Could anybody explain us those Jésus' teachings, please !

Who was more salty than Lot's wife?

 

This is exactly how I see most non believers. I'm not playing tic for tac. I'm
serious. Most non believers find it necessary to make up stories to fit their
ingrained indoctrination.

As far as the Bible not needing to be interpreted that is a fact. Those who
try to "interpret" the Bible miss the essence and message. They end up making up
things that aren't factual. In other words they become like most non believers who
think they understand the Bible but don't.

Do you care to discuss the Bible?

 

Not true.

Once again you are incorrect. You had to go WAY off base to make this erroneous claim.
Matthew is accurate. You are wrong. Laughable wrong and you can't provide sensible
evidence to support your misconception. Maybe you could do some research and
provide some links to your opinion.

Yes they do. Anybody reading the Bible with an open mind can see how they relate. I
seriously wish you'd put up some hard evidence instead of making up erroneous stories.
Provide links and not your opinion that's clearly flawed.

Personally I believe some religious person made you mad and you're trying to get
even.

 

You obviously have not studied the OT. None of the references Matthew quotes have anything to do with Jesus, and everything to do with the OT. They are all taken out of context.

Neither have you studied the NT stories of Jesus birth in Matthew and Luke. They contradict each other. And neither make sense for the time. Jesus cannot be in Egypt and Nazareth at the same time. There was no need to go to Bethlehem. Roman law said that people stayed where they were. Roman law said that people were taxed on their property. Joseph's was in Nazareth - not Bethlehem Ephrata - 90 miles away.
Luke tells us that Joseph went because ' he was of the house and lineage of David'. As David was 1000 years earlier and had 6 sons born in Hebron, and many sons born in Jerusalem, by the time of Jesus the descendants must have been in the 100's of thousands - given the big families they had. Can you imagine all these descending on the small town of Bethlehem at the same time. Luke also says that this was happening through the whole Roman world. The story is farcical. The world would be in chaos. And no mention of it in Roman history.

I wouldn't have to present you with any research if you had done your own.

Matthew quoted Hosea 11.1 for sending Jesus to Egypt. It clearly refers to Israel - not Jesus.
Matthew quotes Jeremiah for the supposed 'Massacre of the Innocents'. This clearly refers to Israel in bondage and ends 'and there is hope in thine end, saith the Lord, that thy children shall come again to their own border'. There was no massacre.

Now go and do you own research. Any real Bible student must be wondering if you've done any study at all!

1. Can anyone really believe that Mary and Joseph would travel 90 miles (several days walking or by donkey) when Mary was heavily pregnant.
2. There was no necessity for either to travel, but Joseph could have gone alone anyway.
3. With Luke's story they would not have got anywhere near Bethlehem because of the multitude making their way there. /
4. In the 1000 years since David Bethlehem had been 'emptied' by the Babylonians. Who had returned there after 70 years we don't know. We do know that many of the Jews had already gone to the other countries in the Middle East, and that many remained in Babylon, liking it there, and not going back to Palestine. Bethlehem was only the birthplace of David. Who lived there now, who knows?
5. Matthew has clearly dreamt up a story using irrelevant Jewish scriptures. And it's a good story until you look closely at it.
6. Luke has got his Roman Legislation in a knot and presents a completely wrong picture on that basis. The only thing he really gets right is the Jewish ritual after birth. Jesus circumcised and presented at the Temple for redemption. Mary's purification. And their return home. Matthew ignores the need for the Jewish ritual.
7. Only a fool would attempt to take the babv Jesus back through the heart of territory being scoured by Herod's soldiers for babies Jesus age. And Joseph was no fool. 10 miles west of Nazareth was Syria, ruled by another Roman Governor and not under Herod's jurisdiction. He would be as safe there as in Egypt, which was also a Roman Province.

None of it makes sense to the student who understands the times when it was written.

The problem Christianity has is simple. It cannot deny Jesus was forecast in the OT - though that is clearly not so if you study the OT - because it loses its reason for existence.
Judaism is going the same way as the Tanakh stories are proven to be allegories to many of the Jews. Many do not practice their religion.
Islam will have to come to terms with Mohammed 'talking' with fictional characters. Or perhaps they won't accept it.

If there is a creator he must be rueing the day he ever created man.

 

Yep, he's been regretting it since before Noah built his boat.

Genesis 6:6 = https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Genesis 6:6

 

I have extensively studied the OT and it's obvious that you have only read what someone said about
the OT.

And yes, Jesus is prophesied in the OT.

You never told us where in the OT that the quote in Matthew about Jesus' birth was really about
David.

Wrong again. You are the one who hasn't studied the NT because your knowledge is extremely
limited.

There are no contradictions in the NT. If you had honestly studied it you would know that.

The Bible doesn't say they were.

This is a cop out on your part. Since the OT doesn't contain what you say it does you must show
the references. The problem is that you can't because they don't exist.

Please, once again, tell us where the OT prophesied David's birth instead of Jesus'. Oh, and please
stay on topic and stop with the red herrings.

 

I've already given you 2 misquotes by Matthew from the OT. . They are clear and evident. Enough to disprove the birth story as written by Matthew. Search out the rest for yourself.

The 2 birth stories contradict themselves and if you had studied them you would see that. Matthew has Jesus go to Egypt. Luke puts Jesus in Nazareth after about 14 days or so, given travelling time between Jerusalem and Nazareth. There he remains. No mention of Egypt. Nor need there be. Jesus would have been as safe 10 miles west of Nazareth as he would have been in Egypt 2-300 miles away.

I've gone through all the reasons why Matthew's and Luke's stories don't make sense according to the OT and Roman laws of the time.

Now you show me where Jesus is mentioned in the OT. Isaiah clearly talks about Israel, and most of the other quotes by Christianity are taken out of context.

You have simply ignored the explanations - facts from the Bible and Roman history and laws. Joseph and Mary had no need to go to Bethlehem. Mary could have stayed at home anyway. She would have avoided the hundreds of thousands of Jews making their supposed way to Bethlehem. All this is in the Bible and Roman law - if you had studied it.

That tells me all I need to know about you. You say you've studied the Bible. Try putting it in context with the times, with Jewish religious law and Roman Law. Censuses then were as today. You stayed where you were on the day. No requirement to go to your ancestral home. Ancestral? 1000 years in the past. Roman censuses were usually to do with taxation, that's why they caused so much trouble from the Jews. (see history). Taxation was on property and Josephs was in Nazareth.

I've shown you facts that I have proved from the Bible and history. You refuse both so I see no point is discussing further.

 

And nothing to back it up except your inaccurate opinion and generalities. Nothing
succinct or valid.

Put up or shut up.

You have done no such thing. You've only provided your opinion and when called to
show facts you have resoundingly refused.

I accept your concession.

 

These facts are easily accessible. I've told you where to find them. Do you want me to copy out sheets of Roman Laws, Judaistic beliefs. You've simply ignored what I have posted, not refuted them with any of your facts. Because you can't. Even the idea of Jesus being taken to Nazareth and then back to Egypt is ludicrous and not verified by the Bible.
It's quite clear you know nothing but what you have been told.

1. Different genealogies
2. Only Matthew and Luke know of the 'virgin' birth (which should be 'maiden' birth). Not even Paul knows of it. He just mentions Jesus 'born of woman'.
3. Both Matthew and Luke say that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. Matthew quotes Micah 5:2 to show that this was in fulfillment of prophecy. Actually, Matthew misquotes Micah (compare Micah 5:2 to Matthew 2:6).
Luke has Mary and Joseph travelling from their home in Nazareth in Galilee to Bethlehem in Judea for the birth of Jesus . Matthew, in contradiction to Luke, says that it was only after the birth of Jesus that Mary and Joseph resided in Nazareth, and then only because they were afraid to return to Judea (Matthew 2:21-23).
In order to have Jesus born in Bethlehem, Luke says that everyone had to go to the city of their birth to register for the census. This is absurd, and would have caused a bureaucratic nightmare. The purpose of the Roman census was for taxation, and the Romans were interested in where the people lived and worked, not where they were born They could have found out by simply asking.
4. Slaughter of the Innocents never happened. Quote refers to what I told you before.
5. Luke tells us that Jesus goes to Nazareth shortly after his birth. During that time Matthew has the visit of the Magi, slaughter of the innocents, journey to and sojourn in Egypt and return to Nazareth because they could not go back to Bethlehem. Herod's son, Archelaus, ruled there, and he was as bad as his father Herod the Great. Whew. Getting all that in within a few weeks must have been a rush.

Now I've given you facts according to the Bible and Roman law.

You don't believe me? Then you don't believe the Bible.

I'm not wasting any more time.

 

Hmnm, now that you mentioned it you never once provided any of the above.

I noticed you didn't provide any evidence about David's birth according to your opinion.
Can't blame you. It's not there.

Matthew is Joseph's (legal father) and Luke's is Mary's. They don't contradict. They
compliment beautifully.

No, virgin means virgin in this case. Thank goodness I studied Greek.

Again you don't have any evidence except your opinion, which is wrong.

What you say means nothing because you have no evidence to back up your opinion.

This is irrelevant. Perhaps you believe being verbose helps. It doesn't. You're wrong.

No you didn't. I corrected your errors, which was everything.

No I don't believe you because your information is wrong and because I believe the Bible.

Can't blame you since you've been wrong on every account. Maybe you should discuss
this with someone who doesn't know the Bible.

I accept your concession, again.

PS.
Where is the information about Matthew wrongly mentioning David's birth? You know
the question. Three posts in a row and you've ran like a scaled cat every time.

 

The language here reminds me of what near death experiencers report about seemingly small events..... actually having far far far more importance than we would ever have imagined at the time. This is one part of what is shown to them during the Life Review part of a NDE.

 

Back in 1995 a Pastor Rick Joyner was given a visionary dream that he wrote down and published.....
his book does an exceptional job of explaining how each connection that we make with somebody in this lifetime......

can set us up in such a way that we will be linked to them in the afterlife.......


I copied and pasted one part of this dream here:


http://www.politicalforum.com/religion-philosophy/365987-story-homeless-man-angelo-rick-joyner.html
The Story of Homeless Man Angelo by Rick Joyner.

 

It's funny.
A whole thread arguing about the meaning of a foreign book of myths fables and legends debated as though it's a factual document. And debated by people who think that by memorizing this book and being able to quote chapter and verse from it they have somehow achieved something significant.
But the funniest thing is that all the time they have spend doing this they have missed out on real life, which is passing them by as we speak.
Sad really

 

Great. The evidence is in the Bible and History. I given you it and you can either accept it or go blindly on your way. You haven't corrected any errors, simply told me I am wrong. .

Do you deny Roman Law told people to stay where they were for a census, and that censuses were for taxation purposes on property. Do you deny Joseph was a Carpenter from Nazareth where his property was.

Now David.

The Tanakh. Translation of the Hebrew. But thou, Beth-lehem Ephrathah, which art little to be among the thousands of Judah, out of thee shall one come forth unto Me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth are from of old, from ancient days.

New Testament. Translation of the Greek (from my Greek Testatment). And you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, you are by no means least among the governor/rulers of Judah, for out of you shall come forth a governing one/ruler, who will shepherd my people Israel.

So Matthew, in his attempt to make Jesus a Messiah and knowing that a ruler is forecast in Micah as coming from B.Ephrata uses David and his birthplace to establish this. In fact, as you can see, he misquotes Micah. Micah foretells a ruler who will have to face up to the Assyrians. The rest of the fifth chapter of Micah proves that Jesus cannot be the subject of the prophecy in Micah 5:1[2]. That speaks of the return of the Jewish people to Israel during the lifetime of the prophesied ruler. The historical record shows that such repatriation of Israel did not take place during the lifetime ofJesus. Then, Micah 5:4-5[5-6] gives an account of this ruler leading Israel in asuccessful war against its enemies. The historical record shows not only that Jesus never lead Israel in battle, he never ruled over Israel in the first place. Nehemiah fits in.

I don't run from anything, but it does sometimes take a while to go through decades of notes and studies.

Perhaps you can look through yours and tell me why I am wrong. Not just because the Bible says so.

 

Not really. I started studying the Bible as a Christian and realised its 'problems'. Partly the reason I am now agnostic. But if you go into it and study not just the Bible, but its background, the real history and the myth, the culture behind it, it all makes interesting study - if you like that sort of thing. It's rather like a detective story. The tale is laid out before you and you have to find what is true and what is made up. Is the story of Abraham true or just an allegory. The Bible says it's true, ancient History gives real cause for doubt. Did 2 small states field 800,000 soldiers against 500,000 soldiers in ancient Palestine? The Bible says so, knowing the times says not.

I have a lot going on although in my 7th decade, but we all should have a pastime. Well, not that anyway.

 

I've been looking back at your posts. All you have done time after time is say 'you're wrong'. No reason why, because you have none, except to burble 'I believe the Bible'. Unfortunately for you the Bible has been proved wrong in many respects. Bible scholars, archaeology and ancient history are all proving this. Archaeology has proved some known events to be true, others to be false. Few people today believe that Moses wrote anything. Many believe Abraham and Moses never existed except in the mind of story writers. If you study the story of Abraham and the known history of the time, the Bible story has to be at least incorrect. If Moses had written the Torah/Pentateuch he wrote in several different styles and got his facts seriously wrong.

Oh. The virgin mentioned in Isaiah 7:14 - despite Matthews use of the quote - is Isaiahs wife.

Go ahead with your blind belief. I'm finished.

 

I'm only part way through my 6th decade, but have the philosophy that we are all going to die of something, so it may as well be something you enjoy, and I enjoy drinking

 

No problem with Alcohol but they tell me cirrhosis of the liver is painful. I'd prefer to be in bed with .... erm.... never mind.

 

Projection 101

Sure, but I get to choose the first topic.

 

Yes, this is about Jesus's coming. That's very clear. It has nothing to do with the birth of David.

Which is Jesus.

There is no misquote. Jesus is the Messiah mentioned in Matthew and Micah.

Since David never defeated the Assyrians this has nothing to do with him. This is a reference to
the coming anti-christ who has yet to reveal himself. David was never the Messiah.

The battle has yet to happen and David won't be in it. Jesus will.

Yes you do. It took about 5 post to get you to answer the question.

So far Matthew is correct and you aren't.

 

??? Isaiah's wife isn't mentioned. You pulled that out of your hat.
By the way, virgins also mean those who have never had sex. In Jewish culture it was assumed
that maidens were virgin. Of course you know that.

Go ahead with your blind belief. I'll be here to kindly and respectfully correct your mistakes.

 

5 Brownie points for getting it all wrong and for not reading my post properly. No. I take 2 of those away for your taking verses out of context as is usual with indoctrinated Christians.. Another for expecting me to remember everything from decades of study. That leaves you with 2. Oh no. I never said David was the Messiah, I said that Nehemiah
was the one who fitted the Prophecy in Isaiah. He was leader, king and faced the Assyrians. You've taken 1 verse out of Isaiah 7. Doesn't work. another point deducted. The chapter talks about this child facing the Assyrains. Jesus never did. G.. Don't you ever study or read properly. Of course I know about 'virgins'. But in the OT two words are used. One means virgin, the other maiden. I've found a website which will give you some understanding to save me copying copious notes.

As to Isaiahs wife. Try this. You might get some idea of the truth. And remember all this was written long before Christianity corrupted it. All you know is Christian teaching.

/jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/articles/answers/jewish-polemics/texts/isaiah-714-a-virgin-birth/

Don't bother to reply. You obviously know little of the Old Testament except what Christianity has told you.

One thing to thank you for. I now know how little I knew about the Real Bible when I was like you. Thank heavens I studied outside the Bible and understand history, culture etc all related to it. Now I know that the Bible story of people like Abraham and Moses are just that - stories. History proves it. Thanks for the enjoyment of reading your 'Corrections'.

 

Hi,

Thank You for Your Kind Paricipation.

In NDE, We are nearer to The Lord, and nearer to the Lord We often get the Knowledge of Love.

Here, We can get quite the same when we are in Love with God, beleving in Jésus Christ !
In Jésus Christ, We Trust each others and Care each others (United in Christ).

The man I Present to You (P-A) has the Gift of Discernement they thalk about in your thread you gave us ! (Thanks to God)!
He has worked hard to Improve It, and Succeeded to Give to The World The spiritual Interprétations (on french fora) of Bible, Quran, Soutras ... but only a few french people take care of that, for the moment ...

In " ... he who gives honour to an upright man, in the name of an upright man, will be given an upright man's reward. 42 And whoever gives to one of these little ones a cup of cold water only, in the name of a disciple, truly I say to you, he will not go without his reward. 41" Mat 10

" And whoever gives honour to one such little child in my name, gives honour to me " Mat 18.5

for instance, P-A Explain us the Upstair Spiritual Logic, so Jésus taught Us to take care of Spiritual Thirst.

P-A Explains That (and Prove it by many Exegesis and throw his Experience of Life), and He solicits Democratic Lover's Help and Believer's Justice (equality) !
Expl : http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=480853&page=2&p=1066799502#post1066799502

In fact, He is a little bit like Arthur with the New Sword in the Disney's film " The Sword in the Stone" !

Do You Understand We Mean ! ?

.

 

If I wanted to....
within a month or so i could begin to explain how the USA constitution is a relatively inspired document......

that seems to be respected...... and honored... by life forms in several dimensions above our four dimensional space time continuum.

Deceased Jews... have far far far far far more influence and power over world events in the here and now....
than even wise old King Solomon seemed to realize in spite of the fact that his statement about "silver cord" implies that
either he may have had an out of the body experuence..... or knew of a soldier or somebody else who had one.....

Those deceased Jews volunteered to incarnate down here in spite of persecution, pogroms, Inquisitions.....
and full fledged holocausts........

if they wish to honor the words of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and the minor and major prophets......
.... or even Rabbi Yeshua - Jesus once they see him as their great, great, great.... .grandson from one or
more of their probable past lives......
they are certainly free to do so!

 

FreshAir.... . my belief at this time is that you Sir..... have some sort of "over soul'
that probably existed before the latest Big Bang Event.......

Near death experience Aurora Ray stated that there are 14 Elohim.....("Let Us make man after Our image")....
seven female and seven male.....
I suspect that these 14 correspond with the seven Spirits of G-d mentioned in the Christian scriptures......

A level of Consciousness is possible where the most ancient version of you.. .FreshAir... can speak through your mouth.....
and you would also be able to say things like......

Jhn 14:6
"Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."

.... you need to get in touch with that most ancient version of yourself.....
to bring four dimensional FreshAir.... up to your full potential... which is an extremely impressive version of
at least some variation on Moshiach / Christ Consciousness.