Bela
From a Christian based web site: Sacrifice in the Bible

Bella does bring a twist to the bible that if it actually was as she sees it would be far better then it is now, Its obvious Bella has a very positive outlook and filters it throught the scriptures, She doens't need to interperet as she is 'told' too...I appreciate that she decides what it means to her

If it is her personal thoughts then fine, she should preface them and admit that they are not supposed to be biblical!

Refer to post 51#
It is biblical. It is not from another outside source.
It was what Stephen was stoned for after publically speaking out for the illiterate masses to hear.

So correct sherri she has the wrong end of the stick not me.
Did you read the site i posted (twice).
What are your thoughts on it?

Tags she doesn't have to follow some supposed 'rules" she can interperet how ever she wants , according to your philosophy its not your place to tell her what to do its 'gods" correct??????

Well then with all respect, if it is strictly Biblical (as I took it to mean), the replies already provided prove your earlier affirmation : (sic)"...God never asked for blood sacrifices of any kind ever. "
And, (sic)"... He was truly the son of God who managed to pull off what the prophets sent before him had not managed to do, bringing the message that God wants love and not fear. "

Have already been proven, through Biblical sources, to be incorrect.

Exactly.

Thanks Sheri.
If you see it as better you would probably also like Reformed Jews.
These are pretty much their same views as well.
One of them named Abba Silver wrote a book "Moses and the Original Torah" where he covers how blood sacrifices were invented by the priesthood as well.

I am a unitarian much like Stephen and not of the school of Paul, although I do like a few parts of some of the writings attributed to Paul.

That is a difference of opinion. Reformed Jews and many Unitarians see it differently.

Indeed the Universalists and Reformed Jews are, by description not attending to the orthodoxy of Judaism , much less Christianity. Consequently, none of the references you affirm as the word of god, would apply to those entities textual doctrines.

So, which is it? When you claim Biblical passages to make absolute assertions, contrary to Biblical evidence? These reformed and universal faiths may see things differently, but that is not who you are citing in your posts!

So now, are you are referring to the 130 year old reformed Jews, or the UU's, which do not have a Bible per se, but are rather a polytheistic unitarian philosophy?

Sorry, but I think you may have misspoke. I am currently considering joining a Universalist Unitarian (UU) congregation in my hometown. Like other UU churches, this one does not require members to adhere to any specific beliefs. Instead, the common threads that bind the congregation together are the Seven Principles. At any UU church, you are likely to find Christians, Jews, Pagans, Agnostics, and many other belief systems represented. So, they're not exactly polytheistic. However, individual members may worship different Gods.

Just wanted to clear that up!

I did not mis-speak. And because Unitarians are affiliated with CUUPS and therefore accept pagan faithful into the fold of their practice; The living tradition which we share draws from many sources:

Direct experience of that transcending mystery and wonder, affirmed in all cultures, which moves us to a renewal of the spirit and an openness to the forces which create and uphold life; , it can be said that polytheism/polytheistic tenets abide within the scope of Unitarian Universalists, which is a unit embracing many faiths which then means many gods. Therefore UU church by design is not strictly monotheistic religion. It is a liberal religion, which includes the Judeo-Christian god form, therefore it may be considered polytheistic.

(link fix edit)

Imaginary Friend, from your previous link, I clicked on the large logo on the right and found this (emphasis mine):



In other words, not all UU's are adherents to the Pagan faith. Clicking on "Pagan and Earth-centered thea/ology" reveals this further:



Yes, most UU's accept Pagan's in their congregations just as they accept Jews, Christians, Muslims, etc. but that does not mean that each member subsribes to the same belief system. Therefore UU's are not, as a whole, polytheistic.

I dare say we are at an impasse.

Oh well. We were way off topic anyway.

well, that is what you think.

Indeed it is.

Are you Arian or Unitarian?

I posed this question yesterday day in another thread but it got overlooked. So, I decided to present it here since it is better suited to this thread anyway.

The following verses (and I think there are others as well) state that the Messiah must be of the line of David.

Jeremiah 23:5
"The days are coming," declares the LORD, "when I will raise up to David [a] a righteous Branch, a King who will reign wisely and do what is just and right in the land.


Psalms 89:3-4
You said, "I have made a covenant with my chosen one, I have sworn to David my servant, 'I will establish your line forever and make your throne firm through all generations.'" Selah


Matthew 1:1-16 demonstrates that Jesus was decended from David through Joseph. But Joseph wasn't really Jesus' father because of the virgin conception. God was his father. So how could Jesus be the Messiah that God promised if he was not of the line of David?

The Jews have been trying to explain this one to the Christians for over 1000 years. I say, dump the virgin birth altogether, since it was based on a misquote from Isaiah, anyway. Don't get me started on this again. Isaiah was prophesying, in 7: 14, the birth of his own son, who, if xians would just read chapter 8, was born soon after.

They had adoption as did the Romans that included full rights of inheritance, but that was not needed. He was born into a marriage so that he was the legitimate son of Joseph, Yeshua ben Yospeh.

You would also need to review the shepard's crook as the symbol of religious kingship and the scepter as the symbol of governmental kingship. This is easy to see in pictures of the Egyptian pharoahs who hold both. The two symbols were also used in ancient Sumeria.

The two types of kingship could be given to two different individuals and were not always in the hands of one person.

that's great-but the virgin birth was a mistake made by the writers of the new testament.

I have read a lot of justification of that view.
I myself do not see an importance to her being a virgin, so either way is not important to me.
Alien implantation theory is also interesting and as viable as anyone's belief on this I suppose.

Mary was a descendant of David. Joseph was of the line of Jehoachin, who was cut off from the covenant for his wickedness. Mary however, was of the line of Nathan, who was a son of David's that never made it to the throne. It didn't mean he wasn't royalty, only that Solomon was chosen instead. It wouldn't make sense to make Joseph the chosen line, because him and Mary weren't even married at the time.

Mary and Joseph were married at the time of Jesus birth. He was the legitimate son of Joseph.

What is the source of your info on Mary's lineage?

Please Read All Of This

no the virgin was not. Isaiah couldn't have had a child by a virgin. The prophesy was directed toward Ahaz, not about Isaiah himself. Isaiah was trying to convince Ahaz to go out and fight against Pekah and Rezin. The vigin conception was to be a sign of God being with them. The prophesy was completely conditional. Ahaz refused to heed God's words and sought after Assyria to help him. Thus was the prophesy not fulfilled, in which God would be with them (Immanuel). Its not a misinterpretation, its the actual fulfilling. Did you not know that after Ahaz sought after Assyria, Syria and Israel were overran by Assyria shortly after? This indicates that the fulfilling of the prophesy depended on whether Judah would seek after God for the Messiah or not. You see, the Messiah could have come in Ahaz's day, had he been faithful. He could have come in Hezekiah's day, but Hezekiah wanted a SON. Remember? He was originally supposed to die. Between the time of Ahaz and Hezekiah, Isaiah 9 prophesied that the Messiah would come. Why didn't he come? Two reasons: Hezekiah sought to deal with Assyria by bargaining with them instead of not worrying about them like God said. Assyria still came and God held to his word. The other reason is because Hezekiah was supposed die without an heir to the throne, in which the virgin child would take on the throne. But Hezekiah pleaded with God. God, being the merciful and loving God he was, permitted it and gave Hezekiah 15 more years to his life.

What happened then? His son, who took the throne, was a wicked child who even sacrficed his own son by throwing into the fire for Molech. He caused all the people that Hezekiah set straight to err. This was when God had decreed Judah's destruction. Thus, the virgin birth prophecy was put off. 70 years after the exile, the Jewish kids come back to their land to rebuild it, but Daniel 9 shows us that the people still weren't repentant. 70 years was all they had to get their act straight and they still wouldn't. So God told Daniel that from the beginning of the decree to rebuild Jerusalem to the Messiah would be 483 years. Why? So that 2 other nations afterward would grieve Judah so much that they would seek after the Lord as a whole instead of a nation independant of God. Thus under the depency of Rome, they awaited the Messiah to come and deliver them.

So if 457 B.C. was the date of the decree that actually went through, then that means that 483 years later would bring us to A.D. 27, the date in which our Lord was baptized by John the Baptist. Three and a half years later, Jesus was crucified and brought an end to the need of sacrifice and oblation(shown by the splitting of the viel.) The temple on earth was decreed to be destroyed for it was not needed anymore. Three and a half years after that, the Jewish people stoned Stephan and started persecuting the Church. The Church spread to the North to Antioch and thus brought the Gospel of salvation with them to the Gentiles. This was the confirmation of Jesus's covenant with all who would accept him, not just to the physical and national Israel anymore. Thus was the 490 years fulfilled. What does Daniel 9:26 say about the Messiah being cut off? It says that the people of the Messiah's would destroy the city and the sanctuary? What? Why!? Because they were no longer protected by God's covenant. God fulfilled his part of the deal and opened His covenant to ALL WHO WOULD FOLLOW HIM. Thus the Romans under Vespasian came, as did Nebuchadnezzar who was annointed by God to do so, and destroyed the city of Jerusalem and the temple. Daniel 9:26 also says that until the end of the war desolations are determined, thus the people were left desolate by God's covenant. They turned their back on their part of the covenant, so did he.

All happened as was supposed to happen. Is it no suprise that the Messiah came during the reign of a Gentile king on the throne of Judah? Didn't God tell David that there should not fail a king from David's line to sit on the throne of Israel until the Messiah came? Hyrcanus wasn't the Messiah, nor was Aristobolus. Herod definately wasn't. Nor was Antipater. The Messiah was Jesus who came at the right time. Why do you think Jesus called Herod a fox? Foxes sneak into to people's gardens and steal what was growing and devour it. That is what Herod and his line was doing. Thus was the prophecy fulfilled. A virgin birth when God's people called for him, the way was prepared by one calling in the desert(John the Baptist), the Messiah came right on time (27 A.D. at the Baptism and annointment by God), the crucifixion was fulfilled (Genesis 3:15, Psalm 23, and Isaiah 53:3), and the Jews were cut off from national recognition by God's covenant (Isaiah 65:15), and the covenant went to all by way of the remanant of believers who were still faithful to God of the nation of Israel (Isaiah 61:8-9 and Acts 8 to the end of the book).

God stayed true to his Words, the people didn't. Their fall from God's covenant was the consequence of the Israelites abandaning God.

God bless

Take a guess. Nevermind. The Bible was my source, in the book of Luke. Trace the lineage of Jesus by comparing the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. You will see that they are different. The reason being is that Matthew showed out Jesus was a descendant of Solomon by Joseph and how Jesus was a descendant of Nathan by Mary. It showed the comparison of the Royal and Priestly line. Also notice that before Salathiel the father of Zerubabbel, the fathers are different. Joseph was of the family of Jechoniah (also called Jehoachin) and his line was cut off. Who was included in Mary's line before Salathiel? It wasn't any of the kings! They were more than likely high priests. That's my assumption but I will look further into that in a bit.

God bless

Matt 1:15 And Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob;
1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

Luke 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,

Notice no mention of Mary in either of the genealogies? Although women were essential in determining Jewishness, they were not ever included in the geneology of an individual. Judaism of that day was patriarchal, linage came from the male linage, never from the female. They believed that the woman was only a garden, that the very essence of a person came from the seed that his father planted in that garden, not from the garden! The fact is that you only have your hopes that the linage in Luke could be that of Mary’s. Notice that they couldn’t even agree on who Joseph’s father was!

Well the Bible is vague on that topic i think. Joseph was going to put Mary away privately as to not make any of the authorities suspisious that Mary was pregnant and they weren't married. Joseph was suspicious to as how Mary got pregnant. So God sent Joseph an angel to tell him that it was by God that Mary was pregnant and she should not worry. Read Matthew 1:18-25 and you will find that Joseph did not marry Mary until after the son was born.

God bless

ya know, Jechoniah was also called Jehoachin. There was a John also called Mark. There was a Simon called Peter. Could Jacob be nicknamed Heli as well as Eleazar being called Levi?

ofcourse this could be called an assumption....but the same could be said for the opposing argument. Since we don't have the actual records, we'll either have to take their word for it, or just accept it as an honest mistake.

Also if a person has a kid and his friend has a kid. Now supposed that these two are famous people who have girls who have children who have both boys and girls and the two through time mingle. Yeah it can get confusing on who's line you belong to, especially when your not keeping record.

Both of these quotes of yours are from this thread.


Are you Arian or Unitarian?

Answers....comments.....snide remarks.....?

An Arian is a type of Unitarian. I don't mind your asking.

Ummm, care to show some pre-70 CE scriptures (that knocks out everything but Paul's works) or other evidence to support that? Notice you didn't defend the Mary thing!

Yeah, the OT. And I was in error about Jeconiah being also called Jehoachin. That was Jehoahaz that was also called Jehoachin. Luke 6:14 Simon, (whom he also named Peter,) and Andrew his brother, James and John, Philip and Bartholomew,

Acts 12:12 And when he had considered the thing, he came to the house of Mary the mother of John, whose surname was Mark; where many were gathered together praying.
Surnames was common during that time, I suppose.

Acts 4:36 And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus,

Mark 3:17 And James the son of Zebedee, and John the brother of James; and he surnamed them Boanerges, which is, The sons of thunder:

Acts 15:22 ¶Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren:

Jeremiah 20:3 And it came to pass on the morrow, that Pashur brought forth Jeremiah out of the stocks. Then said Jeremiah unto him, The LORD hath not called thy name Pashur, but Magormissabib.

Daniel 1:7 Unto whom the prince of the eunuchs gave names: for he gave unto Daniel the name of Belteshazzar; and to Hananiah, of Shadrach; and to Mishael, of Meshach; and to Azariah, of Abednego.

what was it that you asked about Mary again?

Quick Recap:
I first posed a question that was something along the lines of, "How can Jesus be the Messiah of prophesy when he is not descended from the line of David?" Then, you posted a response citing two genealogies from the Bible. But tupac amaru pointed out the neither of those references were about Mary. Instead, they refer to Joseph who was not Jesus' father.

So I guess the question is, "Where is it written that Mary was descended from David?"

Ah, I see. That poses a good problem. Let me see one sec.... Okay this is a sight I found which explains this cause of confusion with Mary's line which was thought to be Joseph's line. Now, if Mary married Joseph, wouldn't that make Joseph's dad also Mary's dad in law?
Here is an explanation as to the confunsion of the geneologies from http://www.direct.ca/trinity/loophole.html

In Matthew 1:1-16 and Luke 3:23-38 we are presented with two genealogies of Jesus Christ. On the surface these different listings would appear to be a contradiction in the scriptures. The genealogy found in Matthew's gospel is the lineage of Jesus' earthly father Joseph, while the genealogy found in Luke's gospel is the lineage of Jesus' mother Mary (see #100 - Dueling Genealogies a complete discussion of the two genealogies). However, many of the people that teach on the genealogies fail to realize or address a major problem associated with the genealogical listing found in Luke's gospel, the lineage of Mary. Once you have established that the line is indeed Mary's you must deal with a second difficulty. The rights of the line are not passed through the mother, only the father. Even though Mary, through her lineage, was of the Davidic bloodline, she should be excluded from being able to pass those rights of the bloodline because of being a female (Deut 21:16). So it is not enough to prove that Mary was an unblemished descendant of David, she had to be a male to transfer the rights. Therefore she would be disqualified to transfer the rights to her son Jesus, except for a little known exception to the rule.

In Numbers 26 we are introduced to Zelophehad. Zelophehad, we are told, had no sons, only daughters. In Numbers 27, following the death of Zelophehad, the daughters of Zelophehad came before Moses and argued their plight. Because their father had died with no sons, all of their rights of inheritance were to be lost and they felt this was unfair. So Moses prayed to God and God gave Moses an exception to the rule. The Lord told Moses that the inheritance CAN flow through a female, IF they fulfill two requirements. There must be no male offspring in the family (Num 27:8) and if the female offspring should marry, they must marry within their own tribe (Num 36:6).

Now we come back to Mary. On the surface she should be unable to transfer the rights to her Son. But when you research you find that Mary had NO brothers, AND Mary did indeed marry within her own tribe to Joseph.

What an awesome God we serve that set in order the requirements to allow the virgin birth to take place 1,400 years in advance!

If Joseph had nothing to do with the birth of Jesus, why would his bloodline be included? This was to show the royal descendency. However, the one in Luke is much different. Notice how it says (it was supposed), emphasizing that they thought it was Joseph's line. This leads us to believe that it wasn't Joseph's line. Thus it must have been Mary's line. Yes, it is very possible that they could have had the same fathers in their family line, since Mary's family line was only allowed to have girls, and they only did marry within their own tribe: Judah.

The answer you provided has one flaw.....a major flaw in it.

From Matthew 1:6-16 we have this list:
David
Solomon
Roboam
Abia
Asa
Josaphat
Joram
Ozias
Joatham
Achaz
Ezekias
Manasses
Amon
Josias
Jechonias
Salathiel
Zorobabel
Abiud
Eliakim
Azor
Sadoc
Achim
Eliud
Eleazar
Matthan
Jacob
Joseph
Jesus

And from Luke 3:21-31 we have this line:
David
Nathan
Mattatha
Menan
Melea
Eliakim
Jonan
Joseph
Juda
Simeon
Levi
Matthat
Jorim
Eliezer
Jose
Er
Elmodam
Cosam
Addi
Melchi
Neri
Salathiel
Zorobabel
Rhesa
Joanna
Juda
Joseph
Semei
Mattathias
Maath
Nagge
Esli
Naum
Amos
Mattathias
Joseph
Janna
Melchi
Levi
Matthat
Heli
Joseph
Jesus

Now if you notice the last two names in BOTH lines are who and who?

Golly and gee wizz it is Joseph and Jesus!
Nope..... no Mary mentioned there!

If you read my post word for word, you may have seen that I made mention that Mary and Joseph both got married. That meant that Joseph's dad could have been Mary's dad in law and thus included in the family line, since it was mentioned earlier by someone that the men determined the ancestory. Not a flaw, just a misunderstanding.

Then it is an error to insert a name into the genealogy if it was from a different line.

Eleazar
Matthan
Jacob
Joseph
Jesus

It should read for it to be truth:

Eleazar
Matthan
Jacob
Mary
Jesus

After all isn't the Bible supposed to be the word of God.....perfect

Did I not just say that the men were recognized for their bloodline, not the women? The women just determined the jewishness right? You are arguing a mute point. The men were recognized. (As it was supposed) could also be referring to the fact that God was the Father and Joseph was just recognized by man on earth as the father, for the sake of bloodlines that the line of David's royalty be proven.

This isn't a matter of what should have been considered, its a matter what WAS considered.

So without Mary's name in there how can the bloodline be proved?
As it has been stated before outside of the Bible there is very little evidence of Jesus existing.....talk of a moot point!

Did you know there is no evidence of Nazareth existing in the 1st century AD

Nazareth is not mentioned even once in the entire Old Testament. The Book of Joshua (19.10,16) – in what it claims is the process of settlement by the tribe of Zebulon in the area – records twelve towns and six villages and yet omits any 'Nazareth' from its list.

The Talmud, although it names 63 Galilean towns, knows nothing of Nazareth, nor does early rabbinic literature.

St Paul knows nothing of 'Nazareth'. Rabbi Solly's epistles (real and fake) mention Jesus 221 times, Nazareth not at all.

No ancient historian or geographer mentions Nazareth. It is first noted at the beginning of the 4th century.

Do you want to talk about the 12 Apostles also? Very little evidence for them also.

Cuz they were killed. Christianity wasn't a popular thing during their day and the only manuscripts there were are the ones you don't take as credible. The didn't just make themselves up as it was supposed. We know this because of early manuscripts that date back even to the second century A.D. in which the desciples of several apostles wrote as regarding true doctrine. This should stand as a testimony to their existence. Other no Christian people don't have to write about them in order for them to exist. Its clearly an assumption based on one's own logic.

Now about Nazareth. You said it wasn't mentioned in any where in the OT. True, but perhaps some recent developments may catch your attention. Nazareth wasn't mentioned in the Old Testament, however it did exist before Jesus came. "It is not mentioned in the OT although excavations have shown settlement in the area from the Bronze Age, and teh tombs from the Iron Age down to the Hasmonean period." -The Illustrated Dictionary & Concordance of the Bible. By Geoffrey Wigoder, Ph.D. Also, Jesus fulfilled the prophecy of being a Nazarene (which if it was in reference to the town of Nazareth, he would have been called a Nazarethite. It is etymologically possible that the word Nazarene (which defines a sect of Jesus's followers) could be connected with the Hebrew word 'netzer' which means branch. There is also the word tzemah which means Branch. If you recall Zechariah's reference to both Zerubabbel and Joshua as the BRANCH, as to who would build the temple, then it may be understandable that the term refers to those who follow the true priesthood of God. Now as far as dwelling in actual Nazareth, the above statement from the Illustrated Dictionary & Concordance of the Bible by Geoffrey Wigoder, Ph.D. should be helpful enough.

And as I said before, the recognition was on the man's side. Mary, being betrothed to Joseph did not get recognition in his family line, however, her previous line was. How come Nathan wasn't mentioned in the royal line? Maybe because he only had girls!

Logical.....using the Bible to prove the Bible......



Link please

Its not a link, its an actual book. I gave you the title and author. Look it up for yourself.

Here is some commentary of the actual book though. http://www.wesleymission.org.au/ministry/suter/060210.asp

As I said.....using the Bible to prove the Bible......

Lets see what other books we can do that with?
For a start:
1) Moby Dick
2) Pinocchio
3) Cat in the Hat
4) STAR WARS

Anybody else want to add?

I ask for pre-70 CE evidence and I get Acts, Luke, etc...Sorry, those were not around until the 2nd century CE. Your Jer and Dan quotes have nothing really to do with the names on the geneologies and besides, Daniel has been shown to be a pseudepigrapha written in the 2nd century BCE, not the 5th century BCE. You are trying the typical Xian ploy of twisting and tap dancing around the fact that the scriptures do not say that either geneology was Mary's. It is very obvious that the two gospels were written far apart geographically, each using Mark, but neither aware of what the other was writting. In other words, the are just man-made mythology. Now, using both Luke and Matthew plus recorded history - tell me when Jesus of Nazareth was actually born and actually died. (Sorry Mako, I couldn't resist)