I'll start at the beginning of Jesus Birth. God bestowed upon the VIRGIN Mary a baby. There is problem number 1. In order for the Old Testament prophecies to be correct, Jesus would have to be a direct descendant in the line of David. To be a DIRECT descendant from the line of David, Jesus would have to have been born of the male seed from the time of David until his birth. Meaning no women would work. All had to be men in the line of David for this to be correct. However, if Mary was a virgin, Jesus had no direct line of descent from David. So take your pic, which is correct? Was Mary a virgin and the Old Testament is wrong? Or was Joseph's seed in Mary, and the New Testament is wrong? Problem number two with Mary being a virgin is simply that the actual word used when the bible was written, before the massive amount of translation before it reached English, was actually nothing to do with virgin, or sexuality at all for that matter. The word simply meant, young. I'm not sure why you would assume young meant virgin, considering the two words are far from meaning the same, unless of course during your timeframe your knowledge of the language you were translated wasn't all that great. In the story of Jesus birth, once Mary was about to give birth to Jesus, one of the gospels elaborates and writes that they went to Bethleham to be registered for a census with the Roman governemnt. Lets take into account that the Romans were far from policitally ignorant. They never, at any time had a required mass movement to a metropolitan area for any reason. This is so easy to see in all their remaining records, as well as the vast amount of descriptions of Rome at that time. The Romans were far too smart to create pandimonium such as that. The New Testament has magi going and telling Herod that a baby would be born to take his throne. First of all, Rome didn't have a throne. The bible says Herod's response to this was to murder all baby boys under a certain age. This is another absurdity. This would have been a massive amount of murdered babies. We're not talking about a few hundred here. We're talking a few thousand dead babies. Had there been that many dead babies, someone would have found a mass grave of dead baby corpses. Aside from what they would have done with the bodies, they recorded every legal action, all the way down to petty theft. Had they murdered a few thousands babies, the file would be enormous, and someone would have found that as well. When Mary and Joseph learn of Herod's plan to kill the babies, the New Testament has them fleeing to Egypt. The bible has them returning to Nazareth before the passover. Now look at the timeframes. They went to Bethleham, fled to Egypt, and then back to Nazareth in under a week's time? On a donkey? You better figure out a better time frame or explain to history that there were leer jets available for quick transportation. Look at your map and tell me how absurd that is to think. The date of Jesus' birth is another random assed holiday that was stolen from pagans and christianized. The birth of Jesus couldn't have been on dec 25th. If Jesus was born before passover of that year, he simply coulnd't have been born on dec 25. The Passover Lamb must be killed on the day of unleavened bread which as the first day of the seven day period (Abib 14). This is not Dec 25th, sorry to burst your bubble. Most of you believe simply as your told, and have no real knowledge of the bible...
-
some "real knowledge" of the bible...23% Voted for by Everlasting-Fallout, gobuggy99, EternalEyes, Bringer-of-the-Void, showeringfire. (6 total)
in matthew 1:16, it gives jesus' geneology through Joseph: Joseph, mary's husband, son of Jacob, son of matthan, son of eleazar, and so on back to david.
now, in luke 3:23, it gives another geneology: jesus, so-called son of joseph, son of heli, son of matthat, son of levi, and so on back to david.
wait a minute, aren't those two different?
yup. heli was mary's father, thus joseph's father-in-law.
thus, while jesus isn't the flesh of joseph, he is still descended from david by mary.
-
There might never have been a Jesus..I have proof15% Voted for by down without you, Korpse, Bringer-of-the-Void, lifeh.
Has anyone ever considered that the Bible might actually have been a fiction book in the time that jesus was believed to be born in? My dad brought up a very interesting point of in a couple of thousand's years time, some generation might pick up Harry Potter and presume that it was the history of a man / boy from an ancient generation.
-
didn't take a week11% Voted for by jonesz12, Everlasting-Fallout, EternalEyes.
The time frame of the Bible says nothing about happening in a weeks time. That's just how it seems when people show it in Christmas pageants because it takes a whole 30 minutes to do if not less. The actual time frame would be more like 2 or 3 years. So when the magi visit Jesus it may be when he is no longer an infant. In Matthew it says nothing about the Magi showing up on the night of Jesus' birth. It says they saw the child with Mary his mother.
-
Keep in mind...11% Voted for by praise-reborn, EternalEyes, Everlasting-Fallout.
Not all of us Christians agree with Christmas being the actual birth of Christ. That, along with Easter habits, are actually pagan in origin and not Biblical. Many of us from all different Christian branches don't swing with the world's practices.
-
Alright....7% Voted for by Aidenn, zpradeep.
First off, as a Christian, I am going to be totally honest with you...I don't know everything, and just because I believe something doesn't mean that I automatically get an answer to everything. But I can tell you some of what I know, and maybe this will clarify some things.
Jesus was given to a virgin mother, and I do mean a virgin. She had to be completely clean and pure. No man could have touched her in a sexual manner, nor could have she been with a man, otherwise, she would have been unworthy to bear the most important and sacred person that God ever bestowed upon this earth: His Son. It says in the Bible that Joseph didn't believe her at first, but then an angel of the Lord came to him and told him that he should believe his soon to be wife, and that he should marry her. He did and the Bible says that he did not know her, in a sexual way, until after the birth of Jesus. Joseph was a descendant from the line of David, and he took on the responsiblity as Jesus's earthly father. Much like in adoption, the child takes the name of the adoptive parents; such was the way of Jesus and Joseph. The Bible makes it clear later on in Jesus's life that He knew that Joseph and the line of David was simply a title. When He spoke to his parents after being left in the temple with the elders (and wowing the headdresses off everyone there with His great and mighty knowledge!)He said, "Did you not know that I would be about My Father's business?" The Jews and the people misinterpretted Jesus's arrival because they thought that He would be a mighty (mortal) lord of the land, set out to conquer and save the people from the oppression of the Romans, which was not so. True enough, He was THE Lord, but not the type that they wanted. So they turned from him, and believing in only mortal and human attachments to family, called him by his earthly caretakers anscetry name. Also, it doesn't matter when Jesus was born. I have heard it said that He was born in December and in April. I am more inclined to believe the latter, because at the time, the shepards were still out tending the sheep in the clearest of nights. One star was there: The Star of David (another way that the line of David may have been assiciated with Jesus's birth. ). The Bible makes no mention of constillations being out at night nor is there any referance to Aries and Jupiter leading on the three wise men. It says only the Star of David, and by my faith I believe it. It does not say either that the wise men came that very evening to Jesus's birthplace. It does say that they were given a sign by the angels and by God Himself to follow the star inside the sky. Whether the journy took one day, or two years, I do not know, nor do I claim too! What I do know is that they made it to Jesus somehow and praised His great and holy name. They did run into Herod and told him about the Baby, and Herod did become furious. He ordered for all of the children under a certain age to be killed. There would be no records of this because of the mass amount of children killed. There would be nothing left of a grave, seeing as a child is small and the decomposition would have been much quicker and faster than that of an older person or a full grown adult. By the time that researchers would have gone searching for the graves, there would have been nothing left for hundreds of years. So it is entirely possible for King Herod to have killed thousands of children without leaving a trace or record of such. Whether or not the Messiah was born in April, December, or the middle of August, it matters not. Read the Word of God and realize the mircles that the One and Only did, and attempt to understand that just because we don't understand or cannot prove it, does not mean that it did not happen or does not exist. ~Aidenn
-
Jesus Stolen From the EgiptiansVoted for by DREA 112.
I believe the concept of Jesus and the Christian Doctrine was taken from the Egiptians.Jesus was the most misinterpreted character 2 ever walk the earth.All these different religions have different names for him and they shape his life and character around their beliefs,and their Holy Books:The Old testament,The New Testament,The Koran.What they don't do is enuff thourough research.If they did,they would find out that there was more than one man named Jesus in the New Testament of the bible,and all of the concepts of JESUS came from the ancient egiptians.Which originated from the ancient Sumerians,who recieved their doctrine from the ANUNNAQI.So, all the religions' today all came from ancient doctrines,written in cuneiform,which you can find,called The Enuma Elish,The Gilgamesh Epics,The Atra Hasis,Etc.......Keyword it into a search engine on the internet and research for yourself...I am not trying to make anyone believe in something I believe in...just have an open mind and draw your own conclusions...
-
I thought he was born in AprilVoted for by XxxblondettexxX.
i was watching this one thing on the Discovery channel ahving to deal with all of that stuff. something about the star leading the 3wisemen being Jupiter and that it was in the constellation of Aries. and that was only in the spring or something of that sort the constellation. (i saw this a long time ago so, i dont remmber much.)then where was something with the degree of where the star was located that told what day it was when Jesus was born. I remember it being April 6 or 7. idk how they decided on 12-25... oh well, like they r going to change things now...
-
A Sentence by Sentence ChallengeVoted for by Everlasting-Fallout.
Ok, what I'm going to do is go through and point out my thoughts on the topic, going through the first post sentence by sentence. As for the original Hebrew word that has been translated today to mean "virgin" My research has found that the original word, in fact, does mean "young" or "unmarried" And in the culture, unmarried was synonomous with being a virgin. Anyone who had sexual relations outside of a marriage relationship at that time in the jewish culture was disowned by their family, banned from the church, and was considered an outcast in all situations. (keep in mind, simply being banned from the synagouge was like having your life taken from you) In fact, before the Romans took over, unmarried people who had sexual relations where often stoned. There for the arguement about Mary not being a virgin is at the very best a weak one. As for the fact of the Roman Government calling people back to their home towns being ridiculous, here are my evidences. All of the Biblical gospel have been proven historically accurate on numerous occasions. and there has been NOT ONE time that they have been incorrect about the culture, location, or any other facet of the history of that time. I will not go into specific examples of this, so as to keep my post withing a readable length. But I would be more than glad if someone requests it. But if the gospels recorded everything else faithfully, what reason would they have for changing this one fact? As for the magi telling Herod that there was a child born to take his throne, I can again return to the original language of the text. The magi did not literally say the word "throne" when talking to Herod. In fact, there are no actual quotes of what they said. But it is believed to be "kingdom" or "rulership" which, more often than not, can be substituted with the word "throne" Herod did indeed have all the babies in the Bethlehem region killed. We often forget that he had knowledge from the Magi of the supposed location of this newborn who was going to attempt to take his kingdom. It, of course, would be foolish for him to order the killing of all children in the Roman empire, as that would have death tolls in the hundreds of thousands. However, Bethlehem was an extremely small area, with a population of no more than a few hundred, most of these being Jews. The killing of the minute amount of newborns (probobly less than 50) would not have caused an uproar among the other Roman citizens. Finally....Egypt and the Passover. Indeed, Joseph, Mary, and the few-month-old Jesus do flee to Egypt. But there is no statement of how long they stay there. The Bible says that the angel warned Joseph of the danger, and that they should leave until they where told to return and when it was safe. As Herod was the ruler and was obviously paranoid about his government being overthrown (as seen in his killing of the children of Bethlehem)He would not have let the thought of this young ursurper pass quickly. Most likely it would have been months before it would have been safe for Mary and Joseph to return. Therefore the logical explanation of why they where able to return for passover is that they where in Egypt for at least a year, if not more. My final comment is upon the birth of jesus being on December 25th. This is absurd to think that any Christian would honestly believe that Jesus was born on Christimas. (and if there are any that do, it is simply out of ignorance or foolishness) First of all, the Jewish calendar was nothing like ours. Second, there has never been any claim that Christmas was literally Jesus' birth. Second, no where in the Bible does it say that Jesus was born before passover, at least not to my knowledge. If I am wrong, let me know. But either way, that is irrelevant. On this point alone I would agree with the original poster; that Christmas is just random holiday that has, over time, become associated with Jesus' brith for some reason unknown to me. But that fact has absolutely nothing to do with whether Jesus really si who he said he was. Well, that's all I've got for you for now. Thanks so much for reading! And if anyone wants further information....check out these sites or IM me! ---------------------------------- READ THIS ONE.... CNN.COM http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/10/21/jesus.box/index.html -------------------------------------- http://www.probe.org/content/view/18/77/
http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/rediscover2.html
http://www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth22.html
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2002/141/11.0.html
-
About "King" HerodVoted for by Christopher Chanco.
King Herod was the supposed "King" of the jews. The Roman Government allowed the jews to rule themselves through a puppet King. But the Roman governor or magistrate, had the real power.
-
Another note...Voted for by Christopher Chanco.
Some of the things the Bible states are not EXACT. Some data are sort of symbols, signs, or replacements to the real events. You can't expect the Bible to show too much detail like how long Mary and Joseph went to Egypt because then the Bible would become to complicated to read and to explain to the public at that time. You must remember that the Bible was made so that the public could easily understand and read the scriptures. For instance, in the creation of the universe, the Bible states that it was made in 7 days, who knows, that may have been only a replacement to the real exact time. Probably it took 7 million years or 7 million centuries. God made it 7 days to make it simple and easy to read. We can make Christianity and Science work together. Science simply explains in detail what God did. Its possible that it was God who created the Big Bang and in doing so created the universe.
-
I wrote thisVoted for by SolidLikeLiquid.
I wrote this, so my opinion is above, I just wanted to put this here so I could find it easier from my home page.
-
Christmas was the new yearNot many people make the connection between Pagan sabbats and christian holidays, but I think that is due to ignorance and stubborness more than anything.Voted for by Second.
I follow the belief that my mother has presented to me: Jesus did exist, but he was merely a very smart man for that time period, like a modern day doctor, but knowledge like that was unseen in the time Jesus lived.
The conclusion that I have come to about the birth of Jesus is this:
I have spoken to a friend of mine (who is a Jahova's witness) many times about the subject of Jesus, and according to her knowledge, it isn't possible that he was born on December 25th, I can't remember the reasons she gave, but she said it would have been around March.
From research that I have done, I found out that before the Norman conquest in 1066, December 25th was the new year. And seeing that the first bible wasn't written until around 1380, my belief is that even after the date of the new year was changed, people carried on celebrating December 25th, and over the years, the reason they celebrated that date was forgotten. This of course is just my interpretation, but I think someone decided to say that was the day the Lord's son was born. (Of course, I don't mean "decided" in the way I have said it, but I couldn't think of a way to word it better.)
And last but not least, the bible was man-written, can we really trust it as truth if that is the case?
Adding your reply:
Registration is required because of issues with spam. It is fast and free! This author would LOVE to get a comment from you, please join!
June 2, 2006
Edit | Reply
pnktrky
November 7, 2006
Edit | Reply
read up people
herod was jewis guy in charge of that area and was a tretrarch as in he go a quarter of the terroty from his father. the reason his birthday was put on dec. 25 was because he was the light to the world day starts beating night around this time, his real birthday is july 4 isnt that ironic. he was related to david by both adoption by his father joseph and by mary. they were in egopt about 4 yrs i think. i think you have no real knowlegde of the bible. it is a book written by people of faith not historians. but the history is still there. and the facts are still there. just keep looking and get a bible that gives you background information please.December 20, 2007
Edit | Reply
Well...
Everyone with a brian should know Jesus wasn't bron on Christmas, at night. It would be geographically impossible. It would have been too cold in that drafty stable during the winter months and at night, none the less. He wouldn't have survived. But, Jesus is a descendant of the line of David. Mary and Joseph were married, and Mary WAS a Virgin. Jesus was born from a Virgin, and made in a Virgin's body. Some things may NOT be clear, given that many different verses can mean many different things, not just to individuals, but that doesn't mean there isn't proof.Please register or login to comment! It's totally free