89 chapter project: Matthew

Welcome to Wondercafe2!

A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!

Register Log in
paradox3 said:
Anyone got any ideas about how I might be able to keep the Mark thread more on track? :)

Perhaps the value of a seminary education needs to move to a new thread.
Click to expand...

This is a method I tried in my Bible study thread last year. When the discussion not long people seemed interested in continuing it, I would suggest that they moved to another thread. Then I would post my next topic. I felt like it was justified in moving on because I had sent the beginning but I would be following a schedule of daily readings.

Sometimes the discussion didn't seem to be going anywhere just back and forth, over and over, between two or 3% were interested as in declaring that they were bright and everyone else wrong then respectfully exploring different points of view and trying to learn from one another. After a while I simply skipped over or ignored these posts.

When one person seemed determined to contradict everything I posted, I was tempted to ask that they be barred from my thread but I didn't do so. I just continue to ignore them.

Good luck in moving on to the gospel of Mark. Just keep continue to draw us back to each chapter as you move along ; don't let discussions get too far off track. If someone wants to continue with discussions of another topic they can move into a new thread and see if others are interested enough to follow them. I will continue to follow you as you work your way through Mark.
 
paradox3 said:
Anyone got any ideas about how I might be able to keep the Mark thread more on track? :)
Click to expand...

Not much advice to offer, but to me it sounds like Seeler has some good thought. Remember the Moderators are here to help if you need them; that's what they are here for! Maybe one thing that might help is if the same issues break forth in the new thread, you can ask the posters to carry on their interactions on this thread.(ad it's possible for interrupting posts to be removed from new thread and brought back to this one, I think).
 
This thread has gone off on a few tangents along the way but I would say it did not really begin to derail until today. I am not even sure why this happened (although I may have a theory or two) but think I will just let it be.

Tomorrow is another day and we can get started with Mark.
 
Understanding the concept of where the Sin nature comes from is essential in understanding why Jesus was born of a woman -----Adam was the First Christ --Adam was in charge of the Garden -----iniquity is passed on by the male sperm ------

unsafe posting from Exodus 20: 5 ----Note Here the Mother is not mentioned ------

Exodus 20:5 (KJV)
5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;


unsafe says ----We women produce eggs every month until we reach menopause -----there is no life in the egg ----Life begins when the male sperm enters the egg ---the life is in the Blood ---so the blood comes from the Father the male sperm gives life -------Iniquity is passed on by the Father ----not the Mother ----That is why it was important that Mary be without a man -----

This is an Interesting read ----unsafe posting this as it might help the understanding od the virgin birth -------

The Chemistry Of The Blood - by M.R. DeHaan, M.D.

he Chemistry Of The Blood

“The life Is In The Blood”

mr_dehaan.jpg

Martin R. DeHaan, M.D. (1891-1965)

SERMON FOUR

"Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, BEFORE THEY CAME TOGETHER, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily. But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife; for that WHICH IS CONCEIVED IN HER IS OF THE HOLY GHOST." —Matthew 1:18-20

"NOW all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name EMMANUEL, which being interpreted is, God with us." —Matthew 11:22-23

THE VIRGIN BIRTH

Passing strange, is it not, that with such a clear record anyone can deny that the BIBLE TEACHES THE VIRGIN BIRTH. We can understand how men can reject the Bible record, but how men can say that the Bible does not teach the VIRGIN BIRTH is beyond conception.

The Bible teaches plainly that Jesus was conceived in the womb of a virgin Jewish mother by a supernatural insemination of the Holy Ghost, wholly and apart from any generation by a human father. This the Bible teaches so plainly that to the believer there is no doubt. The record cannot be mistaken by the enlightened and honest student of the Word.


JESUS SINLESS

The Bible teaches in addition that Jesus was a SINLESS man. While all men from Adam to this day are born with Adam’s sinful nature, and, therefore, are subject to the curse and eternal death, the Man Jesus was without sin and, therefore, DEATHLESS until He took the sin of others upon Himself and died THEIR death. Now while Jesus was of Adam's race according to the flesh yet He did not inherit Adam's nature. This alone will prove that sin is not transmitted through the flesh. It is transmitted through the blood and not the flesh, and even though Jesus was of the "Seed of David according to the flesh" this could not make him a sinner.


God has made of ONE BLOOD ALL THE NATIONS of the earth. Sinful heredity is transmitted through the blood and not through the flesh. Even though Jesus, therefore, received His flesh, His body from a sinful race, He could still be sinless as long as not a drop blood of this sinful race entered His veins. God must find a way whereby Jesus could be perfectly human according to the flesh and yet not have the blood of sinful humanity. That was the problem solved by the virgin birth.


ORIGIN OF THE BLOOD

It is now definitely known that the blood which flows in an unborn babies arteries and veins is not derived from the mother but is produced within the body of the foetus itself only after the introduction of the male sperm. An unfertilized ovum can never develop blood since the female egg does not by itself contain the elements essential for the production of this blood. It is only after the male element has entered the ovum that blood can develop. As a very simple illustration of this, think of the egg of a hen. An unfertilized egg is just an ovum on a much larger scale than the human ovum. You may incubate this unfertilized hens egg but it will never develop. It will decay and become rotten, but no chick will result. Let that egg be fertilized by the introduction of the male sperm and incubation will bring to light the presence of LIFE IN THAT EGG. After a few hours it visibly develops. In a little while red streaks occur in the egg denoting the presence of Blood. This can never occur and does never occur until THE MALE SPERM HAS BEEN UNITED WITH THE FEMALE OVUM. The male element has added life to the egg. Life is in the blood according to scripture, for Moses says:

"For the life of the flesh is in the blood." (Leviticus 17:11). "For it is the life of all flesh; the blood of it is for the life thereof." —Leviticus 17:14
Since there is no life in the egg until the male sperm unites with it, and the life is in the blood, it follows that the male sperm is the source of the blood, the seed of life. Think it through.


NO MOTHERS BLOOD

For this very reason, it is unnecessary that a single drop of blood be given to the developing embryo in the womb of the mother. Such is the case according to science. The mother provides the foetus (the unborn developing infant) with the nutritive elements for the building of that little body in the secret of her bosom, but all the blood which forms in that little body is formed in the embryo itself and only as a result of the contribution of the male parent. From the time of conception to the time of birth of the infant not ONE SINGLE DROP OF BLOOD ever passes from mother to child. The placenta that mass of temporary tissue known better as “afterbirth,” forming the union between mother and child is so constructed that although all the soluble nutritive elements such as proteins, fats, carbohydrates, salts, minerals and even antibodies pass freely from mother to child and the waste products of the child's metabolism are passed back to the mothers circulation, no actual interchange of a single drop of blood ever occurs normally. All the blood which is in that child is produced within the child itself as a result of the introduction of the male sperm. The mother contributes no blood at all.


TESTIMONY OF SCIENCE

Now for the sake of some of the skeptics who may doubt these statements let me quote from a few reliable authorities. In Howell’s Textbook of Physiology, Second Edition, pages 885 and 886, I read:

"For the purpose of understanding its general functions it is sufficient to recall that the placenta consists essentially of vascular chorionic papillae from the foetus (the unborn child) bathed in the large blood spaces of the decidual membrane of the mother. The fetal and maternal blood DO NOT COME INTO ACTUAL CONTACT. THEY ARE SEPARATED FROM EACH OTHER by the walls of the fetal blood vessels and the epithelial layers of the chorionic villae."
Or let me quote from Williams’ Practice of Obstetrics, Third Edition, page 133. Here I quote,

"The fetal blood in the vessels of the chorionic villae AT NO TIME GAINS ACCESS TO THE MATERNAL BLOOD in the intervillous space, BEING SEPARATED FROM ONE ANOTHER by the double layer of chorionic epithelium."
And from page 136 of the same recognized textbook I quote,

"Normally there is no communication between the fetal blood and the maternal blood."

Now for the benefit of those of you who may be nurses, let me quote from a textbook which is familiar to you. Quoting from "Nurse’s Handbook of Obstetrics" by Louise Zabriskie, R.N., Fifth Edition, page 75:

"When the circulation of the blood begins in the embryo, it remains separate and distinct from that of the mother. All food and waste material which are interchanged between the embryo and the mother must pass through the blood vessel walls from one circulation to the other."
And from page 82 of the same book:

"The foetus receives its nourishment and oxygen from the mothers blood into its own through the medium of the placenta. The fetal heart pumps blood through the arteries of the umbilical cord into the placental vessels, which, looping in and out of the uterine tissue and lying in close contact with the uterine vessels, permit a diffusion, through their walls, of waste products from child to mother and of nourishment and oxygen from mother to child. As has been said, this interchange is effected by the process of osmosis, and there is no direct mingling of the two blood currents. In other words, no maternal blood actually flows to the foetus, nor is there any direct fetal blood flow to the mother."


GOD'S WONDERFUL PROVISION

How wonderfully God prepared for the virgin birth of His Son. When He created woman He made her so that no blood would be able to pass from her to her offspring. That blood is the result of the male. Since Adam was the federal head of the race, it is HIS BLOOD which transmits Adam's Sin. In order to produce a sinless man and yet be the son of Adam, God must provide a way whereby that man would have a human body derived from Adam but have not a drop of Adam's sinful blood. Right here is the scientific biological reason for the sinlessness of the Man Christ Jesus. Some have tried to answer the question, “How could He be sinless and yet born of a woman?” by making Mary the “Immaculate Virgin.” That, however, does not answer the question of how JESUS was sinless since it is through the male that the bloodline runs.

Not only is this a scientific fact, but it is plainly taught in Scripture that Jesus partook of human flesh without Adam's blood. In Hebrews 2:14 we read,

"Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood. He also himself likewise took part of the same..."
You will notice that the children, that is the human children, are said to be partakers of FLESH and BLOOD, and then speaking of Jesus it says that He "himself likewise took part of the same." The Word “took part” as applying to Christ is an entirely different word then “partakers” as applied to the children. In the margin of my Bible, I read the word translated “took part” implies “taking part in something outside one’s self.” The Greek word for partakers is "KOYNONEHO" and means “to share fully,” so that all of Adam’s children share fully in Adam’s flesh and blood. When we read that Jesus “took part of the same” the word is "METECHO" which means to take "part" but not all. The Children take both flesh and blood of Adam but Christ took only part, that is the flesh part, while the blood was the result of supernatural conception.

Jesus was a perfect human being after the flesh. He was of the seed of David according to the flesh, but blood is that part of a man which is the divine addition. In the creation of man, Adam’s body was made from the dust of the earth, but God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life. Since life is in the blood, this act resulted in the formation of blood in Adam’s body, but the first Adam’s blood was corrupted and sin transmitted through it to all mankind. In the last Adam and the second man, new and divine and sinless blood was produced in a body that was the seed of Adam and by this resulted in the production of —

DIVINE BLOOD

Conception by the Holy Ghost then was the only way the Virgin Birth could be accomplished. Mary contributed the body of Jesus and He became the "seed of David according to the flesh." The Holy Spirit contributed the Blood of Jesus. It was sinless blood. It was Divine blood. It is Precious Blood for there has never been any other like it. It is —


INNOCENT BLOOD

"I have betrayed the innocent blood" Judas confessed in Matthew 27:4. Our Lord was innocent. He became like unto us in all things — SIN only excepted. Like unto us with ONE EXCEPTION and that exception was that instead of a human father He was conceived by a DIVINE FATHER. As a result biologically, He had DIVINE BLOOD, SINLESS BLOOD. Because this blood is sinless it is —

INCORRUPTIBLE BLOOD

Sin made human blood corruptible. Soon after death, decay sets in, and it begins in the blood. That is why meat must be drained well of its blood. That is why embalmers place the embalming fluid in the blood. David said that Jesus’ body should "see no corruption." Though He was dead three days and three nights, His body did not corrupt. Because He was sinless they could not put Him to death but instead He "laid down His life voluntarily that He might take it up again." He arose by His own power because death had no claim in HIM except the claim of others’ sin, and when that was paid —

"Death cannot keep his prey, Jesus, my Saviour,
He tore the bars away, Jesus, My Lord.
Up from the grave He arose,
With a mighty triumph o'er His foes."

Sinner, have you received this Saviour and have you been washed in His PRECIOUS BLOOD? If not, you are still under the curse and the awful sentence of death. Why not accept HIM today and hear Him as he says:

"God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then being now JUSTIFIED BY HIS BLOOD, we shall be saved from wrath through him." —Romans 5:8,9


 
paradox3 said:
This thread has gone off on a few tangents along the way but I would say it did not really begin to derail until today. I am not even sure why this happened (although I may have a theory or two) but think I will just let it be.

Tomorrow is another day and we can get started with Mark.
Click to expand...

with all due respect to you Paradox, the Gospel of Mark or any other scripture will be no different because there are 2 ways of understanding, that is 1) with the Holy Spirit and 2) without the Holy Spirit

if you are on the side of 1) sin/ego can still fight and be the dominant rather than Gods Spirit in interpreting but can be overcome

if you are on the side of 2) nothing to overcome, sin/ego is the dominant

and this has been the struggle since Jesus walked planet earth

Live long and Prosper
 
How can you be so sure that the spirit that whispers in your ear is the HOLY Spirit? You could very well be mistaken, you know.
 
Redbaron said:
How can you be so sure that the spirit that whispers in your ear is the HOLY Spirit? You could very well be mistaken, you know.
Click to expand...
lets see,

Gods Spirit ,,,,

1) upholds Truth,
2) gives assurance of who I am
3) Admonitions my sinfull actions
4) witnesses to me of miracles in my life, yes its happened
5) helps me forgive even when I dont want to , especially being an Italian hot head
6) gives me Pereseverace in times of hardship

there are much more, but to say the least I am 57, I have been walking with the Holy Spirit since i was 40.

so as Jesus once said,,,

I know His Voice
 
I meant commentary, explanations, etc for the verses you were about to yank out of context. But, if your guilty conscious seems to think a police check is required, by all means, feel free to provide one. (In triplicate, of course)
 
Redbaron said:
I meant commentary, explanations, etc for the verses you were about to yank out of context. But, if your guilty conscious seems to think a police check is required, by all means, feel free to provide one. (In triplicate, of course)
Click to expand...

according to you yes, I'm surprised you even ask that question, with your studies and all, you are a master!

BTY The Spirit of the Word is non-contradictive, aka TRUTH

you do believe in Truth right?
 
Never claimed to be a master. You keep bringing that up.... almost like you're scared of it, or maybe jealous of it. Why do you find the presence of knowledge so intimidating?
 
Redbaron said:
Never claimed to be a master.

sure you did, you appealed to your education and I and unsafe, called you out on it

You keep bringing that up.... almost like you're scared of it, or maybe jealous of it. Why do you find the presence of knowledge so intimidating?
Click to expand...

why do you keep accusing me that I am intimidated of it, you playing satans role here because its obvious im not im right here with you debating
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
As I recall, I mentioned going to seminary because Jae said HE had been to seminary. Why aren't you climbing all over him for HIS claim of superiority, hmmmm? Why didn't you yell at HIM for HIS prideful reference to his high falutin' edumakashun? Where's the sense of outrage for HIM?,
As far as unsafe, I have no idea what she says, because I have her on the 'ignore' list, for reasons that are sufficient for me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top