Is Jesus a golden calf? (Jesus Christ, ritual, reject, Earth)

[Lintu]

Originally Posted by HelpMe

there was a good reason for that.joseph's uncle or something inherited a curse from [yhwh].you don't have to be blood related to get to the throne, and he didn't have to be first in line.

sry for not having evidence to point to, if you doubt the curse i cited, request it and i'll get to it.

Originally Posted by 2samuel7:12-13

I will set up your seed after you, who shall issue from your bowels, and I will establish his kingdom.

According to this line, it has to be the biological descendant.

[_salam_]

Originally Posted by Khale

Most people know the story of the Israelites and the golden calf. What a lot of people don't know is that the calf that was created was a sphinx like creature who's most prominent feature was its calf body. These creatures were believed to carry God down to earth. After a length of time people forgot God and began worshipping these sphinxes as God. Essentially they elevated something to a deific level because it was so close to the Holy One.

My Question then is this: Is it possible that Jesus might have been a good prophet (as many people believe) that was turned into a deity by his followers?

This question assumes that Jesus was at the very least a real person so answer accordingly.

I think this is very probable, and quite possibly what might have happened. I remember hearing somewhere, that right after Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) died, a small group of his followers wanted to start worshipping him, even though one of Muhammad's main messages was to worship God alone. Fortunately the Prophets close companions quickely put an end to this. Also, (and correct me if I'm wrong) aren't there certain sects of Buddhism that hold Buddha (the man that is) as a deity? And I know Buddha taught that he wasn't a god and that he shouldn't be worshipped.

[HelpMe]

does the tribe of judah remain?is their a temple in jerusalem now?


adoption is a valid vehicle into a bloodline inheritence.this has been done and done more times than i know or care to count, so i'll leave it at that.

[Lintu]

Originally Posted by HelpMe

adoption is a valid vehicle into a bloodline inheritence.this has been done and done more times than i know or care to count, so i'll leave it at that.

Really? In the lineage of Jewish kings? When?

[HelpMe]

again, i said i would leave it at that because i knew what it would incite."Jehoiachin" was the accursed relative of josephs i was referring to(jer22:30).

"In Genesis 15 verse 2, Abram lamented the fact that he had no natural son to inherit his estate, and it would fall to his chief servant Eliezar. This passage shows how all the rights and rank of a house can be transferred to a non-blood relative. Also, we read in Genesis chapter 48 that Israel adopted Joseph’s two sons, Ephriam and Manassah. They were now to be considered equal with Joseph’s brothers in inheriting the promises given to Israel and each of them were entitled to an equal portion of the land...

Jesus was an adopted son of Joseph, not a natural son. Because of this, he was legally entitled to David’s throne and the blood curse did not apply. However, David was promised a natural heir. By looking at the genealogy of Mary we see that Jesus had direct human ancestry to King David through Nathan. This fact allows for another law of inheritance to be exercised, one found in the writings of Moses.

In Numbers 27:6-11 we read of the daughters of Zelophehad, who were the only heirs of their father. Because there were no males born to the family, the inheritance of Zelophehad would be passed to his daughters and to their offspring. If there were no children to inherit, the nearest living relative would be entitled to the inheritance. Jesus was a son of David through Mary and entitled to all the benefits of the house of Eli. Because Johoiachin was counted as childless, none of that line was entitled to David’s throne, so the inheritance was to be transferred to a near kinsman. Jesus not only was entitled to the throne through adoption, but also as a kinsman redeemer of the Davidic line."

courtesy of




give me one person who is alive today that you can indisputably trace back to solomon.

[WitnessofJah]

LUKE CHAPTER 3:

23 Furthermore, Jesus himself, when he commenced [his work], was about thirty years old, being the son, as the opinion was,
of Joseph,
[son] of He´li,
24 [son] of Mat´that,
[son] of Le´vi,
[son] of Mel´chi,
[son] of Jan´na·i,
[son] of Joseph,

25 [son] of Mat·ta·thi´as,
[son] of A´mos,
[son] of Na´hum,
[son] of Es´li,
[son] of Nag´ga·i,

26 [son] of Ma´ath,
[son] of Mat·ta·thi´as,
[son] of Sem´e·in,
[son] of Jo´sech,
[son] of Jo´da,

27 [son] of Jo·an´an,
[son] of Rhe´sa,
[son] of Ze·rub´ba·bel,
[son] of She·al´ti·el,
[son] of Ne´ri,

28 [son] of Mel´chi,
[son] of Ad´di,
[son] of Co´sam,
[son] of El·ma´dam,
[son] of Er,

29 [son] of Jesus,
[son] of E·li·e´zer,
[son] of Jo´rim,
[son] of Mat´that,
[son] of Le´vi,

30 [son] of Sym´e·on,
[son] of Judas,
[son] of Joseph,
[son] of Jo´nam,
[son] of E·li´a·kim,

31 [son] of Me´le·a,
[son] of Men´na,
[son] of Mat´ta·tha,
[son] of Nathan,
[son] of David, (KING DAVID)

32 [son] of Jes´se, (KING DAVID's FATHER - YOU CAN EVEN CLARIFY THIS IN THE OT)
[son] of O´bed,
[son] of Bo´az,
[son] of Sal´mon,
[son] of Nah´shon,

33 [son] of Am·min´a·dab,
[son] of Ar´ni,
[son] of Hez´ron,
[son] of Pe´rez,
[son] of Judah, (FROM THE TRIBE OF JUDAH)

34 [son] of Jacob,
[son] of Isaac,
[son] of Abraham,
[son] of Te´rah,
[son] of Na´hor,

35 [son] of Se´rug,
[son] of Re´u,
[son] of Pe´leg,
[son] of E´ber,
[son] of She´lah,

36 [son] of Ca·i´nan,
[son] of Ar·pach´shad,
[son] of Shem,
[son] of Noah,
[son] of La´mech,

37 [son] of Me·thu´se·lah,
[son] of E´noch,
[son] of Ja´red,
[son] of Ma·ha´la·le·el,
[son] of Ca·i´nan,

38 [son] of E´nosh,
[son] of Seth,
[son] of Adam,
[son] of God.

--------------------------------

This is directly from the pages of the inspired word of God - The Bible.

The problem with the idea of Judaism with that Jesus Christ was not the Messiah, is that even IF he came back to the earth like Jews think will happen to save them - we could NEVER prove that he came from the line of David. Those records are LONG GONE and there is so way of ever retrieving them...so how would they prove that HE DID come from the line of King David even if he came back today?

On the otherhand, we have the Bible that TELLS US the EXACT genealogy of Jesus Christ, Son of God - who WAS the descendant of king David. Coincidence? Not at all.

[HelpMe]

witness, they were not calling into question the given geneology.they were questioning it's validity, with 'jesus' not being joseph's son by blood you know.

[WitnessofJah]

Originally Posted by HelpMe

witness, they were not calling into question the given geneology.they were questioning it's validity, with 'jesus' not being joseph's son by blood you know.

But you have to understand the above genealogy to be able to comprehend that. Notice how the above lineage has absolutlely no women - when there obviously would have been. Why is that? Because the traditional custom back in ancient Israel was that the legal "father" is always the name written down instead of the mother (i.e. Mary) whether or not Joseph was a literal blood relative of Jesus or not. Here is some info for you:

Ancient sentiment did not comport with the mention of the mother as the genealogical link. Among the Greeks a man was the son of his father, not of his mother; and among the Jews the adage was: ‘Genus matris non vocatur genus [“The descendant of the mother is not called (her) descendant”]’ (‘Baba bathra,’ 110, a).”—Commentary on Luke, 1981, p. 129.

Did you ever notice that in Matthew and in Luke records of Jesus a single woman's name is never mentioned as a the descendant even though of course there would have been some? That's because the male always takes priority - and that's why Luke and Matthew have been written: To write a legal record and a natural record - which is what would couse the difference in names over the two accounts.

If you look at the genealogical lineage in Matthew 1:1-17, you will see the "natural" lineage instead of the "legal" lineage provided in Luke 3:

2

Abraham became father to Isaac;

Isaac became father to Jacob;

Jacob became father to Judah and his brothers;

3 Judah became father to Pe´rez and to Ze´rah by Ta´mar;

Pe´rez became father to Hez´ron;

Hez´ron became father to Ram;

4 Ram became father to Am·min´a·dab;

Am·min´a·dab became father to Nah´shon;

Nah´shon became father to Sal´mon;

5 Sal´mon became father to Bo´az by Ra´hab;

Bo´az became father to O´bed by Ruth;

O´bed became father to Jes´se;

6 Jes´se became father to David the king.

David became father to Sol´o·mon by the wife of U·ri´ah;

7 Sol´o·mon became father to Re·ho·bo´am;

Re·ho·bo´am became father to A·bi´jah;

A·bi´jah became father to A´sa;

8 A´sa became father to Je·hosh´a·phat;

Je·hosh´a·phat became father to Je·ho´ram;

Je·ho´ram became father to Uz·zi´ah;

9 Uz·zi´ah became father to Jo´tham;

Jo´tham became father to A´haz;

A´haz became father to Hez·e·ki´ah;

10

Hez·e·ki´ah became father to Ma·nas´seh;

Ma·nas´seh became father to A´mon;

A´mon became father to Jo·si´ah;

11

Jo·si´ah became father to Jec·o·ni´ah and to his brothers at the time of the deportation to Babylon.

12

After the deportation to Babylon Jec·o·ni´ah became father to She·al´ti·el;

She·al´ti·el became father to Ze·rub´ba·bel;

13

Ze·rub´ba·bel became father to A·bi´ud;

A·bi´ud became father to E·li´a·kim;

E·li´a·kim became father to A´zor;

14

A´zor became father to Za´dok;

Za´dok became father to A´chim;

A´chim became father to E·li´ud;

15

E·li´ud became father to El·e·a´zar;

El·e·a´zar became father to Mat´than;

Mat´than became father to Jacob;

16 Jacob became father to Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ.

[HelpMe]

i wasn't agreeing with them, if you'll read my second to last post.you might notive i defend the position more precisely than you.

i did not question whether or not his ancestory traced back, i don't see a reason why you would post his leniage here especially towards me.

[Scuba Pete]

Well we can pull geneologies out of our hats all day... the crucial question is and has always been:

Is the tomb empty???

All other questions and their subsequent answers are addressed by this. No matter what our perception of what the Old Testament said or didn't say, it is moot if he was indeed raised from the dead. All of the arguments become little more than "red herrings" in light of this one. If he is still there my faith is in vain. If he has risen, then EVERYTHING that I stand for is true, and we are merely quibbling over details.