100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: How Jesus Became G-d | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
http://news.discovery.com/history/religion/gospel-of-jesus-wife-is-no-forgery-experts-rule-140410.htm The Gospel of Jesus'�� Wife, a papyrus fragment of Coptic script containing a suggestion that Jesus may have been married, is an ancient document, and not a modern forgery, says a paper published in the Harvard Theological Review on Tuesday. Tests by teams of engineering, biology, and chemistry professors from Columbia University, Harvard University, and MIT indicate the papyrus dates to between the sixth and ninth centuries, and possibly as far back as the second to fourth centuries. The brownish-yellow, tattered fragment, about 1 1/2 inches by 3 inches, caused international uproar when it was presented at a conference in Rome in September 2012 by Harvard Professor Karen L. King. Written in Coptic, a language of ancient Egyptian Christians, the fragment appears to be a broken conversation between Jesus and his disciples. The center of the business-card-sized papyrus, which features just eight lines of text on the front and six lines on the back, contained the bombshell phrase "��Jesus said to them, 'My wife'"�� "She will be able to be my disciple," said the next line. And then: "��I dwell with her." Dismissed as a clumsy forgery�� by the Vatican newspaper, the Gospel of Jesus�� Wife was widely debated by scholars. Skepticism abounded, with several experts arguing over the document'��s poor grammar and its uncertain provenance. But according to Harvard Divinity School, "��none of the testing has produced any evidence that the fragment is a modern fabrication or forgery." "��The fragment does not provide evidence that the historical Jesus was married but concerns an early Christian debate over whether women who are wives and mothers can be disciples of Jesus,"�� King wrote in the Harvard Theological Review. In addition to radiocarbon testing, microscopic and multispectral imaging, the researchers used micro-Raman spectroscopy to determine that the carbon character of the ink matched samples of other papyri that date from the first to eighth centuries. "After all the research was complete, King weighed all the evidence of the age and characteristics of the papyrus and ink, handwriting, language, and historical context to conclude the fragment is almost certainly a product of early Christians, not a modern forger," Harvard Divinity School said in a statement. The Harvard Theological Review is also publishing a rebuttal to King'��s findings by Brown University professor Leo Depuydt, who still maintains the document is a forgery. "��And not a very good one at that,"�� he wrote. According to Depuydt, the fragment contains "��gross grammatical errors."�� Also, each word in it matched writing in the Gospel of Thomas, an early Christian text discovered in Nag Hammadi, Egypt, in 1945. "��It couldn'��t possibly be coincidence,"�� he told The New York Times. Depuydt also argued that carbon black ink can be easily created by mixing candle soot and oil. "An undergraduate student with one semester of Coptic can make a reed pen and start drawing lines,"�� he concluded. Photo: Gospel of Jesus' Wife: front. Credit: Karen L. King 2012. The Vatican's newspaper L'Osservatore Romano has claimed the gospel is a "very modern forgery".[5] A number of independent scholars have since provided evidence to support this view, suggesting the papyrus includes textual mistakes (a typographical error) identical to those made only in a particular on-line modern iteration of corresponding texts. Revelation 19:7 7 Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready. -- Ephesians 5:25-27 25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; 26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, 27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. -- Think it's pretty clear that we're Jesus' bride, the church. More verses on this can be found if needed I do believe. i dunno... there is a big chunk of his life that is missing, and unless he was gay, he should have gotten married.. that was the norm back then... but i'm sure you know better than me, i wasn't there... and if he wasn't married, how could there be the last Zion of Christ in dogma? Zion of Christ in dogma? Please elaborate, not sure what is being referenced there. Why would he have to be gay or gotten married? He already has a wife, the church. And he didn't need a mortal wife eg., a flesh and blood woman, for he wasn't here to reproduce. He was here to finalize one covenant, and give us another in place. he was human, wasn't he? human men still have needs, and there are no "scriptures" from his life from 18-30, is there? so you have your OPINION, and i have mine... What is human? Know ye not that ye are gods and children of the most high? "Human" is a secular word. You will not find this term used in the scriptures except in maybe the newer translations, and things loose there meaning after being translated and translated and translated ect. Jesus made man and woman, these are genders, nothing more. Or otherwise women would be a totally separate species then man. And what's it matter if a part of his life is not included in the scriptures. The bible isn't a biography or autobiography of Jesus. It is a gathered collection of the scriptures that pertain to the salvation of man. jesus made genders? ... 
Genesis 5:2 2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created. Adam is not a "name" in the sense that we use names these days. It's not the name of a singular being. "Adam" means mankind. So to answer your question more specifically, yes Jesus did. Of course to avoid people picking at things said here, it was Jesus in a sense before he became "Jesus" in the flesh and blood. But many examples such as but not limited to mention of "lord" and "lord God" through out the creation story. Genesis 4 4 And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the Lord. Since Adam and Eve were created at the same time generally speaking it's clear this verse isn't saying that the Lord went out and found her a mate, a husband. She got him from the Lord for the Lord created him and her. in genesis, there was no jesus... why do you keep trying to confuse the issue? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
mightmoe said:
in genesis, there was no jesus... why do you keep trying to confuse the issue? No there was no being named "Jesus" in genesis, this is true. But also have to keep in mind Jesus was a spiritual being that came down in physical form, which is where he got the name "Jesus". Before he walked the Earth he was not "Jesus", he was Lord and Lord God, thus why Lord is capitalized when in reference to Jesus. As shown in the following verse again for example - Genesis 4 4 And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the Lord. I changed nothing, this is the way it's written in the scriptures. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
mightmoe said: in genesis, there was no jesus... why do you keep trying to confuse the issue? No there was no being named "Jesus" in genesis, this is true. But also have to keep in mind Jesus was a spiritual being that came down in physical form, which is where he got the name "Jesus". Before he walked the Earth he was not "Jesus", he was Lord and Lord God, thus why Lord is capitalized when in reference to Jesus. As shown in the following verse again for example - Genesis 4 4 And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the Lord. I changed nothing, this is the way it's written in the scriptures. 
so what does any of this have to do with jesus? your confusing yourself... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
mightmoe said: in genesis, there was no jesus... why do you keep trying to confuse the issue? No there was no being named "Jesus" in genesis, this is true. But also have to keep in mind Jesus was a spiritual being that came down in physical form, which is where he got the name "Jesus". Before he walked the Earth he was not "Jesus", he was Lord and Lord God, thus why Lord is capitalized when in reference to Jesus. As shown in the following verse again for example - Genesis 4 4 And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the Lord. I changed nothing, this is the way it's written in the scriptures.
so what does any of this have to do with jesus? your confusing yourself... Not confusing anything Moe. "I have gotten a man from the Lord". This was said in Genesis 4, Jesus is the Lord. He is the only Lord, thus why it's capitalized when referring to Jesus. Again, yes of course this was before he was known as "Jesus" in the flesh, he was still Lord God at this time and being, not sure if he necessarily had a "name" or if he did have a name while he was Lord God it is not included in the scriptures in the bible. "jesus" is not mentioned anywhere in the old testament... your very confused... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
CowboyGH
on
Sat 04/19/14 12:09 PM
|
|
mightmoe said: in genesis, there was no jesus... why do you keep trying to confuse the issue? No there was no being named "Jesus" in genesis, this is true. But also have to keep in mind Jesus was a spiritual being that came down in physical form, which is where he got the name "Jesus". Before he walked the Earth he was not "Jesus", he was Lord and Lord God, thus why Lord is capitalized when in reference to Jesus. As shown in the following verse again for example - Genesis 4 4 And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the Lord. I changed nothing, this is the way it's written in the scriptures.
so what does any of this have to do with jesus? your confusing yourself... Not confusing anything Moe. "I have gotten a man from the Lord". This was said in Genesis 4, Jesus is the Lord. He is the only Lord, thus why it's capitalized when referring to Jesus. Again, yes of course this was before he was known as "Jesus" in the flesh, he was still Lord God at this time, not sure if he necessarily had a "name" or if he did have a name while he was Lord God it is not included in the scriptures in the bible. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Conrad_73
on
Sat 04/19/14 01:08 PM
|
|
mightmoe said: in genesis, there was no jesus... why do you keep trying to confuse the issue? No there was no being named "Jesus" in genesis, this is true. But also have to keep in mind Jesus was a spiritual being that came down in physical form, which is where he got the name "Jesus". Before he walked the Earth he was not "Jesus", he was Lord and Lord God, thus why Lord is capitalized when in reference to Jesus. As shown in the following verse again for example - Genesis 4 4 And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the Lord. I changed nothing, this is the way it's written in the scriptures.
so what does any of this have to do with jesus? your confusing yourself... Not confusing anything Moe. "I have gotten a man from the Lord". This was said in Genesis 4, Jesus is the Lord. He is the only Lord, thus why it's capitalized when referring to Jesus. Again, yes of course this was before he was known as "Jesus" in the flesh, he was still Lord God at this time, not sure if he necessarily had a "name" or if he did have a name while he was Lord God it is not included in the scriptures in the bible. you're drawing some tortured conclusions,that hold no water at all! You're making connections that do not exist! If that's your proof,you're deceiving yourself! Better look for some much more conclusive evidence,but what you have just dished up here are disjointed assumptions! Neither part connects with the other one! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://news.discovery.com/history/religion/gospel-of-jesus-wife-is-no-forgery-experts-rule-140410.htm The Gospel of Jesus'�� Wife, a papyrus fragment of Coptic script containing a suggestion that Jesus may have been married, is an ancient document, and not a modern forgery, says a paper published in the Harvard Theological Review on Tuesday. Tests by teams of engineering, biology, and chemistry professors from Columbia University, Harvard University, and MIT indicate the papyrus dates to between the sixth and ninth centuries, and possibly as far back as the second to fourth centuries. The brownish-yellow, tattered fragment, about 1 1/2 inches by 3 inches, caused international uproar when it was presented at a conference in Rome in September 2012 by Harvard Professor Karen L. King. Written in Coptic, a language of ancient Egyptian Christians, the fragment appears to be a broken conversation between Jesus and his disciples. The center of the business-card-sized papyrus, which features just eight lines of text on the front and six lines on the back, contained the bombshell phrase "��Jesus said to them, 'My wife'"�� "She will be able to be my disciple," said the next line. And then: "��I dwell with her." Dismissed as a clumsy forgery�� by the Vatican newspaper, the Gospel of Jesus�� Wife was widely debated by scholars. Skepticism abounded, with several experts arguing over the document'��s poor grammar and its uncertain provenance. But according to Harvard Divinity School, "��none of the testing has produced any evidence that the fragment is a modern fabrication or forgery." "��The fragment does not provide evidence that the historical Jesus was married but concerns an early Christian debate over whether women who are wives and mothers can be disciples of Jesus,"�� King wrote in the Harvard Theological Review. In addition to radiocarbon testing, microscopic and multispectral imaging, the researchers used micro-Raman spectroscopy to determine that the carbon character of the ink matched samples of other papyri that date from the first to eighth centuries. "After all the research was complete, King weighed all the evidence of the age and characteristics of the papyrus and ink, handwriting, language, and historical context to conclude the fragment is almost certainly a product of early Christians, not a modern forger," Harvard Divinity School said in a statement. The Harvard Theological Review is also publishing a rebuttal to King'��s findings by Brown University professor Leo Depuydt, who still maintains the document is a forgery. "��And not a very good one at that,"�� he wrote. According to Depuydt, the fragment contains "��gross grammatical errors."�� Also, each word in it matched writing in the Gospel of Thomas, an early Christian text discovered in Nag Hammadi, Egypt, in 1945. "��It couldn'��t possibly be coincidence,"�� he told The New York Times. Depuydt also argued that carbon black ink can be easily created by mixing candle soot and oil. "An undergraduate student with one semester of Coptic can make a reed pen and start drawing lines,"�� he concluded. Photo: Gospel of Jesus' Wife: front. Credit: Karen L. King 2012. The Vatican's newspaper L'Osservatore Romano has claimed the gospel is a "very modern forgery".[5] A number of independent scholars have since provided evidence to support this view, suggesting the papyrus includes textual mistakes (a typographical error) identical to those made only in a particular on-line modern iteration of corresponding texts. Revelation 19:7 7 Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready. -- Ephesians 5:25-27 25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; 26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, 27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. -- Think it's pretty clear that we're Jesus' bride, the church. More verses on this can be found if needed I do believe. i dunno... there is a big chunk of his life that is missing, and unless he was gay, he should have gotten married.. that was the norm back then... but i'm sure you know better than me, i wasn't there... and if he wasn't married, how could there be the last Zion of Christ in dogma? Zion of Christ in dogma? Please elaborate, not sure what is being referenced there. Why would he have to be gay or gotten married? He already has a wife, the church. And he didn't need a mortal wife eg., a flesh and blood woman, for he wasn't here to reproduce. He was here to finalize one covenant, and give us another in place. he was human, wasn't he? human men still have needs, and there are no "scriptures" from his life from 18-30, is there? so you have your OPINION, and i have mine... yes he was human, and the bible is not with out conjugal references. there is much speculation as to his relationship with magdelane. nowhere does he preach total abstinence. I believe his lifestyle did not lend itself to marriage - at least not at the point he began preaching where his life is recorded by the Gospels. He was a wandering preacher, an outlaw on the run for the last few years of his life...not exactly the marrying kind. Or more startling, in the supressed verses of Mark- the denial of these verses is the origin of the phrase, "a lie to a pagan, is not a lie- there are overt references of a homo-erotic relationship between Jesus and Lazerus. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://news.discovery.com/history/religion/gospel-of-jesus-wife-is-no-forgery-experts-rule-140410.htm The Gospel of Jesus'�� Wife, a papyrus fragment of Coptic script containing a suggestion that Jesus may have been married, is an ancient document, and not a modern forgery, says a paper published in the Harvard Theological Review on Tuesday. Tests by teams of engineering, biology, and chemistry professors from Columbia University, Harvard University, and MIT indicate the papyrus dates to between the sixth and ninth centuries, and possibly as far back as the second to fourth centuries. The brownish-yellow, tattered fragment, about 1 1/2 inches by 3 inches, caused international uproar when it was presented at a conference in Rome in September 2012 by Harvard Professor Karen L. King. Written in Coptic, a language of ancient Egyptian Christians, the fragment appears to be a broken conversation between Jesus and his disciples. The center of the business-card-sized papyrus, which features just eight lines of text on the front and six lines on the back, contained the bombshell phrase "��Jesus said to them, 'My wife'"�� "She will be able to be my disciple," said the next line. And then: "��I dwell with her." Dismissed as a clumsy forgery�� by the Vatican newspaper, the Gospel of Jesus�� Wife was widely debated by scholars. Skepticism abounded, with several experts arguing over the document'��s poor grammar and its uncertain provenance. But according to Harvard Divinity School, "��none of the testing has produced any evidence that the fragment is a modern fabrication or forgery." "��The fragment does not provide evidence that the historical Jesus was married but concerns an early Christian debate over whether women who are wives and mothers can be disciples of Jesus,"�� King wrote in the Harvard Theological Review. In addition to radiocarbon testing, microscopic and multispectral imaging, the researchers used micro-Raman spectroscopy to determine that the carbon character of the ink matched samples of other papyri that date from the first to eighth centuries. "After all the research was complete, King weighed all the evidence of the age and characteristics of the papyrus and ink, handwriting, language, and historical context to conclude the fragment is almost certainly a product of early Christians, not a modern forger," Harvard Divinity School said in a statement. The Harvard Theological Review is also publishing a rebuttal to King'��s findings by Brown University professor Leo Depuydt, who still maintains the document is a forgery. "��And not a very good one at that,"�� he wrote. According to Depuydt, the fragment contains "��gross grammatical errors."�� Also, each word in it matched writing in the Gospel of Thomas, an early Christian text discovered in Nag Hammadi, Egypt, in 1945. "��It couldn'��t possibly be coincidence,"�� he told The New York Times. Depuydt also argued that carbon black ink can be easily created by mixing candle soot and oil. "An undergraduate student with one semester of Coptic can make a reed pen and start drawing lines,"�� he concluded. Photo: Gospel of Jesus' Wife: front. Credit: Karen L. King 2012. The Vatican's newspaper L'Osservatore Romano has claimed the gospel is a "very modern forgery".[5] A number of independent scholars have since provided evidence to support this view, suggesting the papyrus includes textual mistakes (a typographical error) identical to those made only in a particular on-line modern iteration of corresponding texts. Revelation 19:7 7 Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready. -- Ephesians 5:25-27 25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; 26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, 27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. -- Think it's pretty clear that we're Jesus' bride, the church. More verses on this can be found if needed I do believe. i dunno... there is a big chunk of his life that is missing, and unless he was gay, he should have gotten married.. that was the norm back then... but i'm sure you know better than me, i wasn't there... and if he wasn't married, how could there be the last Zion of Christ in dogma? Zion of Christ in dogma? Please elaborate, not sure what is being referenced there. Why would he have to be gay or gotten married? He already has a wife, the church. And he didn't need a mortal wife eg., a flesh and blood woman, for he wasn't here to reproduce. He was here to finalize one covenant, and give us another in place. he was human, wasn't he? human men still have needs, and there are no "scriptures" from his life from 18-30, is there? so you have your OPINION, and i have mine... yes he was human, and the bible is not with out conjugal references. there is much speculation as to his relationship with magdelane. nowhere does he preach total abstinence. I believe his lifestyle did not lend itself to marriage - at least not at the point he began preaching where his life is recorded by the Gospels. He was a wandering preacher, an outlaw on the run for the last few years of his life...not exactly the marrying kind. Or more startling, in the supressed verses of Mark- the denial of these verses is the origin of the phrase, "a lie to a pagan, is not a lie- there are overt references of a homo-erotic relationship between Jesus and Lazerus. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://news.discovery.com/history/religion/gospel-of-jesus-wife-is-no-forgery-experts-rule-140410.htm The Gospel of Jesus'�� Wife, a papyrus fragment of Coptic script containing a suggestion that Jesus may have been married, is an ancient document, and not a modern forgery, says a paper published in the Harvard Theological Review on Tuesday. Tests by teams of engineering, biology, and chemistry professors from Columbia University, Harvard University, and MIT indicate the papyrus dates to between the sixth and ninth centuries, and possibly as far back as the second to fourth centuries. The brownish-yellow, tattered fragment, about 1 1/2 inches by 3 inches, caused international uproar when it was presented at a conference in Rome in September 2012 by Harvard Professor Karen L. King. Written in Coptic, a language of ancient Egyptian Christians, the fragment appears to be a broken conversation between Jesus and his disciples. The center of the business-card-sized papyrus, which features just eight lines of text on the front and six lines on the back, contained the bombshell phrase "��Jesus said to them, 'My wife'"�� "She will be able to be my disciple," said the next line. And then: "��I dwell with her." Dismissed as a clumsy forgery�� by the Vatican newspaper, the Gospel of Jesus�� Wife was widely debated by scholars. Skepticism abounded, with several experts arguing over the document'��s poor grammar and its uncertain provenance. But according to Harvard Divinity School, "��none of the testing has produced any evidence that the fragment is a modern fabrication or forgery." "��The fragment does not provide evidence that the historical Jesus was married but concerns an early Christian debate over whether women who are wives and mothers can be disciples of Jesus,"�� King wrote in the Harvard Theological Review. In addition to radiocarbon testing, microscopic and multispectral imaging, the researchers used micro-Raman spectroscopy to determine that the carbon character of the ink matched samples of other papyri that date from the first to eighth centuries. "After all the research was complete, King weighed all the evidence of the age and characteristics of the papyrus and ink, handwriting, language, and historical context to conclude the fragment is almost certainly a product of early Christians, not a modern forger," Harvard Divinity School said in a statement. The Harvard Theological Review is also publishing a rebuttal to King'��s findings by Brown University professor Leo Depuydt, who still maintains the document is a forgery. "��And not a very good one at that,"�� he wrote. According to Depuydt, the fragment contains "��gross grammatical errors."�� Also, each word in it matched writing in the Gospel of Thomas, an early Christian text discovered in Nag Hammadi, Egypt, in 1945. "��It couldn'��t possibly be coincidence,"�� he told The New York Times. Depuydt also argued that carbon black ink can be easily created by mixing candle soot and oil. "An undergraduate student with one semester of Coptic can make a reed pen and start drawing lines,"�� he concluded. Photo: Gospel of Jesus' Wife: front. Credit: Karen L. King 2012. The Vatican's newspaper L'Osservatore Romano has claimed the gospel is a "very modern forgery".[5] A number of independent scholars have since provided evidence to support this view, suggesting the papyrus includes textual mistakes (a typographical error) identical to those made only in a particular on-line modern iteration of corresponding texts. Revelation 19:7 7 Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready. -- Ephesians 5:25-27 25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; 26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, 27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. -- Think it's pretty clear that we're Jesus' bride, the church. More verses on this can be found if needed I do believe. i dunno... there is a big chunk of his life that is missing, and unless he was gay, he should have gotten married.. that was the norm back then... but i'm sure you know better than me, i wasn't there... and if he wasn't married, how could there be the last Zion of Christ in dogma? Zion of Christ in dogma? Please elaborate, not sure what is being referenced there. Why would he have to be gay or gotten married? He already has a wife, the church. And he didn't need a mortal wife eg., a flesh and blood woman, for he wasn't here to reproduce. He was here to finalize one covenant, and give us another in place. he was human, wasn't he? human men still have needs, and there are no "scriptures" from his life from 18-30, is there? so you have your OPINION, and i have mine... yes he was human, and the bible is not with out conjugal references. there is much speculation as to his relationship with magdelane. nowhere does he preach total abstinence. I believe his lifestyle did not lend itself to marriage - at least not at the point he began preaching where his life is recorded by the Gospels. He was a wandering preacher, an outlaw on the run for the last few years of his life...not exactly the marrying kind. Or more startling, in the supressed verses of Mark- the denial of these verses is the origin of the phrase, "a lie to a pagan, is not a lie- there are overt references of a homo-erotic relationship between Jesus and Lazerus. a lie to a pagan is not a lie. where do u come up with that? we have to follow examples in the scriptures. they r their for our own good. The only example of I know of a lie being ok is when Abraham said Sarah was his sister to the Eygptians. The point here is Abraham lied to protect her not himself. Yahshua could of lied and said I Am not the I AM. Yet he did not and suffered greatly for it. Abraham lied to protect others. Yahshua told the Truth and was killed for it as we are told as they hated him they will hate us also if we try to follow in Yahshua footsteps and that is desiring to know Yahweh. To not back down. Ours is to obey. period. This is Faith. Yahshua kept the Law that's what made him sinless. That is the measuring stick to ourselves whpo we really are. where we came from. To show compassion on others as Yahshua showed compassion for us. To realize our lives our not our own. Trust and obey. and Yahweh will not dispise a Broken and contrite heart. My she hears my voice and another they will not follow. What is this voice? It is the Holy Spirit. To say Yahshua had any type of homo erotic tendencies toward Lazarus denies him being the Word that Became Flesh. We are to be the word that comes out of our fleshly Bodies to the Grace and Knowledge of True love. we are all wrong. remember that. only by the Grace of Yahweh can we be saved from a corrupt and unjust world. Your statement TBrich " Or more startling, in the supressed verses of Mark- the denial of these verses is the origin of the phrase, "a lie to a pagan, is not a lie- there are overt references of a homo-erotic relationship between Jesus and Lazerus." does not hold water. It is a denial of Yahshua and the sacrifice he made for us. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A Church father (forget who exactly right now) in a letter to a new Bishop, contained the supressed passage and the advice to deny it, including the phrase "Afterall, a lie to a pagan is not a lie"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A Church father (forget who exactly right now) in a letter to a new Bishop, contained the supressed passage and the advice to deny it, including the phrase "Afterall, a lie to a pagan is not a lie" i don't think the bible thumpers liked the gay jesus theory... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A Church father (forget who exactly right now) in a letter to a new Bishop, contained the supressed passage and the advice to deny it, including the phrase "Afterall, a lie to a pagan is not a lie" i don't think the bible thumpers liked the gay jesus theory... There is a difference between homosexual behaviour and being a homosexual. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A Church father (forget who exactly right now) in a letter to a new Bishop, contained the supressed passage and the advice to deny it, including the phrase "Afterall, a lie to a pagan is not a lie" i don't think the bible thumpers liked the gay jesus theory... There is a difference between homosexual behaviour and being a homosexual. maybe to you...lol |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When I read the passage I didn't pick up anything sexual, but some homosexuals I know and others did. Maybe my gaydar is broken. Homosexuality is an orientation not a behavior, the guys in prison are not all gay, neither is male on male pedophilla
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A Church father (forget who exactly right now) in a letter to a new Bishop, contained the supressed passage and the advice to deny it, including the phrase "Afterall, a lie to a pagan is not a lie" I am sure their have been many who would say that. Joseph Smith taught that to steal from a gentile was not stealing at all |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
mightmoe said: in genesis, there was no jesus... why do you keep trying to confuse the issue? No there was no being named "Jesus" in genesis, this is true. But also have to keep in mind Jesus was a spiritual being that came down in physical form, which is where he got the name "Jesus". Before he walked the Earth he was not "Jesus", he was Lord and Lord God, thus why Lord is capitalized when in reference to Jesus. As shown in the following verse again for example - Genesis 4 4 And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the Lord. I changed nothing, this is the way it's written in the scriptures.
so what does any of this have to do with jesus? your confusing yourself... Not confusing anything Moe. "I have gotten a man from the Lord". This was said in Genesis 4, Jesus is the Lord. He is the only Lord, thus why it's capitalized when referring to Jesus. Again, yes of course this was before he was known as "Jesus" in the flesh, he was still Lord God at this time, not sure if he necessarily had a "name" or if he did have a name while he was Lord God it is not included in the scriptures in the bible. you're drawing some tortured conclusions,that hold no water at all! You're making connections that do not exist! If that's your proof,you're deceiving yourself! Better look for some much more conclusive evidence,but what you have just dished up here are disjointed assumptions! Neither part connects with the other one! Holds no water you say? Then please prove me wrong, show me my error so I will know. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
How Jesus Became God
Note; * a = peace upon him. I hope this post will help you. In the Qur'an, in a passage describing the annunciation to the Blessed Virgin Mary, Jesus ('a) is described as a Word from God: O Mary! Verily Allah gives you the glad tidings of a Word from Him; his name is the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, eminent in this world, and in the Hereafter of those near [to God] (3:44) Of course, the interpretation of the logos in Christian theology differs markedly from the interpretation of the kalimah by Muslim scholars. For the Christian, according to the Gospel of John, the Word was God and the Word became flesh.' For the Muslim, on the other hand, the Word is creature, even while it is the creative principle, for it is in God's utterance of the word 'Be'. That creation takes place. To call Christ the Word of Allah is not to deify him, but to verify his status as prophet. Because of his high status as prophet, Jesus ('a) becomes a complete manifestation of God, one who conveys the message of God, one who can speak on behalf of God, the Word of God Jesus ('a) becomes the Word of God not because of an incarnation whereby his flesh becomes divine, but because his spirit is refined to such an extent that it becomes a mirror whereby divinity comes to be known. The temple is holy not because of any inherent sanctity in the structure, but because it is the place of the worship of God. Among the other miracles attributed to Jesus ('a) in the Glorious Qur'an are the revival of the dead and the creation of a bird from clay, but all of the miracles performed by Jesus ('a) are expressly by the permission of Allah. Just as in the miracle of his birth, Jesus ('a) came into the world by a human mother and divine spirit, so too, his miracles are performed as human actions with divine permission. The point is that one can find God in Jesus ('a) without deifying him, and furthermore that deifying Jesus ('a) is really an obstacle to finding God in Jesus ('a), for in the deification one ceases to look in Jesus ('a) for anything beyond him. It is as if one were to become distracted from a message by focusing one's attention on the words through which it was conveyed. To the above point it may be added that not only does the doctrine of the incarnation prevent one from finding God in Christ ('a), but it also prevents one from seeing Christ ('a) the man, because his imagined divinity gets in the way. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
CowboyGH
on
Thu 05/01/14 07:17 AM
|
|
mightmoe said: in genesis, there was no jesus... why do you keep trying to confuse the issue? No there was no being named "Jesus" in genesis, this is true. But also have to keep in mind Jesus was a spiritual being that came down in physical form, which is where he got the name "Jesus". Before he walked the Earth he was not "Jesus", he was Lord and Lord God, thus why Lord is capitalized when in reference to Jesus. As shown in the following verse again for example - Genesis 4 4 And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the Lord. I changed nothing, this is the way it's written in the scriptures.
so what does any of this have to do with jesus? your confusing yourself... Not confusing anything Moe. "I have gotten a man from the Lord". This was said in Genesis 4, Jesus is the Lord. He is the only Lord, thus why it's capitalized when referring to Jesus. Again, yes of course this was before he was known as "Jesus" in the flesh, he was still Lord God at this time, not sure if he necessarily had a "name" or if he did have a name while he was Lord God it is not included in the scriptures in the bible. you're drawing some tortured conclusions,that hold no water at all! You're making connections that do not exist! If that's your proof,you're deceiving yourself! Better look for some much more conclusive evidence,but what you have just dished up here are disjointed assumptions! Neither part connects with the other one! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
How Jesus Became God Note; * a = peace upon him. I hope this post will help you. In the Qur'an, in a passage describing the annunciation to the Blessed Virgin Mary, Jesus ('a) is described as a Word from God: O Mary! Verily Allah gives you the glad tidings of a Word from Him; his name is the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, eminent in this world, and in the Hereafter of those near [to God] (3:44) Of course, the interpretation of the logos in Christian theology differs markedly from the interpretation of the kalimah by Muslim scholars. For the Christian, according to the Gospel of John, the Word was God and the Word became flesh.' For the Muslim, on the other hand, the Word is creature, even while it is the creative principle, for it is in God's utterance of the word 'Be'. That creation takes place. To call Christ the Word of Allah is not to deify him, but to verify his status as prophet. Because of his high status as prophet, Jesus ('a) becomes a complete manifestation of God, one who conveys the message of God, one who can speak on behalf of God, the Word of God Jesus ('a) becomes the Word of God not because of an incarnation whereby his flesh becomes divine, but because his spirit is refined to such an extent that it becomes a mirror whereby divinity comes to be known. The temple is holy not because of any inherent sanctity in the structure, but because it is the place of the worship of God. Among the other miracles attributed to Jesus ('a) in the Glorious Qur'an are the revival of the dead and the creation of a bird from clay, but all of the miracles performed by Jesus ('a) are expressly by the permission of Allah. Just as in the miracle of his birth, Jesus ('a) came into the world by a human mother and divine spirit, so too, his miracles are performed as human actions with divine permission. The point is that one can find God in Jesus ('a) without deifying him, and furthermore that deifying Jesus ('a) is really an obstacle to finding God in Jesus ('a), for in the deification one ceases to look in Jesus ('a) for anything beyond him. It is as if one were to become distracted from a message by focusing one's attention on the words through which it was conveyed. To the above point it may be added that not only does the doctrine of the incarnation prevent one from finding God in Christ ('a), but it also prevents one from seeing Christ ('a) the man, because his imagined divinity gets in the way. Isaiah 43:3 3 For I am the Lord thy God, the Holy One of Israel, thy Saviour: I gave Egypt for thy ransom, Ethiopia and Seba for thee. Exodus 20:2 2 I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Psalm 81:10 10 I am the Lord thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt: open thy mouth wide, and I will fill it. His imagined divinity? It was clear back to old testament whom was our God. Jesus Chist, the Lord. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The likeness of Jesus in God's sight is the same as that of Adam. He created him from earth and then He said to him "Be!" and he was. It is the truth from your Lord, so do not be among the doubters. (Quran 3: 59-60)
In these verses, God reveals that He created Prophet Adam and Prophet Jesus in a similar manner: Prophet Adam was created out of clay and had no ancestors, and Prophet Jesus had no father. Both of them were created through God's command of Be! This great truth, which leaves no room for doubt, makes it clear that both prophets were God's servants who, despite their exalted status, were still completely dependent upon Him to meet all of their needs. |
|
|
|
|
