Is The Serpent Seed Doctrine A "Damnable Heresy"?

[TRFrance]

The Serpent Seed doctrine has been much discussed around here the last few days.

Various NT writers warned about those who would introduce heretical doctrines into the church. Peter in particular warned (in 1 Pet 2:1) about men bringing "damnable heresies" in to God's people.

Which leads to this simple question: is the Serpent Seed doctrine one that should be considered a "damnable heresy"?
...or should it be considered just a mild and fairly harmless doctrinal error?

What say ye?

[Steve Epley]

Yes beyond a shadow of a doubt.

[TRFrance]

The essentials of the serpent seed doctrine can be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branhamism#Serpent.27s_Seed_Doctrine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branhamism#Serpent.27s_Seed_Doctrine)

[bkstokes]

I think that if causes one to doubt the efficacious work of the Jesus' sacrifice -- Then yes.

I also think that it is quite perverted. Can you imagine trying to teach your little kids about the fall it were the case?

Thanks TR this thread ought to be interesting.

[Dr. Vaughn]

TR - if it has to do with ones eternal salvation, then yes it is a damnable heresy...

If it has to do with an understand of an OT event that disagrees with mainstream understanding... then you tell me... is it Heresy?

If it is, then Post Trib, Pre Trib or Mid Trib is heresy... that has more to do with eternal salvation than Serpent Seed

[Dr. Vaughn]

Imagine trying to eplain the fall like this

Hey our loving God... cursed Eve and all of her children for eating an Apple when told her not to......

Now, give that to a child

[Steve Epley]

The Serpent Seed doctrine taught by William Branham is not just about the original sin in the garden it embodies the doctrine of personal predestination-limited atonement-election unto damnation-unconditional eternal security-marriage & divorce-one prophet who alone has the lone interpetation of scripture.That is why I say it is damnable.

[bkstokes]

Imagine trying to eplain the fall like this

Hey our loving God... cursed Eve and all of her children for eating an Apple when told her not to......

Now, give that to a child

Ok V

You go tell your children that they got it on and even Adam was in the mix. I will continue telling mine that sin came upon all of us because Eve was deceived and Adam disobeyed by violating God's command. Romans 3 is such a beautiful commentary of it all.

[TRFrance]

A breakdown of the doctrine:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branhamism#Serpent.27s_Seed_Doctrine
part 1 of 2

Branham taught that the fall of mankind resulted from Eve having sexual intercourse with an upright 'Serpent' (at that stage not a snake but the 'missing link' between apes and man, the serpent's current form is a result of God's curse in Genesis 3:14): Branham used the term missing link to infer the the creature was a lesser being than man but similar, not a being that was actually the pre-evolved form of man.
And the only way this serpent could plant the seed, he was the only animal next to the human being. For in the evolution of mankind, when man--God brood upon the earth... And He begin to bring up birds, and the--from birds He come to different things, then chimpanzee, and from the chimpanzee to the serpent. ('Questions and Answers', 30 August 1964 (http://www.nathan.co.za/message.asp?sermonum=1066)) From this relationship Cain was conceived and produced. While from a scientific perspective it is unusual to have interspecies hybrids that are fertile, it is not impossible as evidenced by animals such as the Beefalo/cattalo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beefalo/cattalo) (a cross of an American Bison and a domestic European cow) and the Wolphin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolphin) (a cross between a False Killer Whale and a Bottlenose Dolphin). The result of these interspecies cross-breeds is that they produce an offspring that has to breed back into one of its parental lineages. With reference to Serpent's seed, this would mean that Cain's children would have come through Adam's daughters, and the evidence of any difference between Adam and Cain's lineages would have been diluted with each successive generation.
Versions of the serpent seed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serpent_seed) doctrine appear in a number of sects and cults, notably the 'Christian Identity Movement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Identity_Movement)' where it is used as a justification for racism. William Branham was well aware of the potential racist connections of the doctrine and the racial tendencies of the world in general (the Ku Klux Klan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan) paid for his medical bills after he was shot in the leg as a child) but he tried not to carry any of these racist interpretations into his teachings:
I just was talking about Martin Luther King on this great disaster that they're having in the south, with the--the colored people. I said, "If those people were slaves, I'd take my church and go south to help them people out of slavery." I sure would, because man makes slaves, not God. We're all of one blood. We all come from one tree, and that was from Adam. God, by one blood has made all nations. And whether we, our colors are brown, or black, or yellow, or red, or whatever it might be, we are all creatures of the Almighty (See?), and there shouldn't be any differences in us. ('He Cares, Do You Care?', 21 July 1963 (http://www.nathan.co.za/message.asp?sermonum=951)) William Branham supported the doctrine of the serpent seed with various scriptures including:
for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present [you as] a chaste virgin to Christ. But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.(1 Corinthians 11:2b,3) Such [is] the way of an adulterous woman; she eateth, and wipeth her mouth, and saith, I have done no wickedness.(Proverbs 30:20) she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they [were] naked;(Genesis 3:6b,7a) Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children;(Genesis 3:16) Branham identified the tree of the knowledge of good and evil as being Satan, and the tree of life being God himself.
William Branham said that one basis for his assertion that Eve had sexual intercourse with the ‘serpent’ was in Eve’s claim that the serpent had ‘beguiled’ her (3:13 in the King James Version) ‘beguiled’ actually meant sexually ‘seduced’ or ‘defiled’ rather than ‘deceived’ (which most contemporary translations give). The original Hebrew word is ‘nasha’ ("naw-shaw") which literally means to lead astray or to mentally delude with a secondary meaning to morally deceive.
William Branham also focused on Adam’s willful decision to join Eve in her sin (e.g. Romans. 5:12-19, 1 Corinthians 15:21,22) as a type of Christ taking on our own sin for our redemption.
Adam took her back. He knew exactly what he was doing, but he did it any way. She was a part of him, and he was willing to take her responsibility upon himself. He would not let her go. So Eve conceived by him. He knew she would. He knew exactly what would happen to the human race, and he sold the human race into sin that he might have Eve, for he loved her. (['Ephesian Church Age', William Branham]) The serpent seed may seem difficult to reconcile with the Biblical claim that God had decreed that man should "Be fruitful and increase in number" (Genesis 1:28); however, God's curse to Eve in Genesis 3:16 (which came after the first commandment) was that her sorrow and her conception would be multiplied (insinuating a conception had already taken place, and that while God's initial commandment to multiply had not changed, the method of fulfilling that commandment was now to take a different route). Prior to the curse Adam and Eve "were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed" (Genesis 2:25).

[TRFrance]

breakdown of the doctrine,
part 2 of 2

Further evidence that Branham claimed for the serpent’s seed doctrine was his assertion that Cain and his descendants showed the characteristics of Satan, which were not shown by Abel, Seth and his descendants. The source of inspiration for the unnatural acts of Cain and his descendants was revealed in John 1:13, which states "Not as Cain, [who] was of that wicked one, and slew his brother." In contrast to Cain's descendants, Seth's descendants were righteous, particularly Enoch who "walked with God: and he [was] not; for God took him" (Genesis 5:24). William Branham also noted that Cain was excluded from Adam's physical lineage in Jude 1:14 "And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam".
Branham considered that Cain and Seth's lineages are present today:
Cain's children is here in Jeffersonville tonight, and Seth's children's here in Jeffersonville tonight. As the blood stream weakens and goes out, but that lineage still hangs on. ('Questions and Answers Hebrews Part 3', 6 October 1957 (http://www.nathan.co.za/message.asp?sermonum=445)) In spite of William Branham's statements that God does not consider nationality in his plan of grace and salvation, Branham's critics refuse to separate his teachings from racist origins. Key evidence in their argument is the fact that Branham disliked hybrids and would frequently denounce cross-breeding, usually Branham would refer to just plants and animals, however his denunciation of cross-breeding also extended to racial purity amongst humans (e.g. ‘Questions and Answers Hebrews Part 3’, 6 October 1957 (http://www.nathan.co.za/message.asp?sermonum=445) and ‘Questions and Answers’, 30 August 1964 (http://www.nathan.co.za/message.asp?sermonum=1066)).
Critics claim that Branham said that ancestral lineage could prevent them receiving salvation regardless of how sincere their faith was. The following quote is used as evidence of this:
And now, if God being just, if all He required was worship, Cain worshiped God with just as much sincerity as Abel did. Both of them were sincere. Both of them was trying to find grace with God. They were neither one of them infidels. They were both absolutely believers in Jehovah. Now, there, that gives us something to think of. Some here tonight I've never seen, people, I've never seen you before. But you must realize this, and keep this in your mind. See? No matter how religious you are, that don't have one thing to do with it. You might live in church; you might be ever so sincere; and you're still lost. ('Questions and Answers Hebrews Part 3', 6 October 1957 (http://www.nathan.co.za/message.asp?sermonum=445)) However, Branham's followers attribute the preceding quote to predestination (another possibly controversial doctrine), rather than just serpent seed as is evidenced by William Branham's additional comments in the same sermon:
Cause there was no colored or white, or any other different; it was just one race of people unto the flood. Then after the flood and the tower of Babel, when they begin to scatter out, that's when they taken their colors and so forth. They're all come from the same tree...See? It's God Who chooses. It's God Who elects (See?), God Who gives mercy. The clay can't say to the potter; it's the potter over the clay. That's right. Finally, William Branham taught that the doctrine of the serpent seed was essential because it revealed why Jesus had to be born of a virgin birth and the reason why Jesus had to shed His blood:
Look at Calvary. When that blood cell was housed up, God Himself coming down, building around Himself a Blood cell in the womb of Mary. That Blood cell developed another cell, a cell on a cell. And It was born, the virgin born Son of God; God was inside of Him, the Spirit. Then at Calvary He become a blood sacrifice. And a cruel spear embalmed His body, and broke that blood cell; Out come the life breaking forth from life: water, blood, spirit. And now that man coming to Jesus Christ today, and coming through the blood, comes into the Blood cell in fellowship by the Holy Spirit, becomes a part of God, has God's Life in him, becomes a son and daughter of God. It's just as impossible for that man to be lost, as it is for God Himself to be lost." ('The Mark of Christ', 12 March 1955 (http://www.nathan.co.za/message.asp?sermonum=239))

[TRFrance]

Dr. Vaughn, do you consider the article above to be a fairly accurate presentation of the doctrine?

[Tiberius Pantera]

The Serpent Seed doctrine taught by William Branham is not just about the original sin in the garden it embodies the doctrine of personal predestination-limited atonement-election unto damnation-unconditional eternal security-marriage & divorce-one prophet who alone has the lone interpetation of scripture.That is why I say it is damnable.

What Brother Epley said.

SS is a damnable heresy without question.

Do not be decieved! it is NOT simply an alternative expliation of an OT story!

[SDG]

Seems to me there is a similarity between Branahm's teaching on the essentiality of why Jesus had to be born of a virgin birth and the reason why Jesus had to shed His blood and that of Elder Epley's view of the Incarnation

Branahm:


Look at Calvary. When that blood cell was housed up, God Himself coming down, building around Himself a Blood cell in the womb of Mary. That Blood cell developed another cell, a cell on a cell. And It was born, the virgin born Son of God; God was inside of Him, the Spirit. Then at Calvary He become a blood sacrifice. And a cruel spear embalmed His body, and broke that blood cell; Out come the life breaking forth from life: water, blood, spirit. And now that man coming to Jesus Christ today, and coming through the blood, comes into the Blood cell in fellowship by the Holy Spirit, becomes a part of God, has God's Life in him, becomes a son and daughter of God. It's just as impossible for that man to be lost, as it is for God Himself to be lost." ('The Mark of Christ', 12 March 1955 (http://www.nathan.co.za/message.asp?sermonum=239))

Elder Epley:

God created a blood cell or sperm and implanted in Mary's womb if not how was the WORD made flesh. Are you saying NOTHING in the conception of Jesus came from God?????? If so then how could he be God made flesh???
Mary CONCIEVED what did she concieve if not the blood cell from God?

This is a quasi-form of divine flesh doctrine, IMO

[Dr. Vaughn]

Bro. Eply,, nothing you mentioned will either cause one to go to hell or heaven,, its disagreement at best....... none of us believe anyone is doomed to hell... we simply believe that in Gods foreknowledge he saw who would accept him and with that foreknowledge predestined those that he FOREKNEW unto Salvation......

Its not near as bad as you try to make it sound brother

[Dr. Vaughn]

Wow, what a beautiful quote from Brother Branahm,, Daniel, thanks

[SDG]

Dr. Vaughn or Elder Epley ... do you believe God has sperm or blood cells ... since they are both different in chromosomal counts?

[HeavenlyOne]

Imagine trying to eplain the fall like this

Hey our loving God... cursed Eve and all of her children for eating an Apple when told her not to......

Now, give that to a child

Come on. If that's how we present God to our children, we might as well throw out most of the Bible, especially the OT, where God is killing off entire cities and having entire families stoned because of disobedience.

We feed kids peanut butter sandwiches and hot dogs instead of steak for a reason.

[steve p]

TR - if it has to do with ones eternal salvation, then yes it is a damnable heresy...

If it has to do with an understand of an OT event that disagrees with mainstream understanding... then you tell me... is it Heresy?

If it is, then Post Trib, Pre Trib or Mid Trib is heresy... that has more to do with eternal salvation than Serpent Seed

I'm more of a pan trib person..........Its all gona pan out in the end.........

[Dr. Vaughn]

Bro. Daniel..... I believe he CREATED a perfect blood cell,, yes sir... one with no taint of Satan,,, perfect in everyway,,, pure blood... blood that carried that was required for a sinless sacrifice

[Tiberius Pantera]

Beyond the measure of these doctrines attached, there is a spirit of deception attached to this doctrine that brings distruction.

I have seen it. i have had to deal with it and there is nothing of God in it...

[Tiberius Pantera]

Wow, what a beautiful quote from Brother Branahm,, Daniel, thanks

Look at Calvary. When that blood cell was housed up, God Himself coming down, building around Himself a Blood cell in the womb of Mary. That Blood cell developed another cell, a cell on a cell. And It was born, the virgin born Son of God; God was inside of Him, the Spirit. Then at Calvary He become a blood sacrifice. And a cruel spear embalmed His body, and broke that blood cell; Out come the life breaking forth from life: water, blood, spirit. And now that man coming to Jesus Christ today, and coming through the blood, comes into the Blood cell in fellowship by the Holy Spirit, becomes a part of God, has God's Life in him, becomes a son and daughter of God. It's just as impossible for that man to be lost, as it is for God Himself to be lost." ('The Mark of Christ', 12 March 1955)

clearly the good doctor and I have vastly different ideas on what a "beautiful quote is."

[SDG]

Bro. Daniel..... I believe he CREATED a perfect blood cell,, yes sir... one with no taint of Satan,,, perfect in everyway,,, pure blood... blood that carried that was required for a sinless sacrifice

But blood cells have 46 chromosomes Dr.

Brother Epley also substantiates this divine flesh/sperm/blood cell doctrine but under a different premise ...

Insisting for the same reason ... and quoting the scripture that life is in the blood.

1. God is a spirit ... with no blood or sperm

2. All humans have 46 chromosomes. Through meiosis and then the reproductive process ... a man's sperm supplies 24 chromosomes and the woman's egg supplies 23 to make a total HUMAN ... W/ 46 chromosomes.

If we use Epleyian logic and natural laws and apply it to the baby Jesus that was conceived ....God's sperm/blood would supply 46 blood chromosomes and Mary would have supplied the other 23 ... to make Jesus ... half man and full God??? Was he not all man and all God

Or of course we can say he's all man and all God ... as the Elder still asserts ... and that would mean Jesus had 69 chromosomes ... making him not a human by any measure.

We don't have to explain the supernatural ... folks ... the virgin's conception is just that ... SUPERNATURAL ....

The Elder, yourself, and brother Branahm also forgets that what animated and created the living soul which we call man ... is not blood ... but HIS BREATH!!!!

[Dr. Vaughn]

Please Tiberius... show me which parts of the above quote you are in disagreement with.

[Dr. Vaughn]

Take his blood away and see how long he breathes

[Tiberius Pantera]

Please Tiberius... show me which parts of the above quote you are in disagreement with.

lets start with spears embalming people.

[SDG]

Take his blood away and see how long he breathes

Agreed but it seems to me this doctrine of God's blood cell is not based on God ordained laws of human biology ... but rather a misinformed view of human genetics prevalent among some Pentecostal preachers of the last century ... circa 1950's.

All animals and fruit are according to their kind ... humans too.

[Dr. Vaughn]

I do not hold to DIVINE FLESH at all,,, I believe just the opposite,, that the house God lived in, Jesus Christ was indeed NOT DIVINE.. but just as he said when they said unto him "Good Master.. and he said "Why call me Good, there is NONE GOOD but GOT"

He knew his flesh was not Divine...... when I say the Blood cell was perfect.. i simply mean it was Adams first blood cell without any taint of Satan.. without any sin in it..... without any generation curses in it... without any inherited evil... it was pure and straight from the hands of God himself

[Tiberius Pantera]

and, in addition, the notion of a man coming to God is contrary to the SS doctrine.

[HeavenlyOne]

Vaughn, I'm not sure I believe exactly what you do in regard to where Jesus got His flesh from, but I don't believe he had Mary's DNA. I believe He had flesh, yes. The Bible says He did. I believe it was human flesh too, but the DNA was His own. I believe this because with human flesh from Adam came sin. Jesus was sinless. If we all, regardless of how sinless we are, have to repent and ask forgiveness of sins and Jesus did not, then how did His flesh become 'saved'? The curse of sin was on all flesh from Adam forward....except Jesus.

The Bible says that what was inside Mary was conceived of the Holy Ghost...not conceived of her and the Holy Ghost. Mary did not begat Jesus. He was begotten of the Father.

Anyway, not sure what kind of doctrine this is, but I don't believe it to be a salvation issue nor do I believe it takes away from the sacrifice Jesus made on the cross for me, nor does it make Him less powerful or anything else that's important.

[Dr. Vaughn]

Tiberus,, thats the best you can do?

Did you not hear the SPIRIT of that sermon??? Having family who own funeral services... the FIRST STEP in embalming is what? REMOVING THE BLOOD

Why must you be so critical of something you were cluless about? When he pierced Jesus side... that was the FIRST STEP of embalming... and then they came later to cover his body with oils.... but the SPEAR started the embalming process

[Dr. Vaughn]

and, in addition, the notion of a man coming to God is contrary to the SS doctrine.

No sir, brother.... the SS doctrine tells us that EVERY MAN who is going to come to GOD, WILL INDEED come to God... when he hears the Message.. when he hears the call

[HeavenlyOne]

But blood cells have 48 chromosomes Dr.

Brother Epley also substantiates this divine flesh/sperm/blood cell doctrine but under a different premise ...

Insisting for the same reason ... and quoting the scripture that life is in the blood.

1. God is a spirit ... with no blood or sperm

2. All humans have 48 chromosomes. Through meiosis and then the reproductive process ... a man's sperm supplies 24 chromosomes and the woman's egg supplies 24 to make a total HUMAN ... W/ 48 chromosomes.

If we use Epleyian logic and natural laws and apply it to the baby Jesus that was conceived ....God's sperm/blood would supply 24 chromosomes and Mary would have supplied the other 24 ... to make Jesus ... half man and half God??? Was he not all man and all God

Or of course we can say he's all man and all God ... as the Elder still asserts ... and that would mean Jesus had 72 chromosomes ... making him not a human by any measure.

We don't have to explain the supernatural ... folks ... the virgin's conception is just that ... SUPERNATURAL ....

The Elder, yourself, and brother Branahm also forgets that what animated and created the living soul which we call man ... is not blood ... but HIS BREATH!!!!

Minor correction.

You have 46 chromosomes...23 from each parent.

Carry on.

[SDG]

Vaughn, I'm not sure I believe exactly what you do in regard to where Jesus got His flesh from, but I don't believe he had Mary's DNA. I believe He had flesh, yes. The Bible says He did. I believe it was human flesh too, but the DNA was His own. I believe this because with human flesh from Adam came sin. Jesus was sinless. If we all, regardless of how sinless we are, have to repent and ask forgiveness of sins and Jesus did not, then how did His flesh become 'saved'? The curse of sin was on all flesh from Adam forward....except Jesus.

The Bible says that what was inside Mary was conceived of the Holy Ghost...not conceived of her and the Holy Ghost. Mary did not begat Jesus. He was begotten of the Father.

Anyway, not sure what kind of doctrine this is, but I don't believe it to be a salvation issue nor do I believe it takes away from the sacrifice Jesus made on the cross for me, nor does it make Him less powerful or anything else that's important.

A surrogate ... I somewhat agree. Not entirely.

[SDG]

Minor correction.

You have 46 chromasomes...23 from each parent.

Carry on.

Thank you, sis.

[Dr. Vaughn]

Heavenly one.. then you believe exactly what our Bro. Branham preached.. he taught us that Mary was "an incubator" for the SEED OF GOD... her placenta hid Jesus away until his birth... she simply served as the womb for which he could grow in

[hometown guy]

Seems to me there is a similarity between Branahm's teaching on the essentiality of why Jesus had to be born of a virgin birth and the reason why Jesus had to shed His blood and that of Elder Epley's view of the Incarnation

Branahm:




Elder Epley:



This is a quasi-form of divine flesh doctrine, IMO

Wow, what a beautiful quote from Brother Branahm,, Daniel, thanks

DV a lot of scriptures has been posted and then this quote by branahm. your response speaks volumes of who you are really following

[Dr. Vaughn]

Hometown guy... please be kidding.. not ONE SCRIPTURE was mentioned in that post by our Brother Daniel...... what is the difference in what I said and you seeing a quote from a great preacher and saying "now that was good"

Your too harsh brother

[Tiberius Pantera]

wow. i figured the rest of of were pretty much on the same page as to Jesus' maturnity.

Mary was not an incubator. Mary was Jesus' mother.

[SDG]

wow. i figured the rest of of were pretty much on the same page as to Jesus' maturnity.

Mary was not an incubator. Mary was Jesus' mother.

He would have to carry some of her DNA ... yes?

To be human like us to truly share in our condition.

[Baron1710]

wow. i figured the rest of of were pretty much on the same page as to Jesus' maturnity.

Mary was not an incubator. Mary was Jesus' mother.

Put me down for this category.

[HeavenlyOne]

wow. i figured the rest of of were pretty much on the same page as to Jesus' maturnity.

Mary was not an incubator. Mary was Jesus' mother.

Mary gave birth to Him. Of course Mary was His mother.

[hometown guy]

Hometown guy... please be kidding.. not ONE SCRIPTURE was mentioned in that post by our Brother Daniel...... what is the difference in what I said and you seeing a quote from a great preacher and saying "now that was good"

Your too harsh brother

im not talking just about this thread but look at the other ones that you have started. lots and lots of scripture

[Tiberius Pantera]

Mary gave birth to Him. Of course Mary was His mother.

No. Mary was his actual real mother. Jesus' humanity comes from Mary.

period.

Idontcarewhatdanandthegooddoctorsay.

[SDG]

No. Mary was his actual real mother. Jesus' humanity comes from Mary.

period.

Idontcarewhatdanandthegooddoctorsay.

Dan hasn't said he did not carry his mother's DNA.

Don't put me in that category.

Elder Epley might have a similar view to Vaughn's.

[Dr. Vaughn]

hometown guy,, I have responed to hundreds of scriptures,, anyone can attest to that

[Dr. Vaughn]

Bro. Dan,, I have watched you change your opinion 3 times in the last few minutes...

from

like a surrogate,, yes to now denying that,,,,

[Baron1710]

No. Mary was his actual real mother. Jesus' humanity comes from Mary.

period.

Idontcarewhatdanandthegooddoctorsay.

If Mary were not his mother biologically, how could he claim to be a descendant of David? He would be fooling us.

[hometown guy]

No. Mary was his actual real mother. Jesus' humanity comes from Mary.

period.

Idontcarewhatdanandthegooddoctorsay.

that is right.

[SDG]

Bro. Dan,, I have watched you change your opinion 3 times in the last few minutes...

from

like a surrogate,, yes to now denying that,,,,

No ... I originally said I agree somewhat .... she was a surrogate being that the child was that of the Holy Spirit... but had to have shared her DNA w/ the child ...

Are we playing chess w/ a timer?

[HeavenlyOne]

No. Mary was his actual real mother. Jesus' humanity comes from Mary.

period.

Idontcarewhatdanandthegooddoctorsay.

I don't see any scriptural evidence for that, but like I said, I don't think it matters, as I don't see it as a salvation issue or anything.

[Tiberius Pantera]

Dan hasn't said he did not carry his mother's DNA.

Don't put me in that category.

Elder Epley might have a similar view to Vaughn's.

I suspect Elder Epley meant what I just said.

I sure do hope you agree with me too.

[HeavenlyOne]

If Mary were not his mother biologically, how could he claim to be a descendant of David? He would be fooling us.

Joseph's DNA wasn't a part of Jesus, but the Bible does put Jesus in the lineage of Joseph for some reason. It shows that Jesus is a descendant of David from both Mary's and Joseph's sides of the family.

[Tiberius Pantera]

I don't see any scriptural evidence for that, but like I said, I don't think it matters, as I don't see it as a salvation issue or anything.

H1, i think this is pretty important.

what made Jesus the sacrifice was that he shared humanity with humanity, only without spot or blemish.

had he not been the son of Mary, he would not have been a viable sacrifice for the sins of humanity.

[Dr. Vaughn]

Of course Mary was his mother.. and of course he could claim the Davidic throne from her lineage and or course he could be kinsman redeemer from his human birth... but God planted Jesus inside of her womb.. with no human interaction,, no way for the seed of sin to enter the body of Jesus.. he protected Jesus in a womb, an incubator....

[Baron1710]

Joseph's DNA wasn't a part of Jesus, but the Bible does put Jesus in the lineage of Joseph for some reason. It shows that Jesus is a descendant of David from both Mary's and Joseph's sides of the family.

Jesus is said to be the seed of David. He cannot be the seed of David if Mary were an incubator.

[SDG]

No. Mary was his actual real mother. Jesus' humanity comes from Mary.

period.

Idontcarewhatdanandthegooddoctorsay.

I think you've missed it ... I think he would say she conceived ...

However the doctrine that both he, Vaughn and Branahm proposed is that God had to provide a blood cell .... and use scripture to support this ...

It ain't possible when dealing w/ the human genome ... and there is no evidence of this ....

[HeavenlyOne]

H1, i think this is pretty important.

what made Jesus the sacrifice was that he shared humanity with humanity, only without spot or blemish.

had he not been the son of Mary, he would not have been a viable sacrifice for the sins of humanity.

How did Adam and Eve have humanity without parents? How did they obtain DNA?

If they had the same humanity we now have, isn't it possible that Jesus could be just as human without Mary's DNA?

God could have formed Jesus from the dust of the ground and He would have been just as human as we are, yet without parentage. But that wasn't God's plan. Regardless whether Jesus had Mary's DNA or not, He had to go through the trials of being human from birth. That was God's plan.

With God, all things are possible. It was absolutely possible for Jesus to be born of Mary without sharing her DNA, yet still be 100% human.

[MissBrattified]

Mary gave birth to Him. Of course Mary was His mother.

I don't believe that Mary was just a surrogate. I believe that Jesus inherited His humanity from His mother, biologically speaking.

[Tiberius Pantera]

The good doctor ignors the clear contridiction between the quote and the SS doctrine
LOL!

[Dr. Vaughn]

Brother... had he been the literal SEED of DAVID he could not have been the SEED OF GOD.... he was the seed of David in the fact that he was the OFFSRING of David through Marys lineage.......

[HeavenlyOne]

Jesus is said to be the seed of David. He cannot be the seed of David if Mary were an incubator.

I would agree if the Bible didn't also trace the lineage of Joseph back to David. THIS is the main reason I believe it as I do. Joseph didn't have anything to do with how Jesus came to be born, right? Then why trace his lineage and tie Jesus to it? Doesn't make any sense.

[Dr. Vaughn]

What is a surrogate mother........ a woman who had no interaction with the PROVIDER OF THE SEED... she was indeed a surrogate.. she was not the mother in the fact she had anything to do with it...

Jesus said WHO IS MY MOTHER - he understood she was his mother in birth but she was not his MOTHER in authority or position

[Tiberius Pantera]

How did Adam and Eve have humanity without parents? How did they obtain DNA?

If they had the same humanity we now have, isn't it possible that Jesus could be just as human without Mary's DNA?

God could have formed Jesus from the dust of the ground and He would have been just as human as we are, yet without parentage. But that wasn't God's plan. Regardless whether Jesus had Mary's DNA or not, He had to go through the trials of being human from birth. That was God's plan.

With God, all things are possible. It was absolutely possible for Jesus to be born of Mary without sharing her DNA, yet still be 100% human.

H1, God could have very well formed Jesus from the same dust he formed Adam from.

but the scripture tells us that Jesus is decended from them. I feel no need to discuss DNA. it isnt required. But Jesus was OF his mother and OF his father.

he was (and here is where Dan and I may depart somewhat) both Man as he was decended from Adam from Mary and he was God as mary concieved of the Holy Ghost.

[Dr. Vaughn]

The good doctor ignors the clear contridiction between the quote and the SS doctrine
LOL!

Such as?

[HeavenlyOne]

I think you've missed it ... I think he would say she conceived ...

However the doctrine that both he, Vaughn and Branahm proposed is that God had to provide a blood cell .... and use scripture to support this ...

It ain't possible when dealing w/ the human genome ... and there is no evidence of this ....

I don't believe God provided a blood cell to create Jesus anymore than He used blood cells to create Adam and Eve. God doesn't need substance to create anything.

[Dr. Vaughn]

That body couldn't be God.. or else you now have TWO GODS,.,, and we know GOD IS A SPIRIT,, not a body

[HeavenlyOne]

I don't believe that Mary was just a surrogate. I believe that Jesus inherited His humanity from His mother, biologically speaking.

I would also believe this if the Bible didn't trace the lineage of Joseph from David to Jesus.

[Tiberius Pantera]

I would agree if the Bible didn't also trace the lineage of Joseph back to David. THIS is the main reason I believe it as I do. Joseph didn't have anything to do with how Jesus came to be born, right? Then why trace his lineage and tie Jesus to it? Doesn't make any sense.

both accounts prove Jesus the son of Adam. which is what was required for Jesus to be THE sacrifice for humanity.

[SDG]

H1, God could have very well formed Jesus from the same dust he formed Adam from.

but the scripture tells us that Jesus is decended from them. I feel no need to discuss DNA. it isnt required. But Jesus was OF his mother and OF his father.

he was (and here is where Dan and I may depart somewhat) both Man as he was decended from Adam from Mary and he was God as mary concieved of the Holy Ghost.

No .... I agree w/ you on this ... I've had this discussion w/ Elder Epley before ...

http://apostolicfriendsforum.com/showthread.php?p=202081&highlight=chromosomes#post202081

[Dr. Vaughn]

I don't believe God provided a blood cell to create Jesus anymore than He used blood cells to create Adam and Eve. God doesn't need substance to create anything.

You cannot create life without creating blood,.,, which begins with a BLOOD CELL

[mizpeh]

H1, God could have very well formed Jesus from the same dust he formed Adam from.

but the scripture tells us that Jesus is decended from them. I feel no need to discuss DNA. it isnt required. But Jesus was OF his mother and OF his father.

he was (and here is where Dan and I may depart somewhat) both Man as he was decended from Adam from Mary and he was God as mary concieved of the Holy Ghost.At least we can all agree Jesus was not fathered by Tiberius Pantera ! :toofunny

[HeavenlyOne]

Brother... had he been the literal SEED of DAVID he could not have been the SEED OF GOD.... he was the seed of David in the fact that he was the OFFSRING of David through Marys lineage.......

And also through Joseph's.

[Rico]

Vaughn, I'm not sure I believe exactly what you do in regard to where Jesus got His flesh from, but I don't believe he had Mary's DNA. I believe He had flesh, yes. The Bible says He did. I believe it was human flesh too, but the DNA was His own. I believe this because with human flesh from Adam came sin. Jesus was sinless. If we all, regardless of how sinless we are, have to repent and ask forgiveness of sins and Jesus did not, then how did His flesh become 'saved'? The curse of sin was on all flesh from Adam forward....except Jesus.

The Bible says that what was inside Mary was conceived of the Holy Ghost...not conceived of her and the Holy Ghost. Mary did not begat Jesus. He was begotten of the Father.

Anyway, not sure what kind of doctrine this is, but I don't believe it to be a salvation issue nor do I believe it takes away from the sacrifice Jesus made on the cross for me, nor does it make Him less powerful or anything else that's important.

Isn't this what the divine flesh people believe?

[Tiberius Pantera]

Such as?

a man coming to God?

only those not touched by the seed of the serpent can be saved and they are already saved, and cannot be lost!

crazy.

[Dr. Vaughn]

a man coming to God?

only those not touched by the seed of the serpent can be saved and they are already saved, and cannot be lost!

crazy.

Tiberius,, where did you get that from?? that is nothing close to what we believe... we believe every human born is born the Seed of Satan... and thats why they must be born again or remain the enemies of God

[SDG]

You cannot create life without creating blood,.,, which begins with a BLOOD CELL

It begins w/ two sex cells (egg and sperm)... formed meiotically ... that join (conception) to create a zygote ...

Can a resident biologist tell me if this qualifies as a blood cell?

[HeavenlyOne]

both accounts prove Jesus the son of Adam. which is what was required for Jesus to be THE sacrifice for humanity.

Right. So if we can put Jesus in the lineage of Joseph without DNA support, doing the same with Mary isn't any different, nor does it make Jesus less of a sacrifice or less of a human. IOW, the Bible shows that Jesus wasn't anymore tied to Adam via DNA through Joseph than He was through Mary. That's how I see it anyway.

[HeavenlyOne]

You cannot create life without creating blood,.,, which begins with a BLOOD CELL

You are correct. I can't. But God can.

God spoke animals into existence. Those animals have blood. Fish of the sea have blood. Fowl of the air have blood. Those things were created just in God speaking them into existence.

Adam was created from dust of the ground. No blood mentioned.

[mizpeh]

It begins w/ two sex cells (egg and sperm)... formed meiotically ... that join (conception) to create a zygote ...

Can a resident biologist tell me if this qualifies as a blood cell?

No blood in those cells.

[SDG]

You are correct. I can't. But God can.

God spoke animals into existence. Those animals have blood. Fish of the sea have blood. Fowl of the air have blood. Those things were created just in God speaking them into existence.

Adam was created from dust of the ground. No blood mentioned.

It was his breath that made him a living soul ...

[SDG]

No blood in those cells.

Thank you.

[HeavenlyOne]

It was his breath that made him a living soul ...

That's right!

[Baron1710]

Right. So if we can put Jesus in the lineage of Joseph without DNA support, doing the same with Mary isn't any different, nor does it make Jesus less of a sacrifice or less of a human. IOW, the Bible shows that Jesus wasn't anymore tied to Adam via DNA through Joseph than He was through Mary. That's how I see it anyway.

I know I have emphasized this already but there is a difference between being in the linage as an adopted son who inherits and being the "seed of David." Jesus was literally the seed of David. If you were able to track Jesus DNA it would go back to David.

[Rico]

It was His breath that made him a living soul ...

I corrected that for you.

[HeavenlyOne]

I know I have emphasized this already but there is a difference between being in the linage as an adopted son who inherits and being the "seed of David." Jesus was literally the seed of David. If you were able to track Jesus DNA it would go back to David.

Baron, not that I don't think it's possible, but I don't see the Biblical evidence for that claim.

Jesus' lineage was traced back to David from both Mary and Joseph, even though we are absolutely sure that Jesus didn't have one smidgen of DNA from Joseph. So, without Bible to tell me otherwise about Mary, how can I believe that He shared DNA with His mother?

[Rico]

Baron, not that I don't think it's possible, but I don't see the Biblical evidence for that claim.

Jesus' lineage was traced back to David from both Mary and Joseph, even though we are absolutely sure that Jesus didn't have one smidgen of DNA from Joseph. So, without Bible to tell me otherwise about Mary, how can I believe that He shared DNA with His mother?

How about the part that says she conceived? Case closed.

[HeavenlyOne]

Read Luke 3:23. The Bible calls Jesus the (supposed) son of Joseph.

[HeavenlyOne]

How about the part that says she conceived? Case closed.

Where is the scripture that says she conceived?

The scripture says 'that which is conceived in her', not that she conceived.

Mt 1:20
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.

Case still open.

[Dr. Vaughn]

Rico,, you close cases way too soon and with too much self assurance.. the case is not closed.... she conceived of course...... what does that prove and what case does it close?

[Dr. Vaughn]

Our brother RICO loves to close cases Heavenly One.. all the while making the case more wide open than it was in the beginning

[Rico]

Rico,, you close cases way too soon and with too much self assurance.. the case is not closed.... she conceived of course...... what does that prove and what case does it close?

In order for her to conceive, it took her egg, which had her DNA. That settles the argument on whether Jesus had her DNA or not.

[HeavenlyOne]

The Bible in Matthew 1 mentions the lineage of Jesus through Joseph...and uses 'begat' to describe parentage from one generation to the next.....except with Mary and Jesus.

Matt. 1:15 And Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob; 16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

[HeavenlyOne]

In order for her to conceive, it took her egg, which had her DNA. That settles the argument on whether Jesus had her DNA or not.

Rico, the Bible doesn't say that she conceived.

In addition, God doesn't need an egg to create life. He could have or couldn't have. I'm not sure He did or didn't. I can only go by what the Bible is saying about the matter.

[Rico]

Where is the scripture that says she conceived?

The scripture says 'that which is conceived in her', not that she conceived.

Mt 1:20
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.

Case still open.


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. 19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily. 20 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
Matt 1:18-20 (KJV)

26 And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, 27 To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary. 28 And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. 29 And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be. 30 And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. 31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.
Luke 1:26-31 (KJV)

Conception requires an egg. The angel did not say to her she would incubate.

[Rico]

Rico, the Bible doesn't say that she conceived.

In addition, God doesn't need an egg to create life. He could have or couldn't have. I'm not sure He did or didn't. I can only go by what the Bible is saying about the matter.

The Angel told her she would conceive. Either she conceived or the angel was a liar.

[Dr. Vaughn]

She Conceived OF THE HOLY GHOST ----- DIVINE CREATION... not help needed... no egg needed.....

CONCEIVE - Exact meaning - in HEBREW - :Harah: to become pregnant.....

plain and simple.. she became pregnant./... by a DIVINE ACT.. no eggs needed

[HeavenlyOne]

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. 19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily. 20 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
Matt 1:18-20 (KJV)

26 And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, 27 To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary. 28 And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. 29 And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be. 30 And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. 31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.
Luke 1:26-31 (KJV)

Conception requires an egg. The angel did not say to her she would incubate.

You need to know the definition of 'conceive'. Understand that the word for 'conceive' as used to describe what happened to Mary is different than the word used to describe the pregnancy of Elisabeth.

Mt 1:20
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.

conceive

Gennao
Phonetic Spelling
ghen-nah'-o Verb
Definition

1. of men who fathered children
1. to be born
2. to be begotten
1. of women giving birth to children
2. metaph.
1. to engender, cause to arise, excite
2. in a Jewish sense, of one who brings others over to his way of life, to convert someone
3. of God making Christ his son
4. of God making men his sons through faith in Christ's work

Now, the verse about Elisabeth:

Lu 1:24
And after those days his wife Elisabeth conceived, and hid herself five months, saying,

conceive

Sullambano
Phonetic Spelling
sool-lam-ban'-o Verb
Definition

1. to seize, take: one as prisoner
2. to conceive, of a woman
1. metaph. of lust whose impulses a man indulges
3. to seize for one's self
1. in a hostile sense, to make (one a permanent) prisoner
4. to take hold together with one, to assist, help, to succour

It's clear that there is a difference in the two definitions. I find that problematic in what you are claiming.

[HeavenlyOne]

The Angel told her she would conceive. Either she conceived or the angel was a liar.

Rico, please post scripture as I am doing. The angel didn't say she would conceive, but that which was in her was conceived of the Holy Ghost. There is a difference in what you are saying and what the Bible is saying, even though it can appear to be the same thing.

I believe Jesus was conceived in her of the Holy Ghost, as the Bible says.

[Baron1710]

Isaiah 7:14: "Therefore the LORD Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call His name Immanuel."

[Steve Epley]

No sir, brother.... the SS doctrine tells us that EVERY MAN who is going to come to GOD, WILL INDEED come to God... when he hears the Message.. when he hears the call

See ONLY the righteous predestined seed can come to God not the serpent seed that is elected to damnation.

[Dr. Vaughn]

Bro. Eply..... predestined ONLY by foreknowledge.. you always leave that part out

[Steve Epley]

Dan hasn't said he did not carry his mother's DNA.

Don't put me in that category.

Elder Epley might have a similar view to Vaughn's.

Mary furnished what ALL women furnish in conception and God furnished what ALL men furnish in conception what is complicated about that. Mary was his Mother contrary to what Branham and Teke says. The Bible clearly states she was his mother. The linage is traced from her to Adam.

[Rico]

You need to know the definition of 'conceive'. Understand that the word for 'conceive' as used to describe what happened to Mary is different than the word used to describe the pregnancy of Elisabeth.

Mt 1:20
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.

conceive

Gennao
Phonetic Spelling
ghen-nah'-o Verb
Definition

1. of men who fathered children
1. to be born
2. to be begotten
1. of women giving birth to children
2. metaph.
1. to engender, cause to arise, excite
2. in a Jewish sense, of one who brings others over to his way of life, to convert someone
3. of God making Christ his son
4. of God making men his sons through faith in Christ's work

Now, the verse about Elisabeth:

Lu 1:24
And after those days his wife Elisabeth conceived, and hid herself five months, saying,

conceive

Sullambano
Phonetic Spelling
sool-lam-ban'-o Verb
Definition

1. to seize, take: one as prisoner
2. to conceive, of a woman
1. metaph. of lust whose impulses a man indulges
3. to seize for one's self
1. in a hostile sense, to make (one a permanent) prisoner
4. to take hold together with one, to assist, help, to succour

It's clear that there is a difference in the two definitions. I find that problematic in what you are claiming.

You find anything that makes sense problematic, H.O. That's why you and I have problems getting along much of the time. If the Bible said "Fat meat is greasy", you'd look for a way to show it wasn't saying that fat meat is greasy. Those are just two words that mean pretty much the same thing. Just like I could say a woman got pregnant or say she had conceived.

[Steve Epley]

Of course Mary was his mother.. and of course he could claim the Davidic throne from her lineage and or course he could be kinsman redeemer from his human birth... but God planted Jesus inside of her womb.. with no human interaction,, no way for the seed of sin to enter the body of Jesus.. he protected Jesus in a womb, an incubator....

Branham said Mary was NOT his mother.

[Steve Epley]

Jesus is said to be the seed of David. He cannot be the seed of David if Mary were an incubator.

Truth.

[HeavenlyOne]

Isaiah 7:14: "Therefore the LORD Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call His name Immanuel."

Thanks. I'm glad you provided scripture. Alas, I was hoping for a different outcome when what I'm about to show you.

Hareh
Phonetic Spelling
haw-reh' Noun Feminine
Definition

1. pregnant


I concede that she was indeed pregnant. But this still doesn't prove He was from her seed.

Then again, as I've said from the beginning, it doesn't matter to me if He was or wasn't. He's still God, He's still my Savior, and I'm still His child.

[Broken]

You find anything that makes sense problematic, H.O. That's why you and I have problems getting along much of the time. If the Bible said "Fat meat is greasy", you'd look for a way to show it wasn't saying that fat meat is greasy. Those are just two words that mean pretty much the same thing. Just like I could say a woman got pregnant or say she had conceived.



That is strong preaching if I must say so myself:happydance

[Rico]

Rico, please post scripture as I am doing. The angel didn't say she would conceive, but that which was in her was conceived of the Holy Ghost. There is a difference in what you are saying and what the Bible is saying, even though it can appear to be the same thing.

I believe Jesus was conceived in her of the Holy Ghost, as the Bible says.

I already posted the scripture, H.O. Read it for yourself. He told her THOU SHALT CONCEIVE, not THOU SHALT BE AN INCUBATOR.

[HeavenlyOne]

Mary furnished what ALL women furnish in conception and God furnished what ALL men furnish in conception what is complicated about that. Mary was his Mother contrary to what Branham and Teke says. The Bible clearly states she was his mother. The linage is traced from her to Adam.

No. It's traced from Joseph to Adam...twice. Why is that? I thought there was a passage where He was traced through Mary, but I can't find it now.

[Broken]

I already posted the scripture, H.O. Read it for yourself. He told her THOU SHALT CONCEIVE, not THOU SHALT BE AN INCUBATOR.
:toofunny

[Steve Epley]

What is a surrogate mother........ a woman who had no interaction with the PROVIDER OF THE SEED... she was indeed a surrogate.. she was not the mother in the fact she had anything to do with it...

Jesus said WHO IS MY MOTHER - he understood she was his mother in birth but she was not his MOTHER in authority or position

She CONCIEVED AND BORE just like any other woman. Isa, 7:14, Mt1:21 She most defintely was his BIOLOGICAL MOTHER.

[HeavenlyOne]

You find anything that makes sense problematic, H.O. That's why you and I have problems getting along much of the time. If the Bible said "Fat meat is greasy", you'd look for a way to show it wasn't saying that fat meat is greasy. Those are just two words that mean pretty much the same thing. Just like I could say a woman got pregnant or say she had conceived.

Rico, you find scripture problematic. When you want to discuss scripture on this matter, I'll take it back up with you. You have yet to post scripture saying what you claim it says.

[Steve Epley]

How about the part that says she conceived? Case closed.

AMEN!

[Rico]

Here's another one.


14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
Isaiah 7:14 (KJV)

Amazing. It doesn't say a virgin will bear a son. It says she shall conceive and bear a son.

[Dr. Vaughn]

HARAH ----- the meaning of CONCEIVED in its original FOR THIS VERSE ---

Here's the meaning --- in its original-- nothing about eggs

TO BE PREGNANT

[HeavenlyOne]

Thankfully, I don't deem any of this to be salvational. Therefore, being hostile about this convo isn't what I'm looking for.

I'll discuss with those who want to discuss honestly, as some have. Act hostile, it's over.

[Steve Epley]

Rico, the Bible doesn't say that she conceived.

In addition, God doesn't need an egg to create life. He could have or couldn't have. I'm not sure He did or didn't. I can only go by what the Bible is saying about the matter.

"...behold a virgin shall CONCIEVE and bear a son." Isa. 7:14
"...thou shalt concieve in thy womb and bring forth a child" Luke 1:31

[HeavenlyOne]

Here's another one.


14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
Isaiah 7:14 (KJV)

Amazing. It doesn't say a virgin will bear a son. It says she shall conceive and bear a son.

Already addressed that verse. I agree that she was pregnant.

[Rico]

[
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. 19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily. 20 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
Matt 1:18-20 (KJV)

26 And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, 27 To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary. 28 And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. 29 And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be. 30 And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. 31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.
Luke 1:26-31 (KJV)




Conception requires an egg. The angel did not say to her she would incubate.


There it is. Now either you need to get your eyes checked, or you are wrong about me not posting scripture.

[Steve Epley]

The Angel told her she would conceive. Either she conceived or the angel was a liar.

Not Branham's Angel either or Moroni a bonifide Angel!!!!

[Broken]

:happydance:happydance

[Rico]

Here's another one.


14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
Isaiah 7:14 (KJV)

Amazing. It doesn't say a virgin will bear a son. It says she shall conceive and bear a son.

Baron already posted this one. Thanks, Bro.

[HeavenlyOne]

"...behold a virgin shall CONCIEVE and bear a son." Isa. 7:14
"...thou shalt concieve in thy womb and bring forth a child" Luke 1:31

The first verse just says that she'll be pregnant. That's the only definition supplied for the word for 'conceive' in that verse.

The second one gives more credence to your claim. I'll consider studying more on that one.

[Steve Epley]

Bro. Eply..... predestined ONLY by foreknowledge.. you always leave that part out

So did the Church Age Book. You are too young to remember Vayle and Dale's war over this. Green almost did not print the book because of it. Dale was determined foreknowledge was the sole basis but Vayle was much more Calvinistic and won. Green, Vayle, Dale, Branham were on a conference call over that section of the book and Vayle won out. That is a FACT my young friend. I got that info right from Green and Vayles mouth. Vayle wrote the book and Green paid for it.

[HeavenlyOne]

Lu 1:31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.
Lu 1:36 And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.
Lu 2:21 And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called JESUS, which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb.

The same word for 'conceive' is used in all three of those verses. Two of them speak of Mary and one speaks of Elisabeth.

Something to consider.

[Rico]

Not Branham's Angel either or Moroni a bonifide Angel!!!!

Imagine that. An angel actually meant that Mary would get pregnant while still being a virgin.

Honestly, Brother Epley, I don't understand how so much of these twisted ways of thinking can take root in people. Where's the Holy Ghost while people are hearing these lies and believing them? Good grief. Eve having sex with a serpent, Jesus being divine flesh, magic hair. Where does the madness end?

[Steve Epley]

I already posted the scripture, H.O. Read it for yourself. He told her THOU SHALT CONCEIVE, not THOU SHALT BE AN INCUBATOR.

I am going to give Rico license well maybe not.:happydance Keep on quoting the Book.

[HeavenlyOne]

I'd still like to know why the Bible links David to Jesus via Joseph instead of Mary.

[Steve Epley]

No. It's traced from Joseph to Adam...twice. Why is that? I thought there was a passage where He was traced through Mary, but I can't find it now.

It is Mary in both cases particularly Luke.

[Rico]

Lu 1:31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.
Lu 1:36 And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.
Lu 2:21 And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called JESUS, which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb.

The same word for 'conceive' is used in all three of those verses. Two of them speak of Mary and one speaks of Elisabeth.

Something to consider.

Thank you. :thumbsup

[pelathais]

Mary furnished what ALL women furnish in conception and God furnished what ALL men furnish in conception what is complicated about that. Mary was his Mother contrary to what Branham and Teke says. The Bible clearly states she was his mother. The linage is traced from her to Adam.
Firstly, I agree with your concerns about the doctrines of "Branham and Teke." However, I don't follow the statement "God furnished what ALL men furnish in conception..." In fact, I find that is "hard."

What men "furnish" is 23 chromosomes. Women supply the same. If Jesus "inherited" his humanity through his mother, the only other human involved in this equation, and if He was fully human, then He would have inherited all 46 chromosomes from His mother and none from His Father.

[Dr. Vaughn]

Bro. Vayle is not Bro. Branham... I have countless quotes where Bro. Branham explained it WAS BY FOREKNOWLEDGE... you know we could fill this little box up with those quotes

[Rico]

I am going to give Rico license well maybe not.:happydance Keep on quoting the Book.

I can't stand it when we agree almost as much as you can't stand it. :D



















Seriously, you have earned the right to tell me I am going to Hell any time you want, Brother Epley. I mean it, too.

[Steve Epley]

Lu 1:31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.
Lu 1:36 And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.
Lu 2:21 And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called JESUS, which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb.

The same word for 'conceive' is used in all three of those verses. Two of them speak of Mary and one speaks of Elisabeth.

Something to consider.

And with ALL the conceptions in the Bible the woman furnishes something and the male furnishes something this is NO great mystery. The mystery was a woman having a child without a man NOT that she served as an incubator for Jesus, she was his mother.

[HeavenlyOne]

It is Mary in both cases particularly Luke.

That's not what is says. I thought there was one for Mary but am unable to find it now. As you can read, both trace from Joseph, not Mary.

Matthew 1:14
And Azor begat Sadoc; and Sadoc begat Achim; and Achim begat Eliud;

1:15
And Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob;

1:16
And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

Luke 3:23
And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed ) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,

3:24
Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph,

[Rico]

That's not what is says. I thought there was one for Mary but am unable to find it now. As you can read, both trace from Joseph, not Mary.

Matthew 1:14
And Azor begat Sadoc; and Sadoc begat Achim; and Achim begat Eliud;

1:15
And Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob;

1:16
And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

Luke 3:23
And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed ) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,

3:24
Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph,

I can't remember exactly how, but there is a way to trace Mary back to David too. It was a long time ago when I learned it, but I know it can be done.

[HeavenlyOne]

Firstly, I agree with your concerns about the doctrines of "Branham and Teke." However, I don't follow the statement "God furnished what ALL men furnish in conception..." In fact, I find that is "hard."

What men "furnish" is 23 chromosomes. Women supply the same. If Jesus "inherited" his humanity through his mother, the only other human involved in this equation, and if He was fully human, then He would have inherited all 46 chromosomes from His mother and none from His Father.

Interesting. That's also why I don't believe she was involved. I believe God supplied all 46, just as He did with Adam and Eve. But the jury is still out due to two scriptures I discovered above. It's not absolute, because the word "conceive" can mean many things, including being pregnant. I'm still searching deeper into what I found to determine if there is a more direct definition, but there may not be one to find.

[HeavenlyOne]

And with ALL the conceptions in the Bible the woman furnishes something and the male furnishes something this is NO great mystery. The mystery was a woman having a child without a man NOT that she served as an incubator for Jesus, she was his mother.

I agree she was His mother, but DNA doesn't make a woman your mother.

I have a friend who gave birth to a child that is not biologically hers, but she's still his mother. She gave birth to him and the donors of the egg and sperm signed off rights to the child. But her motherhood rights are no different to that child as my motherhood rights are to mine.

I'm not doubting that a man wasn't involved. I know he wasn't. But I don't think Mary being a surrogate mother makes her less of a parent as some of you seem to be thinking. I just don't think it matters, but it's my opinion on the subject.

[Baron1710]

That's not what is says. I thought there was one for Mary but am unable to find it now. As you can read, both trace from Joseph, not Mary.

Matthew 1:14
And Azor begat Sadoc; and Sadoc begat Achim; and Achim begat Eliud;

1:15
And Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob;

1:16
And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

Luke 3:23
And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed ) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,

3:24
Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph,

There are different theories on it but one common one is that the list in Luke is Mary's and as was common Joseph is inserted in her place. Notice that the father of Joseph is different in Luke than it is in Matthew.

[Steve Epley]

Firstly, I agree with your concerns about the doctrines of "Branham and Teke." However, I don't follow the statement "God furnished what ALL men furnish in conception..." In fact, I find that is "hard."

What men "furnish" is 23 chromosomes. Women supply the same. If Jesus "inherited" his humanity through his mother, the only other human involved in this equation, and if He was fully human, then He would have inherited all 46 chromosomes from His mother and none from His Father.

He inherited the 23 chromodomes that were created by God which united with what Mary provided. Those 'human' chromozomes were created by God.

[Steve Epley]

That's not what is says. I thought there was one for Mary but am unable to find it now. As you can read, both trace from Joseph, not Mary.

Matthew 1:14
And Azor begat Sadoc; and Sadoc begat Achim; and Achim begat Eliud;

1:15
And Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob;

1:16
And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

Luke 3:23
And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed ) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,

3:24
Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph,

That is why the wording is there BOTH are Mary.

[Baron1710]

That is why the wording is there BOTH are Mary.

How do you explain the different father for Mary in the accounts?

[Steve Epley]

Bro. Vayle is not Bro. Branham... I have countless quotes where Bro. Branham explained it WAS BY FOREKNOWLEDGE... you know we could fill this little box up with those quotes

I know you could it was quite confusing however the CAB clearly states the opposite and also the Isreal series. Branham endorsed and sent out hte book as somewhat a statement of doctrine to what he believed that was the reason for the book. EVERY page and paragraph had his initials on them. Again this came directly from Vayle who wrote it and Green who published it.
I think Branham was confused myself. Dale later printed a paper that had multitude of quotes that taught foreknowledge and free will. It was quite war in the late 60's a war of quotes. However YOU even quoted from the CAB and said it changed your life so Vayle won!

[Steve Epley]

How do you explain the different father for Mary in the accounts?

I am sorry my mind is tired Luke is Mary- Matthew is Joseph it is the kingly line where Jesus inherits the throne as Joseph's son through Solomon but he also has oit through Nathan in Lukes linage.

[Baron1710]

I am sorry my mind is tired Luke is Mary- Matthew is Joseph it is the kingly line where Jesus inherits the throne as Joseph's son through Solomon but he also has oit through Nathan in Lukes linage.

That's what I had posted but when you posted both lines were Mary's I thought I had missed something. Thanks.

[bkstokes]

This issue of Jeus' humanity coming from Mary has been a big debate throughout history. This is one of the reasons why Mary was eventually venerated in the catholic church.

Sorry I have added this late, but I was not around to plug it in while others were talking about this point.

[bkstokes]

I would also believe this if the Bible didn't trace the lineage of Joseph from David to Jesus.

In the Jewsih society the legal rights of a family came from the father. Although Joseph was his legal father, he was not His biological father. The reason why the lineage of Joseph is cited in the gospel of Matthew because the book of Matthew is written to the Jews. Thus, it had to be proven according to Jewish tradition that Jesus was of descent legally of David.

[Rico]

In the Jewsih society the legal rights of a family came from the father. Although Joseph was his legal father, he was not His biological father. The reason why the lineage of Joseph is cited in the gospel of Matthew because the book of Matthew is written to the Jews. Thus, it had to be proven according to Jewish tradition that Jesus was of descent legally of David.

Hmmmm. So it was more of a legal lineage than a biological one. Never thought of it that way, and never heard it preached that way, but it sounds reasonable. I wonder if Joseph had to adopt Jesus for this lineage to apply.

[Dr. Vaughn]

Bro. Stokes... you post was most informative.... thanks for bringing that to the table

[bkstokes]

Hmmmm. So it was more of a legal lineage than a biological one. Never thought of it that way, and never heard it preached that way, but it sounds reasonable. I wonder if Joseph had to adopt Jesus for this lineage to apply.

This is not from me. I got it out Jamieson, Fausset and Brown commentary.

[AmericanAngel]

That's not what is says. I thought there was one for Mary but am unable to find it now. As you can read, both trace from Joseph, not Mary.

Matthew 1:14
And Azor begat Sadoc; and Sadoc begat Achim; and Achim begat Eliud;

1:15
And Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob;

1:16
And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

Luke 3:23
And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed ) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,

3:24
Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph,

hope this helps H1

But in Luke chapter 3:23-38, the lineage appears to be traced through Mary. When it says, "...Joseph, who was the son of Heli,...", many believe that he is actually the son-in-law of Heli. Many believe that Heli was the father of Mary, and since Joseph married Mary, you could call Heli Joseph's father. Many people call their father-in-laws or mother-in-laws, "father", or "mother." This view, that the phrase here, "son of Heli", is in reference to him being the son-in-law of Heli, is supported by linguistic and historical evidence and is held by many students of The Bible. Not only that, but in verse 38, it says that Adam was the son of God. God did not father Adam, but he formed him. So we know that their are different ways in which "son" can be used. When the term "only begotten Son" is used in John 3:16, talking about Jesus Christ; we can tell that this is different from just the regular term of son. This is God's "only begotten Son." It has a special meaning. It is the Greek word, monogenes. It means "one and only, unique." When a person is Saved, they are the son or daughter of God, and angels are called the sons of God, but only Christ was the "only begotten Son." He was the unique Son of God.

In Matthew, he traces the lineage of Christ through his adopted father, Joseph and through Solomon, King David's son. But in Luke, Luke traces the lineage through King David's son, Nathan. Apparantly Joseph's lineage went through Solomon, and Mary's lineage went through Nathan.

Jesus was not the son of Joseph, he was the only begotten Son of God. One of Joseph's ancestors, Jeconiah(Matthew 1:11) was also known as Coniah. In Jeremiah 22:24-30, the LORD said that "...no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah." This was said about the descendants of Jeconiah/Coniah. If Jesus had been the actual son of Joseph, then he could not reign as King, as he will. He is the KING OF KINGS. Had he been the biological son of Joseph, he could not fulfil this. But praise God, he is The Only Begotton Son of God!
( got this from all experts.com)

[HeavenlyOne]

That is why the wording is there BOTH are Mary.

Both cannot possibly be Mary as the names are different. I have heard that one is Mary and one is Joseph, but since lineage was always though the male, Joseph was inserted instead of Mary.

[HeavenlyOne]

In the Jewsih society the legal rights of a family came from the father. Although Joseph was his legal father, he was not His biological father. The reason why the lineage of Joseph is cited in the gospel of Matthew because the book of Matthew is written to the Jews. Thus, it had to be proven according to Jewish tradition that Jesus was of descent legally of David.

Mary was also a descendant of David in her lineage, if her's is one of those listed in the Bible.

[Steve Epley]

In the Jewsih society the legal rights of a family came from the father. Although Joseph was his legal father, he was not His biological father. The reason why the lineage of Joseph is cited in the gospel of Matthew because the book of Matthew is written to the Jews. Thus, it had to be proven according to Jewish tradition that Jesus was of descent legally of David.

That is so.

[HeavenlyOne]

hope this helps H1

But in Luke chapter 3:23-38, the lineage appears to be traced through Mary. When it says, "...Joseph, who was the son of Heli,...", many believe that he is actually the son-in-law of Heli. Many believe that Heli was the father of Mary, and since Joseph married Mary, you could call Heli Joseph's father. Many people call their father-in-laws or mother-in-laws, "father", or "mother." This view, that the phrase here, "son of Heli", is in reference to him being the son-in-law of Heli, is supported by linguistic and historical evidence and is held by many students of The Bible. Not only that, but in verse 38, it says that Adam was the son of God. God did not father Adam, but he formed him. So we know that their are different ways in which "son" can be used. When the term "only begotten Son" is used in John 3:16, talking about Jesus Christ; we can tell that this is different from just the regular term of son. This is God's "only begotten Son." It has a special meaning. It is the Greek word, monogenes. It means "one and only, unique." When a person is Saved, they are the son or daughter of God, and angels are called the sons of God, but only Christ was the "only begotten Son." He was the unique Son of God.

In Matthew, he traces the lineage of Christ through his adopted father, Joseph and through Solomon, King David's son. But in Luke, Luke traces the lineage through King David's son, Nathan. Apparantly Joseph's lineage went through Solomon, and Mary's lineage went through Nathan.

Jesus was not the son of Joseph, he was the only begotten Son of God. One of Joseph's ancestors, Jeconiah(Matthew 1:11) was also known as Coniah. In Jeremiah 22:24-30, the LORD said that "...no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah." This was said about the descendants of Jeconiah/Coniah. If Jesus had been the actual son of Joseph, then he could not reign as King, as he will. He is the KING OF KINGS. Had he been the biological son of Joseph, he could not fulfil this. But praise God, he is The Only Begotton Son of God!
( got this from all experts.com)

Thanks, AA. I've heard that as well.

[Steve Epley]

hope this helps H1

But in Luke chapter 3:23-38, the lineage appears to be traced through Mary. When it says, "...Joseph, who was the son of Heli,...", many believe that he is actually the son-in-law of Heli. Many believe that Heli was the father of Mary, and since Joseph married Mary, you could call Heli Joseph's father. Many people call their father-in-laws or mother-in-laws, "father", or "mother." This view, that the phrase here, "son of Heli", is in reference to him being the son-in-law of Heli, is supported by linguistic and historical evidence and is held by many students of The Bible. Not only that, but in verse 38, it says that Adam was the son of God. God did not father Adam, but he formed him. So we know that their are different ways in which "son" can be used. When the term "only begotten Son" is used in John 3:16, talking about Jesus Christ; we can tell that this is different from just the regular term of son. This is God's "only begotten Son." It has a special meaning. It is the Greek word, monogenes. It means "one and only, unique." When a person is Saved, they are the son or daughter of God, and angels are called the sons of God, but only Christ was the "only begotten Son." He was the unique Son of God.

In Matthew, he traces the lineage of Christ through his adopted father, Joseph and through Solomon, King David's son. But in Luke, Luke traces the lineage through King David's son, Nathan. Apparantly Joseph's lineage went through Solomon, and Mary's lineage went through Nathan.

Jesus was not the son of Joseph, he was the only begotten Son of God. One of Joseph's ancestors, Jeconiah(Matthew 1:11) was also known as Coniah. In Jeremiah 22:24-30, the LORD said that "...no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah." This was said about the descendants of Jeconiah/Coniah. If Jesus had been the actual son of Joseph, then he could not reign as King, as he will. He is the KING OF KINGS. Had he been the biological son of Joseph, he could not fulfil this. But praise God, he is The Only Begotton Son of God!
( got this from all experts.com)

Again this is so.

[AmericanAngel]

:gaga

[Scott Hutchinson]

It is not God's will for any to perish if absolute predstination is correct,then you have people being borned who cannot be saved.Man can decide to believe on Christ or reject Him.
Yes I know a person must be drawn by the Spirit before they can repent, and yes Grace is soverign but I can't see God predestinating someone to be eternally lost.
And no the serpent didn't get Eve hot.

[bkstokes]

What I find funny is that DV hasn't even voted for his own doctrine. In fact, no one has voted and said that they think it is biblical truth.

[SDG]

I'm still waiting for Elder Epley or Dr. Vaughn to tell me where this terminology of a blood cell and the doctrine taught using said terminology spawns from ... there is no such biblical teaching on it ....

Dr. Vaughn, you went on a tirade about the term "drunk in the Spirit" ... yet commend brother Branahm for a term and subsequent teaching that has no biblical or scientific backing.

[Dr. Vaughn]

Bro. Daniel,,, I have answered the question twice.. I'll go for thrice.....

You actually making something much more problematic than it is..... Bro. Branham simply said that Jesus had to have untainted blood just like Adam did.. pure blood... that blood came from somewhere,, did it not??? From God creating the perfect blood cell and placing it in his little body in the womb of Mary......

Its not more complicated than that

[Steve Epley]

I'm still waiting for Elder Epley or Dr. Vaughn to tell me where this terminology of a blood cell and the doctrine taught using said terminology spawns from ... there is no such biblical teaching on it ....

Dr. Vaughn, you went on a tirade about the term "drunk in the Spirit" ... yet commend brother Branahm for a term and subsequent teaching that has no biblical or scientific backing.

Acts 20:28.

[Dr. Vaughn]

It is not God's will for any to perish if absolute predstination is correct,then you have people being borned who cannot be saved.Man can decide to believe on Christ or reject Him.
Yes I know a person must be drawn by the Spirit before they can repent, and yes Grace is soverign but I can't see God predestinating someone to be eternally lost.
And no the serpent didn't get Eve hot.

Jesus prayed for all of his discples,.... except "that one who was BORN the Son of Hell"

[Dr. Vaughn]

Acts 20:28.

Now Brother.... that was smooth as silk

[SDG]

Bro. Daniel,,, I have answered the question twice.. I'll go for thrice.....

You actually making something much more problematic than it is..... Bro. Branham simply said that Jesus had to have untainted blood just like Adam did.. pure blood... that blood came from somewhere,, did it not??? From God creating the perfect blood cell and placing it in his little body in the womb of Mary......

Its not more complicated than that

What scripture does this come from ... "From God creating the perfect blood cell and placing it in his little body in the womb of Mary"......

Blood is blood ... where does this teaching come from of untainted perfect blood cells???... I don't get it ... do you hear yourself ... there is not scripture for this ... nor does it fit w/ the conception of babies biologically ... Adam didn't come from a blood cell, Jesus didnt come from one, nor did you ... or I.

... sin is a spiritual condition affecting our physical man ... but making blood cells perfect or evil is not sound, I don't think.

[SDG]

Acts 20:28.

Still don't see it ... perfect divine blood cell in Mary's womb... where is it ...???

That scripture says we are are blood bought ,,,,, anything else is a stretch.

But it's good to see you and the good doctor agreeing on false doctrine.

[Rico]

I am officially awarding the Serpent Seed doctrine the illustrious HOGWASH AWARD!!!


http://www.madterroristpress.com/galscott/hogwash.jpg

[SDG]

I am officially awarding the Serpent Seed doctrine the illustrious HOGWASH AWARD!!!


http://www.madterroristpress.com/galscott/hogwash.jpg


I nominate the divine flesh like perfect blood cell doctrine also for the
official HOGWASH AWARD.

[pelathais]

Interesting. That's also why I don't believe she was involved. I believe God supplied all 46, just as He did with Adam and Eve. But the jury is still out due to two scriptures I discovered above. It's not absolute, because the word "conceive" can mean many things, including being pregnant. I'm still searching deeper into what I found to determine if there is a more direct definition, but there may not be one to find.
Christ had to have gotten His humanity from some source. He was a human being- completely human. He hungered, He thirsted, He grew weary, He bled and finally He died.

Accepting as fact the account that He was born of Mary's womb - the source of His humanity would seem obvious. We may argue with skeptics about her status as a virgin and such, but I don't see how she could be eliminated as the mother unless He came from a different womb. Then we'd start all over agin from that point...

Jesus was of the House and lineage of David, the ancient king of Israel. To fulfill this requirement He would have had to be linked by descent from David himself. Accepting the virgin birth, the only way He could have been descended from David would be through Mary.

[bkstokes]

I am officially awarding the Serpent Seed doctrine the illustrious HOGWASH AWARD!!!


http://www.madterroristpress.com/galscott/hogwash.jpg


:toofunny:toofunny:toofunny
let everything be established in the mouth of 2 to 3. I do as well.

[pelathais]

Acts 20:28.

Now Brother.... that was smooth as silk
The blood of God mentioned in Acts 20:28 is the same blood of God mentioned in Ephesians 1:7 and (and elsewhere). Colossians 1:4 tells us that the blood that purchases us was the blood of "his dear Son" which seems to be making a distinction between the Divine and the human when read together with verse 3.

The blood that paid for our redemption was entirely human blood. Anything else and you've got Teke's Gnostic dualism coming back into play.

[Steve Epley]

Still don't see it ... perfect blood cell ... where is it ...???

That scripture says we are are blood bought ,,,,, anything else is a stretch.

But it's good to see you and the good doctor agreeing on false doctrine.

Dan notice ....the Church of GOD which HE(GOD) has purchased with HIS(GOD"S) own blood. What is difficult about that?

[SDG]

Dan notice ....the Church of GOD which HE(GOD) has purchased with HIS(GOD"S) own blood. What is difficult about that?

God has blood or sperm or even toes? When did this happen?

Where is the part that says he placed his perfect blood cell in Mary??? That's in Acts 20 also?

[SDG]

The blood of God mentioned in Acts 20:28 is the same blood of God mentioned in Ephesians 1:7 and (and elsewhere). Colossians 1:4 tells us that the blood that purchases us was the blood of "his dear Son" which seems to be making a distinction between the Divine and the human when read together with verse 3.

The blood that paid for our redemption was entirely human blood. Anything else and you've got Teke's Gnostic dualism coming back into play.

That's exactly what it is ... Pela. And they don't see it.

[Steve Epley]

God has blood or sperm? When did this happen?

Dan I am not a geneticist(if that is a word) all I know it says the church was purhased with God's own blood.
Lev. 17:11 says the LIFE of the flesh is IN the blood.
1Jn. 3:16 ".....the love of God, because He (GOD) laid down His(GOD'S) LIFE(which is in the blood) for us.
I just believe what is written.

Don't throw me in the pile with Branham however a broke clock is correct twice a day.

[pelathais]

Dan notice ....the Church of GOD which HE(GOD) has purchased with HIS(GOD"S) own blood. What is difficult about that?
Jesus, the man, was God (John 9:38). That man was born in the city of Bethlehem around the year 4 B.C. (and that dating shouldn't be hard either, but look at we've done!).

In any event, Jesus was of the House of David the king. Jesus was a human being. He had human blood. There is nothing in Scripture that shows us that His blood was anything other than human blood.

What made the blood efficacious for the atonement was the life that Jesus Christ lived as a human being for those 33 and one half years. He lived a sinless life. See Galatians 4:4-5 and 1 Peter 3:18. That's why His entirely human blood worked for the atonement.

[SDG]

Dan I am not a geneticist(if that is a word) all I know it says the church was purhased with God's own blood.
Lev. 17:11 says the LIFE of the flesh is IN the blood.
1Jn. 3:16 ".....the love of God, because He (GOD) laid down His(GOD'S) LIFE(which is in the blood) for us.
I just believe what is written.

Don't throw me in the pile with Branham however a broke clock is correct twice a day.

My ... my .. my.

[Steve Epley]

The blood of God mentioned in Acts 20:28 is the same blood of God mentioned in Ephesians 1:7 and (and elsewhere). Colossians 1:4 tells us that the blood that purchases us was the blood of "his dear Son" which seems to be making a distinction between the Divine and the human when read together with verse 3.

The blood that paid for our redemption was entirely human blood. Anything else and you've got Teke's Gnostic dualism coming back into play.

I never said it was not human blood! It was human blood created by God.

[SDG]

Jesus, the man, was God. That man was born in the city of Bethlehem around the year 4 B.C. (and that dating shouldn't be hard either, but look at we've done!).

In any event, Jesus was of the House of David the king. Jesus was a human being. He had human blood. There is nothing in Scripture that shows us that His blood was anything other than human blood.

What made the blood efficacious for the atonement was the life that Jesus Christ lived as a human being for those 33 and one half years. He lived a sinless life. See Galatians 4:4-5 and 1 Peter 3:18.

Right. Blood formed as he developed in his mothers womb as his circulatory system developed ... not blood cells that caused his conception.

This doctrine is debunked theologically and biologically.

[Rico]

I am a little confused about what the issue is with this blood thing. God came to Earth as a man, His blood was spilled while He was being crucified, and the Bible talks about Him purchasing the Church with His blood. Where is the controversy? Am I missing something?

[SDG]

I never said it was not human blood! It was human blood created by God.

Once again ... fiction ... no scripture for this.

[SDG]

I am a little confused about what the issue is with this blood thing. God came to Earth as a man, His blood was spilled while He was being crucified, and the Bible talks about Him purchasing the Church with His blood. Where is the controversy? Am I missing something?


The illogic goes something like this ...

Life is in the blood.
Man sinned hence his blood is dirty with sin.
Mary conceives a baby from a God created perfect human blood cell.
This blood cell is perfect and sinless.
Jesus hence is perfect and sinless.
We are redeemed when he sheds this blood.]


I think the Branahmites would take it further ... stating that human blood deriving from Eve's lineage has the Devil's DNA .

[bkstokes]

That's exactly what it is ... Pela. And they don't see it.

Is he talking about teklemarian from Ethiopia or someone in Church History?

[pelathais]

Dan I am not a geneticist(if that is a word) all I know it says the church was purhased with God's own blood.
Lev. 17:11 says the LIFE of the flesh is IN the blood.
1Jn. 3:16 ".....the love of God, because He (GOD) laid down His(GOD'S) LIFE(which is in the blood) for us.
I just believe what is written.

Don't throw me in the pile with Branham however a broke clock is correct twice a day.
But God was (and is) a human being. That's why Christians are despised by many Jews and Muslims. We see the Divine as being expressed in the human life of that one particular man from Galilee.

The human being shed His human blood for us. That blood bought our salvation because that human being had lived a sinless life and took our place in judgement. He bought and paid for us - not through a Manichean dualism whose traditions have been preserved in the ancient Coptic languages of Ethiopia - but through the simple fact that God became man and dwelt among us.

[Steve Epley]

God has blood or sperm or even toes? When did this happen?

Where is the part that says he placed his perfect blood cell in Mary??? That's in Acts 20 also?

She concieved. She must have recieved something from God right? How could she concieve if God did not deposit something in her.

[SDG]

She concieved. She must have recieved something from God right? How could she concieve if God did not deposit something in her.

Again exegetically unsound ... no scripture or context for this.

[pelathais]

I am a little confused about what the issue is with this blood thing. God came to Earth as a man, His blood was spilled while He was being crucified, and the Bible talks about Him purchasing the Church with His blood. Where is the controversy? Am I missing something?
Bro. E and DV propose that the blood that Jesus shed was not really blood that was descended from David, Abraham and etc. but was instead something that God kept in a jar from the time before Adam's sin and then injected into the fetus that would develop in Mary's womb thus circumventing any "stain" that the wimmin' folk impart upon our manly cleanliness.

[Steve Epley]

Again exegetically unsound ... no scripture or context for this.

That which is concieved in her is of the Holy Ghost. Luke 1:35

[James Griffin]

Dan, you and Pel are having too much fun.

[SDG]

Bro. E and DV propose that the blood that Jesus shed was not really blood that was descended from David, Abraham and etc. but was instead something that God kept in a jar from the time before Adam's sin and then injected into the fetus that would develop in Mary's womb thus circumventing any "stain" that the wimmin' folk impart upon our manly cleanliness.

This would also mean ... like divine fleshers that it would be impossible for Jesus to sin ... empowered by this super perfect blood?

[SDG]

Dan, you and Pel are having too much fun.

It's like Christmas in May.

:bliss

[pelathais]

She concieved. She must have recieved something from God right? How could she concieve if God did not deposit something in her.
The modern clinical term is parthenogenisis. It actually happens all the time, but has never been observed in mammals, thus its "miraculous" nature if it ever did occur.

The haploid cell of the female (the egg with its 23 chromosomes) differentiates and develops normally into a full term offspring of the mother.

As the wordsmiths might have noticed: "partheno" is Greek for "virgin." Thus, parthenogenesis = literally "born of a virgin." Though technically it can and does occur in females that have also already given birth through the standard sexual means.

[SDG]

The modern clinical term is parthenogenisis. It actually happens all the time, but has never been observed in mammals, thus its "miraculous" nature if it ever did occur.

The haploid cell of the female (the egg with its 23 chromosomes) differentiates and develops normally into a full term offspring of the mother.

So it's not a blood cell?

[Rico]

The illogic goes something like this ...

Life is in the blood.
Man sinned hence his blood is dirty with sin.
Mary conceives a baby from a God created perfect human blood cell.
This blood cell is perfect and sinless.
Jesus hence is perfect and sinless.
We are redeemed when he sheds this blood.]


I think the Branahmites would take it further ... stating that human blood deriving from Eve's lineage has the Devil's DNA .

I seriously doubt anyone is ever going to be able to explain exactly how it is that God overshadowed Mary and impregnated her. Trying to explain this would be like trying to explain how God did and does any of the things He did and does. How did He speak the world into existence? How did He create man out of dust? These are all questions we're not going to know the answers to and are going to fail miserably at explaining.

[Rico]

You're all wasting your time trying to explain this. Supernatural things can not be explained using natural logic.

[Bro-Larry]

Jesus was conceived by the word of God which was delivered to Mary by Gabriel. Lk 1:28-35 The word became flesh . Jn 1:14 There was no blood cell. God word has life in it. That is the same word that created Adam's blood in creation. God can make life. The devil cannot.

God's word is both Spirit and life.

[SDG]

I seriously doubt anyone is ever going to be able to explain exactly how it is that God overshadowed Mary and impregnated her. Trying to explain this would be like trying to explain how God did and does any of the things He did and does. How did He speak the world into existence? How did He create man out of dust? These are all questions we're not going to know the answers to and are going to fail miserably at explaining.

You are right we accept the virgin birth thru faith ... it was supernatural.

I try not to explain it ... my faith can stretch to realize that I don't need to have to explain everything ...

It means I dont have create doctrines to fit my paradigm ... especially if have no direct connection to the Word or even to logic.

[TRFrance]

I guess maybe I'd jump into the whole "blood" discussion if I thought it was in any way relevant.

But anyway... carry on, fellas.

[SDG]

Jesus was conceived by the word of God which was delivered to Mary by Gabriel. Lk 1:28-35 The word became flesh . Jn 1:14

No ... IT WAS A BLOOD CELL!!!!

[pelathais]

So it's not a blood cell?
No, "its" a haploid cell. A very specific kind of cell which is produced in the ehrm... gonads of... ahh... sexually mature creatures. <cough!>

Each haploid cell has just 23 chromosomes instead of the standard 46 chromosomes which are present in all of the other cells, including blood cells.

[SDG]

I guess maybe I'd jump into the whole "blood" discussion if I thought it was in any way relevant.

But anyway... carry on, fellas.

Very relevant to the discussion since Branahm taught that He would need to come from a perfect blood cell since Mary and the rest of humanity's blood was tainted from the seed of the serpent.

There are elements of divine flesh, I believe in this type of teaching.

[Rico]

Well, at least y'all managed to hijack this thread. I'll give you that much. :lol

[Rico]

No, "its" a haploid cell. A very specific kind of cell which is produced in the ehrm... gonads of... ahh... sexually mature creatures. <cough!>

Each haploid cell has just 23 chromosomes instead of the standard 46 chromosomes which are present in all of the other cells, including blood cells.

So God impregnated Mary with a holy haploid cell? That sounds like one of the phrases you'd see on the Batman show. Holy haploid Batman! :toofunny

[Bro-Larry]

LOL Rico, sometimes you are a little bit too silly. TIC

[Rico]

LOL Rico, sometimes you are a little bit too silly. TIC

I find humor in strange places sometimes. :)

[TRFrance]

This is what's interesting to me...

Dr Vaughn made his first post here on Monday. (He currently has 339 and counting)

I'm just amazed at how one person can practically turn a forum upside down in a matter of only 3 days.

[SDG]

This is what's interesting to me...

Dr Vaughn made his first post here on Sunday. (He currently has 339 and counting)

I'm just amazed at how one person can practically turn a forum upside down in a matter of only 3 days.

He's on pace to reach my personal best

I had almost 3000 in the first 6-7 weeks.

BTW ... I'm almost at 15k.

5,000 more posts and Dan goes double platinum.

[pelathais]

I seriously doubt anyone is ever going to be able to explain exactly how it is that God overshadowed Mary and impregnated her. Trying to explain this would be like trying to explain how God did and does any of the things He did and does. How did He speak the world into existence? How did He create man out of dust? These are all questions we're not going to know the answers to and are going to fail miserably at explaining.
You're correct to a considerable point there. The incarnation - however it was achieved - is a remarkable undertaking theologically as well as from a naturalistic standpoint. By its very nature it is difficult to grasp in its entirety.

However, we are told certain things about the incarnation.

1. That the Child would be physically descended from Abraham, David and others of that lineage. This necessitates that whatever was human about him had to be genetically linked to other human beings - and ultimately linked to us all. (Luke 1:69 and Genesis 22:18 with Galatians 3:16).

2. That God hath not flesh and bones (Luke 24:39 and John 4:24 and 1 Timothy 1:17).

3. Hebrews 2:14 says that whatever it is that we are that makes us human - He partook of the same.

[SDG]

You're correct to a considerable point there. The incarnation - however it was achieved - is a remarkable undertaking theologically as well as from a naturalistic standpoint. By its very nature it is difficult to grasp in its entirety.

However, we are told certain things about the incarnation.

1. That the Child would be physically descended from Abraham, David and others of that lineage. This necesitates that whatever was human about him had to be genetically linked to other human beings - and ultimately linked to us all.

2. That God hath not flesh and bones (Luke 24:39 and John 4:24, 1 Timothy 1:17).

3. Hebrews 2:14 says that whatever is is that we are that makes us human - He partook of the same.

Making His sacrifice and shed blood efficacious.

[Encryptus]

This is what's interesting to me...

Dr Vaughn made his first post here on Monday. (He currently has 339 and counting)

I'm just amazed at how one person can practically turn a forum upside down in a matter of only 3 days.

Especially while pastoring two churches, running three businesses, and setting self up for coronation as Branham Jr

[SDG]

Especially while pastoring two churches, running three businesses, and setting self up for coronation as Branham Jr

That wasn't a dig was it?

[pelathais]

That wasn't a dig was it?
Nah! Couldn't have been. DV is mild, self effacing and ... my brother. Gotta say that part... my brother ... until he proves me wrong, he's my brother.

[Rico]

Especially while pastoring two churches, running three businesses, andsetting self up for coronation as Branham Jr

Are you suggesting that DV thinks he's the next voice for this age? If so, have you read where he has said as much?

[Steve Epley]

Dan you rat I am in your back door and you have not come to see me what's with that? Is that your daughter in the picture?

[SDG]

Dan you rat I am in your back door and you have not come to see me what's with that? Is that your daughter in the picture?

You are about an hour away correct...??? For how long?

A good brother suggested we take a ride to visit you and hear you preach. If I go ... I will bring my praise hanky.

The young lady in the pic ... is my girlfriend, Cass. She's the red ribbon. I'm the pink piggy.

[Encryptus]

That wasn't a dig was it?

Stokes... I'm here.. I actually pastor two churches and own three business...

Quote from another thread.

[James Griffin]

Dan you rat I am in your back door and you have not come to see me what's with that? Is that your daughter in the picture?

Hey Steve, are you going to be there next week?

I have church obligations Sun, Tues, Thurs, and Friday. But perhaps next Wednesday.

[Steve Epley]

You are about an hour away correct...??? For how long?

A good brother suggested we take a ride to visit you and hear you preach. If I go ... I will bring my praise hanky.

The young lady in the pic ... is my girlfriend, Cass. She's the red ribbon. I'm the pink piggy.

Next week Sun thru Tuesday I know. What are you doing robbing the cradle?

[pelathais]

Well, at least y'all managed to hijack this thread. I'll give you that much. :lol

So God impregnated Mary with a holy haploid cell? That sounds like one of the phrases you'd see on the Batman show. Holy haploid Batman! :toofunny
No! :toofunny

To both... we're still on "Serpent Seed..." and God did NOT "inject" anything physical, but He did impart His Word as Bro. Larry pointed out. The Logos caused whatever miraculous deeds were needed within the womb of Mary. By its very nature we cannot really tell what transpired in the birth of Christ chemically or molecularly like we can sort of tell with a natural birth.

[SDG]

Next week Sun thru Tuesday I know. What are you doing robbing the cradle?

Um ... God is good?

:crazywalls

[James Griffin]

Next week Sun thru Tuesday I know. What are you doing robbing the cradle?

Come on Steve it's ONLY eight years.

As I reminded Dan when he was her age she was already 16. LOL

[SDG]

Come on Steve it's ONLY eight years.

As I reminded Dan when he was her age she was already 16. LOL

Technically it's nine, Jim.

But uh ... God is still good!!!

[James Griffin]

Technically it's nine, Jim.

But uh ... God is still good!!!

My bad she was 15 then.

BTW what was your stance on the FDLS again?

[Rico]

Um ... God is good?

:crazywalls

The more I look at that avatar, the more it looks like a good example of how to use Photoshop! :D

[SDG]

My bad she was 15 then.

BTW what was your stance on the FDLS again?

She's 26 bro ... cut me some slack ...

:reaction

[James Griffin]

The more I look at that avatar, the more it looks like a good example of how to use Photoshop! :D

Rico here is the original

http://synadelfos.ning.com/photo/photo/show?id=1950554%3APhoto%3A74180http://synadelfos.ning.com/photo/photo/show?id=1950554%3APhoto%3A74180

[Rico]

Rico here is the original

http://synadelfos.ning.com/photo/photo/show?id=1950554%3APhoto%3A74180http://synadelfos.ning.com/photo/photo/show?id=1950554%3APhoto%3A74180

I wonder how much he had to pay her to agree to take that picture with him. :D


















Dan, I hope you know I am just giving you a hard time. Hope you don't have a jealous bone in your body, though. I know that can be a tough thing for us Ricans.

[SDG]

I wonder how much he had to pay her to agree to take that picture with him. :D


Dan, I hope you know I am just giving you a hard time. Hope you don't have a jealous bone in your body, though. I know that can be a tough thing for us Ricans.

I know you are bro.

Jealousy is venomous. As a teen I struggled w/ it. As a man I know that it has no place in a loving relationship.

Thankfully, our relationship is healthy in so many ways.

[Steve Epley]

I will be looking for y'all Monday night.

[SDG]

I will be looking for y'all Monday night.

This Monday nite sounds great. Looking forward to it.

[MrsMcD]

Since Mary the Mother of Jesus has been talked about in this thread, I have always wondered why Jesus called his mother "woman"? Any thoughts?

[DividedThigh]

of course the serpent seed doctrine is heresy, heresy i say heresy, dt

[Dr. Vaughn]

Since Mary the Mother of Jesus has been talked about in this thread, I have always wondered why Jesus called his mother "woman"? Any thoughts?

MrsMcD - your getting hot... he also said "who is my mother"

[bkstokes]

MrsMcD - your getting hot... he also said "who is my mother"

:toofunny:toofunny:toofunny

Any Standard Commentary will tell one that Jesus did this to signify principles of the Kingdom of God -- look at the context of the scripture.

[Steve Epley]

Is Mary Jesus' Mother?
The inspired text said she was:
Luke 1:43
John 2:1
Acts 1:14
Mt. 1:18, 2:13, 20,12:46,
MK. 3:31
Luke 8:19
Luke 2:43,51
Jn.19:26

I believe the inspired writers and reject Branham & Teke.

[Dr. Vaughn]

Of course she was his mother in the fact she gave him birth..... but he was born of the Holy Ghost.... she was the womb provided for this child to grow in.. but the conception was of the HOLY GHOST

[Dr. Vaughn]

When's the last time you called your mother "woman"

[Steve Epley]

Of course she was his mother in the fact she gave him birth..... but he was born of the Holy Ghost.... she was the womb provided for this child to grow in.. but the conception was of the HOLY GHOST

What is CONCEPTION Dr. Vaughn you have the degrees not I. Explain to us what happens in conception?

She was not a hot light that hatched an egg the light is NOT the mother.

[Rico]

When's the last time you called your mother "woman"

Not until after I was grown.

[Steve Epley]

When's the last time you called your mother "woman"

He was addressing her to John in the passage for John to take care of her. This is NOT some great revelation.

[TRFrance]

Since Mary the Mother of Jesus has been talked about in this thread, I have always wondered why Jesus called his mother "woman"? Any thoughts?
From what I've read on that, it's simply a cultural thing.

In our culture it would be considered rude for a man to refer to his mother as "woman" , but in that culturat setting , it was not disrepectul at all.
Pretty simple.

He was addressing her to John in the passage for John to take care of her. This is NOT some great revelation.
Bro Epley, I think she's referring to the context of John 2:4, not John 19:26.

[Dr. Vaughn]

TRFanc.. pure conjecture and you know that... we can all say this was culture or that was and yet none of us know that for fact... he said

Who is my mother
he called her woman

I also believed he did this because he knew the Catholic Church would try to make her "the mother of God" when she was not

[MrsMcD]

From what I've read on that, it's simply a cultural thing.

In our culture it would be considered rude for a man to refer to his mother as "woman" , but in that culturat setting , it was not disrepectul at all.
Pretty simple.


Bro Epley, I think she's referring to the context of John 2:4, not John 19:26.

I was referring to John 2:4.

[SDG]

TRFanc.. pure conjecture and you know that... we can all say this was culture or that was and yet none of us know that for fact... he said

Who is my mother
he called her woman

I also believed he did this because he knew the Catholic Church would try to make her "the mother of God" when she was not


He did this out of respect ... the term gune is Greek ... which means more like the classic use of the the word "Lady" ... not in the cold, generic sense but of revererence and high status.

We're reading way too much into his use of the word gune. We're doing it again and again.

It's more of that creative exegesis.

[pelathais]

MrsMcD - your getting hot... he also said "who is my mother"
Do you think He was confused and didn't know?

In the passage that you allude to (Matthew 12:46-50) He was making a point about relationships within the Kingdom versus relationships in the world. Obviously, all of the members of the Kingdom would have earthly progenitors, Jesus Himself included.

But the more important relationships are those that are kingdom related.

Taking what appears to be your intentionally ambiguous approach literally we would have to believe that Peter, John and the others were His literal "birth mothers." That's even more ridiculous than the idea that God had a vial of human blood that He kept around for a few thousand years before injecting it into Peter so that Peter could give birth to the Messiah in Bethlehem... I mean Mary.

[bkstokes]

He did this out of respect ... the term gune is Greek ... which means more like the classic use of the the word "Lady" ... not in the cold, generic sense but of revererence and high status.

We're reading way too much into his use of the word gune. We're doing it again and again.

It's more of that creative exegesis.

So Dan

I read earlier that your wife was younger than you. Are you a craddle robber?

[pelathais]

TRFanc.. pure conjecture and you know that... we can all say this was culture or that was and yet none of us know that for fact... he said

Who is my mother
he called her woman

I also believed he did this because he knew the Catholic Church would try to make her "the mother of God" when she was not
That last line of yours is "pure conjecture."

TRFrance's references to the ancient culture of the Near East isn't something he just pulled out of the air. We have massive amount of literature and writings from this time period that help us to understand the culture and language usage of the people then. It's really more of a science, and not conjecture.

[Dr. Vaughn]

That last line of yours is "pure conjecture."

TRFrance's references to the ancient culture of the Near East isn't something he just pulled out of the air. We have massive amount of literature and writings from this time period that help us to understand the culture and language usage of the people then. It's really more of a science, and not conjecture.

Why dont you post some credible references to these facts

[pelathais]

I was referring to John 2:4.
He was being intentionally dismissive of her initial request. As He stated, "My time is not yet come..."

But she forced His hand by telling the household servants to "do whatever He tells you to do..."

People try to read a lot into this, as DV does with his anti-Catholic statement. I'm no Catholic but they're been arguing their points for centuries and are hardly the push-overs that we sometimes make them out to be.

If Jesus was so concerned with heading off potential false doctrines He could have started with having John reword John 1. And why does Paul throw out the idea of "baptism for the dead..." without any explanation? Fact of the matter is, we have to live with a number of uncertainties and the precise meanings of some of these passages are just the tip of the iceberg.

[Dr. Vaughn]

He was being intentionally dismissive of her initial request. As He stated, "My time is not yet come..."

But she forced His hand by telling the household servants to "do whatever He tells you to do..."

People try to read a lot into this, as DV does with his anti-Catholic statement. I'm no Catholic but they're been arguing their points for centuries and are hardly the push-overs that we sometimes make them out to be.

If Jesus was so concerned with heading off potential false doctrines He could have started with having John reword John 1. And why does Paul throw out the idea of "baptism for the dead..." without any explanation? Fact of the matter is, we have to live with a number of uncertainties and the precise meanings of some of these passages are just the tip of the iceberg.

I find common ground here... I believe the last paragraph completely