The Birth and Nature of Christ

[standingfirminChrist]

cowboymatt, is not your calling Eliyahu a'classless jerk' breaking BB rules?

You don't have much room to accuse Eliyahu of breaking a rule when three of your own fingers are pointing back at yourself.

As to the changing of the page, Eliyahu's link did go to a different page. I clicked it right after he had posted it.

Having worked on web pages, I know about reassigning addresses to pages.

 

[Eliyahu]

As the Holy Spirit - I wasn't there.

PLeading with mystery

No - but the Word became the flesh that the Holy Spirit created with Mary's egg. The egg was not yet "flesh" as in a body for the Word.

Egg is the flesh. This portion is very much important that reveals the contradiction and problems.

Joseph's lineage doesn't mean anything because he had nothing to do with the birth of Christ other than most probably delivering Him. A stepfather has nothing to do with lineage at all - that's ridiculous. I believe that the reason that he IS listed is that I'm not that sure that it was common knowledge to all around Him that Jesus was born to a virgin mother. Joseph took Mary as his wife but didn't know her until after Jesus was born. But I'm sure many assumed that he was the father and having his lineage can show that even through the man who was supposed to be His father, Jesus was of the line of David.

Joseph's lineage is as much important as that of Mary ( if Luke 3 is her genealogy).

Without his righteousness, Jesus could not come as the descendant of David, as he could have put her away.

 

[donnA]

I did not change the link. You are mistaken. Go back and look for yourself at post #245 where it is plainly visible that Eliyahu linked to my wife's myspace page and then proceeded to slam her because of a New Kids on the Block (not rave...lol) song and a Halloween reference. Sure, he didn't mention her by name, but he judged her plain and simple.

And while it may not be against the rules, does that make it any less despicable? Why would you defend his behavior? He acted like a jerk and the fact that you and donna have both defended him makes me lose respect for the two of you.

Again, there is no moderation here and the rules are not enforced, which makes this place less and less bearable by the second.

As I said , there are moderators and he is busy making personal attacks himself.
You never had respect in the first place.
you complain the rules are not enforced, yet complained when the rules were defended.
I did not defend anyone, I defended the standing rules of the BB.
Each post has a report button if you feel it violates rules then report it.
But which rule can you show it violates, when your wife is not a member here.

 

[EdSutton]

HP: Yes in a sense all born subsequent to Adam are of the seed of women, but the genealogies given are not that of Mary but rather are stated clearly to be that of Joseph.

I don't believe you can say this about the genealogy found in Luke. It is not said that these here are "begotten", unlike that of Matthew. You might also notice that "the son of" appears throughout the genealogy. It is italicized in the KJV and NKJV; properly bracketed in the DARBY and HCSB; and completely omitted in the WYC and YLT, because "the son" does not occur in the Greek texts, here. So this cannot be said to be a "blood genealogy", per se.

HP: If Gabriel had said that any one would be brought forth by a man that indeed would be reason to question the angel. There is absolutely no indication that the seed of Abraham, through David through Joseph was not precisely the lineage Christ’s seed came from. There is not one Scriptural mention of the lineage of David being that of Mary or that Mary’s lineage would in any way make Christ the rightful heir to David’s throne that I can find.

I believe you are overlooking the curse pronounced by the LORD on Jeconiah, (Jer. 22:30) where it is said that no man of his seed should sit on the throne. Yet this is the precise lineage given in Matthew, where the 'throne lineage' is given following David. Hence if the Lord Jesus Christ had in any way been of the seed of Jeconiah (Matt. 1:11), He too, would have been disqualified in this. The Lord Jesus gets the rights to the Throne of David through His legal father, Joseph. However he is the seed of David, through Mary and Heli, back through Nathan, to the throne, and thus avoiding the curse on Jeconiah.

Ed

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Cowboy: Again, there is no moderation here and the rules are not enforced, which makes this place less and less bearable by the second.

HP: Hang in there Cowboy. Life is not fair, and neither are some moderators. You have too much to offer this list to leave. I for one have appreciated your posts.

 

[Eliyahu]

I see nothing here that is worthy of trying to answer. I answered it several times, should be enough. I even gave you the scripture that He was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death. You just do not seem to understand.

I tried, sorry

BBob,

Made lower doesn't mean that He became a sinner to die.

 

[donnA]

ann=

The egg was not yet "flesh" as in a body for the Word.

I'd like to have ann explain this.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

HP: Hang in there Cowboy. Life is not fair, and neither are some moderators. You have too much to offer this list to leave. I for one have appreciated your posts.

Contrary to the fact that Scripture does not back them.

 

[donnA]

Luke 3: 23being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph

they suposed He was Jospeh's son, becasue He was born to Joseph's wife, but it says they suposed, meaning they thought so, but it wasn't so.
Luke 3 appears to be the geneology of Joseph, and it actually says Joseph.

 

[EdSutton]

Joseph's lineage doesn't mean anything because he had nothing to do with the birth of Christ other than most probably delivering Him. A stepfather has nothing to do with lineage at all - that's ridiculous. I believe that the reason that he IS listed is that I'm not that sure that it was common knowledge to all around Him that Jesus was born to a virgin mother. Joseph took Mary as his wife but didn't know her until after Jesus was born. But I'm sure many assumed that he was the father and having his lineage can show that even through the man who was supposed to be His father, Jesus was of the line of David.

Joseph's lineage means absolutely as much as that of Mary. For Joseph is not "a stepfather", but the "legal father" of Jesus. Had Joseph not been of the line of David, through Jeconiah, there would have been none to sit on the throne of David. Jesus had to be of the lineage of Jeconiah, but without being of the Seed of Jeconiah. (Jer. 22:30)

Ed

 

[Eliyahu]

I did not change the link. You are mistaken. Go back and look for yourself at post #245 where it is plainly visible that Eliyahu linked to my wife's myspace page and then proceeded to slam her because of a New Kids on the Block (not rave...lol) song and a Halloween reference. Sure, he didn't mention her by name, but he judged her plain and simple.

And while it may not be against the rules, does that make it any less despicable? Why would you defend his behavior? He acted like a jerk and the fact that you and donna have both defended him makes me lose respect for the two of you.

Again, there is no moderation here and the rules are not enforced, which makes this place less and less bearable by the second.

You may call me Jerk or Junk and it doesn't matter. But I didn't spend much time with your site, and found that it has many buttons to click. Even now I am not sure which button I clicked, but I thought all buttons on your site was belonging to you. I had no intention to criticize your wife, but just had the curiosity on your web site and the feeling about it was unChristian like. I didn't raise this issue to attack you at all, but when you asked me in detail I could not but answer your question, since I just commented the general principles and the manner of managing the Forum. If I had volunteered to criticize your site, then I could have been blamed justly. Otherwise, your attitude revealed another problem with your personality- quick to anger.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavenly Pilgrim
HP: Yes in a sense all born subsequent to Adam are of the seed of women, but the genealogies given are not that of Mary but rather are stated clearly to be that of Joseph.

ES: I don't believe you can say this about the genealogy found in Luke. It is not said that these here are "begotten", unlike that of Matthew. You might also notice that "the son of" appears throughout the genealogy. It is italicized in the KJV and NKJV; properly bracketed in the DARBY and HCSB; and completely omitted in the WYC and YLT, because "the son" does not occur in the Greek texts, here. So this cannot be said to be a "blood genealogy", per se.

HP: I suppose I am just gullible in this mater, for I believe it is indeed a genuine blood genealogy and the translators made a good choice by their insertion of ‘the son of.’
Quote:
HP: If Gabriel had said that any one would be brought forth by a man that indeed would be reason to question the angel. There is absolutely no indication that the seed of Abraham, through David through Joseph was not precisely the lineage Christ’s seed came from. There is not one Scriptural mention of the lineage of David being that of Mary or that Mary’s lineage would in any way make Christ the rightful heir to David’s throne that I can find.

ES: I believe you are overlooking the curse pronounced by the LORD on Jeconiah,

HP: No, I do not believe I am. That is a good topic though that we have raised before but need to raise again. Last time as I remember the topic fell on mainly dead ears with little response. Possibly it will be different this time around. I will say this much, that there is more than one viable option which would offer it mute on the impact of the genealogy, or show that indeed it had been set aside. We can go into detail later as time permits.

 

[cowboymatt]

HP: Hang in there Cowboy. Life is not fair, and neither are some moderators. You have too much to offer this list to leave. I for one have appreciated your posts.

I am on the verge of leaving and not coming back. You can thank Eliyahu and his twin defenders sfiC and donnA.

 

[EdSutton]

Luke 3: 23being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph

they suposed He was Jospeh's son, becasue He was born to Joseph's wife, but it says they suposed, meaning they thought so, but it wasn't so.
Luke 3 appears to be the geneology of Joseph, and it actually says Joseph.

Did you miss what I previoulsy posted here? I'll repeat part of it, and 'bold' it.

I don't believe you can say this about the genealogy found in Luke. It is not said that these here are "begotten", unlike that of Matthew. You might also notice that "the son of" appears throughout the genealogy. It is italicized in the KJV and NKJV; properly bracketed in the DARBY and HCSB; and completely omitted in the WYC and YLT, because "the son" does not occur in the Greek texts, here. So this cannot be said to be a "blood genealogy", per se.

Do you see what I am saying?

Ed

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

CM: I am on the verge of leaving and not coming back. You can thank Eliyahu and his twin defenders sfiC and donnA.

HP: If you feel you have to leave, why not just make it a ‘short sabbatical’ with a quick return?:thumbs:

 

[cowboymatt]

cowboymatt, is not your calling Eliyahu a'classless jerk' breaking BB rules?

You don't have much room to accuse Eliyahu of breaking a rule when three of your own fingers are pointing back at yourself.

As to the changing of the page, Eliyahu's link did go to a different page. I clicked it right after he had posted it.

Having worked on web pages, I know about reassigning addresses to pages.

You're wrong. I did not change it, nor would I know how to. He linked to my wife's page and then proceeded to attack her. It is clear as day, especially since my myspace does not contain one reference to Halloween at all. You're wrong, Eliyahu linked to her page.

Edit--someone posted a Happy Halloween animated gif as a comment on my page. That still doesn't mean that he did not link to her page.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

Luke 3:23 And Jhesu hym silf was bigynninge as of thritti yeer, that he was gessid the sone of Joseph, which was of Heli, -- Wycliffe

I pointed out this earlier. Joseph was guessed to be Jesus' father, not that he was.... thanx, Ed.

 

[donnA]

I am on the verge of leaving and not coming back. You can thank Eliyahu and his twin defenders sfiC and donnA.

whatever dude, rules are rules. and your wife was never mentioned.

 

[donnA]

Did you miss what I previoulsy posted here? I'll repeat part of it, and 'bold' it.

Do you see what I am saying?

Ed

I can only go with what it actually says.

 

[Eliyahu]

I am on the verge of leaving and not coming back. You can thank Eliyahu and his twin defenders sfiC and donnA.

Before your departure, please accept my apology if I offended you too much. But to some extend we may be hurt each other for awhile.
But the basic principle is that we all need some more patience and I didn't try to make any specific attack in this case. Certain general advice could have been exchanged I believe. I had a certain feelings and impressions on all posters and could not but answer the details when I was asked. However, again please accept my apology if I hurt you in un-christian way. BTW, you can participate again any time.