Exactly my point. The only two such actions discussed in scripture.
Now Sunesis brings up a very valid point (and, btw, Sunesis, I think your remarks were brilliant).
She said, in part:
But, in order to be "perfect man" his blood - the perfect, uncorrupted, unblemished blood, unfallen blood - holy blood, the only perfect blood acceptable to be sacrificed to God - like the first man Adam's was - had to be "perfect."
Thus, I think his flesh - was perfect like the First Adam's. I think God made the whole package. None of it came from Mary or Joseph. He came through her.
I do not believe that scripture supports her second point, as there are far too many indicators in scripture that tell us that a descendent of Abraham and a descendent of David will be the Messiah, but it is brilliant nevertheless, as it brings us back to that conundrum. And she is right in her statement that there could be no imputed sin in Christ for him to be the second Adam and to fulfill the prophecy of being the Lamb of God.
And the angel Gabriel announced that this was, in fact, the case. (Take a look at the Greek within Luke 1:30 for amplification of this)
But the issue still exists: how did it happen?
I am still of the belief that God created sperm in Mary that impregnated on of her eggs and resulted in Jesus Christ. Mark, if your question is, how did He do that? I'm going to take refuge in an old VPWism and say that if God didn't tell us then we don't know, and guessing in a case where it can't be verified or refuted is not helpful.
This is not stated at all anywhere. That's a matter of interpretation.
(I know not at a man at that point. What about afterwards?
Also 'knew her not till Jesus was born does not say that Joseph didn't know her.
This statement was made after conception.)
Doesn't anyone find it interesting that if a virgin was found with child, she should be stoned or put away?
What is a Virgin? And what was to become of the father?
In Matthew 1:18- 'Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.' 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.' I think the meaning is plain here; Mary was found to be pregnant, Joseph, who knew that he couldn't be the father, assumed that she had been unfaithful to him and was minded to take the more merciful way of dealing with the situation that was prescribed in the Law (stoned or put away) had to be told by the angel that Mary's pregnancy was the result of supernatural action, and to not fear taking her unto him.
I don't know what was the prescribed penalty for premarital sex on the part of the man in the Law, but when I get time I'll look it up.
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.
================
(snip)
Although Matthew (I'll have to recheck Luke) doesn't actually say one way or the other that Joseph and Mary had sex prior to the birth of Jesus I don't see why (based on the context) one could not logically assume they did.
(snip)
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.
I am still of the belief that God created sperm in Mary that impregnated on of her eggs and resulted in Jesus Christ. Mark, if your question is, how did He do that? I'm going to take refuge in an old VPWism and say that if God didn't tell us then we don't know, and guessing in a case where it can't be verified or refuted is not helpful.
Or a modern variant of it: know what you know and know what you don't know.
Frankly, I don't have any questions on this...I am posing the points with Another Spot as rhetorical points for thought and consideration.
I do appreciate your response, though. Nice to know my posts are being read :)
<snip> 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?
Actually -- No I can't. Without going over each and every verse you cited I'll just focus on two --
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.
Your explanation following this verse:
"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."
Then you quoted verse 19:
19 (KJV) And Joseph her husband, being a righteous man and not wanting to disgrace her, planned to send her away secretly.
How did Joseph go from being engaged to Mary in verse 18 to being her husband in verse 19?
The key word of course is the word "espoused" which in our culture means one thing but, in the culture of that time meant another. I won't bore you with the details 'cause it really doesn't matter. Just going on common sense alone in reading verse 18 it should arrest your attention that if Mary was found with child BEFORE they were engaged you would have to ask yourself two questions -- 1) Who discovered she was pregnant? and 2) If the answer logically was Joseph based on the context then -- Why would Joseph marry her only to consider divorcing her? I'll await patiently your answer to these two questions and on how you reconcile verse 19 with verse 18 making your explanations more sensible.
Actually -- No I can't. Without going over each and every verse you cited I'll just focus on two --
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.
Your explanation following this verse:
"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."
Then you quoted verse 19:
19 (KJV) And Joseph her husband, being a righteous man and not wanting to disgrace her, planned to send her away secretly.
How did Joseph go from being engaged to Mary in verse 18 to being her husband in verse 19?
The key word of course is the word "espoused" which in our culture means one thing but, in the culture of that time meant another. I won't bore you with the details 'cause it really doesn't matter. Just going on common sense alone in reading verse 18 it should arrest your attention that if Mary was found with child BEFORE they were engaged you would have to ask yourself two questions -- 1) Who discovered she was pregnant? and 2) If the answer logically was Joseph based on the context then -- Why would Joseph marry her only to consider divorcing her? I'll await patiently your answer to these two questions and on how you reconcile verse 19 with verse 18 making your explanations more sensible.
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:
It has never been established 100%, maybe but an explanation has been suggested that satisfies the customs of the times and is logical; that it means there is a period of time (days) between the marriage ceremony and the first sexual encounter that was determined by the priests.
Pure blood- yes it is. In Matthew 27:3&4 it says ' Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, saying, I have siined in that I have betrayed the innocent blood.' It doesn't say AN innocent blood, or HIS innocent blood; it says THE innocent blood. The clear inference is that Christ's blood represents the only (since Adam) innocent blood. Further, as a matter of logic, we could ask the question, 'How can Christ's blood cleanse if it is not, in and of itself, clean?'
Likeaneagle, by all means share what you can come up with.
I am pretty sure “innocent blood” is a figure of speech since others are referred to that way. Christ as THE innocent blood simply means it is emphatic he never committed sin.
Deu 19:9 If thou shalt keep all these commandments to do them, which I command thee this day, to love the LORD thy God, and to walk ever in his ways; then shalt thou add three cities more for thee, beside these three:
Deu 19:10 That innocent blood be not shed in thy land, which the LORD thy God giveth thee [for] an inheritance, and [so] blood be upon thee.
I have looked into sin in the blood and don’t find a single reference to it. Doesn’t mean yea verily it isn’t there, but I sure can’t find it.
Actually -- No I can't. Without going over each and every verse you cited I'll just focus on two --
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.
Your explanation following this verse:
"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."
Then you quoted verse 19:
19 (KJV) And Joseph her husband, being a righteous man and not wanting to disgrace her, planned to send her away secretly.
How did Joseph go from being engaged to Mary in verse 18 to being her husband in verse 19?
The key word of course is the word "espoused" which in our culture means one thing but, in the culture of that time meant another. I won't bore you with the details 'cause it really doesn't matter. Just going on common sense alone in reading verse 18 it should arrest your attention that if Mary was found with child BEFORE they were engaged you would have to ask yourself two questions -- 1) Who discovered she was pregnant? and 2) If the answer logically was Joseph based on the context then -- Why would Joseph marry her only to consider divorcing her? I'll await patiently your answer to these two questions and on how you reconcile verse 19 with verse 18 making your explanations more sensible.
As you say the key word is espoused which we have been taught in that culture didn't mean engaged, it meant they had been married but had not had sexual relations yet (done the horizontal hula, thanks, WordWolf). I think in that culture the assumption would be that a young girl who had just gotten married for the first time was a virgin unless there was proof to the contrary. Virginity in that culture was (and is) a great deal more important that it is in our present day culture. It seems to suggest that enough time went by for it to be obvious that Mary was pregnant although the time set by the priests had not yet arrived for Joseph and Mary to come together (have sex).
Wouldn't it be logical for Mary to tell Joseph herself? She had a visit by an angel. She was going to bear the Christ child. Why wouldn't she convey this very special information to Joseph? Especially knowing the law.
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). However, I can appreciate your frustration/exasperation when you spend a great deal of time trying to explain your point of view only to have someone come along and disagree with you – but such is life, would you not agree? But for the sake of hopefully not frustrating you any further I'll include a couple of explanations with regard to this issue – the point being – contrary to what you might think a cursory reading of the Biblical texts does not always lend itself to clarity. If things were always so clear we wouldn't have so many various opinions regarding the meaning of words, phrases, or subjects and neither of us would be discussing this subject now – would we?
In Jewish marriages in Jesus’ day (5 BC to 30 AD) there were very definite rules and a definite pattern required for legal marriages.
1. The parents of the groom would pick a suitable bride for him. (If both parents were dead, a “friend” or other relative would arrange the marriage. Sometimes the parents of the woman would seek a husband for their daughter, but this was very rare.) The bridegroom and bride were not usually asked their consent, and such marriages could be arranged long before either party was ready for marriage.
There were a few stipulations for a suitable bride and groom:
1. Both MUST be Jewish, except in certain specifically prescribed cases.
2. Bride must be unmarried (a virgin or a widow). (By Jesus’ day polygamy was not practiced by Jews.)
3. If the two were related by blood, they could be no closer than first cousins.
4. A suitable groom must prove sufficient means to support a wife and children. For this reason it was not uncommon for men to postpone marriage until after age 30 when they were established in a business or trade, or had received their inheritance. The women usually married quite young, normally as soon as their domestic education had been finished and they had gone through puberty, 16 or 17 years being about average (they went through puberty later than girls do now).
2. The man would pay the father a suitable price for the bride, unless he was marrying a widow.
3. The betrothal (espousal) contract was agreed upon (an oral agreement) and the tokens exchanged (price of the bride given and acceptance tokens received).
4. The marriage ceremony was held, and a marriage feast followed. During the ceremony, rings were usually exchanged. Even from very ancient times, a ring symbolized fidelity.
5. After the betrothal ceremony and feast a period of separation was strictly observed. The length of time was set in the espousal contract, but by Jesus’ time custom dictated the following: in the case of a virgin, the separation was for one year and for a widow it was usually a month. During the separation period, the bride and groom could have no contact and could not speak to each other except through an intermediary called the “friend of the bridegroom.”
6. During the separation period they were considered fully married and any infidelity was considered adultery, which was punishable by death (stoning). The long period in the case of a virgin was two-fold. It gave them time to make sure she could not already be pregnant by another man and it proved their dedication to each other. During this time the man could write the bride a bill of divorce if he found anything “unseemly” in her. (See Lev. 24: 1, 2.) She would then be free to marry another man.
7. At the end of the separation period the bride was bedecked in white finery, jewels, and perfume. The groom, dressed in his best clothes and taking several companions with him, went to the bride’s house and transported her back to his house. At his house a feast was prepared and celebrations continued for one or two weeks.
8. At the end of the celebrations a special canopy was set up in the groom’s chamber and both bride and groom were carried to the nuptial canopy. The friends went home and the marriage was finally consummated. Until the consummation, the bride was always heavily veiled.
9. The details of each marriage were more or less elaborate based on the incomes of the families involved. Married men were excused from military service and all other community duties for the first year of marriage.
In Matthew 1 verse 18 Mary is said to be “betrothed” to Joseph, but in verse 19 she is said to be “married” because Joseph is called her “husband”. According to the Rev. James Freeman, a compiler of Bible customs, “Espousal among the Hebrews was something more than what a mere marriage engagement is with us (Westerners). It was considered the beginning of marriage, and was as legally binding as marriage itself. It could not be broken off except by a written bill of divorce.” So Matthew's careful choice of these two different words is precise and accurate, not a mistake.
Based on my understanding of the above, I think the simple explanation is (as Jeaniam and others have suggested) that even though they were married they had not yet consummated (did the horizontal thingy) their marriage. The culture of the times – regarding sexual relationships and marriage – differed quite a lot from ours. It would be a mistake to assume there was no difference and doing so when taking the time to present an exegesis can at times muddy the waters. 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".
My point (if I haven't already made it clear) is simple – If the Bible was so clear in its rendering we wouldn't have so many various understandings of it. While I can appreciate that you find it simple to understand I also know that what may seem clear to you is not always clear to others. You should understand that notion 'cause you found it necessary to expound on what you find easily understood. Try not to get too frustrated by those who don't readily see things from your perspective – your frustration will only make it more difficult for others to see things your way.
Welcome Larry! May I ask one favor of you though. Can you notate who you are quoting please? Thank you kindly.
Sorry, Chatty. I don't always think of the fact that others are reading this thread when I respond to people. I assume they would know that I'm responding to them, for we usually remember our own words. I'll try to keep your request in mind in the future.
Wordwolf is perfectly capable of taking care of himself. Nonetheless.
“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).” (quote of Larry’s)
Do you propose to set standards for discussions at GS? Normally according to who?
“Try not to get too frustrated by those who don't readily see things from your perspective – your frustration will only make it more difficult for others to see things your way.” (quote of Larry’s)
Do you propose to set standards for behavior vis a vis providing instruction for such?
This isn’t a court of law. This isn’t a workplace. This is a forum. You are not in any position of authority over anyone here that I know of. We are all adults. No one is required to respond to you at all. (See forum rules). No one has to do anything to your satisfaction at all. Period. End of story. (See forum rules).
This isn’t a court of law. This isn’t a workplace. This is a forum. You are not in any position of authority over anyone here that I know of. We are all adults. No one is required to respond to you at all. (See forum rules). No one has to do anything to your satisfaction at all. Period. End of story. (See forum rules).
Another spot, if you're an adult try to act like one. I wasn't telling or demanding WordWolf should not get frustrated (nor demanding he respond any in fashion other than he wishes) -- it was just a suggestion. Take it or leave it.
As far as "standards of debates/discussions" goes -- If I were to make the claim that unicorns exist shouldn't I be expected to support that assertion or should I just demand that you should believe me?
Likeaneagle, by all means share what you can come up with.
I am pretty sure “innocent blood” is a figure of speech since others are referred to that way. Christ as THE innocent blood simply means it is emphatic he never committed sin.
Deu 19:9 If thou shalt keep all these commandments to do them, which I command thee this day, to love the LORD thy God, and to walk ever in his ways; then shalt thou add three cities more for thee, beside these three:
Deu 19:10 That innocent blood be not shed in thy land, which the LORD thy God giveth thee [for] an inheritance, and [so] blood be upon thee.
I have looked into sin in the blood and don’t find a single reference to it. Doesn’t mean yea verily it isn’t there, but I sure can’t find it.
I guess I was assuming the emphasis on THE innocent blood indicated that Christ was not only innocent of the crime(s) that he was accused of on this occasion, but also innocent of all wrongdoing.
Wouldn't it be logical for Mary to tell Joseph herself? She had a visit by an angel. She was going to bear the Christ child. Why wouldn't she convey this very special information to Joseph? Especially knowing the law.
Larry's next post explains this in the explanation of marriage customs of the day. Apparently, the bride and groom were not allowed to speak privately except through the 'friend of the bridegroom' and also the time if separation between a espousal and sexual relations lasted as long as a year; which I wasn't aware of. Tough information to relay through an intermediary.
Cool! But could you lay it out a little more plainer. I didn't see your answer to my post herein. :)
Then could you explain (plainly) what John 8: 41 means when they said: "We be not born of fornication."
Can I jump in on this question?
John 8:
31 Jesus then said to those Jews who believed in him, "If you remain in my word, you will truly be my disciples,
32 and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free."
33 They answered him, "We are descendants of Abraham and have never been enslaved to anyone. 16 How can you say, 'You will become free'?"
34 Jesus answered them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave of sin.
35 A slave does not remain in a household forever, but a son always remains.
36 So if a son frees you, then you will truly be free.
37 I know that you are descendants of Abraham. But you are trying to kill me, because my word has no room among you.
38 I tell you what I have seen in the Father's presence; then do what you have heard from the Father."
39 They answered and said to him, "Our father is Abraham." Jesus said to them, "If you were Abraham's children, you would be doing the works of Abraham.
40 But now you are trying to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God; Abraham did not do this.
41 You are doing the works of your father!" (So) they said to him, "We are not illegitimate. We have one Father, God."
I don't know what translation that is, so forgive me. But here's the point: reading the substance of the argument, I don't think it's reasonable to conclude that "they" were accusing Jesus of being illegitimate. Jesus had just challenged their legitimacy by accusing them of having a father other than Abraham. Going after Jesus' parentage would not answer his accusation against them. Their comment is defensive, not accusatory. They said exactly what they meant: they were not born of fornication.
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.
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
Jeaniam
Funny.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jeaniam
I am still of the belief that God created sperm in Mary that impregnated on of her eggs and resulted in Jesus Christ. Mark, if your question is, how did He do that? I'm going to take refuge in an old VPWism and say that if God didn't tell us then we don't know, and guessing in a case where it can't be verified or refuted is not helpful.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jeaniam
In Matthew 1:18- 'Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.' 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.' I think the meaning is plain here; Mary was found to be pregnant, Joseph, who knew that he couldn't be the father, assumed that she had been unfaithful to him and was minded to take the more merciful way of dealing with the situation that was prescribed in the Law (stoned or put away) had to be told by the angel that Mary's pregnancy was the result of supernatural action, and to not fear taking her unto him.
I don't know what was the prescribed penalty for premarital sex on the part of the man in the Law, but when I get time I'll look it up.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Or a modern variant of it: know what you know and know what you don't know.
Frankly, I don't have any questions on this...I am posing the points with Another Spot as rhetorical points for thought and consideration.
I do appreciate your response, though. Nice to know my posts are being read :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
before they came together-
this meaning has not been established either
pure blood-
not found in bible
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
Actually -- No I can't. Without going over each and every verse you cited I'll just focus on two --
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.
Your explanation following this verse:
"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."
Then you quoted verse 19:
19 (KJV) And Joseph her husband, being a righteous man and not wanting to disgrace her, planned to send her away secretly.
How did Joseph go from being engaged to Mary in verse 18 to being her husband in verse 19?
The key word of course is the word "espoused" which in our culture means one thing but, in the culture of that time meant another. I won't bore you with the details 'cause it really doesn't matter. Just going on common sense alone in reading verse 18 it should arrest your attention that if Mary was found with child BEFORE they were engaged you would have to ask yourself two questions -- 1) Who discovered she was pregnant? and 2) If the answer logically was Joseph based on the context then -- Why would Joseph marry her only to consider divorcing her? I'll await patiently your answer to these two questions and on how you reconcile verse 19 with verse 18 making your explanations more sensible.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChattyKathy
Welcome Larry! May I ask one favor of you though. Can you notate who you are quoting please? Thank you kindly.
(great thread y'all)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
Jesus Christ is our Savior because of what he did not how he was born.
He broke the Law from the beginning all through his life and therefore fullfilled it.
Killing it, dead as the paper it's written on.
If Jesus was not a man born like anyother he could NOT save anyone, that's why it's his blood that cleanses.
Not that his blood in his life on earth was pure, this is no where to be found in the bible.
But that he did what he needed to do and fulfilled the old testament while some prefer it.
" this Day Have I Begotten Thee"
That was not the day of his birth.
What he had at birth is the same thing we do.
It's Mary who get's the credit for the birth and Joseph who is his Father.
Till he was born of the Spirit of God when God said so.
You show me one place that says exactly when He was the Son of God.
I already did.
Keep believing what you do not understand and you are in for a humbling day.
Not that we all won't be humbled.
But this is stated here to show the ignorance and ridiculous claims of Jesus' birth.
When it's very clear that between the angels appearing between Mary and Joseph,
Mary got pregnant.
The only way this can happen is by intercourse at that time.
Joseph being the Father.
God being his Heavenly Father, and carrying out His Will by choice as a Man.
This same type of thinking that is about religous bs has blinded, kept people in the dark for years.
When will the blinders be dared to be taken off?
What is on the other side of this darkness, or as some say mysteries of God
Not many have the courage to look Wide-eyed and open into the face of Jesus Christ.
And learn of a God that can be seen bt the pure and learned in a progressive approach.
Developed By God himself from the beginning.
Adam knew what he was doing eating of the tree, so did Jesus Christ.
Edited by cmanLink to comment
Share on other sites
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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jeaniam
It has never been established 100%, maybe but an explanation has been suggested that satisfies the customs of the times and is logical; that it means there is a period of time (days) between the marriage ceremony and the first sexual encounter that was determined by the priests.
Pure blood- yes it is. In Matthew 27:3&4 it says ' Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, saying, I have siined in that I have betrayed the innocent blood.' It doesn't say AN innocent blood, or HIS innocent blood; it says THE innocent blood. The clear inference is that Christ's blood represents the only (since Adam) innocent blood. Further, as a matter of logic, we could ask the question, 'How can Christ's blood cleanse if it is not, in and of itself, clean?'
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
innocent blood
sorry, not the same as pure....
and who says that Adam had pure blood?
being clean would indicate to some, pureness
but this is not said
what is pure? what is pureness?
freedom from sin is not indicated as pure
again you think as carnal, and not spiritual
you lack biblical documentation
therefore i can only conclude this to be guesswork or revelation
i will not voice my response on your thinking but mine i will
the blanks are filled for me in this matter, yet you cannot reconcile the blanks of your thinking
how exactly did God impregnate Mary?
you have no answer as well as those who believe that this is what occured
answers are around to the few that hunger for them
i have only touched a portion
you cannot hear even that, so i decline to comment any further on this matter
Link to comment
Share on other sites
another spot
Likeaneagle, by all means share what you can come up with.
I am pretty sure “innocent blood” is a figure of speech since others are referred to that way. Christ as THE innocent blood simply means it is emphatic he never committed sin.
Deu 19:9 If thou shalt keep all these commandments to do them, which I command thee this day, to love the LORD thy God, and to walk ever in his ways; then shalt thou add three cities more for thee, beside these three:
Deu 19:10 That innocent blood be not shed in thy land, which the LORD thy God giveth thee [for] an inheritance, and [so] blood be upon thee.
I have looked into sin in the blood and don’t find a single reference to it. Doesn’t mean yea verily it isn’t there, but I sure can’t find it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jeaniam
As you say the key word is espoused which we have been taught in that culture didn't mean engaged, it meant they had been married but had not had sexual relations yet (done the horizontal hula, thanks, WordWolf). I think in that culture the assumption would be that a young girl who had just gotten married for the first time was a virgin unless there was proof to the contrary. Virginity in that culture was (and is) a great deal more important that it is in our present day culture. It seems to suggest that enough time went by for it to be obvious that Mary was pregnant although the time set by the priests had not yet arrived for Joseph and Mary to come together (have sex).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
another spot
Wouldn't it be logical for Mary to tell Joseph herself? She had a visit by an angel. She was going to bear the Christ child. Why wouldn't she convey this very special information to Joseph? Especially knowing the law.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
Based on my understanding of the above, I think the simple explanation is (as Jeaniam and others have suggested) that even though they were married they had not yet consummated (did the horizontal thingy) their marriage. The culture of the times – regarding sexual relationships and marriage – differed quite a lot from ours. It would be a mistake to assume there was no difference and doing so when taking the time to present an exegesis can at times muddy the waters. 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".
My point (if I haven't already made it clear) is simple – If the Bible was so clear in its rendering we wouldn't have so many various understandings of it. While I can appreciate that you find it simple to understand I also know that what may seem clear to you is not always clear to others. You should understand that notion 'cause you found it necessary to expound on what you find easily understood. Try not to get too frustrated by those who don't readily see things from your perspective – your frustration will only make it more difficult for others to see things your way.
Sorry, Chatty. I don't always think of the fact that others are reading this thread when I respond to people. I assume they would know that I'm responding to them, for we usually remember our own words. I'll try to keep your request in mind in the future.
Oh and btw Chatty -- Thanks for the welcome!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sunesis
I started thinking about sinless blood why it was necessary to redeem mankind.
This guy has an interesting article, scroll down, especially about the part of blood and Holy Spirit.
I haven't fully read it yet, but it looks interesting and may contribute to the discussion.
Its food for thought.
http://www.newgateministries.com/jerusalem...a-of-jesus.html
Link to comment
Share on other sites
another spot
Wordwolf is perfectly capable of taking care of himself. Nonetheless.
“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).” (quote of Larry’s)
Do you propose to set standards for discussions at GS? Normally according to who?
“Try not to get too frustrated by those who don't readily see things from your perspective – your frustration will only make it more difficult for others to see things your way.” (quote of Larry’s)
Do you propose to set standards for behavior vis a vis providing instruction for such?
This isn’t a court of law. This isn’t a workplace. This is a forum. You are not in any position of authority over anyone here that I know of. We are all adults. No one is required to respond to you at all. (See forum rules). No one has to do anything to your satisfaction at all. Period. End of story. (See forum rules).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
As far as "standards of debates/discussions" goes -- If I were to make the claim that unicorns exist shouldn't I be expected to support that assertion or should I just demand that you should believe me?
Lighten up dude!
Edited by Larry N MooreLink to comment
Share on other sites
Jeaniam
I guess I was assuming the emphasis on THE innocent blood indicated that Christ was not only innocent of the crime(s) that he was accused of on this occasion, but also innocent of all wrongdoing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
another spot
Yes, exactly. Maybe I didn't read your post well enough. I am a speed reader, I do that sometimes.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jeaniam
Larry's next post explains this in the explanation of marriage customs of the day. Apparently, the bride and groom were not allowed to speak privately except through the 'friend of the bridegroom' and also the time if separation between a espousal and sexual relations lasted as long as a year; which I wasn't aware of. Tough information to relay through an intermediary.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Can I jump in on this question?
John 8:
31 Jesus then said to those Jews who believed in him, "If you remain in my word, you will truly be my disciples,
32 and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free."
33 They answered him, "We are descendants of Abraham and have never been enslaved to anyone. 16 How can you say, 'You will become free'?"
34 Jesus answered them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave of sin.
35 A slave does not remain in a household forever, but a son always remains.
36 So if a son frees you, then you will truly be free.
37 I know that you are descendants of Abraham. But you are trying to kill me, because my word has no room among you.
38 I tell you what I have seen in the Father's presence; then do what you have heard from the Father."
39 They answered and said to him, "Our father is Abraham." Jesus said to them, "If you were Abraham's children, you would be doing the works of Abraham.
40 But now you are trying to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God; Abraham did not do this.
41 You are doing the works of your father!" (So) they said to him, "We are not illegitimate. We have one Father, God."
I don't know what translation that is, so forgive me. But here's the point: reading the substance of the argument, I don't think it's reasonable to conclude that "they" were accusing Jesus of being illegitimate. Jesus had just challenged their legitimacy by accusing them of having a father other than Abraham. Going after Jesus' parentage would not answer his accusation against them. Their comment is defensive, not accusatory. They said exactly what they meant: they were not born of fornication.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
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.
Edited by WordWolfLink 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.