A Jesus lesson for Christians

[orgaelin]

Ok, so you're not a child as you obviously know too much.

That's good.

But we're gonna be at this a while--both of us trying to 'save' each other!

I think you're the best person for me to carry out a *really* strong argument with... um, I mean debate! But do you want to do it here or shall we email each other? It's up to you. I'm going to enjoy this either way!

[Technosoul]

Originally posted by orgaelin,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (orgaelin,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-PatrickHenry, You have no references.

Yes I do, I just didn't give them to you.



Even if that were true, it would be curious that I would include such detail in my imaginary versions of events, don't you think?

I honestly suspect that you have either not the capacity to recognise the obvious, or you are so determined to argue (Hence "Let's argue") that you refuse to waste your time on the pointless exercises of thought and reason.

At the very least, you should be able to recognise what a lie sounds like. When someone makes something up there is always a certain lack of detail, a general vagueness about everything. There were so many contributing arguments in my post for just the two points that when I finally posted it, it looked like the longest post this forum had ever seen!



I feel thoroughly complimented by this. I wasn't trying to be anything other than myself, yet you seem to view what I wrote as being the work of someone who was erudite. Fine by me. Thanks!

The only thing factual was Jesus brother, James. "But I saw no other of the apostles, except James the Lord's brother. (Galatians 1:19)"

I am surprised you admit even that.

Most Catholics (or am I just assuming you're Catholic?) argue that references to Jesus' brothers were on a friendly basis, rather than suggesting that they were actually related.

That wasn't the only factual thing either. How about Bethany and Magdalene being the same woman? That she's not a prostitute? That Jesus was of the seed of David?

Just some examples. None of these need references, especially for a man of your wisdom. You know full well the bible says that Jesus is genetically descended from David... but of course, you don't like to admit that because that kinda creates a contradictory problem for you...

How in the name of God can Jesus be descended from David but not be the product of an ordinary sexual encounter between his parents? If his male parent was the holy ghost, then Joseph's genetic descendency from David would be irrelevant!

Also, in Matthew (13:55) it says "Is this not the carpenter's son?". In Luke (2:27), Joseph and Mary are clearly referred to as Jesus' parents. There's some references for you!

This time, don't babble about references and ignore the arguments. Come back at me with some reasoning. At least explain for me the david-seed/holy-ghost thing.



She wasn't even declared to be an 'ever virgin' until the Council of Trullo in 692AD. Didn't know that did you?! But here's the question: how can a bunch of priests who themselves never even had sex, determine, huddled together in a room, the sexual practices of a woman who lived *700* years before their time?!

Furthermore, in both Luke (2:7) and Matthew (1:25), Jesus is cited as Mary's 'firstborn son', implying there were more. The same quote above, Matthew (13:55) goes on to say "..and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?" (That's four, besides Jesus)

It then goes further and says, "...and are not all his sisters with us?" and this is repeated by Mark (6:3). The word "all" implies not one, not two, but at least *three* sisters.

Is it nice having references? I'll give you more, for all the claims I made in the first post. But when I do (it'll take me a while) what are you going to say then? That I'm right? (I doubt it) Or that I'm wrong? But if you say that I am wrong, I will want references to back up your claims.



Half brothers! Just listen to yourself!



Ah... so which camp are you in then?! Catholic, or loose Catholic?!

I look forward to your response, genuinely.

~ Org. [/b][/quote]

Greetings, I think you did give somewhat of a refference by informing people about that book and so they can go buy the book if they want "sources".

I liked your informative details about Jewish marrages and how that sheds light on the biblical stories.

Here are a couple of questions. Would the term brother be used only for blood relatives, or also for bonding friendships between men in general. Or both?

Must both parents be from the blood line of David? Or could it be that only Mary (his mother) be from that line of decendants, in which case Joseph would not determine his status as relative to the fullfillment of some older prediction. Or were the "names" and thusly the bloodline data only passed down on the male side of the family and not on the female (wife's) side of the family tree? Or did they keep records on all the people both male and female that could be researched back then for proof?

What are the chances that those birth documents kept by the temple could have survived all the wars and so forth from the times of David foreward to the time Jesus was born, and are all those records still being kept somewhere other then as part of the biblical script, so that people and have a source to look it up that is independant of the Bible?


And why did Jesus say "before Abraham I was". Are we talking "reincarnation" here? And what about the mention of a heavenly father when Joseph was walking around on earth? Although it did suggest "our father" and so what is the meaning of that? Did the holy ghost father us all?

Now I think it was John who said that he was the only begotten son of God but did Jesus ever say that his self? Or was it just an opinion of a deciple?
(and most of them had trouble understanding most of what he said).

Now the annointment of oil also dates back to a more pratical application, as a kind of baby oil was used to protect a child from the rays of the sun, like a sun tan oil. And in those days also to keep the hair from drying out.
Thusly the oil also became symbolic for use in rituals to suggest protection, mainly I would guess of "newness" or "innosence". The symbolism then would be a clue relative to comprehending the meaning of such rituals.

I await your comments.
Technsoul.

[orgaelin]

Originally posted by technosoul Greetings, I think you did give somewhat of a refference by informing people about that book and so they can go buy the book if they want "sources".

Yeah, that's what I thought! I guess he wanted Harvard style referencing, footnotes and a complete bibliography.

I liked your informative details about Jewish marrages and how that sheds light on the biblical stories.

Isn't it amazing? Just simple little bits of external info that the bible fails to give, part by accident and partly deliberately.

There's all kinds of info like that available to anyone open-minded enough to look. Dr Barbara Thiering has done the most incredible work, all based around a technique she discovered call the "pesher".

It comes from the Dead Sea Scrolls, which outline it as a technique for double-layering a story. Basically, it can be something simple like referring to the Romans as "Kittim" or as lions, or it can be something more complex.

For example, in Luke 13:32&33, and Acts 4:5 the word "tomorrow" is actually used to signify the 1st of the month.

It seems an odd code to use, but little codes like this are used throughout the NT and in can in fact pin down, to the nearest 5 minutes, the actual time of day that Jesus lost consciousness. The gospels really record that level of detail.

I know that sounds a touch far-fetched, and many will cry for proof!

Here are a couple of questions. Would the term brother be used only for blood relatives, or also for bonding friendships between men in general. Or both?

This is a question that has come up. Here's what I know: in the greek text of the bible the word for brother is "adelphos". The pesher states that if the word appears in its plural form then it specifies a literal brother, but otherwise does not.

Unfortunately I don't have a copy in greek, and I don't know the plural form of the word!

Must both parents be from the blood line of David? Or could it be that only Mary (his mother) be from that line of decendants,

I believe this is what made Jesus so significant. Jesus was the rightful king because of his father's bloodline descent from David, but his mother's bloodline would afford him the right to be High Priest.

Typically these were seperate roles, though there were some, historically, who did do both, and these, if my facts are straight, were called Melchizadoks.

in which case Joseph would not determine his status as relative to the fullfillment of some older prediction. Or were the "names" and thusly the bloodline data only passed down on the male side of the family and not on the female (wife's) side of the family tree? Or did they keep records on all the people both male and female that could be researched back then for proof?

Whole lotta questions in one there buddy!

Both sides of the tree (male and female) were kept. I'm not sure how far back, though. We discussed in this very topic that matrilineal descent became important around 500BC. However, Laurence Gardner believes there have been important matrilineal successions since the beginning, pre OT times, and that male-line successions were created because of the general Hebraic fear of women.

What are the chances that those birth documents kept by the temple could have survived all the wars and so forth from the times of David foreward to the time Jesus was born, and are all those records still being kept somewhere other then as part of the biblical script, so that people and have a source to look it up that is independant of the Bible?

The chances are excellent, since this information was considered to be of the utmost importance. There were people whose job it was to consign the entire genealogies to memory, as well as material copies of the information.

And why did Jesus say "before Abraham I was". Are we talking "reincarnation" here?

I'm not sure. You have a reference?

And what about the mention of a heavenly father when Joseph was walking around on earth? Although it did suggest "our father" and so what is the meaning of that? Did the holy ghost father us all?

Your questions seem to be loosing me! I'm not sure what you're asking.

Now I think it was John who said that he was the only begotten son of God but did Jesus ever say that his self? Or was it just an opinion of a deciple? (and most of them had trouble understanding most of what he said).

Well, you see, the disciples weren't all that bad. They understood what was going on with the Big J, and knew that he was not literally born of the Holy Ghost.

All the mythical stuff only came into play when Saul/Paul went mad and converted to Christianity. He basically corrupted everything, concocting his own version of events and preaching it throughout everywhere like a man posessed. He and the disciples were not friends.

I await your comments.

Not any more you don't!

Nice talking to you. You seem very coherent and rational, compared to some I've been talking with!