Was 'Jesus' ie; 'Yeshua', really a man of the East?

BilliardsBall · Jun 22, 2018

godnotgod said:
I guess you're just not getting it. If you were paying attention, you would understand that I am addressing the points made on your referenced site one by one, as per your request. I cite the Encyclopedia Brittanica as source to show the connection between the two, which again, your site tries to incorrectly debunk. Your site (and you) are speaking from the POV of doctrine and so is an obviously slanted view. I am speaking from a historical perspective. And no, the Bible is not a legitimate historical document, though some things in it can be verified via historical documents. But even from a doctrinal POV, many passages in the Bible are corrupt, either backwritten, or just plain wrong, as in the case of Matthew in the NT citing a 1st century non-existent Nazareth. As I recall, 'Nazareth' appears some 24 times in the NT, but not once in the OT. On top of that, we have many mistranslations into Koine Greek from the oral Aramaic tradition. The document it is based upon, the Codex Sinaiticus, was a highly altered document, rescued from a trash bin by the Bible scholar Tyndale

"Before ancient religious reformer Zarathustra (Greek name Zoroaster) gained influence in the region during the 6th century BCE, the Iranians had a polytheistic religion, and Mithra was the most important of their gods. First of all, he was the god of contract and mutual obligation. In a cuneiform tablet of the 15th century BCE that contains a treaty between the Hittites and the Mitanni, Mithra is invoked as the god of oath. Furthermore, in some Indian Vedic texts the god Mitra (the Indian form of Mithra) appears both as “friend” and as “contract.” The word mitra may be translated in either way, because contracts and mutual obligation make friends. In short, Mithra may signify any kind of interpersonal communication and whatever establishes good relations between people. Mithra was called the Mediator. Mithra was also the god of the sun, of the shining light that beholds everything, and, hence, was invoked in oaths. The Greeks and Romans considered Mithra as a sun god. He was probably also the god of kings. He was the god of mutual obligation between the king and his warriors and, hence, the god of war. He was also the god of justice, which was guaranteed by the king. Whenever people observed justice and contract, they venerated Mithra."

Mithraism | Persian religion

'Jesus' was the deity of the renewal of the covenant, a contract between God and man, the deity of justice, as well as a symbol of good relations amongst men (ie 'love thy neighbor, etc') He is really just an extension of the Mithraic myth. You deny that because you want him to be exclusively what you want him to be, which is a fantasy and a gross exaggeration both of the Mithraic myth and of Yeshua's teachings.

I do follow you, and I'm not seeking to exacerbate our debate here.

There are nearly 8,000 NT verses, written by a dozen writers who claimed to be eyewitnesses. I think your theory is 1) guilty of oversimplification 2) relying on coincidence when there are non-Mithraic connections to other mythologies, but no one is saying Jesus went to the Americas to be an Aztec 3) starting from certain presuppositions (the Nazareth synagogue narrative is stupid, so it cannot possibly be true)...

BilliardsBall · Jun 22, 2018

godnotgod said:
Do you know how to read? Apparently not. The Dec 25 birthdate was a secondary issue to the one I made a point of, which is about the VIRGIN BIRTH, which you conveniently ignore because it exposes the Christian doctrine of virgin birth as having it's source in ancient myth.

I read okay. I've read Isaiah 7, which prophecies a virgin birth circa 700 BCE.

BilliardsBall · Jun 22, 2018

godnotgod said:
Are you deaf? Once again, I did not say that the NT is a rip off of Far Eastern ideas. You don't know how to read!

The biblical stance that Jesus hid is obviously an exaggerated fabrication to make him look all powerful. Are you so naive to believe such tripe?

Giant mobs? We have giant mobs in the non-existent 'synagogue' of the tiny non-existent hamlet of Nazareth? You're making up tall tales.

I can hear okay. I never said you said the NT is rip of Far Eastern ideas. I said it's predicated on the OT, which is demonstrably not Far Eastern--also, if YOU can't prove the NT is a riff on or ripoff of Far Eastern ideas, you have nearly 8,000 verses to "deal with" once you're done pummeling the Nazareth discussion.

godnotgod · Jun 22, 2018

BilliardsBall said:
I read okay. I've read Isaiah 7, which prophecies a virgin birth circa 700 BCE.

Prophecy Shmophecy.*

I have provided a very beefy account of ancient origins of the virgin birth myth several posts back. So where do you suppose the Isaiah 'prophecy' came from? This myth was fairly abundant at that time. You want me to believe in some prophetic utterances that are now how old, and who knows who wrote it, and where it came from? You have no confirmation that it even came from the stated author. None of the four gospels were written by their stated authors either.

* "Prophecy is the contamination of the future with the past"
Alan Watts

godnotgod · Jun 22, 2018

BilliardsBall said:
I can hear okay. I never said you said the NT is rip of Far Eastern ideas. I said it's predicated on the OT, which is demonstrably not Far Eastern--also, if YOU can't prove the NT is a riff on or ripoff of Far Eastern ideas, you have nearly 8,000 verses to "deal with" once you're done pummeling the Nazareth discussion.

What 'Nazareth' discussion? You haven't offered anything new, and what you have come up with has been shown to be bogus or untenable. So not having a leg to stand on, you now think you can 'pummel' me with the sheer volume of 8,000 verses. That is outside the discussion, which is about Yeshua's missing years.

I never said the NT is a riff on Far Eastern ideas either.

But if you want to get an idea as to why I don't trust anything in the Bible, take a look here to see what the Christian ilk is capable of in terms of destruction of anything that does not agree with their dogma, and that, of course, includes the original teachings of Yeshua, the real man, and not the myth of the Romanized 'Jesus':

The Fair Race's Darkest Hour

godnotgod · Jun 22, 2018

BilliardsBall said:
I do follow you, and I'm not seeking to exacerbate our debate here.

There are nearly 8,000 NT verses, written by a dozen writers who claimed to be eyewitnesses. I think your theory is 1) guilty of oversimplification 2) relying on coincidence when there are non-Mithraic connections to other mythologies, but no one is saying Jesus went to the Americas to be an Aztec 3) starting from certain presuppositions (the Nazareth synagogue narrative is stupid, so it cannot possibly be true)...

It is not true because it is untenable, for one. Jesus simply would not have escaped such a mob. What was the punishment for blasphemy then? Stoning? You have failed to provide one tenable argument for the existence of any 1st century Nazareth.

Eyewitnesses? Paul claimed some eyewitnesses to the Resurrection were still alive when he wrote about it. If that were really true, any good scholar would have beaten a path to their door to squeeze every last word from them to put on paper. But Paul simply dismissed them as a footnote, focusing on himself instead, his ego taking precedence. I give little credence to the mention of any so-called 'eyewitnesses' at such a late date.

The 'other mythologies' are in addition to the Mithraic connections, too numerous to be mere 'coincidence'. You want to poo-poo the elephant in the room. Not gonna work, esp as more and more evidence is being uncovered in modern times. Cat out of bag. Put in pipe. Smoke.

BilliardsBall · Jun 25, 2018

godnotgod said:
Prophecy Shmophecy.*

I have provided a very beefy account of ancient origins of the virgin birth myth several posts back. So where do you suppose the Isaiah 'prophecy' came from? This myth was fairly abundant at that time. You want me to believe in some prophetic utterances that are now how old, and who knows who wrote it, and where it came from? You have no confirmation that it even came from the stated author. None of the four gospels were written by their stated authors either.

* "Prophecy is the contamination of the future with the past"
Alan Watts

Put differently, because the Isaiah prophecy undermines your claim, it must be invalid.

[Waiting for your proof against the source text here, since Isaiah is found intact in ancient sources, including the Dead Sea Scrolls.]

BilliardsBall · Jun 25, 2018

godnotgod said:
It is not true because it is untenable, for one. Jesus simply would not have escaped such a mob. What was the punishment for blasphemy then? Stoning? You have failed to provide one tenable argument for the existence of any 1st century Nazareth.

Eyewitnesses? Paul claimed some eyewitnesses to the Resurrection were still alive when he wrote about it. If that were really true, any good scholar would have beaten a path to their door to squeeze every last word from them to put on paper. But Paul simply dismissed them as a footnote, focusing on himself instead, his ego taking precedence. I give little credence to the mention of any so-called 'eyewitnesses' at such a late date.

The 'other mythologies' are in addition to the Mithraic connections, too numerous to be mere 'coincidence'. You want to poo-poo the elephant in the room. Not gonna work, esp as more and more evidence is being uncovered in modern times. Cat out of bag. Put in pipe. Smoke.

I don't understand why you want to self-deflate your argument. If Nazareth never existed, who is the Jewish Jesus of Nazareth that you claimed lived in Israel until age 12, before heading East?

BilliardsBall · Jun 25, 2018

godnotgod said:
What 'Nazareth' discussion? You haven't offered anything new, and what you have come up with has been shown to be bogus or untenable. So not having a leg to stand on, you now think you can 'pummel' me with the sheer volume of 8,000 verses. That is outside the discussion, which is about Yeshua's missing years.

I never said the NT is a riff on Far Eastern ideas either.

But if you want to get an idea as to why I don't trust anything in the Bible, take a look here to see what the Christian ilk is capable of in terms of destruction of anything that does not agree with their dogma, and that, of course, includes the original teachings of Yeshua, the real man, and not the myth of the Romanized 'Jesus':

The Fair Race's Darkest Hour

I'm less interested in what the false Roman church did centuries after Christ than in the Savior who died and rose for us IMO.

godnotgod · Jun 26, 2018

BilliardsBall said:
I don't understand why you want to self-deflate your argument. If Nazareth never existed, who is the Jewish Jesus of Nazareth that you claimed lived in Israel until age 12, before heading East?

I never made that claim. There was no such "Jesus" in the 1st century; there was Yeshua the Nazarene Jewish mystic of the Essene sect, whose authentic teachings were overwritten with those of Mithra to include blood sacrifice, bodily resurrection, and a virgin birth, none of which were part of Yeshua's teachings. "Jesus" is the resulting myth, launched by one St. Paul and the Church, which is now modern Christianity.

My tentative position is that Yeshua could not have lived in a town that did not exist; instead, he and his mother and father lived in the FAMILY Nazorean (ie; Nazarene) Essene monastery atop Mt. Carmel, just 10 miles outside of present day Nazareth, where he was raised and where he taught, and who was known as 'The Teacher of Righteousness', and which had connections to the Therapeutae Essene monasteries in Greece and Egypt, which in turn were connected to Theravada Buddhists of the Far East. It was the Buddhist King Asoka who sent his Theravada monks westward into Egypt and Greece as HEALERS. Yeshua was a HEALER. Get the connection? Where did these healing arts come from? It was the Aryans which brought them into India from the north some 4000 years ago, and which became part of Theravada.

Yeshua is reputed to have been a carpenter, but it appears never made any real wealth from such a humble occupation. Instead, it makes far more sense that he contributed these skills to the Nazorean monastery.

godnotgod · Jun 26, 2018

BilliardsBall said:
I'm less interested in what the false Roman church did centuries after Christ than in the Savior who died and rose for us IMO.

We have the hard evidence for what orthodox Christianity did, but a 'Savior who died and rose for us' is purely belief, based upon the pagan doctrines of blood sacrifice and of resurrection from Mithraism.

You can dispense with the doctrinal arguments, please.

You, like many other so-called 'true Christians' may want to argue the notion of 'true' vs 'false' Christians, but no matter; they all act on the basis of Christian doctrine and scripture. I don't put stock in any of them.

godnotgod · Jun 26, 2018

BilliardsBall said:
Put differently, because the Isaiah prophecy undermines your claim, it must be invalid.

[Waiting for your proof against the source text here, since Isaiah is found intact in ancient sources, including the Dead Sea Scrolls.]

No. Because the Isaiah prophecy is invalid, your claim is invalid.

That it is found intact is even better for my argument, because the original Hebrew word mistranslated as 'virgin' is almah, which means 'young woman'. A virgin in Hebrew is a 'betulah'. And don't bother with the standard Christian counter-argument that an almah, being a young maiden, must be a virgin. It's fallacious and I'm already aware of it. But here is a very expansive explanation as to why an almah is NOT a virgin, and also why Isaiah 7 does NOT predict a Messiah:

http://jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/articles/isaiah-714-a-virgin-birth/

BilliardsBall · Jun 27, 2018

godnotgod said:
I never made that claim. There was no such "Jesus" in the 1st century; there was Yeshua the Nazarene Jewish mystic of the Essene sect, whose authentic teachings were overwritten with those of Mithra to include blood sacrifice, bodily resurrection, and a virgin birth, none of which were part of Yeshua's teachings. "Jesus" is the resulting myth, launched by one St. Paul and the Church, which is now modern Christianity.

My tentative position is that Yeshua could not have lived in a town that did not exist; instead, he and his mother and father lived in the FAMILY Nazorean (ie; Nazarene) Essene monastery atop Mt. Carmel, just 10 miles outside of present day Nazareth, where he was raised and where he taught, and who was known as 'The Teacher of Righteousness', and which had connections to the Therapeutae Essene monasteries in Greece and Egypt, which in turn were connected to Theravada Buddhists of the Far East. It was the Buddhist King Asoka who sent his Theravada monks westward into Egypt and Greece as HEALERS. Yeshua was a HEALER. Get the connection? Where did these healing arts come from? It was the Aryans which brought them into India from the north some 4000 years ago, and which became part of Theravada.

Yeshua is reputed to have been a carpenter, but it appears never made any real wealth from such a humble occupation. Instead, it makes far more sense that he contributed these skills to the Nazorean monastery.

I understand, and thanks for your patience with me:

1. For an Essene, Jesus was non-monastic. Unlike the church desert fathers or many of the Essenes/Qumran'ers, He went to Jerusalem and discussed, taught and argued with the non-mystics and Rabbis--therefore, some interpret the whole NT as analogy or allegory, but that seems to be bending dozens of stories where Jesus speaks to people as named groups and individuals. Essenes wouldn't go to town and preach to thousands; I believe they would disclaim anyone not an Essene and stay on that mountaintop.

2. As I've written before, we cannot logically say St. Paul made up Christianity, since Jesus taught much of what Paul taught and vice versa, and since something like a decade before Paul preached, Jesus's close followers had converted tens of thousands of people and planted churches. Paul upon being struck blind, went to another city, where multiple churches awaited him (see Acts).

3. I don't believe Jesus was a carpenter either, I believe His father Joseph was a mason sort of craftsman, who would have built homes and not added to an existing monastery.

4. Why place Jesus the Essene in Nazareth? Why wasn't His community in Bethlehem (or Jerusalem where He preached)?

BilliardsBall · Jun 27, 2018

godnotgod said:
We have the hard evidence for what orthodox Christianity did, but a 'Savior who died and rose for us' is purely belief, based upon the pagan doctrines of blood sacrifice and of resurrection from Mithraism.

You can dispense with the doctrinal arguments, please.

You, like many other so-called 'true Christians' may want to argue the notion of 'true' vs 'false' Christians, but no matter; they all act on the basis of Christian doctrine and scripture. I don't put stock in any of them.

I converted to Christianity from Judaism after extensive reading of Tanakh, which has numerous types and shadows of the atonement, along with literal blood sacrifices and literal resurrections (Elijah and Elisha's work, for one example). I never needed to consult Mithraism to trust Jesus for salvation, and millions of others had the same experience.

BilliardsBall · Jun 27, 2018

godnotgod said:
No. Because the Isaiah prophecy is invalid, your claim is invalid.

That it is found intact is even better for my argument, because the original Hebrew word mistranslated as 'virgin' is almah, which means 'young woman'. A virgin in Hebrew is a 'betulah'. And don't bother with the standard Christian counter-argument that an almah, being a young maiden, must be a virgin. It's fallacious and I'm already aware of it. But here is a very expansive explanation as to why an almah is NOT a virgin, and also why Isaiah 7 does NOT predict a Messiah:

http://jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/articles/isaiah-714-a-virgin-birth/

I'd say the best discussion on this was at a conference a few years ago, where secular, Jewish and Christian scholars discussed almah for three days, inconclusively.

I'd say the best apologetic for it being a virgin in Isaiah is simple, however--it's a MIRACLE SIGN in Isaiah, and God gave miracle babies to Samson's, Samuel's and Issac's parents, among others. LOOK A SIGN: A YOUNG WOMAN WILL HAVE A CHILD, is silly!

godnotgod · Jun 27, 2018

BilliardsBall said:
I'd say the best discussion on this was at a conference a few years ago, where secular, Jewish and Christian scholars discussed almah for three days, inconclusively.

I'd say the best apologetic for it being a virgin in Isaiah is simple, however--it's a MIRACLE SIGN in Isaiah, and God gave miracle babies to Samson's, Samuel's and Issac's parents, among others. LOOK A SIGN: A YOUNG WOMAN WILL HAVE A CHILD, is silly!

What is silly is that a virgin can give birth.

An excerpt from the site I referenced makes clear that the 'sign' was not about a virgin birth:

"Examining the Hebrew more closely we note that the Hebrew verbs for “conceived – harah” and “will give birth – yoledet” are used throughout scriptures to refer to natural conceptions and birth, as in, “And man knew his wife and she conceived (tahar) and bore (taled) and bore Cain” Genesis 4:1 These are the same verbs used in Isaiah 7:14 and refer to a natural birth. The sign mentioned in Isaiah 7:14 has nothing to do with a miraculous birth.

In context Isaiah is speaking about a specific young woman who will become pregnant during the life time of Isaiah and King Ahaz. A miraculous virgin birth that supposedly took place over 560 years later would be irrelevant to Ahaz, who required a sign prior to an imminent military invasion.

Christians attempt to avoid this problem by claiming that this is a “double level prophesy” that happens both during the time of Ahaz and again in the time of Jesus. If Christians want to believe that the word Almah means a virgin and simultaneously claim a “double level prophesy” they would have to believe that a virgin birth took place in the time of Ahaz. However, this never occurred and would also contradict the claim that Jesus’ virgin birth is unique.

The sign mentioned in verse 14 to Ahaz is that the two kings who threatened King Ahaz would be destroyed quickly. This sign is described in the next verse: “before the child knows enough to refuse evil and choose good the land whose two kings you dread will be forsaken” Isaiah 7:15

It is fulfilled in the next chapter with the birth of a child to the prophet Isaiah: “he (Isaiah) approached the prophetess and she conceived (tahar) and bore (taled) a son and God said to me: Name the child “Maher-shalal-hash-baz” which means (the spoil speeds the prey hastens). For before the child shall know how to cry my father my mother the riches of Damascus and the spoil of Sammaria will be carried away before the king of Assyria.” Isaiah 8:4

Clearly, the woman mentioned in Isaiah 7:14 and 8:3-4 are one and the same and that she is Isaiah’s wife. The real sign to King Ahaz is that Isaiah’s child will be born quickly and before he matures (knowing the difference between good and evil and father and mother) the nations who threaten the Kingdom of Judea will be defeated. Interestingly, Isaiah’s children are specifically referred to as a “signs” from God.

“Behold I and the children whom the Lord has given me are for signs and wonders in Israel.” Isaiah 8:18

King Ahaz was told to trust in G-d for assistance and to ask for a sign as proof that his enemies would be defeated. He is told that the sign will be the birth of a child from the young woman who will call the child (Immanuel –עמנואל).[4] Although this name mean ‘God is with us” it does not mean that the child will be divine. It is very common for biblical personality to have names that include God and part of their name. For example, (Daniel –דניאל) means “God is my Judge.” The implication was that G-d would be with Ahaz and the Kingdom of Judah in their fight against their enemies."

https://jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/articles/isaiah-714-a-virgin-birth/

The notion of a virgin birth is a Christian alteration of the original text to emphasize the miraculous nature of the event. These kinds of modifications occur in other places in the Bible as well.

BilliardsBall · Jun 28, 2018

godnotgod said:
What is silly is that a virgin can give birth.

An excerpt from the site I referenced makes clear that the 'sign' was not about a virgin birth:

"Examining the Hebrew more closely we note that the Hebrew verbs for “conceived – harah” and “will give birth – yoledet” are used throughout scriptures to refer to natural conceptions and birth, as in, “And man knew his wife and she conceived (tahar) and bore (taled) and bore Cain” Genesis 4:1 These are the same verbs used in Isaiah 7:14 and refer to a natural birth. The sign mentioned in Isaiah 7:14 has nothing to do with a miraculous birth.

In context Isaiah is speaking about a specific young woman who will become pregnant during the life time of Isaiah and King Ahaz. A miraculous virgin birth that supposedly took place over 560 years later would be irrelevant to Ahaz, who required a sign prior to an imminent military invasion.

Christians attempt to avoid this problem by claiming that this is a “double level prophesy” that happens both during the time of Ahaz and again in the time of Jesus. If Christians want to believe that the word Almah means a virgin and simultaneously claim a “double level prophesy” they would have to believe that a virgin birth took place in the time of Ahaz. However, this never occurred and would also contradict the claim that Jesus’ virgin birth is unique.

The sign mentioned in verse 14 to Ahaz is that the two kings who threatened King Ahaz would be destroyed quickly. This sign is described in the next verse: “before the child knows enough to refuse evil and choose good the land whose two kings you dread will be forsaken” Isaiah 7:15

It is fulfilled in the next chapter with the birth of a child to the prophet Isaiah: “he (Isaiah) approached the prophetess and she conceived (tahar) and bore (taled) a son and God said to me: Name the child “Maher-shalal-hash-baz” which means (the spoil speeds the prey hastens). For before the child shall know how to cry my father my mother the riches of Damascus and the spoil of Sammaria will be carried away before the king of Assyria.” Isaiah 8:4

Clearly, the woman mentioned in Isaiah 7:14 and 8:3-4 are one and the same and that she is Isaiah’s wife. The real sign to King Ahaz is that Isaiah’s child will be born quickly and before he matures (knowing the difference between good and evil and father and mother) the nations who threaten the Kingdom of Judea will be defeated. Interestingly, Isaiah’s children are specifically referred to as a “signs” from God.

“Behold I and the children whom the Lord has given me are for signs and wonders in Israel.” Isaiah 8:18

King Ahaz was told to trust in G-d for assistance and to ask for a sign as proof that his enemies would be defeated. He is told that the sign will be the birth of a child from the young woman who will call the child (Immanuel –עמנואל).[4] Although this name mean ‘God is with us” it does not mean that the child will be divine. It is very common for biblical personality to have names that include God and part of their name. For example, (Daniel –דניאל) means “God is my Judge.” The implication was that G-d would be with Ahaz and the Kingdom of Judah in their fight against their enemies."

https://jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/articles/isaiah-714-a-virgin-birth/

The notion of a virgin birth is a Christian alteration of the original text to emphasize the miraculous nature of the event. These kinds of modifications occur in other places in the Bible as well.

The Bible never claims that Jesus's miracle birth is unique. There are other miracle births in the Bible. I'm familiar with the apologetics for almah on both sides, as a Jew who has been witnessing to Jews for decades. All you wrote here, I've heard before, multiple times, and from Tanakh and Talmud experts.

A young woman having a child is a common occurrence and not a miracle sign. Of course, what you're really saying here is the NT contains lies. Yet you are using the NT to claim that Jesus was a special Essene who resided near "Nazareth". How can you hold onto this double standard?

Also, the prophecy keeps going to Isaiah 9 and beyond:

For to us a child is born,
to us a son is given,
and the government will be on his shoulders.
And he will be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

This is the CHILD who governs, not Ahaz, and this child has quite a few names including MIGHTY GOD, EVERLASTING FATHER. Add that to counselor and of course, Prince of Peace, and I can tell you, my Jewish friends need some very complicated nonsense to make Jesus/Mashiach not G_d.

godnotgod · Jun 29, 2018

BilliardsBall said:
The Bible never claims that Jesus's miracle birth is unique. There are other miracle births in the Bible. I'm familiar with the apologetics for almah on both sides, as a Jew who has been witnessing to Jews for decades. All you wrote here, I've heard before, multiple times, and from Tanakh and Talmud experts.

What I have offered you from the referenced site is pretty clear rebuttal to the Christian doctrine of a 'virgin birth', and yet, in spite of the evidence, you put your silly beliefs ahead of the evidence.

CHILDREN AREN'T BORN OF VIRGINS! CHRISTIANS ARE MAKING THINGS UP TO MAKE 'JESUS' A 'SPECIAL CASE', A GROSS EXAGGERATION.

A young woman having a child is a common occurrence and not a miracle sign

Click to expand...

. Of course, what you're really saying here is the NT contains lies.

The Bible is filled with untruths, false prophecies, and fabrications. The virgin birth, the Resurrection, The Ascension, etc, are just a few. But there is a reason people want to believe in such poppycock.

Yet you are using the NT to claim that Jesus was a special Essene who resided near "Nazareth". How can you hold onto this double standard?

I said he and his family lived at the Nazorean (ie 'Nazarene') Essene monastery atop Mt. Carmel, which is just 10 miles outside of where PRESENT DAY Nazareth is located. In the 1st century, there was no 'town of Nazareth'.

This is the CHILD who governs, not Ahaz.....

Ahaz was a KING. KINGS govern.

BilliardsBall · Jun 29, 2018

godnotgod said:
What I have offered you from the referenced site is pretty clear rebuttal to the Christian doctrine of a 'virgin birth', and yet, in spite of the evidence, you put your silly beliefs ahead of the evidence.

CHILDREN AREN'T BORN OF VIRGINS! CHRISTIANS ARE MAKING THINGS UP TO MAKE 'JESUS' A 'SPECIAL CASE', A GROSS EXAGGERATION.

The Bible is filled with untruths, false prophecies, and fabrications. The virgin birth, the Resurrection, The Ascension, etc, are just a few. But there is a reason people want to believe in such poppycock.

I said he and his family lived at the Nazorean (ie 'Nazarene') Essene monastery atop Mt. Carmel, which is just 10 miles outside of where PRESENT DAY Nazareth is located. In the 1st century, there was no 'town of Nazareth'.

Ahaz was a KING. KINGS govern.

Yes, I put "Nazareth" in quotations above, using your stance as described above.

Yes, Ahaz was a King who governed, but Ahaz was not a CHILD who governed during the time referenced by Isaiah 7-9 and on.

And I see you wrote virgin births don't happen, even should God intercede. It sounds like you don't believe in the Judeo-Christian God's existence. Do you more comments on that?

godnotgod · Jun 29, 2018

BilliardsBall said:
Yes, I put "Nazareth" in quotations above, using your stance as described above.

Yes, Ahaz was a King who governed, but Ahaz was not a CHILD who governed during the time referenced by Isaiah 7-9 and on.

And I see you wrote virgin births don't happen, even should God intercede. It sounds like you don't believe in the Judeo-Christian God's existence. Do you more comments on that?

Where do you see a child who governed anything, other than one of the Pharaoh.

That a God interceded to create a virgin birth is just a religious belief. This thread is about the possibility of historical evidence for Yeshua having traveled Eastward during his 18 missing years.

Was 'Jesus' ie; 'Yeshua', really a man of the East?

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Thou art That

Thou art That

Thou art That

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Thou art That

Thou art That

Thou art That

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Thou art That

Veteran Member

Thou art That

Veteran Member

Thou art That