Was Jesus the messiah of the Hebrew bible?

[Nickman]

Cholland said he would like to debate this point so here it is.

Was Jesus the the messiah as prescribed by the Hebrew bible?

What prophecies does he fulfill and why?

Can he be shown to not fulfill the Hebrew text?

Cholland your up.....

[The Tongue]

[ThatGirlAgain wrote]I have no idea what you are saying. Who is this bride of the Anti-Christ? If this is supposed to be the Catholic Church, the official Article of Faith is the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, which James described. Who is doing this condemning of James?

The universal church of Constantine, the mother of most of those who profess to be christians, is united with the spirit of the Anti-Christ, who refuses to acknowledge that Jesus came as a human being, and who claims that he was not born of the seed of Adam, is the Bride of the Anti-Christ and the mother of all those lesser denominational daughters that were spawned of her spirit=Words/teachings, before breaking away from their mother body, and SHE, the universal church of Constantine, the bride of the Anti-Christ, has always rejected the Protoevangelium of James and to this day, the R.C.C, regards it as fraudulent.

You are mistaken on the first point. The doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church is that Jesus became entirely human while remaining entirely divine.

III. TRUE GOD AND TRUE MAN

464 The unique and altogether singular event of the Incarnation of the Son of God does not mean that Jesus Christ is part God and part man, nor does it imply that he is the result of a confused mixture of the divine and the human. He became truly man while remaining truly God. Jesus Christ is true God and true man.

During the first centuries, the Church had to defend and clarify this truth of faith against the heresies that falsified it.



IV. HOW IS THE SON OF GOD MAN?

470 Because "human nature was assumed, not absorbed", in the mysterious union of the Incarnation, the Church was led over the course of centuries to confess the full reality of Christ's human soul, with its operations of intellect and will, and of his human body. In parallel fashion, she had to recall on each occasion that Christ's human nature belongs, as his own, to the divine person of the Son of God, who assumed it. Everything that Christ is and does in this nature derives from "one of the Trinity". The Son of God therefore communicates to his humanity his own personal mode of existence in the Trinity. In his soul as in his body, Christ thus expresses humanly the divine ways of the Trinity

Catechism of the Catholic Church
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/a ... 22a3p1.htm

The Catholic Encyclopedia article on the Apocrypha says that The term apocryphal in connection with special Gospels must be understood as bearing no more unfavourable an import than "uncanonical". In discussing the Protoevangelium of James it says The birth, education, and marriage of the Blessed Virgin are described in the first eleven chapters and these are the source of various traditions current among the faithful. To say that the Church rejects the Protoevangelium is not accurate. It is considered a work of fiction but reflecting early beliefs. The Church considers the virginity of Mary to be a very early idea and even considers the perpetual virginity of Mary to be completely factual, which idea is reflected in the Protoevangelium.

496 From the first formulations of her faith, the Church has confessed that Jesus was conceived solely by the power of the Holy Spirit in the womb of the Virgin Mary, affirming also the corporeal aspect of this event: Jesus was conceived "by the Holy Spirit without human seed". The Fathers see in the virginal conception the sign that it truly was the Son of God who came in a humanity like our own.

499 The deepening of faith in the virginal motherhood led the Church to confess Mary's real and perpetual virginity even in the act of giving birth to the Son of God made man. In fact, Christ's birth "did not diminish his mother's virginal integrity but sanctified it." And so the liturgy of the Church celebrates Mary as Aeiparthenos, the "Ever-virgin".

Catechism of the Catholic Church
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/a ... 22a3p2.htm

[ThatGirlAgain].You are mistaken on the first point. The doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church is that Jesus became entirely human while remaining entirely divine.

And it my belief that only the nave and gullible would believe the false doctrines of R.C.C,. which teachings have nothing to do with the Holy Scriptures, but with the traditions that had been handed down from the old Roman religion of Isis their heavenly Queen, who conceived the godchild Horus by her brother Osirus, the god from the lower of inner world. Please dont tell me that she has sucked you in with her falsehoods?

Let me try to understand what you are saying. First you say that the Catholic Church teaches some kind of docetism, that Jesus was not really human but only seemed that way. Then when I point out that, with documentation, that this is not at all what the Church teaches, you now consider that a false doctrine. Might we need to consider the notion that you are categorically opposed to whatever the Catholic Church might say, even when you do not know what it is?

I fail to see what discussing the cult of Isis has to do with whether Matthew intended parthenos to carry the meaning of virgin. I hope you are not trying to say that Isis, who was already married to Osiris, was a virgin when she gave birth to Horus. A key element of the Isis-Osiris tale involves the definite use of the phallus of Osiris to impregnate Isis. (Ref)

As Christianity spread it did indeed syncretize elements from other religions. Many works of art depict Mary and the infant Jesus in a way similar to art depicting Isis and the infant Horus. However these do not seem to appear until the 5th century after the cult of Isis was outlawed. It hardly seems likely that Mary derived from Isis. Imagining a scripture obsessed, observant Jew like Matthew importing Egyptian ideas to try to sell to an observant Jewish audience sounds rather fishy as well.

The worship of Isis eventually spread throughout the Greco-Roman world, continuing until the suppression of paganism in the Christian era. The popular motif of Isis suckling her son Horus, however, lived on in a Christianized context as the popular image of Mary suckling the infant son Jesus from the fifth century onward.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isis


There was a great expansion of the cult of Mary after the Council of Ephesus in 431, when her status as Theotokos ("God-bearer") was confirmed; this had been a subject of some controversy until then, though mainly for reasons to do with arguments over the nature of Christ. In mosaics in Santa Maria Maggiore in Rome, dating from 432-40, just after the council, she is not yet shown with a halo, and she is also not shown in Nativity scenes at this date, though she is included in the Adoration of the Magi.

By the next century the iconic depiction of the Virgin enthroned carrying the infant Christ was established,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madonna_(art)#Early_images

After all this time are you still under the impression that I am a Catholic? Read my usergroup list. As I have said often around here, I stopped believing by the age of 13 but am very knowledgeable about the religion.

And before you again state that Constantine had nothing to do with the actual establishment of the universal church,

I never said any such thing. I said that Constantine had nothing to do with the contents of the Bible. (ref)

That was in response to your claim that:

The word Virgin in reference to the mother of Jesus was first introduced in the 5th century Latin Bible The Vulgate, due mainly to the effort of Jerome who was commissioned to make a revision of the books that had already been translated to Latin by, in most cases, persons unknown, and with those books translated by Jerome himself, which revision was completed in 405 A.D. became the official bible of the universal church that had been established by its unorthodox and non-christian champion, King Constantine, who had his father Constantius deified and was accorded the same honour himself after his death.

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 698#500698

let me quote this from some book that Ive read somewhere: I think it may have come from Ian Wilsons JESUS The Evidence.

When Christianity was illegal and persecuted, the Christians were united against a common enemy. With the lid off, differences of opinion began to be voiced and very loudly, even to point of rioting and assassinations. Bishops were excommunicating each other all over the place, often enforced with mobs or hired thugs. The main hotbed of this civil unrest was Alexandria. Egypt was the primary source of both grain and tax revenue for Constantines Empire and Alexandria was its main port. Serious civil unrest there was a dangerous thing. Likewise, disturbances taking place in the more easterly regions of the Empire were an open invitation to the newly resurgent Persians.

A main point of contention behind all this trouble was the nature of Jesus, with opinions ranging from him being totally human to almost totally divine. Constantine invited all the bishops to a council at Nicaea to try to establish commonality and put an end to the divisive bickering.

Although there was a wide range of opinions, they fell into two main categories, whether Jesus was primarily human or primarily divine. The former fit well with the Greek tradition of humanism and made Christianity a more personal matter. An implication of that is that authority would be local, residing with the individual bishops. The latter fit in with the idea of central control by the Roman bishop (and by implication the Roman Emperor). It is no surprise that Constantine pushed the latter

You quote an extensive piece of text but you are not sure where you got it from?

Let me help you

YOU GOT IT FROM ME!!!

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 14=#492614

Come on, you do not copy and paste text from a post on this site and forget where you got it from.

In any case the point you are trying to support, that I supposedly said that Constantine had nothing to do with establishing the church, is totally erroneous as I demonstrated above.

Matthew is not concerned as to where the holy family actually lived, only that the child was born in Bethlehem of Judaea, he then skips forward in time, to speak of the wise men, who are believed to have been Astronomer/Astrologers from Mesopotamia, who had seen the star in the east, that they believed had heralded the birth of the promised Messianic King of Israel, and even if they had left their own country that very day, to travel to Jerusalem, we know from biblical records that it would have taken them some four months to reach there, and by then, the family, according to Luke, had returned to their home in Nazareth.

The most likely scenario is, that the wise men saw the triple conjunction of Jupiter the king star, with Mars the God of war, and Saturn, the Golden age on earth, this was in 6 BC, and would have been the sign that heralded the birth of the promised King and successor to the throne of David the warrior king, who would subdue all nations and bring in a golden age of peace on the earth.

But as Herod died in 4 BC, shortly after the slaughter of the innocents, which was immediately after the wise men were warned of what was going to occur and were told not to return to Herod and reveal the child's whereabouts as promised, they left the town of Nazareth, which was only spitting distance from Bethlehem of Galilee, which town today, is called "Beitlahm," and returned home by a different route from that by which they had travelled to Israel.

It would appear that the comet of 5 BC, was the deciding factor to convince them to travel to Jerusalem, to pay homage to the promised King, who had been born in Israel.

Here is a biblical example of how long it took Ezra to travel from Babylonia to Jerusalem, Ezra 7: 8-9; They left Babylonia on the first day of the first month, and with Gods help they arrived in Jerusalem on the first day of the fifth month.

I am quite familiar with the interpretation of Matthews star from the viewpoint of an astronomer of those days. In fact I made a post on it just before Christmas last year, and followed up with several more posts in that thread.

According to the author of the book I cited in that post, a professional astronomer named Kidger, camels can travel at 20 miles a day across desert. He was speaking from his own personal experience in that region.

Barnes Bible Commentary says this about Ezra 7:9

9. For upon the first day of the first month began he to go up from Babylon, and on the first day of the fifth month came he to Jerusalem, according to the good hand of his God upon him.

The direct distance of Babylon from Jerusalem is about 520 miles; and the circuitous route by Carchemish and the Orontes valley, which was ordinarily taken by armies or large bodies of men, is about 900 miles. The time occupied in the journey is long, and is perhaps to be accounted for by the dangers alluded to in Ezra 8:22, Ezra 8:31.

http://barnes.biblecommenter.com/ezra/7.htm

Ezra 8 does indeed give insight as to why the journey took so long. There were a vast number of people involved including women and children and they were carrying large amounts of treasure bound for the Temple. The fear of robbers, in the verses mentioned by Barnes, would also argue that they would take the out of sight route that armies took. A camel caravan in the late 1st century CE going directly across the desert would presumably be much faster. Kidger estimated that about 6 weeks or so would be needed for preparation and travel.

Kidger argues that the supposed 5 BC comet was actually a nova. The Chinese records seem to indicate that the object stayed in the same part of the sky for a few months, whereas a comet would very noticeably move across the sky in that timeframe. Also the Chinese describe it as a hairy star rather than a broom star (a comet with a tail). The hairy star appellation could mean a comet before it sprouts a tail when it approaches the sun. Or it could mean a star bright enough to appear to have spikes to the naked eye. For a comet to be visible but still not have a tail for months afterward is quite unlikely.

Luke is more concerned with the approximate 2 month period that the family was in Bethlehem of Judaea. He speaks of the birth of the child in the stable of an Inn, and the visit of the shepherds, who were out in the fields, where they would not have been in the middle of winter of late December, where they saw the baby in the manger wrapped in swaddling cloth etc. There is no mention of any wise men there.

Luke 2: 21; A week after Jesus was born he was circumcised according to the law of Moses. Then CAME THE TIME according to the Law of Moses, for Mary to perform the ceremony of purification as the law of Moses commanded.

The time for the ceremony of purification to be performed is found in Leviticus 12: 3-4; On the eighth day the male child shall be circumcised. Then it will be thirty three days more until she is ritually clean from her loss of blood and then can she enter the tent/temple and perform the ceremony of purification.

After she had performed everything According to the law of Moses some 33 days after the baby was circumcised, they returned to the home of Mary in Nazareth, to where the wise men would later travel some months later, and shower the young child with gifts, which included Gold, which apparently the family did not have when Mary offered the two pigeons at the ceremony of purification. Leviticus 12: 8; poor families who cannot afford a lamb shall bring two doves or two pigeons one of which, would be used as the burnt offering etc.

As it has already been stated, even if the wise men had left their country of origin in the east, on the day that they had first sighted the heavenly phenomenon that had heralded the birth of Jesus, which is more that highly unlikely, they would not have reached Jerusalem until at the very least, some two month after Mary had returned to Nazareth.

I reject the traditional doctrines of the universal church of Constantine, and believe the Holy Scriptures.

You are presuming that both Matthew and Luke are telling literally accurate stories. I make no such assumption. Luke tells an entirely different nativity story than Matthew just as he presents an entirely different genealogy and a very different story at many places in his Gospel.

You say that you believe the Holy Scriptures. The last time I looked Matthew was part of the Holy Scriptures. What exactly are you saying?

[ThatGirlAgain wrote]Let me try to understand what you are saying. First you say that the Catholic Church teaches some kind of docetism,

Nope! If you were able to understand that which I had written, I said that by the second century, docetism, the concept that Jesus had existed as a spirit rather than a human being, had all but theoretically been stamped out more than a hundred years before Constantine established the universal church from a rag-tag group of religious bodies who professed themselves to be Christians.

But even after docetism had been, all but stamped out, there still persisted the belief that the false Jesus of those who had abandoned the Jesus as taught by the apostles, although seen as a sort of human being, did not have our normal bodily needs, such as eating, drinking and having to go to the toilet, and Clement the bishop of Alexandria, wrote: It would be ridiculous to imagine that the redeemer, in order to exist, had the usual needs of man. He only took food and ate it in order that we should not teach about him in a Docetic fashion.

I have said that the Universal church of Constantine teaches that their eternal God, who, while on earth was called Jesus, and He who was called Jesus had pre-existed the creation of the entire cosmos, in fact, they teach that He, who was seen as Jesus, was the co-creator of the cosmos, and was not of the seed of Adam from which every human being who has ever, or will walk this earth has descended, and they claim that a human like body was formed for their immortal and eternal God in the womb of some supposed earthly woman who was ever virgin, and that he was fully human. Ha Haa Haaa.

So it is obvious to anyone, except you of course, that I have never said that the universal church of Constantine teaches some kind of Docetism, which is the concept that Jesus was not fully human, but was a spirit who, like some hologram, could appear and disappear at will.

[ThatGirlAgain wrote] Let me try to understand what you are saying. First you say that the Catholic Church teaches some kind of docetism, that Jesus was not really human but only seemed that way. Then when I point out that, with documentation, that this is not at all what the Church teaches, you now consider that a false doctrine.

No mate, I do not, NOW consider that a false doctrine, I have ALWAYS considered that to be a false doctrine.

Why? Do you believe that their Jesus, who they teach was an immortal and eternal God, who was the co-creator of the cosmos and existed as the immortal and eternal Son of God, before the creation of the cosmos, whose temporary human like body, that was not of the seed of the original human from whom all human beings have originated, was born of some supposedly ever virgin, who was impregnated by some alien life form that pre-existed the cosmos, and that he was fully human? Or like myself, do you believe the documentation of the universal church of Constantine, that you produced, is just so much unadulterated trash?

[ThatGirlAgain wrote]Might we need to consider the notion that you are categorically opposed to whatever the Catholic Church might say, even when you do not know what it is?

Oh I know what the universal church of Constantine teaches, and like yourself, I have rejected it as being just so much rubbish. So dont bother considering that I am categorically opposed to whatever the universal church of Constantine teaches, for I admit it and I believe that it is that rubbish that she tried to push down your throat that drove you from her, but that you still have a soft spot for her and attempt to defend her false teachings.

[ThatGirlAgain wrote]I fail to see what discussing the cult of Isis has to do with whether Matthew intended parthenos to carry the meaning of virgin.

Neither do I. Because you and I both know that the RCC religious belief, is only an evolution or extension of the cult of Isis, the centre of which cult was Rome. They merely disrobed their old heavenly queen and placed them on their new queen, the supposed virgin who supplied the physical body for their immortal and eternal god.

While it is obvious that Matthew was a follower of the Jesus as taught by the apostles, and repeats Isaiahs prophecy that a young unmarried female would bear a child , who, for over two thousand years has been called, God is with us.

[ThatGirlAgain wrote]I hope you are not trying to say that Isis, who was already married to Osiris, was a virgin when she gave birth to Horus. A key element of the Isis-Osiris tale involves the definite use of the phallus of Osiris to impregnate Isis.

No mate, although It has been my belief from study that Osiris was the brother and husband of Isis, with Horus being considered his posthumously begotten son. But if you say that Isis the mother of the god Hor-por-krat=Horus, was sired by the actual semen of Osiris the Black, or putrid green the god of the dead, from the lower world, who was the most high, or rather the god at the top of the staircase/ladder of the lower world, was not a virgin, as Mary, when pregnant was no longer a virgin also, for your sake Ill go along with that.

[ThatGirlAgain wrote]As Christianity spread it did indeed syncretize elements from other religions.

Yea, such a shame isnt it? Its good to see that you agree that they have added so much yeast to the unleavened bread that has come down to us from the heights of Time, that the bread that she offers is so polluted, it does nothing but stunt the growth of the spirits that feed upon it.

[ThatGirlAgain wrote]Many works of art depict Mary and the infant Jesus in a way similar to art depicting Isis and the infant Horus.

Yea! So much so, that only an expert can distinguish between the old Roman Icons of Isis and her godchild on her lap, from the early self professed Roman Christian Icons of their virgin queen and mother of god, with her god-child on her lap, and even then, theyre not always 100% sure.

[ThatGirlAgain wrote]However these do not seem to appear until the 5th century after the cult of Isis was outlawed.

Yea! It was no longer needed by the universal church of Constantine, which had substituted the cult of Isis with the new cult of their virgin mother of their new god.

[ThatGirlAgain wrote]It hardly seems likely that Mary derived from Isis. Imagining a scripture obsessed, observant Jew like Matthew importing Egyptian ideas to try to sell to an observant Jewish audience sounds rather fishy as well.

Here you go again with your absurd, opinionated conjectures, Matthew imported nothing from the Egyptian Jews other that the word Parthenos to correctly translate Isaiahs prophecy that an Almah=Parthenos=unmarried female, would bear a son who would be, and has been called, God is with us, for over two thousand years.

Please provide documentation to support your absurd opinion that Matthew, an observant Jew, had imported Egyptian ideas to try to sell to an observant Jewish audience, otherwise, admit that this ridiculous statement of yours is pure conjecture.

[ThatGirlAgain wrote]After all this time are you still under the impression that I am a catholic. Read my usergroup list. As I have said often around here, I stopped believing by the age of 13 but am very knowledgeable about the religion.

Nope, Im not, nor ever have been under the impression that you were still a catholic. I know from your profile and posts that you are a 20 year old girl named Moira and that you were born into Christianity and raised as a catholic (Post #21, Is Believing in Jesus Enough, and abandoned her at an early age.

[ThatGirlAgain wrote]I never said any such thing. I said that Constantine had nothing to do with the contents of the Bible.

My statement was: And before you again state that Constantine had nothing to do with the actual establishment of the universal church, I made no reference to Constantine having anything to do with the contents of the bible, but to the establishment of the universal church. Youre at it again arent you girl?

I wrote in post #168: When Christianity was illegal and persecuted, the Christians were united against a common enemy. With the lid off, differences of opinion began to be voiced and very loudly, even to point of rioting and assassinations. Bishops were excommunicating each other all over the place, often enforced with mobs or hired thugs. The main hotbed of this civil unrest was Alexandria. Egypt was the primary source of both grain and tax revenue for Constantines Empire and Alexandria was its main port. Serious civil unrest there was a dangerous thing. Likewise, disturbances taking place in the more easterly regions of the Empire were an open invitation to the newly resurgent Persians.

A main point of contention behind all this trouble was the nature of Jesus, with opinions ranging from him being totally human to almost totally divine. Constantine invited all the bishops to a council at Nicaea to try to establish commonality and put an end to the divisive bickering.

Although there was a wide range of opinions, they fell into two main categories, whether Jesus was primarily human or primarily divine. The former fit well with the Greek tradition of humanism and made Christianity a more personal matter. An implication of that is that authority would be local, residing with the individual bishops. The latter fit in with the idea of central control by the Roman bishop (and by implication the Roman Emperor). It is no surprise that Constantine pushed the latter.

And I believe that this was your response to one of my previous posts, as follows: Constantine was not sick of the bickering, having no real interest in theology and not being baptized until he was dying (if then). He was concerned that the frequent rioting and general civil unrest could have serious consequences. One special hotbed of often violent Empire. Alexandria was Egypts main seaport. Problems there could be felt everywhere. Also similar conditions near the eastern border of the Empire were an open invitation to the newly resurgent Persians. Constantine did not care about church doctrine. He cared about the practical effects on his Empire. See the above referenced books for extensive details.

You cannot deny that Constantine was responsible for uniting all the heads of the different and quarreling bodies of belief in the establishment of the universal church and that it was under his dominating presence and inducements that they put their signatures to the agreement of the Alexandrian doctrine that he wanted, even though some were to later regret having done so.

Ian Wilsons JESUS The Evidence.
From the none too truth face-saving letter Eusebius of Caesarea sent back to his home diocese, it is clear how uneasy he felt about the extent to which he had compromised the fundamental principles of what he had been taught about Jesus.

Other signatories, who were equally swayed into acquiescence by their awe of the forceful Constantine, felt exactly the same. Only on returning home did Eusebius of Nicomedia, Maris of Chalcedon and Theognis of Nicaea summon the courage to express to Constantine in writing how much they regretted having put their signatures to the Nicaea formula: We committed an impious act, O Prince, wrote Eusebius of Nicomedia, by subscribing to a blasphemy from fear of you.

[ThatGirlAgain wrote]You quote an extensive piece of text but you are not sure where you got it from?

Let me help you

YOU GOT IT FROM ME!!!

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 14=#492614

Come on, you do not copy and paste text from a post on this site and forget where you got it from.

Well there you go! I am in the habit of filing away certain points that I read in books written by biblical authorities, and also points of interest that I sometimes pick up in these forums, which I may use in my upcoming book.

As I always record the names of the authoritive sources of those filed chapters, I thought it strange that the author of the statement in question, was not identified in my files and as it appeared to be something that Ian Wilson may have written, I didnt take the chance of using his work without acknowledgement and So I said; (I THINK) it may have come from "Ian Wilsons JESUS The Evidence.

[ThatGirlAgain wrote]In any case the point you are trying to support, that I supposedly said that Constantine had nothing to do with establishing the church, is totally erroneous as I demonstrated above.

No dear girl, the fact is, that Constantine did establish the universal church, and he did influence which doctrine would be the one to be held by the unified church that he had established, which you verify by saying that: "it is no surprise that Constantine (who had the controlling vote) pushed the latter," which is very similar to that which we find in Ian Wilsons JESUS The Evidence, as seen below:

It was at this point in history, and before this assembly, that a decision was to be made that would have the most profound consequences for believers in Jesus Christ to this day. In the simplest of terms, the point at issue was whether Jesus was a mere human being and was now (Incontestably divine) who had been brought into existence to serve Gods purpose-to act as the word of God at a particular time in the early first century AD, or whether he had been God for all eternity, of one substance with the Father (As those in the West expressed it), If the latter, then he was effectively a supraterrestrial entity easily compared with Sol Invictus, but light years removed from the Jesus envisaged by Arius and the Antiochenes.

For the judgment of Solomon on the issue, the only appropriate recourse was to Constantine, almost theologically illiterate, but politically a superb man manager. Exactly what swayed Constantine in that crucial moment we shall probably never know. There can be little doubt that for him the deification of a man was nothing particular special. He had his father Constantius deified, and would be accorded the same honour after his own death, and would surely have expected Jesus to be a superior entity in the divine hierarchy. He might well also have taken into account Alexandrias strategic and commercial advantages. What-ever his motives, Constantine ruled in favour of the Alexandrian. Eusebius formula was heavenly edited to accommodate the Alexandrian view, and while affirming that the standpoint of the Antiochenes was entirely reasonable, Constantine urged all council delegates to sign the revised formula as a statement of faith on which all Christians should in the future agree.

To Be Continued.

[arian]

"He that believes and confesses that Jesus was the Son of God will be saved", but there is no promise for those that call Jesus some Devine being, 'a god' amongst all the other gods like we learned through theology.

As a Jew, you should realize that God the Father is the only Savior. Therefore what you preach, in the old day would get you stoned/killed as a Jew. Only God can be a mans savior. Plus....God didn't mention anything about having a son in the OT.
So either Lord Jesus is God or else he cannot be your savior.

If you were drowning in the sea and I threw you a life-preserver tied to a rope, the actual contact would be the life-preserver which you would hang on to to save you, not me the one who threw it, but if I didn't throw it, you would have nothing to hang on to, to save you. So in that way yes, both me and the life-preserver are your saviors.

God in the old-days threw us many life-preservers (Prophets) only we drowned them (sort of speak)... and kept on yelling for help!

Hello Tex, and yes in the old-days I would be stoned by my fellow Jews for following in the footsteps of Christ, and after Constantine established his version of Christianity, the Catholic Church would have burnt me at the stake, ... but the Bible warns us of these things, so we can prepare for it (put on a helmet and lots of sun tan lotion lol.. just kidding, the helmet might work for a while, but the lotion would just prolong the burning.)

Jesus never EVER claimed to be God, so I accept that He wasn't. I can only go by His teaching, and I know that God has raised him above all powers and principalities because what He has achieved when He came to earth. Now Christ is my King of kings and Lord of lords, I pray to Him to intercede for me with God our Father, the only God.

Jesus said that; "If you ask the Father anything in my name, it will be done for you."
Jesus (who has a form) is the true begotten/created likeness of God (who has no form).

We (man) were created a form, a body and then God placed a tiny bit of His Spirit in there and we became individual souls, like God but independent of Him. Gods spirit in a body can actually even go against God Himself, as we see most of the people on this earth doing today.

Now to me that is something. God in whom all things exist has created little children for Himself, IN Himself and OF Himself, placed them on a place He created called earth in a universe full of stars to enjoy themselves, to keep a beautiful garden and have a lot of sex and fill the earth with more little children for God which He shares with us. What we enjoy God enjoys, what makes us unhappy it makes God unhappy because it goes against what He originally planned for us.

One day Eve allowed herself to be deceived into believing that we could enjoy our existence on our own, independent of God, so when she thought God was not looking, she went to take just a peek at this Tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Well what do you know Satan was slithering there and as if he read Eves mind, he told her just what she wanted to hear, and of course once we seek evil, we will get evil.

Here we only knew good, but now we knew what evil is. When we step on a thorn and it punctures our skin where it hurts and bleeds, that is evil. When a woman cries in pain for hours giving birth and sometimes even dying in the process, it is evil. Anything that can do us harm is evil, but God is still limiting the evil which could befall us. One big meteor could wipe us off the face of the earth, a little deviation in our orbit could hurl us towards the sun, ... well I'm sure you get the picture.

Once man disobeyed in an attempt to know what evil is (he already knew what 's good), God withdrew some of His protection from around us so we can taste a little of how life would be without His constant care. Not much, just a teeny-weeny bit so we could learn the lesson we chose to learn, and so man took of the; 'Knowledge of Good and Evil'

Thorns started to grow against us, giving birth for women became a labour, the whole earth seemed to want to consume us, ... and it eventually has. "From dust thou art, to dust thou shalt return".

I'm sure you know the rest of the story, ... we are living it.

Thanks Tex, and God bless you.

[Tex]

Jesus never EVER claimed to be God, so I accept that He wasn't. I can only go by His teaching, and I know that God has raised him above all powers and principalities because what He has achieved when He came to earth. Now Christ is my King of kings and Lord of lords, I pray to Him to intercede for me with God our Father, the only God.

Tex: Let's say I agree, that the Lord Jesus is not the Father. But why would the Father take offence to us seeing the Son as the Father also? Are not the Father and Son as one? That the Son will do anything for the Father and Father will doing anything for his Son? Is Lord Jesus not sitting at the right hand of the Father?

As one Apostle asked..."shows us the Father and we will be content..." what did the lord reply? I'm sure you know what was written, arian.

[The Tongue]

Jesus never EVER claimed to be God, so I accept that He wasn't. I can only go by His teaching, and I know that God has raised him above all powers and principalities because what He has achieved when He came to earth. Now Christ is my King of kings and Lord of lords, I pray to Him to intercede for me with God our Father, the only God.

Tex: Let's say I agree, that the Lord Jesus is not the Father. But why would the Father take offence to us seeing the Son as the Father also? Are not the Father and Son as one? That the Son will do anything for the Father and Father will doing anything for his Son? Is Lord Jesus not sitting at the right hand of the Father?

As one Apostle asked..."shows us the Father and we will be content..." what did the lord reply? I'm sure you know what was written, arian.

He encompasses all time:

He is the First and the Last
The Beginning and End
The Alpha and Omega
The Father and Son.

[The Tongue]

Continued from Post #261.

[ThatGirlAgain wrote]..I am quite familiar with the interpretation of Matthews star from the viewpoint of an astronomer of those days. In fact I made a post on it just before Christmas last year, and followed up with several more posts in that thread.

Astronomy, Astrology, and the Star of Bethlehem. BY John Clevenger of the Lake Country Astronomical Society," which says as follows, Did any unusual astronomical phenomenon occur between 8 and 2 BC? As it happens there were several notable celestial events during that period. The Chinese reported two comets during that time. The comet of 5 BC which was visible for 70 days, was reported to have a tail. Professor Humphreys of Cambridge University believes that this comet, which he describes as having a vertical tail, appeared at the time of the Jewish Passover. Professor Humpherys believed that this started the Magi, who were knowledgeable of the Jewish prophecy recorded in the book of Micah, concerning the birth of a Jewish king, on their journey.

If right about the vertical tail, this could agree with the biblical account in Matthew that the Star Stood Over where the young child was. The comet of 4 BC had no tail and whether it was a comet or a nova is unknown. While historians have usually suggested that comets were always bad omens. Humphreys believes that history shows them to be either good or bad omens.

It was the comet of 5 BC, which was seen by professor Humpherys as the star that started the wise men, who had seen the conjuction of 6BC, as the sign that heralded the birth of David's promised successor in Israel on their journey to Jerusalem. Nowhere is it said in scripture that any star guided the wise men who were believed to be Astronomer, Astrologers from Mesopotamia, from the land of Mesopotamia to Jerusalem in Judaea.

Having witnessed in 6 BC, the conjunction of the King Planet Jupiter, with Mars, "The god of war," and Saturn, "The god of time, who brings in the golden age of peace to the earth, which I believe was the star that had heralded the birth of Jesus, because it appeared two years before the death of Herod the Great in April of 4 BC, and as two years and below, was the age of the children that Herod commanded to be slaughtered just before his death, which aqe was in accordance with what he had learned from the wise men as to the exact time that they had seen the star that had heralded the birth of Jesus, which had to be around 6 BC.

[ThatGirlAgain wrote]..According to the author of the book I cited in that post, a professional astronomer named Kidger, camels can travel at 20 miles a day across desert. He was speaking from his own personal experience in that region.

The distance from Babylonia to Jerusalem is said to by some to be 746 miles, other say 800 miles. The CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: concerning the Magi, states that from Persia, whence they believe the Magi are supposed to have come from, to Jerusalem was a journey of between 1000 and 1200 miles, and they claim that such a distance may have taken any time between three and twelve months by camel. Your particular authority claims 520 miles.

But even at 800 miles and covering 20 miles per day and assuming that they left immediately after sighting the conjunction of 6 BC which had heralded the birth of the Messianic King, which is more than highly unlikely, it would have still taken them some 40 days to reach Jerusalem.

That church now claims that as soon as the wise men left their own country, Mary and Joseph, who had already returned to their home in Nazareth, were warned to go to Bethlehem of Judaea, were the wise men were to supposedly find them.

[ThatGirlAgain wrote]..Ezra 8 does indeed give insight as to why the journey took so long. There were a vast number of people involved including women and children and they were carrying large amounts of treasure bound for the Temple. The fear of robbers, in the verses mentioned by Barnes, would also argue that they would take the out of sight route that armies took. A camel caravan in the late 1st century CE going directly across the desert would presumably be much faster. Kidger estimated that about 6 weeks or so would be needed for preparation and travel.

Kidger argues that the supposed 5 BC comet was actually a nova. The Chinese records seem to indicate that the object stayed in the same part of the sky for a few months, whereas a comet would very noticeably move across the sky in that timeframe. Also the Chinese describe it as a hairy star rather than a broom star (a comet with a tail). The hairy star appellation could mean a comet before it sprouts a tail when it approaches the sun. Or it could mean a star bright enough to appear to have spikes to the naked eye. For a comet to be visible but still not have a tail for months afterward is quite unlikely.

Others such as . Professor Humphreys of Cambridge University believes that this comet, (Of 5 BC.) which he describes as having a vertical tail, appeared at the time of the Jewish Passover and remained visible for seventy days. While the supposed comet of 4 BC had no tail and whether it was a comet or a nova is unknown. The fact that it appeared in April of 4BC, the month and the year of the death of Herod the Great, would seem to point to the fact that it was a nova signaling the death of a great star on the stage of the worlds history.

[ThatGirlAgain wrote]..You are presuming that both Matthew and Luke are telling literally accurate stories. I make no such assumption. Luke tells an entirely different nativity story than Matthew just as he presents an entirely different genealogy and a very different story at many places in his Gospel.

I most assuredly am. And I am glad to see that you now agree that the genealogy of Joseph ben Jacob in Matthew, is an entirely different genealogy to that of Joseph ben Heli, as recorded in Luke. Luke records the genealogy of Jesus through his mother Mary the daughter of Heli and Anna, and Joseph the Son of Heli, who it was supposed by the people to be the true father of Jesus.

While Matthew records the genealogy of Joseph ben Jacob, who is not immediately genetically connected to Jesus in anyway whatsoever as he had no sexual contact with Mary, until after the child was born. Who I am sure that you are not so nave and gullible as to believe the rubbish preached by the universal church concerning that birth.

Although Matthew and Luke both agree that Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea, Matthew simply states that he was born there, and verifies that Joseph ben Jacob had no sexual relations with the Almah=Parthenos Mary, until after she had delivered the first of her biological son, who would be, and has been called "God Is With Us," for over two thousand years.

Whereas Luke gives a detailed account of how he took Mary his fianc, who was promised in Marriage to him, which marital union would not be consummated until after she had given birth to Jesus in the town of Bethlehem of Judaea, etc.

Matthew speaks of the wise men who came in search for the promised Successor to the throne of David, some 12 months or more after they had seen the sign that had heralded his birth. Luke makes no mention of that.

Luke speaks of the time that the young Jesus was thought to be lost, and after three days, His mother and presumably Cleophas/Alpheaus the second husband of Mary and the father of his younger brother James the righteous, found him in the temple astounding the Jewish authorities with his knowledge of scripture, and how his mother, who knew the biological father of her child, didnt understand what the hell he was talking about, when he said, Why did you have to search for me? Didnt you know that I would be in my Fathers house, about my Fathers business?

Matthew makes no mention of that event, which simply reveals that each of the gospel authors, wrote their short accounts of the life of Jesus, according to that which they deemed to be important.

[ThatGirlAgain wrote]..You say that you believe the Holy Scriptures. The last time I looked Matthew was part of the Holy Scriptures. What exactly are you saying?

What I am saying, is that I believe Matthew to be part of the Holy Scriptures who reveals the genealogy of Joseph ben Jacob the step father of Jesus. You might believe the false and unbiblical doctrines of the universal church of Constantine, that he was born of an ever virgin, but neither I nor Matthew, or any of the apostles would agree with you.

Well thats it for me, as far as answering any more of your opinionated conjectures on this particular subject in this particular thread. Im finished with you for now. And Unlike others who cannot remain true to their word, when I say Im finished with this subject, with you, in this particular thread, I mean it.

[otseng]

The truth remains today as it did during Christ, that the Jews served another god called mammon over their God 'I Am',

remember that Jews are well known for their new religion, ... atheism.

Loyal servants of the Beast that was mortally wounded

They helped the beast build the concentration camps, they helped keep the lines quiet, straight and orderly and moving without interruption into the gas chambers.

Moderator Warning


Please avoid making blanket statements, unsupported assertions, and flame bait-ish material.

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Cewakiyelo]

Cholland said he would like to debate this point so here it is.

Was Jesus the the messiah as prescribed by the Hebrew bible?

What prophecies does he fulfill and why?

Can he be shown to not fulfill the Hebrew text?

Cholland your up.....

Well, as the OT clearly describes the Messiah as a Teacher/Leader/Warrior, and the NT describes Jesus as a hellenistic Savior/Redeemer that is found nowhere in the OT descriptions, it seems clear that Jesus could not be the Messiah, and that Christians don't even consider him as such.

You have touched upon part of the equation.

John 14:26 But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you

Jesus said that it is the Holy Spirit that is the Teacher. At the baptism event of Jesus the Holy Spirit descends upon Jesus and then LEADS Jesus into the wilderness. In the days of Moses the Spirit is responsible for the destruction of many enemies that stood in opposition of Moses.

Matthew 23:10 And do not be called teachers; for One is your Teacher, the Christ

Jesus says the Holy Spirit will teach all things. And that One is your Teacher, the Christ... One Teacher, the Christ... Holy Spirit teaches all things... The Holy Spirit is the One Teacher, the Christ.

The Holy Spirit fulfills the Teacher/Leader/Warrior/Christ description of the Messiah

[The Tongue]

Cholland said he would like to debate this point so here it is.

Was Jesus the the messiah as prescribed by the Hebrew bible?

What prophecies does he fulfill and why?

Can he be shown to not fulfill the Hebrew text?

Cholland your up.....

Well, as the OT clearly describes the Messiah as a Teacher/Leader/Warrior, and the NT describes Jesus as a hellenistic Savior/Redeemer that is found nowhere in the OT descriptions, it seems clear that Jesus could not be the Messiah, and that Christians don't even consider him as such.

You have touched upon part of the equation.

John 14:26 But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you

Jesus said that it is the Holy Spirit that is the Teacher. At the baptism event of Jesus the Holy Spirit descends upon Jesus and then LEADS Jesus into the wilderness. In the days of Moses the Spirit is responsible for the destruction of many enemies that stood in opposition of Moses.

Matthew 23:10 And do not be called teachers; for One is your Teacher, the Christ

Jesus says the Holy Spirit will teach all things. And that One is your Teacher, the Christ... One Teacher, the Christ... Holy Spirit teaches all things... The Holy Spirit is the One Teacher, the Christ.

The Holy Spirit fulfills the Teacher/Leader/Warrior/Christ description of the Messiah

[Cewakiyelo wrote].......At the baptism event of Jesus the Holy Spirit descends upon Jesus and then LEADS Jesus into the wilderness. In the days of Moses the Spirit is responsible for the destruction of many enemies that stood in opposition of Moses.

The Spirit of our Lord and saviour "The Son of Man," to whom is ascribed, all the sins of the androgynous body of mankind=EVE who is of Adam, in which "The Spiritual Son of God="The Son of Man," is currently developing.

It is He who descends from the ends of time upon Jesus, his chosen earthly host body and then LEADS Jesus into the wilderness, where, for 40 days, He tries to tempt him into doing one act of worship to him, "The Son of Man" rather than the Father spirit, who dwells behind the veil of the flesh within the inner most sanctuary of his temporary tabernacle, the body of mankind, in which, he gains all the wisdom, knowledge, and insight, needed by the heir to the throne of Godhead, from the pain and suffering endured by the great androgynous body in which he is currently developing, which pain and suffering is caused by the sins and mistakes made by that body.

And Just as you are held accountable for the sins that you make while in the flesh, so too is "The Son of Man," The Omega, who the Alpha becomes," is held accountable for the sins of the Androgynous body in which he develops.

That is, after he has chosen his successor, to be the cornerstone to the new spiritual androgynous body, who is to inherit his throne of Godhead, to the entire creation, visible and invisible.

[jedicri]

The Daniel 9:24-27 prophecy really narrows down the time frame the Messiah was to come to 31 A.D. And the Messiah had to come before the stoppage of sacrifice and destruction of Jerusalem which occurred in 70 A.D., as that clearly is stated as occurring right after the coming of the Messiah.

He was also to be peaceful and trusted by the Gentiles. (Isaiah 42:1-7)

Ah yes, the good old '70 weeks' passage. Since the time frame which Daniel was written about was much longer the 70 weeks', the Christian has to take an end date, and then work backwards to try to find something they can interpret as being the starting point. As a 'prophecy' to predict Jesus, it's a total and utter failure.

Isaiah 42:1-7 is part of the '4th servant song'. If you read it in context.. .. you will see the writer of deutro Isaiah specifically identifies who the servant is.. and guess what, it's not the messiah.

Isaiah 43:9
He said to me, "You are my servant, Israel, in whom I will display my splendor."

Reading in context is important, I think.

Re: Dan 9: 4-27,
A few keys are necessary to decipher this passage. The Hebrew word for "week" is the same word as for"seven", and a day represents one year; hence "seven weeks" is 49 years, "sixty-two weeks" is 434 years, and "sevety weeks" is 490 years. The "going forth of the word to restore and build Jersalem" refers to the order of King Artaxerxes to rebuild Jerusalem recorded in Ezra 7:11-26, which was given in 458 B.C. It took exactly "seven weeks", or 49 years, to complete the building of the walls of Jerusalem, indicated by the fact that 49 years after Artaxerxes' decree, or in 409 B.C., Nehemiah ended his appointment as governor of Judah. Adding another sixty-two weeks, or 434 years, brings us to A.D. 26, whihc is the year which many, including the ancient Church historian Bishop Eusibius, give as the date of Jesus' baptism in the Jordan by John and the beginning of His public ministry. Then, in the "half of the week" --- that is, three and a half years later --- the "the victim and the sacrifice shall fail". And it was about three years and four months after Jesus' baptism that He was crucified, at which time the Temple veil was rent in two as a sign that the Temple sacrifices would henceforth fail. (The fact that the Temple sacrifces failed at the time of the crucifixtion is further confirmed in a passage in the Talmud in Rosh Hashanah 31b.) Then within a generation, the Romans came and destroyed the Temple and the entire city of Jerusalem and sent the Jews into exile, fulfilling the verse " a people with their leader that shall come, shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be waste, and after the end of the war the appointed desolation".

[jedicri]

You cannot deny that Constantine was responsible for uniting all the heads of the different and quarreling bodies of belief in the establishment of the universal church and that it was under his dominating presence and inducements that they put their signatures to the agreement of the Alexandrian doctrine that he wanted, even though some were to later regret having done so.

Constantine was not responsible in establishing "the universal church" as you call it.

He merely convened the Council of Nicea in order to bring peace to Christianity which was being disturbed by Arian's heretical teaching that denied Christ's divinity
by teaching that the Son of God was not eternal with the Father and was therefore a creature, though greater than men and angels.

The Catholic Church was already well established what with its popes that have succeeded Peter up to Sylvester I.