According to Matthew 4:4, he quoted Deut 8:3 after fasting "forty days and forty nights", which was to say, "Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God".
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Elijah
- Thread starter Rival
- Start date
Elihoenai
Well-Known Member
Exodus 34:28
28 And he was there with the Lord forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments.
Matthew 4:1-2
4 Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.
2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred.
Yeshua/Jesus, Elijah/John the Baptist and Moses Fasted as Elohim/God Commanded them.
Do you agree that Elohim/God wants Men to Fast? Do you see any Value in Fasting?
Colt
Well-Known Member
I believe that the narrative of Jesus in the wilderness was filled in by speculation long after he left this world. I don’t believe that Satan ever had the power to lead Jesus anywhere.
Jesus taught faith and service to others not affliction of the soul! Like Isaiah’s injunction:
They ask me for just decisions
and seem eager for God to come near them.
3‘Why have we fasted,’ they say,
‘and you have not seen it?
Why have we humbled ourselves,
and you have not noticed?’
“Yet on the day of your fasting, you do as you please
and exploit all your workers.
4Your fasting ends in quarreling and strife,
and in striking each other with wicked fists.
You cannot fast as you do today
and expect your voice to be heard on high.
5Is this the kind of fast I have chosen,
only a day for people to humble themselves?
Is it only for bowing one’s head like a reed
and for lying in sackcloth and ashes?
Is that what you call a fast,
a day acceptable to the Lord?
6“Is not this the kind of fasting I have chosen:
to loose the chains of injustice
and untie the cords of the yoke,
to set the oppressed free
and break every yoke?
7Is it not to share your food with the hungry
and to provide the poor wanderer with shelter—
when you see the naked, to clothe them,
and not to turn away from your own flesh and blood?
8Then your light will break forth like the dawn,
and your healing will quickly appear;
then your righteousness a will go before you,
and the glory of the Lord will be your rear guard.
9Then you will call, and the Lord will answer;
you will cry for help, and he will say: Here am I.
“If you do away with the yoke of oppression,
with the pointing finger and malicious talk,
10and if you spend yourselves in behalf of the hungry
and satisfy the needs of the oppressed,
then your light will rise in the darkness,
and your night will become like the noonday.
11The Lord will guide you always;
he will satisfy your needs in a sun-scorched land
and will strengthen your frame.
You will be like a well-watered garden,
like a spring whose waters never fail.
12Your people will rebuild the ancient ruins
and will raise up the age-old foundations;
you will be called Repairer of Broken Walls,
Restorer of Streets with Dwellings.
Redemptionsong
Well-Known Member
No, you're applying the word 'son' to Joseph, and not to Heli! Joseph was not the son of Heli, he was the son in law of Heli. Mary was Heli's daughter.
The argument here is not about whether Jesus was the son of Joseph. We know that Jesus was not the son of Joseph. He was the son of God. But from the human perspective, Jesus WAS the Son of man through Mary's blood line.
For you to argue that Jesus was not of any blood line makes him an alien, not a human being. Yet, to be the atoning sacrifice (Lamb of God) he had to be both human and divine. This is why orthodox Christians accept that Jesus Christ was fully God and fully human.
The scriptures support the orthodox Christian position. In 1 John 4:2 it says, 'And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God:'. In 1 Peter 4:1, it says, 'Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh'. Yet, according to your understanding, Christ has no blood line, and is not truly 'flesh'!
Maybe you can explain to me how you think Jesus came to be born?
Redemptionsong
Well-Known Member
This is not about trusting the Greeks! It's about the wording of the NT, which happens to be written in Greek (by divine will).
Jesus was not the son of Joseph by blood line, but he was the son of Mary by blood line. This is what the genealogies tell us!
101G
Well-Known Member
ERROR, to U maybe, and that's why, because U made them ... "NOTHING" your gods. so, don';t put nothing on God.
your first ERROR of the Day, "the angels whose offspring became gods". get that nonsense out of your head. "men of renown" are HUMANS. my Giod how hard is it?
2P, listen, not trying to put u down or anything, but do u attend any bible study? for this fictitious stuff u are claiming. has been debunked
keyword "Idols".
LOL, LOL, LOL, Oh my..... listen and Learn, Romans 7:21 "I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me." there is NOTHING NEW under the sun.
101G.
101G
Well-Known Member
NO.
for he was not, biologically. but by birth of his, Joseph, wife Mary he is according to the flesh "LEGALLY" is his son, but not blood son. do you understand now?
there are many who are "LEGALLY" sons, but not blood or biological sons.
101G.
God created heaven and earth. And the gods/idols prevail even today. Putin is the Czar/Caesar/emperor, Stalin of today. Mao, based on the Marxist theology, Marx being the false prophet of the Progressive/Communist religious movement, has his red book read in all the commercial business conference rooms of Communist China. The 1st Commandment reads "Thou shalt have no other gods before me", which indicates there are "gods" being put before me. I think either thru poor nutrition, or the Progressive education system, your critical thinking is not rating very high, at least with respect to how you come across.
You are kind of inferring a legal statis, as Joseph was told by an "Angel of the LORD" to take "Mary as your wife" (Mt 1:20-25), and "he kept her as a virgin until she gave birth to a son", which is to say, James the brother of Yeshua, would be a son by blood of Joseph, and probably the other children in the family, which is contrary to the teachings of many of the daughters of Babylon teachings. There would be no "legal" proceedings, for he "didn't want to disgrace her", and let the public know that his son was not his. Like most Progressives, you can make your own definitions to make your case, but in the end, they are simply contortions of your own mind. As for Mt 1, the math doesn't add up, nor does it compare with Luke 3, which is to say according to Yeshua, you have to have at least two witnesses to confirm any matter, and this matter has not been confirmed. (Mt 18:16)
"Men of renown" (Giants), sired by the "heavenly watchers" are half human and half angels. Their demon spirits remain on earth after their death and are now giving direction to the world leaders (Rev 16:13-14). Not to say they are not influencing the howlers at the moon one comes across often, especially ones found online.
Rev 16:13-14 13 And I saw coming out of the mouth of the dragon and out of the mouth of the beast and out of the mouth of the false prophet, three unclean spirits like frogs; 14 for they are spirits of demons, performing signs, which go out to the kings of the whole world, to gather them together for the war of the great day of God, the Almighty.
key "thought". The gods were worshipped in the form of "idols".
Yeah, but that is not what Luke 3 says. That is your interpretation, and going by past experience, that is probably not on solid ground. As for Matthew writing in Greek, the "disciples" were told to preach the "kingdom of heaven" to the "lost sheep of Israel" (Mt 10:6-7). In the state of Judea, the common people spoke Aramaic, and therefore you might want to consult the Aramaic/Per****ta bible. Building your house on sand (Mt 7:24-27) is not the best route to take. You need two witnesses to confirm any matter, and you have an off shute of one, based on your supposedly leaning on traditions of men with Greek ties, memorialized in a bible written to glorify an English king, written in the 17th Century. I don't know, it sounds kind of iffy. Your version does not mention this "Joseph" as being the father-in-law of the "Joseph", nor did it mention Mary. You are simply scrambling on thin ice. I assume that most of your notions are also based on similar ill-conceived premises based on apparently secret gnostic information. Not to say that a blood line did not run through Mary, as stated by your twisted take from some unknown author with ties to the false prophet Paul, but you have not proven your case.
Pe****ta bible Luke 3:23 But Yeshua was about thirty years old, and he was considered the son of Yoseph, son of Heli,
101G
Well-Known Member
God did, but your "gods" in your minds.
who put them there? ... thank you.
101G
101G
Well-Known Member
I could careless, the bible is true, the Lord Jesus is not Joseph nor mary's biological son.... end of story.
101G.
101G
Well-Known Member
101G
Well-Known Member
did you not hear? 1 Corinthians 8:4 "As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one."
I guess you don't know that because you don't believe the word of God.
end of story here also.
101G.
Well, quoting the false prophet Paul, the "enemy" (Mt 13:25) the arm of the "devil" and his "message" of the "tare seed"/lawlessness, is not a good comeback. You can equate the message of the "enemy" with the "message" of the "son of man" (Mt 13:37-41), but that is not going to happen in reality, only in the minds of the "tares", who put on lipstick, and act as what they are not eating swine for dinner. Paul is his own god, with his own worshippers, but in fact, his buddy is Satan, who tries to reel in his arrogance by giving him a pain in the side.
Mt 13:37 And He said, “The one who sows the good seed is the Son of Man, 38and the field is the world; and as for the good seed, these are the sons of the kingdom; and the tares are the sons of the evil one; 39and the enemy who sowed them is the devil, and the harvest is the end of the age; and the reapers are angels. 40“So just as the tares are gathered up and burned with fire, so shall it be at the end of the age. 41“The Son of Man will send forth His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all stumbling blocks, and those who commit lawlessness, 42and will throw them into the furnace of fire; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
Apparently, the demon spirits are bringing on Har-Magedon, the "day of the LORD" by coopting the leaders/kings of the nations/Gentiles (Rev 16:13-16). Those demon spirits are an artifact of the heavenly watchers taking the daughters of men. The demons also appear to have acted on the house of Pelosi, since I have heard she hired someone to cast them out of her house. I doubt they can get rid of them as long as she resides in the house.
The "beasts" were put in charge of their "kingdom" by the "LORD" (Rev 17:17) to bring about his purpose, which is Daniel 2:44-45. They rule the nations by the authority of the "dragon"/"devil" (Rev 13:4), and the daughters of Babylon sit on the back of the beasts (Rev 17:3). The "dragon", in the case of the Gentile church, is Sol Invictus, the god of the Roman emperor Constantine, who set up the Roman church at his convened Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D. It was Athanasius, who was a charter member of the unholy Trinity club of the Council of Nicaea, who gave you your unholy canon in 367 A.D.
New American Standard Bible Rev 17:17
For God has put it in their hearts to execute His purpose by having a common purpose, and by giving their kingdom to the beast, until the words of God will be fulfilled.
Redemptionsong
Well-Known Member
The case you are making is not at all clear.
Either Jesus had a human blood line, or he is not of any human extraction. The two genealogies are of Joseph (Matthew's Gospel) and Mary (Luke's Gospel). These two genealogies must be brought together to combine the royal legitimacy of Joseph's line with the natural, biological blood line of Mary (through David).
By claiming that Jesus had no blood line you make it impossible for Jesus to be a descendant of David. If Jesus is not a descendant of David, then he has no right to the throne in Judah. This means he cannot be the Messiah of the Jews.