N.T. Wright is of course right when he says that the resurrection of Jesus is much more important to the Christian faith than the virgin birth. Indeed, Christianity started as the belief in Jesus's resurrection. Belief in his virgin birth is a later development. As N.T. Wright says Paul never mentions it, neither does Mark. Yet, the virgin birth is an important issue. Since the Christians believe that Jesus is the eternel Word of God which got incarnated, I think the virgin birth is important. Moreover, if we doubt the virgin birth, we doubt the reliability, the trustworthiness of the Gospels. What are we to make with the Christian claim that the Gospels are inspired by the Holy Spirit, when they contain fake birth narratives? So the truthfulness of the birth narratives are important not for the Christian faith but for the trustworthiness of the Bible. If the birth narratives (and the genalogies) are made up stories, how many other stories in the Gospels are also not real but made up?
Contrary to popular belief, writing in ALL CAPS makes your writing harder to read and it means nobody will ever take you seriously until you stop doing it. So don't do it.
N.T. Wright says that we have multiple attestation of Jesus being born in Bethlehem. But he's got it wrong. Since Matthew's and Luke's accounts are irreconciliable (Quirinus became the governor of Syria only after Herod's death, there's no flee to Egypt in Luke, Mary and Joseph were living in Bethlehem according to Matthew but in Nazareth according to Luke), I cannot buy N.T. Wright's explanation that Matthew and Luke inserted the virgin birth into their account because they had such material. I rather think that since both Matthew and Luke are based on Mark, they could be regarded as Mark 2.0, they extended and modified Mark's account. I think by the time Matthew and Luke were writing, there was a need in the Christian community to prove that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, as the Messiah was supposed to be a descendent of David. By this time the Christians apparently started to believe that Jesus was not just figuratively but literally the Son of God, born of God. Therefore Joseph could not be his biological father. I think that while writing Mark 2.0 Matthew and Luke wanted to address these problems, that's why they inserted both a genealogy of Jesus as well as a birth narrative. The fact that both the genealogies and the birth narratives differ, they only have common the points which they are meant to prove (Joseph was not Jesus's biological father, Jesus was a descendent of David and was born in Bethlehem) so I consider them fake, made up afterwards in order to prove a theological point. So we do not have multiple attestation of Jesus being born in Bethlehem, rather we have two differing attempts to try to prove this point.
@Hrugnir What I'm saying is that Isaiah, for example has all these references to the majority of Israel being "cut off", with a holy remnant being saved. For example, the Book of Isaiah is the second greatest prophet after Moses according to the Jews. In his calling (Isa 6:9-13), it's told that most of Israel will not hear, accept or repent. This exact text is later used by Jesus to explain what's going on when he comes. Not even Jewish Scriptures claim that the Jews always get it right.
The Christian belief is not based on blind faith. In fact it is a requirement of the Christian faith to have "a REASONable explanation for the faith that's within". Paul said if Christ has not risen from the dead our faith is in vain and we are to be most pitied". In other words he based his belief on facts not on imaginary scenarios or fairy tales. Many people who look into the historical facts about Jesus, like this man has, have become believers, because history supports such beliefs.
Eric Breaux Religious fundamentalists are obsessed with making their idea of Jesus "historical" because they associate that with being "real." Any religion whose claims depend on actual personas or events is a lesser religion than one based on timeless moral or philosophical precepts.
So some of those five hundred witnesses, who risked life, limb, family and lively hood, with actual written testimonies of Jesus appearing to them after his resurrection lied right? Darn those selfish people who were thrown into jail and tortured. Why were they so selfish?
David Grant The only place anyone "risked life, limb, family and lively hood, with actual written testimonies of Jesus" is in exaggerated versions of a bible story-- this is like claiming that Gandalf the Wizard must be real because all the Hobbits saw him in Lord of the Rings. You can't prove a story is true by quoting the story itself-- and there are not "500 written testimonies" to the resurrection, even in the bible tale. Religious fundamentalists who make such claims don't give a damn about truth or reason.
luvdomus I advise you to do some research. I believe wholly in the bible. I have applied its statutes to my life and exactly as it has promised things happened. But if you scoff at God's word, then there are other sources. Gandalf doesn't exist. Historical references as well as carbon dating proves the very existence of Jesus, and the testimonies of the disciples as well as the five-hundrd witnesses.
Cool. I have thought this for years but have rarely found others able to overcome their church traditions and examine the text as it is. The Scriptures say heaps more about the resurrection of Jesus than the virgin birth. On the other hand, his use of Is 7:14 is a weak.
People of the early church were willing to die for this. 500 plus witnesses risked everything to talk about their witness of Jesus appearing unto them. Peter requested to be hung upside down, because he felt unworthy as to be crucified as Jesus did. Paul who was chief persecutor of the church, was beaten and tortured numerous of times, and throne into cold prisons with rats. Peter watched Herod slew James right before his eyes, but still kept the faith. I don't care who you are and how strong your faith is, many of the witnesses would have come under the fight or flight experiences, or told the truth, at the sight of others blood, if they were lying. Think about it. Why would a chief roman soldier who was at the tomb when it rolled away, risk his lively hood, because he tried to talk about it later on, even after he was paid off not to say anything? Finally, Jesus name has been hated since it was made known who he was and is. That alone tells me something. That their is truly power in the name of Jesus. Thanks
Paul said in Romans that Israel (due to a hardness of heart and disbelief) was hardened in part by God Himself (so that they could not descern the truth) until the fulness of Gentiles come into the faith, (AKA the inclusion of the Gentiles with the Jews of the commonwealth inheritance of God.) Is it really a wonder that orthadox Jews don't "see" Jesus in their scriptures concidering that God Himself is keeping it from them? The eyes of the Jews will be re-opened to be able to see soon enough.
4-as to those who do not believe in the hereafter, we have surely made their deeds fair-seeming to them, but they blindly wander on. 5-these are they who shall have an evil punishment, and in the hereafter they shall be the greatest losers. 6-and most surely you are made to receive the quran from the wise, the knowing god.
@titusmountjoy haha, jeez, don't get too worked up. I guess you missed out on this part 1:14 when he outright says "And so I ask myself as a historian...." You may need to watch the video again. Just curious, but isn't it possible for him to be a good balance of all three: theologian, scholar, and historian? With all of these elements he can probably see the bigger picture of it all.
Wow, if the summer Olympics ever opens a catagory for competitive mental gymnastics, this guy would take the gold every year while blindfolded. He makes Shawn Johnson look like a quadraplegic in a coma.
@tallliza Look, I'm deeply respectful of Jewish culture then and now, but if you have actually READ the Jewish Scriptures, it's basically one long story of how bad the Jews were at keeping their covenant. Also, don't forget that Jesus and all of his followers were Jews, and used Jewish explanations for why this had fulfilled the Scriptures. Once again, though, check out his answer in the other vide. His point isn't the rapid growth, but that Christianity EVER took off!
Why are the virgin birth, empty tomb and resurrection controversial? Because people relate only to what they can see. Even many who believe in a deity choose not to believe in the version birth or resurrection. Simply because we operate in our own logic. If we can't do it, then we say God can't do it. But how is it that we can believe, God created us from the dust of the earth? Where did our eyes come from? The world's most advanced camera lenses that we are born with. How does our body know to cobalt certain illnesses? How is it that God can breathe into dust, and the dust forms and speaks, and thinks, and reason among each other. Yet we believe in that. It took an unnatural, unbelievable, totally insane deity to do such. We can't raise ourselves from the dead nor be born of a virgin. So we dare limit God? We limit Jesus Christ his son, yet we believe that God created us, and spoke to the void of the earth and the earth was created? Yet we can't do any of those things either. So why is it so hard to believe that the incredible deity who gave life, and the ability to live, thrive, reap and so, work and speak can choose a virgin to bare his seed and raise his own son from the dead? Think about it.
Neros Chrestos, Knew his Mother (Agrippina minor) but not his father, adopted by Claudius. So he / his followers claimed a Virgin Birth. The empty tomb is in Rome (not Jerusalem) under the church at the Plaza del populo. It is a tourist attraction. After the sacrifice and disappearance of Neros the romans were in shock; rumours on his innocence and glorious comeback were the daily news for a while, he was only hiding and waiting for the right moment to return. I as an historian can't explain where it started ......?
In the name of Allah, The beneficent the merciful. Quran: {Surah-26-the ant (naml)-vs-1} Ta sin! These are the verses of the quran and the book that makes (things) clear, 2-a guidance and good news for the believers, 3-who keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, and of the hereafter, they are sure.
"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter." Thomas Jefferson, 1823.
Why do we reject all supernatural accounts of all ancient writings except the ones from the religious text we subscribe to? Things that make me go hmmmm.......
If Wright "cannot explain as a historian how Christianity ever got off the ground" unless the resurrection actually happened as claimed,might I suggest he look at Mormonism for an insight into how people can be lied to in order to create a new branch of religion?Not only do Gospel accounts differ on major events they even differ when recounting the genealogy of Jesus.
Not a bad point to consider. But I would also have to consider that the early Christians were willing to die for their faith brutally, without recantment, even the leaders like peter which makes me consider that they really believed in what they were saying and really thought that they had seen a man very easily come back to life in perfect health forever and so we’re no longer afraid of death them selves or doubtful in God
From looking at your profile, it looks like you are probably using a keyboard that only allows capital letters, which is how things are in some places. If your keyboard does not allow you to type in lower-case letters, all you needed to do was say so. I apologize for not recognizing your situation. Most people who type in all caps do so because they think it will make people pay more attention. Since that is not the case with you, I recommend simply telling people why, when they comment on it.
How could Jesus have a lineage thru David if God was the Father? The early Christians naturally used the popular tales of the day to entice a following. Whereas the Jesus Movement was slowly dying out after Jesus failed to return "within their generation" as He had promised, and many Jews were returning to worship the God of the old Testament as they always had, it is hardly surprising that 30 years after Jesus was buried, the NT writers would try to gather support by making stories about a Resurrection. The ingenious touch by Paul later to write a letter saying there were 500 nameless witnesses, who wrote nothing down, told no one in Jerusalem and all just vanished, attempted to add some credibility to the story. Today's followers ASSUME it must all be true and Christianity has grown to be a multi-billion dollar enterprise. based solely on belief. It's similar to the world now being addicted to having coffee everyday from beliefs created by coffee and donut advertisers.
***** I understand now. Jesus was not the Son of God after all, but the son of Joseph, so He could be considered in the David line, and God is His Heavenly Father the same as God is the Heavenly Father to everybody else. Your view that Mary was still a Virgin when Jesus was 30 years old is new to me. That was probably frustrating to Joseph, who you just told me had sex with Mary 30 years earlier to be Jesus' physical father. My own view is that birth is not an act of fornication. When my own son was born, it felt like a truly sacred moment to me and fornication was the furthest thing from my mind. Perhaps you thought that Mary and Joseph were not man and wife, so having sex would be fornication for them? There are so many different beliefs from so many different kinds of Christians. It's almost like each Christian makes up their own interpretations. Thanks for your help.
Jesus had a lineage thru David because, tho Joseph, not having sexual relations with Mary until AFTER Jesus was born, thereby confirming her virginity at His birth(Mathew 1:25), Mary herself had a place in the Davidic lineage. Joseph WAS NOT the physical father, but the foster father of Jesus. And I agree with confused353 in that our faith isn't blind, but based on historical fact & eyewitness accounts.
John Dalesandro Those are interesting beliefs. I have no idea how you have evidence of what Joseph and Mary did sexually. To think you could possibly KNOW what two particular people did in their beds 2000 years ago reduces your credibility immensely. Are you perhaps indoctrinated into believing that stories are Truth? Lineage did not go through the female lines as you must know. If you claim Jesus was adopted then Jesus was not in the Davidic line. This is not a new argument by Christians and has been debated to death for hundreds of years. Christians are caught by wanting lineage and a Virgin Birth too. In fairy tales you can make up whatever beliefs you like, and Christians have thousands of denominations that have done just that. There are some historical facts to support that Jesus did exist, led a small cult group and was crucified and buried. He was not the first person to do that. There is no support for any Resurrection except for biased stories His followers did not even start writing till 30 years after Jesus was buried. They wrote the Book of Mark first which was completed in 60 AD. As they gathered support they finally dared to say Jesus was Divine in the book of John. If you are one of those who imagines people named Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote books by that name, then I would suggest you open your mind and visit a decent Library. Paul was like a current TV evangelist and did write a letter saying there were 500 nameless witnesses, who I guess were unimpressed because NONE of them wrote anything down, told no one in Jerusalem and they all disappeared without a trace. there are NO eye-witness testimonies from these people at all. What you have is one letter SAYING there were witnesses - is that Truth to you. Would that be Truth in any court in the world? No. If I knock on your door and tell you Jesus wants you to give me your house and I have the signatures of 500 people that witnessed Him telling me that, can you honestly say you would be running to get your deed for me? I fully respect your right to your beliefs and I suspect you are a kind and sincere person. If you are content to belief stories in which supernatural events occurred that is your responsibility. I do belief in God, by the way, just not any from stories men made long ago in their imaginations to be in their image as having pitiful human needs and emotions like jealousy, anger and vengeance, illogical thinking, immorality and needing to stay silent and invisible for the last 2000 years. Wishing you God's Love, Truth and Peace,
***** I'm not contending that I know the intimate details of Joseph & Mary's sexual activity. What I'm saying is that from reading Mathew 1:25, a person's common sense enables them to conclude that they consumated their marriage in the normal natural way, AFTER Jesus was born, there being absolutely no need for them not to. People who suspend their common sense & God-given reasoning ability, in order to line up with certain doctrines of a particular religious organization, an example of which is that organization based in Rome, that used the fallacy of Mary's "perpetual virginity" in order to justify elevating her beyond her deserved place in scripture to the status of a "co-mediator" alongside Christ, doing violence to the Word of God, which says, "There is One God and One Mediator Between God and Man, the Man Christ Jesus."
From a historic point of view it’s unlikely Jesus even existed let alone anything else. I’d say it’s about 50/50 which when u consider how organised the Roman Empire was and all the miracles he performed. You have to conclude that there is a serious lack of evidence that should be abundant.
Do you know your caps are on? Hey man, go drink some blood for zombie Jesus. Well, that was not his name. Jesus means "son of Zeus" and all scholars know this.Yhwh said don't do it, but your Mithra religions did so the creators of Jesus said do it. Jesus said do not believe anyone who said he returned. Mat 24 Paul said he returned. 1Cor15 Jesus said "do not believe the false apostle Paul" whom you love and adore.You read his words for comfort.You will be brought under condemnation.
N.T. Wright is of course right when he says that the resurrection of Jesus is much more important to the Christian faith than the virgin birth. Indeed, Christianity started as the belief in Jesus's resurrection. Belief in his virgin birth is a later development. As N.T. Wright says Paul never mentions it, neither does Mark. Yet, the virgin birth is an important issue. Since the Christians believe that Jesus is the eternel Word of God which got incarnated, I think the virgin birth is important. Moreover, if we doubt the virgin birth, we doubt the reliability, the trustworthiness of the Gospels. What are we to make with the Christian claim that the Gospels are inspired by the Holy Spirit, when they contain fake birth narratives? So the truthfulness of the birth narratives are important not for the Christian faith but for the trustworthiness of the Bible. If the birth narratives (and the genalogies) are made up stories, how many other stories in the Gospels are also not real but made up?
Contrary to popular belief, writing in ALL CAPS makes your writing harder to read and it means nobody will ever take you seriously until you stop doing it.
So don't do it.
@tallliza See the second last question in the video "Asking the right questions" with N.T. Wright, he answers exactly this criticism there.
N.T. Wright says that we have multiple attestation of Jesus being born in Bethlehem. But he's got it wrong. Since Matthew's and Luke's accounts are irreconciliable (Quirinus became the governor of Syria only after Herod's death, there's no flee to Egypt in Luke, Mary and Joseph were living in Bethlehem according to Matthew but in Nazareth according to Luke), I cannot buy N.T. Wright's explanation that Matthew and Luke inserted the virgin birth into their account because they had such material. I rather think that since both Matthew and Luke are based on Mark, they could be regarded as Mark 2.0, they extended and modified Mark's account. I think by the time Matthew and Luke were writing, there was a need in the Christian community to prove that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, as the Messiah was supposed to be a descendent of David. By this time the Christians apparently started to believe that Jesus was not just figuratively but literally the Son of God, born of God. Therefore Joseph could not be his biological father. I think that while writing Mark 2.0 Matthew and Luke wanted to address these problems, that's why they inserted both a genealogy of Jesus as well as a birth narrative. The fact that both the genealogies and the birth narratives differ, they only have common the points which they are meant to prove (Joseph was not Jesus's biological father, Jesus was a descendent of David and was born in Bethlehem) so I consider them fake, made up afterwards in order to prove a theological point. So we do not have multiple attestation of Jesus being born in Bethlehem, rather we have two differing attempts to try to prove this point.
@Hrugnir
What I'm saying is that Isaiah, for example has all these references to the majority of Israel being "cut off", with a holy remnant being saved. For example, the Book of Isaiah is the second greatest prophet after Moses according to the Jews. In his calling (Isa 6:9-13), it's told that most of Israel will not hear, accept or repent. This exact text is later used by Jesus to explain what's going on when he comes.
Not even Jewish Scriptures claim that the Jews always get it right.
The Christian belief is not based on blind faith. In fact it is a requirement of the Christian faith to have "a REASONable explanation for the faith that's within".
Paul said if Christ has not risen from the dead our faith is in vain and we are to be most pitied". In other words he based his belief on facts not on imaginary scenarios or fairy tales. Many people who look into the historical facts about Jesus, like this man has, have become believers, because history supports such beliefs.
Virgin birth and resurrection from the dead are not "controversial," they are absurd.
www.garyhabermas.com/books/historicaljesus/historicaljesus.htm#ch4
Eric Breaux Religious fundamentalists are obsessed with making their idea of Jesus "historical" because they associate that with being "real." Any religion whose claims depend on actual personas or events is a lesser religion than one based on timeless moral or philosophical precepts.
So some of those five hundred witnesses, who risked life, limb, family and lively hood, with actual written testimonies of Jesus appearing to them after his resurrection lied right? Darn those selfish people who were thrown into jail and tortured. Why were they so selfish?
David Grant The only place anyone "risked life, limb, family and lively hood, with actual written testimonies of Jesus" is in exaggerated versions of a bible story-- this is like claiming that Gandalf the Wizard must be real because all the Hobbits saw him in Lord of the Rings. You can't prove a story is true by quoting the story itself-- and there are not "500 written testimonies" to the resurrection, even in the bible tale. Religious fundamentalists who make such claims don't give a damn about truth or reason.
luvdomus I advise you to do some research. I believe wholly in the bible. I have applied its statutes to my life and exactly as it has promised things happened. But if you scoff at God's word, then there are other sources. Gandalf doesn't exist. Historical references as well as carbon dating proves the very existence of Jesus, and the testimonies of the disciples as well as the five-hundrd witnesses.
Cool. I have thought this for years but have rarely found others able to overcome their church traditions and examine the text as it is. The Scriptures say heaps more about the resurrection of Jesus than the virgin birth. On the other hand, his use of Is 7:14 is a weak.
@blannphinella just because it goes against your belief in metaphysical materialism doesnt mean his statements are not honest or not reasonable
People of the early church were willing to die for this. 500 plus witnesses risked everything to talk about their witness of Jesus appearing unto them. Peter requested to be hung upside down, because he felt unworthy as to be crucified as Jesus did. Paul who was chief persecutor of the church, was beaten and tortured numerous of times, and throne into cold prisons with rats. Peter watched Herod slew James right before his eyes, but still kept the faith. I don't care who you are and how strong your faith is, many of the witnesses would have come under the fight or flight experiences, or told the truth, at the sight of others blood, if they were lying. Think about it. Why would a chief roman soldier who was at the tomb when it rolled away, risk his lively hood, because he tried to talk about it later on, even after he was paid off not to say anything? Finally, Jesus name has been hated since it was made known who he was and is. That alone tells me something. That their is truly power in the name of Jesus. Thanks
Amen
Paul said in Romans that Israel (due to a hardness of heart and disbelief) was hardened in part by God Himself (so that they could not descern the truth) until the fulness of Gentiles come into the faith, (AKA the inclusion of the Gentiles with the Jews of the commonwealth inheritance of God.)
Is it really a wonder that orthadox Jews don't "see" Jesus in their scriptures concidering that God Himself is keeping it from them? The eyes of the Jews will be re-opened to be able to see soon enough.
4-as to those who do not believe in the hereafter, we have surely made their deeds fair-seeming to them, but they blindly wander on.
5-these are they who shall have an evil punishment, and in the hereafter they shall be the greatest losers.
6-and most surely you are made to receive the quran from the wise, the knowing god.
@titusmountjoy haha, jeez, don't get too worked up. I guess you missed out on this part 1:14 when he outright says "And so I ask myself as a historian...." You may need to watch the video again. Just curious, but isn't it possible for him to be a good balance of all three: theologian, scholar, and historian? With all of these elements he can probably see the bigger picture of it all.
Wow, if the summer Olympics ever opens a catagory for competitive mental gymnastics, this guy would take the gold every year while blindfolded. He makes Shawn Johnson look like a quadraplegic in a coma.
Start reading from my first comment to find out the truth
peace peace
@tallliza
Look, I'm deeply respectful of Jewish culture then and now, but if you have actually READ the Jewish Scriptures, it's basically one long story of how bad the Jews were at keeping their covenant.
Also, don't forget that Jesus and all of his followers were Jews, and used Jewish explanations for why this had fulfilled the Scriptures.
Once again, though, check out his answer in the other vide. His point isn't the rapid growth, but that Christianity EVER took off!
@titusmountjoy he is a historian
Why are the virgin birth, empty tomb and resurrection controversial? Because people relate only to what they can see. Even many who believe in a deity choose not to believe in the version birth or resurrection. Simply because we operate in our own logic. If we can't do it, then we say God can't do it.
But how is it that we can believe, God created us from the dust of the earth? Where did our eyes come from? The world's most advanced camera lenses that we are born with. How does our body know to cobalt certain illnesses? How is it that God can breathe into dust, and the dust forms and speaks, and thinks, and reason among each other. Yet we believe in that. It took an unnatural, unbelievable, totally insane deity to do such.
We can't raise ourselves from the dead nor be born of a virgin. So we dare limit God? We limit Jesus Christ his son, yet we believe that God created us, and spoke to the void of the earth and the earth was created? Yet we can't do any of those things either.
So why is it so hard to believe that the incredible deity who gave life, and the ability to live, thrive, reap and so, work and speak can choose a virgin to bare his seed and raise his own son from the dead? Think about it.
Neros Chrestos, Knew his Mother (Agrippina minor) but not his father, adopted by Claudius. So he / his followers claimed a Virgin Birth. The empty tomb is in Rome (not Jerusalem) under the church at the Plaza del populo. It is a tourist attraction. After the sacrifice and disappearance of Neros the romans were in shock; rumours on his innocence and glorious comeback were the daily news for a while, he was only hiding and waiting for the right moment to return. I as an historian can't explain where it started ......?
@tallliza just read the dialogue with Tripho by St. Justin martyr... and you will realize that , yes, maybe they are all dummies...
j-2 ..r1b1a2 dna double xx chroms..ab positive blood type ..male with female blood....IAM...to be or not to be?
In the name of Allah,
The beneficent the merciful.
Quran:
{Surah-26-the ant (naml)-vs-1}
Ta sin! These are the verses of the quran and the book that makes (things) clear,
2-a guidance and good news for the believers,
3-who keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, and of the hereafter, they are sure.
"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter." Thomas Jefferson, 1823.
Why do we reject all supernatural accounts of all ancient writings except the ones from the religious text we subscribe to? Things that make me go hmmmm.......
If Wright "cannot explain as a historian how Christianity ever got off the ground" unless the resurrection actually happened as claimed,might I suggest he look at Mormonism for an insight into how people can be lied to in order to create a new branch of religion?Not only do Gospel accounts differ on major events they even differ when recounting the genealogy of Jesus.
Not a bad point to consider. But I would also have to consider that the early Christians were willing to die for their faith brutally, without recantment, even the leaders like peter which makes me consider that they really believed in what they were saying and really thought that they had seen a man very easily come back to life in perfect health forever and so we’re no longer afraid of death them selves or doubtful in God
From looking at your profile, it looks like you are probably using a keyboard that only allows capital letters, which is how things are in some places. If your keyboard does not allow you to type in lower-case letters, all you needed to do was say so. I apologize for not recognizing your situation.
Most people who type in all caps do so because they think it will make people pay more attention. Since that is not the case with you, I recommend simply telling people why, when they comment on it.
How could Jesus have a lineage thru David if God was the Father? The early Christians naturally used the popular tales of the day to entice a following. Whereas the Jesus Movement was slowly dying out after Jesus failed to return "within their generation" as He had promised, and many Jews were returning to worship the God of the old Testament as they always had, it is hardly surprising that 30 years after Jesus was buried, the NT writers would try to gather support by making stories about a Resurrection. The ingenious touch by Paul later to write a letter saying there were 500 nameless witnesses, who wrote nothing down, told no one in Jerusalem and all just vanished, attempted to add some credibility to the story. Today's followers ASSUME it must all be true and Christianity has grown to be a multi-billion dollar enterprise. based solely on belief. It's similar to the world now being addicted to having coffee everyday from beliefs created by coffee and donut advertisers.
***** I understand now. Jesus was not the Son of God after all, but the son of Joseph, so He could be considered in the David line, and God is His Heavenly Father the same as God is the Heavenly Father to everybody else. Your view that Mary was still a Virgin when Jesus was 30 years old is new to me. That was probably frustrating to Joseph, who you just told me had sex with Mary 30 years earlier to be Jesus' physical father. My own view is that birth is not an act of fornication. When my own son was born, it felt like a truly sacred moment to me and fornication was the furthest thing from my mind. Perhaps you thought that Mary and Joseph were not man and wife, so having sex would be fornication for them? There are so many different beliefs from so many different kinds of Christians. It's almost like each Christian makes up their own interpretations. Thanks for your help.
Jesus had a lineage thru David because, tho Joseph, not having sexual relations with Mary until AFTER Jesus was born, thereby confirming her virginity at His birth(Mathew 1:25), Mary herself had a place in the Davidic lineage. Joseph WAS NOT the physical father, but the foster father of Jesus. And I agree with confused353 in that our faith isn't blind, but based on historical fact & eyewitness accounts.
John Dalesandro Those are interesting beliefs. I have no idea how you have evidence of what Joseph and Mary did sexually. To think you could possibly KNOW what two particular people did in their beds 2000 years ago reduces your credibility immensely. Are you perhaps indoctrinated into believing that stories are Truth? Lineage did not go through the female lines as you must know. If you claim Jesus was adopted then Jesus was not in the Davidic line. This is not a new argument by Christians and has been debated to death for hundreds of years. Christians are caught by wanting lineage and a Virgin Birth too. In fairy tales you can make up whatever beliefs you like, and Christians have thousands of denominations that have done just that.
There are some historical facts to support that Jesus did exist, led a small cult group and was crucified and buried. He was not the first person to do that. There is no support for any Resurrection except for biased stories His followers did not even start writing till 30 years after Jesus was buried. They wrote the Book of Mark first which was completed in 60 AD. As they gathered support they finally dared to say Jesus was Divine in the book of John.
If you are one of those who imagines people named Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote books by that name, then I would suggest you open your mind and visit a decent Library.
Paul was like a current TV evangelist and did write a letter saying there were 500 nameless witnesses, who I guess were unimpressed because NONE of them wrote anything down, told no one in Jerusalem and they all disappeared without a trace. there are NO eye-witness testimonies from these people at all. What you have is one letter SAYING there were witnesses - is that Truth to you. Would that be Truth in any court in the world? No.
If I knock on your door and tell you Jesus wants you to give me your house and I have the signatures of 500 people that witnessed Him telling me that, can you honestly say you would be running to get your deed for me?
I fully respect your right to your beliefs and I suspect you are a kind and sincere person. If you are content to belief stories in which supernatural events occurred that is your responsibility. I do belief in God, by the way, just not any from stories men made long ago in their imaginations to be in their image as having pitiful human needs and emotions like jealousy, anger and vengeance, illogical thinking, immorality and needing to stay silent and invisible for the last 2000 years.
Wishing you God's Love, Truth and Peace,
*****
I'm not contending that I know the intimate details of Joseph & Mary's sexual activity. What I'm saying is that from reading Mathew 1:25, a person's common sense enables them to conclude that they consumated their marriage in the normal natural way, AFTER Jesus was born, there being absolutely no need for them not to. People who suspend their common sense & God-given reasoning ability, in order to line up with certain doctrines of a particular religious organization, an example of which is that organization based in Rome, that used the fallacy of Mary's "perpetual virginity" in order to justify elevating her beyond her deserved place in scripture to the status of a "co-mediator" alongside Christ, doing violence to the Word of God, which says, "There is One God and One Mediator Between God and Man, the Man Christ Jesus."
John Dalesandro
By The Way.........Jesus IS the Truth! Some day you may be enlightened.
From a historic point of view it’s unlikely Jesus even existed let alone anything else. I’d say it’s about 50/50 which when u consider how organised the Roman Empire was and all the miracles he performed. You have to conclude that there is a serious lack of evidence that should be abundant.
Do you know your caps are on? Hey man, go drink some blood for zombie Jesus. Well, that was not his name. Jesus means "son of Zeus" and all scholars know this.Yhwh said don't do it, but your Mithra religions did so the creators of Jesus said do it.
Jesus said do not believe anyone who said he returned. Mat 24
Paul said he returned. 1Cor15
Jesus said "do not believe the false apostle Paul" whom you love and adore.You read his words for comfort.You will be brought under condemnation.