T
Tao_Equus
Guest
I find it really hard to believe that here in the 21st century we debate the virgin birth of someone who lived over 2000 years ago. It is frankly a ridiculous debate for sane and rational people to get involved in. It illustrates only one point, that theists love to get bogged down in absolutely meaningless and pointless details in avoidance of the overview, that the whole lot is an inconsistent hodge-podge of utterly unreliable old tales.
Tao
Tao
Saltmeister
The Dangerous Dinner
BlaznFattyz
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 1,589
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 36
Jesus was born of the virgin mary and of the spirit all of which is part of prophecy, so it is very important. what god has spoken through the prophets, what jesus has fulfilled and will fulfill and the gospel that god has kept together for generations is all important. none of it of course is safe from people with motives to try and chip away at it as evidenced by the constant attacks on christianity daily saying this part of the bible isnt important, or fashioning God to their liking, but the church and the Spirit is still here resisting evil in the world and reaching out to the four corners of the earth with the gospel doing the work of Christ until the church is taken away.
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
Kindest Regards, all!
I spent some years in the unquestioning mode of "take it all on faith" and "just believe," but it never sat well in my gut. The whole idea behind everything is "truth." Now, there is the philosophical dodge that "truth is subjective"...blah, blah, blah. But the point is we *need* a truth. Non-Christians don't require a Christian truth, OK, well and good for them, surely G-d has provided a truth suitable for them. But for a Christian the Christian truth is either true or it is false, or else it is somewhere in between.
Christians tend towards "all or nothing" reasoning, and this may be to their detriment. I am growing ever more convinced that the Christian truth is tinted with modest little untruths, or side-truths, or mythologizing in order to make a very unpopular religion palatable for the Pagan masses it was foisted upon around 300 years after Jesus died. The knee-jerk response is that such cannot be because it would make G-d's Word a lie...nothing could be further from the truth!
First, it was politically motivated humans that overwrote and merged the two religious disciplines; the radical Judaism of Jesus with the Roman state Paganism (which had multiple similar cousins in and around the same region at the same time). Second, and more importantly; the underlying message of love and hope, salvation and freedom, are not lost but are clearly conveyed when we don't get hung up on all of the little insignificant idiosyncrasies.
Same thing, only different.
Just more ridiculous debate supposedly by sane and rational people.
First, it is important to see that sometimes what is being presented is not an attempt to destroy, but to clarify. I would even say an attempt to chip away the Pagan varnish that has been layered on top of the original model that Jesus built.
Sometimes it can be very difficult to see, because there *are* those with destructive motives who look for opportunities to undermine and chip away at the whole of Christianity. That is where the gift of discernment becomes crucial.
A lot can be determined by trying to understand what the conclusions of such teachings lead to...are the teachings of Jesus left intact, or is there an attempt to subvert the teachings of Jesus and justify what Christians intuit as sinful and wrong?
I mentioned that the unquestioning stance never felt right in my gut. I have long ago taken so many questions to G-d in prayer looking for answers. I don't know everything, I didn't then, I won't pretend I do now. But I do firmly believe my eyes have been opened to a lot more possibilities. Especially once everything Biblical is put into a historical and cultural context.
Yeah, what she said!
I spent some years in the unquestioning mode of "take it all on faith" and "just believe," but it never sat well in my gut. The whole idea behind everything is "truth." Now, there is the philosophical dodge that "truth is subjective"...blah, blah, blah. But the point is we *need* a truth. Non-Christians don't require a Christian truth, OK, well and good for them, surely G-d has provided a truth suitable for them. But for a Christian the Christian truth is either true or it is false, or else it is somewhere in between.
Christians tend towards "all or nothing" reasoning, and this may be to their detriment. I am growing ever more convinced that the Christian truth is tinted with modest little untruths, or side-truths, or mythologizing in order to make a very unpopular religion palatable for the Pagan masses it was foisted upon around 300 years after Jesus died. The knee-jerk response is that such cannot be because it would make G-d's Word a lie...nothing could be further from the truth!
First, it was politically motivated humans that overwrote and merged the two religious disciplines; the radical Judaism of Jesus with the Roman state Paganism (which had multiple similar cousins in and around the same region at the same time). Second, and more importantly; the underlying message of love and hope, salvation and freedom, are not lost but are clearly conveyed when we don't get hung up on all of the little insignificant idiosyncrasies.
But Tao, is it not human nature to pursue those strange, impossible to answer questions? Is the cat dead or alive? Wave or particle?
Same thing, only different.
Just more ridiculous debate supposedly by sane and rational people. This is a very important point too!
First, it is important to see that sometimes what is being presented is not an attempt to destroy, but to clarify. I would even say an attempt to chip away the Pagan varnish that has been layered on top of the original model that Jesus built.
Sometimes it can be very difficult to see, because there *are* those with destructive motives who look for opportunities to undermine and chip away at the whole of Christianity. That is where the gift of discernment becomes crucial.
A lot can be determined by trying to understand what the conclusions of such teachings lead to...are the teachings of Jesus left intact, or is there an attempt to subvert the teachings of Jesus and justify what Christians intuit as sinful and wrong?
I mentioned that the unquestioning stance never felt right in my gut. I have long ago taken so many questions to G-d in prayer looking for answers. I don't know everything, I didn't then, I won't pretend I do now. But I do firmly believe my eyes have been opened to a lot more possibilities. Especially once everything Biblical is put into a historical and cultural context.
What about the fact that lineage was maternal based?Yeaah, butttt...there's this little problem here that can confound some Christians...
Jesus (Yashua) is related to David by Jesse on his *earthly* daddy Joseph's side. Which, because his momma was from the Levitical side, means that either Jesus was qualified as Messiah by culmination of the line of the Kings as well as the line of Priests *through his flesh*, or else his daddy's lineage is just a happy accident that is irrelevent because Joseph isn't Jesus' sire because G-d is.
Quite the conundrum, that. In order to fulfill this prophecy, Jesus has to be *fully* human with all that entails. If on the other hand Jesus is (at least part) Divine, then the connection to the line of the Kings is forfeited, and He no longer satisfies this prophecy...
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
That is one argument being presented...but it hinges on the legal disposition of the mother's heritage (which Luke just previously spent a great deal of effort to establish Mary's Levitical heritage!). I am not discounting the maternal line, but in matters of heritage it seems to me the paternal line is the *official* legal determinant. Else, why are all of the Biblical geneologies (with this one exception in Luke) paternally oriented? Father to son to grandson...not mother to daughter to granddaughter. The children take the father's last name, not the mother's...
greco/Roman influence. Luke refused to do so, because something of fact would have been lost to history, and questions about Jesus' heritage and ancestry would come into play (smart man Luke). And in Ireland, Son's took mother's names as descriptors or surnames to the formal.That is one argument being presented...but it hinges on the legal disposition of the mother's heritage (which Luke just previously spent a great deal of effort to establish Mary's Levitical heritage!). I am not discounting the maternal line, but in matters of heritage it seems to me the paternal line is the *official* legal determinant. Else, why are all of the Biblical geneologies (with this one exception in Luke) paternally oriented? Father to son to grandson...not mother to daughter to granddaughter. The children take the father's last name, not the mother's...
God, leaves nothing to chance...
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
greco/Roman influence. Luke refused to do so, because something of fact would have been lost to history, and questions about Jesus' heritage and ancestry would come into play (smart man Luke). And in Ireland, Son's took mother's names as descriptors or surnames to the formal.
God, leaves nothing to chance...
This isn't about G-d leaving matters to chance...either Jesus fulfilled the prophecies pertaining to Messiah, or he didn't. In my mind I always viewed Isaiah 11 and Psalms 22 as the definitive prophecies, and it seems to me Jesus pretty well fulfilled them.
Roman influence may be an important point, it certainly prevails in the West to this day, and Palestine in Jesus' time was under Roman occupation and influence. Maybe that is a clue, Roman legal disposition versus Jewish cultural heritage...I don't know, merely thinking in script. What concerns me is the great dearth of maternal lineages throughout the whole rest of the Bible. It is a very rare thing where daughters are even mentioned, let alone named, going back to the early chapters of Genesis. Noah's wife had no name, and Noah's sons' wives are not named either, establishing a precedent that extends almost all the way through the Bible. So I think it is still a reasonable assumption on my part to stick with the paternal heritage argument, even though I am very aware of the maternal "you are Jewish if your mother is Jewish" cultural line of thought. Either way, I don't buy the argument of adoption when the prophecy explicitly states "from the root of."
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
How can we be certain this is the same Jesus? That name was fairly common there at that time, or I should say the Aramaic Yashua that is commonly translated as Jesus was a fairly common name at that time and place.
LOL exactly, that is why the lineage to David is tracable back by both fahter and mother...nothing left to chance. Smart God.
What a jack ass. Educated? Sophisticated? Cultured? Grow up man.
There are various problems with claiming Jesus as a Messiah, but there is one basic one. There is no clear evidence that Jesus ever existed historically. He may have existed and he may have been the Messiah. We can't know at least not rationally. However, if its important to us, we can have faith. We can trust its true becasue it feels true to us. Or we could even hope for a vision from God to dispell all our doubts.
Arguing about historical details is a red herring. The real issue is about faith. You can believe in a savior without believing in a historical Christ such as the Gnostics did. Then we're talking about some interesting stuff.
Arguing about historical details is a red herring. The real issue is about faith. You can believe in a savior without believing in a historical Christ such as the Gnostics did. Then we're talking about some interesting stuff.
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
Kindest Regards, marmalade!
I can grant there is *not a lot* of extra-Biblical historical evidence, but if Josephus is to be considered as a history of the era, Jesus *is* briefly mentioned. Seems I recall some other scant evidences pointed to...a census roll or something...but I could be mistaken. I am certainly not knowledgeable enough to verify any such evidence that might surface, so yes there is a degree of "faith" that I take Jesus' message on.
I can grant there is *not a lot* of extra-Biblical historical evidence, but if Josephus is to be considered as a history of the era, Jesus *is* briefly mentioned. Seems I recall some other scant evidences pointed to...a census roll or something...but I could be mistaken. I am certainly not knowledgeable enough to verify any such evidence that might surface, so yes there is a degree of "faith" that I take Jesus' message on.
Sorry, that is actually false. Jesus is chronicled in the history of Roman dialogue, as well as secular Jewish "news" of the time. Josephus comes immediately to mind.
Gnosis, means to know...that doesn't seem apparent here.
I've been involved in threads arguing about historical evidence and its a bit tedious. I'm in no mood for that kind of discussion. I don't know what to consider myself, but I do have faith that there is truth in the idea of a messiah even if its only an archetypal truth. Many religions besides Christianity have sought out savior figures. Its a universal impulse and I respect it for what it is.
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
True, many other religions have sought out savior figures, some even claim to have found them.
That's why in my mind it seems incumbent to separate the wheat from the chaff, to wean the radical Judaism of Jesus from the Pagan pablum; so to speak.
Nix.
Then you shouldn't be here discussing what is discussed. And It is known fact that Jesus is discussed in secular papers at the or about the time of His walk on earth. Since you are on the Christian forum, respect what Christians respect.
v/r
Q
Calm down. Yes, its a Christian forum in an inter-faith board. Anyways, you don't know that I don't consider myself Christian. All I have said was that I doubt the historical Christ and so did many Gnostic Christians.
I suppose if you really want a discussion about a historical Christ, then I could participate. I'm sure it must have been discussed to death around here many times before. However, as this subject is a perennial favorite, bringing it up one more time can't hurt.
If you wish to present your evidence, then I'll give you a response. Give me the specific quotes to which you're referring.
I'm getting ready for bed and I might be busy tommorrow. I'll get back to this thread no latter than Sunday.
bob x
Well-Known Member
Troll.
I did not invent the uncomplimentary things early non-believers had to say about Jesus' parentage; I am just reporting them, in response to Mee's totally false claim that the non-believing Jews all agreed that Jesus was of royal descent.