The Anointed
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 8 Dec, 2021 03:32 am
@bulmabriefs144,
Quote:
Joseph's father is Jacob. And his father is Matthan. And his father is Eleazar.


But you are not talking about the biological father of Jesus, the son of Joseph the son of Heli a descendant of Nathan, a son of King David and half brother of Solomon, are you?

Joseph was a very common name among the Jews, as it is today, and you are speaking of Joseph the son of Jacob, the son of Matthan, the son of Eleazar, a descendant of Solomon through the cursed line of Jehoachin, of who it is said in Jeremiah 22; 30; “This man is condemned to lose his children, to be a man who will never succeed. He will have no descendants who will rule in Judah as David's successors. I, the LORD, have spoken.”

The Joseph that you are referring to, took the already pregnant Mary to be his wife, but had no sexual relations with her until after she had given birth to Jesus the Son of Joseph the son of Heli=Alexander Helios.

Quote:
"So it was thought." Jesus wasn't the son of Joseph, but he was adopted by Joseph. He was however a son of David, and a Son of God. Both by tracing genealogy all the way back. And by the circumstances of his birth. But this is Mary's line.


Bullshit! No Jewish genetic line is ever recorded through the mother's line, but only the Fathers. And I see that you (AN Idol worshiper) reject the truth as revealed in the gospels, for the lies of the Roman church of Emperor Constantine.

Luke 3:23; (KJV) And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.

The (AS WAS SUPPOSED) in brackets, was a later interpolation by those who would have you believe the false teaching of the so-called virgin birth.

In the different translations of the KJV into Arabic, Afrikaan, Zulu, etc and even some of the more modern English translations, such as the Good News Catholic Study Edition Bible, the words (As was supposed) have been retained, but the brackets are removed, thus by, making those words appear to be the declaration of Luke, while the serious biblical student know that they were not written by Luke, but were a later interpolation and a corruption of the Holy Scriptures, by those so called Christians, who refuse to accept that Jesus was not a God who became a man, but a man, born of human parents, who, on the day of his baptism was CHOSEN by the Lord our saviour ‘The Son of Man,’ as his heir and successor, when the spirit of the Lord descended upon him in the form of a dove, as the heavenly voice was heard to say; “You are my Son, ‘THIS DAY’ I have begotten thee,” and who was given divine glory, as revealed in Acts 3: 13; where it is said that the God of our ancestors, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, has given divine glory to his servant Jesus etc.

In Luke 3: 22; Those who would have you believe that Jesus was a god who became a man, changed the original verse, (You are my Son 'THIS DAY' I have begotten thee", to; “Thou art my beloved son in who I am well pleased.”

While in Luke 3: 22; (In place of “Thou art my beloved son in who I am well pleased.”) The following authorities of the second, third, and fourth centuries read, “This day I have begotten thee,” vouched for by Codex D, and the most ancient copies of the old latin (a, b. c. ff.I), by Justin Martyr (AD 140), Clemens Alex, (AD. 190), Methodius (AD. 290), among the Greeks. And among the Latins, Lactaitius (AD 300), Hilary (AD) Juvencus (AD. 330), Faustus (AD. 400) and Augustine. All these oldest manuscripts were changed completely. They now read, “This is my son in whom I am well pleased.” Whereas the original variant was, “Thou art my Son. This day I have begotten thee.”

Hebrew 5: 5; has; “You are my son, ‘TODAY’ I have become your Father."

Nighty night, you poor biblical ignoramus.
bulmabriefs144
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 8 Dec, 2021 09:00 am
@The Anointed,
There is no biological father in the Gospel story. Unless, you want to accept that she was a whore, a sinful woman, and slept around despite being engaged. Part of the reason the virgin birth story is accept as (ahem) gospel truth is that otherwise we are talking about a Jesus who is a bastard. We are probably already talking this way, but adding Mary's infidelity is no way to start.

And stop that. *slap* *slap* The "biological" father of Jesus is Joseph, son of Jacob, son of Matthan, son of Eleazar. The biological mother of Jesus is Mary daughter of Heli, who himself was son of someone else, eventually related to Nathan.

*slap* *slap* Dude use a family tree. I've already attached one elsewhere.
https://i1.wp.com/kidsermons.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Jesus_Genealogy.jpeg

As you can see, only Mary has Eli as her father. He is NOT on both sides of the family.

You have some copy of the Bible that omits this part. Here, lemme show you this "bullshit". This is a cross-reference of multiple bibles.
Quote:
Luke 3:23 (ASV) And Jesus himself, when he began [to teach], was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the [son] of Heli,
Luke 3:23 (BBE) And Jesus at this time was about thirty years old, being the son (as it seemed) of Joseph, the son of Heli,
Luke 3:23 (CEB) Jesus was about 30 years old when he began his ministry. People supposed that he was the son of Joseph son of Heli
Luke 3:23 (CJB) Yeshua was about thirty years old when he began his public ministry. It was supposed that he was a son of Yosef who was of Eli,
Luke 3:23 (CSB) As He began [His ministry], Jesus was about 30 years old and was thought to be the son of Joseph, [son] of Heli,
Luke 3:23 (DBY) And Jesus himself was beginning to be about thirty years old; being as was supposed son of Joseph; of Eli,
Luke 3:23 (ESV) Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli,
Luke 3:23 (GW) Jesus was about 30 years old when he began [his ministry]. Jesus, so people thought, was the son of Joseph, son of Eli,
Luke 3:23 (HNV) Yeshua himself, when he began to teach, was about thirty years old, being the son (as was supposed) of Yosef, the son of Eli,
Luke 3:23 (KJV) And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,

https://www.biblestudytools.com/luke/3-23-compare.html
Shall I go on? This false teacher or yours is guilty of lying by omission. I will bemore than happy to send you a copy of a Bible, so that you can check for yourself.

Not one of these omits the expression that Jesus is only the supposed son of Joseph. Now, you are welcome to disbelieve this, but this is in parentheses not brackets.

Moving on. You continue with your spurious nonsense about how "today you have become my son," being proof that before that point he wasn't the son of God.

You have added a word in that isn't there. "Today"
https://www.biblestudytools.com/luke/3-22-compare.html
Go ahead, check that list. Not ONE of these used the word "Today". Not that it makes any difference. Suppose I were estranged from my father. One day I did something to really please him. So he tells me, "Today I recognize you as my son." Does this mean he wasn't my biological father before this point? Not at all! But before this point, he had not accepted me.
But the Bible says no such estrangement occurred. In fact, a greater amount of estrangement seems the case for his biological mother. He frequently calls her "Woman" to address her. Joseph isn't even mentioned much. Eli? Not at all.
Quote:
Every year Jesus’ parents went to Jerusalem for the Festival of the Passover. 42 When he was twelve years old, they went up to the festival, according to the custom. 43 After the festival was over, while his parents were returning home, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem, but they were unaware of it. 44 Thinking he was in their company, they traveled on for a day. Then they began looking for him among their relatives and friends. 45 When they did not find him, they went back to Jerusalem to look for him. 46 After three days they found him in the temple courts, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions. 47 Everyone who heard him was amazed at his understanding and his answers. 48 When his parents saw him, they were astonished. His mother said to him, “Son, why have you treated us like this? Your father and I have been anxiously searching for you.”

49 “Why were you searching for me?” he asked. “Didn’t you know I had to be in my Father’s house?” 50 But they did not understand what he was saying to them.
There is a footnote here that says, "Or 'about my father's business?'"
Luke 2:49. Look it up. Jesus clearly calls God his Father.
https://www.biblestudytools.com/luke/2-49-compare.html
They all agree, again.

Here's an example of something that has been included only in some Bibles. Only some have Jesus say "It hurts you to kick against the goads."
https://www.biblestudytools.com/acts/9-5-compare.html

Why are you struggling against the gospel? Doesn't it hurt to kick against it?
The Anointed
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 8 Dec, 2021 03:20 pm
@bulmabriefs144,
Quote:
And stop that. *slap* *slap* The "biological" father of Jesus is Joseph, son of Jacob, son of Matthan, son of Eleazar. The biological mother of Jesus is Mary daughter of Heli, who himself was son of someone else, eventually related to Nathan.


good heavens you're a dumb kid, aren't you? Only a blind idiot such as yourself would believe that I have ever said that; "The "biological" father of Jesus is Joseph, son of Jacob, son of Matthan, son of Eleazar a descendant of Solomon through the cursed genetic line of Jehoachin." How thick can you get?

Luke 3:23 (ASV) And Jesus himself, when he began [to teach], was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the [son] of Heli,

Luke 3:23 (ESV) Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli,

Luke 3:23 (HNV) Yeshua himself, when he began to teach, was about thirty years old, being the son (as was supposed) of Yosef, the son of Eli,

Luke 3:23 (KJV) And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,

Luke 3: 23; (RSV) Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about 30 years of age, Being the Son (As was supposed) of Joseph the son of Heli.

All these and more, have (AS WAS SUPPOSED) in brackets. Whereas the authors of the Bibles, which include the Good News Catholic Study Edition, that have removed the brackets, are like you, and believe everything as taught by the Roman church of Emperor Constantine.

You will notice also, that every bible that you have quoted, have Joseph, who the people of those days “SUPPOSED’ was the true father of Jesus, is Joseph the son of Heli, a descendant of Nathan the son of King David, and 'NOT' Joseph the son of Jacob, a descendant of Solomon through the cursed genetic line of Jehoachin.

Good heaven you are thick kiddo. Thick as a brick.

Quote:
There is a footnote here that says, "Or 'about my father's business?'"
Luke 2:49. Look it up. Jesus clearly calls God his Father.


He certainly does, In John 20: 17; Jesus says to Mary Magdalene; "Go to my brothers and say to them; "I am ascending to my Father who is your Father, to my God who is your God".


bulmabriefs144
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 8 Dec, 2021 10:28 pm
@The Anointed,
So ummm, maybe it's because you're not aware of how US English works (or maybe it's because you're kinda dumb about English grammar), but here we call these things "parentheses" not "brackets." You see what I did there? This is called a parenthetical remark (this is when you go off topic or explain something that is part of the sentence but more of a side comment).

However, if something wasn't actually said, and I filled in a word, like "[Today] you are my son," then I would be using a bracket.

Yes, yes, I know British English is very confusing with it's probably calling both the same term. But this is why I ******* hate some British terminology, with it's calling "fries" as "chips" so if you want actual potato chips, you have to fumble around for a word. Likewise, "football" is soccer, when no, soccer stands for Association football. This is a perfectly good word, and you **** it up because you don't want to change terms or something. Btw, a chip refers to a thin chunk, like you would get by chopping up wood into little shards, it is not a long perfectly julienned piece of potato. ******* crisps. Not that I complain too much. I hate potato chips. But here it's a problem.

These are parentheses (), these are brackets []. They have different functions, therefore they must be different words (to prevent the risk of certain people conflating them).

Let's review the text.

Quote:
Luke 3:23 (ASV) And Jesus himself, when he began [to teach], was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the [son] of Heli,


[to teach] and [son] were not in this text. So it actually read, "Luke 3:23 (ASV) And Jesus himself, when he began, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, of Heli," but they inferred son from context.

You can also use brackets to add into text things that are not there. Like, if I were into gun control, I could add a "[not]" somewhere in the 2nd Amendment to read like it forbade gun use. This is called a misquote.

Kinda interesting that there were also examples that did not have "(as was supposed)" and you decided those didn't count.

Quote:

Luke 3:23 (CEB) Jesus was about 30 years old when he began his ministry. People supposed that he was the son of Joseph son of Heli
Luke 3:23 (CJB) Yeshua was about thirty years old when he began his public ministry. It was supposed that he was a son of Yosef who was of Eli,
Luke 3:23 (CSB) As He began [His ministry], Jesus was about 30 years old and was thought to be the son of Joseph, [son] of Heli,
Luke 3:23 (DBY) And Jesus himself was beginning to be about thirty years old; being as was supposed son of Joseph; of Eli,
Luke 3:23 (GW) Jesus was about 30 years old when he began [his ministry]. Jesus, so people thought, was the son of Joseph, son of Eli,


I guess these don't count, huh?

Now show me here where it EVER says Today?
https://www.biblestudytools.com/luke/3-22-compare.html
Quote:

American Standard Version

Luke 3:22 (ASV) and the Holy Spirit descended in a bodily form, as a dove, upon him, and a voice came out of heaven, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.
The Bible in Basic English

Luke 3:22 (BBE) The Holy Spirit came down in the form of a dove, and a voice came from heaven, saying, You are my dearly loved Son, with whom I am well pleased.
Common English Bible

Luke 3:22 (CEB) and the Holy Spirit came down on him in bodily form like a dove. And there was a voice from heaven: "You are my Son, whom I dearly love; in you I find happiness."
Common English Bible w/ Apocrypha

Luke 3:22 (CEBA) and the Holy Spirit came down on him in bodily form like a dove. And there was a voice from heaven: "You are my Son, whom I dearly love; in you I find happiness."
The Complete Jewish Bible

Luke 3:22 (CJB) the Ruach HaKodesh came down on him in physical form like a dove; and a voice came from heaven, "You are my Son, whom I love; I am well pleased with you."
Holman Christian Standard Bible

Luke 3:22 (CSB) and the Holy Spirit descended on Him in a physical appearance like a dove. And a voice came from heaven: You are My beloved Son. I take delight in You!
The Darby Translation

Luke 3:22 (DBY) and the Holy Spirit descended in a bodily form as a dove upon him; and a voice came out of heaven, *Thou* art my beloved Son, in thee I have found my delight.
English Standard Version

Luke 3:22 (ESV) and the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form, like a dove; and a voice came from heaven, "You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased."
Good News Translation

Luke 3:22 (GNT) and the Holy Spirit came down upon him in bodily form like a dove. And a voice came from heaven, "You are my own dear Son. I am pleased with you."
Good News Translation w/ Apocrypha

Luke 3:22 (GNTA) and the Holy Spirit came down upon him in bodily form like a dove. And a voice came from heaven, "You are my own dear Son. I am pleased with you."
GOD'S WORD Translation

Luke 3:22 (GW) and the Holy Spirit came down to him in the form of a dove. A voice from heaven said, "You are my Son, whom I love. I am pleased with you."
Hebrew Names Version

Luke 3:22 (HNV) and the Ruach HaKodesh descended in a bodily form, as a dove on him; and a voice came out of the sky, saying "You are my beloved Son. In you I am well pleased."
Jubilee Bible 2000

Luke 3:22 (JUB) and the Holy Spirit descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee is my delight.
King James Version

Luke 3:22 (KJV) And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.
King James Version w/ Apocrypha

Luke 3:22 (KJVA) And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said , Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased .
Lexham English Bible

Luke 3:22 (LEB) and the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form like a dove, and a voice came from heaven, "You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased."
The Message Bible

Luke 3:22 (MSG) and the Holy Spirit, like a dove descending, came down on him. And along with the Spirit, a voice: "You are my Son, chosen and marked by my love, pride of my life." Son of Adam, Son of God
New American Standard Bible

Luke 3:22 (NAS) and the Holy Spirit descended upon Him in bodily form like a dove, and a voice came out of heaven, "You are My beloved Son, in You I am well-pleased."
New Century Version

Luke 3:22 (NCV) and the Holy Spirit came down on him in the form of a dove. Then a voice came from heaven, saying, "You are my Son, whom I love, and I am very pleased with you."
New International Reader's Version

Luke 3:22 (NIRV) The Holy Spirit came down on him in the form of a dove. A voice came from heaven. It said, "You are my Son, and I love you. I am very pleased with you."
New International Version

Luke 3:22 (NIV) and the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form like a dove. And a voice came from heaven: “You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased.”
New King James Version

Luke 3:22 (NKJV) And the Holy Spirit descended in bodily form like a dove upon Him, and a voice came from heaven which said, "You are My beloved Son; in You I am well pleased."
New Living Translation

Luke 3:22 (NLT) and the Holy Spirit, in bodily form, descended on him like a dove. And a voice from heaven said, “You are my dearly loved Son, and you bring me great joy. ”
New Revised Standard

Luke 3:22 (NRS) and the Holy Spirit descended upon him in bodily form like a dove. And a voice came from heaven, "You are my Son, the Beloved; with you I am well pleased."
New Revised Standard w/ Apocrypha

Luke 3:22 (NRSA) and the Holy Spirit descended upon him in bodily form like a dove. And a voice came from heaven, "You are my Son, the Beloved; with you I am well pleased."
Orthodox Jewish Bible

Lukas 3:22 (OJB) And the Ruach Hakodesh descended in demut gashmit as a yonah upon Rebbe, Melech HaMoshiach; and then came a bat kol out of Shomayim, saying, ATAH BNI AHUVI ASHER BCHA CHAFATSTI
Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible

Luke 3:22 (RHE) And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape, as a dove, upon him. And a voice came from heaven: Thou art my beloved Son. In thee I am well pleased.
Revised Standard Version

Luke 3:22 (RSV) and the Holy Spirit descended upon him in bodily form, as a dove, and a voice came from heaven, "Thou art my beloved Son; with thee I am well pleased."
Revised Standard Version w/ Apocrypha

Luke 3:22 (RSVA) and the Holy Spirit descended upon him in bodily form, as a dove, and a voice came from heaven, "Thou art my beloved Son; with thee I am well pleased."
SBL Greek New Testament

Luke 3:22 (SBLG) καὶ καταβῆναι τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον σωματικῷ εἴδει ὡς περιστερὰν ἐπ’ αὐτόν, καὶ φωνὴν ἐξ οὐρανοῦ γενέσθαι · Σὺ εἶ ὁ υἱός μου ὁ ἀγαπητός, ἐν σοὶ εὐδόκησα.
Third Millennium Bible

Luke 3:22 (TMB) and the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon Him, and a voice came from Heaven, which said, "THOU ART MY BELOVED SON; IN THEE I AM WELL PLEASED."
Third Millennium Bible w/ Apocrypha

Luke 3:22 (TMBA) and the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon Him, and a voice came from Heaven, which said, "THOU ART MY BELOVED SON; IN THEE I AM WELL PLEASED."
Tyndale

Luke 3:22 (TYN) and the holy goost came doune in a bodely shape lyke a dove vpo him and a voyce came fro heve sayinge: Thou arte my dere sonne in the do I delyte.
The Webster Bible

Luke 3:22 (WBT) And the Holy Spirit descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.
World English Bible

Luke 3:22 (WEB) and the Holy Spirit descended in a bodily form, as a dove on him; and a voice came out of the sky, saying "You are my beloved Son. In you I am well pleased."
Weymouth New Testament

Luke 3:22 (WNT) and the Holy Spirit came down in bodily shape, like a dove, upon Him, and a voice came from Heaven, which said, "Thou art My Son, dearly loved: in Thee is My delight."
Wycliffe

Luke 3:22 (WYC) And the Holy Ghost came down in bodily likeness, as a dove on him; and a voice was made from heaven, Thou art my dear-worthy Son, in thee it hath well pleased to me.
Young's Literal Translation

Luke 3:22 (YLT) and the Holy Spirit came down in a bodily appearance, as if a dove, upon him, and a voice came out of heaven, saying, `Thou art My Son -- the Beloved, in thee I did delight.'


Oh wait, NONE OF THEM. 30 or so copies of the Gospel and not one adds this word.

Btw...
Quote:
18I testify to everyone who hears the words of prophecy in this book: If anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. 19And if anyone takes away from the words of this book of prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and the holy city, which are described in this book.…


If we are taking away from the book of the Bible or adding to them, we are committing a grave sin. Interpretation? Sure. But altering the Bible to suit your purposes? Nah, not cool.
The Anointed
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 9 Dec, 2021 04:12 am
@bulmabriefs144,
Quote:
You can also use brackets to add into text things that are not there.


Brackets are used very often in quotes since they’re meant to show that words have been added into a direct quote.

And that is exactly what those so-called Christians did in Luke 3: 23; where the added words (AS WAS SUPPOSED) in brackets, which are found in Luke 3: 23; which words were added by those SO-CALLED Christians who attempt to cast doubt on the biological father of Jesus.

These are the same deceivers who changed Luke 3: 22, which originally read as; “Thou art my son ‘THIS DAY’ I have begotten thee”. Into “You are my own dear son in whom I am well pleased.” That was done to make it appear that Jesus was born of Mary as the son of God, Rather than the fact, that Jesus was born of the flesh as are all human beings, born of two human parents, of the seed of Adam, and was born ‘Son of God’ not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of the spirit of the Lord that descended upon him in the form of a dove, as he came out of the baptismal waters of the Jordon, as the heavenly voice was heard to say; “You are my Son, ‘THIS DAY’ I have begotten thee”.

Or as revealed in Hebrews 5; Where Jesus, in his life on earth made his prayers and requests with loud cries to God who could save him from death, and after learning to become obedient through his suffering, and then being made perfect, he became the source of salvation to all those who believed the words of the Lord as spoken through his servant Jesus, and God declared him to be our high priest, in the priestly order of Melchizedek, who was King and high priest, and Jesus did not take upon himself the honour of being High Priest, Instead God said to him, after he had been brought to perfection; “You are my son. ‘TODAY’ I have become your Father”. (See Hebrews 5: 5.) He also said in another place, “You will be a priest forever, in the priestly order of Melchizedek.

Quote:
Kinda interesting that there were also examples that did not have "(as was supposed)" and you decided those didn't count.


Are you referring to these scriptures added by yourself? Luke 3:23 (CEB) Jesus was about 30 years old when he began his ministry. People supposed that he was the son of Joseph son of Heli

Luke 3:23 (CJB) Yeshua was about thirty years old when he began his public ministry. It was supposed that he was a son of Yosef who was of Eli,

Luke 3:23 (CSB) As He began [His ministry], Jesus was about 30 years old and was thought to be the son of Joseph, [son] of Heli,

Luke 3:23 (DBY) And Jesus himself was beginning to be about thirty years old; being as was supposed son of Joseph; of Eli,

Luke 3:23 (GW) Jesus was about 30 years old when he began [his ministry]. Jesus, so people thought, was the son of Joseph, son of Eli,

And you are correct: 'THEY DON'T COUNT', the authors of those scriptures that you provided, are simply disciples of the original deceiver who added the words “(AS WAS SUPPOSED) in order to cast doubt on the human parentage of Jesus.

In the different translations of the KJV into Arabic, Afrikaan, Zulu, etc and even some of the more modern English translations, such as the Good News Catholic Study Edition Bible, and the bibles that you have provided, the added words (As was supposed) have been retained, but the brackets are removed, thus by, making those words appear to be the declaration of Luke, while the serious biblical student know that they were not written by Luke, but were a later added corruption of the Holy Scriptures, by those Christians, who refuse to accept that Jesus was not a God who became a man, but a man, born of human parents, who was later CHOSEN by the Lord our saviour ‘The Son of Man,’ as his heir and successor, and who was given divine glory, as revealed in Acts 3: 13; where it is said that the God of our ancestors, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, has given divine
glory to his servant Jesus etc.

Nighty night Amus, whose first name is Ignor. "Ignoramus".

bulmabriefs144
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 9 Dec, 2021 07:54 am
@The Anointed,
(PARENTHESES). [BRACKETS].

Not the same thing.

You accused me of being stupid but I have to explain this again. And I know it has nothing to do with mental capacity, and everything to do with hardening your heart.
https://grammarist.com/usage/parentheses-vs-brackets/

And I quote from another source.

Quote:
Parentheses set off material that is useful to the reader but is not crucial to the meaning of a sentence. Parenthetical words, phrases, and clauses are usually remarks from the writer, informative side-notes, introduced abbreviations, definitions, translations, examples, cross-references to other things within a text, or citations. If the meaning of the sentence would be clear without the parenthetical remark, then parentheses are appropriate. When a parenthetical remark contains crucial information, consider an alternative form of punctuation. In British English, parentheses are called round brackets. The singular form of parentheses is parenthesis.


Brackets are used when words are added by someone other than the original writer in order to clarify the information. Brackets are often used when clarifying the noun that a pronoun has replaced or adding missing words that will make a sentence grammatically correct. In British English, brackets are known as square brackets.


These round brackets as you stupidly call them, are not for inserted words (they are for words that are about explanation, or side comments). Square brackets are for words inserted into the text quoted in order to correct it. See the above. It says exactly what I just said.

Call them parentheses. If we are not speaking the same language about this, we are at an impasse. Ansd parentheses are not words that have been added to the text. They are part of the text.

Since you will not accept what I am saying, I will use brackets on your own quote to show you how brackets are used.

Quote:
Brackets are used very often in quotes since they’re meant to show that words have been added into a direct quote. [This is correct, however brackets are not parentheses, despite what British call them.]

[...]

[...] Luke 3: 22, which [has always read, even as far back as the earliest copy I can find] read as; “Thou art my son [in whom I am well pleased]” [and it remains] “You are my own dear son in whom I am well pleased.” That was done to make it appear that Jesus was born of Mary as the son of God, [because he was the Son of God.] As he came out of the baptismal waters of the Jordon, as the heavenly voice was heard to say; “You are my Son, [in whom I am well pleased]”.

Or as revealed in Hebrews 5; Where Jesus, in his life on earth made his prayers and requests with loud cries to God who could save him from death, and after learning to become obedient through his suffering, and then being made perfect, he became the source of salvation to all those who believed the words of the Lord as spoken through his servant Jesus, and God declared him to be our high priest, in the priestly order of Melchizedek, who was King and high priest, and Jesus did not take upon himself the honour of being High Priest, Instead God said to him, [...] “You are my son. [In you, I am well pleased]”. (See Hebrews 5: 5.) He also said in another place, “You will be a priest forever, in the priestly order of Melchizedek. "

Quote:
Kinda interesting that there were also examples that did not have "(as was supposed)" and you decided those didn't count.


Are you referring to these scriptures [not] added by yourself?


I didn't write those scriptures. If you look before each of them, they have (in PARENTHESES) the Bible abbreviation. You are choosing to ignore those texts that don't fit your narrative, and you are making an excuse (by saying that parentheses are brackets, so this must have been added) for the others. But with the evidence of the others, it is clearly not.

What's really going on has nothing to do with mental capacity, and everything to do with you hardening your heart against the Gospel.

You are quoting Hebrews 5:5 as if it were Luke 3:22. But it is not. So I have taken to altering Hebrews 5:5 in the same way that you have persistently done to Luke 3:22. The Letters are not Gospel, and should not be treated as such. Some of them have correct teaching, some are flaws of Peter or Paul, and some even disagree with each other, because Peter and Paul were occasionally at odds. Yes, Hebrews 5:5 says that. Luke 3:22 does not. This does not make Luke 3:22 an alteration. 1 Peter also tells us that Jesus was nailed to a tree. It was a cross, but Peter is making a stylistic point about "cursed is the one who hung from a tree." That Jesus took the curse upon himself. If you do not know the point made in Hebrews, you shouldn't quote it. And you definitely shouldn't alter the text, quoting from Hebrews.
bulmabriefs144
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 9 Dec, 2021 08:32 am
@bulmabriefs144,
Whoever is telling you that the Bible is altered is performing sleight of hand, making a claim and then giving you a false copy that they say is the correct one, and explaining the context for you, so you'll believe their version. I saw one copy of the Bible that claimed that the word "camel" was actually wrong, and that the NT was oroginally Aramaic, not Greek. While the case made was interesting, I eventually just wrote footnotes in my own Bible instead of buying theirs. Their copy had some textual flaws in it, so I decided it wasn't as good as I thought after all.

How old is this supposed correct copy?

Indeed, today I looked at the Greek text. No "today".
https://biblehub.com/text/luke/3-22.htm
I looked at the Codex Sinaiticus. No "today."
https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx?book=35&chapter=3&lid=en&side=r&verse=22&zoomSlider=0
Even the copy that claims the NT was originally from Aramaic not Greek? No "today".
https://theholyaramaicscriptures.weebly.com/luk-3.html
So where is this alteration from? I'd say it's fron the con artist telling you this was altered.

And what do we say to Death (when he tells us Jesus isn't real, and didn't die to save us from death)? Not "today"!
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/YqJ_WaEockk/maxresdefault.jpg

Further, if the Catholics really altered the Bible, wouldn't they have done a better job?
Quote:
The following list give a summation of what we have been trying to emphasize. If the Bible is a Catholic book,

1. Why does it condemn clerical dress? (Matt. 23:5-6).
2. Why does it teach against the adoration of Mary? (Luke 11:27-28).
3. Why does it show that all Christians are priests? (1 Pet. 2:5,9).
4. Why does it condemn the observance of special days? (Gal. 4:9-11).
5. Why does it teach that all Christians are saints? (1 Cor. 1:2).
6. Why does it condemn the making and adoration of images? (Ex. 20:4-5).
7. Why does it teach that baptism is immersion instead of pouring? (Col. 2:12).
8. Why does it forbid us to address religious leaders as "father"? (Matt. 23:9).
9. Why does it teach that Christ is the only foundation and not the apostle Peter? (1 Cor. 3:11).
10. Why does it teach that there is one mediator instead of many? (1 Tim. 2:5).
11. Why does it teach that a bishop must be a married man? (1 Tim. 3:2, 4-5).
12. Why is it opposed to the primacy of Peter? (Luke 22:24-27).
13. Why does it oppose the idea of purgatory? (Luke 16:26).
14. Why is it completely silent about infant baptism, instrumental music in worship, indulgences, confession to priests, the rosary, the mass, and many other things in the Catholic Church?


0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Dec, 2021 08:48 am
What would you do if when Christ returns he tells you it is not the way you thought it was?

Would it make any difference to you?
bulmabriefs144
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 9 Dec, 2021 10:13 am
@Leadfoot,
Me? Or Annointed?

Well, for me, Jesus can be a wide variety of things, because I do not believe in making an image of Jesus. Black Jesus? Jewish? Female? Gay? Straight? Capitalist? Atheist? Marxist? Whatever! All that matters to me is Jesus died to save us from sins. Aside from absolute heresy, I accept most things of Jesus, including the notion that He has already come again, and that I have already seen him. Although, I know of my self that I am famously unable to get along with anyone, so I have likely push Him away numerous times.

But I suspect this would be a stumbling block for Annointed. A scandal.

Quote:
scandal (n.)
1580s, "discredit caused by irreligious conduct," from French scandale (12c.), from Late Latin scandalum "cause for offense, stumbling block, temptation," from Greek skandalon "a trap or snare laid for an enemy," in New Testament, metaphorically as "a stumbling block, offense"

-------------------------------------------------------------------
@Annointed To humor you, I pulled out three copies of the Bible. These were New Japanese Bible/King James Version, New Living Translation, and Complete Jewish Bible. The CJB and NLT had annotations, the NJB/KJV did not. I read two verses: Hebrews 5:5 and Luke 3:22.

Luke 3:22
Quote:
(CJB) the Ruach HaKodesh came down on him in physical form like a dove; and a voice came from heaven, "You are my Son, whom I love; I am well pleased with you."

Quote:
(NJB/KJV) And the Holy Spirit descended in bodily form like a dove upon Him, and a voice came from heaven which said, “You are My beloved Son; in You I am well pleased.”

Quote:
(NLT) and the Holy Spirit, in bodily form, descended on him like a dove. And a voice from heaven said, “You are my dearly loved Son, and you bring me great joy. a

The New Living Translation appears to have an annotation saying, "Some manuscripts read my Son, and today I have become your Father."
https://www.thumbsticks.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Phoenix-Wright-Hold-It.jpg
Before you gloat about how this "proves" you are right, some Bibles have "virgin" translated as "young woman." In fact, some texts like the Masoretic Text, have a number of revisions to Old Testament passages, doing everything they can to write Jesus out of the Bible, including garbling the words of prophecies. The mere fact that some passages have different text, does not necessarily make such text right. Some of the Jewish text has these sorts of changes...
https://preachersinstitute.com/2015/08/31/masoretic-text-vs-original-hebrew/
https://theorthodoxlife.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/lxx_vs_mt3.jpg?w=640&h=826
"Dug ears for me"?
"Like a lion, my hands and feet"?
Really?!?

Second, let's look at Hebrews 5:5 which you base the text on.
Quote:
(CJB) So neither did the Messiah glorify himself to become cohen gadol; rather, it was the One who said to him, "You are my Son; today I have become your Father."

Cohen gadol means "high priest." In other words, this passage is not saying that the baptism conferred sonhood to Jesus at all, but that in context, God ordained Jesus and not Jesus himself.
Quote:
(KJV) So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee.

Quote:
(NLT) That is why Christ did not honor himself by assuming he could become High Priest. No, he was chosen by God, who said to him,
“You are my Son. Today I have become your Father. a

The annotation comes not from Luke 3:22 as it would if Luke 3:22 were there ORIGINAL TEXT as altered by deceivers, but Psalm 2:7. In other words, Luke 3:22 in that context is the fulfillment of prophecy, not as you believe, any sort of proof that Jesus became the Son of God through baptism. He was already Son of God by birth, but today God became his Father.
But it gets better. The annotation also says...
Quote:
Or Today I reveal you as my Son.

As they say in chess, ummmm Checkmate? It has nothing at all to do with becoming, and everything to do with being revealed as the Son of God.

Lastly, the passage does not say "Today you have become my Son." God recognizes Jesus as his Son regardless, but today he becomes a proper Father to him. Why? Because this is not the same as baptism conferring the status of Son of God. If this were so, all of us baptized Christians would have claim to being the Messiah and the Son of God. But you do not believe this.
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Dec, 2021 01:17 pm
@bulmabriefs144,
Quote:
Me? Or Annointed?

Anyone interested.

Specifically the question of whether Christ IS God (they are one and the same entity) or Christ is the Son of God (two separate independent entities).

Some good discussion in your post but I don’t think you answered my question about how you would mentally 'handle it' if you were wrong about which was true.
The Anointed
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 9 Dec, 2021 03:20 pm
@Leadfoot,
Quote:
I don’t think you answered my question about how you would mentally 'handle it' if you were wrong about which was true.


Anyone who has been constantly ev0lving in truth for some eighty years , has never been totally correct. They are not stagnant noxious pools of slime, but are crystal clear pools of fresh waters that are continually flowing into them, while flushing yesterdays waters down the mountain for those below to quench their thirst.

I have always been correct according to the data that I had received at any given point in time, but I am not what I was yesterday, nor am I today that which I will be tomorrow.

Catch ya later mate.
bulmabriefs144
 
  0  
Reply Thu 9 Dec, 2021 07:09 pm
@Leadfoot,
Well, I've often considered even the possibility that Christ wasn't actually a single person but a sort of combined soul of all humans. Or a folk hero like Moses, generated from the misfortune and prayers of the Jewish people (but ironically, he came to save them from something entirely different from oppression by Romans and they refused the help).

The answer is that I'm a bit of a seeker type so I'd alway try to find the answer, wherever it led.
If Christ were, say, in favor of people I saw as my enemies, I guess I'd keep analyzing things and kinda take it in stride (I wouldn't like it, or them, but I don't think I'd try to make war against Jesus either). Supposing Jesus did decide to take over the world to make a leftist dictatorship and force us all to do a "new normal" while I wouldn't go along with this, you wouldn't see me overthrowing any governments.

I suppose if it turned out Jesus was me, I'd feel more burdened then pleased. My life is a mess, and I've never been able to help anyone. Someone else, please.

Or course, if it were Annointed or Frank Apisa, then I suppose I stand accused of alot of bad behavior. Ah well.
bulmabriefs144
 
  0  
Reply Thu 9 Dec, 2021 07:22 pm
@The Anointed,
How can you be sure that you have always been correct?

Both blind certainty and confusion are unhealthy extremes.

My issue is confusion, for I have studied several different religious traditions to get to my beliefs. When you don't know what to do because everyone has different advice, it feels like being stuck in a swamp where you aren't sure which way out.

But being sure you are correct is a bit like this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXnJVkEX8O4
Quote:
It was back in nineteen forty-two,
I was a member of a good platoon.
We were on maneuvers in-a Loozianna,
One night by the light of the moon.
The captain told us to ford a river,
That's how it all begun.
We were -- knee deep in the Big Muddy,
But the big fool said to push on.

The Sergeant said, "Sir, are you sure,
This is the best way back to the base?"
"Sergeant, go on! I forded this river
'Bout a mile above this place.
It'll be a little soggy but just keep slogging.
We'll soon be on dry ground."
We were -- waist deep in the Big Muddy
And the big fool said to push on.

The Sergeant said, "Sir, with all this equipment
No man will be able to swim."
"Sergeant, don't be a Nervous Nellie,"
The Captain said to him.
"All we need is a little determination;
Men, follow me, I'll lead on."
We were -- neck deep in the Big Muddy
And the big fool said to push on.

All at once, the moon clouded over,
We heard a gurgling cry.
A few seconds later, the captain's helmet
Was all that floated by.
The Sergeant said, "Turn around men!
I'm in charge from now on."
And we just made it out of the Big Muddy
With the captain dead and gone.
The Anointed
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 9 Dec, 2021 09:15 pm
@bulmabriefs144,
Quote:
How can you be sure that you have always been correct?


I have always been correct according to the data that I had accumulated at any given point in time. As new data became available the truth that I had gained, then evolved to a higher state, etc, etc, etc.

Quote:
My issue is confusion, for I have studied several different religious traditions to get to my beliefs.


Unlike yourself, I have seriously studied ONLY the words of the Lord alone, and was led by my indwelling Parental spirit, who guides me through his words.

I have listened to the many and varied religious bodies, and taken from them anything that was supported by the words of the Lord, and rejected the rubbish, such as the man Jesus being born as a female, etc.

The eating of spiritual food is not unlike that of the eating of physical food, if it smells rotten, or looks like a pile of ****, I will not eat it, but if anyone offers me palliative food, I will eat it without question, I do not try to determine for myself what the body needs or doesn't need, I simply allow the creative spirit within to take what it needs for the maintenance and continued growth of this physical body, and reject that which is not needed or harmful.

And so it is with the spiritual food that I take in, I don't try to determine for myself what is needed for the growth of the individual evolving spirit that is "WHO I AM', what the indwelling parental spirit needs for the creation of his spiritual child is retained and the rubbish is rejected, each piece of information that is retained, is stored in its own particular section, something like a jigsaw, then one day a missing piece is added and [b]"WHAM"[/b] the evolving picture appears like some great revelation, and I fall down and praise the Lord for revealing to me a greater truth, and then continue to eat, as I wait and watch the many different jigsaws merging into the one Great Revelation. A 'REVELATION' to great for this poor physical body to contain..
The Anointed
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 9 Dec, 2021 10:29 pm
@Leadfoot,
Quote:
Specifically the question of whether Christ IS God (they are one and the same entity) or Christ is the Son of God (two separate independent entities).


The word “CHRIST” means “The Anointed One.” Enoch was the one anointed by the Most-High in the creation, ‘The Lord of Creatures,’ as his Heir and successor, (The Son of Man) who is Lord of spirits.

The only time that the man Jesus was anointed, was by Mary the sister of Lazarus, and that was in preparation for his Burial. See Matthew 26: 11.

Christ is the English term for the Greek Χριστός (Khristós) meaning "the anointed one" It is a translation of the Hebrew מָשִׁיחַ (Māšîaḥ), usually transliterated into English as Messiah or Mashiach. The Hebrew word translated "anointed" is the verb form of the noun "Messiah."

"The Book of the Secrets of Enoch" 22: 8; "And I fell prone and bowed down to the Lord, and the Lord with his lips said to me: "Have courage, Enoch, do not fear, arise and stand before ‘MY’ face into eternity."

And the archistratiege Michael lifted me up, and led me before the Lord’s face.

[Archistratege. Or, "the commander of the armies of the nations, named Michael."]

And the Most-High said to the glorious creatures that surrounded him, tempting them: "Let Enoch stand before ‘MY’ face into eternity," and the glorious creatures bowed down to the Lord, and said: "Let Enoch go [Or be released] according to Thy word."

And the Lord said to Michael: "Go take Enoch from out his earthly garments, and anoint him with my sweet ointment, and put him into the garments of my glory."

And Michael did thus as the Lord told him. He anointed me, and dressed me, and the appearance of that ointment is more than the great light, and his ointment is like sweet dew, and its smell mild, shining like the sun’s rays, and I looked at myself, and was like one of his glorious ones.

To translate something is to change it from one form to another. Hebrews 11: 5; “By faith Enoch was translated so that he should not experience death, and he was not found because God had translated him.”

The author of Hebrews could not have known that Enoch was translated in order that he should never experience death, unless he had read from "The Book of the Secrets of Enoch". From which books Jesus and his apostles taught, and which books were cherished by the early Christians right up until the fourth century, when under the ban of such dogmatic Roman authorities, as Hilary, Jerome and Augustine they finally passed out of circulation and were thought lost for millennia.

Enoch was the one from the earlier age of Man that was destroyed by water, who was chosen to serve God before the body of Adam into all eternity, and Enoch was in the valley of man (The spiritual dimension that co-exists within this so-called physical world for three days, or rather three thousand years) before he was revealed on earth once again.

0 Replies
 
The Anointed
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 9 Dec, 2021 11:01 pm
@bulmabriefs144,
Quote:
My life is a mess, and I've never been able to help anyone.


And the reason that your life is a mess, is because you have messed around with so many religious beliefs, which differing beliefs have now merged into one pile of bovine poop.

You head is so mixed up and set as hard as concrete, that one would need a Jackhammer to crack it open and let the light of truth shine in.
The Anointed
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 9 Dec, 2021 11:26 pm
@bulmabriefs144,
Quote:
@Annointed To humor you, I pulled out three copies of the Bible. These were New Japanese Bible/King James Version, New Living Translation, and Complete Jewish Bible. The CJB and NLT had annotations, the NJB/KJV did not. I read two verses: Hebrews 5:5 and Luke 3:22.

Luke 3:22
Quote:
(CJB) the Ruach HaKodesh came down on him in physical form like a dove; and a voice came from heaven, "You are my Son, whom I love; I am well pleased with you."

Quote:
(NJB/KJV) And the Holy Spirit descended in bodily form like a dove upon Him, and a voice came from heaven which said, “You are My beloved Son; in You I am well pleased.”

Quote:
(NLT) and the Holy Spirit, in bodily form, descended on him like a dove. And a voice from heaven said, “You are my dearly loved Son, and you bring me great joy. a”


In Luke 3: 22; Those who would have you believe that Jesus was a god who became a man, changed the original verse, to; “Thou art my beloved son in who I am well pleased.”

While in Luke 3: 22; (In place of “Thou art my beloved son in who I am well pleased.”) The following authorities of the second, third, and fourth centuries read, “This day I have begotten thee,” vouched for by Codex D, and the most ancient copies of the old latin (a, b. c. ff.I), by Justin Martyr (AD 140), Clemens Alex, (AD. 190), Methodius (AD. 290), among the Greeks. And among the Latins, Lactaitius (AD 300), Hilary (AD) Juvencus (AD. 330), Faustus (AD. 400) and Augustine. All these oldest manuscripts were changed completely. They now read, “This is my son in whom I am well pleased.” Whereas the original variant was, “Thou art my Son. This day I have begotten thee.

The only ones that you humor kiddo, are those who are watching you make an utter idiot of yourself.

0 Replies
 
The Anointed
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 9 Dec, 2021 11:40 pm
@bulmabriefs144,
Quote:
Before you gloat about how this "proves" you are right, some Bibles have "virgin" translated as "young woman."


In 1973, an ecumenical edition of RSV was approved by both Protestant and Catholic hierarchies, called the common bible. A New English Translation of the Bible, published in 1970 and approved by the council of churches in England, Scotland, Wales, the Irish council of churches, the London Society of Friends, and the Methodist and Presbyterian churches of England, all translate Isaiah 7: 14; “A young Woman is with child, and she will bear a son.”

Also, The Good News Bible, Catholic Study Edition, with imprimatur by Archbishop John Whealon reads, Isaiah 7: 14; “A young woman who is pregnant will have a son, etc.” As these religious bodies all now accept that Isaiah was not referring to a virgin in that famous passage, they must now accept that the authors of the Septuagint and the translators of the Gospel of Matthew from the Hebrew to Greek, who were forced to use the Greek term “Parthenos” in reference to Isaiah’s prophecy, were in no way implying that the pregnant Mary, was still a virgin.

Matthew 1: 22-23; should now read; ‘Now all this happened to make come true what the Lord had said through the prophet [Isaiah],’ “An unmarried woman/Almah who is pregnant will bear a son and he will be called immanuel: (“which means God is with us.”)

The point of the prophecy is not in the fact that an unmarried woman would bear a son, but that a child conceived out of wedlock (A Bastard) would be seen as the vessel in which the Lord would reveal himself to us, (“God is with us.”)

In 1st Chronicles 17: 13; Concerning Solomon, who was born of the adulterous union of David and Bathsbeba and the murder of her husband Uriah, God says of Solomon, “I shall be his Father and he shall be my Son” and God blesses him with the rulership of one of the most glorious periods in Jewish history.

If Jesus was not born of the flesh as all human beings are, but was born of a virgin without male semen having been introduced into her uterus, then this would have been the greatest of all miracles, and would have been shouted from the roof tops by all four gospel writers and yet we see that Mark, who is believed to have been the son of Peter, and John the beloved disciple, ignore the physical birth of Jesus as being totally irrelevant to the story of salvation and begin their account of He who was sent in the name of the Lord, with the Baptism of the man Jesus, when he was born of the spirit that descended upon him in the form of a dove, as the heavenly voice was heard to say, “You are my son, THIS DAY I have begotten thee.”

We also know that Matthew 1: 22-23; should now read; ‘Now all this happened to make come true what the Lord had said through the prophet [Isaiah],’ “An unmarried woman/Almah who is pregnant will bear a son and he will be called Immanuel: (“which means God is with us.”)

In Luke 1, when Mary said to the messenger of God; “I am a virgin. How, then, can this be?”

He answered, “The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will over shadow you, etc.

In the genealogy of Joseph ben Jacob, who married the already pregnant Mary, and who did not consummate that union until after she had given birth to her firstborn son [Jesus], which genealogy is recorded in Matthew, five righteous women are mentioned: Tamar, who played the prostitute and seduced Judah, her father-in law into having sex with her, by which union she conceived and later bore his twin sons, Perez and Zerah.

Then there is Rahab the madam of a whore house in Jericho, who saved the Israelite spies and who later married Salmon, and bore his son ‘Boaz.’

The third is Ruth, who with sexual cunning deceived Boaz into marrying her, to whom she bore ‘Obed.’

The fourth is Bathsheba, who committed adultery with King David, who had her husband ‘Uriah’ killed, and she was the mother of Solomon, of whom the Lord said; “He shall be my son and I shall be his Father and it is he who shall build my temple for me.” [See 2nd Samuel 7: 14. and 1st Chronicles 17: 13.] Solomon was then blessed with the rulership of the most glorious period of Israel’s history.

And last of all is Mary who united with her half-brother Joseph ben Alexander Helios, to conceive and bear Jesus, the promised Messiah.

The actions of these women were committed in the shadows beneath the wings of the Lord of Spirits, who has declared these women to have acted in righteousness.

Jesus was born according to the power/workings of the Holy Spirit, as was Isaac, who was born to Sarah the half-sister to Abraham.

Galatians 4: 29; At that time, the child born according to the flesh, [Ishmael], despised and persecuted him, [Isaac] who was born according to God’s promise and the workings of the Holy Spirit.

Isaac, who is the prototype of Jesus, was born of a brother/sister relationship and born of God’s promise according to the power/workings of the Holy Spirit, and Isaac was the biological son of Abraham and his half-sister Sarah, who were both sired by Terah: just as Jesus, who was born of God’s promise according to the power of the Holy Spirit, was the biological son of Joseph and his half-sister Mary, who were both sired by Alexander Helios.

Isaac, was offered up as a sacrifice by his father on the same mountain that Jesus, who had been chosen as the heir to our Fathers throne, was offered up. But both lived on, as God had prepared a replacement sacrifice for them. The replacement for Isaac, was a sheep, the replacement for Jesus, was the one year old unblemished lamb of God, [Enoch] who, at the age of 365, the number of days in a calendar year, was taken to the throne of the Most High in the creation and anointed as his successor, to serve God before the body of Adam/mankind into all eternity.

Just as Isaac the promised seed of Abraham was born through the union of Abraham and his half-sister Sarah according to the workings of the Holy Spirit, so too, the man Jesus, the reality of God’s promise to Abraham, was born according to the workings of the Holy Spirit and born of the union of Mary and her half-brother Joseph, who were both sired by Heli=Alexander Helios.


0 Replies
 
bulmabriefs144
 
  0  
Reply Fri 10 Dec, 2021 12:24 am
@The Anointed,
That's a contradiction. As new information arrived, you adjusted to it. This in fact implies you have been wrong, and several times in fact. Denial is not only a river in Egypt though.

Quote:
Unlike yourself, I have seriously studied ONLY the words of the Lord alone, and was led by my indwelling Parental spirit, who guides me through his words.


That's beautiful. And did it not ever occur to you that God created all people, not just those who agree with you?

Quote:
1 The word of the Lord came to Jonah son of Amittai: 2 “Go to the great city of Nineveh and preach against it, because its wickedness has come up before me.”
3 But Jonah ran away from the Lord and headed for Tarshish. He went down to Joppa, where he found a ship bound for that port. After paying the fare, he went aboard and sailed for Tarshish to flee from the Lord.


(He gets swallowed by a large fish)

Quote:
3 Then the word of the Lord came to Jonah a second time: 2 “Go to the great city of Nineveh and proclaim to it the message I give you.”

3 Jonah obeyed the word of the Lord and went to Nineveh. Now Nineveh was a very large city; it took three days to go through it. 4 Jonah began by going a day’s journey into the city, proclaiming, “Forty more days and Nineveh will be overthrown.” 5 The Ninevites believed God. A fast was proclaimed, and all of them, from the greatest to the least, put on sackcloth.

6 When Jonah’s warning reached the king of Nineveh, he rose from his throne, took off his royal robes, covered himself with sackcloth and sat down in the dust. 7 This is the proclamation he issued in Nineveh:

“By the decree of the king and his nobles:

Do not let people or animals, herds or flocks, taste anything; do not let them eat or drink. 8 But let people and animals be covered with sackcloth. Let everyone call urgently on God. Let them give up their evil ways and their violence. 9 Who knows? God may yet relent and with compassion turn from his fierce anger so that we will not perish.”

10 When God saw what they did and how they turned from their evil ways, he relented and did not bring on them the destruction he had threatened.


(So, what does Job do? He sulks. After all, he is a Jew and cannot stand the idea of God saving his enemies)

Quote:
4 But to Jonah this seemed very wrong, and he became angry. 2 He prayed to the Lord, “Isn’t this what I said, Lord, when I was still at home? That is what I tried to forestall by fleeing to Tarshish. I knew that you are a gracious and compassionate God, slow to anger and abounding in love, a God who relents from sending calamity. 3 Now, Lord, take away my life, for it is better for me to die than to live.”

4 But the Lord replied, “Is it right for you to be angry?”

5 Jonah had gone out and sat down at a place east of the city. There he made himself a shelter, sat in its shade and waited to see what would happen to the city. 6 Then the Lord God provided a leafy plant[a] and made it grow up over Jonah to give shade for his head to ease his discomfort, and Jonah was very happy about the plant. 7 But at dawn the next day God provided a worm, which chewed the plant so that it withered. 8 When the sun rose, God provided a scorching east wind, and the sun blazed on Jonah’s head so that he grew faint. He wanted to die, and said, “It would be better for me to die than to live.”

9 But God said to Jonah, “Is it right for you to be angry about the plant?”

“It is,” he said. “And I’m so angry I wish I were dead.”

10 But the Lord said, “You have been concerned about this plant, though you did not tend it or make it grow. It sprang up overnight and died overnight. 11 And should I not have concern for the great city of Nineveh, in which there are more than a hundred and twenty thousand people who cannot tell their right hand from their left—and also many animals?”


This is God's plan. If you have not understood this, you have been wrong.

bulmabriefs144
 
  0  
Reply Fri 10 Dec, 2021 12:34 am
@The Anointed,
It is a mess, yes.

Unlike you, God seems to grant me grace in spite of my shitty messed up life, and in spite of my garbled beliefs.

You know why? Because I understand God's grace. You seem to have none on offer. Jesus tells a parable about a man whose debts are forgiven, yet tries to hold another accountable.

This is what much of the secular world is like. Their sins are forgiven, yet they remain greedy, petty, and cruel.
And here, you should know the Gospel but you turn around and berate others for supposed heresy. Know that God has forgiven your sins. Why then are you so rigid towards others?

"I desire mercy not sacrifice," Hosea 6:6. It is far more important for you to practice acceptance and mercy, than to be a judgey literalistic asshole who splits hairs on verses that nobody else sees, and is convinced he has a monopoly on religious truth. I don't have to be right all the time. So why are you like this?

Yes, my religious beliefs are syncretic, but I do read the Bible as written. You are being a pot calling the kettle black. Why are you doubling down like this?

It's easy, every now and then, you can admit when you're wrong.

 

Related Topics

A Scriptural Discussion of the Trinity - Question by TruthMatters
Trinitarian Evidence All False - Discussion by Squeakybro
John 1-1 - Discussion by Squeakybro
Deity - Discussion by Squeakybro
Is This What God Purposed? - Question by BroRando
Who actually wrote the Bible? - Question by BroRando
The He's and Him's - Discussion by Squeakybro
The Are One Delusion - Discussion by Squeakybro
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Oneness vs. Trinity
  3. » Page 24
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/22/2022 at 03:17:18