WordWolf

I agree, based on the eyewitness accounts we've seen to-date. lcm seems clear his biggest mistake was GETTING CAUGHT, and is convinced he didn't hurt other Christians and act improperly to them. lcm COULD have grown past that, but has not. Not being interested in growing past that (an assumption I'm making), there's no reason for him to visit here, even if he knows we're here. (A lot of people nowadays don't know the internet well enough to find us, amazing as it seems to me.) If he got here, he'd find people who are critical of him, insist they and others were hurt by him, and some comments meant to hurt him (justified or not.) If he'd grown, he might find all of those instructive in their own ways, but otherwise, he'd just find this a place with a lot of bitterness and criticism.

I'm not convinced one way or the other he was definitely correct, but I see that as the information he intended to impart, reflected by how he said it. A complication, of course, is that he himself didn't really edit the S.I.A.L. books- the editing staff did. Therefore, the EXACT phrasing was how they interpreted his intent and phrasing to the best of their abilities, which is not an absolute guarantee it's phrased EXACTLY as he would have. So, it's more sure to say what the editing staff believed than what HE believed in that chapter. I think that transcript of the class will be more explicit as to what vpw himself said moreso than this-which, pretty much, is how it should be, I suppose. Meanwhile, what IS the section of Romans that was driving you nuts, another spot?

So far, seems there's at least 3 positions on this represented, all 3 of which claim, one way or another, that Christ was of God. 1) "Jesus was genetically Mary's son, and God created the genetic contribution the father provides, and Mary was a virgin when Jesus was born." (WordWolf, Oakspear.) A) "Jesus was genetically Mary's son, and God created the genetic contribution the father provides, and Mary was a virgin when Jesus was conceived, but Joseph and her had conjugal relations after that and before Jesus' birth." (Larry, Jean.) X) "Jesus was genetically Mary's son, and genetically Joseph's son as well. He was of God nonetheless." (cman.) A side issue, which I'm hoping to discuss a little later, is the discussion of whether or not Jesus was completely a creation of God, whom Mary effectively was a surrogate mother to, but did not provide any genetic material to him, or if Mary was a natural mother to Jesus in the manner we all normally think of a natural mother. (I'd like to pick that up once we've explored the more basic discussion topics, which it doesn't look like we've finished with so far.)

Emphases mine. So, you care about the answers to your questions, but not enough to remind me WHICH questions they were when asked. You find time to quote other things, but not the questions, nor to post them off-the-cuff. That's not exactly going to motivate me to answer them. And I shall explain them. Looking back, you posted that you "can't discover how {I} came to this conclusion." Not "can't agree with your conclusion", but couldn't even discover how I got there." The conclusions were the simplest, most straightforward read of the verses quoted- which WERE quoted. That means either: A) You were having difficulty with a straightforward read of the verses (which I was suspicious was not the case, since you seemed fairly intelligent) or B) You were able to see the conclusions, but disagreed with them (but chose to communicate DIFFERENTLY than just saying that) or C) You were able to see the conclusions, but decided to claim you didn't, for reasons of your own. Regardless of the result, all 3 of those are frustrating. Despite that, I put in the time to break down all the verses-in 2 versions- with an explanation of the most straightforward read. (That is, what a careful reader who's a stranger to the Bible would come away with if they read those verses carefully.) The "sigh" meant I was frustrated-since I saw no reason a fairly intelligent reader (yourself) could HONESTLY say he was UNABLE to see how those verses were read to those conclusions. (Not DISAGREE, but not even see how they were concluded.) I think I'm entitled to a sigh about that-if that's the truthful account of things. Since I lost you, I concluded I'd have to break it down further, in PLAINER ENGLISH (somehow, I went somewhere esoteric and lost my reader.) Therefore, I made a good-faith attempt to break it down as simply and directly as possible, without adding any complications. What I used was plain English. That's a statement of description of the posting style I intended to use- and, IMHO, I successfully used when laying it out the long time. You perceived sarcasm where there was none. You perceived insult AND injury where there was none. And if I thought I was wasting my time, I d* sure wouldn't have sat down and run through all those verses a SECOND time when I thought I was perfectly clear the first time. (The perceived request for a THIRD time, later- now THEN it seemed obvious to me that I was being jerked around, so I refused and asked what you got from reading those verses. That's when it was obvious you clearly DID see where I got my conclusions the FIRST time, making the entire effort the second time NEEDLESS, let alone the claim you didn't see it after the SECOND time. You don't think I should perceive THAT as an insult? (I didn't perceive your request for more speed to be one, since when I responded to that, you agreed that having my response forthcoming was sufficient.) NO, NO, and NO-and neither are you OURS. You've conveniently skipped the CONTEXT of the statement. I said "Pending more information, it looks like he was looking for an excuse to show us how clever he was, to show off, even if he had to manufacture the opportunity from whole cloth." I responded to your response to another poster- your response of "if you're an adult try to act like one." by saying you were "lecturing the other students." By that, I was saying that you FELT LIKE taking me through some verses in detail a few times (at least a third if I kept playing along), and told another poster matter-of-fact-ly to try to act like an adult. I was objecting to this, because YOU ARE NOT OUR TEACHER, AND THIS IS NOT YOUR CLASS. In case you missed it, this is not ANYONE's class, NO ONE here is "our teacher", and we are all students to the degree we can all learn here- but that by no means makes any of us "students" of any other. (Except for those few who actually DO decide one other poster is their "teacher." I suggest you post more closely to what you mean, and stop any accidental or intentional attempts to jerk anyone around. I see almost all the posters here as equals, including you. I even mentioned I haven't asked anything of you I don't already ask of myself. I will keep an eye on my posts, but offer no guarantees anyone will ever like my posts- but they're straightforward and offer no games or snares to the reader or respondent. You're welcome to watch your own, or not, as you see fit. As you yourself pointed out, it is your choice as well.

Even just going from what's there, it seems that's what he was saying. "Conception by the Holy Spirit was the only way Jesus Christ could be conceived. Mary nurtured the body of Jesus in her womb and He became the line of Adam and David according to the flesh. The Holy Spirit contributed the soul-life in the blood of Jesus by way of the sperm. In His arteries and veins there was sinless soul-life. When Judas betrayed Jesus he confessed according to Matthew 27:4, “I have betrayed the innocent blood.” Sin made the original soul-life corruptible, but the soul-life of Jesus was from God." "contributed the soul-life in the blood" "the soul-life of Jesus was from God" "In His arteries and veins there was sinless soul-life." "When Judas betrayed Jesus he confessed according to Matthew 27:4, “I have betrayed the innocent blood.”" So, he was saying that Jesus' blood/"soul-life" was sinless, & that because it was from God. He contrasted that to the blood of everyone else: " Sin made the original soul-life corruptible, but the soul-life of Jesus was from God." Therefore, according to vpw, "Jesus blood=sinless, innocent" "everyone else's blood=NOT sinless and innocent." Otherwise, he would not be making any comparison there at all. Whether or not he was right was a separate issue- this was what he intended to say, and succeeded in saying.

None of us see it the way you do, and when asked to explain it, you get antagonistic. So, we don't get it, we're not going to get it, and you certainly aren't inspiring us TO get it. Actually, we've gotten some places, even with the cheap shots in-between.I expect we'll get some more places. With a standard of comparison (we're agreeing on using the Bible in this discussion) we CAN get someplace. With you not agreeing, we (us and you) CAN'T. So, feel free to leave us alone and let us get where we are going. We'll get there eventually, lumps and all. If you're equating your posts with Scripture, very few of us will be quick to get on your bandwagon. but hey, it's YOUR bandwagon, and you can play whatever music you want on it...

Perhaps (just perhaps) your questions got either lost in the shuffle or forgotten as the other matters were addressed. If so, a recap would not go amiss. It's what I'd do for you. Instead, you elected to suppose I'm on a high-horse. Which is more likely to get us somewhere? I quoted the King James Version and the New American Standard, and cited them correctly when I did so. I have not CHOSEN to quote anyone else, nor am I COMPELLED to do so. If I should choose to do so, I will cite them properly. (I mentioned FF Bruce's book and an episode of Gilligan's Island. If you feel it's necessary, I can cite the page# where Bruce explains "boustrophedon" and find the episode name and number I mentioned, if you ask. Fair is fair.)

Right- check the surrounding exposition. His discussion of why the "innocent" blood is "innocent" SHOULD have what we're looking for.

Not at all. You're intelligent enough and educated enough to be held to a reasonably high standard. (No higher than I hold myself to.) I asked for OTHER sources, sources that WERE traceable. If your beliefs are correct- they might be, they might not be, but they are UNTESTED- then there SHOULD be better sources. I expect you'd prefer to know when your sources need improvement, and when to seek out better sources. I don't quote Gilligan's Island when I can quote FF Bruce's "the Scrolls and the Parchments", and I expect you'd do the same. Wouldn't you warn me if my sources needed improvement?

Now THERE was an old story around twi... It's called "SYNESTHESIA". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synesthesia

Might want to cross-check it against the phrase "innocent blood" when he was expounding on Judas' statement on betraying Jesus. That might be where he gave the sin-blood connection he held forth.

Jean: "BTW, I thought Larry gave a source for the marriage customs." Larry: "You thought correctly Jeaniam." You both missed my objection. I shall give an unrelated example, and explain its relevance to my post. One episode of Gilligan's Island had the Professor explain something. "Cuneiform, which is the oldest form of writing, was invented by the Assyrians. But I read it as though it were Boustrophedon, you see?" "Basically, all ancient languages read from right to left, but I read from left to right." In other words, according to this source, The Assyrians invented Cuneiform, and Boustrophedon reads from left to right. Both are incorrect. The Sumerians are taken to have invented Cuneiform, and Boustrophedon changes direction from line to line in how it's read. So, someone claiming either- and citing that episode as a source- is giving a source. However, that changes little because it is not a DOCUMENTABLE source. You know where they heard it, but not what THAT statement is based on. Going back to my statement, I said "The thing is- you're both taking it as a "leap of faith" that those ARE the marriage customs, correctly quoted. Perhaps they are, perhaps they are not, but without a source, they're opinion and hearsay. Unsourced statements are how we got vpw playing for the Sheboygan Redskins, according to one website. The main case for Joseph and Mary doing the horizontal hucklebuck before Jesus' birth seems-so far-to rest on unsourced statements from vpw and a few other people- and I have no guarantee THEIR source was not vpw. Is there a documentable source asserting this was a possibility? If so, can you post it or something?" His sources were where the UNSOURCED STATEMENTS I mentioned were posted. Scroll down the pages- there are NO SOURCES given for their content. They may be based on nothing more than hearsay. One can't look up their sources and compare them. Wikipedia articles aren't taken as serious research pieces- and they generally are not. However, if an article fails to cite its sources, then someone slaps a sign on it warning the reader that there's no sources cited-which may mean the content is made-up or otherwise unreliable. That's also why I mentioned the Sheboygan Redskins thing- someone could cite that other website as a "source"- but that source was unreliable and thus had incorrect information based on incomplete research. So, Larry gave a source. However, there's no way to confirm that source was ACCURATE, since there's no documentation, thus no way to confirm it's based on correct information. I know you're both ready and willing to accept what both sources said, but even if I was, that STILL doesn't mean what we WANT to believe is CORRECT. Furthermore, he's relying on them more in further posts now. That's not how proper intelligent discussion goes, as I'm sure you both can see.

It probably wouldn't be a lot of trouble- providing he has a copy of vpw's books. If he still has them, he'd need to know which one to reference, and where. So, it's an easy-sounding request, but may not be at all easy to fill, depending.

WTH: "Most of the critic's of the book JCING put forth the argument that VPW was always anti-trinitarian and that was his motivation for writing the book." WordWolf: "Got a source for this claim? Otherwise, I'm saying you made it up. It doesn't make sense, either. vpw and JCING critics objected to its main assertion and its conclusions. They did not care at ALL what his background was like. They didn't care his MOTIVATION for writing the book-they objected to the book. Considering how weak an "argument" it makes for something so controversial, most of us-even those who agree with its conclusions- can see the critics had a point, too." WTH: "If you are saying I need to back up the statement of the critic's who claim VPW was always anti-trinitarian, then apparently you have never read the Introduction in any of their books either. They often state and make the claim that VPW was always anti-trinitarian in the Introduction of their books (while aligning his position along with that of Arius) and then go on to refer to VPW as the one who is the: "Johnny-come-lately" to the party (debate) - i.e. saying Arius was the first one who came up with the anti-triniatarian idea of God, and VPW just came along later." Raf: "Then we have that gem from WTH: WW asks you to prove that people have accused VPW of always being anti-trinitarian, and WTH replies with a quote from JCING that does not even remotely address the question. Then he goes on to pretend to cite the introductions to other books. Since it's so difficult to prove a negative, let's ask WTH to establish a positive: Can you name one book that claims VPW was always anti-Trinitarian? Your claim was that MOST of his critics made this claim. I'm not asking you to prove that. I'm asking you to prove that ANY of his critics made that claim. " WordWolf: "Let's see ONE, ONE quote from ONE Introduction to ONE of their books. YOU'RE the one who made the claim they said that. Therefore, YOU'RE the one who needs to support your made-up claim. Don't pretend I have to find books that I think NEVER EXISTED, to quote Introductions that NEVER EXISTED, when you're the one who claims they do. That's not how INTELLIGENT discussions work- the Burden of Proof is on the one claiming the existence of something." ============= For those with short attention spans, the claim that has been questioned has always been WTH's claim that vpw's critics claimed vpw was always anti-Trinitarian. "Most of the critic's of the book JCING put forth the argument that VPW was always anti-trinitarian and that was his motivation for writing the book." WTH claimed it, and his claim was challenged. Let's continue. ============ WTH then went off for several paragraphs about his "Johnny-come-lately" claim, ignoring his other claim that was actually being discussed. He included some personal comments, & started some namecalling: WTH: "Sorry, but I haven't kept any of those early cult books to prove to you or anybody else exactly who wrote that in their Introduction. I never thought at the time I would have to keep those "early cult books" around just to prove that point to some **** replying to a post on the Internet in 2007 some 30+ years later." Raf: "Unable to prove any point, WTH resorts to namecalling. Very mature. " WTH: "Are you saying that the critics didn't call VPW a "Johnny-Come-Lately"? Who started the name-calling anyway?" Raf: "I'm saying that you have not proven your point that they claimed he was always an anti-Trinitarian. Your analysis of "johnny come lately" doesn't address that issue in the slightest." WTH attempted to make the discussion about his "Johnny-Come-Lately" assertion again. Then Raf responded. Raf: "YOU made the claim that VPW's critics accused him of always being anti-trinitarian. your "johnny come lately" discussion does not support your case. You have failed to provide a single example of anyone claiming that VPW was always anti-trinitarian. Quoting his comment that he's not some johnny come lately has NOTHING TO DO with your claim." "Calling him a Johnny come lately does NOT imply that Wierwille was ALWAYS anti-trinitarian. It only implies that he was anti-trinitarian at the time he wrote the book, which, best as I can tell, he was." ========== So, will we see WTH actually address his claim anytime soon, that supposedly "Most of the critic's of the book JCING put forth the argument that VPW was always anti-trinitarian and that was his motivation for writing the book"? Doubtful. He seems unable to tell that's what's being asked of him. Either that, or-understanding that IS what's being asked of him, and unable to support it, he'd rather do his best to change the subject and distract from the question than admit he doesn't have documentation for his claim. Usual responses at this point-based on his previous posts- tend to center around personal attacks and more changes of subject. Most likely, that's what we'll see here. But hey-he COULD surprise us all.

I saw that he ALSO contended that. However, his actual POSTS had him disputing a virgin conception until he posted his own opinion. I can't read his mind- I have to go from his posts. I doublechecked- it wasn't me who was reading wrong. If he doesn't want misunderstandings, he should either read more carefully before posting, or post more carefully after reading. He's an intelligent fellow, and is well able to do this without undue effort. The thing is- you're both taking it as a "leap of faith" that those ARE the marriage customs,correctly quoted. Perhaps they are, perhaps they are not, but without a source, they're opinion and hearsay. Unsourced statements are how we got vpw playing for the Sheboygan Redskins, according to one website. The main case for Joseph and Mary doing the horizontal hucklebuck before Jesus' birth seems-so far-to rest on unsourced statements from vpw and a few other people- and I have no guarantee THEIR source was not vpw. Is there a documentable source asserting this was a possibility? If so, can you post it or something? "Euphemism" is one of the 217 figures of speech Bullinger said is in the Bible. The expression to "know" someone referring to carnal knowledge is not confined to the early chapters of the Gospels. The expression (in Greek or Hebrew, depending) appears in other places as well. Feel free to start off on looking at some examples. I'll get to it in turn otherwise.

You win the white carnation! If you feel like making a new thread on this at some point, there's something I taught on healing a long time ago that I'll want to find again.

We certainly have no reason to believe they did. You CLAIMED that a lot of them did, but have yet to provide even ONE instance where ANYONE did. You made the claim, and you were asked to support it. Unable to support it, instead of dropping it like some adults, you switched to name-calling.

Here's a recap of one part of this discussion, with some quotes from me and Larry: WordWolf: (after posting verses and a short explanation) "Only if you discard both the Matthew and Luke accounts, both of which say Joseph and Mary did NOT dance the horizontal until after Jesus was born." Larry: "WordWolf, try as much as I might I can't discover how you came to this conclusion." WordWolf: (after posting a lot of verses and a much longer explanation) "Well,now I've run through the relevant verses, and explained my rationale. Nobody needs a Greek text or some "old Jewish book" nobody ever heard of to see the meanings, either. Now that I have, can you see why the LOGICAL conclusion is that the verses support both a virgin conception and virgin birth, and do NOT support any other possibility?" Larry: "Actually -- No I can't." ---- That's when I stopped and asked Larry to explain his position. I'll explain the reason shortly. WordWolf:"Quid pro quo, Clarisse (or Larry in this case.) I spent a considerable amount of time running through all the verses, in 2 versions, and explaining what I think is the simplest explanation of each one. Before I get back into them all over again, I ask you: What is YOUR understanding of those chapters? What do YOU come away with after reading them? Your turn." Seemed to me there was no logical reason for an intelligent person interested in honestly reviewing the verses to be unable to see the same conclusion. Therefore, I wanted to know what Larry's motivation and positions were if I was going to bother explaining beyond what I believe any unbiased, average reader would need to see the same conclusion. I saw a request to make an UNREASONABLE effort, and wanted to know why, before putting forth such an effort. Larry's response: "WordWolf, normally, in discussions of this sort the burden of proof rests upon the one making the assertion. I mean no offence to you but, you haven't adequately proven your claim (as far as I'm concerned)." As far as I was concerned, I had already adequately proven and supported my claim- the virgin conception and virgin birth were the logical position of Scripture. If someone DOES do that, and someone disagrees, there's no guarantee the disagreeing person is CORRECT and the case was not adequately proven. Anyone can maintain ANY position beyond all logic and make a claim that ANY level of evidence is not "adequate." Therefore, my request. Larry then acceded to my request, and explained his position. In his post, he included the following: "So, from my perspective, I believe it's more logical to think that according to the cultural customs of the times, Mary was a virgin, even though married to Joseph at the time of Jesus' conception, because they hadn't yet consummated their marriage by doing the "horizontal thingy". In other words, Larry came to exactly the same position I did- Jesus was the result of a virgin conception, based on the verses of Scripture. So, when he posted that he could NOT see that this was the logical conclusion- despite holding the exact same conclusion himself and posting it himself later- he was NOT being honest. TWICE. So, I went through TWO lengthy explanations, and Larry apparently agreed with them but didn't like them, because he announced he DIDN'T see the same conclusions. Then he wanted me to explain further. Sorry, I don't see a good-faith reason to rehash the same verses over and over. I provided a clear, logical answer, and one even Larry agreed with. Larry felt like arguing anyway, and wants me to rehash them some more. THAT's why I asked before even CONSIDERING more of the same. I suspected that, and Larry, despite himself, has confirmed it. Meanwhile, the subject seems to have been adequately covered by all parties. ====== A separate issue would be to wonder WHY Larry would indulge in this pretense of misunderstanding. WHY did he bother to do this? Pending more information, it looks like he was looking for an excuse to show us how clever he was, to show off, even if he had to manufacture the opportunity from whole cloth. While I can communicate intelligently at Larry's level, I find an elementary DISHONESTY that argues against making the effort. I also note his documentation was 2 websites that cited no sources. Larry himself should easily see that this means he's quoting someone's OPINIONS twice. There's no proof they had any reason other than an opinion to post what they did, no proof there's any justification for their statements. Thus, there's no proof for HIS statements, either-except he quoted SOMEONE. Then again, with the lack of documentation, he may well have posted both sites and have been quoting HIMSELF as proof he was correct. Larry should know better than to cite sources lacking documentation. Further, he's wasted no time lecturing the other students. "Another spot, if you're an adult try to act like one." His post would have made its point without the cheapshot or talking-down. Naturally, it's eminently predictable if Larry denies any mistakes, nor any intent to be contrary for its own sake when agreeing and lying and saying he didn't see the position he already held, nor having done that. I trust everyone else can see what's happened so far, however. Some might think he owes the posters here an apology for playing head-games with them. Me, I can pass on that, but if he admitted what he did, I'd find that refreshingly honest under the circumstances. ======== Meanwhile, Raf has answered another question that was raised- that of the supposed belief that Jesus was illegitimate, based on a misunderstanding of John 8. We've discussed it before, but it's probably time to do so again.

Yes. I'm aware of someone who thinks 20 years isn't that big a difference, so long as it's in the other direction. Personally, I think 20 years in either direction is a big difference. Under a decade, however, I'm a lot more philosophical. I forget where I heard this, but I'm paraphrasing heavily. The world can sometimes be a hard, cold place. If you found someone that things work with, and there's something like a few year's difference between you, or how you met or whatever doesn't match a storybook or the expectations of others, what does that matter? It's your relationship, and you have to do what works for you. Anyone else is welcome to concern themselves with their own relationships.

Quid pro quo, Clarisse (or Larry in this case.) I spent a considerable amount of time running through all the verses, in 2 versions, and explaining what I think is the simplest explanation of each one. Before I get back into them all over again, I ask you: What is YOUR understanding of those chapters? What do YOU come away with after reading them? Your turn.

Ok, on request, I'm going to go through the verses little by little, across the Gospels, with "help files enabled." I'm also going to post the KJV on each verse, and the NASB on it- for a more accurate, better word-for-word version that also offers italics. Matthew 1:18 (KJV) 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." (NASB) 18"Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: when His mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit." Explanation: Mary was engaged to Joseph, and they hadn't been married, honeymooned, or done the horizontal hula. Naturally, Mary knew this, and Joseph knew this. God Almighty knew this. Unless anyone was spying on them, that's pretty much everyone who KNEW this. 19"Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily." 19"And Joseph her husband, being a righteous man and not wanting to disgrace her, planned to send her away secretly." Explanation: Joseph, knowing he hadn't done the horizontal mambo with Mary, found out she was pregnant anyway. Naturally, he concluded she had sex with someone else. (What would YOU have concluded? I would have concluded the same Joseph did.) He had the option of publickly disgracing her. IIRC, he had the option of STONING, under the strictest law. ("Now, Moses in the law said such should be stoned, but what do you say?") However, he was willing to just give her a bill of divorcement and let it go quietly. 20"But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost." 20"But when he had considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, "Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife; for the Child who has been conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit." Explanation: He was thinking this over, God sent an angel to talk to him. "Joseph, she didn't cheat on you. The baby was conceived of God. Go ahead and marry her." 21"And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins." 21"She will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins." Explanation: the angel is still explaining. He said they'll call this child, this son, JESUS, and he will save the Jews (his people) from their sins. 22"Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying," 22"Now all this took place to fulfill what was ®spoken by the Lord through the prophet:" Explanation: this was done to fulfill a prophecy. 23"Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us." 23:"BEHOLD, THE VIRGIN SHALL BE WITH CHILD AND SHALL BEAR A SON, AND THEY SHALL CALL HIS NAME IMMANUEL," which translated means, "GOD WITH US." Explanation: this is the prophecy that was fulfilled. 24"Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: 25And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS." 24"And Joseph awoke from his sleep and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took Mary as his wife, 25 but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus." Explanation: Joseph got up, and did as the angel said. He married Mary, and didn't perform the wicked dance with her until after she had a son, whom they named Jesus. ================ That's Matthew, and it's pretty straightforward. Mark does not have any such account. Neither does John. We'll pick up the action in Luke. 26"And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, 27To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary." 26"Now in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city in Galilee called Nazareth, 27to a virgin engaged to a man whose name was Joseph, of the descendants of David; and the virgin's name was Mary." Explanation: In the 6th month of Elizabeth's pregnancy (read the preceding verses), the angel Gabriel was sent by God to Mary, who was a virgin engaged to Joseph. 28"And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. 29And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be." 28"And coming in, he said to her, "Greetings, favored one! The Lord is with you." 29But she was very perplexed at this statement, and kept pondering what kind of salutation this was." Explanation: Gabriel greeted Mary, and Mary was confused by his greeting- did it mean something specific, or was it just effusive? 30"And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. 31And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS." 30"The angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary; for you have found favor with God. 31"And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name Him Jesus." Explanation: Gabriel explained she was favoured by God, and began to explain about her future son, Jesus, who was yet to be conceived. 32"He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: 33And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end." 32"He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David; 33and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and His kingdom will have no end." Explanation: Gabriel explains more about how important Jesus will be. 34"Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?" 34"Mary said to the angel, "How can this be, since I am a virgin?" " Explanation: Mary is puzzled about this future son- she is still a virgin, so HOW could she have a son? 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." 35The 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." Explanation: Gabriel explained how she, a virgin, would have a son. He gives what explanation that can be given- the conception will be by the power of God, making this child The Son of God, not the son of a man, which is the NORMAL expectation, and the expectation Mary had. 36"And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren. 37For with God nothing shall be impossible." 36"And behold, even your relative Elizabeth has also conceived a son in her old age; and she who was called barren is now in her sixth month. 37 For nothing will be impossible with God." Explanation: Gabriel completes his explanation, with another example of something seen as "impossible". 38"And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her." 38"And Mary said, "Behold, the bondslave of the Lord; may it be done to me according to your word." And the angel departed from her." Explanation: Mary said, "Ok", and Gabriel left. ================ Well, now I've run through the relevant verses, and explained my rationale. Nobody needs a Greek text or some "old Jewish book" nobody ever heard of to see the meanings, either. Now that I have, can you see why the LOGICAL conclusion is that the verses support both a virgin conception and virgin birth, and do NOT support any other possibility? ======== As to the other issues raised, I'll get to them in turn as well.

Even your vpw said "you can be dead right but dead wrong because you have no love." Being eager to win points and forgetting to deal with HUMANS is one reason door-to-door witnessing (mentioned in this thread) often backfired. Being eager to win points and forgetting to deal with HUMANS is one reason post-to-post witnessing (seen in this thread) often backfires. There's a lesson there, and a lesson there, and a lesson there.

I said I'd respond "in a bit". You'll get FASTER responses right after you start PAYING for them. Otherwise, I will get back to what I promised to get back to within the timeframe I promised to do so.

I agree in the principle. When someone CLAIMS to have done that, and COINCIDENTALLY agrees with EVERYTHING put forth by ANY teacher or ANY group, I am very suspicious they did not TRULY do what they CLAIM they did. Furthermore, can one review discussions of a CONTRARY view and CHANGE ONE'S MIND? That's important to LEARNING and expanding beyond the straitjackets of any group's theology....

That's true. To judge only from Bullinger's writings, he was unquestionably a Trinitarian, and there are no HINTS, even, that he considered otherwise. The suggestions he "would have changed his opinion" or anything along those lines were promulgated by those in the top in twi *cough* vpw* cough* to try to make him agree with EVERYTHING they taught. We have had many threads dedicated to demonstrating the strong case that vpw plagiarized most of"his" works, and those he did not (POSSIBLY excepting JCING) were written by the research staff and vpw left THEIR names off and put "by VPW" on the covers. If you need help finding any of these threads, pm me and I will point you to a few. You missed what that post was about. So far, we've documented the sources for most of "vpw"'s books- books that vpw took chapter by chapter, or paragraph by paragraph, or word by word from- EXCEPT JCING. One might argue that it's only a matter of time, since all the others were found over time. However, the question is: what materials did he plagiarize to make JCING? That's a separate question from "is the book any good?" or "is the book making its case?" So, the book was not being DISCREDITED by vpw's blatant plagiarism there or anywhere else, at least as regarding the quality of the material on the pages. (If the supposed author is a cheat, liar, rapist, plagiarist, and so on, the book itself may still have merit.)