Premise on Joseph/ Jesus relation

[Bendito]

I hate the way this Ivar talks down to a person, patronizing and always right. I find it highly offensive....I'm done talking with him at all.

 

[Christ4Ever]

Reference post #36

Hello Ivar,
Very enjoyable and interesting this discussion now that I’ve had some time to really look into this. I hope you realize I won’t dissect every verse, but probably only the initial one which is really the poignant one, with the others only being supporting ones. Doesn’t mean I don’t read them or take them into account

I commend you for this post. I will focus on 3/5ths of it roughly 60% as you focus on let's just say 50% of my points. Expect three responses; Not all at once; Hold off until three response posted please. Your previous response in red

Ouch.

I've held off as you have asked. Appreciate it if you would do the same. I’m old and also pray for Wisdom, Knowledge, Understanding, and most especially Love for my communications. This of course slows down many of replies. Hummm in fact I’ll post at the beginning the post number to make it a little less confusing on which one I’m replying to. If you could do the same it would be much appreciated.

First thing First we must Define According to: which is "in conformity with"

Definition of ACCORDING TO
Romans 1:3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;

For David himself said by the Holy Ghost, The LORD said to my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool. Mark 12:36

I'm sure you realize that "flesh" can also mean the "human nature" of man.

And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to [our] father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham. Matthew 3:9

Are you saying that God could not have the birth of Jesus occurring without Joseph's being the progenitor and still be of the line of David? I don't want to believe you are, because then it would make Jesus’ statement untrue since it would require Abraham’s DNA at some point in order for God to create his children and be accorded such.

Now their is nothing new under the sun and the law of creation was finalized on the seventh day
Ecclesiastes 1:9 The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.
Genesis 2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
Genesis 2:2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.

Now Christ came to fulfill the law "which also encompasses the law of creation" not destroy

Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

You're reading into these verses what is not there or meant to be. I see where Ecc 1:9 would fit the Law of Creation which is what clearly Natural Law is. Yet, the audience being spoken to was clearly humanity, concerning things that are observable, and was not equating these words to limiting God’s will from being done in any way shape or form. Think about time going backwards which goes against the Natural Law? 2 Kings 20 It clearly fits as something that is observable, but is it part of the Natural Law?

Matt 5:17 - Clearly he was speaking to a particular audience, and being specific to the laws given to the Jewish people. Otherwise you would have to believe that God would be willing to break His own laws. Reference the verse I mentioned above from Jesus speaking (Matt 3:9), and Ezekiel 37 (Valley of the Bones).

We, as humanity are limited in what they can do without God even with our Science, but God Almighty is not! Alleluia!

Now Putting it all together
Christ was made in conformity of the flesh; specifically the flesh of men; specifically Adam; specifically which is Male and Female.

I believe that I answered this in referencing both Jesus & Ezekiel. I put no limitations upon what God can do. Apparently you do?

Love you bro. Very interesting topic, if for any other reason that it has me delving into Scripture even more! I’m looking forward to reading the other postings of yours.

With the Love of Christ Jesus.
Nick
<><

 

[Ivar]

@Bendito

Now you understand how the pharisees may have felt.
Here is an example;

Matthew 22:41 While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them,

Matthew 22:42 Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The son of David.

Matthew 22:43 He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying,

Matthew 22:44 The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool?

Matthew 22:45 If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?

Matthew 22:46 And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If someone appears to be more knowledgeable ; then they can or may give off that impression of being always right.

The goal should be to cleave unto the truth which is Christ who just so happens to be always right because The Father is in Him.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You are implying that I am some sort of wise man and if that is the case ; a wise person listens to a wise person and not hate. Discern what is the truth and relevant and spit out any bones.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let's be honest; If I had agreed with you then you would not have hate me. But because I disagree with you, using the The Word; You hate me. You hate me because you perceive me to talk foolishness.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew 6:10 Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.

Romans 1:19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.

Romans 1:20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now I admit that I do need to work on my virtue and kindness but I believe I can say that you sir need to work on your temperance and living waters of the scriptures "fluidity". You need to be as fluid in the scriptures as when the Holy Spirit moved across the face of the waters.

2 Peter 1:5 And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge;

2 Peter 1:6 And to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness;

2 Peter 1:7 And to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity.

2 Peter 1:8 For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.

2 Peter 1:9 But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I've used Scriptures, Dictionary, Encyclopedia, Science, Rudimentary Concepts; which do not seem to contradict the will of the creator.
I've exhalted that the Father is One or One in all. Not just One in three or some type of Triune/Trinity
I've exhalted that the son son was conceived according to the flesh and what the flesh of man is.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well at the end of the day I can at least say that I do not hate you. I am under the impression that this site is talking about Bible scriptures and concepts and that's what i do. I've even liked a few of your comments:smile:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yet you seem more angered? = My feelings
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, I do sense an inkling of positivity in your hate so i accept it.

 

[Christ4Ever]

Reference Post #37

@Christ4Ever

Ivar said:
9. Perhaps Mary and Joseph before they came together in accordance with Hebrew tradition; Joseph penetrated Hymen and no Tokens of Virginity blanket could be given to Her Father . In any case context of before they came together not clearly given.
Mat 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
At least you bolded the last sentence.

However, starting it out with “Perhaps”???? Your own words are conjecture. The problem with this thread is that you give the appearance that you believe Joseph as the biological father to be true.
Valid point I could almost agree with you however there is no problem if one can discern that I believe Joseph is the Father according to the flesh.
I even clearly stated first "My current strongest premise on Joseph being the Father of Christ according to the flesh. "
My usage of perhaps was to express the possibility "which more than likely it did happen". With certainty Joseph is the Father however it's not that easy to discern. Scriptures imply it without saying it outright. One thing that is for certain is that if Joseph is not the Father then the scriptures are broken which cannot happen.

Cool beans = Meaning understood and no problems with what you have stated above. Except for the “more likely is did happen”

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Moses had a Mother and a Father " Christ is like Moses"

Deuteronomy 18:18 I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.

Don’t quite catch the relevance, since Moses clearly is not the incarnate God in Jesus Christ. Addressing “like” word in next comment.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Christ was made like his brethren which were made by male and female parents of the flesh.

Hebrews 2:17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.

How about it says made “like” which doesn’t mean exactly or duplicate of. Differences are possible? Could God being the progenitor as one? Could the image of God yet not God fall into this category as well?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Christ became Passover lamb for men and women which are his people; So he had to be made by men and women in the flesh to be the perfect sin offering or Passover lamb. If only made by woman and not Man then Christ is Passover lamb for women or sistahs and not his brethren or people which would include both male and female. Also this would be an unlawful creation.

And like i said before a Son of Man is offspring of Man and Woman or Male and Female. Also Females do not have the Y chromosome which scientifically makes a Male an Adam by gender. Just as the lack of Y chromosome makes a Female an Adam by gender when it comes to the Species of Type of Flesh that is Man.

Now to your reference of the Passover sin offering. Why would God then have animals used as sacrifices if they had no validity? By your reasoning only animals would have been forgiven. I mention this because as shown by you previously the differences in what one would say are the "flesh", i.e. man, animals.

I do believe that no one is denying that Jesus was also flesh. I think I provided an additional view on the Natural Law and the non-limiting factors associated to what God can or cannot do. I’m sorry but I just can’t leave God out of the equation, even though the propensity of man is to lean on our own understanding.

But Jesus beheld [them], and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible. Matthew 19:26

This is specific to salvation, but the inference is that “…with God all things are possible.”

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

At least one more post to follow

Okie Dokie = Cool Beans
Taking a break for the moment. I’ll get to the last one Lord willing, as quickly as the body, mind, spirit, and of course the wife allows.

Always appreciated “Iron sharpens Iron” reference as I know you do. Truly, I am enjoying this!!! Alleluia!

With the Love of Christ Jesus.
Nick
<><

 

[Christ4Ever]

Reference Post #39

Dear Ivar,
And so, my third and final response to your postings.

@Christ4Ever

Romans 3:1 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?

Romans 3:2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.

2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

Almah - Wikipedia

Thanks for sharing the link. What I found is that in truth Almah supports neither position. It just leaves that each is a possibility. What I would take from this is by that writing the "virgin birth" is addressed as a possibility, which should give you reason to pause. From all your writings are I know it has. I would just suggest that you lean towards God being able to do the impossible.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lastly before conception or pre conception explains the process but based of your remarks i don't think you will see it

This actually proves what? I only see you quoting Scripture and providing your thoughts on what it means. In particular what it means in supporting the speculation once again concerning Joseph’s contributing to the birth of Jesus. I'm sorry, but God is not limited by the physics of Science that we are currently in possession of. I mean think about it. Adam from dust and breath of life, woman from the rib of man, Bones to life (Ezekiel). Why is it so difficult for one to believe that Joseph was filling in as the earthly father position, similar to an adoptive father, and so had the title of father, but was not the progenitor?

You are correct, for I look past what I see to what is unseen.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I prefer not to believe in the Immaculate Conception of Tammuz "whose birthday is said to be 25 December" because is of the World. Coincidence??? Doubt it.
Ezekiel 8:14 Then he brought me to the door of the gate of the Lord's house which was toward the north; and, behold, there sat women weeping for Tammuz.
Jeremiah 10:2 Thus saith the Lord, Learn not the way of the heathen, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven; for the heathen are dismayed at them.
Jeremiah 10:3 For the customs of the people are vain: for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe.
Jeremiah 10:4 They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not.
Jeremiah 10:5 They are upright as the palm tree, but speak not: they must needs be borne, because they cannot go. Be not afraid of them; for they cannot do evil, neither also is it in them to do good.

Interesting story and what clearly was seen by God as an abomination, which tells me it was not of God.

He said also unto me, Turn thee yet again, [and] thou shalt see greater abominations that they do. 14 Then he brought me to the door of the gate of the LORD'S house which [was] toward the north; and, behold, there sat women weeping for Tammuz. 15 Then said he unto me, Hast thou seen [this], O son of man? turn thee yet again, [and] thou shalt see greater abominations than these. Ezekiel 8:13-15

However, though you only “prefer” to believe this is not example of a virgin birth, only tells me that you are not totally against the possibility that the male is necessary as the progenitor.

When it comes to the Anointed of God I believe he has a Heavenly Father "as do us all" and an Earthly Father according to the flesh "as do us all". The Father's will, will be done in earth as it is in heaven.
1 Corinthians 1:27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are
mighty;

Matthew 6:10 Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.

Since I don’t consider myself either wise or mighty in anyway, and always in need of His, wisdom, knowledge, and understanding. I can agree totally with 1 Corinthians 1:27. That is why the depth of your study on this subject provides me with the hope of change that has you only leaning and not completely convinced of the position you have been expounding upon. Love you bro.

@Christ4Ever
this ends my response

With the Love of Christ Immanuel

Though I realize that only the Spirit of God will probably change your position on this, I still thank-you for the exchange and the time you have dedicated to this.

With the Love of Christ Jesus.
Nick
<><

PS. I just saw your post #40. Apologies, I thought 39 was the end! Also, apologies if the below is a little backwards. Doing this as an addition.

However, in truth it really doesn't need replying to does it? I will say one thing though in reference to Genesis 2:24
I mean are me & my wife of 34 years actually one flesh, or only in the eyes of God are we seen that way?

Oh, by the way I don't consider you the anti-Christ. Some would say that you have the spirit of the anti-Christ that is in the world, but I do not.

Looks like you might have had a typo in the following. I bolded/underlined the word (not) that you might want to remove and if the system doesn't allow you to. Let me know and I can do that for you or if you have a re-write on that sentence let me know. I can make that change for you as well.

You might need to slow down a bit.

Scripturally you can't dispel these following facts because coming in the flesh equates to according to the flesh!!!
Judaism believes Christ has not come in the Flesh "yet"
Mainstream Christianity does not believe Christ has come in the flesh "mainly because the ones that did or had the concept were persecuted centuries ago"
Islam aligns with Mainstream Christianity and does not believe Christ has come in the flesh

 

[Ivar]

@Christ4Ever

Why most it seem like people most move heaven and earth for Joseph not to be the biological father?; Fortunately I learned that is incorrect. "All my comments are consolidated in one post for simplicity."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your Response :
I'm sure you realize that "flesh" can also mean the "human nature" of man.

And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to [our] father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham. Matthew 3:9

My Respone:
You cannot use Matthew 3:9 to support your premise;
John the Baptist is speaking and two verse above he refers to people as venomous snakes " Matthew 3:7 " and one verse below he refers to trees as people Matthew 3:10
Based off John the Baptist speech patterns it should be safe to say that those stones are not literal stone but people possibly not of the seed of Abraham that can be grafted in.
Also Psalms 118:22 is in regards to a future person or man; Not a literal stone.
So we should be able to dismiss your assertion here completely i hope. Why would literal stones need a Passover lamb or Saviour?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mat 3:7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?

Mat 3:10 And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

Psa 118:22 The stone which the builders refused is become the head stone of the corner.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your Response:
Think about time going backwards which goes against the Natural Law? 2 Kings 20 It clearly fits as something that is observable, but is it part of the Natural Law?

My Response: Time did not go backwards. King Hezekiah shadow went back 10 degrees.
How could this possibly happen? Perhaps a brighter luminary eclipsed our sun for a bit giving the appearance of ones shadow going backwards 10 degrees. This should not be unreasonable neither does it break scripture as luminaries are for signs and affects shadows "such as our Sun". This does seem natural. A wonder that is not normally common but natural.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your Response:
Reference the verse I mentioned above from Jesus speaking (Matt 3:9), and Ezekiel 37 (Valley of the Bones).

My Response:
The Creator is the Source of Life so I would not find it contradictory to his law and word to re animate the dead in Eezekiel 37. I expect the Source of all life to be able to give life and to be able to take it away. His House/His Rules so to speak.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your Response:
I believe that I answered this in referencing both Jesus & Ezekiel. I put no limitations upon what God can do. Apparently you do? :smile:

My Response:
Different perspectives. You see me as limiting the Most High. I see myself as understanding him. I will explain

Mar 10:18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Only God is Good and for us to be Good we have to be like God.
God is one of Integrity, Character, Principles, Morals,Honor, Commitment, Righteousness, Faithfulness, etc.
As a Husband, Father, or Head of Household you limit yourself to the rules you set in your household to promote order, structure, accountability, morals, justice, righteousness, honor, faith, etc
You say I am limiting God but I say that God is Good.:smile:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your Response:
Are you saying that God could not have the birth of Jesus occurring without Joseph's being the progenitor and still be of the line of David? I don't want to believe you are, because then it would make Jesus’ statement untrue since it would require Abraham’s DNA at some point in order for God to create his children and be accorded such.

My Response:
I am saying to grasp the full weight, context, and concept of 2Sa 7:13 along with Mat 5:17 . Though Mary is a descendant of Abraham Jesse and David; She must also be a descendant of Solomon which she is not. Joseph on the other hand is and this is mentioned in the genealogy of Christ starting from Mat 1:6 however it is best to read from Mat 1:1 to get the full context all the way down to Mat 1:16. "won't post all scriptures"

2Sa 7:13 He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever.

Mat 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

Mat 1:1 The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.

Mat 1:6 And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias;

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

Joseph's DNA consist of Abraham thru Jesse, David, Solomon,etc. Just as all of us have the DNA of Adam or else we would not be the type of flesh which is man; Which is male and female or Adam and Eve. Anyone not a descendant of those two is a different type of flesh that is not Man.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your Response:

Now to your reference of the Passover sin offering. Why would God then have animals used as sacrifices if they had no validity? By your reasoning only animals would have been forgiven. I mention this because as shown by you previously the differences in what one would say are the "flesh", i.e. man, animals.

My Response

Heb 10:1 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.

A reminder and example that the wages of sin are death in my opinion. Along with shadow of things to come.
Also it was not the animals that sinned but man who were given dominion over the earth. Man needed to be held accountable not animals. So Christ became our accountability essentially.

Rom 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

My usage of 1Co 15:39 was only to show that there are 4 types of flesh on the earth mentioned. Christ could have only come in according to one of the four flesh. Because those are the only type of lawful flesh created on the Earth
No flesh on this earth consist solely of a Woman and The Holy Spirit. The only flesh that consists of a Woman is Man which is male and female or who some might call the human race, etc.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your Response:

I do believe that no one is denying that Jesus was also flesh. I think I provided an additional view on the Natural Law and the non-limiting factors associated to what God can or cannot do. I’m sorry but I just can’t leave God out of the equation, even though the propensity of man is to lean on our own understanding.

My response

Scripturally it seems that way by denying the seed which biologically only comes from Male.

Ecc 11:5 As thou knowest not what is the way of the spirit, nor how the bones do grow in the womb of her that is with child: even so thou knowest not the works of God who maketh all.

And I had created another post about that scripture here: Proving Joseph The Father according to Flesh which should have been better written than this one.

though i would not be surprised if it might be hidden "if possible". you yourself are listed as a viewer so you are probably not surprised of me using Ecc 11:5 as a response.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your Response:

But Jesus beheld [them], and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible. Matthew 19:26

This is specific to salvation, but the inference is that “…with God all things are possible.”

My Response:
In context ; Is impossible for man alone to provide a perfect and blameless Passover lamb in the volume of the book.

All things are possible based off his own rules, law, principles, etc because he is Good.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your Response:

Thanks for sharing the link. What I found is that in truth Almah supports neither position. It just leaves that each is a possibility. What I would take from this is by that writing the "virgin birth" is addressed as a possibility, which should give you reason to pause. From all your writings are I know it has. I would just suggest that you lean towards God being able to do the impossible.

My Response: Had extremely lengthy explanation but if you are studying this will suffice.

Gen 24:16 And the damsel was very fair to look upon, a virgin Betulah H1330, neither had any man known her: and she went down to the well, and filled her pitcher, and came up.

compared to

Gen 24:43 Behold, I stand by the well of water; and it shall come to pass, that when the virgin Almah H5959 cometh forth to draw water, and I say to her, Give me, I pray thee, a little water of thy pitcher to drink;

compared to

Lev 21:3 And for his sister a virgin Betulah H1330, that is nigh unto him, which hath had no husband; for her may he be defiled.

compared to

Isa 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin Almah H5959 shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Almah - Wikipedia

Almah (עַלְמָה‬ ‘almāh, plural: ‘ălāmōṯ עֲלָמוֹת‬) is a Hebrew word for a maiden or woman of childbearing age who may be unmarried or married.[1] It does not, in and of itself, indicate whether she is a virgin, for which a different Hebrew word betulah is used.

Rom 3:1 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?
Rom 3:2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.

Fun Facts:
Almah and Betulah used 57 times combined in OT KJV
Almah used 7/57 times = roughly 12%
Betulah used 50/57 times = roughly 88%

I know there is a liberal view out there that both these virgins are one in the same however there are distinctions.
Just as Ancient Greek has four distinct words for love: agápe, éros, philía, and storgē. Hebrew has distinct words for distinct meanings as do all verbal languages to my knowledge. If this was not the case we would not have understanding.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your Response:

I mean are me & my wife of 34 years actually one flesh, or only in the eyes of God are we seen that way?

Considering you both are blessed and she is a woman of marriageable age; Then the product or end result of you two cleaving together would be seen as one flesh; unless you spill your seed, use contraceptives, or cycle counting.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why are you trying to be like John The Baptist? Granted Christ is mightier than Joseph and his shoes Joseph is not worthy to bear.
However the same thing that Christ said to John the baptist must be said to you. "Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness."

Heb 10:7 Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mat 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:
Mat 3:12 Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.
Mat 3:13 Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him.
Mat 3:14 But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?
Mat 3:15 And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your Response:

Looks like you might have had a typo in the following. I bolded/underlined the word (not) that you might want to remove and if the system doesn't allow you to. Let me know and I can do that for you or if you have a re-write on that sentence let me know. I can make that change for you as well.

My Response:

Isa 6:8 Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for us? Then said I, Here am I; send me.
Isa 6:9 And he said, Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not.
Isa 6:10 Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed.
Isa 6:11 Then said I, Lord, how long? And he answered, Until the cities be wasted without inhabitant, and the houses without man, and the land be utterly desolate,
Isa 6:12 And the LORD have removed men far away, and there be a great forsaking in the midst of the land.
Isa 6:13 But yet in it shall be a tenth, and it shall return, and shall be eaten: as a teil tree, and as an oak, whose substance is in them, when they cast their leaves: so the holy seed shall be the substance thereof.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's a shame I have gotten to the end this was very stimulating. My belief has been strengthened even more and i perceived a few things along the way which i probably shouldn't share until more grounded among other things.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

With the Love of Christ Immanuel

Ivar

 

[Ivar]

@Christ4Ever
"missed one i wanted to respond to"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your Response:
Oh, by the way I don't consider you the anti-Christ. Some would say that you have the spirit of the anti-Christ that is in the world, but I do not.

My Response:
Not uncommon for man to cleave to the traditions of man rather than trying the spirits. Most people want agreement and conformity which is not bad however Christ is the Way and The Truth and The Life.

1Jn 4:1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
1Jn 4:2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:

1Jn 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

Joh 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

 

[Christ4Ever]

Reference Post #46

@Christ4Ever

Why most it seem like people most move heaven and earth for Joseph not to be the biological father?; Fortunately I learned that is incorrect. "All my comments are consolidated in one post for simplicity."

Probably because only a believer could imagine that God is capable of such impossibility! Appreciate the consolidated postings but referencing my post # would have been appreciated and saved me from go hither and thither.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your Response :
I'm sure you realize that "flesh" can also mean the "human nature" of man.

And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to [our] father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham. Matthew 3:9

My Respone:
You cannot use Matthew 3:9 to support your premise;
John the Baptist is speaking and two verse above he refers to people as venomous snakes " Matthew 3:7 " and one verse below he refers to trees as people Matthew 3:10
Based off John the Baptist speech patterns it should be safe to say that those stones are not literal stone but people possibly not of the seed of Abraham that can be grafted in.
Also Psalms 118:22 is in regards to a future person or man; Not a literal stone.
So we should be able to dismiss your assertion here completely i hope. Why would literal stones need a Passover lamb or Saviour?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mat 3:7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?

Mat 3:10 And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

Psa 118:22 The stone which the builders refused is become the head stone of the corner.

Sure I can use this verse. You take it metaphorically, while I take it literally. The writing in one case can mean actual stone as was the case Ezekiel, while in another an analogy to character/behavior etc is surely possible. That is why as you know context is important.

God made Adam from dust. What would limit him from creating children unto Abraham from stones? For it is only our own inability to grasp the complete power of God would have it so. John surely was addressing the Pharisees pride, and in so many words knocked them down a peg by speaking a truth concerning the power of God. Answer to your question: John was not saying that God “would”, but rather that He “could” and so the word “able”. Once again showing that God can do the impossible!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your Response:
Think about time going backwards which goes against the Natural Law? 2 Kings 20 It clearly fits as something that is observable, but is it part of the Natural Law?

My Response: Time did not go backwards. King Hezekiah shadow went back 10 degrees.
How could this possibly happen? Perhaps a brighter luminary eclipsed our sun for a bit giving the appearance of ones shadow going backwards 10 degrees. This should not be unreasonable neither does it break scripture as luminaries are for signs and affects shadows "such as our Sun". This does seem natural. A wonder that is not normally common but natural.

Perhaps? Sorry, I believe in a God that does what is impossible, and if what happened with King Hezekiah does not move you to this belief how about the following verses out of the book of Joshua. Maybe. You are welcome to another “perhaps” for this one as well?

Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon. 13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. [Is] not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day. 14 And there was no day like that before it or after it, that the LORD hearkened unto the voice of a man: for the LORD fought for Israel. Joshua 10:12-14

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your Response:
Reference the verse I mentioned above from Jesus speaking (Matt 3:9), and Ezekiel 37 (Valley of the Bones).

My Response:
The Creator is the Source of Life so I would not find it contradictory to his law and word to re animate the dead in Eezekiel 37. I expect the Source of all life to be able to give life and to be able to take it away. His House/His Rules so to speak.
Glad we agree in this, but not the virgin birth? J

This is the conundrum isn’t it?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your Response:
I believe that I answered this in referencing both Jesus & Ezekiel. I put no limitations upon what God can do. Apparently you do?

My Response:
Different perspectives. You see me as limiting the Most High. I see myself as understanding him. I will explain

Mar 10:18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Only God is Good and for us to be Good we have to be like God.
God is one of Integrity, Character, Principles, Morals,Honor, Commitment, Righteousness, Faithfulness, etc.
As a Husband, Father, or Head of Household you limit yourself to the rules you set in your household to promote order, structure, accountability, morals, justice, righteousness, honor, faith, etc
You say I am limiting God but I say that God is Good.

Praying for your greater understanding Ivar.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your Response:
Are you saying that God could not have the birth of Jesus occurring without Joseph's being the progenitor and still be of the line of David? I don't want to believe you are, because then it would make Jesus’ statement untrue since it would require Abraham’s DNA at some point in order for God to create his children and be accorded such.

My Response:
I am saying to grasp the full weight, context, and concept of 2Sa 7:13 along with Mat 5:17 . Though Mary is a descendant of Abraham Jesse and David; She must also be a descendant of Solomon which she is not. Joseph on the other hand is and this is mentioned in the genealogy of Christ starting from Mat 1:6 however it is best to read from Mat 1:1 to get the full context all the way down to Mat 1:16. "won't post all scriptures"

2Sa 7:13 He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever.

Mat 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

Mat 1:1 The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.

Mat 1:6 And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias;

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

Joseph's DNA consist of Abraham thru Jesse, David, Solomon,etc. Just as all of us have the DNA of Adam or else we would not be the type of flesh which is man; Which is male and female or Adam and Eve. Anyone not a descendant of those two is a different type of flesh that is not Man.

Since you brought up lineage. Let’s seek clarification on why by the line of Joseph would be contradictory to Scripture outside of the loco parentis thought, and hopefully assist in a greater understanding of why Scripture included Mary's lineage, and the Virgin Birth as a necessity.

The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him [shall] the gathering of the people [be]. Genesis 49:10

The LORD hath sworn [in] truth unto David; he will not turn from it; Of the fruit of thy body will I set upon thy throne. Psalm 132:11

[Is] this man Coniah a despised broken idol? [is he] a vessel wherein [is] no pleasure? wherefore are they cast out, he and his seed, and are cast into a land which they know not? 29 O earth, earth, earth, hear the word of the LORD. 30 Thus saith the LORD, Write ye this man childless, a man [that] shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah. Jeremiah 22:28-30

And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel; Matthew 1:12

Coniah = Jechonias

How can the Lord be on the lineage of Joseph to David, if no descendent/seed of Coniah is allowed to rule? As you yourself have noticed or will notice, Jechonias is not part of the lineage of Mary and so there’d be no interruption from David to Jesus which precludes our Lord's reign.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your Response:

Now to your reference of the Passover sin offering. Why would God then have animals used as sacrifices if they had no validity? By your reasoning only animals would have been forgiven. I mention this because as shown by you previously the differences in what one would say are the "flesh", i.e. man, animals.

My Response

Heb 10:1 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.

A reminder and example that the wages of sin are death in my opinion. Along with shadow of things to come.
Also it was not the animals that sinned but man who were given dominion over the earth. Man needed to be held accountable not animals. So Christ became our accountability essentially.

Rom 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

My usage of 1Co 15:39 was only to show that there are 4 types of flesh on the earth mentioned. Christ could have only come in according to one of the four flesh. Because those are the only type of lawful flesh created on the Earth
No flesh on this earth consist solely of a Woman and The Holy Spirit. The only flesh that consists of a Woman is Man which is male and female or who some might call the human race, etc.

Appreciate the clarification to your words. Even though you have persisted as in the previous response to place the focus on Science over God doing the impossible.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your Response:

I do believe that no one is denying that Jesus was also flesh. I think I provided an additional view on the Natural Law and the non-limiting factors associated to what God can or cannot do. I’m sorry but I just can’t leave God out of the equation, even though the propensity of man is to lean on our own understanding.

My response

Scripturally it seems that way by denying the seed which biologically only comes from Male.

Ecc 11:5 As thou knowest not what is the way of the spirit, nor how the bones do grow in the womb of her that is with child: even so thou knowest not the works of God who maketh all.

And I had created another post about that scripture here: Proving Joseph The Father according to Flesh which should have been better written than this one.

though i would not be surprised if it might be hidden "if possible". you yourself are listed as a viewer so you are probably not surprised of me using Ecc 11:5 as a response.

Oh, I view a lot, but it doesn’t mean I get every dot or iota of the thread. I’m not denying biology. I’m just on the side of God doing what Science has yet not been able to duplicate or explain.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your Response:

But Jesus beheld [them], and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible. Matthew 19:26

This is specific to salvation, but the inference is that “…with God all things are possible.”

My Response:
In context ; Is impossible for man alone to provide a perfect and blameless Passover lamb in the volume of the book.

All things are possible based off his own rules, law, principles, etc because he is Good.

And since God makes the rules of which man is only partially knowledgeable of…….it truly appears that in my position that He is doing the impossible of which Science is yet unable to yet explain.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your Response:

Thanks for sharing the link. What I found is that in truth Almah supports neither position. It just leaves that each is a possibility. What I would take from this is by that writing the "virgin birth" is addressed as a possibility, which should give you reason to pause. From all your writings are I know it has. I would just suggest that you lean towards God being able to do the impossible.

My Response: Had extremely lengthy explanation but if you are studying this will suffice.

Gen 24:16 And the damsel was very fair to look upon, a virgin Betulah H1330, neither had any man known her: and she went down to the well, and filled her pitcher, and came up.

compared to

Gen 24:43 Behold, I stand by the well of water; and it shall come to pass, that when the virgin Almah H5959 cometh forth to draw water, and I say to her, Give me, I pray thee, a little water of thy pitcher to drink;

compared to

Lev 21:3 And for his sister a virgin Betulah H1330, that is nigh unto him, which hath had no husband; for her may he be defiled.

compared to

Isa 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin Almah H5959 shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Almah - Wikipedia

Almah (עַלְמָה ‘almāh, plural: ‘ălāmōṯ עֲלָמוֹת) is a Hebrew word for a maiden or woman of childbearing age who may be unmarried or married.[1] It does not, in and of itself, indicate whether she is a virgin, for which a different Hebrew word betulah is used.

Rom 3:1 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?
Rom 3:2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.

Fun Facts:
Almah and Betulah used 57 times combined in OT KJV
Almah used 7/57 times = roughly 12%
Betulah used 50/57 times = roughly 88%

I know there is a liberal view out there that both these virgins are one in the same however there are distinctions.
Just as Ancient Greek has four distinct words for love: agápe, éros, philía, and storgē. Hebrew has distinct words for distinct meanings as do all verbal languages to my knowledge. If this was not the case we would not have understanding.

Bad analogy in using Greek since we talking Hebrew/Aramaic, but I understand what you are saying since the word in the Greek parthenos can imply both. Still, my position holds as far as the article’s explanation goes.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your Response:

I mean are me & my wife of 34 years actually one flesh, or only in the eyes of God are we seen that way?

Considering you both are blessed and she is a woman of marriageable age; Then the product or end result of you two cleaving together would be seen as one flesh; unless you spill your seed, use contraceptives, or cycle counting.

You’re taking “shall cleave” in the tense of “only physical/sexual union” which is only one part and not clearly defined definition, while excluding the other definition of “flesh” as “human nature” as possibility.

However, if you are correct how would you suggest the following verse be applied as it pertains to “cleave”? I’m adding Genesis 2:24 as the foundational verse I mentioned in my previous post.

Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. Genesis 2:24

That thou mayest love the LORD thy God, [and] that thou mayest obey his voice, and that thou mayest cleave unto him: for he [is] thy life, and the length of thy days: that thou mayest dwell in the land which the LORD sware unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give them. Deuteronomy 30:20

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why are you trying to be like John The Baptist? Granted Christ is mightier than Joseph and his shoes Joseph is not worthy to bear.
However the same thing that Christ said to John the baptist must be said to you. "Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness."

Heb 10:7 Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mat 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:
Mat 3:12 Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.
Mat 3:13 Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him.
Mat 3:14 But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?
Mat 3:15 And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.

No I’m not trying to be John the Baptist, or are you making the implication that you bare similarities to him because of how this subject is received by others? As for me, I’m only at the moment he who God has made to be and is changing moment to moment to be to the fullest man of God that He wants be.

I sense in this response that you are having difficulty with my replies and might feel a bit put upon because you are only communicating what you believe to be the truth or maybe are seeing me as being obstinate for some reason. I’m truly sorry if this has been stressful to you. For in truth I do not reply in the hope that you be so.

I’ve found this so interesting, and so much so that the Spirit moved me to wake up hours earlier than I normally do in order to start working on this post! The Spirit would not let me put it off! Almost missed a date for breakfast with wife!!! I'll try to get it posted after a quick review when I get back home.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your Response:

Looks like you might have had a typo in the following. I bolded/underlined the word (not) that you might want to remove and if the system doesn't allow you to. Let me know and I can do that for you or if you have a re-write on that sentence let me know. I can make that change for you as well.

My Response:

Isa 6:8 Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for us? Then said I, Here am I; send me.
Isa 6:9 And he said, Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not.
Isa 6:10 Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed.
Isa 6:11 Then said I, Lord, how long? And he answered, Until the cities be wasted without inhabitant, and the houses without man, and the land be utterly desolate,
Isa 6:12 And the LORD have removed men far away, and there be a great forsaking in the midst of the land.
Isa 6:13 But yet in it shall be a tenth, and it shall return, and shall be eaten: as a teil tree, and as an oak, whose substance is in them, when they cast their leaves: so the holy seed shall be the substance thereof.

Something tells me, that it’s not a typo, but that you actually believe that the churches who believe in the virgin birth are leading their flock astray. If that is truly what you believe, then pardon me for not seeing it the first time and suggesting the change.

However, if this is the case, it brings a question to mind. Does it in anyway affect the salvation of those believing the virgin birth without Joseph as the progenitor? A simple yes, no, or maybe would suffice. No need to change the subject mid stream on a thread that is meant for another subject. Thanks in advance.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's a shame I have gotten to the end this was very stimulating. My belief has been strengthened even more and i perceived a few things along the way which i probably shouldn't share until more grounded among other things.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

With the Love of Christ Immanuel

Ivar

With great joy, and interest I have spent hours on this. I don’t know if I’ll be able to dedicate as much time in the future.
Other responsibilities call me.

Thank-you Ivar.

With the Love of Christ Jesus.
Nick
<><

 

[Ivar]

Your Response:

Sure I can use this verse. You take it metaphorically, while I take it literally. The writing in one case can mean actual stone as was the case Ezekiel, while in another an analogy to character/behavior etc is surely possible. That is why as you know context is important.

God made Adam from dust. What would limit him from creating children unto Abraham from stones? For it is only our own inability to grasp the complete power of God would have it so. John surely was addressing the Pharisees pride, and in so many words knocked them down a peg by speaking a truth concerning the power of God. Answer to your question: John was not saying that God “would”, but rather that He “could” and so the word “able”. Once again showing that God can do the impossible!

My Response;
Here is why Incorrect
#1 You cannot collaborate literal stones to the human nature of man to begin with. If so you have not correctly done so or used a good example.
#2 You are not the Speaker; John the Baptist is and we clearly see evidence of his speech patters. John the Baptist was speaking metaphorically based off the evidence; the evidence!!!.
#3. Ezekiel is not the speaker.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your Response

Perhaps? Sorry, I believe in a God that does what is impossible, and if what happened with King Hezekiah does not move you to this belief how about the following verses out of the book of Joshua. Maybe. You are welcome to another “perhaps” for this one as well? :smile:

Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon. 13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. [Is] not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day. 14 And there was no day like that before it or after it, that the LORD hearkened unto the voice of a man: for the LORD fought for Israel. Joshua 10:12-14

My Response:
God does not do the impossible when it comes to his word. Luminaries such as the Sun are for signs. What you speak of is not impossible because it does not contradict the law or word of God when it comes to his creation.

Genesis 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My response:
The Creator is the Source of Life so I would not find it contradictory to his law and word to re animate the dead in Eezekiel 37. I expect the Source of all life to be able to give life and to be able to take it away. His House/His Rules so to speak.

Your Response:
Glad we agree in this, but not the virgin birth? J This is the conundrum isn’t it? :smile:

My Response
For me it is not. We disagree on the type of virgin birth it was. You are insisting it was a betulah birth when in actuality it was an almah birth.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your Response:

Since you brought up lineage. Let’s seek clarification on why by the line of Joseph would be contradictory to Scripture outside of the loco parentis thought, and hopefully assist in a greater understanding of why Scripture included Mary's lineage, and the Virgin Birth as a necessity.

The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him [shall] the gathering of the people [be]. Genesis 49:10

The LORD hath sworn [in] truth unto David; he will not turn from it; Of the fruit of thy body will I set upon thy throne. Psalm 132:11

[Is] this man Coniah a despised broken idol? [is he] a vessel wherein [is] no pleasure? wherefore are they cast out, he and his seed, and are cast into a land which they know not? 29 O earth, earth, earth, hear the word of the LORD. 30 Thus saith the LORD, Write ye this man childless, a man [that] shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah. Jeremiah 22:28-30

And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel; Matthew 1:12

Coniah = Jechonias

How can the Lord be on the lineage of Joseph to David, if no descendent/seed of Coniah is allowed to rule? As you yourself have noticed or will notice, Jechonias is not part of the lineage of Mary and so there’d be no interruption from David to Jesus which precludes our Lord's reign.

My Response:
You showed partiality by not including and putting 2 Sam 7:13 in conformity or agreement with those scriptures.

Coniah's days are not forever; He passed away and that scripture was fulfilled.

Jeremiah 22:30 Thus saith the Lord, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah.

Keywords; Write ye this man = Coniah, His Days= Coniah
No man of the seed of Coniah will prosper in his days which is true because they were carried away so he and his offspring in his days were not able to rule.
This does not contradict 2 Sam 7:13 that mentions Solomon shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever.

The throne of Solomon became Dry ground because of Coniah however Christ was that root out of that dry ground going all the way back to Jesse,etc

Isaiah 52:2 For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.

You seem to be willing to reject the word and move heaven and earth for Joseph not to be the biolgoical father according to the flesh.

"Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness."

Why don't you give the understanding of how 2 Samuel 7:13 and Jeremiah 22:30 agree or confirm with each other since you believe otherwise?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your Response:

How can the Lord be on the lineage of Joseph to David, if no descendent/seed of Coniah is allowed to rule? As you yourself have noticed or will notice, Jechonias is not part of the lineage of Mary and so there’d be no interruption from David to Jesus which precludes our Lord's reign.

My Response:

By Coniah giving up the ghost and his days being ended. Then a Priest of God anointing a seed of one; Who is biologically of the throne of Solomon; Which was done with Christ. Also don't forget that 14 generations passed from the time of Coniah to Christ ; Just for your information.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your Respose:

You’re taking “shall cleave” in the tense of “only physical/sexual union” which is only one part and not clearly defined definition, while excluding the other definition of “flesh” as “human nature” as possibility. :smile:

However, if you are correct how would you suggest the following verse be applied as it pertains to “cleave”? I’m adding Genesis 2:24 as the foundational verse I mentioned in my previous post.

Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. Genesis 2:24

That thou mayest love the LORD thy God, [and] that thou mayest obey his voice, and that thou mayest cleave unto him: for he [is] thy life, and the length of thy days: that thou mayest dwell in the land which the LORD sware unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give them. Deuteronomy 30:20

My Response:

Ok; their is a context of cleaving unto ones wife and consummating flesh becoming one flesh and their is a context of cleaving unto The Lord and becoming one spirit.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

With the Love of Christ Immanuel

Ivar

 

[Christ4Ever]

Reference post # 49

Your Response:

Sure I can use this verse. You take it metaphorically, while I take it literally. The writing in one case can mean actual stone as was the case Ezekiel, while in another an analogy to character/behavior etc is surely possible. That is why as you know context is important.

God made Adam from dust. What would limit him from creating children unto Abraham from stones? For it is only our own inability to grasp the complete power of God would have it so. John surely was addressing the Pharisees pride, and in so many words knocked them down a peg by speaking a truth concerning the power of God. Answer to your question: John was not saying that God “would”, but rather that He “could” and so the word “able”. Once again showing that God can do the impossible!

My Response;
Here is why Incorrect
#1 You cannot collaborate literal stones to the human nature of man to begin with. If so you have not correctly done so or used a good example.
#2 You are not the Speaker; John the Baptist is and we clearly see evidence of his speech patters. John the Baptist was speaking metaphorically based off the evidence; the evidence!!!.
#3. Ezekiel is not the speaker.

You really don’t believe the Creator of the Universe and all that is in it capable of this much less complex item called a virgin birth? To me this is astonishing. There are so many things that go into this. I mean how Jesus the second Adam who was without sin can still be sinless if the progenitor was Joseph who carried the sin of Adam. Could we have accepted that He was also fully God if that had been the case? I don’t believe so, though I’m sure that you do as evidenced by your words. I truly believe we will have to agree to disagree, because you cry out evidence, but refute/obfuscate the timeline of the conception of Mary to the Dream of Joseph to fit your belief instead of accepting what is clearly stated. Mary conceived, Joseph dreamed, and knew her not until after the birth.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your Response

Perhaps? Sorry, I believe in a God that does what is impossible, and if what happened with King Hezekiah does not move you to this belief how about the following verses out of the book of Joshua. Maybe. You are welcome to another “perhaps” for this one as well?

Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon. 13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. [Is] not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day. 14 And there was no day like that before it or after it, that the LORD hearkened unto the voice of a man: for the LORD fought for Israel. Joshua 10:12-14

My Response:
God does not do the impossible when it comes to his word. Luminaries such as the Sun are for signs. What you speak of is not impossible because it does not contradict the law or word of God when it comes to his creation.

Genesis 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

So, you agree that the Natural Law can be used by God as He deems fit even if we don’t know how it fits into the Natural Law. However, you are unwilling to give God His due, in the Virgin Birth, which is less than the act of Creation itself.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My response:
The Creator is the Source of Life so I would not find it contradictory to his law and word to re animate the dead in Eezekiel 37. I expect the Source of all life to be able to give life and to be able to take it away. His House/His Rules so to speak.

Your Response:
Glad we agree in this, but not the virgin birth? J This is the conundrum isn’t it?
My Response
For me it is not. We disagree on the type of virgin birth it was. You are insisting it was a betulah birth when in actuality it was an almah birth.

So you looked at Strong’s H5959 and came to the conclusion of the definition of “almah” and did not see the possibility of it also meaning virgin? Just because Betulah (H1330) is specific to virgin doesn’t exclude that almah from being used to mean virgin as well. You have already made a point on the Greek breakdown of “love” to show this very thing.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your Response:

Since you brought up lineage. Let’s seek clarification on why by the line of Joseph would be contradictory to Scripture outside of the loco parentis thought, and hopefully assist in a greater understanding of why Scripture included Mary's lineage, and the Virgin Birth as a necessity.

The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him [shall] the gathering of the people [be]. Genesis 49:10

The LORD hath sworn [in] truth unto David; he will not turn from it; Of the fruit of thy body will I set upon thy throne. Psalm 132:11

[Is] this man Coniah a despised broken idol? [is he] a vessel wherein [is] no pleasure? wherefore are they cast out, he and his seed, and are cast into a land which they know not? 29 O earth, earth, earth, hear the word of the LORD. 30 Thus saith the LORD, Write ye this man childless, a man [that] shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah. Jeremiah 22:28-30

And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel; Matthew 1:12

Coniah = Jechonias

How can the Lord be on the lineage of Joseph to David, if no descendent/seed of Coniah is allowed to rule? As you yourself have noticed or will notice, Jechonias is not part of the lineage of Mary and so there’d be no interruption from David to Jesus which precludes our Lord's reign.

My Response:
You showed partiality by not including and putting 2 Sam 7:13 in conformity or agreement with those scriptures.

Coniah's days are not forever; He passed away and that scripture was fulfilled.

Jeremiah 22:30 Thus saith the Lord, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah.

Keywords; Write ye this man = Coniah, His Days= Coniah
No man of the seed of Coniah will prosper in his days which is true because they were carried away so he and his offspring in his days were not able to rule.

And as you have apply shown that seed would include Joseph. Meaning that Joseph is not only the seed of Solomon, but of Jeconiah who follows Solomon as well. How to fix this conodrum?

This does not contradict 2 Sam 7:13 that mentions Solomon shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever.

Establish the throne, but who would sit on it moving forward? As I said before Jeconiah came after Solomon.

The throne of Solomon became Dry ground because of Coniah however Christ was that root out of that dry ground going all the way back to Jesse,etc

Try going forward and stopping at Jeconiah. Did any of his seed through to Joseph ever reign again? Nope.

Isaiah 52:2 For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.

You seem to be willing to reject the word and move heaven and earth for Joseph not to be the biolgoical father according to the flesh.

"Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness."

Why don't you give the understanding of how 2 Samuel 7:13 and Jeremiah 22:30 agree or confirm with each other since you believe otherwise?

You can move your hand away from your face now :grin:

You do realize that 2 Samuel 7 was being spoken of and communicated to and of David right? It is you who are focusing on Solomon which is valid, until the reign of Jeconiah. It does not state that it would not be separated from the line of Solomon, and still the throne would continue in the line of David whom the promise was actually made to. Keep in mind 2 Samuel 7:16 which is not talking about Solomon, but of David.

2 Samuel 7:13 He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever. (Solomon)

Throne established forever.

2 Samuel 7:16 And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee: thy throne shall be established for ever. (David)

David’s House/Kingdom/Throne established forever.

So, I show you the obstruction to David’s seed as ruler continuing to Joseph through Solomon up to Jeconiah, and you in your heart say it cannot be, because Joseph cannot be the seed by which Jesus reigns and the solution is 2 Samuel 7:13. However looking at 2 Samuel 7:16, we know that God does not lie, so we know the curse of Jeconiah is valid, but we know it does not prevent the promise made to David from being fulfilled as it pertains to what we know is the Throne of David, his House, Kingdom, and not the Throne of Solomom, House or Kingdom. We then look and understand the lineage of Mary through David’s son Nathan still fulfills the promises made to David without deviation. No conflict here.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your Response:

How can the Lord be on the lineage of Joseph to David, if no descendent/seed of Coniah is allowed to rule? As you yourself have noticed or will notice, Jechonias is not part of the lineage of Mary and so there’d be no interruption from David to Jesus which precludes our Lord's reign.

My Response:

By Coniah giving up the ghost and his days being ended. Then a Priest of God anointing a seed of one; Who is biologically of the throne of Solomon; Which was done with Christ. Also don't forget that 14 generations passed from the time of Coniah to Christ ; Just for your information.

Doesn’t follow because Jeconiah follows Solomon in lineage. I don’t see where this curse was dissolved or taken away. I also do keep in mind that from Coniah to Christ 14 generations passed, and also acknowledge as you should that none of the descendants from the line of Coniah reigned after him. Making God’s word true.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your Respose:

You’re taking “shall cleave” in the tense of “only physical/sexual union” which is only one part and not clearly defined definition, while excluding the other definition of “flesh” as “human nature” as possibility.

However, if you are correct how would you suggest the following verse be applied as it pertains to “cleave”? I’m adding Genesis 2:24 as the foundational verse I mentioned in my previous post.

Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. Genesis 2:24

That thou mayest love the LORD thy God, [and] that thou mayest obey his voice, and that thou mayest cleave unto him: for he [is] thy life, and the length of thy days: that thou mayest dwell in the land which the LORD sware unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give them. Deuteronomy 30:20

My Response:

Ok; their is a context of cleaving unto ones wife and consummating flesh becoming one flesh and their is a context of cleaving unto The Lord and becoming one spirit.

you is all I can communicate at this moment.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

With the Love of Christ Immanuel

Ivar

My wife is rolling her eyes and laughing at me whenever I take a break! How I lasted 34 years with this woman God only knows!!!

Love you too Ivar.
Nick
<><

 

[Ivar]

Reference Post # 50
@Christ4Ever
Did not think I would respond this early. I do have to slow down a bit because of work and college by the way. Your responses can be frustrating but it definitely does challenge me so I should thank you for that and am grateful:grin:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your Response

You really don’t believe the Creator of the Universe and all that is in it capable of this much less complex item called a virgin birth? To me this is astonishing. There are so many things that go into this. Could we have accepted that He was also fully God if that had been the case? I don’t believe so, though I’m sure that you do as evidenced by your words. I truly believe we will have to agree to disagree, because you cry out evidence, but refute/obfuscate the timeline of the conception of Mary to the Dream of Joseph to fit your belief instead of accepting what is clearly stated. Mary conceived, Joseph dreamed, and knew her not until after the birth.

My Response:

I never denied the virgin birth in accordance to the Hebrew Language and Oracles of God. I am saying it was an Almah birth as written; However you are inferring that the Almah birth is or means the same thing as Betulah. That their is no distinction. The fact of the matter is; If the birth was truly one of Immaculate conception, then the word Betulah would have been used. Meaning is very important such as "Father of Many Nations" or "As a Prince Power with God".

Gen 24:16 And the damsel was very fair to look upon, a virgin, neither had any man known her: and she went down to the well, and filled her pitcher, and came up.

Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

We already know the sign is in actuality a star. If not we can agree to disagree which is fine. Also women of marriageable age are chaste before marriage in accordance with the Hebrew culture. So if the emphasis was on a chaste or immaculate woman giving birth then Betulah would have had to been used. Not should have been used; But necessary. God is not author of Confusion.

Genesis 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

Matthew 2:2 Where is He who has been born King of the Jews? For we saw His star in the east and have come to worship Him."

1 Corinthians 14:33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

An English example could be affect and effect. Both are distinct words in the English language. With Affect meaning to influence something; And effect meaning to be influenced by something. So for you to deny the words of the hebrew language when the prophecies were originally written in Hebrew is Disheartening.
I am not saying to go out and learn Hebrew but what I am saying is to understand the distinction of Almah and Betuah if you want to understand the virgin birth.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Their is no text of Isaiah 7:14 "to include the Great Isaiah Scroll" in which Alma was not used so Immaculate conception is out of the Question. Anyone that believes Joseph is not the father believes in the Immaculate Conception because Christ was the first child of Mary. Only brought that up because I believe @Sue D. had tried to distance herself from the Immaculate Conception because the Roman Catholic church believes that Mary has no other children or along those lines.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your Response

I mean how Jesus the second Adam who was without sin can still be sinless if the progenitor was Joseph who carried the sin of Adam.


My Response

1. Ok it's already been established that Adam is male and female or that coming in the flesh of Adam is thru Male and Female. You cannot have one without the other.
Fun Fact: Adam named his female counterpart Eve along with naming all the animals but he never named himself :smile:
2. How can this response not be seen as glorifying the woman?????

Sighs "Consulting the Scriptures" ;

1 Timothy 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. = in the transgression

1 Timothy 2:15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

Is anyone taking blame away from the Male? No. However the transgression is with Female.
Is not Christ born to a Female ? The same gender in which the transgression lies? Are not all Men born to Female in which the transgression lies?

Saith scripture. Because if not for scripture I would have said that the Male is soley in transgression for listening to female to begin with. "Irrelevant"

she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue insert wink here " " insert wink here " " sometimes it's about the possible hints and clues.:grin:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your Response:
Could we have accepted that He was also fully God if that had been the case? I don’t believe so, though I’m sure that you do as evidenced by your words.

My Response:

Yes. But somehow whenever i post scripture and is not of your understanding then it seems like is of my word. My words are conformed thru scripture not the other way around.

Short Answer thru scripture: John 3:35 The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand.

Being God is having the Authority of God;
Just as having Assumption of Command , Power of Attorney, or being someones Right Hand Man; Is seen as being someone else and equal to that person because you have their authority or represent that person.

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your Response

I truly believe we will have to agree to disagree, because you cry out evidence, but refute/obfuscate the timeline of the conception of Mary to the Dream of Joseph to fit your belief instead of accepting what is clearly stated. Mary conceived, Joseph dreamed, and knew her not until after the birth.

My Response

First and Foremost The account of Luke concerning Christ took place before the account of Matthew. So it should not be unreasonable if i put pre conception account before conception account; For understanding or studying to shew myself approved. I like putting the horse before the cart if i can. :smile:

Yes you are correct Mary conceived, Joseph dreamed, and knew her not until after the birth I never disagreed with this.

When Mary conceived at that present time onward Joseph did not know her. You may say I am adding words but this does not contradict Scripture or the volume of the book.

"The three following are only examples"
1. In my accounting class as I was studying accounting; I might not have known the Owners Equity, but in knowing the Law of Accounting and what Assets and Liabilities are; I could add them together to get the Owners Equity. By knowing the law of accounting; I could formulate the answer and not contradict the law or way and truth concerning accounting.

2. In my Math class as I was studying math; I might have not known what A^2 was, But knowing the law of Math and what C^2 and B^2 was I could subtract B^2 from C^2 to get A^2. By knowing the law of Math i could formulate the answer and not contradict the law or way and truth concerning math.

3. As someone who studies scripture One may not know exactly how Joseph was the Father but knowing the volume of the book and prophecies you know that Christ was made like his brethren according to or in conformity with the flesh of man which is both male and female. You know that he fulfilled prophecies and law concerning his birth

Hebrews 10:7 Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.

Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

Phillip understood this.

John 1:45 Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.

Coincidence? Am I wrong?
Fun Fact: Christ handpicked Phillip to be his disciple.

John 1:43 The day following Jesus would go forth into Galilee, and findeth Philip, and saith unto him, Follow me.
John 1:44 Now Philip was of Bethsaida, the city of Andrew and Peter.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Romans 1:3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; "in conformity with"
Definition of ACCORDING TO


The following is of the Apocrypha " Wisdom of Solomon"

Wisdom of Solomon Chapter 7
1 I myself also am a mortal man, like to all, and the offspring of him that was first made of the earth,

2 And in my mother's womb was fashioned to be flesh in the time of ten months, being compacted in blood, of the seed of man, and the pleasure that came with sleep.

3 And when I was born, I drew in the common air, and fell upon the earth, which is of like nature, and the first voice which I uttered was crying, as all others do.

4 I was nursed in swaddling clothes, and that with cares.

5 For there is no king that had any other beginning of birth.

6 For all men have one entrance into life, and the like going out.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your Response:
You can move your hand away from your face now :grin:

You do realize that 2 Samuel 7 was being spoken of and communicated to and of David right? It is you who are focusing on Solomon which is valid, until the reign of Jeconiah. It does not state that it would not be separated from the line of Solomon, and still the throne would continue in the line of David whom the promise was actually made to. Keep in mind 2 Samuel 7:16 which is not talking about Solomon, but of David.

My Response:

The prophecy of the curse on Coniah was fulfilled because in his days neither he nor his kingly seed prospered because they were carried away by the Babylonians. Upon the death of Coniah that prophecy was fulfilled.
The difference between Jeremiah 22:30 and 2 Samuel 7:13 is this;
Jeremiah 22:30 is for the lifetime of Coniah while 2 Samuel 7:13 is for ever

1 Kings 8:18 And the Lord said unto David my father, Whereas it was in thine heart to build an house unto my name, thou didst well that it was in thine heart.

1 Kings 8:19 Nevertheless thou shalt not build the house; but thy son that shall come forth out of thy loins, he shall build the house unto my name.

2 Samuel 7: 13 He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever. "Keyword = Forever /Solomon seed = Forever"

Jeremiah 22:30 Thus saith the Lord, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah. "Keyword = Coniah & In his Days"


Ezekiel 18: 20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your Response:

And as you have apply shown that seed would include Joseph. Meaning that Joseph is not only the seed of Solomon, but of Jeconiah who follows Solomon as well. How to fix this conodrum?

My response:
:shades:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your Response

So, I show you the obstruction to David’s seed as ruler continuing to Joseph through Solomon up to Jeconiah, and you in your heart say it cannot be, because Joseph cannot be the seed by which Jesus reigns and the solution is 2 Samuel 7:13. However looking at 2 Samuel 7:16, we know that God does not lie, so we know the curse of Jeconiah is valid, but we know it does not prevent the promise made to David from being fulfilled as it pertains to what we know is the Throne of David, his House, Kingdom, and not the Throne of Solomom, House or Kingdom. We then look and understand the lineage of Mary through David’s son Nathan still fulfills the promises made to David without deviation. No conflict here.


My Response:
Honestly I did not expect you to or even think you would have tried. You literally moved Heaven and Earth to conform the scriptures to your viewpoint and deny that Christ came in the flesh in the volume of the book. But on a positive note we agree on one thing which is great.

Yes; I do in my heart say it cannot be. Mainly because 2 Samuel 7:13 is forever and is in the volume of the book:grin:

In accordance with the volume of the book you are telling me that Christ did not come in the Flesh. I am sure you will disagree and we will have to agree to disagree on this one.

The irony is I accept that Immanuel is the anointed of God and I accept that he came in the flesh which scripturally does not make me a deciever and antichrist;
However to the world if I don't deny the flesh of Joseph and I don't say that Jesus is God then that makes me a deciever and antichrist.:crying:
Despised and Rejected of Men. Some even block me or close my posts
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your Response:

you is all I can communicate at this moment.

My Response
Likewise

Luke 6: 31 And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.:grin:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With the Love of Christ Immanuel

Ivar

 

[Ivar]

Correction no one blocked me I was in error on that.

 

[Christ4Ever]

Reference Post # 51

Reference Post # 50

@Christ4Ever
Did not think I would respond this early. I do have to slow down a bit because of work and college by the way. Your responses can be frustrating but it definitely does challenge me so I should thank you for that and am grateful

Hello Ivar,

No problem, because I know exactly what you mean

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your Response

You really don’t believe the Creator of the Universe and all that is in it capable of this much less complex item called a virgin birth? To me this is astonishing. There are so many things that go into this. Could we have accepted that He was also fully God if that had been the case? I don’t believe so, though I’m sure that you do as evidenced by your words. I truly believe we will have to agree to disagree, because you cry out evidence, but refute/obfuscate the timeline of the conception of Mary to the Dream of Joseph to fit your belief instead of accepting what is clearly stated. Mary conceived, Joseph dreamed, and knew her not until after the birth.

My Response:

I never denied the virgin birth in accordance to the Hebrew Language and Oracles of God. I am saying it was an Almah birth as written; However you are inferring that the Almah birth is or means the same thing as Betulah. That their is no distinction. The fact of the matter is; If the birth was truly one of Immaculate conception, then the word Betulah would have been used. Meaning is very important such as "Father of Many Nations" or "As a Prince Power with God".
Gen 24:16 And the damsel was very fair to look upon, a virgin, neither had any man known her: and she went down to the well, and filled her pitcher, and came up.

Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

We already know the sign is in actuality a star. If not we can agree to disagree which is fine. Also women of marriageable age are chaste before marriage in accordance with the Hebrew culture. So if the emphasis was on a chaste or immaculate woman giving birth then Betulah would have had to been used. Not should have been used; But necessary. God is not author of Confusion.

Genesis 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

Matthew 2:2 Where is He who has been born King of the Jews? For we saw His star in the east and have come to worship Him."

1 Corinthians 14:33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

An English example could be affect and effect. Both are distinct words in the English language. With Affect meaning to influence something; And effect meaning to be influenced by something. So for you to deny the words of the hebrew language when the prophecies were originally written in Hebrew is Disheartening.
I am not saying to go out and learn Hebrew but what I am saying is to understand the distinction of Almah and Betuah if you want to understand the virgin birth.

Actually I think you are not quite catching what I am saying. Not knowing Hebrew, I am limited to using what Strong’s which provides as a foundation to defining a Hebrew word for me. The definition of Almah (H5959) does not exclude it meaning Virgin. In fact the Strong’s states that it’s used to signify “Virgin” in 4 Scripture verses Gen 24:43, Sng 1:3, Sng 6:8, Isaiah 7:14, and yet you will find that “Maid” is used 2x times, while “damsels” 1x time for the same Hebrew word. I’m sure you took a look at the referenced Strong’s number I provided. That is all I’m saying is the context is what makes it important. To you it appears the context signifies something different than it does to me :smile: Notice the point below in the note that mentions “young woman”. Could this be the difference on why one word was used instead of the other? I add another possibility further along in this post.

Strongs’s – H5959

1. I. virgin, young woman
   1. A. of marriageable age
   2. B. maid or newly married

Note included in Strong’s: "There is no instance where it can be proved that 'almâ designates a young woman who is not a virgin. The fact of virginity is obvious in Gen 24:43 where 'almâ is used of one who was being sought as a bride for Isaac." (R. Laird Harris, et al. Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, p. 672.)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Their is no text of Isaiah 7:14 "to include the Great Isaiah Scroll" in which Alma was not used so Immaculate conception is out of the Question. Anyone that believes Joseph is not the father believes in the Immaculate Conception because Christ was the first child of Mary. Only brought that up because I believe @Sue D. had tried to distance herself from the Immaculate Conception because the Roman Catholic church believes that Mary has no other children or along those lines.

I don’t believe in the Immaculate Conception, because it implies that Mary was without Sin. That still doesn’t mean to exclude what I’ve already addressed to be true. Being that Joseph was not the biological father of Jesus. I'm starting to notice that to you it does. (brought up later in this post)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your Response

I mean how Jesus the second Adam who was without sin can still be sinless if the progenitor was Joseph who carried the sin of Adam.

My Response
1. Ok it's already been established that Adam is male and female or that coming in the flesh of Adam is thru Male and Female. You cannot have one without the other.
Fun Fact: Adam named his female counterpart Eve along with naming all the animals but he never named himself
2. How can this response not be seen as glorifying the woman?????

Sighs "Consulting the Scriptures" ;

1 Timothy 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. = in the transgression

1 Timothy 2:15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

Is anyone taking blame away from the Male? No. However the transgression is with Female.
Is not Christ born to a Female ? The same gender in which the transgression lies? Are not all Men born to Female in which the transgression lies?

Saith scripture. Because if not for scripture I would have said that the Male is soley in transgression for listening to female to begin with. "Irrelevant"

she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue insert wink here " " insert wink here " " sometimes it's about the possible hints and clues.

Though this is really moving us off track. However, I will say from your opening statement to this part. You did have Adam with a woman!

Fun fact. Like that. The naming of Eve didn’t occur until after the fall. And no it’s not established that Adam was male and female. For it was God the Creator who decided to use a part of Adam to create Woman. It would be us who add the implication that genetically Adam had both genes to allow Woman to be created, and was located in that rib and now no longer has that gene? I don’t believe this. Why God choose to use a part of Adam (rib) to Create Woman I can’t say, though being a help mate showing Adam leadership above Woman could have been one reason. Meaning “You’re a part of me, not the otherway around!” :crying: However, it still didn’t preclude God from creating her without Adam’s rib. Still, I’m sure God had his reasons for not creating Woman exactly as He created man. No need to continue on with this area for it dilutes the original of the thread. I just don’t want you to think that I’m not considering everything that you are writing. :smile:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your Response:
Could we have accepted that He was also fully God if that had been the case? I don’t believe so, though I’m sure that you do as evidenced by your words.

My Response:

Yes. But somehow whenever i post scripture and is not of your understanding then it seems like is of my word. My words are conformed thru scripture not the other way around.

Short Answer thru scripture: John 3:35 The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand.

Being God is having the Authority of God;
Just as having Assumption of Command , Power of Attorney, or being someones Right Hand Man; Is seen as being someone else and equal to that person because you have their authority or represent that person.

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

I guess it would appear that way to you, but me thinks how we perceive scripture and what we infer from it is where we appear to differ. Scripture should explain Scripture, but once all together it’s usually going to ensure to support the purpose of the research in the first place. In this case Joseph being the progenitor of Jesus. You I hope by now understand that I do not attempt to deviate, except occasionally from the title of the thread. The supporting Scriptures that I see as not be totally relevant to this, I exclude from including or replying to. This helps me when I’m looking for a specific tree in a forest full of them. Otherwise all it does is obscure the final analysis for me.

Don’t you just love it!!! :smile:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your Response

I truly believe we will have to agree to disagree, because you cry out evidence, but refute/obfuscate the timeline of the conception of Mary to the Dream of Joseph to fit your belief instead of accepting what is clearly stated. Mary conceived, Joseph dreamed, and knew her not until after the birth.

My Response

First and Foremost The account of Luke concerning Christ took place before the account of Matthew. So it should not be unreasonable if i put pre conception account before conception account; For understanding or studying to shew myself approved. I like putting the horse before the cart if i can.

Yes you are correct Mary conceived, Joseph dreamed, and knew her not until after the birth I never disagreed with this.
When Mary conceived at that present time onward Joseph did not know her. You may say I am adding words but this does not contradict Scripture or the volume of the book.

"The three following are only examples"
1. In my accounting class as I was studying accounting; I might not have known the Owners Equity, but in knowing the Law of Accounting and what Assets and Liabilities are; I could add them together to get the Owners Equity. By knowing the law of accounting; I could formulate the answer and not contradict the law or way and truth concerning accounting.

2. In my Math class as I was studying math; I might have not known what A^2 was, But knowing the law of Math and what C^2 and B^2 was I could subtract B^2 from C^2 to get A^2. By knowing the law of Math i could formulate the answer and not contradict the law or way and truth concerning math.

3. As someone who studies scripture One may not know exactly how Joseph was the Father but knowing the volume of the book and prophecies you know that Christ was made like his brethren according to or in conformity with the flesh of man which is both male and female. You know that he fulfilled prophecies and law concerning his birth

This is the point I was getting at in my last (above response). The thought is first made that Joseph was the Father, before going into the research. This may or not have been the case when you first started to research this, so it’s just an assumption on my part to your starting process.

Numbers don’t necessarily provide great flexibility from what I can tell. Not being a numbers guy, but I have noticed that words do, and is why context is so important. That is also why seeing where Almah was used for finding the wife of Isaac was important. It showed Virgin, young woman, Almah, while Bĕthuwlah only identifies Virgin. I don’t think they were looking for an older virgin for Joseph. Do you? J

Notice also, in Gen 24:16 that it’s actually speaking in the first person who is telling the narrative, while if you look at Gen 24:43 it’s in the third person and not the teller’s perspective. Could this be a reason for the different word usage by the writer? I have not looked into this closely in each instance where bĕthuwlah and almah are used. I don’t know if you have considered this or not. It might be something for you to look into. Otherwise it makes no sense why Almah would include virgin in the Hebrew as well as in its Strong’s definition when an existing word already existed, unless as I stated before it was to reflect that the virgin had to be young. I really am sorry in posing this to you, for I know you are busy. My apologies ahead of time. Just know that a quick response to any of this is not necessary. Not a race J

Hebrews 10:7 Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.

Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

Phillip understood this.

John 1:45 Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.

Coincidence? Am I wrong?
Fun Fact: Christ handpicked Phillip to be his disciple.

John 1:43 The day following Jesus would go forth into Galilee, and findeth Philip, and saith unto him, Follow me.
John 1:44 Now Philip was of Bethsaida, the city of Andrew and Peter.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Romans 1:3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; "in conformity with"
Definition of ACCORDING TO

The following is of the Apocrypha " Wisdom of Solomon"

Wisdom of Solomon Chapter 7
1 I myself also am a mortal man, like to all, and the offspring of him that was first made of the earth,

2 And in my mother's womb was fashioned to be flesh in the time of ten months, being compacted in blood, of the seed of man, and the pleasure that came with sleep.

3 And when I was born, I drew in the common air, and fell upon the earth, which is of like nature, and the first voice which I uttered was crying, as all others do.

4 I was nursed in swaddling clothes, and that with cares.

5 For there is no king that had any other beginning of birth.

6 For all men have one entrance into life, and the like going out.

I’m sorry, but I’m not familiar with the Apocrypha. The reason being that I don’t consider it canon and so won’t be responding to it as if can be used as supporting document. See Ivar, I do read and consider all that you write even though I didn’t respond necessarily to it :smile:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your Response:
You can move your hand away from your face now

You do realize that 2 Samuel 7 was being spoken of and communicated to and of David right? It is you who are focusing on Solomon which is valid, until the reign of Jeconiah. It does not state that it would not be separated from the line of Solomon, and still the throne would continue in the line of David whom the promise was actually made to. Keep in mind 2 Samuel 7:16 which is not talking about Solomon, but of David.

My Response:

The prophecy of the curse on Coniah was fulfilled because in his days neither he nor his kingly seed prospered because they were carried away by the Babylonians. Upon the death of Coniah that prophecy was fulfilled.
The difference between Jeremiah 22:30 and 2 Samuel 7:13 is this;

Jeremiah 22:30 is for the lifetime of Coniah while 2 Samuel 7:13 is for ever

1 Kings 8:18 And the Lord said unto David my father, Whereas it was in thine heart to build an house unto my name, thou didst well that it was in thine heart.

1 Kings 8:19 Nevertheless thou shalt not build the house; but thy son that shall come forth out of thy loins, he shall build the house unto my name.

2 Samuel 7: 13 He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever. "Keyword = Forever /Solomon seed = Forever"
Jeremiah 22:30 Thus saith the Lord, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah. "Keyword = Coniah & In his Days"

Ezekiel 18: 20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

As far as house, it’s actually God’s House, which is neither David’ or Solomon’s. However, on the throne, I ask you. So, whose throne is it, David’s or Solomon’s?? If either one takes precedence, then would it be David or Solomon? Can’t be both. For both can’t reign at the same time. However, could it mean that the throne is not specific to the person, but to the lineage starting at David? This of course would mean that it could bypass Jeconiah and be satisfied through Nathan’s lineage. Jeconiah curse was done away with after his death as you imply, for his seed was included in this the curse.
Where does it say the curse no longer applied or only applied to Jeconiah and not his seed? Won’t his seed that is mentioned in Jeremiah 22:30 include descendants as well?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your Response:

And as you have apply shown that seed would include Joseph. Meaning that Joseph is not only the seed of Solomon, but of Jeconiah who follows Solomon as well. How to fix this conodrum?

My response:

:smile:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your Response

So, I show you the obstruction to David’s seed as ruler continuing to Joseph through Solomon up to Jeconiah, and you in your heart say it cannot be, because Joseph cannot be the seed by which Jesus reigns and the solution is 2 Samuel 7:13. However looking at 2 Samuel 7:16, we know that God does not lie, so we know the curse of Jeconiah is valid, but we know it does not prevent the promise made to David from being fulfilled as it pertains to what we know is the Throne of David, his House, Kingdom, and not the Throne of Solomom, House or Kingdom. We then look and understand the lineage of Mary through David’s son Nathan still fulfills the promises made to David without deviation. No conflict here.

My Response:
Honestly I did not expect you to or even think you would have tried. You literally moved Heaven and Earth to conform the scriptures to your viewpoint and deny that Christ came in the flesh in the volume of the book. But on a positive note we agree on one thing which is great.

Yes; I do in my heart say it cannot be. Mainly because 2 Samuel 7:13 is forever and is in the volume of the book

In accordance with the volume of the book you are telling me that Christ did not come in the Flesh. I am sure you will disagree and we will have to agree to disagree on this one.
The irony is I accept that Immanuel is the anointed of God and I accept that he came in the flesh which scripturally does not make me a deciever and antichrist;
However to the world if I don't deny the flesh of Joseph and I don't say that Jesus is God then that makes me a deciever and antichrist.
Despised and Rejected of Men. Some even block me or close my posts

The only reason you state this is because you make it necessary for man to be the progenitor in order for Christ to come in the flesh. Whereas I’ve believe I’ve shown, that with God, all things are possible, especially as it applies to life, and so not beyond reason or Scripture that a Holy Jesus was born without the seed of Joseph being implanted in Mary.

However, the implication that you continue to make mention of and allude to which is one reason why you might get blocked or have certain postings closed, and are reflected in that if one doesn’t believe in Joseph as the progenitor they must, I said must, believe that He did not come in the flesh. These comments/conclusion on your part is really baffling and I’m sure disrespectful and cause for concern to many, myself included. You're telling people because they don't believe in "A" they believe in "B". When this is not really the case. They actually see the components of what "A" signifies differently. That is all. Making your statement the way you do is very similar to calling people names, even if one believes the claim is valid, one does not need to voice them, thereby disrespecting one who should be accorded "Love". Also, it does nothing to further the discussion/communication one may be involved with.

I hope you heed my advice in this. For I truly enjoy our communications, but as a Moderator, it is not only me that I must be concerned, for I’ve been called many things due to who I am or what I believe, but I don’t let it derail me to not showing the Love of Christ Jesus in what I do and say. Then again I’m older, so it’s easy now to say that :smile: However, I still have the whole Community here at Talk Jesus into consideration as well as do others.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your Response:

you is all I can communicate at this moment.

My Response
Likewise

Luke 6: 31 And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With the Love of Christ Immanuel

Ivar

Great success with your schooling is hoped for!
With the Love of Christ Jesus Ivar.

Nick
<><

 

[Ivar]

@Christ4Ever

I feel like my pearls are being trampled. The solution is instead of me explaining the foolishness of God; I will try to solely post scripture and highlight certain aspects or keywords of it mainly in blue. Bold will be emphasis.

1 Corinthians 1:25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hebrews 10:7 Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.

Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

Ecclesiastes 1:9 The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.

Genesis 2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.

Genesis 2:2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.

Genesis 2:3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

1 Timothy 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

1 Timothy 2:15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

Genesis 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

Ecc 11:5 As thou knowest not what is the way of the spirit, nor how the bones do grow in the womb of her that is with child: even so thou knowest not the works of God who maketh all.

Proverbs 6:29 So he that goeth in to his neighbour's wife; whosoever toucheth her shall not be innocent.

Romans 8:16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 John 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

2 John 1:7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

John 12:44 Jesus cried and said, He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent me.

1 Samuel 15:23 For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the LORD, he hath also rejected thee from being king.

Hebrews 2:17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even NIV translators got this:

Hebrews 2:17 For this reason he had to be made like them, fully human in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Isaiah 53:2 For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.

Isaiah 53:12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rom 1:3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;

Definition of ACCORDING TO

2Sa 7:13 He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever.

1Co 15:39 All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The seed of David and Abraham are both from male progenitors in the flesh becoming one flesh with their helpmate. Only way to be of the flesh of Men; You have to be born into it. No other method scripturally shown.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Joh 1:45 Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your Response Reference Post # 53

I don’t believe in the Immaculate Conception, because it implies that Mary was without Sin. That still doesn’t mean to exclude what I’ve already addressed to be true. Being that Joseph was not the biological father of Jesus. I'm starting to notice that to you it does. (brought up later in this post)

Your Response Reference Post # 49

I mean how Jesus the second Adam who was without sin can still be sinless if the progenitor was Joseph who carried the sin of Adam.

My Response:
You proved my point. As do the others. " The male cannot be the biological parent because of sin however in the case of the female it is acceptable."
You said or implied Mary was without sin in Post #53.
How can this response not be seen as glorifying the woman or double talk?????
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

With the love of Christ Immanuel

Ivar

 

[Ivar]

@Christ4Ever

Reference Post #53 Your Response

Though this is really moving us off track. However, I will say from your opening statement to this part. You did have Adam with a woman!

Fun fact. Like that. The naming of Eve didn’t occur until after the fall. And no it’s not established that Adam was male and female. For it was God the Creator who decided to use a part of Adam to create Woman. It would be us who add the implication that genetically Adam had both genes to allow Woman to be created, and was located in that rib and now no longer has that gene? I don’t believe this. Why God choose to use a part of Adam (rib) to Create Woman I can’t say, though being a help mate showing Adam leadership above Woman could have been one reason. Meaning “You’re a part of me, not the otherway around!” :crying: However, it still didn’t preclude God from creating her without Adam’s rib. Still, I’m sure God had his reasons for not creating Woman exactly as He created man. No need to continue on with this area for it dilutes the original of the thread. I just don’t want you to think that I’m not considering everything that you are writing. :smile:

My response:


"if possible my words to you will only be scripture highlights and dictionary references moving forward. if you get the feeling of Deja Vu it's because some have been posted already."
My words "if any" will be marked purple this time, your words in red .
Blue will be keywords from the scriptures I am using. If I Bold then i am emphasizing

Genesis 1:26 Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”

Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image,in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Genesis 5:1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;

Genesis 5:2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Genesis 2:7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

1 Corinthians 11:11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.

1 Corinthians 11:12 For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Genesis 2:21 And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;

Genesis 2:22 And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

Genesis 2:23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Man has both X and Y chromosomes along with seed/sperma.

Woman has no Y chromosome seed/sperma unless given by Man.

Y is the sex-determining chromosome in many species, since it is the presence or absence of Y that determines the male or female sex of offspring produced in sexual reproduction.
Y chromosome - Wikipedia

Seed only given by male.

Genesis 38:8 And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother's wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother.

Genesis 38:9 And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother.

Don't you think if it was lawful for the Holy Spirit to become one flesh with a woman to create flesh; The Holy Spirit could have with Tamar? Instead of Tamar making the decision to prostitute herself to Judah and raise up seed for Judah's firstborn Er "her original husband and heir to the messianic line? "Worded as question but just a statement."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is why according to the volume of the book one could say you deny Christ has come in the flesh. You do not see the flesh of Men for what it is Male and Female.
You say Male "Adam" cannot be the Father because he is sinful; Yet you have no qualms with Female "Adam" being the Mother.

If the law of creation was not finished. Don't you think an option would have "or could have" been to destroy Female?; Since the transgression is counted towards her. Punish the male while also pulling another rib from him and fashioning a helpmate replacement? 1 Timothy 2:14 "this not to get side tracked from the main point. Only meant to provoke thought since technically some of your words did imply that the female was blameless."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i think I need to do this for edification/clarification purposes;

Jeremiah 22:30 Thus saith the Lord, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah.

Definition of HIS "of or relating to him or himself"

a man that shall not prosper in his days "because" for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2 Samuel 7:13 He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever.

Definition of FOREVER
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

With the love of Christ Immanuel

Ivar

 

[Christ4Ever]

Reference Post #54

@Christ4Ever

I feel like my pearls are being trampled. The solution is instead of me explaining the foolishness of God; I will try to solely post scripture and highlight certain aspects or keywords of it mainly in blue. Bold will be emphasis.

1 Corinthians 1:25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

Hello Ivar,

I’m sorry that you feel that your pearls have been trampled. You have shared what you have researched and believe to be true, and have someone that won’t accept what you are saying without question. This is me. Someone tells me the sky is blue, and I’ll go outside to make sure it is so. My preacher tells me that this is so, and I go to scripture and confirm it as so. I even asked my Jewish Doctor today, to see if he knew the word Almah and what it meant to him. Sadly, he was rusty in his Hebrew, and was honest enough to tell me that he had never heard of the word. I fear no subject, in and of itself, except the occult, which can open one to unsuspecting evil if done blindly.

So, Ivar don’t feel alone in believing that ones words are going with no effect. They have yet to convince, without any doubt and having no doubt would be necessary for me to move from God as the progenitor to Joseph being the progenitor. However, I will add that your previous complaint about me not addressing everything, I now make to you. My reference to Strong's on Almah seem to illicit not a peep since in truth most of what you hold your position on revolves around basically the meaning of two words.

And it is for this reason that I could just as easily repeat 1 Corinthians 1:25 to you. Knowing it would be understood, but not be seen as applying to oneself.

In using as a foundation and tying the Natural Law, as if we are aware of its totality (eyebrows raised), and so God’s limitations in what He is able to do/or not do within it, would as I’ve said before be presumptuous of man, and limiting of God. This by way is really just another way of saying 1 Corinthians 1:25.

The below scriptures are not going over new ground between us, and if they didn’t change my position when first quoted then, it surely will not now. Much to your chagrin I’m sure and is addressed in the succeeding post # 55, which I haven't had a chance to look at in depth.

I in particular love the use of 1 John 4:3, because it just reaffirms the belief that you have that if one does not belief Joseph as the progenitor of Jesus, they must not believe He came in the flesh. If my words till this time have not shown you this is not true, then all I can say is that you are blinded to a reality that you do not want to accept, which requires an either/or mentality. Which is that God, in His infinite power did not require Joseph, or Mary for that matter, but choose for His will/purposes to be done in a way that only required Mary, and not Joseph. Which I think is appropriate if one blames Eve/Woman for the fall, even though Adam bore the greater responsibility.

Let me ask you. Does man know the completeness of the Natural Law created by God? I would say no since Science continues to grow in leaps and bounds as it pertains to the Natural Law. So, there is still much to learn. Yet, I’m sure you won’t admit the possibility that within that realm of the unknown that it’s possible that God was able to be the progenitor and only used Joseph as the surrogate acting in the capacity of the earthly father and still be within the Natural Law.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hebrews 10:7 Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.

Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

Ecclesiastes 1:9 The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.

Genesis 2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.

Genesis 2:2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.

Genesis 2:3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

1 Timothy 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

1 Timothy 2:15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

Genesis 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

Ecc 11:5 As thou knowest not what is the way of the spirit, nor how the bones do grow in the womb of her that is with child: even so thou knowest not the works of God who maketh all.

Proverbs 6:29 So he that goeth in to his neighbour's wife; whosoever toucheth her shall not be innocent.

Romans 8:16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 John 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

2 John 1:7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

John 12:44 Jesus cried and said, He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent me.

1 Samuel 15:23 For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the LORD, he hath also rejected thee from being king.

Hebrews 2:17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even NIV translators got this:

Hebrews 2:17 For this reason he had to be made like them, fully human in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Isaiah 53:2 For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.

Isaiah 53:12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rom 1:3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;

Definition of ACCORDING TO

2Sa 7:13 He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever.

1Co 15:39 All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The seed of David and Abraham are both from male progenitors in the flesh becoming one flesh with their helpmate. Only way to be of the flesh of Men; You have to be born into it. No other method scripturally shown.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Joh 1:45 Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.

Read, but won't rehash things already covered baring additional input. Sorry.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your Response Reference Post # 53

I don’t believe in the Immaculate Conception, because it implies that Mary was without Sin. That still doesn’t mean to exclude what I’ve already addressed to be true. Being that Joseph was not the biological father of Jesus. I'm starting to notice that to you it does. (brought up later in this post)

Your Response Reference Post # 49

I mean how Jesus the second Adam who was without sin can still be sinless if the progenitor was Joseph who carried the sin of Adam.

My Response:
You proved my point. As do the others. " The male cannot be the biological parent because of sin however in the case of the female it is acceptable."
You said or implied Mary was without sin in Post #53.
How can this response not be seen as glorifying the woman or double talk?????

First your suggestion that I implied that Mary is without sin in my Post #53 is not true. Maybe you didn’t quite understand what I wrote….and now I will show it again for you to digest a bit more slowly. I’ll reword it here as well and afterwards add a little spice to the subject.

Me speaking: In fact the concept of Immaculate Conception and Mary is without sin is what I told you I didn’t believe in. In as much as you believe either of them were without sin. Yes/No.

I don’t believe in the Immaculate Conception, because it implies that Mary was without Sin. That still doesn’t mean to exclude what I’ve already addressed to be true. Being that Joseph was not the biological father of Jesus. I'm starting to notice that to you it does. (Brought up later in this post)

So, if you believe in the sinlessness of Christ, then you must believe that it was the work of the Holy Spirit upon both Mary & Joseph that allowed this to happen if Joseph was the progenitor. Otherwise, Jesus would have been with sin in the flesh, and we know this could not be if He were to be the perfect sacrifice. He’d be carrying not only the propensity to sin, but sin itself which is upon the flesh. John 3:3, Psalm 51:5, Psalm 58:3, Ephesians 2:3

Flesh = Sarx (G4561, as well) - A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature describes the word this way: “the physical body as functioning entity; in Paul’s thought esp., all parts of the body constitute a totality known as flesh, which is dominated by sin to such a degree that wherever flesh is, all forms of sin are likewise present, and no good thing can live.”

So, since the possibility that sin was kept from Jesus from both parents by the Holy Spirit, means with this knowledge that it was not impossible to keep Mary without Joseph being the progenitor from carrying the sin she otherwise would have carried on to Jesus. Work for you and your pearls?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

With the love of Christ Immanuel

Ivar

I might not have much time in the coming days to continue this discussion, so it will be further between any replies that I make. Doesn’t mean I won’t be on site, doing my duties as a Moderator, but this does take more time then I will have available in the near future. My apologies ahead of time.

Love you to Ivar, in the name of Christ Jesus.
Nick
<><

 

[Ivar]

Reference Post # 56
@Christ4Ever
Is fine I do take some time and energy into these posts as do I believe yourself. On the bright side I do feel even more grounded in my beliefs. Most of what can be said more than likely have been said; At least on my end so i do expect my posts to get most shorter, especially considering we are at an impasse.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your Response

First your suggestion that I implied that Mary is without sin in my Post #53 is not true. Maybe you didn’t quite understand what I wrote….and now I will show it again for you to digest a bit more slowly. I’ll reword it here as well and afterwards add a little spice to the subject.

Me speaking: In fact the concept of Immaculate Conception and Mary is without sin is what I told you I didn’t believe in. In as much as you believe either of them were without sin. Yes/No.

My Response:

Apologies That was a typo. I meant Your Response Reference Post # 49 when you said:

I mean how Jesus the second Adam who was without sin can still be sinless if the progenitor was Joseph who carried the sin of Adam.

That seems to be implying that Mary is without sin. You say Joseph cannot be the father yet the transgression is with the woman.

1 Timothy 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your Response:

Which I think is appropriate if one blames Eve/Woman for the fall, even though Adam bore the greater responsibility.

My Response:

According to scripture the woman bore the responsibility or greater responsibility; which i can understand and is true because though Adam listened to his helpmate over God; Eve did not just do that but also lusted and gave into temptation. Neither does it seem like she asked for permission from Adam.

Here are verses on the matter

1 Jame 2:14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.

1 James 2:15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your Response:

So, if you believe in the sinlessness of Christ, then you must believe that it was the work of the Holy Spirit upon both Mary & Joseph that allowed this to happen if Joseph was the progenitor. Otherwise, Jesus would have been with sin in the flesh, and we know this could not be if He were to be the perfect sacrifice. He’d be carrying not only the propensity to sin, but sin itself which is upon the flesh.

My Response:

He walked in the spirit of the law. He endured until the end and overcame the flesh of man. That was the goal towards becoming a blameless offering or Passover lamb.

Romans 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your Response:

So, since the possibility that sin was kept from Jesus from both parents by the Holy Spirit, means with this knowledge that it was not impossible to keep Mary without Joseph being the progenitor from carrying the sin she otherwise would have carried on to Jesus. Work for you and your pearls?

My Response:

Sin was not kept from Christ; He endured until the end. That is a reason why he is author and finisher of our faith.

Hebrews 12:2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

Don't forget that at the end of the day he was numbered with the transgressors

Isaiah 53:12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My Question;
How did the Holy Spirit get around this law?

Proverbs 6:29 So he that goeth in to his neighbour's wife; whosoever toucheth her shall not be innocent.

Is this for Men only?
Are the sons of God and Holy Spirit be exempt from this?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

With the love of Christ Immanuel

Ivar

 

[Ivar]

This seems to be a great website concerning Almah & Betulah breakdown; Just discovered but won't do a separate post about it

Betulah (Virgin) vs Almah (Young Woman) - We Are Israel Blog
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and will add to this post also

Proving Joseph The Father according to Flesh
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Christ4Ever]

Reference Post # 58

This seems to be a great website concerning Almah & Betulah breakdown; Just discovered but won't do a separate post about it

Betulah (Virgin) vs Almah (Young Woman) - We Are Israel Blog

I started on the article but unsurprisingly I could tell immediately it was pushing a point a point of view by selectively leaving out a possible alternative. The Strong's H5959 is what I'm talking about. In my previous post, I showed you an excerpt from Strong's on H5959, and received no reply from you but now this link. Which is okay. However, in this individuals mentioning of H5959, he failed to include the entirety on the entry found. He only used the portion of H5959 that justified the premise of the article. No mention of virgin and why it might have been included there (Strong's) when there was the word Betulah that could have been used instead.

Sorry, selective portions in reference to another document only diminish the argument, because it appears that something is trying to be hide and so doesn't address the entirety of the interpretation. Which is at the point I stopped reading closely, and only scanned the rest, because it's discussion on the foundation of the word Almah I knew would be on my mind because of it not being completely addressed. Until the writer or you can answer why Strong's H5959 includes "Virgin" as part of the definition, it cannot provide me with what I would need as far as data is concerned to agree on this point with the premise attempting to be made.

As I said before I do not know Hebrew as a language, and rely on other documents in the area of dictionaries, concordances etc. to find both Hebrew and Greek definitions. However, when I do, I don't exclude what I don't like, and only include what I do in order to make a point that I know can be contradicted by the very reference I'm using! Now I may just look for documents that solely reflect my point of view or the point I'm trying to make, but if it's a source document, it truly should be all inclusive in referring to other supporting documents that reflect both sides or have pro/con data included in it. Which of course was the issue with this article in the partial entry of Strong's H5959.

You might try this site, if you don't have access to an actual Strong's Concordance. If you don't know the Strong's number you can just type the word in. I hope it helps.

Strong's Concordance with Hebrew and Greek Lexicon

Thanks for taking the time of researching it and sharing it with me Ivar. I know how exhausting this can be at times!

With the Love of Christ Jesus.
Nick
<><

 

[Ivar]

Reference Post #59
Your Response:

I started on the article but unsurprisingly I could tell immediately it was pushing a point a point of view by selectively leaving out a possible alternative. The Strong's H5959 is what I'm talking about. In my previous post, I showed you an excerpt from Strong's on H5959, and received no reply from you but now this link.

My Response:
Fair enough though i don't think i have called you out much of your own selectivness. Here is my reply;
The root word or counterpart of Almah is Elem H5958 which means young man. Not a virgin but a young man.
Alma is feminine and Elem is it's masculine counterpart. Once again Elem means young man.


ELEM H5958

ALMAH H5959

If you selectively believe it is leaving out a possible alternative then what is the understanding?

Why is it narrated in Gen 24:16 that Rachel was a Betulah when Eliezer met her?
Then 27 verses later why does Eliezer refer to Rachel as an Almah when speaking to Rachel's father?
What is the context of all of this since the site is biased?

Gen 24:16 And the damsel was very fair to look upon, a virgin Betulah H1330, neither had any man known her: and she went down to the well, and filled her pitcher, and came up.

compared to

Gen 24:43 Behold, I stand by the well of water; and it shall come to pass, that when the virgin Almah H5959 cometh forth to draw water, and I say to her, Give me, I pray thee, a little water of thy pitcher to drink;

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question #1 ;
How did the Holy Spirit get around this law?

Proverbs 6:29 So he that goeth in to his neighbour's wife; whosoever toucheth her shall not be innocent.

Is this for Men only?
Are the sons of God and Holy Spirit be exempt from this?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Love of Christ Immanuel

Ivar