Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
Ben Masada

The Alleged Sons of God

142 posts in this topic

THE ALLEGED SONS OF GOD

According to an ancient Roman policy, any able-bodied man from the conquered lands, who joined the Roman Army, would obtain authomatic citizenship. And if he was lucky enough to reach retirement age, he could choose where he would like to spend the rest of his life, and he would be granted a piece of land or farm as severance pay for his services to the Empire. Rome excluded.

When the Roman Legions arrived in the Middle East and conquered Sidon, a man called Pantera applied to join the Army and was accepted. Then, he was conscripted into the Roman Legion which got stationed in Syria. When he reached retirement age, he chose to return to Sidon and got his farm there to live for the rest of his life.

According to Josephus, in the year 4 BCE, there was a local revolt in Israel against Herod. It became known as the Revolt of the Pharisees. It was so strong that it was threatening to depose him. Herod appealed to Rome for help and Caesar gave orders to the Legion stationed in Syria to cross over into Israel and put down the revolt.

Thousands of Roman soldiers came over and the task was quite easy. They crucified a few thousand Jews, and decided to stay for some time to make sure the discontent were subdued. In the meantime, the Roman soldiers would rape young Jewish ladies, at their hearts content, almost daily.

As it was to expect, many children were born as a result of those rapes. Since the unfortunate mothers were not to blame for promiscuity, the religious authorities forbade to ostracize them or to consider their children as mamzerim or ba$tards. But they grew up with the epithet of "sons of God." (Lecture on the "Historical Jesus" at Stanphord University)

Since Jesus was born just about that time, I am of the opinion that, it is much more prudent and less embarrassing to acknowledge that he was a biological son of Joseph's than to run the risk that Jesus might have been one of those sons of God.

Now, regarding Mark 7:24, I have here with me two different Bible translations. One is the Catholic New American version of the Bible, wherefrom, I read that when Jesus went to Sidon, he would retire into a certain house and wanted no one to recognize him in there. The other translation is the King James version, wherefrom, I read that when Jesus went to Sidon, he would enter into a certain house and would have no man know it.

Although I am not assuming anything, everyone of us has all the right in the world to speculate about such a shouting evidence, and to think that there was something fishy going on for Jesus to insist on secrecy about his being in Sidon or in that certain house. At that time Joseph had been long dead. Could it be that jesus knew about his real origins and was interacting with his real father? Everything is possible, but if you ask me, I am still in favor that he was rather a biological son of Joseph's.

What's your reaction to all the above?

Ben:

All religion is a fairy tale , not some ,all . Edited by Alantheanylyst

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
All religion is a fairy tale , not some ,all .

Vatic: Like you would know? Tell me how you have such omniscience that you can with such certainty dismiss so much human experience, undestand every factor involved, be aware of all the existences of the universe and any other realms, and then dismiss the claims of so many millions, and safely conclude there is no possibility of religion. You ain't that smart are you?

Your passing comment is duly noted.

Edited by Vatic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vatic: Like you would know? Tell me how you have such omniscience that you can with such certainty dismiss so much human experience, undestand every factor involved, be aware of all the existences of the universe and any other realms, and then dismiss the claims of so many millions, and safely conclude there is no possibility of religion. You ain't that smart are you?

Your passing comment is duly noted.

Should have added in my humble opinion , smart? I never proffesed to be so .However if there is some kind of omnipotent , omniscient being presiding over all of this then , there have been many mistakes made in the grand design which would relegate the designer to less than glorified status .

Will add your intolerance is also duly noted .

Edited by Alantheanylyst

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Should have added in my humble opinion , smart? I never proffesed to be so .However if there is some kind of omnipotent , omniscient being presiding over all of this then , there have been many mistakes made in the grand design which would relegate the designer to less than glorified status .

Will add your intolerance is also duly noted .

Vatic: If there is? Well at least you're realizing now that you can't eliminate the possibility based upon your limited information. Fact is, you can't back up your assertion that all religion is faery tales.

Whether the grand design suit your ideals or not is beside the point. If you had any experience in grand designing, you might have some credence on that. Have you got any grand designing experience?

But all this isn't even on topic, so I invite you meet me in one of the atheist vs, spirituality forums. I'll therein kick your fallacies in the gutter one by one until your brain is like a cleaned blackboard.

Edited by Vatic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vatic: If there is? Well at least you're realizing now that you can't eliminate the possibility based upon your limited information. Fact is, you can't back up your assertion that all religion is faery tales.

Whether the grand design suit your ideals or not is beside the point. If you had any experience in grand designing, you might have some credence on that. Have you got any grand designing experience?

But all this isn't even on topic, so I invite you meet me in one of the atheist vs, spirituality forums. I'll therein kick your fallacies in the gutter one by one until your brain is like a cleaned blackboard.

Rather aggressive stance , my experience of a grand design is life .

Not too grand from where I stand .

I was not aware that my opinion had to be proved or disproved , just stated.

This is an open forum , I was not out to offend .

As for debating you, I could see no possible reason for it other than for you to hold your position and me to hold mine .

I don't see that any other way than a waste of time .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vatic: I'm seeing you forcing the association out of the bound of the reality behind the facts. Jesus birth has much historical controversy within the Jewish Community. It was ALWAYS a Controversy among the Jewish. In fact some of the Gospels alude to some Jews contemporary to Jesus implying in pregnant terms, that Jesus was a b******. We clearly see the undertones of community suspicion about Jesus Birth even then. So the issue was a Jewish Community controvery even in Jesus' time.

I can relate to that. But don't blame us. Christians are the ones who deny that Joseph was Jesus' biological father. Since the idea of a Jew being born without the biological relation to a human father is non-existent in Judaism, the idea of the b****** is not ours but of Christian make.

Ben

Edited by Ben Masada

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All religion is a fairy tale , not some ,all .

I agree with you as long as we do not understand metaphorical language. Religion is like poety. If you interpret it as it is written, it becomes no more relevant than fairy tales.

Ben

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can relate to that. But don't blame us. Christians are the ones who deny that Joseph was Jesus' biological father. Since the idea of a Jew being born without the biological relation to a human father is non-existent in Judaism, the idea of the b****** is not ours but of Christian make.

Ben

Vatic: Ben, you never will be able to make a good argument until you stop using fallacious reasoning. First of all you create a false dichotomy between Jews and Christians concerning Jesus Birth. All the first Christians contemporary to Jesus, were JEWISH. Christianity was a JEWISH cult of Jesus. This involves the fallacy of the false dichotomy and the fallacy of being factually incorrect. That's two demerits.

Also, there were no Christians at the time of Jesus birth. Everyone involved was Jewish and it was a big controversy concerning Mary. So you are factually incorrect again. Three demerits.

You are making the claim of not having human biological father is unknown in Judaism. This is factually incorrect again. There is Adam, Melchisedek, and Jesus to name a few as created directly by God. If we go further, we see no human fathers were involved in the intermarriage of the angels and human women creating the race of the giants. This is all Jewish stuff so that gives you four demerits for being factually incorrectn.

Also speaking for all Judaism as if you can, is using the fallacy of the False Authority. I can find many jewish people and accounts that can directly refute your claim of speaking a postion for all Judaism. That is five demerits.

All this leads to the syllogistic reasoning that Christians are responsiblefor the accusation that Jesus was a b******. No it was a Jewish controversy only from the start. Syllogistic fallacy. Six demerits.

Even if you believe the positions you are using, then you actually are still in fact arguing from ignorance of the facts. The argument from ignorance fallacy. Seven Demerits.

Let's see Ben, let's give you a grade here. You wrote two statements containing seven fallacies. That about 3.5 errors per statement Ben. You wrote 53 words and made seven errors in reason. That's like saying you can't speak 7.6 words without being wrong about something. Ben you really need to get a standard here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with you as long as we do not understand metaphorical language. Religion is like poety. If you interpret it as it is written, it becomes no more relevant than fairy tales.

Ben

Vatic: That is a false claim. In fact just the opposite is true about the testimonies. They are literally testimonies of REAL literal experiences. This is why the faith is theism! Good grief man!

Now here is the catch, Literal events are themselves a language that depicts in symbolism, metaphors, and allegories of a higher reality. This is where we get the use of RITUAL, Allegorical exegesis, object prophecy, and synchronicity meaning in the literal events the people experienced. You want to talk about seeing the hidden meaning, look at the literal events!

Now another catch is not only do literal events depict a higher reality symbolically, but things that at face would seem to have no literal corrolation to reality, and could be taken as purely symbolic, are often still absolutely LITERAL. These kinds of events are the brain benders of our sensibilities, when the higher reality actually manifest itself directly and literally.

Ben, I'm not wanting to discourage you from seeking and learning the truth and reality of your faith. I'm trying to help you realize your are inconsciously incompetant and you have had horridly stupid instruction from your teachers that are creating big mental hangups for you. You know less than I do about Judaism and you know practically nothing about the reality of your own faith and its origination. You are just parroting propoganda stuff you've been taught. But you've never known the manifest reality of the things of which you speak about.

There is so much more to things than you have understood in your life. This is a case in which if you had a grip on reality, reality would drive you crazy. Trust me there is more than you know or understand Ben. So learn and quit talking like a programmed robot of propoganda.

Edited by Vatic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Vatic: Ben, you never will be able to make a good argument until you stop using fallacious reasoning. First of all you create a false dichotomy between Jews and Christians concerning Jesus Birth. All the first Christians contemporary to Jesus, were JEWISH. Christianity was a JEWISH cult of Jesus. This involves the fallacy of the false dichotomy and the fallacy of being factually incorrect. That's two demerits.

Now, let us see who is using fallacious reasoning. There was no Christian contemporary to Jesus, as Christians were for the first time called Christians in Antioch, about 35 years after Jesus had been gone, as a result of Paul's missionary activities. (Acts 11:26) You don't quote your assertions because they do not exist. That's your first demerit. Then, Christianity was indeed a cult, but not Jewish, as mainstream Judaism accepted the Sect of the Nazarenes and chased Paul out of Israel. (Acts 9:30) That's your second demerit.

Also, there were no Christians at the time of Jesus birth. Everyone involved was Jewish and it was a big controversy concerning Mary. So you are factually incorrect again. Three demerits.

There was never a controversy concerning Mary until Christians started preaching their gospel of virgin birth, which could never be a Jewish idea. You don't quote about that so-called controversy about Mary because it does not exist. That's a falacious claim and, of course, your third demerit.

You are making the claim of not having human biological father is unknown in Judaism. This is factually incorrect again. There is Adam, Melchisedek, and Jesus to name a few as created directly by God. If we go further, we see no human fathers were involved in the intermarriage of the angels and human women creating the race of the giants. This is all Jewish stuff so that gives you four demerits for being factually incorrectn.

Since Judaism comes from Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, it could not exist at the time of Adam. Fallacious claim; therefore, your fourth demerit. Melchisedek, king of Salem was a pagan Canaanite king and priest of the Canaanites. The priest of the Most High, according to the text was Abraham whom Melchizedek addressed to as such because he was afraid that Abraham had climbed up to Jerusalem with the intent to sack the city, as he was coming back from battle with five kings. (Gen. 14:17-20) So, Melchisedek had nothing to do with Judaism. Therefore, your fallacious claim and sixth demerit. And since Jesus was a Jew and not a Greek, he could not have been born directly of God, but of Joseph. And there was never a problem about that in Israel until the Christian gospel came to existence. Fallacious claim therefore, and your seventh demerit. Last but not least, there were never intermarriage among the Jews to explain the origin of the Nephilim. According to a footnote in the NAB by the Catholic Bible Association of America, the fragment about the Nephilim was an old Babylonian legend which Ezra borrowed and incorporated just prior to the text about the Flood as a moral orientation about the constant increasing wickedness of Mankind. (Gen. 6:4,5) That was a strong fallacy of Vatic, which became his eighth demerit.

Also speaking for all Judaism as if you can, is using the fallacy of the False Authority. I can find many jewish people and accounts that can directly refute your claim of speaking a postion for all Judaism. That is five demerits.

False authority is to apply to outside sources, whose opinions are affected by preconceived notions. The issue here is Jewish. Therefore, my opinion might diverge but not be considered as false. False would be any non-Jewish opinion. That's a logical fault by default. Therefore, your nineth demerit.

All this leads to the syllogistic reasoning that Christians are responsiblefor the accusation that Jesus was a b******. No it was a Jewish controversy only from the start. Syllogistic fallacy. Six demerits.

Another illogical judgment by default. Jesus could not be accused as a b******* if there was no claim that he had been born directly of God without a human father. Therefore, the NT, written 50+ years after Jesus had been gone is guilt of the charge. That's Vatic's tenth demerit.

Even if you believe the positions you are using, then you actually are still in fact arguing from ignorance of the facts. The argument from ignorance fallacy. Seven Demerits.

Since I am the one who quote the Scriptures and you don't, I have the evidence that I am speaking our of knowledge and not of ignorance. And that makes your list of demerits to climb to eleven.

Let's see Ben, let's give you a grade here. You wrote two statements containing seven fallacies. That about 3.5 errors per statement Ben. You wrote 53 words and made seven errors in reason. That's like saying you can't speak 7.6 words without being wrong about something. Ben you really need to get a standard here.

Evidentially, Vatic is the one using fallacious reasoning. Obviously, Vatic does not have what it takes to debate a Jew in the Scriptures.

Ben

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Vatic: Ben, you never will be able to make a good argument until you stop using fallacious reasoning. First of all you create a false dichotomy between Jews and Christians concerning Jesus Birth. All the first Christians contemporary to Jesus, were JEWISH. Christianity was a JEWISH cult of Jesus. This involves the fallacy of the false dichotomy and the fallacy of being factually incorrect. That's two demerits.

Now, let us see who is using fallacious reasoning. There was no Christian contemporary to Jesus, as Christians were for the first time called Christians in Antioch, about 35 years after Jesus had been gone, as a result of Paul's missionary activities. (Acts 11:26) You don't quote your assertions because they do not exist. That's your first demerit. Then, Christianity was indeed a cult, but not Jewish, as mainstream Judaism accepted the Sect of the Nazarenes and chased Paul out of Israel. (Acts 9:30) That's your second demerit.

Also, there were no Christians at the time of Jesus birth. Everyone involved was Jewish and it was a big controversy concerning Mary. So you are factually incorrect again. Three demerits.

There was never a controversy concerning Mary until Christians started preaching their gospel of virgin birth, which could never be a Jewish idea. You don't quote about that so-called controversy about Mary because it does not exist. That's a falacious claim and, of course, your third demerit.

You are making the claim of not having human biological father is unknown in Judaism. This is factually incorrect again. There is Adam, Melchisedek, and Jesus to name a few as created directly by God. If we go further, we see no human fathers were involved in the intermarriage of the angels and human women creating the race of the giants. This is all Jewish stuff so that gives you four demerits for being factually incorrectn.

Since Judaism comes from Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, it could not exist at the time of Adam. Fallacious claim; therefore, your fourth demerit. Melchisedek, king of Salem was a pagan Canaanite king and priest of the Canaanites. The priest of the Most High, according to the text was Abraham whom Melchizedek addressed to as such because he was afraid that Abraham had climbed up to Jerusalem with the intent to sack the city, as he was coming back from battle with five kings. (Gen. 14:17-20) So, Melchisedek had nothing to do with Judaism. Therefore, your fallacious claim and sixth demerit. And since Jesus was a Jew and not a Greek, he could not have been born directly of God, but of Joseph. And there was never a problem about that in Israel until the Christian gospel came to existence. Fallacious claim therefore, and your seventh demerit. Last but not least, there were never intermarriage among the Jews to explain the origin of the Nephilim. According to a footnote in the NAB by the Catholic Bible Association of America, the fragment about the Nephilim was an old Babylonian legend which Ezra borrowed and incorporated just prior to the text about the Flood as a moral orientation about the constant increasing wickedness of Mankind. (Gen. 6:4,5) That was a strong fallacy of Vatic, which became his eighth demerit.

Also speaking for all Judaism as if you can, is using the fallacy of the False Authority. I can find many jewish people and accounts that can directly refute your claim of speaking a postion for all Judaism. That is five demerits.

False authority is to apply to outside sources, whose opinions are affected by preconceived notions. The issue here is Jewish. Therefore, my opinion might diverge but not be considered as false. False would be any non-Jewish opinion. That's a logical fault by default. Therefore, your nineth demerit.

All this leads to the syllogistic reasoning that Christians are responsiblefor the accusation that Jesus was a b******. No it was a Jewish controversy only from the start. Syllogistic fallacy. Six demerits.

Another illogical judgment by default. Jesus could not be accused as a b******* if there was no claim that he had been born directly of God without a human father. Therefore, the NT, written 50+ years after Jesus had been gone is guilt of the charge. That's Vatic's tenth demerit.

Even if you believe the positions you are using, then you actually are still in fact arguing from ignorance of the facts. The argument from ignorance fallacy. Seven Demerits.

Since I am the one who quote the Scriptures and you don't, I have the evidence that I am speaking our of knowledge and not of ignorance. And that makes your list of demerits to climb to eleven.

Let's see Ben, let's give you a grade here. You wrote two statements containing seven fallacies. That about 3.5 errors per statement Ben. You wrote 53 words and made seven errors in reason. That's like saying you can't speak 7.6 words without being wrong about something. Ben you really need to get a standard here.

Evidentially,

Vatic: That is a false claim. In fact just the opposite is true about the testimonies. They are literally testimonies of REAL literal experiences. This is why the faith is theism! Good grief man!

Now here is the catch, Literal events are themselves a language that depicts in symbolism, metaphors, and allegories of a higher reality. This is where we get the use of RITUAL, Allegorical exegesis, object prophecy, and synchronicity meaning in the literal events the people experienced. You want to talk about seeing the hidden meaning, look at the literal events!

Now another catch is not only do literal events depict a higher reality symbolically, but things that at face would seem to have no literal corrolation to reality, and could be taken as purely symbolic, are often still absolutely LITERAL. These kinds of events are the brain benders of our sensibilities, when the higher reality actually manifest itself directly and literally.

Ben, I'm not wanting to discourage you from seeking and learning the truth and reality of your faith. I'm trying to help you realize your are inconsciously incompetant and you have had horridly stupid instruction from your teachers that are creating big mental hangups for you. You know less than I do about Judaism and you know practically nothing about the reality of your own faith and its origination. You are just parroting propoganda stuff you've been taught. But you've never known the manifest reality of the things of which you speak about.

There is so much more to things than you have understood in your life. This is a case in which if you had a grip on reality, reality would drive you crazy. Trust me there is more than you know or understand Ben. So learn and quit talking like a programmed robot of propoganda.

Vatic is the one using fallacious reasoning. Obviously, Vatic does not have what it takes to debate a Jew in the Scriptures.

Ben

And the bottom line catch is that you believe in talking mules and serpents, if the whole Scriptures are to be interpreted literally. And then you say above that you are not discouraging me from learning the Truth. Do you happen to know what the Truth is? Let me use Jesus to help us here. Maybe, you will find easier to believe me. He said in John 17:17 that the Truth is the Word of God, which the Psalmist said, it was given to Israel only and to no other people on earth, according to Psalm 147:19,20. Obviously, you know now where the Truth is to be found, and whom it is with. Commit to memory then, and take action.

Ben

Edited by Ben Masada

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What an amusing batch of banter. Ben, what is catching my craw is the lack of reality in all your assertions. I've thought about taking a new approach with you, because what you need is simply an interuption in your cycle of paradigms. Stating things like script without real reflection on the reality of things, but resorting to theories and absolutely mistaken ideas as alternatives to the patent facts of things, is to me a departure from reality.

Let's look at some things happening which we can both observe together.

1) If I stated in public, "My boss is a Jewish carpenter", people would for the most part, make an immediate connection to Jesus". This is reality: Jesus is Jewish even in contemporary Christian's minds.

2) If you seach the internet you will see scant few testimonies of people suggesting they convert to becoming jewish as a result of some spirtual supernatural influence upon them. Indeed my own book would be more the exception in that respect since God spoke to me a lot about Jewish themes along with themes of Jesus. But I simply could not find testimonies of supernatural influence of direction to become Jewish. Most conversions were some cerebral reason.

But if you go on the internet and search for spiritual events leading to acceptance of Jesus and sightings of Jesus, you see many supernatural events universally experienced in diverse cultures. All those supernatural experiences happening to Chinese, Muslims, Jews, Eskimos, Japanese, Napalese, and on and on and on, are pointing back to a famous Jew named Jesus.

This is an observable phenominon that is taking place. If we believe what people are describing, some Jewish guy named Jesus is still hanging around tapping unsuspecting people on the shoulder, all over the world.

It seems observable to me, that the powers and supernatural events the Old Hebrews describe, which you dismiss an symbolisms, is now residing in the Jewish guy Jesus and people are testifying of supernatural events very much in pattern with Hebrew testimonies.

It doesn't appear the power is in Judaism, until Jesus the Jew comes into the picture, at which point people describe fantastic experiences.

3) Observably, this is not an issue of solid reality to you. It is an intuitive interpretation of reality for you. Your points all point to a re-interetation of things rather than awareness of what really happened. For instance, everything is "Hellenist" is just not reality. It is an intuitive interpretation that literally is departing from reality. It's all in the mind and a mental construct. It is like by sheer repitition you would hope that you could cause people to believe your points are true. But you have to disregard reality to buy into such an assertion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Taylor, the examples your video cites, I don't believe are actual examples of a "Begotten Son of God", since the fathers were known. I do however find your cites useful in that they make the strong assertion that God is in control of even the minute details of something like the conception of a child and the reproductive processes of adults. It doesn't take much of a leap to conclude that God does have the capacity to initiate a virgin birth if he so desired, since He is known to assert that he can control things to the level of child bearing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What an amusing batch of banter. Ben, what is catching my craw is the lack of reality in all your assertions. I've thought about taking a new approach with you, because what you need is simply an interuption in your cycle of paradigms. Stating things like script without real reflection on the reality of things, but resorting to theories and absolutely mistaken ideas as alternatives to the patent facts of things, is to me a departure from reality.

Let's look at some things happening which we can both observe together.

1) If I stated in public, "My boss is a Jewish carpenter", people would for the most part, make an immediate connection to Jesus". This is reality: Jesus is Jewish even in contemporary Christian's minds.

2) If you seach the internet you will see scant few testimonies of people suggesting they convert to becoming jewish as a result of some spirtual supernatural influence upon them. Indeed my own book would be more the exception in that respect since God spoke to me a lot about Jewish themes along with themes of Jesus. But I simply could not find testimonies of supernatural influence of direction to become Jewish. Most conversions were some cerebral reason.

But if you go on the internet and search for spiritual events leading to acceptance of Jesus and sightings of Jesus, you see many supernatural events universally experienced in diverse cultures. All those supernatural experiences happening to Chinese, Muslims, Jews, Eskimos, Japanese, Napalese, and on and on and on, are pointing back to a famous Jew named Jesus.

This is an observable phenominon that is taking place. If we believe what people are describing, some Jewish guy named Jesus is still hanging around tapping unsuspecting people on the shoulder, all over the world.

It seems observable to me, that the powers and supernatural events the Old Hebrews describe, which you dismiss an symbolisms, is now residing in the Jewish guy Jesus and people are testifying of supernatural events very much in pattern with Hebrew testimonies.

It doesn't appear the power is in Judaism, until Jesus the Jew comes into the picture, at which point people describe fantastic experiences.

3) Observably, this is not an issue of solid reality to you. It is an intuitive interpretation of reality for you. Your points all point to a re-interetation of things rather than awareness of what really happened. For instance, everything is "Hellenist" is just not reality. It is an intuitive interpretation that literally is departing from reality. It's all in the mind and a mental construct. It is like by sheer repitition you would hope that you could cause people to believe your points are true. But you have to disregard reality to buy into such an assertion.

My purpose is not to try to make people believe that my point is true but to bring into their understanding that what they think of Judaism and Jesus is wrong. I mean, if Jesus was indeed a Jewish man whose Faith was Judaism.

Ben

Edited by Ben Masada

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My purpose is not to try to make people believe that my point is true but to bring into their understanding that what they think of Judaism and Jesus is wrong. I mean, if Jesus was indeed a Jewish man whose Faith was Judaism.

Ben

People are full of misconceptions, including you and probably myself as well. But we need to move on to another aspect of Jesus's being (ontology). Yes he is a begotten Son of God and I understand that you don't believe that. Okay fine. I'm willing to let this go for now and revisit it at some future point with you once you have had more time and more information to think about. I'm requesting that you start a blog about the "Appearance of the Glory of the Lord" (Adon ha Kavod) and we will discuss this aspect of the origins of Judaism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People are full of misconceptions, including you and probably myself as well. But we need to move on to another aspect of Jesus's being (ontology). Yes he is a begotten Son of God and I understand that you don't believe that. Okay fine. I'm willing to let this go for now and revisit it at some future point with you once you have had more time and more information to think about. I'm requesting that you start a blog about the "Appearance of the Glory of the Lord" (Adon ha Kavod) and we will discuss this aspect of the origins of Judaism.

Hey Vatic, why don't you do that yourself? I mean, to start that blog. I'll be more than glad to comply. I have started too many blogs already. Let me give you a hint: "The Appearance of the Glory of the Lord." If you read Ezekiel 20:41, you will see that, by means of Israel, the Lord manifests His glory in the sight of the nations. You can take from there and elaborate on the aspect for the origins of Judaism.

Ben

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.