What's new
By:

Magic Johnson...no better than an "alley cat?"

YB85 said:
Mary had a baby. Mary was not married. Her baby was born out of wedlock. The end.
Click to expand...

No, Mary and Joseph were married when Jesus was born.

Matthew 1:18-25 reads: "Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily. But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins. Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. THEN JOSEPH BEING RAISED FROM SLEEP DID AS THE ANGEL OF THE LORD HAD BIDDEN HIM, AND TOOK UNTO HIM HIS WIFE: And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS."
Click to expand...
 
talk about a topic taking a few twists and turns...

not that I've really ever given this much thought, but if the child is conceived out of wedlock but the couple marries before the birth, where does that fall on CJ's Fornication Index?

So Mary slept with God when she was already wedded to Joseph? And that was kosher?
 
moevillini said:
talk about a topic taking a few twists and turns...

not that I've really ever given this much thought, but if the child is conceived out of wedlock but the couple marries before the birth, where does that fall on CJ's Fornication Index?

So Mary slept with God when she was already wedded to Joseph? And that was kosher?
Click to expand...

In medical history the birth of this baby boy is most important, for it is the only birth on record of a child from a virgin girl. The conception of the child in her was therefore from no man but was from a heavenly father. If this had not actually been the case, the angels of heaven would not have interested themselves in the child’s birth. If it had been an illegitimate baby whose human father kept himself hidden in shame so as to shirk his responsibility, the holy angels would not have debased themselves to bear witness to its birth. There would be no reason to rejoice over the birth of such an unwanted boy, from whom no good could come to all mankind. In proof that the boy’s birth was a miraculous, honorable, beneficial one from a clean virgin, the army of heavenly angels appeared to men and made known who the father of the newborn boy was. The angels gave glory to God, and thus they revealed the heavenly Father of the remarkable baby.
 
carolinajazz said:
In medical history the birth of this baby boy is most important, for it is the only birth on record of a child from a virgin girl. The conception of the child in her was therefore from no man but was from a heavenly father. If this had not actually been the case, the angels of heaven would not have interested themselves in the child’s birth. If it had been an illegitimate baby whose human father kept himself hidden in shame so as to shirk his responsibility, the holy angels would not have debased themselves to bear witness to its birth. There would be no reason to rejoice over the birth of such an unwanted boy, from whom no good could come to all mankind. In proof that the boy’s birth was a miraculous, honorable, beneficial one from a clean virgin, the army of heavenly angels appeared to men and made known who the father of the newborn boy was. The angels gave glory to God, and thus they revealed the heavenly Father of the remarkable baby.
Click to expand...

On record? Interesting.
 
carolinajazz said:
In medical history the birth of this baby boy is most important, for it is the only birth on record of a child from a virgin girl. The conception of the child in her was therefore from no man but was from a heavenly father. If this had not actually been the case, the angels of heaven would not have interested themselves in the child’s birth. If it had been an illegitimate baby whose human father kept himself hidden in shame so as to shirk his responsibility, the holy angels would not have debased themselves to bear witness to its birth. There would be no reason to rejoice over the birth of such an unwanted boy, from whom no good could come to all mankind. In proof that the boy’s birth was a miraculous, honorable, beneficial one from a clean virgin, the army of heavenly angels appeared to men and made known who the father of the newborn boy was. The angels gave glory to God, and thus they revealed the heavenly Father of the remarkable baby.
Click to expand...

ah yes, the body of medical evidence in this is overwhelming, especially the well-researched accounts of those pioneers in the medical sciences - Dr. Matthew, Dr. Mark, Dr. Luke and especially Dr. John.

Yes, especially Dr. John.

peer reviewed and everything... yes, it's overwhelming.
 
One Brow said:
They were promised to each other, but not married yet ("espoused"). I don't know the legal status of "born out of wedlock" in such cases.
Click to expand...

There is debate about this among biblical scholars. The passage I quoted it often pointed to as indicating that Joseph married Marry (took her to wife) as they were traveling to the census points in order that she would not be ostracized as a pregnant unmarried woman, which would make sense culturally.

THEN JOSEPH BEING RAISED FROM SLEEP DID AS THE ANGEL OF THE LORD HAD BIDDEN HIM, AND TOOK UNTO HIM HIS WIFE
Click to expand...
 
FWIW...

https://www.bibleistrue.com/qna/qna22.htm

It's important to note that betrothal was of a much more formal and far more binding nature than the "engagement" is with our culture. Indeed, it was held to be a part of the transaction of marriage, and as being the most binding part.
Click to expand...

the betrothed couple were legally in the position of a married couple, and any unfaithfulness was "adultery" (Deuteronomy 22:23; Matthew 1:19).
Click to expand...

In summary, the essence of the ceremony consisted in the removal of the bride from her father's house to that of the bridegroom or his father. It appears that there is a literal truth in the Hebrew expression "to take" a wife (Genesis 21:21; 24:3,38; 26:34), for the ceremony appears to have mainly consisted in the taking.
Click to expand...
 
moevillini said:
ah yes, the body of medical evidence in this is overwhelming, especially the well-researched accounts of those pioneers in the medical sciences - Dr. Matthew, Dr. Mark, Dr. Luke and especially Dr. John.

Yes, especially Dr. John.

peer reviewed and everything... yes, it's overwhelming.
Click to expand...

MOST people know of the Bible account of Jesus’ being born of a virgin. But not all accept it as true. Among persons who reject the Bible record are those who view a virgin birth as biologically unacceptable. Yet some such persons may now be rethinking their position because of current scientific developments in genetic management. Is it possible that something of that kind was involved in the virgin birth of Jesus?
There are two reports, both written by intelligent men who were on the scene when Jesus was on earth. Appropriately, one is by a physician, Luke. The other is by Matthew, a man who was used to the discipline of working with accounts and who had been selected by Jesus as one of the 12 apostles.

Matthew’s account focuses on the role of Joseph.

Luke, on the other hand, presents the account from Mary’s point of view. The essential facts are the same, but he gives details of the conversation between Mary and the angel who revealed to her the privilege of motherhood that she was being offered. Astonished, Mary responded: “How is this to be, since I am having no intercourse with a man?” To her it all seemed beyond belief, as it may seem to you. The angel then explained to her that the conception would be miraculous, by holy spirit, by the power of the Most High, whose son the child thus would be. Mary accepted the honor readily and duly gave birth to a son, Jesus.—Luke 1:26-38.
 
moevillini said:
ah yes, the body of medical evidence in this is overwhelming, especially the well-researched accounts of those pioneers in the medical sciences - Dr. Matthew, Dr. Mark, Dr. Luke and especially Dr. John.

Yes, especially Dr. John.

peer reviewed and everything... yes, it's overwhelming.
Click to expand...

speaking of medical history, aren't these the same scholars and researchers who provided the first written, peer-reviewed account of someone being brought back to life three days after having been declared dead?


Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk
 
moevillini said:
speaking of medical history, aren't these the same scholars and researchers who provided the first written, peer-reviewed account of someone being brought back to life three days after having been declared dead?


Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

The First Zombie.
 
Yet some such persons may now be rethinking their position because of current scientific developments in genetic management. Is it possible that something of that kind was involved in the virgin birth of Jesus?
Click to expand...

Or maybe God went into Joseph's body (like Patrick Swayze went into Whoopi Goldberg in Ghost) swapped out his sperm with his God sperm and made a baby that way. And since he was half ghost it still kept half virgin which should still count right?

On another note, evolution.. Man that is so not real.
 
Just a question of curiosity...why do people critical of the immaculate conception idea always go down the road of God being a depraved perverted ghostly rapist? Isn't it conceivable that an all-powerful being could cause the egg to simply start dividing with a complete set of specifically chosen DNA? Scientists do something similar to this today to some degree quite regularly in genetic and breeding experimentation. A thousand years ago that concept would have been seen as supernatural (as would the cellphone, quite frankly). I am not asking why you don't believe it, I understand the skepticism and share it as well to some degree, I just don't understand the need to ridicule and debase the dogma to the depths of debauchery as so many do.
 
LogGrad98 said:
Just a question of curiosity...why do people critical of the immaculate conception idea always go down the road of God being a depraved perverted ghostly rapist? Isn't it conceivable that an all-powerful being could cause the egg to simply start dividing with a complete set of specifically chosen DNA?
Click to expand...
I don't see why if we're to entertain the idea that god just has infinite magic that he couldn't do that. That's what I thought was nearly unanimously believed by those that buy the story to begin with. Until I was 18 and went to Sunday School and we talked about this subject. And I was very confused and rather unsettled.

They didn't come out and say "God had sex with Mary", but boy did they infer it. Lots of hushed tones, and saying something to the effect of "people think that god just made Mary pregnant, but what happened was a very sacred thing that *trail off into creepy land*" as everyone kind of uncomfortably nodded. Also, something to the effect of 'there are laws on how things come into being, and Jesus' conception is not an exception.'

I don't know how prevalent stuff like this is taught (or that god sent Hitler to earth to exact his revenge on the Jews for forsaking their messiah), but I do know it is taught.
 
LogGrad98 said:
Just a question of curiosity...why do people critical of the immaculate conception idea always go down the road of God being a depraved perverted ghostly rapist? Isn't it conceivable that an all-powerful being could cause the egg to simply start dividing with a complete set of specifically chosen DNA?
Click to expand...

There is DNA on the male Y chromosome not present on the female X chromosome, that specifically creates male features. If Mary had such a region on her X chromosome, she would have had male features (but been an infertile male, apparently).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SRY
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top