Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Come on, G-d clearly “told” him two times, at least, that this is not what he should be doing and he ignored those warnings, so G-d just said, “OK, whatever!”....
Satan and people's free will could easily be blamed by him for his setback to what he thought and deeply felt (obviously, even if selfishly) was Supreme Leader Holy/Jesus/Yahweh's purpose for him.
And they do so because it would have been a mundane occurance for a man named Jesus/Jeshua/Iesus to start a Messianic cult of Judaism around him. And it is inconcievable to them that early religious leaders/papers would be mentinoing in their stories his brothers and sisters from his mother as possibly distinctual from his brothers and (some noteworthy but few between and even fewer times noted) sisters in faith (with or regardless of his mother).
And it would be hard to explain why so many (big numbers, not all) ancient Christians were simply insistant (to the point of violence) that Jesus had to be a real human boy.
Although the Jewish (Messiahs/Kings only in male line of David, and Mary as an exception(?))
and Egypto-Roman (our historical rulers were gods (Egypt) or are now gods (Rome), etc.)
cultural influence would have been enough for that insistance also.
Still, many religions forming in the Roman Empire were about heavenly beings who were then territory-historized "for the people to believe in them, otherwise such worldly peasants wouldn't believe our important heavenly truth." Still, a historian wouldn't assume this of another religion unless evidence is found, like it was in those particular cases given letters in discussion of a sort of "why we speak to them in parables" from said religions.
But it seems most early Christians were starting with a High Christology, that is the very-pre-Christian Roman trend that the "logos" was the "demiurge" (an idea from Zoroastrianism to seperate "ultimate creator" from creating "fallible things" directly) and all things were created through the demiurge and a "In Earth as in the image of Heaven" mythology.
The evidence shows that the earliest records of Christianity that we have say that Christians thought that Jesus wasn't just "some man who did miracles and later we realized he was an eternal angel/demiurge in heaven" as is portraid in the 3 or less synoptic gospels, but they were similar to other religions which were all about Heaven, still none of the "earliest Christians" we have records of were definitely direct "worldly cult" members of Jesus' living movement.
Last edited by LuminousTruth; 12-07-2018 at 12:37 AM..
But it seems most early Christians were starting with a High Christology, that is the very-pre-Christian Roman trend that the "logos" was the "demiurge" (an idea from Zoroastrianism to seperate "ultimate creator" from creating "fallible things" directly) and all things were created through the demiurge and a "In Earth as in the image of Heaven" mythology.
The evidence shows that the earliest records of Christianity that we have say that Christians thought that Jesus wasn't just "some man who did miracles and later we realized he was an eternal angel/demiurge in heaven" as is portraid in the 3 or less synoptic gospels, but they were similar to other religions which were all about Heaven, still none of the "earliest Christians" we have records of were definitely direct "worldly cult" members of Jesus' living movement.
Forgot to mention that many Jews at that time were also being influenced/indoctrinated by ideas of "the logos" from Rome (Greek philosophy theological schools) and that included Philo of Alexandria. So that means many Roman-citizen Jews in the diaspora at the time would have already had a "logos is very important and partially seperate from The Creator/Father in some slight way" idea even before any Joshua could come along (or be made up, as was a relatively common religious practice at the time, Jews being no exeption to human nature) for his followers to claim the title of Logos.
A lot of the OT she disagrees is historically correct though.
The problem is that most historians are not experts in this field, and only agree with the consensus. Many historians of this period also use criteria created by Christians, most are not used in other areas of history. Other historians have pointed out how this can lead to errors.
She's easy on the eyes, ain't she. And I'm personally sure that a real Jesus existed, and even did quite a bit of the stuff in the NT. There is also archaeolical evidence that a house of David existed, and so I'm prepared to give benefit of doubt that David really did exist - though really very little of the stories about him are true, I think.
What is this archaeological evidence? This is news to me.
What is this archaeological evidence? This is news to me.
Transponder didn't mean literally David's house were he lived, which would be news, if that is what you were thinking.
An Aramaic inscription (were they ultimately ruled by Egypt or Assyria or Babylon?), Tel Dan Stele, was found in some excavation in Tel Dan, Israel where a king details how he and his generals completed conquered Israel (supposedly the house of Omri mentioned in the other Stele made by king Mesha of Moab) and then moved on to wipe out Israel's neighbor, the "house of David, root and stem" during their most recent raid for tribute or something.
The Mesha Stele/Moabite Stone also possibly talks about similar mention of a line of David, if a French scholar's reconstruction of line 31 is correct.
"house of David" would be the Kingdom of Judah, which surely did exist. Just like the "house of Omri" would be the ancient Kingdom of Israel to the north of Judah.
Transponder didn't mean literally David's house were he lived, which would be news, if that is what you were thinking.
An Aramaic inscription (were they ultimately ruled by Egypt or Assyria or Babylon?), Tel Dan Stele, was found in some excavation in Tel Dan, Israel where a king details how he and his generals completed conquered Israel (supposedly the house of Omri mentioned in the other Stele made by king Mesha of Moab) and then moved on to wipe out Israel's neighbor, the "house of David, root and stem" during their most recent raid for tribute or something.
The Mesha Stele/Moabite Stone also possibly talks about similar mention of a line of David, if a French scholar's reconstruction of line 31 is correct.
"house of David" would be the Kingdom of Judah, which surely did exist. Just like the "house of Omri" would be the ancient Kingdom of Israel to the north of Judah.
Ach, of course. You have it correct, I was thinking of a literal house. I blame a lack of coffee, and having worked through the nights last weekend and a few days this week.
The problem is with the vowels, which were not used. So we do not have David but btdwd. This could mean several things depending on what vowels were meant. And the phrase is not divided (bt dwd), so archaeologists have argued it does not refer to a house of David but to a place. However, I am not an expert in Hebrew, so here I must rely on the experts.
As for the Mesha Stele, I believe the phrase is missing a character, so it may or may not be referring to a house of David.
Ach, of course. You have it correct, I was thinking of a literal house. I blame a lack of coffee, and having worked through the nights last weekend and a few days this week.
The problem is with the vowels, which were not used. So we do not have David but btdwd. This could mean several things depending on what vowels were meant. And the phrase is not divided (bt dwd), so archaeologists have argued it does not refer to a house of David but to a place. However, I am not an expert in Hebrew, so here I must rely on the experts.
As for the Mesha Stele, I believe the phrase is missing a character, so it may or may not be referring to a house of David.
Why? What does that do for you? Anyway, this idiot doesn't prove Jesus doesn't exist.
I'ts like preventing another person from getting bitten by a rattlesnake after you've been bitten.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
