jasd Posted July 26, 2005 Posted July 26, 2005 Clio, I agree that generally, principles obtain; however, wherein there are generalities there is/are always the isolated, the not so isolated, and the exception. For instance, “[it is] not good that man should be alone; …” --Gd Given that, Jesus should have married, as should have also St Paul, as should have also… name the many others in Writ not having married. >>Your supposition that Mary was chaste following Jesus birth is not consistent with Abba Father, and His definition of Marriage. Marriage is a consecrated sacrament taken with our First Parents from the Garden of Eden. Abba Father was in the marriage business before He was in the Salvation or the Religion business.<< I allow that that is ordinarily so. >>A woman is given to a man, not a man to a woman, to be a help meet. To be a voluntary bearer and assister in the bearing of his burdens. … …mothering Joseph's children from another marriage, keeping his home, and doing all those things a wife would do, would lower her status to little more than a servant in the home of Joseph...<< The above two thoughts contain a seeming dichotomy. >>Had Abba Father desired Mary to remain chaste following the birth of Jesus, she would never have married Joseph.<< I’ve not put forward that I am privy to the Father’s desire regards this matter… That said, Jesus, without an earthly father, would have been ‘unlawful issue’ or baseborn. Given the milieu of the first century Jewish economy and the insinuations that would have been bruited, I don’t think Gd desired that -- for either His Son’s sake or for consideration of Jesus’ mother. Without allowing too much credence to the Protoevangelium of James -- it describes what may have been, legitimately, the succession of events as pertained to the participants of this epiphanous drama. Coincidentally, its denouement reflects that, which is arrived-at independently by myself. >>Following Jesus birth, with no husband, Mary would have been disgraced, perhaps stoned, but certainly would have found marrying anyone difficult...<< Agreed, that would have been so… >>To wife, not to servanthood.<< Hyperbole aside, I would hazard there are presently (and have always been) women who find nurturing children delightful; and lest we forget, there would have been the quid pro quo. >>Once Mary was delivered of True Jesus, and observed her post-childbirth mikvah, there is no reason for she and Joseph not to engage in intimate marriage relations.<< I agree. >>Her body was not made holy by carrying Jesus and she continued to be a fallen human, with tendencies to sin, lose her temper, and the needs of a woman.<< I cannot imagine that she was not consecrated/holy, though I agree with the rest of the above. >>A woman who loves her husband, needs, craves, desires his touch. Abba Father would not deny that to the mother of His Son. I am sure her happiness was of prime importance to both Abba Father and His Son.<< I am (bearing in mind certain qualifiers, such as, Platonic love) in agreement with the above; however, there is the sublime that supersedes and is, of itself, a source of happiness, as many who have entered service to the Lord, exclusively, will attest. >>…to have been reduced to basic servanthood in Joseph's home, without the rewards of a happy marriage.<< I would take issue with the “servanthood” designation of Joseph and Mary’s relationship, and given the ‘special circumstances’ of their marriage, I question how one might define “rewards of a happy marriage” as it may have concerned them. >>I lived that way for 14 years. Pnly HALF the time Mary would have been required to do so... Trust me... Abba Father would not have put Mary... OR Joseph... through that.<< Speaking as one who's been down the road, I can envision an arrangement… with a wife to share the many things common to like companions -- other than that certain intimacy. Moreso, should it be, --that either husband or wife had previously been consecrated to the Lord’s service, or for that matter, as was common in those far and away years past, --been dedicated to serve in the temple. >>PS... What gave you that idea? I really do want to know...it's totally contrary to Abba's sacrament of marriage and His intent....<< Quote: Quote: That being so, the suggestion that that union was then turned on its ear to become the common seems… well, a bit profane. —jasd Lacking the definitive text, I cannot be persuaded that the relationship between Joseph and Mary devolved to mere presumption upon that which preceded. --jasd [ed. amplified] I suppose it’s simply a matter of the senses -- mine being offended by the seeming profanity of appending the common to that great mystery of Gd’s, as though the epiphany of Christ could be followed by a second Act scripted by common impulse… >>PPS... Yeah... got one on this topic too....<< And I am looking forward to its presentation. I not only glean from what you put forward -- I harvest. Quote
LifeHiscost Posted July 26, 2005 Posted July 26, 2005 Quote: Clio said: Jasd - Your supposition that Mary was chaste following Jesus birth is not consistent with Abba Father, and His definition of Marriage. For Mary to have remained chaste all her life, mothering Joseph's children from another marriage, keeping his home, and doing all those things a wife would do, would lower her status to little more than a servant in the home of Joseph... Had Abba Father desired Mary to remain chaste there is no reason for she and Joseph not to engage in intimate marriage relations. Her body was not made holy by carrying Jesus and she continued to be a fallen human, with tendencies to sin, lose her temper, and the needs of a woman. A woman who loves her husband, needs, craves, desires his touch. Mary...chaste.... *snorts* doesn't fit in with Abba Father's character at ALL! Clio Clio, While I'm not sure of your reason for disagreeing with Jasd, it seems there needs to be some clarification of the word 'chaste'. [:"purple"] Chaste: 2:pure in thought and act [/] Webster's Ninth Collegiate Dictionary That which our Father gave man and woman in the physical union for the sake of procreating, carried with the union all the ecstasy that an unfallen human could control, with all the mental, physical, and spiritual capabilities of an unfallen created being. This union was meant to typify, in the highest sense of a created being, the perfect union that exists between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, including the pleasure and ecstasy They achieve as they create holy beings, sans the physical. [:"red"] "God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth." [/] John 4:24 May I suggest normal physical relations between a husband and wife does not make the partner unchaste, but rather enables man and woman to find pleasure where God has found pleasure. Only man in his fallen nature, giving him/herself over to illicit relations makes one unchaste. There is a text in Revelation indicating the special place certain individuals find themslves in because they have not defiled themselves with women. It is my opinion that is referring to individuals who have never had illicit relations with women, and is not referring to celibacy in the marriage bed. I draw my conclusions from the following verses. [:"red"] "These are the ones who have not been defiled with women, for they have kept themselves chaste " [/] Rev 14:4 NASB [:"red"] "Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled" [/] Hebrews 13:4 KJV Keep the faith! Quote Lift Jesus up!!
Robert Posted July 26, 2005 Posted July 26, 2005 >>Her body was not made holy by carrying Jesus and she continued to be a fallen human, with tendencies to sin, lose her temper, and the needs of a woman.<< I cannot imagine that she was not consecrated/holy.... Here you go again.... "God is Spirit" [John 4:24]...He is not "flesh & blood". Jesus is God...He is the Third person of the Trinity. Jesus didn't become a man; rather He remained Himself while uniting Himself to our fallen humanity that needed redeeming. In the incarnation the only place that God the Father could have united Christ's sinless Deity to our fallen, sinful humanity was in the womb of Mary. Therefore if you make Mary sinless then the humanity born from here was sinless. Simply put Jesus came to save us from the demands of the law [obey and live, disobey and die]. The demands of the law are simple: "The soul that sins it must die." Hence the law requires the death of the sinner. Since all of us share Adam's fallen humanity after the fall then the only humanity available from Mary's womb was his fallen life. If Christ as God did not assume our life under the curse then the law has not been satisfied. If the law has not been satisfied in Christ's holy history then someone has to satisfy it. That places the burden on humanity....Hence the teaching of salvation by works. Hence a pervert gospel. That's where your heresy takes us....I hope that is not your intentions! Rob Quote
jasd Posted July 26, 2005 Posted July 26, 2005 Quote: Quote: >>Her body was not made holy by carrying Jesus and she continued to be a fallen human, with tendencies to sin, lose her temper, and the needs of a woman.<< --Clio I cannot imagine that she was not consecrated/holy.... --jasd [ed. by Robert] I might have, except for the sensitivities of the devoutly biased, legitimately used any of or any combination of the following… sacred/pure/blameless/consecrated/holy/saint -- per Strong’s holy #40 or saints #40. Strong’s #40 hagios from hagos (an awful thing) (compare 53, 2282); sacred (physically, pure, morally blameless or religious, ceremonially, consecrated):--(most) holy (one, thing), saint. Instead, I simply allowed the prerogative and furnished the blessed woman her due -- according to Holy Writ; and did so charily, --for reason already noted. Quote: Quote: I cannot imagine that she was not consecrated/ holy .... --jasd [ed. by Robert] Here you go again.... … Therefore if you make Mary sinless then the humanity born from here was sinless.<< If you would refer to my omitted clause -- where, instead, you have provided an ellipsis, you will see that I failed to ascribe sinlessness upon Mary’s part, to wit… Quote: Quote: >>Her body was not made holy by carrying Jesus and she continued to be a fallen human, with tendencies to sin, lose her temper, and the needs of a woman.<< --Clio I cannot imagine that she was not consecrated/holy, though I agree with the rest of the above. --jasd You’ll notice in the above that rather than ascribing sinlessness to Mary --I agreed with Clio. Though one chances being a bit afield… per >>"The soul that sins it must die."<< you might consider composing a thesis upon the aspects and meanings of ‘to die’… other than that, without engaging the rest of the post -- let it suffice to say, that it contains much that is pregnant with connotations and requires Biblical answers that are perhaps, less connoting but equally gravid. >>[:"blue"]That's where your heresy takes us.... --Robert[/]<< Indeed, there you go again… Quote
Robert Posted July 26, 2005 Posted July 26, 2005 Okay...I would like to see where you stand. How do you interpret the following: Luke 1:34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? 35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. Quote
melvin mccarty Posted July 27, 2005 Posted July 27, 2005 So we are both speaking from a position of a lack of evidence. There is no evidence that Joseph was previously married Do we base theology on a lack of evidence Seems the whole basis of the assumption that Joseph had older chilren is based on an effort to somehow preserve Mary's holiness. I doubt that is good theology. Quote
jasd Posted July 27, 2005 Posted July 27, 2005 >>So we are both speaking from a position of a lack of evidence.<< Yes. >>There is no evidence that Joseph was previously married<< Agreed. It’s a matter of assumption given the culture of the times and of the people. >>Do we base theology on a lack of evidence<< The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language Theology: / The study of the nature of God and religious truth; rational inquiry into religious questions. / A system or school of opinions concerning God and religious questions: Protestant theology; Jewish theology. / A course of specialized religious study usually at a college or seminary. Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary Theology: / Knowledge of God and the supernatural; religious knowledge and belief, esp. when methodically formulated. / The critical, historical, and psychological study of religion and religious ideas. / A system of religious theory or observance; as, Calvinistic theology. As one might see from the above two sources… sometimes theology is simply a “study” -- and sometimes, lacking evidence, it remains no more than “study”, unless and until one invests it with dogmatism – then it is dogma. That is exactly what I have done. I hold dogmatic views concerning the matter, as, by necessity, does everyone else holding to a position. >>Seems the whole basis of the assumption that Joseph had older chilren is based on an effort to somehow preserve Mary's holiness.<< If you’ll reread the above posts, you’ll notice that that is submitted as only an, and one, option. I elect to hold to that, as I perceive the weight of all things considered favor that opinion. It is not absolutism and it is not the Holy Grail. Per “Mary’s holiness”… please expand upon what “Mary’s holiness” means; and, why it would be improper or bad to hold to or preserve the conception of "Mary's holiness". Does not Writ ascribe 'holy' to the saints? But of course, what you're suggesting is -- though all other NT believers may have been saints... Jesus' mother was not >>I doubt that is good theology.<< Lacking the text or passage that would absolutely decide the matter, one can do no more than submit -- that inquiry into the issue will yield a good critical study, that is, theology. Quote
LifeHiscost Posted July 27, 2005 Posted July 27, 2005 Quote: jasd said: Does not Writ ascribe 'holy' to the saints? [:"red"] "I saw before me what seemed to be a crystal sea mixed with fire. And on it stood all the people who had been victorious over the beast and his statue and the number representing his name. They were all holding harps that God had given them. And they were singing the song of Moses, the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb Who will not fear, O Lord, and glorify your name? For you alone are holy." [/] Rev:15:2-4 NLT Quote Lift Jesus up!!
melvin mccarty Posted July 27, 2005 Posted July 27, 2005 Dogma...of course and since there is an unwritten rule on these forums that nobody ever ever ever is allowed to change his/her mind we will just disagree and still be friends. By the way, did Joseph take his six or more young children with him to Bethlehem or did he leave them with Grandma? What do you think? mel Quote
jasd Posted July 27, 2005 Posted July 27, 2005 >>[:"red"]For you alone are holy."[/] Rev:15:2-4 NLT<< Though the above does not negate the applicability of either hagios or hosios to the saints, it, nevertheless, proves interesting. KJV Rev 15:4 …for [thou] only [art] holy {3741}: … Strong’s 3741 hosios of uncertain affinity; properly, right (by intrinsic or divine character; thus distinguished from 1342, which refers rather to human statutes and relations; from 2413, which denotes formal consecration; and from 40, which relates to purity from defilement), i.e. hallowed (pious, sacred, sure):--holy, mercy, shalt be. 342 Notice how YLT translates hosios in Revelation 15:4… YLT Rev 15:4 …because Thou alone [art] kind, … Hmmm, sounds like an indictment… And, returning to the KJV… Acts 13:34 And as concerning that he raised him up from the dead, [now] no more to return to corruption, he said on this wise I will give you the sure mercies {3741} of David. (the RSV utilizes ‘blessings’) And, concerning a bishop… Tit 1:8 But a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, holy {3741}, temperate; And, adverbially: We, the believers… 1Th 2:10 Ye [are] witnesses, and God [also] , how holily {3743} and justly and unblameably we behaved ourselves among you that believe: Strong’s 3743 hosios 53.46 [in the domain "Religious Activities"] "hAGIOS, A, ON; hOSIOS, A, ON: pertaining to being dedicated or consecrated to the service of God — 'devout, godly, dedicated.'" 88.24 [in the domain "Moral and Ethical Qualities and Related Behavior"] "hAGIOS, A‚ ON; hOSIOS, A, ON; hOSIWS: pertaining to being holy in the sense of superior moral qualities and possessing certain essentially divine qualities in contrast with what is human — 'holy, pure, divine.'" [ed.] --L-N lexicon Quote
jasd Posted July 27, 2005 Posted July 27, 2005 >>Dogma...of course…<< But, of course. >>…and since there is an unwritten rule on these forums that nobody ever ever ever is allowed to change his/her mind…<< Cryptic? [/confused] >>…we will just disagree and still be friends.<< And why not? Clio and I do not see eye to eye on this particular issue; yet, ever being rewarded by what she submits -- I scan for what she posts. >>By the way, did Joseph take his six or more young children with him to Bethlehem…<< …or to Egypt? or over the river and through the woods…? ;-) There is no definitive text that one can appeal to…, to ascertain that Joseph had one, two, or more children; as all, some, or most of the brothers and sisters one might assume were Joseph’s -- may have been, in fact, not immediately familial but close relatives -- kinsfolk. Perhaps one might appreciate the idiomatic use of ‘brother’ as it was employed in the Semitic languages -- by the following… Gen 29:10 And it came to pass, when Jacob saw Rachel the daughter of Laban his mother's brother, and the sheep of Laban his mother's brother, that Jacob went near, and rolled the stone from the well's mouth, and watered the flock of Laban his mother's brother. v11 And Jacob kissed Rachel, and lifted up his voice, and wept. v12 And [:"red"]Jacob told Rachel[/] that [:"red"]he was her father's brother[/], and that he was Rebekah's son: and she ran and told her father. v13 … v14 And [:"red"]Laban said to him, Surely thou [art] my bone and my flesh[/]. And he abode with him the space of a month. v15 And [:"red"]Laban said unto Jacob, Because thou art my brother[/],… Writ provides other instances as the above… >>…or did he leave them with Grandma?<< “…who lives through the forest, near the brook”? ;-) That’s assuming one is certain as to the number of children Joseph had… >>What do you think?<< I’m thinking… mebbe I ought to investigate everything .Orgs teach… There is too much prejudice amongst the .Orgs that seems to color their perspective… Lastly, it may be that Luke allows a glimpse into the closeness of the Biblical family-kinsfolk unit… Lu 2:44 But they, supposing him to have been in the company, went a day's journey; and they sought him among [their] kinsfolk and acquaintance. Quote
Robert Posted July 28, 2005 Posted July 28, 2005 Quote: jasd said: Straightforwardly. Are we still on topic? "Straightforwardly" if you read carefully my quote! Luke 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. Please note the link between "that Holy thing" and "the Son of God"! Jesus is God...He is Deity...He is Holy. Paul brings this out in Romans 1: ...who was declared the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead, according to the Spirit of holiness, Jesus Christ our Lord.... [Romans 1:4] Clearly "the Son of God" in linked with "holiness"! Now back up to Romans 1:1-3 Paul, a bond-servant of Christ Jesus, called as an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, 2 which He promised beforehand through His prophets in the holy Scriptures, 3 concerning His Son, [:"red"]who was born of a descendant of David according to the flesh....[/] David was "born of a woman"....Job says, "What is man, that he could be pure, or one born of woman, that he could be righteous [holy]?" And Paul, the Apostle handpicked by Jesus Himself, said: Gal 4:4 But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law, 5 to redeem those under law.... Christ as God took our fallen humanity, the same humanity King David had....Thus He became what He was not by native right - "the son of man"! So then "the Son of God" refers to Christ's deity...His holiness, while "the son of man" refers to that which Christ as God assumed...i.e., our fallen humanity. At conversion the Holy Spirit (who is part of the Godhead) comes to live in the believer. Note the Holy Spirit does become “the believer”…rather He tabernacles in the believer. He associates Himself with our fallen humanity without becoming contaminated by our sinfulness. The same is true of Christ at the incarnation! He (Jesus as God) tabernacled Himself in our fallen, humanity. At the incarnation Jesus as God completely empty Himself of all His divine prerogatives and grew in wisdom and knowledge (see Luke 2:52) in our fallen humanity. He knew nothing unless the Father revealed it to Him (see John 8:28)…. This is the gospel....It is "the everlasting gospel" Rob Quote
Robert Posted July 28, 2005 Posted July 28, 2005 Quote: jasd said: >>[:"red"] For you alone are holy. "[/] Rev:15:2-4 NLT<< Though the above does not negate the applicability of either hagios or hosios to the saints, it, nevertheless, proves interesting. pure, divine .'" [ed.] --L-N lexicon Please open your eyes and hears to the following: Matt 19:16 And behold, one came to Him [Jesus] and said, “Good Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may obtain eternal life?” 17 And He said to him, “Why are you asking Me [whom you perceive as a mere "teacher"] about what is good? There is only One who is good, that is, God.... The rich young ruler didn't perceive Christ as Savior, no...he perceived him as a mere teacher..."a good man". But Jesus quickly points out that there's none good, but One...God!!! Jesus is almost quoting from Romans chapter 3: 10 There is none righteous, no, not one...there is none that doeth good, no, not one.... Clearly the only reason we are called "Saints"...or even "Holy" is because of our association with Christ! "In Him" alone are we consider righteous and Holy.... While we do grow spiritually, we are nonetheless still falling short of God's selfless love and hence we are still sinners [see Rom 3:23].... Again, only "in Christ" have we been made perfect and Holy: Col 1:22 He [God] has now reconciled you in His fleshly body [i.e., "according to the flesh:] through death, [why?] in order to present you before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach— 23 if indeed you continue in the faith... We are only "Holy" as we by faith continue to accept Christ as our righteousness....It is our glorified humanity, taken to heaven some 2000 yrs ago, that Christ presents before the Father and His holy law. "In Him" we have a new humanity that is truly righteous.....We receive this immortal, holy and sinless life at the resurrection! Until then you are 100% sinner saved by grace alone by Christ's doing and dying.... And this means that Mary was a sinner till her dying day! She will be saved only through Jesus Christ, the Son of God and the son of man.... Jesus as man was truly our brother.... Get real! Rob Quote
Robert Posted July 28, 2005 Posted July 28, 2005 I believe this is all connected to the original question by Stan.... Here's my favorite EGW quotes on this subject: BC- 7ABC TI- S.D.A. Bible Commentary Vol. 7A CN- 2 CT- Christ’s Nature During the Incarnation PR- 01 PG- 446 “He [Christ as God] voluntarily assumed human nature. He clothed His divinity with humanity. He was all the while as God, but He did not appear as God. He veiled the demonstrations of Deity which had commanded the homage, and called forth the admiration of the universe of God.” BC- 5BC TI- S.D.A. Bible Commentary Vol. 5 CN- MAR2 CT- Mark PR- 04 PG- 1113 When the voice of the angel was heard saying, “Thy Father calls thee,” He who had said, “I lay down my life, that I might take it again,” “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up,” came forth from the grave to life that was in Himself. Deity did not die. Humanity died…. Now the question is whose humanity? -BC- 7BC -TI- S.D.A. Bible Commentary Vol. 7 -CN- HEB8 -CT- Hebrews -PR- 03 -PG- 927 By His obedience to all the commandments of God, Christ wrought out a redemption for man [mankind]. [How?] This was not done by going out of Himself to another, but by taking humanity into Himself. [What type of humanity?]….To bring humanity into Christ, [:"red"]to bring the fallen race[/] into oneness with divinity, is the work of redemption. -BC- 7BC -TI- S.D.A. Bible Commentary Vol. 7 -CN- HEB8 -CT- Hebrews -PR- 03 -PG- 926 “In Christ were united the divine and the human--the Creator and the creature. The nature of God [based on selflessness], whose law had been transgressed, and the nature of Adam, the transgressor, meet in Jesus--the Son of God, and the Son of man.” -BC- LHU -TI- Lift Him Up -CN- 3 -CT- Lift Him Up as the Son of Man -PR- 02 -PG- 76 “Was the human nature of the Son of Mary [which was sinful] changed into the divine nature [which was and is sinless] of the Son of God? No; the two natures were mysteriously blended in one person--the man Christ Jesus. In Him dwelt all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. When Christ was crucified, it was His human nature [His assumed humanity] that died. [:"red"]Deity did not sink and die; that would have been impossible.[/] Christ, the sinless One, will save every son and daughter of Adam who accepts the salvation proffered them, consenting to become the children of God. The Saviour has purchased the fallen race with His own blood.” Quote
Robert Posted July 28, 2005 Posted July 28, 2005 Quote: Stan Jensen said: Do you view this as biological type brothers -PC- ST -PT- The Signs of the Times -DT- 08-09-05 -AT- Wounded For Our Transgressions -PR- 08 -TEXT- Christ bore the sins of the whole world. He was the second Adam. Taking upon Himself human nature, He passed over the ground where Adam stumbled and fell. Having taken humanity, He has an intense interest in human beings. He felt keenly the sinfulness, the shame, of sin. He is our Elder Brother. Quote
jasd Posted July 28, 2005 Posted July 28, 2005 >>Clearly the only reason we are called "Saints"...or even "Holy" is because of our association with Christ! "In Him" alone are we consider righteous and Holy....<< However the means, wherever the path, whatever the construct -- the NT declares the believers to be both “Saints” and “Holy”. I’m good with “…asociation with Christ!” >>Again, only "in Christ" have we been made perfect and Holy:<< Lev 11:44 For I [am] the LORD your God: ye shall therefore sanctify yourselves, and ye shall be holy; for I [am] holy: >>And this means that Mary was a sinner till her dying day!<< I not one that will attempt to refute the above bolded, I would only add that Gd declares ‘blameless’ whom He will. >>She will be saved only through Jesus Christ, the Son of God and the son of man....<< [ed.] Of course, you know Writ cannot sustain the verb tense you’ve availed to yourself. >>Jesus as man was truly our brother....<< You see, my point exactly -- the term ranges extensively… Heb 2:11 For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified [are] all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren {80}, Strong’s #80 adelphos from 1 (as a connective particle) and delphus (the womb); a brother (literally or figuratively) near or remote (much like 1):--brother. [:"blue"]Get real! --Robert[/] Robert, can you not put forward a construct without resort to lowbrow epithets? It becomes truly tiresome to so frequently encounter that sort of interjection in what might otherwise be good material. It behooves us all to utilize, at minimum, the veneer of civility. The use of ubiquitous epithets is quite unbecoming and poor projection. [/exasperation] Thank-you, for taking note… Umm, careful where our footfalls lead…;-) We needed a Savior to pay for our sins and teach us how to return to our Heavenly Father. Our Father said, "Whom shall I send?" (Abraham 3:27). Two of our brothers offered to help. Our oldest brother, Jesus Christ, who was then called Jehovah, said, "Here am I, send me" (Abraham 3:27). [ed.] Quote
LifeHiscost Posted July 28, 2005 Posted July 28, 2005 Quote: Robert said: [Christ as God] He did not appear as God. [:"red"] "Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?" [/] John 14:9 NKJV Quote Lift Jesus up!!
Robert Posted July 28, 2005 Posted July 28, 2005 That was an EGW statement: BC- 7ABC TI- S.D.A. Bible Commentary Vol. 7A CN- 2 CT- Christ’s Nature During the Incarnation PR- 01 PG- 446 Quote
Robert Posted July 28, 2005 Posted July 28, 2005 Quote: jasd said: Lev 11:44 For I [am] the LORD your God: ye shall therefore sanctify yourselves, and ye shall be holy ; for I [am] holy: That's an old covenant demand! The law demands perfect holiness....Yes Peter uses this phrase, but as a means of Christian living and not the perfection the law requires. Quote: Thank-you, for taking note… I'll try to behave.... Quote
Clio Posted July 28, 2005 Posted July 28, 2005 One other reason Jasd. We are told in Scripture that True Jesus had no advantage over us... in any way. He had to be as we are in order for His sacrifice to be spiritually legally binding and fulfill all the law of Abba Father. To have been born of a woman who had been made holy or was no longer a sinner would have given True Jesus an unfair advantage and played right into the Adversary's hands. Mary was, and continued to be, a wife to Joseph in all ways, just as any woman before, or after. She had to be... True Jesus could not have any advantage that we, His redeemed, do not also have. Clio Quote A heart where He alone has first place.
jasd Posted July 29, 2005 Posted July 29, 2005 >>I'll try to behave....<< Thanx for responding in a gracious manner. Quote
jasd Posted July 29, 2005 Posted July 29, 2005 Clio, >>We are told in Scripture that True Jesus had no advantage over us... in any way.<< But we know that He did have advantage; His miracles attest. >>He had to be as we are in order for His sacrifice to be spiritually legally binding and fulfill all the law of Abba Father.<< That may be so, but I read the story of Boaz and Ruth as illustrating the redemptive laws of the COI, and from thence, --the laws of Gd. The story provides that the Redemptor need not be more than kin, that is, not needing to carry the same genetic markers of the immediate family. As per “spiritually … binding”, He had to be the perfect sacrifice -- something we are not. He could not have been conceived in sin, neither borne, nor born in sin. >>To have been born of a woman who had been made holy or was no longer a sinner…<< If St Paul could call the Corinthians holy, it ought to be easily acceptable that Mary was holy; however, was Mary a sinner? I’m not Catholic and won’t go to the wall over that hypothesis… I accept that she sinned. >>…would have given True Jesus an unfair advantage…<< I don’t know about anyone else, but I would wish every advantage be Christ’s. >>Mary was, and continued to be, a wife to Joseph in all ways, just as any woman before, or after. She had to be...<< That, indeed, may have been so. >>True Jesus could not have any advantage that we, His redeemed, do not also have.<< Never having seen nor heard of anyone given power from the Father to lay down and to pick up his or her life (John 10:17,18) -- I must, respectfully, question the matter of “advantage”. Quote
Planey Posted July 29, 2005 Posted July 29, 2005 Quote: Clio said: We are told in Scripture that True Jesus had no advantage over us Quote: Abba Father. Clio, please excuse this question for being off topic. Be assured I am not being in any way judgmental, but merely curious. Why refer to our Lord as 'True Jesus', rather than just 'Jesus'? Is there a 'False Jesus' which we should be aware of? And why refer to the Father as 'Abba Father'? I always understood 'Abba' to be an Aramaic diminutive for the name 'father', much like our English 'daddy' or 'papa'. I thought we used it to acknowledge our very personal and loving relationship with our heavenly father. I mean we wouldn't say 'Daddy Father' would we? Just wondering, and I'm perfectly ready and willing to be corrected in my unlearned assumptions. Graeme Quote Graeme____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Robert Posted July 29, 2005 Posted July 29, 2005 Quote: But we know that He did have advantage; His miracles attest. John 5:30 By myself I can do nothing....for I seek not to please myself but him who sent me. Quote: He could not have been conceived in sin, neither borne, nor born in sin. As God he never knew sin...but as the Son of man he was "born in sin"....The moment His deity united to our humanity in the womb of Mary...that moment His assumed humanity came under the curse: Gal 4:4 But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law, 5 to redeem those under law 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.