The Two Witnesses Will Appear in the Next New Moon

[Patrick1966]

Or, knowing he was the carpenters sin they were surprised he would have ideas beyond what is typical of a carpenter. Which is why they were asking for clarity being they were confused as to why a carpenters son would possess such knowledge.

Consider a contemporary example.
A laborer, say someone who is a cashier, demonstrates higher intelligence and powers beyond what is typical of regular people.

Trying to reconcile those discrepancies someone may say, wait a minute. Isn't he a cashier at the department store up the road?

I believe the Bible talks about the Pharisees being dumbfounded at hearing Peter, the fisherman, speak so intelligently and eloquently to them about the things of God.

 

[Mr E]

I believe the Bible talks about the Pharisees being dumbfounded at hearing Peter, the fisherman, speak so intelligently and eloquently to them about the things of God.

Now you are getting it.

People who knew Peter, would have been astonished-- because it's impossible apart from the power of God enabling the sudden change.

 

[Mr E]

Or, knowing he was the carpenters sin they were surprised he would have ideas beyond what is typical of a carpenter. Which is why they were asking for clarity being they were confused as to why a carpenters son would possess such knowledge.

Consider a contemporary example.
A laborer, say someone who is a cashier, demonstrates higher intelligence and powers beyond what is typical of regular people.

Trying to reconcile those discrepancies someone may say, wait a minute. Isn't he a cashier at the department store up the road?

I'll give you a better example... One from scripture-

Jesus heals a blind man (on the Sabbath) in violation of the law. The man had been blind since birth, so when this man whom everyone knew to have never been able to see for his entire life could suddenly see--- they were astonished. (John 9)

“Is this not the man who used to sit and beg?"

Some people said, “This is the man!” while others said, “No, but he looks like him.”

”The man himself kept insisting, “I am the one!"


The astonishment is what sets the questions apart as non-rhetorical. Their astonishment makes the questions genuine because the change is unbelievable. They are left incredulous.

How do you think Jesus would have responded? We don't really have to guess. Like the blind man who had been healed, Jesus would have responded honestly-- The man himself kept insisting, “I am the one!

And beyond that-- Jesus would proudly claim to be that uneducated carpenter son of Mary and Joseph, --one of their many kids-- and distinctly non-distinct from any other in order to give the glory (for the change in him) to God. It's also "why" he healed that blind man- AND scripture says this ALSO is the very reason that God allowed the man to be born blind. The very reason.

---but he was born blind so that the acts of God may be revealed through what happens to him.

That should astonish you too.

 

[Mr E]

Many would claim that to be heretical blasphemy and I wouldn't disagree

Matthew 1:18KJV
18 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.

There's a very simple explanation for this that perhaps isn't obvious in whatever translation you might be reading. Read it in the original Greek....

It reads-- before they cohabitated. (came together, living under one roof). In other words, she conceived on the wedding night-- the very moment that they came together-- united physically and she became his wife, as part of the wedding ceremony/ritual-- God was there and by His will, through the Holy Spirit, -Mary conceived-- before they ever even lived together.

As part of the wedding ceremony, the new husband would present evidence that they had consummated the marriage in the wedding booth/tent, and a blood-stained bedsheet/cloth was the acceptable proof of the bride's virginity. There was no other proof. Virginity was not assumed, but proven. Joseph had a serious problem if at the wedding ceremony there was no blood evidence to present.

You have to ask yourself-- What if? What if at that ceremony Joseph had no such proof (a blood-stained bedsheet) to present? He would have to shame her, OR-- not wanting to shame her, he might present manufactured evidence to satisfy the ceremony, then plan to divorce her quietly-- which is what scripture points towards. But before going through with that plan-- he is shown in a dream and it is revealed to him that nothing is amiss. And an angel explains to him that his wife has conceived as God ordained-- setting her apart for this special purpose and that the child himself also would be set apart-- as the holy one-- the messiah long-awaited. And Joseph is assured by the angel that she was indeed a virgin, that he had nothing to fear in this regard, and to his credit- Joseph believed.

 

[ButterflyJones]

I'll give you a better example... One from scripture-

Jesus heals a blind man (on the Sabbath) in violation of the law. The man had been blind since birth, so when this man whom everyone knew to have never been able to see for his entire life could suddenly see--- they were astonished. (John 9)

“Is this not the man who used to sit and beg?"

Some people said, “This is the man!” while others said, “No, but he looks like him.”

”The man himself kept insisting, “I am the one!"


The astonishment is what sets the questions apart as non-rhetorical. Their astonishment makes the questions genuine because the change is unbelievable. They are left incredulous.

How do you think Jesus would have responded? We don't really have to guess. Like the blind man who had been healed, Jesus would have responded honestly-- The man himself kept insisting, “I am the one!

And beyond that-- Jesus would proudly claim to be that uneducated carpenter son of Mary and Joseph, --one of their many kids-- and distinctly non-distinct from any other in order to give the glory (for the change in him) to God. It's also "why" he healed that blind man- AND scripture says this ALSO is the very reason that God allowed the man to be born blind. The very reason.

---but he was born blind so that the acts of God may be revealed through what happens to him.

That should astonish you too.

My reply was scripture based, thanks.

 

[Mr E]

My reply was scripture based, thanks.

Oh my apologies! I’m not familiar with this section of scripture….

Consider a contemporary example.
A laborer, say someone who is a cashier, demonstrates higher intelligence and powers beyond what is typical of regular people.

Trying to reconcile those discrepancies someone may say, wait a minute. Isn't he a cashier at the department store up the road?

Chapter and verse please? I’d like to look that one up for myself.

 

[ButterflyJones]

Oh my apologies! I’m not familiar with this section of scripture….




Chapter and verse please? I’d like to look that one up for myself.

That's OK. You parse the reply to make a sarcastic point so you lost the debate already.

 

[Mr E]

That's OK. You parse the reply to make a sarcastic point so you lost the debate already.

I guess a person can declare themselves a winner as easily as they can declare themselves one of the two witnesses around here.

Here’s yer prize.

 

[lforrest]

Actually, we have no idea if he was a carpenter or not. We have no idea what he was or was t doing for 18 years of his formative life from age 12-30.

We know he was a carpenter’s son. For all we know he could have been a complete prodigal.

We can know Jesus was no prodigal, because that would have been sinful.

 

[Mr E]

We can know Jesus was no prodigal, because that would have been sinful.

Who is the Father in that parable?

 

[lforrest]

Who is the Father in that parable?

I wasn't speaking about the parable, but of one living as a prodigal. Which is one who lives wastefully and recklessly. Nowadays we would call such a person a party animal.

 

[Mr E]

I wasn't speaking about the parable, but of one living as a prodigal. Which is one who lives wastefully and recklessly. Nowadays we would call such a person a party animal.

It was a pretty straight forward question.

 

[marks]

Aside from the fact that these posts are way off topic, sorry OP. I must ask, @Mr E Do you reject the virgin birth?

Not at all.... and I covered the topic completely in another thread. The song of Mary- an unorthodox perspective

Hi Nancy,

Regardless of his answer to you now, here is what he wrote in that thread,

All I've attempted to do so far, is establish the fact that according to scripture-- Joseph is the father of Jesus and that it is through him that the genetic line of David runs, as recorded in Matthew's Gospel.

Matthew is written for them. He makes no bones about Joseph being the father. It would be entirely acceptable to the Jews except for the fact that councils and religious leaders and teachers came along later and decided that they would create a legend like that of Greek Gods who were born of miraculous virgin mothers-- hybrid, sons of the gods and earthly mothers. After all-- it had been prophesied in Isaiah that the virgin would be with child.... the story they concocted fit. It fit perfectly they thought. And so it would seem, and so it was accepted and so it has been taught and so we have it. It's that very weed that was planted.

Much love!

 

[ewq1938]

Hi Nancy,

Regardless of his answer to you now, here is what he wrote in that thread,




Much love!

Good info.

He rejects the virgin birth. He only believes Mary was a virgin until intercourse on her wedding night which isn't what the bible tells us. A virgin birth is not possible according to E's beliefs. This is not just unorthodox but is pure heresy.

Mat 1:23 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.
Mat 1:24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
Mat 1:25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.


Mr.E does not accept that part. He states Joseph "knew" Mary in verse 24 which goes directly against verse 25.

 

[Mr E]

Hi Nancy,

Regardless of his answer to you now, here is what he wrote in that thread,




Much love!

I referred her to that thread directly, does my understanding threaten yours? Because yours certainly doesn't threaten mine. I can't imagine your level of paranoia.

 

[Mr E]

Good info.

He rejects the virgin birth. He only believes Mary was a virgin until intercourse on her wedding night which isn't what the bible tells us. A virgin birth is not possible according to E's beliefs. This is not just unorthodox but is pure heresy.

Mat 1:23 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.
Mat 1:24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
Mat 1:25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.


Mr.E does not accept that part. He states Joseph "knew" Mary in verse 24 which goes directly against verse 25.

Scripture says Joseph is the father. Scripture provides the genealogy confirming the fact. Scripture says Joseph took her as his wife and that she conceived a son.

Deal with it.

 

[marks]

I referred her to that thread directly, does my understanding threaten yours? Because yours certainly doesn't threaten mine. I can't imagine your level of paranoia.

No need to flatter yourself, I was just doing Nancy a favor.

Much love!

 

[marks]

Scripture says Joseph is the father. Scripture provides the genealogy confirming the fact. Scripture says Joseph took her as his wife and that she conceived a son.

Deal with it.

There. Now you are being honest. That's all I was looking for, the truth.

Much love!

 

[Mr E]

No need to flatter yourself, I was just doing Nancy a favor.

Much love!

You're quite the little busy body. Don't flutter yourself.

 

[lforrest]

It was a pretty straight forward question.

Interpretation of the parable of the prodigal son is a different subject, not to be confused with my simple statement that Jesus was not a prodigal.