Why do we seem to know nothing of Joseph the second of the biological sons of Mary?
Knowing from scripture that Mary had remarried and had bore James the younger of her three biological sons, to Alpheaus/Cleophas, who had sired two sons to a previous marriage and they were Simeon and Jude, the two stepbrothers of Jesus, we must now ask the question, did Joseph, Mary’s first husband and Father to young Joseph the second son of Mary of whom we know so little die, or was he still alive at the time of the death of Jesus, Mary’s first born son?
If this was the case, and the Joseph of Arimathea, who is believed to be the half-brother of Jesus, who laid his body in his own family tomb which had never been used, which would suggest that his father was still alive, then we would be faced with the fact that Joseph must have divorced Mary at some period, and had raised his son Joseph himself: this being the reason why so little is known of Joseph the son of Mary.
But if Mary had remarried while her past husband was still alive, which was absolutely legal according to the law of Moses, she would have been seen to be living in a state of adultery according to the new and controversial teaching of Jesus, which stated that anyone who remarries while their current spouse is still alive, they are committing adultery, and the Jewish authorities would have been right onto him.
This of course is exactly what we see in scripture. The religious authorities of those days were always looking for ways that they might trap Jesus according to his own teaching and then accuse him to the people, and it was after Jesus had been preaching that if a divorced person remarried while their original spouse was still alive, they were committing adultery. It was then that the hypocritical priests thought that they had the means whereby they could make Jesus appear to the people to have one law for himself and another for everyone else.
Pointing to his mother, who was among the crowd who were listening to the great teacher who was setting Israel on fire, they said to Jesus in their most patronising voice, Teacher, this woman has been caught in the very act of adultery. (This was according to the new teaching of Jesus) In our law Moses commanded that such a woman must be stoned to death. Now, what do you say? They said this in order to trap Jesus and accuse him to the people.
Jesus knew what those hypocrites were up to, those hypocrites who thought nothing of stoning the innocent Stephen to death, were bound by the law of Moses to stone this woman to death if she had indeed been caught in the very act of sexual intercourse with a man other than He to who she was legally married at that time, which was deffinately not the case.
Jesus then turned the tables on them by saying, “He who is without sin may cast the first stone.�
Then he bent down and wrote something in the dust, Perhaps he may have written, “As ye judge, so shall ye be judged.� Most men in those days who had been given by Moses the right to issue their wives with a bill of divorce, had done so and taken younger wives, and according to the new teaching of Jesus would have been as guilty as the woman that they were accusing, and the hypocrites knowing full well that the woman had not broken the Law of Moses and was innocent of any crime according to their own teachings, they were forced to walk away with their tails between their legs, thereby admitting to the people that they were not without sin.
Jesus then turned to his mother and asked, “Is there no one left to condemn you?� No one Lord she answered. “Well then,� said Jesus, “I do not condemn you either. Go, but don’t sin again,� and it was for this reason that the mother of Jesus chose to remain separate from her husband Cleophas and his children, and the reason why, on the cross, Jesus entrusted his mother, “Mary the wife of Cleophas,� into the care of his beloved disciple John.
Joseph, Mary's first husband.
Moderator: Moderators
Post #11
No, wrong Lampe. He's not my "mate", and he's certainly not an American Roman Catholic.
Geoffrey William Hugo Lampe MC (13 August 1912 – 5 August 1980) was a British theologian and Anglican Priest who dedicated his life to theological teaching and research and was Ely Professor of Divinity at the University of Cambridge from 1960 to 1970 and Regius Professor from 1970 until his retirement in 1979.
There's a lot more to be said about him, but he was one of the foremost Biblical scholars of his day.
Now go back, read the right Lampe, and you will see that he has a very precise and accurate grasp of the text.
Geoffrey William Hugo Lampe MC (13 August 1912 – 5 August 1980) was a British theologian and Anglican Priest who dedicated his life to theological teaching and research and was Ely Professor of Divinity at the University of Cambridge from 1960 to 1970 and Regius Professor from 1970 until his retirement in 1979.
There's a lot more to be said about him, but he was one of the foremost Biblical scholars of his day.
Now go back, read the right Lampe, and you will see that he has a very precise and accurate grasp of the text.
Post #12
My mistake, but as you did not stipulate which theologian by the name Lampe that you were referring to, my mistake is excusable. I have done no reseach into his works, but I will, then I will get back to you and point out his errors, for errors there will be.
No one who refuses to acknowledge that Jesus came as a human being, can interpret God's word correctly, he will undoubledly hold to the creed of the universal church “We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of all that is seen and unseen, and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the word of God, god from God, light from light, life from life, only begotten son, firstborn of all creation, before all ages begotten from the Father, who for our salvation was incarnate and lived among man.�
He will interpret God's word in his attempt to porve that Jesus came as 100% god, and 100% man, instead of the fact that he was 100% man, born of the flesh as are all human beings, who was chosen by the evolved Godhead within the creation, as his successor, and was crowned with glory and is now incontestably divine and sits in the throne of Godhead beside our Father and our God, as the first of the required number of brothers who will sit beside him in the Judgment seat of God.
What a pity that you believe, that not one person, who is of the seed of Adam has ever inherited eternal life, and that the only body that was ever risen from the grave was a human like body that was not of the seed of Adam as is every human being who has ever or will ever walk this earth, in which human like body, dwelt an immortal and eternal God, who was the co-creator of the cosmos, and who had lived from all eternity and who could not and did not give his life for mankind, as HE never died, it was only the human like body, which he needed for only a nano second relative to his eternal existence, in order for that alien life form to walk this earth disguised as a human being, which non human body, he has now disposed of, for he is in heaven, and we know that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God.
But you will continue to believe that which you, who chose to believe the interpretations of man, over the truth as revealed in God's word, want to believe.
That's what free will is all about, my dear friend. But next time you purchase a christmas card, try to avoid those that depict the wise men in the manger, and dont buy any bags of magical white powder. If they don't understand the obvious truths that are revealed, why do you trust them to understand the hidden mysteries in God's word?
At the age of 365, Enoch was taken to God, Genesia 5: 23.
Hebrew 11:5; Enoch was translated so as to never experience death.
Jesus said to Nicodemus John 3: 13; "And no man has ascended to heaven except, (Except who?) except he who came down, even the 'Son of Man,' who IS IN heaven.
Who is the only exception of all mankind to have ascended to highest heaven, who was in heaven when the man Jesus, who was filled with the Spirit, (The wisdom, knowledge and insight) of our Lord God and saviour, was speaking to Nicodemus, and what part does that man play in you belief.
1st Timothy 1:1; From Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus "BY ORDER OF GOD OUR SAVIOUR" and Christ Jesus "OUR HOPE."
No one who refuses to acknowledge that Jesus came as a human being, can interpret God's word correctly, he will undoubledly hold to the creed of the universal church “We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of all that is seen and unseen, and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the word of God, god from God, light from light, life from life, only begotten son, firstborn of all creation, before all ages begotten from the Father, who for our salvation was incarnate and lived among man.�
He will interpret God's word in his attempt to porve that Jesus came as 100% god, and 100% man, instead of the fact that he was 100% man, born of the flesh as are all human beings, who was chosen by the evolved Godhead within the creation, as his successor, and was crowned with glory and is now incontestably divine and sits in the throne of Godhead beside our Father and our God, as the first of the required number of brothers who will sit beside him in the Judgment seat of God.
What a pity that you believe, that not one person, who is of the seed of Adam has ever inherited eternal life, and that the only body that was ever risen from the grave was a human like body that was not of the seed of Adam as is every human being who has ever or will ever walk this earth, in which human like body, dwelt an immortal and eternal God, who was the co-creator of the cosmos, and who had lived from all eternity and who could not and did not give his life for mankind, as HE never died, it was only the human like body, which he needed for only a nano second relative to his eternal existence, in order for that alien life form to walk this earth disguised as a human being, which non human body, he has now disposed of, for he is in heaven, and we know that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God.
But you will continue to believe that which you, who chose to believe the interpretations of man, over the truth as revealed in God's word, want to believe.
That's what free will is all about, my dear friend. But next time you purchase a christmas card, try to avoid those that depict the wise men in the manger, and dont buy any bags of magical white powder. If they don't understand the obvious truths that are revealed, why do you trust them to understand the hidden mysteries in God's word?
At the age of 365, Enoch was taken to God, Genesia 5: 23.
Hebrew 11:5; Enoch was translated so as to never experience death.
Jesus said to Nicodemus John 3: 13; "And no man has ascended to heaven except, (Except who?) except he who came down, even the 'Son of Man,' who IS IN heaven.
Who is the only exception of all mankind to have ascended to highest heaven, who was in heaven when the man Jesus, who was filled with the Spirit, (The wisdom, knowledge and insight) of our Lord God and saviour, was speaking to Nicodemus, and what part does that man play in you belief.
1st Timothy 1:1; From Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus "BY ORDER OF GOD OUR SAVIOUR" and Christ Jesus "OUR HOPE."
Post #13
I was referring to my post number 14 in this thread in reply to one of yours. Apparently you have not read my response, which gives Lampe's details (which I have repeated above).S-word wrote:My mistake, but as you did not stipulate which theologian by the name Lampe that you were referring to, my mistake is excusable. I have done no reseach into his works, but I will, then I will get back to you and point out his errors, for errors there will be.
However, if you are convinced ahead of reading anything by him that he will be in error, then something is wrong. Professor G W H Lampe was one of the most respected academic theologians and Bible commentators of his generation, and a very learned man. You do not need to take my word for that: there are plenty of articles by and about him to be seen on the Internet.
Reading the rest of your post, I draw the conclusion that you are promoting a view of God, Jesus, and the scriptures that does not stand up to scholarly review, but is rather a collection of eisegeses. On that basis, I do not need to be told what Lampe's "errors" are: save yourself the time.
You also impute "beliefs" to me which I have not expressed. Please don't do that.
I rarely buy Christmas cards, but will do so based on my choice, rather than depictions. I can also assure you that I will not be taking any Class A drugs (the usual meaning of "magical white powder" in this country). I advise you likewise to avoid it.But next time you purchase a christmas card, try to avoid those that depict the wise men in the manger, and dont buy any bags of magical white powder. If they don't understand the obvious truths that are revealed, why do you trust them to understand the hidden mysteries in God's word?
Post #14
Post 5: Sun Jan 01, 2012 6:27 pmKeef wrote:I make no claim about the parentage of the various Jameses in the New Testament.
I just read the text.
James was a common name in NT times - look for example at Acts 1:13
"When they had entered the city, they went to the room upstairs where they were staying, Peter, and John, and James, and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James son of Alphaeus, and Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of James." There are two, possibly three Jameses if Judas isn't the son of one of the other two mentioned.
James and Levi, the sons of Alphaeus, appear in various places in the New Testament. Nothing indicates that they are "brothers" of Jesus.
I still have seen no Biblical evidence that Mary married anyone other than Joseph.
[S-word]……Keef’s first post in this thread. No mention of professor Lamps, but Keef does write:
[Keef wrote]…….The most obvious inference is that they are sons of Mary and Joseph, born after Christ. That was the accepted opinion until the late 4th century when St Jerome postulated the perpetual virginity of Mary. From that date, they were said to be the sons of Mary, the "mother of James and Joses" (Mark 15.40) - identified by Jerome as the wife of Clopas and sister of the Virgin Mary (John 19. 25).
[S-word]……MARY the mother of Jesus, and her sister MARY the wife of Cleophas the mother of Joseph and James the brother of the Lord, who was sired by Alpheaus, and her sister, MARY Magdalene.
Ah well, if one is gullible enough to believe in the virgin birth of Jesus, which cannot be supported by anything in God’s word. I suppose they are also gullible enough to believe Helena’s yarn about the Milk Grotto, and Jerome’s impossible suggestion that there were three daughters in the one family named Mary, (Mary one, Mary two, and Mary three.)
The great theologians of their day, who came up with the theology of the supposed virgin birth, were the same men who believed, that the universe was created in 6 literal 24 hour days, and that it was only a few thousand years old, and that the entire universe revolved around the earth.
Afraid of the terrible persecution by the universal church against any and all who would indulge in the Pagan practice of the scientific study into the workings of the universe, which results of that unholy act of heresy challenged the authority of the church and brought into disrepute their sacred teachings, such as, the fact that their flat earth was the centre around which revolved the entire universe that was created only some ten thousand years ago and was created in six literal 24 hour days etc. It was only when he was on his death- bed that Nicolas Copernicus dared to publish his sun-centred model of the universe, which was rejected by the formulators of the so-called Christian belief, and Galileo Galilei, who was constantly in conflict with the church, skilfully arguing with the church authorities for Copernicus views, finally died under house arrest as a prisoner of the Inquisition.
Post 7: Mon Jan 02, 2012 11:46 am
[S-word]……Keef’s second post in this thread, still no mention of professor Lampes: but Keef does write:
[Keef wrote]…….I make no claim about the parentage of the various Jameses in the New Testament.
I just read the text.
[S-word’s Response]……So you read the text, but hold no belief as to whom is the parents of the two men named James in the bible. Well then, let me reveal to you, who the fathers of the two apostles by the name James are, one is the son of Zebedee, and the other is the son of Alpheaus, who Paul claims to be the brother of Jesus. That wasn’t too hard, was it?
[Keef wrote]…….James and Levi, the sons of Alphaeus, appear in various places in the New Testament. Nothing indicates that they are "brothers" of Jesus.
[S-word]……Young’s Analytical Concordance to the Bible: “Scripture Proper Names.�
JUDE, JUDAS.
Brother of Christ…………………..Matt 13: 55.
Does not believe in Christ…….John 7: 5.
Becomes Christ’s disciple……..Acts 1: 14.
Writes an Epistle……………………Jude 1.
It was not until the end of his ministry that his disciples, which included his two brothers James and Jude, who believed that he was the promised saviour and successor to the throne of David, finally understood that he had been chosen from among the people and sent by God, not to overthrow the ruling Roman government, but to establish a future kingdom, See John 16: 29-30.
Both "Judas" and "Jude" are English translations of the Greek name Ιουδας, which was a very common name in the 1st century. Over the years the identity of Jude has been questioned, and confusion remains among biblical scholars and yourself, so it appears.
But to me, it is quite clear that Jude, is the brother of James the younger, who is the son of Alpheaus, and the brother of Jesus, and that Jude, the brother of James is one and the same with Jude the Apostle. There were only two apostles by the name James. When Paul said that he saw none of the other apostles save James the brother of the Lord, James the son of Zebedee had already been killed, so it should be obvious to all, that James the younger, who is the son of Alpheaus, has to be the apostle that Paul states is the brother of the Lord.
The Apostle Jude is listed among the Twelve,. He is called "Jude of James", as given in Luke 6:16, which is interpreted as "Jude, brother of James" (See King James Version). In other lists of the twelve, Jude the brother of James the son of Alpheaus, is called Thaddaeus and Lebbeus, which would appear to be his nicknames, perhaps to avoid confusion between Jude and Judas Iscariot.
Peter, James, Paul , and Jude, in their epistles, all claim to be the servant of the Lord Jesus, and Jude in his epistle makes it painfully obvious that he, a servant of the Lord, is the brother of James, so we can rest assured, that the interpretation of Luke 6: 16; in the KJV is correct, where “Jude of James� is interpreted, “Jude the brother of James.�
Alphaeus Scripture - Acts 1:13 And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode both Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew, Philip, and Thomas, Bartholomew, and Matthew, James [the son] of Alphaeus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas [the brother] of James.
http://www.bible-history.com/kjv/Acts/1/
[Keef wrote]…….James and Levi, the sons of Alphaeus, appear in various places in the New Testament.
[S-word]……James the son of Alpheaus, which name means “of a renown father in Aramaic� who, according to Paul, is the Apostle of that name, who is the brother of Jesus. Is indeed found in various places throughout the bible. We find him in Matthew 13: 55; where, James the son of Alpheaus, with his brother Jude, are identified as the sons of the carpenter, who is said in that passage of scripture, to be the Father of Jesus also, (Isn’t he the son of the carpenter?)
In Mark 6: 3; we again see James the son of Alpheaus with his brother Jude, as being sons of Mary the mother of Jesus, who in the gospel of Mark, is said to be a carpenter himself, (Isn’t He the Carpenter) perhaps Jesus and his brother Jude, followed in the carpentry trade of their Father or stepfather, as in art, Thomas Jude who is called the twin, is depicted with a carpenter’s rule and square.
Could both Jude and his brother, half brother, or step brother, Jesus, have been carpenters? Although, the fact that he (Jude) held such a striking resemblance to Jesus, would seem to indicate that they shared some common genetic traits, so I would rule out “Stepbrother.�
In "The Acts of Thomas, sometime called by its full name, "The Acts of Judas Thomas," 2nd-3rd century CE, "The Apostles cast lots as to where they should go, and to Thomas, Judas, (Apostle) brother to Jesus fell India. Thomas was taken to King Goddophares the ruler of Indo-Pathian Kingdom as an architect and carpenter by Habban.�
The Acts of Thomas Jude the brother of the Lord, who was called the twin, goes back some 1,700 years before your professor Lampe.
But Levi the apostle, is found in Mark 2: 14; and Matthew 9: 9-13; where it reveals that he is a tax collector, who is asked to follow Jesus and who invites Jesus back to his place for a meal with a large number of tax collectors and other out casts. Nowhere is he identified with the family of Mary, or with James the brother of the Lord and his brother Jude, which would indicate that, Luke 5: 27-29, “Levi of Alpheaus,� has been erroneously interpreted, and should be interpreted “Levi the [brother] of Alpheaus� as was Luke 6: 16.
[Keef wrote]…….I still have seen no Biblical evidence that Mary married anyone other than Joseph.
[S-word]……There are none so blind as they who refuse to see. There are only two women by the name Mary, at the cross, the burial, and the empty tomb of Jesus. And they are, his mother and his mother’s (Adelphe), Mary the wife of Cleophas, (In Greek, “Of a renown father) and Mary Magdalene.
Cleophas is the father of Simon (the fourth member of the family of Mary) who succeeded James the righteouswho is the brother of the Lord, to the episcopal throne of the church of the circumcision in Jerusalem.
(In “JESUS THE EVIDENCE,� by Ian Wilson) we learn from Josephus, Eusebius and Hegesippus, that after leading a life of great piety, worshipping daily in the Temple, and winning great respect from the ordinary people, in 62 AD, he (James the Righteous) was murdered at the instigation of the same Sadducee sect responsible for the death of Stephen, and of his brother Jesus. James, the brother of the Lord, who was the first to be elected to the Episcopal Throne of the Church of the circumcision in Jerusalem, was subsequently succeeded by Simon the son of Cleophas, etc.
[Keef wrote]…….Post 9: Mon Jan 02, 2012 6:15 pm
Professor Lampe (whom I have mentioned before)
[S-word]……I don’t know where you have mentioned your professor Lampe before, but it was definitely not in “This Thread� old mate. This, your third post in this thread, is the first time that you make any mention of your professor Lampe.
Post 13: Tue Jan 03, 2012 6:10 pm
[Keef wrote]…….I was referring to my post number 14 in this thread in reply to one of yours. Apparently you have not read my response, which gives Lampe's details (which I have repeated above).
In you post #13, you say that in your post number 14 in "THIS THREAD" in reply to one of mine.
What the hell are you on about?
You then go on to say, that Apparently I have not read your response, which gives Lampe's details.
How could I read your response to something that you had not posted in this thread? Wake up to yourself son.
Post #15
No, not professor Lamps, but Professor Lampe. I don't quote him in every post, only when relevant.S-word wrote: Post 5: Sun Jan 01, 2012 6:27 pm
[S-word]……Keef’s first post in this thread. No mention of professor Lamps,
S-word, I'm sorry but I joined this forum to debate, not to be preached at and insulted. If that's how you choose to propagate the Gospel, then good luck to you, but you will understand that I will not join in. I suspect many others, reading it, will also be driven away.
I likewise did not join to have my words twisted and misquoted back at me.
So, for the last time of answering:
I know nothing about any Milk Grotto, and have never mentioned it.S-word wrote: Ah well, if one is gullible enough to believe in the virgin birth of Jesus, which cannot be supported by anything in God’s word. I suppose they are also gullible enough to believe Helena’s yarn about the Milk Grotto, and Jerome’s impossible suggestion that there were three daughters in the one family named Mary, (Mary one, Mary two, and Mary three.)
I don't know anything about Jerome's suggestion that there were three Marys in one family, nor do I claim that there were.
For the virgin birth of Jesus, believe what you like. Matthew 1: 23 says
If you conclude that Matthew got it wrong, and that Mary was not πα�θε�νος do feel free.ἰδοὺ ἡ πα�θε�νος ἐν γαστ�ὶ ἕξει καὶ τε�ξεται υἱο�ν, καὶ καλε�σουσι τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ ᾿Εμμανουη�λ, ὅ ἐστι μεθε�μηνευο�μενον, μεθ᾿ ἡμῶν ὁ Θεο�ς.
You mean ... you don't believe what Genesis 1 tells you? Oh, the irony!The great theologians of their day, who came up with the theology of the supposed virgin birth, were the same men who believed, that the universe was created in 6 literal 24 hour days, and that it was only a few thousand years old, and that the entire universe revolved around the earth.
My knowledge of Hebrew comes from learned academics (who you will no doubt assure me are riddled with error) who interpret "Yom" differently.
Yes, I'm sure Professor Lampe (the British Cambridge University one) is one such.
(Sermon about scientific research snipped).
No, he's still Professor Lampe, and I only quote him when relevant.S-word wrote:……Keef’s second post in this thread, still no mention of professor Lampes
(Long hypothetical interpretation and exposition by S-word snipped - Keef prefers mainstream academic exegesis).
I agree with "none so blind". I gave you the passage from John's Gospel -S-word wrote:……There are none so blind as they who refuse to see. There are only two women by the name Mary, at the cross, the burial, and the empty tomb of Jesus. And they are, his mother and his mother’s (Adelphe), Mary the wife of Cleophas, (In Greek, “Of a renown father) and Mary Magdalene.
John's Gospel names THREE women called Mary who were at the foot of the cross: John 19:25 - Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother (Mary 1), and his mother's sister, Mary (2) the wife of Cleophas, and Mary (3) Magdalene.
That's three Marys, unless you use a different mathematics to me.
Mary, his mother
Mary, the wife of Cleophas
Mary of Magdala.
S-word, first, I am not your "old mate".S-word wrote:……I don’t know where you have mentioned your professor Lampe before, but it was definitely not in “This Thread� old mate. This, your third post in this thread, is the first time that you make any mention of your professor Lampe.
If you look more carefully at my post above, you will see that the words "this thread" are in a different colour. That is because they contain a hyperlink to http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=16172 and suggest you look at post 14 in there. That is where I mentioned Professor Lampe the first time, in response to a different posting of yours.
Maybe you missed that hyperlink. It's one of the clever things the phpBB software used in this forum can do.
I provided that link in a forlorn attempt to explain to you that, despite your desire to refer to a different Lampe, I had previously mentioned the British academic Professor Lampe to you.
Perhaps you should go back and look at that post, click on the (probably pale blue) words this thread and then come back here and apologise. Hell doesn't come into it.What the hell are you on about?
Well (dad?), since you didn't follow the link, you couldn't read it. But it was still there, despite that.S-word wrote:How could I read your response to something that you had not posted in this thread? Wake up to yourself son.
Farewell. I look forward to your apology but will not be "debating" with you further.
Post #16
[Keef wrote]…….Perhaps you should go back and look at that post, click on the (probably pale blue) words this thread and then come back here and apologise. Hell doesn't come into it.
[S-word's Response]......As I often emphasize a point that I wish to make, by high lighting the point in question, in blue, I had assumed that you had done the same. I hope that you don’t lose to much sleep while waiting for an apology that is not forth coming.
Below is the article which you presented in defence of your erroneous belief, which article was written by someone named Lampe.
You make no mention that he is a Christian theologian, but I assumed as much, even though I have never read his work and have neither the time or the inclination to do so, as I have never as yet, met any so-called Christian theologian, who acknowledges that Jesus was born of the flesh as are all human beings, who are descended from Adam the origin of all human beings.
As Jesus was the promised seed of Abraham a descendant of Adam, and the fact that there is no biblical evidence whatsoever to support the false teaching of the virgin birth of Jesus, in fact, quite the opposite, for the Bible reveals that Jesus was a man who was crowned with God’s glory and is now incontestably divine, and not as taught by the bride of the anti-christ and her daughter denominational bodies, "a divine God, who became a man."
A man who was filled with the spirit of our Lord God and saviour, who, through the fleshly body of his obedient host body, our Lord God and saviour, was able to reveal to us, his divine nature, his eternal power and the awesome sacrifice that he makes for the body in which he, “THE SON OF MAN,� the most High in the creation, had developed.
To bother reading your recommended authorities of God’s word, would simply be a waste of my valuable time.
You make no mention of the fact that this Lampe was a professor, nor do you mention his first name, and as there are many men by the name Lampe, and other Christian theologians by the name Lamp, and as I am somewhat familiar with Peter Lampe, even though I have read very little of his work, I knew that he was a German theologian and Professor of New Testament Studies at at the University of Heidelberg in Germany. So, until you can learn to clarify, who you are talking about, you can expect others to be confused as to whom you are referring.
[Lampe' article].....Luke 3: 22 The reading of most MSS, reproducing Mk, combines the beginning of the Messianic (royal and Davidic) salutation in Ps 2: 7 with language which echoes Isa 42: 1, 44:2, alluding to the 'Servant of the Lord', who is called 'beloved' in Isa 42: 1 as cited in Mt 12: 18 (cf Isa 44:2). The 'Western' text continues the quotation of Ps 2:7 'today have I begotten thee'. The latter proof-text (cf Heb 1:5) is applied in Ac 13: 33 to the Resurrection; it is perhaps unlikely that Lk would have used it here of Christ's baptism. It is improbable that the "Western" reading was corrected in the interests of orthodoxy; Ps 2:7 is a constantly used proof-text in the later Church and there is no evidence that it was thought to express an adoptionist Christology. More probably the 'Western' reading is due to assimilation of the familiar words of the Psalm. The text has not been assimilated to Mt, whose wording differs in minor respects.
[Keef wrote]…….I think Lampe makes it quite clear that both readings are known, and offers a mainstream answer. I'll live with that.`
[S-word's Response]......Well try living with this also, Hebrew 5: 7-10; “In his life on earth Jesus made his prayers and requests with loud cries and tears to God who could save him from death. Because he was humble and devoted, God heard him. (God heard the young man Jesus who was afraid of death, because of his Godly fear, or as other translations put it, because of his humility and devotion.’) But even though he was "A" son of God, (Not "God’s Son," or "THE son of God," but "A" son of God, check it out in the Appendix of Strong’s Concordance, or The King James, Amplified, or The Revised Standard translations. all Israelites are sons of God according to God’s word, see Psalms 82: 6; ‘You are gods,’ I said; ‘all of you are sons of the Most High.’) he learned through suffering to be obedient, when he was made perfect (through his obedience, and could then be used as the host body through which our Lord and saviour “Who I Am,� could then revealed himself through the life, the miracles and the words that would be seen through his obedient servant and earthy image, who did, nor spoke one word on his own authority other than that which he was commanded by the Lord our saviour.)
Jesus was the one who God had prepared for his heavenly anointed one Enoch, the only man recorded in God's Holy word to have been carried to God and translated so as to never experience death, and jesus his obedient host body, became the source through whom salvation could be gained from our Lord God and saviour, who rose Jesus from death and will raise we, who are united to him also.
It was then, after he had become perfect through his obedience to his indwelling ancestral spirit, that God declared him, high priest in the order of Melchizedek, but Jesus did not take upon himself the honour of being high priest, instead, after he had been made perfect, God made him high priest in the order of Melchizedek, with these words “You are my Son,TODAY, I have become your Father.� See Hebrew 5: 5-10.
Jesus was not a priest of the order of Aaron. Jesus was a descendant of Nathan, the son of Uriah the Hittite, who became a member of the tribe of Levi, with his adoption into the Israelie race by his marriage to Bathsheba, a daughter of Ammiel, the son of Obed-Edom, who is a descendant of Moses, through his second wife, who was the daughter of Hobab the Kenite, one of the two father-in-laws of Moses. Moses was to be to Aaron, as god on earth.
Bathsheba bore to the house of David, 4 sons, three of which had been sired by Uriah, and they are, in order of their ages, Shimea, Shobab, Nathan, and Solomon, the only son of Bathsheba to have been sired by David to have survived.
Their first son, who had been born out of their adulterous union, died. 2nd Samuel 12: 24; “Then David comforted his wife Bathsheba, He had intercourse with her, and she bore a son, whom David Named Solomon.� The youngest of Bathsheba’s four sons, and the only one sired by David.
The Talmud states, "Whoever brings up an orphan in his home is regarded...as though the child had been born to him." (Sanhedrin 119b).� In other words, the adopted child is to be treated as a child born to the father of that house.
Because Nathan, a descendant of Moses, was an adopted son of King David, he was considered to be of the tribe of Judah, and through Nathan the ancestor of Jesus through his biological parents, Mary and Joseph the children of Heli, Jesus was a legitimate heir to the priesthood of Levi and the throne of David, in the order of Melchizedek, who is both King and high priest.
Zechariah 12: 12-14; Each family in the land will mourn by itself: the family descended from David, (which includes all of his biological sons and their wives) by themselves. The family descended from Nathan and their wives, by themselves etc.
This shows clearly that Nathan, a descendant of Moses the Levite, and through his adoption by David, a member of the tribe of Judah, is not a biological son of David.
[Keef wrote]…….No, not professor Lamps, but Professor Lampe. I don't quote him in every post, only when relevant.
[S-word's Response]......Let all who read these posts applaud Keef, who has found a “TYPO� how smart is that?
[Keef wrote]…….S-word, I'm sorry but I joined this forum to debate, not to be preached at and insulted. If that's how you choose to propagate the Gospel, then good luck to you, but you will understand that I will not join in. I suspect many others, reading it, will also be driven away.
[S-word's Response]......I was going along quite comfortably until you jumped in with your post#5 and began preaching at me.
[Keef wrote]…….I don't know anything about Jerome's suggestion that there were three Marys in one family, nor do I claim that there were.
[Keef wrote in post #5]…….The most obvious inference is that they are sons of Mary and Joseph, born after Christ. That was the accepted opinion until the late 4th century when St Jerome postulated the perpetual virginity of Mary. From that date, they were said to be the sons of Mary, the "mother of James and Joses" (Mark 15.40) - identified by Jerome as the wife of Clopas and sister of the Virgin Mary (John 19. 25).
I agree with "none so blind". I gave you the passage from John's Gospel -
John's Gospel names THREE women called Mary who were at the foot of the cross: John 19:25 - Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother (Mary 1), and his mother's sister, Mary (2) the wife of Cleophas, and Mary (3) Magdalene.
That's three Marys, unless you use a different mathematics to me.
Mary, his mother
Mary, the wife of Cleophas…… (Who Jerome says is the sister of Mary the mother of Jesus)
Mary of Magdala. (The “adelphe’ of Mary the mother of Jesus, which is interpreted in john 19: 25; as the sister to Mary the mother of Jesus)
[S-word's Response]......Three sisters of the one family all named Mary, now what it that you said? Oh yes, here it is: [Keef wrote]…….I don't know anything about Jerome's suggestion that there were three Marys in one family, nor do I claim that there were.
[S-word's Response]......You have no need for someone else to twist your words when you do such a marvellous job of it yourself.
Standing at the gate was my nephew and his dog, Ethan and Spot.
Standing at the gate was my nephew and his dog, (What were their names?) Ethan and Spot.
John 19: 25; “Standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother and his mother’s ‘Adelphe’, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene.
John19: 25; “Standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother and his mother’s ‘Adelphe’, (What were their names?) Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene. Only two women by the name Mary, my dear friend.
To be continued:
[S-word's Response]......As I often emphasize a point that I wish to make, by high lighting the point in question, in blue, I had assumed that you had done the same. I hope that you don’t lose to much sleep while waiting for an apology that is not forth coming.
Below is the article which you presented in defence of your erroneous belief, which article was written by someone named Lampe.
You make no mention that he is a Christian theologian, but I assumed as much, even though I have never read his work and have neither the time or the inclination to do so, as I have never as yet, met any so-called Christian theologian, who acknowledges that Jesus was born of the flesh as are all human beings, who are descended from Adam the origin of all human beings.
As Jesus was the promised seed of Abraham a descendant of Adam, and the fact that there is no biblical evidence whatsoever to support the false teaching of the virgin birth of Jesus, in fact, quite the opposite, for the Bible reveals that Jesus was a man who was crowned with God’s glory and is now incontestably divine, and not as taught by the bride of the anti-christ and her daughter denominational bodies, "a divine God, who became a man."
A man who was filled with the spirit of our Lord God and saviour, who, through the fleshly body of his obedient host body, our Lord God and saviour, was able to reveal to us, his divine nature, his eternal power and the awesome sacrifice that he makes for the body in which he, “THE SON OF MAN,� the most High in the creation, had developed.
To bother reading your recommended authorities of God’s word, would simply be a waste of my valuable time.
You make no mention of the fact that this Lampe was a professor, nor do you mention his first name, and as there are many men by the name Lampe, and other Christian theologians by the name Lamp, and as I am somewhat familiar with Peter Lampe, even though I have read very little of his work, I knew that he was a German theologian and Professor of New Testament Studies at at the University of Heidelberg in Germany. So, until you can learn to clarify, who you are talking about, you can expect others to be confused as to whom you are referring.
[Lampe' article].....Luke 3: 22 The reading of most MSS, reproducing Mk, combines the beginning of the Messianic (royal and Davidic) salutation in Ps 2: 7 with language which echoes Isa 42: 1, 44:2, alluding to the 'Servant of the Lord', who is called 'beloved' in Isa 42: 1 as cited in Mt 12: 18 (cf Isa 44:2). The 'Western' text continues the quotation of Ps 2:7 'today have I begotten thee'. The latter proof-text (cf Heb 1:5) is applied in Ac 13: 33 to the Resurrection; it is perhaps unlikely that Lk would have used it here of Christ's baptism. It is improbable that the "Western" reading was corrected in the interests of orthodoxy; Ps 2:7 is a constantly used proof-text in the later Church and there is no evidence that it was thought to express an adoptionist Christology. More probably the 'Western' reading is due to assimilation of the familiar words of the Psalm. The text has not been assimilated to Mt, whose wording differs in minor respects.
[Keef wrote]…….I think Lampe makes it quite clear that both readings are known, and offers a mainstream answer. I'll live with that.`
[S-word's Response]......Well try living with this also, Hebrew 5: 7-10; “In his life on earth Jesus made his prayers and requests with loud cries and tears to God who could save him from death. Because he was humble and devoted, God heard him. (God heard the young man Jesus who was afraid of death, because of his Godly fear, or as other translations put it, because of his humility and devotion.’) But even though he was "A" son of God, (Not "God’s Son," or "THE son of God," but "A" son of God, check it out in the Appendix of Strong’s Concordance, or The King James, Amplified, or The Revised Standard translations. all Israelites are sons of God according to God’s word, see Psalms 82: 6; ‘You are gods,’ I said; ‘all of you are sons of the Most High.’) he learned through suffering to be obedient, when he was made perfect (through his obedience, and could then be used as the host body through which our Lord and saviour “Who I Am,� could then revealed himself through the life, the miracles and the words that would be seen through his obedient servant and earthy image, who did, nor spoke one word on his own authority other than that which he was commanded by the Lord our saviour.)
Jesus was the one who God had prepared for his heavenly anointed one Enoch, the only man recorded in God's Holy word to have been carried to God and translated so as to never experience death, and jesus his obedient host body, became the source through whom salvation could be gained from our Lord God and saviour, who rose Jesus from death and will raise we, who are united to him also.
It was then, after he had become perfect through his obedience to his indwelling ancestral spirit, that God declared him, high priest in the order of Melchizedek, but Jesus did not take upon himself the honour of being high priest, instead, after he had been made perfect, God made him high priest in the order of Melchizedek, with these words “You are my Son,TODAY, I have become your Father.� See Hebrew 5: 5-10.
Jesus was not a priest of the order of Aaron. Jesus was a descendant of Nathan, the son of Uriah the Hittite, who became a member of the tribe of Levi, with his adoption into the Israelie race by his marriage to Bathsheba, a daughter of Ammiel, the son of Obed-Edom, who is a descendant of Moses, through his second wife, who was the daughter of Hobab the Kenite, one of the two father-in-laws of Moses. Moses was to be to Aaron, as god on earth.
Bathsheba bore to the house of David, 4 sons, three of which had been sired by Uriah, and they are, in order of their ages, Shimea, Shobab, Nathan, and Solomon, the only son of Bathsheba to have been sired by David to have survived.
Their first son, who had been born out of their adulterous union, died. 2nd Samuel 12: 24; “Then David comforted his wife Bathsheba, He had intercourse with her, and she bore a son, whom David Named Solomon.� The youngest of Bathsheba’s four sons, and the only one sired by David.
The Talmud states, "Whoever brings up an orphan in his home is regarded...as though the child had been born to him." (Sanhedrin 119b).� In other words, the adopted child is to be treated as a child born to the father of that house.
Because Nathan, a descendant of Moses, was an adopted son of King David, he was considered to be of the tribe of Judah, and through Nathan the ancestor of Jesus through his biological parents, Mary and Joseph the children of Heli, Jesus was a legitimate heir to the priesthood of Levi and the throne of David, in the order of Melchizedek, who is both King and high priest.
Zechariah 12: 12-14; Each family in the land will mourn by itself: the family descended from David, (which includes all of his biological sons and their wives) by themselves. The family descended from Nathan and their wives, by themselves etc.
This shows clearly that Nathan, a descendant of Moses the Levite, and through his adoption by David, a member of the tribe of Judah, is not a biological son of David.
[Keef wrote]…….No, not professor Lamps, but Professor Lampe. I don't quote him in every post, only when relevant.
[S-word's Response]......Let all who read these posts applaud Keef, who has found a “TYPO� how smart is that?
[Keef wrote]…….S-word, I'm sorry but I joined this forum to debate, not to be preached at and insulted. If that's how you choose to propagate the Gospel, then good luck to you, but you will understand that I will not join in. I suspect many others, reading it, will also be driven away.
[S-word's Response]......I was going along quite comfortably until you jumped in with your post#5 and began preaching at me.
[Keef wrote]…….I don't know anything about Jerome's suggestion that there were three Marys in one family, nor do I claim that there were.
[Keef wrote in post #5]…….The most obvious inference is that they are sons of Mary and Joseph, born after Christ. That was the accepted opinion until the late 4th century when St Jerome postulated the perpetual virginity of Mary. From that date, they were said to be the sons of Mary, the "mother of James and Joses" (Mark 15.40) - identified by Jerome as the wife of Clopas and sister of the Virgin Mary (John 19. 25).
I agree with "none so blind". I gave you the passage from John's Gospel -
John's Gospel names THREE women called Mary who were at the foot of the cross: John 19:25 - Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother (Mary 1), and his mother's sister, Mary (2) the wife of Cleophas, and Mary (3) Magdalene.
That's three Marys, unless you use a different mathematics to me.
Mary, his mother
Mary, the wife of Cleophas…… (Who Jerome says is the sister of Mary the mother of Jesus)
Mary of Magdala. (The “adelphe’ of Mary the mother of Jesus, which is interpreted in john 19: 25; as the sister to Mary the mother of Jesus)
[S-word's Response]......Three sisters of the one family all named Mary, now what it that you said? Oh yes, here it is: [Keef wrote]…….I don't know anything about Jerome's suggestion that there were three Marys in one family, nor do I claim that there were.
[S-word's Response]......You have no need for someone else to twist your words when you do such a marvellous job of it yourself.
Standing at the gate was my nephew and his dog, Ethan and Spot.
Standing at the gate was my nephew and his dog, (What were their names?) Ethan and Spot.
John 19: 25; “Standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother and his mother’s ‘Adelphe’, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene.
John19: 25; “Standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother and his mother’s ‘Adelphe’, (What were their names?) Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene. Only two women by the name Mary, my dear friend.
To be continued:
Post #17
One of your many wrong assumptions, then.S-word wrote:......As I often emphasize a point that I wish to make, by high lighting the point in question, in blue, I had assumed that you had done the same.
I made no mention that he is a Christian theologian? - apart from giving his title in the post in the other thread - Ely Professor of Divinity at the University of Cambridge from 1960 to 1970 and Regius Professor from 1970 until his retirement in 1979. Admit it= you didn't bother to read it: you were too busy writing the answer.Below is the article which you presented in defence of your erroneous belief, which article was written by someone named Lampe.
You make no mention that he is a Christian theologian, but I assumed as much, even though I have never read his work and have neither the time or the inclination to do so, as I have never as yet, met any so-called Christian theologian, who acknowledges that Jesus was born of the flesh as are all human beings, who are descended from Adam the origin of all human beings.
Isn't it strange that on one side there's a whole world of Christian theologians who debate and analyse and reach opinions which they share (and some where they disagree), with respect for each other. On the other side, there's S-word, with his own personal view of the Bible, not borne out by the text itself, and who has only insults to offer to other believers.
You will understand that I will stay with the Bible as I know it, the text I know, the exegesis I know. Since you do not wish to know what the theologians think, I will leave you in your own little world. Do not bother to send me any more long diatribes and homespun history/theology. Use your time in prayer with your Bible - it may be that God will yet reveal the truth to you.
Post #18
[Keef wrote]…..Farewell. I look forward to your apology but will not be "debating" with you further.Keef wrote:One of your many wrong assumptions, then.S-word wrote:......As I often emphasize a point that I wish to make, by high lighting the point in question, in blue, I had assumed that you had done the same.
I made no mention that he is a Christian theologian? - apart from giving his title in the post in the other thread - Ely Professor of Divinity at the University of Cambridge from 1960 to 1970 and Regius Professor from 1970 until his retirement in 1979. Admit it= you didn't bother to read it: you were too busy writing the answer.Below is the article which you presented in defence of your erroneous belief, which article was written by someone named Lampe.
You make no mention that he is a Christian theologian, but I assumed as much, even though I have never read his work and have neither the time or the inclination to do so, as I have never as yet, met any so-called Christian theologian, who acknowledges that Jesus was born of the flesh as are all human beings, who are descended from Adam the origin of all human beings.
Isn't it strange that on one side there's a whole world of Christian theologians who debate and analyse and reach opinions which they share (and some where they disagree), with respect for each other. On the other side, there's S-word, with his own personal view of the Bible, not borne out by the text itself, and who has only insults to offer to other believers.
You will understand that I will stay with the Bible as I know it, the text I know, the exegesis I know. Since you do not wish to know what the theologians think, I will leave you in your own little world. Do not bother to send me any more long diatribes and homespun history/theology. Use your time in prayer with your Bible - it may be that God will yet reveal the truth to you.
[S-word’s response]….Ahhh, I see that you are not a man who is true to his word. How are you going there matey, I thought that I’d lost you forever.
But as I have not finished responding to your previous post in this thread, I will address your extra concerns in the continuation of my response to that particular thread, tonight, God willing.
Post #19
Post# 13: “Joseph, Mary’s first husband.� [Keef wrote]…….I rarely buy Christmas cards, but will do so based on my choice, rather than depictions. I can also assure you that I will not be taking any Class A drugs (the usual meaning of "magical white powder" in this country). I advise you likewise to avoid it.
And well they might, but you and I know that we are referring to that magic white powder created from Helena’s story of the magical qualities of the mother’s milk of Mary, don’t we? We're not here to play silly games are we?
I saw a card in one particular shop which depicted Mary, laying in bed, leaning against the pillows, with a look of sheer disappointment on her face, with Joseph sitting on the side of the bed, sobbing uncontrollably with his head clasped in his hands, and the caption read, “God is such a hard act to follow.� Merry Xmas.
If you are the person that I believe you to be, I think that you would reject that card because of what was depicted on it, and I would never buy a card with the wise men at the manger of the new born baby wrapped in swaddling cloth, when I know that it would have taken them at least four months from when they left the country of their origin til they arrived in Jerusalem, and that Joseph, Mary and the child, had returned to their home in Nazareth, some two months after the birth of Jesus.
[Keef wrote]…….For the virgin birth of Jesus, believe what you like. Matthew 1: 23. If you conclude that Matthew got it wrong, and that Mary was not πα�θε�νος do feel free.
Oh no, Matthew got it right in translating the Hebrew word “almah,â€� which was used by Isaiah, to the Greek “parthenos= nαÏ�θÎνοςâ€� It was Jerome who got it wrong, when in 405 AD, he completed his translation of the Hebrew and Greek scriptures for the church of the non-christian Constantine, in which he had erroneously translated the Greek word “parthenos,â€� as virgin.
Nowhere, and I mean nowhere in the Hebrew Scriptures is the word “almah’ used in reference to a virgin, or to a married woman.
Go to “A Dictionary of Biblical Tradition in English Literature,� by David Jeffery.
There you will find written, “Many scholars consider the new Revised Standard Version of the King James translation, which is probably the most widely used version of the English bible today, and considered by most modern scholars to be to be the most accurate translation of the Old Testament.
It follows the modern consensus in translating ‘Almah’ as ‘Young Woman’ in Isaiah 7: 14. In 1973, an ecumenical edition of RSV was approved by both Protestant and Catholic hierarchies, called the common bible. As a matter of fact, I have in front of me, A New English Translation of the Bible, published in 1970 and approved by the council of churches in England, Scotland, Wales, the Irish council of churches, the London Society of Friends, and the Methodist and Presbyterian churches of England. And what do we read in Isaiah 7: 14; “A young Woman is with child, and she will bear a son.� I also have before me The Bible Societies Chain Reference Bible, Good News Edition, now let’s turn to Isaiah 7: 14; I wonder what it says? Hmmm, are yes here it is, and what do you know? “A young woman who is pregnant will have a son, etc.�
The Almah="unmarried woman," that Isaiah referred to, was the prophetess, (Not the wife of Isaiah) who was the mother of the biological child of the prophet Isaiah. Nothing that is done in obedience to the Lord is sin my friend, that’s why Paul says that the written law can only bring death, because if we Judge the command of our indwelling Father according to the written law, and refuse to Obey, “Who I Am,� then this is sin, and it is the sin that leads to death.
The word “Virgin� in reference to the mother of Jesus was not introduced until the 5th century, in the Latin Bible ‘The Vulgate.’
In translating the Hebrew words of the prophet Isaiah, that an “Almah� an “unmarried female� is with child and will bear a son,� into Greek, which unlike the Hebrew language, does not have a specific term for ‘virgin,’ the authors of the Septuagint and Matthew correctly used the Greek word ‘Parthenos,’ which carries a basic meaning of ‘girl,’ or unmarried youth, and denotes ‘virgin’ only by implication. A more accurate rendering of the Greek “parthenos,� is a person who does not have a regular sexual partner. A widow with a family of children and no sexual parther, would be a “parthenos'. Hanna who nursed the baby Jesus before Mary performed the ceremony of purification, was a widow of seven years, and as she had no sexual intercourse since the death of her husband, she was a “parthenos� for seven years, but she was in no way, a virgin.
To translate something from the Hebrew to the Greek, or from any language to another, one must not lose the essence of the original, and the original was, that “An unmarried woman would be with child.�
‘Parthenos,’ was often used in reference to non-virgins who had never been married. Homer uses it in reference to unmarried girls who were no longer virgins, and Homer was the standard textbook for learning Greek all throughout antiquity, so any writer of Greek, including Matthew, who translated Isaiah’s words, that (An unmarried woman would be with child etc) while being well aware of this words versatile and indefinite meaning; was in no way implying that Mary was a virgin. For the Hebrew has a specific term for ‘virgin,’ “Bethulah� which word is used in every instance in the Old Testament where a woman who has never had sexual intercourse with a man is referred to, which is obviously not the case with the unmarried woman/Almah, who is mentioned in Isaiah 7:14; because we know that the prophet Isaiah went into her, from which union she conceived the child of Isaiah's prophecy..
In Pergamos, as one of the final stages in the quest for enlightenment, the initiated adept would participate in sex with the Temple Virgin/Parthenos.
"Parthenos" did not mean possessing an intact hymen. A parthenos was simply an unmarried woman, a woman who claimed ownership of herself.
In Matthew you will find the genealogy of Joseph the son of Jacob from the tribe of Judah, this Joseph, is the 24th descendant of Solomon the biological son of King David and Bathsheba, who was the wife of Uriah the Hittite, and this Joseph who married Mary, is not genetically connected to Jesus as he had no sexual relations with Mary until after she had given birth to Jesus, the first of her three biological sons, and although an adopted son inherits the rights of his adopted father, because his step father was a descendant, of the cursed line of Jehoiachim, he had no claim to the throne of David by that adoption. Jeremiah 22: 30; Thus saith the Lord. “Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days; for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah.�
In Luke 3: 23; you will find “the genealogy of Jesus,� Mary was the daughter of Heli and Anna/Hanna, one of three Levite daughters of Yehoshua/Jesus III, who was high priest in Jerusalem from 36 to 23 BC. Anna was given as a bride to Alexander Helios (Heli) and Jesus is the son of “Joseph, the son of Heli,� And this Joseph who is the biological Father of Jesus is about the 40th descendant of Nathan the half brother to Solomon, who is the biological son of King David, as they both had the same mother, “Bathsheba the wife of Uriah the Hittite,� who is the biological father of Nathan and a member of the tribe of Levi by his marriage to Bathsheba the daughter of Ammiel, the son of Obed-Edom the Levite, not of the order of Aaron, but of Moses, who was to be to Aaron, as God on earth.
Presumably, Joseph the son of Heli, a Levite through Moses, who had come from Cyprus, would have met his half sister Mary for the first time, at the gathering of the family and friends of Elizabeth the aged sister of Hanna and the aunty of Mary, who were both of the daughters of Levi. This was some months after the young “parthenos� (Unmarried) Mary had told the angel that up until that point in time she had never had any sexual relations with a man. Implying that the unmarried girl, “Almah=Parthenos� was still a virgin, before she met Joseph the Levite from Cyprus. Undoubtedly they did not realise at that time that they had a common father, Heli, from the tribe of Levi, who was seen as a threat to the throne of Israel, by Herod the Great, who had him murdered in 13 BC, seven years before the birth of Jesus, which left Hanna the grand mother of Jesus, who was a legitimate heir to the throne of David, as a widow and “Parthenos� for some seven years.
This Joseph the Levite who is the descendant of Nathan, came from Cyprus and he had a half sister by the name Mary, (Same father “Heli� different mothers) who was the adopted mother of John, who Jesus had surnamed “Son of Thunder,� and who is identified with the young John who was surnamed “Mark,� which means ‘Hammer,’ or “The Hammerer.� After the death of Jesus, this Joseph the Levite, took his half sister and young John up north into the land of Pamphylia, where today, in the town of Ephesus, the grave sites of Mary and John can still be visited.
Galatians 4: 29; Yet just as at that time the child born according to the flesh (Ishmael) persecuted him who was born according to the promise of God and the working of the holy spirit, (Isaac), the biological son Abraham, the son of Terah, was born according to the workings of the Holy Spirit as was Jesus, the son of Joseph, the son of Heli.
Isaac is a prototype of Jesus and like Jesus, was born of God’s promise according to the workings of the Holy Spirit. Both are seen as the seed that was promised to Abraham. Both Isaac and Jesus were the sons of parents who were both sired by the one Father. ‘Terah,’ is the father to both Abraham and Sarah by different mothers, while ‘Heli,’ is the father of both Joseph and Mary, by different mothers. Both Mary and Sarah were informed by an angel that they would become Pregnant and bear the son of God’s promise. Isaac was offered up as a sacrifice by his physical father, Jesus was offered up by his spiritual father, who descended upon him in the form of a dove as the voice was heard to say, ‘ you are my beloved in whom I am well pleased, today I have become your Father.� Or rather, “Today I have begotten thee.� See the more ancient authorities of Luke 3: 22; and Isaac was offered up on the same mountain at the very spot where Jesus was crucified.
In Luke 3: 22; (In place of “Thou art my beloved son in who I am well pleased.�) The following authorities of the second, third, and fourth centuries read, “This day I have begotten thee,� vouched for by Codex D, and the most ancient copies of the old latin (a, b. c. ff.I), by Justin Martyr (AD 140), Clemens Alex, (AD. 190), Methodius (AD. 290), among the Greeks. And among the Latins, Lactaitius (AD 300), Hilary (AD) Juvencus (AD. 330), Faustus (AD. 400) and Augustine. All these oldest manuscripts were changed completely. They now read, “This is my son in whom I am well pleased.� Whereas the original variant was, “Thou art my Son. This day I have begotten thee.�
If Jesus was not born of the flesh as all human beings are, but was born of a virgin without the male semen having been introduced into her uterus, then this would have been the greatest of all miracles, and would have been shouted from the roof tops by all four gospel writers and yet we see that Mark and John ignore the physical birth of Jesus as being totally irrelevant to the story of salvation and begin their account of He who was sent in the name of the Lord, with the Baptism of the man Jesus, when he was born of the spirit and the heavenly voice was heard to say, “You are my beloved in whom I am well pleased, Today I have become your father.�
Matthew merely translates the Hebrew, Isaiah 7: 14; “A young unmarried woman who is pregnant will have a son and will name him ‘Immanuel.’�
While Luke simply reveals that the young unmarried 14 year old Mary, was still a virgin three months before she was found to be pregnant. Due to her obedience to our indwelling ancestral spirit, she conceived in her womb the child of the father, chosen by the Holy Spirit, which act of obedience by the handmaid of the Lord, was hidden in the shadows beneath the wings of the Lord of Spirits.
[Keef wrote]…….You will understand that I will stay with the Bible as I know it, the text I know, the exegesis I know.
Which is not as the Catholics know it, nor as the Mormons know it, nor as the JW’s know it, nor as the Lutherans know it, etc, etc, and not even as you own denomination, the C of E, know it, as they teach that Jude is the brother of James the younger, who is the son of Alpheaus and the brother of the Lord.
[Keef wrote]…….Since you do not wish to know what the theologians think, I will leave you in your own little world.
Perhaps you might advise which theologians would be the best to study under: the theologians of the Catholic church, who pray to their heavenly queen, who is the Mother of God, or perhaps the theologians of the Mormon church, or the theologians of the JW’s, or the theologians of the Lutherans, which of the above do you put your faith in?
Once I have completed my response to this post of yours, I will not bother to send any more of the truths as revealed by the spirit that Jesus has sent into the world. Instead I will use my time in prayer with my Bible, for all the poor deceived souls such as yourself, who refuse to acknowledge that Jesus came as a human being, the promised seed of Abraham, who was of the seed of Adam, who was born of the flesh as are all human beings - it may be that God will yet, open your eyes and ears to his revealed truths, and lift the cloud that dulls your mind, in order that you might understand that what I have said to you are not my words, but the words of he who sent me to you.
To Be Continued.
And well they might, but you and I know that we are referring to that magic white powder created from Helena’s story of the magical qualities of the mother’s milk of Mary, don’t we? We're not here to play silly games are we?
I saw a card in one particular shop which depicted Mary, laying in bed, leaning against the pillows, with a look of sheer disappointment on her face, with Joseph sitting on the side of the bed, sobbing uncontrollably with his head clasped in his hands, and the caption read, “God is such a hard act to follow.� Merry Xmas.
If you are the person that I believe you to be, I think that you would reject that card because of what was depicted on it, and I would never buy a card with the wise men at the manger of the new born baby wrapped in swaddling cloth, when I know that it would have taken them at least four months from when they left the country of their origin til they arrived in Jerusalem, and that Joseph, Mary and the child, had returned to their home in Nazareth, some two months after the birth of Jesus.
[Keef wrote]…….For the virgin birth of Jesus, believe what you like. Matthew 1: 23. If you conclude that Matthew got it wrong, and that Mary was not πα�θε�νος do feel free.
Oh no, Matthew got it right in translating the Hebrew word “almah,â€� which was used by Isaiah, to the Greek “parthenos= nαÏ�θÎνοςâ€� It was Jerome who got it wrong, when in 405 AD, he completed his translation of the Hebrew and Greek scriptures for the church of the non-christian Constantine, in which he had erroneously translated the Greek word “parthenos,â€� as virgin.
Nowhere, and I mean nowhere in the Hebrew Scriptures is the word “almah’ used in reference to a virgin, or to a married woman.
Go to “A Dictionary of Biblical Tradition in English Literature,� by David Jeffery.
There you will find written, “Many scholars consider the new Revised Standard Version of the King James translation, which is probably the most widely used version of the English bible today, and considered by most modern scholars to be to be the most accurate translation of the Old Testament.
It follows the modern consensus in translating ‘Almah’ as ‘Young Woman’ in Isaiah 7: 14. In 1973, an ecumenical edition of RSV was approved by both Protestant and Catholic hierarchies, called the common bible. As a matter of fact, I have in front of me, A New English Translation of the Bible, published in 1970 and approved by the council of churches in England, Scotland, Wales, the Irish council of churches, the London Society of Friends, and the Methodist and Presbyterian churches of England. And what do we read in Isaiah 7: 14; “A young Woman is with child, and she will bear a son.� I also have before me The Bible Societies Chain Reference Bible, Good News Edition, now let’s turn to Isaiah 7: 14; I wonder what it says? Hmmm, are yes here it is, and what do you know? “A young woman who is pregnant will have a son, etc.�
The Almah="unmarried woman," that Isaiah referred to, was the prophetess, (Not the wife of Isaiah) who was the mother of the biological child of the prophet Isaiah. Nothing that is done in obedience to the Lord is sin my friend, that’s why Paul says that the written law can only bring death, because if we Judge the command of our indwelling Father according to the written law, and refuse to Obey, “Who I Am,� then this is sin, and it is the sin that leads to death.
The word “Virgin� in reference to the mother of Jesus was not introduced until the 5th century, in the Latin Bible ‘The Vulgate.’
In translating the Hebrew words of the prophet Isaiah, that an “Almah� an “unmarried female� is with child and will bear a son,� into Greek, which unlike the Hebrew language, does not have a specific term for ‘virgin,’ the authors of the Septuagint and Matthew correctly used the Greek word ‘Parthenos,’ which carries a basic meaning of ‘girl,’ or unmarried youth, and denotes ‘virgin’ only by implication. A more accurate rendering of the Greek “parthenos,� is a person who does not have a regular sexual partner. A widow with a family of children and no sexual parther, would be a “parthenos'. Hanna who nursed the baby Jesus before Mary performed the ceremony of purification, was a widow of seven years, and as she had no sexual intercourse since the death of her husband, she was a “parthenos� for seven years, but she was in no way, a virgin.
To translate something from the Hebrew to the Greek, or from any language to another, one must not lose the essence of the original, and the original was, that “An unmarried woman would be with child.�
‘Parthenos,’ was often used in reference to non-virgins who had never been married. Homer uses it in reference to unmarried girls who were no longer virgins, and Homer was the standard textbook for learning Greek all throughout antiquity, so any writer of Greek, including Matthew, who translated Isaiah’s words, that (An unmarried woman would be with child etc) while being well aware of this words versatile and indefinite meaning; was in no way implying that Mary was a virgin. For the Hebrew has a specific term for ‘virgin,’ “Bethulah� which word is used in every instance in the Old Testament where a woman who has never had sexual intercourse with a man is referred to, which is obviously not the case with the unmarried woman/Almah, who is mentioned in Isaiah 7:14; because we know that the prophet Isaiah went into her, from which union she conceived the child of Isaiah's prophecy..
In Pergamos, as one of the final stages in the quest for enlightenment, the initiated adept would participate in sex with the Temple Virgin/Parthenos.
"Parthenos" did not mean possessing an intact hymen. A parthenos was simply an unmarried woman, a woman who claimed ownership of herself.
In Matthew you will find the genealogy of Joseph the son of Jacob from the tribe of Judah, this Joseph, is the 24th descendant of Solomon the biological son of King David and Bathsheba, who was the wife of Uriah the Hittite, and this Joseph who married Mary, is not genetically connected to Jesus as he had no sexual relations with Mary until after she had given birth to Jesus, the first of her three biological sons, and although an adopted son inherits the rights of his adopted father, because his step father was a descendant, of the cursed line of Jehoiachim, he had no claim to the throne of David by that adoption. Jeremiah 22: 30; Thus saith the Lord. “Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days; for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah.�
In Luke 3: 23; you will find “the genealogy of Jesus,� Mary was the daughter of Heli and Anna/Hanna, one of three Levite daughters of Yehoshua/Jesus III, who was high priest in Jerusalem from 36 to 23 BC. Anna was given as a bride to Alexander Helios (Heli) and Jesus is the son of “Joseph, the son of Heli,� And this Joseph who is the biological Father of Jesus is about the 40th descendant of Nathan the half brother to Solomon, who is the biological son of King David, as they both had the same mother, “Bathsheba the wife of Uriah the Hittite,� who is the biological father of Nathan and a member of the tribe of Levi by his marriage to Bathsheba the daughter of Ammiel, the son of Obed-Edom the Levite, not of the order of Aaron, but of Moses, who was to be to Aaron, as God on earth.
Presumably, Joseph the son of Heli, a Levite through Moses, who had come from Cyprus, would have met his half sister Mary for the first time, at the gathering of the family and friends of Elizabeth the aged sister of Hanna and the aunty of Mary, who were both of the daughters of Levi. This was some months after the young “parthenos� (Unmarried) Mary had told the angel that up until that point in time she had never had any sexual relations with a man. Implying that the unmarried girl, “Almah=Parthenos� was still a virgin, before she met Joseph the Levite from Cyprus. Undoubtedly they did not realise at that time that they had a common father, Heli, from the tribe of Levi, who was seen as a threat to the throne of Israel, by Herod the Great, who had him murdered in 13 BC, seven years before the birth of Jesus, which left Hanna the grand mother of Jesus, who was a legitimate heir to the throne of David, as a widow and “Parthenos� for some seven years.
This Joseph the Levite who is the descendant of Nathan, came from Cyprus and he had a half sister by the name Mary, (Same father “Heli� different mothers) who was the adopted mother of John, who Jesus had surnamed “Son of Thunder,� and who is identified with the young John who was surnamed “Mark,� which means ‘Hammer,’ or “The Hammerer.� After the death of Jesus, this Joseph the Levite, took his half sister and young John up north into the land of Pamphylia, where today, in the town of Ephesus, the grave sites of Mary and John can still be visited.
Galatians 4: 29; Yet just as at that time the child born according to the flesh (Ishmael) persecuted him who was born according to the promise of God and the working of the holy spirit, (Isaac), the biological son Abraham, the son of Terah, was born according to the workings of the Holy Spirit as was Jesus, the son of Joseph, the son of Heli.
Isaac is a prototype of Jesus and like Jesus, was born of God’s promise according to the workings of the Holy Spirit. Both are seen as the seed that was promised to Abraham. Both Isaac and Jesus were the sons of parents who were both sired by the one Father. ‘Terah,’ is the father to both Abraham and Sarah by different mothers, while ‘Heli,’ is the father of both Joseph and Mary, by different mothers. Both Mary and Sarah were informed by an angel that they would become Pregnant and bear the son of God’s promise. Isaac was offered up as a sacrifice by his physical father, Jesus was offered up by his spiritual father, who descended upon him in the form of a dove as the voice was heard to say, ‘ you are my beloved in whom I am well pleased, today I have become your Father.� Or rather, “Today I have begotten thee.� See the more ancient authorities of Luke 3: 22; and Isaac was offered up on the same mountain at the very spot where Jesus was crucified.
In Luke 3: 22; (In place of “Thou art my beloved son in who I am well pleased.�) The following authorities of the second, third, and fourth centuries read, “This day I have begotten thee,� vouched for by Codex D, and the most ancient copies of the old latin (a, b. c. ff.I), by Justin Martyr (AD 140), Clemens Alex, (AD. 190), Methodius (AD. 290), among the Greeks. And among the Latins, Lactaitius (AD 300), Hilary (AD) Juvencus (AD. 330), Faustus (AD. 400) and Augustine. All these oldest manuscripts were changed completely. They now read, “This is my son in whom I am well pleased.� Whereas the original variant was, “Thou art my Son. This day I have begotten thee.�
If Jesus was not born of the flesh as all human beings are, but was born of a virgin without the male semen having been introduced into her uterus, then this would have been the greatest of all miracles, and would have been shouted from the roof tops by all four gospel writers and yet we see that Mark and John ignore the physical birth of Jesus as being totally irrelevant to the story of salvation and begin their account of He who was sent in the name of the Lord, with the Baptism of the man Jesus, when he was born of the spirit and the heavenly voice was heard to say, “You are my beloved in whom I am well pleased, Today I have become your father.�
Matthew merely translates the Hebrew, Isaiah 7: 14; “A young unmarried woman who is pregnant will have a son and will name him ‘Immanuel.’�
While Luke simply reveals that the young unmarried 14 year old Mary, was still a virgin three months before she was found to be pregnant. Due to her obedience to our indwelling ancestral spirit, she conceived in her womb the child of the father, chosen by the Holy Spirit, which act of obedience by the handmaid of the Lord, was hidden in the shadows beneath the wings of the Lord of Spirits.
[Keef wrote]…….You will understand that I will stay with the Bible as I know it, the text I know, the exegesis I know.
Which is not as the Catholics know it, nor as the Mormons know it, nor as the JW’s know it, nor as the Lutherans know it, etc, etc, and not even as you own denomination, the C of E, know it, as they teach that Jude is the brother of James the younger, who is the son of Alpheaus and the brother of the Lord.
[Keef wrote]…….Since you do not wish to know what the theologians think, I will leave you in your own little world.
Perhaps you might advise which theologians would be the best to study under: the theologians of the Catholic church, who pray to their heavenly queen, who is the Mother of God, or perhaps the theologians of the Mormon church, or the theologians of the JW’s, or the theologians of the Lutherans, which of the above do you put your faith in?
Once I have completed my response to this post of yours, I will not bother to send any more of the truths as revealed by the spirit that Jesus has sent into the world. Instead I will use my time in prayer with my Bible, for all the poor deceived souls such as yourself, who refuse to acknowledge that Jesus came as a human being, the promised seed of Abraham, who was of the seed of Adam, who was born of the flesh as are all human beings - it may be that God will yet, open your eyes and ears to his revealed truths, and lift the cloud that dulls your mind, in order that you might understand that what I have said to you are not my words, but the words of he who sent me to you.
To Be Continued.
