How did a Jewish Rabbi (Jesus Christ) end up to be "son" of God?
- Thread starter Picture
- Start date
*************
M*W: Does this include logic by Aristotle, Socrates, Plato, or Medicine*Woman?
I think NOT!
*************
M*W: Explain how those "christian writings" came to be?
*************
M*W: Explain this, if you please!
*************
M*W: I suspect you have NO credibility.
http://www.religiousstudies.uncc.edu/JDTABOR/indexb.html
*************
M*W: I've read James Tabor. You are off the wall!
*************
M*W: so what was the gospels' intent if it wasn't biographies? How do you come by this information? Epistles do not have to be "theological writings." Neither do gospels.
You don't know James Tabor.
Last edited:
There have always been two distinct groups called of God......
The true spiritual group, and the larger false churches associated with acceptance of the world systems.
The worldly false vine has always persecuted and attempted to destroy the true vine.
In 325 A.D. the false group came to power by reason of their popularity in Rome, and it was decided to negotiate an agreement.
All the small groups were brought in too, but did not agree to the settlement.
A compromise was implemented between the old pagan religious system of Rome and the "new" so-called Christian religion.
All the Roman holy days and gods were intertwined with the new false Christian religious system.
Fertility gods.....easter, Sun god.......christmas....ect, ect....
In 325 A.D. the church officially united with the state of Rome and was backed by the power to take the lives of those that did not agree to the false compromised version of the truth.
This started the Dark Ages, and the Great Inquisition in which 68 million Christians......the true spiritual ones, gave their lives to stand for the truth.
This ended in the 1500's when God sent the first of seven messengers; Martin Luther, to bring back the truth that was lost......and precede His coming as the Son of Man in this day.
Jesus Christ was always known by the spiritual group of Christians all down through the ages to be God in flesh.
This is what got them killed for their testimony.
This false "Christian" group has been in bed with worldly politics ever since, and is the group that has the "mark of the beast" for their lack of an ability to discern truth and their acceptence of false doctrine.
They are those found to be "without a love of the truth".
Jesus was not considered divine in 325 A.D., that was only the date of the "Nicene council" in which all of the false Christian Churches doctrines were made "official" church doctrine in which opposition was considered heresy and punishable by death.
This group is still with us today, and don't think because they are religious they are in any way harmless.
They are rabid dogs locked into a state of demonic possession with those spirits of old, held in chains of darkness for their mutual destruction.
Babylon is fallen and has become the hold of foul spirits, the cage of hateful and unclean birds.
The true spiritual group, and the larger false churches associated with acceptance of the world systems.
The worldly false vine has always persecuted and attempted to destroy the true vine.
In 325 A.D. the false group came to power by reason of their popularity in Rome, and it was decided to negotiate an agreement.
All the small groups were brought in too, but did not agree to the settlement.
A compromise was implemented between the old pagan religious system of Rome and the "new" so-called Christian religion.
All the Roman holy days and gods were intertwined with the new false Christian religious system.
Fertility gods.....easter, Sun god.......christmas....ect, ect....
In 325 A.D. the church officially united with the state of Rome and was backed by the power to take the lives of those that did not agree to the false compromised version of the truth.
This started the Dark Ages, and the Great Inquisition in which 68 million Christians......the true spiritual ones, gave their lives to stand for the truth.
This ended in the 1500's when God sent the first of seven messengers; Martin Luther, to bring back the truth that was lost......and precede His coming as the Son of Man in this day.
Jesus Christ was always known by the spiritual group of Christians all down through the ages to be God in flesh.
This is what got them killed for their testimony.
This false "Christian" group has been in bed with worldly politics ever since, and is the group that has the "mark of the beast" for their lack of an ability to discern truth and their acceptence of false doctrine.
They are those found to be "without a love of the truth".
Jesus was not considered divine in 325 A.D., that was only the date of the "Nicene council" in which all of the false Christian Churches doctrines were made "official" church doctrine in which opposition was considered heresy and punishable by death.
This group is still with us today, and don't think because they are religious they are in any way harmless.
They are rabid dogs locked into a state of demonic possession with those spirits of old, held in chains of darkness for their mutual destruction.
Babylon is fallen and has become the hold of foul spirits, the cage of hateful and unclean birds.
Last edited:
So what? You have no new information regarding the gospel accounts.
Only the references Carcano provided have their respective credibilities. So why make a personal issue out of it?
They are included along with the archaelogical discoveries from the Dead Sea Scrolls and Qumran. These documents are relatively "new information" discovered in the last century. They confirm the gospel accounts. The Dead Sea Scrolls date to the first century of the CE. An incredible abundance of information from the people that lived at the start of the CE, when judaism morphed to christianity through the influence of a very charismatic religious leader.
Like it or not, that's why christians are here today, and we don't care what you or anyone else thinks about it. If we did care about what others think, then we wouldn't be here.
Last edited:
Greetings,
No it doesn't.
G.Mark does not say the tomb was empty.
It says there was a "young man" in it.
You've never actually READ the Gospels, have you?
What evidence?
All you have produced is legends and later repeats of Christian beliefs.
What historical "EVIDENCE" for Jesus is there?
Pardon?
All we know of the Ebionites is from Christian attacks from well over a CENTURY afterwards - do you REALLY believe that is evidence?
False.
Josephus did NOT live during the events of the NT.
The famous Testamonium Flavianum (the T.F.) in the Antiquities of the Jews is considered probably the best evidence for Jesus, yet it has some serious problems :
An analysis of Josephus can be found here:
http://www.humanists.net/jesuspuzzle/supp10.htm
In short - this passage is possibly a total forgery (or at best a corrupt form of a lost original.)
Christians FAKED this passage - it's a FORGERY.
Wow.
You REALLY actually believe that a copy from nearly a MILLENIUM later is original evidence?
What nonsense.
A corrupt passage, supported by another corrupt passage from many centuries later.
And you think that is evidence for Jesus?
Such are the faithful beliefs of apologists.
Iasion
No it doesn't.
G.Mark does not say the tomb was empty.
It says there was a "young man" in it.
You've never actually READ the Gospels, have you?
What evidence?
All you have produced is legends and later repeats of Christian beliefs.
What historical "EVIDENCE" for Jesus is there?
Pardon?
All we know of the Ebionites is from Christian attacks from well over a CENTURY afterwards - do you REALLY believe that is evidence?
False.
Josephus did NOT live during the events of the NT.
The famous Testamonium Flavianum (the T.F.) in the Antiquities of the Jews is considered probably the best evidence for Jesus, yet it has some serious problems :
- the T.F. as it stands uses clearly Christian phrases and names Christ as Messiah, it could not possibly have been written by the devout Jew Josephus (who remained a Jew and refused to call anyone "messiah" in his book which was partly about how false messiahs kept leading Israel astray.),
- The T.F. comes in several variant versions of various ages,
- The T.F. was not mentioned by any of the early CHurch fathers who reviewed Josephus.
- Origen even says Josephus does NOT call Jesus the Messiah, showing the passage was not present in that earlier era.
- The T.F. first showed up in manuscripts of Eusebius, and was still absent from some manuscripts as late as 8th century.
- The other tiny passage in Josephus refers to Jesus, son of Damneus. The phrase "so-called Christ" may have been a later addition by a Christian who also mis-understood which Jesus was refered to.
An analysis of Josephus can be found here:
http://www.humanists.net/jesuspuzzle/supp10.htm
In short - this passage is possibly a total forgery (or at best a corrupt form of a lost original.)
Christians FAKED this passage - it's a FORGERY.
Wow.
You REALLY actually believe that a copy from nearly a MILLENIUM later is original evidence?
What nonsense.
A corrupt passage, supported by another corrupt passage from many centuries later.
And you think that is evidence for Jesus?
Such are the faithful beliefs of apologists.
Iasion
Last edited:
Wrong.
I posted at great length earlier in the thread on this very subject.
Jesus Christ STARTED out as a divine being,
then only later
was considered to be a historical person.
I don't think anyone is even reading my posts anymore :-(
Oh well...
Iasion
That's because you talk in circles.
Greetings all,
Let's check Woody's claims in this thread :
Woody's claim :
"One of the most remarkable proofs of the christ account is the total absense of a counter-proof by the Jewish faith."
The reality :
The DID say all sort of negative things about Jesus.
Of course, Woody ignored that fact.
Woody's claim :
"Actually Isaiah mentioned it first in the OT."
The reality :
Isaiah has a story about a maiden having s child. NOTHING to do with Jesus, as anyone who reads the passage can see.
Of course, Woody hesn't read it, and he ignored that fact.
Woody's claim :
"So , if your point means anything, why didn't someone make your point 2000 years ago, using the same information you have today? (about the virgin bidth story being a myth)"
The reality :
Celsus did EXCATLY that - he pointed out the virigin birth story was lifted from Greek myths.
Of course, Woody ignored that fact.
Woody's claim :
"I think the Jesus myth thing is rather kookie. It's a small minority opinion held by a group of atheistic revisionists."
The reality :
Many authors, atheist or not, have argued Jesus was a myth for centuries.
Of course, Woody ignored that fact.
Woody's claim :
"We set our calendar by it..."
The reality :
We get our days and month names from Greek myths. So what?
Of course, Woody ignored that argument.
Woody's claim :
"Then there are the dozen or so disciples that knew him closely. "
The reality :
I showed that NONE of the early Christian writings mention any details of the life of Jesus.
Of course, Woody ignored that argument.
Woody's claim :
"Paul just made it all up, how did Paul explain it away, right there in Jerusalem, the place where they were all supposed to live, right there in front of the Jewish leaders that were accused of murdering this "non-existent" man,"
The reality:
Paul says NOTHING about any murder in Jerusalem. He even visist Jerusalem and makes NO mention of any events that heppened there. He explciltiy says he is just as much an apostle as the others, showing that none of them met any Jesus.
Of course, Woody ignored that fact.
Woody's claim :
"And Paul (whom you claim started the Jesus Myth) making the claims of all the above, especially of the crucifiction of christ with the blame placed squarely, point blank on both the roman government and the Jewish leaders"
The reality :
Paul does NOT blame the Romans and Jews.
He blames the "archons" (spiritual beings) for crucifying Christ on the heavenly planes.
Of course, Woody is ignorant of that fact.
Woody's claim :
"Here are a few of Paul's accusations in Acts 2 and 4:"
The reality:
Paul did not write Acts 0 it was forged a CENTURY later.
Of course, Woody is ignorant of that fact.
Woody's claim :
"I place you on my ignore list. Yes, I am ignoring you -- all of it. Goodybye."
The reality :
Woody lied and kept on preaching to me, but never comes up with any evidence, just more Christian preaching.
Iasion
Let's check Woody's claims in this thread :
Woody's claim :
"One of the most remarkable proofs of the christ account is the total absense of a counter-proof by the Jewish faith."
The reality :
The DID say all sort of negative things about Jesus.
Of course, Woody ignored that fact.
Woody's claim :
"Actually Isaiah mentioned it first in the OT."
The reality :
Isaiah has a story about a maiden having s child. NOTHING to do with Jesus, as anyone who reads the passage can see.
Of course, Woody hesn't read it, and he ignored that fact.
Woody's claim :
"So , if your point means anything, why didn't someone make your point 2000 years ago, using the same information you have today? (about the virgin bidth story being a myth)"
The reality :
Celsus did EXCATLY that - he pointed out the virigin birth story was lifted from Greek myths.
Of course, Woody ignored that fact.
Woody's claim :
"I think the Jesus myth thing is rather kookie. It's a small minority opinion held by a group of atheistic revisionists."
The reality :
Many authors, atheist or not, have argued Jesus was a myth for centuries.
Of course, Woody ignored that fact.
Woody's claim :
"We set our calendar by it..."
The reality :
We get our days and month names from Greek myths. So what?
Of course, Woody ignored that argument.
Woody's claim :
"Then there are the dozen or so disciples that knew him closely. "
The reality :
I showed that NONE of the early Christian writings mention any details of the life of Jesus.
Of course, Woody ignored that argument.
Woody's claim :
"Paul just made it all up, how did Paul explain it away, right there in Jerusalem, the place where they were all supposed to live, right there in front of the Jewish leaders that were accused of murdering this "non-existent" man,"
The reality:
Paul says NOTHING about any murder in Jerusalem. He even visist Jerusalem and makes NO mention of any events that heppened there. He explciltiy says he is just as much an apostle as the others, showing that none of them met any Jesus.
Of course, Woody ignored that fact.
Woody's claim :
"And Paul (whom you claim started the Jesus Myth) making the claims of all the above, especially of the crucifiction of christ with the blame placed squarely, point blank on both the roman government and the Jewish leaders"
The reality :
Paul does NOT blame the Romans and Jews.
He blames the "archons" (spiritual beings) for crucifying Christ on the heavenly planes.
Of course, Woody is ignorant of that fact.
Woody's claim :
"Here are a few of Paul's accusations in Acts 2 and 4:"
The reality:
Paul did not write Acts 0 it was forged a CENTURY later.
Of course, Woody is ignorant of that fact.
Woody's claim :
"I place you on my ignore list. Yes, I am ignoring you -- all of it. Goodybye."
The reality :
Woody lied and kept on preaching to me, but never comes up with any evidence, just more Christian preaching.
Iasion
Greetings,
Bollocks.
A great deal of information was presented to you.
You were clearly ignorant of all this new information.
You just ignored all the new information and lied that none was presented.
Do you think anyone is fooled?
Apart from Carcano?
To you that is.
Because you just ignore anything that disagrees with your faith, and preach anything from anyone that you think supports your faith.
Of course you ignored the fact that the T.F. is FORGED, or at worst CORRUPTED by Christians.
Pfft.
YOU are the one making insults.
But you ignore that facts adduced, and never present any evidence of your own - you just preach Christian BELIEFS as if they are facts.
False.
Absolutely, totally, 100% WRONG !
The DSS do NOT mention Jesus or Christianity at all.
Of course, Woody will ignore this fact, like he ignores all the facts that show him wrong.
Come on Woody - exactly what do the DSS say that confirms the Gospel accounts ?
We all know what Woody's answer will be :
* ignore the facts
* insult me
* preach more Christian beliefs
But we can be sure he will not provide ONE example of the DSS confirming the Gospel accounts.
Because the DSS do NOT mention Christianity at all.
NOT ONCE.
I hope some readers will actually bother to check this basic fact.
Woody didn't.
Iasion
Bollocks.
A great deal of information was presented to you.
You were clearly ignorant of all this new information.
You just ignored all the new information and lied that none was presented.
Do you think anyone is fooled?
Apart from Carcano?
To you that is.
Because you just ignore anything that disagrees with your faith, and preach anything from anyone that you think supports your faith.
Of course you ignored the fact that the T.F. is FORGED, or at worst CORRUPTED by Christians.
Pfft.
YOU are the one making insults.
But you ignore that facts adduced, and never present any evidence of your own - you just preach Christian BELIEFS as if they are facts.
False.
Absolutely, totally, 100% WRONG !
The DSS do NOT mention Jesus or Christianity at all.
Of course, Woody will ignore this fact, like he ignores all the facts that show him wrong.
Come on Woody - exactly what do the DSS say that confirms the Gospel accounts ?
We all know what Woody's answer will be :
* ignore the facts
* insult me
* preach more Christian beliefs
But we can be sure he will not provide ONE example of the DSS confirming the Gospel accounts.
Because the DSS do NOT mention Christianity at all.
NOT ONCE.
I hope some readers will actually bother to check this basic fact.
Woody didn't.
Iasion
Carcano
Valued Senior Member
Thats right, but Jesus was not there, which is the critical part.
Yes, this is exactly how historical evidence is complied, by cross referencing documents.
Yes I missed by a few decades...sorry.
We dont know that the Arabic copy is corrupt. It has no reason to be, as it was not copied by Christians.
Ask an Israelite who is still looking for their Messiah to come, according to the teachings of Judaism....
"What relationship will the Messiah have to God"?
Their answer will be "The Messiah will be God.
Jesus is referred to in the New Testament as being "the fullness of the Godhead bodily"
COLOSSIANS 2:9
For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
"You can't cut God up into three pieces and feed Him to a Jew."
It is false Christianity that believes in three gods....a hold over from the compromise with the Pagan religions of Rome made at the Nicene Council that misinterprets the Father, Son and Holy Ghost as three persons in one God.
Their blindness to see the Messiah is God, was sent by God, to blind them of the present day truth at the end of their age and the coming of Jesus as the Son of Man, just as the Jews were blinded to see Jesus coming as the Messiah at the end of their age.
For those who received not " a love of the truth" have been sent "strong delusion that they should believe a lie and be damned by it."
Let me show you something......
Jesus said baptise in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
Father, Son, and Holy Ghost aren't names....they are titles.
Peter got a revelation with the keys of the kingdom given to him.......see?
There are certain keys, that when revealed unlock the mysteries of the kingdom of God.
Spiritual keys.
Peter said baptise in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ for the remission of sins and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
The name of the Father, Son and the Holy Ghost is the Lord Jesus Christ.
Jesus said baptise in the name.
Which was a roundabout method of speaking called circumlocution.....
He did not want to come right out and say He was God.
He wanted His children to get it, and the others to see nothing.
That is what they see yet today, you see....the keys and seals are still in effect even after they have been broken open.
To those not meant to see.
"What relationship will the Messiah have to God"?
Their answer will be "The Messiah will be God.
Jesus is referred to in the New Testament as being "the fullness of the Godhead bodily"
COLOSSIANS 2:9
For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
"You can't cut God up into three pieces and feed Him to a Jew."
It is false Christianity that believes in three gods....a hold over from the compromise with the Pagan religions of Rome made at the Nicene Council that misinterprets the Father, Son and Holy Ghost as three persons in one God.
Their blindness to see the Messiah is God, was sent by God, to blind them of the present day truth at the end of their age and the coming of Jesus as the Son of Man, just as the Jews were blinded to see Jesus coming as the Messiah at the end of their age.
For those who received not " a love of the truth" have been sent "strong delusion that they should believe a lie and be damned by it."
Let me show you something......
Jesus said baptise in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
Father, Son, and Holy Ghost aren't names....they are titles.
Peter got a revelation with the keys of the kingdom given to him.......see?
There are certain keys, that when revealed unlock the mysteries of the kingdom of God.
Spiritual keys.
Peter said baptise in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ for the remission of sins and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
The name of the Father, Son and the Holy Ghost is the Lord Jesus Christ.
Jesus said baptise in the name.
Which was a roundabout method of speaking called circumlocution.....
He did not want to come right out and say He was God.
He wanted His children to get it, and the others to see nothing.
That is what they see yet today, you see....the keys and seals are still in effect even after they have been broken open.
To those not meant to see.
Last edited:
Wrong....the virgin birth Saviour to come story is much older than the Greek myths.
It wasn't "lifted" from them or any other culture.
It exists in ancient Egypt, India, China, Babylon and one form or another, almost every ancient culture on Earth.....from thousands of years before Christ.
Why?
Because even as far back as Abel in the garden of Eden, were prophets given revelations of the Saviour to come that would redeem the whole Earth.
But in Babylon something happened to turn men from beleif in the one God, the God of Noah, and Abraham, into a belief in many gods....Paganism.
In Egypt there was the same combination of mother and son called Isis and Osiris. In India it was Isi and Iswara. (Note the similarity of names even.) In Asia it was Cybele and Deoius. In Rome and in Greece it followed suit. And in China. Well, imagine the surprise of some Roman Catholic missionaries as they entered China and found there a Madonna and Child with rays of light emanating from the head of the babe. The image could well have been exchanged for one in the Vatican except for the difference of certain facial features.
It now behooves us to discover the original mother and child. The original goddess-mother of Babylon was Semiramis who was called Rhea in the eastern countries. In her arms she held a son, who though a babe, was described as tall, strong, handsome and especially captivating to the women. In Ezekiel 8:14 he was called Tammuz. Amongst classical writers he was called Bacchus. To the Babylonians he was Ninus. What accounts for the fact that he is represented as a babe in arms and yet described as a great and mighty man is that he is known as the "Husband-Son". One of his titles was "Husband of the Mother", and in India where the two are known as Iswara and Isi, he (the husband) is represented as the babe at the breast of his own wife.
That this Ninus is the Nimrod of the Bible we can affirm by comparing history with the Genesis account. Pompeius said, "Ninus, king of Assyria, changed the ancient moderate ways of life by the desire for conquest. HE WAS THE FIRST WHO CARRIED WAR AGAINST HIS NEIGHBORS. He conquered all nations from Assyria to Lybia as these men knew not the arts of war." Diodorus says, "Ninus was the most ancient of Assyrian kings mentioned in history. Being of warlike disposition he trained many young men rigorously in the arts of war. He brought Babylonia under him while yet there was no city of Babylon." Thus we see this Ninus started to become great in Babylon, built Babel and took over Assyria, becoming its king, and then proceeded to devour other vast territories where the people were unskilled in war and lived in a moderate way as said Pompeius. Now in Genesis 10, speaking of the kingdom of Nimrod it says, "And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh in the land of Shinar. Out of that land went forth Asshur and builded Nineveh, and Calah etc." But the translators made a mistake in translating Asshur as a noun for it is a verb, and in the Chaldee means 'to make strong.' Thus it is Nimrod, who having been made strong (he established his kingdom by building the world's first army which he trained by drilling and through the rigors of hunting) went beyond Shinar with his strong army and subdued nations and built such cities as Nineveh, which was named after him, for even today a chief part of the ruins of that city is called Nimroud!
Since we have discovered who Ninus was, it is now necessary to discover who his father was. According to history it was Bel, the founder of Babylon. (Now it is to be noted here that Bel founded it in the sense that he started this whole move, but it was the son, Ninus, that established it and was the first king etc.) But according to the Scripture, the father of Nimrod was Cush: "And Cush begat Nimrod." Not only is this so but we find that Ham begat Cush. Now, in the Egyptian culture Bel was called Hermes, and Hermes means, "THE SON OF HAM". According to history Hermes was the great prophet of idolatry. He was the interpreter of the gods. Another name by which he was called was Mercury. (Read Acts 14:11-12)
Last edited:
Greetings,
I didn't say otherwise.
Yes it was - exactly like I said.
What I said was :
Celsus pointed out that virgin birth stories of Jesus were based on the Greek myths, and I specifically quoted him naming those Greek myths.
I didn't say the Greeks originated it, please read more carefully.
I simply said Celsus attacked the virgin birth story as based on Greek myths.
Which is exactly what Celsus did, as my quote (albeit of Hoffman's reconsruction) showed.
Iasion
I didn't say otherwise.
Yes it was - exactly like I said.
What I said was :
Celsus pointed out that virgin birth stories of Jesus were based on the Greek myths, and I specifically quoted him naming those Greek myths.
I didn't say the Greeks originated it, please read more carefully.
I simply said Celsus attacked the virgin birth story as based on Greek myths.
Which is exactly what Celsus did, as my quote (albeit of Hoffman's reconsruction) showed.
Iasion
I didn't actually read your post that carefully, I was just glancing at statements and saw one I wanted to set straight.
I didn't at the time realize you may have just been quoting someone else and that was not your own view....sorry.
I was trying to point out the fact that Greek and other even older cultures all shared this.......and explain why.
Other cultures may have had this belief before them, but that does not mean they had to "lift" it from anyone else.
They had prophets of their own to receive revelation and show them prophecies of the coming Messiah.
They didn't lift it from the Greek myths, it may be this Celsus said so, but the larger picture is all the other cultures even the older ones also shared this common belief in antiqiuity....through common spiritual revelation which was not the sole property of the Hebrews.
This is what I wanted to explain.
Many other cultures had born to them real, true Prophets of God.
Elijah for example, was a Gentile prophet...a Tishbite.
I didn't at the time realize you may have just been quoting someone else and that was not your own view....sorry.
I was trying to point out the fact that Greek and other even older cultures all shared this.......and explain why.
Other cultures may have had this belief before them, but that does not mean they had to "lift" it from anyone else.
They had prophets of their own to receive revelation and show them prophecies of the coming Messiah.
They didn't lift it from the Greek myths, it may be this Celsus said so, but the larger picture is all the other cultures even the older ones also shared this common belief in antiqiuity....through common spiritual revelation which was not the sole property of the Hebrews.
This is what I wanted to explain.
Many other cultures had born to them real, true Prophets of God.
Elijah for example, was a Gentile prophet...a Tishbite.
Last edited:
the Visitor said:
Consider the OT of the bible as well:
Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
I already pesented this verse to Immadupe.
I read your posts Iasion.
I'm not an atheist ( spiritual in nature but not belonging to any specific religion) but I can apreciate your research into the topic at hand.
The problem with so much religion,especially the Abrahamic faiths, is they dwell way,way too much on the myth in religous texts as being reality and follow a very narrow minded view of God as seen thru the prejudiced eyes of ancient peoples.
I heard you say it the first time and addressed your answer the first time. I don't think you are listening. You are only repeating yourself.
It's recorded in the bible. The JEWS go down in history as GOD MURDERERS, and they can not defend themselves. For centuries, they lived with the stigma of MURDERING their own MESSIAH. They don't have a defense, just like you don't have a reasonable argument. Most Jews will confess to you that Jesus lived, but they don't believe He was the messiah.
I heard you say it the first time. bullfeathers. You are not a Hebrew scholar. The Hebrew Scholars know what the verse means. You don't. You sound unlearned:
Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. KJV
A "young woman" (as you say) having a son is not a miraculous SIGN FROM GOD. As my wife says, it happens all the time. It's real common. And there are plenty of Immanuels around too. So how does your interpretation show a supernatural sign from God? How does it distinguish the messiah from all other human beings? Your "young maiden" interpretation makes the verse redundant. I trust the Hebrew translaters of the Old Testament much more than yourself. Besides their translation makes sense, and yours doesn't.
I heard you say it the first time. kooksville man. ok I've heard enough -- Iasion's tales from the loonie bin.
I heard you say it the first time.
I heard you say that the first time, however, the fact is our calendar is set around an event that happened two thousand years ago, do you remember me saying that or do you just remember what you say?
I heard it the first time. So you were there as an eyewitness were you?
I read it the first time, I did not ignore it. You are just repeating yourself.
As I said before, and you ignore, it doesn't matter whether Paul said it or not. He is on record saying it, and that makes the bible a treasonous document against the roman government -- a crime fitted for execution. Hence, anyone that promoted the bible should have been tried for the treasonous act of lieng about the roman government. The fact is they were executed for the treason of claiming their god was above rome and all it's dieties. There is no mention that I can find that shows otherwise.
Here are Justin Martyr's letters. Read it for yourself... Forget it you aren't going to read anything. Why should I even bother?
A spiritual being crucifying another spiritual being. Have any evidence? Let's see it. According to who?
By the way don't expect me to read all 200 something of your posts if you already mentioned it somewhere. I don't expect you to read my 2000 something posts.
Last edited:
*************
M*W: I read your posts, Iasion, and I will accept your data as correct. I read somewhere a few years ago that Jesus was historical before he was divine. Although I don't believe he ever existed but is nothing more than a metaphor for the sun/sun of god. Since I cannot recall the reference, regarding my statement, I'll leave it up to the rest of you knowledgeable scholars to provide the truth as you know it to the forum. I've been working out of town recently, and I don't have my library with me to do any research.
Here's a pretty good discourse from the Jewish faith regarding the the claim of a "copy-cat" savior:
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/copycat.html
The references are quite impressive:
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/bookabs.html#WBC
Needless to say, this subject has been VERY WELL explored within christendom.
The Bottom line is this -- a lot of religions claimed a belief in the supernatural prior to christianity. This does not prove that they copied each other or that christianity copied them.
There are only a limited number of ways that sacrements can be implemented in a religion. Naturally such things as eating, being born, bathing the body, and dieing are going to be a part of just about any sacremental system. This does not prove they borrowed or interacted.
The burden of proof is much stronger for rational analysis.
Out of the discussion comes this great reference for the Heathen among you.
Sixteen Crucified Saviors
Unfortunately for the mythers, a lot of the material in the reference is 150 years old, and it has been outdated by more recent discoveries.
For the faithful among us, here is a resource that covers (in depth) just about every subject I've heard debated on this forum, and I've heard a lot of them.
A Christian Thinktank
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/copycat.html
The references are quite impressive:
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/bookabs.html#WBC
Needless to say, this subject has been VERY WELL explored within christendom.
The Bottom line is this -- a lot of religions claimed a belief in the supernatural prior to christianity. This does not prove that they copied each other or that christianity copied them.
There are only a limited number of ways that sacrements can be implemented in a religion. Naturally such things as eating, being born, bathing the body, and dieing are going to be a part of just about any sacremental system. This does not prove they borrowed or interacted.
The burden of proof is much stronger for rational analysis.
Out of the discussion comes this great reference for the Heathen among you.
Sixteen Crucified Saviors
Unfortunately for the mythers, a lot of the material in the reference is 150 years old, and it has been outdated by more recent discoveries.
For the faithful among us, here is a resource that covers (in depth) just about every subject I've heard debated on this forum, and I've heard a lot of them.
A Christian Thinktank
Last edited: