"And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God."
NIV, Luke 1:35
"The angel answered, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you.
So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God."
NASB, Luke 1:35
"The angel answered and said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God."
ESV, Luke 1:35
"And the angel answered her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you;
therefore the child to be born will be called holy--the Son of God."
CEV, Luke 1:35
"The angel answered, "The Holy Spirit will come down to you, and God's power will come over you. So your
child will be called the holy Son of God."
Then there's the less literal versions.
The only one who mentions a "thing" is the KJV.
In fact, even the NEW KJV says....
NKJV, Luke 1:35
"And the angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God."
Last time I studied this in the Greek, I found the most literal word-for-word translation for that phrase
matches the NIV and the NKV.
The word "hagion" in the Stephens Text (per the Gordon Ricker-Berry Interlinear) is what the KJV
renders "holy THING."
That's a little odd, since the plural of this word is what's rendered "SAINTS" in the Epistles in the KJV,
the "holy ones".
This "thing" thing is ERROR.
twi never corrected it because this ERROR supports their ERROR in Doctrine.
"See? Even the angel referred to Jesus as a 'thing.'"
Quite right, WW. "Thing" isn't right. Leaving it helps the twi abortion doctrine. I have looked at "holy" but there are a lot verses, so it will be while before I can comment on it. I saw quite quickly "thing" wasn't there tho. All I know for a fact right now, is OT definition of "holy" is separate. Thanks so much for your input, WW. I think with your help we are more likely to get somewhere with this.
I am wondering if what happened is Mary actually received a fertilized egg. You’re right, Jean, we need to look at Heb. 2:14.
For starters tho, I looked at the two accounts of heredity in the gospels. One refers to Joseph and the other to Mary. Joseph we know wasn’t the biological father. Did Mary necessarily have to be a biological mother from a heredity point of view? Is it possible this is a genealogy of two earthly but not biological parents? If it was valid to give Joseph’s genealogy, I don’t see why it would be particularly necessary for Mary to be a biological mother. Her genealogy would be equally valid as Joseph’s either way.
This is beside the point, but I was a little startled to read this recently:
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.
If you just read it and don’t read into it, grammatically it is saying a virgin is going to do three things: conceive, bear a son, and call his name Immanuel.
One other thing I saw just as a quick glance at "partook": I don't yet see justification for twi took PART in just this one verse (Heb. 2:14). All other occurances are clearly partook, as in I partook of a steak dinner. I didn't take part of the steak dinner.
Sad, that an organization can take what is clearly a translation problem, and turn it into a justification for abortion or any other question that has moral implications. Even sadder when said organization touts itself as a "Biblical research" group; spends hours teaching it's followers how to compare Greek, and other languages root word meanings; compare their use in various places in scripture; and then, at the critical juncture, abandon the above so as to bolster their own self serving position.
As to why this hasn't been explored more throughly my opinion is that the two groups most concerned with this interpretation are:
those who benefited from abortions that eliminated a pregnancy that would have resulted in inconvenience for the male-- and thus are using the above to justify their decision to "persuade" the woman to have said abortion;
Women so "persuaded" who use the above to continue to try and convince themsleves that they terminated the existence of an "it" as opposed to an offspring so as to ease themselves of the pangs of guilt that still plague them.
Am I saying that these women should feel guilt? Absolutely not! God understands their individual circumstances and has long ago granted forgivness to these tortured souls--they just have been unable to feel or admit to that forgivness--adding to the horror of the entire situation.
Another place that TWI could help in the healing process-----
To admit that the PI of this particular scripture was wrong and the many cases where leadership used their ministerial capacity to "persuade" women into believing otherwise was also wrong. To let these woman know that they were unfairly coerced by those claiming to represent God.
I am waiting with baited breath TWI's response.......... <_<
I recently saw a TV show supporting gay and lesbian rights and the subect under consideration was whether it would be legal to put two women's names on a birth certificate as two mothers. one woman had donated an egg to be fertilized by an anonymous sperm donor and then implanted in the other woman's uterus and carried to term. The lawyer for the two women argued (successfully) that since both women were linked to the child by biology it was appropriate to issue a birth certificate with two mother sections. It doesn't seem to me that the woman who carried the child to term and then gave birth to it was any more genetically linked to the child than a test tube would be. She contributed none of the child's genetic makeup (no DNA, etc.). The reason I bring this up is in the light of did Mary actually contribute to Jesus Christ's genetic makeup and if so, what?
In Hebrews 2:14 it says the children are parakers of flesh and blood but Jesus Christ only took part of the same. Of course this is only in the KJV and I haven't begun to research the Greek.
In Hebrews 2:14 it says the children are parakers of flesh and blood but Jesus Christ only took part of the same. Of course this is only in the KJV and I haven't begun to research the Greek.
Actually, it does not say he only took part, but that he likewise took part...
"Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewisetook part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;"
Wierwille was correct in saying that "took part" is μετέχφ, but according to blue letter bible, http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/c.p...;version=KJV#14 it appears that it is a synonym for κοινφνέφ, translated "partake". The word "likewise" should have been a clue that Wierwille was incorrect: it indicates that there is the two words or concepts being compared are the same, not different.
Just one of many examples of Wierwille making up definitions of Greek words to suit his theology.
My facts my be wrong because it’s been so many years since I took pfal, but what I remember is vp putting a great deal of emphasis that JC took a part. Didn’t he use Heb. 2:14 to say JC took flesh and not blood? I am thinking he tied that to sin being in the blood and Mary receiving seed (sperm) because of Gen. 3:15.
In any case, Heb 2:14 (NIV) Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death….etc.
Good work, Oakspear. To me, it’s quite clear the verse is saying JC had flesh and blood, and nothing more complicated than that.
I looked at “seed” in the OT. Only rarely does it refer to sperm. Most of the time it’s either progeny, or a literal seed.
Gen. 3:15 (KJV)
And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed;….
Gen. 3:15 (NIV)
And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers;
Of course this is the basis of “seed of the serpent,” “born again of the wrong seed” in twi. Would it make more sense for the serpent’s offspring to be the antichrist? I only ask because he is the one who will be particularly diametrically opposed to JC and he is also referred to as the “son of perdition.” Also we know her offspring in particular is referring to JC, one person as relating to the enmity, so it would make sense for the serpent’s offspring to also refer to one person. Just a thought.
Is it significant that Genesis 3:15 refers only to the seed of the serpent and the seed of the woman (Eve)? It doesn't refer to the seed of Adam or the joint seed of Adam and Eve, but only the seed of Eve.
The Bible records that Mary concieved. Conception is the uniting of Sperm and Egg. In this case, God providing the "sperm" and Mary the egg. Jesus was of the lineage of David-lineage that came to him through Mary. There is nothing in scripture that says that Jesus was anything other than the literal son of Mary.
Anyone remember why vp taught it was not a virgin birth? I don’t.
Matt. 1:25 (KJV) And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus.
Matt. 1:15 (NIV) But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.
I want to state for the record that I am not a Greek scholar and certainly not Hebrew (way more difficult) and no doubt many others on this board are much better at it than I am. In recent days, I try as much as possible to approach the Bible with an open mind and try to just read what is written without changing it in any way. The problem is I continue to have twi fleas in my brain and I continue to flip out things from twi without thinking. Having said that, the thought plickens….
I have spent many, many hours studying the genealogy of JC. I found out on the internet there is a tremendous amount of dispute on this topic that has been going on for centuries. I previously posted about Mary’s genealogy…well…a second look.
Matt. 1:16 (KJV) And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
This one goes back to Abraham.
Luke 3:23: And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, was the son of Heli,
OK. I was able to verify “as was supposed the son of Joseph” is in the Greek from multiple sources.
IN NEITHER ACCOUNT OF THE GENEALOGY IS MARY MENTIONED. At all. The fundamentalists want her in there. So, some maintain Helial was Joseph’s father in law and others his uncle and Mary’s father. We have no scriptural proof of either. We have no scriptural proof of a heredity via Mary. That I can find at least. One account gives Helial as Joseph’s father the other Jacob. One goes back to Abraham, the other to Adam. Why the discrepancy between who was Joseph’s father? No one seems to know for sure.
What can we say for a fact? Both accounts for sure pertain to Joseph. Mary could be in there but we don’t have proof. At this point.
Jesus was Joseph’s legal son but not biological. As such, he was a legal descendant of Adam, David, Abraham and others.
I vote we go with what we can prove and know for sure. Put the rest on a back burner.
VPW taught that when the angel said to Joseph 'Fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife', Matthew 1:20 KJV, it was in sexual sense. That when JC was conceived it was a virgin conception, but by the time JC was born Mary was no longer a virgin, but Joseph had been given permission by God to have sexual relations with her.
VPW also taught that in Matthew 1:16 when it says 'And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ', that the word 'husband' should have been translated 'father' of Mary and added that otherwise the generations don't add up to fourteen.
I want to go on record that I also am not by any means a Greek scholar.
VPW also taught that in Matthew 1:16 when it says 'And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ', that the word 'husband' should have been translated 'father' of Mary and added that otherwise the generations don't add up to fourteen.
And there was something in there that the word "husband" was the word "ish" meaning mighty man which could be a husband or a father...
Something like that, anyway.
Good grief, it's amazing what your brain keeps hanging around!
Anyone remember why vp taught it was not a virgin birth? I don’t.
Matt. 1:25 (KJV) And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus.
Matt. 1:15 (NIV) But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.
I remember. But 1/2 the answer was already posted...
VPW taught that when the angel said to Joseph 'Fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife', Matthew 1:20 KJV, it was in sexual sense. That when JC was conceived it was a virgin conception, but by the time JC was born Mary was no longer a virgin, but Joseph had been given permission by God to have sexual relations with her.
vpw taught that "take unto you" meant in a sexual sense, not
"take her to be your wife again, instead of divorcing her for being unfaithful,
because she was not".
Seems to me the most obvious reading, even in the KJV, is that the angel told him
THAT, and vpw added the sexual element into this verse.
(He had a habit of doing that.)
He also had a "unique interpretation" of Matthew 1:25, quoted above.
Although everybody knows "knew her not" to mean
"didn't have sex with her',
vpw claimed there was additionally an alternate meaning of the term that
meant instead
"didn't have sex THAT RESULTED IN A CONCEPTION with her."
It was twi doctrine-and almost certainly STILL is twi doctrine-
that Jesus was not Joseph's son genetically,
but that while Mary was pregnant with Jesus, that the husband and wife
had sex (which, obviously, could not result in a pregnancy since she was
ALREADY pregnant.)
lcm's witty explanation: "C'mon- Joseph was a man!"
i.e. "I can believe in a virgin birth, but not a young man abstaining from sex
My facts my be wrong because it’s been so many years since I took pfal, but what I remember is vp putting a great deal of emphasis that JC took a part. Didn’t he use Heb. 2:14 to say JC took flesh and not blood? I am thinking he tied that to sin being in the blood and Mary receiving seed (sperm) because of Gen. 3:15.
In any case, Heb 2:14 (NIV) Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death….etc.
Good work, Oakspear. To me, it’s quite clear the verse is saying JC had flesh and blood, and nothing more complicated than that.
Right.
That's what vpw said, and Oakspear explained the meanings without being shackled by
relying on archaic meanings from the KJV, where some words have changed in usage
since 1611, but vpw pretended they didn't when convenient.
The Bible records that Mary concieved. Conception is the uniting of Sperm and Egg. In this case, God providing the "sperm" and Mary the egg. Jesus was of the lineage of David-lineage that came to him through Mary. There is nothing in scripture that says that Jesus was anything other than the literal son of Mary.
Can you document that God directly provided the sperm templelady?
And exactly how did he do that?
I just don't buy it. I believe Joseph was the sperm provider.
As a suggestion, folks may be interested in reviewing the "Protoevangelium of James" -- a non-canonical document written somewhere around the middle of the second century. It covers the birth and young life of Mary and the birth of Jesus.
Key points from this document that are pertinent:
- It makes the claim of Mary's birth being somewhat 'miraculous,' as Mary's parents (Anna and Joachim) were older and without children prior to her. She was dedicated for the Temple as an infant.
- It makes the claim that Joseph was an older widower with other children prior to his betrothal to Mary.
- It makes the claim that Mary was a temple virgin who was "given" to Joseph for care
- It makes the claim that Mary was a virgin at the time of her conception and that she miraculously retained her virginity (i.e., hymen intact) even after the birth. (It gets rather explicit in how it asserts the second claim)
Again, this account is ancient (written in the mid-second century) and appears to be the earliest documented source of many of the 'traditions' that are believed by the apostolic churches (Orthodox, Catholics, Copts) as well as the liturgical protestant groups (episcopals, lutherans, methodists, etc.). However, it is not canonical and so I am not attempting to assert that the account should be elevated to the level of scripture.
I have spent many, many hours studying the genealogy of JC. I found out on the internet there is a tremendous amount of dispute on this topic that has been going on for centuries. I previously posted about Mary’s genealogy…well…a second look.
Matt. 1:16 (KJV) And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
This one goes back to Abraham.
Luke 3:23: And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, was the son of Heli,
OK. I was able to verify “as was supposed the son of Joseph” is in the Greek from multiple sources.
IN NEITHER ACCOUNT OF THE GENEALOGY IS MARY MENTIONED. At all. The fundamentalists want her in there. So, some maintain Helial was Joseph’s father in law and others his uncle and Mary’s father. We have no scriptural proof of either. We have no scriptural proof of a heredity via Mary. That I can find at least. One account gives Helial as Joseph’s father the other Jacob. One goes back to Abraham, the other to Adam. Why the discrepancy between who was Joseph’s father? No one seems to know for sure.
What can we say for a fact? Both accounts for sure pertain to Joseph. Mary could be in there but we don’t have proof. At this point.
Jesus was Joseph’s legal son but not biological. As such, he was a legal descendant of Adam, David, Abraham and others.
I vote we go with what we can prove and know for sure. Put the rest on a back burner.
VPW also taught that in Matthew 1:16 when it says 'And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ', that the word 'husband' should have been translated 'father' of Mary and added that otherwise the generations don't add up to fourteen.
And there was something in there that the word "husband" was the word "ish" meaning mighty man which could be a husband or a father...
I agree about checking what the actual verses say.
In this instance, I think Bullinger (and thus vpw) was correct.
Matthew 1:17
So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations;
and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations;
and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations.
The Matthew lineage is 3 x 14.
1) Abraham
2) Isaac
3) Jacob (aka Israel)
4) Judas/Judah (& his brethren)
5) Phares (& Zara)
6) Esrom
7) Aram
8) Aminadab
9) Naasson
10) Salmon
11) Booz (Boaz)
12) Obed
13) Jesse
14) David (the King)
this completes one set of 14.
1) Solomon
2) Roboam
3) Abia
4) Asa
5) Josaphat
6) Joram
7) Ozias
8) Joatham
9) Achaz
10) Ezekias
11) Manasses
12) Amon
13) Josias
14) Jechonias (& his brethren). Then the carrying away into Babylon.
This completes the second set of 14.
1) Salathiel
2) Zorobabel
3) Abiud
4) Eliakim
5) Azor
6) Sadoc
7) Achim
8) Eliud
9) Eleazar
10) Matthan
11) Jacob
12) Joseph the husband of Mary
13) Jesus who is called Christ.
As written, the count is clearly ONE SHORT of 14, 14, 14.
Matthew 1:17.
"17So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations."
So, is the COUNT wrong? Or is one of the VERSES wrong?
I believe the answer given was correct- the counts are correct- 14, 14, 14.
Luke 3:23-24
"23And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,
24Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph,"
So, that lineage ends
Joseph
Janna
Melchi
Levi
Matthat
Heli
Joseph
Jesus.
Those are obviously not the SAME generations as the first list.
VPW also taught that in Matthew 1:16 when it says 'And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ', that the word 'husband' should have been translated 'father' of Mary and added that otherwise the generations don't add up to fourteen.
If you have a Companion Bible, look up Bullinger's explanation of the 14 generations. Note that David is mentioned in two of the fourteens. Bullinger can be just as "flexible" as Wierwille in translating and interpreting, but he makes a case that does not require retranslating a Greek word as "father" that everyone else translated as "husband".
I want to go on record that I also am not by any means a Greek scholar.
Most of us aren't, but a good percentage of what we were taught in PFAL can be verified or debunked with a little simple checking that most of us never did.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
38
36
42
61
Popular Days
Jun 7
37
Jun 2
34
Jun 8
33
Jun 3
32
Top Posters In This Topic
ChattyKathy 38 posts
WordWolf 36 posts
another spot 42 posts
Larry N Moore 61 posts
Popular Days
Jun 7 2007
37 posts
Jun 2 2007
34 posts
Jun 8 2007
33 posts
Jun 3 2007
32 posts
Posted Images
WordWolf
I'd like to examine this first.
twi said Jesus was referred to as a "holy thing",
and used the King James Version to support that.
But twi checked a lot of things against the Greek and found they didn't match what was in the KJV.....
and NEVER CHECKED "holy thing" to see if it matched.......
I figured one of these days, someone would bring this up.....
Ever look at the Greek on this?
You would if you checked a few other versions....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
This phrase appears ONCE in the New Testament.
King James Version, Luke 1:35
"And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God."
NIV, Luke 1:35
"The angel answered, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you.
So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God."
NASB, Luke 1:35
"The angel answered and said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God."
ESV, Luke 1:35
"And the angel answered her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you;
therefore the child to be born will be called holy--the Son of God."
CEV, Luke 1:35
"The angel answered, "The Holy Spirit will come down to you, and God's power will come over you. So your
child will be called the holy Son of God."
Then there's the less literal versions.
The only one who mentions a "thing" is the KJV.
In fact, even the NEW KJV says....
NKJV, Luke 1:35
"And the angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God."
Last time I studied this in the Greek, I found the most literal word-for-word translation for that phrase
matches the NIV and the NKV.
The word "hagion" in the Stephens Text (per the Gordon Ricker-Berry Interlinear) is what the KJV
renders "holy THING."
That's a little odd, since the plural of this word is what's rendered "SAINTS" in the Epistles in the KJV,
the "holy ones".
This "thing" thing is ERROR.
twi never corrected it because this ERROR supports their ERROR in Doctrine.
"See? Even the angel referred to Jesus as a 'thing.'"
Bull-muffins.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
another spot
Quite right, WW. "Thing" isn't right. Leaving it helps the twi abortion doctrine. I have looked at "holy" but there are a lot verses, so it will be while before I can comment on it. I saw quite quickly "thing" wasn't there tho. All I know for a fact right now, is OT definition of "holy" is separate. Thanks so much for your input, WW. I think with your help we are more likely to get somewhere with this.
I am wondering if what happened is Mary actually received a fertilized egg. You’re right, Jean, we need to look at Heb. 2:14.
For starters tho, I looked at the two accounts of heredity in the gospels. One refers to Joseph and the other to Mary. Joseph we know wasn’t the biological father. Did Mary necessarily have to be a biological mother from a heredity point of view? Is it possible this is a genealogy of two earthly but not biological parents? If it was valid to give Joseph’s genealogy, I don’t see why it would be particularly necessary for Mary to be a biological mother. Her genealogy would be equally valid as Joseph’s either way.
This is beside the point, but I was a little startled to read this recently:
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.
If you just read it and don’t read into it, grammatically it is saying a virgin is going to do three things: conceive, bear a son, and call his name Immanuel.
One other thing I saw just as a quick glance at "partook": I don't yet see justification for twi took PART in just this one verse (Heb. 2:14). All other occurances are clearly partook, as in I partook of a steak dinner. I didn't take part of the steak dinner.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
Sad, that an organization can take what is clearly a translation problem, and turn it into a justification for abortion or any other question that has moral implications. Even sadder when said organization touts itself as a "Biblical research" group; spends hours teaching it's followers how to compare Greek, and other languages root word meanings; compare their use in various places in scripture; and then, at the critical juncture, abandon the above so as to bolster their own self serving position.
As to why this hasn't been explored more throughly my opinion is that the two groups most concerned with this interpretation are:
those who benefited from abortions that eliminated a pregnancy that would have resulted in inconvenience for the male-- and thus are using the above to justify their decision to "persuade" the woman to have said abortion;
Women so "persuaded" who use the above to continue to try and convince themsleves that they terminated the existence of an "it" as opposed to an offspring so as to ease themselves of the pangs of guilt that still plague them.
Am I saying that these women should feel guilt? Absolutely not! God understands their individual circumstances and has long ago granted forgivness to these tortured souls--they just have been unable to feel or admit to that forgivness--adding to the horror of the entire situation.
Another place that TWI could help in the healing process-----
To admit that the PI of this particular scripture was wrong and the many cases where leadership used their ministerial capacity to "persuade" women into believing otherwise was also wrong. To let these woman know that they were unfairly coerced by those claiming to represent God.
I am waiting with baited breath TWI's response.......... <_<
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jeaniam
I recently saw a TV show supporting gay and lesbian rights and the subect under consideration was whether it would be legal to put two women's names on a birth certificate as two mothers. one woman had donated an egg to be fertilized by an anonymous sperm donor and then implanted in the other woman's uterus and carried to term. The lawyer for the two women argued (successfully) that since both women were linked to the child by biology it was appropriate to issue a birth certificate with two mother sections. It doesn't seem to me that the woman who carried the child to term and then gave birth to it was any more genetically linked to the child than a test tube would be. She contributed none of the child's genetic makeup (no DNA, etc.). The reason I bring this up is in the light of did Mary actually contribute to Jesus Christ's genetic makeup and if so, what?
In Hebrews 2:14 it says the children are parakers of flesh and blood but Jesus Christ only took part of the same. Of course this is only in the KJV and I haven't begun to research the Greek.
Edited by JeaniamLink to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
"Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;"
Wierwille was correct in saying that "took part" is μετέχφ, but according to blue letter bible, http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/c.p...;version=KJV#14 it appears that it is a synonym for κοινφνέφ, translated "partake". The word "likewise" should have been a clue that Wierwille was incorrect: it indicates that there is the two words or concepts being compared are the same, not different.
Just one of many examples of Wierwille making up definitions of Greek words to suit his theology.
Edited by OakspearLink to comment
Share on other sites
GT
Great thread. Learned a couple things from it.
Thanks.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
another spot
My facts my be wrong because it’s been so many years since I took pfal, but what I remember is vp putting a great deal of emphasis that JC took a part. Didn’t he use Heb. 2:14 to say JC took flesh and not blood? I am thinking he tied that to sin being in the blood and Mary receiving seed (sperm) because of Gen. 3:15.
In any case, Heb 2:14 (NIV) Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death….etc.
Good work, Oakspear. To me, it’s quite clear the verse is saying JC had flesh and blood, and nothing more complicated than that.
I looked at “seed” in the OT. Only rarely does it refer to sperm. Most of the time it’s either progeny, or a literal seed.
Gen. 3:15 (KJV)
And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed;….
Gen. 3:15 (NIV)
And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers;
Of course this is the basis of “seed of the serpent,” “born again of the wrong seed” in twi. Would it make more sense for the serpent’s offspring to be the antichrist? I only ask because he is the one who will be particularly diametrically opposed to JC and he is also referred to as the “son of perdition.” Also we know her offspring in particular is referring to JC, one person as relating to the enmity, so it would make sense for the serpent’s offspring to also refer to one person. Just a thought.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jeaniam
Is it significant that Genesis 3:15 refers only to the seed of the serpent and the seed of the woman (Eve)? It doesn't refer to the seed of Adam or the joint seed of Adam and Eve, but only the seed of Eve.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
another spot
Wow, Jean!! Seems like it is de-emphasizing the heredity aspect, doesn't it?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
The Bible records that Mary concieved. Conception is the uniting of Sperm and Egg. In this case, God providing the "sperm" and Mary the egg. Jesus was of the lineage of David-lineage that came to him through Mary. There is nothing in scripture that says that Jesus was anything other than the literal son of Mary.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
another spot
Anyone remember why vp taught it was not a virgin birth? I don’t.
Matt. 1:25 (KJV) And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus.
Matt. 1:15 (NIV) But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.
I want to state for the record that I am not a Greek scholar and certainly not Hebrew (way more difficult) and no doubt many others on this board are much better at it than I am. In recent days, I try as much as possible to approach the Bible with an open mind and try to just read what is written without changing it in any way. The problem is I continue to have twi fleas in my brain and I continue to flip out things from twi without thinking. Having said that, the thought plickens….
I have spent many, many hours studying the genealogy of JC. I found out on the internet there is a tremendous amount of dispute on this topic that has been going on for centuries. I previously posted about Mary’s genealogy…well…a second look.
Matt. 1:16 (KJV) And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
This one goes back to Abraham.
Luke 3:23: And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, was the son of Heli,
OK. I was able to verify “as was supposed the son of Joseph” is in the Greek from multiple sources.
IN NEITHER ACCOUNT OF THE GENEALOGY IS MARY MENTIONED. At all. The fundamentalists want her in there. So, some maintain Helial was Joseph’s father in law and others his uncle and Mary’s father. We have no scriptural proof of either. We have no scriptural proof of a heredity via Mary. That I can find at least. One account gives Helial as Joseph’s father the other Jacob. One goes back to Abraham, the other to Adam. Why the discrepancy between who was Joseph’s father? No one seems to know for sure.
What can we say for a fact? Both accounts for sure pertain to Joseph. Mary could be in there but we don’t have proof. At this point.
Jesus was Joseph’s legal son but not biological. As such, he was a legal descendant of Adam, David, Abraham and others.
I vote we go with what we can prove and know for sure. Put the rest on a back burner.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jeaniam
VPW taught that when the angel said to Joseph 'Fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife', Matthew 1:20 KJV, it was in sexual sense. That when JC was conceived it was a virgin conception, but by the time JC was born Mary was no longer a virgin, but Joseph had been given permission by God to have sexual relations with her.
VPW also taught that in Matthew 1:16 when it says 'And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ', that the word 'husband' should have been translated 'father' of Mary and added that otherwise the generations don't add up to fourteen.
I want to go on record that I also am not by any means a Greek scholar.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JavaJane
And there was something in there that the word "husband" was the word "ish" meaning mighty man which could be a husband or a father...
Something like that, anyway.
Good grief, it's amazing what your brain keeps hanging around!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
I remember. But 1/2 the answer was already posted...
vpw taught that "take unto you" meant in a sexual sense, not
"take her to be your wife again, instead of divorcing her for being unfaithful,
because she was not".
Seems to me the most obvious reading, even in the KJV, is that the angel told him
THAT, and vpw added the sexual element into this verse.
(He had a habit of doing that.)
He also had a "unique interpretation" of Matthew 1:25, quoted above.
Although everybody knows "knew her not" to mean
"didn't have sex with her',
vpw claimed there was additionally an alternate meaning of the term that
meant instead
"didn't have sex THAT RESULTED IN A CONCEPTION with her."
It was twi doctrine-and almost certainly STILL is twi doctrine-
that Jesus was not Joseph's son genetically,
but that while Mary was pregnant with Jesus, that the husband and wife
had sex (which, obviously, could not result in a pregnancy since she was
ALREADY pregnant.)
lcm's witty explanation: "C'mon- Joseph was a man!"
i.e. "I can believe in a virgin birth, but not a young man abstaining from sex
with his young wife."
Edited by WordWolfLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Right.
That's what vpw said, and Oakspear explained the meanings without being shackled by
relying on archaic meanings from the KJV, where some words have changed in usage
since 1611, but vpw pretended they didn't when convenient.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
Can you document that God directly provided the sperm templelady?
And exactly how did he do that?
I just don't buy it. I believe Joseph was the sperm provider.
Yeah, Jesus, really a person.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
As a suggestion, folks may be interested in reviewing the "Protoevangelium of James" -- a non-canonical document written somewhere around the middle of the second century. It covers the birth and young life of Mary and the birth of Jesus.
Key points from this document that are pertinent:
- It makes the claim of Mary's birth being somewhat 'miraculous,' as Mary's parents (Anna and Joachim) were older and without children prior to her. She was dedicated for the Temple as an infant.
- It makes the claim that Joseph was an older widower with other children prior to his betrothal to Mary.
- It makes the claim that Mary was a temple virgin who was "given" to Joseph for care
- It makes the claim that Mary was a virgin at the time of her conception and that she miraculously retained her virginity (i.e., hymen intact) even after the birth. (It gets rather explicit in how it asserts the second claim)
Again, this account is ancient (written in the mid-second century) and appears to be the earliest documented source of many of the 'traditions' that are believed by the apostolic churches (Orthodox, Catholics, Copts) as well as the liturgical protestant groups (episcopals, lutherans, methodists, etc.). However, it is not canonical and so I am not attempting to assert that the account should be elevated to the level of scripture.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
I agree about checking what the actual verses say.
In this instance, I think Bullinger (and thus vpw) was correct.
Matthew 1:17
So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations;
and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations;
and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations.
The Matthew lineage is 3 x 14.
1) Abraham
2) Isaac
3) Jacob (aka Israel)
4) Judas/Judah (& his brethren)
5) Phares (& Zara)
6) Esrom
7) Aram
8) Aminadab
9) Naasson
10) Salmon
11) Booz (Boaz)
12) Obed
13) Jesse
14) David (the King)
this completes one set of 14.
1) Solomon
2) Roboam
3) Abia
4) Asa
5) Josaphat
6) Joram
7) Ozias
8) Joatham
9) Achaz
10) Ezekias
11) Manasses
12) Amon
13) Josias
14) Jechonias (& his brethren). Then the carrying away into Babylon.
This completes the second set of 14.
1) Salathiel
2) Zorobabel
3) Abiud
4) Eliakim
5) Azor
6) Sadoc
7) Achim
8) Eliud
9) Eleazar
10) Matthan
11) Jacob
12) Joseph the husband of Mary
13) Jesus who is called Christ.
As written, the count is clearly ONE SHORT of 14, 14, 14.
Matthew 1:17.
"17So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations."
So, is the COUNT wrong? Or is one of the VERSES wrong?
I believe the answer given was correct- the counts are correct- 14, 14, 14.
Luke 3:23-24
"23And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,
24Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph,"
So, that lineage ends
Joseph
Janna
Melchi
Levi
Matthat
Heli
Joseph
Jesus.
Those are obviously not the SAME generations as the first list.
Achim, Eliud, Eleazar, Matthan Jacob, Joseph, Jesus.
Joseph, Janna, Melchi, Levi, Matthat, Heli, Joseph, Jesus.
Doesn't take a Greek degree to see these are 2 different lists.
This means there's at least 2 possible answers.
A) the lists are guesswork and error, and the Bible can't be trusted.
Some of us (not me, but others) find that the acceptable answer.
B) the lists are correct, but mislabelled.
Obviously, there are 2 family lineages, one of Joseph Mary's husband,
one of someone else.
What is what?
Well, the Luke account says Jesus was believed to be ("as was supposed")
to be Joseph's son, Heli's grandson, etc.
The Luke account appears to be Mary's husband's line.
What about the Matthew account?
If the account is supposedly Mary's husband, then there's 2 problems.
1) the lists don't match
2) the NUMBERS don't match- a generation is MISSING.
If the Luke account is Joseph's line,
and the Matthew account is Mary's line,
then the numbers in Matthew should go
7) Achim
8) Eliud
9) Eliazar
10) Matthan
11) Jacob
12) Joseph
13) Mary
14) Jesus
That would mean the Joseph in step 12 was Mary's FATHER, and the word translated
"husband" SHOULD be "father".
Is it possible that Mary's father and husband would have the same name?
Joseph was a common name in Judaism.
If you look at the Luke lineage, there's 2 Josephs in that one, as well.
So, it's certainly PLAUSIBLE.
And it explains the count.
And it explains why there's 2 lineages, if one thinks Scripture is in any way reliable.
On the other hand, I'm open to alternate answers that say
1) the Bible is correct
2) the lists in Matthew are 3 x 14
3) Matthew correctly depicts a lineage, as does Luke
I posed this to some Christians before, and nobody was able to present an answer that
worked equally well with those 3 postulates.
(This is not the case with other ideas I've done that with.)
So, if you've got such an answer, I'd be interested in reading it.
Edited by WordWolfLink to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
I wonder if I really WAS the only person, upon hearing that answer, immediately heard
"Mighty, mighty, Mighty-Man!"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mighty_Man_%28Television%29
http://www.hbshows.com/site.php?c=./mightymanyukk.htm
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
We are the 14th generation.
Jesus the Christ said who is my mother, father, brother and sister.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
I sent a sample of the dress to the lab. They haven't gotten back with the results yet.
<_<
He's God.("Who are you, and how did you get in here?"
"I'm the locksmith. And, I'm the locksmith.")
You have a right to your opinion. More power to you.
Except for any "Jesus was an illusion or a spirit projection" types who might be lurking,ALL of us say "Jesus, really a person."
Usually, we add something like "and also The Son of God" or
"and also God the Son" or something along those lines.
Please elaborate. I don't see how you got there.
I missed something important in-between the question and the answer.
Can you walk me through it?
Edited by WordWolfLink to comment
Share on other sites
cman
What would 'unto Christ' mean to you?
It lists Jesus then unto Christ.
Two separate things in the list.
The seeds in Genesis are not what we were taught in pfal.
Certainly not with the biased explanation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.