• 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.

S-word

Well-Known Member
My computer has been down for two days, so It'll take a while to catch up with these posts, but I will.

quote=gnostic; And in the very next chapter, it mentioned Bethlehem as being the birthplace of Jesus.

Yup! Which only verifies Luke’s statement that Joseph the son of Jacob from the tribe of Judaea, took Mary, to who he was betrothed, from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to the town of Bethlehem of Judaea where, as Matthew correctly informs us, the baby Jesus was born.

quote=gnostic; And lastly at the end of chapter, Joseph decided to leave Egypt, but his decision was not to return to Bethlehem, but to move further north in Narazeth.


Ahh yes, this was after the wise men who had first seen the star while in the east, that had heralded the birth of Jesus, who, according to Luke had been returned to the house of his mother and step-father in Nazareth of Galilee about two months after he had been born. Those wise men who were to later travel all the way to Jerusalem to pay homage to the child, who they knew had been born to be the king of the Jews, which, when the time that they had first seen the star was revealed to Herod, he chose the age of the young boys to be slaughtered as being two years and below, according to the time that he had learned from the wise men when they had first seen the star that had heralded his birth. Sorry matey, nowhere is it stated that Mary stayed in the house of Joseph, unless you can accept Luke 2: 39; the scripture that states, “And when they had performed all things according to the law (40 days after the birth of Jesus) they returned to, (Now listen to this matey and listen carefully) they returned unto Galilee, to THEIR OWN city Nazareth. The fact that you cannot accept that each Gospel compliments the others is of no concern to me. If it your wish to deny God’s Holy Word, that is your own decision. And by the way, nowhere in Matthew does it say that Joseph wanted to return to Bethlehem of Judaea, but only that he did not want to reside in the land of Judaea, because Herods cruel son was ruling there.

quote=gnostic; Another point, I'd like to make, is that not only Mary stayed in Joseph's house, until Jesus was born.

Nowhere does the bible state that Mary stayed in the house of Joseph, and if you believe that Joseph lived in the town of Bethlehem of Judaea, when the bible states that Nazareth was THEIR home town and that Joseph took Mary from their own city, Nazareth of Galilee, to Bethlehem of Judaea where Mary gave birth to her first born son: and that, about 40 days after the birth of the baby they returned to their house in Nazareth of Galilee, then this is but a figment of your own imagination, which you cannot in any way corroborate. The fact that Mary who was engaged to Joseph the son of Jacob from the tribe of Judah, lived in the town of Nazareth is verified by the fact that it was to nazareth in Galilee that the angel appeared to mary and informed her that she would become pregnant, which she did about three months later when she was in Jerusalem among the family and friends of Elizabeth her cousin, who were of the daughters of Levi.

quote=gnostic; At no point, does Matthew says that they moved to Bethlehem, from Nazareth (only Luke mention this move, south from Nazareth, not Matthew).


Correct! Matthew merely corroborates Luke’s statement that Joseph took Mary from their own city, Nazareth of Galilee, to Bethlehem of Judaea where Mary gave birth to her first born son.

quote=gnostic; At no point, does Matthew says that they stayed in manger, barn or stable, because there were no room in the inn, at Bethlehem (that's only found in Luke).

Correct! As I have already shown, the only reference that Matthew makes to the baby Jesus, is the fact that he was the fulfilment of The Lord’s prophecy through his servant Isaiah, that an unmarried woman would be with child and bear a son, who would be given many different appellations, which we know he has been given, Matthew then concentrates on the young child Jesus who was in the house (Not the manger or the Inn or stable) but the HOUSE of his mother and step-father when the wise men came to visit him. Matthew's, only reference to the birth of the baby Jesus in Bethlehem of Judaea, merely corroborates Luke’s statement that Joseph took Mary from their own city, Nazareth of Galilee, to Bethlehem of Judaea where Mary gave birth to her first born son.

quote=gnostic; At no point, does Matthew says that the magi visited Mary and Jesus in manger. Again, only Luke mentioned this manger.


Wrong again old matey. Neither Matthew nor Luke mention anything about the magi visiting Mary and Jesus in the manger, stable, or Inn.
Luke mentions only the shepherds, who came to see the Baby in the manger, whereas Matthew speaks of the Magi visiting the HOUSE, wherein the young child Jesus then lived with his mother and step-father by the time that they had travelled to Israel.


quote=gnostic; The only logical conclusion with Matthew's gospel is that Mary gave birth in Joseph's house, in Bethlehem (Matthew 1:24), the very same house that the magi visited (Matthew 2:11).

Another figment of your own imagination, show us anywhere that it is said that Joseph lived in Bethlehem of Judaea?

Luke 2: 39; the scripture that states, “And when they had performed all things according to the law (40 days after the birth of Jesus) they returned to, (Now listen to this matey and listen carefully) they returned unto Galilee, to THEIR OWN city Nazareth. As to everything else you have said in this post, it has already been covered, and I have shown, everything that you have said is merely speculation and the figments of your own imagination, which you cannot verify by scripture, which is the only source from which you can debate the life of Jesus, as there is no other record of his life. Nighty, night mate.
 
Last edited:
S-word, I didn't read through all the posts, but if I understand you correctly you are saying that 1)Jesus was born in Bethlehem, 2)that about 40 days later Joseph and Mary took Jesus to Jerusalem, according to custom, and 3)that on leaving Jerusalem they returned to Nazareth. Are you also saying that the Magi visited Jesus when he was back in Galilee (in Joseph's home)? And are you saying that the massacre of babies took place in Galilee, around a town with a similar name as Bethlehem, rather than in Bethlehem of Judea?

As regards this massacre, Matthew 2:18 talks about it fulfilling a prophecy of Rachel weeping over the death of children in Ramah. As Rachel is according to tradition buried near Bethlehem of Judea, and Ramah is also in Judea, to me it seems pretty clear that Matthew is trying to associate this killing of babies with Bethlehem of Judea, not a city with a similar name in Galilee.
 

S-word

Well-Known Member
S-word, I didn't read through all the posts, but if I understand you correctly you are saying that 1)Jesus was born in Bethlehem, 2)that about 40 days later Joseph and Mary took Jesus to Jerusalem, according to custom, and 3)that on leaving Jerusalem they returned to Nazareth. Are you also saying that the Magi visited Jesus when he was back in Galilee (in Joseph's home)? And are you saying that the massacre of babies took place in Galilee, around a town with a similar name as Bethlehem, rather than in Bethlehem of Judea?

As regards this massacre, Matthew 2:18 talks about it fulfilling a prophecy of Rachel weeping over the death of children in Ramah. As Rachel is according to tradition buried near Bethlehem of Judea, and Ramah is also in Judea, to me it seems pretty clear that Matthew is trying to associate this killing of babies with Bethlehem of Judea, not a city with a similar name in Galilee.

Rachel was indeed buried in Rahmah on the road to Ephrath, which is Bethlehem of Judaea. But the holy scriptures do not say that Rachel was weeping over the death of children in Ramah.

quote=James Humphreys; As regards this massacre, Matthew 2:18 talks about it fulfilling a prophecy of Rachel weeping over the death of children in Ramah.

The holy scriptures do not say that Rachel was weeping over the death of children in Ramah.

quote=James Humphreys; it seems pretty clear that Matthew is trying to associate this killing of babies with Bethlehem of Judea, not a city with a similar name in Galilee.

To begin with, as you erroneously suggest, Rachel was weeping over the death of children in Ramah, you are then suggesting that the children were not killed in either Bethlehem of Judaea, nor Bethlehem of Galilee, but were in fact killed in Ramah.

But like most people who have been brain-washed by the false teaching of the so-called christian church, which refuses to acknowledge that Jesus came as a human being born of human parents as revealed in the holy scriptures, you have not bothered to read what is actually written therein for yourself.

So let one who understands the truth, reveal that truth to you, Matthew 2: 18; "A sound is heard in Ramah, (What was the sound that was heard in Ramah?) It was the sound of Rachel weeping in Ramah, for her Israelite children who were dead, etc. But they were not dead in Ramah old matey.So please explain to us, from where you were able to come up with this doctrine which is in contradiction to God's Holy Word?

quote=James Humphreys; Rachel weeping over the death of children in Ramah
 

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
Rachel was indeed buried in Rahmah on the road to Ephrath, which is Bethlehem of Judaea. But the holy scriptures do not say that Rachel was weeping over the death of children in Ramah.
Jeremiah 31:15 (we also see this in Matthew 2:18) Thus saith the LORD; A voice was heard in Ramah, lamentation, and bitter weeping; Rahel weeping for her children refused to be comforted for her children, because they were not. This is from the "holy scriptures." What does it truly say?

First, where is Ramah? It was near Bethlehem in Judea.

Also, one has to look at the history. The prophecy in Jeremiah has already been fulfilled in the time of Jeremiah, when Nebuzaradan brought all of his prisoners (he had destroyed Jerusalem) to Ramah. Then there was a slaughtering. The weeping was heard from Ramah to Bethlehem.

We know that, by the accounts of Matthew (and only Matthew) that Herod would have sent out to have all of the infants killed in Bethlehem and the surrounding area (Matthew 2:16). We know that the Bethlehem he is talking about is in Judea as throughout the second chapter of Matthew he does distinguish Bethlehem being in Judea. Ramah would have been included in that surrounding area.

What does this mean? One, Rachel, in the time of Jeremiah, had already wept for her children, as the prophecy was already fulfilled. Two, the weeping would have also been in Ramah as, according to the account in Matthew, the infants in Ramah would have been slaughtered as well as it was in the surrounding area of Bethlehem which was in Judea.
 

S-word

Well-Known Member
Jeremiah 31:15 (we also see this in Matthew 2:18) Thus saith the LORD; A voice was heard in Ramah, lamentation, and bitter weeping; Rahel weeping for her children refused to be comforted for her children, because they were not. This is from the "holy scriptures." What does it truly say?

First, where is Ramah? It was near Bethlehem in Judea.

Also, one has to look at the history. The prophecy in Jeremiah has already been fulfilled in the time of Jeremiah, when Nebuzaradan brought all of his prisoners (he had destroyed Jerusalem) to Ramah. Then there was a slaughtering. The weeping was heard from Ramah to Bethlehem.

We know that, by the accounts of Matthew (and only Matthew) that Herod would have sent out to have all of the infants killed in Bethlehem and the surrounding area (Matthew 2:16). We know that the Bethlehem he is talking about is in Judea as throughout the second chapter of Matthew he does distinguish Bethlehem being in Judea. Ramah would have been included in that surrounding area.

What does this mean? One, Rachel, in the time of Jeremiah, had already wept for her children, as the prophecy was already fulfilled. Two, the weeping would have also been in Ramah as, according to the account in Matthew, the infants in Ramah would have been slaughtered as well as it was in the surrounding area of Bethlehem which was in Judea.
quote=fallingblood; according to the account in Matthew, the infants in Ramah would have been slaughtered as well as it was in the surrounding area of Bethlehem which was in Judea.

Away you go matey, show us some credible evidence that around about the time that Jesus was a young child of over one year old, and when Herod died after a failed suicide attempt in 4 B.C.,that there was any great upheaval in the district around Bethlehem of Judaea? In Bethlehem of Galilee, YES; but not in Bethlehem of Judaea.

And please reveal from scripture or any other credible evidence that you might find, that the children in Ramah were killed by Herod's butchers, I'll get back to you when you have supplied your so-called evidence, to corroberate your erroneous statements.

I have shown from the only source that deals with this subject, that Rachel was not weeping for her children, who you have erroneously stated had died in Ramah, but for her children who had died in Galilee, the district that was visited by the wise men in the year of the comet of 5 B.C., which was a year or so after they, who studied the stars in the east, would have first seen the triple conjunction of the King planet Jupiter in 6 B.C., which was assocciated with the appearance of the promised Messianic King of Israel.
 
Last edited:
I think it is unlikely that any children were killed in the city of Ramah at the time of Jesus. Ramah is in Judea, but apparently to the north of Jerusalem, not to the south, like Bethlehem.

However, I don't think Matthew should be interpreted to be saying that children were killed in Ramah. Even when the original slaughter in Ramah took place in the lead up to the captivity, Rachel had already been dead for centuries. It was as if Rachel was rising from her grave to mourn for the death of her descendants, especially being the mother of Benjamin and his lineage. So, I think Matthew is likening that imagery in Jeremiah to what happened in Jesus' infancy. Did Rachel figuratively rise from her tomb to mourn children killed in Galilee? Or isn't it more likely that she would do that to mourn those in the area where most of her descendants were living, and where she was buried, in Judea?

As regards the evidence for the massacre, I can't answer that question. But only in regards to the reference in Matthew 2:18, I would say it points to Bethlehem of Judea.
 
Last edited:

Dirty Penguin

Master Of Ceremony
I think it is unlikely that any children were killed in the city of Ramah at the time of Jesus.

Yea, it was counter productive for the Romans to just kill their slaves willy nilly. Killing the boys that could serve them by tending the fields, fetching their wine and being their entertainment would not have been in their best interest nor would we find them simply killing women. All under Roman rule served a purpose to Rome.
 

S-word

Well-Known Member
I think it is unlikely that any children were killed in the city of Ramah at the time of Jesus. Ramah is in Judea, but apparently to the north of Jerusalem, not to the south, like Bethlehem.

However, I don't think Matthew should be interpreted to be saying that children were killed in Ramah. Even when the original slaughter in Ramah took place in the lead up to the captivity, Rachel had already been dead for centuries. It was as if Rachel was rising from her grave to mourn for the death of her descendants, especially being the mother of Benjamin and his lineage. So, I think Matthew is likening that imagery in Jeremiah to what happened in Jesus' infancy. Did Rachel figuratively rise from her tomb to mourn children killed in Galilee? Or isn't it more likely that she would do that to mourn those in the area where most of her descendants were living, and where she was buried, in Judea?

As regards the evidence for the massacre, I can't answer that question. But only in regards to the reference in Matthew 2:18, I would say it points to Bethlehem of Judea.

You're telling the story matey, but nowhere is there any evidence whatsoever of an uprising or slaughter in Bethlehem of Judaea around 6 to 4 B.C., athough the same cannot be said for the district around Bethlehem of Galilee around the time of Herod's failed suicide attempt and subsequent death in April of 4 B.C.

And I believe if all the Jewish boys in a particular district in America today, were rounded up and butchered, A sound would be heard in Ramah, the sound of Rachel weeping for her chilred who were killed in America.
 
Last edited:

Composer

Member
Perhaps then you would care to show your legitimate evidence that the Biblical statement in Mark 16: 9-20; is incorrect?
quote=Composer; Well Mr self acclaimed ' serious student ' you will therefore be able to confirm or refute Mark 16:9-20 by telling us (with legitimate evidence) whether it is legitimate or not, because scholars even now don't know whether it is or should be considered legitimate


Which I believe you will find it extremely hard to refute Mark 16:9-20 by telling us (with legitimate evidence) whether it is legitimate or not, because scholars even now don't know whether it is or should be considered legitimate or not legitimate.


Your words, not mine matey,
It's NOT just my words matey that many scholars question Mark 16:9-20, it is proved they question it because it is placed in parenthesis in many versions e.g.

[[ 16:9 Early on the first day of the week, after he arose, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom he had driven out seven demons. 16:10 She went out and told those who were with him, while they were mourning and weeping. 16:11 And when they heard that he was alive and had been seen by her, they did not believe.
16:12 After this he appeared in a different form to two of them while they were on their way to the country. 16:13 They went back and told the rest, but they did not believe them. 16:14 Then he appeared to the eleven themselves, while they were eating, and he rebuked them for their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they did not believe those who had seen him resurrected. 16:15 He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. 16:16 The one who believes and is baptized will be saved, but the one who does not believe will be condemned. 16:17 These signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new languages;1016:18 they will pick up snakes with their hands, and whatever poison they drink will not harm them;11 they will place their hands on the sick and they will be well.” 16:19 After the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, he was taken up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of God. 16:20 They went out and proclaimed everywhere, while the Lord worked with them and confirmed the word through the accompanying signs.] (Mark 16:9-20) NET story book

but go ahead and reveal your (legitimate evidence) that Mark 16: 9-20 is incorrect,
Done! See above! (Scholars just don't know so they play safe and place it in brackets hoping their alleged God of non-confusion will one day stop confusing them (cf. 1 Cor. 14:33 KJV story book misnomer)) LOL!

or your (legitimate evidence) that the Biblical Jesus did not exist,
But it does exist in the vivid illegitimate imaginations of many.

Just like the Book of Mormon is believed by many.

Just like the Qur'an is believed by many.

But they, like you bible believers are ALL lacking in something called legitimate evidence.

Faith is an intangible and you would need to to demonstrate that YOUR particular faith (or alleged faith because ALL you so called christians fail the test of your faith) is any more legitimate than a Mormon's faith or a Muslems.

I have every practical and literal evidence available during my 50 years of searching that you will continue to fail and your various causes remain spurious in reality!

velvet10.gif
 
Last edited:

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
Away you go matey, show us some credible evidence that around about the time that Jesus was a young child of over one year old, and when Herod died after a failed suicide attempt in 4 B.C.,that there was any great upheaval in the district around Bethlehem of Judaea? In Bethlehem of Galilee, YES; but not in Bethlehem of Judaea.
The burden of proof is not on me. Scholars and historians agree that there was no massacre of the innocents at all. As for the upheaval you talk about, it was not just around Bethlehem of Galilee. The revolt was of the Jewish homeland. It compassed both Bethlehem's.
And please reveal from scripture or any other credible evidence that you might find, that the children in Ramah were killed by Herod's butchers, I'll get back to you when you have supplied your so-called evidence, to corroberate your erroneous statements.
The Bible states it. It states clearly that Herod had the infants killed in Bethlehem and the surrounding area. The only Bethlehem that Matthew speaks of in Chapter 2, which this incident happened, is in Judea, which is near Ramah. The burden of proof is on you. You have to prove that even though the Bible states that the massacre happened around Bethlehem in Judea, that it happened elsewhere.
I have shown from the only source that deals with this subject, that Rachel was not weeping for her children, who you have erroneously stated had died in Ramah, but for her children who had died in Galilee, the district that was visited by the wise men in the year of the comet of 5 B.C., which was a year or so after they, who studied the stars in the east, would have first seen the triple conjunction of the King planet Jupiter in 6 B.C., which was assocciated with the appearance of the promised Messianic King of Israel.
So the Bible is wrong when you want it to be? Great argument.

Again, you have to prove that the massacre happened. There simply is no evidence for it. The burden of proof is on you.
 

Composer

Member
The facts also remain as per the story book text, IF Mary & Joseph had gone to the Census Office to register, then unless they both lied, they would never have escaped the Romans had they told the truth that the literal father of their child (just born or close to being born) was a God!

Herod's spies or bounty hunters would also have soon gotten wind if they had.

The story book is a lie for many reasons.

Also -

s-word said:
" 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,
(Source: #post97 Page 10 - http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/1928072-post97.html)

And my pertinent question remains evaded by you -

S-word, why would any one (If the story book tale were true) travel huge distances bringing precious gifts and or pay homage OR why would Herod want to slaughter a babe whose father was a common old human being of no significance? (i.e. Joseph)

i.e. There would be nothing spectacular about a young woman giving birth to a child, the implication is that of a miraculous event: a virgin giving birth to a child.

(Source: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/1928215-post102.html)

velvet10.gif
 
Last edited:

gnostic

The Lost One
You have misread and misunderstood me.

s-word said:
But you cannot prove that the life of Jesus was not in accordance to the records of the gospel writers, and as the Bible has but one author, then Luke, who is but one of the scribes that the Lord used, cannot be ignored.

As I have said before, there 2 completely different versions about Jesus' conception and birth, and the events surrounding it.

I am not saying to ignore Luke for the sake of ignoring it. I was trying to concentrate just 1 gospel at the time.

That's what I mean about ignoring Luke for the time being, by just looking at what Matthew wrote.

And as for this:
s-word said:
and as the Bible has but one author, then Luke, who is but one of the scribes that the Lord used, cannot be ignored.

If Jesus was a the Lord, then Jesus did not commission nor ask Luke to write the "gospel" about Jesus. Jesus was dead, and it would seem that Luke was actually disciple and companion of Paul, not Jesus, so if anyone ask Luke to be a scribe, it would have been Paul, not Jesus, whom you referred to as the Lord.

s-word said:
Matthew 1: 1-17; is that of the Joseph who was to marry Mary after she had given birth to the first of her three sons. This Joseph as recorded in Matthew has no genetic connection to Jesus whatsoever and he is the son of Jacob and the 24th descendant of Solomon of the tribe of Judah.
I left out the genealogies because I didn't want to discuss it and because of my lack of interest in both genealogies. That's what I meant about leaving aside the genealogies.

It's damn frustrating. All that writing in post 138, for naught.

My post, back in 138, is about wanting to concentrate on just Matthew, and whether Matthew is saying that they lived in Bethlehem or in Nazareth, before fleeing to Egypt.

No where do it indicate in Matthew that they lived in Nazareth or anywhere in Galilee, until Joseph decided to

Please don't bring up Luke, and just concentrate from Matthew 1:18 onward towards the end of chapter 2.

In 1:18-25, Matthew made it quite clear that Mary stayed with Joseph's HOME, until Jesus was born. If Jesus was born at Joseph's home.....
Matthew 1:24-25 said:
When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.
...then that would have to be Bethlehem, in Judaea, which is mentioned....
Matthew 2:1 said:
Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea
We both agreed that Jesus was born in Judea and not in Galilee. However, Matthew clearly indicated that Mary was in Joseph's home.
Nothing about a humble manger.

Do you see manger anywhere in Matthew 1????

Nothing about Galilee, or Nazareth, or the Bethlehem in Galilee.

Yes, Luke says they were in Nazareth before going to Bethlehem, Judea, but Matthew's version doesn't say that all. And you can't prove Matthew said anything otherwise. You are mixing the two, to prove your own baseless interpretation. And that's all you have - flawed interpretation.

The only time Nazareth was ever mention in the 1st 2 books is in the last 2 verses of 22. The reason being:

Matthew 2:22 said:
But 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,

Joseph was going to go back home in Judaea, until he heard about Archelaus, and only then decided to go to Nazareth.

Matthew said "home", not "manger". And that Jesus was born in Joseph's home, which happened to be Bethlehem, not Nazareth.

But if you going to say Luke say this or Luke say that, it is pointless of me, because clearly you can't argue with me by concentrating on one gospel at the time.

Can you read Matthew without straying to Luke? From what I've seen so far, I don't think you have the intellect to do so.
 
Last edited:

S-word

Well-Known Member
You have misread and misunderstood me.


No I Haven’t.

quote=gnostic; As I have said before, there 2 completely different versions about Jesus' conception and birth, and the events surrounding it.

Correct! Luke’s version tells of Joseph and Mary travelling from their own town of Nazareth in Galilee to Bethlehem of Judaea where Jesus was born in the manger to which, only the shepherds came and saw the baby. Luke makes no mention of the wise Men in Bethlehem of Judaea, as they never went to the Inn, manger, or stable, in Bethlehem of Judaea,and the fact that Mary openly carried a little 40 day old baby from Bethlehem of Judaea, to the Temple in Jerusalem, before returning to their house in their own town of Nazareth in Galilee, is proof positive that there was no slaughter of the innocents around that district, at that time.

The only mention that Matthew makes in reference to the birth of Jesus, is that he was born in Bethlehem of Judaea to a woman who we know, was from the town of Nazareth in Galilee where she was confronted by the angel Gabriel, 3 month before she fell pregnant to her half-brother Joseph the son of Heli, who had sired Mary also.


quote=gnostic; I am not saying to ignore Luke for the sake of ignoring it. I was trying to concentrate just 1 gospel at the time.

Well you can’t just concentrate on one gospel at a time, as each different account sheds light on the other. Luke speaks of the Baby Jesus in Bethlehem of Judaea and the return of the family to Nazareth when he was about two month old, whereas, after verifying that Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea, Matthew then concentrates on the young child Jesus, to whose house in Nazareth, the star studiers from the east who had witnessed the triple conjunction of the King planet Jupiter in 6 B.C., which planet was associated with the appearance of the Messianic king of Israel, and were guided to the north of Jerusalem by the comet of 5 B.C. which was in the northern hemisphere.

quote=gnostic; That's what I mean about ignoring Luke for the time being, by just looking at what Matthew wrote.
And as for this:
If Jesus was a the Lord, then Jesus did not commission nor ask Luke to write the "gospel" about Jesus. Jesus was dead, and it would seem that Luke was actually disciple and companion of Paul, not Jesus, so if anyone ask Luke to be a scribe, it would have been Paul, not Jesus, whom you referred to as the Lord.

In reference to Jesus, Peter has this to say in Acts 3; 22; “For Moses said, ‘THE lord your God will send you a prophet, just as he sent me, and he will be one of your own people.” The Lord sent Jesus to speak in his name, comprehenda?

Acts 3: 13; “The Lord God has given divine glory to his servant Jesus.”

Acts 17: 31; “For he (the Lord God) has fixed a day in which he will judge the whole world with justice by means of a man he has chosen. He has given proof of this to everyone by raising that man from death.” So you might be well advised to rethink your last statement.

quote=gnostic; I left out the genealogies because I didn't want to discuss it and because of my lack of interest in both genealogies. That's what I meant about leaving aside the genealogies.

It's damn frustrating. All that writing in post 138, for naught.

No, my dear friend, all that writing was not for naught, as everyone of your concerns were addressed, even though it did take two posts to cover all your misconceptions that had taken you so long to write.

quote=gnostic; My post, back in 138, is about wanting to concentrate on just Matthew, and whether Matthew is saying that they lived in Bethlehem or in Nazareth, before fleeing to Egypt.

No where do it indicate in Matthew that they lived in Nazareth or anywhere in Galilee, until Joseph decided to

No it doesn’t old matey, Matthew merely verifies Luke’s account that Mary, whose home town was Nazareth in Galilee gave birth to her first born son in the town of Bethlehem of Judaea, before he concentrates on the star studiers from the east who has witnessed the triple conjunction of the King Planet Jupiter, which was the star that had heralded the birth of The promised Messianic king of Israel, and who, at a secret meeting with Herod revealed to him when they had first seen the star that had heralded the birth of Jesus, from which information, Herod determined the age of the boys to be slaughtered as two years of age and below. And on leaving Herod, they saw the comet of 5 B.C. which was in the same northern heavenly position as was Jupiter the King planet in which direction they headed in search of the now Young Child.

quote=gnostic; Please don't bring up Luke, and just concentrate from Matthew 1:18 onward towards the end of chapter 2.

Sorry mate, can’t do that.

quote=gnostic; In 1:18-25, Matthew made it quite clear that Mary stayed with Joseph's HOME, until Jesus was born. If Jesus was born at Joseph's home.....

As I have said before and I now repeat, “WHERE?”


quote=gnostic;...then that would have to be Bethlehem, in Judaea, which is mentioned....

Nowhere in scripture or anywhere else other than the posts of people who are totally ignorant to that which is recorded in scripture, will you find any reference to Bethlehem as being the home town of Joseph, who with Mary to whom he was engaged, travelled from their own town of Nazareth in Galilee to Bethlehem of Judaea, where Mary gave birth to her firstborn son, who, when about two months old, they took the baby back to their own town of Nazareth in Galilee..........continued.
 
Last edited:

S-word

Well-Known Member
quote=gnostic; We both agreed that Jesus was born in Judea and not in Galilee. However, Matthew clearly indicated that Mary was in Joseph's home.
Nothing about a humble manger.

Correct! And the only place in scripture that you will find the House of Joseph and Mary, is in Luke, which house was in their own town of Nazareth of Galilee. And as you have correctly observed, their house had nothing to do with the manger to where, only the shepherds went to see the baby.

quote=gnostic; Do you see manger anywhere in Matthew 1????

Nope, cos Matthew only mentions the house of Joseph and Mary, which was in their own town of Nazareth in Galilee, to where the wise men went to pay homage to the Young Child Jesus.

quote=gnostic; Nothing about Galilee, or Nazareth, or the Bethlehem in Galilee.

Nope, only the house of Joseph and Mary which was in their own town of Nazareth in Galilee, to where the wise men went to pay homage to the Young Child Jesus.

quote=gnostic; Yes, Luke says they were in Nazareth before going to Bethlehem, Judea,

Glad to see that we agree on that

quote=gnostic; but Matthew's version doesn't say that all. And you can't prove Matthew said anything otherwise.

I can prove Biblically that when the wise men left Herod, they saw the star that they had first seen while they were in the east and it guided them to the house, Not to the Inn, the stable, or the manger in Bethlehem of Judaea, but to the HOUSE of Joseph and Mary, which we know from Luke was not in Bethlehem of Judaea, but was in their own town of Nazareth in Galilee. You my dear friend can prove nothing, absolutely nothing, as the only record of these events are in the bible which you contradict.

quote=gnostic; You are mixing the two, to prove your own baseless interpretation. And that's all you have - flawed interpretation.

I am reading from the Holy words of God who is the author of the bible; 2nd Peter 1: 21; For no prophetic message ever came just from the will of man, but men were under the control of the Holy Spirit as they spoke (Or wrote) the message that came from God.

quote=gnostic; The only time Nazareth was ever mention in the 1st 2 books is in the last 2 verses of 22. The reason being:
Joseph was going to go back home in Judaea, until he heard about Archelaus, and only then decided to go to Nazareth.

Matthew said "home", not "manger".

Matthew does mention the home of Joseph, once and once only, and the home is said by Matthew to be in Nazareth of Galilee


quote=gnostic; And that Jesus was born in Joseph's home, which happened to be Bethlehem, not Nazareth.

Absolute rubbish, nowhere does Matthew say anything about the actual birth of Jesus other than the fact that he was born in Bethlehem of Judaea. For you to say, that the Bible states that Jesus was born in the home of Joseph is just another of your brain warps. The only mention in Matthew of the home of Joseph is in 2: 23; and it is in Nazareth of Galilee.

quote=gnostic; But if you going to say Luke say this or Luke say that, it is pointless of me, because clearly you can't argue with me by concentrating on one gospel at the time.

Absolutely correct.

quote=gnostic; Can you read Matthew without straying to Luke? From what I've seen so far, I don't think you have the intellect to do so.

Of course I can. Matthew reveals that Jesus was the fulfilment of the prophecy in Isaiah 7: 14: which states that an unmarried woman would be with child and bear a son, who would be given many different appellations, which we know has been fulfilled. He then goes on to show that before Mary was married to Joseph, she was found to be pregnant, and he was thinking of breaking their engagement, but was convinced in a dream to take her for his wife, which he did, when he consummated their union after she had given birth to her firstborn son, Jesus.

Matthew who makes no mention of the baby Jesus, at the Inn, the stable or the Manger, speaks of the HOUSE of Joseph and Mary, but makes no mention of the name of the town in which that HOUSE was, to where the wise men from the east, who studied the stars and who had revealed to Herod when they had first seen the star that had heralded the birth of Jesus, and that Herod determined the age of the children who were to be killed, as two years and below, according to the time that he had learned from the wise men when they had first sighted the star which is believed to have been the triple conjunction of the King planet Jupiter in 6 B.C.

Matthew then Goes on to reveal that when the wise men left Herod, they saw what they believed to be the same star that they had seen in the east, as it was in the same constellation as was the triple conjunction of Jupiter, which we know had to have been in this instance, the comet of 5 B.C., as it is said to have Stood Over, the House of Mary and Joseph, not the Inn, stable, nor manger, but the HOUSE, and the term “Stood Over” in ancient literature refers to comets and comets only.

According to Matthew, while the wise men were paying homage to the YOUNG CHILD Jesus, in the house of Joseph and Mary, they were warned not to return to Herod, but to go home by a different route from which they had travelled the long journey from the east to Jerusalem after they had seen the star that had heralded the birth of the promised King, whose star (The King Planet) they had seen.

Joseph was also warned that Herod (Who died in April of 4 B.C.,) would be looking to kill all the boys in the district of Bethlehem who were two years of age and below, according to the time that he had learned from the wise men, when they had first seen his star while they were still in the east. And if this was late in the year of 5 B.C. or early 4 B.C., Herod must have believed the Jesus had been born sometime in 6 B.C.

As Achelaus was ruling in Southern Judaea when they returned from Egypt, this had to be sometime in 3 B.C. or later, after Herod’s will had been ratified by the Roman senate, and Joseph did not want to go into Judaea, so he made his permanent residence in Nazareth of Galilee. How's that old matey, happy now? I never once referred to Luke who reveals where the house of Joseph and Mary was.
 
Last edited:

S-word

Well-Known Member
Originally Posted by S-word

Away you go matey, show us some credible evidence that around about the time that Jesus was a young child of over one year old, and when Herod died after a failed suicide attempt in 4 B.C.,that there was any great upheaval in the district around Bethlehem of Judaea? In Bethlehem of Galilee, YES; but not in Bethlehem of Judaea.

The burden of proof is not on me. Scholars and historians agree that there was no massacre of the innocents at all. As for the upheaval you talk about, it was not just around Bethlehem of Galilee. The revolt was of the Jewish homeland. It compassed both Bethlehem's.

quote=fallingblood; The burden of proof is not on me. Scholars and historians agree that there was no massacre of the innocents at all.
.

Yes matey, but you forget, I’ve read the scholars who you say that you have done much of your study under, and If they believe the genealogies in Matthew and Luke are of the one person, then they’ve got rocks in their heads mate. Of the two different men by the name Joseph, one of whom, who is recorded in Matthew as the man who had no sexual relation with Mary until she had given birth to her firstborn son and who was to become the step-father of Jesus, is the son of Jacob from the tribe of Judah, and who is about the 24th descendant of Solomon. While the other Joseph who is recorded in Luke as being the Father of Jesus who is the grandson of Heli and who is from the tribe of Levi and is about the 40th descendant of Nathan the half brother to Solomon. Give us a break from your foolishness matey.

Your great scholars who believe that Jesus was illiterate, who at the age of 12, confounded the Jewish authorities with his knowledge of the Scriptures and who was known to read from the scrolls in the synagogues, and who believed that Jesus, who John believed he was not worthy enough to baptise, was originally a disciple of his cousin John.

quote=fallingblood; As for the upheaval you talk about, it was not just around Bethlehem of Galilee. The revolt was of the Jewish homeland. It compassed both Bethlehem's

Nah, the riots I referred to were in the district of Bethlehem, Nazareth, and Sepphoris in Galilee in 4 B.C., shortly after the failed suicide attempt and subsequent death of Herod in 4 B.C. There were always minor revolts against Rome’s rule throughout Israel at any given time in that era.

Quote: S-word
And please reveal from scripture or any other credible evidence that you might find, that the children in Ramah were killed by Herod's butchers, I'll get back to you when you have supplied your so-called evidence, to corroberate your erroneous statements.


quote=fallingblood; The Bible states it. It states clearly that Herod had the infants killed in Bethlehem and the surrounding area. The only Bethlehem that Matthew speaks of in Chapter 2, which this incident happened, is in Judea, which is near Ramah. The burden of proof is on you. You have to prove that even though the Bible states that the massacre happened around Bethlehem in Judea, that it happened elsewhere.

Matthew makes no mention of which Bethlehem the slaughter occurred. But he does show clearly that the wise men never went to the Inn, the Stable or the manger in Bethlehem of Judaea, but to the house of Joseph and Mary, which, according to Luke 2: 39; After performing all that was required of the law in the temple at Jerusalem they returned with the almost two month old Baby Jesus, to into Galilee, to their own town Nazareth in which was their house to which the wise men went to pay homage to the Young child. The proof is in the Bible itself, if you wish to deny the truth therein that is you prerogative. And as I have already stated, if a Jewish school in America was attacked by terrorists and all the Jewish children were killed, “A sound would be heard in Ramah, the sound of Rachel weeping for her children who were killed.

Quote:S-word
I have shown from the only source that deals with this subject, that Rachel was not weeping for her children who you have erroneously stated had died in Ramah, but for her children who had died in Galilee, the district that was visited by the wise men in the year of the comet of 5 B.C., which was a year or so after they, who studied the stars in the east, would have first seen the triple conjunction of the King planet Jupiter in 6 B.C., which was associated with the appearance of the promised Messianic King of Israel.

quote=fallingblood; So the Bible is wrong when you want it to be? Great argument.

No my friend, the bible is correct, Herod, who died in 4 B.C., after a failed suicide attempt chose the age of the children who were to be slaughtered according to the time that he had found out from the star studiers from the east as to when they had first seen His star, the star of the prophesied Messianic king of Israel , the triple conjunction of the King planet Jupiter in 6 B.C.
That is why he chose the age as two year and below, in 5 B.C. when the comet appeared before his death and the ensuing riots that followed shortly after the death of the madman Herod.

Again, you have to prove that the massacre happened. There simply is no evidence for it. The burden of proof is on you

I have to prove nothing my friend, the fact that you choose to discredit God’s Holy Word, is of no concern to me, believe or disbelieve as you will, that is your prerogative. If you believe that there was no massacre in the district of Bethlehem, Nazareth and Sepphoris in Galilee, and you wish to prove your point, then I’m afraid the burden of proof is on you my friend. No one could have moved the peasants in that district to riot against Rome unless they were very, very, upset about something. And as we Know how ancient history would have recorded or not recorded such a barbaric act, we may never find the evidence to prove or disprove that the event in question occurred. And so I will accept by faith that it did, while you must accept by faith that it didn’t.
 
Last edited:

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
Yes matey, but you forget, I’ve read the scholars who you say that you have done much of your study under, and If they believe the genealogies in Matthew and Luke are of the one person, then they’ve got rocks in their heads mate.
Once again, you resort to logical fallacies. Attacking the messengers instead of the message. Also, what scholars are you talking about? And if you did read them, why do you not admit that they do believe the genealogies are of the same people?

You have to yet to prove your stance. You have shown no evidence for Mary sleeping with one person, getting pregnant, that guy leaving, and then another guy coming in. Also, you have not shown any evidence that the Bible does not clearly state that Jesus was born of a virgin.

Jesus being born of a virgin is clearly stated in the Bible. You have to prove that is not the fact.



Nah, the riots I referred to were in the district of Bethlehem, Nazareth, and Sepphoris in Galilee in 4 B.C., shortly after the failed suicide attempt and subsequent death of Herod in 4 B.C. There were always minor revolts against Rome’s rule throughout Israel at any given time in that era.
Where is the evidence for this? Also, if Herod truly had all of the infants murdered, it would not have been a minor revolt. As for the upheaval in 4 B.C.E., which was a result of Herod's death, and a power struggle for the control of the Jewish homeland. 2,000 people were crucified in this revolt, and it is considered one of the 4 major revolts that occurred during the first 200 years of Roman occupation. This revolt encompassed the Jewish homeland. This is accepted history, one in which scholars and historians agree on.



Matthew makes no mention of which Bethlehem the slaughter occurred. But he does show clearly that the wise men never went to the Inn, the Stable or the manger in Bethlehem of Judaea, but to the house of Joseph and Mary, which, according to Luke 2: 39; After performing all that was required of the law in the temple at Jerusalem they returned with the almost two month old Baby Jesus, to into Galilee, to their own town Nazareth in which was their house to which the wise men went to pay homage to the Young child. The proof is in the Bible itself, if you wish to deny the truth therein that is you prerogative. And as I have already stated, if a Jewish school in America was attacked by terrorists and all the Jewish children were killed, “A sound would be heard in Ramah, the sound of Rachel weeping for her children who were killed.
Matthew and Luke do not flow together in regards to the birth stories. Luke never mentions anything about Jesus having to be taken to Egypt because of the massacre. Luke is wholly ignorant of any such thing. If we accept that Luke and Matthew flow together, then Luke must have known that Herod was on a killing spree. However, there is no mention of this.

Also, yes, Matthew does say which Bethlehem. Read Matthew Chapter 2. It is stated that Bethlehem is in Judea. That is the only Bethlehem mentioned, so it is the only one that can be assumed. Why would Herod send anyone to the other Bethlehem? Herod was told that Jesus was at Bethlehem in Judea. That is where he would have sent his troops for the slaughtering. To send his troops anywhere else would have been foolish.

Again though, Matthew and Luke do not flow together so you can not use Luke as a source here. If you want to, then you have to explain why Luke never mentions such an important event.

Also, you still have to prove that the massacre happened. There is no evidence what so ever. Scholars and historians agree that it did not happen. So you have the burden of proof to show some evidence.


I have to prove nothing my friend, the fact that you choose to discredit God’s Holy Word, is of no concern to me, believe or disbelieve as you will, that is your prerogative. If you believe that there was no massacre in the district of Bethlehem, Nazareth and Sepphoris in Galilee, and you wish to prove your point, then I’m afraid the burden of proof is on you my friend. No one could have moved the peasants in that district to riot against Rome unless they were very, very, upset about something. And as we Know how ancient history would have recorded or not recorded such a barbaric act, we may never find the evidence to prove or disprove that the event in question occurred. And so I will accept by faith that it did, while you must accept by faith that it didn’t.
Do not claim that I'm discrediting the Holy Word. You have done much more misinterpretation, as well as complete fabrications than I have.

Also, I do not accept by faith that it didn't happen. It has nothing to do with faith. It has to do with facts. I also do not have the burden of proof. Look at any serious historian or scholar and they will agree that the massacre did not happen. There is no evidence for it, and the fact that the Jewish population did not revolt because of the so called massacre shows beyond a reasonable doubt that it simply did not happen.

The Jewish population did revolt in 4 B.C.E. however, there is not a single piece of evidence that would even suggest that it was because of a massacre that we know never happened. Instead, quite the opposite. We know exactly why this revolt happened, and that it was a revolt that was not just centered around Bethlehem in Galilee as you claim. It was a revolt of the Jewish homeland, and was a result of a power struggle in order to gain their independence.

If you want to claim otherwise, against the historical facts, you have the burden of proof. If you want to dismiss everything that scholars and historians know, then you have the burden of proof. If you want to believe just on faith though, fine. However, there is no reason for you to argue then.
 

Agnostic75

Well-Known Member
S-word said:
This is a compilation of many historical and religious scholars.

Herod [ordered] the slaughter of all the boys who were two years and below in the district of Northern Bethlehem, Nazareth and Sepphorus.


Please quote some skeptic Bible scholars who make that claim.

That myth, along with the rest of the story of the magi, was probably a bogus attempt by Matthew to fulfill Micah 5:2. The verse says "But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting."

There is not any historical evidence Jesus was born in Bethlehem, and there certainly is not any evidence that he became ruler in Israel. Old Testament Jews surely expected, and were surely taught by Old Testament prophets, that a messiah would come who would rule in this life, not in a future life.








 

Agnostic75

Well-Known Member
S-word said:
If you [fallingblood] believe that there was no massacre in the district of Bethlehem, Nazareth and Sepphoris in Galilee, and you wish to prove your point, then I’m afraid the burden of proof is on you my friend.

If that is true, then the burden of proof is on defendants in courts trial to reasonably prove that they are innocent, which is of course not the case.

Any deist could claim that the burden of proof is on you to disprove deism.

If most or all of your sources are Christian scholars, how is that reasonable evidence?

Do you believe that a global flood occured? If so, you will not find one single skeptic Bible scholar who believes that a global flood occured.
 
Last edited:

S-word

Well-Known Member
[/font][/size]


That myth, along with the rest of the story of the magi, was probably a bogus attempt by Matthew to fulfill Micah 5:2. The verse says "But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting."











quote=Agnostic

That myth, along with the rest of the story of the magi, was probably a bogus attempt by Matthew to fulfill Micah 5:2. The verse says "But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting." [/quote]


Matey, the whole bible to you mob of disbelieving godless people, is thought to be nothing more than a bogus attempt to fulfil the prophecies of the Old Testament concerning the Son of Man who is to establish his throne on earth and rule the whole world with justice.

Isaiah 9: 6; in referrence to the land of Galilee; "A child is born to us! And he will be our ruler. He will be called , "Wonderful Councelor." "Eternal Fater." "Prince of peace" etc.

There is not any historical evidence Jesus was born in Bethlehem,

Matey, you have no evidence apart from what has been said by Josephus the historian that Jesus even existed, and you take the words of the bible, which is the only evidence you have of his existence, words that you do not believe, to attack the very existence of Jesus in who you do not believe. How idiotic and senseless is that?

and there certainly is not any evidence that he became ruler in Israel. Old Testament Jews surely expected, and were surely taught by Old Testament prophets, that a messiah would come who would rule in this life, not in a future life.


And they, the Old Testament Jews, are still awaiting their saviour; and this will be fulfilled at the close of the sixth day, or the sixth period of one thousand years from the first day in which Adam ate of the forbidden tree and died in that day at the age of 930, when the Lord returns as promised to establish his rule on earth and binds Satan for the seventh period of one thousand years, which is “The Day of the Lord,” or the Sabbath.

You would undoubtedly have rejected the Biblical account, which speaks of the Lord who sent the man Jesus in his name as his earthly image, the man who he had prophesied in Deuteronomy 18: 18; that he would choose from among the Israelite to speak in his name. The man Jesus, who did, nor said anything other than that which the Lord had commanded, thereby, due to his obedience to his indwelling spirit, the Lord our saviour, was able to reveal himself to the world through his obedient servant Jesus, of whom he says when he comes to save Israel on that great day of tribulation that is almost upon us, when he gathers all the nations around Jerusalem, Zechariah 12: 10, “Then they will look upon me, says the Lord, and see the one who they pierced, and they shall mourn for him as one mourns for an only child etc.

Numbers 24: 17, “A king, like a bright star, will arise in that Nation. Like a comet he will come from Israel. He will strike the leaders of Moab and beat down all the people of Seth. He will conquer his enemies in Edom and make their land his property. While Israel continues victorious. The Nation of Israel will trample them down and wipe out the last survivors.” Do you not believe the word of the Lord as spoken through the prophet Balaam the son of Beor, or have you misconstrued it as most Christians have and somehow (which is beyond my ability to comprehend) believe that this prophecy was fulfilled 2000 years ago when the Lord sent, in his name “Who I Am,” the young Israelite Jesus, to do and say only that which he was commanded by the Lord who said; “They will look upon me and see the one who they pierced, and they shall mourn for him as one mourns for an only child etc.”

Isaiah 63: 1-6, “Who is this coming from the city of Bozrah in Edom? Who is this so splendidly dressed in red, marching along in power and strength?” It is the Lord, powerful to save, coming to announce his victory. “Why is his clothing so red, like that of a man who tramples grapes to make wine?”
The Lord answers, “I have trampled the nations like grapes and no one came to help me. I trampled them in my anger, and their blood has stained all my clothing. I decided that the time to save my people had come; it was time to punish their enemies, I was amazed when I looked and saw that there was no one to help me. But my anger made me strong, and I won the victory myself. In my anger I trampled whole nations and shattered them, I poured out their life’s blood on the earth.”

See Zechariah 14. The Lord will come to fight for his people Israel as he has fought in times past and from within the inner most sanctuary of his tabernacle (The kingdom of God is within you) which temporary tabernacle is the body of mankind, he will fight the enemies of Israel; those Nations who surround Jerusalem in their attempt to drive God's chosen people into the sea. The Lord will throw them into a state of total confusion, and the weapons of destruction with which they would destroy Israel, he will cause them to turn upon their own allies and they shall suffer a terrible disease, the soft tissue such as their eyes and tongues will melt in their sockets, and their radiated flesh cooked to the bone will slide from their bodies while still standing. Then all the surviving Nations will send their representatives each year to Jerusalem in the land of Israel, to worship the Lord as King and woe betide those who refuse to do so.

Then all the godless people of this world, and all those, who in their cathedrals, of stone, marble or crystal, who sing and dance with their eyes and hands raised to the heavens in worship of a god they neither know or understand, will bow down and worship my God, who commands that I do not enter into senseless debates with the godless, and to not throw my precious pearls before the feet of Swine. Have a good one matey, I’m finished in this thread.
 

S-word

Well-Known Member
[/font][/size]
That myth, along with the rest of the story of the magi, was probably a bogus attempt by Matthew to fulfill Micah 5:2. The verse says "But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting."

Matey, the whole bible to you mob of disbelieving godless people, is thought to be nothing more than a bogus attempt to fulfil the prophecies of the Old Testament concerning the Son of Man who is to establish his throne on earth and rule the whole world with justice.

Isaiah 9: 6; in referrence to the land of Galilee; "A child is born to us! And he will be our ruler. He will be called , "Wonderful Councelor." "Eternal Fater." "Prince of peace" etc.

quote=Agnostic; There is not any historical evidence Jesus was born in Bethlehem,

Matey, Unlike we, who believe the historcal evidence in the Word of God, you, who disbelieve, have no historical evidence apart from what has been said by Josephus the historian that Jesus even existed, and you take the words of the bible, which is the only evidence you have of his existence, words that you do not believe, to attack the very existence of Jesus in who you do not believe. How idiotic and senseless is that?

quote=Agnostic; and there certainly is not any evidence that he became ruler in Israel. Old Testament Jews surely expected, and were surely taught by Old Testament prophets, that a messiah would come who would rule in this life, not in a future life.

And they, the Old Testament Jews, are still awaiting our saviour; and this will be fulfilled at the close of this the sixth day, or the sixth period of one thousand years from the first day in which Adam ate of the forbidden tree and died in that day at the age of 930, when the Lord returns as promised to establish his rule on earth and binds Satan for the seventh period of one thousand years, which is “The Day of the Lord,” or the Sabbath. From the Book of Jubilees 4: 30; "And he (Adam) lacked 70 years of one thousand years; for one thousand years are as one day according to the testimony of the heavens and therefore was it written concerning the tree of knowledge: 'On the day ye eat thereof, ye shall die.' For this reason he did not complete the years of this day; for he died during it."

You would undoubtedly have rejected the Biblical account, which speaks of the Lord our Saviour, who sent the man Jesus in his name as his earthly image, the man who he had prophesied in Deuteronomy 18: 18; that he would choose from among the Israelites to speak in his name. The man Jesus, who did, nor said anything other than that which the Lord had commanded, thereby, due to his obedience to his indwelling spirit, the Lord our saviour, was able to reveal himself to the world through his obedient servant Jesus, of whom he says when he comes to save Israel on that great day of tribulation that is almost upon us, when he gathers all the nations around Jerusalem, Zechariah 12: 10, “Then they will look upon me, says the Lord, and see the one who they pierced, and they shall mourn for him as one mourns for an only child etc.

Numbers 24: 17, “A king, like a bright star, will arise in that Nation. Like a comet he will come from Israel. He will strike the leaders of Moab and beat down all the people of Seth. He will conquer his enemies in Edom and make their land his property. While Israel continues victorious. The Nation of Israel will trample them down and wipe out the last survivors.” Do you not believe the word of the Lord as spoken through the prophet Balaam the son of Beor, or have you misconstrued it as most Christians have and somehow (which is beyond my ability to comprehend) believe that this prophecy was fulfilled 2000 years ago when the Lord sent, in his name “Who I Am,” the young Israelite Jesus, who became his earthly image, to do and say only that which he was commanded by the Lord who said; “They will look upon me and see the one who they pierced, and they shall mourn for him as one mourns for an only child etc.”

Isaiah 63: 1-6, “Who is this coming from the city of Bozrah in Edom? Who is this so splendidly dressed in red, marching along in power and strength?” It is the Lord, powerful to save, coming to announce his victory. “Why is his clothing so red, like that of a man who tramples grapes to make wine?”
The Lord answers, “I have trampled the nations like grapes and no one came to help me. I trampled them in my anger, and their blood has stained all my clothing. I decided that the time to save my people had come; it was time to punish their enemies, I was amazed when I looked and saw that there was no one to help me. But my anger made me strong, and I won the victory myself. In my anger I trampled whole nations and shattered them, I poured out their life’s blood on the earth.”

See Zechariah 14. The Lord will come to fight for his people Israel as he has fought in times past and from within the inner most sanctuary of his tabernacle (The kingdom of God is within you) which temporary tabernacle is the body of mankind, he will fight the enemies of Israel; those Nations who surround Jerusalem in their attempt to drive God's chosen people into the sea. The Lord will throw them into a state of total confusion, and the weapons of destruction with which they would destroy Israel, he will cause them to turn upon their own allies and they shall suffer a terrible disease, the soft tissue such as their eyes and tongues will melt in their sockets, and their radiated flesh cooked to the bone will slide from their bodies while still standing. Then all the surviving Nations will send their representatives each year to Jerusalem in the land of Israel, to worship and pay homage to the Lord as King and woe betide those who refuse to do so.

Then all the godless people of this world, and all those, who in their cathedrals, of stone, marble or crystal, who sing and dance with their eyes and hands raised to the heavens in worship of a god they neither know or understand, will bow down and worship My God, who commands that I do not enter into senseless debates with the godless, and to not throw my precious pearls before the feet of Swine. Have a good one matey, I’m finished in this thread.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top