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

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

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

Is Jesus a golden calf?

Discussion in 'Religious Debates' started by Khale, Dec 16, 2004.

  1. Lintu

    Lintu Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2004
    Messages:
    494
    Ratings:
    +67
    According to this line, it has to be the biological descendant.
     
  2. _salam_

    _salam_ Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2004
    Messages:
    236
    Ratings:
    +26
    I think this is very probable, and quite possibly what might have happened. I remember hearing somewhere, that right after Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) died, a small group of his followers wanted to start worshipping him, even though one of Muhammad's main messages was to worship God alone. Fortunately the Prophets close companions quickely put an end to this. Also, (and correct me if I'm wrong) aren't there certain sects of Buddhism that hold Buddha (the man that is) as a deity? And I know Buddha taught that he wasn't a god and that he shouldn't be worshipped.
     
  3. HelpMe

    HelpMe ·´sociopathic meanderer`·

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2004
    Messages:
    1,313
    Ratings:
    +61
    does the tribe of judah remain?is their a temple in jerusalem now?


    adoption is a valid vehicle into a bloodline inheritence.this has been done and done more times than i know or care to count, so i'll leave it at that.
     
  4. Lintu

    Lintu Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2004
    Messages:
    494
    Ratings:
    +67
    Really? In the lineage of Jewish kings? When?
     
  5. HelpMe

    HelpMe ·´sociopathic meanderer`·

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2004
    Messages:
    1,313
    Ratings:
    +61
    again, i said i would leave it at that because i knew what it would incite."Jehoiachin" was the accursed relative of josephs i was referring to(jer22:30).

    "In Genesis 15 verse 2, Abram lamented the fact that he had no natural son to inherit his estate, and it would fall to his chief servant Eliezar. This passage shows how all the rights and rank of a house can be transferred to a non-blood relative. Also, we read in Genesis chapter 48 that Israel adopted Joseph’s two sons, Ephriam and Manassah. They were now to be considered equal with Joseph’s brothers in inheriting the promises given to Israel and each of them were entitled to an equal portion of the land...

    Jesus was an adopted son of Joseph, not a natural son. Because of this, he was legally entitled to David’s throne and the blood curse did not apply. However, David was promised a natural heir. By looking at the genealogy of Mary we see that Jesus had direct human ancestry to King David through Nathan. This fact allows for another law of inheritance to be exercised, one found in the writings of Moses.

    In Numbers 27:6-11 we read of the daughters of Zelophehad, who were the only heirs of their father. Because there were no males born to the family, the inheritance of Zelophehad would be passed to his daughters and to their offspring. If there were no children to inherit, the nearest living relative would be entitled to the inheritance. Jesus was a son of David through Mary and entitled to all the benefits of the house of Eli. Because Johoiachin was counted as childless, none of that line was entitled to David’s throne, so the inheritance was to be transferred to a near kinsman. Jesus not only was entitled to the throne through adoption, but also as a kinsman redeemer of the Davidic line."

    courtesy of




    give me one person who is alive today that you can indisputably trace back to solomon.
     
  6. WitnessofJah

    WitnessofJah Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2004
    Messages:
    219
    Ratings:
    +7
    LUKE CHAPTER 3:

    23 Furthermore, Jesus himself, when he commenced [his work], was about thirty years old, being the son, as the opinion was,
    of Joseph,
    [son] of He´li,
    24 [son] of Mat´that,
    [son] of Le´vi,
    [son] of Mel´chi,
    [son] of Jan´na·i,
    [son] of Joseph,

    25 [son] of Mat·ta·thi´as,
    [son] of A´mos,
    [son] of Na´hum,
    [son] of Es´li,
    [son] of Nag´ga·i,

    26 [son] of Ma´ath,
    [son] of Mat·ta·thi´as,
    [son] of Sem´e·in,
    [son] of Jo´sech,
    [son] of Jo´da,

    27 [son] of Jo·an´an,
    [son] of Rhe´sa,
    [son] of Ze·rub´ba·bel,
    [son] of She·al´ti·el,
    [son] of Ne´ri,

    28 [son] of Mel´chi,
    [son] of Ad´di,
    [son] of Co´sam,
    [son] of El·ma´dam,
    [son] of Er,

    29 [son] of Jesus,
    [son] of E·li·e´zer,
    [son] of Jo´rim,
    [son] of Mat´that,
    [son] of Le´vi,

    30 [son] of Sym´e·on,
    [son] of Judas,
    [son] of Joseph,
    [son] of Jo´nam,
    [son] of E·li´a·kim,

    31 [son] of Me´le·a,
    [son] of Men´na,
    [son] of Mat´ta·tha,
    [son] of Nathan,
    [son] of David, (KING DAVID)

    32 [son] of Jes´se, (KING DAVID's FATHER - YOU CAN EVEN CLARIFY THIS IN THE OT)
    [son] of O´bed,
    [son] of Bo´az,
    [son] of Sal´mon,
    [son] of Nah´shon,

    33 [son] of Am·min´a·dab,
    [son] of Ar´ni,
    [son] of Hez´ron,
    [son] of Pe´rez,
    [son] of Judah, (FROM THE TRIBE OF JUDAH)

    34 [son] of Jacob,
    [son] of Isaac,
    [son] of Abraham,
    [son] of Te´rah,
    [son] of Na´hor,

    35 [son] of Se´rug,
    [son] of Re´u,
    [son] of Pe´leg,
    [son] of E´ber,
    [son] of She´lah,

    36 [son] of Ca·i´nan,
    [son] of Ar·pach´shad,
    [son] of Shem,
    [son] of Noah,
    [son] of La´mech,

    37 [son] of Me·thu´se·lah,
    [son] of E´noch,
    [son] of Ja´red,
    [son] of Ma·ha´la·le·el,
    [son] of Ca·i´nan,

    38 [son] of E´nosh,
    [son] of Seth,
    [son] of Adam,
    [son] of God.

    --------------------------------

    This is directly from the pages of the inspired word of God - The Bible.

    The problem with the idea of Judaism with that Jesus Christ was not the Messiah, is that even IF he came back to the earth like Jews think will happen to save them - we could NEVER prove that he came from the line of David. Those records are LONG GONE and there is so way of ever retrieving them...so how would they prove that HE DID come from the line of King David even if he came back today?

    On the otherhand, we have the Bible that TELLS US the EXACT genealogy of Jesus Christ, Son of God - who WAS the descendant of king David. Coincidence? Not at all.
     
  7. HelpMe

    HelpMe ·´sociopathic meanderer`·

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2004
    Messages:
    1,313
    Ratings:
    +61
    witness, they were not calling into question the given geneology.they were questioning it's validity, with 'jesus' not being joseph's son by blood you know.
     
  8. WitnessofJah

    WitnessofJah Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2004
    Messages:
    219
    Ratings:
    +7
    But you have to understand the above genealogy to be able to comprehend that. Notice how the above lineage has absolutlely no women - when there obviously would have been. Why is that? Because the traditional custom back in ancient Israel was that the legal "father" is always the name written down instead of the mother (i.e. Mary) whether or not Joseph was a literal blood relative of Jesus or not. Here is some info for you:

    Ancient sentiment did not comport with the mention of the mother as the genealogical link. Among the Greeks a man was the son of his father, not of his mother; and among the Jews the adage was: ‘Genus matris non vocatur genus [“The descendant of the mother is not called (her) descendant”]’ (‘Baba bathra,’ 110, a).”—Commentary on Luke, 1981, p. 129.

    Did you ever notice that in Matthew and in Luke records of Jesus a single woman's name is never mentioned as a the descendant even though of course there would have been some? That's because the male always takes priority - and that's why Luke and Matthew have been written: To write a legal record and a natural record - which is what would couse the difference in names over the two accounts.

    If you look at the genealogical lineage in Matthew 1:1-17, you will see the "natural" lineage instead of the "legal" lineage provided in Luke 3:

    2​
    Abraham became father to Isaac;
    Isaac became father to Jacob;
    Jacob became father to Judah and his brothers;
    3 Judah became father to Pe´rez and to Ze´rah by Ta´mar;
    Pe´rez became father to Hez´ron;
    Hez´ron became father to Ram;
    4 Ram became father to Am·min´a·dab;
    Am·min´a·dab became father to Nah´shon;
    Nah´shon became father to Sal´mon;
    5 Sal´mon became father to Bo´az by Ra´hab;
    Bo´az became father to O´bed by Ruth;
    O´bed became father to Jes´se;
    6 Jes´se became father to David the king.
    David became father to Sol´o·mon by the wife of U·ri´ah;
    7 Sol´o·mon became father to Re·ho·bo´am;
    Re·ho·bo´am became father to A·bi´jah;
    A·bi´jah became father to A´sa;
    8 A´sa became father to Je·hosh´a·phat;
    Je·hosh´a·phat became father to Je·ho´ram;
    Je·ho´ram became father to Uz·zi´ah;
    9 Uz·zi´ah became father to Jo´tham;
    Jo´tham became father to A´haz;
    A´haz became father to Hez·e·ki´ah;
    10​
    Hez·e·ki´ah became father to Ma·nas´seh;
    Ma·nas´seh became father to A´mon;
    A´mon became father to Jo·si´ah;
    11​
    Jo·si´ah became father to Jec·o·ni´ah and to his brothers at the time of the deportation to Babylon.
    12​
    After the deportation to Babylon Jec·o·ni´ah became father to She·al´ti·el;
    She·al´ti·el became father to Ze·rub´ba·bel;
    13​
    Ze·rub´ba·bel became father to A·bi´ud;
    A·bi´ud became father to E·li´a·kim;
    E·li´a·kim became father to A´zor;
    14​
    A´zor became father to Za´dok;
    Za´dok became father to A´chim;
    A´chim became father to E·li´ud;
    15​
    E·li´ud became father to El·e·a´zar;
    El·e·a´zar became father to Mat´than;
    Mat´than became father to Jacob;
    16 Jacob became father to Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ.

     
  9. HelpMe

    HelpMe ·´sociopathic meanderer`·

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2004
    Messages:
    1,313
    Ratings:
    +61
    i wasn't agreeing with them, if you'll read my second to last post.you might notive i defend the position more precisely than you.

    i did not question whether or not his ancestory traced back, i don't see a reason why you would post his leniage here especially towards me.
     
  10. Scuba Pete

    Scuba Pete Le plongeur avec attitude...

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2004
    Messages:
    16,472
    Ratings:
    +3,193
    Religion:
    Christian Taoist
    Well we can pull geneologies out of our hats all day... the crucial question is and has always been:

    Is the tomb empty???

    All other questions and their subsequent answers are addressed by this. No matter what our perception of what the Old Testament said or didn't say, it is moot if he was indeed raised from the dead. All of the arguments become little more than "red herrings" in light of this one. If he is still there my faith is in vain. If he has risen, then EVERYTHING that I stand for is true, and we are merely quibbling over details.
     
  11. Jaymes

    Jaymes The cake is a lie

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2004
    Messages:
    7,759
    Ratings:
    +1,039
    It isn't so much "is the tomb empty," but "are we looking at the right tomb?"

    "Why, yes, this is Jesus' tomb... look, it's empty!"
     
  12. Lintu

    Lintu Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2004
    Messages:
    494
    Ratings:
    +67
    The thing that always got me was the part of the Catholic creed that said "in fulfillment of the scriptures." Which ones? Certainly not the Jewish ones.
     
  13. Scuba Pete

    Scuba Pete Le plongeur avec attitude...

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2004
    Messages:
    16,472
    Ratings:
    +3,193
    Religion:
    Christian Taoist
    Assumptions...

    People always assume one way and are amazed when things happen but not in the way they anticipated. This can be good or bad, but it's usually bad.

    Many people were hoping for a physical battle and not a spiritual one... they feel cheated. However, the spiritual battle has always been the important one. We just have a hard time looking at things spiritually.

    Even today, most Christians look at the scriptures with an eye to the physical, and completely miss the spiritual implications. Take death... physical death is not as critical as spiritual death. Yet we focus on the former almost to the exclusion of the latter. It's time to wake up.

    Jensa, it really doesn't matter -which- tomb. If he is in ANY tomb then my faith is in vain.
     
  14. fromthe heart

    fromthe heart Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2004
    Messages:
    1,755
    Ratings:
    +258
    The tomb would most certianly have to have been empty as they said because I don't think they forgot where they buried Him do you not agree? Didn't someone say that maybe His followers had stollen His body and moved it? Could they have? If so would they have told? I have to assess that given that BIG stone they knew where they buried Him and when the stone was rolled away He was indeed risen...Who was it that rolled the stone away to prove that He had risen?
     
  15. jewscout

    jewscout Religious Zionist

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2004
    Messages:
    9,497
    Ratings:
    +927
    First off the question of whether the tomb is empty is irrelevant, that's not part of the prophesy of the Moshiach. Secondly even if it was part of it the man's been dead for at least 2000 years (if we are to assume he existed). I think the chances of us finding and identifying the remains, if we could, are highly unlikely. Hell we can't even find Jimmy Hoffa!
     
  16. Khale

    Khale Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2004
    Messages:
    278
    Ratings:
    +45
    Sorry about that, I should have said Israelites or religion. Honest question though. If you consider yourself the chosen people doesn't that mean your holding yourselves higher than others? Also, do you have any biblical references saying that the jewish messiah would bring about the redemption of all nations? I always understood it that it was only for the Israelites.
     
  17. jewscout

    jewscout Religious Zionist

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2004
    Messages:
    9,497
    Ratings:
    +927
    Being called "The Chosen People" doesn't mean that the Jewish people are somehow better or holier than any other. The term comes from the story that after Adam and Eve were exiled from the Garden G-d's covenant and Torah were up for grabs. He offered it to every nation of the world and each one turned it down. The last people he offered it to were the Hebrew people and they accepted it. The took on "The Yoke of Heaven" and were to follow all 613 mitzvot/commandments. Trust me, having been a non-jew and now trying to walk the jewish path and being observant it's really really hard being jewish:D .
    As far as the redemption of all nations here are some verses:
     
  18. HelpMe

    HelpMe ·´sociopathic meanderer`·

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2004
    Messages:
    1,313
    Ratings:
    +61
    is this to say you disagree with the ancestory topic i addressed?if so, on what grounds?if not, what else is the problem?

    are you referring to the 'christian ot' or the talmud and others as well?
     
  19. Khale

    Khale Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2004
    Messages:
    278
    Ratings:
    +45
    Well, that makes sense. Thanks for the passages.
     
  20. retrorich

    retrorich SUPER NOT-A-MOD

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2004
    Messages:
    2,321
    Ratings:
    +497
    Is Jesus a golden calf?

    Golden Calves? Sounds like a basketball team.
     
Loading...