This post is for that apostate babbler Diehl who blasphemously asserted in his Nov 30th post, under "CCOG, things..." (Nov 29), that God broke the law by committing fornication when He impregnated Mary.
-----------------------------------------
The reason this perspective came up is because when pastoring, a teen came up to me and asked me about why God not being "married" to Mary or she to it/him would be considered to have fornicated by any definition. Kids don't meander around with theological apologetics in my experience. They tend to go by what the church/Bible is plainly telling them not to do.
Father Raymond Brown was disappointed in WCG's Dr. Ernest Martin for taking the birth narrative of Jesus , the star and such too literally and trying to explain it with Jupiter, Saturn and Mars conjunctions etc. He thought Dr. Martin should have known better.
Diehl is playing with danger by implying that Christ was born of fornication, since the Pharisees were put to shame by His resurrection from the dead. Not only that, he asserts that God doesn't exist, which makes him a double fool since the Pharisees at least believed in God's existence, even if they didn't believe in Christ.
--------------------------------------
Nothing combustible here. That Jesus was born of fornication is a Biblical theme in John 8. So much so that Jesus goes bonkers in the text ending up yelling back at them "Well, oh yeah...well you are of your father the devil, so there!" My translation. The story of Jesus forgiving the woman taken in adultery is a later addition to the text and meant to send the message that Mary was forgiven so leave mom alone. The fact that Matthew places four fallen women in Jesus genealogy, Rahab the harlot, Ruth the Moabite, Tamar who dressed as a prostitute and seduced her father-in-law in Gen 38, and Jezebel of David fame. Why? The message Matthew needed to send was that no matter what you say about Jesus birth circumstances, God can work through any woman of any reputation He wants. It was not exactly a denial of the circumstances. Just an apologetic.
Whether the Pharisees believed in God or not does make someone who does not a "double fool." But yes, I do assert to myself that I find no evidence save by faith in God or Jesus as presented in the Bible.
Secondly, Mary was impregnated in a divine supernatural way, not in the typical fleshly manner. It was a divine impregnation, not an act of illicit sexual intercourse. There is a difference here. It wasn't a case of one bearing an evil desire (lust) in order to commit a lawless act (fornication). It was a case of fulfilling a deliberate design (intelligence) in order to redeem mankind from its sins (goodness). God created the law; He doesn't break His own law (which is a higher law, Gal 5:23
). Otherwise, you wouldn't exist.
---------------------------------------------------
I'm not really concerned with the definition of fornication. I just know that what is wrong for geese in the world of the Bible teaching seems not wrong for the gander who came up with it. You do not really know how "divine supernatural way" works and can't prove anything about it. This is just Bible talk on your part. In reality it never actually happened as advertised but your apologetics as to how it all was and came about are just that, apologetics and you can prove nothing of it.
---------------------------------------------------
When a woman desires a child and goes to a semen bank to produce one, does the doctor commit fornication when he implants her with a fertilized egg, or is he simply a go-between? Does the woman commit fornication when she deliberately accepts the semen of a stranger into her womb? Or is it fornication if the doctor just mechanically inserts the semen alone without preparing a fertilized egg first? So how can it be fornication for the Godhead when all three decided to enter a human body? Who created and owns the soul and body? (1 Cor 6:19-20) Is Dietz saying that the holy Spirit illegally intruded into Mary's womb against her will? If so, why was Mary filled with the joy of the holy Spirit? Where is the sin since Paul says that fornication is a sin against the body? (1 Cor 6:18) Did God injure Himself or Mary by His actions? Is Dietz, like Job, accusing God of sin? Dietz, a former minister, not only doesn't know God, he doesn't know what the holy Spirit is, whether it is a person or if it is good (life-giving) or bad (fornication) for the body?
--------------------------------------------
The priests who actually wrote the Pentateuch in the 6th Century BCE while on vacation in Babylon were not writing knowing anything about artificial insemination, so your point is moot. Stick with the Bronze age concept. The name is Diehl. I doubt God injured himself or Mary herself in the act. Perhaps a chuckle?
Correct, I do not know God and according to my former dominators, I knew a lot about Jesus but did not know Jesus. I grew up in the "give your heart to Jesus" and "Know God" etc, so it holds no fascination with me. It has no real meaning and no one has ever actually explained giving hearts and knowing Jesus works in real life. I found over 26 years that people are just people and don't change much internally unless their health is threatened and then not very often either.
I am pleased that you have all these mysteries understood clearly and solved.
Even your definition of fornication as an act of intercourse between the unmarried or gods is incorrect. In the infamous example of 1 Cor 5 the woman fornicater is married.
------------------------------------------
A woman sleeping with the son of her husband is called "sexually immoral" and the text labels it as "incest" though it is not really technically. The woman would be committing adultery, the man would be as well in a rather obtuse way. Boy is dad going to be pissed. And too, I doubt it was really such a shock to the pagans as the text makes it out to be. HWA , it is said, slept with his son's sister, and I also hear they weren't sleeping.
The other fool who asked if God was married when He impregnated Mary doesn't know who or what God is when he asks that question. God isn't married to anyone. God is the great Husbandman who planted the first seed (Christ) so that the church could be married to His Son.
-------------------------------------
The other person.... Not "the other fool." You need, as a Christian to avoid calling other's fools if I read the NT text correctly. However, I guess the OT gives permission to not be aware of that one yet if those that deny the existence of God are "fools." They are not. They are not God haunted, faith restricted and simple folks who need more than "He that comes to God MUST BELIEVE THAT HE IS...." That is simply not good enough for the critical thinker in this world. For the go along to get along types? Yes, perfectly understood approach.
I do understand your rancor but please understand that I am neither faith restricted in my beliefs and observations nor into the apologetics necessary to get around obvious textural, historical and theological problems in the stories.
And that teen that first asked me what seemed to be an obvious Goose/Gander problem in the story of Mary was not going to let me bullshit him. I told him that was a very question.
