Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You haven't read the story and so you aren't informed
Mary was engaged, formally and legally, but not yet taken as wife.
Mary was a virgin, and the flesh body of the New Man was formed in her womb. The body, only, was formed in the womb of the virgin in the same manner that the first man, Adam, was formed in the earth, but He who incarnated in that body of prepared flesh was not of Adam flesh. That body was made brand new, by the power of the Holy Spirit forming it as a New Creation; and the Living Spirit, Christ, incarnated into that prepared body of flesh; and so He came as our Kinsman, to be our legal Redeemer.
The body of flesh was nurtured by Mary, but she was not the mother of His Person/being, nor did she contribute to his flesh body's creation. The Son of God has no beginning, no father, no mother, no genealogy, as Hebrews 7 states. He is YHWH from heaven, come in flesh of a New Creation, fully human being body; to be the Firstborn of the second Man, and the only brother, in that flesh body, to the Adam creation race; and therefore legal Kinsman of Adam; who has the power and the will to ransom the Adam creation race, back, for the Glory to indwell.
Perhaps the most famous mistranslation of the Bible, the word virgin here comes from a mistranslated Greek word for virgin.
The original Hebrew version uses the word "almah" which means "young woman" which may or may not refer to a virgin. Of course the context of the original Hebrew Isaiah does not refer to a virgin at all, as scholars the world over agree, but only refers to a young woman.
Later, the author of Matthew 1:22-23, quoted from the mistranslated Isaiah version, and thus the error turned into a world-wide belief.
Today a few of the modern bibles such as the Revised Standard Version, have corrected this mistranslation and have replaced the word virgin with "young woman." (Isaiah 7:14, RSV)
Apparently either God makes errors or the Bible does not come from god, but rather from fallible men.
In order to be a sufficient sacrifice for sin he had to be human, and he had to come from the line of David.
The problem with that is that he did not come from the line of David, Mary was not from the line of David, Joseph was and Joseph was not his father, so how do you explain that.
Well now here's something that's confusing and maybe you can explain this, originally when Joseph found out that Mary was with child while they were only betrothed to one another, he was planning on divorcing her originally, but I guess he got convinced to marry her after all, so as not to embarrass her. So my question would be, when did they get married? Before or after the child was born, because accordingly he didn't know her, in the biblical sense, until after the first male child was born, so would that constitute her having a child out of wedlock if Joseph is not the father?
I agree it's kind of a tricky situation. It would appear to me that they probably married before the child was born so as not to bring disgrace on Mary. In the eyes of the community he would still be considered the father, since none of the neighbors would've known the difference. Granted Joseph was pretty surprised to learn of the expected arrival, but it appears an angel filled him in on the details to which he then changed his mind and decided to go on with the wedding. It wouldn't much matter that he was not the father of the child because, again, no one else knew the difference. If he had told others that Mary was pregnant with God's child, who would've believed him? Mary might have told one person about it, her cousin Elizabeth.
The thing I wonder about is how Matthew and Luke learned about these details. I can only guess they were acquainted with Mary and Joseph and were told about it sometime after the crucifixion. Luke was a physician, so he might have been interested in details about Jesus' birth and childhood and perhaps learned about it from Mary. Both Matthew and Luke are silent on how they found out.
The problem with that is that he did not come from the line of David, Mary was not from the line of David, Joseph was and Joseph was not his father, so how do you explain that.
Perhaps the idea is that as the Son of God, he wouldn't really need to have any literal human paternal bloodlines. That Joseph was from the line of David though would be close enough, I guess.
The problem with that is that he did not come from the line of David, Mary was not from the line of David, Joseph was and Joseph was not his father, so how do you explain that.
"I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, [and] the bright and morning star"
This verse presents the most shocking revelation in the entire Bible. On the very last page, it reveals Jesus as the "bright and morning star". In other words, Lucifer-- Satan!
In Isaiah 14:12, St. Jerome, translated the Hebrew "morning star" into the Latin term "Lucifer" (light bearer), a name commonly ascribed to Satan by Christians, and represents the fallen star, an ancient symbol for the fallen or evil one. The mourning star actually appears as the planet Venus, the brightest "star" in the sky (but the ancients did not know about planets). Venus always appears low on the horizon, thus it looked like a fallen star (fallen angel) to the believers.
Although the Isaiah verse describes the fallen king of Babylon, Christians have, for centuries, ascribed Satan as taking many forms. And what more powerful form could an evil being take than to pretend himself as the saviour of the world? This would certainly explain the hate filled verses attributed to Jesus and the blind followers who inherit ignorance. Thus, a conclusion, based on Christian beliefs of Satan, and the belief in the "inerrancy" of the Bible, one must conclude that Jesus has revealed himself as Satan!
Read a bit in John and you will see that his siblings did not believe in him and surely such a magnanimous event as immaculate conception would have been discussed around the dinner table? It was not!
His brother James later became a believer/preacher, & wrote the book of James found in the New Testament.
The doctor is not impregnating her with his own child( I hope). He has their permission , with her and her husbands knowledge.
But he is impregnating her. The doctor is causing her to become pregnant. It doesn't matter if the doctor has permission. It doesn't matter if the husband knows. Those two conditions are not involved in the definition of adultery. So, what if the husband DIDN'T know. Would it be adultery then?
But he is impregnating her. The doctor is causing her to become pregnant. It doesn't matter if the doctor has permission. It doesn't matter if the husband knows. Those two conditions are not involved in the definition of adultery. So, what if the husband DIDN'T know. Would it be adultery then?
There are so many interpretations of adultery.Iin some when an husband and wife agree to it it is called nonmonogomy, they do not consider it adultery.
But jesus said..But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress,and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.(Matthew 5:32) and also But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. (Matthew 5:28) So there seems to be a lot of adulterers around. And yea I think if the husband didn't know she was fertilizing herself with another mans child, that it would be a form of adultery, as is online sex.
In order to be a sufficient sacrifice for sin he had to be human, and he had to come from the line of David.
Which only further illustrates how much of a fairytale the story is.
Real Gods aren't subject to earthly conditions. If a real God wished to forgive sins (something he created btw), he would simply speak and it would be so.
If God can say "let there be light" and light appears, he can say "let all sin be forgiven" and it would be so. But no, your sky daddy must go through some convoluted and ridiculous "Rube Goldberg" methodology anytime he wishes to achieve anything - whether it is forgiving sins or wiping out a few sinful primates.
Which only further illustrates how much of a fairytale the story is.
Real Gods aren't subject to earthly conditions. If a real God wished to forgive sins (something he created btw), he would simply speak and it would be so.
If God can say "let there be light" and light appears, he can say "let all sin be forgiven" and it would be so. But no, your sky daddy must go through some convoluted and ridiculous "Rube Goldberg" methodology anytime he wishes to achieve anything - whether it is forgiving sins or wiping out a few sinful primates.
God has always required a blood sacrifice for the remission of sins. In the OT, it was always an animal, which was an "imperfect" solution. Jesus was the "perfect" & final solution.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
