| 1 year ago :: Apr 03, 2012 - 12:31PM #431 | |
|
The town which doesn't seem to have existed ca 4 BCE is Nazaret' - the archaeological evidence suggests it was settled a couple of hundred years later. But it really doesn't matter. Assume there was a historical Nazaret', and a coupleliving there named Miriam and Joseph named their child Joshua. So what? The Messiah of David's line *must* trace descent through the *male* line only. Miriam's tribal association or descent means NOTHING for this descent - it *must* be through Joseph and it *must* be through him BIOLOGICALLY. Judaism did NOT!!!!! recognize 'adoption' in the sense that the Roman or contemporary cultures do. So the whole idea of the 'Gospel Jesus' being qualified even as a candidate for MbD in Judaism is a complete and total fallacy. Never-mind that most of the 'prophesies' are simply not as claimed by Christians, because the Christians are using 'rules' never sanctioned by those whom Jesus stated 'sit in the seat of Moses' (ie, sages and Rabbis even to this day)......
|
|
|
Quick Reply
|
|
| 1 year ago :: Apr 03, 2012 - 12:43PM #432 | |
|
Yes, it is pretty clear that the Christians started "adding to" ie. "making up stuff" after the fact to give their religion some authority but since by that time they weren't very familiar with Judaism, not to mention the history and cultures of the mid-east, they borked it in so many ways... I very much doubt that any Jew would go to hear Jesus preach if they thought he was claiming to be a demi-god, like Hercules. That would be heresy. And besides that, if he claimed that Yahweh was daddy, then as you say, he couldn't be the messiah, and the Jews he was preaching to would know that.
Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones. Marcus Aurelius
|
|
|
Quick Reply
|
|
| 1 year ago :: Apr 03, 2012 - 1:19PM #433 | |
|
|
|
Quick Reply
|
|
| 1 year ago :: Apr 03, 2012 - 1:27PM #434 | |
|
What "history books"?
Yesterday, in America, 100 million gun owners did nothing.
|
|
|
Quick Reply
|
|
| 1 year ago :: Apr 03, 2012 - 1:57PM #435 | |
Um, you've got your stories mixed. That was supposedly when Harrod died, during that eclipse.
I'm afraid that that is a myth, too. It never happened. Haven't you posted that before and had it corrected? Regarding the Massacre of the Innocents, although Herod was certainly guilty of many brutal acts, including the killing of his wife and two of his sons, no other known source from the period makes any reference to such a massacre.[21] Since Bethlehem was a small village, the number of male children under the age of two might not exceed 20. This may be the reason for the lack of other sources for this history,[22] although Herod's order in Matthew 2:16 includes those children in Bethlehem's vicinity making the massacre larger numerically and geographically. Modern biographers of Herod tend to doubt the event took place.[23] Boy, you are a font of misinformation! It is a shame that someone filled your head with so much false stuff. I'm very glad that you continue to post here so that we can educate you a little.
|
|
|
Quick Reply
|
|
| 1 year ago :: Apr 03, 2012 - 2:15PM #436 | |
|
|
|
Quick Reply
|
|
| 1 year ago :: Apr 03, 2012 - 4:01PM #437 | |
proceeded to attempt a horrid wickedness; for he got together the most illustrious men of the whole Jewish nation, out of every village, into a place called the Hippodrome, and there shut them in. He then called for his sister Salome, and her husband Alexas, and made this speech to them: “I know well enough that the Jews will keep a festival upon my death; however, it is in my power to be mourned for on other accounts, and to have a splendid funeral, if you will but be subservient to my commands. Do you but take care to send soldiers to encompass these men that are now in custody, and slay them immediately upon my death, and then all Judea, and every family of them, will weep at it, whether they will or no.” No specific number is mentioned, nor is Bethlehem singled out among the villages. For all we know, there may have been no one from Bethlehem. Moreover, none of the proposed victims were children. And, as it turned out, none of them were killed: Now, before the soldiers knew of his death, Salome and her husband came out and dismissed those that were in bonds, whom the king had commanded to be slain, and told them that he had altered his mind, and would have every one of them sent to their own homes. Wouldn't you agree that a Massacre of the Innocents in which nobody was massacred is a contradiction in terms? Herod also had his son Antipater executed a few days before his death, but this had no connection to the proposed massacre of leading men. In 5 BCE Antipater, Herod's appointed heir, had been charged with plotting to murder his father. He was undoubtedly guilty of the charge. Following an eminently fair trial by Publius Quinctilius Varus, the Roman governor of Syria, Antipater was returned to Herod's custody to await the emperor Augustus' approval of the death sentence. The approval arrived five days before Herod's death, and the Antipater was promptly executed. There was nothing underhanded or illegal about it. I've explained all of this before. Please do me the courtesy of absorbing it. |
|
|
Quick Reply
|
|
| 1 year ago :: Apr 03, 2012 - 4:55PM #438 | |
Interpreter, where did you get the crazy idea that Micah 5.2 was a prophecy about the Messiah being born in Bethlehem?? It wasn't. Haven't you read and studied your Bible carefully. Neither a TOWN, or the TOWN of Bethlehem was ever mentioned in Micah 5.2. Go back and read it carefully. No mention of any TOWN, and no mention of the town of Bethlehem. There is no prophecy anywhere in the OT claiming the Messiah would be born in the TOWN of Bethlehem. If Micah 5.2 should even be considered a prophecy about the Messiah (it's shouldn't be), it said that he would "come forth" from Bethlehem-Ephratah. Bethlehem-Ephratah was not a town, it was the CLAN of Bethlehem and his father Ephratah. You can find more information about Bethlehem, his father Ephratah, and their clan in 1 Chr.2:18, 2:50-52, and 4:4. In the poorly translated Greek writing in the Septuagint (this is what the author of Matthew was using - he apparantly couldn't read Hebrew), it is unclear what Bethlehem-Ephratah was referring to. He made an error in thinking it was a town. It was not, it was a CLAN. The English translation is not clear either on what is meant by Bethlehem-Ephratah. In all of the earliest Hebrew writings of Micah 5.2, it is very clear that it is a CLAN, and not a town. Here is Micah 5.2 (5.1) from the Hebrew writings of the Tanakh.
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived." - -Isaac Asimov
|
|
|
Quick Reply
|
|
| 1 year ago :: Apr 03, 2012 - 4:59PM #439 | |
"When it shall be said in any country in the world, my poor are happy; neither ignorance nor distress is to be found among them; my jails are empty of prisoners, my streets of beggars; the aged are not in want, the taxes are not oppressive; the rational world is my friend, because I am a friend of its happiness: When these things can be said, then may the country boast its constitution and its government." -- Thomas Paine: The Rights Of Man (1791)
|
|
|
Quick Reply
|
|
| 1 year ago :: Apr 03, 2012 - 5:29PM #440 | |
"When it shall be said in any country in the world, my poor are happy; neither ignorance nor distress is to be found among them; my jails are empty of prisoners, my streets of beggars; the aged are not in want, the taxes are not oppressive; the rational world is my friend, because I am a friend of its happiness: When these things can be said, then may the country boast its constitution and its government." -- Thomas Paine: The Rights Of Man (1791)
|
|
|
Quick Reply
|
|