Was Jesus Neanderthal by 1 to 4 per cent?

[fallingblood]

My forefathers and yours and Jesus did not have sex with the chimps but with Neanderthal they did.

Nonetheless, they still have similar DNA to chimps.

You are quite right. According to the archaic texts gods had a passion with divine purity. The famous “Imperfect creation” had to do with gods’ inability to create the people they wanted to create. Jesus is evidence that they eventually failed!!

What?

Gods were cavemen!
Go to Crete Island in Greece and they’ll show the cave where Zeus was born.

Or we can just take it as people making up stories. Also, being born in a cave doesn't make one a caveman.

We are to debate the nature of Jesus given the fact that we know the nature of the Virgin.

Except that the virgin birth never happened (or most likely didn't), and Jesus was born just like anyone else. Would Neanderthal DNA change him at all? I highly doubt it.

I my self believe that the first Aboriginals to arrive in Australia were also free of Neanderthal genetic material. It seems like they fled when they found out what was going on with interbreeding.

Do you have any evidence? It seems like you're making stuff up in this thread.

 

[fallingblood]

Zeus was killing people in the same manner and for the same reasons Yahweh was killing.
Of your Elohim, how many were born in caves do you know?

Why the plural here? Elohim can and many times refers to just God. That is how Jews and Christians generally see it (at least when Elohim is used as a proper term). So to answer your question, zero.

 

[Skwim]

But wasn't Jesus Yoruba?

From the link.

​

 

[Trimijopulos]

Nonetheless, they still have similar DNA to chimps.

We are all primates. What did you expect?

What?

Consider imperfect creation and come back.

Or we can just take it as people making up stories. Also, being born in a cave doesn't make one a caveman.

It only makes him someone born at a time people were living in caves.

Except that the virgin birth never happened (or most likely didn't), and Jesus was born just like anyone else. Would Neanderthal DNA change him at all? I highly doubt it.

“Virgin” is a name. Goddess Athena was called “Virgin” too and she also had a son.
Everything there is in the Christian religion has been borrowed from the oral traditions of the various peoples. Read what people believed before the advent of Christianity if you want to understand Christianity.

Do you have any evidence? It seems like you're making stuff up in this thread.

Beliefs require no evidence and I said “I believe”. The reason I believe so is that there is evidence of human occupation of Australia by 55,000 years ago and it is also “believed” that the Hss arrived in the Middle East at about 60,000 ago (the Neanderthals there disappeared by approximately 50,000 years ago).

Why the plural here? Elohim can and many times refers to just God. That is how Jews and Christians generally see it (at least when Elohim is used as a proper term). So to answer your question, zero.

“Elohim” is a unique word not found in any other language. It means Angels (messengers), Judges, gods and God.
According to the archaic texts the persons that came to be known as gods were originally known as Shepherds, then as Judges, Angels, gods and eventually, collectively, God.
Elohim covers the entire series of the transformations by only one name. Therefore, when so many gods are reported to have been born in caves, we are entitled to suspect that some of the Elohim were also born in caves.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

We're also debating Bigfoot in another thread. That will teach you to stay away so long. :yes:

Bigfoot is a Neanderthal.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

But wasn't Jesus Yoruba?

Yourba was Greek. He looked a lot like Anthony Quinn.

 

[fallingblood]

It only makes him someone born at a time people were living in caves.

Not at all. People still are born in caves today. It is rare, but it still happens.

“Virgin” is a name. Goddess Athena was called “Virgin” too and she also had a son.
Everything there is in the Christian religion has been borrowed from the oral traditions of the various peoples. Read what people believed before the advent of Christianity if you want to understand Christianity.

So then the nature of the Virgin means nothing? Why even bring it up if it is just a name? And what is the point of your thread, if Jesus wasn't born of virgin?

More so, I have studied Christianity, and how it originated. It is not borrowed from the oral tradition of various people. Yes, there are some parts borrowed, but by far and large, no.

Beliefs require no evidence and I said “I believe”. The reason I believe so is that there is evidence of human occupation of Australia by 55,000 years ago and it is also “believed” that the Hss arrived in the Middle East at about 60,000 ago (the Neanderthals there disappeared by approximately 50,000 years ago).

Okay, so then no one has any reason to accept what you're saying then.

“Elohim” is a unique word not found in any other language. It means Angels (messengers), Judges, gods and God.
According to the archaic texts the persons that came to be known as gods were originally known as Shepherds, then as Judges, Angels, gods and eventually, collectively, God.
Elohim covers the entire series of the transformations by only one name. Therefore, when so many gods are reported to have been born in caves, we are entitled to suspect that some of the Elohim were also born in caves.

There is just so much wrong here. Elohim is a word that can refer to gods (as in plural), or God. It can mean both. We know the difference depending on how it is used and the context.

And no, you can't assume Elohim to have been born in a cave when there is never any suggestion. More so, Greek gods do not define how a Palestinian god was born. That doesn't make sense. Especially when we don't see many of those gods, if any, being born in caves.

Also, when used as a proper noun (signified by a capital E), Elohim means God. It is not plural as you are making it.

 

[Trimijopulos]

So then the nature of the Virgin means nothing? Why even bring it up if it is just a name? And what is the point of your thread, if Jesus wasn't born of virgin?

It is obvious that you did not happen to read how little girls were acquiring the title of “Virgin”. They were tortured for periods ranging from a few days to up to seven years.
The girl a god would impregnate in order to have a son should be a virgin so that the god’s son may be himself a god in the image and likeness of the god (a girl who had sex could already having been pregnant and so she was useless).
The point of my thread is to show that, as the OT informs, God failed to produce offspring in his image AND his likeness because he was using women not as pure as himself.

I am quite happy that science commenced confirming the accuracy of some of the OT stories.

More so, I have studied Christianity, and how it originated. It is not borrowed from the oral tradition of various people. Yes, there are some parts borrowed, but by far and large, no.

Well, if you have studied Christianity then you must have your own explanation for the strange fact that the entire Christian literature is in Greek but supposedly written by Jewish authors.
Those who knew, or were told, the story and the words of Jesus chose to translate everything into a foreign language depriving thus Jesu’s followers of his original words.
If I was a Christian I would have a very very bad opinion of the gospel writers.

Also, when used as a proper noun (signified by a capital E), Elohim means God. It is not plural as you are making it.

Unfortunately, for you, the word has a plural ending and, besides, your One and Only God is actually a triad.

 

[Blackheart]

Virgin Mary was a common human with the normal 1%-4% share of Neanderthal genome. That is a non-disputable fact.

Anyway I thought this 1-4% was only found in europeans?

 

[fallingblood]

It is obvious that you did not happen to read how little girls were acquiring the title of “Virgin”. They were tortured for periods ranging from a few days to up to seven years.
The girl a god would impregnate in order to have a son should be a virgin so that the god’s son may be himself a god in the image and likeness of the god (a girl who had sex could already having been pregnant and so she was useless).
The point of my thread is to show that, as the OT informs, God failed to produce offspring in his image AND his likeness because he was using women not as pure as himself.

I am quite happy that science commenced confirming the accuracy of some of the OT stories.

The virgin birth has nothing to do with the OT, so I have no idea what you're talking about. Not to mention that we are told that Mary was a virgin simply because she supposedly never had "known" a man. It was as simple as that.

More so, the whole story of Jesus being born of a virgin is a myth. It is not historically accurate.

So, Mary didn't get tortured to get the title of "Virgin," but according to a mythological story, was a virgin as she never had sex. And none of this has to do with the OT.

Well, if you have studied Christianity then you must have your own explanation for the strange fact that the entire Christian literature is in Greek but supposedly written by Jewish authors.
Those who knew, or were told, the story and the words of Jesus chose to translate everything into a foreign language depriving thus Jesu’s followers of his original words.
If I was a Christian I would have a very very bad opinion of the gospel writers.

There is a very simple reason for why the Gospels, and other NT works are written in Greek. That was the common language. We have other writing from Jews that were in Greek. Look at Philo, or Josephus; both Jews who wrote in Greek. Look at some of the Jewish writings from around the first century; again in Greek. The Septuagint (a Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures) simply because there was a need for a Greek translation for many Jews who spoke and read Greek.

Paul, who also was a Jew, wrote in Greek as that was his language, and that was the language that his audience would have understood. That is also why the Gospel writers wrote in Greek, as that is what people would have understood.

So they wrote their works in Greek as that was the commonly used language at that time. We see many Jews writing in Greek during that time. So really, it is no surprise.

Unfortunately, for you, the word has a plural ending and, besides, your One and Only God is actually a triad.

Do you know Hebrew? Elohim may have a plural ending, and it can be used in the plural (elohim), but it does not need to.

Depending on the context, elohim can be a singular word. Elohim can be a proper noun, and when the context defines it, it does act in the singular.

Also, I have no idea what you mean by my One and Only God being a triad.

 

[fishy]

Part Neanderthal eliminates Genesis................oops.

 

[Trimijopulos]

Anyway I thought this 1-4% was only found in europeans?

No, it is found in everybody but the Sub-Saharan Africans.

 

[Trimijopulos]

Part Neanderthal eliminates Genesis................oops.

On the contrary!
Partly Neanderthal means having the "image" of god but not his "likeness, " as stated in the book of Genesis.

 

[Trimijopulos]

The virgin birth has nothing to do with the OT, so I have no idea what you're talking about. Not to mention that we are told that Mary was a virgin simply because she supposedly never had "known" a man. It was as simple as that.

More so, the whole story of Jesus being born of a virgin is a myth. It is not historically accurate.

To reach “historically accurate” when dealing with theological issues one has to dig very very deep. “Virgin mother” is not a Christian concept but an archaic one. Gods, and semi-gods like Jesus, were born of mothers bearing the title “virgin”. What the Christian theologians or the believers in Christianity understand of the said title is of no importance.

There is a very simple reason for why the Gospels, and other NT works are written in Greek. That was the common language. We have other writing from Jews that were in Greek. Look at Philo, or Josephus;

There is an even simpler reason: the gospel writers did not speak Hebrew!
Philo and Josephus were scholars, Jesus disciples were not scholars, were laymen who had nothing to do with the languages of the wealthy and the aristocrats.

Read Mark 15:35-36 and Matthew 27:47-49, and tell me what do you make out of the fact that those standing by the cross failed to understand the only four original words that occur in the gospels.

I suspect that the author of the gospel committed a grave mistake because he most probably did not speak himself Hebrew or Aramaic or whatever language Jesus was supposed to speak.
He was writing in Greek, he had Jesus speaking in Greek and when he eventually used four words of Jesus’ own language (borrowed from the psalms) he was carried away and presented those standing by the cross (or some of those there) expecting Jesus to actually speak in Greek. They mistook the name “Eloi” or “El” for the common Greek name Ηλίας (Elias).

Do you know Hebrew? Elohim may have a plural ending, and it can be used in the plural (elohim), but it does not need to.

Theology, in order to be accepted by the people, has to satisfy people on what they have been taught to believe by their culture. So, the name of the gods the people believed in was elohim. The theologians reduced gods to God but they had to retain the name of the gods and thus produced the unnatural term “Elohim.”

Also, I have no idea what you mean by my One and Only God being a triad.

You declared Christian. The Christian God is not One and Only as long as he is having a son. And if the father may have son why not the son too? As you see we go back to “elohim”

 

[Trimijopulos]

The virgin birth has nothing to do with the OT, so I have no idea what you're talking about. Not to mention that we are told that Mary was a virgin simply because she supposedly never had "known" a man. It was as simple as that.

More so, the whole story of Jesus being born of a virgin is a myth. It is not historically accurate.

To reach “historically accurate” when dealing with theological issues one has to dig very very deep. “Virgin mother” is not a Christian concept but an archaic one. Gods, and semi-gods like Jesus, were born of mothers bearing the title “virgin”. What the Christian theologians or the believers in Christianity understand of the said title is of no importance.

There is a very simple reason for why the Gospels, and other NT works are written in Greek. That was the common language. We have other writing from Jews that were in Greek. Look at Philo, or Josephus;

There is an even simpler reason: the gospel writers did not speak Hebrew!
Philo and Josephus were scholars, Jesus disciples were not scholars, were laymen who had nothing to do with the languages of the wealthy and the aristocrats.

Read Mark 15:35-36 and Matthew 27:47-49, and tell me what do you make out of the fact that those standing by the cross failed to understand the only four original words that occur in the gospels.

I suspect that the author of the gospel committed a grave mistake because he most probably did not speak himself Hebrew or Aramaic or whatever language Jesus was supposed to speak.
He was writing in Greek, he had Jesus speaking in Greek and when he eventually used four words of Jesus’ own language (borrowed from the psalms) he was carried away and presented those standing by the cross (or some of those there) expecting Jesus to actually speak in Greek. They mistook the name “Eloi” or “El” for the common Greek name Ηλίας (Elias).

Do you know Hebrew? Elohim may have a plural ending, and it can be used in the plural (elohim), but it does not need to.

Theology, in order to be accepted by the people, has to satisfy people on what they have been taught to believe by their culture. So, the name of the gods the people believed in was elohim. The theologians reduced gods to God but they had to retain the name of the gods and thus produced the unnatural term “Elohim.”

Also, I have no idea what you mean by my One and Only God being a triad.

You declared Christian. The Christian God is not One and Only as long as he is having a son. And if the father may have son why not the son too? As you see we go back to “elohim”

 

[fishy]

On the contrary!
Partly Neanderthal means having the "image" of god but not his "likeness, " as stated in the book of Genesis.

The ground that god used was part neanderthal? Now I get it.

 

[fallingblood]

To reach “historically accurate” when dealing with theological issues one has to dig very very deep. “Virgin mother” is not a Christian concept but an archaic one. Gods, and semi-gods like Jesus, were born of mothers bearing the title “virgin”. What the Christian theologians or the believers in Christianity understand of the said title is of no importance.

Read Matthew or Luke. It states Mary was a virgin for the expressed reason that she never had sex. You can rely on the idea of "Virgin mother" being an archaic term, but it has nothing to do with this. Virgin, when it comes to Mary, simply means that she never had sex. The Gospels state that clearly.

There is an even simpler reason: the gospel writers did not speak Hebrew!
Philo and Josephus were scholars, Jesus disciples were not scholars, were laymen who had nothing to do with the languages of the wealthy and the aristocrats.

Read Mark 15:35-36 and Matthew 27:47-49, and tell me what do you make out of the fact that those standing by the cross failed to understand the only four original words that occur in the gospels.

I suspect that the author of the gospel committed a grave mistake because he most probably did not speak himself Hebrew or Aramaic or whatever language Jesus was supposed to speak.
He was writing in Greek, he had Jesus speaking in Greek and when he eventually used four words of Jesus’ own language (borrowed from the psalms) he was carried away and presented those standing by the cross (or some of those there) expecting Jesus to actually speak in Greek. They mistook the name “Eloi” or “El” for the common Greek name Ηλίας (Elias).

Jesus probably didn't speak Hebrew either. The language of Palestine was Aramaic. And we do see some Aramaic in the Gospels, but it is clear that their intended audience wasn't familiar with Aramaic, and thus we see the Aramaic words being explained in Greek.

Also, the authors of the Gospels would not have been just laymen. The reason being that illiteracy was extremely high. In Palestine, only 1-3% of the population was literate. And that was, for the most part, the upper class, as they had the money, and resources in order to take the time to learn.

As for what Jesus said on the cross, and the translation, it is perfectly fine. I don't see why you would think there was a problem there.

Theology, in order to be accepted by the people, has to satisfy people on what they have been taught to believe by their culture. So, the name of the gods the people believed in was elohim. The theologians reduced gods to God but they had to retain the name of the gods and thus produced the unnatural term “Elohim.”

Again, you need to actually study the Hebrew. You simply now are just making things up. Like I said, the term elohim can mean gods, or God, depending on the context. Elohim, when used as a proper noun, refers to God.

You declared Christian. The Christian God is not One and Only as long as he is having a son. And if the father may have son why not the son too? As you see we go back to “elohim”

Oh, so you misunderstand what a Christian is. Not all Christians believe in the trinity. Not all even believe that Jesus is divine.

 

[fallingblood]

On the contrary!
Partly Neanderthal means having the "image" of god but not his "likeness, " as stated in the book of Genesis.

No it doesn't. That is not in Genesis at all.

 

[Trimijopulos]

Read Matthew or Luke. It states Mary was a virgin for the expressed reason that she never had sex. You can rely on the idea of "Virgin mother" being an archaic term, but it has nothing to do with this. Virgin, when it comes to Mary, simply means that she never had sex. The Gospels state that clearly.

Where did the gospel writers got the information from?
Popular tradition!
The way in which they convey the borrowed information has no bearing on the information itself.

As for what Jesus said on the cross, and the translation, it is perfectly fine. I don't see why you would think there was a problem there.

There is a grave problem here and it is obvious even with the English translation:

Mark 15:34 And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? Which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
35 And some of them that stood by, when they heard it, said, Behold he called Elijah.

Matthew 27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? That is to say My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
47 some of them that stood there , when they heard that, said, This man called for Elijah.

Those under the cross did not recognize the name of their God which either as Elohim (Eloi) or El (Eli) should have been known even to the Roman soldiers.
They were supposed to be Greek speaking people who expected Jesus to speak in Greek and thus the only Greek word they thought they heard was the name Ηλίας (Elias) whom Jesus supposedly called to come and save him.

Both Matthew and Mark forgot that neither Jesus nor those present were speaking Greek, because they themselves were thinking in Greek and the four Hebrew words were quite strange to them.

Again, you need to actually study the Hebrew. You simply now are just making things up. Like I said, the term elohim can mean gods, or God, depending on the context. Elohim, when used as a proper noun, refers to God.

I do not need to study Hebrew. I’ve studied the story of this unique word and I know very well its meaning. I do not have to study ancient Greek in order to find out that demon meant god for the ancient Greeks. Today it means “devil” and so what? The old meaning is worthless?

Oh, so you misunderstand what a Christian is. Not all Christians believe in the trinity. Not all even believe that Jesus is divine.

You have me wondering whether myself I am a Christian too !!

 

[fallingblood]

Where did the gospel writers got the information from?
Popular tradition!
The way in which they convey the borrowed information has no bearing on the information itself.

Matthew states exactly where he gets the idea from, the book of Isaiah.

You haven't shown that it was borrowed information. If you want to claim it is borrowed material, you have to show that. The fact that the story in Matthew and Luke do not speak of a virgin in the manner in which you are speaking would suggest they were not borrowed from such a story.

There is a grave problem here and it is obvious even with the English translation:

Mark 15:34 And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? Which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
35 And some of them that stood by, when they heard it, said, Behold he called Elijah.

Matthew 27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? That is to say My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
47 some of them that stood there , when they heard that, said, This man called for Elijah.

Those under the cross did not recognize the name of their God which either as Elohim (Eloi) or El (Eli) should have been known even to the Roman soldiers.
They were supposed to be Greek speaking people who expected Jesus to speak in Greek and thus the only Greek word they thought they heard was the name Ηλίας (Elias) whom Jesus supposedly called to come and save him.

Both Matthew and Mark forgot that neither Jesus nor those present were speaking Greek, because they themselves were thinking in Greek and the four Hebrew words were quite strange to them.

That really makes no sense. So Romans are suppose to understand Aramaic? Because most around would have been Romans. So why should we assume that they knew the Aramaic word for God? We shouldn't. More so, it really wouldn't be too much of a mistake to see that Romans thought Jesus was calling out to Elijah, as it would have sounded nearly like that.

Really, it seems like you are just really stretching here. I mean, how can one not understand the Aramaic, yet still translate it? That doesn't make sense. More so, you seem to be assuming that the authors of the Gospels were there at the cross. No, they weren't. The Gospels weren't written until much much later. And really, that basically makes your argument crumble.

I do not need to study Hebrew. I’ve studied the story of this unique word and I know very well its meaning. I do not have to study ancient Greek in order to find out that demon meant god for the ancient Greeks. Today it means “devil” and so what? The old meaning is worthless?

I have studied Hebrew, and I can tell you that you're study simply is wrong in this case. Elohim can, and often does mean, God. It can and often does refer to a singular being. It is based off of context that we see this.