Was Jesus a 'Memzer' ?

[Pythagoras]

I've met Rabbis who scornfully refer to Jesus as that Memzer. According to them, such a one could never be the Messiah of Israel.

So let's start with the obvious. What exactly is a Memzer?

[Sacrificial Ram]

I've met Rabbis who scornfully refer to Jesus as that Memzer. According to them, such a one could never be the Messiah of Israel.

So let's start with the obvious. What exactly is a Memzer?

It is Mamzer, and what a Mamzer basically is a child whose father is not the mother's husband, or promised husband.

In other words, Jesus was not the child of Joseph. Someone who is of that curcumstances would be a mamzer, woudl not be allowed in the Temple, and would only be allowed to marry another mamzer, unto 10 generations.

[technomage]

Pythagoras, first and foremost, the word is usually transliterated "Mamzer."--your spelling confused me.

A mamzer is someone who was the child of an illegal sexual act: a bastard (a child of rape or fornication), a child of incest, or a child of a forbidden marriage, as a marriage between a Hebrew and a Canaanite. A mamzer was not allowed to be a member of the "Congregation," up to the tenth generation.

Justin

[Captain Ochre]

]It is Mamzer, and what a Mamzer basically is a child whose father is not the mother's husband, or promised husband.




A mamzer is someone who was the child of an illegal sexual act: a bastard (a child of rape or fornication), a child of incest, or a child of a forbidden marriage, as a marriage between a Hebrew and a Canaanite. A mamzer was not allowed to be a member of the "Congregation," up to the tenth generation.


Citations in support of those definitions, either of you?

Q: What is the Biblical meaning of "mamzer" ? Will the laws governing the mamzer not being able to marry ever change?

A: The JPS Tanakh defines a mamzer as:

"No one misbegotten shall be admitted into the congregation of the Lord; none of his descendants, even in the tenth generation, shall be admitted into the congregation of the Lord."

It is interesting that both the Septuagint and the Vulgate translate mamzer "as a son of a prostitute."

Over a century ago Abraham Geiger suggested that the meaning of mamzer comes from ma'am zar ã "belonging to a foreign people." Although the etymology given is incorrect, Geiger is essentially correct in assuming that the term mamzer originally designated a foreign people who lived alongside ancient Israel. Evidence for this theory may be cited from Zechariah 9:6:

a foreign people shall settle in Ashdod, and I will make an end of the pride of Philistia.

The Philistines would be replaced by another group known as mamzer; a mixed people. Just as Israel and the Amonites would be kicked out of their homes, the Philistines would be kicked out of their home.
http://jewish.com/askarabbi/askarabbi/askr4859.htm

Don't stop reading there, 'cause there's more.

Hat tip to JPH for making this easy to find, though I had reached this source independently during my own research some years ago, IIRC.

[Pythagoras]

Hi Sacrifical Ram,


It is Mamzer, and what a Mamzer basically is a child whose father is not the mother's husband, or promised husband.

In other words, Jesus was not the child of Joseph. Someone who is of that curcumstances would be a mamzer, woudl not be allowed in the Temple, and would only be allowed to marry another mamzer, unto 10 generations.

Since Joseph was not Jesus's father,and Joseph was indeed Mary's promised husband, and Mary was Jesus's mother ,it follows Jesus was a classic Mamzer ( unless ofcourse it can somehow be 'proved' that Jesus had no earthly father.)

.But if Jesus was a Mamzer, why was he allowed in the Temple (or was he)?

.Why wasn't Mary stoned to death?

[Theoferrum]

Hi Sacrifical Ram,



Since Joseph was not Jesus's father,and Joseph was indeed Mary's promised husband, and Mary was Jesus's mother ,it follows Jesus was a classic Mamzer ( unless ofcourse it can somehow be 'proved' that Jesus had no earthly father.)

.But if Jesus was a Mamzer, why was he allowed in the Temple (or was he)?

.Why wasn't Mary stoned to death?

That's very simple. Their is an account that, even though Joseph agreed to adopt the child and marry his pregnant espousal, that some one in the religious circles of the day decided that this would not do and so Mary was forced to drink the cup prescribed by Y'hova in cases where the pregnancy was in question. If the woman was guilty it would have killed her.

She lived thus proving that the child was not illegitimet but was, in fact, exactly what she claimed it was.

The Son of God born of a Virgin.

And this was the legal reasons which allowed Y'shua to enter the Temple which, as much hostility as his enemies evidenced against him, he would not be allowed to do with out this previous event.

[Captain Ochre]

That's very simple. Their is an account that, even though Joseph agreed to adopt the child and marry his pregnant espousal, that some one in the religious circles of the day decided that this would not do and so Mary was forced to drink the cup prescribed by Y'hova in cases where the pregnancy was in question. If the woman was guilty it would have killed her.

She lived thus proving that the child was not illegitimet but was, in fact, exactly what she claimed it was.

That test is at the prerogative of the husband, IIRC. Do we have evidence either that Joseph initiated that test via or that the practical application of the law allowed somebody else to do so?

You guys must all be rabbis, the way you just know all of this stuff off the top of your heads and share it minus supporting citations.



The Son of God born of a Virgin.

And this was the legal reasons which allowed Y'shua to enter the Temple which, as much hostility as his enemies evidenced against him, he would not be allowed to do with out this previous event.

I'm not sure that your elaborate explanation is necessary.
Please strongly consider citing for us the (ancient?) document that you referred to above, concerning the test for the suspected unfaithful wife.

[Pythagoras]

Hi,


That's very simple. Their is an account that, even though Joseph agreed to adopt the child and marry his pregnant espousal, that some one in the religious circles of the day decided that this would not do and so Mary was forced to drink the cup prescribed by Y'hova in cases where the pregnancy was in question. If the woman was guilty it would have killed her.

She lived thus proving that the child was not illegitimet but was, in fact, exactly what she claimed it was.

The Son of God born of a Virgin.

And this was the legal reasons which allowed Y'shua to enter the Temple which, as much hostility as his enemies evidenced against him, he would not be allowed to do with out this previous event.

Or more likely , no one , aside from Joseph(and Mary ofcourse) , was aware of Mary's delicate situation(as the scriptures seem to suggest.)

Conclusion: No one in Jesus's village could prove Jesus a Mamzer, though scripture does hint at the possiblity there was some suspicion among Jesus's townsfolk that Joseph was not Jesus's father. But they coudn't prove it. I think that's why Mary wasn't stoned and Jesus grudgingly allowed in the Temple..

Just as well. If the so-called truth had 'come out', it would have been but another lie , for Jesus truly had no earthly father(God was the father), but the people couldn't possibly have been expected to buy into that , now could they? ...

So God worked in mysterious ways to protect the honour of his Son..

[Theoferrum]

That test is at the prerogative of the husband, IIRC. Do we have evidence either that Joseph initiated that test via or that the practical application of the law allowed somebody else to do so?

You guys must all be rabbis, the way you just know all of this stuff off the top of your heads and share it minus supporting citations.

I'm not sure that your elaborate explanation is necessary.
Please strongly consider citing for us the (ancient?) document that you referred to above, concerning the test for the suspected unfaithful wife.

The reference, if I am not mistaken, is the Archko Volume.

For your reading leisure, your honorable Rabbi Silly Walkie.

Please give your honorable supporting citation that the husband is the only one who could initiate the test if you would be so kind, please, Mr. Rabbi extrodinare.

[Sacrificial Ram]

Citations in support of those definitions, either of you?

Q: What is the Biblical meaning of "mamzer" ? Will the laws governing the mamzer not being able to marry ever change?

A: The JPS Tanakh defines a mamzer as:

"No one misbegotten shall be admitted into the congregation of the Lord; none of his descendants, even in the tenth generation, shall be admitted into the congregation of the Lord."

It is interesting that both the Septuagint and the Vulgate translate mamzer "as a son of a prostitute."

Over a century ago Abraham Geiger suggested that the meaning of mamzer comes from ma'am zar ã "belonging to a foreign people." Although the etymology given is incorrect, Geiger is essentially correct in assuming that the term mamzer originally designated a foreign people who lived alongside ancient Israel. Evidence for this theory may be cited from Zechariah 9:6:

a foreign people shall settle in Ashdod, and I will make an end of the pride of Philistia.

The Philistines would be replaced by another group known as mamzer; a mixed people. Just as Israel and the Amonites would be kicked out of their homes, the Philistines would be kicked out of their home.
http://jewish.com/askarabbi/askarabbi/askr4859.htm

Don't stop reading there, 'cause there's more.

Hat tip to JPH for making this easy to find, though I had reached this source independently during my own research some years ago, IIRC.

Well, there is

http://en.thinkexist.com/dictionary/meaning/Mamzer/
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=mamzer
and here is one that shows give one problem, two Jews and get
3 opinions
http://www.jewishgates.com/file.asp?File_ID=607

And here is one that explains there are different kind of mamzers.

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=98&letter=I

And yet another one, which address the case of Jesus as described
in the New Testament in Matthew and Luke.
http://www.torah.org/qanda/seequanda.php?id=379


A child born out of wedlock to a single Jewish woman is not usually a MAMZER. A child is not a MAMZER unless it is born as a result of a Biblically forbidden union; for the details see Mishnah Yevamos 4:13. "MAMZER" is a technical term; it's not equivalent to "bastard". Note that if a married Jewish woman has a child by a man other than her husband, that child IS a MAMZER, because a woman is Biblically forbidden to have more than one husband.

[kofh2u]

Citations in support of those definitions, either of you?

Q: What is the Biblical meaning of "mamzer" ? Will the laws governing the mamzer not being able to marry ever change?

A: The JPS Tanakh defines a mamzer as:

"No one misbegotten shall be admitted into the congregation of the Lord; none of his descendants, even in the tenth generation, shall be admitted into the congregation of the Lord."

It is interesting that both the Septuagint and the Vulgate translate mamzer "as a son of a prostitute."

Over a century ago Abraham Geiger suggested that the meaning of mamzer comes from ma'am zar ã "belonging to a foreign people." Although the etymology given is incorrect, Geiger is essentially correct in assuming that the term mamzer originally designated a foreign people who lived alongside ancient Israel. Evidence for this theory may be cited from Zechariah 9:6:

a foreign people shall settle in Ashdod, and I will make an end of the pride of Philistia.

The Philistines would be replaced by another group known as mamzer; a mixed people. Just as Israel and the Amonites would be kicked out of their homes, the Philistines would be kicked out of their home.
http://jewish.com/askarabbi/askarabbi/askr4859.htm

Don't stop reading there, 'cause there's more.

Hat tip to JPH for making this easy to find, though I had reached this source independently during my own research some years ago, IIRC.

I find it much more interesting that Jesus WAS "admitted into the congregation of the Lord."

He attended the Teme everyday, even preached in his own neighborhood synagogue.

What is SO INTERESTING is that no one knew the virgin birth story until AFTER his crucifixion, or he would have been called a bastard.

So, as I asked already, "Who told?"

Who, but Mary and Joseph would dare tell? Who but Mary would know? Who, but Mary and Joseph, would even believe the story that God was father and Jesus no mamzer?

Who would believe except witnesses to the resurrection, THEN Mary would have had grounds to tell her unbelievable story to people certain to believe!

And, why would Mary, if it had been true, tell a belated lie about her promiscuity. Why would she then after the cross mention it, when Joseph and Jesus were gone anyway? Who would have known, except them? Why would Mary try clearing her bad name when she DID NOT HAVE ONE? Jesus was called mamzer only AFTER his crucifixion or he would have been barred from the temple congregation! Why would Mary rake this up if none knew, when the whole Temple and pharisees had no clue, Joseph and Jesus were gone? It only makes sense that she told when her audience of apostles would understand it was true, a virgin birth!

See what I'm saying?

The Jews, in charging mamzer, offer their own best evidence that it is untrue, that Mary WAS a virgin, and that Jesus WAS Elijah, that Jesus DID returned by a miracle much like the miracle of his first disappearance and second, the resurrection!

A Jew without logical common sense, without the rationale' to fit together these circumstances as evidence of Mary's virtue, and as confirming collateration to the returned Elijah,... what do we call that kind of Jew?

A defense lawyer?







Mal. 4:5 Behold, (in 32 AD), I will send you Elijah the prophet, (to
make straight the way) before the (second) coming of the great and
dreadful day of the LORD, (messiah ben David, the lion of Judah, the root of David: [Rev 5:5])

[Richbee]

I've met Rabbis who scornfully refer to Jesus as that Memzer. According to them, such a one could never be the Messiah of Israel.

So let's start with the obvious. What exactly is a Memzer?

IMO, these Rabbi's are trusting in the Jewish Babylonian Talmud, that charges that Christ (Who is called Ben Pandera) was born out of wedlock after His mother had been seduced by a Roman soldier named Pandera or Panthera. Respected scholar Bruce Metzger has commented upon this appellation:



“The defamatory account of his birth seems to reflect a knowledge of the Christian tradition that Jesus was the son of the virgin Mary, the Greek word for virgin, parthenos, being distorted into the name Pandera”.

[kofh2u]

Well, there is

http://en.thinkexist.com/dictionary/meaning/Mamzer/
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=mamzer
and here is one that shows give one problem, two Jews and get
3 opinions
http://www.jewishgates.com/file.asp?File_ID=607

And here is one that explains there are different kind of mamzers.

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=98&letter=I

And yet another one, which address the case of Jesus as described
in the New Testament in Matthew and Luke.
http://www.torah.org/qanda/seequanda.php?id=379



[/font][/font]


Surely to term mamzer evolved and mutated over time.

In the days of Jesus, women were stoned just for the act of prostitution.

It seems reasonable that even later marrying the father of the child would not have excused Mary.

But, worse, Mary must have confessed to the Apostles that she DID NOT marry the baby Jesus' father!

Why would Mary call her crucified son "Bastard" for all to know...

... UNLESS it was a secret NOW verification of the Christ!






Mal. 4:5 Behold, (in 32 AD), I will send you Elijah the prophet, (to
make straight the way) before the (second) coming of the great and
dreadful day of the LORD, (messiah ben David, the lion of Judah, the root of David: [Rev 5:5])

[Captain Ochre]

Well, there is

http://en.thinkexist.com/dictionary/meaning/Mamzer/


(n.) A person born of relations between whom marriage was forbidden by the Mosaic law; a bastard

That definition does not appear to support the one that you gave, IMHO--unless you simply focus on the last word ("bastard"). On the contrary, it seems more in line with the source that I cited.


http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=mamzer


This one isn't materially different from the first (not that there's anything wrong with that).


and here is one that shows give one problem, two Jews and get
3 opinions
http://www.jewishgates.com/file.asp?File_ID=607


Judaism has varieties of interpretation not too different (by analogy) from the sects of Christianity. We shouldn't be surprised.
That link is a bit hard to interpret in terms of its POV. The site may be attached to some particular congregation, and it doesn't seem to be written by an author who claims expertise but rather gives the opinions of religious authorities perhaps long dead.
Maybe it's as good as gold, but we don't have many clues for evaluation, AFAICT. Also, the information does not appear at odds with the definition at "Ask A Rabbi". Did you detect something that I'm missing that you would care to highlight for us?


And here is one that explains there are different kind of mamzers.

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=98&letter=I


Again, this seem to nod more in agreement with the explanation that I linked rather than the one you gave initially. AFAICT, we have no clear indication that Jesus would have been considered any of these three types of mamzer.


And yet another one, which address the case of Jesus as described
in the New Testament in Matthew and Luke.
http://www.torah.org/qanda/seequanda.php?id=379

And yet again we seem to find a lack of clear support for the allegation that Jesus would have been considered a mamzer.
Thanks for making the effort, but it looks to me as though you haven't supported the definition that you offered us initially (albeit you were clear in that context that the definition that you offered was abbreviated to functional depth).

OTOH, Pythagoras' question was "What exactly is a [mamzer]?"
:smile:

[kofh2u]

IMO, these Rabbi's are trusting in the Jewish Babylonian Talmud, that charges that Christ (Who is called Ben Pandera) was born out of wedlock after His mother had been seduced by a Roman soldier named Pandera or Panthera. Respected scholar Bruce Metzger has commented upon this appellation:



“The defamatory account of his birth seems to reflect a knowledge of the Christian tradition that Jesus was the son of the virgin Mary, the Greek word for virgin, parthenos, being distorted into the name Pandera”.

1) I think pythagorus and justin just beat that interpretation to death.

2) If you are correct, tho,' then EVERY rational, fair minded Jew would need turn a jaundice eye upon the Babylonian Talmud AND their rabb, thosei who have from the 2nd century ACE claimed it sacred.

3) Consider the day and age, and contemplate the fate of Mary... especially after Jesus started aggravating the powers to be.
They stoned women who were naughty in those times, but even if Mary avoided that, she would have been attacked unmercifully were it common knowledge that Joseph WASN'T the father of Jesus, who was a mamzer dneaking into the congregation AGAINST the Law!

SO, the great Talmud would either be basing its remarks on the admission of Mary, given willingly and AFTER the crucifixion, and/or upon the testimony of the Christian proseltyzers... using their own words to call names, and ignor ing the excuse of a virgin birth. They would have been calling Jesus a Bastard... on the testimony of his own mother who only would have said it IF it was true and now believable because of the other miracles.. ESPECIALLY and NECESSARILY the one where Jesus resurrected proving he was Elijah.

4) Now, the rock was either Elijah returned... or the hard place... that Mary would admit to an unbelievable, immaculate conception ONLY and because Christ had arisen... BECAUSE ONLY THEN would people believe such a story, even those she must have told, the Apostles.

Why would she tell if there had been no mystery for her about it all those years?.






Mal. 4:6 And he shall turn (the dogma of the old tradition), the heart (of belief) of the fathers to the (insights of the) children, and the (secular knowledge) and heart (of the beliefs) of the children to (truth of the Christian teachings) of their fathers, lest I come and smite (with terrorism) the earth with a curse (of nuclear destruction).

[Sacrificial Ram]

Hi Sacrifical Ram,



Since Joseph was not Jesus's father,and Joseph was indeed Mary's promised husband, and Mary was Jesus's mother ,it follows Jesus was a classic Mamzer ( unless ofcourse it can somehow be 'proved' that Jesus had no earthly father.)

.But if Jesus was a Mamzer, why was he allowed in the Temple (or was he)?

.Why wasn't Mary stoned to death?

Well, can you show me evidence that adultresses WERE routinely stoned to death during that time period?

And, of course, can you show me evidence outside the New Testament that he was in the temple?

My personal opinion is that if Jesus existed, he was not a virgin birth, nor was he illegitament, but that was added on later. The two books that mention the virgin birth are Matthew, which is considered by most scholars to have been written in Greek, and Luke, who admits he is taking things from other sources. The concept of a virgin birth being sign of a divine birth is very prominate in the Greek and Roman culture of the time.

There are enough inaccuracies in Matthew with Jewish religion (including misquotes of the Tankah, the misunderstanding of the couplet form of
Hebrew writings (ass/horse), and the lack of understanding of the geography around Jerusalum) that indicats to me that is it likely he was a gentile christian not a Jewish convert.

So the possiblities that I see , assuming that Jesus was a real person, was 1) Either he was a bastard, and the stories about him going to the temple were untrue.
2) He was a bastard but it was not known, and he went to the temple anyway,
3) He was the legitament son of Joseph, and the stories of the virgin birth
were added to give him the aura of divinity decades after his death.

Of the three, I would give the last possiblity the greatest chance, followed by 1, then 2.

The reason I find number 3 the greatest chance is you do not find that concept until Matthew, which was believed by most mainstream scholars to have been written between 80 and 100 AD, and Luke, which is believed to have been written between 80 and 130 AD. The earlier Christain writings do not mention a virgin birth.

[Sacrificial Ram]

And yet again we seem to find a lack of clear support for the allegation that Jesus would have been considered a mamzer.
Thanks for making the effort, but it looks to me as though you haven't supported the definition that you offered us initially (albeit you were clear in that context that the definition that you offered was abbreviated to functional depth).

OTOH, Pythagoras' question was "What exactly is a [mamzer]?"
:smile:

According to LUke and Matthew, was Jesus the son of Joseph or not?

Yes, or no?

[Sacrificial Ram]

1) I think pythagorusv] and justin just beat that interpretation to death.

2) If you are correct, tho,' then EVERY rational, fair minded Jew would need turn an jaundice eye upon the Babylonian Talmud AND tgeir rabbi who have from the 2nd century ACE claimedvit sacred.

3) Consider the day and age, and contemplate the fate of Mary... especially after Jesus started aggravating the powers to be. They stoned women who were naughty, but even if Mary avoided that, she would have been attacked unmercifully were it common knowledge.

SO, the great Talmud would either be basing its remarks on the admission of Mary given willingbAFTER the crucifixion, and upon the testimony of the Christian proseltyzers... using their own words tomignor the excuse of a virgin birth and call Jesus a Bastard... on the testimony of his own mother.

4) Now, the rock was either Elijah returned... or the hard place... that Mary would admit to an unbelievable immaculate conception once Christ had arisen... BECAUSE ONLY THEN would people believe such a story.






Mal. 4:6 And he shall turn (the dogma of the old tradition), the heart (of belief) of the fathers to the (insights of the) children, and the (secular knowledge) and heart (of the beliefs) of the children to (truth of the Christian teachings) of their fathers, lest I come and smite (with terrorism) the earth with a curse (of nuclear destruction).

And , except of course from books written 40 years or more after the cruxifiction, where is the evidence that Mary confessed such a thing?

[Captain Ochre]

Surely to term mamzer evolved and mutated over time.

Quite, hence the advisability of referencing expert opinions on the matter.


In the days of Jesus, women were stoned just for the act of prostitution.

It seems reasonable that even later marrying the father of the child wo]uld not have excused Mary.

:ahem:
Or, if referencing expert opinions is too much of a bother, let's just suppose that it's reasonable that Jesus was a mamzer in the eyes of Jews who lived at that time.
Sheesh.
:no:


But, worse, Mary must have confessed to the Apostles that she DID NOT marry the baby Jesus' father!

You need to shuffle the order of the cart and the horse, IMHO (and perhaps throw out what you've got in the cart). Would a marriage between Mary and God (through the Holy Spirit) have been forbidden? I must have missed that verse in Leviticus.



Why would Mary call her crucified son "Bastard" for all to know...

... UNLESS it was a secret NOW verification of the Christ!

:ahem:

[Pythagoras]

Indeed Kfu. Your words are true.




What is SO INTERESTING is that no one knew the virgin birth story until AFTER his crucifixion, or he would have been called a bastard.


How true.


So, as I asked already, "Who told?"

Who, but Mary and Joseph would dare tell? Who but Mary would know? Who, but Mary and Joseph, would even believe the story that God was father and Jesus no mamzer?


We are on the same wavelength Kfu.




Who would believe except witnesses to the resurrection, THEN Mary would have had grounds to tell her unbelievable story to people certain to believe!


Indeed.



Why would Mary try clearing her bad name when she DID NOT HAVE ONE? Jesus was called mamzer only AFTER his crucifixion or he would have been barred from the temple congregation! Why would Mary rake this up if none knew, when the whole Temple and pharisees had no clue, Joseph and Jesus were gone? It only makes sense that she told when her audience of apostles would understand it was true, a virgin birth!


Exactly! Only after the Apostles mention Jesus's virgin birth in the Gospel accounts do some start calling Jesus a Mamzer ! . Unless Jesus was truly virgin born, it made no sense for the Apostles to make an issue of Jesus's birth controversy, because there was no controversy. In Judaism, Jesus could still fulfill all of the requirements of Messiahship had he been the son of Joseph and Mary. I think the answer is quite simple. The Apostles bring up Jesus's Virgin birth in the Gospel because it's the honest truth, simple as that.




And, why would Mary, if it had been true, tell a belated lie about her promiscuity. Why would she then after the cross mention it, when Joseph and Jesus were gone anyway? Who would have known, except them?
See what I'm saying?

Correct.

[Pythagoras]

According to LUke and Matthew, was Jesus the son of Joseph or not?

Yes, or no?

Nope... "or so it was thought", etc.

[Sacrificial Ram]

Nope... "or so it was thought", etc.

Now,if it was 'so it was thought', and it was written down after 80 A.D. that he was not, it is in all likely hood that it was added later. Why woud not earlier writings say it? IMO, ecause it wasn't part of the religion then.

Otherwise, you would not have had Saint Iraneous, writing in the early second century trying to promote that concept.

[InChristAlways]

So the possiblities that I see , assuming that Jesus was a real person, was 1) Either he was a bastard, and the stories about him going to the temple were untrue.
2) He was a bastard but it was not known, and he went to the temple anyway,
3) He was the legitament son of Joseph, and the stories of the virgin birth
were added to give him the aura of divinity decades after his death.

Of the three, I would give the last possiblity the greatest chance, followed by 1, then 2.

The reason I find number 3 the greatest chance is you do not find that concept until Matthew, which was believed by most mainstream scholars to have been written between 80 and 100 AD, and Luke, which is believed to have been written between 80 and 130 AD. The earlier Christain writings do not mention a virgin birth.


It depends on how the jews interpret isaiah 43 and jeremiah 31. Whatever it is, it was going to be something really new and different, and it sounds to me like no longer would the jews have to sacrifice again [providing it is Jesus they are talking about]. Could the woman encompassing a man be the "new miralcle thing"?

Isaiah 43:18 "Do not remember the former things, Nor consider the things of old. 19 Behold, I will do a new thing, Now it shall spring forth; Shall you not know it? I will even make a road in the wilderness [And] rivers in the desert.

Jeremiah 31:22 How long will you gad about, O you backsliding daughter? For the LORD has created a new thing in the earth -- A woman shall encompass a man." 31 " Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah -- 32 "not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day [that] I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the LORD. 33 "But this [is] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.

[kofh2u]

According to LUke and Matthew, was Jesus the son of Joseph or not?

Yes, or no?

NO!

A 1000 times, no,... Mary said.

Mary had waited all those years to tell her story which NO JEW even Jiseph, maybe, could have been expected to believe.

No Jew today believes her!

Mary didn't tell before the crucifixion, ...

The whole home town of Jesus, the pharisees, too, would have insisted a mamzer stay out of the congregation.... if people besides Mary knew (we don't hear about Joseph, who did hear Mary's wild tale).

Only Mary could "invent" the immaculate conception... UNLESS Jesus really WAS Elihah... then, resurrecting before witnesses, Mary would have added this miracle to all that had been seen!

[Sacrificial Ram]

It depends on how the jews interpret isaiah 43 and jeremiah 31. Whatever it is, it was going to be something really new and different, and it sounds to me like no longer would the jews have to sacrifice again [providing it is Jesus they are talking about]. Could the woman encompassing a man be the "new miralcle thing"?

Isaiah 43:18 "Do not remember the former things, Nor consider the things of old. 19 Behold, I will do a new thing, Now it shall spring forth; Shall you not know it? I will even make a road in the wilderness [And] rivers in the desert.

Jeremiah 31:22 How long will you gad about, O you backsliding daughter? For the LORD has created a new thing in the earth -- A woman shall encompass a man." 31 " Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah -- 32 "not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day [that] I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the LORD. 33 "But this [is] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.

Of course, those passages, out of context like that, are vague enough to mean anything you want, or don't want it to. And, the 'new covenant'
is interpreted as a renewal of the covenant, not a totally new one.

[InChristAlways]

Isaiah 43:18 "Do not remember the former things, Nor consider the things of old. 19 Behold, I will do a new thing, Now it shall spring forth; Shall you not know it? I will even make a road in the wilderness [And] rivers in the desert.

Jeremiah 31:22 How long will you gad about, O you backsliding daughter? For the LORD has created a new thing in the earth -- A woman shall encompass a man." 31 " Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah -- 32 "not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day [that] I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the LORD. 33 "But this [is] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.


Of course, those passages, out of context like that, are vague enough to mean anything you want, or don't want it to. And, the 'new covenant'
is interpreted as a renewal of the covenant, not a totally new one.Where does it say "renewal"? God says a "New Covenant/New Thing" not a "renewal". And why is Judah missing in vs 33 though it is included in vs 31? Do the jews really want it like the "old way" again, all those bloody sacrifices?

31 " Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah -- 32 "not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day [that] I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the LORD. 33 "But this [is] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.

[Sacrificial Ram]

NO!

A 1000 times, no,... Mary said.

Mary had waited all those years to tell her story which NO JEW even Jiseph, maybe, could have been expected to believe.

No Jew today believes her!

Mary didn't tell before the crucifixion, ...

The whole home town of Jesus, the pharisees, too, would have insisted a mamzer stay out of the congregation.... if people besides Mary knew (we don't hear about Joseph, who did hear Mary's wild tale).

Only Mary could "invent" the immaculate conception... UNLESS Jesus really WAS Elihah... then, resurrecting before witnesses, Mary would have added this miracle to all that had been seen!

Except of course, the only two people mentioning it were the authors of Luke and Matthew, both who wrote after it is believed (from other sources)
that Mary was dead.

No, not only mary could 'Invent' the immaculate conception. Any body who was influenced by the Greek tradition could. Guess what, Matthew was written in Greek.

[InChristAlways]

Except of course, the only two people mentioning it were the authors of Luke and Matthew, both who wrote after it is believed (from other sources)
that Mary was dead.

No, not only mary could 'Invent' the immaculate conception. Any body who was influenced by the Greek tradition could. Guess what, Matthew was written in Greek.Hi SR. Most jews didn't know hebrew anymore, so how else were they suppose to understand it unless it was written in the language that most of the 10 tribes of Israel were exiled to?

[Captain Ochre]

According to LUke and Matthew, was Jesus the son of Joseph or not?

Yes, or no?

No.
Now good luck relating it to the cited definitions of "mamzer".

:cheers:

[InChristAlways]

According to LUke and Matthew, was Jesus the son of Joseph or not?

Yes, or no?

No.
Now good luck relating it to the cited definitions of "mamzer".

:cheers:Jesus had to born of the flesh of Judah but through the spirit of God.
Wouldn't it seem that if God could manifest Himself in a blazing furnace in Daniel, that He could manifest Himself through a woman also? He is shown one time as the Son of God in revelation talking to a church that has Jezebel in it and her children being struck with Death. I suppose one would have to know about Jezebel in the OT to figure this out. God bless.

(JPS1917 OT) Daniel 3:25 He answered and said: 'Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the appearance of the fourth is like a son of the gods.'

(NKJV) Revelation 2:18 " And to the angel of the church in Thyatira write, ' These things says the Son of God, who has eyes like a flame of fire, and His feet like fine brass: 20 "Nevertheless I have a few things against you, because you allow that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, to teach and seduce My servants to commit sexual immorality and eat things sacrificed to idols. 21 "And I gave her time to repent of her sexual immorality, and she did not repent. 22 "Indeed I will cast her into a sickbed, and those who commit adultery with her into great tribulation, unless they repent of their deeds. 23 "I will kill her children with death, and all the churches shall know that I am He who searches the minds and hearts. And I will give to each one of you according to your works.

[Pythagoras]

Except of course, the only two people mentioning it were the authors of Luke and Matthew, both who wrote after it is believed (from other sources)
that Mary was dead.

No, not only mary could 'Invent' the immaculate conception. Any body who was influenced by the Greek tradition could. Guess what, Matthew was written in Greek.

Your reasoning seems to be that Matthew was influenced by Greek traditions of virgin conceptions (and the like) simply because his Gospel was writen in Greek.

Nice logic.

P.S. Besides, the primordial Gospel could have actually been written in the Hebrew!

[kofh2u]

Now,if it was 'so it was thought', and it was written down after 80 A.D. that he was not, it is in all likely hood that it was added later. Why woud not earlier writings say it? IMO, ecause it wasn't part of the religion then.

Otherwise, you would not have had Saint Iraneous, writing in the early second century trying to promote that concept.

Nope.
I HAVE KABBALAHISTIC PROOF IN MATTHEW 1:1-19.

Only an opn mind Jew, one not interested in defending the Jews who opposed Christianity, only an honest, thinking, rally open mind Jew would agree is both kabbalah and in the Book of Matthew, 55AD.

But, I KNOW you willmargue no matter what jem I cast before you.

So, I will only email the proof to pythagorus (if he wishes), that the story was not invented later. He may use it against your blasphemy of the Spirit.



THE SEVENNDOUBLES:
1) VY
2) YV
3) HY
4) HV
5) VH
6) YH
7) HH

[Sacrificial Ram]

No.
Now good luck relating it to the cited definitions of "mamzer".

:cheers:

I did.

You just are rejecting it.

[kofh2u]

And , except of course from books written 40 years or more after the cruxifiction, where is the evidence that Mary confessed such a thing?


1) If the Jews responded to Christians claiming immaculate conception you Jews can't have BOTH ways. You Jews accepted then that Mary had confessed to Joseph's non-involvement. You Jews responded then with mamzer.
Now is not the time to change your whores in the middle of religious streams of argument.
You are stuck in you Talmud with the story which ONLY Mary could have revealed.

2) The Book of Matthew was written whike Mary lived but I have no reference to convince you of that.

3) If Mary did not originate the immaculate concept who else would? Who else could? Who else could say they actually knew?

4) But, it seems very, very reasonable that Mary would be prompted by the resurrection to tell all.

5) How reasonable is it to assume that you would deny any reason or common sense analysis since if you give into me on this line of thinking you will need agree to another prophecy fulfilled?

Zech. 12:11 In that day (of Jewish conversion) shall there be a great mourning in Jerusalem, as the mourning of (the triangular landscape of) Hadadrimmon in the valley of Megiddon, (because of
the armageddon of the coming scriptural understandings).

Zech. 12:12 And the land (of Israel) shall mourn, every family apart; the family of the house of David, (the American Hebrew-Christian community), apart, and their wives apart; the family of the house of Nathan, (the now Orthodox priesthood who handed Jesus up), apart, and their wives apart;

Zech. 12:13 The family of the house of Levi, (the Cohanim), apart, and their wives apart; the family of Shimei, (the Rabbi of today), apart, and their wives apart;

Zech. 12:14 All the families (of the twelve tribes of Israel) that
remain (scattered throughout the world), every family apart, and their wives apart.

[kofh2u]

Captain Ochre:
Quite, hence the advisability of referencing expert opinions on the matter.

KOFHY:
We did and you are still in debate with Ram who is unconvinced.

Captain Ochre:
Or, if referencing expert opinions is too much of a bother, let's just suppose that it's reasonable that Jesus was a mamzer in the eyes of Jews who lived at that time.

KOFHY:
And, still. Do they NOT consider him proclaimed a bastard by his own Gospel?

Captain Ochre:
You need to shuffle the order of the cart and the horse, IMHO (and perhaps throw out what you've got in the cart). Would a marriage between Mary and God (through the Holy Spirit) have been forbidden?

KOFHY:
No in the theology of Christians. But, Christians did not write the Talmud.





]

[Sacrificial Ram]

1) If the Jews responded to Christians claiming immaculate conception you Jews can't have BOTH ways. You Jews accepted then that Mary had confessed to Joseph's non-involvement. You Jews responded then with mamzer.
Now is not the time to change your whores in the middle of religious streams of argument.
You are stuck in you Talmud with the story which ONLY Mary could have revealed.


Except, of course, the ones that say that are responding to the stories as told in the New Testament. As far as I can see, any specific 'jesus' that is
mentioned in the talmud is at best a vague reference. The talmud does not call Jesus a mamzer, but peope who are reacting to the NT, and the strong prostilyzation efforts of Christians to those of the jewish faith do.


2) The Book of Matthew was written whike Mary lived but I have no reference to convince you of that.

Well, according to what I have read, tradition from various of the gnoistic writings, and other sources have Mary living 3 to 15 years after the
cruxifiction. That means, giving the most loose interpretation, she would have died by 48 C.E. (assuming the cruxifiction in 33 C.E.) The sources
I have seen for the book of mathew shows it being written at the earliest
in 80 C.E. If you accept the christian sources about when she died, and
the mainstream biblical scholars estimations about when Matthew was
written, then you are wrong by at least 22 years.




3) If Mary did not originate the immaculate concept who else would? Who else could? Who else could say they actually knew?


Any Greek could have originated it.. by knowing the greek religion. Any roman could, because Augustus Ceasar was considered a god, and of a
virgin birth.



4) But, it seems very, very reasonable that Mary would be prompted by the resurrection to tell all.
[/quote[

That is your assertion. Unfortunately for you, you won't see a Christian reference for a virgin birth before 80 C.E..

[quote]
5) How reasonable is it to assume that you would deny any reason or common sense analysis since if you give into me on this line of thinking you will need agree to another prophecy fulfilled?

Quote mining trying to find a prophecy after the fact to try to find a prophecy is , in my opinion, worthless. Unless something is known to be a prophecy ahead of time, and are quotes taken out of context, with concepts that do not exist when they were written, it is worthless as a prophecy.

That is particularly true if you have to add things not written in the text to have a running commentary to make it look the way you want it.

[kofh2u]

I did.

You just are rejecting it.


Yes, I just pointed that out to him. Not only are you unconvinced by his referral to long dead experts concerning historical matters long past, but you have your own experts and your own understanding of their conclusions.

He sounds very academic and liberally educated.
But, I suspect either he thinks we don't know, or else he, himself, has no idea how "intuition" (guessing) these historians apply in tellings what happen 2000 years ago. Perhaps he has no idea how much of their own(questionable) opinion and common sense finds its way into what they write as if they were there.

This criticism applies to all the past traditiinal teachings even in the closest of guarded understandings. Men in each generation, alitle here, a little there add, subtract. It the language of academics it is no different. Just like language itself, erosion of meaning takes place. We must defer to our own evaluations of what happened even in considering these expert opinions:

John 8:13 The Pharisees therefore said unto him, Thou bearest record of thyself, (not traditional dogma); thy record (of interpretation), is not true (which ours and our father's is).

[kofh2u]

The sources I have seen for the book of mathew shows it being written at the earliest
in 80 C.E.

That is your assertion. Unfortunately for you, you won't see a Christian reference for a virgin birth before 80 C.E..

.


I am sure we could argue everything I say is wrong, while also, from my point of view, ditto.

However, the source I direct you to says that Mstthew "was written in Hebrew, or rather Syro-Chaldaic;...about A.D. 38, the Greek A.D. 61."

Holy Bible
The National BiblevPress
Philadelphia, PA
Practical Helps addendum,
Synopses of the Books of The Holy Bible.
Pg 12

Now, tell the truth. Foes that really matter?
You CAN'T be wrong on this stuff... Judeaism depends on being able to rebutt me, true?

[Captain Ochre]

I did.

You just are rejecting it.

You certainly did not make any explicit attempt. Perhaps you assume that folks should automatically read between the lines while making the same logical fallacy(ies) that you made in the process of reaching your conclusion.

1) You gave your questionable streamlined definition
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showpost.php?p=952928&postcount=2
2) You asserted that Jesus would be a mamzer according to that definition
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showpost.php?p=952928&postcount=2
3) I asked for a citation in support of your definition (and offered a citation of my own)
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showpost.php?p=952928&postcount=4
4) You came up with citations that only support your definition with an added exercise of imagination (and/or fallacious reasoning)
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showpost.php?p=953238&postcount=10
5) I explored that variance here:
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showpost.php?p=953406&postcount=14
6) Then you started your game of make-believe:
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showpost.php?p=953410&postcount=17

Do you expect me to guess at your reasoning, or can I drag it out of you with your cooperation?

[Captain Ochre]

The reference, if I am not mistaken, is the Archko Volume.

This sentence from John Baskette (Answers In Action) summarizes his research on the Archko Volume (based on that of Goodspeed):
"The Archko is Rev. Mahan's fabrication."
http://answers.org/Bible/archko.html

Your source is apparently not available in the original, and has a shady history.
No quotation, either, which is sad.


For your reading leisure, your honorable Rabbi Silly Walkie.

Please give your honorable supporting citation that the husband is the only one who could initiate the test if you would be so kind, please, Mr. Rabbi extrodinare.

I made no claim that the husband was the only one who could do so. I claimed that my recollection was that the husband was the only who who could do so, and that was based on the Scripture itself.

Exodus 5:12-15 (NASB)
12. "Speak to the sons of Israel and say to them, `If any man's wife goes astray and is unfaithful to him,
13. and a man has intercourse with her and it is hidden from the eyes of her husband and she is undetected, although she has defiled herself, and there is no witness against her and she has not been caught in the act,
14. if a spirit of jealousy comes over him and he is jealous of his wife when she has defiled herself, or if a spirit of jealousy comes over him and he is jealous of his wife when she has not defiled herself,
15. the man shall then bring his wife to the priest, and shall bring as an offering for her one-tenth of an ephah of barley meal; he shall not pour oil on it nor put frankincense on it, for it is a grain offering of jealousy, a grain offering of memorial, a reminder of iniquity.
http://unbound.biola.edu/index.cfm?method=searchResults.doSearch&parallel_1=nasb&book=04O&from_chap=5

The text is fairly clear concerning the location of responsibility for the intiation of this test--it seems to rest solely with the husband. It seems to me that you should bear the burden of proof for showing that the scripture was carried out differently than described--and using something other than a document that is probably a fraud.

[kofh2u]

RAM:
"... trying to find a prophecy after the fact to try to find a prophecy is , in my opinion, worthless. Unless something is known to be a prophecy ahead of time, and are quotes taken out of context, with concepts that do not exist when they were written, it is worthless as a prophecy."

KOFHY:
But, you don't submit and humble yourself when one us brought to your attention, either. Like Moslem children, Hindu children, Jewish children, YEC children, Mormon children, etc... parents have "brainwashed" your responses with ready come backs they themselves have founded and pre-set your thinking with. We ALL are maintaining our biases, deaf to even common sense. Prophecy changes few people even when it proves itself.

But, with only 12 believers at the time, Jesus said, "This gospel will be preached throughout the world."

He also fulfilled and added prophecies that the pagan religions would all disappear (as their members converted to Christianity).

Since mass religious conversion NEVER happens, he certainly called out an uelievable prophecy, and it came true. Yet, t
is is not enough for you, is it?

Are you not, at the core, influenced by the motivation, "My religion, my parent's religion, right or wrong!"

[Richbee]

Of course, those passages, out of context like that, are vague enough to mean anything you want, or don't want it to. And, the 'new covenant' is interpreted as a renewal of the covenant, not a totally new one.

What a crock of Postmodern rubbish. Words, ah, words mean anything you want? We Christians do not accept the definitions or false canards of the mockers and scoffers. Your Postmodern Whine is exposed and demolished! (See 2 Cor. 10) Ah, the new Wine is for new wine skins, as Jesus said.

And, it is refreshing, and washes the Postmodern dust of the dead "deconstructionist" hubris of Jacque Derrida away! :lmbo:

:yes:

Brian McLaren demolished this Postmodern hubris!

Quote:

If postmodernist ideas were restricted to the college campus it would be one thing, but ideas are hard things to keep confined.

Like the evils in Pandora’s box, they have a way of permeating and influencing all aspects of society. By the mid-1990’s, postmodernism had reached the highest office in the land—the presidency. Some political pundits have labeled Bill Clinton as the first “postmodern” president. A case in point was his defense in the Monica Lewinsky affair. During questioning under oath, President Clinton skirted answering questions directly by defining terms in his own way—such as what is mean by the word “alone” or the definition of “is.”

His testimony amounted to a classic case in deconstruction, resulting in absolving himself of any wrongdoing in his own eyes.

For the postmodernist, the important thing is truth as he sees it and using language as a power game to gain the advantage over a political opponent. To the casual observer unaccustomed to postmodernist word games, the President was simply lying.

This attempt to relativize language is illustrated by Lewis Carroll in Alice in Wonderland during Alice’s exchange with the Mad Hatter. After listening to the Mad Hatter and making no sense of what he says, the Mad Hatter responds to Alice,

“Well, Alice, words mean exactly what I want them to mean, and nothing else.”

This is deconstructionism at its finest.

To a postmodernist, not only is truth a matter of personal taste but human personality also is fluid. We all play different roles in life and these various roles can be lived out separately from one another. That is why President Clinton can defend his immoral actions with an intern as being “private” and not related to how well he performs his “public” role as president. And according to polls during the time his affair came to light, many Americans agreed with that assessment.

A POSTMODERN HALLMARK: INCONSISTENCY

Not only does the postmodernist seek to create his own reality through the use (or misuse) of language, but he also is unconcerned with being consistent with his own ideas. In other words, there are no moral principles that apply to all situations. In fact, embracing two contradictory ideas are no problem. Again, on another occasion, this time related to foreign policy, President Clinton browbeat Congress to pass a trade bill with China, with the full knowledge that Christians are being persecuted in that country. Yet, the same day the President, moments later, angrily demands sanctions against Japan for hunting whales. Sanctions for killing whales but not for imprisoning Christians—where is the consistency.

This is what happens in a postmodern culture where all values are equivalent and all truth is relative. There are no principles, just momentary preferences, and everything depends on what's to be gained by those in positions of power. As Gene Veith comments,

Those who do not believe in truth are more likely, I believe, to lie. Those who believe that moral values are nothing more than the imposition of power may be more likely to use power to suppress their opposition, whether in enforcing politically correct postures in academia or, when they have political power, in acts of tyranny.”

By Brian McLaren

[InChristAlways]

(JPS1917 OT) Isaiah 65:17 For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth; and the former things shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.

Isaiah 43:18 "Do not remember the former things, Nor consider the things of old. 19 Behold, I will do a new thing, Now it shall spring forth; Shall you not know it? I will even make a road in the wilderness [And] rivers in the desert.

Jeremiah 31:22 How long will you gad about, O you backsliding daughter? For the LORD has created a new thing in the earth -- A woman shall encompass a man." 31 " Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah -- 32 "not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day [that] I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the LORD. 33 "But this the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.
Response by sacrificial goat
Of course, those passages, out of context like that, are vague enough to mean anything you want, or don't want it to. And, the 'new covenant' is interpreted as a renewal :lol: of the covenant, not a totally new one.

What a crock of Postmodern rubbish. Words, ah, words mean anything you want? We Christians do not accept the definitions or false canards of the mockers and scoffers. Your Postmodern Whine is exposed and demolished! (See 2 Cor. 10) Ah, the new Wine is for new wine skins, as Jesus said.


And, it is refreshing, and washes the Postmodern dust of the dead "deconstructionist" hubris of Jacque Derrida away! :lmbo:

:yes:

Brian McLaren demolished this Postmodern hubris!

Quote:

If postmodernist ideas were restricted to the college campus it would be one thing, but ideas are hard things to keep confined.

Like the evils in Pandora’s box, they have a way of permeating and influencing all aspects of society. By the mid-1990’s, postmodernism had reached the highest office in the land—the presidency. Some political pundits have labeled Bill Clinton as the first “postmodern” president. A case in point was his defense in the Monica Lewinsky affair. During questioning under oath, President Clinton skirted answering questions directly by defining terms in his own way—such as what is mean by the word “alone” or the definition of “is.”

His testimony amounted to a classic case in deconstruction, resulting in absolving himself of any wrongdoing in his own eyes.

For the postmodernist, the important thing is truth as he sees it and using language as a power game to gain the advantage over a political opponent. To the casual observer unaccustomed to postmodernist word games, the President was simply lying.

This attempt to relativize language is illustrated by Lewis Carroll in Alice in Wonderland during Alice’s exchange with the Mad Hatter. After listening to the Mad Hatter and making no sense of what he says, the Mad Hatter responds to Alice,

“Well, Alice, words mean exactly what I want them to mean, and nothing else.”

This is deconstructionism at its finest.

To a postmodernist, not only is truth a matter of personal taste but human personality also is fluid. We all play different roles in life and these various roles can be lived out separately from one another. That is why President Clinton can defend his immoral actions with an intern as being “private” and not related to how well he performs his “public” role as president. And according to polls during the time his affair came to light, many Americans agreed with that assessment.

A POSTMODERN HALLMARK: INCONSISTENCY

Not only does the postmodernist seek to create his own reality through the use (or misuse) of language, but he also is unconcerned with being consistent with his own ideas. In other words, there are no moral principles that apply to all situations. In fact, embracing two contradictory ideas are no problem. Again, on another occasion, this time related to foreign policy, President Clinton browbeat Congress to pass a trade bill with China, with the full knowledge that Christians are being persecuted in that country. Yet, the same day the President, moments later, angrily demands sanctions against Japan for hunting whales. Sanctions for killing whales but not for imprisoning Christians—where is the consistency.

This is what happens in a postmodern culture where all values are equivalent and all truth is relative. There are no principles, just momentary preferences, and everything depends on what's to be gained by those in positions of power. As Gene Veith comments,

Those who do not believe in truth are more likely, I believe, to lie. Those who believe that moral values are nothing more than the imposition of power may be more likely to use power to suppress their opposition, whether in enforcing politically correct postures in academia or, when they have political power, in acts of tyranny.”

By Brian McLarenHi Brian. Nicely put and that was in response to what NEW THING God was going to bring to the world. The jews just fail to see what the meaning of "pouring out of the Spirit" means in the New Covenant. How else could God gather all people to Him. I pray everyday for more eyes to be open to the Truth in the Word and I feel more and more that that will happen. Believe the Truth or believe "yourself". Without the SPIRIT of Jesus, the land above, the True Tabernacle and "land", is inaccessible.


ezekiel 37:[i]14 "I will put My Spirit in you, and you shall live, and I will place you in your own land. Then you shall know that I, the LORD, have spoken [it] and performed [it,"] says the LORD.' "

[Richbee]

Response by sacrificial goat Hi Brian. Nicely put and that was in response to what NEW THING God was going to bring to the world. The jews just fail to see what the meaning of "pouring out of the Spirit" means in the New Covenant. How else could God gather all people to Him. I pray everyday for more eyes to be open to the Truth in the Word and I feel more and more that that will happen. Believe the Truth or believe "yourself". Without the SPIRIT of Jesus, the land above, the True Tabernacle and "land", is inaccessible.



:hi:

Please call me Rich!

I was quoting Brian McLaren, and I would like to dig up a hotlink on that quote!

[kofh2u]

Mr Ram,
I repeat... that SOME expert opinions claim Matthew was written while Mary still lived:

The source I direct you to says that Matthew "was written in Hebrew, or rather Syro-Chaldaic;...about A.D. 38, the Greek A.D. 61."

Holy Bible
The National BiblevPress
Philadelphia, PA
Practical Helps addendum,
Synopses of the Books of The Holy Bible. Pg 12

Certainly, you can produce experts to the contrary.

Then, YOUR conspiracy theory:

1) Matthew and Luke used old non-Jewish myths to come up with their claim. Other God stories, not Jewish ones, invented God's born immaculately!

{...cabalistic literature (Yal?u? Reubeni, Bere[color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color], 9a, ed. Amsterdam), seems nevertheless to be very old (see Epiphanius, l.c.), and according to which Elijah was an angel in human form, so that he had neither parents nor offspring.}


2) It was their hope that the lie would convince people where the miracles by Jesus failed.

3) And, next, your theory goes, those converts from Judaism would even believe them MORE, Matthew and the apostles, when they, too, got themselves crucified!

What a neat conspiracy theory!

It is similar to suicide bombers today!

But, still, the Jews are stuck with the promise of Elijah, the miracle worker who is to set scripture straight for us Jews:

QUOTE, Jewish Encyclopedia:
It was expected that all controversies and legal disputes which had accumulated in the course of time would be adjusted by him, and that difficult ritual questions and passages of Scripture seemingly conflicting with each other would be explained, so that no difference of opinion would exist concerning anything (Men. 45b; Ab. R. N. xxxiv.; Num. R. iii., near the end; compare also Jew. Encyc. i. 637a). The office of interpreter of the Law he will retain forever, and in the world to come his relation to Moses will be the same as Aaron's once was (Zohar, ?aw, iii. 27, bottom)

4) The New Testament by Elijah?

John 8:13 The Pharisees therefore said unto him, Thou bearest record of thyself, (not traditional dogma); thy record (of interpretation), is not true (which ours and our father's is).

[Pythagoras]

Hi Kfu,

Another reason why I think Jesus wasn't a Mamzer but the Son of God.

Jesus himself would have known if he was a Mamzer, and would have behaved accordingly. The law about keeping Mamzers out of the temple came straight from God. Would Jesus have deliberately broken God's law, and kept it a secret so man woudn't punish him for it, if he was indeed a Mamzer?
(What a fine moral example he sets.)

The character of the Lord Jesus as portrayed in the bible as our guide , the answer seems obvious, doesn't it?.

[Richbee]

Hi Kfu,

Another reason why I think Jesus wasn't a Mamzer but the Son of God.

Jesus himself would have known if he was a Mamzer, and would have behaved accordingly. The law about keeping Mamzers out of the temple came straight from God. Would Jesus have deliberately broken God's law, and kept it a secret so man woudn't punish him for it, if he was indeed a Mamzer?
(What a fine moral example he sets.)

The character of the Lord Jesus as portrayed in the bible as our guide , the answer seems obvious, doesn't it?.

Exactly!

In Luke 2, Jesus is presented at the Temple in public.

[Sacrificial Ram]

Hi Kfu,

Another reason why I think Jesus wasn't a Mamzer but the Son of God.

Jesus himself would have known if he was a Mamzer, and would have behaved accordingly. The law about keeping Mamzers out of the temple came straight from God. Would Jesus have deliberately broken God's law, and kept it a secret so man woudn't punish him for it, if he was indeed a Mamzer?
(What a fine moral example he sets.)

The character of the Lord Jesus as portrayed in the bible as our guide , the answer seems obvious, doesn't it?.

If Mary was married to Joseph, and had a child that was other than his, he woudl be a mamzer.

So, that is why I suspect that the virgin birth stories were made up by people influenced by the Greek culture after the Jewish revolt.

[InChristAlways]

If Mary was married to Joseph, and had a child that was other than his, he woudl be a mamzer.

So, that is why I suspect that the virgin birth stories were made up by people influenced by the Greek culture after the Jewish revolt.Hi. Could it not also be how the OT said Jesus would come? There are all sorts of New Things God said He would do. First He made man out of the dust, the next thing we know, we have a man coming out of a woman through the Holy Spirit. Maybe there is a misinterpretation of the scriptures to how the "redeemer/deliverer" was to to come. Where do scritpures say that the "messiah" would be born with union of a man and woman? That would help to know.Huh?

Jeremiah 31:21 " Set up signposts, Make landmarks; Set your heart toward the highway, The way in [which] you went. Turn back, O virgin of Israel, Turn back to these your cities. 22 How long will you gad about, O you backsliding daughter? For the LORD has created a new thing in the earth -- A woman shall encompass a man." 23 Thus says the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel: "They shall again use this speech in the land of Judah and in its cities, when I bring back their captivity: 'The LORD bless you, O home of justice, [and] mountain of holiness!'

[Pythagoras]

Hi Sacrifical Ram,


If Mary was married to Joseph, and had a child that was other than his, he woudl be a mamzer.

So, that is why I suspect that the virgin birth stories were made up by people influenced by the Greek culture after the Jewish revolt.

But that just begs the question..

If what you say is true then why was Jesus allowed in the Temple during his life time and Mary not stoned to death?

Can't have your cake and it it too, I'm afraid.. As someone pointed out earlier, Jesus was publicly presented in the Temple and he read to the congregation, from the scroll of Isaiah .. to boot. Now could a Mamzer do all that?

[InChristAlways]

Hi Sacrifical Ram,



But that just begs the question..

If what you say is true then why was Jesus allowed in the Temple during his life time and Mary not stoned to death?

Can't have your cake and it it too, I'm afraid.. As someone pointed out earlier, Jesus was publicly presented in the Temple and he read to the congregation, from the scroll of Isaiah .. to boot. Now could a Mamzer do all that?Hi Pytha. Also notice Jesus did not add the important part to it, the Day of the Lord.

What do you and the jews think Jacob meant by washing His clothes in the "blood of grapes"[revelation 14 does show the "Wrath of God" with a winepress and the "blood of grapes" coming from it and is similar to Isaiah 5]?

Isaiah 61:1 "The Spirit of the Lord GOD upon Me, Because the LORD has anointed Me To preach good tidings to the poor; He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted, To proclaim liberty to the captives, And the opening of the prison to [those who are] bound; [i]2 To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD, And the day of vengeance of our God; To comfort all who mourn,

Genesis 49:1 And Jacob called his sons and said, "Gather together, that I may tell you what shall befall you in the last days:............ 10 The scepter shall not depart from Judah, Nor a lawgiver from between his feet, Until Shiloh comes; And to Him [shall be] the obedience of the people. 11 Binding his donkey to the vine, And his donkey's colt to the choice vine, He washed his garments in wine, And his clothes in the blood of grapes. 12 His eyes [are] darker than wine, And his teeth whiter than milk.

reve 14:19 So the angel thrust his sickle into the earth and gathered the vine of the earth, and threw into the great winepress of the wrath of God. [i]20 And the winepress was trampled outside the city, and blood came out of the winepress, up to the horses' bridles, for one thousand six hundred furlongs.

[kofh2u]

If Mary was married to Joseph, and had a child that was other than his, he woudl be a mamzer.

So, that is why I suspect that the virgin birth stories were made up by people influenced by the Greek culture after the Jewish revolt.

Of course, Jesus continually referred to "his Father in Heaven."

Now for us, that would be trite prayer. For hippies in the 1960's, it would be a philosophy, "That God, ultimately,IS the Father of ALL children."

I pointed out that Matthew was written 6 years after the crucifixion. It seems more plausible than reverting to pagan mythologies that he was informed by Mary of the circumstances of the strange conception of @ 40 years earlier.

But, Jews and Christians have another point of faith available them, equally novel to their present dogma.

Jesus was Elijah, who had no other parents than God.

Atheists may deny this, but honest, faithful Jews and Christians can not dismiss the never examined identity with Jesus = Elijah.

Jews KNOW the tradition of messiah ben Joseph.

They oppose Christ as messiah ben David EXACTLY because of strong argument against his David lineage.
In this, they tend to support me concerning:

JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA:

Messiah ben Joseph.
Finally, there must be mentioned a Messianic figure peculiar to the rabbinical apocalyptic literature—that of Messiah ben Joseph. The earliest mention of him is in Suk. 52a, b, where three statements occur in regard to him, for the first of which R. Dosa (c. 250) is given as authority.

Messiah b. Joseph will appear prior to the coming of Messiah b. David; he will gather the children of Israel around him, march to Jerusalem, and there, after overcoming the hostile powers, reestablish the Temple-worship and set up his own dominion. Thereupon Armilus, according to one group of sources, or Gog andMagog, according to the other, will appear with their hosts before Jerusalem, wage war against Messiah b. Joseph, and slay him. His corpse, according to one group, will lie unburied in the streets of Jerusalem; according to theother, it will be hidden by the angels with the bodies of the Patriarchs, until Messiah b. David comes and resurrects him (comp. Jew. Encyc. i. 682, 684 [§§ 8 and 13]; comp. also Midr. Wayosha' and Agadat ha-Mashia? in Jellinek, "B. H." i. 55 et seq., iii. 141 et seq.).

[Sacrificial Ram]

Hi Sacrifical Ram,



But that just begs the question..

If what you say is true then why was Jesus allowed in the Temple during his life time and Mary not stoned to death?

Can't have your cake and it it too, I'm afraid.. As someone pointed out earlier, Jesus was publicly presented in the Temple and he read to the congregation, from the scroll of Isaiah .. to boot. Now could a Mamzer do all that?

I'll tell you what. When you provide me with evidence from outside the Christian Scripture from within 30 years of his cruxifiction that Jesus was allowed in the temple, and give me evidence that he was considered a virgin birth before the gospels of matthew and luke were written, I will consider that question. I think a 30 year gap is plenty of time, don't you??

[InChristAlways]

Hi Sacrifical Ram,
But that just begs the question..

If what you say is true then why was Jesus allowed in the Temple during his life time and Mary not stoned to death?

Can't have your cake and it it too, I'm afraid.. As someone pointed out earlier, Jesus was publicly presented in the Temple and he read to the congregation, from the scroll of Isaiah .. to boot. Now could a Mamzer do all that?

I'll tell you what. When you provide me with evidence from outside the Christian Scripture from within 30 years of his cruxifiction that Jesus was allowed in the temple, and give me evidence that he was considered a virgin birth before the gospels of matthew and luke were written, I will consider that question. I think a 30 year gap is plenty of time, don't you??Hi SR. Why not just use all of scripture instead of "outside sources"? Is scripture that difficult to understand by itself?

The jews evidently do not believe the Day of the Lord was against Jerusalem and the corrupt jewish rulers that crucified their messiah, so unless you look at just scripture, then everyone else's "stories" will be just that, "a story".
Matthew 13:14 "And in them the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled, which says: 'Hearing you will hear and shall not understand, And seeing you will see and not perceive; Let us look at just scripture, as we all know God did indeed destroy Jerusalem as prophecied.

What do you and the jews think Jacob meant by washing His clothes in the "blood of grapes"[revelation 14 does show the "Wrath of God" with a winepress and the "blood of grapes" coming from it and is similar to Isaiah 5]? What is the Day of Vengeance in Isaiah 61 represent to the jews?

Isaiah 61:1 "The Spirit of the Lord GOD upon Me, Because the LORD has anointed Me To preach good tidings to the poor; He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted, To proclaim liberty to the captives, And the opening of the prison to [those who are] bound; [i]2 To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD, And the day of vengeance of our God; To comfort all who mourn,

Genesis 49:1 And Jacob called his sons and said, "Gather together, that I may tell you what shall befall you in the last days:............ 10 The scepter shall not depart from Judah, Nor a lawgiver from between his feet, Until Shiloh comes; And to Him [shall be] the obedience of the people. 11 Binding his donkey to the vine, And his donkey's colt to the choice vine, He washed his garments in wine, And his clothes in the blood of grapes. 12 His eyes [are] darker than wine, And his teeth whiter than milk.

reve 14:19 So the angel thrust his sickle into the earth and gathered the vine of the earth, and threw into the great winepress of the wrath of God. [i]20 And the winepress was trampled outside the city, and blood came out of the winepress, up to the horses' bridles, for one thousand six hundred furlongs.

[Pythagoras]

Hi Sacrifical Ram,


I'll tell you what. When you provide me with evidence from outside the Christian Scripture from within 30 years of his cruxifiction that Jesus was allowed in the temple, and give me evidence that he was considered a virgin birth before the gospels of matthew and luke were written, I will consider that question. I think a 30 year gap is plenty of time, don't you??

Let's accept your thesis that the Gospels were written 30 years after the 'cruxifiction'(actually it's crucifixion). Now compare to your Talmud which was not even penned down until thousands of years after the fact.

Yet you apparently have no problem accepting everything your Talmud has to say. Where's the logic , and consistency in your argument?

Unless you can prove the Gospel writers were liars, Jesus was indeed allowed into the congregation and Temple, just as the Apostles say so.

Besides, you haven't even begun to address the following question:

If Jesus was considered a Mamzer by his townsfolk, why wasn't Mary stoned to death?

Good Luck,

[Pythagoras]

Hi Inchrist,


Hi Pytha. Also notice Jesus did not add the important part to it, the Day of the Lord.

.

Yep. He literally stopped reading in mid -sentence. Why? Because the day of Judgment hadn't dawned yet, so this part of the prophecy was yet future, therefore he didn't read it.

Jesus was very careful with the Scripture-- 'not one jot, one iota...'

[Theoferrum]

Besides, you haven't even begun to address the following question: If Jesus was considered a Mamzer by his townsfolk, why wasn't Mary stoned to death? Good Luck,

And, further, if Y'shua was Mamzer, why was he crucified because he claimed to be the Son of God and because he claimed to be King of the Jews.

[kofh2u]

Sacrificial Ram:

I'll tell you what. When you provide me with evidence from outside the Christian Scripture from within 30 years of his cruxifiction that Jesus was allowed in the temple, and give me evidence that he was considered a virgin birth before the gospels of matthew and luke were written, I will consider that question. I think a 30 year gap is plenty of time, don't you??

KOFHY:
How about proof that you WILL NOT, no matter, ... FROM the scriptures?

But though he had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on him:
That the saying of ELIJAH the prophet might be fulfilled,which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed?
John 12:37-8

[Sacrificial Ram]

Hi Sacrifical Ram,



Let's accept your thesis that the Gospels were written 30 years after the 'cruxifiction'(actually it's crucifixion). Now compare to your Talmud which was not even penned down until thousands of years after the fact.

Yet you apparently have no problem accepting everything your Talmud has to say. Where's the logic , and consistency in your argument?

Unless you can prove the Gospel writers were liars, Jesus was indeed allowed into the congregation and Temple, just as the Apostles say so.

Besides, you haven't even begun to address the following question:

If Jesus was considered a Mamzer by his townsfolk, why wasn't Mary stoned to death?

Good Luck,

The gospel writers might be be lying, but merely wrong.

It appears the only reason the term 'mamzer' is assocated with Jesus is the story of the virgin birth, that was first written down after the Jewish revolt.

If, as I suspect, the virgin birth was added on after the Jewish revolt, then he would not be considered a mamzer, because he would have been Josephs son.

Do you have any references, secular or non-secular, that is dated by the majority of Christian scholars from before 60 C.E. that state the belief that Jesus was born of a virgin?

[Sacrificial Ram]

Sacrificial Ram:

I'll tell you what. When you provide me with evidence from outside the Christian Scripture from within 30 years of his cruxifiction that Jesus was allowed in the temple, and give me evidence that he was considered a virgin birth before the gospels of matthew and luke were written, I will consider that question. I think a 30 year gap is plenty of time, don't you??

KOFHY:
How about proof that you WILL NOT, no matter, ... FROM the scriptures?

But though he had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on him:
That the saying of ELIJAH the prophet might be fulfilled,which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed?
John 12:37-8

Where does John say he was born of a virgin? Your refrence did not include a reference to a virgin birth.

In addition, it appears that most scholars date the gospel of john after the Jewish revolt. Can you show me from secular or christian sources dating from before the Jewish revolt in 65 C.E. that there was a concept of virgin birth for Jesus? I am not talking vague references, I am talking about it stating it straight out, such as in Matthew and Luke. If it is vague, how
would you know you are not reading INTO the text, rather than reading what the text says?

[kofh2u]

The gospel writers might be be lying, but merely wrong.

It appears the only reason the term 'mamzer' is assocated with Jesus is the story of the virgin birth, that was first written down after the Jewish revolt.

If, as I suspect, the virgin birth was added on after the Jewish revolt, then he would not be considered a mamzer, because he would have been Josephs son.

Do you have any references, secular or non-secular, that is dated by the majority of Christian scholars from before 60 C.E. that state the belief that Jesus was born of a virgin?

It is very weak IMO to try to disqualify the testimony of Matthew simply on the basis that he lied. Then, to demand another witness, but ex lude him too, because he is Luke simplyvargues that only die in the wool Jews may testify. Not justice or fair academics.

The most logical reason Jesus went unopposed to Temple, and why Mary was not stoned, is that the true situation was unknown.
'
Mary, Joseph, Elizabeth and John the Baptist's father did NOT tell!

You don't believe immaculate conceptions, Jews don't, atheists don't, you are in the good company of those whom Mary, Joseph would not have told. Like UFO's, UNTIL the resurrection... they COULD NOT tell!

Even now, to believe Mary, the only one who COULD confess, you would NEED to already believe Jesus, resurrected, wouldn't you?

[Pythagoras]

Hi Sacrifical Ram,



The gospel writers might be be lying, but merely wrong.



What?

The Gospel writers were either speaking the truth, or they were lying. -- either Jesus was allowed in the Temple or he wasn't.



It appears the only reason the term 'mamzer' is assocated with Jesus is the story of the virgin birth, that was first written down after the Jewish revolt.

Now support these your theories .



If, as I suspect, the virgin birth was added on after the Jewish revolt, then he would not be considered a mamzer, because he would have been Josephs son.


If Jesus was Joseph's son, then the Apostles lied, because they clearly write in the Gospel that Joseph was not Jesus's father..


Do you have any references, secular or non-secular, that is dated by the majority of Christian scholars from before 60 C.E. that state the belief that Jesus was born of a virgin

The Gospel account(s).

[InChristAlways]

In addition, it appears that most scholars date the gospel of john after the Jewish revolt. Can you show me from secular or christian sources dating from before the Jewish revolt in 65 C.E. that there was a concept of virgin birth for Jesus? Why is that needed?
I am curious to know how the jews view the "new thing" God was to bring. Evidently it would have to be either a "virgin birth" thru God's spirit, or a new way of worshipping with God dwelling in His people instead of in temples. Any idea?

Isaiah 43:19 Behold, I will do a new thing; now shall it spring forth; shall ye not know it? I will even make a way in the wilderness, and rivers in the desert. 20 The beasts of the field shall honour Me, the jackals and the ostriches; because I give waters in the wilderness, and rivers in the desert, to give drink to My people, Mine elect; 21 The people which I formed for Myself, that they might tell of My praise.

[i]Jeremiah 31:22 How long will you gad about, O you backsliding daughter? For the LORD has created a new thing in the earth -- A woman shall encompass a man."

[Sacrificial Ram]

It is very weak IMO to try to disqualify the testimony of Matthew simply on the basis that he lied. Then, to demand another witness, but ex lude him too, because he is Luke simplyvargues that only die in the wool Jews may testify. Not justice or fair academics.

The most logical reason Jesus went unopposed to Temple, and why Mary was not stoned, is that the true situation was unknown.
'
Mary, Joseph, Elizabeth and John the Baptist's father did NOT tell!

You don't believe immaculate conceptions, Jews don't, atheists don't, you are in the good company of those whom Mary, Joseph would not have told. Like UFO's, UNTIL the resurrection... they COULD NOT tell!

Even now, to believe Mary, the only one who COULD confess, you would NEED to already believe Jesus, resurrected, wouldn't you?

Well, then, if the truth was not known in 32 C.E, and Mary (from a various of different gnositic and christian sources) died before 48 C.E.,why would not this come to light until after the Jewish revolt???

I mean, we are not talking 'until the resurrection'. We are talking about the time period from the cruxifiction to the end of the Jewish revolt. Thatis a good 32-37 years after the case.

It might be pure speculation on my part, but.. like I said, what Christian or secular source from before the Jewish revolt pointed to the belief that Jesus was a virgin birth?? Something that is unambigoius, and refers specifically Jesus, not an exgensis of the old testament.

[kofh2u]

Sacrificial Ram:
Where does John say he was born of a virgin? Your refrence did not include a reference to a virgin birth.

KOFHY:
Immaculate conception implies more like sexless inception of the ovuum. This would mean some unnatural, unexplained process. In Matthew it is designated as "she was found with child of the Holy Ghost."

Now, it is vague how the Holy Ghost impregnated Mary.


RAM:
In addition, it appears that most scholars date the gospel of john after the Jewish revolt.

KOFHY:
True.

RAM:
Can you show me from secular or christian sources dating from before the Jewish revolt in 65 C.E. that there was a concept of virgin birth for Jesus?

KOFHY:
I am always confused by Jews who see the Book of Matthew, for instance, as anything else BUT a secular source that resulted in the development of Christianity.

The Jewish implication asserts that Christian published the New Testament, not the truth, that a mere secular fisherman wrote the book, THEN a church, the Christianianity you assert, formed.


KOFHY:
I did offer Matthew, 38 AD.

Mark also is agreed to have been written in 61 AD.

Luke was written 63-4 AD.

RAM:
I am not talking vague references, I am talking about it stating it straight out, such as in Matthew and Luke.

KOFHY:
The way THEY wrote it seems more than clear... "a young unmarried girl beyond the age of puberty found the Holy Ghost had made he pregnant."
Matthew 1:18.

RAM:
If it is vague, how would you know you are not reading INTO the text, rather than reading what the text says?

KOFHY:
Everyone IS reading into the text. Remember, we await Elijah to explain it to us:

ELIJAH: THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA

"It was expected that all controversies and legal disputes which had accumulated in the course of time would be adjusted by him, and that difficult ritual questions and passages of Scripture seemingly conflicting with each other would be explained, so that no difference of opinion would exist concerning anything (Men. 45b; Ab. R. N. xxxiv.; Num. R. iii., near the end; compare also Jew. Encyc. i. 637a). The office of interpreter of the Law he will retain forever, and in the world to come his relation to Moses will be the same as Aaron's once was (Zohar, ?aw, iii. 27, bottom)"

But, I like the direct way Mark says it, Mark 1:1 "...the gospel of Jesus Christ, THE SON OF GOD (his father?).

[Sacrificial Ram]

Sacrificial Ram:
Where does John say he was born of a virgin? Your refrence did not include a reference to a virgin birth.

KOFHY:
Immaculate conception implies more like sexless inception of the ovuum. This would mean some unnatural, unexplained process. In Matthew it is designated as "she was found with child of the Holy Ghost."

Now, it is vague how the Holy Ghost impregnated Mary.


RAM:
In addition, it appears that most scholars date the gospel of john after the Jewish revolt.

KOFHY:
True.

RAM:
Can you show me from secular or christian sources dating from before the Jewish revolt in 65 C.E. that there was a concept of virgin birth for Jesus?

KOFHY:
I am always confused by Jews who see the Book of Matthew, for instance, as anything else BUT a secular source that resulted in the development of Christianity.

The Jewish implication asserts that Christian published the New Testament, not the truth, that a mere secular fisherman wrote the book, THEN a church, the Christianianity you assert, formed.


KOFHY:
I did offer Matthew, 38 AD.

Mark also is agreed to have been written in 61 AD.

Luke was written 63-4 AD.

RAM:
I am not talking vague references, I am talking about it stating it straight out, such as in Matthew and Luke.

KOFHY:
The way THEY wrote it seems more than clear... "a young unmarried girl beyond the age of puberty found the Holy Ghost had made he pregnant."
Matthew 1:18.

RAM:
If it is vague, how would you know you are not reading INTO the text, rather than reading what the text says?

KOFHY:
Everyone IS reading into the text. Remember, we await Elijah to explain it to us:

ELIJAH: THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA

"It was expected that all controversies and legal disputes which had accumulated in the course of time would be adjusted by him, and that difficult ritual questions and passages of Scripture seemingly conflicting with each other would be explained, so that no difference of opinion would exist concerning anything (Men. 45b; Ab. R. N. xxxiv.; Num. R. iii., near the end; compare also Jew. Encyc. i. 637a). The office of interpreter of the Law he will retain forever, and in the world to come his relation to Moses will be the same as Aaron's once was (Zohar, ?aw, iii. 27, bottom)"

But, I like the direct way Mark says it, Mark 1:1 "...the gospel of Jesus Christ, THE SON OF GOD (his father?).

Well, like I said... unambigious from before the Jewish revolt. Mark does not say Jesus was a virgin. The term 'Son of God' was used before the birth of Jesus to talk about such notables of Kind David (see the psalms of david, psalm 2). Mark does not mention a virgin birth

According to the majority of CHristian scholars, Matthew was written between 80 c.e. and 100 C.e. That violates your claim that matthew was written earlier.

ANd, of course, Elijah has nothign to do with this what so ever, and is merely an attempt to distract.

Since the vast majority of scholars believe that Matthew was written between 80 C.E. and 100 C.E., Mark does not mention a virgin birth, and
Elijah has nothing to do with it, I can only assume you are just trying to distract from the issue, and can't provide that evidence.

[kofh2u]

Hi Sacrifical Ram,

What?

The Gospel writers were either speaking the truth, or they were lying. -- either Jesus was allowed in the Temple or he wasn't.

Now support these your theories .

If Jesus was Joseph's son, then the Apostles lied, because they clearly write in the Gospel that Joseph was not Jesus's father..

The Gospel account(s).

hello py,
A long as RAM is brainstorming how this immaculate conception might make Jewish horse sense, try these FACTS.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

The ONLY correct answer is mine.

Jesus was Elijah, returned, AND Christ, crucified..

Miracles are hard to believe, BUT, Mary's story is plausible for a returning Elijah. Miracle/magic/supernatural

Elijah originally was born without parents. So, why not? Re-appear in a womb!

Elijah was promised to return BEFORE the messiah.

Elijah was expected upon returning to raise the dead, which Jesus did in the case of Lazarus.

But the Jews expect seven miracles more.


THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA:
The Seven Miracles.
(1) He will bring before them Moses and the generation of the wilderness;
(THE TRANSFIGURATION)
(2) he will cause Korah and his company to rise out of the earth; (THE TWELVE APOSTLES)
(3) he will revive the Messiah, the son of Joseph;
(RESURRECTION)
(4) he will show them again the three mysteriously lost sacred utensils of the Temple, namely, the Ark, (THE RENT VAIL)
the vessel of manna, (KEYS TO PETER)
and the vessel of sacred oil; (MARTHA'S ANOINTING)
(5) he will show the scepter which he received from God;
(THE CRUCIFIX)
(6) he will crush mountains like straw;
(DOGMA)
(7) he will reveal the great mystery
(KABBALAH)
(Jellinek, l.c. iii. 72).


But this is only to the Jews, not for the Christians, they are saved and they will argue one messiah, twice.

[Pythagoras]

Hi Sacrifical Ram,


The gospel writers might be be lying, but merely wrong.



If, as I suspect, the virgin birth was added on after the Jewish revolt, then he would not be considered a mamzer, because he would have been Josephs son.



Have you carefully thought out this line of reasoning , to it's logical end?

According to you Jesus was infact Jospeh's son. But after the 'Jewish Revolt' the Apostles concorted the Virgin Birth story. Thus Jesus's own disciples left him open to the charge of bastardy and Mary vulnerable to ridicule as an adulturess, all for a lie.


How sensible is that?

[Sacrificial Ram]

Hi Sacrifical Ram,



Have you carefully thought out this line of reasoning , to it's logical end?

According to you Jesus was infact Jospeh's son. But after the 'Jewish Revolt' the Apostles concorted the Virgin Birth story. Thus Jesus's own disciples left him open to the charge of bastardy and Mary vulnerable to ridicule as an adulturess, all for a lie.


How sensible is that?

When the person who wrote about the Virgin birth is obvioiusly coming from another culture, with a very strong Greek influence, very.

Certainly more logical than an acutal virgin birth. I am sorry you don't like the way I decieded that it is unlikely for Jesus to be a mamzer.

However, look at Agustus Ceasar. His mother was considered a 'virgin' , impregnated by Zeus in the form of a snake, and was given the title of 'Son of god'. I don't take that any more seriously than you do I am sure.

Do you reject the Augustus Ceasar birth tale? I do. I reject that virgin birth tale of Jesus for the same reason.

[kofh2u]

Well, then, if the truth was not known in 32 C.E, and Mary (from a various of different gnositic and christian sources) died before 48 C.E.,why would not this come to light until after the Jewish revolt???

I mean, we are not talking 'until the resurrection'. We are talking about the time period from the cruxifiction to the end of the Jewish revolt. Thatis a good 32-37 years after the case.

It might be pure speculation on my part, but.. like I said, what Christian or secular source from before the Jewish revolt pointed to the belief that Jesus was a virgin birth?? Something that is unambigoius, and refers specifically Jesus, not an exgensis of the old testament.


Well, then, we agree thatbwhat I said, Mary finally got "it" off her chest, she told Matthew and the apostles.

You question whether the Book of Matthew was written by Matthew, or if maybe some others added and revised this Nook.

First, I told you some authorities agree Matthew in Hebrew, was written 38 AD. You say Mary died @48 AD. No problem.

Now, you can irritate 1.44 billion Christians who believe Matthew as it is now written. You can raise up arguments about this book's validity speculating upon matter 2000 years ago. And, you can at the same time deny that any such error exists in your favored books, the Tanakh, while Islam does likewise.

Both you and the Arabs are on this side, defiling the veracity of Christian texts, and, you both disparage one another.

Yet, in every generation, all three of these books have been guard and inspected as regards the previous editions. All these books have had scurtiny and overview like no other books. And, each has a problem that they are open to the same critical charges.

I perfer that we assume in fairness, that your books say what was actually written, right or wrong. mMy books, too. And Islam's.

We can debate the continuity of ideas, look at contradictions, evaluate the reasonableness. But, we can not sling mud that the books, the real books, are lost to forgeries and lies and calculated mythological renditions by plagarism.

38 AD is my date for Matthew.
Luke, 61 AD.

I know academic scribes, atheists, and any debater worth his salt can change our discussion and make the dates controversial. Smoke screening.

What I accuse you of is avoiding thd possibility that Jesus was a revived Elijah, then all the protests against miracles disappears. Then, Mary is right, a saint, a major player in Jewish religion... the mother of Elijah!

[kofh2u]

When the person who wrote about the Virgin birth is obvioiusly coming from another culture, with a very strong Greek influence, very.

Certainly more logical than an acutal virgin birth. I am sorry you don't like the way I decieded that it is unlikely for Jesus to be a mamzer.

However, look at Agustus Ceasar. His mother was considered a 'virgin' , impregnated by Zeus in the form of a snake, and was given the title of 'Son of god'. I don't take that any more seriously than you do I am sure.

Do you reject the Augustus Ceasar birth tale? I do. I reject that virgin birth tale of Jesus for the same reason.


See what I mean?
Your Bible faces the same criticism about creation stories from antiquity, cube shaped ark's that rival the Noah account.

These arguments are distravtions.

AND... only one group of people, the Christian martrys, were willing to die in order to proclaim this lie, you say fresh from their presses, was true.

Ehy?

The book was a bad seller for 3 centuries, dangerous to read, and unprofitable to talk about. If the story wa changing and new stofies added while John lived, until 97 AD, would he not have told us? Told us they were lying in the seven churches we know existed from 32- 97AD?

[Sacrificial Ram]

Well, then, we agree thatbwhat I said, Mary finally got "it" off her chest, she told Matthew and the apostles.


No, we don't. By the time the book of Matthew was written, Mary was
decades dead.



You question whether the Book of Matthew was written by Matthew, or if maybe some others added and revised this Nook


Except of course, that is not what the mainstream biblical scholars believe.
Mainstream biblical scholars do not believe that the 'Book of Matthew was written by the apostle Matthew, and was actually written at the earliest
in 80 C.E.



First, I told you some authorities agree Matthew in Hebrew, was written 38 AD. You say Mary died @48 AD. No problem.

That is your claim. Can you back it up with mainstream scholars? The mainstream scholars disagree with your claim as far as I can see.
Can you give a source for this?




Oh yes, the fallacy of numbers. Well, if you want to have people consider that Jesus was a mamzer, then that is your problem.



Both you and the Arabs are on this side, defiling the veracity of Christian texts, and, you both disparage one another.


Yet, in every generation, all three of these books have been guard and inspected as regards the previous editions. All these books have had scurtiny and overview like no other books. And, each has a problem that they are open to the same critical charges.


Not my problem. I don't care what the Arabs think. I don't care what anybody thinks actually. I care what my reason and intelligence leads me to beleive based on the evidence. So far, I don't see any real evidence that the virgin birth happened. I see your claims that the book of Matthew was written in 38 C.E., but, you don't give your sources, and that is in direct contradiction to the sources about Matthew that I have investigated. You even agreed that the mainstream sources say Matthew was written after the Jewish revolt.




I perfer that we assume in fairness, that your books say what was actually written, right or wrong. mMy books, too. And Islam's.


Oh, it isn't what the books say that I am questioning. It is weather the books are accurate in the presentation. Now, I am skeptical about the
claim that Mohammed decended directly to heaven. You will accept that the Koran says that, I am sure. However, I am sure you are skeptical about if that actually happened.

Why should I treat the miracles claimed by Christainity any differently than the miracles claimed by Islam, or by Judaism for that matter? Or, for that matter, miraculous claims from ancient Roman historians, such as Suetonious claiming the Emporer Vespasian healed the lame and the blind with a touch of his hands?





We can debate the continuity of ideas, look at contradictions, evaluate the reasonableness. But, we can not sling mud that the books, the real books, are lost to forgeries and lies and calculated mythological renditions by plagarism.

38 AD is my date for Matthew.
Luke, 61 AD.

I know academic scribes, atheists, and any debater worth his salt can change our discussion and make the dates controversial. Smoke screening.

What I accuse you of is avoiding thd possibility that Jesus was a revived Elijah, then all the protests against miracles disappears. Then, Mary is right, a saint, a major player in Jewish religion... the mother of Elijah!

[kofh2u]

Sacrificial Ram:

Well, like I said... unambigious from before the Jewish revolt. Mark does not say Jesus was a virgin. The term 'Son of God' was used before the birth of Jesus to talk about such notables of Kind David (see the psalms of david, psalm 2). Mark does not mention a virgin birth

KOFHY:
No, not beyond my point.
Mark was written to the gentiles, not the Jews.
To the gentiles, a man's son means the man is his father.
But, I won't press that point.

Mark makes another important point in the verse just following that Jesus is God's son.

MARK REMINDS US THAT ELIJAH HAS NOT YET COME,...
... and that John the baptist was a stand in.

I see this as COLLATERATING MY HYPOTHESIS:
Jesus was the Jew Elijah.

John the B. was demonstratively reminding us of the prophecy of Malachi.

Mal. 4:5 Behold, (in 32 AD), I will send you Elijah the prophet, (to
make straight the way) BEFORE the (second) coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD: (behold, thelion of Judah, the root of David: [Rev 5:5])


RAM:
According to the majority of CHristian scholars, ...

KOFHY:
Majority does not rule on this issue.
The matter is 2000 years old.

The majority does not know when Moses lived.
The majority can not explain an Exodux of 2 million,... so on. These all reduce to subjectuve opinion collaterated by separate schools of though, all equally established and honored in past generations, our times, and into the future.

RAM:
Matthew was written between 80 c.e. and 100 C.e. That violates your claim that matthew was written earlier.

KOFHY:
No. My side of this debate, now centuries old, is Mstthew was written 38AD.
We are both two old to start that thread of debate and hope to finish.

RAM:
ANd, of course, Elijah has nothign to do with this what so ever, and is merely an attempt to distract.

KOFHY:
Elijah is the main point of contention!

1) Where is he?

2) The Christian messiah ben David can't be Jesus because Elijah must come first.

3) But, Christ could be the Jew Elijah, reviving the messiah ben Joseph.

4) AND, the Second Coming of the Christians supports this idea! Jesus, the Christ, Elijah to, his own Second Coming.

5)mJews see two different messiahs, Joseph and David.

6) Christians see the same messiah, two times.

7) I see Elijah, transfigured, Matthew 17, to stand with Moses in the wilderness on that Passover night when Jesus was then arrested.

8)From then, the Transfiguration from Elijah to messish ben Joseph, Elijah having been revealed to his apostles, Jesus, the son of man, the worm, the suffering messiah is revealed.

(Tell me this isn't Jewish, traditional Jewish expectation.)

[Sacrificial Ram]

See what I mean?
Your Bible faces the same criticism about creation stories from antiquity, cube shaped ark's that rival the Noah account.

These arguments are distravtions.

AND... only one group of people, the Christian martrys, were willing to die in order to proclaim this lie, you say fresh from their presses, was true.


So, people are willing to die. The heavens' gate cult commited suicide to reach the UFO riding behind Hale Bop.

The Jews burnt in the autodefe in Span died with the Shema on their lips.

There are a lot of sucide bombers dying for Allah every week.

And Massada is an interesting historical event.

So, it appears your statement about Christian Martyrs is wrong indeed.
Ehy?

The book was a bad seller for 3 centuries, dangerous to read, and unprofitable to talk about. If the story wa changing and new stofies added while John lived, until 97 AD, would he not have told us? Told us they were lying in the seven churches we know existed from 32- 97AD?[/QUOTE]

[InChristAlways]

So, people are willing to die. The heavens' gate cult commited suicide to reach the UFO riding behind Hale Bop.

The Jews burnt in the autodefe in Span died with the Shema on their lips.

There are a lot of sucide bombers dying for Allah every week.

And Massada is an interesting historical event.

So, it appears your statement about Christian Martyrs is wrong indeed.
Ehy?

The book was a bad seller for 3 centuries, dangerous to read, and unprofitable to talk about. If the story wa changing and new stofies added while John lived, until 97 AD, would he not have told us? Told us they were lying in the seven churches we know existed from 32- 97AD?[/QUOTE]Hi SR. I would laugh at that if not for the fact they never really understood the Word or scriptures. A book that condones suicide? EGADS.
It is a shame the book of revelation itself isn't a best seller, that would have prevented those others from following the "wolves" instead of the Lamb. God is even allowing the saints to die in revelation and I had to read this twice to see if I was reading this correctly. I wonder if this "number" has been reached yet?

reve 11:10 And they cried with a loud voice, saying, "How long, O Lord, holy and true, until You judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth?" 11 Then a white robe was given to each of them; and it was said to them that they should rest a little while longer,until both [the number of] their fellow servants and their brethren, who would be killed as they [were,] was completed.

[kofh2u]

Well, then, if the truth was not known in 32 C.E, and Mary (from a various of different gnositic and christian sources) died before 48 C.E.,why would not this come to light until after the Jewish revolt???

I mean, we are not talking 'until the resurrection'. We are talking about the time period from the cruxifiction to the end of the Jewish revolt. Thatis a good 32-37 years after the case.

It might be pure speculation on my part, but.. like I said, what Christian or secular source from before the Jewish revolt pointed to the belief that Jesus was a virgin birth?? Something that is unambigoius, and refers specifically Jesus, not an exgensis of the old testament.


First, it doesn'tfollow that the matter hadn't "come to light" until someone wrote it down.

Applying that thinking to Moses and we would doubt Jews were ever really in Egypt. The text of Torah has way less crediblity in the trems of your criticism for other religuous manuscripts.

The issue here is not whther you accept Matthew's book as written in 38 AD. It is an issue of whether what is related in Matthew has continuity with the Old Testament.

All these religious books are open to criticism such as you raise. The issue will actually boil down to the long view.

Over the long haul, Jesus seems very essential to changing the enemies surrounding the Jews from constant and total anti-jewish forces to the only nations capable of fulfilling the promise of peace in the Promised Land of milk and honey. No other force to date stands between the Jews and their brothers, Islam. Like Joseph, the Jews are wished dead by their own semetic neighbors.
Particularly, American evangelical understand the message of Jesus' NT. They are aware of the wishes of God concerning his promise to Abraham. Particularly, American evangelical Christians have been taught by Jesus that they, too, are circumcised Jews in their hearts, to their core. American evangelical Christians are well aware of the predicted events found in Zechariah.

If the proof of the pudding is found in tasting the results, Jesus is the savior of Isreal, the benefactor, the ace in the whole.

Jesus said if you don't believe in him, as found in Matthew, believe in the works he has done.

Zech. 7:14 But (in 70 AD) I scattered them, (unlike the Babylonian Exile), with a whirlwind among ALL the nations WHOM THEY KNEW NOT. Thus the land was desolate after them, that no man (from that diaspora) passed through nor returned: for (the pagan Romans), they laid the pleasant land desolate.

Zech. 8:1 Again the word of the LORD, (Christ) of hosts (to 1.44 billion Christian pilgrims), came to me, saying,

Zech. 8:2 Thus saith the LORD, (Christ), of hosts (to 1.44 billion Christian pilgrims); I was jealous for (the lost) Zion with great jealousy, and I was jealous for her (as she was my testimony before men) with great fury.

Zech. 8:3 Thus saith the LORD; I am returned, (in 1948 AD), unto Zion (the State of Israel), and will dwell in the midst of (Israel, in) Jerusalem: and Jerusalem (by that day) shall (have come to) be called (throughout the Christian World) a city of Truth, (of the Christ); and the (historical) mountain of the LORD, (Christ), of (Christian) hosts, the holy mountain (of Old and New Testament).

[kofh2u]

So, people are willing to die. The heavens' gate cult commited suicide to reach the UFO riding behind Hale Bop.

The Jews burnt in the autodefe in Span died with the Shema on their lips.

There are a lot of sucide bombers dying for Allah every week.

And Massada is an interesting historical event.

So, it appears your statement about Christian Martyrs is wrong indeed.
Ehy?

The book was a bad seller for 3 centuries, dangerous to read, and unprofitable to talk about. If the story was changing and new stories added while John lived, until 97 AD, would he not have told us? Told us they were lying in the seven churches we know existed from 32- 97AD?[/QUOTE]


The point.

Jews died claiming Jesus was truth.

Jews were chased out and run through for saying Jesus was the Truth.

People, Jews of the first century, don't die unless they believe in their religion.

The religion of these martryed Jews was Judaism, Jesus being recognized by them as the messiah. They didn't die defending him. They died for saying things like the immaculate conception was his Truth.

Matthew formed the base for Christianity. That his story of the very first chapter, concerning immaculate conception was told, told before it was written, and told throughoit the first century without dispute from other Christians doesn't seem plausible for people so fired up on the idea that Jesus was the Truth.

John 16:2 They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time
cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service.

[Krusader]

hello py,
A long as RAM is brainstorming how this immaculate conception might make Jewish horse sense, try these FACTS.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

The ONLY correct answer is mine.

Jesus was Elijah, returned, AND Christ, crucified..

Miracles are hard to believe, BUT, Mary's story is plausible for a returning Elijah. Miracle/magic/supernatural

Elijah originally was born without parents. So, why not? Re-appear in a womb!

Elijah was promised to return BEFORE the messiah.

Elijah was expected upon returning to raise the dead, which Jesus did in the case of Lazarus.

But the Jews expect seven miracles more.


THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA:
The Seven Miracles.
(1) He will bring before them Moses and the generation of the wilderness;
(THE TRANSFIGURATION)
(2) he will cause Korah and his company to rise out of the earth; (THE TWELVE APOSTLES)
(3) he will revive the Messiah, the son of Joseph;
(RESURRECTION)
(4) he will show them again the three mysteriously lost sacred utensils of the Temple, namely, the Ark, (THE RENT VAIL)
the vessel of manna, (KEYS TO PETER)
and the vessel of sacred oil; (MARTHA'S ANOINTING)
(5) he will show the scepter which he received from God;
(THE CRUCIFIX)
(6) he will crush mountains like straw;
(DOGMA)
(7) he will reveal the great mystery
(KABBALAH)
(Jellinek, l.c. iii. 72).


But this is only to the Jews, not for the Christians, they are saved and they will argue one messiah, twice.


Please note for future reference, that the term "immaculate conception," is a term used only by Roman Catholics and does not refer to the Virgin birth. It is a term used to describe how the Blessed mother, Mary, was kept free and spotless from original sin, when she was conceived in the womb of her mother, St. Anne. Protestants do not believe in this doctrine.

Immaculate Conception = conception of Mary in her mother's womb.

Virgin Birth = Mary conceived Christ by the overshadowing power of the Holy Spirit.

[Pythagoras]

Hi Sacrifical Ram,



When the person who wrote about the Virgin birth is obvioiusly coming from another culture, with a very strong Greek influence, very.


You're making completely unfounded accusations, once again. Matthew, who wrote about the Virgin birth, was a Jew, not a Greek. His gospel was not coming from another culture but from the Jewish. Infact many scholars say the Jewish nature of Matthew's Gospel may suggest it was written in Palestine, though others think it may have originated in Syrian Antioch. Some have argued on the basis of it's Jewish characteristics that it was written in the early church period, possibly the early part of AD 50, when the church was largely Jewish and the gospel preached to Jews only.(Ac 11:9)





I am sorry you don't like the way I decieded that it is unlikely for Jesus to be a mamzer.


The way you decide Jesus is not a Mamzer ( by suggesting Joseph is the actual father of Jesus, without any shred of evidence ) makes the Gospel writers out to be deliberate liars.



Why not follow the teaching of your Talmud , which suggests Jesus was a Mamzer because he was the product of Mary's pre-marital sexual relations with a Roman soldier by the name Panthera ?.

Why would the Gospel writers deliberately distort truth ? If Joseph was Jesus's father, the Apostles would have plainly said so. Remember, Jesus could have fulfilled all of the requirements of the Jewish Messiah had he simply been Joseph's son(i.e. a Son of David).

Infact by insisting upon the Virgin Birth, the Apostles rendered Jesus infinitely less appealing as Messiah to the Jews. Please note that the Gospel message was geared towards the Jew and not Greek(as you falsely seem to imply). For instance, Jesus consistently says stuff like, "I came only to save the Lost Sheep of the house of Israel", etc. etc. So a Virgin Birth would have been the last thing for the Apostles to preach .







However, look at Agustus Ceasar. His mother was considered a 'virgin' , impregnated by Zeus in the form of a snake, and was given the title of 'Son of god'. I don't take that any more seriously than you do I am sure.


Actually Caesar Augustus was conceieved by the god Apollo through a human mother. The Torah says almost the eaxct thing. -- the Sons of God had sex with earthly women to produce a race of giants, called Nephalim.
Do you take your Torah seriously, or not?

And the title Son of God is applied in the Torah to angels, occasionally to men -- kings, judges, etc. In the Book of Daniel we have another appelation, the Son of Man, or One like the Son of Man, etc. So your point is moot.

best wishes,

[kofh2u]

Please note for future reference, that the term "immaculate conception," is a term used only by Roman Catholics and does not refer to the Virgin birth. It is a term used to describe how the Blessed mother, Mary, was kept free and spotless from original sin, when she was conceived in the womb of her mother, St. Anne. Protestants do not believe in this doctrine.

Immaculate Conception = conception of Mary in her mother's womb.

Virgin Birth = Mary conceived Christ by the overshadowing power of the Holy Spirit.


THANXZ.

That was much appreciated!

My assumption that this term applied to the process resulting in a virgin birth identifies me as non-Roman Vatholic, for sure. I must admit, I have never read anything about the grandmother of Jesus.

Thank you for telling me the meaning of this term, and perhaps you have a short lesson on why grandmom gets into this?

thanxz again, dave

[Pythagoras]

Hi Sacrifical Ram,

Questions:

(1) If a Jewish adulturess has an offspring, say, with a Gentile/or another Jewish person , her progney is designated a Mamzer.
My question is whether such a child is even considered 'Jewish', since he's not even allowed in the Congregation or the Temple.

[note:In John chapter 8, the Jewish leaders(scribes and Pharisees) call Jesus 'a Demon possessed Samartian', implying he's not a Jew, perhaps subtly (but falsely) hinting that he's a Memzer]


(2) It is clear that many of the European Jewish women(married or otherwise) were for centuries raped by Gentiles (in connection to the Jewish diaspora, starting the middle-ages ) . Coupled with intermarriage with Gentile Europeans, infact has produced the Askhnazi Jew who is physically closer to the European and less physically like his Sephardic brethen. Infact in WWII alone, under Nazi Germany, many such rapes of Jewish women (who ultimately produced offspring) are attested for. Is it a fair statement that many of the Askhnazi Jews are therefore Mamzers?


No offense is intended.

[kofh2u]

Hi Sacrifical Ram,

Questions:

(1) If a Jewish adulturess has an offspring, say, with a Gentile/or another Jewish person , her progney is designated a Mamzer.
My question is whether such a child is even considered 'Jewish', since he's not even allowed in the Congregation or the Temple.

[note:In John chapter 8, the Jewish leaders(scribes and Pharisees) call Jesus 'a Demon possessed Samartian', implying he's not a Jew, perhaps subtly (but falsely) hinting that he's a Memzer]


(2) It is clear that many of the European Jewish women(married or otherwise) were for centuries raped by Gentiles (in connection to the Jewish diaspora, starting the middle-ages ) . Coupled with intermarriage with Gentile Europeans, infact has produced the Askhnazi Jew who is physically closer to the European and less physically like his Sephardic brethen. Infact in WWII alone, under Nazi Germany, many such rapes of Jewish women (who ultimately produced offspring) are attested for. Is it a fair statement that many of the Askhnazi Jews are therefore Mamzers?


No offense is intended.


Hahaaa..
NO offense is a good defense?

That actually sounds as much Christian as it does Taoistic.

OK, here is my summation of our NO OFFENSE to Jews:

1) They doubt our witnesses, two Jews at the scene. Luke and Matthew. The fact that these men were tortured by the prosecution, but STILL held to their testimony, even to death, is totally ignored.

2) They swallow plagarized Creation tales and world size floods, survival of their ancestors by super arks. Yet mock and ridicule the miracles that rock their own times, to include a Christian supported/initiated fulfilled return to the Promise of Abraham.

3) They call "mamzer" (instead of Elijah) at the Jew responsible for filling the previous vacuum of allies, even from time immemorial!

4) They insult His host of 1.44 billion Hebrew Bible believers. These Christians are the stone in the sling of their David, (Rev 5:5), who is now facing down 1 billion Islamized enemies. Ancient enemies still with them: Syrian, Babylonian Iraqi, Persian Iranians, and Egyptians, plus.

5) They refuse to admit to the easy translation of Judaism into a ready and even eagarly awaiting Christianity,... BECAUSE they do not want to desert the "team" of rabbi who since 32 AD have taken the other side.

6) These rabbi hold special places of respect in their community. These rabbi insist they ought politically and religiously control Israel.

7) These rabbi enforce the Levite (many are not) privilege to distain armed services, placing the lives of their supporters on the line, without placing themselves at risk. These rabbi profit in everyway from supporters who really need Christian support.

8) Half of the Jews are secular.

9) Half the "religious" Jews are so Conservative they don't attend synagogue because it is closed for the (High) Holiday's. (Conservative Jewish joke.)

10) One third of the religious Jews are "Reformed," meaning they already accept the gentile Christianization: that salvation is NOT dependent upon riitual observance, but upon mitvah.

11) The Orthodox Jews have become so pompous that they have even added non- Orthodox Jews to the excommunication of Hebrew-Christians.

12) The Ultra- orthodox Jews, @ 10%, hold themselves so aloof from all other peoples, insisting that even in the face of the present fulfillment starting in 1948 AD, their theological interpretation denies that Elijah has come, has nade the way straight, has set the scene for messiah ben David.

Isa. 60:3 And the Gentiles (of Christianity) shall come to thy enlightenment (O'Israel), and kings (of political rule) to the brightness of thy (nation's) rising.

Isa. 60:4 Lift up thine eyes you people of Israel round about, and see: all, (the two billion Christian), they gather themselves together, they come to thee (in the Promised Land): thy sons (of the Diaspora) shall come from far, and thy daughters shall be nursed at thy side (from 1948 forever).

Isa. 60:5 Then, thereafter, thou shalt see (these hoards of Christianity, and ye O'Israel), flow together (with them), and thine heart (deep within you) shall fear (the truth of Christ in your conversion), and be enlarged (in understanding of scripture); because the abundance of the
sea (of unconscious realizations) shall be converted unto thee, the forces of the Gentiles, (now Christians, two billions in number), shall come unto thee.

Isa. 60:6 The multitude of (their) camels shall cover thee, the dromedaries of Midian and Ephah (Jordan of today) ; all they from Sheba shall come (to pilgrimage in the Holy Land): they shall bring gold and incense (and economic prosperity); and they shall show forth the praises of the LORD.

Isa. 60:7 All the flocks (of the Palestinian immigrants from Gaza) of Kedar shall be gathered together unto thee, the rams of (the West Bank) Nebaioth shall minister unto thee: they shall come up with acceptance on mine altar, and I will glorify the house of my glory, (the House of Israel and the House of Judah).

[Sacrificial Ram]

Hi Sacrifical Ram,

Questions:

(1) If a Jewish adulturess has an offspring, say, with a Gentile/or another Jewish person , her progney is designated a Mamzer.
My question is whether such a child is even considered 'Jewish', since he's not even allowed in the Congregation or the Temple.

[note:In John chapter 8, the Jewish leaders(scribes and Pharisees) call Jesus 'a Demon possessed Samartian', implying he's not a Jew, perhaps subtly (but falsely) hinting that he's a Memzer]


(2) It is clear that many of the European Jewish women(married or otherwise) were for centuries raped by Gentiles (in connection to the Jewish diaspora, starting the middle-ages ) . Coupled with intermarriage with Gentile Europeans, infact has produced the Askhnazi Jew who is physically closer to the European and less physically like his Sephardic brethen. Infact in WWII alone, under Nazi Germany, many such rapes of Jewish women (who ultimately produced offspring) are attested for. Is it a fair statement that many of the Askhnazi Jews are therefore Mamzers?


No offense is intended.

Good questions....

A woman who is raped did not willinging enter into illicite sexual relations. I might be wrong, but I do not see any references about children caused by rapes be considered mamzers. I remember reading that the concept of the children of Jewish mothers were considered Jews because of that issue, but I do not have a reference for that, or know how accurate that is.

[Krusader]

THANXZ.

That was much appreciated!

My assumption that this term applied to the process resulting in a virgin birth identifies me as non-Roman Vatholic, for sure. I must admit, I have never read anything about the grandmother of Jesus.

Thank you for telling me the meaning of this term, and perhaps you have a short lesson on why grandmom gets into this?

thanxz again, dave

I am not a Roman Catholic, either, but was High Church Anglican for a good many years and am pretty familiar with RC doctrine.

The Catholics promulgated the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary because they believed that she, from the moment of her conception, must have been kept free from the stain of original sin since she was destined to become the theotokos, God-bearer. God prevented original sin from staining the soul of Mary by a divine act, and thus she was the "immaculate conception," within the womb of her mother. This is basically how the grandmother (supposedly St. Anne according to Catholic tradition) go into the whole affair.

I don't believe that the Eastern Churches have this doctrine - but I may not be correct on that. Perhaps some orthodox could help us out here.

I'm an evangelical Christian now, and don't buy into this extra-biblical tradition at all.

[kofh2u]

I am not a Roman Catholic, either, but was High Church Anglican for a good many years and am pretty familiar with RC doctrine.

The Catholics promulgated the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary because they believed that she, from the moment of her conception, must have been kept free from the stain of original sin since she was destined to become the theotokos, God-bearer. God prevented original sin from staining the soul of Mary by a divine act, and thus she was the "immaculate conception," within the womb of her mother. This is basically how the grandmother (supposedly St. Anne according to Catholic tradition) go into the whole affair.

I don't believe that the Eastern Churches have this doctrine - but I may not be correct on that. Perhaps some orthodox could help us out here.

I'm an evangelical Christian now, and don't buy into this extra-biblical tradition at all.

How did they come up with a name? Anne?

When did such a concept become part of the RC teacning?

[InChristAlways]

How did they come up with a name? Anne?

When did such a concept become part of the RC teacning?Just as they make dead christians saints, so they have to make up names to take further focus of the True Christ of Jesus.
Why do they still depict Jesus as a little baby in Mary's arms?
Why not depict Him talking against the corrupt rulers of Jerusalem which Jesus would be doing to His churches today if He ever came back [and talking to the "assembly" in revelation? Jesus and Paul talked to believers after they were saved and how to walk in Christ once they came to Him.
That is why I avoid most churches today as the focus is more on "working" to be saved instead of "living in Chrst" and His spirit to obtain the Godly perfection that was of Christ.

Matthew 23:1 Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples, 2 saying: "The scribes and the Pharisees[Pope, biships, cardinals, ministries of false doctrines] sit in Moses' seat..............................

[Krusader]

How did they come up with a name? Anne?

When did such a concept become part of the RC teacning?

I think the names of Mary's parents are simply pious traditions handed down.

The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was canonized in the 50's I believe, but I may be wrong on that.

[Pythagoras]

Hi Sacrifical Ram,



Thanks for the sober response.


A woman who is raped did not willinging enter into illicite sexual relations.I might be wrong, but I do not see any references about children caused by rapes be considered mamzers.

I actually had an internet discussion with a Jewish friend on this very issue about a year ago, and my friend advised me thus: if a married Jewish woman(say in Nazi Germany) was raped and consequently impregnated ,then the offspring of such a union is indeed a Mamzer. However, if the woman was unmarried at the time of the rape, then the offspring not considered a Mamzer. This seems to make more sense to me than what you're suggesting.

If on the other hand, what you say is correct, then it would be extremely difficult to ever prove a person a Mamzer, for the adulturess could always claim rape , and quite easily escape the stigma to her and her child. Your view would actually make it virtually impossible for Jesus to be stigmatized a Mamzer, for Mary(if not overshadowed by the Holy Spirit) was most likely raped. A strong case could be made for rape because of Joseph's compassion towards her and willingness to take her to wife even after she became pregnant.



I remember reading that the concept of the children of Jewish mothers were considered Jews because of that issue, but I do not have a reference for that, or know how accurate that is.


They might be Jews, but are Mamzer Jews,I think.

best,

[InChristAlways]

Particularly, American evangelical understand the message of Jesus' NT. They are aware of the wishes of God concerning his promise to Abraham. Particularly, American evangelical Christians have been taught by Jesus that they, too, are circumcised Jews in their hearts, to their core. American evangelical Christians are well aware of the predicted events found in Zechariah.

If the proof of the pudding is found in tasting the results, Jesus is the savior of Isreal, the benefactor, the ace in the whole.

Jesus said if you don't believe in him, as found in Matthew, believe in the works he has done.


The word "sign" appears about 79 times in the OT. These were usually significant and used by God for either various miracles or for covenants that not only would apply to the present time, but also for ages, such as circumcision. Did the NC of Christ actually do away with "circumcision" for both jew and gentiles or just genitiles? What does a "sign" signify in the OT. What would the 'sign' of Immanuel actually signify?

gene 17:10 "This My covenant which you shall keep, between Me and you and your descendants after you: Every male child among you shall be circumcised; [i]11 "and you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between Me and you.


sign occurs 76 times in 67 verses: Page 1, verses 1 - 25
'owth (Strong's 0226) occurs 79 times in 77 verses: Page 1, verses 1 - 25

226 'owth oth probably from 225 (http://www.eliyah.com/cgi-bin/strongs.cgi?file=hebrewlexicon&isindex=225) (in the sense of appearing); a signal (literally or figuratively), as a flag, beacon, monument, omen, prodigy, evidence, etc.:--mark, miracle, (en-)sign, token.

[kofh2u]

Just as they make dead christians saints, so they have to make up names to take further focus of the True Christ of Jesus.
Why do they still depict Jesus as a little baby in Mary's arms?
Why not depict Him talking against the corrupt rulers of Jerusalem which Jesus would be doing to His churches today if He ever came back [and talking to the "assembly" in revelation? Jesus and Paul talked to believers after they were saved and how to walk in Christ once they came to Him.
That is why I avoid most churches today as the focus is more on "working" to be saved instead of "living in Chrst" and His spirit to obtain the Godly perfection that was of Christ.

Matthew 23:1 Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples, 2 saying: "The scribes and the Pharisees[Pope, biships, cardinals, ministries of false doctrines] sit in Moses' seat..............................



I must admit that I am a little ataken back that the RCC would miss the point of virgin birth. Especially when Mark 1:1-3 suggests so strongly that this was the mode of the return of Elijah, by such a one time miracle.

I do want to know when this doctrine was incorporated into the church dogma. I would hope to find that it was late in the Catholic Church, even look forward to finding it was a post 1200 AD concept. The church was in a transition then, Thyatira giving way to the rather dead Sardis of today.

However, judging the misinterpretations of those generations of uneducated and uninformed Christians is not at issue. We look forward to our own opportunity for the enlightenment coming upon us.

Matt. 12:20 A bruised reed (of scriptural interpretion) shall he not
break, and smoking flax (of misguided dogma) shall he not quench, till (after) he send forth (good) judgment unto victory (in ecumenical amalgamation).


PS
I like your brackets, at least I understand what you mean to say!

[Pythagoras]

Hi Kfu,



.Could you please elaborate on the Jewish tradition that Elijah had no earthly parents, but was some kind of an Angelic being?

.Also , Malchedizek Prince of Salem, he too seems not to have had a normal birth , nor even any beginning of days. It semms to me Jesus was hardly unique ( in the Jewish context
) as someone conceieved supernaturally . Are there more such characters in Jewish tradition and the Torah you can think of?

Here are two more:

. the idea that the Sons of God impregnated the daughters of men to produce giant Nephalim is found in the Torah.

. And the 'One like unto the Son of Man' of Daniel is another mysterious figure with a strange(unknowable) birth background.

etc.

Discuss.

[InChristAlways]

Why do they still depict Jesus as a little baby in Mary's arms?
Why not depict Him talking against the corrupt rulers of Jerusalem which Jesus would be doing to His churches today if He ever came back [and talking to the "assembly" in revelation? Jesus and Paul talked to believers after they were saved and how to walk in Christ once they came to Him.
That is why I avoid most churches today as the focus is more on "working" to be saved instead of "living in Chrst" and His spirit to obtain the Godly perfection that was of Christ.

Matthew 23:1 Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples, 2 saying: "The scribes and the Pharisees[Pope, biships, cardinals, ministries of false doctrines] sit in Moses' seat..............................

I must admit that I am a little ataken back that the RCC would miss the point of virgin birth. Especially when Mark 1:1-3 suggests so strongly that this was the mode of the return of Elijah, by such a one time miracle.

I do want to know when this doctrine was incorporated into the church dogma. I would hope to find that it was late in the Catholic Church, even look forward to finding it was a post 1200 AD concept. The church was in a transition then, Thyatira giving way to the rather dead Sardis of today.

However, judging the misinterpretations of those generations of uneducated and uninformed Christians is not at issue. We look forward to our own opportunity for the enlightenment coming upon us.

Matt. 12:20 A bruised reed (of scriptural interpretion) shall he not
break, and smoking flax (of misguided dogma) shall he not quench, till (after) he send forth (good) judgment unto victory (in ecumenical amalgamation).


PS
I like your brackets, at least I understand what you mean to say!Hi Kofhu. And they depict Mary as a dressed like a queen when her and Joseph were practically dirt poor. Is this any way for the King of the jews to come into the world? OF COURSE IT WAS as He came for the poor, blind and weak of the world, not the richly dreseed corrupt rulers of Jerusalem who were oppessing the "Lost Sheep".

God chose to manifest himself through a poor couple! They couldn't afford a lamb, so they brought two birds. This is very important and significant. Like the Scripture above says; there was nothing about his incarnation that would have anyone take notice of him. He never went to Bible college, and had no certification or ordination. He wasn't wealthy. He wasn't handsome. He was born, evidently, in some kind of barn, for they wrapped him in cloths and laid him in an animal food trough. How much more unimpressive could God have manifested himself?

Isaiah 53:2 He grew up before him like a tender shoot, and like a root out of dry ground. He had no beauty[plain looking] or majesty[dirt poor] to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him[perhaps even "ugly"?].

[kofh2u]

Hi Kfu,



.Could you please elaborate on the Jewish tradition that Elijah had no earthly parents, but was some kind of an Angelic being?

.Also , Malchedizek Prince of Salem, he too seems not to have had a normal birth , nor even any beginning of days. It semms to me Jesus was hardly unique ( in the Jewish context
) as someone conceieved supernaturally . Are there more such characters in Jewish tradition and the Torah you can think of?

Here are two more:

. the idea that the Sons of God impregnated the daughters of men to produce giant Nephalim is found in the Torah.

. And the 'One like unto the Son of Man' of Daniel is another mysterious figure with a strange(unknowable) birth background.

etc.

Discuss.

HI PY,

THEJEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA; ELIJAH:

"Mention must also be made of a statement which, though found only in the later cabalistic literature (Yal?u? Reubeni, Bere[color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color], 9a, ed. Amsterdam), seems nevertheless to be very old (see Epiphanius, l.c.), and according to which Elijah was an angel in human form, so that he had neither parents nor offspring.

ELIJAH = JESUS?


Ram and Ely could do us a great favor by telling us about this tradition. They KNOW much more in their heart of hearts than they are admitting to about everything I said about Elijah.

I will tell you a litle, enough that these two Jews might search their conscience, and stop the lies by ommission.

It is not Judaism or Christianity I want, but the Truth. Ram claimed this, too.

How much more they can tell us is exactly the meaning of Zechariah 14:

Zech. 2:11 And many (Christianized) nations shall be joined to the LORD in that day, ([2k4 AD], it shall be one day which shall be known to [YHVH], the LORD, [a day of great technological advancement], not day, nor night: but it shall come to pass, [with the advent of electricity], that at evening time it shall be light, [Zech 14:7]), and you shall be my people, (Hebrew-Christians all: [Zech 14:17]): and I, (the Holy Spirit: [Rev 21:22]), will dwell in the midst of thee (Rev 22:2-3], and thou shalt know, (Rev 22:4), that the LORD, (Christ), of (Christian) hosts hath sent me, (the Holy Spirit) unto thee.

[Pythagoras]

Hi Kfu,

Thanks for the citation. I'll do more of my own research on this topic as time permits.


Ram and Ely could do us a great favor by telling us about this tradition.

Don't hold your breath. They're hardly going to aid us in our endeavour. If anything they will try to mis-direct us.



They KNOW much more in their heart of hearts than they are admitting to about everything I said about Elijah.

I bet.


ELIJAH = JESUS?

Kfu, Elijah seems to be more mysterious than I had previously imagined. -- according to Jesus , if one wished it, one could consider John the Baptist as [a type] of Elijah who was to come before Messiah to make straight his path. I have some trouble accepting Elijah = Messiah (Jesus) as you imply , as Elijah is to precede the Messiah and is a distinct individual from him. They two are not same,I think. Also in the Rev. the two servants of God who battle anti-Christ are in my opinion Moses and Elijah.


best wishes,

[InChristAlways]

Hi Kfu,


Kfu, Elijah seems to be more mysterious than I had previously imagined. -- according to Jesus , if one wished it, one could consider John the Baptist as [a type] of Elijah who was to come before Messiah to make straight his path. I have some trouble accepting Elijah = Messiah (Jesus) as you imply , as Elijah is to precede the Messiah and is a distinct individual from him. They two are not same,I think. Also in the Rev. the two servants of God who battle anti-Christ are in my opinion Moses and Elijah.


best wishes,Hi Pytha. What about at the baptism of Jesus. Isn't it similar to Elisha and Elijah when Elijah gave Elisha a double portion of his spirit.? I was trying to find a connection to it and the spirit like a dove coming to Jesus. Any ideas?

2 Kings 2:9 And so it was, when they had crossed over, that Elijah said to Elisha, "Ask! What may I do for you, before I am taken away from you?" Elisha said, "Please let a double portion of your spirit be upon me."

[Sacrificial Ram]

HI PY,

THEJEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA; ELIJAH:

"Mention must also be made of a statement which, though found only in the later cabalistic literature (Yal?u? Reubeni, Bere[color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color], 9a, ed. Amsterdam), seems nevertheless to be very old (see Epiphanius, l.c.), and according to which Elijah was an angel in human form, so that he had neither parents nor offspring.

ELIJAH = JESUS?


Ram and Ely could do us a great favor by telling us about this tradition. They KNOW much more in their heart of hearts than they are admitting to about everything I said about Elijah.

I will tell you a litle, enough that these two Jews might search their conscience, and stop the lies by ommission.


Well, I never was much into the Messiah thing even when I was a kid and learning all that stuff. Nothing like that was brought up in OUR classes.
The Passover tradition of leaving the door open so he can come in to drink the wine was explained as it was to honor his spirit.

[InChristAlways]

Hi Kfu,
Elijah seems to be more mysterious than I had previously imagined. -- according to Jesus , if one wished it, one could consider John the Baptist as [a type] of Elijah who was to come before Messiah to make straight his path. I have some trouble accepting Elijah = Messiah (Jesus) as you imply , as Elijah is to precede the Messiah and is a distinct individual from him. They two are not same,I think. Also in the Rev. the two servants of God who battle anti-Christ are in my opinion Moses and Elijah.

best wishes,Hi Pytha. What about at the baptism of Jesus. Isn't it similar to Elisha and Elijah when Elijah gave Elisha a double portion of his spirit.? I was trying to find a connection to it and the spirit like a dove coming to Jesus. Any thoughts on this? What would this resemble in the NT?

2 Kings 2:9 And so it was, when they had crossed over, that Elijah said to Elisha, "Ask! What may I do for you, before I am taken away from you?" Elisha said, "Please let a double portion of your spirit be upon me."

[Pythagoras]

Hi InChrist,




Hi Pytha. What about at the baptism of Jesus. Isn't it similar to Elisha and Elijah when Elijah gave Elisha a double portion of his spirit.? I was trying to find a connection to it and the spirit like a dove coming to Jesus. Any thoughts on this? What would this resemble in the NT?

2 Kings 2:9 And so it was, when they had crossed over, that Elijah said to Elisha, "Ask! What may I do for you, before I am taken away from you?" Elisha said, "Please let a double portion of your spirit be upon me."

Interesting thought. But can you elaborate?-- kind of like when John the Baptist said of Jesus, " He must increase and I must decrease. ", etc. -- transfer of power ??

[Pythagoras]

Hi Sacrifical Ram,




Well, I never was much into the Messiah thing even when I was a kid and learning all that stuff. Nothing like that was brought up in OUR classes.
The Passover tradition of leaving the door open so he can come in to drink the wine was explained as it was to honor his spirit.

Were you a Christian for a while who riverted back to Judaism with a vengence, or am I way off base here?. --The choice of your name, 'Sacrifical Ram', betrays some sort of prior Christian influence. --

[InChristAlways]

Hi Pytha. What about at the baptism of Jesus. Isn't it similar to Elisha and Elijah when Elijah gave Elisha a double portion of his spirit.? I was trying to find a connection to it and the spirit like a dove coming to Jesus. Any thoughts on this? What would this resemble in the NT?

2 Kings 2:9 And so it was, when they had crossed over, that Elijah said to Elisha, "Ask! What may I do for you, before I am taken away from you?" Elisha said, "Please let a double portion of your spirit be upon me."


Hi InChrist,
Interesting thought. But can you elaborate?-- kind of like when John the Baptist said of Jesus, " He must increase and I must decrease. ", etc. -- transfer of power ??Hi Pytha. Well, we know Jesus was born of the Holy Spirit, so the dove coming down would give Him another portion of the spirit and John was executed shortly after. I hadn't really studied into it yet as I am working on the "second death/lake of fire" in revelation LOL.
I will look into it more.

Mark 1:10 And immediately, coming up from the water, He saw the heavens parting and the Spirit descending upon Him like a dove.

[Pythagoras]

Hi InChrist,




Hi Pytha. Well, we know Jesus was born of the Holy Spirit, so the dove coming down would give Him another portion of the spirit. I hadn't really studied into it yet as I am working on the "second death" in revelation LOL.
I will look into it more.

Mark 1:10 And immediately, coming up from the water, He saw the heavens parting and the Spirit descending upon Him like a dove.

John the Baptist knew of Jesus's pre-existent nature and birth by the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit even at this early stage of the game. John says,: "One comes after me who is greater than me by far because he precedes me, whose sandle strings I'm not worthy to untie." This coming from John the Baptist, the greatest of men.

[InChristAlways]

Hi InChrist,



John the Baptist knew of Jesus's pre-existent nature and birth by the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit even at this early stage of the game. John says,: "One comes after me who is greater than me by far, whose sandle strings I'm not worthy to untie." And this coming from the greatest of men.Yes. John even leaped in the womb upon Mary showing up to Elizabeth.
To much for me to get into it here right now Pytha, It was just something that popped up at me when reconciling the scriptures. Sorry I can't give you more on it brother.

[Pythagoras]

Yes. John even leaped in the womb upon Mary showing up to Elizabeth.
To much for me to get into it here right now Pytha, It was just something that popped up at me when reconciling the scriptures. Sorry I can't give you more on it brother.

That's fine InChrist....

[Sacrificial Ram]

Hi Sacrifical Ram,

Were you a Christian for a while who riverted back to Judaism with a vengence, or am I way off base here?. --The choice of your name, 'Sacrifical Ram', betrays some sort of prior Christian influence. --

I never was a Christian. The choice of the name has to do with several things, but from a religious point of view, it is refereing to the story of Abraham and Issac.

[kofh2u]

Hi Kfu,

Thanks for the citation. I'll do more of my own research on this topic as time permits.



Don't hold your breath. They're hardly going to aid us in our endeavour. If anything they will try to mis-direct us.




I bet.



Kfu, Elijah seems to be more mysterious than I had previously imagined. -- according to Jesus , if one wished it, one could consider John the Baptist as [a type] of Elijah who was to come before Messiah to make straight his path. I have some trouble accepting Elijah = Messiah (Jesus) as you imply , as Elijah is to precede the Messiah and is a distinct individual from him. They two are not same,I think. Also in the Rev. the two servants of God who battle anti-Christ are in my opinion Moses and Elijah.


best wishes,


Pythag,
You are one of the most informed and on-the-ready responders on tweb.

You also excel in the academics of researching these matters.

In this you are vastly supeeior to me, and I have not applied myself any less thannyou to this love of the kingdon of heavens about God, False Gods, and False theologies. But, my focus has been elsewhere.

I wish I could commission you, like as if I were a millionaire, to research the tradition of Jewish speculation on Elijah. But, I can do no more than suggest a web search for TheJewish Encyclopedia which sums up the overview. If you start there, you will need to research the Kabbalah, the Secret Esoteric Knowledge of Israel, because Elijah is expected to reveal it... which Jesus DID.

Remember?
What I tell them innparables, he said, is different from what I tell you apostles in secret.

You will need find the meaning of the keys given to Peter, because these are the "tols" of the Kohanim priestshood Elijah is expected to resurrect, Korah.

You will understand the importance of raising Lazarus, because the Jews demand this from an Elijah.

Research and remind Ely and Ram that Elijah will open the scriptures to new insights that find original and non- orthodox Jewish interpretations:

Luke 24:32;45 And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures? Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,


And, you will need to search the tradition to support Jesus as the one who makes the path straight for the Lamb, the lion of Judah, the root of David whom both Jew and Christian await.