the Lord Jesus ..is fully God fully man ,...but a question

bottledwater said:

No, I don't know, as I just copy/pasted it so that I could give them something to get a better understanding. I personally don't see any need for a commentary, as it is clear to me that the Holy Spirit Is God, and can certainly cause a virgin to conceive a child.
Thanks for pointing that out, and I am going to get the part in blue out of there. God Bless you

So I went to delete the blue and realized that it is correct. Jesus is of a humanity of her own. He is a Jew, and so is she.
How is that an assumption?
Just asking, not looking for a debate or anything.. Thanks

Click to expand...

truth76 said:

The inspired Record says: “But the birth of Jesus Christ was in this way. During the time his mother Mary was promised in marriage to Joseph, she was found to be pregnant by holy spirit before they were united.” (Mt 1:18) Prior to this, Gods angelic messenger had informed the virgin girl Mary that she would ‘conceive in her womb’ as the result of God’s holy spirit coming upon her and His power overshadowing her. (Lu 1:30, 31, 34, 35) Since actual conception took place, it appears that God caused an ovum, or egg cell, in Mary’s womb to become fertile, accomplishing this by the transferal of the life of his firstborn Son from the spirit realm to earth. (Ga 4:4) Only in this way could the child eventually born have retained identity as the same person who had resided in heaven as the Word, and only in this way could he have been an actual son of Mary and hence a genuine descendant of her forefathers Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah, and King David and legitimate heir of the divine promises made to them. (Ge 22:15-18; 26:24; 28:10-14; 49:10; 2Sa 7:8, 11-16; Lu 3:23-34


Rev. 1:1; 3:14, RS: “The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him . . . ‘And to the angel of the church in La-odicea write: “The words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning [Greek, ar·khe′] of God’s creation.”’” (KJ, Dy, CC, and NW, as well as others, read similarly.) Is that rendering correct? Some take the view that what is meant is that the Son was ‘the beginner of God’s creation,’ that he was its ‘ultimate source.’ But Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon lists “beginning” as its first meaning of ar·khe′. (Oxford, 1968, p. 252) The logical conclusion is that the one being quoted at Revelation 3:14 is a creation, the first of God’s creations, that he had a beginning. Compare Proverbs 8:22, where, as many Bible commentators agree, the Son is referred to as wisdom personified. According to RS, NE, and JB, the one there speaking is said to be “created.”)
Prophetically, with reference to the Messiah, Micah 5:2 (KJ) says his “goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.” Dy reads: “his going forth is from the beginning, from the days of eternity.” Does that make him the same as God? It is noteworthy that, instead of saying “days of eternity,” RS renders the Hebrew as “ancient days”; JB, “days of old”; NW, “days of time indefinite.” Viewed in the light of Revelation 3:14, discussed above, Micah 5:2 does not prove that Jesus was without a beginning.
Does the Bible teach that none of those who are said to be included in the Trinity is greater or less than another, that all are equal, that all are almighty?

Mark 13:32, RS: “Of that day or that hour no ones knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.” (Of course, that would not be the case if Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were coequal, comprising one Godhead. And if, as some suggest, the Son was limited by his human nature from knowing, the question remains, Why did the Holy Spirit not know?)
Matt. 20:20-23, RS: “The mother of the sons of Zebedee . . . said to him [Jesus], ‘Command that these two sons of mine may sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your kingdom.’ But Jesus answered, . . . ‘You will drink my cup, but to sit at my right hand and at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by my Father.’” (How strange, if, as claimed, Jesus is God! Was Jesus here merely answering according to his “human nature”? If, as Trinitarians say, Jesus was truly “God-man”—both God and man, not one or the other—would it truly be consistent to resort to such an explanation? Does not Matthew 20:23 rather show that the Son is not equal to the Father, that the Father has reserved some prerogatives for himself?)

Matt. 12:31, 32, RS: “Every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. And whoever says a word against the Son of man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.” (If the Holy Spirit were a person and were God, this text would flatly contradict the Trinity doctrine, because it would mean that in some way the Holy Spirit was greater than the Son. Instead, what Jesus said shows that the Father, to whom the “Spirit” belonged, is greater than Jesus, the Son of man.)

John 14:28, RS: “[Jesus said:] If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I go to the Father; for the Father is greater than I.”

Click to expand...

bottledwater said:

How come you are saying we cannot know for certain? The scripture tells us it was that way. So we either believe or we don't. The Deity of Jesus rests on this bible truth. Because if this is uncertain, then it can all be scrutinized.
You don't seem to understand. Mary's egg was used to make Jesus. You are saying it wasn't.
We are talking about the Holy Spirit here, right. He has the power to fertilize her egg without a man, and without anything sexual. I mean, He made man out of the dust. This is why it said "Jesus is of a humanity of her own", in that commentary that I discussed with you a couple of posts before this one.
He came from her egg
The only difference from any other child, is that Jesus was not born of a man's seed. he was still born of the woman's egg.
I hope this helped you out her.
I am not trying to be rude or anything, but, are you a Jehovah Witness, or LDS. Because something is off. Especially when you keep saying that we cannot know for certain. i mean, christians have been given the faith to believe these things, and they received that faith from God.
When I read this sort of thing, red flags start going up, and I am convicted to make certain that the truth be told. That is the Holy Spirit in me that makes me do this. I couldn't write what you said even if I tried with everything I had, because I couldn't live with myself. I would go nuts with conviction. lol. Well, I am nuts.. lol.. But you get the jest.
Hope this helped you friend.
I will bothered worrying about you all night now.

Click to expand...

h .

i think you were approaching the topic a little too defensively ..and i must laugh at the suggestion i would be seen to me lds or JW .. get to know me a little and you will find me overtly passionate on the topic of the lord Jesus being the word ,spoken from the heart of the father and becoming flesh to dwell among and save us .. you will find me almost vehemently opposed to lds and Jw devilish doctrines --> this is me being defensive now lol .

but in simplicity ..i had a minor doctrinal theological matter in which i was lacking and so i asked a question.. then i challenged the answers to make sure they were not hot air and fluff of carnal nature ( like Mary being born divine or other silliness). Consider me as a child pushing the boundaries set before me ..not to rebel against them but to be sure of them = God bless you

bottledwater said:

Thanks for getting back to me on this Alithis. I guess I do get a little riled when it comes to defending anything to do with my Lord. I should say, our Lord. Sorry if I was a bit head strung there. I got the impression from what you said that you didn't think that.
I would like to try and do what you were doing, sometime and test the scripture. So far though I have been like a dumb buck. Not sure if you know the meaning behind that. It refers to deer in rutting season. They are single minded. I have always been that way when it comes to Jesus. I just feel that He has done everything for us, and to me, nothing else matters. He really is my everything.
I think it would be safe to say that between being here for my elderly folks, and focusing my efforts on Christ Jesus, and of course always having to go away for work. My life is and has been pretty much on hold, as far as anything else.
I really do like the way you explained yourself, and didn't just come out swinging. You truly are a humble soul, and I certainly could learn a few things from you.
I had a friend in Winnipeg Manitoba Canada, a few years ago, that was like you. he was a gentle, and humble spirit. I used to confide in him about things. I met this guy and his lovely wife when I was out west traveling. I spent an hour or so talking to them, and I knew right then that we would be life long friends. never saw him again, but, we just knew that we were brothers. I kinda looked at it like the disciples of Jesus. Same thing kinda, but not really. lol..
He used to send everyone on his email list a commentary on scripture, that he himself had written. Some of it was quite moving.
I got locked out of my hotmail account a couple of years ago, because I used my email in Canada on the same day that I used it in another country. So to protect me, they locked the email acct. I have tried everything to get into it, so that I could contact these friends of mine.
I never gave it another thought after I finally gave up. Atleast not until, you just posted that, because it was like hearing from him. Same humility.
I feel bad for thinking that you might have been on the other team.
Forgive me Brother. I know that your kind of humility only comes from above.
I do quite a bit of gold panning this time of year, with the mountain runoff, and I could be out in the wilderness all alone for an entire weekend, before I find that one, particular sparkle that I am looking for. Oh, it usually isn't ever anything much. I do it because it takes me out into nature, away from people that drive me nuts, and it really is alot like fishing. In fact, I usually take a fly rod along with me, just in case. I guess I could say, it is where I really do feel like I fit in. I can say that I know that I have an audience of God's holy angels all around me, when I am out there.
Anyhow, I would liken you to that sparkle, because you are the only truly humble person on here since I have been on this site.
You see, I may be swift to stand up for what I believe in. But, I am just as gracious when I am fortunate enough to meet someone that is the real deal.
I wish you and your family over there in NZ God's Blessing. I love you Brother, and I really do hope that I get a chance to chat more on these sorts of biblical topics with you in the future, and if it works out that we don't get the chance. I look forward to rejoicing with you at the wedding feast of the Lamb in Heaven, and it is really going to be awesome.

Click to expand...

he-man said:

In regard to the Virgin Birth, it is significant.: that there is no reference to it in the Epistles which form the earliest Christian documents; but, on the contrary, St. Paul speaks of the seed of David according to the flesh," that is to 'say, of the seed of Joseph, David's decendant. The Earliest' Gospel,' that of St. Mark, dating between A.D. 70 and 100, does notmention it; nor does the Gospel of St. John, dating from some time earlier than A.D. 100. The Book of Revelation; written between A.D. 69 and 93, is silent on the subject, though had the Viigin Birth then been an important tenet of the 'faith' it would undoubtedly have figured in the 'mystical symbolism of that composition.

The story appears for the first time in the Gospel of St. Luke, which may have been written as late as A.D. 100; and there we are told that Mary had conceived her child by the Holy Ghost before the consummation of her marriage with Joseph; though it is implied that he believed the baby to be his own son and that this was the general opinion. In the Gospel of St. Matthew, perhaps ten years later again, the account his developed; Joseph is now said to have been aware that the child was not his,: and to have been restrained from divorcing Mary by an angel, who came to him in a dream and told, him'that the baby had been conceived by the. Holy Ghost.

It seems clear, therefore, that the story was not known, or at any rate was not accepted, before A.D. 100, that is ,to say, a whole century after the date of the event it records. But both in St. Matthew and in St. Luke the genealogy of our Lord is given„ for the purpose of showing that Jesus was descended from David; for the promised Messiah was to be of the seed of David. These genealogies, however, are traced through Joseph; and if Joseph was not then thought to be the father of Jesus it is difficult to understand why the pedigree was given at all, for there is no suggestion anywhere that Mary was related to Joseph or was also descended from David, nor does she figure in the genealogies.

The Syriac version of the- Gospels, discovered in 1892, throws more light upon the subject, for there, at the end of the genealogy, the definite statement is made that Jacob had a son, Joseph, to whom was betrothed the Virgin Mary; and Joseph had a son, Jesus, called the Christ. It seems, in fact, that we have to deal with a contradiction due to the later insertion of the story of the Virgin Birth beside the earlier story of the descent of Jesus from David through, Joseph; and, in this case, we may place its inception somewhere in the Second Century.
Abbe Houtin, La Question Biblique, p. 245; E. Giran, Joius of Nazareth, p. 56.; 1 Romans i. 3; 2 Luke ii. 5, 16, 41.- 3 Luke iii. PAGANISM IN OUR CHRISTIANITY

Click to expand...