In the preface of the swedish bible, at least the one I have, it clearly states that Jesus is related in a strait line from King David.

Now thats making me a bit confuce, because I was told in the sunday-school that Jesus was Gods son and that God just is.. so God could by all means not be the son of David.. If both David and Jesus was Gods sons they would have been brothers.

Well.. I guess its not ment to make sence, or?

I totally understand your confusion, but put yourself in the shoes of early writers of the bible who believed in Greek and Roman Methology with the sons and daughters and the soap opera of the holly family...Don't you think that those old methologies are bound to influence the understanding of the new and enhanced religion of god for those early scholars who used to be the biggest opposers of christianity. Even when they embrassed christianity, they couldn't let go of much of their older myth and religion.

Up to the time of Jesus the Jews had a monopoly. They called themselves the chosen ones, meaning God had chosen them as his favorite people and the only ones that he would consider sending to heaven.

Now Jesus comes along and he busts up the monopoly and makes it possible for any one to go to heaven. The jews dint like that and we know what happened.

Even if I dont believe in Jesus being a deity, I believe he was a fearless man and a good man for busting up the Jewish monopoly.
He was truly a revelutionary.

I hope that this isn't getting off topic but.....
Mary was a virginn. Thus, Jesus could not be directly related to anyone on earth. Because her body was used to deliver bear the child, she is the mother of Jesus. Joseph on the other hand had no blood flowing through Jesus's mortal veins.

Originally posted by Greco
Up to the time of Jesus the Jews had a monopoly. They called themselves the chosen ones, meaning God had chosen them as his favorite people and the only ones that he would consider sending to heaven. I would be interested in seeing you defend this claim. To the best of my knowledge, Judaism never maintained that heaven was restricted to Jews.

if Jesus is the son of God then I am God's daughter as well. he was just a human like us but he was influential and had very good intentions in helping the people around him soooooo people thought that was rare therefore he "must" have been the son of God.

Originally posted by justathaught
I hope that this isn't getting off topic but.....
Mary was a virginn. Thus, Jesus could not be directly related to anyone on earth. Because her body was used to deliver bear the child, she is the mother of Jesus. Joseph on the other hand had no blood flowing through Jesus's mortal veins.

Where did you learn of these mysteries?

From <a href="http://www.rosary-center.org/joyful.htm">here</a> maybe.

Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
I would be interested in seeing you defend this claim. To the best of my knowledge, Judaism never maintained that heaven was restricted to Jews.

Like all people jews thought themselves to be special and better than others. They imagined that they were the chosen people of a God of their own design.

Until Jesus Judaism was a tribal religion and there was little interest among Jews to converting others. That is until Jesus, a student of indian learning decided to include other nations into the Judaic net. Jesus started the greatest proselytizing movement, christianity. Christianity is in reality a jewish sect that included non-jews into its group.

In the old testament there's no mention of God having any contact or interest with other tribes except the jews. All his attention was spent on the jews. Thus before Jesus Judaism was a basically a closed shop, a monopoly.

Greco you are entirely mistaken. Does not God say to Abraham that he will bless all nations through him?

Originally posted by Greco
Thus before Jesus Judaism was a basically a closed shop, a monopoly. Greco, your an ignorant fool.

Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
I would be interested in seeing you defend this claim. To the best of my knowledge, Judaism never maintained that heaven was restricted to Jews.

You're right

And the person who posted that does not know his scripture at all. Doesn't even use any scripture to back up his claims

Anyways, shouldn't it be clear already the entire NT is a fairy tale, based on a few factual events?

Can you say book created to control?

-Jahiro

Originally posted by Robban
In the preface of the swedish bible, at least the one I have, it clearly states that Jesus is related in a strait line from King David.

Now thats making me a bit confuce, because I was told in the sunday-school that Jesus was Gods son and that God just is.. so God could by all means not be the son of David.. If both David and Jesus was Gods sons they would have been brothers.

Well.. I guess its not ment to make sence, or?
I see nobody is really taking your question seriously. Do you have any idea what it means to be someone's son?

Originally posted by Jenyar
Do you have any idea what it means to be someone's son?

Yes, sonship and daughtership is an animal quality resulting from reproduction in humans and other animals. A son or daughter must have a mother and a father, paternal grand parents and the whole lineage. Every father and mother are themselves sons and daughters and every grandfather was also a son one day. this reproduction cycle applies to humans and is not a quality of the ONE and ONLY god who creates all. For special cases in history like Adam and Eve who had no mother or father, they are not considered sons or daughters, but first creations. Adam was not the son of god but a creation of god. For Jesus, he only had a mother, so he is the son of Mary alone and the grandson of Mary's parents alone....He is also god creation regardless of the fact that he had only a mother and is no special from Adam who had no father or mother or Eve who had no mother.....God just say be and it is.

Chrisitans use the word son symbolically to describe a relation between a higher object like god and another object of love called chidlren to refer god's creation. This is not accurate, and although it's pleasing to the eye to percieve ourselves as sons and daughters to god and may even seem pleasing to god that we perceive him as a father, it's not the truth, for god is higher than animal description and production and to him all belongs.....So our attempt in respecting god as a father is actually belittling him and bringing him to our level which is not befitting of a god.

I understand that you find the idea of such a relationship with God hard to accept, Flores. But Christians do not use father and son as an indication of status. Nobody could compare themselves with God, unless God makes the comparison himself. You can rest assured, it implies no disrespect, but as I said a relationship.

You are also in a relationship with God because you know Him. Christians are only repeating what Jesus and David said. As God chose Abraham, so does He choose those who follow Him. Because He has called us "sons", we call Him Father. It is the message that Jesus brought.

And the person who posted that does not know his scripture at all. Doesn't even use any scripture to back up his claims

Scripture bores me to tears, it's the refuge of fanatical theists quoting ad infunitum such verbage. For any scriptual assertion I can find one that's contrdictory. No thanks, you can have your scriptures.

Originally posted by Jenyar
I see nobody is really taking your question seriously. Do you have any idea what it means to be someone's son?

I used to have some vague ideas that sonhood was when a father got birth to a son.. erh maybe it was a mother who gave birth to a dau.. (hmm) son. No I cant recall what it means to be someone´s son.

Like most of the questions in here (I assume) this question was not ment as a serious one, but more of a rethorical one. It's more interesting to read peoples thoughs on the issue than actually learn the truth.. because the truth is in this case NOT out there.

:)

Originally posted by okinrus
From <a href="http://www.rosary-center.org/joyful.htm">here</a> maybe.

okinrus, I would appreciate it if I ask someone else a question, please do not answer for them. You are making this a habitual thing. If these people who post cannot or will not answer for themselves, then no answer is needed. In other words, do not speak until you're spoken to. I'm sure your mother tried to teach you this, but you probably had your head stuck in a Bible and learned nothing practical in the universe. Shut up!

Originally posted by Jenyar
Christians are only repeating what Jesus and David said. No. Christians are only repeating a story, written decades or centuries after the time in question, translated, redacted, and harmonized, and purporting to represent what Jesus and David said. You continue to pretend to know what you don't know.

okinrus, I would appreciate it if I ask someone else a question, please do not answer for them. You are making this a habitual thing. If these people who post cannot or will not answer for themselves, then no answer is needed. In other words, do not speak until you're spoken to. I'm sure your mother tried to teach you this, but you probably had your head stuck in a Bible and learned nothing practical in the universe. Shut up!

Like you were really asking that question? Was the bible the expected answer?

Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
No. Christians are only repeating a story, True. Sometimes called history.
written decades or centuries after the time in question, Please substantiate
translated, (with the original languages still available)
redacted, by the authors (it's called "writing")
and harmonized, With what? Please substantiate
and purporting to represent what Jesus and David said. Also referred to as "biographical".

You continue to pretend to know what you don't know.
So do you.

What I find sad, Jenyar, is that you know better. You're simply being dishonest, that or pathetically naive.

What is really sad, CA, is that you would resort to ad hominems rather than supporting your wild statements. If you are so convinced about your allegations, surely you have the evidence to back them up?

written decades or centuries after the time in question, Please substantiate
sorry jenyar, but ca is most definately speaking the truth here. noah's story was written 300 years after the purported event, and that is a very important story in the bible. don't ask me to back this claim up because i'm working from memory.

No. Christians are only repeating a story, True. Sometimes called history
in this frame of mind everything would have to be considered as actual history on the basis of reoccuring themes. you could almost claim aliens are real if you use this idea to prove fact.

by the way, aliens have definately NOT visited this earth, maybe apart from the venus fly trap, but that is not the hyper evolved/intelligent being people are always talking about. i wonder why people's stories always are at their zenith, they can't get any bigger; intelligent life forms from another planet abducting people, ancient spirits conveying themselves through people e.g. definitive christian beings. it makes me tend not to believe what i am being told as it is a human trait to make something as wonderful as can possibly be. like that dweeb who talks to people's deceased relatives on tv (the guy from britain). i haven't seen so much shite come from one persons mouth in my whole life.

I guess I'll have to clear up a little of the mud left on the floor after CA and I had finished our discussion...

When CA says Christians are only repeating a story, it must be the Christian story - i.e. that of Jesus, which was not written centuries after the event of his death. It is true that we base our religion on the history of Judaism, but our "story" begins where their history ends. Which brings me to your next point.

I did not say "always called history", I said "sometimes called history". If you don't acknowledge the history of the Jews as representing history, it is something I can't change. Likewise the history of Christianity.

Originally posted by Jenyar
As God chose Abraham, so does He choose those who follow Him. Because He has called us "sons", we call Him Father. It is the message that Jesus brought.

Even that is not true. The use of the word bin or bani in ancient Hebrew and Arabic should not be translated into son, it means merely followers of or the property of. Bani Israel, are not the sons of Israel, but the property of Israel. As you know countires don't father people but contain them.

And please don't say that son is used by Christians for relation demonstration only and not to disrespect god by bringing to the status of humans, because the next lesson in the christian church is that we are godly and that those of us who believe in the god christ is the son or daughter of christ to be saved by christ, rather than saying that god is great and will judge us all equally by his discretion and noone knowns what is hidden in the day of judgement.

Originally posted by Jenyar
You are also in a relationship with God because you know Him


No I'm in an eminent relationship with god as a creation and him the creator, regardless of whether I know him or not, I'm still in a relatioship with him as a creation. I can't be born without his command, I can't live one more day that my decreed date without his command, I can't change the past nor alter judgement day...I'm in complete and total subjection to my creator and that's an ultimate relatioship that knowing something, specially that you yourself must have found out from our discussion here about the existance of god that no one knows shit about god really.
The christian logic is faulty implying that the relationship with god is only established via knowing him and acknowledging him, while god knows his creatures all of them the good and the bad by default since he created them.


Originally posted by Jenyar
Christians are only repeating what Jesus and David said. As God chose Abraham, so does He choose those who follow Him. Because He has called us "sons", we call Him Father. It is the message that Jesus brought.

Christians are repeating the corrupt diluted version of the bible that they recieved and the number one pointer to their lack of understanding and corruption of text is the multi sects that profess to study the same book yet each of them reach entirely different conclusion. For god sake, you and the jews study half of the book that was supposidly leading to Jesus and claiming that before Abraham was I, yet the jews don't even know what Jesus is. Are you the only rightous soul here son of god with bounty of understanding and the rest of us are all sons and daughters of mules or something.

well, we know the christian teaching is based on god's promise to abraham, as opposed to the law, which was provided for much later. in that sense abe is our father- the promise being to his seed, jesus, not many seeds ( the teaching of paul ). in jesus is fulfillment from hell.
bedouin saying- the more u see, bigger the sky, and hell.

in jesus, flores, is grace of judgement. i don't think jesus is about bringing shame upon the hapless victim- nor do i think jesus be cruel. in accordance to religious instruction, the flower reveals the honey or bitterness of it's own fruits. man's conceptual images are not god's. god is absolute, yet we love him!
jesus has the strongest teaching, and a good moslem soul relates thru his own grace of spirit.

Firingseeds,
You are again like always playing god and putting yourself in the shoes of god as the church teaches you and handing out grace, love, and salvation at your whim and baseless of any knowledge. Your words are dancing around the subject and any logic, and while they may appeal to the naive uneducated, they're quite out of tune and disturbing to those who have an ounce of understanding and believe in personal integrity and responsbility.

Originally posted by Flores
Even that is not true. The use of the word bin or bani in ancient Hebrew and Arabic should not be translated into son, it means merely followers of or the property of. Bani Israel, are not the sons of Israel, but the property of Israel. As you know countires don't father people but contain them.
As in Osama "property of" Laden? Of course, children were considered "assets", but Israel was also the name of Jacob, who had real sons, who had descendents, who also had sons. "Son" means "related to" - as in a "certain relationship with".

No I'm in an eminent relationship with god as a creation and him the creator, regardless of whether I know him or not, I'm still in a relatioship with him as a creation. I can't be born without his command, I can't live one more day that my decreed date without his command, I can't change the past nor alter judgement day...I'm in complete and total subjection to my creator and that's an ultimate relatioship that knowing something, specially that you yourself must have found out from our discussion here about the existance of god that no one knows shit about god really.
The christian logic is faulty implying that the relationship with god is only established via knowing him and acknowledging him, while god knows his creatures all of them the good and the bad by default since he created them.
I agree, and that is what God said to David:

Psalm 2:7
I will proclaim the decree of the LORD : He said to me, "You are my son; today I have become your Father [have begotten you]"

You are not in a relationship with God because you know Him. You are right: it is because He created you. He called David "son", and when Jesus "son of" David adopted us in God's name, we shared in His inheritance. It is not through knowledge or anything I can hope to do or know or achieve. I cannot save myself, I can only accept God's words.

That is why I dare to call Him Father.

Originally posted by Jenyar
As in Osama "property of" Laden? Of course, children were considered "assets", but Israel was also the name of Jacob, who had real sons, who had descendents, who also had sons. "Son" means "related to" - as in a "certain relationship with".


I agree,
That is why I dare to call Him Father.

Jenyar, I don't know your native tongue, but mine is arabic as you know. Ibn, Bani, Ibni, are the only words used in the Arabic bible to describe Jesus relationship to god. The word Walad, meaning son, comes from Walid, meaning born into, and is the appropriate word to translate to son and is not used in the Hebrew or arabic bible. Ibn is merely the property of or assett of. In addition, the use of the word begotten together with Ibn confirms my idea that it's not a son, for god creates and not get. The word get implies that it was gotton from something exterior to it or given by something else. Who is this entity that gave god Jesus if god begot Jesus. God created Jesus and Jesus follows god as Bin God, and we are all Bin God, yet not sons of god......Do you get it?

That makes sense, and I agree with you, but the fact that David would make such a statement in the first place suggests that what he is talking about is not a natural association, but a decision. Why would God say "today I have begotten you" if we were "Bin God" anyway? Although we were implicitly "bin God" (all being created by Him), God made it explicit by choosing us. Just like God decides who will be with Him in heaven, He decides who are His children - they are those who listen to Him. Only God's chosen "children" have the right to call Him "Father".

flores, i'm just telling it as it is.
tell ya a story. this guy walks in the door. the occupant say's, who u think u are- a king or something? no, the guy replied, i just walked in.
u have become emotional.

well, flores, with your statement about jesus being created- like u and me- u have overcome and defeated all christian doctrine, and reasoning; which is based on the fact that jesus is uncreated.

take a bow. there is only one more hurdle for u to conquer, yourself.

oh, and flores, i don't have be nice- u should know that.

Originally posted by firingseeds

take a bow. there is only one more hurdle for u to conquer, yourself.

Sorry to bring you the sad news, but I don't bow to myself, I only bow to my god. You go bow to yourself and worship yourself while you are at it as a son of god. Myself may be rotten eggs dressed with 5 year old horse radish, and so why should I bow to myself?

Originally posted by Jenyar
Only God's chosen "children" have the right to call Him "Father".

I quit Jenyar. The grand conspiracy to corrupt christianity and bible after Jesus death has been in crafting for thousands of years to ensure that poor souls like you who have an ounce of doubt about what they read, keep paddeling hard in a direction that you have no knowledge of which was conceived by the enemies of jesus.

God have to forgive you, you must be forgiven on ground of lameness and lack of knowledge of the message and I understand your position completely, because if I was in your shoes born into a corrupt faith that told me that I'm in the status of a god or a child of god or that the moon and sun is my god and I was raised reading the corrupt bible or worshipping a sun or a moon or embedded with the belief that I'm save because I'm a child of god, I would be defending this garbage with my all might as well, for it's the straw to my salvation.

Originally posted by Flores
I quit Jenyar. The grand conspiracy to corrupt christianity and bible after Jesus death has been in crafting for thousands of years
Flores, I think it has become time for you to start substantiating your conspiracy theory that I am believing lies.

Question 1: Which books did Mohammed (pbuh) say were intact, and which were allegedly corrupted?
Question 2: Were Jesus' disciples liars or not?

... if I was in your shoes born into a corrupt faith that told me that I'm in the status of a god or a child of god or that the moon and sun is my god and I was raised reading the corrupt bible or worshipping a sun or a moon or embedded with the belief that I'm save because I'm a child of god, I would be defending this garbage with my all might as well, for it's the straw to my salvation.
You have a very twisted view of what I believe. Do you even want to know? Genesis mentions the sun and moon as creations of God. Only the pagan religions worshipped them as deities. I am not God, that is also a pagan belief.

Originally posted by Jenyar
You have a very twisted view of what I believe. Do you even want to know? Genesis mentions the sun and moon as creations of God. Only the pagan religions worshipped them as deities. I am not God, that is also a pagan belief.

I can't find a better quote from the Quran than that one "You have your religion and I have mine" to describe how we should handle our fundemental differences in opinion.

To bad neighter the worshippers of Jesus nor the followers of Mohammad had any plans to follow that statement.

Originally posted by Robban
the followers of Mohammad had any plans to follow that statement.

Who the hell are the followers of Muhammed.? I thought muslims are the followers of god and Muhamed is but a stinking messangers, not in a form of insult, but in the fact that when Muhammed sweat like the rest of us he stank, Mohamed had no teaching previledges as stated in the Quran, he also have no previledge to decide the fate of his most beloved ones including dad, mom, uncles, wifes...This Quranic statement nillifies the validity of all Hadith.

same goes for Jesus, no matter what they say according to me IMHO that would be.

Anyway. Both xian and islam are aggresive religions and that has causes a lot of headake to a lot of people in a lot of years.

So that quote from the Quran sounds a bit strange in my ears. Maybe you could care to enligthen me?

the christians have their problems, too, ya know. according to paul, there is the spirit of the anti-christ among the sheep, even since paul's time.
we arn't stupid.

Originally posted by Robban
So that quote from the Quran sounds a bit strange in my ears. Maybe you could care to enligthen me?

I know you are referring to flores but what is it that you don't get. The quote is pretty simple. It tells its followers to leave other peoples' religion alone and focuse on your own. If one were to do this we would not have any problems with other people since we would not be trying to converge them.

anyway something that bothers me about the christian church is their prejudice against people from other religions. this summer I volunteered one week to help out at a vacation bible school. The first day this lady asked me if I went to their teen camp. I replied no then she turned to another lady and commented that her son was being such a xian after he came back from it. She said he did not want to be friends with non-xian people because that would influence him in a bad way. i dunno why i even volunteered, guess i like working with little kids but yeah... sorry this is out of the subject but personally i think it is worth mentioning.

Voltaire:

The meaning of the quote is quite obvious. The confusing part is that it is in the quran. Islam is a quite agressive expansionistic religion (as is xian) so it would be more understandable if the quote sayed plain out "Dont have your religion, have mine"

anyway something that bothers me about the christian church is their prejudice against people from other religions.

Prejudice against people from other religions is not christian doctrin. The Quran does basically say that muslims cannot have close unbeliving friends. It kind of contradicts itself because muslim men can marry christians but I think the idea that marriage was friendship at that time was absurd.

Originally posted by okinrus
Prejudice against people from other religions is not christian doctrin. The founders of Christine Doctrine would strongly disagree.

The founders of Christine Doctrine would strongly disagree.

No, not sure what you mean by "founders". If you mean someone like Martin Luther, then yes he was a bigot. However believing that your religion is the only true one and hating people of other religions is a long strech.

Originally posted by okinrus
No, not sure what you mean by "founders". If you mean someone like Martin Luther, then yes he was a bigot. However believing that your religion is the only true one and hating people of other religions is a long strech. I mean Justin Martyr, Tertullian, John Chrysostom, ...

I mean Persistent Antisemitic Canonical Law (http://www.baruchhashem.com/resources/canonlaw.html)

I mean A Catholic Timeline... (http://www.shc.edu/theolibrary/resources/timeline.htm)

Martin Luther was hardly the exception.

Originally posted by Robban
Voltaire:

The meaning of the quote is quite obvious. The confusing part is that it is in the quran. Islam is a quite agressive expansionistic religion (as is xian) so it would be more understandable if the quote sayed plain out "Dont have your religion, have mine"
well, it is against their religion to force other people to convert into their religion. i am not making this up, i even asked my history proffesor if what i am saying is correct. islam is not an expansionistic religion, it is the people who follow it that are.

hmm

I must do some research on that. Interesting.

Originally posted by Robban
So that quote from the Quran sounds a bit strange in my ears. Maybe you could care to enligthen me?

Sorry I was away for a couple of days, I usually don't write in evening or over weekends.

You asked about the Quranic quotes regarding the fact that the prophet is not in charge of anything but delivery of message. Here are some

The Counsel
[42.48] But if they turn aside, We have not sent you as a watcher over them; on you is only to deliver (the message); and surely when We make man taste mercy from Us, he rejoices thereat; and if an evil afflicts them on account of what their hands have already done, then-surely man is ungrateful.


The Family of Imran
[3.20] But if they dispute with you, say: I have submitted myself entirely to Allah and (so) every one who follows me; and say to those who have been given the Book and the unlearned people: Do you submit yourselves? So if they submit then indeed they follow the right way; and if they turn back, then upon you is only the delivery of the message and Allah sees the servants.

The Bee
[16.35] And they who give associates (to Allah) say: If Allah had pleased, we would not have served anything besides Allah, (neither) we nor our fathers, nor would we have prohibited anything without (order from) Him. Thus did those before them; is then aught incumbent upon the apostles except a plain delivery (of the message)?

The Cow
[2.272] To make them walk in the right way is not incumbent on you, but Allah guides aright whom He pleases

From the above, you can see that god clearly say that it's not the job of the prophet to set people in the path, also, It is clearly said over and over again that nothing is incumbent upon the prophet but plain delivery of the message (Quran). We are not supposed to follow in a prophet foot steps or mimic their lives or marry as many woman as a prophet does of use the same tooth brush as a prophet, or grow our beirds like a prophet, or wear ancient cloth with turbines like a prophet.

Also, very important, if you read the couseler and other verses, you will see that even the prophet can not do anything to anyone that choose to disbelieve in god, because people including prophets are not watchers over others, but only god judges. Of course, Bin Laden will disagree since he personally think that he is watcher over the entire universe and dictator of moral conduct and lifes of others.

Everyone here seems to know a lot about the bible and biblical history. Yet, you always feel the need to challenge each other's knowlege. Furthermore, it seems odd that some people that make athieistc comments are so knowlegeable on the subjects at hand in the first place.

I believe most of the quotes that ConsequentAtheist gave were out of context. For example in Justin's dialog with the Jewish Trypho, Justin does not sound anti-Jewish. In fact, by praising the Jewish prophets, he is doing the exact opposite. http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-48.htm#P4043_787325 Other reasons for angry comments are that early christians were persecuted by Jews.

Originally posted by okinrus
I believe most of the quotes that ConsequentAtheist gave were out of context. What, specifically, did I quote out of context, and where? Which of the canonical laws were out of context and why?

Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
What, specifically, did I quote out of context, and where? Which of the canonical laws were out of context and why?

okinrus, although CA and I don't always see eye-to-eye, you definitely cannot match wits with him. It would do you good to read what he posts, because when he posts something other than his famous condescending barbs, the guy knows what he's talking about. I wish he'd share more of his knowledge with the rest of us.

What, specifically, did I quote out of context, and where? Which of the canonical laws were out of context and why?

Ok take this site
http://www.shc.edu/theolibrary/resources/timeline.htm
I would need the exact context of each statement to determine any trace of anti-semetism. St. Jerome learned hebrew under Jewish Rabbis to translate the old testament. Look again at the quote by St. Augustine. My translation from <a href="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/140612.htm">here</a> says,


11. Then God says to Cain: "Thou art cursed from the earth, which hath opened its mouth to receive thy brother's blood at thy hand. For thou shalt till the earth, and it shall no longer yield unto thee its strength. A mourner and an abject shalt thou be on the earth." It is not, Cursed is the earth, but, Cursed art thou from the earth, which hath opened its mouth to receive thy brother's blood at thy hand. So the unbelieving people of the Jews is cursed from the earth, that is, from the Church, which in the confession of sins has opened its mouth to receive the blood shed for the remission of sins by the hand of the people that would not be under grace, but under the law. And this murderer is cursed by the Church; that is, the Church admits and avows the curse pronounced by the apostle: "Whoever are of the works of the law are under the curse of the law.'' Then, after saying, Cursed art thou from the earth, which has opened its mouth to receive thy brother's blood at thy hand, what follows is not, For thou shalt till it, but, Thou shalt till the earth, and it shall not yield to thee its strength. The earth he is to till is not necessarily the same as that which opened its mouth to receive his brother's blood at his hand. From this earth he is cursed, and so he tills an earth which shall no longer yield to him its strength. That is, the Church admits and avows the Jewish people to be cursed, because after killing Christ they continue to till the ground of an earthly circumcision, an earthly Sabbath, an earthly passover, while the hidden strength or virtue of making known Christ, which this tilling contains, is not yielded to the Jews while they continue in impiety and unbelief, for it is revealed in the New Testament.


It's not anti-semetic. All agustine is saying is that Jews have a veil on them so that they cannot see the full glory of Christ while (referance the veil Moses wore) they are in unbelief and are following the Law for salvation.

good point, justathaught. people live in denial- like they fear being harnessed.
;) ( we'll just make it a little harder for them ).
THE WHOLE DUTY OF MAN IS TO SERVE GOD.

fear of being harnessed or complex minds that find belief in such a transparent faith hard to accept? (christianity based off the bible that is)

atheroy: it's not the mind that worries me, but the spiritual force behind it.
and what is so complex about a spiritual kingdom, as opposed to a fleshly dominion of the 5 senses. god reserves the right to allow one retention of their 'little piece of turf' ( their own mind ).
this fleshly life still relates back to control- as god say's, 'tis is a spiritual war and not a war of the flesh...innoccence is a gift.
your point accepted, but only because the 'complex mind' is limited in it's own understanding. ( some complex minds can't change car tires. )
cheers

Originally posted by okinrus
I would need the exact context of each statement to determine any trace of anti-semetism. I noticed that you cowardly sidestep the question of Canonical law. No doubt you're incapable of recognizing them as "context".

Originally posted by okinrus
St. Jerome learned hebrew under Jewish Rabbis to translate the old testament. Therefore?

from what I have read in the bible, the idea is this:

Joseph and Mary are married
Mary sees an angels telling her she's going to bear God himself
Mary tells Joeseph of this
Joeseph isn't sure if he can hendle it, and considers leaving
An Angel shows Joseph not to be afraid, and Joseph doesn't leave.
Mary, at this point, is still a virgin. She carries and bares Yesu (or Eesa or, the modern version, Jesus).
After this point, Joseph and Mary "know" each other a few times, from which comes Jesus's siblings, one of whom is Yshua (otherwise known as James, the martyr who was one oft he founders of the Christian church as an institution)
Mary and Joseph live long enough to see Jesus die
I don't know what happens to them after Jesus's death, to be honest.

So Jesus is the son of Mary and God, or Just God, and carried by Mary. Joseph doesn't enter into the picture genetically. Jesus cannot be from Mary alone, however, as Jesus is a guy, and were he a clone of Mary with God's spirit inside, he would be a she. It's possible that an entirely different genetic code could have been created, and Jesus is not genetically related to anyone; if he is the son of god, maybe he didn't need genes at all. Maybe he didn't need blood. Maybe he was actually animated clay made up to look human. Unless you were to do a biological study of Jesus himself, you'd never know for sure.

I am not planning on reading this whole thread, so I don;t know if anyone addressed this or not, but here goes nothing...

Originally posted by justathaught
Mary was a virginn. Thus, Jesus could not be directly related to anyone on earth.

Ummmm...

OK..
Let's say, for sake of argument, that Mary actually was a virgin.
And, let's assume that Jesus actually was the son of Mary.

Jesus, then would be Mary's son, but not Joseph's son, right?

Let me know if I am going too fast...

Therefore Jesus would be directly related to Mary, Mary's parents and everyone else further up her lineage.
He would not be directly related to Jopseph, true.
Virgin means she never had sex, however, she was impregnated by God, and gave birth to his son, therefore she is Jesus' mother.
His paternal line (his father's family tree) only has one in it (the Big Guy), but his maternal line (Mary's family tree) goes back many generations, and he is the decendent of all of them.

What would make you come to the conclusion that Jesus was not directly related to anyone on Earth?

We are all Mary's children. I believe that Jesus was formed by God through Mary's flesh but this is open to interpretation.

Originally posted by okinrus
We are all Mary's children.

So she got around quite a bit after Jesus was born, huh?
That tramp!
;)

Can you please explain what you mean by that?
How can Mary be the mother of us all if she was human with a traceable lineage, AND people existed before and during her time (she is not Eve, and many women were giving birth back then).
I assume you mean metaphorically, and if so, I don;t get the metaphor.

Also, who, specifically, you mean by "we".
All people? All Christians?

Originally posted by okinrus
We are all Mary's children. I believe that Jesus was formed by God through Mary's flesh but this is open to interpretation. A masterful understatement.

Children can be assigned to the care of adoptive parents. That makes them their legal parents. The only biological link Jesus shared with humanity was his humanity. We are all biological children of Eve, but adopted children of Jesus. Mitochondrial DNA is only passed on from the woman's side, so Mary was Jesus genetic mother - skin, blood and all.

Psalm 2:7
I will proclaim the decree of the LORD : He said to me, "You are my son; today I have become your Father".

John 19:26
When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, "Dear woman, here is your son," 27and to the disciple, "Here is your mother." From that time on, this disciple took her into his home.

Originally posted by Voltaire
if Jesus is the son of God then I am God's daughter as well. he was just a human like us but he was influential and had very good intentions in helping the people around him soooooo people thought that was rare therefore he "must" have been the son of God.

No, scripture teaches that we are simply God's creation, until we are born again, at which time, he says that He immediately adopts that person, as His child into His family.

Originally posted by one_raven
I am not planning on reading this whole thread, so I don;t know if anyone addressed this or not, but here goes nothing...



Ummmm...

OK..
Let's say, for sake of argument, that Mary actually was a virgin.
And, let's assume that Jesus actually was the son of Mary.

Jesus, then would be Mary's son, but not Joseph's son, right?

Let me know if I am going too fast...

Therefore Jesus would be directly related to Mary, Mary's parents and everyone else further up her lineage.
He would not be directly related to Jopseph, true.
Virgin means she never had sex, however, she was impregnated by God, and gave birth to his son, therefore she is Jesus' mother.
His paternal line (his father's family tree) only has one in it (the Big Guy), but his maternal line (Mary's family tree) goes back many generations, and he is the decendent of all of them.

What would make you come to the conclusion that Jesus was not directly related to anyone on Earth?

Jesus had many younger brothers and sisters, according to the biblical text. The text says that Joseph and Mary had no sexual relations, until after Jesus was born.

Jesus' younger brother James was the Bishop of Jerusalem around the period of 40 to 50 AD.

Originally posted by Jenyar
[B]When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, "Dear woman, here is your son," 27and to the disciple, "Here is your mother." From that time on, this disciple took her into his home. No. John tells a story that purports to convey a dialogue. When do suspect the story was written?

Originally posted by biblthmp
Jesus had many younger brothers and sisters, according to the biblical text. Where?

Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
Where?

Matthew 12:46 - While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him.
Matthew 12:47 - Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.

Matthew 13:55 - Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?

Matthew 13:56 - And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?

This was not speaking of the disciples, because the disciples were inside already, and the verse says the brothers are outside. Jesus goes on to point to his disciples, and says that these are my real brothers, becasue they do the will of His heavenly father.

It is believed that the writers of the biblical books called "James", and "Jude", were both biological brothers, from the list in 13:55.

Jude and Judas are different forms of the same name.

Originally posted by biblthmp
No, scripture teaches that we are simply God's creation, until we are born again, at which time, he says that He immediately adopts that person, as His child into His family.

why are you saying no? i remarked that if he was his son then i am his daughter. i think jesus was a cool man but he wasn't that different from any other human. explain what you mean by your statement.

Originally posted by biblthmp
Jesus had many younger brothers and sisters, according to the biblical text. The text says that Joseph and Mary had no sexual relations, until after Jesus was born.

Jesus' younger brother James was the Bishop of Jerusalem around the period of 40 to 50 AD.

biblthmp, you are wrong! The word "virgin" simply means "young woman". It has nothing to do with not having sex. That's an American Puritanical fundamentalist's definition. The word "virgin" was misinterpreted by the translators of the Latin Bible. They translated every thought about sex to be dirty and vile. The word in Latin is "alma," which means "young woman."

You must realize that Paul hated females and promoted celibacy. He commissioned the Gospels to be written by his friends and they spun the Gospels to be slanted about sex which he considered vile.
----------
okinrus, all the visions and apparitions of Mary are not actually the BVM but Mariam of Magdala.

Well, biblthmp is likely right about one thing, ive read of james being bishop of jerusalem as well, moreover, that his idea of christianity seemed a little different to the Pauline version that weve ended up with. So one wonders what was going on back then.

Originally posted by biblthmp
Matthew 12:46 - While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without,
Strong's 80: a brother, whether born of the same two parents or only of the same father or mother having the same national ancestor, belonging to the same people, or countryman any fellow or man a fellow believer, united to another by the bond of affection an associate in employment or office brethren in Christ
a) his brothers by blood
b) all men
c) apostles
d) Christians, as those who are exalted to the same heavenly place

So she got around quite a bit after Jesus was born, huh?
That tramp!

No, spirtual children born in the spirit but not in the flesh.


Can you please explain what you mean by that?
How can Mary be the mother of us all if she was human with a traceable lineage, AND people existed before and during her time (she is not Eve, and many women were giving birth back then).
I assume you mean metaphorically, and if so, I don;t get the metaphor.

I don't think it's metaphor but something deeper. If we are born again through the spirit, are we to be left without a mother. In that case the law "honor your father and mother" is useless correct?


Also, who, specifically, you mean by "we".
All people? All Christians?

Yes I believe everyone or at least those who have not chosen to go to hell. Revelation 12 says all those who keep who keep the commandments of Jesus are her offspring. However my definition of Christian is probably looser than yours.

CA is right here. In aramaic the word for brother could be cousins. The orthodox church maintains that Jesus had half brothers and the roman catholic church has traditionally, from St. Jerome, maintained that those were Jesus' cousins.

James was killed early in christianity, at least that's what Josephus tells us.


biblthmp, you are wrong! The word "virgin" simply means "young woman". It has nothing to do with not having sex. That's an American Puritanical fundamentalist's definition.

This is from a "mistake" in the septuagint, which was a translation of Hebrew into Greek before Christ. M*W I've already corrected your mistake here 4 months ago so I'm wondering what inaccurate book your reading this in. There are may be valid reasons for the greek translators to use this translation. The text sourounding it, calls the birth a sign, or perhaps they felt that the emphasize on a young woman meant a virgin. Either way it's no fault of Mathew for quoting it.


okinrus, all the visions and apparitions of Mary are not actually the BVM but Mariam of Magdala.

I would listen to both of them.

Originally posted by okinrus
CA is right here. In aramaic the word for brother could be cousins. That's a rather pathetic and confused distortion. The term used in gMat was adelphos, which is no more aramaic than is spanakopita and which, according to Strong's 80, can equally well mean "countryman", "fellow man", or fellow believer.

Originally posted by okinrus
There are may be valid reasons for the greek translators to use this translation. The text sourounding it, calls the birth a sign, or perhaps they felt that the emphasize on a young woman meant a virgin. Either way it's no fault of Mathew for quoting it. The Isaiah reference by Matthew is no less a confused distortion.

In each case the question remains: is the distortion intentional or simply ignorant? :rolleyes:

That's a rather pathetic and confused distortion. The term used in gMat was adelphos, which is no more aramaic than is spanakopita and which, according to Strong's 80, can equally well mean "countryman", "fellow man", or fellow believer.

http://users.rcn.com/jcrobin/Brothers%20of%20the%20Lord.htm


In each case the question remains: is the distortion intentional or simply ignorant?

Of course it wasn't intentional. It would be no different than someone quoting from the King James version and then finding out that the KJV translated it with implicit assumptions.

Originally posted by okinrus
Of course it wasn't intentional. OK. Nice reference by the way.

Originally posted by guthrie
Well, biblthmp is likely right about one thing, ive read of james being bishop of jerusalem as well, moreover, that his idea of christianity seemed a little different to the Pauline version that weve ended up with. So one wonders what was going on back then.

Let us look at that problem. Paul was working from the framework of faith, which has a different definition from the Greek word. The Hebrew word "Emuna", which Paul used meant a heartfelt belief, which produces a life change, as a result. James on the other hand was combatting the Greek/Hellenized meaning that was coming into the church, of "Pistis", which simply means an intellectual assent to something.

"Pistis" will not produce the life changing effect, that "Emuna" will.

Paul is saying that is one has Emuna, it is enough, but James is saying that having Pistis is not enough.

Originally posted by Voltaire
why are you saying no? i remarked that if he was his son then i am his daughter. i think jesus was a cool man but he wasn't that different from any other human. explain what you mean by your statement.

We are quite different from Jesus, in that until we are born again, we are not a child, we are his creation. similar to a ceramic pot, made by a ceramics worker, or a piece of furniture made by a carpenter. It is at our born again experience, that we are immediately adopted into His family.

Jesus on the other hand was biologically related to God the Father, He was never adopted, for there was no need.

The belief that all humans are God's children rather than simply His creation, was a myth that was developped during the enlightenment.

Not sure if this has been mentioned before or not on thread but according Barbara Thierings interpretation of the Dead Sea Scrolls, a virgin referred to state of marriage. Up towards the top of the religiouys hierachy, the man and the woman stayed a part when first married. At this time the wife was referred to as a virgin. As sometimes happened Joseph lost control during this stage and impregnated Mary. When this happened it was referred to as a virgin birth, a little to the opposite of the usual virgin theme. If you study her research into the scrolls there is no miracles or nothing. Rock rolling and all is explained in rational terms.

leeaus

Originally posted by biblthmp
Jesus on the other hand was biologically related to God the Father, ... Well said! Perhaps you could clarify something: did the semen come from an Angel, the Holy Ghost, or God Himself?

Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
Well said! Perhaps you could clarify something: did the semen come from an Angel, the Holy Ghost, or God Himself?

The creator of the Universe, and all that is in it, would not necesitate the use of semen for the impregnation of a woman. He spoke all of creation into existence with a word, he can do the same for a body for His boy.

Originally posted by leeaus
Not sure if this has been mentioned before or not on thread but according Barbara Thierings interpretation of the Dead Sea Scrolls, a virgin referred to state of marriage. Up towards the top of the religiouys hierachy, the man and the woman stayed a part when first married. At this time the wife was referred to as a virgin. As sometimes happened Joseph lost control during this stage and impregnated Mary. When this happened it was referred to as a virgin birth, a little to the opposite of the usual virgin theme. If you study her research into the scrolls there is no miracles or nothing. Rock rolling and all is explained in rational terms.

leeaus

And so, Joseph wanted to divorce her, because it was his kid? I think not.

Originally posted by biblthmp
The creator of the Universe, and all that is in it, would not necesitate the use of semen for the impregnation of a woman. He spoke all of creation into existence with a word, he can do the same for a body for His boy.
Be careful not to step into Arianism: Jesus is not the biological descendent of God. As the Muslims put it: "far be it from the glory of God to beget a son". As a human being, He was the biological son of Mary, inspired by God, the legal son of the marriage between Joseph and Mary, and the spiritual "son of God". Remember Jesus never referred to Himelf as the "son of God", but rather as "the son of man". Jesus is only son of God when relating back to God from a human perspective, which is why we can call Him thus. The implication is that Jesus was not created, but rather "revealed" by God for our creation, and later also our salvation (rebirth).

I admit I'm Jesus' father. I swear I thought the sheepskin would work. Joseph was pissed at me. We're old college buddies. But that girl was a slut. Her maiden name was Magdalene...

Originally posted by Jenyar
Be careful not to step into Arianism: Jesus is not the biological descendent of God. As the Muslims put it: "far be it from the glory of God to beget a son". As a human being, He was the biological son of Mary, inspired by God, the legal son of the marriage between Joseph and Mary, and the spiritual "son of God".

Correct, Jesus was the biological son of Mary alone, since she was not touched by any man. I wasn't aware that Mary was married and I doubt she was because being married implies a sexual responsbility and relationship with her husband which did not occur.

By your logic though, Adam and Eve are equal to Jesus or even superior in the fact that they didn't have a biological father or mother, and that makes them all spiritual sons and daughters of god, which means that Jesus is no different than Adam in the eyes of god.

Originally posted by Flores
Correct, Jesus was the biological son of Mary alone, since she was not touched by any man. I wasn't aware that Mary was married and I doubt she was because being married implies a sexual responsbility and relationship with her husband which did not occur.
They were engaged when Jesus was conceived. If Joseph did not actually break off the engagement, they were definitely married. Jesus' brothers and sisters are mentioned, although it is not really clear whether they were biological or just "spiritual" brothers. It's not important, though. We don't know what obligation Joseph and Mary felt to have more children, after Jesus was born. Those were definitely not normal times for them.

By your logic though, Adam and Eve are equal to Jesus or even superior in the fact that they didn't have a biological father or mother, and that makes them all spiritual sons and daughters of god, which means that Jesus is no different than Adam in the eyes of god.
Not if Jesus existed before Adam, as Adam was supposed to have been created in "God's image". We know that Jesus was glorified by God, but that Adam sinned. That is a great difference in God's eyes.

No, Adam and Eve were created beings. Jesus was a pre-existant being. Jesus created all things. Adam and Eve created nothing. Jesus simply put on a "flesh coat" when he was born from Mary. Jesus has been around as long as God the Father has (Infinite Eternity).

Originally posted by Jenyar

Not if Jesus existed before Adam, as Adam was supposed to have been created in "God's image". We know that Jesus was glorified by God, but that Adam sinned. That is a great difference in God's eyes.

Jesus didn't exist before Adam. It's clear in even the corrupt bible that god on the seven day after creating the universe sat on the throne ALONE. Then he created Adam. Genesis doesn't talk about god creating Jesus before Adam and doesn't explain the purpose of Jesus.

Adam sinned and he was forgiven, and Jesus sinned also as a human in many instances. Jesus got weak and questioned god when he was fed up with his own people, and I consider that a sin. Jesus as a god like you know who was created before time should never ask the question, why have you forsaken me? He should know his purpose and he should fulfill it without a question.

Mark.15
[33] And when the sixth hour was come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour.
[34] And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

And how can you be so sure that Jesus never sinned. You have no account of Jesus life between the age of 10 and 30. He could have not shared a toy, or peed on himself and not tell his mom, or ate the last piece of cake in the fridge? How the hell do you know that he led a sinless life, and what is your definition of sinless?

Jesus didn't exist before Adam. It's clear in even the corrupt bible that god on the seven day after creating the universe sat on the throne ALONE. Then he created Adam. Genesis doesn't talk about god creating Jesus before Adam and doesn't explain the purpose of Jesus.
Actually, it's not so clear. I wonder if God also spoke of himself as "we" in the Quran. But anyway, before Jesus actually became known on earth there would be no way of distinguishing between God the Father and God the Son. After all: God is one God. God did not create or beget Jesus. He created Adam as the first human.

Adam sinned and he was forgiven, and Jesus sinned also as a human in many instances. Jesus got weak and questioned god when he was fed up with his own people, and I consider that a sin. Jesus as a god like you know who was created before time should never ask the question, why have you forsaken me? He should know his purpose and he should fulfill it without a question.
Those words were first uttered by David, and God did not consider it a sin then. If you read the Psalm, you see it is the cry of someone who knows that God will answer that question with "I have not forsaken you".

"Wondering why..." and "doubting that...", is not the same thing. We frequently call out to God in hope and desperation. If we did not believe in God, we would not have asked Him. It is a final sign of submission, not of rebellion.

And how can you be so sure that Jesus never sinned. You have no account of Jesus life between the age of 10 and 30. He could have not shared a toy, or peed on himself and not tell his mom, or ate the last piece of cake in the fridge? How the hell do you know that he led a sinless life, and what is your definition of sinless?
Sin is rebellion against God and His laws. Peeing on yourself and not telling your parents is hardly rebellion. Not sharing is not the same as not loving. Sin is not something about "right and wrong" in people's eyes - that is easily forgiven by loving parents, sin is much worse: it is whether you are right or wrong in God's eyes. Some Jews were at a point where they were so afraid of sinning that they even refused to help people on the Sabbath, because it was "work". Sin is the disobedience of God's commands, and missing your purpose (the origin of the word means "to miss the goal". Jesus did not miss His goal, but fulfilled it every step of the way - He knew what He was supposed to do, and even though it was hard, frustrating, and He was sometimes deathly afraid, He still walked that path because God wanted it.

Originally posted by Jenyar
Actually, it's not so clear. I wonder if God also spoke of himself as "we" in the Quran. But anyway, before Jesus actually became known on earth there would be no way of distinguishing between God the Father and God the Son. After all: God is one God. God did not create or beget Jesus. He created Adam as the first human.


God is only one and that's made very clear in the Quran. The use of the word we is out of respect and to glorify god by summing up his plural functions under his singular authority. I find the use of the word we very appropriate to describe god and is in no way contradictory to his oneness and singular authority.

Originally posted by Jenyar
Those words were first uttered by David, and God did not consider it a sin then. If you read the Psalm, you see it is the cry of someone who knows that God will answer that question with "I have not forsaken you".


Sin is not a bad thing, Jenyar. God's infinite compassion and mercy can encompass any sin. It's us humans that try to judge others and attribute sins to others that abuses the concept and undermine the compassion and mercy of god.


Originally posted by Jenyar
Sin is rebellion against God and His laws. Peeing on yourself and not telling your parents is hardly rebellion. Not sharing is not the same as not loving. Sin is not something about "right and wrong" in people's eyes - that is easily forgiven by loving parents, sin is much worse: it is whether you are right or wrong in God's eyes. Some Jews were at a point where they were so afraid of sinning that they even refused to help people on the Sabbath, because it was "work". Sin is the disobedience of God's commands, and missing your purpose (the origin of the word means "to miss the goal". Jesus did not miss His goal, but fulfilled it every step of the way - He knew what He was supposed to do, and even though it was hard, frustrating, and He was sometimes deathly afraid, He still walked that path because God wanted it.

This is a subjective evaluation on your part on what consitutes a sinless life. You said that walking the path that god wants constitutes a sinless life, then how could you say that Jesus is the only sinless person, while you don't know of the many others that have walked the path of god. Again, only god can judge our sins, and jesus himself could not judge himself and say that he is pure.....God will judge him.

Originally posted by Flores
----------
I find the use of the word we very appropriate to describe god and is in no way contradictory to his oneness and singular authority.
----------
(I like your description of God referring to itself as "we." Since God encompasses all creation, it's on fitting that we refer to God as "we.")
----------
Sin is not a bad thing, Jenyar. God's infinite compassion and mercy can encompass any sin. It's us humans that try to judge others and attribute sins to others that abuses the concept and undermine the compassion and mercy of god.
----------
(The ultimate sin is separating ourselves from God. When we remove ourselves from the One God, this is the ultimate sin. Essentially, there is not much difference between a little sin and a big sin. It's the degree to which one removes himself from the efficacy of God's grace. The only reason we are here on Planet Earth is to carry the Spirit of God to all creation. We jeopardize the prime goal of our 'mission' when we remove ourselves from God. I believe this was the message the Rabbi Jesus tried to get across. "The kingdom of God is WITHIN.")
----------
This is a subjective evaluation on your part on what consitutes a sinless life. You said that walking the path that god wants constitutes a sinless life, then how could you say that Jesus is the only sinless person, while you don't know of the many others that have walked the path of god. Again, only god can judge our sins, and jesus himself could not judge himself and say that he is pure.....God will judge him.
----------
(Even Jesus experienced doubt and fear. Although I don't believe in the Xfiction, Jesus was supposed to have said, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" Jesus must have felt that the Spirit of God was no longer within him. I'm sure we all must have felt this at one time or another--like "where is God in my life?" The simple answer is that God doesn't leave us--we remove ourselves from God. We are not "God's chosen people" because God has chosen US. We are "God's chosen people" because WE choose to be One with God!.)

Originally posted by Medicine*Woman
Originally posted by Flores
----------
I find the use of the word we very appropriate to describe god and is in no way contradictory to his oneness and singular authority.
----------
(I like your description of God referring to itself as "we." Since God encompasses all creation, it's on fitting that we refer to God as "we.")
----------
Sin is not a bad thing, Jenyar. God's infinite compassion and mercy can encompass any sin. It's us humans that try to judge others and attribute sins to others that abuses the concept and undermine the compassion and mercy of god.
----------
(The ultimate sin is separating ourselves from God. When we remove ourselves from the One God, this is the ultimate sin. Essentially, there is not much difference between a little sin and a big sin. It's the degree to which one removes himself from the efficacy of God's grace. The only reason we are here on Planet Earth is to carry the Spirit of God to all creation. We jeopardize the prime goal of our 'mission' when we remove ourselves from God. I believe this was the message the Rabbi Jesus tried to get across. "The kingdom of God is WITHIN.")
----------
This is a subjective evaluation on your part on what consitutes a sinless life. You said that walking the path that god wants constitutes a sinless life, then how could you say that Jesus is the only sinless person, while you don't know of the many others that have walked the path of god. Again, only god can judge our sins, and jesus himself could not judge himself and say that he is pure.....God will judge him.
----------
(Even Jesus experienced doubt and fear. Although I don't believe in the Xfiction, Jesus was supposed to have said, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" Jesus must have felt that the Spirit of God was no longer within him. I'm sure we all must have felt this at one time or another--like "where is God in my life?" The simple answer is that God doesn't leave us--we remove ourselves from God. We are not "God's chosen people" because God has chosen US. We are "God's chosen people" because WE choose to be One with God!.)

I am in total concordance with you!

Originally posted by Voltaire
----------
I am in total concordance with you!
----------
(Right on, Voltaire!)

Dead sea scrolls interpreted by the pacha method tell you how the Jesus story has got right out of hand.

leeaus

Originally posted by leeaus
----------
Dead sea scrolls interpreted by the pacha method tell you how the Jesus story has got right out of hand.
leeaus
----------
(First, let me say that I am having a problem getting my posts to appear! My computer seemed to have frozen up earlier, and I had to reboot. Since then, none of my posts are sticking!

leeaus, this is a very interesting statement you have made. Please explain the "pacha method" and how the Jesus story got out of hand.

Thanks, (I hope this one takes!)

Medicine woman the book is JESUS THE MAN by Barbara Thiering. Its about the gospels being read at two levels.

http://info.anu.edu.au/mac/Newsletters_and_Journals/ANU_Reporter/_pdf/vol_29_no_02/row1.html

Her book has detractors but worth a read. The water to wine, walking on water etc are explained in the parlance of the day, not miracles. When it comes to him dying on the cross, her interpretation is he didn’t. After a while those in pain on a crucifix were offered a poison. Jesus took this but was given an antidote by a few of his followers. Forgotten some of the details now but for anyone wondering about the unlikelihood of what is proclaimed as fact it is insightful.

http://thiering.net/jesus.htm

all the best with your computer

leeaus

Sin is not a bad thing, Jenyar. God's infinite compassion and mercy can encompass any sin. It's us humans that try to judge others and attribute sins to others that abuses the concept and undermine the compassion and mercy of god.
I never realized Muslims (or is it just yourself?) didn't see sin as something very serious. That is definitely not the idea that was passed on since Abraham - sin has always been the only thing that separates us from a meaningful relationship with God.

To put it more forcefully: sin is that which will prevent you from entering God's kingdom.

I agree that sin is encompassed by God's mercy, but "encompassed" doesn't mean God tolerates it, it means every way is out. When we turn from sin we turn to God.

I'll put it another way, that might make more sense to you: you say that submission to God is all that is necessary for salvation. Then whenever you do not submit to God you have strayed from the path and are guilty of being a sinner! Surely that is serious?

I have another question for you, Flores. How does the Quran say sin is punished, or isn't it? Is justice served on earth, or only after death? What are the consequences for not obeying God's command to love?

Jenyar if there is no god there is no consequence of not obeying god. Have you considered that.

leeaus

I can consider it, but not for long. You see, when you start living as if there were a God - when you start believing and acting accordingly - you realize how many things are dependent on God, and how much suffering and lack of love is actually the result of sin.

You see, part of why I believe in God so strongly is that the consequences are so evident. The effect of hate, lies, cheating, lawlessness, immorality, etc. are very visible. So is the presence of love. Love is not experienced outside the mind, and inside it seems like just another chemical reaction, but relationships aren't chemical connections, they are invisible, intangible ones. The lack of love destroys relationships with people just as surely as it destroys our relationship with God.

John 7
17If anyone chooses to do God's will, he will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own.

jenyar,
all i can say is travel around the world and if you still hold that belief, well, good on you, but you must have been traveling with your eyes closed.

Originally posted by leeaus
Jenyar if there is no god there is no consequence of not obeying god. Have you considered that.

leeaus

OR

Ecclesiastes 12:14
God will be judge of every work, with every secret thing, good or evil.


Is another opinion.

Actually God doesn’t exist when you have your eyes open. The universe is explainable without supernatural creation. Believing in God is not helpful. Believing in a god that isn't there makes people evil.

leeaus

Originally posted by leeaus
Actually God doesn’t exist when you have your eyes open. The universe is explainable without supernatural creation. Believing in God is not helpful. Believing in a god that isn't there makes people evil.

leeaus

Without the existance of a god, the meanings of the words "good" and "evil" become meaningless, for the Christian God is the standard of perfect absolute good.

Originally posted by Greco
Up to the time of Jesus the Jews had a monopoly. They called themselves the chosen ones, meaning God had chosen them as his favorite people and the only ones that he would consider sending to heaven.

Now Jesus comes along and he busts up the monopoly and makes it possible for any one to go to heaven. The jews dint like that and we know what happened.

Even if I dont believe in Jesus being a deity, I believe he was a fearless man and a good man for busting up the Jewish monopoly.
He was truly a revelutionary.

The Jews did not hold tightly to their monopoly. They were as evangelical then, as Bible-believing Christians are now. All through the New testament, there are references to proselytes, and God-fearers. This was refering to gentiles in different stages of the conversion process to Judaism.

Jewish evangelism didn't stop, until about 370 AD, when the Christians threatened the Jews with capital punishment, if they kept up their evangelism. The Jews decided to stop.

With respect of things stated, how come the christian god is the real god.

leeaus

Originally posted by biblthmp
The Jews did not hold tightly to their monopoly. They were as evangelical then, as Bible-believing Christians are now. All through the New testament, there are references to proselytes, and God-fearers. This was refering to gentiles in different stages of the conversion process to Judaism.

Jewish evangelism didn't stop, until about 370 AD, when the Christians threatened the Jews with capital punishment, if they kept up their evangelism. The Jews decided to stop.
I'm not sure that you have all the facts, although I have no reason not to believe you. But in the first place: "Jews" is a gross generalization. For most Jews, there isn't much difference between their culture and their "religion". The weren't intent on "evangelizing" (an exclusively Christian word, since they had no "gospel" to proclaim). As a matter of fact, you couldn't become a "Jew" unless you were circumcized and became a citizen of the state of Israel.

Their interest was in establishing a nation of God under an anointed king who would bring peace, and "converting" to Judaism was like applying for a visum - it had to be approved and there were conditions to be met.

I'm not saying it didn't happen, but it wasn't their original intention. No part of their faith commands them to go out and convert people, although some interpreted their scripture that way. They didn't really have missionaries as far as I know.

Originally posted by leeaus
With respect of things stated, how come the christian god is the real god.
He is not really the "Christian" God or the "Jewish God" - in the sense that He "belongs" to any faith - but the Creator God who kept close to those who remained faithful to Him. For one: the options aren't really that many, unless you look at religions where the gods are humans, only "better".

From a human perspective, you can only reach so far towards God, and then you have to trust Him to do the rest. There are many options that "fit the description", but God would have made sure that there was some kind of check to determine whether you believe in Him and not something other than Him (i.e. that you aren't fooled).

A real God must be a living God, able to stir you into knowledge of Him. (Dead gods cannot create life, since they have no knowledge of it.) Since he is the Creator, this knowledge must have been included in creation, or revealed at the beginning of creation - but the best we can do is trace back as early as we can. That leaves the Sumerian gods, and those whose "faith" has survived since then. If they had been alive and active in the world, it doesn't make sense that they would have to be "rediscovered" again only now. So the options are Hinduism (which has no God), the naturalistic religions like Wicca (nature is God), humanism (we are God) and Judaism (Only God is God). From Judaism you have to decide whether God had indeed fulfilled His promise to bring a saviour in Christ, or whether He started expecting more from them (Islam).

My belief is that there has only ever been one God, but each person has held their own idea of who He is. I don't believe God would let Himself be reinvented every time a new worldview comes around, but that His promises and act of creation would endure and remain true forever. Some things would point towards God and others would point away from Him. Grab a thread and follow it.