Jesus literal son of God, or son of Joseph?

[URAVIP2ME]

Mark 8:31-9:1 (which also has parallels in both Matthew and Luke) states that some of those standing before him would not die until the Kingdom of God had come. They are now dead, and the Kingdom is not here. So again, it shows he failed.

Matthew 16v28 B ...not taste death until they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom or royal government.

How did they see Jesus? ______ According to Matthew 17v9 it was in a 'vision'.
They saw a future 'vision' of Jesus coming in 'glory' see Matthew 25v31,32.
So before they died they saw in the 'vision' that Jesus said to tell the 'vision' to man man until after he was resurrected.

It was not a literal happening, but as Jesus said it was a 'vision'.

 

[fallingblood]

According to the Greek:
John 19v14 was but preparation of the passover, hour was the sixth.
That is about 12 noon counting from sunrise.

John makes it very clear that it was the day of preparation that Jesus was crucified. The day of preparation was the day before Passover. John is very clear about this point as it is important to the message John is portraying; that Jesus was the passover lamb. This only makes sense if Jesus was crucified on the day of Preparation, as that was the day in which the Passover lamb was sacrificed.

 

[fallingblood]

How did they see Jesus? ______ According to Matthew 17v9 it was in a 'vision'.
They saw a future 'vision' of Jesus coming in 'glory' see Matthew 25v31,32.
So before they died they saw in the 'vision' that Jesus said to tell the 'vision' to man man until after he was resurrected.

It was not a literal happening, but as Jesus said it was a 'vision'.

Not even related. Matthew 17:9 is talking about an event nearly a week later that had nothing to do with what was stated in Matthew 16:28. Stringing together verses that don't relate to each other simply does not work.

 

[Zadok]

How? Mary was a virgin because she hadn't had sex when she gave birth to Jesus. What you said does not suggest anything else. That was the understanding of the word virgin.

Sorry - I have been busy. Could you provide a reference? The ancient text known as "The Gospel of the Birth of Mary" clearly shows that your interpertation that Mary is only to be considered a vergin because she "hadn't" had sex does not reflect the extent and meaning in a different age and culture.

Zadok

 

[logician]

Since the "virgin birth" story had to be hearsay or made-up, either the unknown gospels writers were terribly naive, or good storytellers.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I never understood why people accept this. Son of God, who died on a cross for your sins you inherited through no actions of your own.

Actually he died for the sins that each person committed. The inhereted aspect was death that passed on all men through the sin of Adam.

 

[fallingblood]

Sorry - I have been busy. Could you provide a reference? The ancient text known as "The Gospel of the Birth of Mary" clearly shows that your interpertation that Mary is only to be considered a vergin because she "hadn't" had sex does not reflect the extent and meaning in a different age and culture.

Zadok

Looking at the Greek that was used for that prophecy (in Isaiah), it is clear that it was meant to be virgin, as in today's idea of the word. All one has to do is look at the prophecy that Matthew and Luke used (I believe Isaiah 9, or 7, I forget, but Matthew quotes it directly) and see that it actually meant virgin.

 

[fallingblood]

Since the "virgin birth" story had to be hearsay or made-up, either the unknown gospels writers were terribly naive, or good storytellers.

Not really. The idea of a virgin birth back then wasn't all to unique. It was accepted that an event such as that could truly happen. It supposedly happened with Augustus not much before Jesus anyway.

 

[logician]

Not really. The idea of a virgin birth back then wasn't all to unique. It was accepted that an event such as that could truly happen. It supposedly happened with Augustus not much before Jesus anyway.

So you're going with the "good storyteller" line?:sleep:

 

[fallingblood]

So you're going with the "good storyteller" line?:sleep:

No, I'm going with the idea that during that time it was not an impossible event, and that has to be taken into consideration. It was not unique with Jesus, and was accepted as being completely possible.

 

[logician]

No, I'm going with the idea that during that time it was not an impossible event, and that has to be taken into consideration. It was not unique with Jesus, and was accepted as being completely possible.

I'll go with good storytelling.:sleep:

 

[URAVIP2ME]

John makes it very clear that it was the day of preparation that Jesus was crucified. The day of preparation was the day before Passover. John is very clear about this point as it is important to the message John is portraying; that Jesus was the passover lamb. This only makes sense if Jesus was crucified on the day of Preparation, as that was the day in which the Passover lamb was sacrificed.

Wasn't that day of preparation that John mentioned preparing on noon Friday for the Sabbath on Saturday? Sabbath [Saturday] starting at sunset Friday.

They had already eaten the Passover meal at Sundown [our] Thursday.
Their Thursday at sunset started their Friday or began Nisan 14.
So preparing at noon on Friday would be preceding the weekly Sabbath on Saturday, which in this instance was a 'great one' [high day KJV] because not only was it the Sabbath [Saturday] Nisan 15, but also it was the first day of the festival of the Unfermented cakes. So Passover, in this instance, could refer to the entire festival. Please notice John 19 vs 31, 42 mentioning that preparation.

 

[Poisonshady313]

They had already eaten the Passover meal at Sundown [our] Thursday.

Impossible. There's this law regarding when Passover can happen... it's called Lo B'du Pesach. The Hebrew letters that correspond to the letters BDU represent the numbers 2, 4, and 6. The 15th of Nisan will never be on the 2nd, 4th, or 6th day of the week.

Which means the Passover meal could never be on a Thursday night, because the first day of Passover cannot be Friday.

Their Thursday at sunset started their Friday or began Nisan 14.
So preparing at noon on Friday would be preceding the weekly Sabbath on Saturday,

Since the first day of Passover is like a Sabbath, they wouldn't be doing any preparation on Friday for the weekly sabbath. Which is all irrelevant because the first day of passover would never be on a friday (largely for that reason.)

which in this instance was a 'great one' [high day KJV] because not only was it the Sabbath [Saturday] Nisan 15, but also it was the first day of the festival of the Unfermented cakes.

Get your own story straight... are you saying the 15th of Nisan began on Thursday night or Friday night?

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Poisonshady-

Nisan 14 would have began at sunset that Thursday evening and ended Friday at sunset.
Nisan 15 would have been the Sabbath [Saturday] starting at 'our' Friday evening.

So, at that time, the first of Nisan's festivals was the Passover on the 14th.
-[Exo 12vs2-14; Lev 23v5; Deut 16v1]
Then the following day was the beginning of the week-long festival of Unfermented Cakes, running from the 15th to the 21st. Making Nisan 16 the offering of the firstfruits of the barley harvest. [-Exo 12vs 15-20; 23v15; 34v18; Lev 23vs6-11]

 

[Poisonshady313]

Poisonshady-

Nisan 14 would have began at sunset that Thursday evening and ended Friday at sunset.
Nisan 15 would have been the Sabbath [Saturday] starting at 'our' Friday evening.

So, at that time, the first of Nisan's festivals was the Passover on the 14th.
-[Exo 12vs2-14; Lev 23v5; Deut 16v1]
Then the following day was the beginning of the week-long festival of Unfermented Cakes, running from the 15th to the 21st. Making Nisan 16 the offering of the firstfruits of the barley harvest. [-Exo 12vs 15-20; 23v15; 34v18; Lev 23vs6-11]

Then the Passover meal would NOT have been eaten on Thursday.

The Passover meal is eaten on the 15th of Nisan. That meal IS the feast of unleavened bread.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Then the Passover meal would NOT have been eaten on Thursday. The Passover meal is eaten on the 15th of Nisan. That meal IS the feast of unleavened bread.

You're way over his head.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

You're way over his head.

Isn't Passover on Nisan 14th?_______
Didn't the festival of Unfermented Cakes start on the Sabbath [15th]?

Exodus 12vs2-14; 15-20; 23v15; 34v18; Lev 23v5; 6-11; Deut 16v1

 

[Poisonshady313]

Isn't Passover on Nisan 14th?_______

No. On Nisan 14th is when the Passover sacrifice is brought to the temple. But the holiday begins at sundown, when it becomes the 15th of Nisan, and the lamb is eaten at the feast of unleavened bread.

 

[Poisonshady313]

Instead of clumsily piling on a list of verses to reference, maybe you might consider actually posting the verses themselves so you can see what you're dealing with.... and so I know which point you're trying to make with which verse.

 

[Poisonshady313]

And you shall keep it for inspection until the fourteenth day of this month, and the entire congregation of the community of Israel shall slaughter it in the afternoon.

And on this night (the fifteenth), they shall eat the flesh (of the passover offering), roasted over the fire, and unleavened cakes with bitter herbs they shall eat it.