- This topic has 933 replies, 47 voices, and was last updated 2 years, 7 months ago by
.
- Posts
Quote (kerwin @ Nov. 10 2010,20:23) Adam, They abandoned him only during his arrest and trial but were witnesses with the multitude when he was crucified if I understand the event. They may not have let it be known that Jesus was their teacher though Jesus acknowledged the one he put as caregiver to his mother. There was also converts after the event, including most likely at least one guard.
Be careful to avoid the spirit of faultfinding, as John clearly states that Jesus’ mother and two of his disciples were standing near enough the cross to hear Jesus speak, John 19:25-29. The unnamed disciple was probably John.
Jesus crucifixion is relevant to the message but the details of that crucifixion that don’t fulfill scripture are not relevant either. Trusting the eye witnesses and reporters to give honest accounts is.
Hi brother Kerwin,
I am sorry to say your replies are making me to find fault with the scriptures. Again you say that the details of crucifixion like uttering “Eli Eli Lama…” not relevant for fulfilling so called scriptures as alleged by Matthew , Mark and Luke. Where can I stop my arguments if you find fault with my queries? If John claimed Jesus carried his own cross but the other Gospel writers claimed Simon the Cyrenean carried it. If these details are not required then why did they quote them as if they were the eye witnesses? Is it God's word to be so much foolishly contradict each incident?Quote (gollamudi @ Nov. 10 2010,20:35) Quote (Ed J @ Nov. 10 2010,20:09) Where does Matthew say Jesus, Jesus' mother, Joseph abode but Bethlehem?
But Matthew has Joseph’s family living in Bethlehem (Matt 2:11) for up to two years after the birth of Jesus (Matt 2:16)! And after the Magi leave, Joseph is warned in a dream to flee to Egypt and stay there until Herod died (Matt. 2:15). After Herod died, Joseph was told in a dream to return to the land of Israel, and he headed for his home in Bethlehem of Judea. But since he was afraid to go there, he settled in Nazareth (Matt. 2:21-23), for the first time!
Hi Adam,Matthew never actually says they lived in Bethlehem,
but only that they fled to Galilee. Eye witness accounts
usually always very.God bless
Ed J
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgAdam,
I do not trust experts and your example is one reason.
We do not know where Jesus’ family lived according to Matthew until after Jesus’ birth as the witness does not tell us but starts by stating after his birth in Bethlehem the Magi came looking for him. Herod came as soon as he suspected the Magi had tricked him and the Angel came immediately after the Magi left. So I cannot even say the family lived in Bethlehem at all.
Matthew does not state that was the first time Joseph lived in Nazareth but rather that in choosing to do so he fulfilled a prophecy.
So the experts are making conclusions based on ideas that scripture does not express.
Adam,
The four gospels are biographies and Acts is a history. Even the letters, which are teachings, have unimportant and time specific parts.
Quote (kerwin @ Nov. 10 2010,21:07) Adam, I do not trust experts and your example is one reason.
We do not know where Jesus’ family lived according to Matthew until after Jesus’ birth as the witness does not tell us but starts by stating after his birth in Bethlehem the Magi came looking for him. Herod came as soon as he suspected the Magi had tricked him and the Angel came immediately after the Magi left. So I cannot even say the family lived in Bethlehem at all.
Matthew does not state that was the first time Joseph lived in Nazareth but rather that in choosing to do so he fulfilled a prophecy.
So the experts are making conclusions based on ideas that scripture does not express.
Hi brother again you made me to criticize by stating that Matthew didn't know where Jesus' parents lived but claimed that his parents were afraid to come back to their country of Israel but chose Nazareth to fulfill prophecy. What a great idea! He was not at all aware of the so called census which was supported by Luke to bring Jesus parents to Bethlehem to fulfill another O.T prophecy. Luke claimed they returned to their home town (City) Nazareth than some other place as you seem to assume. How long we can protect such unreliable scriptures from skeptics?
I am sorry
AdamKerwin…………You said John was present and heard Jesus say ” MY GOD, My GOD why has thou forsaken me” but there are other sources that say that was not John and in fact they say John did not write the Gospel of John. The DISCIPLE That Jesus loved some say was Lazarus the brother of Mary and Martha whom Jesus raised from the grave, it is said it is this reason the name John is never mentioned in it, But the writer is mention as the disciple whom Jesus loved. A (disciple) does not have to be an (apostle). There is reason to believe John never wrote the Gospel of John. I am not saying that he did not, but there is question as to authenticity of the author of John raised by many scholars.
Scripture does say the Apostles did forsake Him, in fear of their lives so may have not truly been present at the time of his execution. Again speculation , but scripture does say they would all forsake Him , and would leave him. Jesus indicated also he would be alone except for GOD, also. But it is plausible that Lazarus and Mary and some were there and could have given an eye witness account of what Jesus said. And to me a man who trusted GOD with his whole heart could have cried out “My God, My God , why have you forsaken Me”, as He came unto the (realization) that God was truly was going to let him die , Jesus may have believed that God would some how intervene at the last moment , but when he came to that realization GOD was not going too, he could yelled that out. I hardly believe he would have said it is finished and just bowed his head and died, However both things are possible, if we consider all the blood lose he had experienced, there could have come a time when he simple said it is finished, When a person bleeds to death they do enter into a state of euphoria before death that is why so man cut there wrist and bleed to death i heard. Don't know both thing are possible to have taken place. IMO
peace and love to you and yours……………………………gene
Hi brother Gene,
I don't think Lazarus was the beloved disciple as the beloved disciple never quoted his name but Lazarus name was mentioned by him as a third person. Even John is doubtful as you rightly quoted above according to John 21 where sons of Zebedee mentioned by the beloved disciple separately along with Peter. Since John was one of the sons of Zebedee he could not have been the beloved disciple. Some speculated Mary Magdalene as the beloved disciple. It can not be true since her name was mentioned separately apart from the beloved disciple in his Gospel. Certainly he must be one of the closest disciples of Jesus since he always accompanied Peter. Some have speculated that the beloved disciple might be one of the brothers of Jesus. If John 21 is the later interpolation we can probably consider John as the beloved disciple. I hope brother Kerwin will agree with me.Love and peace to you
AdamAdam……I don't really know he is i have read where Lazarus was considered as the author , many Scholars do not believe John wrote it , because of the language used , i really do not know Brother, I will see if i can remember some of the other reasons for them thinking Lazarus (MAY) have written it, I remember where one said Lazarus followed them around but was never considered as a APOSTLE so he was kinda of looked down on by the Apostles who were called by GOD for there specific Offices. Adam i am not sure of any of this brother , you are probably right . The language in the Prologue does seem to fit John's usage of “in the beginning”,which can be a marker or tie to him. IMO
peace and love to you and yours brother………………………………………………………gene
Adam,
The NIV does not say it was the family’s house that Jesus was at when the Magi showed up but merely it was a house that the child and his mother were at. It also does not say how old he was but only that the Magi were unsure of his age. I will say he was circumcised at Jerusalem which means he was at least several days old. These things you can see for yourself.
I did read the account of Jesus’ crucifixion in Matthew and it appears to be told from a soldier’s point of view. The point of view gives more details of the actions of the soldiers and less of the group nearby group of mostly woman John was part of. I wonder if John was dressed as a woman. Idle curiosity as there is no evidence to support such a proposition beyond the soldiers not noticing a man and the fear of the disciples. Still, there are no real contradictions, just differences based on point of view.
Sorry, It appears I did not read your post carefully the first time.
Isaiah 7:14 — Virgin or Not?
A center point of Christian belief is in that Mary conceived Jesus without sex. Matthew 1:22-23 states: “Now all this took place that what has spoken by the L-ord through the prophet might be fulfilled saying: 'Behold the virgin shall be with child and shall bear a son and they shall call his name Immanuel, which translated means, 'G-d with us.'”
In the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible, the translation of Isaiah 7:14 seems to be the prophecy Matthew spoke of: “Therefore the L-rd himself will give you a sign: Behold a virgin will be with child and bear a son and she will call his name Immanuel” (KJV).
But wait! The Hebrew text (of which a 1900 year-old version is on display in the Israel Museum) doesn't mention anything about a “virgin.” The Hebrew word for virgin is “betulah” but it appears nowhere in this text. The word used is “almah” which refers to a young woman, but not a virgin! Isaiah only uses the word once. But he knew how to use the word “betulah” — he uses it five times.
Another problem with the text is that it is not a prophecy with respect to the coming of the Messiah. If one reads the entire chapter, one sees that flaw immediately. The birth of the child, Immanuel, was to be a sign from G-d to King Ahaz, who lived at least 500 years before Jesus. The sign is meant to convince Ahaz that he shouldn't worry about the two invading armies. A simple analogy is in old spy movies where the spy meets someone secretly and recognizes him because he is standing in a pre-arranged spot, wears clothing and ornaments that are relatively unique, and says something that would not seem remarkable except for the spy expecting to hear it. Clearly, the sign for Ahaz is something that would seem unremarkable to most people — a young woman has given birth to a boy whom she happens to name Immanuel, which was perhaps not the most popular name in those days. But to Ahaz it is a special sign that had meaning 500 years before Jesus, and apparently occurred.
Christian missionaries, nevertheless, will tell you that this sign also was meant to predict who the Messiah was. Moreover, they will say that an “almah” can be a virgin. Well, I doubt the first argument. It is absurd to think that G-d would give him a sign Ahaz needs right away that will not occur for another 500 years. The second issue is also absurd. Can you imagine poor Ahaz going to each household asking new mothers if they were virgins or not? Poor Ahaz would have thought to be totally screwy and would have been overthrown.
A final problem with the text is that it predicts that the child would be called “Immanuel.” Jesus was not called “Immanuel,” he was called “Jesus.”
Why did the Christians manufacture a prophecy about a virgin birth — something that is not required of the Messiah? The answer is clear. When the Jews did not accept Jesus as the Messiah (because the many preconditions for the Messianic era had not been fulfilled), the Church faced the real threat that non-Jews would reject him too. So Paul did two things: He issued an order that said that a Christian no longer had to observe Jewish laws (Acts 15), and he introduced a few pagan myths into the new Christian religion so that it would appeal to the pagan gentiles. One such myth concerned the god Attis, who was worshiped in Western Asia (where Paul actively preached). According to The Golden Bough, by Frazier, Attis was born from a virgin. He later was mutilated and bled to death. The worship of Attis involved an effigy of him that was hung. Afterwards it would be buried in a cave, and when the tomb was reopened, the god Attis would rise from the dead and softly whisper glad tidings of salvation. In the Roman worship of Attis, an animal's blood, symbolic of the blood of Attis, would be poured on worshipers. They believed that his blood would wash away the worshipers sins. (Like Early Christians, worshipers of Attis also practiced celibacy). The two religions are so close that it cannot be a coincidence. Rather, Paul introduced these ideas into the worship of Jesus. Hence, he had to manufacture in Tanach a prophecy that the Messiah would be immaculately conceived.
source: http://judaism.about.com/od/jewishviewofjesus/a/jesus_virgin.htm
Adam…………I do agree with your findings of the Immanuel thing. I researched that many years ago with the Jews and we all came to the same conclusion you have posted here, The word used there was a young Maiden not a Virgin, as used in the new testament translations, also Jesus was Never call Emanuel ever. That prophesy was for Ahaz and not about Jesus at all. Any Honest search of scripture will disclose that. It does call Matt into some doubt brother, as to its authenticity and construction. I do believe our present text has be altered and tampered with over time, to refelct Trinitarian Ideologies and Teachings.
As far as the rest of that about Paul introducing the God Attis i find that very unlikely and it probably is from a Jewish source and as you well know they do not accept Jesus as the Messiah or as the Anointed one. Jesus was indeed the anointed one of GOD Brother no two way about that. To many Witness to ever doubt that Adam. IMO
peace and love to you and yours……………………………….gene
Thanks for your comments brother Gene. But I now doubt much Christianity as the writers of N.T were not honest in applying Jewish scriptures I mean our O.T as you rightly said about writer of Matthew. The same way it can be applied to any writer why not even Paul who and his followers who allegedly had written Philippians, Colossians, Ephesian and Pastorial epistles which contain lot of preexistence myth? Please acknowledge the primitive religion of Bible that is Monotheism. Christianity has changed its face value and incorporated lot of Paganism like Devils, Hell, so called human sacrifice for sin atonement, Eucharist which is celebrated in Pagan rituals etc.
Hope you will also come out from such mythological religion. Jesus never fulfilled any Messianic prophecies if you rightly compare with O.T. We say he will fulfill them when he comes again. God knows when? There was no two comings for Messiah in O.T. It is all Christian invention. They made Jesus another God or god-man. It is simply idolatry I believe to worship any human as God.Peace and love ot you
AdamAdam……….I do agree that Christan has made Jesus into a God or Demigod or super Angel which they worship and in that are connecting Idolatry> The apostle Paul in his letter to the Thessalonian's Has say that 2 Ths 2, and John also conferred that also by describing those who do not believe Jesus came as a Flesh beings were Antichrists, and that this teachings had its roots in their day. However because the text has been alter to fit those conclusions, it does not negate the fact the the Jews saw the great miracles done through Jesus in their day, but they attributed it to Beelzebub, so even in that they were not denying those things were being done, so can we deny them?< in fact even other Jewish historians acknowledge His existence as Jehoshaphat the ancient Jewish historian for instance. These writing can be found even outside of our scriptures so we can not deny he existed and there were many eye witness to these things brother. We should not through out the baby with the wash brother. You need to keep in mind the Jews have a predisposition to reject Jesus and Paul both in there belief system. Try not to fall in that trap brother some of what they say is true but some is not true either. Use the Spirit of Truth given you by GOD let it have its perfect Work. IMO
peace and love to you and yours Adam……………………………………..gene
Hi brother Gene,
I know it is very difficult to comment on an established religion like Christianity. You quoted Jewish historian Josephus now it is proved by the historians that the alleged quote on Jesus in his book was a Christian forgery which claimed even Josephus a hardcore Jew accepted Jesus as more than a man and true Messiah. I bring you another evidence from Gospel of John to prove Christianity as mere Pagan religion. It is here in John 6:53Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
54Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
55For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
56He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
57As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.
58This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.
Where on earth this writer of John got this idea of eating human flesh and drinking human blood which is nothing but cannibalism no Hebrew scripture supports this Pagan ritual which today has become Eucharist in Christianity. What can you say brother? The same writer supports full blown preexistence in the same Chapter. Please see truth in my arguments.
Peace to you
AdamQuote (gollamudi @ Nov. 22 2010,19:01) Hi brother Gene,
I know it is very difficult to comment on an established religion like Christianity. You quoted Jewish historian Josephus now it is proved by the historians that the alleged quote on Jesus in his book was a Christian forgery which claimed even Josephus a hardcore Jew accepted Jesus as more than a man and true Messiah. I bring you another evidence from Gospel of John to prove Christianity as mere Pagan religion. It is here in John 6:53Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
54Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
55For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
56He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
57As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.
58This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.
Where on earth this writer of John got this idea of eating human flesh and drinking human blood which is nothing but cannibalism no Hebrew scripture supports this Pagan ritual which today has become Eucharist in Christianity. What can you say brother? The same writer supports full blown preexistence in the same Chapter. Please see truth in my arguments.
Peace to you
Adam
Adamwhat are you doing here ,I mean on the believers side
you do not believe most of what Christ is all about,
wen are you going to leave this side to go were you belong???
and take Gene with you .
Please
Pierre
Please see this Catholic Christian creed no virgin birth surprisingly;
The Arian Catholic Creed…
I BELIEVE IN ONE GOD,
Creator of Heaven and earth,
And of all things visible and invisible.
And in his Spiritual Son, Jesus Christ,
Whom was born of Mary and Joseph,
Was not consubstantial nor co-eternal with God the Father almighty,
Suffered under Pontius Pilate; was crucified, died, and was buried.
On the third day His Spirit was resurrected.
He ascended into Heaven,
And sitteth at the right hand of God, the Father almighty.
Whence he shall come again to judge the living and the dead,
Of whose Kingdom there shall be no end.And I believe in the Holy Spirit,
The Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church,
The communion of saints,
The forgiveness of sins,
The resurrection of the Spirit,
And life everlasting.
Amen.Adam,
Arianism was a widespread sect. Are there Arian versions of the gospels of Matthew and Luke? Was this a minor variation of the Arian creed?
Quote (kerwin @ Nov. 22 2010,22:57) Adam, Arianism was a widespread sect. Are there Arian versions of the gospels of Matthew and Luke? Was this a minor variation of the Arian creed?
Please go through think link for more details http://arian-catholic.org/Adam,
What I read is just another false doctrine that appears influenced by the Roman Catholic religion though it has some things right. I saw nothing about gospels beyond accusing the various Catholic churches of destroying some church doctrines. If you can aid me to find the manuscripts of those two books I asked for and their date I would appreciate it.
I. THE BIRTH OF JESUS
A. THE GENEALOGIES OF JOSEPH
1. Matthew and Luke disagree
Matthew and Luke give two contradictory genealogies for Joseph (Matthew 1:2-17 and Luke 3:23-38). They cannot even agree on who the father of Joseph was. Church apologists try to eliminate this discrepancy by suggesting that the genealogy in Luke is actually Mary's, even though Luke says explicitly that it is Joseph's genealogy (Luke 3:23). Christians have had problems reconciling the two genealogies since at least the early fourth century. It was then that Eusebius, a “Church Father,” wrote in his The History of the Church, “each believer has been only too eager to dilate at length on these passages.”
2. Why genealogies of Joseph?
Both the genealogies of Matthew and Luke show that Joseph was a direct descendant of King David. But if Joseph is not Jesus' father, then Joseph's genealogies are meaningless as far as Jesus is concerned, and one has to wonder why Matthew and Luke included them in their gospels. The answer, of course, is that the genealogies originally said that Jesus was the son of Joseph and thus Jesus fulfilled the messianic requirement of being a direct descendant of King David.
Long after Matthew and Luke wrote the genealogies the church invented (or more likely borrowed from the mystery religions) the doctrine of the virgin birth. Although the virgin birth could be accommodated by inserting a few words into the genealogies to break the physical link between Joseph and Jesus, those same insertions also broke the physical link between David and Jesus.
The church had now created two major problems: 1) to explain away the existence of two genealogies of Joseph, now rendered meaningless, and 2) to explain how Jesus was a descendant of David.
The apostle Paul says that Jesus “was born of the seed of David” (Romans 1:3). Here the word “seed” is literally in the Greek “sperma.” This same Greek word is translated in other verses as “descendant(s)” or “offspring.” The point is that the Messiah had to be a physical descendant of King David through the male line. That Jesus had to be a physical descendant of David means that even if Joseph had legally adopted Jesus (as some apologists have suggested), Jesus would still not qualify as Messiah if he had been born of a virgin – seed from the line of David was required.
Women did not count in reckoning descent for the simple reason that it was then believed that the complete human was present in the man's sperm (the woman's egg being discovered in 1827). The woman's womb was just the soil in which the seed was planted. Just as there was barren soil that could not produce crops, so also the Bible speaks of barren wombs that could not produce children.
This is the reason that although there are many male genealogies in the Bible, there are no female genealogies. This also eliminates the possibility put forward by some apologists that Jesus could be of the “seed of David” through Mary.
[Editor's note: As one reader has pointed out, “Genesis 3:15 says 'And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her Seed.' So women can pass on 'seed' according to the bible.”]
3. Why do only Matthew and Luke know of the virgin birth?
Of all the writers of the New Testament, only Matthew and Luke mention the virgin birth. Had something as miraculous as the virgin birth actually occurred, one would expect that Mark and John would have at least mentioned it in their efforts to convince the world that Jesus was who they were claiming him to be.
The apostle Paul never mentions the virgin birth, even though it would have strengthened his arguments in several places. Instead, where Paul does refer to Jesus' birth, he says that Jesus “was born of the seed of David” (Romans 1:3) and was “born of a woman,” not a virgin (Galatians 4:4).
4. Why did Matthew include four women in Joseph's genealogy?
Matthew mentions four women in the Joseph's genealogy.
a. Tamar – disguised herself as a harlot to seduce Judah, her father-in-law (Genesis 38:12-19).
b. Rahab – was a harlot who lived in the city of Jericho in Canaan (Joshua 2:1).
c. Ruth – at her mother-in-law Naomi's request, she came secretly to where Boaz was sleeping and spent the night with him. Later Ruth and Boaz were married (Ruth 3:1-14).
d. Bathsheba – became pregnant by King David while she was still married to Uriah (2 Samuel 11:2-5).
To have women mentioned in a genealogy is very unusual. That all four of the women mentioned are guilty of some sort of sexual impropriety cannot be a coincidence. Why would Matthew mention these, and only these, women? The only reason that makes any sense is that Joseph, rather than the Holy Spirit, impregnated Mary prior to their getting married, and that this was known by others who argued that because of this Jesus could not be the Messiah. By mentioning these women in the genealogy Matthew is in effect saying, “The Messiah, who must be a descendant of King David, will have at least four “loose women” in his genealogy, so what difference does one more make?”
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
