• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Historical Jesus

Status
Not open for further replies.

gnostic

The Lost One
s-word said:
To fulfil the prophecy concerning the promised one, my dear friend. To fulfil the prophecy concerning the promised one, “I will call my son out of Egypt.”

I know of this so-called prophecy. My problem is that you have located Jesus' birthplace in Galilee, when he was supposed to be born in the same town as David and belonging in the same tribe as David, and the same town that Rachel had died and buried.

s-word said:
After seeing the evidence that there was a Bethlehem in Galilee which was but a few kilometres from Nazareth; are you still of this belief?

Absolutely meaningless, considering that the magi visited Joseph and Mary in Bethlehem, Judaea, and that Joseph was warned by angel shortly after these magi left.

Bethlehem is only a short distance from Jerusalem (about 10 kilometres), and even shorter distance from Bethlehem (Judaea) to Egypt. The distance they would have to travel from Galilee to Egypt would be even a greater strain on woman who had just given birth.

According to all so-called prophecy that Jesus would be born in the same town that David was born in, then it has to be Bethlehem in former kingdom of Judah, which is in Judaea, in Jesus' time. Otherwise Jesus wouldn't be fulfilling his supposed destiny (and prophecy) of supposed messiah.
 

logician

Well-Known Member
"to fulfil the prophecy concerning the promised one, my dear friend. To fulfil the prophecy concerning the promised one, “I will call my son out of Egypt."

Actually, the writer of Matthew was obsessed with making sure his story seemed to fulfill the OT prophesies, which were for THEIR day and time only, not way into the future. Just another reason to think the whole Jesus story was fabricated.


 

S-word

Well-Known Member
I know of this so-called prophecy. My problem is that you have located Jesus' birthplace in Galilee, when he was supposed to be born in the same town as David and belonging in the same tribe as David, and the same town that Rachel had died and buried.


Never anywhere at anytime have I ever stated that the birth place of Jesus was anywhere other than Bethlehem of Judaea, where the child was circumcised when a week old, from where, 33 days after the circumcision Mary took her baby to the temple in Jerusalem where she performed the ceremony of purification according to the time required by the law of Moses.

And after completing everything that was required of the law, they returned to the home of Mary in Galilee in the town of Nazareth to where, a year or so later, the wise men went to pay homage to the young child Jesus , who by then was over a year old. When in heavens name are you going to learn to understand that which you have read? Show any passage where I have said that Jesus was born in any place other than Bethlehem of Judaea, or apoligise.


quote=gnostic; Absolutely meaningless, considering that the magi visited Joseph and Mary in Bethlehem, Judaea, and that Joseph was warned by angel shortly after these magi left.

And from where did you receive this little gem? It certainly never came from any passage in Scripture. Herod chose the age of the young boys who were to be slaughtered as two years and below, according to the information that he received from the visitors as to when they first sighted the star that had heralded the birth of Jesus. When do you think was the time that they revealed to Herod, that they had seen the star that had heralded the birth of Jesus?

If as you suggest, the wise men went to Bethlehem of Judaea, when you know from Luke that the family had returned to Nazareth when Jesus was only two months old, then the star that had heralded his birth must have been seen by the wise men, who you believe were present at the manger, (Which can be found nowhere in scripture) only a month previous to their visit, according to you erroneous belief. So why would Herod choose the age as two years and below, according to the time that the visitors had revealed that they first saw the star, when, by killing all the boys 6 month and below would have been more than enough to suffice?

Add to all this, the fact that after the wise men left the house of Mary Joseph was warned to get up and take the child and his mother and flee into Egypt, this event has obviously not occured in the two months between the time that Jesus was born and when Mary went to the temple in Jerusalem where, after preforming the ceremony of purification they returned to their home in Nazareth.

quote=gnostic; Bethlehem is only a short distance from Jerusalem (about 10 kilometres), and even shorter distance from Bethlehem (Judaea) to Egypt. The distance they would have to travel from Galilee to Egypt would be even a greater strain on woman who had just given birth.


Get your facts straight, Herod was looking for a young child who was over one year old, according to the time that the wise men had revealed that they had first seen the star that had heralded the birth of Jesus.

Mary was not a woman who had just given birth, in fact she had given birth to Jesus two months before she even went to the temple in Jerusalem and performed the ceremony of purification immediatly after which, she had returned to Nazareth to where the wise men later went in search of the young child who was then over a year later.

quote=gnostic; According to all so-called prophecy that Jesus would be born in the same town that David was born in, then it has to be Bethlehem in former kingdom of Judah, which is in Judaea, in Jesus' time. Otherwise Jesus wouldn't be fulfilling his supposed destiny (and prophecy) of supposed messiah.

Of course it was Bethlehem of Judaea in which the unmarried Mary gave birth to Jesus, what do you think that I have been saying in every post in every thread in every forum, where I have been asked to respond in referrence to the birth place of Jesus. For goodness sake, try to understand that which you read. And by the way, you didn't answer whether you now believe that there was a town in Galilee by the name of Bethlehem, where some misinformed so-called scholars believe that Jesus may have been born,
 
Last edited:

S-word

Well-Known Member
"to fulfil the prophecy concerning the promised one, my dear friend. To fulfil the prophecy concerning the promised one, “I will call my son out of Egypt."

Actually, the writer of Matthew was obsessed with making sure his story seemed to fulfill the OT prophesies, which were for THEIR day and time only, not way into the future. Just another reason to think the whole Jesus story was fabricated.

Matey, you're entitled to your opinion, and to put your pennys worth in, but in a biblical debate, the opinions of godless people are of no concern to me, as they have nothing constructive to add to the debate except, “None of It’s True, Nah Nah Na-Nah Nahhhh.” Good night mate, no offence intended.
 

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
Matey, you're entitled to your opinion, and to put your pennys worth in, but in a biblical debate, the opinions of godless people are of no concern to me, as they have nothing constructive to add to the debate except, “None of It’s True, Nah Nah Na-Nah Nahhhh.” Good night mate, no offence intended.
And you show why a Biblical debate can not be done with you. You dismiss the opinions of anyone you consider godless. That is not how one logically debates. That is how one avoids actual debate.
 

AK4

Well-Known Member
Yet, if literacy was higher, wouldn't it be assumed that someone would have written down the story of Jesus sooner than 4 decades after he died? Why did they settle just for oral tradition?

.

Sorry i must jump in here and i may be a little late but anyways what i have never seen in this forum yet is a defense of such statements as what is underlined above is that NONE of the writers wrote anything earlier than what they were supposed to. Jesus told them before He left that "there is much I want to tell you but you can not handle it right now" which is saying that the Apostles and disciples did not know everything instantly but that through the following years and decades they learned more and more and didnt put things into writing (because they knew they would be writing scripture) until they knew for sure that what they wrote is what God wanted to be known or to be scripture. The evidence is all in the scriptures of this.

Thats why they convened and argued intensly in Acts 15 on what the gentiles should have to do. Thats why Paul told Luke to bring him all his letters (or "especially the parchments") so that Peter could look them over. They disciples and Apostles didnt write or "make things scripture" until they were absolutely sure that what they wrote was what God wanted known. Heres something that explains it better.

CANONIZATION OF ALL SCRIPTURES WAS CRITICAL

Because there was apostasy coming in the church. There is crime and corruption entering in; false prophets, antichrists, strong delusions. It says men shall be lovers of themselves, disobedient, proud, vain, booster, lovers of pleasure (II Tim. 3) and all of these things are coming into the church. So they need to be sure that everybody knows what is the Truth. Now they are going to set aside the books for the final canonization, as what are the Scriptures.

Now look a little bit at what we can gleam, there are all kinds of outside information, tradition and some history. There are traditions of the Jews that I could bring in here, but I wanted to stick pretty much just to the Scriptures. So we can see from the Scripture how and why God brought everything together.

Something really interesting to me, is the doctrine of 2 administrations; one for the Jews and one for the Gentiles. Two different gospels and all that nonsense. The Concordant Publishing teach that, a total farce. You can read my paper ‘Exposing The Secret Rapture,’ a 100 pages that just blows all that away.

II Peter was written to show the apostasy that had set in and would grow worse. That the WORDS OF THE PROPHETS AND THE WORDS OF THE APOSTLES must be heeded and preserved.

II Peter 3:2 that you may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us, the apostles of the Lord and Savior,

But Peter says, Paul writes to you, isn’t that what he says in II Peter 3:15?
But I thought Peter was suppose to go to the Jews and Paul to the Gentiles. Now it says in Gal. 2, that I (Paul) was to the uncircumcised and Peter to the circumcised.

Gal 2:7 …when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter.

But look at this.

II Peter 3:14 Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for these things, give diligence that ye may be found in peace, without spot and blameless in his sight.
v. 15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also, according to the wisdom given to him, wrote unto you;

Who did Paul write all his epistles to? The Gentiles. Paul is now in prison in Roman and Peter is writing to the Gentiles. What is going on here? Apparently Paul wanted him to, because Paul can’t get these letters out being in Roman, like he use to.

II Peter 3:16 as also in ALL his epistles, speaking in them of these things;

What did Peter know about “all his (Paul’s) epistles”? Because Peter had them. He had them all. How did he get them?

II Tim. 4:11 Only Luke is with me. Take Mark, and bring him with you; for he is useful to me for ministering.
v. 12 But Tychicus I sent to Ephesus.
v. 13 The cloak that I left at Troas with Carpus, bring when thou come, and the books, ESPECIALLY THE PARCHMENTS.

These are Paul’s letters. These are not the books, but the vellums, these are his epistles. Why would he want all his epistles? Didn’t he know what he said? Well he knows his time is near the end and Paul knows what he has written is Scripture. We read many Scripture showing that he knew that he was writing ‘Bible verses’ if you will.
Now Paul wants Mark to come and bring those letters, because he’s going to go through them. In fact he’s going to edit some of them.

Eph 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus through the will of God, to the saints that are at Ephesus,

It doesn’t just say to the saints of God, but “that are in Ephesus,” That was editorialized, because his first letters apparently do not contain that. But then he edited it, so that they would know where this letter went.
Of course Ephesus was really the head quarters for the Asian church.
Remember there are 7 churches on a mail route; Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamos, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia and Laodicea. But the head church was always in Ephesus.

So he says, bring the parchments ‘especially’ I want those, these were Paul’s epistles. Now Mark returned to Peter in Babylon. Remember Peter wrote from Babylon.

II Peter 5:13 The church is in Babylon, elect together with you, greets you; and so does Mark my son.

So Paul said sent Mark and be sure to bring the vellums and he must have brought them. Paul then edits them and says these are the ones. He started with the most important one of all for basic information, the book of Romans. It sets the doctrinal standards, but it’s mostly milk as far as doctrine goes. This leads up to his last epistles written from prison, Ephesians, Philippians and Colossians. These are the most spiritually strong Scripture in the whole bible.

Now Mark is back in Babylon with Peter and then when we go to II Peter, guess what? Peter has all of Paul’s epistles. There was a reason why Mark got them and took them to Paul. Then Paul sent them with Mark and he gave them to Peter. Now Peter has got them all, at least all the ones that Paul wanted to be sent to him. So Peter is definitely in charge of the Scriptures and here he talks about his epistles and the OTHER Scriptures. So he knows what the other Scriptures are.

So obviously the Apostles had all the Scriptures. They had the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the writings, they had it all. It (Old Testament) was in the synagogues and the Temple until 70 AD, but they also had them.

General epistles James, Peter, John and Jude should come before Paul's epistles. They were first to teach, first in authority (Acts 15) and first in teaching the milk of God's Word, followed by Paul's strong meat of God's Word.
 

S-word

Well-Known Member
Sorry i must jump in here and i may be a little late but anyways what i have never seen in this forum yet is a defense of such statements as what is underlined above is that NONE of the writers wrote anything earlier than what they were supposed to. Jesus told them before He left that "there is much I want to tell you but you can not handle it right now" which is saying that the Apostles and disciples did not know everything instantly but that through the following years and decades they learned more and more and didnt put things into writing (because they knew they would be writing scripture) until they knew for sure that what they wrote is what God wanted to be known or to be scripture. The evidence is all in the scriptures of this.

Thats why they convened and argued intensly in Acts 15 on what the gentiles should have to do. Thats why Paul told Luke to bring him all his letters (or "especially the parchments") so that Peter could look them over. They disciples and Apostles didnt write or "make things scripture" until they were absolutely sure that what they wrote was what God wanted known. Heres something that explains it better.

Luke 1:1; Many people,I'll just repeat that, many people have done their best to write a report of these things that have taken place among us. They wrote what we have been told by those who saw these things from the beginning and who proclaimed the message.

According to Luke there were many letters being exchanged between the literate christian groups.

On nearly every work site that has been studied by archeologists there has been found Graffito scribbled by the common old labourers.
 

S-word

Well-Known Member
And you show why a Biblical debate can not be done with you. You dismiss the opinions of anyone you consider godless. That is not how one logically debates. That is how one avoids actual debate.

Matey, you're entitled to your opinion, and to put your pennys worth in also, but like I had said, in a biblical debate, the opinions of godless people are of no concern to me, as they have nothing constructive to add to the debate except, “None of It’s True, Nah Nah Na-Nah Nahhhh.” Good night mate, no offence intended. Nevertheless I have always answered your Questions with Biblical truths. if any one cares to look back at my posts in response to your concerns, they will see that I have opened up your post and answered each of your questions in sequence, while all you could do, was whinge because i refused to accept your rediculous statements in defence of the scholars under which you received much of your Knowledge. things like Jesus was supposed to be illerate, and that Jesus was originally a disciple of John the Baptist, you know, all those unfounded and unsupported claims that you godless people are want to make in your distain of the truth as revealed in Gods word
 
Last edited:

Dirty Penguin

Master Of Ceremony
1st off, most historians put Herod's death at 6 BC. Why would would Herod destroyed the city in Galilee, when Herod was dead?
I just opened the Readers Digest universal dictionary where it is written; "Herod": (herred), known as Herod the Great (c. 73 B.C.-4 B.c.)

And again, in the Readers Digest universal dictionary, it is written; "Herod Antipas": (Anti-pass) (Died c. A.D. 40). Tetrarch of Galilee (4 B.C.-A.D.. 39).


Well....that explains it...You're reading Reader's Digest........:facepalm:

Put it down and pickup some better sources....:yes:
 

S-word

Well-Known Member
Well....that explains it...You're reading Reader's Digest........:facepalm:

Put it down and pickup some better sources....:yes:

I have given better sources, evidence from reliable scholars, which you yourself can find if you are really concerned with the date of Herods death, undoubtedly you will find a few scholars who will refute the date of 4 B.C., but that's the nature of the beast, you will never find any two scholars who will agree 100% with all the other scholars on almost all other subjects.
 

Composer

Member
quote=Composer; iii) Unless they lied or the events never happened, how did they escape the Romans or a psychiatric ward or death (also by Herod's spies, bounty hunters etc,) by claiming on their Census forms or documents that their child was the literal Son of a God?

Go to bed mate, for goodness sake, just go to bed.
Ok, slept well

You can try your luck against me again today if you wish and start by answering the above?

Thank you
 

gnostic

The Lost One
s-word said:
And from where did you receive this little gem? It certainly never came from any passage in Scripture.

I got it from reading the your bible, s-word.

Now, I don't have any doubt that you know the gospels, and the whole bible, far better than I do, s-word.

But you have twisted the whole bible to make the 2 gospels correlate with your baseless speculation.

Matthew not only clearly state that Jesus was born in Bethlehem (Matthew 2:5-6), Herod actually sent those visitors to Bethlehem, IN JUDAEA (Matthew 2:7-8).

Matthew 2:7-8 said:
He sent them to Bethlehem and said, "Go and make a careful search for the child. As soon as you find him, report to me, so that I too may go and worship him."

Not once from verse 1 to 12 in chapter 2, did Matthew say that the visiting magi went to Galilee, and not once did Matthew connect the magi with Nazareth, or the so-called town that you called Bethlehem-in-Galilee.

Where in Matthew do you see that the magi went to Nazareth? Where do it say in Matthew that the magi went anywhere near Galilee?

Show me proof of one instance that the magi went to Nazareth. The magi don't appear in Luke, so where in Matthew that you claim that the magi went to Nazareth or to anywhere in Galilee.

The only time that Nazareth was ever mention in chapter 1 or 2, in Matthew, was when Herod died, and they were told it was safe to return from exile in Egypt, in the last part of chapter 2.

AND judging by what I read of Matthew, the town of Nazareth and Galilee wasn't Joseph's home, he lived in Judaea.

Matthew 2:21-23 said:
So he got up, took the child and his mother and went to the land of Israel. 22But when he heard that Archelaus was reigning in Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there. Having been warned in a dream, he withdrew to the district of Galilee, 23and he went and lived in a town called Nazareth.
When Joseph heard that Archelaus had succeeded Judaea in place of Herod, he was afraid to stay in Judaea, so he went to Nazareth in Galilee. Matthew never indicated that Joseph lived in Nazareth prior to Jesus' birth or to them fleeing to Egypt.

It is right there, s-word. Or are you completely blind?

But of course, Luke's version on Jesus' birth is completely different. Herod and the magi played no parts in Jesus' birth.

In Luke, the whole scene is one of peace, and Joseph did come Nazareth, and whole of the scene prior to Jesus' birth in Bethlehem in Judaea, took place in Nazareth, which conflicts with Matthew's that Joseph never lived in that town, until he left Egypt.

But as I said, the 2 gospels are 2 totally different stories about Jesus and his family.

I've already mentioned enough about Luke, so I am not going to through this again.
 
Last edited:

Composer

Member
I have given better sources, evidence from reliable scholars, which you yourself can find if you are really concerned with the date of Herods death, undoubtedly you will find a few scholars who will refute the date of 4 B.C., but that's the nature of the beast, you will never find any two scholars who will agree 100% with all the other scholars on almost all other subjects.
You confirm the story book is just that, a story book -

For God is not [the author] of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints. {confusion: Gr. tumult, or, unquietness} (1 Cor. 14:33) KJV story book

& reality -

For the story book God is most definitely the author of mass confusion amongst mankind, hence the myriad of arguments and disagreements amongst scholars and the myriad of opposing religious ideologies.

Thanks for your time!
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
You confirm the story book is just that, a story book -

For God is not [the author] of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints. {confusion: Gr. tumult, or, unquietness} (1 Cor. 14:33) KJV story book

& reality -

For the story book God is most definitely the author of mass confusion amongst mankind, hence the myriad of arguments and disagreements amongst scholars and the myriad of opposing religious ideologies.

Thanks for your time!

Story book - story book -[youtube]yxbhvhBtTwU[/youtube]
o la la story book
 

Dirty Penguin

Master Of Ceremony
I have given better sources, evidence from reliable scholars, which you yourself can find if you are really concerned with the date of Herods death, undoubtedly you will find a few scholars who will refute the date of 4 B.C., but that's the nature of the beast, you will never find any two scholars who will agree 100% with all the other scholars on almost all other subjects.

Although Herod's death maybe be contested by some and for the sake of this debate it is slightly important. For me I'm not as concerned about that. I'm concerned if there is any historical merit to Him (assuming he was alive at the time) commanding the death of the first born males. So far I don't think that was accurate at all. Funny how this sounds like the same old story from Exodus. Additionally I recall if you were under Roman rule you were basically viewed as their slaves, subjects...So Yeshua, who did nothing to anger the Romans, was probably not worth the time or effort in dealing with such a insignificant tribal matter (assuming the biblical Yeshua was a real person).

One of, if the not the biggest, problems you have is your wanting to prove the bible by using the bible. This line of reasoning will always prove circular.
 

S-word

Well-Known Member
Ok, slept well

You can try your luck against me again today if you wish and start by answering the above?

Thank you

Because of the simple fact that Mary knew who the physical biological Father of her son was, and he is Joseph of the tribe of Levi, who is the son of Heli, and the 40th descendant of Nathan the Levite, who is a half brother to Solomon, who is the 24th ancestor of Joseph the son of Jacob from the tribe of Judah who would consummate his union with Mary after she had given birth to the first of her three biological sons. And besides that you don't have to register an unborn feotus in a census.

Remember, or should I say, have you read of the time that Jesus, as a twelve year old boy, sat in th temple, and for three days astounded the Jewich teachers with his knowledge of Scripture? And when his mother finally found him and chastised him for wandering off by himself, and He said to her; "Why did you have to search for me? Surely you knew I would be in my fathers house etc." His mother didn't have a clue what he was on about, because she knew who his physical father was.
 
Last edited:

dogsgod

Well-Known Member
Because of the simple fact that Mary knew who the physical biological Father of her son was, and he is Joseph of the tribe of Levi, who is the son of Heli, and the 40th descendant of Nathan the Levite, who is a half brother to Solomon, who is the 24th ancestor of Joseph the son of Jacob from the tribe of Judah who would consummate his union with Mary after she had given birth to the first of her three biological sons. And besides that you don't have to register an unborn feotus in a census.

Remember, or should I say, have you read of the time that Jesus, as a twelve year old boy, sat in th temple, and for three days astounded the Jewich teachers with his knowledge of Scripture? And when his mother finally found him and chastised him for wandering off by himself, and He said to her; "Why did you have to search for me? Surely you knew I would be in my fathers house etc." His mother didn't have a clue what he was on about, because she knew who his physical father was.

You ought to read your Bible. It is in Luke that we read of Jesus in the temple at a young age and it is in Luke we read of God's son:

Luke, 29Mary was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind of greeting this might be. 30But the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, you have found favor with God. 31You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus. 32He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, 33and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end." 34"How will this be," Mary asked the angel, "since I am a virgin?"
35The angel answered, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called[c] the Son of God. 36Even Elizabeth your relative is going to have a child in her old age, and she who was said to be barren is in her sixth month. 37For nothing is impossible with God."
38"I am the Lord's servant," Mary answered. "May it be to me as you have said." Then the angel left her.




So much for Mary knowing the father is Joseph.
 

S-word

Well-Known Member
You ought to read your Bible. It is in Luke that we read of Jesus in the temple at a young age and it is in Luke we read of God's son:

Luke, 29Mary was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind of greeting this might be. 30But the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, you have found favor with God. 31You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus. 32He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, 33and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end." 34"How will this be," Mary asked the angel, "since I am a virgin?"
35The angel answered, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called[c] the Son of God. 36Even Elizabeth your relative is going to have a child in her old age, and she who was said to be barren is in her sixth month. 37For nothing is impossible with God."
38"I am the Lord's servant," Mary answered. "May it be to me as you have said." Then the angel left her.




So much for Mary knowing the father is Joseph.

Yes, and three mmths after she told the angel that she had never had sex with a man she was found to be pregnant with Jesus, who the bible states is the son of Joseph the Levite, who was the son of Heli the father of Mary to another woman.

Luke shows that Mary had never had sex with a man until she was found pregnant three months later, and Luke 3: 23; reveals the biological father of Jesus to be Joseph the son of Heli from the tribe of Levi, who should not be confused with the Joseph who married the pregnant and unmarried woman ‘Mary,’ and never had sex with her until she had given birth to Jesus the son of Joseph and grandson of Heli from the tribe of Levi. That other Joseph, whose genealogy is recorded in Matthew, is the son of Jacob from the tribe of Judah.

And the only reference to the physical birth of Jesus in the gospel of Matthew, is that he was the fulfilment of the prophecy of the Lord through his servant Isaiah, which prophecy was that an “Almah,” an unmarried woman would be with child and would bear a son, who people would give many names to, which has all been fulfilled.The first time that “Virgin’ appears in any translation of the Bible in reference to the mother of Jesus is when it was translated to Latin.

The 5th century Latin Bible ‘The Vulgate,’ was due mainly to the effort of Jerome who was commissioned to make a revision of the books that had already been translated to Latin by in most cases, persons unknown, and with those books translated by Jerome himself, which revision was completed in 405 A.D. became the official bible of the universal church that had been established by its unorthodox and non-christian champion, ‘King Constantine,’ who had his father Constantius deified and was accorded the same honour himself after his death.

In transcribing the Hebrew words of the prophet Isaiah, that an “unmarried woman would be with child and bear a son,” into Greek, which unlike the Hebrew language, does not have a specific term for ‘virgin,’ the authors of the Septuagint and Matthew were forced to use the Greek word ‘Parthenos,’ which carries a basic meaning of ‘girl,’ and denotes ‘virgin’ only by implication.

‘Parthenos,’ was often used in reference to non-virgins who had never been married. Homer uses it in reference to unmarried girls who were no longer virgins, and Homer was the standard textbook for learning Greek all throughout antiquity, so any writer of Greek, including Matthew, who transcribed Isaiah’s words, (An unmarried woman would be with child etc) while being well aware of this words versatile and indefinite meaning; was in no way implying that Mary was a virgin. For the Hebrew has a specific term for ‘virgin,’ “Bethulah” which word is used in every instance in the Old Testament where a woman who has never had sexual intercourse with a man is referred to, which is obviously not the unmarried pregnant woman who is mentioned in Isaiah 7:14.

Young’s Analytical Concordance to the Bible, gives the meaning of the Hebrew word “Almah,” which is used in Isaiah 7: 14; as, (Concealment: Unmarried woman.) when Mary, the obedient handmaid to her indwelling spirit, who had told the angel three months earlier that she was at that time still a virgin, met for the first time and was attracted to the biological father of Jesus, who, presumably Mary met for the first time among the Family and friends of her cousin Elizaberth who had come to rejoice with her, and the act of obedience from which the child of Gods promise was conceived in the womb of the “Almah,” unmarried woman, was concealed in the shadow beneath the wings of the Lord of spirits.

Isaac is a prototype of Jesus and like Jesus was born of Gods promise according to the workings of the Holy Spirit. Both Isaac and Jesus were the sons of parents who were both sired by the one Father. ‘Terah,’ is the father to both Abraham and Sarah, while ‘Heli,’ is the father of both Joseph and Mary. Both Mary and Sarah were informed by an angel that they would become Pregnant and bear the son of Gods promise. Isaac was offered up as a sacrifice by his physical father, Jesus was offered up by his spiritual father, Who, in his life on earth had said to Jesus, "You are my son, today i have become your Father." and Isaac was offered up on the very spot where Jesus was crucified.

I have read the Bible my friend, what a pity that you haven't, perhaps if you had, we might have been able to have a serious debate on the subjedt.
 
Last edited:

S-word

Well-Known Member
I got it from reading the your bible, s-word.

.

I can find in the bible where 40 days after the child was born, Mary took the baby to the temple in Jerusalem where she performed the ceremony of purification, immediatly after which they returned to her house in Nazareth in the land of Galilee, but I cant find anything about the family having to take the tiny baby and flee from Bethlehem of Judaea into the land of Egypt, but apparently you have.

Well now, enlighten us with your great discovery, where does the Bible state that the wise men went to Bethleham of Judaea, immediatly after which, the holy family were forced to flee into the land of Egypt.

This revelation of yours will shatter my belief, but will support the belief of the churches, which tell of the time that Mary was forced to hide in a grotto while Herods butchers were slaughtering all the innocents in Bethlehem of Judaea.

To stop the baby from crying, they will tell you that Mary suckled the child and some of her breast milk spilled on the rocks, turnig them white and gave to them magical powers.

All the christians who go the church above the Milk Grotto in Bethlehem of Judaea, to worship their Queen of Heaven, who they claim is the virgin mother of God, and which christians have trouble falling pregnant or who are unable to breast feed their childen, only have to purchace a small bag of the white rock powder and follow the instructions and they will be Healed. (Another great Miracle of the white rocks)

Ok matey, I'm waiting, enlighten us, where did you find in the Bible that the wise men went of Bethlehem of Judaea?

quote=gnostic; But you have twisted the whole bible to make the 2 gospels correlate with your baseless speculation.

No mate, I have taken the words of two different scribes of the one author of the Bible, who chose those men who were obedient to their indwelling ancestral spirit, to record his words as best as they were able. By correlating all the books of the Bible, it is only then that one can see the overall picture that has been painted for us. The bible is like cogs within cogs, wheels within wheels, here a little there a little, it is only the serious student to whom the truth therein will be revealed.

quote=gnostic; Matthew not only clearly state that Jesus was born in Bethlehem (Matthew 2:5-6), Herod actually sent those visitors to Bethlehem, IN JUDAEA (Matthew 2:7-8).


Matthew indeed does state that Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea, something which I have never denied in any post, in any thread, in any forum, in which I have ever been asked, "In which town was Jesus born"? And yes, after consulting with his priests and discovering that the promised Messianic King of Israel, was to be born in the town of Bethlehem of Judaea, Herod advised that they go there in seach of the young child, which had been born over a year previously, according to the time that the star which had heralded his birth, had first appeared. But we know from Luke, that the family had long since left Bethlehem of Judaea and returned home to Nazareth in the land of Galilee. We also know that when the visitors had left Herod, the star that they had seen in the east, appeared once again and they rejoiced exceedingly as they followed in the direction of the comet of 5 B.C. which was in the northern sky, to where they saw it as it stood over the house in the little insignificant village of Nazareth, with its massive vertical tail streaming off into the heavens. The term "Stood Over" in ancient literature, refers to comets and comets only.

By the way, you do now believe that there was a town by the name of Bethlehem , in the land of Galilee, at the time of Jesus, don't you?

 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top