WordWolf, perhaps (just perhaps) if you get off your high-horse and answer the questions I put to you before we went down this path our discussion might be more fruitful.
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?
WordWolf, I won't waste my time re-capping all that was said which led us down this path. If you're really interested in answering my questions I think you'll want to take the time to re-read the exchanges between us to discover what you missed.
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.
However, I will re-quote two comments you've made which gave me the impression that places you on a "high-horse".
"WordWolf, try as much as I might I can't discover how you came to this conclusion."
To which you replied:
"*sigh*
I'll lay it out again in plain English in a bit."
In my mind that was a condescending response. The *sigh* in itself implying that I was wasting your time. But then you followed that up by adding insult to injury with the "plain English" sarcastic remark.
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.)
And then in
this post you further demonstrated your arrogant attitude by the following:
"Further, he's wasted no time lecturing the other students."
Who the hell do you think you are? Our "teacher".
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 re-read through this thread and try to see how you need to tone down your condescending responses to others joining in this discussion. Or don't. Your choice.
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.
Will someone remind me what the last point was pertaining to this thread? I too got offtrack so don't take this as criticism. I just don't know where the thread left off.
I think I need to reread the whole thread probably because I did notice it moved from 'holy' to a few sidebar topics (still related) but I wasn't sure if 'holy' had been satisfied in the thread yet.
I need to head out to church now so will pick up where I just left off but so far I see there was conversation as to if Christ was of God or Joseph. I don't see anything in the Word to support that even being a question. Christ was of God I believe to be loud and clear in scripture. And since God is holy then Christ would be holy as well. As to the process of a flesh and blood person having half participation in the bringing on a newborn I believe the blood might cover that. If so then the blood would have come from the seed rather than the home in which the child grew for 9 months.
I need to run so and am already moving away from here in thought so I trust I didn't sound too confusing in my quick explanation.
I need to head out to church now so will pick up where I just left off but so far I see there was conversation as to if Christ was of God or Joseph. I don't see anything in the Word to support that even being a question. Christ was of God I believe to be loud and clear in scripture. And since God is holy then Christ would be holy as well. As to the process of a flesh and blood person having half participation in the bringing on a newborn I believe the blood might cover that. If so then the blood would have come from the seed rather than the home in which the child grew for 9 months.
I need to run so and am already moving away from here in thought so I trust I didn't sound too confusing in my quick explanation.
See y'all.
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.)
Chatty, as far as I can discern (from reading page one) the issue is over the correct rendering of the word hagion. The KJV renders it "holy thing" whereas most other versions render it "holy one". Thus the thrust of the discussion (on page one) initially seemed to be over the subject of abortion. If you keep with the "thing" translation it can be used to support a doctrinal position that abortion is not wrong.
Chatty, as far as I can discern (from reading page one) the issue is over the correct rendering of the word hagion. The KJV renders it "holy thing" whereas most other versions render it "holy one". Thus the thrust of the discussion (on page one) initially seemed to be over the subject of abortion. If you keep with the "thing" translation it can be used to support a doctrinal position that abortion is not wrong.
I agree with your position that Jesus was holy.
You can blame the early discussion of "thing" on me, for which I gladly take the credit and blame.
The implication of twi's teaching that the KJV-exclusive translation is "thing" was that abortion was
acceptable- which some people had been specifically taught in twi, and that with this verse.
The intent of the initial post seemed to be about Jesus' nature, and how he is "holy", and his heredity
in some form or another.
I think all the posters (those not discussing this on a purely intellectual level) agree Jesus was holy-
and still is. It's the OTHER stuff beyond that where the disagreements are.
You can blame the early discussion of "thing" on me, for which I gladly take the credit and blame.
I wasn't blaming you but, you certainly have a right to claim the credit.
The implication of twi's teaching that the KJV-exclusive translation is "thing" was that abortion was
acceptable- which some people had been specifically taught in twi, and that with this verse.
Well, that may be true. I'll go on record here and state that I'm "pro-choice" but, my pov isn't based on that single verse. If there's a thread where the subject of abortion is taking place I might consider joining it.
The intent of the initial post seemed to be about Jesus' nature, and how he is "holy", and his heredity
in some form or another.
True. The word "thing" or the word "one" is the figure Ellipsis and is employed whenever the sense of a word or phrase is incomplete in itself and the word normally omitted in the text is added to complete the sense of the word as used in the context. I hardly think the KJV boys were "pro-choice". The emphasis isn't on the word "thing" or "one" but rather that on the holiness of the creation of Jesus within Mary's womb.
I think all the posters (those not discussing this on a purely intellectual level) agree Jesus was holy-
I think life begins at conception so I would lean towards holy one rather than holy thing.
Well, Chatty, despite our difference of opinion on when life begins -- I think we most definitely agree that that which God created in the womb of Mary was holy.
I use to cringe when VP taught about life beginning at first breath because as a woman that has had life inside of me it was more than a head shaker for me. It made my brains hurt. :)
My concern with considering things backed up only by one man's opinion (the author, not you) is good if I want to explore where folks have gone in their understanding and perhaps even be able to view what I hold fast to from another perspective so yes there is worth to words other than what I consider God breathed. But I can't imagine myself being pulled away from what fits in my head and heart according to what God wanted us to understand. And some things take you away from who the ultimate author is.
I've fallen to the worship of man and seen the depths of despair because of it. I've never seen despair by following God and that is a safe and sure direction for me. Even when I blow it which is about every other second I still know there is somewhere to return to.
I might need more structure in my thinking than others do and that would account for why I cleave as I do. Or perhaps with added confidence I will be able to venture further out without fear of sinking. But for now to hold fast to what I have proven in my own life is a sure thing and one I love.
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.)
Actually, I'm caught in the middle right now between the first two, and pretty much dismiss the third. I think you and Chatty Kathy made a fairly solid case for a virgin birth as well as conception, although as someone who has given birth three times, I'm not sure how it would feel if virginity was thrown into the mix. It wasn't that much fun without being a virgin, especially the first one. As far as the side issue goes, right now, I would lean to the assumption that Mary was his natural mother, since Christ is referred to as the 'Son of David' and that heritage must have come to him through Mary. That's just a preliminary thought with very little to back it up.
Aw, geez, I messed up AGAIN. Sorry, guys, this is Jean, not John. I just keep forgetting to check the login space.
Actually, I'm caught in the middle right now between the first two, and pretty much dismiss the third. I think you and Chatty Kathy made a fairly solid case for a virgin birth as well as conception,
I've seen the case for "virgin conception and virgin birth"
and the case for "virgin conception but not virgin birth",
and find a strong case for the first, and a rather weak case for the second by comparison.
I find one needs to reach for obscure possible meanings and ignore the more direct ones
in order to reach it. That's acceptable to me when the direct meaning is obviously
contradictory, but otherwise I see no reason to do that.
Naturally, everyone's welcome to make up their own minds.
although as someone who has given birth three times, I'm not sure how it would feel if virginity was thrown into the mix. It wasn't that much fun without being a virgin, especially the first one. As far as the side issue goes, right now, I would lean to the assumption that Mary was his natural mother, since Christ is referred to as the 'Son of David' and that heritage must have come to him through Mary. That's just a preliminary thought with very little to back it up.
Aw, geez, I messed up AGAIN. Sorry, guys, this is Jean, not John. I just keep forgetting to check the login space.
No need to correct yourself Jean.
It was much more interesting when John said he had given birth three times.
I must admit the idea of John giving birth once was funny enough but three times.
Well, after three live births and three miscarriages, I think that when the prospect of a fourth child was under discussion, I told him that the only way that was likely to happen would be if this time HE went through pregnancy, labor, and delivery. Needless to say, we still have only three children, and there will be no more. I think a man giving birth would be quite a sight.
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
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.
Edited by WordWolfLink to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
Why do I have the impression that I'm dealing with a teen-ager?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChattyKathy
Will someone remind me what the last point was pertaining to this thread? I too got offtrack so don't take this as criticism. I just don't know where the thread left off.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
Chatty, you might try starting at the top of page seven (or page six).
It happens sometimes.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChattyKathy
I think I need to reread the whole thread probably because I did notice it moved from 'holy' to a few sidebar topics (still related) but I wasn't sure if 'holy' had been satisfied in the thread yet.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
I agree. Maybe I should follow your lead and re-read the whole thread in order to pick up on that angle.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChattyKathy
I need to head out to church now so will pick up where I just left off but so far I see there was conversation as to if Christ was of God or Joseph. I don't see anything in the Word to support that even being a question. Christ was of God I believe to be loud and clear in scripture. And since God is holy then Christ would be holy as well. As to the process of a flesh and blood person having half participation in the bringing on a newborn I believe the blood might cover that. If so then the blood would have come from the seed rather than the home in which the child grew for 9 months.
I need to run so and am already moving away from here in thought so I trust I didn't sound too confusing in my quick explanation.
See y'all.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
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.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
Chatty, as far as I can discern (from reading page one) the issue is over the correct rendering of the word hagion. The KJV renders it "holy thing" whereas most other versions render it "holy one". Thus the thrust of the discussion (on page one) initially seemed to be over the subject of abortion. If you keep with the "thing" translation it can be used to support a doctrinal position that abortion is not wrong.
I agree with your position that Jesus was holy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
You can blame the early discussion of "thing" on me, for which I gladly take the credit and blame.
The implication of twi's teaching that the KJV-exclusive translation is "thing" was that abortion was
acceptable- which some people had been specifically taught in twi, and that with this verse.
The intent of the initial post seemed to be about Jesus' nature, and how he is "holy", and his heredity
in some form or another.
I think all the posters (those not discussing this on a purely intellectual level) agree Jesus was holy-
and still is. It's the OTHER stuff beyond that where the disagreements are.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
Well, that may be true. I'll go on record here and state that I'm "pro-choice" but, my pov isn't based on that single verse. If there's a thread where the subject of abortion is taking place I might consider joining it.
True. The word "thing" or the word "one" is the figure Ellipsis and is employed whenever the sense of a word or phrase is incomplete in itself and the word normally omitted in the text is added to complete the sense of the word as used in the context. I hardly think the KJV boys were "pro-choice". The emphasis isn't on the word "thing" or "one" but rather that on the holiness of the creation of Jesus within Mary's womb.I'm not sure what you're implying here.
Edited by Larry N MooreLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
I wasn't trying to imply anything there.
My main point was that all of us in this discussion either agree on that point,
or are non-Christians willing to discuss as if they did agree with that point in order to participate
fully in the discussion on its own merits.
They're accepting, for the purposes of this thread, the position that the Bible is God's Word,
although they do not personally hold that conviction. (Oakspear mentioned something
to that effect.)
It was parenthetical because it doesn't affect the thread or its content.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChattyKathy
Thanks WW and Larry.
I think life begins at conception so I would lean towards holy one rather than holy thing.
Must make something to eat now.
Catch y'all later.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
Well, Chatty, despite our difference of opinion on when life begins -- I think we most definitely agree that that which God created in the womb of Mary was holy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChattyKathy
I use to cringe when VP taught about life beginning at first breath because as a woman that has had life inside of me it was more than a head shaker for me. It made my brains hurt. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
None of the three options have been proven WordWolf.
The ones you listed including mine.
The phrases used of Jesus' birth are used of other things and occurences as well.
But for now I'm putting it on hold for me and may start a thread on it, much later.
And perhaps it can be considered in a different light.
And there are many, numerous things beyond scriptures, yet not leaving them behind to consider.
If one takes the time and is willing to look at a few of them, I believe a more common understanding will be conceived.
Even without anyone changing what they believe.
It is possible to hear it out completely without making a decision either way.
And like I said, I'm not trying to convince but to explain as I was asked to do.
peace
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChattyKathy
cman,
My concern with considering things backed up only by one man's opinion (the author, not you) is good if I want to explore where folks have gone in their understanding and perhaps even be able to view what I hold fast to from another perspective so yes there is worth to words other than what I consider God breathed. But I can't imagine myself being pulled away from what fits in my head and heart according to what God wanted us to understand. And some things take you away from who the ultimate author is.
I've fallen to the worship of man and seen the depths of despair because of it. I've never seen despair by following God and that is a safe and sure direction for me. Even when I blow it which is about every other second I still know there is somewhere to return to.
I might need more structure in my thinking than others do and that would account for why I cleave as I do. Or perhaps with added confidence I will be able to venture further out without fear of sinking. But for now to hold fast to what I have proven in my own life is a sure thing and one I love.
Kathy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
That's cool Kathy, no prob.
Might want to avoid some conversations...I do.
Though some I know I need to hear.
The sure thing is true but only part of the truth.
There is always more.
When the dark corners become open doors.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
Actually, I'm caught in the middle right now between the first two, and pretty much dismiss the third. I think you and Chatty Kathy made a fairly solid case for a virgin birth as well as conception, although as someone who has given birth three times, I'm not sure how it would feel if virginity was thrown into the mix. It wasn't that much fun without being a virgin, especially the first one. As far as the side issue goes, right now, I would lean to the assumption that Mary was his natural mother, since Christ is referred to as the 'Son of David' and that heritage must have come to him through Mary. That's just a preliminary thought with very little to back it up.
Aw, geez, I messed up AGAIN. Sorry, guys, this is Jean, not John. I just keep forgetting to check the login space.
Edited by johniamLink to comment
Share on other sites
ChattyKathy
Jean,
You must not have noticed that John was logged in last. :D
I also believe the heritage of 'son of David' came from Mary's side.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
I've seen the case for "virgin conception and virgin birth"
and the case for "virgin conception but not virgin birth",
and find a strong case for the first, and a rather weak case for the second by comparison.
I find one needs to reach for obscure possible meanings and ignore the more direct ones
in order to reach it. That's acceptable to me when the direct meaning is obviously
contradictory, but otherwise I see no reason to do that.
Naturally, everyone's welcome to make up their own minds.
No need to correct yourself Jean.
It was much more interesting when John said he had given birth three times.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jeaniam
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChattyKathy
I must admit the idea of John giving birth once was funny enough but three times.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jeaniam
Well, after three live births and three miscarriages, I think that when the prospect of a fourth child was under discussion, I told him that the only way that was likely to happen would be if this time HE went through pregnancy, labor, and delivery. Needless to say, we still have only three children, and there will be no more. I think a man giving birth would be quite a sight.
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.