Mary's Infidelity
- Thread starter Webers.Home
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Two different statements but an individual rational being. If we apply the same rules applied to the Mother of Jesus.
Mother of John Doe is not the Mother his soul. His soul is created by God not produced by his mother.
That the Father refers to Jesus As God means the word God need not include all three divine persons to use it as you said was required.
Mother of John Doe is not the Mother his soul. His soul is created by God not produced by his mother.
That the Father refers to Jesus As God means the word God need not include all three divine persons to use it as you said was required.
The expression of these truths aren't subject to rules imposed by a single language.
I do believe that wherever Jesus is located there is the Father and the Spirit.
That much more reason to know that Jesus is God and His mother is rightly called mother of God..
Women aren't giving birth to bodies are they? They are mother's of whole persons since they give birth to individual rational beings.
I do believe that wherever Jesus is located there is the Father and the Spirit.
That much more reason to know that Jesus is God and His mother is rightly called mother of God..
Women aren't giving birth to bodies are they? They are mother's of whole persons since they give birth to individual rational beings.
-
1
- Show all
The Father isn't generating a Son that is equal to Himself? He is. The Father calls His Son God. When the Father addresses the Son that way is He addressing Himself?
God Chose a virgin to be His mother. Wait no, God can't do that because He doesn't need a mother. Ok then, God Chose a woman to make a body that she'll keep alive for Him until He can do it Himself. God needed a Mother if Jesus is God. God emptied Himself and was conceived in a womb. God became a one celled human being. That is just the most amazing thing ever. We got a God that does things like that...mI mean whoda' thunk? Sorry got a little off course.☺
God Chose a virgin to be His mother. Wait no, God can't do that because He doesn't need a mother. Ok then, God Chose a woman to make a body that she'll keep alive for Him until He can do it Himself. God needed a Mother if Jesus is God. God emptied Himself and was conceived in a womb. God became a one celled human being. That is just the most amazing thing ever. We got a God that does things like that...mI mean whoda' thunk? Sorry got a little off course.☺
You're right.
Matt 1:19
Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not wanting to make her a public example, was minded to put her away secretly.
Joseph was put to the test. He couldn't pollute his bloodline but he knew Mary wasn't an adulteress. A just judge doesn't make a decision unless there is enough evidence. Is there anyone else called just in Scriptures? Notice it wasn't until Joseph solved the dillema with a secret divorce that the Incarnation was revealed to him. As an aside a secret divorce would require a life of celibacy for the couple.
Matt 1:19
Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not wanting to make her a public example, was minded to put her away secretly.
Joseph was put to the test. He couldn't pollute his bloodline but he knew Mary wasn't an adulteress. A just judge doesn't make a decision unless there is enough evidence. Is there anyone else called just in Scriptures? Notice it wasn't until Joseph solved the dillema with a secret divorce that the Incarnation was revealed to him. As an aside a secret divorce would require a life of celibacy for the couple.
.
● Matt 1:19 . . And Joseph her husband, being a righteous man,
Curiously, the Bible doesn't say one way or the other whether Mary was
righteous. By means of a judicious blend of extrapolation and fact; we
might at least suggest that she was.
For example:
● Luke 1:30 . . Mary, you have found favor with God.
The Greek word translated "favor" is also translated grace in quite a few
places. So we could translate Luke 1:30 like this:
"you have found grace with God."
That wasn't the first time someone found grace with God. Noah did too.
● Gen 6:8 . . Noah found grace in the eyes of The Lord.
Noah and Joseph had something in common.
● Gen 6:9 . . Noah was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his
time,
I might be taking liberties here; but if Noah found grace with God, and he
was righteous and blameless among the people of his time; then seeing as
how Mary found grace with God, then maybe we can say that she too was
righteous and blameless among the people of her time.
_
● Matt 1:19 . . And Joseph her husband, being a righteous man,
Curiously, the Bible doesn't say one way or the other whether Mary was
righteous. By means of a judicious blend of extrapolation and fact; we
might at least suggest that she was.
For example:
● Luke 1:30 . . Mary, you have found favor with God.
The Greek word translated "favor" is also translated grace in quite a few
places. So we could translate Luke 1:30 like this:
"you have found grace with God."
That wasn't the first time someone found grace with God. Noah did too.
● Gen 6:8 . . Noah found grace in the eyes of The Lord.
Noah and Joseph had something in common.
● Gen 6:9 . . Noah was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his
time,
I might be taking liberties here; but if Noah found grace with God, and he
was righteous and blameless among the people of his time; then seeing as
how Mary found grace with God, then maybe we can say that she too was
righteous and blameless among the people of her time.
_
-
1
- Show all
.
Continuing from post No.51
Righteousness-- as it's presented in the story of Jesus, Mary, and Joseph --is
exemplified by the righteousness attributed to the Jewish parents of the
Lord's cousin; John the Baptist.
● Luke 1:5-6 . .There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain
priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the
daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth. And they were both
righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of
the Lord blameless.
The apostle Paul was another Jew who walked in all the commandments and
ordinances of the Lord blameless.
● Phil 3:5-6 . . Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe
of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews . . . touching the righteousness
which is in the law, blameless.
It sometimes surprises people that Jesus Christ wasn't a Christian; he was a
Jew-- born under the law, circumcised the eighth day --as such he was yet
another Jew whose righteousness was defined by the righteousness which is
in the law.
I really don't think it's a good idea to inject Christianity's by-faith
righteousness into the story of Jesus, Mary, and Joseph seeing as how those
folks were all Jews whose righteousness is measured by the covenant that
Moses' people agreed upon with God in the Old Testament-- a.k.a. the law.
Now, it's true that the righteousness which is in the law isn't righteous
enough to attain heaven. However, the righteousness which is in the Jews'
covenant is still to this day righteous.
● Rom 3:31 . . Do we then nullify the law through faith? May it never be! On
the contrary, we establish the law.
● Rom 7:12 . . The law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous,
and good.
_
Continuing from post No.51
Righteousness-- as it's presented in the story of Jesus, Mary, and Joseph --is
exemplified by the righteousness attributed to the Jewish parents of the
Lord's cousin; John the Baptist.
● Luke 1:5-6 . .There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain
priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the
daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth. And they were both
righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of
the Lord blameless.
The apostle Paul was another Jew who walked in all the commandments and
ordinances of the Lord blameless.
● Phil 3:5-6 . . Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe
of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews . . . touching the righteousness
which is in the law, blameless.
It sometimes surprises people that Jesus Christ wasn't a Christian; he was a
Jew-- born under the law, circumcised the eighth day --as such he was yet
another Jew whose righteousness was defined by the righteousness which is
in the law.
I really don't think it's a good idea to inject Christianity's by-faith
righteousness into the story of Jesus, Mary, and Joseph seeing as how those
folks were all Jews whose righteousness is measured by the covenant that
Moses' people agreed upon with God in the Old Testament-- a.k.a. the law.
Now, it's true that the righteousness which is in the law isn't righteous
enough to attain heaven. However, the righteousness which is in the Jews'
covenant is still to this day righteous.
● Rom 3:31 . . Do we then nullify the law through faith? May it never be! On
the contrary, we establish the law.
● Rom 7:12 . . The law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous,
and good.
_
.
● Matt 1:18 . . When His mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before
they came together she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit.
Webster's defines "betroth" as to give in marriage and/or to promise to
marry. The very same Greek word for betroth is employed again to describe
their relationship on the road to Bethlehem. (Luke 2:5)
The Greek word translated "came together" means conjoin. I should think
that word needs no defining. (Well, maybe for underage children it might
need defining.)
Matthew 1:18-24 refers to Joseph and Jesus' mom as husband and wife. But
I have it on good authority that it was the custom in those days for couples
to be known as someone's husband and/or someone's wife during the
engagement period; which could be up to ten or twelve months prior to the
actual nuptials.
Matthew 1:24 is translated in some versions to say that Joseph took Mary
home. But a Greek word for home isn't actually in the manuscript. It just
says he took her; like this:
"And Joseph arose from his sleep, and did as the angel of the Lord
commanded him, and took her as his wife"
The Greek word for "took" has a variety of meanings, one of which is to
accept. In other words: Matt 1:24 just means that Joseph changed his mind
about the engagement; it doesn't mean they started living together.
_
● Matt 1:18 . . When His mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before
they came together she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit.
Webster's defines "betroth" as to give in marriage and/or to promise to
marry. The very same Greek word for betroth is employed again to describe
their relationship on the road to Bethlehem. (Luke 2:5)
The Greek word translated "came together" means conjoin. I should think
that word needs no defining. (Well, maybe for underage children it might
need defining.)
Matthew 1:18-24 refers to Joseph and Jesus' mom as husband and wife. But
I have it on good authority that it was the custom in those days for couples
to be known as someone's husband and/or someone's wife during the
engagement period; which could be up to ten or twelve months prior to the
actual nuptials.
Matthew 1:24 is translated in some versions to say that Joseph took Mary
home. But a Greek word for home isn't actually in the manuscript. It just
says he took her; like this:
"And Joseph arose from his sleep, and did as the angel of the Lord
commanded him, and took her as his wife"
The Greek word for "took" has a variety of meanings, one of which is to
accept. In other words: Matt 1:24 just means that Joseph changed his mind
about the engagement; it doesn't mean they started living together.
_
-
1
- Show all
.
● Luke 2:1-5 . . Now it came about in those days that a decree went out
from Caesar Augustus, that a census be taken of all the inhabited earth. This
was the first census taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria. And all
were proceeding to register for the census, everyone to his own city.
. . . And Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the city of Nazareth, to
Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the
house and family of David, in order to register, along with Mary, who was
engaged to him, and was with child.
That was the couple's first recorded public appearance and, by then, Mary
was showing because she was in her third trimester and the baby was full
term.
Artists often portray Jesus' mom riding a donkey, but in her condition, it's
far more likely she was transported in a wagon. Artists also typically depict
the couple traveling alone to Bethlehem, which is impressionistic rather than
realistic. They were far more likely with a group. Seeing as how Joseph was
of the house and lineage of David, then so
was his dad; and siblings too, if any.
● Luke 2:6-7 . . And it came about that while they were there, the days were
completed for her to give birth. And she gave birth to her first-born son.
Now, the thing is; Jesus was not only conceived out of wedlock, but he was
also born out of wedlock too because Joseph and Jesus' mom were not yet
married when they traveled to Bethlehem.
● Luke 2:21 . .On the eighth day, when it was time to circumcise him, he
was named Jesus, the name the angel had given him before he had been
conceived.
Both parents were commanded to give Mary's boy the name Jesus.
● Matt 1:21 . .She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name
Jesus
● Luke 1:31 . .You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to
give him the name Jesus.
People in a small town like Nazareth usually know everybody, and know all
about everybody. So it was probably common knowledge that Joseph was
marrying a girl whose baby was, from all appearances, illegitimate; and
there was no plausible way for Joseph and Mary to prove otherwise. In point
of fact, I'd not be surprised that the rumor mill was confident the baby was
Joseph's, especially seeing as how he stood with its mother for the naming;
and the community must have really been curious why he didn't marry her
sooner; which is typical for shotgun weddings.
(The Bible doesn't say whether the couple's parents were humiliated by this
business, but it's likely they were.)
Although some men's paternal feelings are easily roused by any and every
child they meet, there isn't a clue as to Joseph's feelings about Mary's infant
seeing as it wasn't his own, and I can't help but wonder if maybe Joseph was
somewhat grudging about giving it his name-- but of course reluctant or no,
he did and so Solomon became one of Jesus' many grandfathers.
● Matt 1:1-16 . .The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David
. . and to David was born Solomon . . . and to Solomon . . . was born Joseph
the husband of Mary, by whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
The identity of Jesus' biological father was suspicious; but when Joseph
stood with Mary to name her baby, from then on the lad became accepted as
Joseph's boy.
● Matt 13:55 . . Is not this the carpenter's son?
● Luke 2:48 . . His mother said to Him, "Son, why have you treated us this
way? Behold, your father and I have been anxiously looking for you."
Jesus was ordained of God to inherit David's throne (Luke 1:32). Now the
thing is; David's throne has never been passed down to one of his sons via a
mother; it's always been passed down via the fathers in his line.
For another; the throne has to come down via David's son Solomon (1Kings
1:13, and 1Chron 22:9-10). Joseph is related to Solomon (Matt 1:6 and Matt
1:16).
Long story short: it was necessary for Joseph to adopt Mary's boy in order to
get the lad into Solomon's genealogy and thus qualify as a rightful heir to
the throne promised him during the angel's visit with his mother. (Luke
1:31-33)
_
● Luke 2:1-5 . . Now it came about in those days that a decree went out
from Caesar Augustus, that a census be taken of all the inhabited earth. This
was the first census taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria. And all
were proceeding to register for the census, everyone to his own city.
. . . And Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the city of Nazareth, to
Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the
house and family of David, in order to register, along with Mary, who was
engaged to him, and was with child.
That was the couple's first recorded public appearance and, by then, Mary
was showing because she was in her third trimester and the baby was full
term.
Artists often portray Jesus' mom riding a donkey, but in her condition, it's
far more likely she was transported in a wagon. Artists also typically depict
the couple traveling alone to Bethlehem, which is impressionistic rather than
realistic. They were far more likely with a group. Seeing as how Joseph was
of the house and lineage of David, then so
was his dad; and siblings too, if any.
● Luke 2:6-7 . . And it came about that while they were there, the days were
completed for her to give birth. And she gave birth to her first-born son.
Now, the thing is; Jesus was not only conceived out of wedlock, but he was
also born out of wedlock too because Joseph and Jesus' mom were not yet
married when they traveled to Bethlehem.
● Luke 2:21 . .On the eighth day, when it was time to circumcise him, he
was named Jesus, the name the angel had given him before he had been
conceived.
Both parents were commanded to give Mary's boy the name Jesus.
● Matt 1:21 . .She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name
Jesus
● Luke 1:31 . .You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to
give him the name Jesus.
People in a small town like Nazareth usually know everybody, and know all
about everybody. So it was probably common knowledge that Joseph was
marrying a girl whose baby was, from all appearances, illegitimate; and
there was no plausible way for Joseph and Mary to prove otherwise. In point
of fact, I'd not be surprised that the rumor mill was confident the baby was
Joseph's, especially seeing as how he stood with its mother for the naming;
and the community must have really been curious why he didn't marry her
sooner; which is typical for shotgun weddings.
(The Bible doesn't say whether the couple's parents were humiliated by this
business, but it's likely they were.)
Although some men's paternal feelings are easily roused by any and every
child they meet, there isn't a clue as to Joseph's feelings about Mary's infant
seeing as it wasn't his own, and I can't help but wonder if maybe Joseph was
somewhat grudging about giving it his name-- but of course reluctant or no,
he did and so Solomon became one of Jesus' many grandfathers.
● Matt 1:1-16 . .The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David
. . and to David was born Solomon . . . and to Solomon . . . was born Joseph
the husband of Mary, by whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
The identity of Jesus' biological father was suspicious; but when Joseph
stood with Mary to name her baby, from then on the lad became accepted as
Joseph's boy.
● Matt 13:55 . . Is not this the carpenter's son?
● Luke 2:48 . . His mother said to Him, "Son, why have you treated us this
way? Behold, your father and I have been anxiously looking for you."
Jesus was ordained of God to inherit David's throne (Luke 1:32). Now the
thing is; David's throne has never been passed down to one of his sons via a
mother; it's always been passed down via the fathers in his line.
For another; the throne has to come down via David's son Solomon (1Kings
1:13, and 1Chron 22:9-10). Joseph is related to Solomon (Matt 1:6 and Matt
1:16).
Long story short: it was necessary for Joseph to adopt Mary's boy in order to
get the lad into Solomon's genealogy and thus qualify as a rightful heir to
the throne promised him during the angel's visit with his mother. (Luke
1:31-33)
_
.
● Luke 2:1-5 . . Now it came about in those days that a decree went out
from Caesar Augustus, that a census be taken of all the inhabited earth. This
was the first census taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria. And all
were proceeding to register for the census, everyone to his own city.
. . . And Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the city of Nazareth, to
Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the
house and family of David, in order to register, along with Mary, who was
engaged to him, and was with child.
Now, if so that Joseph and Jesus' mom were not yet fully married at that
point, then why was she traveling to Bethlehem with him; and why would
she want to go there anyway; especially in her condition? It's 68 miles one
way as the crow flies; and no doubt quite a few more miles than that via the
ancient road systems; which were not paved.
The answer is pretty simple. Mary's family was biologically related to David
just as much as Joseph's. In other words; she had to go to Bethlehem for
the census. So then what is usually depicted on Xmas cards as a lone couple
traveling to Bethlehem was far more likely a joint venture consisting of both
families: Joseph's and Mary's.
So; how do I know Mary was biologically related to David? Well; were the
language and grammar of the opening remarks to Jesus' genealogy-- per
Luke's gospel --not so controversial, it would be easy; so I'll have to take us
another route.
● Rom 1:1-3 . . Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David
according to the flesh
The Greek word for "seed" in that passage is sperma (sper'-mah) which is a
bit ambiguous because it can refer to spiritual progeny as well as to
biological progeny; for example:
● Gal 3:29 . . If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed.
That seed is obviously spiritual progeny; whereas David's is biological
because his seed is "according to the flesh" i.e. his physical human body.
Well; seeing as how Joseph wasn't Jesus' biological father, then we're left
with Mary's bloodline as the default trail of flesh to David; and if Mary, then
of course her dad too.
Now, there's a rumor going round that people's biological father is the
source of their blood. But if we keep in mind that Eve was constructed of
material taken from Adam's body, then we are assured that any child that
biologically descends from Eve's body descends from Adam's body too;
whether virgin-conceived or normally conceived makes no difference as all
human flesh is Adam's flesh regardless of race or gender; and if so, then all
human blood regardless of type-- whether A, B, AB, and O, and/or RhD --is
Adam's blood regardless of race or gender.
In other words: the only kind of human blood that could possibly be in Jesus'
body was Adam's blood because there just simply isn't any other human
blood to work with.
● Acts 17:26 . . He made from one, every nation of mankind to live on all
the face of the earth.
There's also an ancient prediction in the book of Genesis that biologically
relates Jesus to Eve.
● Gen 3:15 . . I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between
your seed and her seed; he shall bruise you on the head, and you shall
bruise him on the heel.
Now if Jesus is biologically related to Eve, then so is his mother; meaning of
course that both mother and son are biologically related to both David and Adam.
_
● Luke 2:1-5 . . Now it came about in those days that a decree went out
from Caesar Augustus, that a census be taken of all the inhabited earth. This
was the first census taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria. And all
were proceeding to register for the census, everyone to his own city.
. . . And Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the city of Nazareth, to
Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the
house and family of David, in order to register, along with Mary, who was
engaged to him, and was with child.
Now, if so that Joseph and Jesus' mom were not yet fully married at that
point, then why was she traveling to Bethlehem with him; and why would
she want to go there anyway; especially in her condition? It's 68 miles one
way as the crow flies; and no doubt quite a few more miles than that via the
ancient road systems; which were not paved.
The answer is pretty simple. Mary's family was biologically related to David
just as much as Joseph's. In other words; she had to go to Bethlehem for
the census. So then what is usually depicted on Xmas cards as a lone couple
traveling to Bethlehem was far more likely a joint venture consisting of both
families: Joseph's and Mary's.
So; how do I know Mary was biologically related to David? Well; were the
language and grammar of the opening remarks to Jesus' genealogy-- per
Luke's gospel --not so controversial, it would be easy; so I'll have to take us
another route.
● Rom 1:1-3 . . Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David
according to the flesh
The Greek word for "seed" in that passage is sperma (sper'-mah) which is a
bit ambiguous because it can refer to spiritual progeny as well as to
biological progeny; for example:
● Gal 3:29 . . If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed.
That seed is obviously spiritual progeny; whereas David's is biological
because his seed is "according to the flesh" i.e. his physical human body.
Well; seeing as how Joseph wasn't Jesus' biological father, then we're left
with Mary's bloodline as the default trail of flesh to David; and if Mary, then
of course her dad too.
Now, there's a rumor going round that people's biological father is the
source of their blood. But if we keep in mind that Eve was constructed of
material taken from Adam's body, then we are assured that any child that
biologically descends from Eve's body descends from Adam's body too;
whether virgin-conceived or normally conceived makes no difference as all
human flesh is Adam's flesh regardless of race or gender; and if so, then all
human blood regardless of type-- whether A, B, AB, and O, and/or RhD --is
Adam's blood regardless of race or gender.
In other words: the only kind of human blood that could possibly be in Jesus'
body was Adam's blood because there just simply isn't any other human
blood to work with.
● Acts 17:26 . . He made from one, every nation of mankind to live on all
the face of the earth.
There's also an ancient prediction in the book of Genesis that biologically
relates Jesus to Eve.
● Gen 3:15 . . I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between
your seed and her seed; he shall bruise you on the head, and you shall
bruise him on the heel.
Now if Jesus is biologically related to Eve, then so is his mother; meaning of
course that both mother and son are biologically related to both David and Adam.
_
.
FAQ: Why was Joseph left out of Jesus' conception? Why couldn't he have
been Jesus' biological father?
A: There's a few theories going around out there we might consider.
1• Men are filthy, unsanitary beasts. It's unthinkable that God would permit
them to contaminate, and thus violate, the womb that was to bear the Holy
Son of God.
» Women's bodies are made of material taken from a man's body (Gen
2:21-23). Mr.Job nailed it when he remarked: Who can bring a clean thing
out of an unclean? Not one (Job 14:4). You see; women aren't from Venus
after all; they're actually from Mars, same as men.
2• It was a measure to prevent the so-called fallen nature from infecting
Jesus; which is believed inherited from a child's biological father.
» Well; whence did Eve get it? She was constructed of material taken from
Adam's body; but he tasted the fruit after she was born, so it was too late
for him to pass the fallen nature on to her via his genetics.
3• Joseph was left out of Jesus' conception in order to protect him from the
curse upon king Jeconiahs' royal posterity (Jer 22:29-30, Matt 1:11).
» That's a very popular theory among quite a few Protestants. However;
according to the language and grammar of the curse; its duration was
limited to an era when the land of Israel was divided into two kingdoms--
Judah in the south and Samaria in the north --which came to an end when
Nebuchadnezzar crushed the whole country and led first Samaria, and then
later Judah, off to Babylonian slavery. When Christ takes the reins, the land
of Israel will be unified, i.e. it will no longer be Judah in the south and
Samaria in the north.
And besides, Jeconiah's royal line and the curse were inseparable. Had the
curse been established in perpetuity, then when Jesus was placed in
Jeconiah's royal line via his adoption to Joseph, he would've inherited the
curse right along with the line; virgin conceived or not would've made no
difference.
4• Another theory, which to me seems the best interpretation, is that it was
simply God's wishes that Jesus be not only Adam's progeny, but also His
own, viz: Son of Man and Son of God, in accord with the angel's
announcement. (Luke 1:32-35)
_
FAQ: Why was Joseph left out of Jesus' conception? Why couldn't he have
been Jesus' biological father?
A: There's a few theories going around out there we might consider.
1• Men are filthy, unsanitary beasts. It's unthinkable that God would permit
them to contaminate, and thus violate, the womb that was to bear the Holy
Son of God.
» Women's bodies are made of material taken from a man's body (Gen
2:21-23). Mr.Job nailed it when he remarked: Who can bring a clean thing
out of an unclean? Not one (Job 14:4). You see; women aren't from Venus
after all; they're actually from Mars, same as men.
2• It was a measure to prevent the so-called fallen nature from infecting
Jesus; which is believed inherited from a child's biological father.
» Well; whence did Eve get it? She was constructed of material taken from
Adam's body; but he tasted the fruit after she was born, so it was too late
for him to pass the fallen nature on to her via his genetics.
3• Joseph was left out of Jesus' conception in order to protect him from the
curse upon king Jeconiahs' royal posterity (Jer 22:29-30, Matt 1:11).
» That's a very popular theory among quite a few Protestants. However;
according to the language and grammar of the curse; its duration was
limited to an era when the land of Israel was divided into two kingdoms--
Judah in the south and Samaria in the north --which came to an end when
Nebuchadnezzar crushed the whole country and led first Samaria, and then
later Judah, off to Babylonian slavery. When Christ takes the reins, the land
of Israel will be unified, i.e. it will no longer be Judah in the south and
Samaria in the north.
And besides, Jeconiah's royal line and the curse were inseparable. Had the
curse been established in perpetuity, then when Jesus was placed in
Jeconiah's royal line via his adoption to Joseph, he would've inherited the
curse right along with the line; virgin conceived or not would've made no
difference.
4• Another theory, which to me seems the best interpretation, is that it was
simply God's wishes that Jesus be not only Adam's progeny, but also His
own, viz: Son of Man and Son of God, in accord with the angel's
announcement. (Luke 1:32-35)
_
.
When Eve tasted the forbidden fruit, it had no effect. She went right on just
as naked as before without the slightest feelings of shame. It wasn't till
Adam tasted the fruit that she obtained a sense of decency. Prior to that,
had someone walked up and said; "Hey, put some clothes on; you're
indecent." she would've stared at them as if they were a man gone mad.
Eve was born before Adam tasted the fruit; so he could not, nor did he, give
her a sense of decency by means of procreation, nor by means of his body
parts that God used to construct her.
Since Eve didn't obtain a sense of decency from the chemistry of the fruit,
nor via procreation by means of Adam's body parts; then whence?
We're left with two alternatives: either God did it or the Serpent did it. My
money is on the Serpent, a.k.a. the Devil (Rev 20:2)
He has the power of death (John 8:44, Heb 2:14) and is able to tamper with
the human body and the human mind, e.g. Luke 13:16, Mark 5:1-5, and Eph
2:2.
The Serpent was apparently all set and ready to wield the power of death
the moment that Adam crossed the line and ate that fruit. It amazes me
how quickly it set in. As soon as Adam tasted the fruit, they both
immediately set to work with the fig leaves.
FAQ: Why wasn't Eve effected by the Serpent's power of death when she
tasted the forbidden fruit?
A: It was apparently God's wishes that sin and death come into the world via
a man's actions just as life and righteousness would later be offered to the
world via a man's actions. (Rom 5:12-21)
FAQ: When does the Serpent do his deadly work on people. . . in the womb
or out of the womb?
A: Adam and Eve demonstrate that it can be done on adults, but I'm
guessing that for most of us it's in the womb. (Ps 51:5)
In conclusion: even if Joseph had been baby Jesus' end-game biological
father, the child wouldn't have necessarily been born with the so-called
fallen nature because it's not passed on by one's biological father nor one's
biological mother. It's obtained from humanity's other father; the Serpent--
ergo: protecting baby Jesus from the so-called fallen nature was just a
simple matter of keeping the Devil's paws off him.
_
When Eve tasted the forbidden fruit, it had no effect. She went right on just
as naked as before without the slightest feelings of shame. It wasn't till
Adam tasted the fruit that she obtained a sense of decency. Prior to that,
had someone walked up and said; "Hey, put some clothes on; you're
indecent." she would've stared at them as if they were a man gone mad.
Eve was born before Adam tasted the fruit; so he could not, nor did he, give
her a sense of decency by means of procreation, nor by means of his body
parts that God used to construct her.
Since Eve didn't obtain a sense of decency from the chemistry of the fruit,
nor via procreation by means of Adam's body parts; then whence?
We're left with two alternatives: either God did it or the Serpent did it. My
money is on the Serpent, a.k.a. the Devil (Rev 20:2)
He has the power of death (John 8:44, Heb 2:14) and is able to tamper with
the human body and the human mind, e.g. Luke 13:16, Mark 5:1-5, and Eph
2:2.
The Serpent was apparently all set and ready to wield the power of death
the moment that Adam crossed the line and ate that fruit. It amazes me
how quickly it set in. As soon as Adam tasted the fruit, they both
immediately set to work with the fig leaves.
FAQ: Why wasn't Eve effected by the Serpent's power of death when she
tasted the forbidden fruit?
A: It was apparently God's wishes that sin and death come into the world via
a man's actions just as life and righteousness would later be offered to the
world via a man's actions. (Rom 5:12-21)
FAQ: When does the Serpent do his deadly work on people. . . in the womb
or out of the womb?
A: Adam and Eve demonstrate that it can be done on adults, but I'm
guessing that for most of us it's in the womb. (Ps 51:5)
In conclusion: even if Joseph had been baby Jesus' end-game biological
father, the child wouldn't have necessarily been born with the so-called
fallen nature because it's not passed on by one's biological father nor one's
biological mother. It's obtained from humanity's other father; the Serpent--
ergo: protecting baby Jesus from the so-called fallen nature was just a
simple matter of keeping the Devil's paws off him.
_
==============================================
what's your point here web??? it really doesn't look 'up-right', but just the opposite -
trying to cause 'strife-questioning' the value of Yeshua's Holy choice??? REALLY???
where are you coming from with such an un-valuable/Unkind question???
doubt that you will answer, as usual, but really, you have crossed the line in
our opinion!!!
what's your point here web??? it really doesn't look 'up-right', but just the opposite -
trying to cause 'strife-questioning' the value of Yeshua's Holy choice??? REALLY???
where are you coming from with such an un-valuable/Unkind question???
doubt that you will answer, as usual, but really, you have crossed the line in
our opinion!!!
.
● Luke 2:22-24 . . And when the days of her purification according to the
law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present
him to the Lord. (As it is written in the law of the Lord, Every male that
openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord) And to offer a sacrifice
according to that which is said in the law of the Lord: a pair of turtledoves,
or two young pigeons.
The birds were for Jesus' mom (Lev 12:6-8). They were a "sin" offering; but
I don't think it would be wise to conclude from the wording of Leviticus that
Jesus' mom was a sinner because whether sinner or saint, God required it of
Moses' people; take for example Matt 13:13-15 where it's said:
"Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to be baptized by John. But
John tried to deter him, saying, "I need to be baptized by you, and do you
come to me? Jesus replied: Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to
fulfill all righteousness. Then John consented."
John's baptism was "unto repentance" (Matt 3:11). Well; surely Jesus
needed no repentance; he was a saint in the extreme sense of the word: i.e.
Jesus was 110% sinless (John 8:29, 2Cor 5:21, Heb 4:15, and 1Pet 2:22).
However, it was God's wishes that people in the Israel of that day submit to
John's baptism regardless whether they needed it-- not only because it was
God's wishes, but by doing so they publically acknowledged that repentance
is a good thing.
In other words: Jesus' mom brought those birds; not because she was a
sinner, but primarily because it was the right thing for Jewish mothers to do.
Now, Jesus was circumcised on his eighth day (Luke 2:21). His mom brought
her birds thirty-three days later (Lev 12:3-4). Along with the birds, she was
supposed to bring a sum of money to redeem her boy (Num 18:15-16).
The redemption money was a buy-back; in other words: its purpose wasn't
to save Jesus' soul from Hell; rather, the money was a ransom; so to speak.
All the firstborn sons in Israel were God's private property to do with as He
pleased. In other words: the boys were all born into slavery to God. The
redemption money bought them their freedom.
It really wasn't all that much; just five shekels, after the shekel of the
sanctuary, which is something like twenty gerahs per shekel (Ezek 45:12)
roughly equivalent to 10 English pennyweights or 1/2 troy ounce of silver.
So five shekels would be about equal to 2½ troy ounces. The price of silver
as of Aug 05, 2020 was 27 US dollars per troy. So 2½ ounces troy would
total about 67.50 US dollars (57.35 Euro).
I don't know the equivalent of $67.50 back in Mary's day but in our day,
silver prices fluctuate due to the activity of investors; back in her day silver's
value was no doubt strictly regulated by the government and thus probably
worth a whole lots less than it is now.
_
● Luke 2:22-24 . . And when the days of her purification according to the
law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present
him to the Lord. (As it is written in the law of the Lord, Every male that
openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord) And to offer a sacrifice
according to that which is said in the law of the Lord: a pair of turtledoves,
or two young pigeons.
The birds were for Jesus' mom (Lev 12:6-8). They were a "sin" offering; but
I don't think it would be wise to conclude from the wording of Leviticus that
Jesus' mom was a sinner because whether sinner or saint, God required it of
Moses' people; take for example Matt 13:13-15 where it's said:
"Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to be baptized by John. But
John tried to deter him, saying, "I need to be baptized by you, and do you
come to me? Jesus replied: Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to
fulfill all righteousness. Then John consented."
John's baptism was "unto repentance" (Matt 3:11). Well; surely Jesus
needed no repentance; he was a saint in the extreme sense of the word: i.e.
Jesus was 110% sinless (John 8:29, 2Cor 5:21, Heb 4:15, and 1Pet 2:22).
However, it was God's wishes that people in the Israel of that day submit to
John's baptism regardless whether they needed it-- not only because it was
God's wishes, but by doing so they publically acknowledged that repentance
is a good thing.
In other words: Jesus' mom brought those birds; not because she was a
sinner, but primarily because it was the right thing for Jewish mothers to do.
Now, Jesus was circumcised on his eighth day (Luke 2:21). His mom brought
her birds thirty-three days later (Lev 12:3-4). Along with the birds, she was
supposed to bring a sum of money to redeem her boy (Num 18:15-16).
The redemption money was a buy-back; in other words: its purpose wasn't
to save Jesus' soul from Hell; rather, the money was a ransom; so to speak.
All the firstborn sons in Israel were God's private property to do with as He
pleased. In other words: the boys were all born into slavery to God. The
redemption money bought them their freedom.
It really wasn't all that much; just five shekels, after the shekel of the
sanctuary, which is something like twenty gerahs per shekel (Ezek 45:12)
roughly equivalent to 10 English pennyweights or 1/2 troy ounce of silver.
So five shekels would be about equal to 2½ troy ounces. The price of silver
as of Aug 05, 2020 was 27 US dollars per troy. So 2½ ounces troy would
total about 67.50 US dollars (57.35 Euro).
I don't know the equivalent of $67.50 back in Mary's day but in our day,
silver prices fluctuate due to the activity of investors; back in her day silver's
value was no doubt strictly regulated by the government and thus probably
worth a whole lots less than it is now.
_