Adam and Jesus...the "sons of God"

reply to post by MagnumOpus


While I am selling it? Do a simple history check... the virgin birth has been primary Christian doctrine for 2000 years now. And James and Jude were not older brothers for one, for two they were half brothers.

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
Christians understand that the term "son of God" in Adams case does not mean a "son" in the literal sense...

edit on 6-8-2012 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)

I am sorry to say that the whole front page of this topic right now is full of nonsense which can mean many things, but also means one thing.

These type of things are so basic, that I know can be understood, so I won't even say it.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by MagnumOpus

 

While I am selling it? Do a simple history check... the virgin birth has been primary Christian doctrine for 2000 years now. And James and Jude were not older brothers for one, for two they were half brothers.

edit on 7-8-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)

Prove they were half brothers and not older.

NO hand waving, show the precise citations from the Biblical records.


If you can't prove that then admit all that you wrote was conjecture on your part and others.

Originally posted by MagnumOpus

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by MagnumOpus

 

While I am selling it? Do a simple history check... the virgin birth has been primary Christian doctrine for 2000 years now. And James and Jude were not older brothers for one, for two they were half brothers.

edit on 7-8-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)

Prove they were half brothers and not older.

NO hand waving, show the precise citations from the Biblical records.

Sure

Now you show citations from the Biblical record that says Jesus's half brothers and sisters were older..

NO hand waving either.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n

Yet, for some reason... David is described in the bible as "father of Jesus".

He was already in existence in the time of David.

Though Jesus was created by God directly in Marys womb... he is presented as being a "descendant" of David.

Something you are assuming based on speculation.

After eight days had passed, it was time to circumcise the child; and he was called Jesus, the name given by the angel before he was conceived in the womb.
Luke 2:21

"Conceived" is an interpretation but the literal word is "seized", as in being arrested and held prisoner. So it is describing Jesus being named before he entered into Mary's womb. Also he was not created there, but the person, Jesus, already existed and then went to that place.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Because of Mary. Her and Joseph were both of the house of David.

There is no way to know that seeing that only the genealogy of Joseph is listed.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Because of Mary. Her and Joseph were both of the house of David.

Of course. Jesus being described as a descendant of another human being shows that he is human and not divine. Jesus cant be both "the only begotten son" of God and at the same time be one of the many descendants of David.

As for your earlier statement about Mary ...

I don't think I would call her "the mother of God", that to me would imply she pre-existed God. I think her womb was used to bring the Son of God into the world.

She didn't pre-exist God, but she did give birth to Jesus who you say is God.
This makes her the "mother of God."

You cant say "Jesus is God" and at the same time "Mary is not the mother of God".

Jesus was a "son" like Adam... i.e - a creation, but directly in the womb of Mary. This way it makes perfect sense that Jesus was a descendant of David...and the "son of God" title still remains.

reply to post by jmdewey60

He was already in existence in the time of David.

You mean as a soul? I don't see why not. I will not challenge this.

Something you are assuming based on speculation.

After eight days had passed, it was time to circumcise the child; and he was called Jesus, the name given by the angel before he was conceived in the womb.
Luke 2:21

"Conceived" is an interpretation but the literal word is "seized", as in being arrested and held prisoner. So it is describing Jesus being named before he entered into Mary's womb. Also he was not created there, but the person, Jesus, already existed and then went to that place.

I don't know about the physics of Jesus' entering the womb. But however it took place, God sent him there.
So even if Jesus pre-existed David, the physical Jesus was sent to the womb by God.... to be a son for Mary.
In other words, God created the physical Jesus to grow as an embryo in Marys womb.

reply to post by greyer

I am sorry to say that the whole front page of this topic right now is full of nonsense which can mean many things, but also means one thing.

These type of things are so basic, that I know can be understood, so I won't even say it.

Thank you for your contribution to the thread. You have clearly described why the front page of this topic is full of nonsense.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n

You mean as a soul?

That is not something insignificant
It is something fundamental to today's religion of any sort.
People would generally hope that who they are will survive death in this life.
Jesus is one with the ability to 'lay down his life and to take it back up again'.
Therein lies our hope.

reply to post by jmdewey60

That is not something insignificant
It is something fundamental to today's religion of any sort.

Not saying that the soul is insignificant. But if you meant that Jesus pre-existed as a soul, then I do not disagree.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Because of Mary. Her and Joseph were both of the house of David.

There is no way to know that seeing that only the genealogy of Joseph is listed.

edit on 7-8-2012 by jmdewey60 because: add Bible quote: "For the creation eagerly waits for the revelation of the sons of God." Romans 8:19

No compare Matthew to Luke, both are listed. Both were of the house of David.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


Jesus is also fully human. He could not have died otherwise.

Originally posted by jmdewey60

There is no way to know that seeing that only the genealogy of Joseph is listed.

edit on 7-8-2012 by jmdewey60 because: add Bible quote: "For the creation eagerly waits for the revelation of the sons of God." Romans 8:19

Both genealogies are listed.

One in the book of Matthew, Chapter 1 (Joseph) and the other in the book of Luke, Chapter 3 (Mary).

Luke’s text says that Jesus was “a son, as was supposed, of Joseph, of Eli” (in the Greek: υιος ως ενομιζετο ιωσηφ του ηλι). The qualification has traditionally been understood as acknowledgment of the virgin birth, but some instead see a parenthetical expression: “a son (as was supposed of Joseph) of Eli.” In this interpretation, Jesus is called a son of Eli because Eli was his maternal grandfather, his nearest male ancestor.

A variation on this idea is to explain “Joseph son of Eli” as meaning a son-in-law, perhaps even an adoptive heir to Eli through his only daughter Mary. An example of the Old Testament use of such an expression is Jair, who is called “Jair son of Manasseh” but was actually son of Manasseh’s granddaughter. In any case, the argument goes, it is natural for the evangelist, acknowledging the unique case of the virgin birth, to give the maternal genealogy of Jesus, while expressing it a bit awkwardly in the traditional patrilinear style.

The reason for the divergence in genealogies, is that Matthew is said to record the actual legal genealogy of Jesus through Joseph according to Jewish custom. In Luke we apparently have the actual biological genealogy of Jesus through Mary which Luke naturally gives as he is writing for the Gentiles.

The reason Mary is not implicitly mentioned by name is because the ancient Hebrews never permitted the name of a woman to enter the genealogical tables, but inserted her husband as the son of him who was, in reality, but his father-in-law.

en.wikipedia.org...

This moment was made not by man but by God. A man did not make the conception happen it was an immaculate conception. The birth of this moment is prior to conception (prior to the thought of man), it is of virgin birth.
Christ is this moment, this moment is narrow compared to the vastness of time. Come to this moment (christ) and though 'me' the source can be found.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by sk0rpi0n

 

Jesus is also fully human. He could not have died otherwise.

Now you are well off into the world of make believe.

First he is god, and only one DNA is present. Next, he is fully human and not god and has both male and female DNA.

If anything were really god, would everyone's nose have to grow so long fabricating endless stories of nonsense...

You are back to embracing Nimrod again, and not Jesus.


Anything is possible in make believe, except rational common sense. And basic reality.

reply to post by MagnumOpus


No, you are over analyzing. The Christian position is that He was fully Man and fully Divine. Not either or as you are reading into my statements.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

No, you are over analyzing. The Christian position is that He was fully Man and fully Divine. Not either or as you are reading into my statements.

Lets go by the bible.

When did Jesus ever say that he was "fully man and fully divine"?

Does the bible ever speak of "man" being divine?

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

No, you are over analyzing. The Christian position is that He was fully Man and fully Divine. Not either or as you are reading into my statements.

Lets go by the bible.

When did Jesus ever say that he was "fully man and fully divine"?

Does the bible ever speak of "man" being divine?

"Son of Man" "Son of God" "Before Abraham was I AM"

Only Christ Jesus.

Lets get real. The Bible is so many words on a page and generally too many words about dreams and people unknown to anyone today.

There are many that fit: "Paul was the first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus"
-- Thomas Jefferson


Matthew pops up and tells Mary starts out pregnant, by who knows who, and Joseph wants to divorce her.

Joseph has a dream, and a big idea to take Mary home with him. Was Matthew there, No! Just a story.

The Dream says name him "Immanuel", but Joseph instead called him "Jesus". Must mean Joseph didn't believe his own dream. It was just a dream, nothing to do with reality.


Dreams are often fantastic imaginations that well depart from reality. Yet, the Christians base everything on a fantastic dream, that even Joseph didn't fullfill.


The Jewish then called Mary the prostitute over this pregnant out of wedlock theme, and Jesus doesn't start so pure of a legend with the Jewish. How does the Christian manage to take a dream and say that imagination world of dreams means more than what the Jewish discovered.


All that you claim stems from an undocumentable dream told from little known or respected story tellers of the times in Jerusalem. We find out that Jesus so valued them that he deserted them and left them to their wild imagination. When they were not worthy of Jesus respect, because he left them distant, why are you respecting their imaginations.


All it is about is wasting everyone's time on a silly legend, that has never been proven. Else, have Jesus drop in to the Tonite Show in TV and introduce himself. All you have is a vivid imagination and the inabilty to sort reality from an imagination gone wild about a fabled dream.

You have a belief that looks pretty silly.


Then there comes the Essene story of Jesus and it is different than the above and the Disciples knew near nothing of this teaching, or why Jesus spoke or taught in this vogue. The Essene essentially separated themselves from family, so as not to be corrupt of their beliefs. Jesus distanced himself from Mother, Father, and Brothers and Sisters due to this. There was an intentional distance, rather than an assumed closeness. The Essene story inclusion makes a lot more sense in the grand scheme of things religious. When his disciples basically get him nailed and so corrupt the teachings, he leaves them, just like his family ties.

Recollections by those like Mattew well after the times of Jesus show he didn't know the Essene values of Jesus, and perhaps not even close to the real story. All legends tend to outgrow reality. One based on a dream has a real head start.