Jesus the Messiah; the Christ (Egyptian, prophets, priest, Jerusalem)

[LuminousTruth]

Originally Posted by daylux

These weren't failed prophecies, as I've written out for you. I'm sorry you don't comprehend that.

If they weren't failed prophesies then they were deliberate misdirections (as edited in the mythology)... How could Peter have denied a Jesus that transfigured to him? How could Judas have failed to notice that Jesus wasn't a real human but had magical powers? Jesus came in his Kingdom by transfiguring? What a lacking Kingdom that accomplished as much as Muhammad's.

Jesus never accomplished for Israel in his life-time what Messiah David did; well, at least the ghost of Jesus in people's minds was able to conquer the vast majority of Gentile dogs and made them to worship the King of the Jews as the only God instead of their Caesar as one god among many. Maybe there is something for Jesus being the Prophet (son of man) risen to the House of David as a Messiah (son of god, anointed as divinely chosen King). Well, now all we have to do is wait for the arranged husband to end his procrastination and save the world from more births and the continued allowance of evil.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by OzzyRules

People who "joke" about this have no idea how horrific they sound when they do so. Very sad and heartbreaking that people can be so far removed from the truth. They don't even understand themselves, or see themselves for what they truly are.

It is just one more theopologetics trick to, rather than put up a decent argument, post patronizing sighs (or headslaps) about how blind the unbelievers are not to agree with the particular (and probably hotly disputed) Bible based theory the poster happens to believe - on not very sound evidence, it seems, otherwise something resembling an argument would be made.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by Grandstander

There is no indication of this in the New Testament, but even if Mary could be traced to David, that wouldn't qualify Jesus as the Messiah. The Hebrew society was strictly patriarchal, ancestry was only counted through males. Here is Mathew's tracing of Joseph's ancestry back to David:



Notice anything about it? Through 25 generations, it is all males, no female is mentioned until Mary who is listed as the wife of Joseph and mother of Jesus.

The insane thing is that the very next topic addressed by Mathew after this laborious linking of Jesus to David, is the story of the virgin birth which utterly negates that connection.

What we have here is an illustration of the schism which was prevailing at the time the gospels were being written. On the one hand, establishing Jesus' creds as the Messiah via linking him back to David would have been a goal of the faction which followed James and which taught that Jesus was the last and greatest of the Hebrew prophets.

On the other hand, it was in the interest of the Paul led faction which taught that Jesus was a replacement for the Hebrew covenant, to divorce Jesus as much as possible from his Jewish roots. Thus, some other writer modified the Mathew gospel to include the virgin birth story which takes Joseph out of the loop and makes Jesus the son of god rather than a son of a Jew. They didn't worry about the fact that Mary was a Jew because, as noted, we are talking about a patriarchal society where the female line didn't count for anything.

The gospels, as we have them now, were certainly quite different in their original form before all the assorted agenda driven early Christian additions, deletions etc. That those two manifestly contradictorily versions of Jesus' conception appear consecutively in Mathew, well, someone didn't proof read it too well, did they?

There was an involved discussion about this some time ago and what emerged was that one line goes through Nathan which was not the legitimate royal line and the other through Solomon, but I recall that it failed at the time of the exile.

Now the obvious explanation for those who insist that both must be 'true' is that one is Joseph's line and the other Mary's, especially as one of them ends up by mentioning Mary.

But to those who don't see why they shouldn't both be seriously open to doubt (just as the Nativity stories by the same authors - Matthew and Luke - are open to doubt) the obvious and totally ignored fact is that Bible says that both lines end in Joseph - and that can't be right.

The conclusion is that both writers got hold of what they thought was the likely line of descent for Jesus through Joseph, but like so much else in these gospels, they contradict each other. What is more, Luke amusingly concedes that Jesus wasn't actually the son of Joseph at all.

This is so obviously the story that Joseph came to be traditionally depicted as a white haired old buffer who was so old that he couldn't possibly be a father (which would not be in accordance with Jewish law and custom) and was just 'looking after' Mary while she acted as a sort of test tube for the God -bred baby Jesus.

Thus, He had to be of the line of David through adoption by Joseph. But that is against Jewish law and custom, too.

The legitimacy discussion about the Davidic inheritance (which is needed to be the messiah of scripture) is involved, but I am now tempted to think in terms of the principle of embarrassment.

It is a principle of embarrassment that Jesus was a Galilean Nazarene, as the messiah ought to have been born in Bethlehem, in Judea. Thus this was an embarrassing fact that the gospel - writers had to explain away with their contradictory nativity stories.

It is a principle of embarrassment that Jesus was not a successful messiah, but his mission failed in a degrading and defiling death by the abomination (to Jews) of crucifixion. Thus this was an embarrassing fact Paul recognized as the 'stumbling - bock' of the cross, that the disappointed believers had to explain away this failure by belief that Jesus had risen from death. The Christian believers had to make this a solid -body resurrection as a spiritual resurrection wasn't good enough, and so we got three contradictory accounts in order to get over this embarrassing fact.

That the gospels are at pains to have Jesus prove his Davidic credentials by doing miracles suggests to me another embarrassing fact - that Jesus had no legitimate claim to the Davidic line or to the Judean throne or to be a messiah - other than through the 'order of Melchizedek' - just as David was himself: because God said so, so there, and rubber -stamped the claim through working miracles and, in case there was any doubt, making a Tannoy announcement at the baptism.

The more I read the gospels, the more I understand them as a polemic document designed to get over embarrassing truths by writing a string of comfortable lies. The Davidic descent genealogical contradiction being just one of them.

P.s Happy holidays to all!

[OzzyRules]

Originally Posted by manderly6

Exactly which "truth" are you referring to?

For start, just knowing how they come across or sound online.

[Grandstander]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

It is a principle of embarrassment that Jesus was a Galilean Nazarene, as the messiah ought to have been born in Bethlehem, in Judea. Thus this was an embarrassing fact that the gospel - writers had to explain away with their contradictory nativity stories.

The attempt to shoehorn Jesus into a Bethlehem birth was done with particular ineptitude. The gospel writer settled on what must have struck him as a reasonable explanation...that Joseph and family had to travel there for the Roman census because that was where Joseph was born.

It is the sort of error made by the not well informed. There was no Roman census taken in 4 BCE. Josephus informs us that there was a census between 6 and 8 CE, but that was ten years after the birth of Jesus.

Worse...the business about traveling to Bethlehem makes no sense. The census was a costly, time consuming project for the Romans and they didn't undertake it because they were curious about how many people lived within the empire. The purpose of the census was singular...taxation. The Romans wished to know who lived where and how much property that person owned. On the basis of evaluating the worth of that property, that property owner's taxes were determined.

Obviously if you want to know where someone is living and how much that person is worth, you do not direct that person to travel to some area away from where the property can be observed and counted, you want that person there with his property. Ordering the people to travel away from their property would be a self defeating strategy for the Romans, flying in the face of the entire purpose of the exercise.

[TRANSPONDER]

Can't rep you 'stander (can't seem to rep, anyone these days) but a v. good post.

[Joint heir with jesus]

Originally Posted by Miss Hepburn

Hi joint heir,
Tho I don't believe as you do exactly...Jesus was a wonderful man to say the least.
I am sorry for any mocking you may experience because of your beliefs.
I can feel that you have a good heart.
Your audience can be rude here, thinking they are funny and clever.
But you have a right to your beliefs.And you posted in the correct section.
My two cents.

My wish is that they would just pass over your posts and move on without the 'jokes'
and you post what you want...unless you post on the atheist thread...
then all bets are off.

Thank you for your kind words- they are a blessing to me. <><

[Joint heir with jesus]

Originally Posted by Grandstander

Yeah....? How about an actual direct answer to my question about which story is true and which is a lie? They cannot both be true, so which is the bogus tale?

No more scripture cop outs, that is an immense waste of time. Your explanation please, in your words. Do you have an explanation or just more cut and paste irrelevancies?

The explanation is seems clear. I gave it to you in my first two paragraphs. I'm sorry if you can't or won't understand it brother.
God formulated a plan of spiritual re-union, forgiveness and salvation for man before He created the foundations of the earth. God does His best to explain the many mysteries surrounding spiritual things in His Word, the Holy Bible. Even then some things are "cloudy" to us. This is because we are applying and trusting to our own LIMITED understanding to it. God wants us to trust HIS superior knowledge and wisdom on the spiritual things we can't grasp with out limited intelligence.
"Lean on, trust in, and be confident in the Lord with all your heart and mind and do not rely on your own insight or understanding." [Pr. 3:5]
It's our nature to question and dispute that which we DON'T understand and that's ok. The simple truth is there are things we CAN'T understand. These are the things we need to put aside our pride and stubbornness and trust God in.
The atheist/non-believer is caught up in a "catch-22"; some of the more difficult spiritual doctrines and teachings can only be understood with the explanation of the Holy Spirit within man. The only way to receive the Holy Spirit is to ask for Him AFTER one surrenders his/her life to God in repentance.
Unless/until you do this, you will NEVER understand these. This is why is can be very frustrating for the Christian to talk to the atheist- because no matter how detailed the explanation or sensible, the atheist will reject it every time. No answer is good enough for them.
The gap between you and God will always remain. This is on you. God has continually offered salvation, help, UNDERSTANDING, WISDOM and blessings to those who will trust Him.

3 And I have filled him with the Spirit of God, in wisdom and ability, in understanding and intelligence, and in knowledge, and in all kinds of craftsmanship,... [Ex. 31:3]

King Solomon asked God in prayer for understanding:
"So give Your servant an understanding mind and a hearing heart to judge Your people, that I may discern between good and bad. For who is able to judge and rule this Your great people?"

10 It pleased the Lord that Solomon had asked this.

11 "God said to him, Because you have asked this and have not asked for long life or for riches, nor for the lives of your enemies, but have asked for yourself understanding to recognize what is just and right,
12 Behold, I have done as you asked. I have given you a wise, discerning mind, so that no one before you was your equal, nor shall any arise after you equal to you." [1 King 3:9-12]

"My son, if you will receive my words and treasure up my commandments within you,
2 Making your ear attentive to skillful and godly Wisdom and inclining and directing your heart and mind to understanding [applying all your powers to the quest for it];
3 Yes, if you cry out for insight and raise your voice for understanding,
4 If you seek [Wisdom] as for silver and search for skillful and godly Wisdom as for hidden treasures,
5 Then you will understand the reverent and worshipful fear of the Lord and find the knowledge of [our omniscient] God. [Ps.2:1-5]

3 Great is our Lord and of great power; His understanding is inexhaustible and boundless. [Ps.147:5]

"To whom will He teach knowledge? And whom will He make to understand the message (DOCTRINE)? " [Isa. 28:9]


2 And the Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon Him (the Messiah)—the Spirit of wisdom and understanding, the Spirit of counsel and might, the Spirit of knowledge and of the reverential and obedient fear of the Lord— [Isa. 2:11]


17 As for these four youths, God gave them knowledge and skill in all learning and wisdom, and Daniel had understanding in all [kinds of] visions and dreams. [Dan. 2:17]

45 Then He [thoroughly] opened up their minds to understand the Scriptures,... [Lk. 24:45]


17 [For I always pray to] the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, that He may grant you a spirit of wisdom and revelation [of insight into mysteries and secrets] in the [deep and intimate] knowledge of Him,
18 By having the eyes of your heart flooded with light, so that you can know and understand the hope to which He has called you, and how rich is His glorious inheritance in the saints (His set-apart ones),

19 And [so that you can know and understand] what is the immeasurable and unlimited and surpassing greatness of His power in and for us who believe, as demonstrated in the working of His mighty strength,
20 Which He exerted in Christ when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His [own] right hand in the heavenly [places],
21 Far above all rule and authority and power and dominion and every name that is named [above every title that can be conferred], not only in this age and in this world, but also in the age and the world which are to come. [Eph. 1:17-22]

[OzzyRules]

Originally Posted by Shirina

This is just the kind of thing I've made mention of in other threads. Religion is stuffy, sterile, and absolutely humorless. It is unnecessarily solemn, excruciatingly boring, and as far removed from anything fun as the earth is from Betelgeuse.

I've offered a challenge to Christians to find just one verse in the Bible - just one - that was written with the intent to make the reader laugh.

I'll patiently wait.

I do find humor in the Bible at times. I'm not even going to try to find or explain any, because it won't be understood out of context. And as far as I know 99% of Christians wouldn't find it funny either. It's more like looking at a serious situation afterwards and finding humor in it.

[LuminousTruth]

Originally Posted by Mike930

What difference does it make what he says? Your posts are clearly hostile and any response, no matter how they answer your questions, would be met with scorn and disdain. Why waste the time?

Perhaps so that other forum readers (not just me but the many answer seekers) can have that question answered also. We will judge whether and which counter-replies get the upper-hand in convincing and informing us.