My mislabeled post started me thinking about logical as well as Biblical objections to a virgin birth, although, as I have said before, I'm not sure that when it says in Matthew 1:24 & 25--that Joseph 'took unto him his wife; and knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son'; that 'knew' necessarily means sexual activity resulting in pregnancy, since in the record of Sodom and Gomorrah, the word 'know' is used in conjunction with homosexual activity which could not possibly result in pregnancy. On the other hand, I wonder about the discomfort having an intact hymen might cause a woman in labor (since I brought it up), and how much pain would be caused by having an hymen ruptured by something as big in circumference as a baby's head, not to mention that the baby would be travelling in the opposite direction (moving from the inside out instead of from the outside in), as a penis would be. It also occurred to me that it would reassure Joseph's mind, if he were allowed to have sexual relations with Mary prior to Christ's birth and to determine that she really was still a virgin (although pregnant) just as the angel had said. This falls into the category of just what I think and can't be backed up by any Biblical reference.
A very early belief about this subject is contained in the Protoevangelium of James. Discussed briefly in post #19, back on page 1. You might find that of interest.
A very early belief about this subject is contained in the Protoevangelium of James. Discussed briefly in post #19, back on page 1. You might find that of interest.
*reads about 1/3 the Protoevangelium of James*
*skims the Wikipedia article*
Forgive me if I don't put any stock in this.
It neither looks "right" to me, nor does it seem to date back to the lifetime of James at all.
I think it was written by the intent and hand of a well-meaning man who thought it was a good idea.
My mislabeled post started me thinking about logical as well as Biblical objections to a virgin birth, although, as I have said before, I'm not sure that when it says in Matthew 1:24 & 25--that Joseph 'took unto him his wife; and knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son'; that 'knew' necessarily means sexual activity resulting in pregnancy, since in the record of Sodom and Gomorrah, the word 'know' is used in conjunction with homosexual activity which could not possibly result in pregnancy.
I'm still waiting for an actual, authoritative source to come out and say this was a legitimate usage
of the term, from a source unconnected with a twi history and not trying to defend vpw's teachings
specifically nor generally.
Does anyone have one? Something with sources?
On the other hand, I wonder about the discomfort having an intact hymen might cause a woman in labor (since I brought it up), and how much pain would be caused by having an hymen ruptured by something as big in circumference as a baby's head, not to mention that the baby would be travelling in the opposite direction (moving from the inside out instead of from the outside in), as a penis would be. It also occurred to me that it would reassure Joseph's mind, if he were allowed to have sexual relations with Mary prior to Christ's birth and to determine that she really was still a virgin (although pregnant) just as the angel had said. This falls into the category of just what I think and can't be backed up by any Biblical reference.
Worth thinking about, but with no details on such provided, it's all speculation, whether good, bad,
logical or miraculous.
We don't know if God "removed this obstacle."
Also, I've read that some young women who are active in sports have this break whether or not they
are sexually-active. It was not a medical source I read this from, so I don't know how much
It neither looks "right" to me, nor does it seem to date back to the lifetime of James at all.
I think it was written by the intent and hand of a well-meaning man who thought it was a good idea.
I make no claim that it should be part of the canon.
I do make the claim that it was part of the (an) oral tradition. As to its antiquity, the commonly accepted dating for it is sometime in the early to mid second century. I would, however, make the claim that it reflects a common set of beliefs that were in existence at that time.
2Ti 2:8Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel:
Hbr 2:14Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
Hbr 2:15And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.
Hbr 2:16For verily he took not on [him the nature of] angels; but he took on [him] the seed of Abraham.
Gal 3:16Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
With regard to whether Mary was the genetic mother, perhaps the answer can be found with different questions. Are the above verses literally true and can those promises have been fulfilled if they are not?
Hbr 7:1For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him;
Hbr 7:2To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace;
Hbr 7:3Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.
Hbr 7:4Now consider how great this man [was], unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils.
Do you understand the implications of this? I have a feeling this thread is going to get lengthy…
Hbr 7:1For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him;
Hbr 7:2To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace;
Hbr 7:3Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.
Hbr 7:4Now consider how great this man [was], unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils.
Do you understand the implications of this? I have a feeling this thread is going to get lengthy…
Frankly, it isn't all that complicated...if one doesn't reject the doctrine of the Trinity.
Please refer yourself to Rev 5:6 for a comparison, by the way.
Please clarify how Melchisidec figures into "the doctrine of the Trinity."
I really don't THINK you're claiming the King of Salem was Jesus himself,
or any part of God in any traditional Trinity sense.
Please correct my understanding if you ARE claiming that.
A cursory glance can make it look like that's exactly what you're suggesting.
I am claiming that Melchisedec was a type of Christ.
We know nothing of Melchisedec's parentage...therefore he is "without father and mother"
Christ, as God the Son, is (outside of His physical incarnation) eternal. "I AM"
Both are identified as having eternal priesthoods outside of the levitical order.
As priests, both would offer sacrifices to God the Father. Melchisedec is identified as having accepted Abraham's offering...Christ is identified as having offered Himself as a an eternal sacrifice (thus the referencee to Rev 5:6)
And the kicker is that Melchisedec is called the "king of Salem (peace)" and Christ is identified as the "prince of peace"
The thing is that if one accepts the doctrine of the Trinity this typology is perfectly obvious. If not, then Heb 7:3 is very problematic.
Also the genealogy that goes back to David is in Matthew that emphasizes Jesus Christ as a the shepherd king.
Where the other genealogy is in Luke which emphasizes him as a man.
The other two Gospels he has no other genealogy because he is emphasized as the son of God in John and in Mark he is as a servant which has no notable royal family lineage.
I am claiming that Melchisedec was a type of Christ.
We know nothing of Melchisedec's parentage...therefore he is "without father and mother"
Christ, as God the Son, is (outside of His physical incarnation) eternal. "I AM"
Both are identified as having eternal priesthoods outside of the levitical order.
As priests, both would offer sacrifices to God the Father. Melchisedec is identified as having accepted Abraham's offering...Christ is identified as having offered Himself as a an eternal sacrifice (thus the referencee to Rev 5:6)
And the kicker is that Melchisedec is called the "king of Salem (peace)" and Christ is identified as the "prince of peace"
The thing is that if one accepts the doctrine of the Trinity this typology is perfectly obvious. If not, then Heb 7:3 is very problematic.
I don't see why being a Trinitarian Christian or a non-Trinitarian Christian should make this any less clear.
This has never been opaque as long as I've read this.
I am claiming that Melchisedec was a type of Christ.
We know nothing of Melchisedec's parentage...therefore he is "without father and mother"
Christ, as God the Son, is (outside of His physical incarnation) eternal. "I AM"
Both are identified as having eternal priesthoods outside of the levitical order.
As priests, both would offer sacrifices to God the Father. Melchisedec is identified as having accepted Abraham's offering...Christ is identified as having offered Himself as a an eternal sacrifice (thus the referencee to Rev 5:6)
And the kicker is that Melchisedec is called the "king of Salem (peace)" and Christ is identified as the "prince of peace"
The thing is that if one accepts the doctrine of the Trinity this typology is perfectly obvious. If not, then Heb 7:3 is very problematic.
I don't accept the doctrine of the trinity, and I don't think Heb. 7:3 is that problematic.
I guess we could all talk a lifetime of what we think on stuff couldn't we? :)
I'm not sure God ever meant it to be so confusing for us but then again I think He wanted us to think.
Can you imagine Him scratching His head at times when reading our posts.
As John would say 'We all THINK about the Word (Bible), it is only when we elevate what we think above what is clearly written that we run into problems'.
No, I think God meant the Bible to be simple, so simple that 'not even a fool need err therein.'
Yes, sometimes I think he must want to quote Shakespeare, 'What fools these mortals be!'
I am glad that Heb 7:3 (He is without father or mother or genealogy, and has neither beginning of days nor end of life,)is not an issue for you. Back in the dim, dark days when I was a TWI't, this was one of the verses that caused some issues for me...and that I glossed over as part of my mental assent to their theology. (It sort of fell into the same category as Col 2:9. Still trying to figure out how I was able to let VeePee & Co convince me that theotes meant "head God" versus "Godhead" -- or that how the difference still didn't point in the same direction...but I digress)
(BTW, I am not accusing either of you of being TWI't's, just that those years were the times that I assented to the Arian view of the Godhead advocated by TWI, vice the Trinitarian view)
“Without father, without mother: There is nothing said about the genealogy of Melchizedek in the Genesis 14 passage or anywhere else. As far as the Biblical record is concerned, he has no father or mother, no beginning of days nor end of life.” Guzik.
Is this how you understand it, Wordwolf? If so, then as I was….if not, would you please explain?
The thinking thing: after spending so many years in twi not thinking at all, it is rather important to me now to think, and to do my own thinking as much as possible. Then I need you guys who have spent more time at sorting out the chaff from the wheat than I have. It is quite a large task to do alone. (I sometimes wonder if there was any wheat in twi).
“Without father, without mother: There is nothing said about the genealogy of Melchizedek in the Genesis 14 passage or anywhere else. As far as the Biblical record is concerned, he has no father or mother, no beginning of days nor end of life.” Guzik.
Is this how you understand it, Wordwolf? If so, then as I was….if not, would you please explain?
The thinking thing: after spending so many years in twi not thinking at all, it is rather important to me now to think, and to do my own thinking as much as possible. Then I need you guys who have spent more time at sorting out the chaff from the wheat than I have. It is quite a large task to do alone. (I sometimes wonder if there was any wheat in twi).
Melchizedek is a very enigmatic figure in the Bible that I believe he may have planted the seeds of liberty.
I don't believe he was Christ but he carried the spirit to the world in the understanding of how the flesh and blood atone for sin.
He maintained the true way of the tree of life though he had endured Babylonian mysticism.
Out of the most unlikely of places comes the truth sometimes.
I see it sometimes that the law was the mountain and Melchizedek was the spirit of the mountain.
It is interesting to note the journey of the spirit though this world until it became seed in the Church.
I wish I knew more on this character Melchizedek. But his offering of communion overshadows the sacrifice of Christ.
Thus he facilitates our liberation from the flesh.
Liberty is not based upon the fulfillment of laws but the fulfillment of faith.
Before Abraham was Melchizedek who represented liberty and not law.
John 8:58
Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
John 8:52
Then said the Jews unto him, Now we know that thou hast a devil. Abraham is dead, and the prophets; and thou sayest, If a man keep my saying, he shall never taste of death.
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
WordWolf 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
socks
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChattyKathy
Interesting story Socks, thanks. And interesting about the genetic diversity provided by both male and female and the need for it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
A very early belief about this subject is contained in the Protoevangelium of James. Discussed briefly in post #19, back on page 1. You might find that of interest.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
*reads about 1/3 the Protoevangelium of James*
*skims the Wikipedia article*
Forgive me if I don't put any stock in this.
It neither looks "right" to me, nor does it seem to date back to the lifetime of James at all.
I think it was written by the intent and hand of a well-meaning man who thought it was a good idea.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
I'm still waiting for an actual, authoritative source to come out and say this was a legitimate usage
of the term, from a source unconnected with a twi history and not trying to defend vpw's teachings
specifically nor generally.
Does anyone have one? Something with sources?
Worth thinking about, but with no details on such provided, it's all speculation, whether good, bad,
logical or miraculous.
We don't know if God "removed this obstacle."
Also, I've read that some young women who are active in sports have this break whether or not they
are sexually-active. It was not a medical source I read this from, so I don't know how much
credence to give it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
I make no claim that it should be part of the canon.
I do make the claim that it was part of the (an) oral tradition. As to its antiquity, the commonly accepted dating for it is sometime in the early to mid second century. I would, however, make the claim that it reflects a common set of beliefs that were in existence at that time.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
another spot
2Ti 2:8Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel:
Hbr 2:14Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
Hbr 2:15And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.
Hbr 2:16For verily he took not on [him the nature of] angels; but he took on [him] the seed of Abraham.
Gal 3:16Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
With regard to whether Mary was the genetic mother, perhaps the answer can be found with different questions. Are the above verses literally true and can those promises have been fulfilled if they are not?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
another spot
I hate to do this to you….but here it is:
Hbr 7:1For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him;
Hbr 7:2To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace;
Hbr 7:3Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.
Hbr 7:4Now consider how great this man [was], unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils.
Do you understand the implications of this? I have a feeling this thread is going to get lengthy…
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
It is interesting Chathy. I read it and thought "holy mackeral!"
Really.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChattyKathy
I guess we could all talk a lifetime of what we think on stuff couldn't we? :)
I'm not sure God ever meant it to be so confusing for us but then again I think He wanted us to think.
Can you imagine Him scratching His head at times when reading our posts.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Frankly, it isn't all that complicated...if one doesn't reject the doctrine of the Trinity.
Please refer yourself to Rev 5:6 for a comparison, by the way.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Please clarify how Melchisidec figures into "the doctrine of the Trinity."
I really don't THINK you're claiming the King of Salem was Jesus himself,
or any part of God in any traditional Trinity sense.
Please correct my understanding if you ARE claiming that.
A cursory glance can make it look like that's exactly what you're suggesting.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
I am claiming that Melchisedec was a type of Christ.
We know nothing of Melchisedec's parentage...therefore he is "without father and mother"
Christ, as God the Son, is (outside of His physical incarnation) eternal. "I AM"
Both are identified as having eternal priesthoods outside of the levitical order.
As priests, both would offer sacrifices to God the Father. Melchisedec is identified as having accepted Abraham's offering...Christ is identified as having offered Himself as a an eternal sacrifice (thus the referencee to Rev 5:6)
And the kicker is that Melchisedec is called the "king of Salem (peace)" and Christ is identified as the "prince of peace"
The thing is that if one accepts the doctrine of the Trinity this typology is perfectly obvious. If not, then Heb 7:3 is very problematic.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DrWearWord
Also the genealogy that goes back to David is in Matthew that emphasizes Jesus Christ as a the shepherd king.
Where the other genealogy is in Luke which emphasizes him as a man.
The other two Gospels he has no other genealogy because he is emphasized as the son of God in John and in Mark he is as a servant which has no notable royal family lineage.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
I don't see why being a Trinitarian Christian or a non-Trinitarian Christian should make this any less clear.
This has never been opaque as long as I've read this.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jeaniam
I don't accept the doctrine of the trinity, and I don't think Heb. 7:3 is that problematic.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jeaniam
As John would say 'We all THINK about the Word (Bible), it is only when we elevate what we think above what is clearly written that we run into problems'.
No, I think God meant the Bible to be simple, so simple that 'not even a fool need err therein.'
Yes, sometimes I think he must want to quote Shakespeare, 'What fools these mortals be!'
Edited by JeaniamLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
WW/Jean,
I am glad that Heb 7:3 (He is without father or mother or genealogy, and has neither beginning of days nor end of life,)is not an issue for you. Back in the dim, dark days when I was a TWI't, this was one of the verses that caused some issues for me...and that I glossed over as part of my mental assent to their theology. (It sort of fell into the same category as Col 2:9. Still trying to figure out how I was able to let VeePee & Co convince me that theotes meant "head God" versus "Godhead" -- or that how the difference still didn't point in the same direction...but I digress)
(BTW, I am not accusing either of you of being TWI't's, just that those years were the times that I assented to the Arian view of the Godhead advocated by TWI, vice the Trinitarian view)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DrWearWord
Homophobes are the ruling class demons of the devil spirit kingdoms of this world [Law]
The only greater enemy [hate] of liberty is capital punishment...
Homophobes and capital punishment have committed the greatest crimes against the law of liberty...
For the last enemy to be destroyed will be capital punishment.
:)
Edited by DrWearWordLink to comment
Share on other sites
another spot
“Without father, without mother: There is nothing said about the genealogy of Melchizedek in the Genesis 14 passage or anywhere else. As far as the Biblical record is concerned, he has no father or mother, no beginning of days nor end of life.” Guzik.
Is this how you understand it, Wordwolf? If so, then as I was….if not, would you please explain?
The thinking thing: after spending so many years in twi not thinking at all, it is rather important to me now to think, and to do my own thinking as much as possible. Then I need you guys who have spent more time at sorting out the chaff from the wheat than I have. It is quite a large task to do alone. (I sometimes wonder if there was any wheat in twi).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DrWearWord
Melchizedek is a very enigmatic figure in the Bible that I believe he may have planted the seeds of liberty.
I don't believe he was Christ but he carried the spirit to the world in the understanding of how the flesh and blood atone for sin.
He maintained the true way of the tree of life though he had endured Babylonian mysticism.
Out of the most unlikely of places comes the truth sometimes.
I see it sometimes that the law was the mountain and Melchizedek was the spirit of the mountain.
It is interesting to note the journey of the spirit though this world until it became seed in the Church.
I wish I knew more on this character Melchizedek. But his offering of communion overshadows the sacrifice of Christ.
Thus he facilitates our liberation from the flesh.
Liberty is not based upon the fulfillment of laws but the fulfillment of faith.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DrWearWord
Before Abraham was, I am...
Before Abraham was Melchizedek who represented liberty and not law.
John 8:58
Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
John 8:52
Then said the Jews unto him, Now we know that thou hast a devil. Abraham is dead, and the prophets; and thou sayest, If a man keep my saying, he shall never taste of death.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DrWearWord
The word of God never ceases to amaze us with even greater truth.
Dr. Wierwille was right, the word of God does fit and the more we study it the more perfection it reveals.
Romans 11:33
O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments [law of liberty], and his ways past finding out!
Link 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.