flickerbulb

Bart Ehrman is the US author of the bestselling book “Misquoting Jesus” (In the UK “Whose word is it?”).  He calls into question the authority of the New Testament as scribal changes over time have changed the documents. 

So can we trust the scripture? Bible scholar Peter Williams believes in the reliability of the New Testament and that Bart’s prognosis is far too pessimistic.

Media Player

there’s been some contention as to my post on “plankeye”

i will concede that we are indeed to “make judgement” — even about people and what they are up to.

but the context of the verse you pulled out shows the difference between what jesus was referring to in john 7 and what he is teaching about in the sermon on the mount:

14 About the middle of the feast Jesus went up into the temple and began teaching. 15 The Jews therefore marveled, saying, “How is it that this man has learning, when he has never studied?” 16 So Jesus answered them, “My teaching is not mine, but his who sent me. 17 If anyone’s will is to do God’s will, he will know whether the teaching is from God or whether I am speaking on my own authority. 18 The one who speaks on his own authority seeks his own glory, but the one who seeks the glory of him who sent him is true, and in him there is no falsehood. 19 Has not Moses given you the law? Yet none of you keeps the law. Why do you seek to kill me?” 20 The crowd answered, “You have a demon! Who is seeking to kill you?” 21 Jesus answered them, “I did one deed, and you all marvel at it. 22 Moses gave you circumcision (not that it is from Moses, but from the fathers), and you circumcise a man on the Sabbath. 23 If on the Sabbath a man receives circumcision, so that the law of Moses may not be broken, are you angry with me because on the Sabbath I made a man’s whole body well? 24 Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment.”

both of these passages speak to not judging —- and both infer that in order to make wise decisions about how to treat people one needs to be in a place of humility before god, and seeking the true good of the other person.

the original thought behind the plankeye post was a friend pointing out how those who claim to follow christ’s teachings are often those who are most guilty of being judgmental — and unfairly judgmental at that, often with yucky results in the life of those being judged.

i was obviously, in my first post on this topic, not saying that one is never to decide whether something is right or wrong.

clearly to follow christ is to believe there IS a right.

but judging and condemning people is the wrong way to go about getting them to change their behavior, while encouraging and asking is the right way.

in fact, to do so is to make a right judgement: to “hold back” on force-feeding your “pearls” of “rightness” to those who are not able to digest them, and instead love and encourage and simply ask them to consider a better way.

so, i stand by my statement:

judging IS the plank in our eye.

and i’ll say it again using a different word, by way of expounding:

condemning IS the plank in our eye.

romans 14:13:

Therefore let us not pass judgment on one another any longer, but rather decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother.

condemnation and judging puts a HUGE stumbling block in the way of those who would otherwise be attracted to the kingdom.

we who claim to live in the kingdom behave in unattractive ways, in ways that make people feel rejected, not loved, and so they turn and attack us.

just like jesus says they will in the passage i quoted above.

but if we simply ask people, without condemnation, they are more apt to find our message acceptable.

i have been studying the sermon on the mount for several months now, and i’d like to explore here some insight i have had on what, exactly, holiness is:

Matt 5 (ESV) 43 – 48

Love Your Enemies
You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

an important point that jesus is trying to make here is often lost in our familiarity with the words: we are to, really and truly, love our enemies.

we are to love, he says elsewhere, and really everywhere, everyone we come in contact with.

we are to constantly be truly loving other people the way god does.

we are to be living a life that follow in jesus’ footsteps: every interaction with someone should be aimed at furthering their walk in the kingdom, be they a robber in our house (ahem), our parents, our friends, the barista at starbucks, or our enemies.

the other stuff in the sermon on the mount speaks to how we get to that point:

letting go of anger, contempt, greed, lust, and so on.

actually following jesus example and words is a huge part of living a holy life.

i got the idea from another website, but decided to try the idea, and found the results startling.

i would love to hear some of the questions raised by the text below, but first an explanation of what i’ve done:

a) substituted “Christian” for “Jew”
b) substituted “Muslims or Buddhists” for “Gentiles”
c) substituted “Baptism” for “Circumcision”
d) substituted “law of grace” for “law”

i’ll point out that i’m not trying to re-write romans here, just bring up some questions about this life of “being christians”.

anyway, onto the text:

For it is not the hearers of the law of grace who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law of grace who will be justified. For when Muslims or Buddhists, who do not have the law of grace, by nature do what the law of grace requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law of grace. They show that the work of the law of grace is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.

But if you call yourself a Christian and rely on the law of grace and boast in God and know his will and approve what is excellent, because you are instructed from the law of grace; and if you are sure that you yourself are a guide to the blind, a light to those who are in darkness, an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of children, having in the law of grace the embodiment of knowledge and truth– you then who teach others, do you not teach yourself? While you preach against stealing, do you steal? You who say that one must not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? You who boast in the law of grace dishonor God by breaking the law of grace. For, as it is written, “The name of God is blasphemed among the Muslims or Buddhists because of you.”

For baptism indeed is of value if you obey the law of grace, but if you break the law of grace, your baptism becomes non-baptism. So, if a man who is not baptized keeps the precepts of the law of grace, will not his non-baptism be regarded as baptism? Then he who is physically not baptized but keeps the law of grace will condemn you who have the written code and baptism but break the law of grace. For no one is a Christian who is merely one outwardly, nor is baptism outward and physical. But a Christian is one inwardly, and baptism is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God.

all truth is god’s truth.

i love this part of acts:

17:22 So Paul, standing in the midst of the Areopagus, said: “Men of Athens, I perceive that in every way you are very religious. 23 For as I passed along and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription, ‘To the unknown god.’ What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you. 24 The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man, 25 nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything. 26 And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, 27 that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us, 28 for

“‘In him we live and move and have our being’;

as even some of your own poets have said,

“‘For we are indeed his offspring.’

29 Being then God’s offspring, we ought not to think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of man. 30 The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, 31 because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead.”

32 Now when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked. But others said, “We will hear you again about this.” 33 So Paul went out from their midst. 34 But some men joined him and believed, among whom also were Dionysius the Areopagite and a woman named Damaris and others with them.

here we have paul quoting pagan poets to make points about god.

what i like about it:

it shows that paul was familiar enough with their poets to quote them.

and he was astute enough to realize when they speak truth.

everything that is true is so because god said it ought be thus.

assume you live alone, and are home alone, in your apartment, asleep in bed, when you realize that your apartment is being broken into, downstairs.

what is the proper course of action for a follower of christ?

don’t assume you have, or don’t have, a gun, a bat, a tazer, or any other weapon: all of those choices that are made ahead of time play into your answer.

so?

the protection of one’s “belongings” are never worth violence.

we are warned, by jesus, against anger — let alone acting in anger against one who seeks to impose their will upon us.

we are instructed to treasure heavenly things (people, god, love) and not earthly things (dvds, tvs).

further, we are instructed to give to anyone who asks of us.

we are instructed to greet evil with kindness.

we are instructed to consider others as more important than ourselves.

i see no room in the scripture for “exceptions” to these instructions.

trying to improve one’s life through the accumulation of (let alone the violent protection of) “stuff” is antithetical to the very existence of one who follows christ.

if we are truly treasuring heavenly things, we will care more for the burglar than we will for our “things”.

it seems responsible, at first blush, to look out for our own safety.

but what is “safe”, really?

who holds our safety?

i can’t imagine the christ cowering in his bedroom, praying to god to help him stay alive.

rather, i imagine he’d call out, in some way that makes known that no harm is intended:

“hello there?

i have no plans to call the police. is there something you need?

i usually offer my guests something. can i get you a drink of water?”

we are told never to fear.

surely this isn’t just “pretty worlds”?

could jesus really mean to never, under any circumstances, fear anything, other than god?

i believe that is exactly what he means.

i think that jesus means, quite literally, that we are to greet a burglar in our home with kindness, not vengeful anger, or even the hope of retribution.

that if i am truly following christ, my thoughts will be on loving this person into the kingdom, somehow.

we are told explicitly to turn the other cheek.

are we to act out in a first-strike manner when our cheek has not even been struck?

we are simply instructed to turn our cheeks. this, i beleive, means to remain vulnerable to any and all attacks, not just physical, to our person, be they attacks on our ego, or on our our pride, or on our sensitive feelings, or, yes, even on our cheeks.

i don’t see room for exception to this, and, if you study the sermon on the mount as a whole, and look at “turning the other cheek” in its proper context, you’ll see that it is a major component of living a life in the kingdom.

we who follow jesus are, simply, to make it a habit of not meeting spite with spite, or sarcasm with sarcasm, or hate with hate, or force with force, but instead we are to treat all comers with love.

it is up to you whether you own a weapon, and it is up to you whether you think it is best to use that weapon against a human being.

my take is that the situations calling for violence against another human being (weapons or no) must be exceedingly rare.

i would think, perhaps, there’s been 1, ever. (when jesus himself drove people from the temple area)

like i said, i trust him with such acts, but never myself.

i do not believe i could ever be trusted to do it lovingly. i’m sure there’d always be some amount of selfishness driving my behavior.

of course, the idea of complete safety is absurd — if you are only considering what we can see.

but if you are living in the kingdom of god that jesus preached, the one where the father who created the universe and knows how many hairs are on your head, and who gives good gifts, and takes perfectly good care of the birds…

well, if you truly trust and serve such a god, and live in such a kingdom, then you can always walk unafraid.

for you are serving and laying up treasures where moth and rust do NOT destroy, and where thieves do NOT break in an steal.

fear god only. serve god only.

lord knows i could do better at this.

does anyone have a theory about this strange passage:

any at all?

exodus 4

Moses Returns to Egypt

18 Moses went back to Jethro his father-in-law and said to him, “Please let me go back to my brothers in Egypt to see whether they are still alive.” And Jethro said to Moses, “Go in peace.” 19 And the Lord said to Moses in Midian, “Go back to Egypt, for all the men who were seeking your life are dead.” 20 So Moses took his wife and his sons and had them ride on a donkey, and went back to the land of Egypt. And Moses took the staff of God in his hand.

21 And the Lord said to Moses, “When you go back to Egypt, see that you do before Pharaoh all the miracles that I have put in your power. But I will harden his heart, so that he will not let the people go. 22 Then you shall say to Pharaoh, ‘Thus says the Lord, Israel is my firstborn son, 23 and I say to you, “Let my son go that he may serve me.” If you refuse to let him go, behold, I will kill your firstborn son.’”

24 At a lodging place on the way the Lord met him and sought to put him to death. 25 Then Zipporah took a flint and cut off her son’s foreskin and touched Moses’ feet with it and said, “Surely you are a bridegroom of blood to me!” 26 So he let him alone. It was then that she said, “A bridegroom of blood,” because of the circumcision.

first off: i like the ESV.

bad NIV translation has spawned the phrase “weaker brother”, which implies that the person must be somehow “under” you, by the -er suffix.

the phrase, though, is simply “one who is weak in faith” — regardless of how they’re faith “stacks up” to yours.

anyway, on with the scripture:

Romans 14:1-3

Do Not Pass Judgment on One Another

1 As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions. 2 One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. 3 Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him.

if someone, weak in the faith or not, is hounding you on an issue that the bible is vague (or silent) on: they are not living a life of love.

perhaps this person is weak in faith, but the instructions from paul are to be a two-way street: it is clear that we are simply to avoid judging one another on matters of opinion.

it is possible that they are otherwise quite strong in their faith, but simply have a hang-up in this one area… ?

either way, i think romans is fairly clear that you are to, as a matter of love, avoid “flaunting” your freedom.

this does not mean, in my opinion, that you are to avoid the activity in question altogether, but simply to do what seems best to avoid inflaming the issue with this person.

always in love, though, it is also clear that you are to “not allow what you regard as good be spoken of as evil.”

this may be where that terrible phrase, “agree to disagree” actually applies.

if it truly is a matter of opinion, then it is likely not a crucial matter, and you can likely serve the lord by dropping it humbly if the person is tryingto pick a fight.

if, however, they really are in need of restoration, keep this in mind:

Galations 6:1-3

Bear One Another’s Burdens

1 Brothers, if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. Keep watch on yourself, lest you too be tempted. 2 Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ. 3 For if anyone thinks he is something, when he is nothing, he deceives himself.

i believe this warning to be sure you are not tempted to sin is aimed at thinking you are “better” than them, and will give them a “piece of your mind”, or whatnaught.

notice, too that the idea is to restore — NOT to correct, or punish, or condemn or judge.

restore, and gently.

if there’s any chance you will be unlikely to restore this person in total gentleness and love, it’s probably best left to a matter of prayer — let god sort them out. (he’s better at it anyway)

let us supposed we have 2 people: billy and franklin

(i just pulled those names out of thin air )

i’ll give away the ending of this story first:

franklin goes to heaven, and billy goes to hell.

now, let us also suppose that billy and franklin are twin brothers: born within minutes of one another.

both are raised by the same christian parents, and go to the same bible-teaching congregation, where spiritual growth is encouraged, and the spirit’s work is evident by the fruit the congregation produces: caring for the poor in their neighborhood and other charitable acts.

both boys are looked up to all through high school and college, and marry christian women, who love them very much.

both young men turned out to church leaders — gifted by god in leading others to the lord, and in teaching them the deeper meanings of life in the kingdom.

when they are 43 years old, however, billy’s wife was raped, murdered, and left to die — by a supposed “preacher”, who was caught, arrested, and set to go to court.

well, billy did not take this well. (would you? would i?)

billy took it out on the preacher.

he was so angry that he murdered the man even before he’d had a chance to go to trial.

billy, still angry, but in shock at his own brutality, turned himself into the authorities, and went to prison for 30 years.

(the manner in which billy inflicted his revenge upon the man was based upon the man’s treatment of billy’s wife. the jury, though they understood where such anger came from, had no choice but to convict, and the minimum sentence was 30 years, no parole.)

while in prison, billy himself was mistreated — sometimes very badly, and he grew more and more angry at god for his lot in life until he lashed out at god, and disavowed his very existence.

he finished almost his entire sentence angry at god, and in trouble with the prison authorities, addicted to drugs and eventually murdering 3 of his cellmates over the years.

three years before he was to have originally gotten out of prison, billy was murdered in his cell while he slept, and went to hell.

his brother, franklin, died in a car accident that very minute — and went to heaven.

— the end —

looking back on their lives, we can see clearly that during their teens and twenties, both would have been sure they were going to heaven, and the way they conducted their lives seemed to point that way.

both claimed christ as lord, and had fruit, apparently.

some would say that if billy had died that night with his wife he would have gone to heaven.

but from the perspective of eternity, where hindsight truly is 20/20, we can see that it was never to be so:

who can deny that from the beginning of time, god knew the sad story of billy’s life?

who can deny that god knew he would end up angry, disavowing his existence, a murderer who died by the very violence he bred?

was god “fooled” by billy during his 20’s ?

when billy fell away, was god caught by surprise?

did god think, “oh, wow! billy don’t do it! ooooh, no! — now you’re not going to heaven after all! someone erase his name from the book of life!”

the idea is absurd.

no, it is clear: there was always a 100% chance, since god knew what would happen, that billy was going to hell.

so then: was he ever “saved” ?

was he ever a “christian” ?

so many times i’ve heard people talk about, “if you died right now, do you know where you’d go?”

well, in his 20s billy would have said “yes, i’d go to heaven”

would he be right?

would he be wrong?

can he not know?

if he could be wrong, can you?

i think the bible is vague on this for the same reason jesus didn’t give “rules for living”:

human beings have a way of taking rules and twisting them to their own sinful desires and weak psychological needs.

we always are looking for the easy “what can i get away with?”

when what god desires from us is, “what more can i give? how much more can i love?”

the verses josiah posted are a wonderful example: the bible seems to teach both, and yet not both — at the same time.

and still, somehow, millions of us find wisdom in christ’s words, and in the letters his followers wrote in the decades after his resurrection.

this is because they are deeper than “rules”.

where’s the line?

what defines “course joking” ?

is it simply using a (gasp!) curse-word?

is it lewdness?

is it always only in the ear of the beholder?

are there simply some things a christian should never say, under any circumstances?

(and if so, can you tell us without sinning???)

is what you ought not to joke about, or say, variable depending on whom you’re with? (and, yes, we know you’re always with god, that’s a given)

are there “levels” of course joking, with some stuff being okay for sally, but for jenny that would be a sin?

another point often brought up — by the more conservative among us, usually — is something along these lines:

“…but, if christians are not even supposed to give even the slightest impression of sinning…”

to which i resopnd: but jesus was accused of being a drunkard — surely those who did so got the impression he was a sinner?

also, this brings up a related point:

there is a verse that the KJV is very widely quoted, even by people who use the NIV or other translations normally:

1 Thess 5:22 (KJV) — “Abstain from all appearance of evil.”

this verse is often misused to say that everything a christian does should never be able to be confused with something evil, by anyone.

but, as with a lot of things, the king james 600 year old verbiage is getting in the way of what god was really saying:

most other translations say something more like:

ESV: Abstain from every form of evil.

anyway, back to course joking: when is what you say simply wrong?

the idea of what’s “obscene” has changed a BUNCH in the past 30 years.

(anyone in here seen the movie grease lately? — its filthy! filled with offensive language — that was perfectly acceptable in its day. and i bet that if the producers of that film saw what we put on tv during primetime, they’d flip thier lids, with the ammount of skin we show)

i don’t believe simply “offending someone” can be the gauge, as i have heard some contend.

this is because of what i read in John 6

The Words of Eternal Life

60 When many of his disciples heard it, they said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” 61 But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples were grumbling about this, said to them, “Do you take offense at this? 62 Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? 63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is of no avail. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life…”

perhaps that’s a different “meaning” of the word offend than is often meant — but, there it is: clearly simply “if it offends, it’s wrong” won’t do as a test of what is or is not coarse joking.

in any case, our words can offend without being coarse joking — and coarse joking can be coarse joking, i think, w/o offending anyone in the room.

i think this just goes to point out, as i sit here and think about it, how wise jesus’ teachings are.

he really didn’t come with laws, as it’d be so easy to simply follow a list of laws and think we’re OK in god’s eyes (read: pharisees).

instead, he came with advice on real heart-change. changes in heart that result in sensitivity to the spirit, the fruit of which ends up being that things such as coarse joking naturally disappear from our behavior.

(or something along those lines)

i think that does NOT end the question, however:

since it was implied in my question that jesus does, in fact, hear everything anyway.

if we didn’t think god hears all we do, the question would be rather moot, even.

so, as it is, the question of “would you say it in front of jesus” is really just re-phrasing the question, in a way.

additionally, we get into the same problem of “…something jesus wouldn’t want to hear…” that we do with “what others don’t want to hear”.

who “decides” what jesus wants to hear and not hear from us?

that, really, was the point of my asking.

where do we end up drawing the line?

how do we end up drawing said line?

i submit that the lines we draw have little to do with jesus, the scripture, or leadings from the spirit so much as they have to do with the culture we’re brought up and live in.

Genesis 18:20 – 19:38 (English Standard Version)

Then the Lord said, “Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great and their sin is very grave, I will go down to see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry that has come to me. And if not, I will know.”

Abraham Intercedes for Sodom

So the men turned from there and went toward Sodom, but Abraham still stood before the Lord. Then Abraham drew near and said, “Will you indeed sweep away the righteous with the wicked? Suppose there are fifty righteous within the city. Will you then sweep away the place and not spare it for the fifty righteous who are in it? Far be it from you to do such a thing, to put the righteous to death with the wicked, so that the righteous fare as the wicked! Far be that from you! Shall not the Judge of all the earth do what is just?” And the Lord said, “If I find at Sodom fifty righteous in the city, I will spare the whole place for their sake.”

This is one of the passages in the one year bible, for today (jan 8, 2004).

how amazing is it that abraham appears to have changed god’s mind?

how incredible that god seems to at least want, if not need, to go down there and see for himself how bad the city has gotten?

i love how abraham points out god’s goodness (”far be it from you…”) and all but forces god’s hand in this matter.

how much faith must it take to stand face to face with the creator, and say, “hey, wait!” !

how would you have handled it, if you were in abrahams birkenstocks?

Matthew 11:19 (Contemporary English Version)

19 But the Son of Man goes around eating and drinking, and you say, “That man eats and drinks too much! He is even a friend of tax collectors and sinners.” Yet Wisdom is shown to be right by what it does.

jesus was, as we see here, accused of being a drunkard, because he hung around with “the wrong crowd” and drank (gasp!) with them.

don’t let anyone tell you you’re wrong for doing so.

but, what is permissible is not always what’s best.

i have found that i grow the most when i am involved in ministry.

when i am out there giving of myself, i find that i *need* all god can give me, from his word and from his spirit, and then i grow.

i suggest you find some way to serve, and fast.

seek god’s kingdom, both in your life, and in the lives of your friends: love the heck out of them. you don’t need to pretend to be perfect — faith is messy.

but start studying the sermon on the mount, and put those words into practice, and find a place to practice it.

iow: seek god’s kingdom *first*

the spirit, when you are in a growth posture will take care of helping you flee temptation.

i promise.

john said that “they” will know us by our love.

jesus said the entire law and the prophets comes down to love.

the “odds” (if you will) of you going door-to-door and finding the right person who’s all ready to “give thier life to christ” and you “leading them to the lord” are amazingly small.

i submit that you’d have more success winning people for the kingdom by working at starbucks, and loving the heck out of your co-workers and patrons.

basically, shining the light of the kingdom into a dark world is best done by “everyday” people, rather than “full time christian ministers”.

(like, i’m part-time?)

use your job as a context within which to engage in your purpose.

intentionally love your co-workers, being real with them, making friends with them, going to the movies, and the pub, and thier houses for parties, and the births of thier kids, and thier divorces, and funerals, and generally LOVE on them the way your parents love you (or should have, if they didn’t/don’t)…

…and, eventually, they give into the love that’s being shined thier way.

louis giglio says, “be the moon”.

that means, essentially, that you have no source of light on your own, but reflect only what the sun shins your way.

people think the moon is beautiful, and if you’re shining the love of christ, they will think YOU are, too.

but eventually they’ll start to realize that the light is reflected — and some of them will start looking for the sun itself.

it’s easy as can be — and the most natural thing in the world for a person who is really and truly following in christ’s steps.

Matthew 1:18-25 from the CEV:

This is how Jesus Christ was born.

A young woman named Mary was engaged to Joseph from King David’s family. But before they were married, she learned that she was going to have a baby by God’s Holy Spirit.

Joseph was a good man and did not want to embarrass Mary in front of everyone. So he decided to quietly call off the wedding.

While Joseph was thinking about this, an angel from the Lord came to him in a dream. The angel said, “Joseph, the baby that Mary will have is from the Holy Spirit. Go ahead and marry her. Then after her baby is born, name him Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.”

So the Lord’s promise came true, just as the prophet had said, “A virgin will have a baby boy, and he will be called Immanuel,” which means “God is with us.”

After Joseph woke up, he and Mary were soon married, just as the Lord’s angel had told him to do. But they did not sleep together before her baby was born. Then Joseph named him Jesus.

there seems to be two “hows” to answer here.

how # 1) its a miracle.

god simply impregnated a virgin, plain and simple. lots of people seem to think this is hugely important, and that one of the reasons jesus could live a sinless life was because he didn’t have a human father. i see no support for that in the bible.

how # 2) the mechanics

did he plant a sperm in there?

did he plant many sperms in there? (and did he choose which one won the race?)

was one of her eggs even used?

or, did god plant an entire embryo?

what i’m interested in is joeseph’s character: man, that dood waited months, and months, after he got married?

amazing.