NEVER created out of thin air or arbitrarily changed. At least not by the Catholic Church.”
I appreciate knowing that. I find it personally VERY challenging dealing with this topic. I know nothing at all except twi and prior to that, don’t smoke, drink, or cuss or I was going to burn in hell forever. I am further handicapped by a flat refusal on my part to even read the Bible for nearly 8 yrs. I have forgotten a lot. This is my first attempt to deal with doctrinal issues.
“(BTW, I would be interested in your impressions of the word charitoo (5487) and its usage through the Bible. I do believe it is pertinent to the discussion)”
I looked it up. Thayer’s gives to compass with favor, pursue with grace, honor with blessings.
Eph. 1:6
To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made (5487) us accepted (5487) in the beloved.
Luke 1:28
And the angel came in unto her and said, Hail, thou that art highly favored, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.
Dadgum, Mark. The first thing I notice in Eph. is change. Not only in status, but spiritual condition!!! Ok. Lights are on, engine is running. What does it mean re Luke??? Am I on the right track? At all?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Spot,
I think you have it spot on as far as the effect of the special blessing shown in Eph 1:6. That special blessing ("compass with favor, pursue with grace, honor with blessings") comes as a result of our regeneration. (baptism...whether you wish to discuss water vice spirit or both is another issue and not relevant...I speak of God's cleansing)
Since the effects discussed in the passage Eph 1:3 - Eph 1:14 are co-incident with that special blessing (charitoo) provided in Eph 1:6, that is the only reference I have for outlining the Angel Gabriel announcing that Mary had received that blessing with his pronouncement in Luke 1:28. Nobody else is identified with that word...only Ephesians (talking in regards to Christians) and Luke (talking about Mary)
But wait a minute, though...the effects of baptism could not have been available until Christ's death, right? (Rom 6:3-4) (we were baptised into Christ's death)
So now we have a conundrum. Does scripture have a definitive answer?
Since it's scripture, if we accept that scripture is the Word of God, we have to accept it. But do we understand the how?
(Note: for us Catholics, we can refer to what we call the ordinary magesterium, which consists of the body of accepted doctrines passed down from the apostles through time...what is criciticized as "tradition" -- 2 Th 2:15 -- So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter. But this is not a Catholic board, so we need to see if we can figure out some other logical explanation that doesn't require us to go through a bunch of Catholic documents. There, I can't give a good answer...as "First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation," 2 Pe 1:20)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sunesis
Interesting discussion. I'll throw in my 2 cents.
We know, as far as self-aware, intelligent created beings, God has created 3 so far, with a fourth to come (I'm not talking our animal critter type friends here). Its the "Created" aspect I'm interested in here:
1. Angels - all types
2. Adam - Holy, in God's image, holy enough to be able to enter into God's presence - he fell. We can no longer enter into God's
Presence.
3. Christ - the 2nd Adam - holy, able to stand in God's presence.
4. The New Creation to come (us someday - we shall be changed) - not here yet. Will live with Christ in God's presence.
I have no problem with God creating Christ.
If he truly was "The Son of God" he could not be the "Son of Joseph." His flesh, his "sinless" blood, must have been created by God. As the first Adam was created, so was the second. His "seed" or this package, came through David's line, but to truly be the "Son of God" - he must be - God's son.
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.
He was the second Adam - his flesh was a new creation. Unblemished, unfallen - perfect.
He was the unblemished sacrificial lamb to carry the weight of God's wrath and pure, thus acceptable, to be sacrificed for the sins of the world.
Impure, fallen flesh and blood were not "holy" and thus, could not be an acceptable redemption for mankind.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
another spot
Re: 5487. It’s a verb, past tense. Here’s what Bullinger says about the root word, grace:
“The word denotes specially, God’s grace and favour manifested towards mankind or to any individual, which as a free act is no more hindered by sin than it is conditional upon works. It is the grace of God, because it denotes the relation assumed and maintained by God towards sinful man. It is joined with Christ, because it is manifested in and through Him.”
So, two actions of God’s grace. One toward Mary prior to conception (before the angel appeared); the second toward us before we believed. That’s one commonality.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
likeaneagle
Hey folks,
I just started to read this thread....
This is what I found...
I can expound on what this is saying if you need help..
But for now Im going back to Bible.cc
Leviticus 12:5 But if she bears a female child, then she shall
But if she bears a female child, then she shall be unclean for two weeks, as in her menstruation; and she shall remain in the blood of her purification for sixty-six days.
bible.cc/leviticus/12-5.htm · Cached page
Leviticus 15:26 'Any bed on which she lies all the days of
Any bed on which she lies all the days of her discharge shall be to her like her bed at menstruation; and every thing on which she sits shall be unclean, like her uncleanness at that time.
bible.cc/leviticus/15-26.htm · Cached page
Leviticus 12:2 "Speak to the sons of Israel, saying: 'When a woman
When a woman gives birth and bears a male child, then she shall be unclean for seven days, as in the days of her menstruation she shall be unclean. Leviticus 12:2 GWT:
COmments made on same page in Bible.cc
15:1-33 Laws concerning ceremonial uncleanness. - We need not be curious in explaining these laws; but have reason to be thankful that we need fear no defilement, except that of sin, nor need ceremonial and burdensome purifications. These laws remind us that God sees all things, even those which escape the notice of men. The great gospel duties of faith and repentance are here signified, and the great gospel privileges of the application of Christ's blood to our souls for our justification, and his grace for our sanctification.
I remember a teaching from about 8 yrs ago pertaining to 'Conception', and it was detailed...the evidence of conception was evident in the verse, primarly the evidence of a unclean bed or something....
IF I COULD ONLY REMEBER..this is so bugging me..
Edited by likeaneagleLink to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.