Hebrews 1: 5 Commentary

For those who have faith in the Bible as taught the logical understanding is that Joseph kept the secret to himself. For skeptics like me another possibility is that Joseph was the true father of Jesus and therefore did not need to hide anything. After all Joseph and Mary had other children, so if Mary was a virgin with Jesus she apparently did not remain one for too long.

By Charles Fiott (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/29/2010 18:37 pm

Dear Jayant, My point was not to prove Mary as an adultress…..but rather to PROVE she was a virgin, fulfilling the scriptures….”therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin shall conceive & bear a son, and shall call his “NAME” Immanuel.” (Is 7:14) I reiterate….Yahshua is not Immanuel, His name means “God w/us” for “the fullness of God was pleased to dwell in him/Yahshua.” ( Col 1:19) ” God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself.” (II Cor 5:19)
I agree whole heartedly w/ you…..Joseph could have legally given Mary a bill of divorcement but I believe he loved her enough to protect her & once the angel came to him & told him she would give birth to the son of God, Joseph knew what he must do.

By Candace S. (wrote 219 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/29/2010 18:13 pm

Why people could have come to understand Jesus’ family as normal? It is because of Joseph. Joseph was a good man and did not want to harm Mary( He could have exposed her telling that she is not preganant by him, thereby making subject of stoning as per the Law of Moses)and was thinking to put her away secretly. But, with the direct message from the angel, he was convinced that Mary was not an adultress, but that she was preganant with the power of God. Joseph would therefore not have done any thing that would jeopardize Mary in any way and that therefore the people would have come to know the family as normal one and there was therefore no possibility of stoning.

By Jayant Christian (wrote 287 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/29/2010 10:19 am

No problem, Candace.

By Charles Fiott (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/28/2010 22:38 pm

Charles, please, please forgive me for my gross misunderstanding. I’ll try to be more careful. In His Agape, Candace

By Candace S. (wrote 219 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/28/2010 22:14 pm

Candace, thank you for your lesson in Hebraic custom, however you seem to have misunderstood me. I did NOT say that Joseph failed to claim the child as own. On the contrary I said that Jesus’ family was considered a normal one with a normal father and siblings and therefore Mary was in no risk of stoning.

By Charles Fiott (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/28/2010 18:14 pm

Candace, Jesus upheld the belief that his father was the true god and referred to himself as his son. I compared this to King Ahkenatem who declared that Aten was the only true god and that he (Akhenatem) was his son.

By Charles Fiott (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/28/2010 18:01 pm

Charles, do you understand Hebraic custom at all? Even now a woman caught in adultry can be stoned. Joseph & Mary were in a legally binding contact (ketubah) which was unto death. Even though the actual marriage ceromony had not occured hence neither the consumation of that contract, she was legally Joseph’s wife. He “knew” he hadn’t impregnated her, therfore someone else must have. By the Law of God & the Jews themselves, Mary would have been stoned unless Joseph claimed the child as he own which the angel of the LORD did indeed tell him to do. Remember, Joseph had no sexual contact w/ his wife until after the Son of God had been born. (Matt 1:25) As Miriam’s pregnancy began to make itself known & Joseph hadn’t claimed the child as his own, she would have surly been stoned according to Judaic Law

By Candace S. (wrote 219 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/28/2010 17:50 pm

Charles, please show me where that is in scripture Jesus “declares” himself to be “the one & only true God”.
About Yahshua being “called” Immanuel. Few seem to understand what scripture is so clearly saying. Without a Hebraic foundation & our western mindsets the revelation is lost in the wind.
Matt 1:23 “behold a virgin shall bring forth a son and his “NAME” shall be called Immanuel.” Nowhere do the scriptures teach that Yahshua IS Yahweh, God Almighty but everywhere is proclaims that “the Son of God” will declare Him/God to fallen mankind. Yahshua bears his Father’s name, he has His Father’s name but only one facet of Yahweh’s great & mighty name. i.e. “Yahshua/Jesus” which translated means….”Yahweh/God Saves”.
When I was born I was given my father’s name but that certainly didn’t make me my father but I did bear his name. Now that I am married I was given my husband’s name & our children bear his name as well, but neither I or our children are my husband.

We’ve lost so much in our modern culture concerning the the passing down from generation to generation the family name, inheritance etc. It would seem our western culture doesn’t give much credence to this time honored tradition set up by Yahweh Himself. Therfore we have lost the understanding of God/Father “giving” His Son Yahshua His/God’s name & the power & authority that goes w/ it. If my father was a billionaire & ran a a successful corp. I as his daughter would possess the same power & authority over it if my father chose to give it to me. Yahshua was “given” all authority from God, his Father & he/Yahshua came into this “kingdom of darkness” to demonstrate the “Kingdom” of his Father that we might know God & know of His Kingdom.
Just because Yahshua bears a facet of his Father’s name DOES NOT MAKE HIM Yahweh! The Scriptures are so very clear on this.
Middle shelf the catholic perversion from centuries past & begin to embrace God’s Word through our Hebraic Heritage as grafted in Jews. In His Grip, Candace

By Candace S. (wrote 219 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/28/2010 17:29 pm

Re Post 302. Candace, I don’t agree that Mary had any risk of being stoned. I think it is clear from passages such as Mark 6:3 that during his time on Earth Jesus was considered to have come from a normal family, with a normal father and mother and with brothers and sisters just like any other young man. Nobody accused him of being illegitimate and there was no reason to suspect that Mary had committed adultery.

By Charles Fiott (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/28/2010 15:34 pm

Re Post 299. Scott, first of all you’re not being picky at all. Actually there were much fewer than 4000 years of recorded history before the virgin birth. Parts of the Hebrew Bible were written centuries after the events that they describe. That’s NOT recorded history. That’s tradition. And the example I gave of the virgin mother in Egypt is also just that: a tradition. All I said was that a pre-existing tradition could have been recycled for Jesus. It’s not a claim. It’s a specualtion.

HOWEVER it is an incomplete perspective to look at the Bible in a vacuum. The stories of Yahweh were intertwined with those of Baal and other gods, and countries neighboring Israel underwent their own monotheistic evolutions and had their own ancillary episodes which were often similar to the stories we are familiar with. For example, long before Jesus declared himself the son of the one and only true God, King Akhenatem of Egypt had done EXACTLY the same thing. So I don’t think it is far-fetched to speculate that Israel’s traditions were influenced by other cultures.

Concerning the name Immanuel, Matthew was just copying what Isaiah had said. Copying is not fulfillment.

By Charles Fiott (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/28/2010 15:32 pm

For all who question….”the Virgin Birth of Messiah” is based not on the gospels alone (they testify of the fulfillment) but on the many prophecies that Yahweh Himself breathed into his prophets. These prophecies were fufilled “EXACTLY” as YAHWEH SAID THEY WOULD BE. And if Miriam (Mary) had NOT been a virgin, she would have most definitly been stoned to death according to Jewish law.

By Candace S. (wrote 219 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/28/2010 06:51 am

Mark,

When you make comments like #300, it only serves to convince me that you have little understanding of the true trinitarian position. I’m sure there are many well meaning trinitarians that make really dumb statements that they can’t back up and many of them probably occupy pulpits. Perhaps it was people like this that turned you off to these things; but if your argument is with them, why even waste your time? Anyone who simply says that Jesus is the “God of the OT” is making a very misleading and incomplete statement.

I’d like to think you know better than this but then I would have to conclude that you were making a mockery of trinitarians and I don’t know which is worse.

By Scott Dale (wrote 496 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/28/2010 06:03 am