No one ever made sacrifices to Jesus. Christians have never made sacrifices to Jesus. Cain and Able where sacrificing to God. But what they where doing was a sign of a future sacrifice that of the Lamb of God, Jesus. The story of cain and able was to establish that a blood sacrifice is what was needed. All Praise The Ancient Of Days
Might I ask where? Strange, because Corinthians states that jesus is "the firstborn of all creation". If there is truth in that statement then jesus can't possibly be the descendant of anyone.
Can't remember. Not in the bible, just in comments on it. If you google Mary David descendent you get sites like this. I would guess that depends on whether they were referring to Jesus' spiritual part or corporeal part. Perhaps the idea is that while spiritually he was around from the start, his body - although miraculously conceived (half Mary's DNA, half miracle DNA?) - grew in the normal biological way, and so physically speaking he descended from Mary.
Adstar, Jesus says in the NT that Moses wrote of him in the OT. Can you point me out any verse in the OT which would suggest Moses was talking about Jesus?
Hello ashura Here is the answer that you chose to not accept. And i also said this: So there you have it. The answer to your question was given. But you simply refused to accept it. All Praise The Ancient Of Days
In accordance with the bible, as opposed to poorly made islamic websites, the problem remains. For now let's say that the "firstborn" relates to this 'spiritual' aspect of jesus. We now need to look for the physical aspect.. hebrews 1 states the following: 'The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being' This seems to cover both bases - from a spiritual and physical perspective. From this would it be justified to perhaps extrapolate that jesus physical appearance is the exact representation of gods physical appearance? In which case mary would simply have been a vessel, (like a test tube), and have no actual genetic value with concerns to jesus? If so then jesus is still clearly not a descendant of anyone. However, this is neither here nor there concerning your original statement. Unless it can be shown that mary is actually a descendant of david, then it stands that jesus can't be either.
Hi again ashura well thank for the clarification but i still disagree with your conclusion. For a threat to be a threat a person must believe in the threat that it is real. You call eternity in the lake of fire mere oppression? I would call it absolute terror. Ahhh He is not an oppressor he is a perfect Judge. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! This is where the illogical mindset your trapped in is revealed. If an atheist treated the bible as fact they would no longer be an atheist. They would be a true Christian and would have no fear of the lake of fire. Same for non-Christians caught up in the bondage of false religion. If they believed That the bible was fact they too would have no fear. As i said before fear takes belief but the progression of faith leads to the knowledge of the Love of God through the Messiah Jesus and thus all fear is dispelled. All Praise The Ancient of Days
ashura one more time Ohh there is an immense difference. Your statement proposes that a person will be condemned for not accepting the Messiah Jesus. Anyone who is not a Christian or who has not ended their lives on earth as a Christian. My statement proposes that a person will be condemned for rejecting the Messiah Jesus. This leaves open the door for those who have never heard the true Gospel Message and therefore have never rejected The Messiah Jesus. All Praise The Ancient Of Days
No offence but you're being silly. In fact so silly that I'm going to come over there and beat you to death with a baseball bat officially signed by Babe Ruth. Now, you might not believe that I am going to do what I have threatened to do, but your belief does not change my threat from being a threat. 'But just as every good promise of the lord your god has come true, so the lord will bring on you all the evil he has threatened, until he has destroyed you from this good land he has given you.' That is a threat, whether anyone believes it will or will not happen does not stop it from being a threat. Understand?
Poorly made anti-Islamic site, it seems. I can see from your chapter and verse quotes that you've read this in more detail than I have. Really, based on that sentence I don't know what they're talking about. If your interpretation of spiritual and physical representation is correct though, I recall a quote from the Old Testament about Man's being made in the image of God. If all humans represent God's 'physical' appearance, wouldn't Jesus' physical part also do so simply by virtue of being human? To be precise: Unless it can be shown that Mary is actually a descendant of david, then it stands that Jesus can't be (shown to be an actual descendent of David) either. Or more simply: (Jesus a descendent of David & Jesus has no human father) <=> Mary a descendent of David. No proof either way for Mary implies no proof either way for Jesus.
Hi Cris By the same token, isn't it quite possible that your ability to think logically in other areas might not say anything about your ability or willingness to see the logic in religious concepts? Can you throw doubt on someone else's thinking - especially on people who have shown they are otherwise quite adept at it - without it throwing a kind of shadow over your own argument? Your dogmatic statement that "Faith in a god or a religious concept remains entirely a matter of suspending logical and reasoned thinking" is also quite impressive, since it relies heavily on what you consider to be "logical and reasoned thinking". In other words, the argument boils down to "whoever does not think like me must be an idiot". But being a logical and reasonable man, you surely realise that logic, and by extension reason, can only be as good as its underlying facts/assumptions. A logical argument from the belief that God exists will look different than the argument from the belief that He doesn't, without either line of reasoning ever having to commit any fallacies or being unsound (although that rarely happens, on either side of the fence). And for the same reason that it is unreasonable to conclude God's existence based on an 'expert' opinion, it would also be be unreasonable to conclude God's non-existence based on your conclusion, or any other man's who considers himself to be logical and reasonable in general, that otherwise intelligent and logical men must be missing something if they believe in God. What one side considers evidence, the other is bound to question, whether with or without reason. Emotional arguments, belittlement, stereotyping, or any other forms of 'righteous indignation' and intellectual elitism will not enhance the debate or strengthen anyone's position.
Adstar: You gave this attempted answer to Ashura and yet it doesn't stand up under scrutiny.. '"Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil."' As you can see, god clearly considers fearing him as an important thing... not just to unbelievers, but to a blameless and upright person unlike anyone else on earth as well. You are supposed to have fear where god is concerned. 'And he said to man, "The fear of the Lord—that is wisdom, and to shun evil is understanding"' You'll find if you spend some time going through it that fear is an essential aspect when it comes to god - for you believers as much as anyone else.
I agree, it's clearly a threat. It might be useful to consider that threats may be warnings. It depends on the hearer's position and attitude whether they hear it in a negative or positive light. If there is truly a place for communication, and for balances like justice, forgiveness, mercy and restitution, then a country's citizens will not regard its laws as threats and its lawgivers as dictators, no matter how clearly and absolutely their conditions are laid out. As 1 John 4 puts it: "fear has to do with punishment". If you are convinced that you are right, there can be nothing to fear, not even from threats (unless you're afraid of injustice, perhaps). And on the other topic, has anyone put the conditions for descendency in context yet? Has it been defined?
Snakelord, re: fearing God, it's probably not fear as you would have it mean. There's a wonderful little story in the Jerusalem Talmud that tries to explain what it means to "fear God" in practical terms: Rabbi Samuel traveled to Rome. Rome, the center of the ancient world, the epicenter of political power, military strength, and commerce of its time. While Rabbi Samuel was there, the queen lost a precious bracelet and Rabbi Samuel chanced upon it. This was not just any bracelet, for it belonged to the queen of Rome, the most powerful queen in the entire world. Meanwhile, a crier went around the kingdom announcing: ‘Whoever brings back the queen’s bracelet within thirty days will receive a great reward. But, if the bracelet is found on him after the thirty days, his head will be cut off!’ Rabbi Samuel did not return the bracelet within the thirty days, but on the 31st day brought it back to the queen. She asked him, ‘Were you not in the kingdom?’ He replied, ‘Yes.’ ‘So did you not hear the proclamation?’ He answered: ‘Yes, I did.’ She asked: ‘What did the crier say?’ He told her the crier’s words. So she asked: ‘Then why did you not return it within the thirty days?’ He replied: ‘So that you would not say that I feared you, but I returned it because I feared God.’The Jewish Encyclopedia is a little less poetic about it: "[Fear of God is] The Hebrew equivalent of 'religion.'"
Adstar, Jesus says in the NT that Moses wrote of him in the OT. Can you point me out any verse in the OT which would suggest Moses was talking about Jesus? Also, you have stated that Cain and Abel made plant and animal (blood) offerings to God, not with Jesus in mind, or not to Jesus. At what point exactly did these offerings of animals, or blood sacrifices, turn into offerings related to Jesus?
Does this concept apply to other areas of life as well, such as, say, having 14 beautiful wives like David did? I mean, the better your faith is, the more things you can have, because the more you understand what God does and doesn't care about. So it seems like any decision we make can be either: A) Positive - Something extra required by God at a given time B) Negative - A sin which displeases God C)Neutral - Choices or actions God doesn't care about, meaning he doesn't count it against you in approving you for heavenly access. Choosing whether to eat McDonalds or BK, Taco bell or KFC, etc. Choosing what brand of cereal to buy. I think you would agree Adstar that most decisions we make or actions we take are of the Neutral variety. God doesn't care about neutral choices. He doesn't care what we eat, what brand of cereal we buy, etc. The Bible says David had 14 beautiful wives who he had sex with on a constant basis. I'm guessing then that how many women one has sex with is also of the "neutral" variety of choices. Any thoughts?
It would seem ok, as long as non of the relationships were with another man, same sex sex is forbidden, but if you can afford 14 wives, or 14 husbands provide you, then it seems to be ok! What do think? :shrug:
Aye, that would work. (It still wouldn't make him a descendant of david) Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! The text however does certainly seem to state that the descendancy is on Joseph's side. Well, being one to never use the word that would seem obvious. Of course the available evidence points at jesus being a descendant of david through joseph. In such instance that could not be actually valid. Yeah, and god isn't what you would have it mean, it actually means leprechaun.:bugeye:
