many or few?

[Sue D.]

@Beetow - - your opening comment -- "a common posit relative to Josephs' geneology is that IF Joseph had fathered Jesus , then......... Your 'if, then,' comment didn't happen. So, therefore, the rest of your comments are mute.

So I'd be asking you the same question that "JerryfromMass" is asking.

 

[Beetow]

Why is it you can't simply say God the Son left his rightful and eternal place in
heaven to become human through a miraculous virgin birth?

We are on a world-wide web Jerry, and some of the folks out there in cyberspace
looking in on us are critical thinkers, i.e. they're intelligent and they have
questions.
_

 

[JerryfromMass]

We are on a world-wide web Jerry, and some of the folks out there in cyberspace
looking in on us are critical thinkers, i.e. they're intelligent and they have
questions.
_

Yes, I do understand that people are watching. They are always watching. However, if what you're doing is an exercise in that which we are exhorted to do, i.e., give a "defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you" 1 Peter 3:15, then you're missing the mark, IMO.

We are commanded to proclaim the good news to the lost and the afraid, and not to engage in our own interpretation of geneaoligies.

Blessings to you and yours.

 

[Beetow]

Continued from posts No. 713, 715, 719, 723, 730, 734, and 739.


It's commonly believed, and taught, that the so-called fallen nature is inherited by
children from their biological fathers. Oh? Then whence did Eve get it?

She was constructed of material taken from Adam's body. But the entirety of
Eve's existence-- her body, soul, and spirit --was completed prior to Adam himself
tasting the forbidden fruit; so it was impossible for him to infect Eve with the fallen
nature via procreation.

This may seem a trivial detail, but not when it's commonly believed, and taught,
that one of the two primary reasons that Jesus was virgin-conceived was to avoid
contracting the fallen nature from Mary's husband Joseph.

So; if Jesus' virgin conception had nothing to do with Jeconiah, and nothing to do
with the so-called fallen nature; then what was the purpose?

The answer to that question is located in Luke 1:32-35 where Mary was informed
that her baby would be known as the son of God, i.e. God's offspring. That could
never be were Jesus fathered normally, i.e. by a man.

Did the Holy Ghost sleep with Mary to make this happen? No, of course not. The
Ghost simply supplied the miraculous element of Jesus' conception.

NOTE: The angel said that the Holy Ghost would "overshadow" Jesus' mom; which
is very similar to Gen 1:1 where the Ghost overshadowed the work of creating the
cosmos with all of its forms of life, matter, and energy, viz: it appers to me that the
Ghost supplied the miraculous element of the cosmos' creation just as It supplied
the miraculous element of Jesus' conception.
_

 

[Bob Carabbio]

It's very crucial that the Y chromosome for making Jesus not be created from
scratch because it had to be David's chromosome in order for Jesus to qualify as
the fruit of David's loins, i.e. David's seed according to the flesh.

That's a very "Fundy" opinion if there ever was one!!!

 

[B-A-C]

NOTE: The angel said that the Holy Ghost would "overshadow" Jesus' mom; which
is very similar to Gen 1:1 where the Ghost overshadowed the work of creating the
cosmos with all of its forms of life, matter, and energy, viz: it appers to me that the
Ghost supplied the miraculous element of the cosmos' creation just as It supplied
the miraculous element of Jesus' conception.

And yet Mary remained a virgin. All the verses that say Joseph was Jesus's father, are inferring him as Jesus's earthly step-father.
Yes, the Holy Ghost gave the miraculous element. An element that non of us fully-humans have. Divinity.

In order for a doctrine to be valid it has to agree with all scripture. You can't simply dismiss all the verses about Mary being a virgin, just because you don't like them.

Jesus was related to David on both sides.

Luke 3:31; the son of Melea, the son of Menna, the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan, the son of David,

Matt 1:6; Jesse was the father of David the king. David was the father of Solomon by Bathsheba who had been the wife of Uriah.
Matt 1:7; Solomon was the father of Rehoboam, Rehoboam the father of Abijah, and Abijah the father of Asa.

 

[Sue D.]

@Beetow -- This Forum is world-wide -- a wonderful way to share God's Word as God's Word. You are , in fact, actively Discrediting God's Word with Your personal speculations.

"Infect Eve with the fallen nature...." Let's try Scripture -- Adam was told by Lord God to Not eat of the fruit of that particular tree. Genesis 2:16 -18 Then Eve is formed out of Adam / woman.

Then in chapter 3 is when the serpent enters the picture and temps Eve to disregard God's Word about the fruit. They both partook of that fruit at the same time and their eyes were opened at the same time, Their innocent 'left' at the same time.
And mankind inherited our sinful nature.

 

[Beetow]

When God is ignored; He can be expected to reciprocate.

• Prv 1:24-33 . . I called you so often, but you didn't come. I reached out to you,
but you paid no attention. You ignored my advice and rejected the correction I
offered. So I will laugh when you are in trouble! I will mock you when disaster
overtakes you-- when calamity overcomes you like a storm, when you are engulfed
by trouble, and when anguish and distress overwhelm you.

. . . I will not answer when they cry for help. Even though they anxiously search for
me, they will not find me. For they hated knowledge and chose not to fear The
Lord. They rejected my advice and paid no attention when I corrected them. That is
why they must eat the bitter fruit of living their own way. They must experience the
full terror of the path they have chosen. For they are simpletons who turn away
from me-- to death. They are fools, and their own complacency will destroy them.
But all who listen to me will live in peace and safety, unafraid of harm.

Case in point is Mr. Esau.

"Esau, who sold his own birthright for a single meal. For you know that even
afterwards, when he desired to inherit the blessing, he was rejected, for he found
no place for repentance, though he sought for it with tears." (Heb 12:16-17)

The Greek word translated "repentance" is metanoia (met-an'-oy-ah) which
essentially means to change one's mind; viz: to reconsider.

Esau was secular to the bone. But he "got religion" right quick when he saw his way
of life costing him the blessing; but alas, the poor slob was a day late and a dollar
short; so to speak.

Lesson to be learned: The time for people to believe in Hell is not when they get
there, rather, before they get there.

UPDATE: 237 days have elapsed since my first comment. If the figures in post No.5
are in the ball park, then something like 14,723,388 new arrivals have checked into
the fiery sector of Hades since Oct 08, 2020.
_

 

[Sue D.]

@Beetow -- there's a world of difference between being the Son of God / deity AND being an off-spring of God. Because there is no such thing as being an off-spring of God.

It was a miraculous event -- when the Holy Spirit came upon Mary - just as the Scriptural passage says.

 

[Sue D.]

So now you're changing the subject. Now to Essau.

And, yes, obviously -- NOW -- in This world is when each person makes his /her own personal decision either for accepting Jesus Christ as their personal Savior or rejecting Him. And it's an eternal decision.

Previously you suggested that people want to hear an intelligent discussion of God's Word. So apparently you feel the need to make the conception of Jesus Christ 'better' than having the Holy Spirit coming upon her.

How about -- the Truth will set you free. Freedom in Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is telling all of us that He is the way, the truth and the life and no man comes to the Father but by Him. John 14:6.

 

[Beetow]

there is no such thing as being an off-spring of God.

• John 1:18 . . No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is
in the bosom of the Father, he has declared Him.

The Greek word translated "only begotten" is monogenes (mon-og-en-ace') which
is also found in John 1:14, John 3:16, John 3:18, and 1John 4:9. It's a combination
of two words.

The first is mono, which music buffs recognize as a single channel rather than two
or four in surround sound stereo. Mono is very common; e.g. monogamy,
monofilament, monotonous, mononucleotide, monochrome, monogram, monolith,
monologue, monomial, et al.

The other word is genes; from whence we get the English word gene; which
Webster's defines as a biological term indicating a part of a cell that controls or
influences the appearance, growth, etc., of a living thing. In other words:
monogenes refers to one biological gene set rather than many.

Monogenes always, and without exception, refers to a home's sole biological child,
e.g. Luke 7:12, Luke 8:42, and Luke 9:38.

If parents have two or more biological children, none of them qualify as monogenes
because in order to qualify as a monogenes child, the child has to be an only child.
And of course adopted children aren't even in the running because monogenes only
applies to one's natural offspring.

The ramifications of this are very useful in discussions with Jehovah's Witnesses.

When I reproduced, my son came into the world just as human as I because human
life is the only kind of life that I am capable of reproducing.

So; with that in mind: if Christ really is God's actual offspring-- as my son is my
actual offspring --then when Christ came into the world, he came just as divine as
the one who produced him, i.e. Jesus Christ is just as much God as his Father
because God life is the only kind of life that God is capable of reproducing; viz:
more of Himself, just as when I reproduced, I produced more of myself.

FAQ: Are you suggesting that Christians who've undergone the Spirit birth spoken
by John 3:3-8 are divine?

A: Born-again Christians are sons of God via regeneration rather than reproduction.
So then: NO, they are not divine: in point of fact they are creations, i.e. God's
handiwork. (2Cor 5:17)

After they've undergone the Spirit birth, they're placed as sons, i.e. adopted. (Rom
8:15-16, Gal 4:4-6, and Eph 1:4-5)
_

 

[JerryfromMass]

• John 1:18 . . No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is
in the bosom of the Father, he has declared Him.

The Greek word translated "only begotten" is monogenes (mon-og-en-ace') which
is also found in John 1:14, John 3:16, John 3:18, and 1John 4:9. It's a combination
of two words.

The first is mono, which music buffs recognize as a single channel rather than two
or four in surround sound stereo. Mono is very common; e.g. monogamy,
monofilament, monotonous, mononucleotide, monochrome, monogram, monolith,
monologue, monomial, et al.

The other word is genes; from whence we get the English word gene; which
Webster's defines as a biological term indicating a part of a cell that controls or
influences the appearance, growth, etc., of a living thing. In other words:
monogenes refers to one biological gene set rather than many.

Monogenes always, and without exception, refers to a home's sole biological child,
e.g. Luke 7:12, Luke 8:42, and Luke 9:38.

If parents have two or more biological children, none of them qualify as monogenes
because in order to qualify as a monogenes child, the child has to be an only child.
And of course adopted children aren't even in the running because monogenes only
applies to one's natural offspring.

The ramifications of this are very useful in discussions with Jehovah's Witnesses.

When I reproduced, my son came into the world just as human as I because human
life is the only kind of life that I am capable of reproducing.

So; with that in mind: if Christ really is God's actual offspring-- as my son is my
actual offspring --then when Christ came into the world, he came just as divine as
the one who produced him, i.e. Jesus Christ is just as much God as his Father
because God life is the only kind of life that God is capable of reproducing; viz:
more of Himself, just as when I reproduced, I produced more of myself.

FAQ: Are you suggesting that Christians who've undergone the Spirit birth spoken
by John 3:3-8 are divine?

A: Born-again Christians are sons of God via regeneration rather than reproduction.
So then: NO, they are not divine: in point of fact they are creations, i.e. God's
handiwork. (2Cor 5:17)

After they've undergone the Spirit birth, they're placed as sons, i.e. adopted. (Rom
8:15-16, Gal 4:4-6, and Eph 1:4-5)
_

Monogenes means one of a kind. Jesus is one of a kind, there is no other, HE is the only one.

 

[B-A-C]

Boy, I'm certainly glad this thread didn't get hi-jacked.

But since we are here. Jesus is the only person "conceived by the Holy Spirit". The rest of us are "born of the Spirit".
Jesus didn't have to be born again. The rest of us do.

Again, Jesus existed long before He came as a human to the Earth.


John 1:14; And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.
John 1:15; John *testified about Him and cried out, saying, "This was He of whom I said, 'He who comes after me has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me.'"

How can this be, if John the baptist was born 6 months before Jesus?

Is Jesus the Son ever called God?

Heb 1:7; And of the angels He says, "WHO MAKES HIS ANGELS WINDS, AND HIS MINISTERS A FLAME OF FIRE."
Heb 1:8; But of the Son He says, "YOUR THRONE, O GOD, IS FOREVER AND EVER, AND THE RIGHTEOUS SCEPTER IS THE SCEPTER OF HIS KINGDOM.
Heb 1:9; "YOU HAVE LOVED RIGHTEOUSNESS AND HATED LAWLESSNESS; THEREFORE GOD, YOUR GOD, HAS ANOINTED YOU WITH THE OIL OF GLADNESS ABOVE YOUR COMPANIONS."

Is Jesus ever called God out-right in the Bible?

Tit 2:13; looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Christ Jesus,

2 Pet 1:1; Simon Peter, a bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours, by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:

Both Peter and Paul called Jesus "God" (and Savior).

Gen 1:1; In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

God created the heavens and the earth. But yet...

John 1:3; All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.

Jesus created the heavens and the earth.

Col 1:16; For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him.

Jesus created everything. So Jesus must be God.

 

[B-A-C]

John 8:58; Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am."

Now of courses Abraham was on the earth hundreds of years before Jesus was born as a human.
Even hundreds of years after we hear about Abraham, God tells Moses...

Exod 3:13; Then Moses said to God, "Behold, I am going to the sons of Israel, and I will say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you.' Now they may say to me, 'What is His name?' What shall I say to them?"
Exod 3:14; God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM"; and He said, "Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you.'"

God said He is "I am". Jesus said He was "I am".

Jesus was in heaven before Adam and Eve fell in the garden.

Luke 10:18; And He said to them, "I was watching Satan fall from heaven like lightning.

In Rev 21:6; God says He is the Alpha and the Omega, (the first and the last).
But In Rev 1:8; and Rev 22:13; Jesus says He is the Alpha and the Omega.

When God finally got around the creating man, He said...

Gen 1:26; Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."

Who was the "our" in this verse?

 

[Beetow]

I fully expected some of you to go ballistic over post No.751; your reaction
is no surprise because I have known all along that you are unable to discern the
differences between the Creator of John 1:1-3 and the flesh that the Creator
became in John 1:14. Like many others, you will readily attest your belief that
Jesus Christ is fully God and fully Man, while in practice you only believe he is fully
God.
_

 

[B-A-C]

I have known all along that you are unable to discern the
differences between the Creator of John 1:1-3 and the flesh that the Creator
became in John 1:14.

It's the same person.

Col 1:15; He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.

God always existed. He had no beginning.
But creation didn't always exist. The Earth, the universe, mankind, all had a beginning.
However when God made creation, Jesus was the "firstborn of all creation".
That doesn't mean He didn't exist before creation, it simply means He was the "first" in all creation.

Do you worship Jesus?

 

[Sue D.]

@B-A-C -- referring to your last question -- Genesis 1:26 -- who / what is 'Our' referring to. That has been questioned a bit -- 'Our' refers to the trinity -- God the Father, Jesus Christ His Son and the Holy Spirit. But what does the 'image' / 'likeness' refer to? Being in human form, not like the animal world?

God is Spirit -- the Holy Spirit is obviously 'Spirit' -- Jesus Christ came to this earth as a Person. The person has a body, soul , spirit. Or body and soul. Some equate 'soul' and 'spirit' as the same.

 

[Sue D.]

I fully expected some of you to go ballistic over post No.751; your reaction
is no surprise because I have known all along that you are unable to discern the
differences between the Creator of John 1:1-3 and the flesh that the Creator
became in John 1:14. Like many others, you will readily attest your belief that
Jesus Christ is fully God and fully Man, while in practice you only believe he is fully
God.
_

Who is the 'you' that you are referring to -- apparently everyone who you assume is reading this thread?

You are presenting yourself as being a 'guru' of sorts. As 'The' person who knows all.

I simply like to challenge your concepts when they are questionable.

According to Scripture -- while Jesus Christ was here on earth -- He Was fully human and fully divine / deity.

Look at John 10:30 "I and My Father are One." If he had died on the cross as a common criminal or as a religious martyr of that time, His death would have meant nothing -- except another body dying on a cross.
But, Because He was the Son of God -- His death and burial and bodily resurrection on the 3rd day Proved who He was. AND He and only He could take the sins of mankind upon Himself and die with them and provide for our salvation From hell / lake of fire and brimstone for all eternity. He / Jesus Christ went to hell In Our Place and came back Up from that. And after 40 days, He ascended back up To His Father in heaven.

And God, in heaven, wants to be Our heavenly Father. He wants relationship with each of us. But He Also knows that many people Won't accept His salvation.

 

[Beetow]

Monogenes always, and without exception, refers to a home's sole biological child,
e.g. Luke 7:12, Luke 8:42, and Luke 9:38.

FAQ: What about Heb 11:17 where Isaac is stated to be Abraham's monogenes
child? Wasn't Ishmael a biological child of his too?

A: At the time of the event recorded in the 22nd of Genesis, Ishmael was no longer
Abraham's son. Paternal laws back in that ancient culture allowed a slave owner to
disown his son if the lad was conceived in a relation with one of the owner's
female slaves.

The catch is: the owner had to emancipate the mother, which Abraham had already
done at Sarah's urging, and God's approval.

The Hebrew word for "sent her away" in Gen 21:14 is from shalach (shaw-lakh')
which is a versatile word that can be used of divorce as well as for the
emancipation of slaves. In other words: Hagar wasn't banished as is commonly
assumed; no, she was set free; and it's very important to nail that down in our
thinking because if Abraham had merely banished Hagar, then her son Ishmael
would have retained his legal status as Abraham's firstborn.

So then according to the laws of nature, Ishmael was one of Abraham's biological
sons (Gen 25:9) whereas according to the culture, and the will of God, he wasn't.

Now, here's the inescapable ramification:

Like reproduces its like. In other words: If Christ really is David's progeny, then
Christ is just as much a human being as David. In the same vein; if Christ really is
God's progeny; then Christ is just as much a divine being as God, viz: Son of God
and Son of Man.

To say that this is all very baffling, illogical, unscientific, and unreasonable would be
an understatement. In my mind's normal way of thinking, Christ's rather odd case
of mixed-species genetics is an outlandish fantasy that, biologically, makes no
sense at all. It's sort of like crossing an iguana with an apricot to produce a reptilian
fruit tree. But; the circumstances of Christ's conception are in the Bible, so those of
us who claim to believe in Christianity have got to accept them.
_

 

[Sue D.]

Jesus Christ is part of the eternal Godhead / Trinity.

God the Father is not a parental figure to Jesus Christ His Son.