Question to Christians about Jesus's family

harmless_little_f***

A Surprise Left wrote:

yeah but a tribe in Papua New Guinea will think they have angered the spirits and go to the witch doctor for help, when there is almost certainly a rational explantation for the problem their community is facing. In biblical times miracles (at least according to the bible) done in front of the Roman and Greeks for example who were not as supernaturally inclined as the Jews. Why not today?

Well, I would argue miracles are still happening today.

angelica

harmless_little_f*** wrote:

Well, I would argue miracles are still happening today.

And I agree.

A Surprise Left wrote:

yeah but a tribe in Papua New Guinea will think they have angered the spirits and go to the witch doctor for help, when there is almost certainly a rational explantation for the problem their community is facing. In biblical times miracles (at least according to the bible) done in front of the Roman and Greeks for example who were not as supernaturally inclined as the Jews. Why not today?

I've personally experienced miracle healings of numerous mental illnesses. It's a huge miracle for myself and those around me, however sometimes people want to see it otherwise. Most of my family members are athiests and when I began having stunning visions that showed me I would heal myself 12 years ago (and when I was very broken down and ill), I was considered even more mentally ill. The "problem" for the athiests and doctors who denounced the "magic" and visions I saw, is that I DID heal myself, and I did so in a "shamanistic" sense through spiritual guidance and inspiration. For many years now, seeing I'm healed and vibrantly healthy, I have many family members (who do not believe in spirituality) who although they cannot acknowledge divine intervention in my life, are undoubtedly humbled towards myself and the processes I've been through. They know I understand things they do not. They realize how wrong they've been, and they give my ideas a philosophies a new respect, considering some very far-reaching ramifications of my miraculous healings.

There may ultimately be a rational explanation for what has happened to me. I believe I have accessed natural forces most people won't acknowledge and yet that anyone can tap into. Unfortunately, due to the fact that people cannot imagine this type of healing or energy/power to be real, they will not access it. That's due to a lack of faith. I'm a fluke according to science, because they as yet don't understand. Since I consistently healed diverse disorders with the same basic understandings, I've seen that such healing can happen for others. And I see that most others are limited by putting their faith in science, instead, when science is bound by it's limitations at this time. By it's very nature, it does not encourage individuals accessing their spiritual nature and the very ground forces we spring from. Due to imbalanced beliefs in science (where we believe in it at the expense of our other less physically outletted intelligences) many of us shun our higher levels of being in this lifetime. As we progress, and learn to expand our consciousness more and more, this will change. As humans on the whole expand their consciousness, then new levels of awareness will support new revolutions in our understanding in all areas, including science. As always, what we see is defined by what we are willing to see.

Songburst

harmless_little_f*** wrote:

Well, I would argue miracles are still happening today.

Miracles do happen, but there isn't an all-powerful being pulling the strings on them.

angelica

Songburst wrote:

Miracles do happen, but there isn't an all-powerful being pulling the strings on them.

How do you know?

harmless_little_f***

Songburst wrote:

Miracles do happen, but there isn't an all-powerful being pulling the strings on them.

It is so lovely to hear everyone's opinions, isn't it.

soulsinging

chopitdown wrote:

my guess is they aren't allowed to hold the post of senior pastor. I'd ask you, what is your idea of womens ministry? It seems you have them pegged as only doing the food service and taking care of kids. They offer bible studies, classes (for stay at home moms and professional women), women are voting members in the church (so they have a say in who the Senior pastor is, just like the men who are members do).
To be honest there are multiple pastors; I just switched churches a few months ago and I don't really know the politics of the church too much. The reason I swithced is b/c they are very good at integrating with the community and the other churches in the area. It seems they are really trying to build people up not cause divisions and segregation (and they are keeping theologically sound; it's not a "rah rah feel good all the time" sort of place; it is a very practical place and they try to make the christian walk seem real not by just saying things, but by practicing what they preach.)

thank you, that is what i suspected. my vision of women's ministry has nothing to do with kitchens and babies. it has to do with them ministering to women... ie. NOT ever telling men what to do. which is also why they cannot be head pastor. becos men can order women around, but the church will never let a woman be in a position where they might be giving orders to men.

Songburst

angelica wrote:

How do you know?

You know that nobody can say that they know, but just looking at the history of mankind and observing the diversity of beliefs in the world today and throughout history, I can tell you without hesitation that all religions are concoctions of their society. Most religions vary greatly on what they believe is god (or gods), but all religions reward good behaviour with life after death and punish bad behaviour with some kind of soul-torture. The reason why societies create religions and gods is to try to offer people an easy answer to questions of life and death. The religions that are practised in the world these days developed more than 2000 years ago. People didn't have any real knowledge of the human body and how it worked back then, so they needed something to explain the unexplainable (death, sickness, healing, etc). God provides a really easy answer to all of life's questions. "I don't know, God?" could be the answer to everything could it not? I am also aware that many religious organizations do nothing but good in the world and I am grateful for that. However, religion inevitably comes down to power and control. Most people are so stupid and take religion so seriously that they allow themselves get manipulated by it. Honestly, I really don't care what people believe, just as long as they leave me out of it and it affects me as little as possible. If your religion is good enough, don't worry about what other people think about it. All you creationists out there have to admit that it's kind of ironic that men actually created God though -- am I right?

chopitdown

soulsinging wrote:

thank you, that is what i suspected. my vision of women's ministry has nothing to do with kitchens and babies. it has to do with them ministering to women... ie. NOT ever telling men what to do. which is also why they cannot be head pastor. becos men can order women around, but the church will never let a woman be in a position where they might be giving orders to men.

i disagree with your assumption that there is ordering around, so to speak. Do men make decisions, absolutely, do women have a say in it...absolutely, it's called being a member and voting on issues, voting on pastors etc. Again, it may be different in the catholic church; i've only been to one. But there is a lot less ordering around in the churches I've been affiliated with. The members have the say in their church, not some diocese (sp?) from far away.

and i looked into it. Our church has deacons and deaconesses who play a major role in the church. But to be honest, it doesn't matter to me if I get your stamp of approval on the church I attend. It matters to me when people have certain assertations that are misguided.

angelica

Songburst wrote:

You know that nobody can say that they know, but just looking at the history of mankind and observing the diversity of beliefs in the world today and throughout history, I can tell you without hesitation that all religions are concoctions of their society. Most religions vary greatly on what they believe is god (or gods), but all religions reward good behaviour with life after death and punish bad behaviour with some kind of soul-torture.

I've had many spiritual experiences, being interactions with an underlying intelligence of life that has interacted with me, communicating love and wisdom to me that has been directly applicable in my life in solving my life problems, and in my healings and in affecting others. Since I have not adhered to any spiritual traditions, or beliefs, I feel very fortunate, because through these experiences, I have experienced them as they are. Due to my raw experience with this level of existence I can understand how each and every belief that I've ever encountered springs from this "energy" or this understanding. Even though many spiritual paths appear diverse--ultimately, they hinge on the very same forces imo, filtered through varying cultural or evolutionary worldviews. I have yet to hear an interpretation of this energy--a spiritual or religious view that did not apply to what I've experienced. That is why such energy is universal.

You say no one can say they "know". I beg to differ. I agree one cannot prove this energy, or level of existence. Proving and knowing are two entirely different things, though. If one does not know this energy experientially, they cannot make a reasoned case for it's non-existence, since all they can honestly state is that they have not experienced it themselves. A lack of experience or understanding of something is exactly that and is therefore the opposite of knowing or understanding what it is.

The reason why societies create religions and gods is to try to offer people an easy answer to questions of life and death.

You might feel very differently if you were to have a spiritual experience, personally.

The religions that are practised in the world these days developed more than 2000 years ago. People didn't have any real knowledge of the human body and how it worked back then, so they needed something to explain the unexplainable (death, sickness, healing, etc).

In my view, life happens on many levels. Physical, mental, emotional, spiritual, etc. Each level effects its counterparts. What happens on the phsyical level affects the mental level. What happens on a spiritual level affects the physical, etc. They are interrelated. Because we understand rationally what happens does not negate the deeper meaning and understanding of those objective happenings. It does not negate our emotional or spiritual understandings of such happenings.

God provides a really easy answer to all of life's questions.

My emotional understanding does not hinge on logical or rational explanations, and yet it constitutes the foundation of my emotional intelligence. EQ has real and studied ramifactions in quality of life for the individual. Similarily, a developed spiritual capacity trickles into one's day to day living in ways quite separate from logic and rational understanding. These intelligences can work in harmony and complementary to one another. However when we use one intelligence at the expense of another, we do not receive the full benefit of any.

"I don't know, God?" could be the answer to everything could it not? I am also aware that many religious organizations do nothing but good in the world and I am grateful for that. However, religion inevitably comes down to power and control. Most people are so stupid and take religion so seriously that they allow themselves get manipulated by it. Honestly, I really don't care what people believe, just as long as they leave me out of it and it affects me as little as possible. If your religion is good enough, don't worry about what other people think about it. All you creationists out there have to admit that it's kind of ironic that men actually created God though -- am I right?

People are where they are evolutionarily speaking, doing what they can with what they are equipped with. It's widely known in personality typing that 70% of the population is not in touch with their own insights and rather look to authority to pave the way for them. It looks like you are comfortable putting the label of "stupid" on what just is the way it is.

It sounds like you do care what people believe, by your coming in these threads and making counter points.

Matt8townsend

chopitdown wrote:

If he wasn't born of a virgin he would not have been the fullfillment of the prophecy that the messiah would have been born of a virgin; rendering him only human. So yes, that would have a drastic change on my faith. However, I am not aware of any evidence that points to that, aside from some revisionist history.

Does that mean you DO have evidence that Jesus was born of a virgin?
I am an atheist but would be happy to convert were I to see the evidence so I'd be delighted if you could share it with us.

Matt8townsend

And further to the post above, didn't the prophecy state that the Messiah would descend from the house of David. Problem is Jesus dosn't because Joseph isn't his real father - God is (who is also himself).

Plus the prophecy stated the Messiah would be born in Nazareth. The evidence suggests Jesus wasn't. Only two of the gospels actually deal with Jesus' birth and they both attempt to deal with this problem in order to make sure Jesus' life 'fits' the prophecy. The most celebrated one that many of us are taught in school has his family (including his pregnant mum) making the arduous journey across many miles on a donkey (a bit dedicated for a cencus wern't they? - these days it's a struggle to get people to walk 100 yards to vote). Unfortunate thing is the Romans kept fairly meticulous records and they show that this particular cencus wasn't decreed until 6 years after the date of Jesus' birth. And there's also no historical evidence to suggest that Jesus ever eveb believed he was the Messiah.

But who cares about meticulously and painstakingly researched primary historical sources when you have the scribblings of a few 4th century 'saints' with a political agenda to peddle.

chopitdown

Matt8townsend wrote:

And further to the post above, didn't the prophecy state that the Messiah would descend from the house of David. Problem is Jesus dosn't because Joseph isn't his real father - God is (who is also himself).

Plus the prophecy stated the Messiah would be born in Nazareth. The evidence suggests Jesus wasn't. Only two of the gospels actually deal with Jesus' birth and they both attempt to deal with this problem in order to make sure Jesus' life 'fits' the prophecy. The most celebrated one that many of us are taught in school has his family (including his pregnant mum) making the arduous journey across many miles on a donkey (a bit dedicated for a cencus wern't they? - these days it's a struggle to get people to walk 100 yards to vote). Unfortunate thing is the Romans kept fairly meticulous records and they show that this particular cencus wasn't decreed until 6 years after the date of Jesus' birth. And there's also no historical evidence to suggest that Jesus ever eveb believed he was the Messiah.

But who cares about meticulously and painstakingly researched primary historical sources when you have the scribblings of a few 4th century 'saints' with a political agenda to peddle.

If you're interested in a justification for Jesus lineage look here http://www.direct.ca/trinity/duel.html it's a very interesting read. This answers some of your questions, perhaps not as clear cut as you'd ike but it is a scholarly attempt.

you're right in the fact that scholars have taken issue with the timing of the census and depending on your presupposition you'll prob (just as most people do) choose side that agrees with your philosophy.

chopitdown

Matt8townsend wrote:

Does that mean you DO have evidence that Jesus was born of a virgin?
I am an atheist but would be happy to convert were I to see the evidence so I'd be delighted if you could share it with us.

You have the same evidence as I do, you just chose to not accept it, and that's fine... I have studied and read but I also believe that what the Bible says is true. And you don't believe what it says is true.

cornnifer

Matt8townsend wrote:

. And there's also no historical evidence to suggest that Jesus ever eveb believed he was the Messiah.
.

How about the fact that he was executed for the crime of blasphemy? It is quite obvious that Jewish leadership at the time was quite convincved that he DID make such claims.
Actually, the "didn't really claim to be the messiah" argument is only slightly more debateable than the "Jesus didn't really exist" argument. i don't have the time to properly go into it, but lets look at just one example. At one point, the Jewish leadership had their undies in a huge wad over Jesus' forgiving of sins. You see, i cannot forgive you for transgressions you commit against someone else. Only the person wronged and God can do that. But, thats just what Jesus was doing! This philosophical idea was VERY important in Jewish tradition. Jesus came directly from Jewish tradition, so, he was well aware of what he was claiming. It wasn't a cultural miscue. He was knowingly claiming to do something only God is capable of. This is an obvious claim to divinity. There are many other examples. Again, to anyone but fringe academics, Jesus' claim to be the fulfillment of messianic prophecy is pretty much irrefutable.

brainofPJ

Matt8townsend wrote:

And further to the post above, didn't the prophecy state that the Messiah would descend from the house of David. Problem is Jesus dosn't because Joseph isn't his real father - God is (who is also himself).

Plus the prophecy stated the Messiah would be born in Nazareth. The evidence suggests Jesus wasn't. Only two of the gospels actually deal with Jesus' birth and they both attempt to deal with this problem in order to make sure Jesus' life 'fits' the prophecy. The most celebrated one that many of us are taught in school has his family (including his pregnant mum) making the arduous journey across many miles on a donkey (a bit dedicated for a cencus wern't they? - these days it's a struggle to get people to walk 100 yards to vote). Unfortunate thing is the Romans kept fairly meticulous records and they show that this particular cencus wasn't decreed until 6 years after the date of Jesus' birth. And there's also no historical evidence to suggest that Jesus ever eveb believed he was the Messiah.

But who cares about meticulously and painstakingly researched primary historical sources when you have the scribblings of a few 4th century 'saints' with a political agenda to peddle.

Matthew’s Gospel begins: “The book of the history of Jesus Christ, son of David, son of Abraham.” Matthew backs up this bold claim by tracing Jesus’ descent through the line of his adoptive father, Joseph.

Luke’s Gospel traces Jesus’ lineage through his natural mother, Mary, back through David and Abraham to Adam.

Thus the Gospel writers thoroughly document their claim that Jesus was an heir of David, both in a legal and in a natural sense

Jesus was born in Bethlehem (Matthew 2:1) He grew up in Nazareth

there's plenty of evidence (if you consider the Bible to be historical evidence) that Jesus knew he was the Messiah...it's in the way he taught, lived, things that are written

chopitdown

cornnifer wrote:

How about the fact that he was executed for the crime of blasphemy? It is quite obvious that Jewish leadership at the time was quite convincved that he DID make such claims.
Actually, the "didn't really claim to be the messiah" argument is only slightly more debateable than the "Jesus didn't really exist" argument. i don't have the time to properly go into it, but lets look at just one example. At one point, the Jewish leadership had their undies in a huge wad over Jesus' forgiving of sins. You see, i cannot forgive you for transgressions you commit against someone else. Only the person wronged and God can do that. But, thats just what Jesus was doing! This philosophical idea was VERY important in Jewish tradition. Jesus came directly from Jewish tradition, so, he was well aware of what he was claiming. It wasn't a cultural miscue. He was knowingly claiming to do something only God is capable of. This is an obvious claim to divinity. There are many other examples. Again, to anyone but fringe academics, Jesus' claim to be the fulfillment of messianic prophecy is pretty much irrefutable.

John 10:30 "I and the Father are one."

John 14:11 Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves.

John 10:37-38 [37] Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does. [38] But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father."

Matthew 27:43 He trusts in God. Let God rescue him now if he wants him, for he said, `I am the Son of God.'"

John 17:11 I will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name--the name you gave me--so that they may be one as we are one.

John 10:31-33 [31] Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, [32] but Jesus said to them, "I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?" [33] "We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God."

John 17:5 And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.

Mark 14:61b-62 [61b] Again the high priest asked him, "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?" [62] "I am," said Jesus. "And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven."

Luke 22:66-70 [66] At daybreak the council of the elders of the people, both the chief priests and teachers of the law, met together, and Jesus was led before them. [67] "If you are the Christ, " they said, "tell us." Jesus answered, "If I tell you, you will not believe me, [68] and if I asked you, you would not answer. [69] But from now on, the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the mighty God." [70] They all asked, "Are you then the Son of God?" He replied, "You are right in saying I am."

John 8:42 Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now am here. I have not come on my own; but he sent me."

Matt8townsend

chopitdown wrote:

John 10:30 "I and the Father are one."

John 14:11 Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves.

John 10:37-38 [37] Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does. [38] But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father."

Matthew 27:43 He trusts in God. Let God rescue him now if he wants him, for he said, `I am the Son of God.'"

John 17:11 I will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name--the name you gave me--so that they may be one as we are one.

John 10:31-33 [31] Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, [32] but Jesus said to them, "I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?" [33] "We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God."

John 17:5 And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.

Mark 14:61b-62 [61b] Again the high priest asked him, "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?" [62] "I am," said Jesus. "And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven."

Luke 22:66-70 [66] At daybreak the council of the elders of the people, both the chief priests and teachers of the law, met together, and Jesus was led before them. [67] "If you are the Christ, " they said, "tell us." Jesus answered, "If I tell you, you will not believe me, [68] and if I asked you, you would not answer. [69] But from now on, the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the mighty God." [70] They all asked, "Are you then the Son of God?" He replied, "You are right in saying I am."

John 8:42 Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now am here. I have not come on my own; but he sent me."

Obviosuly you guys are believers and I have no doubt you believe in the inherent 'goodness' or whatever or the Christian message - you therefore quite nobly wish others to come around to your way of thinking. But you can't expect to convince an atheist (or rationalist) by citing biblical scripture as so called evidence. Even if I dismiss any accusations of an agenda (be it of a political or any kind) and agree for arguments sake that they were written in good faith they are still subjective secondary documents - some written centuries after the events they purport to document. Even were I believe what I was writing was the absolute truth I could not sit here and write accounts of the life of somebody who lived in the 18th century and expect future scholars to consider them a reliable historical source.

The bible is not evidence guys. Not by any stretch of the imagination.

Matt8townsend

cornnifer wrote:

How about the fact that he was executed for the crime of blasphemy? It is quite obvious that Jewish leadership at the time was quite convincved that he DID make such claims.
Actually, the "didn't really claim to be the messiah" argument is only slightly more debateable than the "Jesus didn't really exist" argument. i don't have the time to properly go into it, but lets look at just one example. At one point, the Jewish leadership had their undies in a huge wad over Jesus' forgiving of sins. You see, i cannot forgive you for transgressions you commit against someone else. Only the person wronged and God can do that. But, thats just what Jesus was doing! This philosophical idea was VERY important in Jewish tradition. Jesus came directly from Jewish tradition, so, he was well aware of what he was claiming. It wasn't a cultural miscue. He was knowingly claiming to do something only God is capable of. This is an obvious claim to divinity. There are many other examples. Again, to anyone but fringe academics, Jesus' claim to be the fulfillment of messianic prophecy is pretty much irrefutable.

I said there's no evidence to suggest he BELIEVED he was the Messiah (I do not by the way claim he never existed). Claiming is not believing.
If I flap my arms and squwark like a Chicken it dosn't mean I believe I am one.

Matt8townsend

brainofPJ wrote:

Matthew’s Gospel begins: “The book of the history of Jesus Christ, son of David, son of Abraham.” Matthew backs up this bold claim by tracing Jesus’ descent through the line of his adoptive father, Joseph.

Luke’s Gospel traces Jesus’ lineage through his natural mother, Mary, back through David and Abraham to Adam.

Thus the Gospel writers thoroughly document their claim that Jesus was an heir of David, both in a legal and in a natural sense

Jesus was born in Bethlehem (Matthew 2:1) He grew up in Nazareth

there's plenty of evidence (if you consider the Bible to be historical evidence) that Jesus knew he was the Messiah...it's in the way he taught, lived, things that are written

So Matthew and Luke's gospels contradict each other. In their desperate attempt to conform to the Messianic prophecy one fabrocates a lineage on his virgin mother's side and the other seeks a 'bloodline' to David through a guy who aint his Dad anyway.

Then again we all descend from Adam Eve (or a common progenitor if you prefer Darwin to Genesis) so in some we all descend from the same ancestors anyway. Hey presto the question of his descent from the house of David was a mute point all along.

Matt8townsend

chopitdown wrote:

If you're interested in a justification for Jesus lineage look here http://www.direct.ca/trinity/duel.html it's a very interesting read. This answers some of your questions, perhaps not as clear cut as you'd ike but it is a scholarly attempt.

you're right in the fact that scholars have taken issue with the timing of the census and depending on your presupposition you'll prob (just as most people do) choose side that agrees with your philosophy.

I'll choose the side that is backed up by the most convincing evidence. In my humble opinion there is absolutely zero evidence for the existence of God. Believe me if I were ever to encounter evidence that convinced me of the existence of God, heaven and an eternal life I would be the happiest man alive and spend the rest of my days doing cartwheels and buying everyone ice cream.

Thanks for taking the trouble to post the link by the way - I'll check it out.