PDA

View Full Version : Everything about Mary



Walstib
Dec 19th 2008, 02:03 PM
Jesus’ mother Mary. What do we know? What should we know? Ask a question you have about her.

I’ll start as I got thinking about this on another thread.

What is the importance Jesus came from her egg and she was not a surrogate mother? Could she have been a surrogate or does Jesus’ humanity depend on her blood and genealogy.

mikebr
Dec 19th 2008, 02:07 PM
Heresy I know but I kinda feel the same way about Mary as I do Judas. Neither had much of a choice. As far as I know God wanted to be human so Jesus had to be born and He had to die to show us what happens to a seed when its planted. Mary and Judas were necessary tools. Now I know Jesus loved His Mother and Father and Father.;)

Whispering Grace
Dec 19th 2008, 02:15 PM
Heresy I know but I kinda feel the same way about Mary as I do Judas. Neither had much of a choice. As far as I know God wanted to be human so Jesus had to be born and He had to die to show us what happens to a seed when its planted. Mary and Judas were necessary tools. Now I know Jesus loved His Mother and Father and Father.;)

Mary most assuredely consented to bring forth the Son of God.

And I honestly can't fathom comparing a faithful servant of God like Mary to Judas.

mikebr
Dec 19th 2008, 02:21 PM
Mary most assuredely consented to bring forth the Son of God.

And I honestly can't fathom comparing a faithful servant of God like Mary to Judas.


If Mary had not consented would it have meant that God picked the wrong person. If Judas had turned down the money would Jesus have picked another disciple?

I wasnt' comparing Mary to Judas. I was comparing how God used them. I see similarities that's all.

daughter
Dec 19th 2008, 02:22 PM
I see the annunciation as an example of being born again... when Mary submitted herself to the will of God, she was filled with joy, despite the fact that her situation was potentially terrifying. She knew she could be cast out, despised, even stoned to death... yet she trusted God, and in that moment she was renewed. That's how I see her great declarative poem of praise.

I agree Whispering Grace, it's a really shocking comparison, to say that Mary, like Judas, had no choice... as though God were a divine rapist, and Judas a doomed fall guy. Outside of Time and Space God could see exactly what would and did happen... but that doesn't mean He forced anyone.

Things I would like to know about Mary. How old was she when she was widowed, how did it feel to see the slow plan of God unfolding as she watched her son grow. How does she feel now about people who worship her.

Of course, the day will come when we can simply ask her!

daughter
Dec 19th 2008, 02:23 PM
If Mary had not consented would it have meant that God picked the wrong person. If Judas had turned down the money would Jesus have picked another disciple?

I wasnt' comparing Mary to Judas. I was comparing how God used them. I see similarities that's all.
Okay... it came across wrong. :rolleyes: Happens, on forums.

mikebr
Dec 19th 2008, 02:27 PM
I see the annunciation as an example of being born again... when Mary submitted herself to the will of God, she was filled with joy, despite the fact that her situation was potentially terrifying. She knew she could be cast out, despised, even stoned to death... yet she trusted God, and in that moment she was renewed. That's how I see her great declarative poem of praise.

I agree Whispering Grace, it's a really shocking comparison, to say that Mary, like Judas, had no choice... as though God were a divine rapist, and Judas a doomed fall guy. Outside of Time and Space God could see exactly what would and did happen... but that doesn't mean He forced anyone.

Things I would like to know about Mary. How old was she when she was widowed, how did it feel to see the slow plan of God unfolding as she watched her son grow. How does she feel now about people who worship her.

Of course, the day will come when we can simply ask her!

Starting a new Thread as not to derail this one.

I would like to know when Mary knew that Jesus was going to die for the sins of Man.

Would they have not crucified Him if she told them Jesus was crazy, and delusional, that He had been talking that nonsense for years.

Reese
Dec 19th 2008, 02:31 PM
What confused me about the question in this is did Jesus really come from her egg? Since he has always been alive since the beginning of time and created all things, I was always under the belief that it was the Holy Ghost coming upon her that began his being "in" her but have never heard that he came from her egg. Wouldn't that give him a "beginning" and he has none as he always existed?

mikebr
Dec 19th 2008, 02:34 PM
What confused me about the question in this is did Jesus really come from her egg? Since he has always been alive since the beginning of time and created all things, I was always under the belief that it was the Holy Ghost coming upon her that began his being "in" her but have never heard that he came from her egg. Wouldn't that give him a "beginning" and he has none as he always existed?


If Genesis is talking about Jesus and I believe that it is then it says He will come from her seed. (egg) He had to be human.

daughter
Dec 19th 2008, 02:40 PM
You're right Mike... it says in Genesis that the seed of the woman will crush the serpent. That would imply that Jesus did come from her egg.

And theologically it makes perfect sense, if we accept the testimony of the Bible, that Jesus was fully human, and fully divine.

Walstib
Dec 19th 2008, 03:01 PM
If Genesis is talking about Jesus and I believe that it is then it says He will come from her seed. (egg) He had to be human.

What does this mean when thinking of the other "seed" needed to have an embryo? Was that part not still fully human?

mikebr
Dec 19th 2008, 03:11 PM
What does this mean when thinking of the other "seed" needed to have an embryo? Was that part not still fully human?

Whoaaaa Nelly! I've never even thought of that? This could change some stuff.

Walstib
Dec 19th 2008, 03:12 PM
Wouldn't that give him a "beginning" and he has none as he always existed?

With that I think of is the beginning of Jesus' human flesh.

Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel. (Isa 7:14 NKJV)

We have life without our flesh but not before we had flesh.

'I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living." (Mat 22:32 NKJV)

For You formed my inward parts; You covered me in my mother's womb.(Psa 139:13 NKJV)

He had "life/is life" before dwelling in his fully human flesh.

He indeed was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you(1Pe 1:20 NKJV)

Peace,
Joe

Brother Mark
Dec 19th 2008, 04:19 PM
If Mary had not consented would it have meant that God picked the wrong person. If Judas had turned down the money would Jesus have picked another disciple?

Not really. God chose Saul then David. The promise to Saul was that Jesus would come through his line. Because Saul said no, God chose another. He would have done the same with Mary.

Brother Mark
Dec 19th 2008, 04:22 PM
Jesus’ mother Mary. What do we know? What should we know? Ask a question you have about her.

I’ll start as I got thinking about this on another thread.

What is the importance Jesus came from her egg and she was not a surrogate mother? Could she have been a surrogate or does Jesus’ humanity depend on her blood and genealogy.

I don't know much about what God was thinking with the whole thing to be honest. But I do like to consider how the virgin conception with Mary is very much like my being born again. Jesus is now in me. And at some point, he will come out of me just like he did Mary for all the world to see.

I do think that Jesus had to be born from a woman though as the promise was to a woman, i.e. Eve. It was her seed, not the seed of man that was to bring about the hope for mankind.

mikebr
Dec 19th 2008, 04:25 PM
Not really. God chose Saul then David. The promise to Saul was that Jesus would come through his line. Because Saul said no, God chose another. He would have done the same with Mary.


.............and God didn't have a clue that Saul would say no?

That sounds like Open Theism to me.

Brother Mark
Dec 19th 2008, 04:43 PM
.............and God didn't have a clue that Saul would say no?

That sounds like Open Theism to me.

Whether he had a clue or not, doesn't matter. (Of course I believe he did know Saul would say no.) The point is, he chose Saul. Then made a promise that the kingdom would never leave Saul's house as long as he agreed to follow along. That meant that Jesus would have been born through the lineage of Saul. But because Saul said no, Jesus chose another.

We see a similar thing with Esther. Mordecai told her that if she said no, God would raise up another.

Walstib
Dec 19th 2008, 11:59 PM
Mary most assuredely consented to bring forth the Son of God.

Good thing to know about her if true. What scriptures do you use for your conclusion. So all reading can see.

Peace,
Joe

Walstib
Dec 20th 2008, 12:06 AM
I see the annunciation as an example of being born again... when Mary submitted herself to the will of God, she was filled with joy, despite the fact that her situation was potentially terrifying. She knew she could be cast out, despised, even stoned to death... yet she trusted God, and in that moment she was renewed. That's how I see her great declarative poem of praise.

Interesting you and Mark make a similar comment. I had never thought of a picture of being born again. What renewal did she have then? What passages may help us see that picture?

What else can we learn from her poem?

Just trying to draw more reasoning and scriptures into the thread.
Peace,
Joe

Walstib
Dec 20th 2008, 12:22 AM
Hi, Mike
I would like to know when Mary knew that Jesus was going to die for the sins of Man.Interesting. I was thinking Zacharias may have know enough of the prophecy to tell her. The OT scriptures declared it for anyone who had ears to hear I think. Maybe listening to Simeon?

And behold, there was a man in Jerusalem whose name was Simeon....................... "Behold, this Child is destined for the fall and rising of many in Israel, and for a sign which will be spoken against (yes, a sword will pierce through your own soul also), that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed." (Luke 2:25-35 NKJV)

Then for sure if she was around when He started teaching it directly.

saying, "The Son of Man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised the third day." (Luke 9:22 NKJV) (Mat 16:21) (Mar 8:31)
Would they have not crucified Him if she told them Jesus was crazy, and delusional, that He had been talking that nonsense for years.

I think the miracles spoke for themselves no matter what she might have said. First thought.

Peace,
Joe

Walstib
Dec 20th 2008, 01:18 AM
But because Saul said no, Jesus chose another.

Ok, so taking this to Mary, how far can we go and what scriptures do we have?

Did she have to be a Hebrew?

Did she have to be a descendant of David?

Do we know she was a descendant of David?

Could all the Hebrew woman asked say no?

Some of the question this made me think of.
Joe

OldChurchGuy
Dec 20th 2008, 03:43 AM
You're right Mike... it says in Genesis that the seed of the woman will crush the serpent. That would imply that Jesus did come from her egg.

And theologically it makes perfect sense, if we accept the testimony of the Bible, that Jesus was fully human, and fully divine.

I know there are some creeds (the Apostles and the Nicene come to mind) talking about Jesus being fully human and fully divine but what Bible verses make this point?

Also, just to be sure I understand things, is the consensus that:

(A) Mary's egg and God's sperm were united in Mary and 9 months later she gave birth to Jesus the Christ; or

(B) Jesus transformed himself to a divine embryo, entered Mary, and 9 months later she gave birth to Jesus the Christ; or

(C) Another explanation besides A or B above.

Sincerely,

OldChurchGuy

Bethany67
Dec 20th 2008, 07:55 AM
I'd have to go for C.

A - God doesn't have sperm so there must have been some other way it happened. Biologically Mary's egg must have started to divide and then implanted in her uterus, but I'm not sure where the Y chromosome came from as women are XX.

B - implies His humanness didn't come from Mary if He was already in embryonic form when He entered her uterus; it questions what biological part of Him was actually human and related to her at all.

All foetuses are 'neutral' in appearance to start with, although genetically the gender is already determined by the chromosomes delivered by the father. Each human cell normally has 23 pairs of chromosomes (half from each parent), but within the male Y chromosome there is a single gene (SRY) which kicks off and starts the development into a male. It causes the fetal gonads to develop into testes and the fetus 'becomes' male; if there is no Y chromosome from the father and hence no SRY gene, the gonads will develop into ovaries and the fetus will 'become' female. These testes then produce testosterone fetal development which lead to the other male characteristics; if no testes, the fetus develops into female.

There are sometimes chromosomal aberrations which buck this trend and lead to things like Klinefelter's Syndrome and Turner's Syndrome. So where did Jesus's Y chromosome come from? Maybe God caused something unknown to happen to one of the X chromosomes that came from Mary, or maybe He created a Y chromosome out of nothing.

So it has to be something else (C), but I'm at a loss as to explain exactly what happened.

Brother Mark
Dec 20th 2008, 12:03 PM
Ok, so taking this to Mary, how far can we go and what scriptures do we have?

Did she have to be a Hebrew?

At least partly. We see Ruth and Rahab are in the line through marriage. While not fully Hebrew, their offspring were part Hebrew. Not sure this qualifies...


Did she have to be a descendant of David?

Yes. To fulfill the prophecies, she had to be in the lineage of David, IMO.


Do we know she was a descendant of David?

I don't know. Perhaps. Most folks think one lineage is of Joseph and the other of Mary.


Could all the Hebrew woman asked say no?

Individually, sure. But God would have raised up someone that said yes. he is sovereign. That's the point with Esther. If not you, he will raise up someone else.

9Marksfan
Dec 20th 2008, 12:26 PM
I'd have to go for C.

Hmm.....:hmm:


A - God doesn't have sperm so there must have been some other way it happened. Biologically Mary's egg must have started to divide and then implanted in her uterus, but I'm not sure where the Y chromosome came from as women are XX.

Why does Mary's egg have to be involved at all? If it was, Jesus would be half human and half divine........


B - implies His humanness didn't come from Mary

Correct - it came from the Holy Spirit. Where did Adam's humanity come from? Don't forget Christ is the "last Adam".....


if He was already in embryonic form when He entered her uterus; it questions what biological part of Him was actually human and related to her at all.

He was fully human because He was conceived of the Holy Spirit, who was the agent of creation and is the agent of the new creation too. We need to stop thinking of him as being conceived of the Virgin Mary - that is why the Protestant creeds rightly say He was conceived of the Holy Ghost and born of the Virgin Mary. Although it is somwehat crude to say it, Mary was indeed a surrogate mother - otherwise Jesus would have been sinful. The RCC gets all tied up in knots because of this - that's why their Immaculate Conception doctrine refers to MARY'S "immaculate" conception herself - so that she would be sinless and not pass on sin when she conceived Christ! There is great mystery here but let's all remember that Jesus conception was 100% supernatural - not part natural, part supernatural.


So it has to be something else (C), but I'm at a loss as to explain exactly what happened.

I think that goes for all of us, Jules - but I think that B fits things best - while we need to retain a sense of awe and wonder and not delve into mysteries that the Holy Spirit has not seen fit to reveal to us.

9Marksfan
Dec 20th 2008, 12:32 PM
I know there are some creeds (the Apostles and the Nicene come to mind) talking about Jesus being fully human and fully divine but what Bible verses make this point?

I don't have a great deal of time here, but Jn 1:14 and Heb 1:3 immediately come to mind. Also Col 1: 21 or thereabouts.


Also, just to be sure I understand things, is the consensus that:

(A) Mary's egg and God's sperm were united in Mary and 9 months later she gave birth to Jesus the Christ;

No - this is heresy.


or

(B) Jesus transformed himself to a divine embryo, entered Mary, and 9 months later she gave birth to Jesus the Christ;

That is oversimplifying things somewhat but, yes, that is what I believe happened when the Holy Spirit brought about the conception as a human being of the Lord Jesus.


or

(C) Another explanation besides A or B above.

No - anything else is likely to detract from either Jesus' full divinity or full humanity.


Sincerely,

OldChurchGuy

Bethany67
Dec 20th 2008, 12:47 PM
Ah I see the point you're making. If Jesus's human nature was manufactured from scratch by the Holy Spirit, how can He be said to be of the line of David? Unless that doesn't mean He was a physical descendant at all? In which case I'm left wondering just how genuinely human His human nature was and what He really has to do with us.

Just throwing out thoughts here because I think there's a danger in our/my wording (obviously this was an issue the Church faced in the first few centuries, and I have no wish to inadvertently be uttering heresy but I do want to understand this insofar as I am able). If His human nature was created ex nihilo, in what way can He represent us if He has no real connection to our humanity? It seems to me that such a view creates an even greater distance and makes Him seem more remote; while He is of course unique, sometimes we can present Him as not human enough (and conversely we can present Him too far in the other direction).

I've heard the theological theory that original sin is passed only through the father which is why no human sperm could be involved, but that doesn't seem right to me; it's not unheard of for female eggs to spontaneously develop in parthenogenesis - in turkeys for example.

Bethany67
Dec 20th 2008, 01:08 PM
This has definitely piqued my interest - I'm going to give this weekend to reading and praying on the topic.

matthew7and1
Dec 20th 2008, 01:14 PM
Ah I see the point you're making. If Jesus's human nature was manufactured from scratch by the Holy Spirit, how can He be said to be of the line of David? Unless that doesn't mean He was a physical descendant at all? In which case I'm left wondering just how genuinely human His human nature was and what He really has to do with us.

Just throwing out thoughts here because I think there's a danger in our/my wording (obviously this was an issue the Church faced in the first few centuries, and I have no wish to inadvertently be uttering heresy but I do want to understand this insofar as I am able). If His human nature was created ex nihilo, in what way can He represent us if He has no real connection to our humanity? It seems to me that such a view creates an even greater distance and makes Him seem more remote; while He is of course unique, sometimes we can present Him as not human enough (and conversely we can present Him too far in the other direction).

I've heard the theological theory that original sin is passed only through the father which is why no human sperm could be involved, but that doesn't seem right to me; it's not unheard of for female eggs to spontaneously develop in parthenogenesis - in turkeys for example.
I believe that Jesus could have been fully conceieved in the holy spirit. The fact that he was born of a woman, is what gives him lineage. We are not talking about 2008 when there are donor sperm and eggs, etc. In the time of Jesus, whoever bore you, was your parent. So I think we are getting genetics confused with lineage a little.
In so much that we are looking at the actual conception of Christ, again... do we actually concieve? Or does God conceieve within us? Is the miracle of life that is performed when a woman becomes pregnant any more/less of a miracle then when God created Adam and Eve? Are any of us less human then Adam or Eve because we were born of a woman? These are ALL works of God.
So, if you begin with the premise that God creates all life, and that humans are incapable of creating life on thier own:
Does it matter how Jesus was concieved? If Jesus was born human, God created him that way, just as he created the flowers and the trees. Would we aregue that a tree is not really a tree unless it was grown from a seed? Would it make it more divine and less tree-like?

Walstib
Dec 20th 2008, 01:19 PM
Thought of some Scripture to post this morning. That and I thought we could leave words like heresy our of the thread. That and I wanted to say I completely believe Jesus was fully human and fully God. What are the "reverse forensics" of it lets say. How do we show it from scripture?


What is the difference between the kingdom and authority of David and the genes of David? Does one need the other?

While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, saying, "What do you think about the Christ? Whose Son is He?" They said to Him, "The Son of David." He said to them, "How then does David in the Spirit call Him 'Lord,' saying: 'The Lord said to my Lord, "Sit at My right hand, Till I make Your enemies Your footstool" '? "If David then calls Him 'Lord,' how is He his Son?" And no one was able to answer Him a word, nor from that day on did anyone dare question Him anymore. (Mat 22:41-46 NKJV)

And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bring forth a Son, and shall call His name Jesus. He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David.(Luk 1:31-32 NKJV)

Blessed is the kingdom of our father David That comes in the name of the Lord! Hosanna in the highest!" (Mar 11:10 NKJV)

Bethany67
Dec 20th 2008, 01:28 PM
In the time of Jesus, whoever bore you, was your parent. So I think we are getting genetics confused with lineage a little...

So, if you begin with the premise that God creates all life, and that humans are incapable of creating life on thier own:

Yes possibly you're right on the first point.

The second point has some interesting implications for human-animal embryos recently permitted in the UK; I believe human genetic material (stem cells) was permitted to be inserted into cow's eggs, in the same way that the Chinese did with rabbit's eggs in 2003. If all life comes from God, did/does He consent to be actively involved with these hybrids? How far are they created in the (marred) image of God, and do they have spirits like we do? Maybe they're not human enough to be considered on the same scale as us? What would happen if animal stem cells were spliced into a human ovum?

Walstib
Dec 20th 2008, 02:07 PM
Hi Mark,


At least partly. We see Ruth and Rahab are in the line through marriage. While not fully Hebrew, their offspring were part Hebrew. Not sure this qualifies...Valid point. Was the teaching in the OT about intermarriage to point to how we should not be yolked with sin as it will corrupt. Or was it about the physical bloodline as well. I think the former without the latter with Ruth being a great example leading to king David's lineage.
Yes. To fulfill the prophecies, she had to be in the lineage of David, IMO.I think those prophecies would be beneficial in the thread. See what they say about it. Here is one I think.

"Behold, the days are coming," says the Lord, "That I will raise to David a Branch of righteousness; A King shall reign and prosper, And execute judgment and righteousness in the earth. (Jer 23:5 NKJV)
I don't know. Perhaps. Most folks think one lineage is of Joseph and the other of Mary. I don't know either. ;) One in Matthew and one in Luke if some are wondering. Mary in Luke due to the wording I have heard. Then are these what we are warned to avoid with endless genealogies? (1 tim1:4) Or was that for individuals tracing their own lineage?

Peace,
Joe

Brother Mark
Dec 20th 2008, 02:35 PM
Hi Mark,

Valid point. Was the teaching in the OT about intermarriage to point to how we should not be yolked with sin as it will corrupt. Or was it about the physical bloodline as well. I think the former without the latter with Ruth being a great example leading to king David's lineage.I think those prophecies would be beneficial in the thread. See what they say about it. Here is one I think.

Hi Joe.

Yes, I agree. Ruth is a great example. I think that perhaps, Rahab and even better example as she was part of the tribes of Canaan. They were commanded not to have anything to do with Canaanites, yet we find her in the lineage.


"Behold, the days are coming," says the Lord, "That I will raise to David a Branch of righteousness; A King shall reign and prosper, And execute judgment and righteousness in the earth. (Jer 23:5 NKJV)

Yep. And the promise that David's offspring would always be on the throne. This leads me to think that indeed, Mary was completely the mother of Jesus in every way humanly speaking.


I don't know either. ;) One in Matthew and one in Luke if some are wondering. Mary in Luke due to the wording I have heard. Then are these what we are warned to avoid with endless genealogies? (1 tim1:4) Or was that for individuals tracing their own lineage?

Peace,
Joe

Can I say "I don't know again?" I think the warning about genealogies can also be understood with the warning about wrangling over words.

matthew7and1
Dec 20th 2008, 02:58 PM
My question about Mary would be about how her life was after the time of Jesus on earth had ended. Was she forgotten? Revered?
And about the relationship between her and Jesus....

Bethany67
Dec 20th 2008, 04:06 PM
She was there at Pentecost in Jerusalem (Acts 1:14) so very much an active part of the Christian community, but then she's not mentioned again. The fact that only she is mentioned personally by name in conjunction with the apostles may show that she was still held in high regard by the time Luke wrote Acts some 30ish years after the events. Presumably John cared for her on Jesus's recommendation (John 19:27), but I would imagine she also had contact with her other children. Irenaeus and Eusebius say John later went to Ephesus, and there's a house there that tradition says she lived in.

Joe King
Dec 20th 2008, 05:51 PM
Everyone on earth is a "son of Man", except Jesus who came directly from God.

Bethany67
Dec 20th 2008, 06:38 PM
Everyone on earth is a "son of Man", except Jesus who came directly from God.

Why did Jesus refer to Himself many times as the Son of Man?

Teke
Dec 20th 2008, 11:22 PM
Jesus’ mother Mary. What do we know? What should we know? Ask a question you have about her.

I’ll start as I got thinking about this on another thread.

What is the importance Jesus came from her egg and she was not a surrogate mother? Could she have been a surrogate or does Jesus’ humanity depend on her blood and genealogy.

In my congregation we call her the Theotokas, which is Greek for "God bearer". She is the archetype for the church to the world. Her parents were Joachim and Anna a righteous couple who had no children until in their old age, when they had Mary.

As someone mentioned the Nicene Creed, and the Trinity, this is how we understand in our limited sense. A good example is in Genesis where Seth is "begotten" of Adam and Eve.

This threefold relationship illustrates, to a certain extent, the Holy Trinity. Adam has no human father. He was begotten by no one. Thus, he was 'unbegotten'. Seth was 'begotten' from Adam. Eve was neither 'begotten' nor 'unbegotten'. Instead she 'proceeded' from Adam (Gen. 2:21). Therefore, Eve and Seth were related to unbegotten Adam, but each in a unique manner-Eve proceeded from Adam, but Seth was begotten from him. Each person had his or her own distinct and unique properties-unbegotten, begotten, and proceeding-but all three possessed the same human nature.

Similarly, the manner in which these three existed images the Holy Trinity. God the Father is Unbegotten; God the Son is Begotten from the Father; and God the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. These distinct and unique properties -unbegotten, begotten, proceeding-distinguish each of the individual Persons of the Holy Trinity from each other; yet, They are one in nature.

This is how I understand it as explained by John of Damascus. This agrees with Genesis, where in chapter 5 the book refers to itself again (the first in Gen. 2:4 "the book of the genesis of heaven and earth), but this time in reference to mankind and his beginnings as "the book of the genesis of mankind. :)

doug3
Dec 21st 2008, 12:28 AM
Good thing to know about her if true. What scriptures do you use for your conclusion. So all reading can see.

Peace,
Joe

Luke 1:38 (AV/KJV) And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord;be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.
38 (Williams) Then Mary said, "I am the Lord’s slave. May what you say take place with me." Then the angel left her.

She gave the OK.

Apologies to Walstib if you were going to post......:)

Walstib
Dec 21st 2008, 01:36 AM
All good Doug!

Great you took the initiative I think, that was the first one I thought of. Woman and families from the past I think may back this thought up too. They having faith in the promises and willingness to participate.

Then the woman ran in haste and told her husband, and said to him, "Look, the Man who came to me the other day has just now appeared to me!" So Manoah arose and followed his wife. When he came to the Man, he said to Him, "Are You the Man who spoke to this woman?" And He said, "I am." Manoah said, "Now let Your words come to pass! What will be the boy's rule of life, and his work?" (Jdg 13:10-12 NKJV)

Now Abraham and Sarah were old, well advanced in age; and Sarah had passed the age of childbearing. Therefore Sarah laughed within herself, saying, "After I have grown old, shall I have pleasure, my lord being old also?"(Gen 18:11-12 NKJV)

By faith Sarah herself also received strength to conceive seed, and she bore a child when she was past the age, because she judged Him faithful who had promised.(Heb 11:11 NKJV)

Peace,
Joe

Walstib
Dec 21st 2008, 01:57 AM
Yep. And the promise that David's offspring would always be on the throne. This leads me to think that indeed, Mary was completely the mother of Jesus in every way humanly speaking. This is one of the things this thread has me thinking about. What throne? Not earthly I would say. Jesus sort of refused the earthly throne when He did not let the people put him into power. John 6:15. Comparing spiritual to spiritual sort of thing. 1 cor 2:13 I’m trying to find a prophecy that was not just spiritual lineage but natural lineage. No real question here, just talking.
Can I say "I don't know again?" For sure! I don’t know either. A friend asked me yesterday what I had been doing and telling him I was thinking about things I don’t know about Mary led to an awesome chance to share the good news.

Peace,
Joe

Joe King
Dec 21st 2008, 03:48 AM
Why did Jesus refer to Himself many times as the Son of Man?

I recall him calling many people Son of Man, but not referring to himself.

Bethany67
Dec 21st 2008, 11:21 AM
I recall him calling many people Son of Man, but not referring to himself.

But it's the most common title He uses for Himself, spread through the four Gospels. There are way too many to list in their entirety (about 80 or so), but here are a few:

Jesus replied, "Foxes have holes and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head." Mt 8:20

"But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins...." Then he said to the paralytic, "Get up, take your mat and go home." Mt 9:6

"When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another. I tell you the truth, you will not finish going through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes." Mt 10:23

"Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come." Mt 12:32

"If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when he comes in his Father's glory with the holy angels." Mark 8:38

Jesus replied, "To be sure, Elijah does come first, and restores all things. Why then is it written that the Son of Man must suffer much and be rejected?" Mark 9:12

"For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many." Mark 10:45

Returning the third time, he said to them, "Are you still sleeping and resting? Enough! The hour has come. Look, the Son of Man is betrayed into the hands of sinners." Mark 14:41

"Blessed are you when men hate you, when they exclude you and insult you and reject your name as evil, because of the Son of Man." Luke 6:22

While everyone was marveling at all that Jesus did, he said to his disciples, "Listen carefully to what I am about to tell you: The Son of Man is going to be betrayed into the hands of men." Luke 9:44

"You also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him." Luke 12:40

"No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man." John 3:13

"And he has given him authority to judge because he is the Son of Man." John 5:27

So Jesus said, "When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am the one I claim to be and that I do nothing on my own but speak just what the Father has taught me." John 8:28

Jesus replied, "The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified." John 12:23

Rocking horse
Dec 21st 2008, 11:30 AM
I see the annunciation as an example of being born again... when Mary submitted herself to the will of God, she was filled with joy, despite the fact that her situation was potentially terrifying. She knew she could be cast out, despised, even stoned to death... yet she trusted God, and in that moment she was renewed. That's how I see her great declarative poem of praise.

I agree Whispering Grace, it's a really shocking comparison, to say that Mary, like Judas, had no choice... as though God were a divine rapist, and Judas a doomed fall guy. Outside of Time and Space God could see exactly what would and did happen... but that doesn't mean He forced anyone.

Things I would like to know about Mary. How old was she when she was widowed, how did it feel to see the slow plan of God unfolding as she watched her son grow. How does she feel now about people who worship her.

Of course, the day will come when we can simply ask her!


When I was growing up I was always lead to understand that Mary was in her 60s when she died......or according the the RCs...taken bodily to Heaven. But I don't know when Joseph died, I've never heard any reference to that. Poor old Joseph seems to have been a bit forgotten about, not a real big player in the story apparently.

Rocky

Bethany67
Dec 21st 2008, 12:00 PM
'Step-parents' have a hard time, and it must've been an awesome responsibility on Joseph, but he took on that responsibility willingly by completing the wedding rituals with Mary and naming Jesus at the circumcision, hence assuming legal paternity for Him. He acted promptly in taking the family to Egypt at the angel's command, and had two more dreams when it was time to return; he served faithfully as the protector of the family.

Certainly he was around until Jesus was 12 when they had to go back and find Him in the Temple. Joseph wasn't a very prominent player in terms of how it's recorded in scripture, but he had a unique role to fulfil as the head of the family in which Jesus was raised. He passed on the trade of carpentry or joinery to Jesus, so they would've worked together side by side for some time while Jesus learned the skills. He must've been as concerned as Mary when they discovered Jesus wasn't with them when they left Jerusalem after Passover when Jesus was 12; they both left the group of friends and relatives they were travelling with and went back to find him. Jesus went home with them and obeyed them both.

Joseph was certainly remembered in his hometown of Nazareth when Jesus was preaching. I wonder if it's relevant that Joseph is not named there but Mary and the brothers of Jesus are; maybe that's an indication that Joseph was dead by then, had died at some point in the previous 18 years. All Jesus's sisters (presumably at least three) were still living with Nazareth, and it's not unreasonable to assume they were either still growing up or married with families of their own. The fact that the family was an ordinary part of the community explains why the people of Nazareth had such trouble accepting Jesus once He started His ministry.

Coming to his hometown, he began teaching the people in their synagogue, and they were amazed. "Where did this man get this wisdom and these miraculous powers?" they asked. 55"Isn't this the carpenter's son? Isn't his mother's name Mary, and aren't his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? 56Aren't all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?" 57And they took offense at him. Mt:13

OldChurchGuy
Dec 22nd 2008, 05:22 PM
But it's the most common title He uses for Himself, spread through the four Gospels. There are way too many to list in their entirety (about 80 or so), but here are a few:

Jesus replied, "Foxes have holes and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head." Mt 8:20

"But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins...." Then he said to the paralytic, "Get up, take your mat and go home." Mt 9:6

"When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another. I tell you the truth, you will not finish going through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes." Mt 10:23

"Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come." Mt 12:32

"If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when he comes in his Father's glory with the holy angels." Mark 8:38

Jesus replied, "To be sure, Elijah does come first, and restores all things. Why then is it written that the Son of Man must suffer much and be rejected?" Mark 9:12

"For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many." Mark 10:45

Returning the third time, he said to them, "Are you still sleeping and resting? Enough! The hour has come. Look, the Son of Man is betrayed into the hands of sinners." Mark 14:41

"Blessed are you when men hate you, when they exclude you and insult you and reject your name as evil, because of the Son of Man." Luke 6:22

While everyone was marveling at all that Jesus did, he said to his disciples, "Listen carefully to what I am about to tell you: The Son of Man is going to be betrayed into the hands of men." Luke 9:44

"You also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him." Luke 12:40

"No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man." John 3:13

"And he has given him authority to judge because he is the Son of Man." John 5:27

So Jesus said, "When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am the one I claim to be and that I do nothing on my own but speak just what the Father has taught me." John 8:28

Jesus replied, "The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified." John 12:23





It is my understanding "Son of Man" is from the book of Daniel and is referring to someone saving Israel. When Jesus said these words (at least according to the writers of the Gospels) it may very well have been a "shorthand" way of alluding to being the Messiah.

But many were expecting a Messiah who would get rid of the Romans and restore Israel back to the "good old days" of David. Jesus was rather "radical" for his time by preaching the kingdom of God is within a person. Therefore, he preached a timeless message of:

Don't worry about the politics of the time, rather focus on God and your relationship with God.

End of mini-sermon.

OldChurchGuy

ejk
Dec 23rd 2008, 03:39 PM
Was Mary the Biological mother of Jesus indeed?

How would you compromise it with John 1:14 which says

Word became Flesh?

If her ovum was used, isn't it that Flesh became Flesh?

Jesus said, Before Abraham was, I AM.

Then where was the person Jesus who remembered the time of Abraham, gone when a new human embryo was formed in the womb of Mary?

Was the egg of Mary fertilized with the Holy Spirit?

Then why the Bible says this

Matt 1:20

το γαρ εν αυτη γεννεθεν εκ Πνευματοσ εστιν Αγιου

( Note the word gennethen is the same word used for begat, begotten, which means that Jesus was born already by Holy Spirit before He came out of Mary in verse 1:25)

I would translate this portiion as follows:

The One in her is born out of the Holy Spirit.

Can we not say He was the seed of a woman if she was simply a surrogate mother?

Are the children of the In-Vitro not called the children of their surrogate mother?

Walstib
Dec 24th 2008, 02:31 AM
And when they ran out of wine, the mother of Jesus said to Him, "They have no wine." Jesus said to her, "Woman, what does your concern have to do with Me? My hour has not yet come." His mother said to the servants, "Whatever He says to you, do it." (Joh 2:3-5 NKJV)

I thought this passage was cool to look at for a glimpse into the relationship between Mary and Jesus. Thinking of the patience Mary had to wait 30 odd years knowing who her son was.

The influence she had with this miracle and it's timing, Her faith in Him.

I don't know enough about the Hebrew culture at the time for addressing your parents but if I called my mother "woman" it would have consequences. ;)

Brother Mark
Dec 24th 2008, 02:35 AM
Mary and Joseph are awesome in their character. It is amazing to me that they were able to be married for months, live in the same dwelling together, and never engage in lawful marital sex until after Jesus birth.

Amazing.

Bethany67
Dec 24th 2008, 05:16 AM
I've often wondered how long it was after the annunciation before she conceived. I've always assumed it happened very quickly; both of them were aware immediately of this unique set of circumstances, and of course off she went to stay with Elizabeth for a few months. They must've worked things out given the number of children they subsequently had together; wonder what games they all played growing up, and I wonder what Mary thought as she watched them.

I saw a lovely film on the nativity a while back; the one that premiered at the Vatican. The Nativity Story (2006). Some of it was fictionalised, of course, but it fleshed out the characters; Joseph in particular stood out as a quiet and honourable man who loved Mary very much, and the wise men bickering on their camels were funny. Mary comes across as strong-minded without being obnoxious, and quietly determined to follow what the angel told her no matter what the local opposition; they captured the claustrophobia of small-village life very well.

ejk
Dec 24th 2008, 08:23 PM
Throughout the history, so many people wasted time in praying to Mary, instead of praying to God or to Jesus Christ directly.

Even today, 1.3 billion people are taught to pray to Mary who has been dead long time ago, though we are taught to pray only to God.

Jesus Christ Himself is God the Creator as we read it in Colossians 1:14-20.
No one else than Jesus Christ shed the blood and died for us and therefore no one else than Jesus could be a mediator.
No one else than Jesus has been perfect, sinless, without blemish, and shed the blood and died for us.

Therefore there cannot be any mediator between Jesus Christ and human beings, as Jesus said " him that comes to me I will in no way cast out" ( John 6:37)

Any attempt to direct the prayers to anyone else than God Himself has no place in the Bible teaching.
However, billions of people have been deceived to pray to Mary who is dead.
If she is alive, she must be very busy now to receive the prayers from all over the places in the world., from Argentine, from Italy, from Canada, from England, from Ireland, from Spain, from Brazil,......
She must be flying all over the world at the speed of light, but it may not be sufficient.
She must understand the computer science to convey the prayer about computer problems, must understand Alzheimer disease, Angioplasty, Diabetes, Subprime morgtage defaults, nuclear bombs, airplanes, automotive problems, etc. so that she may convey many types of prayers to God. When did she become so much Omniscient ?

However, we learn in the Bible that she had to spend 3 days to find her son Sorrowing, she sought Him among the kinsfolks ( in the wrong palces!), and after that, she couldn't understand what Jesus told her ( Luke 2:45-50)

Therefore we should read what Jesus said about her:

Matthew 12
48 But he(Jesus) answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren? 49 And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! 50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother

(http://bible.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?word=Matthew+13&section=0&version=kjv&new=1&oq=&NavBook=mt&NavGo=12&NavCurrentChapter=12

When was the capacity of Mary explosively expanded?
Never, but only in the minds of the goddess worshippers!
What's wrong if we pray to God directly without mentioning her name?

ShadowWolf
Dec 25th 2008, 06:42 AM
I agree about the whole not praying to Mary thing. She is blessed among women, but the bible does state that "no man may come to the Father, except by me". Catholocism(sp?) also teaches to pray to angels, yet three times in Revelations, an angel tells John not to worship him, for he is merely a servant as well, and a messenger.

I think the "Son of Man" thing was something that Jesus liked being called. Son of Man, back in the olden days, was used to reference some one who came from a fleshly bloodline, like a "Son of Adam" (which is referenced also in the Chronicles of Narnia movies). So, Son of Man was to reference somebody who was of a fleshly nature. Why it was referenced in Ezekiel, I don't really know.

OldChurchGuy
Dec 25th 2008, 04:00 PM
And when they ran out of wine, the mother of Jesus said to Him, "They have no wine." Jesus said to her, "Woman, what does your concern have to do with Me? My hour has not yet come." His mother said to the servants, "Whatever He says to you, do it." (Joh 2:3-5 NKJV)

I thought this passage was cool to look at for a glimpse into the relationship between Mary and Jesus. Thinking of the patience Mary had to wait 30 odd years knowing who her son was.

The influence she had with this miracle and it's timing, Her faith in Him.

I don't know enough about the Hebrew culture at the time for addressing your parents but if I called my mother "woman" it would have consequences. ;)

This is one of those classic translation situations. It is my understanding the word "woman" is a correct translation but the Greek word is one of extreme reverence or endearment. Meaning more like "most precious mother". But, like the word "love", there is only one spelling in English for multiple meanings which we interpret based on the context.

The Greeks had three words for "love"; eros (physical love or sex), philo (enjoyment such as I just love to study and discuss theology on this website) and agape (a deep abiding love for another that is not sexual).

As always,

OldChurchGuy

9Marksfan
Dec 26th 2008, 07:23 AM
I thought we could leave words like heresy our of the thread.

Well the church has been plagued by heresy on this crucial doctrine since the first century, so if heresy gets posted, it will be named - or the thread will get moved to Contro or shut down altogether. The thread is going OK just now, but I said what I had to say to let folks know how serious such aberrant ideas are - to stop the thread going off into a direction that borders on blasphemy - but no doubt that's a word you'd rather not have in the thread either? Let's keep things reverential and biblical, folks.

9Marksfan
Dec 26th 2008, 07:42 AM
Ah I see the point you're making. If Jesus's human nature was manufactured from scratch by the Holy Spirit, how can He be said to be of the line of David? Unless that doesn't mean He was a physical descendant at all? In which case I'm left wondering just how genuinely human His human nature was and what He really has to do with us.

tayariswife's post deals with this well. How genuinely human was Adam? And Eve for that matter? Her creation was hardly conventional either!


Just throwing out thoughts here because I think there's a danger in our/my wording (obviously this was an issue the Church faced in the first few centuries, and I have no wish to inadvertently be uttering heresy but I do want to understand this insofar as I am able).

Fair point, Jules, but please be careful - remember there may be young and/or impressionable folks reading this thread.


If His human nature was created ex nihilo, in what way can He represent us if He has no real connection to our humanity?

But Adam represented us fully - and he was created out of the dust of the ground. And strictly speaking it was only Jesus' body that was created ex nihilo.


It seems to me that such a view creates an even greater distance and makes Him seem more remote; while He is of course unique, sometimes we can present Him as not human enough (and conversely we can present Him too far in the other direction).

I accept the danger, but why did He HAVE to come from Mary to be human? Surely that would have made him a hybrid being, half mortal, half immortal? The dangers of such an idea don't even bear thinking about.....


I've heard the theological theory that original sin is passed only through the father which is why no human sperm could be involved, but that doesn't seem right to me; it's not unheard of for female eggs to spontaneously develop in parthenogenesis - in turkeys for example.

You're taking the supernatural out of this and trying to see His conception as an extraordinary natural conception, which it wasn't - Scripture makes it clear that it was by the Holy Spirit and therefore supernatural - bypassing all natural means of conception - to show, among other things, that salvation is 100% of God - not one iota of man.

Walstib
Dec 27th 2008, 02:02 PM
This is one of those classic translation situations. It is my understanding the word "woman" is a correct translation but the Greek word is one of extreme reverence or endearment. Meaning more like "most precious mother". But, like the word "love", there is only one spelling in English for multiple meanings which we interpret based on the context.

I read you post and though that was a cool thing to know. Problem is, all my resources don't have that distinction.
G1135 in Strong's concordance...woman,wife,women,wives some 200 odd times, no special mom stuff.

Could you help me out with some evidence what you say is correct. Nothing I have confirms it.

Peace,
Joe

Walstib
Dec 27th 2008, 03:30 PM
Well the church has been plagued by heresy on this crucial doctrine since the first century, so if heresy gets posted, it will be named Fair enough, I guess it always causes me to think about burning heretics on a stake. Words are funny that way, similar to how surrogate may sound crude to you? Just a straightforward term in my vocabulary, thanks for the thought as I can see how using a different term may honour the more sensitive members of the Body on here.
The thread is going OK just now, but I said what I had to say to let folks know how serious such aberrant ideas areNow we have both heretics and abhorrent thinkers posting in this thread. I would not want to be either of those for sure.
- to stop the thread going off into a direction that borders on blasphemy - but no doubt that's a word you'd rather not have in the thread either? Well I don't mind the word blasphemy so much, though that one has some beheadings in it's past too... Still I do like it better than heretical. Funny words, that you can like one more than another. I guess I don't use either that much on here.

Feel free to use the words you want, Mike as well, he used it first. My intention was not to encourage blasphemy but to encourage soft words between family. No need to explain the need for harsh words sometimes, I understand. Sort of silly to impose my definitions on others, thanks for the reminder.

Peace,
Joe

Bethany67
Dec 27th 2008, 05:14 PM
Mark - having done further reading on this topic over the past few days, it's apparent to me that the ex nihilo idea isn't one that's supported from the scriptures, but one that infiltrated the theology of the church from Aristotelian ideas on reproduction, with the male seed being the active energising force and the female contribution being the inert mass. Thus they conclude that the specially-created human nature was conjoined with His divine nature and implanted by the Holy Spirit in the passive womb of Mary. People are unwittingly promoting Aristotelian ideas from the likes of Philo of Alexandria, Origen, Tertullian, Ambrose, Albertus Magnus and Thomas Aquinas. There's more than a hint there of monophysitism/Eutychianism which denigrates the Incarnation.

Casting aside the input of Pagan philosophers and incomplete ancient ideas of biology, the Protestant reformed position of people like Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones of Westminster Chapel fully supports the idea of Jesus taking His human nature from His physical mother, and it does not lead to a half-human half-divine hybrid:

"'What happened?' asks someone. I cannot answer; no-one can answer. That is the great mystery. But what we know is that the power of the Holy Spirit came upon Mary, and out of Mary, out of a cell in her body, the human nature of our Lord was made. We cannot go further. It is a great mystery. But we have to go as far as that. It was the operation of the Holy Spirit, and it was obviously done in such a way that this human nature that Son took unto Himself was sinless - you notice that the angel spoke to Mary of 'that holy thing [that sinless, pure thing] which shall be born of thee ...' (Luke 1:35). This does not mean that Mary herself was made sinless and holy. It does not even of necessity imply that any part of Mary was. All we know is that something was taken, was cleansed and rendered free from all pollution that His human nature was sinless and entirely free from all the effects and results of the fall. Such was the effect of the operation of the Holy Spirit upon her." Dr. Martyn LLoyd-Jones, 'Great Doctrine Series,' Volume 1 - God the Father, God the Son, page 263.

"You will notice that the whole doctrine is surrounded by pitfalls and difficulties because when I put it like that, I am sure that many will think, 'Ah, I see! God created a special human nature for Him, did He?' No, He did not! I have already denounced that as heresy. He got His human nature from Mary, but it was acted upon by the Holy Spirit in such a way that it was rendered wholly free from sin and from all pollution." Ibid, page 264.

OldChurchGuy
Dec 29th 2008, 02:04 AM
I read you post and though that was a cool thing to know. Problem is, all my resources don't have that distinction.
G1135 in Strong's concordance...woman,wife,women,wives some 200 odd times, no special mom stuff.

Could you help me out with some evidence what you say is correct. Nothing I have confirms it.

Peace,
Joe

Proving once again why it is dangerous to rely on memory rather than research. :) I honestly thought Strong's backed me up so didn't bother to check it out first.

This link is one that explains Jesus was not speaking disrespectfully to Mary.

http://www.tektonics.org/gk/jesusrudemom.html

So, while it appears He was not speaking disrespectfully, it is clear he was not referring to her as a mother either. Sorry for the confusion. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.

As always,

OldChurchGuy

ross3421
Dec 29th 2008, 05:16 AM
[QUOTE=Walstib;1912243]We have life without our flesh but not before we had flesh.

Was our soul or spirit in exisitance prior to us becoming a living fleshly body? I see spirits and souls not being created after the first 7 days. Would you not agee????

ross3421
Dec 29th 2008, 05:34 AM
[SIZE=2][SIZE=2][SIZE=2]I completely believe Jesus was fully human and fully God. What are the "reverse forensics" of it lets say. How do we show it from scripture?

It is impossible for Jesus to be "fully" human. For him to be so would mean he was of sin. This "fully" human concept comes from a misinterpetation of the following...

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

The key word is "likeness" which does not mean "exactly like". Jesus took on human form but not man's fallen nature. So how was this possible? What part of man did he not take upon himself?

Full circle, this is why the virgin bith was key. If not then he could have been born through a regular birth. The question we should be asking medically what is the difference between the two births. What occurs in a normal conception which would not occur during the "virgin" birth.

This would lead us to our answer.

ross3421
Dec 29th 2008, 05:49 AM
Hi Mark,

Here is one I think.

"Behold, the days are coming," says the Lord, "That I will raise to David a Branch of righteousness; A King shall reign and prosper, And execute judgment and righteousness in the earth. (Jer 23:5 NKJV)I don't know either. ;) One in Matthew and one in Luke if some are wondering. Mary in Luke due to the wording I have heard. Then are these what we are warned to avoid with endless genealogies? (1 tim1:4) Or was that for individuals tracing their own lineage?

Peace,
Joe

Hi Joe,

The parrallel is being made with verse 5 and Jesus. Are we sure it pertains to these days or in a time afterwards in a new heaven and earth? Verse 6 seems to give light to the latter. Did Israel dwell safely when Jesus was on the earth and if so then to dwell unsafely again.......

Jer 23:5 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth.

Jer 23:6 In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his name whereby he shall be called, THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.

Mark

ross3421
Dec 29th 2008, 06:04 AM
But we have to go as far as that. It was the operation of the Holy Spirit, and it was obviously done in such a way that this human nature that Son took unto Himself was sinless - you notice that the angel spoke to Mary of 'that holy thing [that sinless, pure thing] which shall be born of thee ...' (Luke 1:35). This does not mean that Mary herself was made sinless and holy. It does not even of necessity imply that any part of Mary was. All we know is that something was taken, was cleansed and rendered free from all pollution that His human nature was sinless and entirely free from all the effects and results of the fall. Such was the effect of the operation of the Holy Spirit upon her." Dr. Martyn LLoyd-Jones, 'Great Doctrine Series,' Volume 1 - God the Father, God the Son, page 263.



Does sin reign in the blood? Did Jesus take on the appearence of sinful flesh minus the "bloodline" (literally) of Adam?

Is this why it needed to be a virgin birth?

Re 1:5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,


Mark

9Marksfan
Dec 29th 2008, 01:14 PM
Fair enough, I guess it always causes me to think about burning heretics on a stake.

That's not happened for several centuries - funny how things stick around, isn't it?


Words are funny that way, similar to how surrogate may sound crude to you?

No - but accurate. Are you confusing me with someone else?


Just a straightforward term in my vocabulary, thanks for the thought as I can see how using a different term may honour the more sensitive members of the Body on here. Now we have both heretics and abhorrent

Er, I said "aberrant".....


thinkers posting in this thread. I would not want to be either of those for sure.

I'm sure you woiuldn't want to be aberat either!


Well I don't mind the word blasphemy so much, though that one has some beheadings in it's past too... Still I do like it better than heretical. Funny words, that you can like one more than another. I guess I don't use either that much on here.

Well the reality of these things is as much around today as ever - if not more so - in fact blasphemy is a biblical word - one Jesus used Himself. I think it's perfectly in order for His followers to use it, where appropriate.


Feel free to use the words you want, Mike as well, he used it first. My intention was not to encourage blasphemy but to encourage soft words between family. No need to explain the need for harsh words sometimes, I understand. Sort of silly to impose my definitions on others, thanks for the reminder.

Peace,
Joe

It is a fascinating thread - I'm particularly intrigued by Bethany67's most recent post with the Lloyd-Jones quote - I would always hesitate to disagree with the Doctor but I struggle to accept his view - and I'll need to check out whether that IS the classic view of the hypostatic union...

Walstib
Dec 29th 2008, 02:02 PM
Was our soul or spirit in existence prior to us becoming a living fleshly body?

I do not believe our soul exists before we are conceived. Known about for sure but not sitting around somewhere waiting for our body. Isa 44:24.

As I am seeing spirit is the life we have from God, one could say the from God part existed before we are conceived yet still I think we don't receive our spirit until God animates us at conception.


I see spirits and souls not being created after the first 7 days. Would you not agee????

I would have to say right now I do not agree. Why do you believe this? Where would all these waiting souls be?

Peace,
Joe

Walstib
Dec 29th 2008, 02:30 PM
HI Mark,
It is impossible for Jesus to be "fully" human. For him to be so would mean he was of sin. This "fully" human concept comes from a misinterpetation of the following... Ro 8:3Well personal definitions are funny, as this thread has shown. I can understand a issue with the word “fully”. Yet I do think Jesus had a full measure of the humanity that we have. That he was tempted in every way we are to me is a much better single verse for showing this. Heb 4:15. Really a single verse will not do the topic justice I think. That he did not follow the flesh He had, but always His Father, never once giving in to temptation, shows the lack of sin rather than a lack of humanness I would say.
The key word is "likeness" which does not mean "exactly like". Jesus took on human form but not man's fallen nature. So how was this possible? What part of man did he not take upon himself? I would say it would be better expressed as what else did Jesus have while in the flesh that we do not, this being the image of the Father. Jesus had both “likenesses” Heb 1:3
Full circle, this is why the virgin bith was key. If not then he could have been born through a regular birth. The question we should be asking medically what is the difference between the two births. What occurs in a normal conception which would not occur during the "virgin" birth. If “fully human” defined means to you having a natural father then I would agree with you. I don’t include that in when using the term to speak of Jesus’ humanity and why He would be a worthy sacrifice on the cross for us.

Peace,
Joe

Walstib
Dec 29th 2008, 02:42 PM
Hi Mark,
The parrallel is being made with verse 5 and Jesus. Are we sure it pertains to these days or in a time afterwards in a new heaven and earth? Verse 6 seems to give light to the latter. Did Israel dwell safely when Jesus was on the earth and if so then to dwell unsafely againWell I must admit I spend little time on eschatology. To me many of these kind of writings have past, present and future implications. Spiritually I think there is a parallel for us now, like how Jesus rode into town on the young donkey and now has a kingdom though not of “this” world. I am sure there are better verses to show the fulfilment of the messiah ruling His kingdom promised through the Hebrews, specifically King David. Leading toward Mary.

Peace,
Joe

Walstib
Dec 29th 2008, 02:47 PM
So, while it appears He was not speaking disrespectfully, it is clear he was not referring to her as a mother either.

All good. Did not cross my mind it would have been disrespectful, but thanks for the link as it gives some good context for the verse.

Peace,
Joe

Walstib
Dec 29th 2008, 03:13 PM
No - but accurate. Are you confusing me with someone else? From post #25

Although it is somwehat crude to say it, Mary was indeed a surrogate mother - --------------------------------------------
Er, I said "aberrant".....I learned a new word today, thanks Mark. ;)

Peace,
Joe

Mysteryman
Dec 29th 2008, 03:29 PM
It is impossible for Jesus to be "fully" human. For him to be so would mean he was of sin. This "fully" human concept comes from a misinterpetation of the following...

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

The key word is "likeness" which does not mean "exactly like". Jesus took on human form but not man's fallen nature. So how was this possible? What part of man did he not take upon himself?

Full circle, this is why the virgin bith was key. If not then he could have been born through a regular birth. The question we should be asking medically what is the difference between the two births. What occurs in a normal conception which would not occur during the "virgin" birth.

This would lead us to our answer.

He took on flesh, but his blood was pure, because his blood line was of God. The seed line determinds the blood line. This is why he was the perfect sacrifice because of his pure blood. His blood line was sinless. Because he took on flesh, he could be tempted as we are, yet without sin.

Ta-An
Dec 29th 2008, 03:48 PM
Sorry I enter into this discussion so late....

But why should there have been either an ovum or a sperm??

We see in Genesis, and then again in the NT, that G_d is Creator, and by merely Speaking or even Thinking can speak or think things into being/existence .

Could Mary not just have been a human incubator?? :hmm:

Brother Mark
Dec 29th 2008, 03:55 PM
Sorry I enter into this discussion so late....

But why should there have been either an ovum or a sperm??

We see in Genesis, and then again in the NT, that G_d is Creator, and by merely Speaking or even Thinking can speak or think things into being/existence .

Could Mary not just have been a human incubator?? :hmm:

If so, how then does it fulfill the prophecy about Eve's seed? :hmm:

Ta-An
Dec 29th 2008, 04:06 PM
If so, how then does it fulfill the prophecy about Eve's seed? :hmm:Seed can also mean : Fruit,,, as in Fruit of her womb.

Remember, A seed, bears all the ingredients of the whole fruit.

A human person, contains half of a man and half of a woman..... Yeshua is not half man and half G_d.... He is fully G_d

Brother Mark
Dec 29th 2008, 04:29 PM
Seed can also mean : Fruit,,, as in Fruit of her womb.

Remember, A seed, bears all the ingredients of the whole fruit.

A human person, contains half of a man and half of a woman..... Yeshua is not half man and half G_d.... He is fully G_d

He is also fully human. But an incubator bears no fruit does it? It simply incubates. IMO, fruit of the womb suggest the womb had a part in producing and bearing, not just incubating.

ross3421
Dec 29th 2008, 04:31 PM
He took on flesh, but his blood was pure, because his blood line was of God. The seed line determinds the blood line. This is why he was the perfect sacrifice because of his pure blood. His blood line was sinless. Because he took on flesh, he could be tempted as we are, yet without sin.

AMEN! These are the replies I have been looking for........

I am hoping more on the forum understand WHY the blood of Christ is so important. It was untainted with sin. Sin is contained within the blood and is passed unto all men by Adam. This is why the importance of the virgin birth. The blood is full of corruption and corrupts the flesh but got rebuked for saying so. I had started a couple of threads to show this point. Thanks.

ross3421
Dec 29th 2008, 04:36 PM
I do not believe our soul exists before we are conceived. Known about for sure but not sitting around somewhere waiting for our body. Isa 44:24.

As I am seeing spirit is the life we have from God, one could say the from God part existed before we are conceived yet still I think we don't receive our spirit until God animates us at conception.



I would have to say right now I do not agree. Why do you believe this? Where would all these waiting souls be?

Peace,
Joe

I do not want to derail this thread as I will start another on the subject matter. I would just say NOTHING new was created after the 7 days were completed.

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

Ta-An
Dec 29th 2008, 05:51 PM
He is also fully human. But an incubator bears no fruit does it? It simply incubates. IMO, fruit of the womb suggest the womb had a part in producing and bearing, not just incubating. The Fruit being put in the incubator....

Equipped_4_Love
Dec 29th 2008, 05:59 PM
If Mary had not consented would it have meant that God picked the wrong person. If Judas had turned down the money would Jesus have picked another disciple?

I wasnt' comparing Mary to Judas. I was comparing how God used them. I see similarities that's all.

God's plan would have been fulfilled whether or not Judas betrayed Jesus; but then again, isn't Judas' betrayal part of the prophecy in Psalms?

Brother Mark
Dec 29th 2008, 06:00 PM
The Fruit being put in the incubator....

I understand. But then the it is no longer fruit OF the incubator or said another way, seed of Eve. ;)

Though, if I am honest, I don't see this as a huge issue. Just an interesting discussion either way it falls.

Equipped_4_Love
Dec 29th 2008, 06:07 PM
Yes possibly you're right on the first point.

The second point has some interesting implications for human-animal embryos recently permitted in the UK; I believe human genetic material (stem cells) was permitted to be inserted into cow's eggs, in the same way that the Chinese did with rabbit's eggs in 2003. If all life comes from God, did/does He consent to be actively involved with these hybrids? How far are they created in the (marred) image of God, and do they have spirits like we do? Maybe they're not human enough to be considered on the same scale as us? What would happen if animal stem cells were spliced into a human ovum?


Um, I'm sorry, but what exactly is the point of this kind of technology? How does this benefit anybody?!!!

Equipped_4_Love
Dec 29th 2008, 06:13 PM
A friend asked me yesterday what I had been doing and telling him I was thinking about things I don’t know about Mary led to an awesome chance to share the good news.

Peace,
Joe

I think a better question would be.......why is it that the Bible gives us so little information about Mary, and even less about Joseph?

Equipped_4_Love
Dec 29th 2008, 06:16 PM
And when they ran out of wine, the mother of Jesus said to Him, "They have no wine." Jesus said to her, "Woman, what does your concern have to do with Me? My hour has not yet come." His mother said to the servants, "Whatever He says to you, do it." (Joh 2:3-5 NKJV)

I thought this passage was cool to look at for a glimpse into the relationship between Mary and Jesus. Thinking of the patience Mary had to wait 30 odd years knowing who her son was.

The influence she had with this miracle and it's timing, Her faith in Him.

I don't know enough about the Hebrew culture at the time for addressing your parents but if I called my mother "woman" it would have consequences. ;)

I believe that the term woman was actually very respectful.

Equipped_4_Love
Dec 29th 2008, 06:37 PM
It is impossible for Jesus to be "fully" human. For him to be so would mean he was of sin. This "fully" human concept comes from a misinterpetation of the following...

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


Hi, Ross;

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree. I think that you are equating the concept of fully human with that of fallen human. Both are not the same.

Was Adam any less human before he fell into transgression? Did his sin make him "more human"? Yet, Christ is referred to as the "second Adam."

Being fully human simply means that the Lord Jesus had all of the human weaknesses and frailties that we, as humans, have, but without the human inclination to sin.

When God "breathed" His Spirit into Adam, it was the work of the Holy Spirit. When Adam sinned, a separation took place. Wouldn't it make sense that, when the Holy Spirit "came upon" Mary, that He actually breathed into the embryo that was in her womb?

No, I don't have any specific passages to back this up, but it makes sense to me. If I'm wrong, please feel free to speak up!!

The reason why Jesus was not conceived naturally was because human conception involves sin:

Ps. 51:5 In sin did my mother conceive me

Ta-An
Dec 29th 2008, 08:58 PM
Luke 1:38 (AV/KJV) And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord;be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.
38 (Williams) Then Mary said, "I am the Lord’s slave. May what you say take place with me." Then the angel left her.

She gave the OK Indeed, G_d respects us, and does not bombard into our private lives without our permission :)

Ta-An
Dec 29th 2008, 09:07 PM
He is also fully human. But an incubator bears no fruit does it? It simply incubates. IMO, fruit of the womb suggest the womb had a part in producing and bearing, not just incubating.It allows growth ;)
But this was just a brainwave my friend.... :idea:

Ta-An
Dec 29th 2008, 09:11 PM
What I want to know.....

By the sounds of what we read in the Bible..... Yeshua's brothers were older than Him?? Was this not a first marriage for Josef??

Some say Mary stayed a Virgin (I know that is RC theory) but still.... then where does all the other children come from??

Mysteryman
Dec 29th 2008, 09:28 PM
Hi, Ross;

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree. I think that you are equating the concept of fully human with that of fallen human. Both are not the same.

Was Adam any less human before he fell into transgression? Did his sin make him "more human"? Yet, Christ is referred to as the "second Adam."

Being fully human simply means that the Lord Jesus had all of the human weaknesses and frailties that we, as humans, have, but without the human inclination to sin.

When God "breathed" His Spirit into Adam, it was the work of the Holy Spirit. When Adam sinned, a separation took place. Wouldn't it make sense that, when the Holy Spirit "came upon" Mary, that He actually breathed into the embryo that was in her womb?

No, I don't have any specific passages to back this up, but it makes sense to me. If I'm wrong, please feel free to speak up!!

The reason why Jesus was not conceived naturally was because human conception involves sin:

Ps. 51:5 In sin did my mother conceive me

You can not equate the Last Adam to Jesus' humaity. Jesus Christ was not the Last Adam. The Last Adam is Christ Jesus, which means Christ as the head of the body of Christ and Christians which make up the body of Christ is the Last Adam. The Last Adam is spiritual not literal. - I Corinth. 15:46 - 48

Jesus took on the form of a servant , which is the flesh line. His blood line came by way of His Father . He is the "Only begotten Son of God". His seed line is His Father's blood line. His flesh line came by way of Mary, which was the lineage of King David.

We are now justified by his blood - Romans 5:9
We have redemption through his blood - Ephesians 1:7
Blood of the everlasting covenant - Hebrews 13:20
Precious blood of Christ - I Peter 1:19
Blood of Christ cleanses us from all sin - I John 1:7

Equipped_4_Love
Dec 29th 2008, 10:50 PM
You can not equate the Last Adam to Jesus' humaity. Jesus Christ was not the Last Adam. The Last Adam is Christ Jesus, which means Christ as the head of the body of Christ and Christians which make up the body of Christ is the Last Adam. The Last Adam is spiritual not literal. - I Corinth. 15:46 - 48

Yes....thank you.
Good explanation.


Jesus took on the form of a servant , which is the flesh line. His blood line came by way of His Father . He is the "Only begotten Son of God". His seed line is His Father's blood line. His flesh line came by way of Mary, which was the lineage of King David.

When you say Father, I assume that you mean His heavenly Father, since Joseph had no part whatever in the conception. That being said, God the Father does not have a bloodline.

Remember that Joseph also came from the line of David, but since there was a curse in his bloodline (Jehoiachin), he could not have had a part in the conception.

We are now justified by his blood - Romans 5:9
We have redemption through his blood - Ephesians 1:7
Blood of the everlasting covenant - Hebrews 13:20
Precious blood of Christ - I Peter 1:19
Blood of Christ cleanses us from all sin - I John 1:7[/quote]

Mysteryman
Dec 29th 2008, 11:14 PM
Yes....thank you.
Good explanation.



When you say Father, I assume that you mean His heavenly Father, since Joseph had no part whatever in the conception. That being said, God the Father does not have a bloodline.

Remember that Joseph also came from the line of David, but since there was a curse in his bloodline (Jehoiachin), he could not have had a part in the conception.

We are now justified by his blood - Romans 5:9
We have redemption through his blood - Ephesians 1:7
Blood of the everlasting covenant - Hebrews 13:20
Precious blood of Christ - I Peter 1:19
Blood of Christ cleanses us from all sin - I John 1:7[/quote]


Of course God has a blood line. That is why Jesus Christ is the Only begotten Son of God. His blood was sinless. This is what made Jesus Christ the "perfect" sacrifice. The "seed" line is the blood line. The flesh line is the woman's line. The flesh line of Mary , was the flesh line of King David. This can be understood from two points. One - the lineage of Matthew chapter one. And two - God was and is the Father .

The record in Matthew chapter one is called the "generations"
The record in Luke chapter three is called the "geneology"

Both lines go through King David.

But Matthew chapter one, is through Mary.
And Luke chapter three is through Joseph the husband of Mary.

Geneology is the seed line.
Generation is the flesh line.

Matthew 1:16 has caused no end of confusion pertaining to whom this verse is talking about. The Joseph in verse 16 is not her husband ! It is the father of Mary. The word "husband" is a mistranslation. It is the greek word "aner" which properly translated is the word "man", not husband ! This Joseph was the "man" of Mary. Which means father of Mary. The reason the word "man" is used, is because "generations" is dealing with just that, generations, and not geneologies !

Teke
Dec 29th 2008, 11:14 PM
What I want to know.....

By the sounds of what we read in the Bible..... Yeshua's brothers were older than Him?? Was this not a first marriage for Josef??

According to the information that the Apostles passed on, yes, Joseph was married (his wife died) and had children from his wife which were older than Jesus.


Some say Mary stayed a Virgin (I know that is RC theory) but still.... then where does all the other children come from??

It's not an "RC theory", the information has been passed down in the church from the beginning. I don't think even the early reformers challenged Mary's perpetual virginity.

Teke
Dec 29th 2008, 11:20 PM
AMEN! These are the replies I have been looking for........

I am hoping more on the forum understand WHY the blood of Christ is so important. It was untainted with sin. Sin is contained within the blood and is passed unto all men by Adam. This is why the importance of the virgin birth. The blood is full of corruption and corrupts the flesh but got rebuked for saying so. I had started a couple of threads to show this point. Thanks.

When God created the material world we see, He said it was "good". He didn't say that blood was corrupt or specify any part of His creation as corrupt. Blood in scripture represents life. That is the Christian way of understanding IMHO.

Equipped_4_Love
Dec 29th 2008, 11:27 PM
Of course God has a blood line. That is why Jesus Christ is the Only begotten Son of God. His blood was sinless. This is what made Jesus Christ the "perfect" sacrifice. The "seed" line is the blood line.

I don't know, but something about this just doesn't seem logical.


The flesh line is the woman's line. The flesh line of Mary , was the flesh line of King David.

I've never heard of a "flesh line." Where did you get this term?


This can be understood from two points. One - the lineage of Matthew chapter one. And two - God was and is the Father.

God the Father is Spirit. He doesn't have a "bloodline." If Mary was indeed the "flesh line," then she would not have been the blood line, which means that the blood line would have to come from the father. Since Joseph was not involved in the conception, then it would have to be God the Father, and since we've established that god the Father is spirit, He wouldn't have a bloodline.


he record in Matthew chapter one is called the "generations"
The record in Luke chapter three is called the "geneology"

Both lines go through King David.

But Matthew chapter one, is through Mary.
And Luke chapter three is through Joseph the husband of Mary.

Geneology is the seed line.
Generation is the flesh line.

The book of Luke covers the geneology of Mary, not Joseph......so if geneology is the seed line, how could Mary be considered the "flesh line?"


Matthew 1:16 has caused no end of confusion pertaining to whom this verse is talking about. The Joseph in verse 16 is not her husband ! It is the father of Mary. The word "husband" is a mistranslation. It is the greek word "aner" which properly translated is the word "man", not husband ! This Joseph was the "man" of Mary. Which means father of Mary. The reason the word "man" is used, is because "generations" is dealing with just that, generations, and not geneologies !

I'm sorry, but I must respectfully disagree. Mary's father was named Heli.

Mysteryman
Dec 29th 2008, 11:38 PM
I don't know, but something about this just doesn't seem logical.



I've never heard of a "flesh line." Where did you get this term?



God the Father is Spirit. He doesn't have a "bloodline." If Mary was indeed the "flesh line," then she would not have been the blood line, which means that the blood line would have to come from the father. Since Joseph was not involved in the conception, then it would have to be God the Father, and since we've established that god the Father is spirit, He wouldn't have a bloodline.



The book of Luke covers the geneology of Mary, not Joseph......so if geneology is the seed line, how could Mary be considered the "flesh line?"



I'm sorry, but I must respectfully disagree. Mary's father was named Heli.


Show me in Luke where it states that Mary's father was named Heli.

Equipped_4_Love
Dec 29th 2008, 11:47 PM
Show me in Luke where it states that Mary's father was named Heli.

Luke 3:23..................

ross3421
Dec 30th 2008, 12:04 AM
When God created the material world we see, He said it was "good". He didn't say that blood was corrupt or specify any part of His creation as corrupt. Blood in scripture represents life. That is the Christian way of understanding IMHO.

Even if you believe that "man" in chapter one was a physical fleshly being (though he was not formed later ) Adam was not formed with sin, sin did not enter until he ate from the tree and after God said it was good. I agree God would not create sin. But reminder then the flesh could not be sinful as well until he ate from the tree.

Yes life is in the blood, but what it is really telling us is that death is contained therein......Boy we are really seeing this evident in the last 50 years.

ross3421
Dec 30th 2008, 12:11 AM
Hi, Ross;

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree. I think that you are equating the concept of fully human with that of fallen human. Both are not the same.

Was Adam any less human before he fell into transgression? Did his sin make him "more human"? Yet, Christ is referred to as the "second Adam."

Being fully human simply means that the Lord Jesus had all of the human weaknesses and frailties that we, as humans, have, but without the human inclination to sin.

When God "breathed" His Spirit into Adam, it was the work of the Holy Spirit. When Adam sinned, a separation took place. Wouldn't it make sense that, when the Holy Spirit "came upon" Mary, that He actually breathed into the embryo that was in her womb?

No, I don't have any specific passages to back this up, but it makes sense to me. If I'm wrong, please feel free to speak up!!

The reason why Jesus was not conceived naturally was because human conception involves sin:

Ps. 51:5 In sin did my mother conceive me

I think we are on the same page but misunderstanding our stance. I agree with you.

Mysteryman
Dec 30th 2008, 12:42 AM
Luke 3:23..................


I ask you again, where in Luke does it state that Heli was the father of Mary ?

Teke
Dec 30th 2008, 01:22 AM
Even if you believe that "man" in chapter one was a physical fleshly being (though he was not formed later ) Adam was not formed with sin, sin did not enter until he ate from the tree and after God said it was good. I agree God would not create sin. But reminder then the flesh could not be sinful as well until he ate from the tree.

Yes life is in the blood, but what it is really telling us is that death is contained therein......Boy we are really seeing this evident in the last 50 years.

Sin is the misuse of "spiritual power" (ability) God gave us to commune with Him. Sin is an uncreated energy that is negative compared to God's uncreated energies (mercy, love etc). IOW God's energies have the ability to negate sin.
This is my thinking on the matter. In comparison to your presentation above, as you can see, I don't see the "sin", "blood", connection. That is, over something we have control of (in a manner of speaking), an uncreated energy (something I'd call spiritually connected) like sin.

In all reality our blood hasn't changed since Jesus.

In my understanding of things, our bodies are just as important as our soul. Both being important for the other, united. There is that ontological aspect that touches the subject area of energies.

Teke
Dec 30th 2008, 01:39 AM
I ask you again, where in Luke does it state that Heli was the father of Mary ?

Luke 3. Basic two sides are, the stepfather Jacob one associated with Heli/Eli in Luke 3(which I also disagree with) and the "Heli/Eli" one. Eli being short for "Eliakim" similar to 'Joachim' (my agreement with this one). If you lean more toward textual criticism and historical documents, the latter has better support for Eli being Joachim. Their named in the Syrian copies (ancient text) of the Gospel of James also.

Equipped_4_Love
Dec 30th 2008, 02:10 AM
Luke 3. Basic two sides are, the stepfather Jacob one associated with Heli/Eli in Luke 3(which I also disagree with) and the "Heli/Eli" one. Eli being short for "Eliakim" similar to 'Joachim' (my agreement with this one). If you lean more toward textual criticism and historical documents, the latter has better support for Eli being Joachim. Their named in the Syrian copies (ancient text) of the Gospel of James also.

Teke......I thought that Heli was the father-in-law of Joseph (father of Mary), and that's what Luke 3 was implying.

Walstib
Dec 30th 2008, 02:14 AM
Even if you believe that "man" in chapter one was a physical fleshly being (though he was not formed later ) Adam was not formed with sin, sin did not enter until he ate from the tree and after God said it was good. I agree God would not create sin. But reminder then the flesh could not be sinful as well until he ate from the tree.

If no flesh was sinful before Adam ate, please explain then what it was when Eve disobeyed God by eating if not sin?

And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. (1Ti 2:14 NKJV)

Peace,
Joe

Walstib
Dec 30th 2008, 02:50 AM
Jesus took on the form of a servant , which is the flesh line. His blood line came by way of His Father . He is the "Only begotten Son of God". His seed line is His Father's blood line. His flesh line came by way of Mary, which was the lineage of King David.

Is there a specific organization that teaches this or did you come up with it on your own? Seems even more strange to me then the Cain/Seth bloodline thingy. Is it all part of the same story?

If the sacrifice Jesus made on the cross was shadowed by the animal sacrifices in OT times, did all the animals need perfect God blood as well? My point being it was the unblemished nature of the animals and not the purity of their blood that made them worthy sacrifices.

Peace,
Joe

Equipped_4_Love
Dec 30th 2008, 02:54 AM
Is there a specific organization that teaches this or did you come up with it on your own? Seems even more strange to me then the Cain/Seth bloodline thingy. Is it all part of the same story?

If the sacrifice Jesus made on the cross was shadowed by the animal sacrifices in OT times, did all the animals need perfect God blood as well? My point being it was the unblemished nature of the animals and not the purity of their blood that made them worthy sacrifices.

Peace,
Joe

Well, I don't agree with the aforementioned bloodline theory one bit, but let me just say....I guess one could argue that the blood of animals was not the same, as it did not atone for sin, but merely covered it.

ross3421
Dec 30th 2008, 03:09 AM
If no flesh was sinful before Adam ate, please explain then what it was when Eve disobeyed God by eating if not sin?

And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. (1Ti 2:14 NKJV)

Peace,
Joe

Did God create Adam with sin? Ok, I would expect you to say no. Then we have two options on how Eve was able to disobey.

1. As I mentioned earlier, I see that a person is able to disobey a commandment without having to be sinful. Adam and Eve had free will to choose though they knew no sin. Sin is a state not action.

2. Eve was formed from Adam which might to have reason why she was targeted as the weaker vessel.


Mark

Walstib
Dec 30th 2008, 03:21 AM
I guess one could argue that the blood of animals was not the same, as it did not atone for sin, but merely covered it.

Maybe agreeing on the definition of atonement would help us find agreement. As I see it atonement was given in the OT times through sacrifice. The word is used many, many times in context I think.

And he shall do with the bull as he did with the bull as a sin offering; thus he shall do with it. So the priest shall make atonement for them, and it shall be forgiven them. (Lev 4:20 NKJV)

This was not a removal of sin but a temporal cleansing, a sanctification.

For if the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifies for the purifying of the flesh, (Heb 9:13 NKJV)

The removal of sin instead is a better atonement, a lasting one, but still both are propitiation as I understand.

For the law, having a shadow of the good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with these same sacrifices, which they offer continually year by year, make those who approach perfect. For then would they not have ceased to be offered? For the worshipers, once purified, would have had no more consciousness of sins. But in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year. For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins. (Heb 10:1-4 NKJV)

for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed,(Rom 3:23-25 NKJV)

So while the blood of animals is in no way the same as Jesus' blood, the shadow remains. The nature of the sacrifice is more relevant than the purity of bloodline. Two ugly cattle can have an unblemished calf. Me thinks.

Peace,
Joe

Mysteryman
Dec 30th 2008, 12:39 PM
Teke......I thought that Heli was the father-in-law of Joseph (father of Mary), and that's what Luke 3 was implying.

Studying the Word of God is not based upon what you think. Nor is it based upon what someone told you.

The Joseph in Luke is the son of Heli, just as it states !

If you read Luke 3 backwards , starting with Adam being the son of God --

God
Adam
Seth -----etc ---- Levi - Matthat - Heli - Joseph, whom Jesus was supposed the son of Joseph.

But Jesus was not the son of Joseph ! < This Joseph was the husband of Mary.

The Joseph in Matthew 1:16 is the "aner" or "man" of Mary. The man of Mary is her father in the "generations" - As it clearly tells us ! This record in Matthew is talking about "generations" not "geneology".

If you count 42 "generations in Matthew from Abraham to Jesus Christ, you "must" count Mary as a generation in order to come up with 42 generations. If you read your translation as it is improperly written. As Joseph being the husband of Mary, you will only come up with 41 generations, and not 42. But if you count accurately from Abraham to Jesus Christ, and account this Joseph as the man of Mary, or her father, then you come up with 42 generations.

This lineage of "generations" not "geneology", is the "flesh line" of Christ through Mary. The seed line of Christ is through God, who is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. This is the blood line of Christ. This is why the Word of God states that his blood is "precious", and that we are cleansed from all sin because of the pure blood line of Christ. He was the perfect sacrifice for sin. This is because his seed line, which is his blood line is pure. If this was not true, then Jesus would just be another man with flesh and blood. And if that were true, then any man could have died for our sins, as long as dying and shedding of his blood was the only requirement.

Notice in Romans 3:25 - "Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood"

Ta-An
Dec 30th 2008, 01:58 PM
Mary's mother's name was Annah :idea:

Walstib
Dec 30th 2008, 02:10 PM
Did God create Adam with sin? Ok, I would expect you to say no. Then we have two options on how Eve was able to disobey. I believe God created Adam with the ability to sin. After his creation I am not sure one can say Adam lived in absolute perfection toward the un-revealed law of God and needed no grace to be worthy of being in the Father’s presence. Sin is sin whether imputed or not imputed.

They were naked before they ate, did God change His standards of perfection so that it was only sinful after they ate?
1. As I mentioned earlier, I see that a person is able to disobey a commandment without having to be sinful. Adam and Eve had free will to choose though they knew no sin. Sin is a state not action. I disagree, one may break the perfect law of God without having the transgression imputed to them, but it is still sinful. Why do you believe sin is a state? What does that mean?
2. Eve was formed from Adam which might to have reason why she was targeted as the weaker vessel. She was weaker so therefore her disobedience was not sin? I don’t understand what you are saying here.

Peace,
Joe

Brother Mark
Dec 30th 2008, 02:28 PM
She was weaker so therefore her disobedience was not sin? I don’t understand what you are saying here.

Peace,
Joe

Hi Joe. I was going to post this earlier but it just didn't seem like the timing was right. What's interesting to me is that Eve did sin, but sin did not enter into the world until Adam sinned. Adam could have undone what Eve did, IMO. The OT is full of laws where the man, being the authority could override what his wife did. Then we have our example Jesus, who overrode what we did. Had sin entered into the world through Eve, could Christ then have atoned for us? But because it is from the one in authority, then when we move from the authority of our adamic nature to a new authority of Christ and our Christ like nature, then our sin is no longer imputed to us. As for the father being the bearer of iniquity, we also see that suggested in Exodus in that the iniquity of the father is visited upon the children for 3 to 4 generations but he visits righteousness for thousands of generations.

Just food for thought.

Grace,

Mark

OldChurchGuy
Dec 30th 2008, 02:31 PM
AMEN! These are the replies I have been looking for........

I am hoping more on the forum understand WHY the blood of Christ is so important. It was untainted with sin. Sin is contained within the blood and is passed unto all men by Adam. This is why the importance of the virgin birth. The blood is full of corruption and corrupts the flesh but got rebuked for saying so. I had started a couple of threads to show this point. Thanks.

When writing about "the blood of Christ" are you meaning a literal interpretation or symbolic? If literal then does that mean there is a "sin gene" in our genetic make up that was omitted in Jesus the Christ?

Sincerely,

OldChurchGuy

OldChurchGuy
Dec 30th 2008, 02:37 PM
Of course God has a blood line. That is why Jesus Christ is the Only begotten Son of God. His blood was sinless. This is what made Jesus Christ the "perfect" sacrifice. The "seed" line is the blood line. The flesh line is the woman's line. The flesh line of Mary , was the flesh line of King David. This can be understood from two points. One - the lineage of Matthew chapter one. And two - God was and is the Father .

The record in Matthew chapter one is called the "generations"
The record in Luke chapter three is called the "geneology"

Both lines go through King David.

But Matthew chapter one, is through Mary.
And Luke chapter three is through Joseph the husband of Mary.

Geneology is the seed line.
Generation is the flesh line.

Matthew 1:16 has caused no end of confusion pertaining to whom this verse is talking about. The Joseph in verse 16 is not her husband ! It is the father of Mary. The word "husband" is a mistranslation. It is the greek word "aner" which properly translated is the word "man", not husband ! This Joseph was the "man" of Mary. Which means father of Mary. The reason the word "man" is used, is because "generations" is dealing with just that, generations, and not geneologies ![/quote]

I have heard for many years that the two lists in Matthew and Luke are the genealogies of Joseph and Mary but have never seen any documentation to back up the assertion other than it is the only logical conclusion to reach. Is there any proof in the Bible or outside the Bible that the two genealogies in Matthew and Luke are of Joseph and Mary other than faith? Understand, I have nothing against faith. But as I have said before it is one thing to BELIEVE a given idea is true and quite another to treat that belief as IRREFUTABLE FACT.

Ever curious,

OldChurchGuy

Mysteryman
Dec 30th 2008, 03:09 PM
Of course God has a blood line. That is why Jesus Christ is the Only begotten Son of God. His blood was sinless. This is what made Jesus Christ the "perfect" sacrifice. The "seed" line is the blood line. The flesh line is the woman's line. The flesh line of Mary , was the flesh line of King David. This can be understood from two points. One - the lineage of Matthew chapter one. And two - God was and is the Father .

The record in Matthew chapter one is called the "generations"
The record in Luke chapter three is called the "geneology"

Both lines go through King David.

But Matthew chapter one, is through Mary.
And Luke chapter three is through Joseph the husband of Mary.

Geneology is the seed line.
Generation is the flesh line.

Matthew 1:16 has caused no end of confusion pertaining to whom this verse is talking about. The Joseph in verse 16 is not her husband ! It is the father of Mary. The word "husband" is a mistranslation. It is the greek word "aner" which properly translated is the word "man", not husband ! This Joseph was the "man" of Mary. Which means father of Mary. The reason the word "man" is used, is because "generations" is dealing with just that, generations, and not geneologies !

I have heard for many years that the two lists in Matthew and Luke are the genealogies of Joseph and Mary but have never seen any documentation to back up the assertion other than it is the only logical conclusion to reach. Is there any proof in the Bible or outside the Bible that the two genealogies in Matthew and Luke are of Joseph and Mary other than faith? Understand, I have nothing against faith. But as I have said before it is one thing to BELIEVE a given idea is true and quite another to treat that belief as IRREFUTABLE FACT.

Ever curious,

OldChurchGuy[/quote]

The scriptures are clear that Matthew is a "generations" list and not a "geneology" list ! It tells us in Matthew 1:17 that these are "generations". Just read what is written ! 14 + 14 + 14 = 42 generations

Teke
Dec 30th 2008, 04:53 PM
Teke......I thought that Heli was the father-in-law of Joseph (father of Mary), and that's what Luke 3 was implying.

Yes, that's right. Here (http://levendwater.org/companion/append99.html) is a chart showing both genealogies, the regal legal ("the throne of His father David) one associated with David and the natural legal one ("seed of the woman").

ross3421
Dec 30th 2008, 05:15 PM
Of course God has a blood line. That is why Jesus Christ is the Only begotten Son of God. His blood was sinless. This is what made Jesus Christ the "perfect" sacrifice. The "seed" line is the blood line. The flesh line is the woman's line. The flesh line of Mary , was the flesh line of King David. This can be understood from two points. One - the lineage of Matthew chapter one. And two - God was and is the Father .


Amen! Mark.

(David Taylor :D)

Ta-An
Dec 30th 2008, 05:19 PM
The scriptures are clear that Matthew is a "generations" list and not a "geneology" list ! It tells us in Matthew 1:17 that these are "generations". Just read what is written ! 14 + 14 + 14 = 42 generationsWhich I have read are fabricated..... to fit David's name...?? :hmm:

Mysteryman
Dec 30th 2008, 05:46 PM
Which I have read are fabricated..... to fit David's name...?? :hmm:

Oh really ? In my opinion, even such a suggestion should never be uttered unless one is willing to substanciate such a claim with more than unbiblical evidence.

ross3421
Dec 30th 2008, 05:55 PM
When writing about "the blood of Christ" are you meaning a literal interpretation or symbolic? If literal then does that mean there is a "sin gene" in our genetic make up that was omitted in Jesus the Christ?

Sincerely,

OldChurchGuy

Through Adam all die.

1co 15:22 For as in Adam all die,

We are united with Adam through blood.

Ac 17:26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth,

Death has been passed down from Adam.

Ro 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:


Yes literal. There must have been something in the fruit on the tree of Good and Evil which corrupted mankind and the blood being the one common denominator of all. As you have pointed out Jesus did not have Adam's bloodline and this is why the virgin birth was nessessary to keep his blod sinless.

Mysteryman
Dec 30th 2008, 09:55 PM
Through Adam all die.

1co 15:22 For as in Adam all die,

We are united with Adam through blood.

Ac 17:26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth,

Death has been passed down from Adam.

Ro 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:


Yes literal. There must have been something in the fruit on the tree of Good and Evil which corrupted mankind and the blood being the one common denominator of all. As you have pointed out Jesus did not have Adam's bloodline and this is why the virgin birth was nessessary to keep his blod sinless.

The seed line of Adam was the blood line. The only way a woman has seed, is when she has a male offspring. The flesh line follows the woman.

Eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil was the disobedience of the will of God.

The seed line of Jesus was God the Father , which made his blood line pure.

Teke
Dec 30th 2008, 10:15 PM
If Jesus' blood was "pure" and wasn't like ours in every aspect, it would negate Him assuming our humanity to Himself. IOW what would the point of the Incarnation be. God has never failed to accomplish His will. It was His will when He created us to also draw us to Himself. Do any believe that sin can stop His will being done?

Mysteryman
Dec 31st 2008, 12:12 AM
If Jesus' blood was "pure" and wasn't like ours in every aspect, it would negate Him assuming our humanity to Himself. IOW what would the point of the Incarnation be. God has never failed to accomplish His will. It was His will when He created us to also draw us to Himself. Do any believe that sin can stop His will being done?


His blood was red and functioned like our blood does. But his blood line did not come from man.

Teke
Dec 31st 2008, 02:08 PM
His blood was red and functioned like our blood does. But his blood line did not come from man.

According to the genesis of mankind, mankinds's blood didn't come from mankind. It was created by the Creator for man.

This type of dispute recalls to me what Paul says in 1 Timothy 1:4. Christians aren't to plague themselves with "fables and endless genealogies". As it would be likened to energetic disputes over myth and human tradition (ie. genealogies) for arguments sake.
As an early church father said, "The Jews wasted their whole course on these unprofitable points for historical knowledge and research." St John Chrysostom

Mysteryman
Dec 31st 2008, 02:13 PM
According to the genesis of mankind, mankinds's blood didn't come from mankind. It was created by the Creator for man.

This type of dispute recalls to me what Paul says in 1 Timothy 1:4. Christians aren't to plague themselves with "fables and endless genealogies". As it would be likened to energetic disputes over myth and human tradition (ie. genealogies) for arguments sake.
As an early church father said, "The Jews wasted their whole course on these unprofitable points for historical knowledge and research." St John Chrysostom

Then do as you suggest. As for me, I not only want the truth, but I also want others to have the same.

Jesus' bloodline did not come from mankind. Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God. His geneology comes from the Father. The seed line is the bloodline.

Steve M
Dec 31st 2008, 02:16 PM
The reason why Jesus was not conceived naturally was because human conception involves sin:

Ps. 51:5 In sin did my mother conceive me

I hate to jump into this thread... but this one totally jumped out at me.

Doesn't that right there bother anybody else? Or is it just me?

Walstib
Dec 31st 2008, 02:58 PM
I hate to jump into this thread... but this one totally jumped out at me.

Doesn't that right there bother anybody else? Or is it just me?

I did notice that when it was posted....

If the context is that the act of procreation itself is sinful I would not agree with that.

If the context is that a natural fetus falls short of the Glory of God I would say I agree.

:dunno:

Peace,
Joe

Teke
Dec 31st 2008, 03:29 PM
Jesus' bloodline did not come from mankind.

Are you suggesting that Mary's blood was pure.


Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God. His geneology comes from the Father. The seed line is the bloodline.

There is no genealogy in the Trinity. And biblically, the "seed" is of the woman. Gen. 3:15

Teke
Dec 31st 2008, 03:37 PM
I hate to jump into this thread... but this one totally jumped out at me.

Doesn't that right there bother anybody else? Or is it just me?

It doesn't bother me as much, being an old timer here at the forums:D, I've seen it presented to support one or another doctrinal stance. But one verse doesn't make doctrine. All the Psalm 51:7 verse indicates is that every action in this fallen world is accomplished by sinful people in sinful circumstances.

Steve M
Dec 31st 2008, 03:52 PM
It doesn't bother me as much, being an old timer here at the forums:D, I've seen it presented to support one or another doctrinal stance. But one verse doesn't make doctrine. All the Psalm 51:7 verse indicates is that every action in this fallen world is accomplished by sinful people in sinful circumstances.
Sure--but not all conception is worked in sin. Hebrews is clear that the marriage bed is undefiled.

Walstib
Dec 31st 2008, 04:07 PM
Hi Mark,

Forgive the long post, this is something I have been giving a lot of thought to recently. Not posted in disagreement, all input welcome.
What's interesting to me is that Eve did sin, but sin did not enter into the world until Adam sinned. The question I ask is when did Adam first sin? Not “the transgression” that was wilful without innocence, but anything that was not absolutely perfect. Receiving the knowledge of good and evil after eating they would have know how imperfect they had been the whole time. They then knew they were naked, and had been naked before they ate. Before they ate they had no knowledge being naked was not holy and honourable, after they did. I don’t see God’s standard of perfection would have changed because Adam wilfully sinned. As I see it the standard is constant.

Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. (Rom 5:14 NKJV)

I am now thinking “the likeness of the transgression of Adam” speaks to the wilful sin, not the beginning of any sin. There is sin that is not the same kind of sin as the wilful sin that got them kicked out of the garden. Mentioned in the above verse. As a baby does not wilfully sin, yet is not perfect enough to be in the Fathers presence without being cleansed freely by Jesus. I think Adam still needed the grace of God and Jesus’ sacrifice to be counted as worthy even before he ate. As God calls things that are not as though they are. (Rom 4:17)

So did sin enter with the creation of Adam, or with his wilful disobedience? To put it in another question; was Adam perfect before he ate, or was his eating a reflection of his pre existing nature? I would say getting kicked out of the Garden was the beginning of death, this coming through, a result of, the wilful transgression, not some change in the nature of Adam himself.

Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned-- (Rom 5:12 NKJV)

Jesus had no sin either wilfully or out of ignorance, but was wholly without sin, thus being different than Adam even before Adam ate from the tree. Otherwise I figure Adam would have been a worthy sacrifice for our sin before he ate from the tree, and I see to much conflict with that idea.
Adam could have undone what Eve did, IMO. The OT is full of laws where the man, being the authority could override what his wife did. I agree with this as it was Adam’s wilful sin that got them kicked out as he was the authority. He had the free will to not go under his wife and eat. This does not, to me, take away from the concept that sins committed in ignorance were around before Adam ate from the tree. Also that I see Adam’s decision to go under his wife and eat was sin before he ate, whether he knew it or not.
Then we have our example Jesus, who overrode what we did. Had sin entered into the world through Eve, could Christ then have atoned for us? Timeline sort of thing. Adam being formed first, and having the authority, brought sin into the world. What shows sin entered specifically when he ate of the tree? Why not ignorant sin even before Eve proceeded from Adam?
But because it is from the one in authority, then when we move from the authority of our adamic nature to a new authority of Christ and our Christ like nature, then our sin is no longer imputed to us. As for the father being the bearer of iniquity, we also see that suggested in Exodus in that the iniquity of the father is visited upon the children for 3 to 4 generations but he visits righteousness for thousands of generations.
I fully agree with the comments of Jesus’ greater authority and His right to forgive us and not impute or sin to our account. Do we have to be born again before this can happen? I think Jesus does not count the imperfections of babies against there account.

Peace,
Joe

Teke
Dec 31st 2008, 04:13 PM
Sure--but not all conception is worked in sin. Hebrews is clear that the marriage bed is undefiled.

True, not everything is defiled (unclean) or undefiled (clean). Scripture makes the point that we are all sinners who fall short of the glory of God (Rom. 3:23) Meaning we can't of ourselves declare ourselves righteous by any standard we come up with. Even Jesus could not do so, but referred to the Father and the works of the Father.

Jhn 14:10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.

Jhn 14:11 Believe me that I [am] in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake.

Brother Mark
Dec 31st 2008, 04:36 PM
Hi Mark,

Forgive the long post, this is something I have been giving a lot of thought to recently. Not posted in disagreement, all input welcome.The question I ask is when did Adam first sin? Not “the transgression” that was wilful without innocence, but anything that was not absolutely perfect. Receiving the knowledge of good and evil after eating they would have know how imperfect they had been the whole time. They then knew they were naked, and had been naked before they ate. Before they ate they had no knowledge being naked was not holy and honourable, after they did. I don’t see God’s standard of perfection would have changed because Adam wilfully sinned. As I see it the standard is constant.

I don't see nakedness between Adam and Eve as sinful but rather as shameful. Before they ate, they felt fully accepted and were willing to be naked in front of each other, fully exposing themselves. After they became fallen, the desire to hide both from God and each other entered in. Having never known shame, they now felt it in a deep, deep way. They were still married and being naked in front of your spouse, is nothing to be shamed about nor is it sinful. That's just my take on it.


I am now thinking “the likeness of the transgression of Adam” speaks to the wilful sin, not the beginning of any sin. There is sin that is not the same kind of sin as the wilful sin that got them kicked out of the garden. Mentioned in the above verse. As a baby does not wilfully sin, yet is not perfect enough to be in the Fathers presence without being cleansed freely by Jesus. I think Adam still needed the grace of God and Jesus’ sacrifice to be counted as worthy even before he ate. As God calls things that are not as though they are. (Rom 4:17)

I do think he needed the grace of God before he ate. For instance, Adam though pure, did not share in the uncreated life of God as we do know. God's spirit resides in us and we share in his eternal/uncreated life. The only way Adam could have done this was to have eaten of the Tree of Life and that could not happen once he had fallen. When we eat Jesus flesh, and drink his blood, spiritually, then we have eternal life (John 6). However, that does no mean Adam had sin before the fall. Nor does it mean he needed to be redeemed. It just means he had not been joined to God in the same way we are. He could have been had he eaten of the Tree of Life. Then he would have had the strength, IMO, to say no to the temptation of the serpent.


So did sin enter with the creation of Adam, or with his wilful disobedience? To put it in another question; was Adam perfect before he ate, or was his eating a reflection of his pre existing nature? I would say getting kicked out of the Garden was the beginning of death, this coming through, a result of, the wilful transgression, not some change in the nature of Adam himself.

Personally, I take death to mean separation. Death can't exist apart from life. It's like darkness. Darkness really doesn't exist in that it is a "thing". It's really an absence of a thing (light). Adam died in that he was separated from God the very day he ate. As for a change in his nature, I'll have to think on that one. I do know this, when a man sins, something happens inside that makes sinning again much easier.


Jesus had no sin either wilfully or out of ignorance, but was wholly without sin, thus being different than Adam even before Adam ate from the tree. Otherwise I figure Adam would have been a worthy sacrifice for our sin before he ate from the tree, and I see to much conflict with that idea.

Why do you see conflict with the idea that Adam could have atoned for the sin of Eve before he ate? There is a reason that God said sin didn't enter into the world until Adam ate. It didn't enter in through Eve. IMO, that's a very interesting statement in scripture.


I agree with this as it was Adam’s wilful sin that got them kicked out as he was the authority. He had the free will to not go under his wife and eat. This does not, to me, take away from the concept that sins committed in ignorance were around before Adam ate from the tree. Also that I see Adam’s decision to go under his wife and eat was sin before he ate, whether he knew it or not. Timeline sort of thing. Adam being formed first, and having the authority, brought sin into the world. What shows sin entered specifically when he ate of the tree? Why not ignorant sin even before Eve proceeded from Adam?

There is a difference in not being wise and being sinful. God told Abraham to listen to Sarah at one point. Was it sinful for him to submit to Sarah's wishes? The wages of sin is death. Death reigned over all even when they didn't realize their sin. Yet, God did not bring death to Adam until he sinned willfully.


I fully agree with the comments of Jesus’ greater authority and His right to forgive us and not impute or sin to our account. Do we have to be born again before this can happen? I think Jesus does not count the imperfections of babies against there account.

Peace,
Joe

I think David showed how God deals graciously with babies when he said "I will go to him but he cannot come to me".

Grace,

Mark

Mysteryman
Dec 31st 2008, 04:45 PM
Are you suggesting that Mary's blood was pure.



There is no genealogy in the Trinity. And biblically, the "seed" is of the woman. Gen. 3:15

Of course I am not suggesting that Mary's blood was pure !

And , of course there is a geneology to God. We as Christians have the "seed" of Christ in us - Galatians 3:16 - Colossians 1:27

Teke
Dec 31st 2008, 04:55 PM
Of course I am not suggesting that Mary's blood was pure !

And , of course there is a geneology to God. We as Christians have the "seed" of Christ in us - Galatians 3:16 - Colossians 1:27

Galatians 3:16 doesn't say we have the seed of Christ in us. It speaks of the Sonship promise, which was to come through the seed of Abraham. We become sons of God by faith and baptism, not by seed.

Colossians 1:27 speaks of "Christ in you". God is Spirit. So "Christ in you" is God's Spirit in you, not 'seed'. See Romans 8:10-11, "the Spirit of Him....dwells in you". It does not say the 'seed' of Him.

Mysteryman
Dec 31st 2008, 04:59 PM
Galatians 3:16 doesn't say we have the seed of Christ in us. It speaks of the Sonship promise, which was to come through the seed of Abraham. We become sons of God by faith and baptism, not by seed.

Colossians 1:27 speaks of "Christ in you". God is Spirit. So "Christ in you" is God's Spirit in you, not 'seed'. See Romans 8:10-11, "the Spirit of Him....dwells in you". It does not say the 'seed' of Him.

Galatians 3:16 says "seed"

Teke
Dec 31st 2008, 05:18 PM
Galatians 3:16 says "seed"

Gal 3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

I don't see where it says we have the seed of Christ in us.

Mysteryman
Dec 31st 2008, 05:25 PM
Gal 3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

I don't see where it says we have the seed of Christ in us.


"Thy seed , which is Christ"

Teke
Dec 31st 2008, 05:49 PM
"Thy seed , which is Christ"

The "thy seed" ("to your seed) is a quote from Genesis 12 7.

Abraham is the father of all the faithful, Romans 4:11 ("father of all them that believe,"). Which is why I said it is by faith and baptism that we are joined with His Spirit.

Rom 4:13 For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, [was] not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.

Rom 4:14 For if they which are of the law [be] heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect:

Rom 4:16 Therefore [it is] of faith, that [it might be] by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,

Mysteryman
Dec 31st 2008, 08:02 PM
The "thy seed" ("to your seed) is a quote from Genesis 12 7.

Abraham is the father of all the faithful, Romans 4:11 ("father of all them that believe,"). Which is why I said it is by faith and baptism that we are joined with His Spirit.

Rom 4:13 For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, [was] not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.

Rom 4:14 For if they which are of the law [be] heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect:

Rom 4:16 Therefore [it is] of faith, that [it might be] by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,

Paul was talking to the church when he said - "thy seed" - "which is Christ". And your quote of Rom. 4:13 proves this to be true.

Now read Romans 8:9 & 10 - "But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. But if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his" -- "But if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin ; but the Spirit is life because of righeousness"

Teke
Dec 31st 2008, 09:09 PM
Paul was talking to the church when he said - "thy seed" - "which is Christ". And your quote of Rom. 4:13 proves this to be true.

Your right Paul was talking to the church. He was telling the church that Jesus' literal blood lineage was from Abraham. But that doesn't exclude others who are not literal blood relatives of Abraham. I don't see how this can be confusing to you in the way it is written. The whole of scripture is to address God bringing about His promise.


Now read Romans 8:9 & 10 - "But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. But if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his" -- "But if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin ; but the Spirit is life because of righeousness"

I don't see what your getting at with this. What difference does 'blood' make if you have to be dead to sin to have life in the Spirit.

"The body is dead" refers to it being mortal because of sin's entry into the world. The Holy Spirit gives new life, the pledge of resurrection (v11).

John 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

1Cr 15:50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

Mysteryman
Jan 1st 2009, 02:21 AM
The "thy seed" ("to your seed) is a quote from Genesis 12 7.

Abraham is the father of all the faithful, Romans 4:11 ("father of all them that believe,"). Which is why I said it is by faith and baptism that we are joined with His Spirit.

Rom 4:13 For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, [was] not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.

Rom 4:14 For if they which are of the law [be] heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect:

Rom 4:16 Therefore [it is] of faith, that [it might be] by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,

As I have pointed out in a previous post. Jesus blood was "precious". The blood of Christ does not come from faithful Abraham. Abraham was the father of all believing.

Jesus Christ is the only "begotten" Son of God. His seed line is his blood line.

Paul said "Thy seed, which is Christ" -- That means we have the seed of Christ in us. The Word also states that we have the Spirit of his Son in our hearts crying Abba Father.

Teke
Jan 1st 2009, 02:51 PM
As I have pointed out in a previous post. Jesus blood was "precious". The blood of Christ does not come from faithful Abraham. Abraham was the father of all believing.

Then I guess Matthew and Luke didn't know what they were talking about when they wrote that His blood line genealogy began from Adam and Abraham and David etc.


Jesus Christ is the only "begotten" Son of God. His seed line is his blood line.

Paul said "Thy seed, which is Christ" -- That means we have the seed of Christ in us. The Word also states that we have the Spirit of his Son in our hearts crying Abba Father.

Jesus Christ was both fully human and fully God. This is the dogmatic statement of the church. His full humanity is upheld in His human genealogy. If His humanity isn't from Adam, Abraham etc. and the Holy Spirit, then there was no purpose for the Incarnation. "Thy seed" in the Galatians verse is in quotation marks, meaning that Paul is quoting what the scriptures say to Abraham. Abraham had eight sons, but only ONE was the seed for Christ through him, which continued through Isaac.

Jesus human genealogy is traced throughout scripture, showing God's ability to bring His promise to fruitation through mankind.

You still have not presented scripture that states that there is a seed of Christ in us. The Galatians verse doesn't say such a thing, nor is there any other scripture (that would bear witness to your opinion) which says we have a seed of Christ in us.

Are your theological thoughts toward something other than His being fully human and fully God by the Incarnation? If so, then perhaps this is where we differ on this subject.

adolfo123
Mar 10th 2009, 01:15 AM
Jesus’ mother Mary. What do we know? What should we know? Ask a question you have about her.

I’ll start as I got thinking about this on another thread.

What is the importance Jesus came from her egg and she was not a surrogate mother? Could she have been a surrogate or does Jesus’ humanity depend on her blood and genealogy.


Mary was seen by the church fathers as the ark of the covenant. they found that she in the visitation Luke 1 and the account about the ark traveling to judah is the same ... you find parrallels with Mary and the ark of the covenant ...
Mary: The New Ark of the Covenant

The Ark of the Covenant as a type of the Blessed Virgin Mary is the most attested in Sacred Scripture. No less than St. Luke the Evangelist clearly shows that the Ark of the Covenant prefigures, typifies or foreshadows in a most profound way the Mother of Jesus. Luke does so through introduction of Old Testament themes and prophecies by allusions rather than direct assertions of prophetic fulfillment.

In the Old Testament, the Ark of the Covenant was the holding place of the tables of stone on which is written the 10 Commandments signifying the “Word of God”. It also contained a jar of manna, the bread from heaven. The rod of Aaron, signifying priesthood, was also placed inside the ark.

Hebrews 9:4 reveals the contents of the ark:
“Which had the golden censer, and the ark of the covenant overlaid round about with gold, wherein [was] the golden pot that had manna, and Aaron's rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant.”

In the New Testament, we are told that Mary, carried in her virginal womb the Word Made Flesh, the Bread of Life, and the High Priest of our Redemption: Jesus Christ.
Luke, the master painter, paints for us Mary in terms of the Ark of the Covenant. He does this through making use of parallelisms between the Old Testament Ark of the Covenant and Mary.


OLD TESTAMENT (ARK) NEW TESTAMENT (MARY)

Exo. 40:34-38 - Lk. 1:35
2 Sam. 6:9 - Lk. 1:43
2 Sam. 6:14, 16 - Lk. 1:41; 44
2 Sam. 6:10-11 - Lk. 1:56

In Luke 1:35, Mary is said to be “overshadowed” by the power of the Most High. In the Old Testament, the “Shekinah” or the glory of God overshadowed the Ark of the Covenant. Exodus 40:34-38 tells us:

“Then a cloud covered the tent of the congregation, and the glory of the LORD filled the tabernacle.

And Moses was not able to enter into the tent of the congregation, because the cloud abode thereon, and the glory of the LORD filled the tabernacle.

And when the cloud was taken up from over the tabernacle, the children of Israel went onward in all their journeys:

But if the cloud were not taken up, then they journeyed not till the day that it was taken up.

For the cloud of the LORD [was] upon the tabernacle by day, and fire was on it by night, in the sight of all the house of Israel, throughout all their journeys.”

The cloud which overshadowed the Ark of the Covenant symbolized the abiding presence of the God in His people. Mary, who was “overshadowed” by the power of the Most High, was told by the angel: “The Lord is with you” (Luke 1:28). The abiding presence of God has always been with Mary: the Lord was with her since she herself was “overshadowed” by the power of God like that of the Ark of the Covenant in the Old Testament.

Consider the following parallels between Mary and the Ark of the Covenant shown by the evangelist Luke:

Luke 1:39-40 - During those days Mary set out and traveled to the hill country in haste to a town of Judah, where she entered the house of Zechariah and greeted Elizabeth.

2 Samuel 6:2 - Then David and all the people who were with him set out for Baala of Judah to bring up from there the ark of the God, which bears the name of the Lord of hosts enthroned above the cherubim.

Luke 1:43 - "And how does this happen to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?"

2 Samuel 6:9 - David feared the Lord that day and said, "How can the ark of the Lord come to me?"

Luke 1:44 - "For at the moment the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the infant in my womb leaped for joy."

2 Samuel 6:16 - As the ark of the Lord was entering the City of David, Saul´s daughter Michal looked down through the window and saw King David leaping and dancing before the Lord…

Luke 1:45 - "Blessed are you who believed that what was spoken to you by the Lord would be fulfilled."

2 Samuel 6:18 - When he finished making these offerings, he blessed the people in the name of the Lord of hosts.

Luke 1:56 - Mary remained with her about three months and then returned to her home.

2 Samuel 6:11 - The ark of the Lord remained in the house of Obededom the Gittite for three months, and the Lord blessed Obededom and his whole house.

Fundamentalists claim that Luke did not intend to teach that Mary is the new Ark of the Covenant for the flimsy reason that Luke did not explicitly call Mary as “the new Ark of the Covenant.” They say that Catholics are reading much into the parallels given. Some even claim that the parallels between the Ark of the Covenant and Mary are simply coincidental. Fundamenlists simply miss the import of Biblical revelation. They must have forgotten that “[a]ll scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness” (II Timothy 3:16). Luke was inspired by God to point to us the truth, through parallelisms, that Mary is the New Ark of the Covenant.

On the other hand, the Apostle John saw the Ark of the Covenant as the Woman clothed with the sun:

“And the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament: and there were lightnings, and voices, and thunderings, and an earthquake, and great hail. And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars” (Rev. 11:59-12:1).

It must be borne in mind that when the Book of Revelation was written, there were no chapter and verse divisions. These divisions came centuries later. The Ark and the Woman, in the tableau seen by John in heaven, was one and the same.

Realizing that Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant leads us to understand the various Marian dogmas. The Ark of the Covenant theme unlocks the mysteries of the doctrines of the Church regarding the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Walstib
Mar 10th 2009, 02:45 AM
Hi adolfo123,

Just a word to you, a new member, that there is no need to post the same stuff in more than one place. As this old thread is mine and this topic is already in a new post of yours I am going to close this thread. Often old threads are closed when brought back up so don't take it personally. :)

In peace,
Joe