"The fear of יהוה is the beginning of wisdom, And the knowledge of the Set-apart One is understanding"

Geneology and Yahshua's Pre-existence

Moderator: Watchman555

eriqbenel
Posts: 269
Joined: 19 Oct 2007, 20:28
Location: Jonesboro, GA
Contact:

To Watchmann

Postby eriqbenel » 15 Mar 2008, 19:58

Most of your objections have already been addressed in my exchange with Matthew, you many want to read over this conversation to understand my position on some of your questions.

Can you explain how those who do not believe in the virgin birth have history on their side?


Yes. There is no historical evidence or documentation anywhere prior to the time of the gospels of Matthew or Luke that Messiah was to be born of a virgin. The historical prophecies and preistly writings do not indicate this in any way.

And those who do not agree have science or the Tanak on their side?


I explained the Tanak above.

Unless you believe that the account of MattithYahu and Luke are highly tainted, the Messianic Scriptures would agree in a virgin birth.

Maybe they do, But I don't believe that the Messianic Scriptures are infallable. Nor do I believe that this story agrees with the Tanak in any way.

As far as science goes, are you saying science is on ‘your’ side because it is impossible for a virgin to conceive? If that is the case, I would have to remind you of artificial insemination because in this day and age it is scientifically possible for a virgin to be inseminated and conceiving thus being a virgin with child.


Although true, that would be totally irrelavent to 2000 plus years ago.
To say that a virgin birth is impossible is going against Yahuah’s ability to do anything. To me, it only makes more sense that she was indeed a virgin, that being undefiled, by man.


Why does it make MORE sense that a woman was pregnant without a man?

Likened to the spiritual equivalent of the 144,000 who are considered virgins themselves; does that mean they are actual virgins in a physical sense? Or does that mean that they were virgins in a spiritual sense, being undefiled by the pollutions of the religious world?


I would say the latter, but I don't se how that is relevant to Yoseph and Miriam.

I guess time will tell us on that one. I can see from my perspective of Yahuah choosing the right maiden to bring forth His Son. It seems highly unlikely he would have used a woman that had been covenanted with another man, because as we know to ratify a covenant there must be a shedding of blood and a parting. In other words, when Yisra’el walked through the two pieces –


???????? I'm not following you here. You are over my head with this.... ??????????
Shalom in the name of YHWH,

Eriq

ErichMatthewJanzen
Posts: 51
Joined: 11 Nov 2007, 12:16
Location: Conyers, GA
Contact:

Postby ErichMatthewJanzen » 18 Mar 2008, 11:43

Hi, Eric,

I will respond to those points you and I are in disagreement on. Some of your statements I did not respond to because (1) I would just be repeating myself endlessly, and (2) the posts are getting extremely long.

Socially, not "legally". Legally the marriage is complete once the contract is done, they are MARRIED!
It is the Torah that shows a difference (Deut. 20:7; 22:22-23). While I agree that the betrothed woman can be referred to as the mans wife, I still believe that the difference lies in (1) the betrothed has not had sex, (2) the two people are not yet living together, and (3) the woman is still being provided for by her father.

Her being raped by another man doesn't prove why he would do such either.


It’s definitely a better choice than thinking he pondered upon this because he had laid with her.

Yoseph's line of reasoning wasn't sound. He was only trying to protect her from public ridicule. My point is, ridicule wouldn't have been a problem if she had been raped. It only comes into play if she was unfaithful or if she had sex prior to living with Yoseph.


Ridicule would come with any scenario. Since sex during betrothal was not sinful, Joseph would not have thought about putting Mary away secretly if such happened. He, being just, would have simply continued in the marriage.

I had written:
I agree that the verses specifically deal with taking a woman who is not betrothed, but I believe that if a man is betrothed to a woman and he has sex with her prior to their moving in together conjugally, the proper thing to do is to marry the woman.

You replied:

Well, it makes no sense to have a law about that, the man is already married to her and he was going to move her in anyway.


All I’m saying is that when reading Ex. 22:16-17 and Deut. 22:28-29 common sense dictates that if you are betrothed to a damsel and have sex with her before moving in with her you should continue the process; not put her away secretly. I completely agree that Ex. 22 and Deut. 22 are speaking about taking a virgin woman you are not betrothed to; we are in agreements here.

Maybe I can illustrate this. Let’s say that when my son is around 17 he finds a woman he would like to be betrothed with. Her father gives the permission and she is promised to my son. However, before they move in with each other, and before he is providing for her, they engage in sex and it turns out she’s pregnant. My son comes to me and says, “Dad, I know that “Susieâ€

eriqbenel
Posts: 269
Joined: 19 Oct 2007, 20:28
Location: Jonesboro, GA
Contact:

Postby eriqbenel » 18 Mar 2008, 18:27

[quote]Maybe I can illustrate this. Let’s say that when my son is around 17 he finds a woman he would like to be betrothed with. Her father gives the permission and she is promised to my son. However, before they move in with each other, and before he is providing for her, they engage in sex and it turns out she’s pregnant. My son comes to me and says, “Dad, I know that “Susieâ€
Shalom in the name of YHWH,



Eriq

kickme
Posts: 132
Joined: 29 Dec 2007, 18:48

Postby kickme » 19 Mar 2008, 00:01

I've never seen anyone beat a dead horse for so long....
Give it up people, move on to more important things, like grace, mercy and justice :wink:

eriqbenel
Posts: 269
Joined: 19 Oct 2007, 20:28
Location: Jonesboro, GA
Contact:

Postby eriqbenel » 19 Mar 2008, 00:14

kickme wrote:I've never seen anyone beat a dead horse for so long....
Give it up people, move on to more important things, like grace, mercy and justice :wink:


I know... but this is the topic of this thread. I sincerely hope you start a new topic on another thread. :mrgreen:
Shalom in the name of YHWH,



Eriq

eriqbenel
Posts: 269
Joined: 19 Oct 2007, 20:28
Location: Jonesboro, GA
Contact:

MATTHEW JANZEN

Postby eriqbenel » 20 Mar 2008, 02:43

Please look at these two things before your next post:

1. Does the Aramaic Peshetta have the virgin birth story in it?

2. Matthew 2:23 says:

2:23 And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.

Can you show me where the prophets say this?
Shalom in the name of YHWH,



Eriq

ErichMatthewJanzen
Posts: 51
Joined: 11 Nov 2007, 12:16
Location: Conyers, GA
Contact:

Postby ErichMatthewJanzen » 20 Mar 2008, 10:11

Hi, Eric,

1) Yes the Aramaic Peshitta contains both Matthew 1-2 and Luke 1. I have two Bibles Here translated by George Lamsa where the NT is taken from the Aramaic rather than the Greek. The Shem Tob Hebrew Matthew also contains the accounts as well as gives Matthew 8:20 as follows:

"Yeshua answered him: The foxes have holes and the birds have nests, but the Son of Man, the son of the virgin (bethulah), has no place to enter his head."

2) "And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots. [Isaiah 11:1]"

One can examine the underlying Hebrew word translated branch in this passage, and find that it is the Hebrew word netser, defined by SEC as “…from 5341 in the sense of greenness as a striking color; a shoot; fig., a desendant…â€

ErichMatthewJanzen
Posts: 51
Joined: 11 Nov 2007, 12:16
Location: Conyers, GA
Contact:

Postby ErichMatthewJanzen » 20 Mar 2008, 10:34

Hi, Eric,

You wrote:

What you would do in your 21st century mindset, under our current system of government is completely irrelevant. What Yoseph’s mindset was in the culture and environment in which he lived is different. I have explained that as fully as I know how.


I gave what I would do based upon the Scriptures. I would never counsel my son – based upon the Torah – to secretly put away his betrothed wife because he had with her during betrothal, i.e. before living with her and taking care of her.

[quote]You are misappropriating the use of the word “justâ€

eriqbenel
Posts: 269
Joined: 19 Oct 2007, 20:28
Location: Jonesboro, GA
Contact:

Postby eriqbenel » 20 Mar 2008, 15:54

[quote="ErichMatthewJanzen"]Hi, Eric,

1) Yes the Aramaic Peshitta contains both Matthew 1-2 and Luke 1. I have two Bibles Here translated by George Lamsa where the NT is taken from the Aramaic rather than the Greek. The Shem Tob Hebrew Matthew also contains the accounts as well as gives Matthew 8:20 as follows:

"Yeshua answered him: The foxes have holes and the birds have nests, but the Son of Man, the son of the virgin (bethulah), has no place to enter his head."

2) "And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots. [Isaiah 11:1]"

One can examine the underlying Hebrew word translated branch in this passage, and find that it is the Hebrew word netser, defined by SEC as “…from 5341 in the sense of greenness as a striking color; a shoot; fig., a desendant…â€
Shalom in the name of YHWH,



Eriq


Return to “Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron