Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

The Alleged Sons of God


  • Please log in to reply
141 replies to this topic

#106    Vatic

Vatic

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 227 posts
  • Joined:06 May 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:North American Continent

Posted 27 September 2012 - 12:12 AM

The close mindedness about a virgin Mary smacks of prejudice concerning Jesus. God made mankind from the dust of earth, God can cause a virgin to conceive. It would be is simply as nothing for God.

While you guys are tossing around pregnant speculations, why is it that none of you seem to know the history of Mary and the actual circumstances of her life about the time she became pregnant? Wouldn't a bit of background on her help you see how untenable some speculations are?

Here is some background. Mary was a resident of the Temple. She was a spinner of thread for the maintenance of the Temple. She was pre-puberescent. The Preist wanted her to move out of the Temple before she began her menstral cycles. She was offered for marriage by lots set before God for a sign for who should marry her. An elder man named Joseph, was strongly compelled to participate, though he objected to the whole idea. To Joseph's shock a sign appeared on his lot. Joseph in his utter embarrasment and humiliation was now betrothed to a child. Angels came to Mary to tell her she would have a child. Joseph told people the girl now with him, was his daughter.

You guys obviosly know nothing about Mary's actual circumstances, so you spin up old historical accusations and try to support it. The fact that Mary's pregnancy stirred up such a controversy in both her time and to the present, should indicate this was a pregnancy that was streching people's credulity. In other words, even then people just had a hard time believing the girl, and they just had to find explanations, put her and Joseph on trial, attempt to examine her virginity after Jesus was born. Mary was a great controversy in her community, and this can only be because of the unusual circumstances of her unexplained pregnancy.

Edited by Vatic, 27 September 2012 - 12:18 AM.


#107    Ben Masada

Ben Masada

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,442 posts
  • Joined:06 Apr 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Israel

Posted 29 September 2012 - 06:39 PM

View Postlozaleibou, on 26 September 2012 - 04:07 AM, said:

You might have to explain what you mean here Ben.  Are you saying that your own Jewish texts are not accurate or literal?

I am saying that the Jewish text is indeed accurate but not literal. To take it literally, the accuracy goes up to the birds. Where, for instance, is the accuracy of talking serpents and God looking for Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden as if He did not know where they are hiding? See what I mean? Now, if you go for the metaphorical meaning of the letter, you will find the accuracy.

Ben


#108    Ben Masada

Ben Masada

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,442 posts
  • Joined:06 Apr 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Israel

Posted 29 September 2012 - 07:19 PM

View PostVatic, on 26 September 2012 - 05:36 AM, said:


Quote

Vatic: You are such a phoney. You obviousley know next to nothing about Genesis. Genesis is a condensed compilation of many more elaborate Hebrew traditions. On top of that there is not one whole creation account in Genesis. There are elements of the Hebrew Eden tradition as well as a second Creation account reflecting the JEBU-SITE traditions. In fact, Genesis begins with the JEBU-SITE traditions.

I have no idea what you mean by JEBU-SITE traditions. The traditions that run throughout the Torah with a variety of interpretations are known as: Yahwist, Elohist, Priestly and Deuteronomic strands of traditions. Something about the book of Enoch prevented it from being added into the Jewish Canon of the Tanach.

Quote

It is the Hebrew Eden traditions from which we have the Hebrew "Fallen Angels" traditions which are engrained and reflected in the Hebrew culture. For instance the comment is made in the Epistles, that women should cover her hair "because of the angels", which comment by the Jewish author reflects his awareness of the Fallen Angels (Sons of God) being tempted by the beauty of the hair of women.

Now, you are bringing Hellenistic tradition to interfere with the Jewish Scriptures. What Paul said about fallen angels, is Hellenistic tradition. Absolutely alien to Judaism. Besides, when Paul wrote his letters to the churches, he was no longer Jewish but Christian. Therefore, no place for "Jewish author" here.

Quote

The mention of Abraham meeting Melchisedek in Genesis is obviously included by Ezra because he sees that account as important. Why? Because for Ezra it was a fulfillment of prophecies of Enoch in which Melchisedec would return after the flood and meet a descendant of the families of Noah and Methuselah.

There is nothing in Ezra as a prophecy from Enoch. Besides, Enoch was a man. No man will ever return from death. Read Job 10:21 and 2 Sam. 12:23. This Melchisedek was only a pagan priest for the Canaanites at the time of Abraham; nothing else.

Quote

I seriously doubt you have the slightest clue to the meaning or background on a tenth of what is touched upon briefly in Genesis. Obviously you have no clue about the "Sons of God" even though I'm handing you the proper information on a silver platter. And you jsut want to argue and be disrespectful of your theological superior. You would be an embarrasment to Gamaliel with this "alledged sons of God" display of the fallacy of argument from ignorance.

My only theological superior is the Tanach. Anyone or anything else is refutable if it contradicts the Tanach IMO. And my clue about the Sons of God is that they are Israel, the Jewish People. Before you get startled, read Exodus 4:22,23. "Israel is my Son" said the Lord.

Quote

Vatic: Only brainwashed simpletons believe others have a right to tell us to confine ourselves to their approved text. Those who compile "canons" are arrogating an authority they don't have. Jews get brainwashed to just read Tenach, and Christian to the 66 books. Nonsense! It is the perpetuation of ignorance.

I hope that at the end of this post of yours, you won't feel so bloated as a result of the ad hominems used. If I am a Jew who reads just the Tanach, how do you explain my deep knowledge of the NT?

Quote

You can't possibly understand the Tenach or the Christians canon without the background text and traditions from which they draw upon very frequently. They have everything to do with the defining meaning of Jewish scriptures. They don't make it harder to define scripture, they clarify scriptures because the scriptures referance those other writings and traditions. I am making it easier for you if you only weren't so head copped.

If these traditions you are talking about are in the Tanach, you can go ahead and try me. Perhaps I'll be able to explain to you what you seem not to understand.

Ben


#109    Ben Masada

Ben Masada

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,442 posts
  • Joined:06 Apr 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Israel

Posted 29 September 2012 - 07:31 PM

View PostAbramelin, on 26 September 2012 - 10:52 AM, said:

You mentioned the Roman soldier, and here is what Wiki says, about a Roman grave found in Germany:

Tiberius Iulius Abdes Pantera
from Sidon, aged 62 years
served 40 years, former standard bearer(?)
of the first cohort of archers
lies here



http://en.wikipedia...._Abdes_PanteraT


So, it's not just Celsus, an anti-Christian pagan, who claimed Jesus to be the illegal son of a Roman soldier, but there actually was a Roman soldier with that name, and who came from Sidon.

Sidon, where Jesus went to, and didn't want anyone to see or recognize him....

No proof, but indeed a possibility.

Hey Abramelin, thank you for your verification. Now, I have to add that only those who deny that Jesus was a biological son of Joseph's are responsible for this version of Jesus' paternal origin. As far as I am concerned, my personal opinion is that this is not true. Why? Because I cannot believe that Jesus' father was not Joseph. So, nothing happened. Jesus was the son of Joseph and Mary, both Jewish parents. To think otherwise, would be a disservice to the family.

Ben

Edited by Ben Masada, 29 September 2012 - 07:33 PM.


#110    Ben Masada

Ben Masada

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,442 posts
  • Joined:06 Apr 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Israel

Posted 29 September 2012 - 07:42 PM

View PostThe Gremlin, on 26 September 2012 - 04:13 PM, said:

I would suggest that Mary was neither raped by a roman soldier (although prostitution cannot be ruled out), nor was miraculously inseminated by any deity or alien.

Rather the origin of Jesus was rewriten for the Hellenistic world to bring his 'legend' in line with other prominent men.....who had this virgin birth attributed to them, and the demi-gods of the myths and mystery religions.
It was the only way to compete.

This is also a probability but, IMHO, there was no prostitution as Mary was concerned. Impossible! The lady was Joseph's fiance. During the time she was promised to him. Raped maybe if one is to claim miraculous insemination, which would be a contradiction to Jewish Theology.

Ben


#111    Ben Masada

Ben Masada

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,442 posts
  • Joined:06 Apr 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Israel

Posted 29 September 2012 - 07:55 PM

View PostVatic, on 27 September 2012 - 12:12 AM, said:

The close mindedness about a virgin Mary smacks of prejudice concerning Jesus. God made mankind from the dust of earth, God can cause a virgin to conceive. It would be is simply as nothing for God.

While you guys are tossing around pregnant speculations, why is it that none of you seem to know the history of Mary and the actual circumstances of her life about the time she became pregnant? Wouldn't a bit of background on her help you see how untenable some speculations are?

Here is some background. Mary was a resident of the Temple. She was a spinner of thread for the maintenance of the Temple. She was pre-puberescent. The Preist wanted her to move out of the Temple before she began her menstral cycles. She was offered for marriage by lots set before God for a sign for who should marry her. An elder man named Joseph, was strongly compelled to participate, though he objected to the whole idea. To Joseph's shock a sign appeared on his lot. Joseph in his utter embarrasment and humiliation was now betrothed to a child. Angels came to Mary to tell her she would have a child. Joseph told people the girl now with him, was his daughter.

You guys obviosly know nothing about Mary's actual circumstances, so you spin up old historical accusations and try to support it. The fact that Mary's pregnancy stirred up such a controversy in both her time and to the present, should indicate this was a pregnancy that was streching people's credulity. In other words, even then people just had a hard time believing the girl, and they just had to find explanations, put her and Joseph on trial, attempt to examine her virginity after Jesus was born. Mary was a great controversy in her community, and this can only be because of the unusual circumstances of her unexplained pregnancy.

First of all, such a story about Mary is not recorded in the NT. And second, it is obvious that God can do anything imaginable but one, the thing  we wish He did. We cannot dictate what God should do or should have done. If Jesus was a Jewish man, he was born of Mary with Joseph just as anyone of us is born. Jesus' Faith was Judaism, and according to Judaism there is no place for the myth of the demigod, which is the son of a god with an earthly woman. Only according to the Greek text, aka, Greek Mythology. That's my problem with Christian debates. The attempt to vandalize Judaism with the things of Hellenism.

Ben

Edited by Ben Masada, 29 September 2012 - 07:56 PM.


#112    Vatic

Vatic

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 227 posts
  • Joined:06 May 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:North American Continent

Posted 30 September 2012 - 12:08 AM

Equivocation:


using a word to mean one thing, and then later using it to mean something different. For example, sometimes "Free software" costs nothing, and sometimes it is without restrictions. Some examples:


"The sign said 'fine for parking here', and since it was fine, I parked there."

Vatic: There is one thing we have to clear up: The term "Son(s) of God" has several meanings based upon the context in which it is used. In Genesis "sons of God" is used to refer to the watchers who intermarried with human women.
It can also mean a Messiah such as King David being anointed as King.
It can mean a nation, ssuch as Israel.
It can mean Jesus Christ as literally being concieved by the power of God.
it can mean Adam as one created by God from dust.

I'm sure there are other context it is used, but this is all I can think of now. What I object to is the attempt to confine the use of the term to one meaning. This is wrong. The most basic reading comprehension in a reasonable person will result in his intelligence being affronted with the arguement that "Son of God" means one thing and one thing only.


#113    Vatic

Vatic

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 227 posts
  • Joined:06 May 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:North American Continent

Posted 30 September 2012 - 12:23 AM

View PostBen Masada, on 29 September 2012 - 06:39 PM, said:

I am saying that the Jewish text is indeed accurate but not literal. To take it literally, the accuracy goes up to the birds. Where, for instance, is the accuracy of talking serpents and God looking for Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden as if He did not know where they are hiding? See what I mean? Now, if you go for the metaphorical meaning of the letter, you will find the accuracy. Ben

Vatic: This is lame. Using guesswork to fill in the blanks of knowledge. if you don't think it is sensible, it is just a metaphor. Never mind the middle of knowledge that explains things like the talking snake.

You Ben, wouldn't have a clue about what is literal or symbolic about your own faith. Explain the talking snake correctly then? Explain the stars fighting from Heaven in the Song of Deborah. Explain the Aaronic Benediction, Explain the lamps of Gideon, Explain Rahab the Dragon from Psalms, explain the "Appearance of the Glory of the Lord"! What do you know about what is literal and what is not?

Oh I know, it must be "Hellenist".


#114    Vatic

Vatic

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 227 posts
  • Joined:06 May 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:North American Continent

Posted 30 September 2012 - 01:42 AM

Ben Masada: First of all, such a story about Mary is not recorded in the NT.

Vatic: Did I say that the history of Mary is in the NT? Are you implying that I should allow some arrogant cabbage wrapped Nicean types decide what I should not read since they have decided for me. When I see you stating the Tanach is you canon, I contemplate the layers of psychological distress you would have learning about anything you aren't permitted to read by your teachers. Do you really think you have a complete canon? Where then is the book of "The Wars of the Lord" that the Tanach instructs you to read? Where is the book of "Jasher"? I could go on, but the point is you don't have a complete canon by any stretch. In fact the very idea of a complete canon is just an invitation to be ignorant.


Ben Masada: And second, it is obvious that God can do anything imaginable but one, the thing  we wish He did. We cannot dictate what God should do or should have done.

Vatic: This is a self contradiction: You start by saying we can't say what God should have done, then turn right around and dictate what God can't do..! What form!


Ben Masada: If Jesus was a Jewish man,

Vatic: Of course he was a Jewish man...


Ben Masada: he was born of Mary with Joseph just as anyone of us is born.

Vatic: Based only on your sensibilities and according to you.. That doesn't carry any weight.


Ben Masada: Jesus' Faith was Judaism, and according to Judaism there is no place for the myth of the demigod, which is the son of a god with an earthly woman.

Vatic: That depends on which Jew you ask. According to Jesus, Mary, Joseph, Matthew, John and a whole list of other Jews, Jesus was born of a virgin. Do you think you own the turf of Judaism and can make proclamations about what can and can't be? If you ask me that is an arrogation.


Ben Masada:Only according to the Greek text, aka, Greek Mythology. That's my problem with Christian debates. The attempt to vandalize Judaism with the things of Hellenism.

Vatic: Granted, there are Hellistic adulterations to the text of the testimonies of those Jews who encountered Jesus. My problem is your use hellenism as your handy excuse for everything that offends your sensibilities. I know hellinistic adulterations to the writings and can name a handful of them off the top of my head. But I'm doubting your discernment altogether concerning hellenistic influences.

One primary example is your lack of knowledge about the ontology of Jesus from his own words and demonstrated in the manner of his birth, his life, his death, his resurection and his ascension. If you knew the very source of your faith, you would make a quick connection of Jesus to his being as the source of your faith. But your teachers won't let those shackles come off your brain will they? Tell me what is the very source of Judaism? Who is he? Describe what the people witnessed and followed..!

Your faith is more profoundly magical and permeating than you can comprehend. But no, it's all hellenism to you..!

Edited by Vatic, 30 September 2012 - 01:45 AM.


#115    Dr. D

Dr. D

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 5,275 posts
  • Joined:15 Mar 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Mexico

  • I love being me even though sometimes I'm still a stranger.

Posted 30 September 2012 - 02:00 AM

View PostBen Masada, on 29 September 2012 - 07:55 PM, said:

First of all, such a story about Mary is not recorded in the NT. And second, it is obvious that God can do anything imaginable but one, the thing  we wish He did. We cannot dictate what God should do or should have done. If Jesus was a Jewish man, he was born of Mary with Joseph just as anyone of us is born. Jesus' Faith was Judaism, and according to Judaism there is no place for the myth of the demigod, which is the son of a god with an earthly woman. Only according to the Greek text, aka, Greek Mythology. That's my problem with Christian debates. The attempt to vandalize Judaism with the things of Hellenism.

Ben

Ben, I am astonished that this thread has gone on for so many months but I noticed at one point you referred to the writings of Celsus who claimed that Mary was, indeed, impregnated by Panthera (he used the Greek form).  But if I am not mistaken, Celsus actually claimed that Panthera was a component of a personal name that was related to the name "Joseph."


#116    Realm

Realm

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,912 posts
  • Joined:29 Jan 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Somewhere in our spiral galaxy

  • "The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination."
    Albert Einstein

Posted 30 September 2012 - 02:19 AM

View PostBen Masada, on 29 September 2012 - 07:55 PM, said:

First of all, such a story about Mary is not recorded in the NT. And second, it is obvious that God can do anything imaginable but one, the thing  we wish He did. We cannot dictate what God should do or should have done. If Jesus was a Jewish man, he was born of Mary with Joseph just as anyone of us is born. Jesus' Faith was Judaism, and according to Judaism there is no place for the myth of the demigod, which is the son of a god with an earthly woman. Only according to the Greek text, aka, Greek Mythology. That's my problem with Christian debates. The attempt to vandalize Judaism with the things of Hellenism.
Ben

Isaiah 9:6
For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God,
The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

Isaiah 9:7
Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be, no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment
and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the Lord of host will perform this.


Oh wait, this must be hellenistic, a metaphor, a parable, or must mean the people of Israel as a whole, or whatever Ben wants it to be. Anything but literal.
Even when shown the truth he denies it. I'm beginning to think Islam suits you more Ben.
  


#117    Ben Masada

Ben Masada

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,442 posts
  • Joined:06 Apr 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Israel

Posted 02 October 2012 - 08:16 PM

View PostVatic, on 30 September 2012 - 12:08 AM, said:

Equivocation:


using a word to mean one thing, and then later using it to mean something different. For example, sometimes "Free software" costs nothing, and sometimes it is without restrictions. Some examples:


"The sign said 'fine for parking here', and since it was fine, I parked there."


Vatic: There is one thing we have to clear up: The term "Son(s) of God" has several meanings based upon the context in which it is used. In Genesis "sons of God" is used to refer to the watchers who intermarried with human women.
It can also mean a Messiah such as King David being anointed as King.
It can mean a nation, ssuch as Israel.
It can mean Jesus Christ as literally being concieved by the power of God.
it can mean Adam as one created by God from dust.

I'm sure there are other context it is used, but this is all I can think of now. What I object to is the attempt to confine the use of the term to one meaning. This is wrong. The most basic reading comprehension in a reasonable person will result in his intelligence being affronted with the arguement that "Son of God" means one thing and one thing only.


Well, Vatic, The term is in the Jewish Bible. And if you read Habakkuk 3:13, "The Lord comes forth to save His People, His anointed one." What People is the prophet referring to in this text? To Israel. Then, if you go to Exodus 4:22,23, "Israel is My son; so, let My son go that he may serve Me." Do you suggest that Jews give up this Jewish interpretation in the Jewish Bible to adopt the interpretation of non-Jews to enhance what Christians want to be understood as the Messiah son of God? A little bit too much to ask, don't you think so?

Ben


#118    Ben Masada

Ben Masada

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,442 posts
  • Joined:06 Apr 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Israel

Posted 02 October 2012 - 08:27 PM

View PostVatic, on 30 September 2012 - 12:23 AM, said:

Vatic: This is lame. Using guesswork to fill in the blanks of knowledge. if you don't think it is sensible, it is just a metaphor. Never mind the middle of knowledge that explains things like the talking snake.

You Ben, wouldn't have a clue about what is literal or symbolic about your own faith. Explain the talking snake correctly then? Explain the stars fighting from Heaven in the Song of Deborah. Explain the Aaronic Benediction, Explain the lamps of Gideon, Explain Rahab the Dragon from Psalms, explain the "Appearance of the Glory of the Lord"! What do you know about what is literal and what is not?

Oh I know, it must be "Hellenist".

The key to open the door to this apparent mystery is to know how to diferentiate between what is history from what is poetry. And to poetry belongs prophetic language. Before I explain to you the metaphorical meaning for those points you ask above, read this first:

  THE DOUBLE ALLEGORY OF CREATION

There are three stages for the account of Creation in Genesis: Two allegories and the Reality which the allegories point to: Man as the theme of Creation.
The first allegory in the Genesis account of Creation is in the letter of the account, and here abide the masses of religious people for taking the account at its face value. I mean, Adam and Eve in the Garden being provided for by God with all their needs, being told what's allowed and forbidden in the Garden, being misled by the serpent into eating of a forbidden tree, and eventually being punished with different kinds of punishments respectively on all three of them, etc. Just literally as it is written.

The second allegory has still the same elements and God is still figured anthropomorphically, but the meaning of the actions and behaviour depicts a more logical version of what happened in the Garden. And here abide those who can think more logically, abbeit not in the archtype level of Reality. In this phase of the account of Creation in Genesis, after God created Adam and Eve, He granted them with free will and expected to be served and sought after by them, but the thing was not working. God would have to search for them and that was not the right method. They would have to become proficient and leave the Garden in order to seek for God in terms of growing in knowledge out in the greater world.

Then, among the many fruit trees in the Garden, God planted a most beautiful of all the trees with fruits much more alluring, and right in the middle of the Garden, so that it would easily call their attention. It was the tree of knowledge. But it was not working. Then, God told them that the fruit of that tree was forbidden under penalty of death, but just in the hope that the warning would make them curious and go for it. It was not working either.

Next, God doubled in Eve the emotion of curiosity so that she would go for it and entice Adam into eating of that tree. However, God had underestimated Eve's emotion of love. She had fallen in love with her man and she would never risk loosing him for no stupid fruit even if it looked the most appetitizing of all. Obviously, it didn't work.

The next step was to use the services of the serpent to persuade Eve that she had misunderstood the prohibition. That what would die in them was not themselves but their stupid innocence and naivete. Then, the serpent showed up on the very tree and somehow called for Eve's attention. As she approached, the dialogue started. To instigate the conversation, the serpent started with a question which surely would require an explanation. "Is it that you guys cannot eat from the trees in the Garden?" Bingo! Eve was locked in. The serpent got Eve to talk by explaining that only from the tree of knowledge, they were forbidden. "Why?" the serpent retortted. "Because we would die," she said. "Nonsense!" said the serpent. "You have misunderstood the whole thing. God meant to say that you two will become like gods, knowing good from evil."

Now, imagine, Eve must have thought, her man like a god! Without much ado, Eve reached for the fruit, ate it and told Adam that it was okay. Adam thought for a second and came to the conclusion that even if it were not okay, he would rather die with her beloved who had just enjoyed half of a fruit. Then he ate the other half and went on eating more. The serpent was right. They did not die. And the first knowledge they acquired was of how much they did not know. I mean, that they were naked, completely destitute of knowledge.

It didn't take too long for God to appear in the Garden to collect the fruit of His enterprise. It had finally happened what He wanted without His having to do anything against man's free will. Then, He formally defined some punishments to everyone according to their nature anyway, and got them out of the Garden into the greater world out there, so that they would grow in knowledge by seeking for God, which would be the right method.

Now, the third phase or Reality, the account of Creation is supposed to point to. I mean, the Humanistic approach, which is the purpose of the double allegory. The riddle points to the three phases in the development of man: Childhood, adulthood, and old age. Here, only the enlightened with Philosophical training dwells. I mean, the Theist who is big enough not to let him or herself be intoxicated by blind faith. In this class we can find also Atheists and Agnostics but under the subclass of sarchasm for not being able to harmonize enlightenment with the conception of God free of anthropomorphism.
Childhood is understood by that phase in the Garden when God would have to provide man with everything. That's the phase when we are dependent on our parents or on others for all our needs. That's the phase of walking on our four legs.

Adulthood is applied to that time when man ate of the tree of knowledge and became conscious of himself. That's when we actually become an adult and responsible for our own actions. I mean, when we can stand on our own two legs, so to speak.

Regarding the phase of old age, the allegory of Creation does not go into details, but it's when we become dependent again on others, especailly our children to take care of us. I mean, the phase of walking on two legs and a cane.

Ben


#119    Ben Masada

Ben Masada

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,442 posts
  • Joined:06 Apr 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Israel

Posted 02 October 2012 - 09:00 PM

View PostVatic, on 30 September 2012 - 01:42 AM, said:


Quote

Vatic: Did I say that the history of Mary is in the NT? Are you implying that I should allow some arrogant cabbage wrapped Nicean types decide what I should not read since they have decided for me. When I see you stating the Tanach is you canon, I contemplate the layers of psychological distress you would have learning about anything you aren't permitted to read by your teachers. Do you really think you have a complete canon? Where then is the book of "The Wars of the Lord" that the Tanach instructs you to read? Where is the book of "Jasher"? I could go on, but the point is you don't have a complete canon by any stretch. In fact the very idea of a complete canon is just an invitation to be ignorant.

Take it easy Vatic. You are getting angry, hostile, and saying things not too good to your own credibility. Your own Bible was canonized by the Catholic Church in the 4th Century. So, you have a canon and read what they have dictated you should read. Anything that was not Hellenistic was excluded from the canon of the NT. The book of "The Wars of the Lord" was an ancient collection of Israelites songs that, somehow, got lost. It is mentioned in Numbers 21:14,15. That's the reason why it could not have been included in the Jewish canon.

Quote

Vatic: This is a self contradiction: You start by saying we can't say what God should have done, then turn right around and dictate what God can't do..! What form!

I am using the Scriptures to say what God won't do. For instance, He can't change His mind. Read Numbers 23:19.

Quote

Vatic: Of course he was a Jewish man...

So, do not talk about him as if he was a Greek.

Quote

Vatic: Based only on your sensibilities and according to you.. That doesn't carry any weight.

Based on the Faith of Jesus which was Judaism.

Quote

Vatic: That depends on which Jew you ask. According to Jesus, Mary, Joseph, Matthew, John and a whole list of other Jews, Jesus was born of a virgin. Do you think you own the turf of Judaism and can make proclamations about what can and can't be? If you ask me that is an arrogation.

Those you mention above, were not Jews but Hellenists. Jews would not write against Judaism.

Quote

Vatic: Granted, there are Hellistic adulterations to the text of the testimonies of those Jews who encountered Jesus. My problem is your use hellenism as your handy excuse for everything that offends your sensibilities. I know hellinistic adulterations to the writings and can name a handful of them off the top of my head. But I'm doubting your discernment altogether concerning hellenistic influences.

The whole of the NT is Hellenistic.

Quote

One primary example is your lack of knowledge about the ontology of Jesus from his own words and demonstrated in the manner of his birth, his life, his death, his resurection and his ascension. If you knew the very source of your faith, you would make a quick connection of Jesus to his being as the source of your faith. But your teachers won't let those shackles come off your brain will they? Tell me what is the very source of Judaism? Who is he? Describe what the people witnessed and followed..!

Why don't you try to demonstrate to me how Jesus could have been the source of Judaism? He was a menber of Judaism, not the source of It. Abraham was the source of Judaism.

Quote

Your faith is more profoundly magical and permeating than you can comprehend. But no, it's all hellenism to you..!

Instead of penting up your frustrations, why don't you, once and for all, prove to me that the NT is not Hellenistic literature.

Ben


#120    Ben Masada

Ben Masada

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,442 posts
  • Joined:06 Apr 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Israel

Posted 02 October 2012 - 09:06 PM

View PostDr. D, on 30 September 2012 - 02:00 AM, said:

Ben, I am astonished that this thread has gone on for so many months but I noticed at one point you referred to the writings of Celsus who claimed that Mary was, indeed, impregnated by Panthera (he used the Greek form).  But if I am not mistaken, Celsus actually claimed that Panthera was a component of a personal name that was related to the name "Joseph."

IMHO, Mary was impregnated by no one else but the man she was betrothed with, aka, Joseph. The suspiction of this Pantera is caused by Christians who deny that Joseph was Jesus' biological father; not by me or by Celsus.

Ben





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users