It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Was "Jesus" a "bastard" & the Church tried to Cover it up with the VirginBirth Stories?

page: 5
12
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 27 2004 @ 05:17 PM
link   
Hi Saint4God:

The issue of the two genealogies in Matthew and Luke (which do not match) has been a thorn in the side of thinking Christians for centuries (i.e. from the time Christians were allowed to read the text of Matthew and Luke for themselves, say after 1500)

Matthew tries to bend the truth so that he can come up with three GEMMATRIAL sets of 14 generations (the number 14 is the ASSIGNED GEMMATRIA for the house of David: DVD in Hebrew which is DALED (worth 4 points), VAV (worth 6 points) and DALED (another 4 points) which adds up to 14 the magical number for DAVID the "royal line of the house of Judah"...

In order to acheive these fake sets of 14, he has to leave off some very inconvenient clan-cheifs/kings of Judah between BC 690 and BC 640 if you compare the list in I Chronicles 3:9 to 15


1 David
2 Solomon
3 Rehoboam
4 Abijah
5 Asa
6 Jehoshaphat
7 Jehoram
8 Ahaziah
9 Joash
10 Amaziah
11 Uzziah
12 Jotham
13 Ahaz
14 Hezekiah
15 Manasseh
16 Amon
17 Josiah

(1 Chronicles 3:9-15)

Now is Matthew’s fake list;

quote:

1 David
2 Solomon
3 Rehoboam
4 Abijah
5 Asa
6 Jehoshaphat
7 Jehoram
…………(missing Ahaziah)
…………(missing Joash)
…………(missing Amaziah)
8 Uzziah
9 Jotham
10 Ahaz
11 Hezekiah
12 Manasseh
13 Amon
14 Josiah
Jeconiah…at the time of the exile to Babylon

or as Matthew claims "Thus there were fourteen generations in all….from David to the exile to Babylon.. (Matthew 1:1-17) "

A slight fudging of the numbers is going on here: what makes you think you can believe anything else in his gospel "historically": this is the MIDRASHIC way 1st century Jews handled scriptures, as did those who wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls.

NOTICE: The post exilic book of Chronicles shows that from David until the Babylonian Exile are seventeen generations, not fourteen.

The three names in the 1 Chronicles genealogy seem to have been deliberately snipped out to fit the imagined or hoped-for prophecy pattern.

A little lie here, a little lie there....and soon the whole gospel is called into Question....at least in terms of "historical accuracy."

NO WONDER THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH FOR MORE THAN 1000 YEARS FORBADE NON CLERGY TO READ AND COMPARE THE TEXTS OF THE GOSPELS AND TANAKH !!!!

Apologists sometimes argue that Matthew did what apologists mistakenly and hopefully think was “common” in those days—omitting descendents who were “unimportant.”

However, all three of the missing men in Matthew's fake list of 14 were kings, and all three were in the line of descendency to the "Messiah"—if you can believe Matthew.

Midrashic tendencies in Matthew's gospel makes the writer play a little fast and loose with facts. He even has Iesous riding into Jerusalem ON TWO ANIMALS to fulfil a mistranslation in his version prophecy (Zechariah 9:9-12) (Matthew's translation is from a late Aramaic Targum: Lowly, riding on a DONKEY... AND THE FOAL OF A DONKEY)

Experience teaches that Christian "apologists" (those who try to excuse or cover up all the lies and deceptions in the Bible) try to seize every opportunity to obfuscate when they find they’re unable to harmonize a Bible difficulty, and the more complicated the skeptic’s argument is, the more hiding places there are for the "fundamentalist Bible believing Christian".

The question of the day is:

Why did Matthew and Luke both go to so much trouble to trace Iesous lineage back to David (like a good Messiah) with their "boring-begats" through JOSEPH if Mary was supposed to have been "physically" impregnated by [the "holy spirit" of] "God"...and not her betrothed Joseph?

Looks like the final editors of the book in the 2nd or even in the 3rd century had to make what material was in "Matthew" and "Luke" fit the prevailing Roman Catholic belief in a Virginal Conception----the texts simply make no sense as they stand (e.g. "as was supposed" the father of Iesous etc.)

The Church also had other people in the early 2nd century loudly complaining about this (the phrase"..and pay no attention to all these endless Genealogies" is placed into the mouth of "Paul" in the Epistles to Timothy (whoever actually wrote those, it still meant that contradictory genealogies were floating around trying to "prove" Iesous' descent through David in order to make him a viable candidate for the "Messiah").

No matter which way you slice it, the two contradictory Genealogies (Matthew v. Luke) do not help Iesous' case either for a clean Daviddic lineage----nor do they support a case for any kind of a Virgin Birth---both ideas of which the Church tried to foist on believers in the 2nd century AD----and since that time, they have spent a great deal of time NOT talking about it....unto this day

(and how many Christians do you know these days that have the guts to face this problem head on?)









[edit on 27-10-2004 by Amadeus]




posted on Oct, 29 2004 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amadeus


IESOUS ARMS HIS DISCIPLES WITH REAL SWORDS: read all about it.

Luke 22:30-40 about Iesous ordering his disciples to sell their outer tunics on a cold night and buy swords with the cash. Matthew and Mark and John mention the ear cutting, but not how the disciples got swords in the first place... Why do you think "Iesous" was crucified for armed sedition in the first place? Do you think nice mamby pamby little Rebbes telling harmless parables start riots in Temples?

Obviously the term is symbolic in Luke and parallels other figures of ancient literature "sweating blood" see Luke 22:44


12 LEGIONS OF ANGELS in MATTHEW's GREEK GOSPEL

See Matt 26:53 : Have you never read this passage before?

If you've never read these text portions in your bible, maybe you need to go out and buy a better translation??

[edit on 25-10-2004 by Amadeus]


Jesus was not telling them to buy swords, He was telling them if they don't have a copy of the scriptures they need to get one. See Eph. 6:17 "take the sword of the spirit which is the word of God". The Bible is living which means it applies to all times. So this applies to today. If someone living right now October 29, 2004 does not have a Bible, it is a top priority to get one, even above what you think are needs, the Bible is the most important.

Of the 11 men that were with Jesus 2 had swords. The Bible tells us that Jesus told His followers on several occassions that He would be killed. They didn't understand why (except for 1 woman), and Peter was impulsive and he was probably one who got a sword. Because the Bible tells us he had the determination to prevent that from happening. The Jews were waiting for the messiah to come and bring back Israel to be leader among the nations. They didn't realize and understand that He was coming to die for the sin of the world first. So some were perpared for battle. It is even thought by some that Judas was trying to get Jesus to militarily fight, and that was the reason he betrayed Him. Plus some were fisherman and probably already owned one for there business.

Jesus upsetting the vendors in the temple was because He was mad that they had turned the temple into a place of profit. The temple was the place where people were to come to find out about the one true God and the way of salvation. People had turned it into a place to get rich. This still happens today. Yes it takes money to tell others about Christ. Churches have electric and gas bills and staffs to pay, etc....but you are not to profit from it. You shouldn't have multimillion dollar homes and drive fancy cars. The vast majority is to be spent informing others of salvation. That's why Jesus was mad.

There is a condition where veins in the head can burst and ooze blood when someone is under great stress. Jesu was about to be tortured and beaten and hung on a cross and have every sin ever committed placed upon Himself as if He had actually done them. Then He would be seperated from God the Father and the Holy Spirit. And He knew what was coming. I think He had alot of stress, more than anyone has or will ever face.

As far as the 12 legions of angels. Jesus is God. He had at His command every angel in creation to prevent His killing. His death was part of God's will and His. So He was telling the disciples," no angels are needed to prevent this. This is why I came, everything is going down as planned.

And this isn't meant to be snotty but I have read all the Bible and do read it now. I think you need to dig deeper to find out what is really being said by God.



posted on Oct, 29 2004 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seraphim_Serpente
Not even Priests & Scholars know for sure.

[edit on 26-10-2004 by Seraphim_Serpente]


I agree that some who should know do not know what God is saying. And no one knows all because the Bible is to vast. But the idea that God is not knowable is not what the Bible teaches. It teaches just the opposite. It teaches that God has and is reaching out to each one of us individually and desires to have each one know Him.



posted on Oct, 29 2004 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amadeus
Hi Saint4God:
Either way, it is clear that the idea of the Virgin Birth did not exist prior to around AD 90 after Jerusalem fell to the Romans,

lSomething by the way Paul would have had no trouble with if it meant bringing in more believers to the faith, by whichever way necessary ("to a Jew I became a Jew to a Goy I became a Goy etc.)

There may have been other motives too, but these are two of the main ones it seems to me...the first REACTIVE and the second one PROACTIVE...



There are OT manuscripts dated BC that tell of the virgin birth. And Paul was a Jew. Jews had certain things they did and didn't do as part of tradition. Paul knew what they were so he is saying when he is witnessing to jews he would be very careful not to offend them so that he could best present the gospel. When he was with the gentiles he could use different, yet proper ways to tell them.

I hate to be critical, but Amadeus said in this post that is "seems" to him. That says a mouthful. But I also hate untruths.







posted on Oct, 29 2004 @ 07:01 PM
link   
Nice pick-up on the Geneology list. I'll have to do more research that one. I'll be sure to follow-up if I find anything to add or help. Anyone have an answer as to why these are different?


Originally posted by Amadeus
Midrashic tendencies in Matthew's gospel makes the writer play a little fast and loose with facts. He even has Iesous riding into Jerusalem ON TWO ANIMALS to fulfil a mistranslation in his version prophecy (Zechariah 9:9-12) (Matthew's translation is from a late Aramaic Targum: Lowly, riding on a DONKEY... AND THE FOAL OF A DONKEY)


Hm, my Zachariah 6:9 (NIV) says "...see, your king comes to you, righteous and having salvation, gentle and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey."
Again in Matthew 21:5 "...see, your king comes to you gentle and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey."
I don't see any riding of two animals or inconsistencies here. Besides, how does one ride two animals of obvious varying heights? I don't think that was even implied in the first place.


Originally posted by Amadeus
Why did Matthew and Luke both go to so much trouble to trace Iesous lineage back to David (like a good Messiah) with their "boring-begats" through JOSEPH if Mary was supposed to have been "physically" impregnated by [the "holy spirit" of] "God"...and not her betrothed Joseph?


Hey, looks like my geneology question but from the opposite side.


Originally posted by Amadeus
Looks like the final editors of the book in the 2nd or even in the 3rd century had to make what material was in "Matthew" and "Luke" fit the prevailing Roman Catholic belief in a Virginal Conception----the texts simply make no sense as they stand (e.g. "as was supposed" the father of Iesous etc.)

The Church also had other people in the early 2nd century loudly complaining about this (the phrase"..and pay no attention to all these endless Genealogies" is placed into the mouth of "Paul" in the Epistles to Timothy (whoever actually wrote those, it still meant that contradictory genealogies were floating around trying to "prove" Iesous' descent through David in order to make him a viable candidate for the "Messiah").


Okay, I can see that theory. I read it as a more of a 'and God intervenes here' meaning socially Jesus had King David's lineage, not biologically. This may answer my own geneology question, but apparently it was important to sociallly prove Jesus had a connection with King David for people to believe the prophesy was fulfilled. The skeptics of this day would probably call-out Jesus as 'not the Messiah' otherwise.

Besides, how does someone who is completely man perform such miracles?


Originally posted by Amadeus
(and how many Christians do you know these days that have the guts to face this problem head on?)


Count me in. In fact, isn't this the reason why we're all drawn to this site? We're seeking to understand.

Seriously Amadeus, I enjoy reading your posts. My Bible hasn't has this much spine bending exercise in a week's time in quite a while.



posted on Oct, 29 2004 @ 09:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God

Besides, how does someone who is completely man perform such miracles?





Jesus was 100% man and 100% God at the same time. Jesus is God!



posted on Oct, 29 2004 @ 09:34 PM
link   
A QUESTION OF BREEDING
What Does Christ’s Family Tell Us About Him and Us?
Rev. Daniel Meyer, Senior
Sermon For December 14, 1997
Text: Matthew 1:1-17
It is one of the first rules of communication: don't lose your audience at the start. Whatever else you do, make sure that the words with which you begin your message are words which hook the imagination and make your audience scoot forward in their seats wondering "What next?!" It is that very fact which makes the start of today’s lesson so puzzling, if you think about it. Here at the very start of the New Testament—at the place where it is most important that the author grab our attention—the gospel-writer, Matthew, seems to violate the first law of communication.

Now, it would be bad enough if he were trying to sell us a vacuum cleaner or enlist our help to save the humpback armadillo but, my heavens, he's trying to tell us about Christmas—the wonder and mystery of the eternal God come to earth! How can he begin the tale of such a world-shaking event by reeling off something so devotionally dry and dead as a list of almost unpronounceable names?! We want to shout out: who cares whose father Amminadab was; can't you see I'm trying to make sense out of life? Tell me about Jesus! Who gives a holy hoot about Zerubbabel when you're under the kind of pressure we are these days? Tell us about the Lord! "So, why would Matthew—the very gospel-writer who was most fascinated with the teaching genius of Jesus—begin his record with a genealogy, of all things? Had he lost his mind?! Or is it just possible, he was trying to help us find ours? I believe Matthew understood a truth that is almost all but lost to the generations who walk the earth today—a truth central to the way that the Jewish mind looked at life. What Matthew is trying to say is that before we can ever really understand who someone is, we must know from whom he has come. Identity—whether of a woman, man, or a messiah—all comes down to a question of breeding.

In our heart of hearts we know that, don't we. No matter how much we in our society may sometimes try to divorce ourselves from our roots—claim to be fully independent entities—deep down we know that who we are depends a lot on from whom we've come. That explains, for example, why parents want to know what kind of family their child's current dating interest has. Although as one parent observed: "One of the great mysteries of breeding is how that idiot whom your daughter married can be the father of the brightest grandchildren in the world!" In most cases, breeding does matter. It explains why horse buyers want to know the lineage of the animal they are considering for purchase? It's why psychiatrists or counselors ask a client what their parents were like. And, I might be bold to suggest, that is why—when he could have begun the story of Christmas in a thousand other ways—Matthew chooses to give us the genealogy of that sweet babe lying in a manger. "Do you want a clue to what yonder child is really all about?" he says. "Then listen closely, my friends, and let me tell you about his breeding...let me tell you about "the genealogy of Jesus Christ, son of David, son of Abraham."

II

The FIRST thing Jesus' bloodline tells us is who Jesus really is—someone whose full nature and role we can only understand by knowing something about two of the relatives who came before him and pre-figured the role that Jesus was to play. On the one hand, Jesus is in every sense a "son of David;" that is, he was born to rule. Under the kingship of David, Israel had enjoyed a brief shining moment of unsurpassed glory, purity, and unity. For one moment in time, the Jewish nation had seemed to embody the kingdom of God on earth, and then it was gone. All that was left after the moral bankruptcy of the nation took its final toll was a promise, spoken through the prophets, that one day God would give Israel a second chance. Out of the same bloodline as David would spring a new King who would establish a kingdom and throne that no force on earth could unseat.

"Don't you see," Matthew is saying, "this baby before you is him—the son of David—the promised King? Wake up Israel—this is your second chance! Listen to the authority with which he speaks and recognize a wisdom by which to live your life. Watch how even demons flee before him and tempests become calm, and believe that he has the power to fell the giant forces which weigh against you. Feel the tenderness with which he embraces his lambs and trust that there is a place in the Shepherd's arms for you. For in Jesus you are meeting no ordinary man—but a wisdom, power, and love so sovereign it is not crazy to call him Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace."

"But that's not all that Christ's breeding tells us about his nature," Matthew would say. "He is worthy of your love and your loyalty not merely because he is the supreme sovereign in the line of David, but also because he is the supreme servant in the line of Abraham." No other figure besides David stood so tall in the Jewish mind as did that elderly saint who surrendered all that he had and was to the service of God. From his willingness to pack up all his belongings and move hundreds of miles from his ancestral home to a destination he did not know, to his readiness to sacrifice his own precious son to the purposes of the Lord, Abraham's name became synonymous with humble obedience. And for that sacrificial service, God had made Abraham a promise. He promised that through the bloodline of Abraham would come forth another servant—Someone through whom the light of salvation would be given to all nations.

"When you meet Jesus," suggests Matthew, "does it ring any bells?" Have you noticed that like his ancestor Abraham before him, this Jesus maintains an obedience to following God's calling that is nothing short of radiant? Does it intrigue you as much as it does me that the teachings of this "son of Abraham" seem to cut like a beam of light through the moral fog of our time? Is it pure coincidence that his very character seems to cast a loving warmth into every room and heart he enters? Isn't it just possible that the light of the world has really come to illumine the pathway home?!

III

Dear friends, the genealogy of Jesus tells us first and foremost who Jesus really is—the promised son of David who comes to be our sovereign Lord; the precious son of Abraham who comes to be our servant Savior. And yet there is a SECOND vital thing that his bloodline tells us that has to do with who we really are. You see, if you look closely, you will notice that there is something very strange about the family bloodline. To understand what I'm getting at you need to understand that genealogical records were fairly common in the ancient world. They were treasured not only as a means to helping people develop a sense of familial identity, but also as a proof of religious and social credibility. Most genealogies followed a couple of simple rules. First, there were no females allowed on the list, since the common assumption in the Jewish world was that both property and identity passed down through the patriarchal line. Secondly, no foreigners (i.e. non-Jews) who had married into the family would be mentioned, lest anyone see that the family bloodline had been ethnically diluted. And finally, since the limits of paper or memory required that genealogies be somewhat abbreviated, no failures—moral or otherwise—made the final cut. Only the most illustrious figures would be included on the list.

The practice reminds me of the story of a very prominent family of this century who commissioned a professional biographer to record the family tale. In giving him instructions, the family cautioned the writer to deal carefully with the one "black sheep" in the family, a certain Uncle George who, in a drunken stupor, had somehow committed murder and was subsequently sent to the electric chair. The biographer assured them he could handle the situation with a minimum of embarrassment. He would simply write: "Uncle George occupied a chair of applied electronics at an important government institution. He was attached to his position by the strongest of ties, and his death came as a real shock."

What is so striking about the genealogy of Jesus is that it is so full of Uncle Georges—without any attempt at disguise. At almost every turn it violates the normal conventions by which such documents were written. Amidst a society where conservative Jewish leaders doubted whether women even had souls, five females make the short list as ancestors of the Son of God. On top of that, the names of four "foreigners" are there unabashedly disrupting the ethnic purity of the list. And as if all of that wasn't radical enough, the genealogy contains eight people who would be regarded by Matthew’s readers as failures in one way or another. There were two people who were the product of the illicit union of a father and his daughter-in-law; one prostitute who betrayed her city into enemy hands; two adulterers; a murderer; and a pair of wicked kings.

The thing I want to know is "Why?!" If you or I were setting out to promote a figure as the Messiah of the world, wouldn't that be the last sort of genealogy we would compile or allow to be published? Wouldn't such a bloodline raise too many embarrassing questions of breeding? Then again, what an incredible thing the genealogy we do have says about the kind of Messiah Jesus is. You see, dear friends, Matthew is reminding us that the story of Jesus is not about fairy tales; it's about real life, real people, and the real love which redeems it all.



posted on Oct, 30 2004 @ 02:05 AM
link   
Quote: "Jesus was 100% Man and 100% God at the same time.
Jesus is God!"

I think a lot of the mis-understanding of various Religious Groups or Sects (even with-in the SAME Religion) comes from Mis-Interpretation - usually caused by Mis-Translation. Dbrandt - I hope that you are a Christian Intelligent enough to understand that the New Testament that you Possess had been Translated from the Original Greek into English.

I agree the Jesus was a Man & Prophet/Priest. The Name Jesus is derived from the Greek Ieosus. There is some controversy but it is believed this is the Greek Translation of the Hebrew Name Yehoshuah (or Joshua). Now the way this is spelled in Hebrew is YHshVH (Yod - Heh - Shin - Vav - Heh)
-> this is the name of the Jewish GOD with the letter SHIN in the middle (it is believed that the Shin Represents the Descent of the Holy Spirit - when Jesus was Baptized by John the Baptist). The Greek title CHRISTos =
"The Anointed". It also represents the LOGOS or the "Word of God". These are two ways of saying that Jesus was the Messiah or the "Son of God" & that he speaks for God. So yes he is BOTH Man & God. But then again - We are ALL the Children of God - are we not?

Let me ask you a question Dbrandt - do you believe that if you follow the Path that Christ laid out - if you partake of Communion in Mass - that you actually become a PART of CHRIST - i.e. a CHRIST-ian?

Many of the more Orthodox Churches say that this is Impossible. I think that it is a shame. I have seen many self confessed Christians in America Worship Jesus as an Idol - but pay no Heed to what he actually Taught in his Ministry! They totally Disregard his Teachings - they want none of that Turn the other Cheek Hippy stuff! This is why other Great Masters - like the Buddha - said "Do NOT WORSHIP ME - follow the Path that I have laid out for you - we ALL Possess Buddha Nature". Unfortunately these Same Churches - Especially the CATHOLIC Church - have suppressed similar teachings of Jesus - in their efforts to Control people. This lead to a Medieval Dark Age. These teachings are referred to as "Gnostic". Even though they are NOT contained in your Bible - there are in reality MORE than 4 Gospels.

Here is a Passage from the Gospel of Thomas -> "If those who lead you say, 'See, the Kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the *Kingdom is inside of you*, and it is outside of you. When you come to know yourselves, then you will become known, and you will realize that it is *you who are the Sons of the Living Father*. But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty and it is you who are that poverty."

If only more Christians in the World actually had this realization - Imagine!


[edit on 30-10-2004 by Seraphim_Serpente]

[edit on 30-10-2004 by Seraphim_Serpente]

[edit on 30-10-2004 by Seraphim_Serpente]



posted on Oct, 30 2004 @ 08:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seraphim_Serpente
Greek into English.

But then again - We are ALL the Children of God - are we not?

Let me ask you a question Dbrandt - do you believe that if you follow the Path that Christ laid out - if you partake of Communion in Mass - that you actually become a PART of CHRIST - i.e. a CHRIST-ian?


[edit on 30-10-2004 by Seraphim_Serpente]



You are not a child of God until you have accepted Christ as Savior. Jesus informs us that those who do not believe in Him are of their father the devil.This means the same dead spriit they were born with is still in them. And since this is true they do not listen to God but to self and satan and the world. Jesus clearly tells us we MUST be BORN AGAIN from God to see and enter His kingdom.

I do not believe that the communion elements have been actually turned into the body and blood of Christ before ingestion. That's a catholic teaching and maybe some others. I believe it is a symbolic outward sign of idetification with Christ, i believe his body was battered and beaten and he shed His blood, for me, and my acceptance of His payment for my sins gives me eternal life. His spirit comes to reside in me and brings new life to mine. Be cause He has changed me and is in me I can say no to sin and can learn the truth.



posted on Oct, 30 2004 @ 08:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Amadeus
Emmanuel is a WAR CHANT... not a title for the Messiah, originally, even though the Jews of the 1st century sometimes mis applied it that way.


Who is this man called Jesus Christ?


Jesus Christ is God. He along with the Father and the Holy Spirit make up the Trinity. Jesus is also called the Word. The real true meaning of the birth of Christ represents that historic moment in time when almighty God stepped out of heaven and came down to earth. John 6:38 says it so beautifully. "Because I have come down from heaven to do, not my will, but the will of him who sent me". Just think of it. Even though Christ had shared incredible power and glory with God the Father through out all of eternity, he voluntarily emptied himself of that power and glory to become our Savior in the earthly form of a human being. It's incredible, but God is telling us that he loved us so much that he became one of us.

So on earth, the Son of God took the human form of Jesus Christ. Jesus was God actually dwelling among men. Philippians 2:7, "Of his own free will he gave up all he had, and took the nature of a slave. He became like a human being and appeared in human likeness".

There is no question but that the virgin birth required God's intervention. The name "Immanuel," given by Isaiah, shows that the child would be God, robed in flesh. Immanuel means "God with us."



posted on Oct, 30 2004 @ 08:56 AM
link   
In fact, when Mary was told that she was gong to be bringing the long awaited Messiah into the world, she asked in Luke 1:34, "How shall I have a child when I have never known a man intimately?" The angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee. Therefore that blessed thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.



posted on Oct, 30 2004 @ 02:36 PM
link   
Well that was a nicely laid out work Dbrandt, put purely from a subjective position and not one that addresses the number of errors or historical misrepresentations noticeable within the contexts of all of Luke's and Paul's writings.

Consider for a moment who the avid advocates for Jesus were: Paul a man who never met him, a man who confesses to have commited vile acts against Jesus' followers before being saved in several recountings of that event, which between themselves is contradictory; Peter, the man who denied him; James, his brother who did not believe in him. All nicely fit into a doctrine to show how Jesus had the ability to make unbelievers and evil men good. I have no doubt that those men existed, but they were not as being represented here.

Throughout all of the Old Testament, the Jews have submitted the smiting of their enemies as being at the behest of God. Considering the traditions of their beliefs and their legends passed on through time, it does not take much to understand that the the stories are being told from one perspective where any event can be explained away by simply saying: and God smote him. Historical perspectives tend to represent the subjects as being the winners, the most virtuous, and that is exactly as it has been portrayed in the OT.

It seems from reading the New Testament that everyone was named either, Mary; Miriam, Joseph, or Mattathias. But that seemed to have been by design given the names of the true historical figures of that time. There was a widely published accounting of Jewish history of that time, written in the last half of 1BCE, which when looked at in comparison to the NT certainly does include the names of most of those characters, where Miriam and Joseph roamed the courts of Herod the Great, Pollus the Pharisee was a scholar friendly with Herod, Ananias a a highpriest with whom Herod elected, deselected and elected again, etc. etc. All of these people mentioned are addressed as to the various accounting's of Herod's personal turmoils. In fact, nowhere in these writings are the stories relative to Christ, his teachings or the vast ministry of his apostles and their miracles as relayed in the Gospels or Epistels given credence, save for one rather odd interjection of a few lines at one point.

In fact, it becomes clear that this piece of work may have been the historical backdrop from which to forge the Godly nature of the NT. And considering the dating of the earliest known NT, the fact the OT had undergone a translation from Hebrew to Greek, and later revised in the form it is known today, it is evident that the divine providence of the NT was a grand ripoff of the very current historic texts of the first century, right down to the use of teh term "wise men," whereby the names and faces were adapted to fit another scenario, and the virgin birth invented under the reign of Herod. It seems Herod was far too busy worrying about the sedition within his own family, building his wealth, over-running the Jews and their faith, and cozying up to Cleopatra, Anthony and Caesar to issue a verict against Jewish males.

The OT as it is known today was a compliation of stories and myths put together in book form from the third century BCE. In fact, just about everything relative to understanding the events surrounding same points to that specific century, where it seems a massive attempt was made to realize a Hebrew one-God faith. The old Hebrew tale of the Arc of the Covenant tells of Moses having forged a massive candleabra to be placed with the Arc when that was built. This candleabra held 7 candles to represent the planets and the sun. A curious story when one considers that the only planets known at the beginning of the 3rdBCE, were Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Mercury and Earth, and of course the moon. But that is but only one example of how these stories were adapted to the day, edited, changed and in some cases, omitted.

The search for the truth is fascinating in what it reveals, from the timely writing of the Books of Enoch also in the thrid century explaining the reason for the deluge. The great lengths the author went to to explain the year as having 365 days as opposed to the 354/5 as previously accepted, when it was also in that century an astrologer brought forth that fact. The fact that the calendar's of today are wrong, especially the Hebrew calendar still. The Jewish man to whom I reference as the historian, had quite a relationship with the Essenes and caves, Roman peerage and endowed riches, as well as a grand life in Rome. The connection to the NT however is not one that supports the story, but one that shows exactly how contrived it was.

Aside from that, the genealogy of Christ was not the first to be distorted, that distinction goes to Seth's paternity.



posted on Oct, 30 2004 @ 05:49 PM
link   
Quote: "Jesus informs us that those who do not believe in Him are of their Father - Satan."

Beliefs & Attitudes like this are probably why Jews & Moslems HATE Christians So Much! That being said - I actually agree with you! There is no
"Love of God" in Judaism & Islam - only Fear & Wrath. You better do what God says or you will be Punished - Dammed to Hell & what not.

I do not believe in "Orthodoxy" tests however. People must have Faith of their own Free Will - they cannot be FORCED to believe anything!!! Inquisition Tactics do not work & are Ethically Repugnant!



posted on Oct, 30 2004 @ 07:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seraphim_Serpente
Quote: "Jesus informs us that those who do not believe in Him are of their Father - Satan."
Of course. What better way to manipulate the masses by causing them to question what they are told? This is an age old trick. Create the worst possible character and scenarios that can be dreamed up for those who do not follow your beliefs. Think about how ludicrous is this claim, and how it continues today in all aspects of politics, which is all it is. We have had 4,000 years of history of the Jews forever being assailed, conquered, wondering in the wilderness, famine, pestilence, back to Egypt, saved from Egypt, back to Egypt several times more. Their having invoked the wrath of God in the flood, the tower of Babel, the numerous wars, the destruction of their temple and their homeland. Seth replacing Cain looking for righteousness and failing; Noah granted the continuation of progeny nevertheless; Abraham forsaking his son by his concubine for legitimacy of parentage; David killing a woman's husband for his want of her and still remaining the heir apparent to this day; Solomon, that wise man engaging in licentious acts, and on and on and on. Each story expects us to believe that for 3,760 years the Jews despite all of the hardship, perversion and destruction they too brought to others, are still God's chosen people in the end.

Enter the gospels extolling Christ as the messiah, the story so filled with apostles who are traitors, thieves, non-believers, sorcerers, and seditionists, weaving a tail pushed by Rome, its conquerers of and killers of and those who sacrificed live animals, and who did not believe in the Roman Gods, coming to the rescue, and holding just about every piece of evidence extant to those days of Jesus in a vault deep below the earth, just because they had the power to influence the masses and finally reduce the enemy of that day via the use of cunning politics to has-been status. With the rise of the Roman and Greek empires, the written word and literacy, it is little wonder that the pronouncements of God speaking to so and so, and angels visiting so and so, and God smiting so and so came to a screeching halt.


Beliefs & Attitudes like this are probably why Jews & Moslems HATE Christians So Much! That being said - I actually agree with you! There is no
"Love of God" in Judaism & Islam - only Fear & Wrath. You better do what God says or you will be Punished - Dammed to Hell & what not.
The same holds true in Christianity, and more so. It invokes a carnage far worse than any other proscribed religion. It survives on fear, in the vestiges of one named Lucifer, and the very thought that if you do not believe, you have been consumed by that angel of hell.



posted on Oct, 30 2004 @ 07:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween

All nicely fit into a doctrine to show how Jesus had the ability to make unbelievers and evil men good. I have no doubt that those men existed, but they were not as being represented here.

.



Through christ the vilest sinner can be saved. Paul admits he was a murderer and thought of himself as the least of any. He actually did meet Jesus on the road to Damascus. Now my eyes have never seen Him literally, yet I believe. You don't understand how God can change a life.



posted on Oct, 30 2004 @ 07:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seraphim_Serpente


People must have Faith of their own Free Will - they cannot be FORCED to believe anything!!! Inquisition Tactics do not work & are Ethically Repugnant!


People must make a choice I can't choose for you or make you choose. But if you've heard about what Jesus freely did for each man or woman's salvation, and choose to reject it, you do have that choice. Realize each time you harden your heart to the gospel, it will be harder to believe the next time it is presented to you.



posted on Oct, 31 2004 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by dbrandt

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween

All nicely fit into a doctrine to show how Jesus had the ability to make unbelievers and evil men good. I have no doubt that those men existed, but they were not as being represented here.

.



Through christ the vilest sinner can be saved. Paul admits he was a murderer and thought of himself as the least of any. He actually did meet Jesus on the road to Damascus. Now my eyes have never seen Him literally, yet I believe. You don't understand how God can change a life.


And you have responded exactly as I described above. Paul saw Jesus did he? What proof have you of that, and if the person you dislike the most came up to you and told you s/he met Jesus, I am sure you will believe it wholeheartedly.

The the very contradictory words of Paul's epihany are presented in an epistle, not attributed to him, an epistle written in historical context and embellished at the will of the author. Whereas Paul himself does not recount Jesus's words to him. These apostles you place so much faith in merrily went about their way bilking the citizens of their only possessions, and dared to chastise a man who sold his possessions but kept some of the proceeeds back for himself and tell him his was an act of satan. To make sure fear is struck into the hearts of the unbelievers, they have him and his wife drop dead. How so very un-Jesuslike, I would say.

But you believe in these corruptions as you will.



posted on Oct, 31 2004 @ 04:00 PM
link   
[edit on 31-10-2004 by dbrandt]



posted on Oct, 31 2004 @ 04:01 PM
link   
[

[edit on 31-10-2004 by dbrandt]



posted on Oct, 31 2004 @ 04:01 PM
link   
[edit on 31-10-2004 by dbrandt]




top topics



 
12
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join