There were also times when God told Israel to kill of nearly an entire generation of "Jews". There are places where God tells Israel to treat the "stranger" who comes among them very well, there are times when Jews and Gentiles dwelled among one another in peace and places when they did not.
Understanding all of this requires a couple of "perception" changes. First, understand that the OT is seen on a number of levels, as God's blueprint of creation, God's instruction for how to live, a history of mankind and his relationship with each other and with God, etc. etc.
Yes, there are always exception to the rule. God's grace didn't suddenly appear through Christianity.
The history of the Jewish nation, as a whole, doesn't paint a pretty picture in relationship to other "Nations." That is a perception change I acquired from having these sort of discussions with people who don't believe in God at all. The "argument of evil" doesn't exactly depict God as a benevolent God even towards His chosen people. Yet, I still try to hang onto my perception that God is Just.
My head is reeling from this forum and I have not learned how to quote your quotes with the controls here yet.
So the process for me of trying to comment on them has been tedious at best.
I have tried to touch on your questions in some of my general ramblings.
I need to extrapolate the text and sandwich my replies.
It is not that you intention is not well received but it is that i have not figured out technically how to reply to such a lump of coded text.
If you were to make each question in a separate post then it would be easier for me to reply to them until I learn the way to use the editing tools of this site better.
And thank you for your question they are always welcome.
Peace with God.
DWW
DWW, what I do in my responses - what you could do also if you want is this:
1. go into "reply mode"
2. scroll all the way down to the bottom of the page and you will see a link that says "review the complete topic" and click it. This will open a second window, separate from the window you are usiing for your reply.
3. In the "review window" highlight and copy the portion you want to quote and respond to. Then paste it into the reply window.
4. At the top of the reply window - 4 boxes to the right of the smily face are "quote" tags. highlight the section you just pasted and then click that button. That will wrap it in quotes so it will show up in the "white box" when you finally hit the "add reply" button after you have completed your post.
5. You can now add comments underneath the quote box
6. You can repeat this process as many times as you want, within the same "reply window" until you have said everything you want to say.
Another option is to simply hit the "reply button" so that it quotes everything I wrote. Then within that quote you can write responses, highlight them, and hit the "b" on the upper left hand corner. This will cause your responses to be in bold and allow others to separate what you are saying from what was quoted.
Thanks for explaining why you weren't responding. I hope that helps. :)
Gee, DWW, that comes across as very condencending. It must be difficult to climb down from way up high where you reside to talk to us peons?
Abi, it's possible that that was directed towards me. I suppose my last sentence (to which this response was in close proximity to) might have come across as a little bit lofty. I can see it being taken that way and perhaps WW was just trying to tell me I need to come off my "high-horse." Perhaps I was a little tacky in saying that.
Yes, there are always exception to the rule. God's grace didn't suddenly appear through Christianity.
The history of the Jewish nation, as a whole, doesn't paint a pretty picture in relationship to other "Nations." That is a perception change I acquired from having these sort of discussions with people who don't believe in God at all. The "argument of evil" doesn't exactly depict God as a benevolent God even towards His chosen people. Yet, I still try to hang onto my perception that God is Just.
In many respects, I agree, Larry. I tend to view it as something of an evolutionary process. In the begninng, man was so stupid God had to explain to them that marriage was between a man and a woman, not a man and a donkey. God had to tell man about washing hands, how to prepare foods, what foods were healthy and what foods were not. Over time, man learned and evolved. People taught their children what they learned, those children learned even more and so had more to teach to their children, etc. etc.
Abi, it's possible that that was directed towards me. I suppose my last sentence (to which this response was in close proximity to) might have come across as a little bit lofty. I can see it being taken that way and perhaps WW was just trying to tell me I need to come off my "high-horse." Perhaps I was a little tacky in saying that.
Okay, thanks for clarifying. If that is the case, I apologize DWW.
Sorry for calling you "Eeyore". Eeyore is a cute little donkey who acts like a grump most of the time, but Christopher Robin and Pooh and the rest of the gang all love him anyhow.
TheEvan,
You're right about other "blinding" events. Thanks for that input.
And WW (or who-ever it was) that said I was probably just echo-ing something I'd read ... nope. 'Haven't read this Conspiracy Theory anywhere else, but I'm flattered and encouraged that someone else has considered it too. Actually, the only book besides the Bible that I have read about Paul, is a book that my dad wrote. My dad thought Paul was the best. My dad was an electrical engineer, a Purdue graduate, who mostly thought in black-and-whte. He liked Paul's inflexible explanations of things, he liked the rules and regs, even though he was a Christian man, a very good man too.
Abigail,
You are amazing!
Dan,
I'll read the artical about Barnabus after work tonight. I'm on my lunchbreak now, and running out of time. Thanks for the link.
Now, could someone please explain why John Mark departed from Paul and Barnabas, and why that came up later in Acts as well? What was John Mark's complaint? Could it be that he was the good guy?
What I remember about my dad's book is that it was typed on our old typewriter and bound at some bookstore, so it looked like a real publication, but it was never published. I remember him working on it late at night after he had helped me with my algebra, and the rest of the family had gone off to bed. He was so proud of it. I struggled to read the whole thing, because it was so boring, but I did finish it, and told my dad it was wonderful, only because I loved him so much. Truth was even as a kid who had grown up in Sunday School, I never much liked old Paul, so I didn't like the book much either. I think my mom still has it somewhere.
Sorry for calling you "Eeyore". Eeyore is a cute little donkey who acts like a grump most of the time, but Christopher Robin and Pooh and the rest of the gang all love him anyhow.
I accept your apology Shifra even though I'm tempted to educate you on how being called an Eeyore is not a reference to being "grumpy." But how can I possibly do that when you imply you love me just the same? :) Enuf said on this one.
Now, could someone please explain why John Mark departed from Paul and Barnabas, and why that came up later in Acts as well? What was John Mark's complaint? Could it be that he was the good guy?
What I remember about my dad's book is that it was typed on our old typewriter and bound at some bookstore, so it looked like a real publication, but it was never published. I remember him working on it late at night after he had helped me with my algebra, and the rest of the family had gone off to bed. He was so proud of it. I struggled to read the whole thing, because it was so boring, but I did finish it, and told my dad it was wonderful, only because I loved him so much. Truth was even as a kid who had grown up in Sunday School, I never much liked old Paul, so I didn't like the book much either. I think my mom still has it somewhere.
Shifra,
Had ever you ever thought about submitting your father's book to a publisher?
On page 8 of this thread, Dan suggests that we look at an article about the Gospel of Barnabus. Here's an excerpt:
According to one version of the Gospel of Barnabas, Jesus denied being the Messiah, claiming rather that the Messiah would be Ishmaelite (ie Arab):
"Whereupon Jesus said: 'Ye deceive yourselves; for David in spirit calleth him lord, saying thus: "God said to my lord, sit thou on my right hand until I make thine enemies thy footstool. God shall send forth thy rod which shall have lordship in the midst of thine enemies." If the messenger of God whom ye call Messiah were son of David, how should David call him lord? Believe me, for verily I say to you, that the promise was made in Ishmael, not in Isaac.'" (Barnabas 43:10)
Hajj Sayed (Senior Member in CIMS), in his new book in Egypt, compares this to the following statement from the canonical Bible:
"What do you think about the Christ? Whose son is he?" "The son of David," they replied. He said to them, "How is it then that David, speaking by the Spirit, calls him 'Lord'? For he says, 'The Lord said to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet.' If then David calls him 'Lord,' how can he be his son?" Matthew 22:42-46
According to the canonical Gospels, Jesus was the "son" (descendant) of David; thus, Hajj Sayed argues that this statement confirms the Gospel of Barnabas' point.
The idea of the Messiah as an Arab is also found in another chapter of Gospel of Barnabas:
"If I work iniquity, reprove me, and God will love you, because you shall be doing his will, but if none can reprove me of sin it is a sign that you are not sons of Abraham as you call yourselves, nor are you incorporate with that head wherein Abraham was incorporate. As God lives, so greatly did Abraham love God, that he not only brake in pieces the false idols and forsook his father and mother, but was willing to slay his own son in obedience to God.
The high priest answered: "This I ask of you, and I do not seek to slay you, wherefore tell us: Who was this son of Abraham?" Jesus answered: "The zeal of your honour, O God, inflames me, and I cannot hold my peace. Truly I say, the son of Abraham was Ishmael, from whom must be descended the Messiah promised to Abraham, that in him should all the tribes of the earth be blessed." Then was the high priest wroth, hearing this, and cried out: "Let us stone this impious fellow, for he is an Ishmaelite, and has spoken blasphemy against Moses and against the Law of God." (Barnabas 208:1-2)
Here, one version of the Gospel of Barnabas also quotes Jesus as saying that the sacrificed son of Abraham was Ishmael not Isaac, conforming to Islamic belief but disagreeing with Jewish and Christian belief. A connection might also be drawn between the last paragraph's statement that "in him should all the tribes of the earth be blessed", and the meaning of the name "Muhammad", the "Praised (or Blessed) One". (Cf.Life of Prophet Muhammad).
Whoa ... maybe Paul's old buddy, Barnabus, wasn't just a spy; maybe he was an Islamic spy! The plot thickens.
On page 8 of this thread, Dan suggests that we look at an article about the Gospel of Barnabus. Here's an excerpt:
According to one version of the Gospel of Barnabas, Jesus denied being the Messiah, claiming rather that the Messiah would be Ishmaelite (ie Arab):
"Whereupon Jesus said: 'Ye deceive yourselves; for David in spirit calleth him lord, saying thus: "God said to my lord, sit thou on my right hand until I make thine enemies thy footstool. God shall send forth thy rod which shall have lordship in the midst of thine enemies." If the messenger of God whom ye call Messiah were son of David, how should David call him lord? Believe me, for verily I say to you, that the promise was made in Ishmael, not in Isaac.'" (Barnabas 43:10)
Hajj Sayed (Senior Member in CIMS), in his new book in Egypt, compares this to the following statement from the canonical Bible:
"What do you think about the Christ? Whose son is he?" "The son of David," they replied. He said to them, "How is it then that David, speaking by the Spirit, calls him 'Lord'? For he says, 'The Lord said to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet.' If then David calls him 'Lord,' how can he be his son?" Matthew 22:42-46
According to the canonical Gospels, Jesus was the "son" (descendant) of David; thus, Hajj Sayed argues that this statement confirms the Gospel of Barnabas' point.
The idea of the Messiah as an Arab is also found in another chapter of Gospel of Barnabas:
"If I work iniquity, reprove me, and God will love you, because you shall be doing his will, but if none can reprove me of sin it is a sign that you are not sons of Abraham as you call yourselves, nor are you incorporate with that head wherein Abraham was incorporate. As God lives, so greatly did Abraham love God, that he not only brake in pieces the false idols and forsook his father and mother, but was willing to slay his own son in obedience to God.
The high priest answered: "This I ask of you, and I do not seek to slay you, wherefore tell us: Who was this son of Abraham?" Jesus answered: "The zeal of your honour, O God, inflames me, and I cannot hold my peace. Truly I say, the son of Abraham was Ishmael, from whom must be descended the Messiah promised to Abraham, that in him should all the tribes of the earth be blessed." Then was the high priest wroth, hearing this, and cried out: "Let us stone this impious fellow, for he is an Ishmaelite, and has spoken blasphemy against Moses and against the Law of God." (Barnabas 208:1-2)
Here, one version of the Gospel of Barnabas also quotes Jesus as saying that the sacrificed son of Abraham was Ishmael not Isaac, conforming to Islamic belief but disagreeing with Jewish and Christian belief. A connection might also be drawn between the last paragraph's statement that "in him should all the tribes of the earth be blessed", and the meaning of the name "Muhammad", the "Praised (or Blessed) One". (Cf.Life of Prophet Muhammad).
Whoa ... maybe Paul's old buddy, Barnabus, wasn't just a spy; maybe he was an Islamic spy! The plot thickens.
That would be all fine and dandy if the Muslims did not already today worship Jesus as the messiah also... If the Qu'ran did not CLEARLY teach that Jesus is the messiah that "theory" might hold some water.
Are you trying to start a war?
Are you trying to undo the precious truth that the prophet Mohamed (pbuh) taught his people?
This is gnostic ga ga if you ask me...
And how can an "Ishmaelite" be the son of God when the Y chromosome is replaced with seed from Jesus' heavenly father? Jesus was not even of Jewish descent on his father's side.
And unless Mary was of the seed of Ishmael your point is moot.
How self professing smart people err in the scripture to such a degree I don't know...
Romans 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
Comment: Both requirements of salvation can be gleaned from the gospels...
The lordship for Christ and the raising from the dead are facts that can be understood from the life and death of Christ in eye witness accounts during the gospel period.
1Timothy 2:4
Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
Comment: Notice salvation in the last verse precedes gnosis...
The holy spirit precedes gnosis.
So the revelation of God to Paul is the coming of gnosis to those with the spirit born within.
How do you know the "Y chromosone" was placed in Jesus? Is there scientific evidence to support that theory?
A male human is never born "male" without a Y chromosome... So scientifically if Jesus had no earthly father then his Y chromosome must have come from a divine source.
Considering there has never been a record of any female throughout all scientific history to bear a MALE child (or female) without the Y chromosome (sperm) being supplied from an outside source. It is also then logical to deduce that the "son" began by God creating the Y chromosome and the life therein.
Much of this is reflective of communion also, this new body and soul becoming our own life through faith.
DWW, I think you missed both my point, as well as Shifra's.
If I understand correctly, Shifra wasn't trying to say Jesus wasn't the messiah or that the messiah would be a descendant of Ishmael. Shifra was simply pointing out that Paul's buddy, Barnabas said those things. That Barnabas believed the messiah would be a son of Ismael, not David.
My point was that YOU believe Jesus was given a Y chromosone by God, because the gospels tell you Jesus was the son of God. Unfortunately, there is no scientific evidence to back up the notion that Jesus was the son of God or that God gave him the Y chromosone you speak of.
DWW, I think you missed both my point, as well as Shifra's.
If I understand correctly, Shifra wasn't trying to say Jesus wasn't the messiah or that the messiah would be a descendant of Ishmael. Shifra was simply pointing out that Paul's buddy, Barnabas said those things. That Barnabas believed the messiah would be a son of Ismael, not David.
My point was that YOU believe Jesus was given a Y chromosone by God, because the gospels tell you Jesus was the son of God. Unfortunately, there is no scientific evidence to back up the notion that Jesus was the son of God or that God gave him the Y chromosone you speak of.
There is logic and scientific evidence to "support" it.
As for the supposed writings of Barnabas Paul's "buddy"... This contradicts the scientifically supported logic of reproduction and it's characteristics and nature.
The Bible puts forward a premise that Jesus is the "son of God". Now this is not just figuratively this is physically and in reality. He had no earthly father... So logically and scientifically how do yo get an Ishmaelite father out of that? One has to completely disregard that he is the SON of God? Or are you suggesting he had two fathers? This is science not a matter of opinion (that is if you believe he was God's son.)
Scientifically for this to happen Jesus would have no earthly male father.
So Barnabas' writings simply are laughable and highly suspect and ignorant of this scientific logic in the face of such complete revelations of God's wisdom.
Isn't Jesus called the "son of God" 63 times in the gospel of John alone? (if my memory serves me right.)
You are STILL missing the point, DWW and I don' t know how to say it any more clearly. The point was, Barnabas, who travelled with Paul, wrote that Jesus was NOT the Messiah. This would support Shifra's theory that Paul was a spy, a fraud.
Your logic is somewhat fualty here:
The Bible puts forward a premise that Jesus is the "son of God". Now this is not just figuratively this is physically and in reality. He had no earthly father... So logically and scientifically how do yo get an Ishmaelite father out of that? One has to completely disregard that he is the SON of God? Or are you suggesting he had two fathers? This is science not a matter of opinion (that is if you believe he was God's son.)
By that logic, how could Jesus be a son of David? Oh I know, through Mary. Okay, then likewise an Ismaelite messiah could be an Ishmaelite though the mother and still have the Y chromosone from God. Now I am not saying that is what occured or what would occur. I am simply saying it is equally possible.
Isn't Jesus called the "son of God" 63 times in the gospel of John alone? (if my memory serves me right.)
That is silly, DWW. You can do better than that!!! If someone write the words "Jesus is not the son of God" 16 trillion times, does that make it so?
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
34
23
45
50
Popular Days
Jul 25
48
Jul 27
32
Jul 22
22
Jul 24
16
Top Posters In This Topic
Abigail 34 posts
cman 23 posts
Larry N Moore 45 posts
DrWearWord 50 posts
Popular Days
Jul 25 2007
48 posts
Jul 27 2007
32 posts
Jul 22 2007
22 posts
Jul 24 2007
16 posts
Larry N Moore
Yes, there are always exception to the rule. God's grace didn't suddenly appear through Christianity.
The history of the Jewish nation, as a whole, doesn't paint a pretty picture in relationship to other "Nations." That is a perception change I acquired from having these sort of discussions with people who don't believe in God at all. The "argument of evil" doesn't exactly depict God as a benevolent God even towards His chosen people. Yet, I still try to hang onto my perception that God is Just.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
DWW, what I do in my responses - what you could do also if you want is this:
1. go into "reply mode"
2. scroll all the way down to the bottom of the page and you will see a link that says "review the complete topic" and click it. This will open a second window, separate from the window you are usiing for your reply.
3. In the "review window" highlight and copy the portion you want to quote and respond to. Then paste it into the reply window.
4. At the top of the reply window - 4 boxes to the right of the smily face are "quote" tags. highlight the section you just pasted and then click that button. That will wrap it in quotes so it will show up in the "white box" when you finally hit the "add reply" button after you have completed your post.
5. You can now add comments underneath the quote box
6. You can repeat this process as many times as you want, within the same "reply window" until you have said everything you want to say.
Another option is to simply hit the "reply button" so that it quotes everything I wrote. Then within that quote you can write responses, highlight them, and hit the "b" on the upper left hand corner. This will cause your responses to be in bold and allow others to separate what you are saying from what was quoted.
Thanks for explaining why you weren't responding. I hope that helps. :)
Edited by AbigailLink to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
Abi, it's possible that that was directed towards me. I suppose my last sentence (to which this response was in close proximity to) might have come across as a little bit lofty. I can see it being taken that way and perhaps WW was just trying to tell me I need to come off my "high-horse." Perhaps I was a little tacky in saying that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
In many respects, I agree, Larry. I tend to view it as something of an evolutionary process. In the begninng, man was so stupid God had to explain to them that marriage was between a man and a woman, not a man and a donkey. God had to tell man about washing hands, how to prepare foods, what foods were healthy and what foods were not. Over time, man learned and evolved. People taught their children what they learned, those children learned even more and so had more to teach to their children, etc. etc.
Okay, thanks for clarifying. If that is the case, I apologize DWW.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Shifra
Larry,
Sorry for calling you "Eeyore". Eeyore is a cute little donkey who acts like a grump most of the time, but Christopher Robin and Pooh and the rest of the gang all love him anyhow.
TheEvan,
You're right about other "blinding" events. Thanks for that input.
And WW (or who-ever it was) that said I was probably just echo-ing something I'd read ... nope. 'Haven't read this Conspiracy Theory anywhere else, but I'm flattered and encouraged that someone else has considered it too. Actually, the only book besides the Bible that I have read about Paul, is a book that my dad wrote. My dad thought Paul was the best. My dad was an electrical engineer, a Purdue graduate, who mostly thought in black-and-whte. He liked Paul's inflexible explanations of things, he liked the rules and regs, even though he was a Christian man, a very good man too.
Abigail,
You are amazing!
Dan,
I'll read the artical about Barnabus after work tonight. I'm on my lunchbreak now, and running out of time. Thanks for the link.
Now, could someone please explain why John Mark departed from Paul and Barnabas, and why that came up later in Acts as well? What was John Mark's complaint? Could it be that he was the good guy?
Edited by ShifraLink to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
any more info. on your dad's book, dear shifra ?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Shifra
Excathedra,
What I remember about my dad's book is that it was typed on our old typewriter and bound at some bookstore, so it looked like a real publication, but it was never published. I remember him working on it late at night after he had helped me with my algebra, and the rest of the family had gone off to bed. He was so proud of it. I struggled to read the whole thing, because it was so boring, but I did finish it, and told my dad it was wonderful, only because I loved him so much. Truth was even as a kid who had grown up in Sunday School, I never much liked old Paul, so I didn't like the book much either. I think my mom still has it somewhere.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
I accept your apology Shifra even though I'm tempted to educate you on how being called an Eeyore is not a reference to being "grumpy." But how can I possibly do that when you imply you love me just the same? :) Enuf said on this one.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
Here http://www.truthablaze.com/conflict.html is one explanation. Take it for what it's worth. It sounds reasonable to me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
Shifra,
Had ever you ever thought about submitting your father's book to a publisher?
Danny
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Shifra
Interesting idea, Dan. I'll call my mom today, and see if she knows where it is. You guys are so awesome.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Shifra
Oooooohhhh !!!! You gotta read this !!!!
On page 8 of this thread, Dan suggests that we look at an article about the Gospel of Barnabus. Here's an excerpt:
According to one version of the Gospel of Barnabas, Jesus denied being the Messiah, claiming rather that the Messiah would be Ishmaelite (ie Arab):
"Whereupon Jesus said: 'Ye deceive yourselves; for David in spirit calleth him lord, saying thus: "God said to my lord, sit thou on my right hand until I make thine enemies thy footstool. God shall send forth thy rod which shall have lordship in the midst of thine enemies." If the messenger of God whom ye call Messiah were son of David, how should David call him lord? Believe me, for verily I say to you, that the promise was made in Ishmael, not in Isaac.'" (Barnabas 43:10)
Hajj Sayed (Senior Member in CIMS), in his new book in Egypt, compares this to the following statement from the canonical Bible:
"What do you think about the Christ? Whose son is he?" "The son of David," they replied. He said to them, "How is it then that David, speaking by the Spirit, calls him 'Lord'? For he says, 'The Lord said to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet.' If then David calls him 'Lord,' how can he be his son?" Matthew 22:42-46
According to the canonical Gospels, Jesus was the "son" (descendant) of David; thus, Hajj Sayed argues that this statement confirms the Gospel of Barnabas' point.
The idea of the Messiah as an Arab is also found in another chapter of Gospel of Barnabas:
"If I work iniquity, reprove me, and God will love you, because you shall be doing his will, but if none can reprove me of sin it is a sign that you are not sons of Abraham as you call yourselves, nor are you incorporate with that head wherein Abraham was incorporate. As God lives, so greatly did Abraham love God, that he not only brake in pieces the false idols and forsook his father and mother, but was willing to slay his own son in obedience to God.
The high priest answered: "This I ask of you, and I do not seek to slay you, wherefore tell us: Who was this son of Abraham?" Jesus answered: "The zeal of your honour, O God, inflames me, and I cannot hold my peace. Truly I say, the son of Abraham was Ishmael, from whom must be descended the Messiah promised to Abraham, that in him should all the tribes of the earth be blessed." Then was the high priest wroth, hearing this, and cried out: "Let us stone this impious fellow, for he is an Ishmaelite, and has spoken blasphemy against Moses and against the Law of God." (Barnabas 208:1-2)
Here, one version of the Gospel of Barnabas also quotes Jesus as saying that the sacrificed son of Abraham was Ishmael not Isaac, conforming to Islamic belief but disagreeing with Jewish and Christian belief. A connection might also be drawn between the last paragraph's statement that "in him should all the tribes of the earth be blessed", and the meaning of the name "Muhammad", the "Praised (or Blessed) One". (Cf.Life of Prophet Muhammad).
Whoa ... maybe Paul's old buddy, Barnabus, wasn't just a spy; maybe he was an Islamic spy! The plot thickens.
Edited by ShifraLink to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
Shifra,
Paul the Herodian and Courtier of Nero
gives a fantastic overview of Eisenman's theory on Paul. I found especially interesting the proposal that one of Paul's associates
may have been involved in Nero's assassination.
Danny
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DrWearWord
That would be all fine and dandy if the Muslims did not already today worship Jesus as the messiah also... If the Qu'ran did not CLEARLY teach that Jesus is the messiah that "theory" might hold some water.
Are you trying to start a war?
Are you trying to undo the precious truth that the prophet Mohamed (pbuh) taught his people?
This is gnostic ga ga if you ask me...
And how can an "Ishmaelite" be the son of God when the Y chromosome is replaced with seed from Jesus' heavenly father? Jesus was not even of Jewish descent on his father's side.
And unless Mary was of the seed of Ishmael your point is moot.
How self professing smart people err in the scripture to such a degree I don't know...
Edited by DrWearWordLink to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
How do you know the "Y chromosone" was placed in Jesus? Is there scientific evidence to support that theory?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DrWearWord
Romans 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
Comment: Both requirements of salvation can be gleaned from the gospels...
The lordship for Christ and the raising from the dead are facts that can be understood from the life and death of Christ in eye witness accounts during the gospel period.
1Timothy 2:4
Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
Comment: Notice salvation in the last verse precedes gnosis...
The holy spirit precedes gnosis.
So the revelation of God to Paul is the coming of gnosis to those with the spirit born within.
Edited by DrWearWordLink to comment
Share on other sites
DrWearWord
A male human is never born "male" without a Y chromosome... So scientifically if Jesus had no earthly father then his Y chromosome must have come from a divine source.
Considering there has never been a record of any female throughout all scientific history to bear a MALE child (or female) without the Y chromosome (sperm) being supplied from an outside source. It is also then logical to deduce that the "son" began by God creating the Y chromosome and the life therein.
Much of this is reflective of communion also, this new body and soul becoming our own life through faith.
This is why God is "our" father...
Edited by DrWearWordLink to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
DWW, I think you missed both my point, as well as Shifra's.
If I understand correctly, Shifra wasn't trying to say Jesus wasn't the messiah or that the messiah would be a descendant of Ishmael. Shifra was simply pointing out that Paul's buddy, Barnabas said those things. That Barnabas believed the messiah would be a son of Ismael, not David.
My point was that YOU believe Jesus was given a Y chromosone by God, because the gospels tell you Jesus was the son of God. Unfortunately, there is no scientific evidence to back up the notion that Jesus was the son of God or that God gave him the Y chromosone you speak of.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
We will each have our day to 'know' the Lord Jesus.
Without knowing how could on truly confess him as Lord?
So back to gnosis, reminds me of those who worship that which they have not met.......
yet.
Yes Jesus is Lord, but it's the Christ that leads,
from within and from without, ears to hear and eyes to see will open.
Of which Jesus became one with.
As well as others have sustained for a time.
No one could handle it constantly, it's that big.
Even Jesus retreated to the Garden at times.
Though retaining what he experienced and learned.
So it is with all who have experienced his coming.
A name above all names, even Paul.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DrWearWord
...the coming of Gnosis.
1Corrinthians 13:11
When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DrWearWord
There is logic and scientific evidence to "support" it.
As for the supposed writings of Barnabas Paul's "buddy"... This contradicts the scientifically supported logic of reproduction and it's characteristics and nature.
The Bible puts forward a premise that Jesus is the "son of God". Now this is not just figuratively this is physically and in reality. He had no earthly father... So logically and scientifically how do yo get an Ishmaelite father out of that? One has to completely disregard that he is the SON of God? Or are you suggesting he had two fathers? This is science not a matter of opinion (that is if you believe he was God's son.)
Scientifically for this to happen Jesus would have no earthly male father.
So Barnabas' writings simply are laughable and highly suspect and ignorant of this scientific logic in the face of such complete revelations of God's wisdom.
Isn't Jesus called the "son of God" 63 times in the gospel of John alone? (if my memory serves me right.)
Edited by DrWearWordLink to comment
Share on other sites
DrWearWord
You don't have to know someone to knock on their door. You don't have to know someone to believe in their abilities.
(before faith came)
You are confusing faith with believing.
You are substituting the power of the spirit of God with a self oriented knowledge, this breaks the perfect spiritual bond of peace and equality.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
You are STILL missing the point, DWW and I don' t know how to say it any more clearly. The point was, Barnabas, who travelled with Paul, wrote that Jesus was NOT the Messiah. This would support Shifra's theory that Paul was a spy, a fraud.
Your logic is somewhat fualty here:
By that logic, how could Jesus be a son of David? Oh I know, through Mary. Okay, then likewise an Ismaelite messiah could be an Ishmaelite though the mother and still have the Y chromosone from God. Now I am not saying that is what occured or what would occur. I am simply saying it is equally possible.That is silly, DWW. You can do better than that!!! If someone write the words "Jesus is not the son of God" 16 trillion times, does that make it so?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DrWearWord
"When that which is perfect has come..."
Knowledge is imperfect. So to be a child is to rely on knowledge and to be an adult is to rely on the spirit.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.