Water to Wine was a well-known trick jug
Thread Closed 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-03-2013, 11:54 AM
RE: Water to Wine was a well-known trick jug
Quote:Theists construct a cage, because they have rigid creed that says Jesus was a pauper carpenter and a son of god, and anything that suggest otherwise HAS to be rejected.
Not at all, not even close. Jospeh was of a kingly line and the word could have easily meant "mason" or "stoneworker" and not "carpenter". I don't rigidly reject anything nor do most Christians if you have something from the original source languages and/or the historical context to share. It's the Atheists who tend to go on blind "faith" regarding certain things... like limiting themselves to a naturalist worldview.
Find all posts by this user
25-03-2013, 12:19 PM (This post was last modified: 27-03-2013 01:00 PM by ralphellis.)
RE: Water to Wine was a well-known trick jug
(25-03-2013 11:54 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote:Theists construct a cage, because they have rigid creed that says Jesus was a pauper carpenter and a son of god, and anything that suggest otherwise HAS to be rejected.
Not at all, not even close. Jospeh was of a kingly line and the word could have easily meant "mason" or "stoneworker" and not "carpenter". I don't rigidly reject anything nor do most Christians if you have something from the original source languages and/or the historical context to share. It's the Atheists who tend to go on blind "faith" regarding certain things... like limiting themselves to a naturalist worldview.

That is a naive translation.

Like the alternate name for Moses, the name Joseph is Egyptian. The literal translation is Son of the Moon.

This is similar to Manetho's other name for Joseph, which was Peterseph, meaning Son of Ptah.

While Moses himself was called Osarseph, or Son of Osiris.


Manetho Quote:
“It is said that the priest that gave (the Hyksos) a constitution and a code of laws was a native of Heliopolis, named Osarseph after the Heliopolian god Osiris, and that when he went over to this people he changed his name and was called Moses.”



If you want to understand the Torah, you have to look to Egypt.

.
Find all posts by this user
25-03-2013, 06:26 PM
RE: Water to Wine was a well-known trick jug
(25-03-2013 09:06 AM)ralphellis Wrote:  
(25-03-2013 06:42 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  That can't be a serious question. Tongue


Oh, yes it is.

If someone had found evidence for, say, a city where King Akhenaton once lived, Atheists would be interested. But when someone finds evidence for, say, a city where King David once lived, Atheists are instantly dismissive, and do not even want to learn more.

But what is the difference? Both are fairly ephemeral characters who have been (deliberately) deleted from history, and so evidence for their lives is tenuous at best. But speculation about one would provoke interest and the other ridicule.

That is not logical nor rational.



.

You continue lumping atheists together; you continue shredding credibility.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
26-03-2013, 09:28 AM
RE: Water to Wine was a well-known trick jug
(25-03-2013 09:06 AM)ralphellis Wrote:  
(25-03-2013 06:42 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  That can't be a serious question. Tongue


Oh, yes it is.

If someone had found evidence for, say, a city where King Akhenaton once lived, Atheists would be interested. But when someone finds evidence for, say, a city where King David once lived, Atheists are instantly dismissive, and do not even want to learn more.

But what is the difference? Both are fairly ephemeral characters who have been (deliberately) deleted from history, and so evidence for their lives is tenuous at best. But speculation about one would provoke interest and the other ridicule.

That is not logical nor rational.



.
First of all, generalization is OK unless I catch someone else doing it. Tongue

Second of all, an Akhenaten discussion generally comes from scholarship and leads in interesting directions, whereas a David discussion generally comes from agenda and leads to, "therefore you must accept Jesus as your lord and savior." Call it a learned response. Big Grin

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
27-03-2013, 12:06 PM
RE: Water to Wine was a well-known trick jug
(26-03-2013 09:28 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  Second of all, an Akhenaten discussion generally comes from scholarship and leads in interesting directions, whereas a David discussion generally comes from agenda and leads to, "therefore you must accept Jesus as your lord and savior." Call it a learned response. Big Grin


Well, that is understandable, but I can assure you that there are no 'lord and saviour' comments coming from this side of the argument. This is history, pure and simple.

Like this argument, on another thread, where I attempt to show that King David was a pharaoh of the 21st dynasty (Psusennes).

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=323519&page=2


Again, the natural reaction of Atheists/Rationalists is to dismiss the suggestion out of hand, without even stopping to consider the possibilities.


Cheers,
Ralph
Find all posts by this user
27-03-2013, 12:47 PM
RE: Water to Wine was a well-known trick jug
(25-03-2013 11:54 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote:Theists construct a cage, because they have rigid creed that says Jesus was a pauper carpenter and a son of god, and anything that suggest otherwise HAS to be rejected.
Not at all, not even close. Jospeh was of a kingly line and the word could have easily meant "mason" or "stoneworker" and not "carpenter". I don't rigidly reject anything nor do most Christians if you have something from the original source languages and/or the historical context to share. It's the Atheists who tend to go on blind "faith" regarding certain things... like limiting themselves to a naturalist worldview.

That's really funny. Matthew trys to make it appear Jebus was in the Davidic line, even though the geneologies are impossible, (even if you say one is Mary's), as the number of generations are impossible to reconcile). Then after ALL of chapter one, trying to establish the lineage through Joseph, at the end, says Mary was a virgin, and Joseph was NOT the father. It's just all bunk. The authors had no clue about Jebus' father, or any way to know his lineage. How would they possibly know THAT many years later. Obviously it's a fairy story. Get real. (And don't even start sying this is "special pleading" the texts. All I'm asking ofr it proof or verification, LIKE ANY OTHER text. THAT is not "special' anything.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Sent by Jebus to put the stud back in Bible Study. "Sock puppet of Stark Raving" - (said "He Who Must Not Be Named".)
Find all posts by this user
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
27-03-2013, 01:40 PM
RE: Water to Wine was a well-known trick jug
(27-03-2013 12:47 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(25-03-2013 11:54 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Not at all, not even close. Jospeh was of a kingly line and the word could have easily meant "mason" or "stoneworker" and not "carpenter". I don't rigidly reject anything nor do most Christians if you have something from the original source languages and/or the historical context to share. It's the Atheists who tend to go on blind "faith" regarding certain things... like limiting themselves to a naturalist worldview.

That's really funny. Matthew trys to make it appear Jebus was in the Davidic line, even though the geneologies are impossible, (even if you say one is Mary's), as the number of generations are impossible to reconcile). Then after ALL of chapter one, trying to establish the lineage through Joseph, at the end, says Mary was a virgin, and Joseph was NOT the father. It's just all bunk. The authors had no clue about Jebus' father, or any way to know his lineage. How would they possibly know THAT many years later. Obviously it's a fairy story. Get real. (And don't even start sying this is "special pleading" the texts. All I'm asking ofr it proof or verification, LIKE ANY OTHER text. THAT is not "special' anything.

Actually, as I've mentioned elsewhere, Jesus is a son of Mary who is a son of David through David's son Nathan, and Joseph is a descendant of David through Solomon, thus bringing the titular right to king to Joseph's adopted son through Mary's natural son. ONLY in this way could both prophecies be fulfilled (Solomon's line cut off from kingship, David's like given the Messianic kingship).
Find all posts by this user
27-03-2013, 02:54 PM
RE: Water to Wine was a well-known trick jug
(27-03-2013 01:40 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
(27-03-2013 12:47 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  That's really funny. Matthew trys to make it appear Jebus was in the Davidic line, even though the geneologies are impossible, (even if you say one is Mary's), as the number of generations are impossible to reconcile). Then after ALL of chapter one, trying to establish the lineage through Joseph, at the end, says Mary was a virgin, and Joseph was NOT the father. It's just all bunk. The authors had no clue about Jebus' father, or any way to know his lineage. How would they possibly know THAT many years later. Obviously it's a fairy story. Get real. (And don't even start sying this is "special pleading" the texts. All I'm asking ofr it proof or verification, LIKE ANY OTHER text. THAT is not "special' anything.

Actually, as I've mentioned elsewhere, Jesus is a son of Mary who is a son of David through David's son Nathan, and Joseph is a descendant of David through Solomon, thus bringing the titular right to king to Joseph's adopted son through Mary's natural son. ONLY in this way could both prophecies be fulfilled (Solomon's line cut off from kingship, David's like given the Messianic kingship).

Super duper.
Now all ya got is 1 teesy weensy problem.
The ONE thing a messiah was supposed to DO, (I repeat DO, as in get done), Jebus did NOT do, so obviously, no matter how much you cook up nonsence about "prophesy", they could NOT refer to him, as he didn't DO THE ONE THING he was supposed to get done.
So sad. Too bad.
ANd BTW, there is NOT ONE WORD about Jebus being adopted, officially or otherwise, in the gospels. You can't just make up shit because it's convenient.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Sent by Jebus to put the stud back in Bible Study. "Sock puppet of Stark Raving" - (said "He Who Must Not Be Named".)
Find all posts by this user
28-03-2013, 07:50 AM
RE: Water to Wine was a well-known trick jug
(27-03-2013 02:54 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(27-03-2013 01:40 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Actually, as I've mentioned elsewhere, Jesus is a son of Mary who is a son of David through David's son Nathan, and Joseph is a descendant of David through Solomon, thus bringing the titular right to king to Joseph's adopted son through Mary's natural son. ONLY in this way could both prophecies be fulfilled (Solomon's line cut off from kingship, David's like given the Messianic kingship).

Super duper.
Now all ya got is 1 teesy weensy problem.
The ONE thing a messiah was supposed to DO, (I repeat DO, as in get done), Jebus did NOT do, so obviously, no matter how much you cook up nonsence about "prophesy", they could NOT refer to him, as he didn't DO THE ONE THING he was supposed to get done.
So sad. Too bad.
ANd BTW, there is NOT ONE WORD about Jebus being adopted, officially or otherwise, in the gospels. You can't just make up shit because it's convenient.
If you're referring to ushering in the Messianic Kingdom, as I've pointed out to many concered people, including Jewish people insisting that Messiah will beat swords to plowshares, first the plowshares have to become swords. There is no Kingdom without an Armageddon. Now, unfortunately, we have the nuclear capability to bring it on, Lord help us.

"The problem" you're citing is Bible hermeneutics 101. We don't need NT "liars" to explain it for readers, CLEARLY the OT speaks of multiple advents and a great many FUTURE predictions to occur before a Messianic Kingdom. It's not a problem at all, except that you sound like you want to rush the Kingdom in--where the Bible says plainly God is saving people, now, and planning a great Advent for Messiah.

As for being adopted, for someone who says I'm lacking in cultural context... the firstborn/eldest had all the rights and privileges, inheritance, etc. Once Joseph married Mary, her children, incarnated or natural born, would supersede his children to come in every way. There is no "adoption" in the modern, legal sense of today in those times, since the "adopted" would be FULLY a child under the adoptive parent. Jesus receives the titular right from His earthly father and misses the Adamic curse via His mother. A perfect adoption. (Wait, what's that I hear? It's BB saying I'm making a plea without sources...)

http://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotional...ist-jesus/

http://www.bibleunderstanding.com/adoption.htm

http://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionar...ption.html


http://www.bibleunderstanding.com/adoption.htm
Find all posts by this user
28-03-2013, 03:17 PM (This post was last modified: 28-03-2013 03:24 PM by ralphellis.)
RE: Water to Wine was a well-known trick jug
(27-03-2013 12:47 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Then after ALL of chapter one, trying to establish the lineage through Joseph, at the end, says Mary was a virgin, and Joseph was NOT the father. It's just all bunk. The authors had no clue about Jebus' father, or any way to know his lineage. How would they possibly know THAT many years later. Obviously it's a fairy story. Get real.


Actually, there may be an explanation for this 'virgin' stuff - Judaic Pesher. Throughout the Talmud pesher is used not only to predict future events, but also to cover up sensitive topics. I think pesher has been used in the NT too. The verse in question says:

Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel. Math 1:23, based upon Isaiah 7:14

But the 'virgin' is actually an almah. So we can derive:

Behold, Almah shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel.

So instead of a virgin having a son, one could alternatively read this verse as someone called Almah having a son. I think this is the true reading. This is a pesher joke (by Saul-Josephus?), based upon the Edessan royal family (who started the Jewish Revolt in AD 68 - 70).


The two people in this verse are: Almah, who is the mother of Emmanuel.

But in Edessa, Queen Shalmahth was the wife of King Abgarus and the mother of Prince (King) Manu.

The two names here are:

Sh-Almah-th and Em-Manu-el
... Almah ... and ... Manu


I think this was a pesher riddle for the initiated who had 'Ears to Hear', a hidden code that would explain and confirm who these characters really were in the historical record.




.
Find all posts by this user
Thread Closed 
Forum Jump: