Who were the Magi?

[AdamjEdgar]

until I decided to study the Bible for 4 years. I freaked out and have become almost an agnostic. Since then I have done my own unbiased search. There may be a God and Jesus, but the Bible contains so many lies, falsehoods and contradictions that in no way can be taken seriously by me.

4 years of reading convinced you of that? You could have resolved and discredited this dilema by spending a single day in a courtroom or, by simply watching the news on television!


yours are thr words of an individual who by his own claim doesn't believe in witness statements in a court of law...that they are descriptions of real events...just that they are through the eyes of different individuals!


Yeah you read alright...

I have spent a lot longer than 4 years reading the bible but I did not verify its authenticity by simply reading hoping for a light bulb moment.

Scholars regularly talk about the evidence and never do they rely on only internal sources. We have a wealth evidence that accurately supports the bible narrative...and contrary to your views, it's consistency across more than 2000 years of compilations is very accurate despite your claim.

Gods writers weren't programmed robots!

 

[Ajax]

The words of an individual who by his own claim doesn't believe in witness statements in a court of law...that they are descriptions of real events...just that they are through the eyes of different individuals!

Can you please name exactly who are the particular witness who gave statements and if they were eyewitness?

Otherwise it's as if an unknown witness sends a letter to the court of law for a case that happened minimum 40 years before... Goes straight to the bin...

 

[AdamjEdgar]

Can you please name exactly who are the particular witness who gave statements and if they were eyewitness?

Is this supposed to be a question or did you not read any of the new testament in your 4 years of gazing at pages with what appeared to be scribble on them?

Have you ever read Origen, Josephus, Polycarp...or any other writings like these indivudals?

 

[Ajax]

Is this supposed to be a question or did you not read any of the new testament in your 4 years of gazing at pages with what appeared to be scribble on them?

Have you ever read Origen, Josephus, Polycarp...or any other writings like these indivudals?

Why don't you answer my question? Who are the witness in your example in the court of law?

Origen lived in the 3rd cantury AD, Polycarp in the 2nd century. As for Josephus, nearly all modern scholars reject the authenticity of his passage in its present form.
Any others? Your witness fail dramatically...

 

[Ajax]

We have a wealth evidence that accurately supports the bible narrative...and contrary to your views, it's consistency across more than 2000 years of compilations is very accurate despite your claim.

Can you give me some examples of evidence and will see what the court of law decides.
A witness who not only he was not present, but gives as evidence his own opinion many years (and even centuries) after the event, would be rejected as a witness in any court of law.
Do you also have evidence for the Old Testament? Perhaps for Isaiah 7:14?

 

[Colt]

It's incredible and sometimes shocking how traditions and legends arise from a misinterpretation of a Biblical passage.
I think that mistranslations contributed to the birth of the legend of the three Wise Men, also known as the Magi or the Magi Kings in the Catholic tradition.

Let's analyze the incriminated passage, in Greek, Matthew 2:1
Τοῦ δὲ Ἰησοῦ γεννηθέντος ἐν Βηθλεὲμ τῆς Ἰουδαίας ἐν ἡμέραις Ἡρῴδου τοῦ βασιλέως, ἰδοὺ μάγοι ἀπὸ ἀνατολῶν παρεγένοντο εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα 2 λέγοντες· ποῦ ἐστιν ὁ τεχθεὶς βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων; εἴδομεν γὰρ αὐτοῦ τὸν ἀστέρα ἐν τῇ ἀνατολῇ καὶ ἤλθομεν προσκυνῆσαι αὐτῷ.

The incriminated word is μάγοι and any historian will tell you that:
- they were certainly not kings.
- there were probably tens of them; not only three.
- they surely were Zoroastrians, coming from the East (so ancient Mesopotamia or Persia).
- they were astrologers (astrology and astronomy was one single science back then, invented and developped by the Mesopotamian civilizations).
- they were probably priests too (or some of them were).

So it dealt with Persian scientists who believed in the spiritual significance of the star of Bethlehem, that many identify with the astral conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn in 7 BC. Let's not forget that Zoroastrianism and Christianity share so many elements, like the monotheistic god, the notion of savior-godsend that saves mankind from evil and the universalism.


It's so interesting how the Catholic tradition completely changed the identity of these mysterious Biblical characters.

Just post whatever you like.

and Merry Christmas, of course.

FYI, from the Urantia Book revelation of 1955.

The Birth

All that night Mary was restless so that neither of them slept much. By the break of day the pangs of childbirth were well in evidence, and at noon, August 21, 7 B.C., with the help and kind ministrations of women fellow travelers, Mary was delivered of a male child. Jesus of Nazareth was born into the world, was wrapped in the clothes which Mary had brought along for such a possible contingency, and laid in a near-by manger.
=
=
=
22:8.5 At the noontide birth of Jesus the seraphim of Urantia, assembled under their directors, did sing anthems of glory over the Bethlehem manger, but these utterances of praise were not heard by human ears. No shepherds nor any other mortal creatures came to pay homage to the babe of Bethlehem until the day of the arrival of certain priests from Ur, who were sent down from Jerusalem by Zacharias.

122:8.6 These priests from Mesopotamia had been told sometime before by a strange religious teacher of their country that he had had a dream in which he was informed that “the light of life” was about to appear on earth as a babe and among the Jews. And thither went these three teachers looking for this “light of life.” After many weeks of futile search in Jerusalem, they were about to return to Ur when Zacharias met them and disclosed his belief that Jesus was the object of their quest and sent them on to Bethlehem, where they found the babe and left their gifts with Mary, his earth mother. The babe was almost three weeks old at the time of their visit.

122:8.7 These wise men saw no star to guide them to Bethlehem. The beautiful legend of the star of Bethlehem originated in this way: Jesus was born August 21 at noon, 7 B.C. On May 29, 7 B.C., there occurred an extraordinary conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn in the constellation of Pisces. And it is a remarkable astronomic fact that similar conjunctions occurred on September 29 and December 5 of the same year. Upon the basis of these extraordinary but wholly natural events the well-meaning zealots of the succeeding generation constructed the appealing legend of the star of Bethlehem and the adoring Magi led thereby to the manger, where they beheld and worshiped the newborn babe. Oriental and near-Oriental minds delight in fairy stories, and they are continually spinning such beautiful myths about the lives of their religious leaders and political heroes. In the absence of printing, when most human knowledge was passed by word of mouth from one generation to another, it was very easy for myths to become traditions and for traditions eventually to become accepted as facts." UB 1955 IMOP

 

[Elihoenai]

I am an agnostic now. Certainly not anti-Christian.

Matthew 1:21

21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins.


It's certainly True that Being Agnostic the Supernatural is Unknowable in the Flesh/Beast. An Anti-Christian is a person that is Against the teachings of Christianity. The Purpose and Meaning of Yeshua Messiah/Jesus Christ is Salvation from Sin. Are you not teaching Against the idea of Sin?


Agnosticism

Agnosticism is the view or belief that the existence of God, of the divine or the supernatural is unknown or unknowable.[1][2][3] Another definition provided is the view that "human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify either the belief that God exists or the belief that God does not exist."

Agnosticism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Failed to understand what you mean. If men/women don't have souls, then whose soul is attained in Gnosticism?

2 Peter 2:12

12 But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption;


Christian Gnosticism separates the Soul Man from the Beast Man. The Best Man does Not have a Soul. Man/Woman is Born as the Beast.

 

[Ajax]

Matthew 1:21

21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins.

Isaiah 7:14 passage that Matthew claimed that it refers to Jesus birth, said that the the boy will be called Immanuel. They are completely different names, no matter how hard you try to alter and combine them.

It's certainly True that Being Agnostic the Supernatural is Unknowable in the Flesh/Beast. An Anti-Christian is a person that is Against the teachings of Christianity. The Purpose and Meaning of Yeshua Messiah/Jesus Christ is Salvation from Sin. Are you not teaching Against the idea of Sin?

2 Peter 2:12

12 But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption;


Christian Gnosticism separates the Soul Man from the Beast Man. The Best Man does Not have a Soul. Man/Woman is Born as the Beast.

A) First You have to define what you mean by "sin".

B) Is someone who questions the writings of the Bible which undoubtedly for him/her contain falsehoods, lies and contradictions , sinful?

C) How a person is saved? You have to choose between Paul Romans 3:28 "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law." and Jesus' words in Matthew 16:27 "and then he will repay each person according to what he has done." as well as his brother James 2:24 "You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone."

However, even if you choose who is right, you have another major stumbling block to overcome. Are you sure that you will be saved, even by doing everything by the book? Don't think so... keep reading please..

Rom.8:29-30 "For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate.... Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified."
Eph.1:4-5 "He hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will."
2 Tim.1:9 "Who hath saved us, and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began."
2 Th.2:11-12 "God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned." This in answer to 2 Peter 2:12
Acts 13:48 "And as many as were ordained to eternal life, believed."

Did you have your boarding pass to Paradise/Salvation before your birth? No? I 'm so sorry...

 

[Elihoenai]

Isaiah 7:14 passage that Matthew claimed that it refers to Jesus birth, said that the the boy will be called Immanuel. They are completely different names, no matter how hard you try to alter and combine them.

They are different names with the same meaning. You won't be able to Reconcile them because you don't believe in the Spiritual.

A) First You have to define what you mean by "sin".

B) Is someone who questions the writings of the Bible which undoubtedly for him/her contain falsehoods, lies and contradictions , sinful?

C) How a person is saved? You have to choose between Paul Romans 3:28 "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law." and Jesus' words in Matthew 16:27 "and then he will repay each person according to what he has done." as well as his brother James 2:24 "You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone."

However, even if you choose who is right, you have another major stumbling block to overcome. Are you sure that you will be saved, even by doing everything by the book? Don't think so... keep reading please..

Rom.8:29-30 "For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate.... Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified."
Eph.1:4-5 "He hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will."
2 Tim.1:9 "Who hath saved us, and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began."
2 Th.2:11-12 "God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned." This in answer to 2 Peter 2:12
Acts 13:48 "And as many as were ordained to eternal life, believed."

Did you have your boarding pass to Paradise/Salvation before your birth? No? I 'm so sorry...

1 John 3:4

4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.


A) Sin is the Transgression of the Law.


B) In the Holy Scriptures/Bible the Mind of the Flesh/Natural will see falsehoods, lies and contradictions. Really, it's Impossible to Reconcile the Holy Scriptures/Bible with the Mind of the Flesh/Natural. For example, when you read how Elohim/God parted the Sea so that Israel could escape the Egyptians, do you Interpret this in the Literal Plain meaning?

Sin is only Acknowledged by those that are Conscious of Sin. For example, a person that enjoys Fornicating with multiple partners has no Consciousness of Sin.


C) Those Scriptures are much appreciated. That's a False Choice. Yeshua Messiah/Jesus Christ and Paul the Apostle are in Total Agreement. Paul the Apostle has the Mind of Messiah/Christ. Have you considered the possibility that it's Your Lack and Not the Holy Scriptures/Bible?

 

[Ajax]

They are different names with the same meaning. You won't be able to Reconcile them because you don't believe in the Spiritual.

You are totally wrong, Completely different meaning.

Immanuel means "God (Yahweh) is with us".
Jesus (Joshua) could mean Yahweh saves, (is) salvation, (is) a saving-cry, (is) a cry-for-saving, (is) a cry-for-help, (is) my help. A recent study proposes that the name should be understood as "Yahweh is lordly".

Anyway, half the Jewish names, if not more, have to do with God/Yahweh.
A more appropriate name that the angel should have thought, would be Abijah or Aviel, meaning "God/Yahweh is my father". Pity, you would have had a somehow better argument.

Sin is the Transgression of the Law.

I feel sad seeing people living today their lives with a Law written 2500 years ago by goat herders. Do you also agree with slavery, or killing disobedient children and those who work on Saturdays?

In the Holy Scriptures/Bible the Mind of the Flesh/Natural will see falsehoods, lies and contradictions. Really, it's Impossible to Reconcile the Holy Scriptures/Bible with the Mind of the Flesh/Natural. For example, when you read how Elohim/God parted the Sea so that Israel could escape the Egyptians, do you Interpret this in the Literal Plain meaning?

Considering that the Bible was addressed to mostly illiterate, uneducated people at the time, yes. All the disciples were illiterate (Acts 4:13).
A biblical text is to be deciphered according to the ‘plain meaning’ expressed by its linguistic construction and historical context.

In the Holy Scriptures/Bible the Mind of the Flesh/Natural will see falsehoods, lies and contradictions........Yeshua Messiah/Jesus Christ and Paul the Apostle are in Total Agreement.

Do you really mean that "a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law" and "a man is justified by works and not by faith alone" are not contradictory?
Because if you think so, there is no point in further discussion.

 

[Dimi95]

Immanuel means "God (Yahweh) is with us".

True

Jesus (Joshua) could mean Yahweh saves, (is) salvation, (is) a saving-cry, (is) a cry-for-saving, (is) a cry-for-help, (is) my help. A recent study proposes that the name should be understood as "Yahweh is lordly".

False

Do you even understand Semetic languages and the rules of the language?

There are several definitions of Yeshua that can be found in Hebrew and Aramaic biblical text, taken from the Hebrew verb, yasha, that means 'to deliver, save, or rescue' , and also stated as 'Yehoshua'.
Pronunciation of 'Yeshua' in Hebrew, can be read this way:
'Yod' - 'Shin' - 'Vav' - 'Ayin'.
In Aramaic, the term, 'Yeshu' , was transliterated from the Hebrew term of Yeshua, pronounced as 'Yeh-shoo' , and missing the 'a'.

Although the term 'Yeshua' cannot be found among Christian Bibles today, the hints at Yeshua can be found among mentions of:
Joshua, son of Nun, in
-Deuteronomy 32:44 (Joshua leading the people of Israel out of Egypt with Moses)
-Nehemiah 8:17 (the gathering of the Feast of Tabernacles that was lasted performed in the times of Joshua)
-Acts 7:45 (the tabernacle in the wilderness brought to the Gentiles by Joshua)
-Hebrews 4:8 (Joshua speaking of another day ahead for God’s people)
and in the books of First and Second Chronicles and Ezra.

In the Hebrew text, Joshua is named 'Yeshua bin-Nun' (Neh. 8:17) and 'Yehoshua.' (1 Chron. 7:27)

Also you can see different use of Yeshua
Psalm 14:7
"Oh, that the salvation (Yeshua) of Israel would come out of Zion!"
Psalm 40:16
"Let those who love Your salvation (Yeshua) say continually, 'The LORD be magnified'! "
Psalm 51:12
"Restore to me the joy of Your salvation (Yeshua) and sustain me with a willing spirit. "

You can note the difference

The emphasys is on the name.
Each name has its own importance..

Immanuel means : 'God is with us'.
Yeshua means : 'to deliver , save , rescue'.

However you have not demonstrated how your understanding as 'cheating' is better then 'further fulfill'.

Anyway, half the Jewish names, if not more, have to do with God/Yahweh.

As half of the Greek names have to do with ancient Greek culture.

A more appropriate name that the angel should have thought, would be Abijah or Aviel, meaning "God/Yahweh is my father". Pity, you would have had a somehow better argument.

I find it pity to bother about something that you don't belive.
It would be more appropriate if you could back up your claims with actual evidence and not some theory of how some people understand names in Hebrew.
We have enough data of root of words
Using imagination on language is not recommended..

I feel sad seeing people living today their lives with a Law written 2500 years ago by goat herders. Do you also agree with slavery, or killing disobedient children and those who work on Saturdays?

Are Societies your morality?

Considering that the Bible was addressed to mostly illiterate, uneducated people at the time, yes. All the disciples were illiterate (Acts 4:13).

It seems to me that you ignored
'they were astonished and they took note that these men had been with Jesus.'

Was Jesus uneducated?

A biblical text is to be deciphered according to the ‘plain meaning’ expressed by its linguistic construction and historical context.

And yet here you are , with expectations of linguistic construction by illiterate people.

Do you really mean that "a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law" and "a man is justified by works and not by faith alone" are not contradictory?
Because if you think so, there is no point in further discussion.

Works in faith and deeds of the law is not the same.
And i though that you knew what is theosis...

You are strraw man from my position , just to let you know.

 

[Ajax]

False

Do you even understand Semetic languages and the rules of the language?

There are several definitions of Yeshua that can be found in Hebrew and Aramaic biblical text, taken from the Hebrew verb, yasha, that means 'to deliver, save, or rescue' , and also stated as 'Yehoshua'.
Pronunciation of 'Yeshua' in Hebrew, can be read this way:
'Yod' - 'Shin' - 'Vav' - 'Ayin'.
In Aramaic, the term, 'Yeshu' , was transliterated from the Hebrew term of Yeshua, pronounced as 'Yeh-shoo' , and missing the 'a'.

Although the term 'Yeshua' cannot be found among Christian Bibles today, the hints at Yeshua can be found among mentions of:
Joshua, son of Nun, in
-Deuteronomy 32:44 (Joshua leading the people of Israel out of Egypt with Moses)
-Nehemiah 8:17 (the gathering of the Feast of Tabernacles that was lasted performed in the times of Joshua)
-Acts 7:45 (the tabernacle in the wilderness brought to the Gentiles by Joshua)
-Hebrews 4:8 (Joshua speaking of another day ahead for God’s people)
and in the books of First and Second Chronicles and Ezra.

In the Hebrew text, Joshua is named 'Yeshua bin-Nun' (Neh. 8:17) and 'Yehoshua.' (1 Chron. 7:27)

Also you can see different use of Yeshua
Psalm 14:7
"Oh, that the salvation (Yeshua) of Israel would come out of Zion!"
Psalm 40:16
"Let those who love Your salvation (Yeshua) say continually, 'The LORD be magnified'! "
Psalm 51:12
"Restore to me the joy of Your salvation (Yeshua) and sustain me with a willing spirit. "

You can note the difference

The emphasys is on the name.
Each name has its own importance..

Immanuel means : 'God is with us'.
Yeshua means : 'to deliver , save , rescue'.

However you have not demonstrated how your understanding as 'cheating' is better then 'further fulfill'.

It's not my fault that you don't follow the conversation. What I wrote was my reply to the following where it was claimed that Immanuel and Jesus (from the English text) have the same meaning.

They are different names with the same meaning

Thank you for confirming my views that those names above have different meaning..
The English name "Joshua" is a rendering of the Hebrew Yehoshua, and is mostly interpreted as "Yahweh is salvation"; although others have also alternatively interpreted it as "Yahweh is lordly". Joshua - Wikipedia

I find it pity to bother about something that you don't belive.
It would be more appropriate if you could back up your claims with actual evidence and not some theory of how some people understand names in Hebrew.
We have enough data of root of words
Using imagination on language is not recommended..

A Complete List of Hebrew Names and Meanings

The Hebrew Bible features many Jewish biblical heroes. Thinking of giving your baby a Hebrew first name? Here are some traditional Hebrew name ideas.

www.familyeducation.com

Are Societies your morality?

Morality refers to the principles or standards of behavior that guide individuals or groups in distinguishing between right and wrong actions. It encompasses the values, beliefs, and ethical principles that influence how people make decisions and interact with others. Morality often involves considerations of fairness, justice, compassion, honesty, integrity, and respect for others' rights and dignity.
Morality can be influenced by various factors, including cultural norms, religious teachings, philosophical perspectives, personal experiences, and social expectations. Different cultures and belief systems may have distinct moral codes.

If your morality is based on the Bible, then you must you also agree with slavery, as well as killing disobedient children and those who work on Saturdays, right? Because the God of OT is the very same God of NT, and God does not change according to the Bible.

It seems to me that you ignored
'they were astonished and they took note that these men had been with Jesus.'

Was Jesus uneducated?

Acts say that they were filled with the Holy Spirit "miraculously" before this incident and they could even talk in any language immediately.....
As for Jesus we do not know anything about his education, although gospels suggest that he had some level of religious education and familiarity with Jewish scriptures. But the majority of people were illiterate.

And yet here you are , with expectations of linguistic construction by illiterate people.

What I don't like about discussing with you, is that you are very unreasonable in your replies, and try to find faults when there are not any.
I never said that they were all illiterate. Watch it, it's a sign you have run out of counter arguments.
But I sympathize with you... with all these contradictions in the Bible, I would say...it is normal to be confused and trying desperately to find excuses.

Works in faith and deeds of the law is not the same.
And i though that you knew what is theosis...

In Christianity, "works" and "deeds of the law" are related concepts, especially for the Jewish people to whom Jesus was addressing.
Matthew 15: 24 “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.”
Matthew 16:27 "and then he will repay each person according to what he has done."
Matthew 5:18-19 "For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. 19 Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." Do you think he meant Paul?

I know very well what theosis means, but again is irrelevant to this discussion, which is about contradictions concerning salvation..

You are strraw man from my position , just to let you know.

Don't read and don't reply to my comments then, it's easy.

 

[Dimi95]

It's not my fault that you don't follow the conversation. What I wrote was my reply to the following where it was claimed that Immanuel and Jesus (from the English text) have the same meaning.

They are connected with root of words.

'To deliver' - 'God with us'

John 1:14
"the Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us"

You don't see the linguistic connection do you?

Thank you for confirming my views that those names above have different meaning..
The English name "Joshua" is a rendering of the Hebrew Yehoshua, and is mostly interpreted as "Yahweh is salvation"; although others have also alternatively interpreted it as "Yahweh is lordly". Joshua - Wikipedia

A Complete List of Hebrew Names and Meanings

The Hebrew Bible features many Jewish biblical heroes. Thinking of giving your baby a Hebrew first name? Here are some traditional Hebrew name ideas.

www.familyeducation.com

Yehoshua - 'God is deliverance'
Yeshua - 'TO deliver'

What is the difference when you see both meanings?

Morality refers to the principles or standards of behavior that guide individuals or groups in distinguishing between right and wrong actions. It encompasses the values, beliefs, and ethical principles that influence how people make decisions and interact with others. Morality often involves considerations of fairness, justice, compassion, honesty, integrity, and respect for others' rights and dignity.
Morality can be influenced by various factors, including cultural norms, religious teachings, philosophical perspectives, personal experiences, and social expectations. Different cultures and belief systems may have distinct moral codes.

Cool , you know definitions.

If your morality is based on the Bible, then you must you also agree with slavery, as well as killing disobedient children and those who work on Saturdays, right? Because the God of OT is the very same God of NT, and God does not change according to the Bible.

This again is a proof of your selectivity and understanding of the Bible.

Deuteronomy 24:14
'You shall not oppress a hired worker who is poor and needy, whether he is one of your brothers or one of the sojourners who are in your land within your towns.'

Again , you prove that you are not here to discuss , you are here to attack, as many others do.
There is no 'Open mind' there.

Acts say that they were filled with the Holy Spirit "miraculously" before this incident and they could even talk in any language immediately.....

So knowing that , and knowing that they were with Jesus , how can you say they were illitirate?

You abuse information in Scripture as you usually do.

Acts 4:
The next day the rulers, the elders and the teachers of the law met in Jerusalem.Annas the high priest was there, and so were Caiaphas, John, Alexander and others of the high priest’s family.They had Peter and John brought before them and began to question them: 'By what power or what name did you do this?'
Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them: “Rulers and elders of the people! If we are being called to account today for an act of kindness shown to a man who was lame and are being asked how he was healed, then know this, you and all the people of Israel: It is by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead, that this man stands before you healed. Jesus is
"'the stone you builders rejected,which has become the cornerstone.'
Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved."
When they saw the courage of Peter and John and realized that they were unschooled, ordinary men, they were astonished and they took note that these men had been with Jesus.But since they could see the man who had been healed standing there with them, there was nothing they could say."

Who claims that they were uneducated?

As for Jesus we do not know anything about his education, although gospels suggest that he had some level of religious education and familiarity with Jewish scriptures. But the majority of people were illiterate.

So , what is your problem with illiterate people?

What I don't like about discussing with you, is that you are very unreasonable in your replies, and try to find faults when there are not any.

No , you don't like other's people understanding and how they defend it.

I never said that they were all illiterate. Watch it, it's a sign you have run out of counter arguments.
But I sympathize with you... with all these contradictions in the Bible, I would say...it is normal to be confused and trying desperately to find excuses.

Of course attack is the best defense.
But playing terapist won't help you in discussion with me.

You said:
"Considering that the Bible was addressed to mostly illiterate, uneducated people at the time, yes. All the disciples were illiterate (Acts 4:13).
A biblical text is to be deciphered according to the ‘plain meaning’ expressed by its linguistic construction and historical context."

So why did you not note who made the claim in Acts 4 that they were illiterate?

Matthew 9:9 identifies Matthew as a tax collector, so he was probably fluent in the languages spoken in his area (Greek, Latin, Aramaic)

In Christianity, "works" and "deeds of the law" are related concepts, especially for the Jewish people to whom Jesus was addressing.

You said:
"Do you really mean that "a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law" and "a man is justified by works and not by faith alone" are not contradictory?"

You attack strawman again.


Jesus was adressing and teaching , which you somehow forget.

Matthew 5:18-19 "For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. 19 Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." Do you think he meant Paul?

I see what you do , James vs. Paul

The contradiction is explained by the use of the words 'faith' and 'works' in different senses by Paul and James.
Paul means by 'faith' complete confidence and self-surrender to God. James means intellectual assent to a proposition, such as "There is one God".
Paul means by 'works' obedience to the Jewish Law and its traditional interpretation, by which, according to the Pharisees, a man might earn his salvation from God.
James means by 'works' deeds of mercy, such as, according to Paul, were the result of the fruits of the Spirit.

Paul and James were dealing with different situations, and with different opponents.
The opponents of Paul held that salvation could be earned by observing the Law.
The opponents of James held that right belief was sufficient, even if it bore no fruit in the believer's life
Paul taught that works without faith cannot save us; James, that faith without works is dead; and both appealed to the example of Abraham. The truth is, that both faith and works are needed and they work together , not seperate.

I know very well what theosis means, but again is irrelevant to this discussion, which is about contradictions concerning salvation..

Theosis is faith with works if you read between lines.
And it is irrelevant to you..

Don't read and don't reply to my comments then, it's easy.

Why , are you offended because you are comfronted?

I am still waiting on your responce on why Paul' and Peter' death are not mentioned in the NT , since you agree with scholars so much on dates when the Gospels are written.
James death is , but Peter' and Paul' not , i wonder why

 

[Ajax]

They are connected with root of words.
'To deliver' - 'God with us'
John 1:14
"the Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us"
You don't see the linguistic connection do you?

You are completely unable to discuss with valid arguments. Instead you are lost in a cloud of vague, unrelated arguments, and try to change the discussion.
For the last time...
Immanuel means "God with us, "Jeshua means "Salvation, savior, saved" (The amazing name Jeshua: meaning and etymology) or even "deliverance", if you prefer. But Matthew 1:21 states "And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shall call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins" (the reason is named Jesus: Save)

"God is with us" and "salvation or deliverance" do not have the same meaning, no matter how hard you try.

This again is a proof of your selectivity and understanding of the Bible.

Deuteronomy 24:14
'You shall not oppress a hired worker who is poor and needy, whether he is one of your brothers or one of the sojourners who are in your land within your towns.'

Again , you prove that you are not here to discuss , you are here to attack, as many others do.
There is no 'Open mind' there.

Oh bravo!! Kudos to you!! You found some nice words from God so you can try to justify slavery...I asked you before, if you morality is based on the Bible, do you also agree with slavery, as well as killing disobedient children and those who work on Saturdays?
Answer with a Yes or No please.
Leviticus 25:44-46 “Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly."

Ahhh....how nice...."you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly'. Few more good words to make slavery palatable, but nevertheless God instructions are that slaves can be bought, will become the owner's property and his children can inherit them for life!

Who claims that they were uneducated?

Acts 4:13 does...Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (RSVCE)
"Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were uneducated, common men, they wondered"
RSV-CE

So , what is your problem with illiterate people?

Are you kiiding me? If you don't remember what we were discussing go back and check it.
But this actually may explain why you constantly write irrelevant things...

So why did you not note who made the claim in Acts 4 that they were illiterate?

What relation has this to our discussion?

Matthew 9:9 identifies Matthew as a tax collector, so he was probably fluent in the languages spoken in his area (Greek, Latin, Aramaic)

How do you know? Have you seen his CV? But even if he was somehow educated, then 92% of the disciples were not.

You said:
"Do you really mean that "a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law" and "a man is justified by works and not by faith alone" are not contradictory?"
You attack strawman again.

Jesus was adressing and teaching , which you somehow forget.

Another no meaningful answer..

The contradiction is explained by the use of the words ...
The truth is, that both faith and works are needed and they work together , not seperate.

So you admit that Paul is wrong when he said "a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law".
And before you hurry to say that deeds of the law are not works, as I'm sure you will, I will remind you again what Jesus said.

Matthew 15: 24 “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.”

Matthew 5:18-19 "For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. 19 Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

I'm 100% certain Jesus had Paul in his mind when he said the bold words above.

Why , are you offended because you are comfronted?

I love being comfronted with valid arguments and good conversation, unlike yours unfortunately..
Are you a priest, or more likely a monk?

I am still waiting on your responce on why Paul' and Peter' death are not mentioned in the NT , since you agree with scholars so much on dates when the Gospels are written.
James death is , but Peter' and Paul' not , i wonder why

I have replied to you, but you don't remember it again...Search and you will find.. I'm not going to do the work for you.
But once again another completely irrelevant question....

 

[Elihoenai]

You are totally wrong, Completely different meaning.

Immanuel means "God (Yahweh) is with us".
Jesus (Joshua) could mean Yahweh saves, (is) salvation, (is) a saving-cry, (is) a cry-for-saving, (is) a cry-for-help, (is) my help. A recent study proposes that the name should be understood as "Yahweh is lordly".

Anyway, half the Jewish names, if not more, have to do with God/Yahweh.
A more appropriate name that the angel should have thought, would be Abijah or Aviel, meaning "God/Yahweh is my father". Pity, you would have had a somehow better argument.

Within Christendom there are different interpretations of the Holy Scriptures and that's why you have many Denominations. Also within the Denominations there are different interpretations among members.

I feel sad seeing people living today their lives with a Law written 2500 years ago by goat herders. Do you also agree with slavery, or killing disobedient children and those who work on Saturdays?

I Am in Total Agreement with Everything in the Holy Scriptures from Genesis to Revelation. I Am Ultra Extremist Christian Gnostic.

Considering that the Bible was addressed to mostly illiterate, uneducated people at the time, yes. All the disciples were illiterate (Acts 4:13).
A biblical text is to be deciphered according to the ‘plain meaning’ expressed by its linguistic construction and historical context.

The Holy Scriptures cannot be understood by reading it like any other Academic book. That's why Albert Einstein and Karl Marx didn't understand the Holy Scriptures. An Oxbridge or Harvard degree doesn't help in any way to understand the Holy Scriptures. In fact, an Oxbridge or Harvard degree makes Blind and Deaf to the Truths contained therein.

Do you really mean that "a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law" and "a man is justified by works and not by faith alone" are not contradictory?
Because if you think so, there is no point in further discussion.

That's correct, we are not going to make any progress. We are at Totally Opposite ends of the spectrum. I Am a Christian Gnostic reading by Revelation and Inspiration while you are a Deist reading the Dead Letter.

 

[Ajax]

Within Christendom there are different interpretations of the Holy Scriptures and that's why you have many Denominations. Also within the Denominations there are different interpretations among members.

You prove my point exactly. The Bible is not the word of God, because - among others -it has split Christianity in over 45,000 denominations.

I Am in Total Agreement with Everything in the Holy Scriptures from Genesis to Revelation. I Am Ultra Extremist Christian Gnostic.

Interesting to see that you agree with slavery, or killing disobedient children and those who work on Saturdays, without any remorse. Hope the police keeps a close eye on you.

The Holy Scriptures cannot be understood by reading it like any other Academic book. That's why Albert Einstein and Karl Marx didn't understand the Holy Scriptures. An Oxbridge or Harvard degree doesn't help in any way to understand the Holy Scriptures. In fact, an Oxbridge or Harvard degree makes Blind and Deaf to the Truths contained therein.

Yes..sure.. In my opinion, the New Testament was written for common people from authors collecting information like a reporter (e.g. Luke), the Old Testament was written by goat herders and fiction story tellers, and the Revelation from someone who was smoking... (Rev 9:13-21)
To mention that Albert Einstein could not understand the Bible, is an insult to humanity.

That's correct, we are not going to make any progress. We are at Totally Opposite ends of the spectrum. I Am a Christian Gnostic reading by Revelation and Inspiration while you are a Deist reading the Dead Letter.

May your God help you.
And I'm not a Deist, I became an agnostic after studying the Bible..

 

[Dimi95]

You are completely unable to discuss with valid arguments.

Oh , argument from authority , good to know how you chose to discuss

Instead you are lost in a cloud of vague, unrelated arguments, and try to change the discussion.

And there it is , the debate terapist again.
Please stay on decent level , at the end this is just a forum , debate , changing opinions , if you ignore critics that is your problem

For the last time...
Immanuel means "God with us,

Which i agree

"Jeshua means "Salvation, savior, saved" (The amazing name Jeshua: meaning and etymology) or even "deliverance", if you prefer.

Which i agree , but i don't agree that is the best explenation.Every name has it's role in unique sense.
Life has meaning, don't you think?
It's what we carry with us..
That is why i don't see exactly 'deliverence' and 'to deliver' the same.
'Deliverence' and 'To deliver' are different linguistically.

Delivery means the act of delivering, giving, or turning over when used as a noun.
Deliver means to carry and give to a recipient or turn over when used as a verb. A good way to remember the difference is The noun ends in Y.
Delivery and deliverance are both nouns related to the verb 'to deliver'.

One of the basic word classes is verbs. When Verb is written with a capital, we mean the functional element which forms part of the structure of a clause; written with a lowercase we mean verb the word class.Verbs are one of the semantic group which carry most of the meaning of the sentence. There are several ways of looking at them.Native speakers of English probably remember the Primary School definition of a verb as ‘a doing word’.In Secondary School, this may have been expanded to 'a word that expresses an action or a state'.
A more modern way of looking at a verb is as a word that can have tense - i.e. a word that can change, or be changed, to express past, present or future (etc). If you can say 'I do it today' (or 'I am doing it today') and then change it to 'I will do it tomorrow' or 'I did it yesterday', then it is probably a verb. This covers the case of verbs that express a state (e.g. to be and to become) as well as verbs of action (e.g. to fight, to play, to run.)
(It is sometimes useful to be able to classify verbs into such groups as verbs of utterance (e.g. 'to say', 'to argue', 'to define' etc), verbs of motion ('to go', 'to come' etc) or verbs of thought ('to think', 'to consider', 'to agree' etc). These can be useful ways of thinking about verbs, particularly for foreign speakers learning some of the patterns of English; but they are not necessary as part of understanding grammar. Such groupings are more often useful as a semantic concept: they link words that deal with very similar ideas, but varied usage.

The verb to deliver is used in two different ways:

We may deliver (i.e., bring and hand over) something to someone, as when the milkman delivers milk to his customers or the postman delivers letters to all the houses in the village.
We may deliver someone from something, i.e., save or rescue him or her from something bad, such as captivity or danger. So a great national leader may deliver his fellow citizens from subjection to another nation; and the Lord's Prayer, i.e. the prayer taught by Jesus to his disciples, asks God to deliver us from temptation.

The main difference between delivery and deliverance is that:
Deliverance can only be used to refer to delivering or being delivered from something. So we may say that rescued hostages are grateful for their deliverance.
When we wish to refer to delivering or being delivered to somebody, we must use delivery. So we may say that the delivery of the post has been interrupted by the bad weather or that the government was quick to ensure the delivery of food and medical supplies to the disaster area.

Yeshua in Hebrew is a verbal derivative from "to rescue", "to deliver". Among the Jews of the Second Temple period, the Biblical Aramaic/Hebrew name יֵשׁוּעַ, Yēšūaʿ was common: the Hebrew Bible mentions several individuals with this name – while also using their full name Joshua.

Here , wiki as you use Yeshua - Wikipedia

In present tense it has the meaning of 'to deliver'.

Yeshua is the present word , and Joshua it's root.You shood look at them as such.Changing the language of a word does not affect the meaning of the word. We call a bound and covered set of pages a “book.” In German, it becomes a buch. In Spanish, it is a libro; in French, a livre. The language changes, but the object itself does not. As Shakespeare said, “That which we call a rose / By any other name would smell as sweet” (Romeo and Juliet, II:i). In the same way, we can refer to Jesus as “Jesus,” “Yeshua,” or “YehSou” (Cantonese) without changing His nature. In any language, His name means 'The Lord Is Salvation.'

The Roman historian Tacitus (55 CE - 120 CE) in his 'The Annals of Tacitus' - The Reign of Nero - The Christians Accused - - refers to Jesus as ‘Chresto’. I. N. R. I. sign was nailed to the cross of Jesus - in Latin: Iesus Nazarenus Rex Iudaeorum (Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews).

Greek and Latin describe the word as 'The Lord is Salvation'.Ofc because that is Christian understanding.

But who knew at that time that someone as Yeshua will apear and claim Messianic title? We know what Hebrew teaches us , without taking any side.

So the most correct answer for Yeshua is 'to deliver'.

In my language the names "Orce" and "Jordan" are the same,but not the same.
It's not wrong to hear someone who studies these things.

But Matthew 1:21 states "And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shall call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins" (the reason is named Jesus: Save)

"He will" and "he shall" are both future tense forms of the verb "to be." However, in modern English, "will" is used to indicate simple future tense, while "shall" is used to indicate a sense of obligation, promise, or determination. In practice, "shall" is less commonly used in modern English, especially in American English, and "will" is often used in its place. However, in formal or legal contexts, "shall" is still used to express obligation or determination.

"God is with us" and "salvation or deliverance" do not have the same meaning, no matter how hard you try.

Where does it say that it must have the same meaning

Matthew 1:22 states:
"All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet:"

What is All this? How do you see all this?

Oh bravo!! Kudos to you!! You found some nice words from God so you can try to justify slavery

Hmm , what is slavery?
Are ve not slaves to money?
Are we not slaves to knowledge?
Are we not slaves of love?
Are we not slaves of hope?
Are we not slaves or our consciousness?

...I asked you before, if you morality is based on the Bible, do you also agree with slavery, as well as killing disobedient children and those who work on Saturdays?
Answer with a Yes or No please.

You don't dictate the rules and the questions here.And for certain , not the answers.

First , i asked you a question and you gave me a definition amd not an answer,then you are again traying to dictate and demand answers.
And you decide what is the 'choice'.
Yoy are very consistent on that 'Open Mind' , so i wonder where is it?

Leviticus 25:44-46 “Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly."

Ahhh....how nice...."you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly'. Few more good words to make slavery palatable, but nevertheless God instructions are that slaves can be bought, will become the owner's property and his children can inherit them for life!

You seem to bother about something that you yourself consider to be some kind of tale.Why is that?
Are you saying that we don't live in a moral universe and just forgiving would solve everything?

Acts 4:13 does...Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (RSVCE)
"Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were uneducated, common men, they wondered"
RSV-CE

Ofc , every enemy will say that about the other side.

Do you belive that they crucified him justfully?
If you do , why so?
And when not , would you belive the words of those people(Pharisees and Sadducees)?

What meaning has educated to you?
Define educated

Are you kiiding me? If you don't remember what we were discussing go back and check it.

Ofc that i am following
But you seem to not care about my answers.

But this actually may explain why you constantly write irrelevant things...

What is irrelevant ? Explain it

What relation has this to our discussion?

So you wan't me to ignore who said that they were uneducated? In what were thez uneducated , in religion?

How do you know? Have you seen his CV? But even if he was somehow educated, then 92% of the disciples were not.

You have to take that with schollars that you seem to use when it suits you.

Another no meaningful answer..

Ofc that you will use the argument of ignorance.

 

[Dimi95]

So you admit that Paul is wrong when he said "a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law".
And before you hurry to say that deeds of the law are not works, as I'm sure you will, I will remind you again what Jesus said.

Matthew 15: 24 “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.”

Matthew 5:18-19 "For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. 19 Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

This what you do in we call it "Dawaghandist" tactic.
Playing with verses.

Who caused Paul to dedicate his life to Christ and make such change?
You seem to be ignorant of the Jewish culture.

On the other hand , you seem to be ignorant of James and faith and works.
They can be seperate ofc , but they don't need to.It's just like that

I'm 100% certain Jesus had Paul in his mind when he said the bold words above.

Here,i am going with same analogy as you do

Mark 1:22
"The people were amazed at his teaching, because he taught them as one who had authority, not as the teachers of the law."


Matthew 22:36-40
"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?"
Jesus replied: "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment.And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

I love being comfronted with valid arguments and good conversation, unlike yours unfortunately..

You love being comfronted with arguments that satisfy your criteria of what is 'valid'.

And you have demonstrated straww man several times

Are you a priest, or more likely a monk?

Neither of those.
I work regular job just like any other regular people.
Why , you did not expect to be answered?

I have replied to you, but you don't remember it again...Search and you will find.. I'm not going to do the work for you.
But once again another completely irrelevant question....

Ofc that it is

That's what you critic on this forum , how is not that relevant?

 

[Ajax]

Where does it say that it must have the same meaning

OMG!! You write pages upon pages, trying to prove that Immanuel and Jesus have the same meaning, and then you ask where does it says so?
Read from message #70 onward again...

They are connected with root of words.'To deliver' - 'God with us'
John 1:14
"the Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us"
You don't see the linguistic connection do you?

It's not my fault that you don't follow the conversation. What I wrote was my reply to the following where it was claimed that Immanuel and Jesus (from the English text) have the same meaning

On the other hand , you seem to be ignorant of James and faith and works.
They can be seperate ofc , but they don't need to.It's just like that

Just to remind you what you wrote only yesterday...

The truth is, that both faith and works are needed and they work together , not seperate.

Look...your writing is reminiscent of a troll, or someone who can not focus on the discussion and forgets what he has written.
I'm sorry but really had more than enough...it's tiring. Thanks for the discussion. If you can ever be specific and you don't change your mind constantly, perhaps can have another try. Good luck.

 

[Dimi95]

OMG!! You write pages upon pages, trying to prove that Immanuel and Jesus have the same meaning, and then you ask who says so?
Read from message #70 onward again...

I said connected linguistically , which you try to present as the same meaning.
You seem to love to speak about what other people are claiming.
Again , straw man..



All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: 'The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel (which means “God with us).

What is this? Why did the author wrote this and then exactly quoted Isaiah 7:14 ? You avoided all my questions, Why?

You started this with 'parthenos' in the first discussions with me.

The argument "Isaiah did not say virgin" is silly. If you say in English "a girl was on the swing" virgin is implied since 'girls' are not typically thought to be sexually active. In Hebrew the word used nearly absolutely implies virginity. To say otherwise is sophistry.

Now you switched to 'meaning' and you ignore what i said about 'to deliver' and you ignore that the verb indicates a state of being or purpose of existence.

'Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel, which is, being translated, God with us.'

This is the best english translation of Matthew 1:23 from Aramaic which was translated from Greek , you can check it if you want.At the end , we are talking about Hebrew and Aramaic.

Just to remind you what you wrote only yesterday...

Look...your writing is reminiscent of a troll, or someone who can not focus on the discussion and forgets what he has written.

And here you are , quoting out of context , why do you do that?

In the first example it is explained as a matter of doctrine

In the second you did not quote everything i wrote
'On the other hand , you seem to be ignorant of James and faith and works.
They can be seperate ofc , but they don't need to.'

The emphasys on the answer is 'they can work together'.


I did not expect that you would quote me out of context...

Attack is the best defense,right?
That's why you ignored all i wrote..

I'm sorry but really had more than enough...it's tiring. Thanks for the discussion. If you can ever be specific and you don't change your mind constantly, perhaps can have another try. Good luck.

What is not specific , you trying to prove the 'cheating' over and over again ?

So you noted something to quote me out of context and now you will run away?

Proverbs 26
"Whoever meddles in a quarrel not his own is like one who takes a passing dog by the ears."