0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
I am catholic ......
War or Peace?EXO 15:3 The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.ROM 15:33 Now the God of peace be with you all. Amen--------------------------------------------------------Who is the father of Joseph?MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.LUK 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.--------------------------------------------------------------------------Is Jesus equal to or lesser than?JOH 10:30 I and my Father are one.JOH 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.--------------------------------------------------------------------------The number of beasts in the arkGEN 7:2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.GEN 7:8 Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth, GEN 7:9 There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah.-------------------------------------------------------------------------There are many more
Joseph was the son of Jacob. But in fact Mary was the daughter of Heli. The passage in Luke chapter 3 traces the ancestral line of Mary who was a descendant of king David. God made a promise to David that the messiah would be born to him. Since Joseph didn't father Jesus, that would be an incomplete fulfillment to that promise. Thus he had David's genes.
I am catholic but i have a hard time believing in Jesus. When he made the blind man see the blind man probably wasn't blind to start with and was helping jesus in his con. either that or the people who wrote the bible just made it all up.(there are many contradictions in the bible)
The anomaly of Jesus parentage is explained that when the Bible (LUK 3:23) quotes: "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli." it actually means 'which was the son-in-law of Heli.' Yet I am unaware of any other such references to son or daughter-in-law in this manner anywhere else in the Bible. Strange eh! Smacks a little of somebody changing the rules to fit their purpose.
More importantly, the question 'who was Jesus?' needs to be addressed before you can determine his parentage. There are no reference to Jesus in Roman or Jewish history. A man who the New Testament alledges to have been of great concern to both parties. Was Jesus actually Ben Stada, Yehoshua Ben Perachiah or one of his 5 disciples. Why does the Talmud refer to these minor thorns in the side of Judaism yet not to Jesus.
Was Josephus always correct? Certainly not. His inaccuracies range from vagueness to blatant exaggeration.
DID JESUS OF NAZARETH EXIST? (The Talmud) The thirty-second and thirty-third issues of BE discussed a group of non-Christian writers whom biblicists allege referred to Jesus in their writings. Both issues clearly showed that ancient writers such as Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, and Pliny the Younger are not referring to Jesus of Nazareth in their most commonly quoted passages, and only by twisting and quoting out of context can their extrabiblical writings be employed in this manner. Another extrabiblical source occasionally cited as well is the Talmud. It is the collection of writings constituting the Jewish civil and religious law, and consists of two parts--the Mishnah (text) and the Gemara (commentary). In Judaism, the Torah, i.e., the law, is the Pentateuch, the first five books of the Old Testament, and the Mishnah is the oral Torah supplementing it. For several centuries after the codification of the Mishnah, rabbis and scholars wrote commentaries on it, known as the Gemara, i.e. completion. The Talmudic comments most often relied upon by biblicists were not cited earlier because their strength ranges from poor to pathetic. But to forestall any possibility of their being used to deceive the unwary, an exposure of the most prominent references and their deficiencies is well advised.
All these contradictions quotes have old explanations.
The historicity of Jesus has more evidence to support it than the Battle of Waterloo.
Very few would have faith for Creation Science writings...
Also people see modern miracles, healings, deliverance from demons, they speak Latin... secret thoughts are revealed, there is glossolalia
About war and peace, god saved Israel for the peace of our race by then giving us the prophets and Jesus.
A Google search will show the credibility of the historicity of Jesus.
Jesus is different to other gods,
Archeology has studied Jesus a lot.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
Attempts to use historical rather than religious methods to construct a verifiable biography of Jesus began in the 18th century with Hermann Samuel Reimarus, up to William Wrede and Albert Schweitzer in the 19th century Reimarus pioneered "the search for the historical Jesus", applying the Rationalism of the Enlightenment Era to claims about Jesus. Although Schweitzer was among the greatest contributors to this quest, he also ended it by noting how each scholar's version of Jesus seemed little more than an idealized autobiography of the scholar himself.
We can't deny the fact that Jesus was the most influencial and still remains the most influencial man to ever walk this earth. His teachings, much more than his miracles have left a big mark on the earth. You may doubt his miracles but his influence is undeniable. And if all 'christians' and not would apply these, the world be a different place.
About Josephus............. when he mentions christians we say he is a liar.
Don_1 you seem to make up and hold to new myths.