Do you really believe that Jesus died for our sins?

[S-word]

So, Mary was married to Joseph, and then got a divorce, and then married this Cleopas? Do you know how likely that would have been? Are you also aware that there is no evidence, like many of the things you say, to even suggest that?

Mary was married to Joseph, and then got a divorce, and then married this Cleopas? Do you know how likely that would have been? Are you also aware that there is no evidence, like many of the things you say, to even suggest that?


I bring a lot more evidence to the table than you have ever been able to, or could ever possibly, come up with sunshine, all you can do is deny, without any evidence whatsoever, that any thing in the bible ever happened,

And no, Paul (who is Saul) never met Jesus. Jesus was dead. He died on the cross.


Saul the Christian persecutor, and Paul the Christian apostle were two different persons who occupied the one body in two different points in time. And yes, Jesus was murdered by sinful men to which he had been handed over to by the lying hypocritical and accusing authorities of the Jewish church, but death had no power over him as he was the first to inherit his share of the immortal body of our saviour whose immortal body was torn asunder and poured out as fire on the heads of all who had believed his words as spoken through his obedient servant Jesus, who spoke not one word on his own authority, but only that which he was commanded to say by our Lord and saviour, which spirit descended upon the head of Jesus in the form of a dove. In his new blinding body of light he appeared to Saul the persecuter on the road to Damascus and identified himself as Jesus of Nazareth.

There was no resurrection. Instead, what happened was something that was very common in the first century. The dead "appeared" to the living. It was something that commonly happened.Today, we know that one should not take those stories to be true though.


There was a resurrection, and I wonder if you will agree that there are tens of thousands of people around the world today, who still visit mediums believing that they are talking to, not their resurrected loved ones, but their dead loved ones.

Paul simply claims this vision in a way to try to gain authority.


By Jingo you know a lot about people in the past don’t you, tell me please, did my grandfather (Who, like Paul , you know nothing about) really do what he claimed to have done during the first world war, or was that Just to make us think that he was some sort of hero?

What Paul was teaching was not what Jesus taught. James, the brother of Jesus, and Paul opposed each other.


Ahh, So we are now admitting that James the son of Alphaeus/Cleopas is the son of Mary and the brother to Jesus. That’s a start isn’t it?

James, as his brother also had, observed Judaism and were Jewish-Christians

O how it gladdens my heart to see your belief in Gods word beginning to evolve.

as opposed to Paul, a Pagan-Christian (modern definition).

And who, apart from godless atheists and agnostics, define Paul as a pagan Christian?

So it is not logical to assume that Jesus told Paul one thing while having taught James another. Why would he purposely set-up to factions of the same belief that opposed each other?

James, Paul, Peter, and even Barnabus, would often come to grips with each other, but they would sit down and iron out their differences, basically they all interpreted the commands of our Lord and saviour as spoken through his obedient servant Jesus, in much the same way, although differences of opinion would sometimes come up as is the case with any and every group.

 

[fallingblood]

I bring a lot more evidence to the table than you have ever been able to, or could ever possibly, come up with sunshine, all you can do is deny, without any evidence whatsoever, that any thing in the bible ever happened,

I've shown quite a bit of evidence. You just dismiss it outright as it does not agree with your predetermined ideas of what supposedly happened based on what you were told by your inner spirit. The fact is though, the burden of proof rests on you for the simple fact that my position is well founded in the works of scholars and the authorities on the life of Jesus.

Saul the Christian persecutor, and Paul the Christian apostle were two different persons who occupied the one body in two different points in time. And yes, Jesus was murdered by sinful men to which he had been handed over to by the lying hypocritical and accusing authorities of the Jewish church, but death had no power over him as he was the first to inherit his share of the immortal body of our saviour whose immortal body was torn asunder and poured out as fire on the heads of all who had believed his words as spoken through his obedient servant Jesus, who spoke not one word on his own authority, but only that which he was commanded to say by our Lord and saviour, which spirit descended upon the head of Jesus in the form of a dove. In his new blinding body of light he appeared to Saul the persecuter on the road to Damascus and identified himself as Jesus of Nazareth.

That is really stretching it to make it fit what you want it to. There is no evidence to suggest that Saul and Paul were two different people who possessed the same body. Paul, who was a Jew, simply switched over to Jewish-Christianity. At that time, Christianity was still considered a part of Judaism. Jesus himself was a Jew, and never taught a new religion.

Also, Jesus did not have to be handed over by anyone. He committed a crime against the state, was seen as a danger, and was crucified as any other criminal was. The Romans had no problem crucifying Jewish resistance leaders, and Jesus was definitely that.

Jesus never rose back from the dead. If you believe that, then you have to also believe that everyone else who was claimed to have been risen from the dead during that same time period (and there were many) also raised from the dead. You can't make special considerations for one person because it fits you.

Jesus died, and suffered as any other crucifixion victim. He did not impart any authority on Paul, he did not even change who he was. The simple fact is that people in first century had vision of the dead. It was not uncommon to have such.

There was a resurrection, and I wonder if you will agree that there are tens of thousands of people around the world today, who still visit mediums believing that they are talking to, not their resurrected loved ones, but their dead loved ones.

Yes, I believe people go to mediums believing that they are talking to the their dead loved ones. However, I've worked as a medium. I know it is nothing more than a farce that anyone can perpetrate. They use simply magic (illusion) effects that are similar to what I use during my magic shows.

By Jingo you know a lot about people in the past don’t you, tell me please, did my grandfather (Who, like Paul , you know nothing about) really do what he claimed to have done during the first world war, or was that Just to make us think that he was some sort of hero?

You are aware that is a ridiculous comparison? The fact is, we can know about Paul, unlike your grandfather, based on what he wrote, as well as the time that he lived in. We can know about the culture he grew up in, what the major beliefs were, etc. So there is a big difference between your grandfather and Paul. Your question shows exactly what type of logic goes into your arguments.

The fact is, we know people do not come back from the dead. We know that during the first century, people commonly had visions of the dead, as part of the grieving process (it still happens today, but they don't claim that the dead are resurrected anymore). We also know from what Paul says later on, that it most likely wasn't a true resurrected form at all. Paul goes against the teachings of what Jesus taught. We know this because we can compare what Jesus taught with what Paul taught.

Ahh, So we are now admitting that James the son of Alphaeus/Cleopas is the son of Mary and the brother to Jesus. That’s a start isn’t it?

Seriously, that is what you read? No, I did not state that. Joseph, as scholars and authorities agree, was the father of James. James and Jesus were both fathered by James, and mothered by Mary. Do not try to twist what I said to suit your unfounded beliefs.

And who, apart from godless atheists and agnostics, define Paul as a pagan Christian?

You have no idea what Pagan even meant during the time of Jesus. Basically, it referred to anyone who wasn't Jewish. So maybe before you try to argue, get some background information. It was clear that Paul was in charge of Pagan-Christianity as he was teaching the Gentiles (the pagans).

James, Paul, Peter, and even Barnabus, would often come to grips with each other, but they would sit down and iron out their differences, basically they all interpreted the commands of our Lord and saviour as spoken through his obedient servant Jesus, in much the same way, although differences of opinion would sometimes come up as is the case with any and every group.

They did not always iron out their differences. Looking at the Bible, we see two examples of their being debate between James (who the disciples primarily followed) and Paul. The first was about circumcision, which they agreed to. The second was about eating Kosher while Christian-Jews and Christian-Pagans were together. Paul threw a fit and said no, while James, along with Peter and the assembly stated that it should be so. There was no ironing out there.

The more and more you speak though, the less credible any of your arguments become. You have no historical background, the Biblical background you give is shaky at best is unsupported, and you dismiss anything contrary to your beliefs outright.

The fact is, my stance was not developed solely on a inner spirit, or by myself. It has come from years of research, and is supported by the scholars and the authorities on Jesus. Some of it may be questionable, or could be argued against, but all can. However, what differs mine from yours is the fact that mine is supportable and has evidence. Also, scholars and the authorities on Jesus back me.

 

[zorrow]

Yes, I believe he died for us.............yet...........the mystery...since we think we are so smart...and intelligent.....I just can not figure out why he would do it...........hey...one day I will ask him.

 

[S-word]

I've shown quite a bit of evidence. You just dismiss it outright as it does not agree with your predetermined ideas of what supposedly happened based on what you were told by your inner spirit. .

I present Biblical evidence for everything I say, you present nothing but rubbishing Rhetoric which is the unsupported imaginations of your own sick mind.

That is really stretching it to make it fit what you want it to. There is no evidence to suggest that Saul and Paul were two different people who possessed the same body.

The Christian hating persecuting person of Saul died with his confrontation with Jesus of Nazareth in his new body of blinding light, and the new Christian loving person, “Paul” was born that day.


Paul, who was a Jew, simply switched over to Jewish-Christianity. At that time, Christianity was still considered a part of Judaism. Jesus himself was a Jew, and never taught a new religion

Are you seriously suggesting that Jesus who taught that it was alright to work on the Sabbath, as did Paul, Jesus who taught that the law of Moses that gave a man the right to issue his wife with a bill of divorce was wrong, Jesus who taught that you could eat any of the foods forbidden by the law of Moses, etc, etc, etc, never taught a new religious belief? O, but you only believe from the bible, what you want to believe, and reject what you want to reject without and evidence for that disbelief don’t you?.

Also, Jesus did not have to be handed over by anyone.

Those who believe the bible know that it was the Jewish authorities who paid Judas thirty pieces of silver to betray Jesus and that it was they who sent the temple guards out with Judas one the evening of the day of preparation to the Passover, and it was they who questioned Jesus before handing him over to Pilate with their false accusations and forced Pilate into a position that he didn’t want to be in, and who ended up by washing his hands of the innocent blood.

But you refuse to believe the only record of that evening and have been forced to create another version of the events of that evening in your own little sick mind, and reject the biblical record without any evidence to the contrary.

He committed a crime against the state,

If you consider changing the religious belief of the state a crime, Otherwise show your evidence. Where it is written that Jesus committed any crime, other than to claim that he was the promised Messiah. That is if you can even show, apart from the records in the bible, that Jesus even existed.

anwas seen as a danger, and was crucified as any other criminal was. The Romans had no problem crucifying Jewish resistance leaders, and Jesus was definitely that.

We who accept the only record of the life and teachings of Jesus, know that he encouraged the people to obey the ruling authorities of Rome and to pay the taxes that were Caesars, and was in no way a resistance leader. But of course you don’t believe the biblical records and so, you put forward some unsubstantiated rubbish that you invented in you own sick little mind.


Jesus never rose back from the dead. If you believe that, then you have to also believe that everyone else who was claimed to have been risen from the dead during that same time period (and there were many) also raised from the dead. You can't make special considerations for one person because it fits you.


How many people of our present era, who, on the operating tables of our hospitals have been brought back from death, but have since died and if still alive, are definitely going to die and be returned to the universal elements from which they had been formed, unlike the body of Jesus who was resurrected from the world of the dead, and who is the only one recorded in the New Testament whose body of corruptible matter, was translated to an immortal body of blinding light, which can never die.


Jesus died, and suffered as any other crucifixion victim. He did not impart any authority on Paul, he did not even change who he was. The simple fact is that people in first century had vision of the dead. It was not uncommon to have such.

It’s a waste of effort, but here goes, for the last time as I will not be responding to any more of your rubbish in this thread. Acts 22: 6; “As I was travelling and coming near Damascus, a bright light from the sky suddenly flashed around me. I fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to me, Saul, Saul! Why do you persecute me? Who are you Lord? I asked. ‘I am Jesus of Nazareth whom you persecute,’ he said to me.-----the blind Saul then asks-----’What shall I do Lord?’ And the Lord said to him, ‘Get up and go into Damascus, and there you will be told everything that God (Our Saviour who raised Jesus from death as the first of may brothers) has determined for you to do.

So you see, Jesus of Nazareth in his new body of blinding light, did appear to Saul and told him what he must do to fulfil the will of our saviour. O, but that’s right you don’t believe the biblical records, do you? You prefer the imaginations of your own sick little mind over the truth of the Lord.

They did not always iron out their differences. Looking at the Bible, we see two examples of their being debate between James (who the disciples primarily followed) and Paul. The first was about circumcision, which they agreed to. The second was about eating Kosher while Christian-Jews and Christian-Pagans were together. Paul threw a fit and said no, while James, along with Peter and the assembly stated that it should be so. There was no ironing out there.

So if you believe what is written here of Paul, then it becomes obvious that you are forced to believe the conversion of Paul when he met Jesus of Nazareth on the road to Damascus, as you either believe what is recorded in scripture or disbelieve. But Peter who was later chastised by the Lord in a dream, and saw the spirit of the Lord descend on the Gentiles who ate pork and all those foods forbidden by the law, came to accept that Paul was correct in his belief that the old law was fulfilled in Jesus and all food was acceptable to the believers.

Yes, I believe people go to mediums believing that they are talking to their dead loved ones. However, I've worked as a medium. I know it is nothing more than a farce that anyone can perpetrate. They use simply magic (illusion) effects that are similar to what I use during my magic shows.

Yea, I agree, it’s only really mentally sick little puppies who work as mediums. But those who saw Jesus after he was resurrected to life, didn’t have to go to any mentally mad magical medium, because Jesus appeared to them and revealed himself.

No, I did not state that. Joseph, as scholars and authorities agree, was the father of James. James and Jesus were both fathered by James, and mothered by Mary. Do not try to twist what I said to suit your unfounded beliefs.

I never did say that you claimed that Joseph was the father of James, so thats something else that has come out of your sick little head, as does your cliam that James is the biological father of James and Jesus, sick, sick, sick. Good heavens mate, you have given no historical or biblical evedence, all you have said, is that Jesus was not the son of Joseph the son of Heli, from the tribe of Levi, who the Bible states is the father of Jesus, and you claim that Joseph the son of Jacob from the tribe of Judah, who never even had sex with Mary until she had given birth to her first son according to the bible, was the biological father of Jesus, now dont just say that Joseph the son of Jacob is the biological father of Jesus, show us the evidence upon which you base your lie.

The more and more you speak though, the less credible any of your arguments become. You have no historical background,

 

[fallingblood]

I present Biblical evidence for everything I say, you present nothing but rubbishing Rhetoric which is the unsupported imaginations of your own sick mind.

Very Christian of you to personally attack me. I have introduced evidence, and then you dismiss it outright because it doesn't agree with you. I named sources, you dismissed them a ungodly and simply attacked their personalities.

Your evidence is that you have an inner spirit that tells you these things and that true believers will be guided to know these secrets. That is not evidence, that is quackery.

If you consider changing the religious belief of the state a crime, Otherwise show your evidence. Where it is written that Jesus committed any crime, other than to claim that he was the promised Messiah. That is if you can even show, apart from the records in the bible, that Jesus even existed.

The crime Jesus committed was going into the temple and "cleansing" it by one, causing a public disturbance, two, attacking the merchants there, and three, wrecking havoc in the temple. All of this occurring during a festival, a major one at that. At a time that the Jewish homeland was ready for a rebellion. That was a serious crime and the only outcome that it ever led to was crucifixion. Pilate did not wash his hands of "innocent" blood as there was none. Jesus was not innocent and he died a criminal for the crimes he committed.

We who accept the only record of the life and teachings of Jesus, know that he encouraged the people to obey the ruling authorities of Rome and to pay the taxes that were Caesars, and was in no way a resistance leader. But of course you don’t believe the biblical records and so, you put forward some unsubstantiated rubbish that you invented in you own sick little mind.

Again, you are a reason why people hate the "true" believers. Instead of having a rational discussion, you resort to name calling and insisting that only you can be right as you have some sort of secret knowledge. Again, if you want backing to my "rubbish", look at the sources I've already listed. Look at what John Dominic Crossan has to say on the subject, as he is considered the premier historical Jesus scholar and has the actual educational backing to support his ideas. And he's a Christian. Also, look at Bart D. Ehrman, who is also a highly respected authority on the subject of the New Testament.

Finally, you show your lack of understanding of the passage that you imply. Jesus was being set up in a trap. Have you noticed that he himself never carried any Roman coins with him (why else would he have to ask for some). Also, focus on the second part of the implied passage. That is what was important.

There is no question about whether or not Jesus was a resistance leader. He had to be. That is the only way he would have had a following. The Jews wanted a King to lead them out of Roman control. That was the messiah.


The basis comes down to this though. You over and over again personally attack me. You provide no credible evidence. You claim that your information comes from a indwelling spirit which is hogwash. You show an ignorance to the history of the time, as well as any credible Biblical scholarship. You've shown a massive amount of arrogance, and have acted like a complete jerk who's only defense is that you don't believe it so it's not true. So go ahead and don't reply to me anymore as you haven't added a single credible argument and the only addition you do make is a bunch of meaningless blubbering that has no basis in fact.

But that must be easier than actually looking up the information and doing some study. As anyone who is serious about the a logical look at the historical Jesus knows that one cannot look at the Gospels as the only source, or even a 100% credible source as they can't even agree on the major events.

 

[S-word]

Very Christian of you to personally attack me. I have introduced evidence, and then you dismiss it outright because it doesn't agree with you. I named sources, you dismissed them a ungodly and simply attacked their personalities.

Good heavens mate, I have given you biblical evidence that Jesus is the son of Joseph, the son of Heli from the tribe of Levi, who is a direct descendant fron Nathan the half brother of Solomon, who is the ancestor of Joseph the son of Jacob from the tribe of Judah, and who was the step father of Jesus who did not have sex with Mary until she had give birth to, (now read it yourself Luke 3: 23 Jesus the son of Joseph, the son of Heli, the descendant of Nathan the son of Bathsheba and Uriah the Hittite, who became a member of the tribe of Levi by his marriage to Bathsheba the daughter of Ammiel, the son of Obed-Edom, who is a descendant of Moses the Levite through his second wife who was the daughter of Hobab the Kennite, one of the two father-in-laws of Moses, Jethro the priest of Midian being the father of the first wife of Moses.

You have given neither historical or biblical evidence, to support your rejection of this biblical truth. All you have said, is that Jesus was not the son of Joseph, the son of Heli, from the tribe of Levi, who the Bible states is the father of Jesus, (Ignoring the later interpolation (As was supposed) in brackets, introduced by those who would have you believe that Jesus was born of a virgin,) and you claim that Joseph the son of Jacob from the tribe of Judah was the biological father of Jesus, Joseph the son of Jacob, who never even had sex with Mary until she had given birth to her first son according to the bible. Now if you want people to believe your claim that Joseph the son of Jacob is the biological father of Jesus, show us the evidence upon which you base your contradiction to God's word, or admit that you have no evidence other than the fact that you believe nothing that is quoted in the Bible.

 

[S-word]

Very Christian of you to personally attack me. I have introduced evidence, and then you dismiss it outright because it doesn't agree with you. I named sources, you dismissed them a ungodly and simply attacked their personalities.

Very Christian of you to personally attack me. I have introduced evidence, and then you dismiss it outright because it doesn't agree with you. I named sources, you dismissed them a ungodly and simply attacked their personalities.

Matey, I am not one of them pompous pretentious people, with piousness oozing from their pores, when I met a mug, I tell him He’s a mug.

quote=fallingblood; Your evidence is that you have an inner spirit that tells you these things and that true believers will be guided to know these secrets. That is not evidence, that is quackery.

Nah matey, I have always said, that my evidence comes from the Holy scripture which I have eaten entirely, and the spiritual food that I have eaten from the tables that have been prepared by all the different Christian denominations, the Buddhists, Muslims, science, etc, etc. and that Just as the creative indwelling force takes the physical food that I eat and uses that which is acceptable for the continued growth and maintenance of this physical body while rejecting the rubbish, so it is with the spiritual food that I eat, the spirit which forms me the Mind/spirit, takes that which is acceptable from that which I feed upon, for the continued growth of “I” the mind/spirit, while rejecting the rubbish. I am the end result of the best that I have eaten.


quote=fallingblood; The crime Jesus committed was going into the temple and "cleansing" it by one, causing a public disturbance, two, attacking the merchants there, and three, wrecking havoc in the temple. All of this occurring during a festival, a major one at that. At a time that the Jewish homeland was ready for a rebellion. That was a serious crime and the only outcome that it ever led to was crucifixion. Pilate did not wash his hands of "innocent" blood as there was none. Jesus was not innocent and he died a criminal for the crimes he committed.

I have given you the Biblical evidence that Pilate did wash his hands of the innocent blood of Jesus. Now show us the historical evidence that Pilate did not, or admit that you have no evidence other than the fact that you believe nothing that is quoted in the Bible.

quote=fallingblood; Again, you are a reason why people hate the "true" believers. Instead of having a rational discussion, you resort to name calling and insisting that only you can be right as you have some sort of secret knowledge. Again, if you want backing to my "rubbish", look at the sources I've already listed. Look at what John Dominic Crossan has to say on the subject, as he is considered the premier historical Jesus scholar and has the actual educational backing to support his ideas. And he's a Christian. Also, look at Bart D. Ehrman, who is also a highly respected authority on the subject of the New Testament.

But Crossan suggests that Jesus was illiterate. Jesus who, as a child of about 12 years old is recorded as having sat in the temple for three days astounding the Jewish teachers with his knowledge of the Holy Scriptures. For someone to say that Jesus, who, when he was about to begin his mission, opened the scroll at the words of Isaiah and read the prophecy concerning the messenger of the Lord that was prophesied to come, was illiterate, without any evidence other that what is recorded in the Bible, is talking through his hat. Present your evidence as to where Crossan discovered the evidence that brought him to the conclusion that the Biblical Jesus, of which there is no other record of the things he spoke, was illiterate?

And where does Crossan get off, by saying that Jesus was initially a follower of his second cousin, John the Baptist. Unless Crossan has some other record of the first known meeting of Jesus and his cousin John, this is what we read in the bible, John 1: 31-34; I did not know who he would be-------But God who sent me to baptise with water, had said to me, “You will see the spirit come down and stay on a man; he is the one who baptises with the Holy spirit.” I have seen it, said John, and I tell you he is the Son of God. Of course John was to later doubt if he had been correct, when in prison he sent his disciples to ask Jesus if he really was the promised Messenger or if they had to wait for another. But this passage shows clearly, that John did not know who had been chosen from among the Israelites to speak in the name of the Lord, until he saw the spirit come down in the form of a dove and stay on the man. Present your evidence as to where Crossan discovered the evidence that brought him to the conclusion that the Biblical Jesus of which there is no other record of the things he had done in his life, was initially a follower of John the Baptist?

quote=fallingblood; Finally, you show your lack of understanding of the passage that you imply. Jesus was being set up in a trap. Have you noticed that he himself never carried any Roman coins with him (why else would he have to ask for some). Also, focus on the second part of the implied passage. That is what was important.

Have you noticed that Jesus never carried the money bag, it was Judas who looked after the cash matey, this shows your total lack of understanding of the passage where He, who never carried the money bag had to ask for a Roman coin from those hypocritical Jewish authorities, who were always searching for ways in which they could trap him,

quote=fallingblood; There is no question about whether or not Jesus was a resistance leader. He had to be. That is the only way he would have had a following. The Jews wanted a King to lead them out of Roman control. That was the messiah.

So say you. You, who can produce absolutely no evidence to support your claim. He was not a resistance leader according to Scripture, never once can it be shown that he was against any organisation except the hypocritical Jewish religious leaders who had him killed by the Romans. The people followed him because of his teachings and his acceptance of sinners, have you read his sermons, to which the people flocked in thousands to listen to, no words of insurrection there, nothing but love toward your fellow man. If one would call him a resistance leader, one would have to liken him to Ghandi, a man of peace. Would you condemn Ghandi as one who needed to be killed as you have said of Jesus?
To be Continued......

 

[S-word]

quote=fallingblood; The basis comes down to this though. You over and over again personally attack me.

My first post in this thread was #10, your response in #13, attacked every point I had made, without supplying any evidence, only the fact that you didn’t believe. This was your last sentence in that post, which was in response to my evidence that no one of that time believed Jesus to be anything but a great teacher of Religion, and that the godchild virgin birth was introduced much later by the deceivers who refused to acknowledge that he came as a human being.

And the fact that Mark and John totally ignore his physical birth and begin their story of mans salvation, with Jesus being born of the spirit that descended upon him in the form of a dove. This I pointed out as evidence that John the beloved disciple, and Mark the son of Peter, who took his wife and family with him, did not believe that Jesus was anything other than a normal human being, born of Human parents of which, Joseph the son of Jacob from the tribe of Judah who married Mary after the birth of her first child, was not one of the two biological parents of Jesus.

quote=fallingblood; Oh, and the reason that Mark and John ignore the birth of Jesus is because, among peasants, there were no birth records. No one recorded birth of Jesus, and the people who knew about it were long dead by the time the Gospels were written. It was simply not important. What was important was what he did when we was older. This is actually very common during that time.

I meant to ask you at the time, why his cousin, John the Baptist who believed Jesus to be a far greater teacher than he could ever be, and that was before he realised that his cousin Jesus was the one chosen by God to speak in the name of the Lord, was later to doubt that he was the promised Messiah, or if they had to wait for another, because Jesus showed no signs of being a resistance leader.

quote=fallingblood; You provide no credible evidence. You claim that your information comes from a indwelling spirit which is hogwash.

Nah matey, I may have said that I am guided by my indwelling spirit, but I have also said time and time again that the information on which “I/the Mind/spirit” has developed and continues to develop is the spiritual food that I have eaten from the Bible and the tables that have been prepared by all the different Christian denominations, Buddhist, Muslem, science, etc. And Just as the indwelling creative force takes the physical food that I eat for the continued growth and maintenance of this mortal body, the same spirit takes the spiritual food that I eat and forms the Mind/spirit, that is “I”.

quote=fallingblood; You show an ignorance to the history of the time, as well as any credible Biblical scholarship.

So says he, who said that James was the biological father of James and Joseph. The one who believes that Joseph the son of Jacob from the tribe of Judah, and a direct descendant of Solomon, is the same Joseph from the tribe of Levi, who is the son of Heli the grandfather of Jesus, who is a direct descendant of Nathan the half brother of Solomon, are one and the same person. The one who believes that the great teacher who read from the scrolls of the Lord, was Illiterate. The one who believed that Jesus was a follower of John the Baptist, who John considered, before he even knew that he was the one chosen to speak in the name of the Lord, to be so far above him that he was not worthy to baptise him, etc, etc.

quote=fallingblood; You've shown a massive amount of arrogance, and have acted like a complete jerk who's only defense is that you don't believe it so it's not true.

This you say of me? After reading that every time that I disbelieved that which you have said in you total ignorance, I backed it up with scriptural evidence, to which you have no answer other than you don’t believe, giving absolutely no evidence to back up your contradiction to the Holy words of truth.

quote=fallingblood; But that must be easier than actually looking up the information and doing some study.

Something that has been made painfully obvious that you don’t do.

quote=fallingblood; As anyone who is serious about the a logical look at the historical Jesus knows that one cannot look at the Gospels as the only source, or even a 100% credible source as they can't even agree on the major events.

The only historical evidence of the existence of Jesus, is the Biblical evidence, apart from a small mention by Josephus the historian, who the majority of your atheist/agnostic scholars claim was added by the church authorities. The Gospels record different events in the life of Jesus and there may be slight variations sometimes where they record the same event, but basically they are all in agreement. I defy you to pick out four people who have just RECENTLY witnessed the one same event, put them in four different rooms to record in writing that which they have just WITNESSED and get four accounts that are exactly the same in every respect. Only someone without a brain would expect that to happen.

quote=fallingblood; So go ahead and don't reply to me anymore as you haven't added a single credible argument and the only addition you do make is a bunch of meaningless blubbering that has no basis in fact.


As you are doing such a good job yourself, of proving your total ignorance to the scriptures which are the only historical records of Jesus, there is no more need of I, to help you in that respect and so I gladly accept your offer to terminate all correspondence with you in this thread, as I can not tolerate fools lightly, Good night and good bye as far as this thread is concerned.

 

[Dezzie]

This post actually opened up my mind a little bit more. I never realized this before. Very interesting find bennetresearch and thank you for posting it. I have read a lot about religion the past couple of months (I am taking a class on it) and do remember reading about how (in Christianity) sacrifice was frowned upon. I just never thought about it like that before. There are so many things that just don't make sense in the world... Nothing ever adds up does it? History is a mystery.

Dezzie

 

[Dezzie]

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.

I am actually trying to research this myself... about the two Josephs being seperate people. I can not find it anywhere. Can you give an example from the Bible or a site you heard this from? I really am quite curious. I'm not trying to start anything. Thanks S-word

Dezzie

 

[S-word]

I am actually trying to research this myself... about the two Josephs being seperate people. I can not find it anywhere. Can you give an example from the Bible or a site you heard this from? I really am quite curious. I'm not trying to start anything. Thanks S-word

Dezzie

In Matthew 1: you will find the genealogy of the man who married Mary, and he is Joseph the son of Jacob from the tribe of Judah, who is a descendant of Solomon. This Joseph is the one who had intended to marry Mary, but then found out that was pregnant with child, and intended to beak their engagement privately. Matthew 1: 20: While he was thinking about this, an angel appeared to him in a dream and said, Joseph, descendant of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife, for it is by the workings of the holy spirit that the child was conceived, etc. Joseph was to later marry the pregnant unmarried Mary, but according to verse 25, Joseph the son of Jacob from the tribe of Judah, had no sexual relations with mary until she had birthed her first born son Jesus, the son of Joseph, the son of Heli from the tribe of Levi.

But according to Luke 2: 4; we are told that Joseph went from Nazareth to Bethlehem of Judaea with Mary with whom he was still only engaged, as he never consummated their union until after her first son was born. Matthew 1: 22; Now all this happened in order to make come true what the Lord had said through the prophet, “An Almah will be with child and bear a son who will be given many different names by the people.

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.

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.” or as some translations have it; "Today I have become your Father."

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, and it was then, in 405 AD that the word "virgin' first appeared in the Bible in referrence to the mother of the man Jesus.

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, was among the family and friends who went to Jerusalem to rejoice with the pregnant Elizabeth the cousin of Mary who were of the daughters of Levi, it was there that she must have met for the first time and was attracted to the biological father of Jesus, who, in the genealogy of Jesus is recorded to be Joseph, the son of Heli from the tribe of Levi, who is a descendant of Nathan. And the act of obedience from which the child of Gods promise was conceived in the womb of the “Almah,” unmarried woman, was concealed in the shadow beneath the wings of the Lord of spirits.

Luke 3: 23; Jesus is the son of Joseph, the son of Heli, the descendant of Nathan the son of Bathsheba and Uriah the Hittite, who became a member of the tribe of Levi by his marriage to Bathsheba the daughter of Ammiel, the son of Obed-Edom, who is a descendant of Moses the Levite through his second wife who was the daughter of Hobab the Kennite, one of the two father-in-laws of Moses, Jethro the priest of Midian being the father of the first wife of Moses.

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 who were born of different mothers than those of their husbands, were both informed by an angel that they would become Pregnant and bear the son of Gods promise. Isaac was offered up as a sacrifice by his physical father, Jesus was offered up by his spiritual father, who, as he rose from the baptismal waters and was filled with the spirit of the Lord that had descended upon him in the form of a dove, and 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: 23; before it was corrupted by those who refuse to acknowledge that Jesus came as a human being. And Isaac was offered up on the very spot where Jesus was crucified.

As I have said previously, 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 unorthodox champion, ‘King Constantine,’ who had his father Constantius deified and was accorded the same honour himself after his death. When reading the genealogy of Jesus as recorded in Luke 3: 23; do not be swayed by the later interpolation in brackets (As was supposed) which was added by those deceivers who refuse to acknowledge that Jesus came as a human being.

 

[Dezzie]

In Matthew 1: you will find the genealogy of the man who married Mary, and he is Joseph the son of Jacob from the tribe of Judah, who is a descendant of Solomon. This Joseph is the one who had intended to marry Mary, but then found out that was pregnant with child, and intended to beak their engagement privately. Matthew 1: 20: While he was thinking about this, an angel appeared to him in a dream and said, Joseph, descendant of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife, for it is by the workings of the holy spirit that the child was conceived, etc.

Okay... Let me see... Where does it say that Joseph, the son of Jacob had the intent to marry Mary but later left her in private? Where in Matthew 1:_?

Am I understanding this correctly... The Joseph that had the intent to marry Mary, turned her down when he found out she was pregnant... but Joseph, decendent of David, is the one who actually marries her? I think I am confused... :areyoucra

I've just never heard of two different Josephs, so I am really trying to understand this. lol I'm confuzzled! :cover:

 

[S-word]

Okay... Let me see... Where does it say that Joseph, the son of Jacob had the intent to marry Mary but later left her in private? Where in Matthew 1:_?

Am I understanding this correctly... The Joseph that had the intent to marry Mary, turned her down when he found out she was pregnant... but Joseph, decendent of David, is the one who actually marries her? I think I am confused... :areyoucra

I've just never heard of two different Josephs, so I am really trying to understand this. lol I'm confuzzled! :cover:

quote=Dezzie; Am I understanding this correctly... ... The Joseph that had the intent to marry Mary, turned her down when he found out she was pregnant Joseph,.....Yes, sort of.

quote=Dezzie; but Joseph, decendent of David, is the one who actually marries her? I think I am confused...


You are confused. The Joseph that had the intent to marry Mary, and who intended to turn her down when he found out she was pregnant, is the Joseph who is the descendant of David through his biological son Solomon, and is the one who actually marries her?

The Joseph who is the son of Jacob from the tribe of Judah and a direct descendsnt of Solomon, who intended to turn her down, is the one who eventually married the unmarried mother of Jesus, who was Mary and who became the step father of Jesus, you will find his genealogy in Matthew 1 to 17.

quote=Dezzie; Okay... Let me see... Where does it say that Joseph, the son of Jacob had the intent to marry Mary but later left her in private? Where in Matthew 1:_?
(

Matthew 1: 18; The mother of Jesus, "Mary," was engaged to Joseph, but before they were married, she was found to be with child by the workings of the Holy spirit. Joseph was a righteous man and didn't want to disgrace Mary publicly; so he made plans to break their engagment privately.

While he was thinking about this, an angel appeared to him in a dream and said, Joseph, descendant of David, (Through Solomon, as Nathan the ancestor of Heli the grandfather of Jesus, was not a biological son of David.) do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife, for it is by the workings of the Holy spirit that the child was conceived, etc. Joseph was to later marry the pregnant unmarried Mary.

But according to Luke 2: 4; we are told that Joseph went from Nazareth to Bethlehem of Judaea with Mary with whom he was still only engaged, as he never consummated their union until after her first son was born. How's that, can you understand what the bible has just said to you, now?

 

[Dezzie]

How's that, can you understand what the bible has just said to you, now?

Thank you for including the passages from the bible. I actually found this one site that broke it down pretty well. It makes a lot more sense to me now.

Joseph in the Bible – The Joseph of the Old Testament
One Joseph in the Bible was the overconfident younger son of Jacob. He was known to his older brothers as their father’s favorite. For this reason his 10 older brothers conspired against the boy and sold him to slave traders, while telling their father the boy had been mauled by an animal. Joseph had been given dreams of God’s plan for his life; so with confidence and strength, he endured in this amazing story in Genesis.

The slave traders took him into Egypt and sold him to Potiphar, one of the Pharaoh’s officers. Joseph served his master well and gained great favor. But the master’s wife tried to seduce Joseph, a young man of impeccable integrity. After he rejected her, she went to her husband with false accusations. It resulted in Joseph’s imprisonment. Once again, God proved his presence and protection for Joseph. The prison keeper befriended him and learned of Joseph’s divine ability to interpret dreams.

Because of earning this reputation, Joseph was called upon to interpret a dream that deeply troubled the Pharaoh. None of the Pharaoh’s wise consults had been able to decipher the dream. But Joseph accurately relayed the symbols in the dream to a future time of abundance that would be followed by a time of great famine. The Pharaoh rewarded Joseph with overseeing the lands of Egypt. In these prosperous times he stored up the abundant harvest toward the tragic times ahead. During the years of famine, Joseph’s brothers came in search of grains and foods to keep their people from starvation. Not recognizing their young Hebrew brother as this matured and prominent Egyptian, he ordered them to return with their younger brother. When the brothers returned with Benjamin, Joseph revealed his identity. The brother’s suffered from great remorse of their actions and Joseph forgave them. It was a joyous reunion between a grieved father and lost son. Joseph’s years of steadfast reliance on God brought about not only reunion but his high position so that he was able to save a nation from starvation.

Joseph in the Bible – The Joseph of the New Testament
Joseph, best known as the husband of Mary and earthly father of Jesus, is found in the New Testament books of Matthew and Luke. Joseph was a man of strong beliefs. He not only strived to do what was right but also to do it the right way. When his betrothed Mary came to him with the news of her pregnancy, he knew the child could not be his.

Joseph decided he would break the engagement but determined to do it in such a way that it would not bring shame to Mary. He wanted to be just, acting with fairness and love. He had great respect for Mary’s character but her story of being miraculously impregnated by God’s Holy Spirit was difficult to believe. During this time of consideration, he was visited by a messenger from God confirming Mary’s story and convincing Joseph that Mary had not been unfaithful. God instructed Joseph to marry the young woman and honor her virginity until the baby was born. Joseph obeyed the Lord.

This must have been initially very difficult for Joseph to reconcile in his natural mind. But Joseph had to be a very spiritual and faithful man of integrity. It is not known how long Joseph was in the life of Jesus but he realized from the moment of the heavenly visit that Jesus was to be very special. The last time Joseph was mentioned in the Bible was when Jesus was 12 years old. We can assume, that being the honorable man he was, Joseph fulfilled the role of earthly father to the best of his ability with all the love any man can have for his son. Joseph was given and fulfilled the role of protector, provider and teacher, raising the young boy without any further reservation. God provided Joseph with assurance, strength, and the abilities of leadership to raise the child who was brought to be Savior.

Joseph in the Bible – Lessons from the two Josephs
By reading the stories of both men, we find that they were men of great integrity. Both men were tried and tested by events in life that could have left them bitter or angry. Instead, they had close relationships with God in which they remained steadfast, regardless of the undeserved adversities and trials they were forced to endure. Both Josephs were men of great faith and open to hearing in their spirits what God intended for them and their lives to come. God proved through them that social position is of little importance to God, bringing them each from a meager standing to roles of great importance and example.

God honors integrity, obedience, and faithfulness. Our obedience to Him will bring increased guidance and blessings from Him. With God’s help, any situation or appearance of things gone wrong can be used for a good outcome when we remain steadfast and have a personal relationship with God. If you seek Him and listen for His direction, He will answer you with provisions of a blessed outcome for you as well.

I got this from: Joseph in the Bible

Thanks S-word...

 

[fallingblood]

I am actually trying to research this myself... about the two Josephs being seperate people. I can not find it anywhere. Can you give an example from the Bible or a site you heard this from? I really am quite curious. I'm not trying to start anything. Thanks S-word

Dezzie

There is a real good reason you can't find anything about it. S-word is the only or one a a very very few who believe that idea. You won't find any credible scholar, or any information at all about their being two Josephs that Mary was messing around with.


S-Word: I'm not even wasting time with your ramblings anymore. Everything you say can be rejected for the simple reason that you claim to be using the Bible yet you reject Biblical teachings (such as the virgin birth, which the Gospels clearly state that Jesus was with child from the Holy spirit, and that she was a virgin to fulfill a prophecy that Matthew used to mean virgin. There is no debate on that at all). So just that fact rejects all information that you claim. Also, it is a waste to debate with you because you simply will not debate in a civil manner. You can't dismiss what I say simply because you don't believe it. You can't claim that I'm not supplying evidence when I supply the sources I use. You can't just call me ignorant in order to discredit me. That is not how a logical debate works. All you've shown is that you're pompous and ignorant.

 

[fallingblood]

Thank you for including the passages from the bible. I actually found this one site that broke it down pretty well. It makes a lot more sense to me now.



I got this from: Joseph in the Bible

Thanks S-word...

Just so that you are aware, and I'm sure S-word will go further into depth, this is not what he is talking about.

S-Word claims that there are two Josephs mentioned in the Gospels who had relations with Mary at one time or another. One of them was going to marry her, slept with her and impregnated her, and then left her. The other one then married her, and slept with her after Jesus was born. Basically, according to S-Word, Mary was just an easy woman as she later on also got divorced and remarried some other person.

 

[Dezzie]

Just so that you are aware, and I'm sure S-word will go further into depth, this is not what he is talking about.

S-Word claims that there are two Josephs mentioned in the Gospels who had relations with Mary at one time or another. One of them was going to marry her, slept with her and impregnated her, and then left her. The other one then married her, and slept with her after Jesus was born. Basically, according to S-Word, Mary was just an easy woman as she later on also got divorced and remarried some other person.

Yeah... I must say that is what I was confused about. I can't find ANYTHING that says both Josephs had relationships with Mary. There are two Josephs... sure... but when I did research about Jospeh, son of Jacob, nothing at all was even mentioned about Mary. I don't understand where that information is coming from. Nothing has been properly described to me.

 

[fallingblood]

Yeah... I must say that is what I was confused about. I can't find ANYTHING that says both Josephs had relationships with Mary. There are two Josephs... sure... but when I did research about Jospeh, son of Jacob, nothing at all was even mentioned about Mary. I don't understand where that information is coming from. Nothing has been properly described to me.

The information that he is assuming comes from the fact that the genealogies in Matthew and Luke are describing two different people. This assumption is based on the idea that since the genealogies are not exact (as they have many discrepancies between the two) it must have meant that there were two separate Joseph's that had a relationship with Mary and were considered some type of father to Jesus.

However, scholars agree that both genealogies belong to one Joseph, and that they were simply created by the writers. Other ideas assume that one of the genealogies was that of Mary (few hold this idea anymore). There are a couple explanations as well as to different ways of recording family records, but those are held only by a few as well. It is generally agreed that the genealogies were simply created by Luke and Matthew in order to find a line back to David. However, all scholars, agree that both genealogies are meant to be that of the one Joseph that Christians are taught about, the Joseph who married Mary.

 

[S-word]

Thank you for including the passages from the bible. I actually found this one site that broke it down pretty well. It makes a lot more sense to me now.



I got this from: Joseph in the Bible

Thanks S-word...

Yes, it's amazing just how many, many sites you will find with erroneous interpretations of different scripture, is it not?.

But any person including yourself, who, after reading the genealogy recorded in Matthew, which records only 24 ancestors of Joseph the son of Jacob, beginning from Solomon the biological son of David and Bathsheba, and which genealogy is that of the Joseph who married Mary the mother of Jesus, see Matthew 1: 16; of whom it is said in verse 25, had no sexual relations with her until after she had given birth to her firstborn son Jesus. So even someone with only half a brain can understand that Joseph the son of Jacob from the tribe of Judah as recorded in Matthew 1: 2 to 17; cannot possibly be the biological father of Jesus.

The other Joseph who is recorded in the genealogy of Jesus, in the gospel of Luke 3: 23; has 40 ancestors from Jesus to Nathan the biological son of Bathsheba and Uriah the Hittite, who became a member of the tribe of Levi by his marriage to Bathsheba the daughter of Ammial, the son of Obed-Edom, who is a descendant of Moses the Levite through his second wife who was the daughter of Hobab the Kennite (See Judges 4: 11.) one of the two Fathers-in-law of Moses. Jethro the priest of Midian being the other father-in-law, who was the father of Moses’ first wife.

The biological father of Jesus, who was made High Priest in the line of succession to Melchizedek, (and no priest is ever chosen from any tribe other than the descendants of Levi,) is the Joseph who is recorded in Luke as being the Father of Jesus and the son of Jesus’ grandfather Heli, (Heli, is the Greek adaptation of Eli the high priest) who is a direct descendant of Nathan, the stepson of David and half brother of Solomon. Those deceivers who refused to acknowledge that Jesus came as a human being, were later to add into Luke 3: 23; the interpolation in brackets (As was supposed) in order to put a question mark on the human parentage of the man Jesus.

Those deceivers, who refuse to acknowledge that Jesus came as a human being, do not want you to think that Jesus was truly the biological son of Joseph the half brother of Mary who, with her cousin Elizabeth are of the daughters of Levi. Those deceivers and disciples of the anti-christ of whom John had warned us, who had spread their great lie throughout the entire earth, have convinced the gullible people of the world, that an immortal god who they believe was the co-creator of the cosmos, came down to earth and entered into the womb of their invented virgin, where his father and co-creator of the cosmos, created a body for him which was not of the seed of Adam, and therefore not under the penalty of the original sin, who were then forced to declare that their supposed virgin was born of immaculate conception also, which means that her mother would have to have been a virgin who was born of immaculate conception too, add infin. But if you choose to reject the truth as revealed in scripture, that is you prerogative.

 

[Dezzie]

...that is you prerogative.

Yes, it very much is my prerogative... thank you for helping me realize that. It is my life, my opinions... my thoughts... I will interpret things the way I see them. I'm not going to just believe other peoples interpretations because they tell me they are truth. I am going to read about everything and find what I like best and what fits my heart, mind, and soul...

Until next time... Have a wonderful night.