Jesus/Yeshua: How far can we agree?
Comments
-
Thanks for the link, one which I had consulted earlier in this thread. But the link does not address the question I raised to you a few posts ago. Remember that our exchange on this particular matter began with THIS COMMENT of yours regarding the community's possible awareness of Joseph's role in Mary's pregnancy:
- "I would think that because Joseph married Mary very early into the pregnancy people may not have realized that he was not the biological father."
To your comment I responded with a comment and a question:
- "This is a curious observation to me because its biblical foundation is not obvious to me. In your view, what text(s) report the point in the span of her pregnancy Mary and Joseph were married?"
I don't believe the link you provided addresses the question I asked. For clarity's sake, I'll rephrase the question: How do you know they married or became contractually obligated to each other "very early into the pregnancy"? How do you know their marital/legal relationship didn't begin before the pregnancy or something later than "very early into the pregnancy"? In your view, what text(s) report that Mary and Joseph became married/contractually obligated to each other "very early into the pregnancy"?
-
@Bill_Coley wrote
Where in the Matthew narrative do you find reference to "the fact of the coming together shortly after the wedding ceremony...had come"? I see nothing in the text that to me suggests anything about the wedding's proximity to the events described. Matthew 1.18 verifies that they were engaged and not married at the time of the chapter's events, but I don't see language that locates the events of the chapter in time relationship to the specific event of the marriage.
I conclude that
(1) the coming together / taking unto you your wife normally happened very soon after in connection with the wedding ceremony. (2) Joseph had become aware of the pregnancy of his wife prior to the "taking unto him his wife" and thus was contemplating what to do with her when the angel instructed him to take unto him his wife which I would conclude to have been in close proximity after the wedding ceremony had taken place. (3) the overall scope provided from Lk 1:§5ff and events recorded there (visit with Elizabeth) and what is recorded in Mt 1:18-25 leads me to conclude that Mary was not too far along in her pregnancy at the time of the wedding ceremony with Joseph.
-
@Mitchell said:
look earlier when one of the forum members was explaining his position on the identity of Jesus he happened to make an epistemological statement (or maybe a Priori proposition) regarding the veracity (but not directly the canonicity) of the nativity accounts found in the Gospels.
(1) posteriori (Canonicity 2) Priori (3) epistemological (4) prosposition
I found this to be of apologetic interest and to indirectly touch on issues of canon (or rather the various canons) and inspiration. Rather than focus on the individual or the individual's comment I think it would be useful or interesting to have another thread devoted to the topics.
@CM said:
I stated my interest. I didn't restrict you or him from doing what you suggested. It's an opened forum. CM
-
@Bill_Coley said:
Clearly, there isn't much of a biblical record about Joseph, and the only textual indication of even a hint of my belief that he is Jesus' biological father is John 6.42 where a group of Jews seem to testify to a community consensus about the issue. My assumption is that something as controversial as a virgin birth would have found its way into the community's awareness, so Jews' failure to mention it in John 6 offers support for my view, I think.
In addition, I simply don't find the Gospel narratives in Luke and Matthew credible, for a similar reason: The fact of such an astonishing event - a rival to the resurrection as far as Wow! factor - would surely have made it throughout the Christian community; but it didn't make it to Mark or even the later-writing John. As a result, I believe the more likely scenario is that Joseph (or someone else, I suppose) was Jesus' biological father.
@CM responds:
Now that you have spoken, on the matter and has not exercised the liberty to start a new thread, I will keep my word and share:
We must never lose sight of the fact that the birth of our Lord was supernatural. It was the result of a special act of God, by the power of the Holy Ghost. When God became flesh it was to fulfill His eternal purpose in bringing a lost race back into fellowship with the universe.
When Adam sinned, the effects of his fall passed upon the whole human family. Since then we have been a dying race. Into that race the Saviour came. At the time Jesus was born, centuries of sin had left their tragic mark upon humanity. Human nature had deteriorated; moreover, Satan claimed this world as his domain. When God became incarnate in the person of His Son, and identified Himself with humanity, it was after the race had been weakened by thousands of years of sin and degradation.
It was in a human form that He came, and He was beset by the infirmities of our physical nature. In the physical form of man He was to feel the stroke and effects of sin. He knew what it was to feel forsaken. "I have trodden the winepress alone; and of the people there was none with me" (Isa. 63:3). CM
-
@C_M_ wrote:
We must never lose sight of the fact that the birth of our Lord was supernatural. It was the result of a special act of God, by the power of the Holy Ghost.
The fact is that the birth of Jesus Christ was natural ... it was THE CONCEPTION which was supernatural and came to pass as an act of God by means of His power holy spirit. The birth was regular as a woman giving birth to a child.
When God became flesh it was to fulfill His eternal purpose in bringing a lost race back into fellowship with the universe.
One should observe that God did not become flesh because God has always been and will ever be SPIRIT and can NOT become a human being of flesh and blood.
Yes, God fulfilled His promise of sending a human being (cp His promise concerning "seed of the woman" !) in working the miraculous conception and thereby providing the way for man to be brought back into fellowship WITH GOD (not in fellowship with the universe)
-
CM response:
Your point is understood. Wolfgang, what's natural about a woman giving birth to a baby? Have ever witness (or watch) the birth of a baby? Is not "THE CONCEPTION" of any child is a miracle and what's "supernatural" is conception without a human sperm? 🤔 CM
PS. I prefer you respond in my new thread post: "The Virgin Birth: Miracle, Heresy or Cover-up?", to respect the OP, thought flow, of this thread. CM
-
CM
I never said, claimed, or insinuated that you restricted anyone on this thread and I know very well that is an open forum. You asked to clarify what I said and I honored your request. But, now you are upset and I am not sure why? What part of my last post made you upset?
-
CM response:
Bro. Mitchell,
Far be it from me! I am not, the least-bit, upset with you or anyone in these forums. Why should I? Your expression (question format) is a mischaracterization of my post and any emotional feelings I had at the time in responding to your clarification. If I didn't say it before, I'll say it now. I appreciate you being responsive to my request in a timely manner.
May be, I should ask, what gave you that impression? I am very sorry you perceived my quest to reiterate to you and others the freedom of these forums and at the same time to be reasonably respectful of the OP. I have given, many times, gentle reminders to fellow posters to maintain the flow of an OP.
Your two above questions are more of a projection than a reality. Therefore, I can't respond to them in any meaningful way. It's right and nice for you to straightforwardly ask, but I would prefer you do so, in future, minus the assumption and in a PM. Especially, when it's not overt and/or independently verifiable. To the rest of your day, peace and blessings! CM
-
May be, I should ask, what gave you that impression?
When, you replied to me with the following:
I stated my interest. I didn't restrict you or him from doing what you suggested. It's an opened forum. CM
Of, course it is an open forum, since I never said it wasn't I was confused why you felt the needed to make the statement above.
Of, course you did not restrict me, and since I never said that you did I do not understand your reason for making the statement above.
I do not see the connection between my post you were replying to with statemant of yours I quoted above.
Grace and Peace
-
@Wolfgang said:
I conclude that
(1) the coming together / taking unto you your wife normally happened very soon after in connection with the wedding ceremony. (2) Joseph had become aware of the pregnancy of his wife prior to the "taking unto him his wife" and thus was contemplating what to do with her when the angel instructed him to take unto him his wife which I would conclude to have been in close proximity after the wedding ceremony had taken place. (3) the overall scope provided from Lk 1:§5ff and events recorded there (visit with Elizabeth) and what is recorded in Mt 1:18-25 leads me to conclude that Mary was not too far along in her pregnancy at the time of the wedding ceremony with Joseph.
Your analysis here relies on what "normally happened" and "the overall scope" of the Lucan and Matthean narratives. I grant the usefulness of insights gained from such sources, but continue to contend there is nothing in the texts themselves that reports the wedding's proximity to the events described. Common sense and rational inference can produce hypotheses, of course, but direct textual support for them is missing, I contend.
Our disagreement here is more about forms of evidence than specific conclusions. I appreciate the exchange.
-
@C_M_ said:
We must never lose sight of the fact that the birth of our Lord was supernatural. It was the result of a special act of God, by the power of the Holy Ghost. When God became flesh it was to fulfill His eternal purpose in bringing a lost race back into fellowship with the universe....
You and I disagree as to whether God became flesh in Jesus, CM, but our disagreement does nothing to diminish the respect I have for this testimony of your faith.
-
@Bill_Coley wrote
but continue to contend there is nothing in the texts themselves that reports the wedding's proximity to the events described. Common sense and rational inference can produce hypotheses, of course, but direct textual support for them is missing, I contend.
Well, common sense and rational thinking applied when reading the narrative in Mt 1:18-25 points - for me, rather obviously, to a point in time close to the wedding activities (which in Biblical times may have lasted several days) and in particular to the time of the "coming together/take unto thee your wife" ...as Joseph seems to not have taken unto himself Mary who by the angel is already called "thy wife".
What other time frame might common sense and rational thinking arrive at from those details which are in fact stated in the text?
-
Hi @Mitchell ,
(1) There is only one God - True
(2) Jesus/Yeshua bar Miriam is the promised Messiah/Mashiach(Anointed one) - True
(3) Jesus/Yeshua was miraculous conceived as is stated in the canonical gospels of Matthew and Luke. Joseph is Jesus adoptive father, but not his father in an ontological way or through DNA. - Unclear (not fully proven, the trinity is still controversial among many believers)
(4) Jesus/Yeshua is the 'Son of God' - We all are, metaphorically, don't we all "call" God "Our heavenly father" or "Our father in heaven" in our prayers ? That doesn't prove or disprove #3.
(5) Jesus/Yeshua fulfilled the Law/Torah - True.
(6) Jesus/Yeshua willing suffered for our sins - True.
(7) Jesus/Yeshua was crucified on a cross and died - Unclear, only someone with knowledge of ancient Greek could tell if it was a cross or a wooden stake.
(8) Jesus/Yeshua died and was buried - Half truth is sometimes worse than a lie. The bible clearly tells us what happened after.
(9) God raised Jesus/Yeshua from the grave and/or Jesus was resurrected - Misleading, that could be used as an argument against the trinity, but not debunk it.
(10) Jesus/Yeshua 'sits at the right hand of God' or is God's right-hand man, in other words, Jesus/Yeshua is God's vizier. - Misleading - the bible never suggested that Jesus was God's vizier, if it did, it could also be used as an argument against the trinity.
(11) All those who trust in (have faith) in Jesus/Yeshua and have accepted him as their Lord shall be saved(or maybe have already been saved?). - True, but often misunderstood (not your fault).
(12) Those who trust in Jesus/Yeshua even shall be resurrected and have everlasting life. - True, but often misunderstood (same as #11).
Thanks,
ASN_032
-
Bill,
I know some time has passed, but re-reading this post brings a question to mind. Are you willing to admit that Joseph is not the biological father of Jesus? If not, the implications of your statement could be quite revealing, not to say unbiblical. CM
-
@C Mc posted:
I know some time has passed, but re-reading this post brings a question to mind. Are you willing to admit that Joseph is not the biological father of Jesus? If not, the implications of your statement could be quite revealing, not to say unbiblical.
I appreciate your question, CM, but I'm not willing to respond given your long-standing practice of refusing to acknowledge, let alone directly respond to, my responses when you call me out like this.
-
My, my, Bill!
Since you are married to your self-imposed restrictions to respond to me "directly," respond to the benefit of others and the larger CD readership. I don't recall sinning against you or committing the unpardonable sin against God. The question is legitimate and needs to be answered by one who holds a view contrary to the biblical account. If you are of the same mindset about Joseph being Jesus' biological father, so be it. CM
-
@C Mc posted:
Since you are married to your self-imposed restrictions to respond to me "directly," respond to the benefit of others and the larger CD readership. I don't recall sinning against you or committing the unpardonable sin against God. The question is legitimate and needs to be answered by one who holds a view contrary to the biblical account. If you are of the same mindset about Joseph being Jesus' biological father, so be it.
I make no accusation of sins, unpardonable or otherwise, CM.
-
Bill,
You're correct. Thank you. Message received on all points. CM
-
To my Fellow Posters and CD Readers,
Let me set the record straight, in Matt 1:18-23, the Bible clearly states:
Mary "was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit" – NOT by sexual intercourse. Her future husband, already betrothed to her, "was a righteous man and did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly." Even prophesy is fulfilled by the young virgin becoming pregnant (Matt. 1.23). (Cf. Luke 1:26-31.35).
There is NOT one scintilla of truth to the erroneous lie that emanated from the jars of Satan that Joseph was Jesus' biological father. This is carnal thinking, ginned-up, by some anti-trinitarian in an attempt to rob Christ of His divinity to justify their claims that Jesus was just a man and not God.
This is a blatant disregard (may I add, disrespect) for the plain reading of the text. The very thought of such is can only be birth in mind marinated in its self-importance. It's one thing think something and another thing to write it. However, writing a thing and failing to correct it is an abomination in the face of time and the contextual event of Scripture! CM
-
Here is more to disprove the blasphemous claim that Joseph was Jesus' biological father, in another voice:
Matthew tells us that “Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod” (Matthew 2:1), setting him squarely in history. Matthew 1:18–25 and Luke 1:26–38 report that Jesus was conceived without the intervention of a human father, when the Holy Spirit overshadowed his mother Mary.
Jesus’ unique and supernatural human origin sets him off from all others.10 He did not inherit a sinful human nature. His human genesis was not only natural but supernatural. Yet this supernatural conception was not an artificial invasion by an alien intruder. It was not out of place, since earth was the divinely ordained theater of redemption.11 Jesus has both a supernatural origin and a truly human nature. He is one of us but also beyond us.
The virginal conception is a significant aspect of Jesus’ uniqueness and should be defended (although many modern apologetics books omit it). This claim should not be confused with stories of divine-human propagation found in other religions and mythologies. John Frame notes:
There is no clear parallel to the notion of a virgin birth in pagan literature, only of births resulting from intercourse between God and a woman (of which there is no suggestion in Matthew and Luke), resulting in a being half-divine, half-human (which is far different from biblical Christology).12
10 Similarly, the resurrection sets him apart from all others (see Bernard Ramm, An Evangelical Christology: Ecumenic and Historic [Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1985], p. 69).
11 See C. S. Lewis, Miracles (New York: Macmillan, 1960), p. 59.
12 John Frame, “The Virgin Birth,” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984), p. 1145.
Groothuis, D. (2011). Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case for Biblical Faith (p. 477). Downers Grove, IL; Nottingham, England: IVP Academic; Apollos.
Except for the first sentence, and this one, all the texts in this post is from the source above. CM
![[Deleted User]](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fcddec765be35f238a0844bd23f54b59/?default=https%3A%2F%2Fvanillicon.com%2F8ce8323767a20f0f45db140c4cd2cea1_200.png&rating=g&size=200)
