SteveB
Well-known member
A few. All from BAS.
Origin of christianity
- Thread starter SteveB
- Start date
Are you pretending it did not happen? Or are you saying it was perfectly okay?
But Matthew is clear that Jesus was of the line of David through Joseph, which also denies the virgin birth.
Paul's view of Jesus is questionable, as it the gospel writers - though less so the author of John.
From my reading of the NT, the Ebionite beliefs are much closer to those of the very first Christians than yours are. The Gospel of Mark has no virgin birth, and can be understood to have Jesus adopted as the messiah at his baptism, rather than being divine.
So you are saying they were persecuteed, but it was okay, because they disagreed with your version of Christianity.
That is interesting because there is a thread elsewhere about whether we should work to destroy Christianity. This is a great argument for why we should.
And of course you can be certain your version of Christianity is true because that is the only version you believe!
Hypatia_Alexandria
Well-known member
Which works by Vermes has BAS published?
Hypatia_Alexandria
Well-known member
That is not a view that is a historical fact.
They being Christians.
It has been opined that the Christian sect had direct links back to the men who knew the real Jesus. Hence their fundamentally Judaic beliefs. No virgin birth and no anthropomorphic deity.
As you are a member of BAS perhaps you should read this. https://www.baslibrary.org/bible-review/4/5/2
SteveB
Well-known member
You'll have to look them up yourself.
I don't spend much time there.
I have an email subscription for bas, but for whatever reason I don't receive daily, or even weekly emails from them. I think they're monthly or quarterly.
SteveB
Well-known member
Interesting. So you don't think that a journal article about doubt is worth discussing, but you do this one?
Or are you simply trolling?
Ironically, Matthew actually spends quite a bit of time detailing the virgin birth, so if you actually believe that, you're clearly ignoring the gospel of Matthew.
It's only questionable for people who don't want to think, and need to ignore what he has said.
Which makes sense for all your blathering.
You are indeed entitled to your opinion.
I've yet to see anything from you which would give me reason to believe you.
And?
So, you think that the lack of information means that it didn't actually happen?
I pity you.
You must believe that 98% of history didn't happen simply because it's not documented in a manner that allows you to read about it.
Didn't say anything about it.
I simply made a statement about history.
Go for it.
The easiest way to do it is to prove the resurrection of Jesus never actually happened.
If you're going to do that, you can't be lazy about it.
You have to examine all the previous research and investigations performed, answer all the questions that have been presented and given historical credence.
I.e., don't be intellectually lazy. Do a serious treatise. One which won't embarrass you.
I believe that the "version" of christianity I engage in is the truth because I read the bible daily. I pray regularly, and then I take the time to learn to apply the biblical text to my life so I won't be ashamed when I stand before YHVH to give an account for my life.
SteveB
Well-known member
And?
I'm supposed to let the thinking of others who have decided that YHVH isn't telling the truth inform me that he's lying to us?
Pity that you didn't know me in 1988 when the article was published. You may have had a greater impact then.
Now, I know better.
But thank you for the link.
I'll save it for future reference.
I do not think an article about how Christians deal with the mental issues surrounding doubt is of any interest to me. Why would it? I am not a Christian.
On the other hand, an article about the origins of Christianity certainly is of interest to me, because this, at least potentially, impacts why Christians have the beliefs they do today and what actually happened back then.
Bear in mind the article supports the Ebionite view - the view you seem to think makes it okay to persecute them.
1 The record of the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah, the son of David, the son of Abraham:
...
16 Jacob fathered Joseph the husband of Mary, by whom Jesus was born, who is called the [n]Messiah.
17 So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; from David to the deportation to Babylon, fourteen generations; and from the deportation to Babylon to the [o]Messiah, fourteen generations.
It clear states in Matthew that Jesus was a direct male-line descendant of David, through Joseph.
I fully appreciate it also says there was a virgin birth, and never said otherwise. There is a huge contradiction in the gospel.
On the contrary, questioning is the first part to thinking.
Accepting something without questioning it is for those who do not want to think.
There are parts of Paul's letters that indicate he believed Jesus was appointed messiah when he was resurrected. 1 Cor 15 makes clear Paul saw Jesus as the "first fruits"; not a deity, but a man chosen by God to be the first of the righteous to be resurrected.
Furthermore, this fits with his earlier beliefs as a Pharisee. All Jesus' early followers were Jews, who believed the messiah would be a man appointed by God.
It is not just the lack of information, it is also that it does not fit the Jewish view of the messiah, and that it is specifically contradicted by Mat 1:1-17. The genealogies in Matthew and Luke are there specifically to prove Jesus could be the Jewish messiah, as a direct male-line descent of David, via Joseph.
The far more likely scenario is the Virgin Birth was made up by gentile Christians between the writing of Mark and Matthew.
So you have up all your material good and gave away you money, as Jesus told his followers to?
No. The reality is you read in the Bible what you want to read. Yo want the Virgin Birth to be true, so you ignore the bits that suggest otherwise.
SteveB
Well-known member
🤔😳🙄🤦🏾♂️🤣
You really need to learn how to comprehend what you read.
It doesn't say anything about Joe being Jesus' dad.
It says that Jesus was born of Mary.
Furthermore, I find myself wondering why you chose to ignore the rest of the chapter.
Mat 1:18-25 WEB 18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was like this: After his mother, Mary, was engaged to Joseph, before they came together, she was found pregnant by the Holy Spirit. 19 Joseph, her husband, being a righteous man, and not willing to make her a public example, intended to put her away secretly. 20 But when he thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, don’t be afraid to take to yourself Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. 21 She shall give birth to a son. You shall name him Jesus, for it is he who shall save his people from their sins.” 22 Now all this has happened that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying, 23 “Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and shall give birth to a son. They shall call his name Immanuel,” which is, being interpreted, “God with us.” 24 Joseph arose from his sleep, and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took his wife to himself; 25 and didn’t know her sexually until she had given birth to her firstborn son. He named him Jesus.
No contradiction whatsoever when you actually read the whole thing.
But, it would appear that would cause you a major case of cognitive dissonance and we all understand how much you love cognitive dissonance.
And yet you clipped the part which would have answered the question when thought begins, so you could justify the cessation of actual reasoning.
Continuing to question, the same thing when the answer is provided is cessation of thought, and getting stuck in bias confirmation mode, and only believing what other non-believers have told them to believe.
Ironically, in Ephesians 3:9 we read that Jesus created everything.
Colossians 1:15-19, Jesus created everything, and nothing that exists could exist apart from Jesus.
So, it seems that you're simply not thinking, because you don't read beyond seeking to win arguments.
And yet in John 20, we read that Thomas declares that Jesus is HIS Lord, and HIS God.
We read throughout the gospel of John that Jesus correlates himself as YHVH.
John 8:58, he declared himself I AM, from Exodus 3:14. In chapter 10 he declares himself the Good Shepherd, from Ezekiel 34.
Moses didn't have any problems with the Messiah being more than a mere man, and the leaders of Jesus' day even recognized the importance of this passage spoken by Moses.
Deuteronomy 18, we read that he would be the Prophet that would come and those who did not pay attention to him would be cut off from his people.
It's ironic that the people who you need to justify your ignorance are the people who he called out for their sin.
We further read in Isaiah 6, and then in 28-29 that the Jewish people were blinded, and had cut themselves off from YHVH and his ways.
They were not drawing near to YHVH with a whole heart, but only paying lip service.
So, using this as your justification for your ignorance is demonstrative that you're not reading, let alone reading for the purpose of understanding and learning.
Further demonstrating what YHVH says in Hosea 4, his people are destroyed by the lack of knowledge.
Both genealogies show lineage back to David.
One through Solomon and the other through his other son, Nathan.
So, this fails.
The far more likely scenario is your need to exclude yourself from knowing God and preferring to spend your eternity in the lake of fire so you can keep your sin.
As we read,
Rom 1:28 WEB Even as they refused to have God in their knowledge, God gave them up to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not fitting;
You will receive exactly what you want.
🤣
As a matter of fact I did.
But since you have demonstrated that you have excluded yourself from knowing God, I'd say that you are seeking to shame people who you don't actually know.
Ironically, if the virgin birth wasn't previously established in the bible, we who follow Jesus wouldn't be believing it.
The whole point of the genealogy is to establish Jesus credentials as the messiah, i.e., that he is a male-line descendant of David, like all the previous messiahs, who were similarly adopted as the son of God.
What do YOU think the genealogy is for Steve?
I am not ignoring it. As I said earlier, it is a clear contradiction.
I would guess many Christians, Jewish Christians especially, believed Jesus was the Jewish messiah, while many, gentile especially, believed the new idea of a virgin birth, The author of Matthew let obliged to record both.
I think it interesting how the author of Luke clearly recognised this, so carefully words both to allow for the other.
So tell me why the genealogy of Joseph is recorded. What is the point, if Joseph was not Jesus' father and so unrelated to Jesus claim to be messiah?
You are determined to believe the virgin birth happened, and hence the bias confirmation mode.
It actually says God, not Jesus. There is that bias confirmation mode.
Ephesians 3:9 and to [f]enlighten all people as to what the plan of the mystery is which for ages has been hidden in God, who created all things;
I will accept some of what Paul said supports later Christian thinking. Note that scholars are increasingly of the view that Paul did not write Colossians though. These are the later Christology that we also see in John, suggesting it was written around the end of the first century.
Go back to Ephesians and we get a more authentic view of Christianity from ca. AD 50:
Ephesians 1:5 [e]He predestined us to adoption as sons and daughters through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will,
...
1:19 and what is the [w]boundless greatness of His power toward us who believe. These are in accordance with the working of the strength of His might 20 which He brought about in Christ, when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places,
Verse 5 says how all the righteous will be adopted as the sons and daughters of God. This would be part of the general resurrection Paul expect, and describes in detail in 1 Cor 15 - and indeed, what most Jews believed would happen when the messiah arrived.
Paul believe Jesus was adopted by God when resurrected (as in verses 19 and 20), and expected the same to happen to him in his own life time. Jesus was special because he was chosen by God to be the first, not because Jesus was God.
Right, because John was written rather later.
There is no virgin birth in John because the Christology has got higher, and now the belief is that Jesus was pre-existing, as we see in Colossians .
The messiah was someone anointed with oil. That would be both the king and the high priest - only the king was adopted by God though. From the captivity, there was no king, and the mythology grew, but some Jews expected two messiahs to arrive.
The important point is that Prophets were humans chosen by God - just like the messiah.
Presumably people have been doubting the claims since the start. The leaders of all religions call out the scoffers. They have a vested interest in maintaining the religion.
Sure. The priests had to justify how the Jewish people had lost to Babylon, when their God is so wonderful. This is how they rationalised it.
Again, this is what the leaders of all religions say. They have a vested interest in maintaining the religion.
I earlier said:
Why does it fail? My claim is based on them both showing lineage back to David, and they did so to support the claim of messiahship.
A claim directly contradicted by the virgin birth, but the gentile Christians did not care about that, so the virgin birth won.
The reason for the difference is likely the curse of Jeconiah (the last king before the captivity):
Jeremiah 22:30 This is what the Lord says:
‘Write this man down as childless,
A man who will not prosper in his days;
For no man among his descendants will prosper
Sitting on the throne of David
Or ruling again in Judah.’”
Given this, the author of Luke contrived a genealogy that carefully avoids Jeconiah.
However, many believe the curse was lifted, given Jeconiah's grandson, Zerubbabel, became king, and this verse is understood to be the lifting of the curse (the signet ring motif harks to other verses in Jeremiah):
Haggai 2:23 ‘On that day,’ declares the Lord of armies, ‘I will take you, Zerubbabel, son of Shealtiel, My servant,’ declares the Lord, ‘and I will make you like a [w]signet ring, for I have chosen you,’” declares the Lord of armies.
The author of Matthew, more familiar with scripture - as evidence by numerous references throughout his gospel - realised Jesus had to be descended through both Jeconiah and Zerubbabel.
SteveB
Well-known member
As I said, you're more than welcome to exclude yourself from knowing God and Jesus.
Nobody is forcing you to consider the fact that God has explicitly chosen Jesus as the Messiah of Israel, to have saved us from our sin.
Otherwise, he never would have raised Jesus from the dead, and we wouldn't be here.
I noticed that you aren't pursuing your belief that Jesus didn't really rise from the dead.
When you finish your investigation, then we'll talk.
Until then, you're wasting your time.
Did you actually read what I posted? Or did you just assume I must be wrong?
You might like to recall that i was right about Paul never changing his name and you were wrong. You may be wrong on this too.
SteveB
Well-known member
Of course you believe you're right about Paul.
God forbid you would recognize your errors about the gospel of Jesus and turn to him from your sin and place your trust in Jesus.
You've been repeatedly demonstrating that you don't actually want to know the truth.
It's not that difficult to see.
These are is a great examples of you once more refusing to have a discussion.
We could, on a previous thread, discuss whether Paul changed his name or not. But you prefered to play silly word games rather than commit one way of the other.
We could, on this thread, discuss the evidence for and against the virgin birth. But you prefer to just shut down the discuss.
If all you are going to do is proclaim that you are right and I am wrong, I have to conclude you have zero interest in actual discussion. Sadly all too common in Christians at CARM.
Hypatia_Alexandria
Well-known member
Given that you do not have a direct personal line to your deity, you are entirely reliant on what others tell you.
Or would you have us all believe you own an autographed copy of the Bible?
Hypatia_Alexandria
Well-known member
Well I have a number of his works on my shelves so which works by Vermes have you read?
SteveB
Well-known member
I have the same line as everyone.
Jesus.
And as Jesus expressly stated
Joh 10:30 WEB I and the Father are one.”
And
Joh 14:8-9 WEB 8 Philip said to him, “Lord, show us the Father, and that will be enough for us.” 9 Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you such a long time, and do you not know me, Philip? He who has seen me has seen the Father. How do you say, ‘Show us the Father?’
So, you keep telling yourself that.
You're clearly buying lies.
Better.
I, as have all of Jesus' followers, received the Holy Spirit, who inhabits us, exactly as Jesus said would take place.
Or didn't you pay attention to your repeated readings of the bible?
Oh. Wait... I forgot. You didn't actually think what Jesus said was true because you believe unbelievers who gave you their ill-informed opinions instead...
Furthermore, Jesus was quite clear that he and the Father would come make their home with us.
Seriously H...
Read the bible.
It's chock-full of such tidbits for us to learn and engage and gain benefit from.
SteveB
Well-known member
I don't keep a record of the works I read.
I receive emails from BAS, or see a post of theirs on Facebook and I read articles being discussed.
So, I've probably read a few.
Hypatia_Alexandria
Well-known member
You do not have a voice recording of Jesus' making those comments, do you?
Hypatia_Alexandria
Well-known member
Then how do you remember you have read Geza Vermes?