miz3 Posted June 24, 2011 Posted June 24, 2011 Repeating a lie doesn't make it true, expect for the one repeating it.... Sorry, Sonny, but what I have stated is the Truth because it is what the Bible says. What you are advocating is NOT BIBLICAL! This has been shown for all to see. Whether people accept it or not is up to them. I have only repeated what the Bible states. You use your human tortured logic and tortured twists in an attempt to make the Bible say something that the Bible does NOT SAY! You have bought into the "words of humans" (including Jack S.) and you appear to not listen to what the Bible is actually saying. (you appear to want Jack S.'s words to fit the Bible when in fact they don't!) Quote
miz3 Posted June 24, 2011 Posted June 24, 2011 Sonny, Luke chapter two when Jesus Christ went to Jerusalem definitely shows that Jesus Christ was the LEGAL SON not the genetic son of Joseph and Mary. Jesus Christ called God His True Father! Yet Jesus Christ was obedient to Joseph and Mary as His LEGAL GUARDIANS on earth. You have not commented on this text. Is this because it too is a metaphor like so many other texts that are difficult for you to answer. Quote
Moderators John317 Posted June 24, 2011 Moderators Posted June 24, 2011 Originally Posted By: John317 It is very likely that Mary and Joseph were distant relatives, The Bible does not tell us Mary's genealogy. The Bible gives us ONLY JOSEPH'S GENEALOGY! Since no sperm of Joseph was involved in the Incarnation then Jesus Christ could not be "genetically" linked to Joseph or any of Joseph's ancestors. 1) That is only true if the only way that Christ could be a descendent of David is by the sperm of Joseph. However, there is another way in which Christ could have recieved the "seed of David" and we know what that way is: through Mary. 2) The Bible does teach in many different ways that Jesus Christ's humanity was "of the seed of David" and of the body of David. 3) Since the Bible teaches clearly that Christ's human nature was "of the seed of David," it necessarily follows that Mary was a descendent of David and contributed her humanity to her Son, Jesus Christ. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Musicman1228 Posted June 24, 2011 Posted June 24, 2011 Originally Posted By: Musicman1228 The only reason to not accept this is because you want to bring Jesus Christ down to the natural human level for the purpose of discounting what He came to do: Do you even have a clue why Christ came? Gal 3:22 But the Scripture declares that the whole world is a prisoner of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe. 23 Before this Jesus came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until Jesus should be revealed. 24 So the law was put in charge until Christ that we might be justified by faith. 25 Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the law. So Christ came to save sinners from under the law that justly condemns them! What does the law demand of you and me? Answer: Perfect obedience! And since all of us have failed it requires OUR death. Christ isn't the sinner. The law can't condemn an innocent man. The law condemns us...you and me. Not only that, but you can't transfer righteousness. If you are a life long criminal and I've lived a perfect life, my righteousness can't be transferred to you. There's only one gospel that answer the law. It's the one I've been presenting from Paul. All other gospels make God out to be a liar.... Here it is in a nutshell: Romans 7:4...you also were made to die to the Law through the body of Christ...6 But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound.... Sonny, I stopped reading what you wrote right after I saw the reference to Gal. 3:22. [Words edited by moderator] You have NEVER even made an attempt to try to prove your theology by using ONLY the the words of Jesus Christ as He gave them to His own eyewitness disciples. [Words edited by moderator.] This also means that you are certainly a Christian. [Words edited by moderator] No wonder you say that no one can keep the 10 Commandments, and there is really no need to because they were nailed to the cross. Your final comment was this: "There's only one gospel that answer(s) the law. It's the one I've been presenting from Paul. All other gospels make God out to be a liar...." [Words edited by moderator] The ONLY way I will listen to any further explanation of your theology is if you prove it by using the gold standard of truth, the words of Jesus. Quote
miz3 Posted June 25, 2011 Posted June 25, 2011 2) The Bible does teach in many different ways that Jesus Christ's humanity was "of the seed of David" and of the body of David. 3) Since the Bible teaches clearly that Christ's human nature was "of the seed of David," it necessarily follows that Mary was a descendent of David and contributed her humanity to her Son, Jesus Christ. First, you are arguing backwards. Even at that there are so many holes and gaps between what you assert about David and Matthew chapter one the Incarnation. Second, the New Testament never ever mentions anywhere that Jesus was the seed of anybody through Mary. If the Incarnation is such a major center of the gospel you would most definitely have a statement in regard to Mary's genealogical line. The fact that no such genealogical line exists for Mary but it does for Joseph means that her genealogy was not only NOT IMPORTANT but also played no part in the Incarnation except as an Incubator or Surrogate. Third you are hanging your whole argument on the phrase "fruit (seed) of David". As you yourself have stated in this website you cannot hang a whole Doctrine on a singular phrase. This is what you are doing by clinging to this phrase and then trying to work your way backward. (filled with enormous gaps and holes. Fourth the Bible in referencing the phrase "fruit of David" does not necessarily mean that the "sinful nature" was included in this. In fact it is more likely as we have shown Biblically that this was a LEGAL CONNECTION not a genetic connection. The LEGAL CONNECTION is just as binding as coming from David as if it were David's own sperm. Fifth, the connection you are making is only "conjecture" there is no proof anywhere either in the Bible or anywhere else that Mary was related in anyway to King David. I think your way of seeing this issue is very weak and tenuous. However, you believe as you see best and so do I. Quote
Dr. Rich Posted June 25, 2011 Posted June 25, 2011 Hmmmm? I thought the writer of Romans ALSO wrote that the law had to kept. John317 pointed this out some time ago, but what Rom. 7:5 states, makes me wonder when and why he changed his mind? Regardless, it does cause confusion as the confusion 'In Christ' caused. As for the argument Miz3 presented verses the one Sonny and John317, I can see both sides and both of them come FROM THE BIBLE. Miz3's evidence from the words of Jesus and Sonny's from writer's who never knew Jesus. Go figure? Quote
miz3 Posted June 25, 2011 Posted June 25, 2011 We still await answers concerning Luke chapter two. You know, the part where Jesus goes to Jerusalem and gets separated from His "parents". And also Christ's statement about who His real Father is. Quote
miz3 Posted June 25, 2011 Posted June 25, 2011 In case you missed it here it is again. Quote: "Every year his parents went to Jerusalem for the Feast of the Passover. 42 When he was twelve years old, they went up to the Feast, according to the custom. 43 After the Feast was over, while his parents were returning home, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem, but they were unaware of it. 44 Thinking he was in their company, they traveled on for a day. Then they began looking for him among their relatives and friends. 45 When they did not find him, they went back to Jerusalem to look for him. 46 After three days they found him in the temple courts, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions. 47 Everyone who heard him was amazed at his understanding and his answers. 48 When his parents saw him, they were astonished. His mother said to him, “Son, why have you treated us like this? Your father and I have been anxiously searching for you.” 49 “Why were you searching for me?” he asked. “Didn’t you know I had to be in my Father’s house?” 50 But they did not understand what he was saying to them. 51 Then he went down to Nazareth with them and was obedient to them. But his mother treasured all these things in her heart. 52 And Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men." Luke 2:41-52. 1. Notice the underlined parts above from Luke chapter two. It appears that even though Joseph contributed "no sperm", Joseph was considered by the Bible, also by Jesus Christ Himself and Christ's human contemporaries as the father of Jesus Christ! 2. The Bible also states that Mary also did not contribute any genetic material either. (See Matthew chapter One----She was the incubator for what the Holy Spirit conceived). Mary too just like Joseph was considered by the Bible, human contemporaries and Jesus Christ Himself as the mother of Jesus Christ. 3. Jesus Christ was "obedient to them" also means although they contributed no genetic material to Jesus Christ, He still considered them as His earthly parents and treated them as such. It was "legal"! You can belong to a family and have ancestors without receiving any "genetic" material. It happens all the time. It also happened in the Life of Jesus Christ on earth. Thus, Jesus Christ was the "LEGAL" SON of both Joseph and Mary! Certainly, Luke states that this is so! LEGAL NOT GENETIC! 4. The part in Blue above states clearly that Jesus Christ KNEW THAT GOD WAS HIS FATHER! The Bible does not say when this knowledge was acquired. It also does not say that this knowledge that God was Jesus Christ's Father gradually dawned on Him. In fact the Bible is SILENT ON THIS FACT! Thus, any expressions that would assert that this knowledge came on Jesus Christ "gradually" would be an assertion NOT SUPPORTED BY THE SCRIPTURES! Also, any assertions that this knowledge was known only when Jesus Christ came to Jerusalem at twelve years old is also NOT SUPPORTED BY THE SCRIPTURE! Quote
Sonny Posted June 25, 2011 Author Posted June 25, 2011 no part in the Incarnation except as an Incubator or Surrogate. This is a lie...This is heresy. Again, repeating a lie doesn't make it truth. Quote
miz3 Posted June 25, 2011 Posted June 25, 2011 Sonny, Are you calling the Bible a "lie"? Are you calling Matthew chapter one a "lie"? Are you calling Luke chapter three a "lie"? Are you calling Luke chapter two a "lie"? These all support the position that Mary was an "Incubator" or Surrogate! Twilight and I have quoted and used Bible text after Bible text that supports what we believe. Are all those Bible texts, "lies"? You can only accuse falsely what I have presented. You do not answer Luke chapter two. Again, you only take a portion of what I posted and then call it a lie? You do not take everything I posted on why Mary is an "Incubator" or "Surrogate"! It appears that you are trying to make me and my posts look bad. You present no substantive texts yourself. You quote Scripture but you take it out of "context" you "twist" the explanation in the most contorted and complex way that makes no sense to what the Bible is actually saying. Is this what your gospel is all about, Sonny? Quote
Moderators John317 Posted June 25, 2011 Moderators Posted June 25, 2011 Luke chapter two when Jesus Christ went to Jerusalem definitely shows that Jesus Christ was the LEGAL SON not the genetic son of Joseph and Mary. Jesus Christ called God His True Father! A complete reading of the Gospels shows that Joseph was Christ's human father merely because he was married to Mary. From the point of view of the people at that time, therefore, Joseph and Mary were Christ's parents, and Joseph was considered Christ's father. But certain parts of the Gospels and the rest of the Bible dealing with the origins of Jesus of Nazareth show clearly that His real Father was God and His mother was Mary. Matt. 1: 20, 21 tells pretty much the whole story: Mary was pregnant with a child through the Holy Spirit and Joseph didn't know for sure that this was true until the angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream. Therefore it is clear that Mary was Christ's real mother (of His human nature), whereas Joseph was Jesus' father simply by virtue of being Mary's husband. The lists of Christ's descendents are totally meaningless if they are not His actual relatives. Again, don't forget that the Lord promises David that the coming Messiah would be a descendent of the King. God promised it with a solemn oath and said the Messiah would be from "the body of David." Many other parts of the Bible record that Christ's humanity was "of the seed of David," and in Rev. 22: 16, Jesus Christ Himself testifies that He is "the Root and the Offspring of David." When she was filled with the Holy Spirit, Elizabeth referred to Christ as "the fruit of Mary's womb." Luke 1: 42. If you compare this language with God's promise to David about 1000 years before about the Messiah, you will see that God promised that the Messiah would be the fruit of David's body. How was God's promise to David kept if Christ was not descended from David? Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Moderators John317 Posted June 25, 2011 Moderators Posted June 25, 2011 First, you are arguing backwards. Does the Bible say that insofar as His human nature is concerned, Christ is "of the seed of David"? Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Aliensanctuary Posted June 25, 2011 Posted June 25, 2011 Originally Posted By: Aliensanctuary The genealogies of Jesus Messiah in the NT list both Joseph's and Mary's line of descent, more or less. If he were only a step-child, or adopted, he would be unrelated genetically, and these genealogies would be meaningless. 1. Only Joseph's genealogy is listed. Luke chapter three. 2. There is no genealogy listed for Mary. 3. He was unrelated genetically to Joseph because his sperm was not used! However, Jesus was related to Joseph "LEGALLY"! 4. Thus, I guess you disagree with Luke concerning the genealogy of Joseph. Luke thought such a genealogy was meaningFUL! 5. According to Matthew the chapter one only the Holy Spirit was involved in the Incarnation. Those are the straight up facts! Mary’s Genealogy Q. I’ve recently read your article printed in ‘Prophecy Update’ regarding Messianic prophecy in the O.T. You mentioned that Matthew’s genealogy traces Joseph’s line, while Luke’s traces that of Mary, mother of Jesus. But I’m struggling to see how Luke shows the line of Mary – albeit v.11 mentions Nathan, David’s brother. But how does that relate to Mary? A. The two lines differ from King David on, right up to and including naming different people as Joseph’s father. Matthew claims it’s Jacob and Luke says it’s Heli. This problem is resolved when you understand that there was no word for father-in-law at the time, which is what Heli was to Joseph, being Mary’s biological father. The NIV Study Bible that I use points this out, and the Jewish Talmud confirms Heli as Mary’s father. Knowing that makes it plain that Matthew shows Joseph to be a descendant of King Solomon’s while Luke’s genealogy traces Mary’s lineage from Solomon’s brother Nathan. http://gracethrufaith.com/ask-a-bible-teacher/marys-genealogy/ We should not limit the Spirit of God's ability to use whomsoever's genetic data it chose to create Jesus Messiah. I don't believe it would be unreasonable to consider the possibility that some of Joseph's genetic characteristics were expressed in Jesus. Just as Adam was not conceived as a result of intercourse, neither was Jesus, thus, they both could consider God as their father. They both had designer genes. Quote The Parable of the Lamb and the Pigpen https://www.createspace.com/3401451
miz3 Posted June 25, 2011 Posted June 25, 2011 The Bible does not have Mary's genealogy! So to say she was a relative of David is a huge stretch filled with gaps and holes everywhere. Quote
Sonny Posted June 25, 2011 Author Posted June 25, 2011 So to say she was a relative of David is a huge stretch filled with gaps and holes everywhere. These "pronouncements" of yours are genuinely funny. Quote
Moderators John317 Posted June 25, 2011 Moderators Posted June 25, 2011 The Bible does not have Mary's genealogy! So to say she was a relative of David is a huge stretch filled with gaps and holes everywhere. It's not a "stretch" since, in the first place, the Bible teaches plainly that Christ was of the seed of David. "Seed" means descendent. In the second place, Jesus Christ Himself (who cannot lie!) said he was a descendent of David. He was "the Branch" or the "Root." God promised DAvid that the Messiah would be from his body, that is, a descendent. You may discount this as if it is nothing, but the fact remains that God made this promise and Jesus claimed He fulfilled that promise. The Jews kept very careful, detailed genealogical records for the purpose of knowing what tribe one belonged to and whether one could be a priest, for instance. Unfortunately those records were lost in the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 AD. Why do you have such a hard time believing what the Bible teaches-- that Jesus Christ was descended from Abraham and David? Don't you believe Jesus Himself: "I am the Root and the Offspring of David." It couldn't be clearer than that. Jesus is assuring us that He is the fulfillment of the prophetic promises that God made to Adam and Eve, to Abraham, and to David centuries before. What's the problem? Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
miz3 Posted June 25, 2011 Posted June 25, 2011 Mary and Elizabeth (John the Baptist's mother) were relatives. Luke states that Elizabeth and her husband both came from the family of Moses and Aaron. Wouldn't that be the Tribe of Levi. I believe David came through the Tribe of Judah! Is this not correct? If it is correct then Mary could not have come through David. Quote
Moderators John317 Posted June 25, 2011 Moderators Posted June 25, 2011 Relatives in Israel often came from two different tribes. They frequently intermarried. It would simply mean that Elizabeth's parent who had been in the same tribe as Mary's parent married someone from the tribe of Levi. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
miz3 Posted June 25, 2011 Posted June 25, 2011 That is not what Luke is saying. Luke specifically states that both Zechariah and Elizabeth were descendents of Aaron! Mary was a relative of Elizabeth. As such it is clear that she too was from the same tribe, which would be in terms of the sons of Jacob, Levi! That would make it impossible for Mary to come from the tribe of Judah which is the tribe of King David. Only Joseph the father of Jesus (no sperm of his was used) came from the tribe of Judah! My case gets stronger while the other gets weaker and more and more of a huge stretch! So huge in fact that it is impossible. Quote
Moderators John317 Posted June 25, 2011 Moderators Posted June 25, 2011 ...I believe David came through the Tribe of Judah! Is this not correct? If it is correct then Mary could not have come through David. You have to be kidding, miz3. Think some more. This is similar to your reasoning for believing Ellen White's statements were contradictory. You say things before thinking them through. Like when you said Gen. 3: 15 is God speaking to Adam. I want you to think back through your quote here. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Sonny Posted June 25, 2011 Author Posted June 25, 2011 My case gets stronger while the other gets weaker and more and more of a huge stretch! So huge in fact that it is impossible. Well, at least you're humble.... Quote
miz3 Posted June 25, 2011 Posted June 25, 2011 Relatives in Israel often came from two different tribes. They frequently intermarried. It would simply mean that Elizabeth's parent who had been in the same tribe as Mary's parent married someone from the tribe of Levi. That's an unBiblical assumption on your part. My view is based on the Bible statements in Luke! I will take the Bible view! Quote
Moderators John317 Posted June 25, 2011 Moderators Posted June 25, 2011 OK, I give up for now. lol It is 1;30 on the Pacific Coast, so it is time for bed. I'll be back in the morning and see if you still believe it was not possible for Mary to be in the tribe of Judah. I have great hopes for you, miz3. Hope springs eternal, as they say. And so Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
miz3 Posted June 25, 2011 Posted June 25, 2011 You have to be kidding, miz3. Think some more. Yep! I was right. Luke chapter three clearly states that the line is Judah-----David-----Joseph! Luke chapter one puts Mary, Elizabeth, and Zechariah (Elizabeth's husband) in the line Levi-----Moses, Aaron-----Mary! Documented! Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.