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.

 

Something in Matthew and Luke has me puzzled

page: 7
4
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 03:27 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

The reason you perceive everyone to be "lying" to you is you fail to read easily written posts.

I finally found this collection of verses I posted as a reply to your disbelief that Joseph was Jesus' father. This was on June 25 in the "If Christianity does turn out to be the right religion...," thread.

So Simeon, directed by the Spirit, came into the temple courts, and when the parents brought in the child Jesus to do for him what was customary according to the law,

So the child’s father and mother were amazed at what was said about him

Now Jesus’ parents went to Jerusalem every year for the feast of the Passover.

But when the feast was over, as they were returning home, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem. His parents did not know it,

When his parents saw him, they were overwhelmed.

Look, your father and I have been looking for you anxiously.

Yet his parents did not understand the remark he made to them.

Your response to this posting of versus back in June was similar to what you just put up five posts ago. Let me quote you then.

Read that same passage fron the KJB. The clowns at Alexandria removed any reference to the divinity of Christ fro the Textus Sinaticus and Textus Vaticanus that all modern versions rely upon. Westcott and Hort were self-described heretics who denied Christ's divinity too.
Let me qute you from today.

Actually, the only Bibles that claim Joseph was the father of Jesus are derived from Westcott and Hort, two unbelievers who rejected the deity of Jesus Christ. The Byzantine text, or Textus Receptus doesn't say Joseph was Jesus's father. The changes were made by those in Alexandria who rejected the divinity of Christ.

So that's your answer, if it is not the KJV then it is not the "real" Bible.
Now I see the connection, the "KJV only" thing, why you cling to that. Everyone else in the world are heretics and you are the only true Christians, because your Bible does not present embarrassing questions.
Have you ever gone on Wikipedia and done a search for Bible? You find out that they were ordered to make a Bible that supported the Anglican doctrine. Or is that lies, too?

KJV Luke 2:48 And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing.
edit on 13-8-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 09:06 AM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 



Look, your father and I have been looking for you anxiously.


Clearly you missed the issue that the problem is with the Westcott and Hort rendition of the Greek text. They were two unbelievers. Theosophists and ghost chasers. They rejected the divinity of Christ, the virgin birth, and the physical resurrection of Christ. They hated the Textus Receptus manuscript from Antioch and used the manuscripts from Alexandria that the Gnostics severely tampered with and expurgated. That's the issue, not what English renditions that were birthed by the corrupt manuscripts, but the process that birthed these corrupt Greek manuscripts.

And interesting thing, when Mary calls Joseph His father He CORRECTS her error:


"Look, your father and I have been looking for you anxiously."

To which Jesus corrects her and tells her His Father is not Joseph, His Father is God and He was in His "Father's house", the temple. (Luke 2:49)


And He said to them, “Why were you looking for me? Did you not know that I must be in my Father's house?”



This puzzled Mary (Luke 2:50):



And they did not understand the saying that he spoke to them.



Jesus corrected her error, that Joseph was NOT His Father, He was conceived by the Holy Spirit when Mary was still a virgin.


edit on 13-8-2011 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

To which Jesus corrects her and tells her His Father is not Joseph, His Father is God and He was in His "Father's house", the temple.
Lies.
You are adding your own words to the Gospel to suite your philosophy.
The Gospel says, Jesus replied, “Why were you looking for me? Didn’t you know that I must be in my Father’s house?”
So the correction was nothing to do with the identity of his father but that he needed to be involved in religious matters, which were the business of his heavenly Father, the same Father of all of us.

Matthew 1:1
This is the record of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.

This is his bloodline descent. His genetic makeup as a physical human being.
Notice the word, gene, as in genetic.
Jesus was genetically, through Joseph, a descendant of Abraham and David.
The gospel said he was a good man. Joseph was compassionate and caring, Mary came from the most pious and devout family in Judea. God created a perfect man who was resistant to evil as was possible, to take the role of representative of mankind, where Adam failed.
God guided this process of selection from Eve through Mary and from Adam down to Jesus' father from whom the angel may have selected a specific seed. Maybe God planned for Jesus to be born on a specific day, so did not want to wait but took matters into His own hands to get the thing going.
Making Jesus a genetic descendant of God is to throw out all religion which apparently is your stated goal.
edit on 13-8-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

To which Jesus corrects her and tells her His Father is not Joseph, His Father is God and He was in His "Father's house", the temple.
Lies.
You are adding your own words to the Gospel to suite your philosophy.
The Gospel says, Jesus replied, “Why were you looking for me? Didn’t you know that I must be in my Father’s house?”
So the correction was nothing to do with the identity of his father but that he needed to be involved in religious matters, which were the business of his heavenly Father, the same Father of all of us.

Matthew 1:1
This is the record of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.

This is his bloodline descent. His genetic makeup as a physical human being.
Notice the word, gene, as in genetic.
Jesus was genetically, through Joseph, a descendant of Abraham and David.
The gospel said he was a good man. Joseph was compassionate and caring, Mary came from the most pious and devout family in Judea. God created a perfect man who was resistant to evil as was possible, to take the role of representative of mankind, where Adam failed.
God guided this process of selection from Eve through Mary and from Adam down to Jesus' father from whom the angel may have selected a specific seed. Maybe God planned for Jesus to be born on a specific day, so did not want to wait but took matters into His own hands to get the thing going.
Making Jesus a genetic descendant of God is to throw out all religion which apparently is your stated goal.
edit on 13-8-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)




The genealogy is only important in order to fulfill prophecy.

Jesus was conceived by the holy spirit, not through the union of flesh.


edit on 13-8-2011 by XplanetX because: typo

edit on 13-8-2011 by XplanetX because: typo



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 07:44 PM
link   
reply to post by XplanetX
 


The genealogy is only important in order to fulfill prophecy.

Jesus was conceived by the holy spirit, not through the union of flesh.
Are you a Gnostic now?
Flesh is anything material and physical.
An ovum is flesh.
A sperm is flesh.
A fetus is flesh.
A baby is flesh.
A person, as in a man or a woman, is flesh.
If you mean a union as in sexual intercourse, that is not necessary, if back in those days an angel takes part (as in transporting a sperm from Joseph, over to be inserted into the uterus of Mary).
If you think a spirit had sex with her, then that is just weird.

edit on 13-8-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 10:22 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


Add to the gospel at your own peril, it says nowhere at all in scripture that an angel artificially inseminated Mary. The Bible says she was made pregnant by the Holy Spirit while she was yet a virgin. I can't believe you have the gall to label me as a member of a "cult" when the primary identifying marks of all cults are the rejection of the deity of Christ, a rejection of the blood atonement, and a rejection of the Trinity. That theology is no different than Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses. They teach Christ was a created being, that He is not God in the flesh, and there is no such thing as a triune God.




posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 10:57 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 
I'm not the one who is saying Jesus was created.
The person that Jesus was before becoming a man had always been around, as far as I am concerned.
You can't make up rules for God. God does things that we can't understand.
Saying Joseph can not be the genetic father of Jesus is putting your own restrictions on God.
God in the Flesh is a slogan. It's not in the Bible. There is something like that in the KJV, in 1Timothy 3:16 but not in the modern versions. It says God was manifest in the flesh. It doesn't even fit into the phrase and the modern versions have it as He was manifest in the flesh, meaning Jesus was, and that does fit into the phrase.
There is no warnings (in the NT) against people not claiming the deity of Jesus but more like the opposite, which is people who deny the humanity of Jesus. There is no reason for Jesus being a deity in order to be our savior and all the reasons why he has to be one of us to save us. This idea that God had to sacrifice Himself in order to be an effective atonement is wrong in more than one way. It is another slogan with no biblical support. That's why there are slogans, so that people accept them as truth, just from repetition.


edit on 13-8-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 11:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 
I'm not the one who is saying Jesus was created.
The person that Jesus was before becoming a man had always been around, as far as I am concerned.
You can't make up rules for God. God does things that we can't understand.
Saying Joseph can not be the genetic father of Jesus is putting your own restrictions on God.
God in the Flesh is a slogan. It's not in the Bible. There is something like that in the KJV, in 1Timothy 3:16 but not in the modern versions. It says God was manifest in the flesh. It doesn't even fit into the phrase and the modern versions have it as He was manifest in the flesh, meaning Jesus was, and that does fit into the phrase.
There is no warnings (in the NT) against people not claiming the deity of Jesus but more like the opposite, which is people who deny the humanity of Jesus. There is no reason for Jesus being a deity in order to be our savior and all the reasons why he has to be one of us to save us. This idea that God had to sacrifice Himself in order to be an effective atonement is wrong in more than one way. It is another slogan with no biblical support. That's why there are slogans, so that people accept them as truth, just from repetition.


edit on 13-8-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



You are so far off base it is embarrassing.

You make me cringe.



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 12:13 AM
link   
reply to post by XplanetX
 

You are so far off base it is embarrassing.

You make me cringe.
Take those feelings and move on them to repent of your sorcery and turn to the real God.



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 12:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by XplanetX
 

You are so far off base it is embarrassing.

You make me cringe.
Take those feelings and move on them to repent of your sorcery and turn to the real God.



This applies to you, truly it does:


1TI 1:3 As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain men not to teach false doctrines any longer nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies. These promote controversies rather than God's work--which is by faith. The goal of this command is love, which comes from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. Some have wandered away from these and turned to meaningless talk. They want to be teachers of the law, but they do not know what they are talking about or what they so confidently affirm.


I hope the word of God convicts you brother.



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 12:41 AM
link   
reply to post by XplanetX
 
Paul is talking about people trying to perpetuate the old Jewish system where they identified themselves as to their linage from whatever tribe. He was not talking about the Gospels and the genealogy of Jesus. Paul is talking about things like the Talmud and other stories that were created to explain various things in Hebrew history.
What I was getting at a little while ago is that your sorcery is failing you and you should realize you are not fighting me but the word because you deny the Bible to support philosophy which you can not defend.



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 01:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by XplanetX
 
Paul is talking about people trying to perpetuate the old Jewish system where they identified themselves as to their linage from whatever tribe. He was not talking about the Gospels and the genealogy of Jesus. Paul is talking about things like the Talmud and other stories that were created to explain various things in Hebrew history.
What I was getting at a little while ago is that your sorcery is failing you and you should realize you are not fighting me but the word because you deny the Bible to support philosophy which you can not defend.




So exactly where does it say in the bible that Jesus was not conceived by the holy spirit?

MT 1:20 But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, "Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins."



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 01:40 AM
link   
reply to post by XplanetX
 

So exactly where does it say in the bible that Jesus was not conceived by the holy spirit?

MT 1:20 But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, "Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins."
This verse you quoted here would be an example.
All it is saying is that this fetus or whatever developing inside her is there because of the Holy Spirit, which would mean that it was not from her doing unholy things.



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 01:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by XplanetX
 

So exactly where does it say in the bible that Jesus was not conceived by the holy spirit?

MT 1:20 But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, "Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins."
This verse you quoted here would be an example.
All it is saying is that this fetus or whatever developing inside her is there because of the Holy Spirit, which would mean that it was not from her doing unholy things.





Exactly.

Jesus was not born through the union of flesh.



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 02:06 AM
link   
reply to post by XplanetX
 

Exactly.
Jesus was not born through the union of flesh.

You are not defining anything.
What is union and what is flesh?
So you just play a game of insinuation.
I defined my terms earlier so according to my definition, it was.
Fleshly but not sinful.
You apparently have a strong aversion to explaining anything.
So all I can expect back is nanananana. Or something equally enlightening.



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 02:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by XplanetX
 

Exactly.
Jesus was not born through the union of flesh.

You are not defining anything.
What is union and what is flesh?
So you just play a game of insinuation.
I defined my terms earlier so according to my definition, it was.
Fleshly but not sinful.
You apparently have a strong aversion to explaining anything.
So all I can expect back is nanananana. Or something equally enlightening.




Your credibility is now nonexistent. I have shown you a scripture that states Jesus was conceived by the holy spirit and you have twisted that to suit your own philosophy.

Stop twisting something that is very easy to understand. You obviously have a pre-conceived idea on this subject and even when confronted with scripture that contradicts your theory, you cling on due to your own ego.



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 02:48 AM
link   
reply to post by XplanetX
 

Your credibility is now nonexistent. I have shown you a scripture that states Jesus was conceived by the holy spirit and you have twisted that to suit your own philosophy.

Stop twisting something that is very easy to understand. You obviously have a pre-conceived idea on this subject and even when confronted with scripture that contradicts your theory, you cling on due to your own ego.
Just turn all that you just said and apply it to yourself because it does not apply to me.
I am not following a cult guide book on what to believe, you do.
Your only argument is, "it is something easy to understand."
Right, it is according to my explanation.
You don't have an explanation so by definition there is nothing to understand.
You just say I am wrong.
I am reading the verse as it is written. You should try it some time. Read it in the Greek which it was originally written in and it is not ambiguous in the least. You pretend it is but it is not. It is very clear what it means. You are playing on the ambiguity in the English and make it out as if it says something it does not. That is your sorcery.


edit on 14-8-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 03:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by XplanetX
 

Your credibility is now nonexistent. I have shown you a scripture that states Jesus was conceived by the holy spirit and you have twisted that to suit your own philosophy.

Stop twisting something that is very easy to understand. You obviously have a pre-conceived idea on this subject and even when confronted with scripture that contradicts your theory, you cling on due to your own ego.
Just turn all that you just said and apply it to yourself because it does not apply to me.
I am not following a cult guide book on what to believe, you do.
Your only argument is, "it is something easy to understand."
Right, it is according to my explanation.
You don't have an explanation so by definition there is nothing to understand.
You just say I am wrong.
I am reading the verse as it is written. You should try it some time. Read it in the Greek which it was originally written in and it is not ambiguous in the least. You pretend it is but it is not. It is very clear what it means. You are playing on the ambiguity in the English and make it out as if it says something it does not. That is your sorcery.


edit on 14-8-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



Your argument is false and another lie.

From the ancient Greek:

www.realtime.net...



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 03:21 AM
link   
reply to post by XplanetX
 

Your argument is false and another lie.
When I say someone is lying, I back it up by pointing out how it is false. You are just saying I am. That is not an argument. Why don't you explain what you learned from that web site you linked to. Posting a link is not an argument.



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 03:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by XplanetX
 

Your argument is false and another lie.
When I say someone is lying, I back it up by pointing out how it is false. You are just saying I am. That is not an argument. Why don't you explain what you learned from that web site you linked to. Posting a link is not an argument.



I could copy and paste everything from that particular web page but I did not want to bore all of the other people in this forum. I will not waste my time articulating an argument that has already been succinctly made by others, read the link and get educated on the topic of the immacluate conception concerning Jesus.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join