Do you really believe that Jesus died for our sins?

[fallingblood]

None of the gospels are from the time of Jesus.

-S-

Yes, you are correct. I meant more of the stories that would have originated from the time of Jesus, not the actual Gospel itself.

 

[fallingblood]

Believe as you wish matey, that's the beauty of having a free will. But they are two different men. Joseph the step father of Jesus, whose genealogy is recorded in Matthew, is the son of Jacob a direct descendant of Solomon the son of Bathsheba, who became a member of the tribe of Judah by her union to King David his father.

You have the burden of proof then. Any credible scholar will tell you that the two people are the same. There isn't even a logical reason to give the genealogy of a supposed step-father (who is never mentioned). We are told that Joseph is the husband of Mary. That is the only Joseph that is ever mentioned.

The other Joseph, who is the biological father of Jesus, is the son of Heli who is a direct descendant of Nathan the older half brother of Solomon. Nathan is a Levite and the biological son of Bathsheba and Uriah who became a Levite by his marriage to Bathsheba, who is the daughter of Ammiel, the son of Obed-Edom, who is a descendant of Moses the Levite, through his second wife who is the daughter of Hobab the Kennite, one of the two father-in-laws of Moses, the other father-in-law is Jethro, the father of the first wife of Moses. But like I say, believe as you wish.

Here is your problem. From David to Abraham, there is no difference. So if this Joseph is along the lines that you state, the other Joseph must also be.

Again though, another Joseph is never mentioned. This is very important as it completely makes it illogical to assume there is another Joseph. The one Joseph we are introduced to is the husband of Mary.

The fact is, the genealogies are simply creations of their writers in order to establish a link to David. That is the whole purpose of the genealogies.

You have to show that there is a logical reason to assume that there is this other Joseph in the birth story. You haven't.

No, the reason is because everyone who knew Jesus personality, knew that he was a normal human being, born of human parents as are all human beings.

Pretty much what I said. His birth was of non-importance.

 

[S-word]

.

Quote…fallingblood; You have the burden of proof then. Any credible scholar will tell you that the two people are the same. There isn't even a logical reason to give the genealogy of a supposed step-father (who is never mentioned). We are told that Joseph is the husband of Mary. That is the only Joseph that is ever mentioned.

And you believe that the scholars, who believe that a virgin was not only able to conceive, but to remain a virgin for the rest of her life until she was carried to heaven and sat upon her heavenly throne and crowned with gold and precious gems, where she is now worshipped as the Mother of God and co- redempter of the human race, are credible scholars, do you?

They believe that an immortal god who was the co-creator of the cosmos, came down to earth and entered into the womb of some supposedly virgin,(Unscriptural) where his god prepared a body for him, which body was not of the seed of Adam, as the supposed virgin was also born of immaculate conception, and therefore by definition, the lump of living meat that was supposedly formed in the womb of the woman was not a human being, who are all descendants of the first human being, “Adam.” The body that the immortal god had created for his immortal co-creator was a human like body in which he could walk the earth disguised as a human being.

1st letter of John 4:1-3; “My dear friends, do not believe all who claim to have the spirit, (My words are spirit) but test them to find out if the spirit they have comes from God. For many false prophets have gone out everywhere. This is how you will be able to know if it is Gods spirit/word: anyone who acknowledges that Jesus came as a human being has the spirit who comes from God. But anyone who denies this about Jesus, does not have the spirit from God. The spirit that he has is from the enemy of the anointed one, the Anti-christ etc.”

2nd letter of John verses 7-10; “Many deceivers have gone out all over the world, people who do not acknowledge that Jesus came as a human being. Such a person is a deceiver and an enemy of Christ.” Where do you suppose you would find a teaching that has been spread throughout the earth that refuses to acknowledge that Jesus came as a human being? While a human being, Jesus was chosen as the heir to he who gives his immortal life that we might live, when the Lord said to the man Jesus, see Hebrew 5: 5; “Today I have begotten thee.”

Here are the words of Jesus himself, who, when speaking with Nicodemus, said in John 3: 6; "A person is born physically of human parents, but he is born spiritually of the spirit.” This is why John and Mark begin their account of mans salvation, when the spirit of our saviour descended upon the man Jesus in the form of a dove, as the voice was heard to say, “You are my beloved in whom I am pleased, “Today I have begotten thee.” See the more ancient authorities of Luke 3: 22.

Quote…fallingblood; Here is your problem. From David to Abraham, there is no difference. So if this Joseph is along the lines that you state, the other Joseph must also be.

Nah mate, that’s your problem, from Judah to Solomon you have one genetic line, and another from Levi to Nathan, who became not only the step son of David, but also his son-in-law. Zechariah 12: 12; “And the land shall mourn every family apart: the family of the house/descendants of David apart, (Which included Solomon and all the biological sons of David) and their wives apart: The family of the house/descendants of Nathan apart: and their wives apart.”

Nathan is the ancestor of Joseph the Levite from Cyprus, who had presumably met Mary for the first time when they were among the family and friends, who had gathered at the house of Elizabeth their cousin to rejoice with her. Joseph the Levite from Cyprus was the son of Heli the grandfather of Jesus who had also sired Mary to another woman, and three month after Mary had told the angel that she was a virgin, she was found to be with the child, who the Bible clearly shows to be the biological son of Marys half brother, Joseph the son of Heli, who is a descendant of Nathan the Levite and Priest of the great King. Most of your credible scholars will at least agree that the genealogy of Jesus as recorded in Luke, is that of Mary the daughter of Heli and cousin to Elizabeth of the daughters of Levi.

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

Quote…fallingblood; Again though, another Joseph is never mentioned. Try reading Luke 3: 23. This is very important as it completely makes it illogical to assume there is another Joseph. The one Joseph we are introduced to is the husband of Mary.

If you reject the Biblical fact that there were two men by the name Joseph, one who was his biological father, the other who married the mother of Jesus and who had no genetic connection to the child of Gods promise: then you must either believe the deceivers who refuse to acknowledge that Jesus was a human being who was chosen as the heir to the Lord, or reject Gods word as just so much rubbish, which apparently is your view, and a view that you are entitled to.

Quote…fallingblood; The fact is, the genealogies are simply creations of their writers in order to establish a link to David. That is the whole purpose of the genealogies.

Rubbish.


Quote…fallingblood; You have to show that there is a logical reason to assume that there is this other Joseph in the birth story. You haven't.

I believe that which is stated in the Holy scripture, that there are two men by the name Joseph, one, Joseph the son of Jesus’ grandfather, who is Heli a direct descendant of Nathan the Priest to the great King (For Jesus took not upon himself the honour of high priest, instead, after he had been made perfect by his obedience to his indwelling spirit, God made him High Priest in the line of succession to Melchizidek with these words, “You are my Son/heir today I have become your Father.&#8221 and the other Joseph, whose genealogy is recorded in Matthew, who has no genetic connection to the child of Gods promise who was born according to the workings of the Holy Spirit, who is the son of Jacob from the tribe of Judah and is a descendant to ‘Solomon,’ the biological son of David. Actually there are three by the name "Joseph" and the third one is, Joseph the second of Marys three biological sons, who I believe is the same Joseph who laid the body of Jesus in his own family tomb which had never been used,

The Logical reason for believing the word of God is that I cannot believe the illogical teaching of the deceivers, who refuse to acknowledge that Jesus came as a human being. Believing instead, that some immortal god, who had lived from all eternity, and who was the co-creator of the cosmos, came down to earth and entered the womb of some created woman, who is supposed to be “Ever Virgin”, who they now worship as the mother of the immortal god who created her.

I refuse to believe that His god then created for his co-creating partner, a temporary human like body, for which their immortal god had never had any need of in his eternal existence and would have no need of, after he, who could never die took that human like body to the cross, something that I believe, to an immortal god who had lived from all eternity and would continue to live for all eternity, would be an exhilarating experience.

Quote…fallingblood; Pretty much what I said. His birth was of non-importance.

The birth of the one who was born of Gods promise according to the workings of the Holy Spirit, is of more importance than you will ever know. But if you choose to see his life of obedience even unto his cruel death on the cross, as of non-importance, then, ahh well, like I have said, you must believe as you choose to believe.

 

[fallingblood]

And you believe that the scholars, who believe that a virgin was not only able to conceive, but to remain a virgin for the rest of her life until she was carried to heaven and sat upon her heavenly throne and crowned with gold and precious gems, where she is now worshipped as the Mother of God and co- redempter of the human race, are credible scholars, do you?

You speak for only a relatively small group of scholars. If you were serious about a quest for knowledge, then you would know that many scholars do not accept the virginal story as literal. Logical fallacies do not substitute for evidence.

They believe that an immortal god who was the co-creator of the cosmos, came down to earth and entered into the womb of some supposedly virgin,(Unscriptural) where his god prepared a body for him, which body was not of the seed of Adam, as the supposed virgin was also born of immaculate conception, and therefore by definition, the lump of living meat that was supposedly formed in the womb of the woman was not a human being, who are all descendants of the first human being, “Adam.” The body that the immortal god had created for his immortal co-creator was a human like body in which he could walk the earth disguised as a human being.

Again, you clearly have not done much research into the scholarly research. The belief you quote, the virginal birth, is not accepted by many scholars. They call the virgin birth what it is, a creation of the writers. You are trying to prove your point by using a logical fallacy, and that does not work.

Basically, you are building an argument against scholars by using a logical fallacy. You are claiming that scholars believe something that they do not. In other words, you basically lying in order to support your opinion.

Nathan is the ancestor of Joseph the Levite from Cyprus, who had presumably met Mary for the first time when they were among the family and friends, who had gathered at the house of Elizabeth their cousin to rejoice with her. Joseph the Levite from Cyprus was the son of Heli the grandfather of Jesus who had also sired Mary to another woman, and three month after Mary had told the angel that she was a virgin, she was found to be with the child, who the Bible clearly shows to be the biological son of Marys half brother, Joseph the son of Heli, who is a descendant of Nathan the Levite and Priest of the great King. Most of your credible scholars will at least agree that the genealogy of Jesus as recorded in Luke, is that of Mary the daughter of Heli and cousin to Elizabeth of the daughters of Levi.

Where are you even getting this information? It is not Biblical. There is a fault though, the genealogy in Matthew is not of Mary. Most scholars agree that the accounts are simply made up. There are some scholars who would argue that it is of Mary, but there is no evidence for that, and would have been illogical anyway (as there would have been no point to even include it as it was not important).

Again, where are you getting this information from? Simply, you have a huge burden of proof on yourself as there is no evidence that the two Joseph's that you mention are separate people.

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

There is a flaw. You are basing your assumptions on a story that is not factually based (the virginal birth is a creation of Matthew and Luke). The theory that you are presenting has no basis in facts. To even accept it, you have to grasp as possibilities. Also, the birth story was to uplift Jesus above Isaac and the other Old Testament prophets.

If you were to actually really look at it, John that Baptist is much more similar to Isaac. Their birth stories are nearly exact. However, that is only in one of the birth story accounts. The other portrays Jesus as basically the new Moses, yet still uplifts him above Moses.

Also, you are really stretching as to say that Jesus was crucified in the same place that Isaac was offered up. There is no evidence of that. Jesus was crucified in the same place that other crucifixions were performed.

Probably the largest flaw in your theory though is that you are trying to use two very separate sources (Matthew and Luke), that do not even agree with each other in the virgin birth account.

The Logical reason for believing the word of God is that I cannot believe the illogical teaching of the deceivers, who refuse to acknowledge that Jesus came as a human being. Believing instead, that some immortal god, who had lived from all eternity, and who was the co-creator of the cosmos, came down to earth and entered the womb of some created woman, who is supposed to be “Ever Virgin”, who they now worship as the mother of the immortal god who created her.

That is illogical. I believe that Jesus is a human being, but not in anyway because of what your theory states. If you believe the word of God completely, you can not refute it. You say you believe what the word of God says. It states clearly that Jesus was conceived of a virgin. You seem to be refuting that, yet you claim to be believing in the word of God. Simply, it does not work that way. You are refuting the word of God and and the same time saying you believe it. That is illogical.

The birth of the one who was born of Gods promise according to the workings of the Holy Spirit, is of more importance than you will ever know. But if you choose to see his life of obedience even unto his cruel death on the cross, as of non-importance, then, ahh well, like I have said, you must believe as you choose to believe.

You clearly did not understand what I said, and then decided to distort it. I said that his birth was of no importance. It doesn't matter how he was born. I never said that his life was of no importance.

There are too many flaws in your argument that can not be supported. The third of Mary's children was not Joseph. There is no evidence of that. Also, why would the writers of the virgin story list a genealogy of Jesus if it really was not related to him? Both of the genealogies claim to be that of Jesus, yet you are saying that the genealogy has to do with someone who has no evidence to exist, and certainly has nothing to do with Jesus's genealogy.

 

[footprints]

Jesus was the vessel through which the words of God the Son of Man were revealed to us, when you go the Gods words as spoken through his earthly servant Jesus, you must first emply yourself of all preconceived ideas, and you must go as a little child, with an empty mind ready to be molded by the words of the Lord Almighty.

Jesus just repeated the words and processes of many other great teachers in life. Jesus wasn't speaking to the world, Jesus was only talking to the Jews. However, insofar as saying this, follow the path left by any of the great teachers and they all lead to the same place.

 

[S-word]

quote=fallingblood; You speak for only a relatively small group of scholars. If you were serious about a quest for knowledge, then you would know that many scholars do not accept the virginal story as literal. Logical fallacies do not substitute for evidence. [/quote]

I speak of the greater majority of religious Biblical scholars. Atheist/agnostic scholar who attack the Bible in their attempt to discredit the truth therein, are non-existent as far as I am concerned.

quote=fallingblood; Again, you clearly have not done much research into the scholarly research. The belief you quote, the virginal birth, is not accepted by many scholars. They call the virgin birth what it is, a creation of the writers. You are trying to prove your point by using a logical fallacy, and that does not work.

It is you my dear friend who has not done much the research. I believe that you research only those books which are against the truth as revealed in scripture. The lie that Jesus did not come as a human being, but instead was an immortal god clothed in a humanlike body that was not of the seed of Adam, who is the original human being from who all human beings are descended, and that he was not born of human parents, but of a virgin who herself had been immaculately conceived, was definitely a creation of the writers of deception, but not of the scribes of the Lord, who wrote the gospels.

Luke shows that Mary had never had sex with a man until she was found pregnant three months later, and Luke 3: 23; reveals the biological father of Jesus to be Joseph the son of Heli from the tribe of Levi, who should not be confused with the Joseph who married the pregnant and unmarried woman ‘Mary,’ and never had sex with her until she had given birth to Jesus the son of Joseph and grandson of Heli from the tribe of Levi. That other Joseph, whose genealogy is recorded in Matthew, is the son of Jacob from the tribe of Judah.
And the only reference to the physical birth of Jesus in the gospel of Matthew, is that he was the fulfilment of the prophecy of the Lord through his servant Isaiah, which prophecy was that an “Almah,” an unmarried woman would be with child and would bear a son, who people would give many names to, which has all been fulfilled.The first time that “Virgin’ appears in any translation of the Bible in reference to the mother of Jesus is when it was translated to Latin.

The 5th century Latin Bible ‘The Vulgate,’ was due mainly to the effort of Jerome who was commissioned to make a revision of the books that had already been translated to Latin by in most cases, persons unknown, and with those books translated by Jerome himself, which revision was completed in 405 A.D. became the official bible of the universal church that had been established by its unorthodox and non-christian champion, ‘King Constantine,’ who had his father Constantius deified and was accorded the same honour himself after his death.
In transcribing the Hebrew words of the prophet Isaiah, that an “unmarried female would be with child and bear a son,” into Greek, which unlike the Hebrew language, does not have a specific term for ‘virgin,’ the authors of the Septuagint and Matthew were forced to use the Greek word ‘Parthenos,’ which carries a basic meaning of ‘girl,’ and denotes ‘virgin’ only by implication.
‘Parthenos,’ was often used in reference to non-virgins who had never been married. Homer uses it in reference to unmarried girls who were no longer virgins, and Homer was the standard textbook for learning Greek all throughout antiquity, so any writer of Greek, including Matthew, who transcribed Isaiah’s words, (An unmarried woman would be with child etc) while being well aware of this words versatile and indefinite meaning; was in no way implying that Mary was a virgin. For the Hebrew has a specific term for ‘virgin,’ “Bethulah” which word is used in every instance in the Old Testament where a woman who has never had sexual intercourse with a man is referred to, which is obviously not the woman who is mentioned in Isaiah 7:14.

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



quote=fallingblood; Basically, you are building an argument against scholars by using a logical fallacy. You are claiming that scholars believe something that they do not. In other words, you basically lying in order to support your opinion.

Basically, your argument against the Holy Scriptures is based on atheist/agnostic scholars who, to me, use logical fallacy in their attempt to discredit that which they neither believe in, nor have the mental capacity to understand, and by quoting such sources, you are basically lying in order to support your opinion.

quote=fallingblood; Where are you even getting this information? It is not Biblical. There is a fault though, the genealogy in Matthew is not of Mary. Yea mate and as usual it is you who are at fault.

Keep it up matey, I don’t mind you exposing your ignorance to all the browsers who visit these threads. Go back to post 15 and post 23; and read what I said.

Post 15 “Joseph the step father of Jesus, whose genealogy is recorded in Matthew, is the son of Jacob a direct descendant of Solomon”

Post 23; Most of your credible scholars will at least agree that the genealogy of Jesus as recorded in Luke, is that of Mary the daughter of Heli and cousin to Elizabeth of the daughters of Levi.

So where did I say that the genealogy in Matthew was that of Mary?

quote=fallingblood; Most scholars agree that the accounts are simply made up. There are some scholars who would argue that it is of Mary, but there is no evidence for that, and would have been illogical anyway (as there would have been no point to even include it as it was not important).

Most godless atheist and unbelieving agnostic scholars, agree that the accounts are simply made up.
But how many religious scholars would agree with the godless and unbelievers?

 

[S-word]

quote=fallingblood; Again, where are you getting this information from? Simply, you have a huge burden of proof on yourself as there is no evidence that the two Joseph's that you mention are separate people.

Good heaven matey, you have two entirely different genetic records written by two entirely different people, who are recording two entirely different lines of genetic descent, one from Solomon who is from the tribe of Judah, the other from his much older half brother Nathan the Levite, who was the Priest of the Great King David, and you say that there is no biblical evidence that these are two different men by the name Joseph, just how ignorant can one person be?

quote=fallingblood; There is a flaw. You are basing your assumptions on a story that is not factually based (the virginal birth is a creation of Matthew and Luke).

Are you totally blind, or do you just pretend not to see, I have based nothing, I repeat, NOTHING on the great lie that was spread throughout the earth, that Jesus was supposedly born of a virgin, and was some sort of Hybrid and not a human being. And neither Matthew or Luke support the lie of the virgin birth.

quote=fallingblood; The theory that you are presenting has no basis in facts. To even accept it, you have to grasp as possibilities. Also, the birth story was to uplift Jesus above Isaac and the other Old Testament prophets.

The birth story shows only that the baby was a human being who was circumcised when he was a week old, was taken to Jerusalem when he was 40 days old where his mother performed the ceremony of purification according to the time as written in the Law, and when everything had been done according to the law of Moses, the two month old baby was taken home to Nazareth in Galilee.

quote=fallingblood; If you were to actually really look at it, John that Baptist is much more similar to Isaac. Their birth stories are nearly exact. However, that is only in one of the birth story accounts. The other portrays Jesus as basically the new Moses, yet still uplifts him above Moses.

Why! Was John the Baptist born of God’s promise according to the workings of the Holy Spirit as was Isaac?
Were Elizabeth and Zachariah sired by the one father, as were the parents of Isaac?
Did an angel appear to Elizabeth?
Was John offered up as a sacrifice by his father Zachariah?

quote=fallingblood; Also, you are really stretching as to say that Jesus was crucified in the same place that Isaac was offered up. There is no evidence of that. Jesus was crucified in the same place that other crucifixions were performed.

I believe that even your atheist/agnostic scholar would have to agree that Abraham took Isaac to the high point of Mount Moriah upon which Jerusalem is built, and which high point is believed by most scholars to be Golgotha, your ignorance is becoming more exposed

quote=fallingblood; probably the largest flaw in your theory though is that you are trying to use two very separate sources (Matthew and Luke), that do not even agree with each other in the virgin birth account.

Neither Mattew or Luke give any support to the great Lie that jesus was born of a virgin, and I Believe as do many other scholars, that the Bible has but one author, and he is the indwelling spirit, “for the kingdom of God is within you,” and it is under the guidance of He who dwell behind the veil to the inner most sanctuary of His temporary Tabernacle which is the body of mankind, that all the different scribes who were under the control of the one author, wrote the different books of the bible, which mesh together like finely engineered and oiled cogs

quote=fallingblood; That is illogical. I believe that Jesus is a human being, but not in anyway because of what your theory states. If you believe the word of God completely, you can not refute it. You say you believe what the word of God says. It states clearly that Jesus was conceived of a virgin.

Keep exposing your ignorance matey and you’re going to end up naked. The Hebrew “Almah,” which is the word used in Isaiah 7: 14; means (Concealment: Unmarried woman). Unlike the Hebrew, which does have a specific word for virgin, the Greek does not, and the Greek “parthenos” which carries the basic mean of Girl and denotes virgin only by implication is used by Matthew, who is not imply that the “Almah” unmarried woman referred to in Isaiah is in any way a virgin.

The first time that “Virgin’ appears in any translation of the Bible in reference to the mother of Jesus is when it was translated to Latin in the year of 405 AD.


quote=fallingblood; You seem to be refuting that, Seem to be refuting the great lie, good lord mate if you cannot see that I have been refuting the great lie that a virgin could give birth, from the very beginning of our debate, you are totally blind.

quote=fallingblood; There are too many flaws in your argument that can not be supported. The third of Mary's children was not Joseph.

Ahh, for goodness sake, go back to post 23 and read what was said. Post 23: Actually there are three by the name “Joseph,” and the third one is ‘Joseph’ the SECOND of Marys three biological sons.” Did you get that, can you possibly understand, “The second of Marys three biological sons.” James the younger of her three biological sons, was the brother of the Lord and the first to be elected to the apostolic throne of the church of the circumcision. How can you argue against the word of God, when you haven’t got a clue as to what is revealed therein?

quote=fallingblood; Also, why would the writers of the virgin story list a genealogy of Jesus if it really was not related to him? Both of the genealogies claim to be that of Jesus, yet you are saying that the genealogy has to do with someone who has no evidence to exist, and certainly has nothing to do with Jesus's genealogy.

The deceivers who wrote the lie about some virgin giving birth to a son, did not write the genealogy of Jesus as recorded in Luke, although they did add the later interpolation in brackets (As was supposed) And even a blind person can see that the genealogy in Matthew is not that of Jesus, but of Joseph, who married the pregnant and expecting mother of Jesus the grandson of Heli. Read it yourself, “Eleazar, Matthan, Jacob, Joseph, who Married the pregnant Mary, Joseph ends that genetic line. Heli is the Greek adaptation of the Hebrew “Eli” the High Priest.

 

[Bennettresearch]

Quote Bennettresearch; The mantra goes like this; God gave His only begotten Son to die for our sins so that we may have life.
This is correct

Quote Bennettresearch; A human sacrifice as a scapegoat for our sins?
No my dear friend, all sins of has been ascribed to the spirit that develops within the body of mankind, who is born in the far distant future with the death of the sinful mother body in which he developed. Psalm 51: 5; “Behold I was shapen in iniquity and in sin did my mother conceive, me (Eve who is the expanding body of Mankind in which is the developing spirit of the son of the Most High from the previous world.

The “Son of Man,” who takes on the sins of the world, and who is the great and glorious simulacrum, who dwells in the eighth eternal heaven of Light, has gained all his great wisdom, knowledge and insight, which made him equal to the heavenly Father, from the pain and the sufferings of the body in which he developed, which pain and sufferings were caused by our sins and mistakes.

Quote Bennettresearch; Jesus has die so that we can have life? We can’t have life without Jesus around? This all sounds rather sinister when you look at it.
No my dear friend, Jesus was a human being born of human parents as all human beings are, anything that could be born of a human mother from the seed of some heavenly alien who had existed aeons before mankind, would not be a human being, but some hybrid freak. See Acts 3: 13, “The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, has given divine glory to his obedient servant Jesus.” Who we know is now incontestably divine. John 3: 6’ “A human being is born physically of human parents, but he is born spiritually of the spirit.” This is why John and Mark ignore the physical birth of the man Jesus as totally irrelevant and begin their account of the story of our salvation, with the spiritual birth of the man Jesus when he was filled with the spirit of "The Son of Man" as he rose from the baptismal waters.

Luke shows that Mary had never had sex with a man until she was found pregnant three months later, and Luke 3: 23; reveals the biological father of Jesus to be Joseph the son of Heli from the tribe of Levi, who should not be confused with the Joseph who married the pregnant and unmarried woman ‘Mary,’ and never had sex with her until she had given birth to Jesus the son of Joseph and grandson of Heli from the tribe of Levi. That other Joseph, whose genealogy is recorded in Matthew, and who has no genetic connection to Jesus, is the son of Jacob from the tribe of Judah. And the only reference in Matthew to the physical birth of Jesus is that he was the fulfilment of the prophecy of the Lord through his servant Isaiah, which prophecy was that an “Almah” (an unmarried woman would be with child and would bear a son, who people would give many names to, which has all been fulfilled.The first time that “Virgin’ appears in any translation of the Bible, in reference to the mother of Jesus is when it was translated to Latin.

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

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

‘Parthenos,’ was often used in reference to non-virgins who had never been married. Homer uses it in reference to unmarried girls who were no longer virgins, and Homer was the standard textbook for learning Greek all throughout antiquity, so any writer of Greek, including Matthew, who transcribed Isaiah’s words, (An unmarried woman would be with child etc) while being well aware of this words versatile and indefinite meaning; was in no way implying that Mary was a virgin when using the Greek 'parthentos,' as the best translation of the Hebrew “Almah.”
To be continued.

Nice sermon, but it doesn't seem to have a point. You seem to be supporting Paul in that the judaizers insisted that all things Jesus resolve the OT. Do you have a position on Paul saying that Jesus died for our sins? I don't think we need to hear about the curse of hanging from a tree, which is the most likely reason that Paul went down that road.
Craig

 

[Bennettresearch]

The fact is, the genealogies are simply creations of their writers in order to establish a link to David. That is the whole purpose of the genealogies.

You have to show that there is a logical reason to assume that there is this other Joseph in the birth story. You haven't.

Pretty much what I said. His birth was of non-importance.

Well, I wouldn't say His birth is not important, but I would agree with you that He was born in the normal fashion and that the gospel writers had to get rid of any question as to whether He was illegitimate. Even though your debate here is far afield of what Paul preached about the crucifixion, you do make an important point that judaizers try to make the entire Jesus story fit into the OT, which it doesn't. The Pharisees hated Him because he was calling them out and especially took issue with the sacrifices in the Temple.
Craig

 

[Bennettresearch]

According to the story, and path of enlightenment left there in, did Jesus die for our sins, most assuredly so. Not only for, but because of them.

Jesus also said, unless you be converted and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. He was talking to the people who followed him, who believed in him at the time. That not even their place in heaven was assured.

If you agree with Paul then you have not received the enlightenment that you are claiming. Paul is talking like a converted pharisee and not like someone who knew the teachings of Jesus. Can you point to any place in His letters where he actually quotes what Jesus had to say about the religion named after Him? That little fraud in Acts doesn't count.
Craig

 

[Bennettresearch]

No, even when I was Catholic, this never made sense to me.

Yeah, a lot of what we have been taught doesn't really add up.

 

[Bennettresearch]

Yes, I believe. Jesus confronted Paul on the road to Damascus and told him to take the good news to the gentiles, (me).

I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars:
Revelation 2:2
I think this sums up what Jesus really had to say about Paul.
Craig

 

[Bennettresearch]

In the old testament there is a practice described in detail....
How Moses would lay his hand upon a sinner and then upon a scapegoat.
The animal was then lead into the wilderness to die.

With all that was following Him, Jesus was probably aware His days were coming to an end.
His parables and other teachings had not been well received.
He was accumulating powerful enemies everyday.
That stunt He pulled in the Temple was the last straw.

He may of thought of Himself as a sacrifice.
After all, He knew He would be killed if He persisted.
When He spoke to His disciples, there was strong implication how His public life would end.
But He seemed determined to continue His teaching, in spite of pending consequence.
This would be a sacrifice.

But His death on the cross is not the saving grace, as many believers would believe.
His parables are the focus.
Without His parables you are no different than a non-believer.

You cannot lay your sins upon another man.
But you can change what you are.

Generally, I agree. I really don't think that Jesus set Himself up as a martyr though. He was certainly very brave to challenge the establishment and they came down a lot harder on Him than even He would anticipate. He didn't welcome the crucifixion, He was murdered on the cross.
Craig

 

[footprints]

If you agree with Paul then you have not received the enlightenment that you are claiming. Paul is talking like a converted pharisee and not like someone who knew the teachings of Jesus. Can you point to any place in His letters where he actually quotes what Jesus had to say about the religion named after Him? That little fraud in Acts doesn't count.
Craig

Hi Bennettresearch,

Can you tell me the process of the path of enlightenment which Jesus left to follow? Is it written anywhere in the Bible as a distinct path? Can you explain how and why it works?

 

[S-word]

Nice sermon, but it doesn't seem to have a point. You seem to be supporting Paul in that the judaizers insisted that all things Jesus resolve the OT. Do you have a position on Paul saying that Jesus died for our sins? I don't think we need to hear about the curse of hanging from a tree, which is the most likely reason that Paul went down that road.
Craig

The point is, that the great lie that was introduced by the deceivers who refused to acknowledge that Jesus came as a human being, born of human parents as verified by scripture, blinds those who are seeking to enter into the coming kingdowm of God, to the truth, that Like the man Jesus, who even Paul says that we once knew as a man, we too can inherit the glorious body of light that Jesus appeared to Saul in, on the road to Damascus.

The man Jesus was the first fruits to be raised from the dead past Of the "Son of Man," who is the spirit that is currently developing within the body of mankind, and who is born in our distant future into the spiritual dimension that co-exists within this physical world, with the death of the sinful physical body in which he developed. Psalms 51:5; I was shapen in iniquity and in sin did my mother body conceive me.

And it he who is equal to God, who gained all his great wisdom, experience and insight, from the suffering and pain of the body in which he developed, which suffering and pain that he experienced was due to the sins and mistakes of we, the body in which he is developing and for which sinful body, he who was born perfect as the Son of God, comes down to give his immortal body that we, like our brother Jesus, might inherit a share in that immortal body that was torn asunder and poured out as fire on the heads of all who believed the words of the spirit that filled the body of the man Jesus as he rose from the baptismal waters.

For Jesus The obedient servant to his indwelling spirit, spoke not one word on his own authority, but only that which he was commanded to say by "The Son Of Man" in order that he might reveal himself and the great sacrifice that he makes for the sinful body in which he developed. There is a physical body says Paul so there must be a spiritual body, but it is the physical body that comes first. As we have borne the image of the first Adam, so shall we bear the image of the second Adam, who appeared to Saul on the Road to Damascus in his new glorious and blinding body of light and identified himself as Jesus of Nazareth.

For I tell you a sacred secret says Paul, we shall not all fall asleep in death, but we shall be changed in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, from bodies of corruptibe matter, into glorious bodies of incorruptible and brilliant light. As Enoch the first and the least in the gathering of the spirits of man to the eternal Logos, was reborn on earth in his chosen heir and host body, Jesus of Nazareth, so too, all those who received a share of the hidden manna, a small tongue of fire from the immortal body of The Son of Man, which was torn asunder and poured out as fire on all those who received his words as spoken through his obedient servant, the Man Jesus.

They who received their share of immortality, although they have been judged in the flesh as all are judged, now in their immortal spiritual existence, they live as God lives, gathering to themselves all the spirits of their descendants who are obedient to their ancestral spirit, who fall asleep in righteousness after paying the blood price for the mistakes that they have made in their lives on earth.

When they have gathered to themselves, the required number of good spirits whose righteous blood will be the ransom for one man, like Enoch before them, each of the immortals will then choose a host body who is true to who he is and enter their chosen heirs in order to be reborn on earth, who then, like our brother Jesus the first to be harvested from the dead past of our Lord and saviour, death shall have no power over those host bodies, who will take the thrones that have been prepared for them and rule the Sabbath, the Day Of the Lord; the seventh period of one thousand years from the day in which Adam ate of the forbidden tree and died in that day at the age of 930.

You must know who you are, and be true to who you are, before you will be known "Who I Am."

 

[fallingblood]

S-Word: I'm not going to go back through all of your posts because it is simply a waste of time now. You discredit all information against your belief by calling the person either ignorant, or dismissing any credible sources against your belief. That is not a logical argument.

Look at John Dominic Crossan, who is considered the premier scholar on the historical Jesus. He is former Catholic monk, and is still Christian. Yet, he would disagree with pretty much everything you said. Much of my study has been done under him. Look at John P. Meier, another leader in the field of the historical Jesus. Again, he disagrees with pretty much every point that you make. The fact is, nearly all of scholars would disagree with what you are saying. And no, that is not because they are atheist or agnostic, many of them are Christian. It is because your argument simply have no actual credible evidence to support it.

But you can just go on and call me ignorant, and dismiss every scholar simply because they disagree with you. It doesn't mean that you have the facts. It means that you are not open minded enough to look at your theory in a rational manner.

 

[Thief]

Generally, I agree. I really don't think that Jesus set Himself up as a martyr though. He was certainly very brave to challenge the establishment and they came down a lot harder on Him than even He would anticipate. He didn't welcome the crucifixion, He was murdered on the cross.
Craig

And I would agree it was murder.
There is notation in Scripture, the pharisees sought to kill Him.
They sought opportunity.

The Carpenter persisted, and He could see the look in their eyes.
When you deliberately persist, knowing the pending consequence...
it is a self sacrifice.

Coincidence?

 

[S-word]

S-Word: I'm not going to go back through all of your posts because it is simply a waste of time now. You discredit all information against your belief by calling the person either ignorant, or dismissing any credible sources against your belief. That is not a logical argument.

Look at John Dominic Crossan, who is considered the premier scholar on the historical Jesus. He is former Catholic monk, and is still Christian. Yet, he would disagree with pretty much everything you said. Much of my study has been done under him. Look at John P. Meier, another leader in the field of the historical Jesus. Again, he disagrees with pretty much every point that you make. The fact is, nearly all of scholars would disagree with what you are saying. And no, that is not because they are atheist or agnostic, many of them are Christian. It is because your argument simply have no actual credible evidence to support it.

But you can just go on and call me ignorant, and dismiss every scholar simply because they disagree with you. It doesn't mean that you have the facts. It means that you are not open minded enough to look at your theory in a rational manner.

Matey I am just on seventy, and I have been a believer since I was old enough to question our parish priest on nearly every issue that came up. I was only 12, when my mother who had been divorced remarried and was then refused the sacraments. I argued with the Bishop of our diocese, that David, committed adultery with Bathsheba then put her husband in a position where he knew he would be killed, and that God was later to bless that union founded on blood and adultery, by blessing the only surviving son of that union, and crowning him as King of the most glorious age that Israel has so far experienced. Solomon the son of sin, of whom God said “He shall be my son and I shall be his Father, and it is he who shall build the Temple in which I will dwell on earth among mankind.

Since that day when I turned my back on that church, I have eaten from the tables that have been prepared by every Christian denomination and every other religion, and “I am” that which I have eaten.

So you continue to follow those great scholars of yours, and I will continue to follow my indwelling ancestral spirit, who lights for me, the pathway that he wishes me to follow.

I called you ignorant because you either did not bother to read properly what I had written, or you were just too ignorant to understand that which was written.

Post 36; quote=fallingblood; S-Word: I'm not going to go back through all of your posts because it is simply a waste of time now. Why don’t you admit the truth? You don’t want to go back through all my posts, because you don’t want your naked ignorance to be revealed to those who will read this thread. so let me do it for you.

Post 15; S-word… “Joseph the step father of Jesus, whose genealogy is recorded in Matthew, is the son of Jacob a direct descendant of Solomon”

Post 23; S-word…Most of your credible scholars will at least agree that the genealogy of Jesus as recorded in Luke, is that of Mary the daughter of Heli and cousin to Elizabeth, of the daughters of Levi.

After you had already read my posts 15 and 23, you write this in post 24; quote=fallingblood; Where are you even getting this information? It is not Biblical. There is a fault though, the genealogy in Matthew is not of Mary. Now reveal to us from post 15 and 23, where I said that the genealogy in Matthew was that of Mary?

Post 23; S-word…Actually there are three by the name “Joseph,” and the third one is ‘Joseph’ the SECOND of Marys three biological sons.”

Post 24 quote=fallingblood; There are too many flaws in your argument that can not be supported. The third of Mary's children was not Joseph. Even after, having read in post 23, that I said that Joseph was the SECOND son of Mary, you accuse me in post 24, of saying that he was her third son. I could go on, and on, and on, revealing your ignorance, but it would be a waste of time, as it is obvious that you cannot understand anything that is written.

 

[fallingblood]

Basically you have told me all you need to, and supported the idea that it is a waste to argue with you. You follow your indwelling ancestral spirit. A logical argument is then moot.

 

[S-word]

Basically you have told me all you need to, and supported the idea that it is a waste to argue with you. You follow your indwelling ancestral spirit. A logical argument is then moot.

Rather than flying around like a seagull crapping on other people posts, why don't you put forward your belief and let us see it. Do you believe that it was the death of the man Jesus that pays the penalty for the sins of the body of mankind?
If so, explain how the death of one man can redeem the whole human race. Or Perhaps you believe that Jesus was an immortal god who came down and entered the womb of some virgin where his co-creator of the universe created a human like temporary body for his immortal son who helped him create the comos.

I haven't a clue as to what you believe, you've been too busy crapping on every thing I say. So away you go, and we'll just sit back while you show us what the great christian, atheist, and agnostic teachers, who you follow, have taught you. Away you go young fellow.