Definition of Sin

[Amanda]

Inheritence was through the male line only.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Would Jesus have been legally entitled to 'anything' as an inheritance of Joseph the way it is arranged? When Joseph died, was Jesus the legal beneficiary of any kind of inheritance?

[dogmatically_challenged]

Would Jesus have been legally entitled to 'anything' as an inheritance of Joseph the way it is arranged? When Joseph died, was Jesus the legal beneficiary of any kind of inheritance?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Depends on if you want to believe the story even hapened or not. We can only reason on what is probable and not on what is merely possible.

 

Good questions to put to jews. Yes?

 

GTG BB

[Amanda]

Did you ever wonder why the Jews don't believe that Jesus was the Messiah who's coming was foretold?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

My understanding is that the Jews were expecting the Messiah to come back as a mighty leader and conquer their enemies with force and triumph in combat! It was a false premise for their evaluations of the Messiah, and I think the modern religous right has a false idea of how Jesus will return too. I think, that they think, that Jesus will come back as 'a' man, and I think he will come back in a corporate body. Patterns and signs?

[crazy-tiger]

I was waiting for that one...

 

Yes, there is a geneology that tries to make it look like Jesus was of David's line through Mary. But, as DC has already pointed out, the bloodline is from father to son.

 

It makes no difference if Mary was of David's lineage or not...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'll just have to correct myself here. It seems that neither of the genealogies in the Bible (one in Matthew and one in Luke) mention Mary as being of the bloodline of David.

Both of them are through the male line and both of them end with Joseph. Although the one in Matthew mentions Mary, (that is as the wife of Joseph and not as part of the bloodline) it is Luke that is supposed to be the genealogy of Mary. Very strange, since the one in Luke doesn't even mention Mary.

 

So, there is no genealogy of Mary in the Bible. All that is there is the lines ending with Joseph...

 

 

If you want some real fun, compare the two lineages that are given and see just how little they agree with each other. Remember that they are supposed to be giving a father-to-son line from David to Jesus.

 

 

Here... compare them yourself...

 

Genealogy in Luke

Genealogy in Matthew

[crazy-tiger]

My understanding is that the Jews were expecting the Messiah to come back as a mighty leader and conquer their enemies with force and triumph in combat!

That understanding is correct.

It was a false premise for their evaluations of the Messiah, and I think the modern religous right has a false idea of how Jesus will return too.

Unfortunately, that is exactly what was foretold that the Messiah would be.

I think, that they think, that Jesus will come back as 'a' man, and I think he will come back in a corporate body. Patterns and signs?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The Messiah is a man anyway. The whole "Son of God" argument automatically disqualifies Jesus from being the Messiah.

[Amanda]

Inheritence was through the male line only.

 

here

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Dogmatically Challenged, I looked at the resource you shared with me... thank you... yet I don't think Jesus is done yet, he's still working. Jury is out till its over.

 

Being in the bloodline may go beyond what is expected by human expectations. What I think is important about the bloodline, is that it comes from Issac, via David, to the resulting inheritance of something unusual. Hence, the promised seed. Sarah could not have a child but by a miracle, that's why she laughed at the idea of her finally having a baby! Something special about that egg... and Abraham is the father. The apocrapha, as I remember reading it, claims almost the same thing about Mary's parents... her mother was too old to have a child. Something special there too, especially coming from the lineage of Issac via David.

 

Just a thought...

[Amanda]

So, there is no genealogy of Mary in the Bible. All that is there is the lines ending with Joseph...

If you want some real fun, compare the two lineages that are given and see just how little they agree with each other. Remember that they are supposed to be giving a father-to-son line from David to Jesus.

Here... compare them yourself...

 

Genealogy in Luke

Genealogy in Matthew

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I know, yet what really confuses things is the customs of the times... not to mention translations. I've heard that Mary is attributed to one of those geneologies... you will have to regard the people smarter than to print two different ones of Joseph, it was obviously congruent as to what they were doing to them at that time... although I'm sure some of you will not go there... and I respect that too.

[Amanda]

Unfortunately, that is exactly what was foretold that the Messiah would be.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Metaphorically?

[Savedbyfaith]

[sBF] No it doesn't. Joseph was of the line of David and was not the natural father of Jesus. He was his legal father and gave Jesus legal descendancy. The virgin birth had to cicumvent natural child birth because the Messiah was to be of God (The Holy Spirit).

 

Sorry, but legal descendancy is not the same as bloodline descendancy.

For Jesus to be in the bloodline of David, Joseph would have to be his natural father.

 

[sBF] Jesus could not be a bloodline (physical) descendant of David if was conceived by the Holy Spirit, so that only leaves the opening for a legal descendant.

 

You've already admitted that Joseph wasn't Jesus's natural father, so you have also admitted that Jesus wasn't of the bloodline of David.

Jesus wasn't the Jewish Messiah.

 

[sBF] If Jesus wasn't the Messiah, then how do you explain John 4:25,26: "The woman said, 'I know that Messiah (called Christ) is coming. When he comes, he will explain everything to us. Then Jesus declared, 'I who speak to you am he."

[crazy-tiger]

I know, yet what really confuses things is the customs of the times... not to mention translations. I've heard that Mary is attributed to one of those geneologies... you will have to regard the people smarter than to print two different ones of Joseph, it was obviously congruent as to what they were doing to them at that time... although I'm sure some of you will not go there... and I respect that too.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes... Mary is attributed to the genealogy in Luke, which is very strange since Mary isn't even mentioned in that one.

 

And why should we have to regard the people smarter than to print two different one's of Joseph when that's exactly what they did?

 

 

One final problem for you to think about...

 

In Luke, one of the people in the lineage was Shealtiel. According to Luke, he was the son of Neri, yet in the OT, he was the son of Jeconiah, AKA Coniah, AKA Jehoiachin, who was cursed of God and told that none of his seed would prosper on the throne of David. (Jer 22:30)

Ooops... Not only does Luke contradict the OT, but he includes someone who prevents Jesus from sitting on Davids throne. (something the Messiah HAS to do)

 

But maybe Luke was refering to Joseph's lineage. As Joseph wasn't Jesus's biological father, we should be able to get out of that quandry...

 

No, we can't... The genealogy in Matthew just happens to include " 12 And after the carrying away to Babylon, Jechoniah begat Shealtiel; and Shealtiel begat Zerubbabel;"

Ooops again... this one ALSO includes the same person who prevents Jesus from sitting on Davids throne.

 

No matter which parent the bloodline goes through, Jesus would still be part of the cursed line that the Messiah cannot come from...

[crazy-tiger]

[sBF] If Jesus wasn't the Messiah, then how do you explain John 4:25,26: "The woman said, 'I know that Messiah (called Christ) is coming.  When he comes, he will explain everything to us.  Then Jesus declared, 'I who speak to you am he."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Easily...

 

Given that the evidence from the Bible shows that Jesus couldn't have been the Messiah, either Jesus lied in that verse or it was made up later to try to make it look like Jesus was the Messiah.

 

 

It's one or the other, with it being true only possible if the genealogies are wrong. No matter what, the Bible contradicts itself massively...

[Vixentrox]

What's the Jewish law on bastard children begot from rape by a spirit anyway?

[crazy-tiger]

What's the Jewish law on bastard children begot from rape by a spirit anyway?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think they had to nailed to a cross...

[Savedbyfaith]

No mention of hell is found in either of the Isaiah verses you reference.

 

[sBF] Please see Num 16:30 where the earth opened up and swallowed the men into the "grave." The hebrew word is sheol which is the place of departed spirits, both the righteous and unrighteous. I think Jesus was describing this place in the story of the rich man and the poor man (Luke 16:19-31). Please read this account if you haven't already.

 

Coincidentally, Isaiah 14:9-11 is not found in Revelations 14.

 

[sBF] Isa. 14:9-15 speak of sheol which is not the same as the lake of fire (Rev. 21:8). Rev. 14:9-11 also records the lake of fire, which is the final place of all who do not have Jesus Christ as their Savior (John 3:18,36). Isaiah is speaking of sheol which is where the wicked remain until they are raised (vs. 13) to stand before the White Throne for Judgment (Rev. 20:11-15). AFter the judgment, they will be cast into the lake of fire which is the second death. I urge you to consider what Jesus Christ did for you on the cross that you might escape the lake of fire. He loves you and does not want you or anyone to be cast into the lake of fire.

 

By the way, Isaiah 14: 4-23 is a taunt that was to be taken up against the King of Babylon when "the LORD gives you relief from suffering and turmoil and cruel bondage" that the Isrealites were suffering at the hands of said King.

 

[sBF] Yes, you are right. But verses 9-11 speak of sheol which is the place of departed spirits (vs. 9). As noted, both the righteous and unrighteous go there. Notice their worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched," in Isa. 66:24. Jesus referred to this in Mark 9:48 where he described it as hell.

 

In addition, Isaiah 66:24 refers to the dead bodies of those who rebelled against him. Not a single mention of spirits being tormented...

 

[sBF] Again, Jesus, verbatim, used the words of Isaiah to describe hell. Jesus said, "I tell you the truth. You must be born again to see the kingodm of God." (John 3:3). When a person confesses his or her sins, repents of them and turns to Jesus Christ for salvation, they are born again.

[Savedbyfaith]

Easily...

 

Given that the evidence from the Bible shows that Jesus couldn't have been the Messiah, either Jesus lied in that verse or it was made up later to try to make it look like Jesus was the Messiah.

 

[sBF] From what you know about Jesus, or from how the scriptures present him, do you think he was a liar? If the verse was "made up," what evidence can you present to support this view?

[Vixentrox]

Easily...

 

Given that the evidence from the Bible shows that Jesus couldn't have been the Messiah, either Jesus lied in that verse or it was made up later to try to make it look like Jesus was the Messiah.

 

[sBF] From what you know about Jesus, or from how the scriptures present him, do you think he was a liar? If the verse was "made up," what evidence can you present to support this view?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Evidence? What evidence can YOU provide that Jesus (if he existed) said anything at all?

[LloydDobler]

what evidence can you present to support this view?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

He just posted like an entire page of evidence showing exactly why. He didn't just pull it out of his ass, he CONCLUDED it based on RESEARCH. Open your eyes and read his posts again. Based on what he JUST SHOWED, Jesus cannot be the messiah.

[Savedbyfaith]

Savedbyfaith, do you taking into consideration that the gospels could have been altered in later times?

 

The verse of Mark 10:18 is also in Matthew 19:17 e.g. Consider the KJV: A man came before Jesus, and asked him, "Good Master, What must I do that I may inherit life eternal?". Jesus says to him, "Why do you call me Good? Only one is good, God." And the RSV: A man came before Jesus, and asked him, "Master, What _ good deed_ must I do that I may inherit life eternal?". Jesus says to him, "Why do you _ask me about what is good?_ Only one is good." Now, the question about whom is that one is left open. (See Kuchinsky.)

 

[sBF] In my view, Jesus was making a subtle claim of his deity. If we can agree that Jesus was (is) "good," and only God is good, then Jesus must be God. "Good" in this context can mean sinless and only God is sinless. Jesus is sinless and therefore must be God.

 

What church is Jesus in Matth. 18:17 talking about (ecclesia)? (source: Matthew tendencies)

 

[sBF] The church is spiritual, that body of believers that he would build from Pentecost to the rapture. The church of Christ is built on the revelation knowledge that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God.

 

If it's not the case that the words have to be from Jesus himself... they can be from the (unknown) author with a very clear agenda: to prove that Jesus is foretold and push towards a higher christology.

 

[sBF] You are free to believe that if you want. For centuries, the gates of hell have tried to prevail against the Church of Christ. They have not and will not succeed. Jesus said his words would never pass away. We have his words, as he said them, in the four gospels and the Revelation.

[Savedbyfaith]

Evidence? What evidence can YOU provide that Jesus (if he existed) said anything at all?

 

[sBF] The four gospels, eyewitnesses, historical writings. The Babylonian Talmud records that Jesus was crucified. ("Sanhedrin," vol. 3 of Nezikin, Babylonian Talmud, edited by Isidore Epstein, reprint (London: Soncino, 1938), p. 281

[Savedbyfaith]

He just posted like an entire page of evidence showing exactly why. He didn't just pull it out of his ass, he CONCLUDED it based on RESEARCH. Open your eyes and read his posts again. Based on what he JUST SHOWED, Jesus cannot be the messiah.

 

[sBF] He only posted WHAT HE BELEIVES is evidence. What he has to do is prove that Jesus lied when he said he was the Messiah (John 4:26)

[Amanda]

Yes... Mary is attributed to the genealogy in Luke, which is very strange since Mary isn't even mentioned in that one.

 

And why should we have to regard the people smarter than to print two different one's of Joseph when that's exactly what they did?

One final problem for you to think about...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Because they WERE THERE, and they understood their society better than we.

 

No matter which parent the bloodline goes through, Jesus would still be part of the cursed line that the Messiah cannot come from...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Crazy Tiger, you know what? I think an adopted son is the real thing. It doesn't even matter about the blood lineage. By the human blood of Jesus, Jesus is a relative to all humans, to ALL mankind... that is what is important. I consider you and me and EVERYONE an adopted child of God. Not by right of any 'LEGAL' blood relative, but by his decision to choose me and you into his family. That's all. Maybe that is more precious!

 

I have a friend who has four adopted children. I DARE you to tell her they are not her children because of the bloodline. You will see fireworks for no holiday, my friend. She will fight you, sell everything she owns to keep her children. We 'may' have no LEGAL inheritance through Christ, yet he fought for us more than we can expect from our own natural gods. That's ALL I ask for now.

 

I may be an adopted child of God... so, tell me how I'm less than the 'legal' one.

[Amanda]

Hebrews 8 says that above and then adds the following in vs. 13: 13 By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think the OT is about teaching obedience to a child that is still very young. A two year old doesn't understand not to run in the street, nor can they always encompass this lesson in their normal exploration of the world. Jesus recognizes the growth of society and changes obedience to the laws to a desire to fulfill the law. I don't 'HAVE' to treat you good, I 'WANT' to treat you good. It is in the reformation of our conscience.

Interesting, the New Covenant, isn't it?  Has it been made with Israel and Judah, yet? No.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I believe that Jesus is still here within us. We've all been sealed by the Holy Spirit until the day of redemption. His work is going on...

  Are men still teaching their neighbors?  Yes.  Does everyone from least to greatest know him?  No.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I believe they know him but in regards to their own interpretation. I do not believe that the popular, traditional "Christian" has rights to the definition of Christ. Unsuspectedly so, in many cases, I see more spirit filled people out of church... yet they don't define themself so. We all know what makes us sacred, some closeer to actualization than others, and the religous right might be last in line... as in the time of Jesus.

Is the law on the heart of Israel and Judah?  No.  (and it will never be because it is a myth) Hebrews is written DECADES after the supposed death of Christ. Yet, curiously, what is obsolete will "soon" disappear.  Not "has disappeared."  Oh, yes, Jesus and the New Covenant and all those other scriptures about the "new" covenant.  This is yet another "proof" that Christianity has poorly used to try and hijack the Jewish God.

 

So, here lies the answer to what defines biblical sin; Any breaking of the Old Covenant law.  The New Covenant is not yet in force because it has not yet been accepted by Israel and Judah.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't know about any of that stuff. You've obviously spent more time into the historical documentation than I, and I will force myself to go into an area that does not interest me... yet know an importance lies there... but hey, I can't be interested in every facet!

 

Jesus changed laws that were written on tablets of stone to something that was soft enough to be written on our hearts and in our mind. It was to change from obedience to the law to desire to fulfill the law. His death reconstituted him inside of us, in our conscience, bringing us to priesthood and ministry. Does that mean it alligns with the religous right? Absolutely not! Jesus often referred to them as being the LAST ones to see the Kingdom of God. So be it.

 

There are many pathways to Spirituality. If you don't get it from the Bible... fine, you will get it somewhere else. The soul can not rest until it constitutes Truth, that establishes an inner peace, and if it's not done in this lifetime... although there is no remembrance of what was before... maybe you get another chance to work it out later.

[dogmatically_challenged]

Would Jesus have been legally entitled to 'anything' as an inheritance of Joseph the way it is arranged? When Joseph died, was Jesus the legal beneficiary of any kind of inheritance?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm not quite sure what an illigitimate bastard child would be entiteled to as far as property. A kingship? Unprecedented. The messiah can not be a bastard child anyways.

 

As far as messiah being THE son of god? You will never find O.T. scripture that prophesy the messiah as a man god. Never. That is a pagan concept and NOT a jewish concept.

 

Numbers

 

1:16 These were the renowned of the congregation, princes of the tribes of their fathers, heads of thousands in Israel.

1:17 And Moses and Aaron took these men which are expressed by their names:

1:18 And they assembled all the congregation together on the first day of the second month, and they declared their pedigrees after their families, by the house of their fathers, according to the number of the names, from twenty years old and upward, by their polls.

1:19 As the LORD commanded Moses, so he numbered them in the wilderness of Sinai.

1:20 And the children of Reuben, Israel's eldest son, by their generations, after their families, by the house of their fathers, according to the number of the names, by their polls, every male from twenty years old and upward, all that were able to go forth to war;

 

Now you . Give me scripture that shows a pedegree being traced through the mother.

 

If everyone is god then you can not logically play favorites with jesus over the jews. If everyone is god then you should have equal respect for all religions and in the case of xianity and judaism you must not mollest the O.T. for jesus's sake. Otherwise you are spiting in the face of judaism.

 

Spirituality IS NOT in a book. Spirituality is not chauvinism either. Think on that.

 

I may seem harsh, but I'm the kinda guy that would call you a bitch while fixing your flat, or feeding you a sandwich if you were hungry. I'm nice even if my mouth isn't. I call it the way I see it. No bullshit.

 

Try exploring the link I gave you and interact with the folks there.

[dogmatically_challenged]

Dogmatically Challenged, I looked at the resource you shared with me... thank you... yet I don't think Jesus is done yet, he's still working. Jury is out till its over.

 

Being in the bloodline may go beyond what is expected by human expectations. What I think is important about the bloodline, is that it comes from Issac, via David, to the resulting inheritance of something unusual. Hence, the promised seed. Sarah could not have a child but by a miracle, that's why she laughed at the idea of her finally having a baby! Something special about that egg... and Abraham is the father. The apocrapha, as I remember reading it, claims almost the same thing about Mary's parents... her mother was too old to have a child. Something special there too, especially coming from the lineage of Issac via David.

 

Just a thought...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

To bad all you have are naked assertions. Speculation. How bout some scripture that shows what you are saying without special pleading and circular logic and various other logical fallacies. Hells bells you do love to pick and choose.

[Saviourmachine]

Evil people around Jesus

In my view, Jesus was making a subtle claim of his deity. If we can agree that Jesus was (is) "good," and only God is good, then Jesus must be God.  "Good" in this context can mean sinless and only God is sinless. Jesus is sinless and therefore must be God.

Subtle it is. It's important to take into consideration that Jesus saw other people as evil. Or is it possible to be perfect like his Father is perfect? Was the blind man, nor his parents evil? What's the meaning of Matth 12:35 if there aren't good people? Or the good earth in Matth. 13:8?

 

Spiritual rule

The church is spiritual, that body of believers that he would build from Pentecost to the rapture.  The church of Christ is built on the revelation knowledge that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God.

This was about a rule in the church. That's meant spiritually? There wasn't a church yet, in Jesus time.

 

David

From Luke 20:41-44 can be derived that Jesus did have a reasoning why he [the Messiah] didn't have to be David's son. That's because David called him "Lord". To repeat him: "Why do they say that the Christ does have to be David's son? Why is that necessary?"

 

Out of the gates of hell

You are free to believe that if you want. For centuries, the gates of hell have tried to prevail against the Church of Christ. They have not and will not succeed. Jesus said his words would never pass away. We have his words, as he said them, in the four gospels and the Revelation.

I'm very well aware that my words come from a clean, inquisitive mind, because that mind is mine. If you think that these questions come from hell, I feel sorry for you.