₦airaland Forum

Ubenedictus:
As the Encyclopedia Britannica states (under Origen), “The Jewish calendar is the result of long development; its present form is not of great antiquity."

Where did you get this from?

Peter, Bishop of Alexandria, around 295 C.E. Condemned the changes made by the Jews in their adoption of certain rules in their calendar.
Recorded for us in Ante-NicenetFathers Vol. 6, we read the comment (referring to the Jews) as follows;
“But if they knew Him who sent, and His who was sent, there is no reason to doubt but that they have been ignorant of the Passover as prescribed by the law, so as not merely to err in their choice of the place as(they were now looking to Tiberias and Usha instead of Jerusalem) but also in reckoning the beginning of the 14th day of which, being accurately observed after the equinox, the ancients
celebrated the Passover according to the Holy Command: whereas the men of the present day now celebrate it before the equinox, and that altogether through ignorance and error, being ignorant how they
celebrate it in its season...”
Note that this Bishop of
Alexandria confirms that the ancient Jews observed the Passover according to Yahweh’s
command and kept it after the equinox. Because of the changes
made in reckoning of the Jewish calendar, their present ciphering is in error.

So when the hebrew calendar fell into error and the Christians were sure it could no longer rightly tell when is passover, they immediately moved all their celebrations from it including easter and fixed them in the other calendars, nicea fixed easter after the vernial equinox.

Indeed some Jews celebrated the Passover before the equinox, but does these mean that the hebrew calender giving by the sahendrin did so too?
That is an information I want you to provide.

Between 395 and 1582 , what calender did ur church us to calculate the Passover and Easter, and what issues did it have with the equinox?

malvisguy212:
God bless you.

Be typing "God bless you" whenever someone supports ur view, when that same person says something contrary to ur beliefs now, you will not comment again, so as not to be seen going against the persons views.

Image123:
Joy to the world, the Lord is come. Let earth receive her King. What is pagan in that? dolphinheart, please let earth receive her King, stop weeping more than the bereaved. And vooks, you're indeed caustic in passing across your point. Overall, it's much ado about nothing. Romans is so clear it's a miracle not to see.

No pagan in that sir.
but do we experience The joy everyday or once a year.?
Do we receive our king every Dec 25th?
Is jesus born every year?
The yearly celebration of an event at a period it did not occur, using dates and practices specifically used by idol worshipers is pagan!

vooks:
You are free to whine all day and make all manner of sideshows, just don't leave here empty. Learn something


Jesus birthday is when the Word became flesh, incarnation.


'New'? If you never heard of it then I agree it is certainly 'new'.


There is no 'new twist', am working hard on your feeble brains. Appreciate knowledge and wisdom seeing ignorance is very expensive!
Nobody can with certainty tell when Jesus was born, the most important thing is that God became flesh at a specific point in time.
Any date I pick and somebody would always wonder why I left the other 364. So it is quite in vain explaining myself for each day I picked. We have national day of prayer and fasting and even private days of prayer. Do I owe nobody an explanation why I picked Wednesday and Monday? No, what matters is what I do on those days. The sanctity of Sunday is in what we do with Sunday not with Sunday itself.


I will keep on hammering Romans 14:5-6 down your cranium. 'Let everyone be convinced in their hearts'. Are you convinced? Does there need to be any biblical evidence of neckties before you don one? What about bible verses? Did you know these were invented hundreds of years after Pentecost?


I don't understand how it is different from what?
Care to explain?


Very wise of you


If Paul talked about the book in RomNs 14:5, then talk about the book.



No sir, it is not that I 'feel', it is Holy Spirit who gives me LIBERTY.
The incarnation!
I don't care about December 25th, I care about my Lord and my God. I can assure you if nobody celebrated incarnation, I'd have started it myself!


Like I said, any date I pick, there are 364 days I never picked. Silly question


True, but I invoke the Liberty I have of Holy Spirit and celebrate it


We should be sensitive about others whose hearts bleed over Christmas I agree. I have done that and moved a step further, EDUCATING those bleeding of their liberty in Christ. We have bewitched believers here who are still trying to impress God with circumcision and Torah. I pray they will grow up


Never mind, you don't have to choose any, choosing or not choosing all are done unto the Lord as per Romans 14:5-6


Galatians were busy trying to keep the Torah and they even reverted to circumcision. Those guys were clearly bewitched!


So how come angels worshipped Jesus when he was born and not when he died?
Anyway BOTH are important that's why we have Easter as well celebrating His death. What's your point?



I don't know what you are onto, as for me, I celebrate Christmas with my family and we have a church service, just like any other Sunday. Those 'paganistic customs,rituals, and mode of worship', please be a watchman and warn them like Ezekiel if you find it necessary


You need to PROVE it and not just claim so


Super concentrated trash. Receive common sense inJesus name!

WHEN HE BRINGS HIS FIRSTBORN INTO THE WORLD.

When did God bring His firstborn into the world? When Jesus ascended?

The ONLY reason reason you make such outrageous and asinine reasoning is because Watchtower tells you so. Please show me any non-Watchtower material that supports this

WHEN HE BRINGS HIS FIRSTBORN INTO THE WORLD.
When was this? When He ascended?



Very true, and I have used none

Agreed

Agreed

I haven't used any derogatory word. Care to show me any?

Thanks, I believe our discussion has come to an end.

Ubenedictus:
Jewish Calendar Undergoes Change


The years 132-135 C.E. mark the revolt of Bar-Kochba and his followers. It took the most able Roman general Julius Severus to put down the rebellion, with dreadful slaughter on both sides.

Hadrian vowed to raze Jerusalem so that none would know there had ever been a city there. Jews were not allowed in the city, and Jerusalem’s destruction by the Roman army was carried out. The Sanhedrin (the governing Jewish religious body) could no longer meet to sanctify the new moons each month and therefore dates for the Feast days were in disarray. The proper calendar dates for the annual Feasts were in question.
It was at this time that the Jewish calendar underwent a change.

1. No source for these post of urs .

2 . After the destruction of the Second Temple in 70, the Sanhedrin was re-established in Yavneh with reduced authority. The imperial Roman government and legislation recognized it as the Palestinian Patriarchate, the ultimate authority in Jewish religious
matters. The seat of the Patriarchate moved to Usha under the presidency of Gamaliel II in 80 CE. In 116 it moved back to Yavneh, and then again back to Usha. It moved in 140 to Shefaram under the presidency of Shimon ben Gamliel II, and to Beit Shearim and Sepphoris in 163, under the presidency of Judah I. Finally, it moved to Tiberias in 193, under the presidency of Gamaliel III (193–230) ben Judah haNasi, where it became more of a consistory, but still retained, under the presidency of Judah II (230–270), the power of excommunication.
During the presidency of
Gamaliel IV (270–290), due to Roman persecution, it dropped the name Sanhedrin; and its authoritative decisions were subsequently issued under the
name of Beth HaMidrash.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanhedrin

The notion that the sahedrin was unable to meet after 135 ce to determine the date is false.

Hilel II decided to remake the calendar, and since there was no more sahendrine d decided to automate it. That is where the problem came it. As the previous reference tell us, in the old way of doing things the passover was always made to fall AFTER the vernial equinox but in d new calendar hilel made the passover fell sumtimes BEFORE the equinox. All who [/b]knew d old calendar immediately saw that hilel calendar was defective, that was why the early xtians had to reject d new passover cos it didnt tally with d old.[/b]

At first bold : the sahendrin was still in existence as at the date this new method for calculating the hebrew calender was adopted.

As a reaction to Julian's pro- Jewish stance, Theodosius I forbade the Sanhedrin to assemble and declared ordination illegal. Capital punishment was prescribed for any Rabbi who received ordination and complete destruction of the town where the ordination occurred. However, since the Hebrew calendar was based on witnesses' testimony, that had become far too dangerous to collect, Hillel II recommended change to a mathematically based calendar that was adopted at a clandestine, and maybe final, meeting in 358 CE.
This marked the last universal
decision made by that body

Interesting to note that it was this same emperor that later issued a decree to effectively make ur church the state church.!

He also issued decrees that
effectively made orthodox
Nicene Christianity the official
state church of the Roman
Empire.

Now would pride allow them to use the hebrew calender? No., they had to create a new one, despite knowing the rules of the old one.

At second bold : what problem, you urself has seen that the hebrew scriptures has always been under modification using eye witness of certain celestial and agricultural events, what is wrong with the automation of these celestial events due to circumstances beyond their control. There where trying to save their calender and succeded in doing so.
The difference in the old and new hebrew calender is just the method used to determine the calender dates. Was the old totally different from the new? Let's see
Although originally the new lunar crescent had to be observed and certified by witnesses, the moment of the true new moon is now approximated arithmetically as the molad, which is the mean new moon to a [u]precision of one part.
The mean period of the lunar
month (precisely, the synodic
month) is very close to 29.5
days. Accordingly, the basic Hebrew calendar year is one of twelve lunar months alternating between 29 and 30 days:

Reading the above, I wonder how your early christians realised that the dates in the hebrew calender have shifted .

You made this statement ;
in the old way of doing things the passover was always made to fall AFTER the vernial equinox but in d new calendar hilel made the passover fell sumtimes BEFORE the equinox.

Can you provide proof to this statement?

Nissan is a month in the hebrew calender, the 1st day of these month shift about 11 days every year, thus the 14 day must also shift the same number of days when compared to the movement of the earth around the sun.
So before the hebrew calender is being corrected with the solar calender, Nissan 14 would have shifted by 30-33 days.
I've checked numerous data on Nissan. And Nissan 14, and non occured before the equinox.
ill wait to see if you can provide proof of the Passover occuring before the equinox .

Ill also wait to see if you can provide data on the hebrew calender which shows that the 1st of the month started on a day other than those prescribed by the sahendrin using the old method.

Additional proof of a change in the Jewish calendar is presented the Paschal Canons of Anatolius, preserved for us in the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1, p.
319. Anatolius, held in high regard for his eloquence and erudition, wrote about a century after the onset of the Paschal controversy, “Wherefore we maintain that those who place the first month (Nisan) in it (the zodiacal sign before the vernal equinox) and determine by it the 14th day of Passover, commit no slight or common blunder. And this is not an opinion of our own; but it was known to the Jews of old, even before [Messiah] and was carefully observed by them.”

Anatolius said that at the time of Messiah and before, Passover never was allowed to occur BEFORE the vernal equinox, but did exactly that under the present Hillel calendar, where Passover was placed two days before the equinox in the 17th year of the cycle! This NEVER occurred in Temple times.

What year was that?
So that we can calculate.
What year did the new hebrew calender start so that we can know what happened seventeen years after.

Further, Anatolius points out that this can be learned from “Philo, Josephus, and Musaeus and not only them, but also by those yet more ancient, the two Agathobuli, surnamed ‘Master,’ and the famous Aristobulus, who was chosen among the seventy interpreters of the sacred and holy Hebrew Scriptures by Ptolemy Philadelphus and his father who also dedicated his exegetical books on the law of Moses to the same kings.
“These writers, explaining
questions in regard to the
Exodus, say that all alike should sacrifice the Passover offerings after the vernal equinox. I know that many other things have been said by them, some of them probable, and some approaching absolute demonstration, by which they endeavor to prove
that it is altogether necessary to keep the Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread after the equinox.”

this was a serious issue not about pride, Helil had shifted d calendar and it was a serious issue cos it also shifted d passover out of date.

You refuse to show proof of this shift .
I've also told you told you that by old and new calculations of the hebrew calender, the date of the Passover must always shift in relation to the dates determined by the sun. The Passover is basically determined by the moon and its appearance occur at occassions different from the appearance of the sun.
The sun is only used to realign the already shifted dates of the hebrew calender.

Now how do you arrive at Easter date ?. Which calender did you use?.

Ubenedictus:
THE HEBREW CALENDAR.

The hebrew calendar is simply d calendar used and regulated by the hebrews. It months are based on d moon, its days are from sunset to sunset and it year like most calendars is based on d movement of d earth round d sun.

The hebrew calender is a lunisolar calender, year is not just based on the earth's movement around the sun.

In ancient times this calendar was an observed calendar, it was not automated. This means someone(actually 2 people) in Jerusalem has to see d new moon and report it to d sahendrine, then d sahendrin will declear a new month and 'sanctify' the month. If nobody sees a new moon then no new month! Also it was the work of d sahendrine to fix d year dat has an extra month, this was not also an automated practice, there was not law like add one month every 4yrs, it was not like dat, below is what is need to add another year

“For three reasons a year may be pronounced an intercalary year; because of the ripeness of the grain (if this has not occurred at the proper season), and on account of the sun (if the sun at Passover has not yet come into the sign of Aries), and if the rains had not ceased. And if two of these reasons combine may one conclude for intercalation, but not for one of these alone.” so if in successive yrs the rainfall was extended and d barley didnt ripen then the sahendrine will continue to add a month to d year in an effort to reallign the year to the seasons or d sun!

And this is not a law?
Now did they successfully realign the year to the seasons or the sun like other solar calenders still do every few years. The hebrew calender has more days to of error(in relation to the movement of the earth around the sun) that your calender, but both are not perfect, why? Cus both still reallign every few years, only that the method of realigning is different.

THE DISTRUCTION OF THE TEMPLE.
All this changed when the romans distroyed the temple, the sahendrine(those who determine, regulate d caledar) were either kill or dispersed and there was nolonger a central authority to determime d calendar this caused great confusion as different sects were trying to fix d calendar. McClintock and Strong’s Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature (CBTEL) has the following to say on the subject of the Paschal Controversy, “It is a question of astronomy; for the Jewish calendar ceased to be any trustworthy guide after the destruction of Jerusalem...The ancient Jews could only have celebrated the Passover after the vernal equinox,” p. 722. Notice the two things in the above quotation:
[b]• The Jewish calendar ceased to be trustworthy after the destruction of the Temple; and
• The ancient Jews (before the new calendar was published by Hillel II) could only have celebrated the Passover AFTER the vernal equinox supposedly on March 21.

this was why nobody wanted to follow d jews, afted d sahendrine fell the jews were confused and confusing

And thus the next thing to do is to create a new calender and choose certain dates from the hebrew calender.?
If you could create a new calender , why dnt you use the rules governing the old hebrew calender to create the days of the events you observe. Why did you not re -establish the old hebrew calender for ur religious observance? At least creating a new calender makes you the central authority. Answer is pride.

Ubenedictus:
u see how u try to pen a defence even though it contradicts the literal written words?

The words say they didnt want to be defiled and thus prevented from eating the passover, u instead claim it was fermented cakes they wanted to it.

There is a simple reason why there is a seeming contradiction and it has nothing to do with changing the word "passover" to "cake".

Bro, there is a reason why those "literal written words where said" and that is what I explained to you using the bible and history. I did not replace Passover with cake.

Look at my post again
"This statement was made,
however, “early in the day,”
hence after the Passover
meal had taken place. It is to be noted that at this time the
entire period, including
Passover day and the Festival
of Unfermented Cakes that
followed, was at times
referred to as “Passover.” In the light of this fact, Alfred Edersheim offers the following explanation: A voluntary peace offering was made on Passover and another, a compulsory one, on the next day, Nisan 15, the first day of the Festival of Unfermented Cakes. It was this second offering that the Jews were afraid they might not be able to eat if they contracted
defilement in the judgment hall
of Pilate.—
The Temple, 1874, pp. 186,
187.
(note the word Passover is different from Passover say just as christmass period or Christmas holidays is different from Christmas day)

This part of my post was deliberately omitted by you :

"If Jesus was taking to pilate
before Passover as you
assume in Johns statement,then the disciples
would not have stated that
Jesus had several hours
earlier eating the Passover
meal, and event that was
stated again later by the
disciples."

Ubenedictus:
this brings us back to the issue of calendars, is the jewish calendar of 30 BC exactly the same as that of 300 AD? Or did it undergo serious modifications that shifted the importants date?
This is an interesting one because the early Christians didnt just wake up one morning and pridefully reject the Jewish calendar, infact there was nothing to do with pride there, they gave their reasons! The calendar had been modified and automated that it had shifted significantly from d heavenly paterns and rendered the celebration on it moot. I hope to go into this when d later.

1. You refused to address the points stated in the post, you are now trying to bring another up.

2. You urself need to answer the questions you asked. You know the old and new method used to calculate the hebrew calender, check it and see if their dates for events has changed. You forgot the points of the discussion. I already told you about the imposibillity created by God for man to accurately create a calender to record time using earthly and heavenly objects, hence the need for the hebrew calender to shift its recording of days time after time. Even with that jehovah still gave them a date based on that calender, the date did not create the calender, therefore the event will follow the calculations of that calender.

3. At bold, making an accusation without giving proof is wrong and will not stand. You say the "early christians" pls what period did this early christians reject the hebrew calender and what calender did they approve.

4. You say its not pride, but dnt you think the best way to do things if something has been changed is to go back to the old method? And not to create an entirely new one? An action even worse than those you accuse of modification?

5. Can you give examples of these heavenly patterns that have shifted due to these modification of dates?
And can you say your new calender solves this shifting? Cus I'm aware Easter is not celebrated on same date every year.!

vooks:
Am being polite, it's worse than feeble but God is able to use the weak things of the world.....

Wonder what you will say when you are not polite. Your being polite is still derogatory!

What info do you need? Vagueness and ambiguity will get you nowhere.


'Does not explain'? I just TAUGHT you these things and you are hard of hearing.

Christmas is celebration of the Love of God manifested in God becoming Flesh or incarnation. If that is insufficient for you, go invent your own reasons and stick to them

The people that started Christmas state that they do it on Dec 25th cus its the day jesus was born by mary, hence they are celebrating jesus birthday.
Now you have bought a new twist into it knowing fully well that the old idea of Christmas is wrong , hence the need to formulate a new one as the world would in no way support the cancellation of the celebration.
These new twist is devoid of explanation. For example, did the incarnation occur on Dec 25th?, why do you choose such date for the celebration of these incarnation?
What prompted you to start the celebration since there is no biblical evidence of such celebration?
How do you perform such celebration that is different from those celebrating the birth of Christ?
One is meant to know details about a new celebration before taking part in it, hence the questions I asked.

I would thre sooner you quote the Latin and German verses Adam used in naming the animals.

I'm talking about the book, not the language.

Read u Romans 14:5-6 for the umpteenth time till light breaks into your darkness; God is INDIFFERENT to days. It means man is FREE to observe days (TO THE LORD) for whatever reasons as long as he is CONVINCED in his heart

If I woke up today and esteemed Mondays or Wednesdays to the Lord, there is no Law against this. In fact, I once did this all to the glory and honor of my Lord and my God!

Rom 14:5,6
5 One person considers one
day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind. 6 Whoever regards one day as special does so to the Lord. Whoever eats meat does so to the Lord, for they give thanks to God; and whoever abstains does so to the Lord and gives thanks to
God.

Now Bro, since you feel you now have the right to choose a day to observe a celebration you created, what fully convinced you that Dec 25th is special and the date for the celebration of the incarnation.?
Why did you choose such date if that's the date you choosed, and if its not Dec 25th, which date did you personaly choose.?

Moreover, the specialty of a day does not correspond with the fact that it must be celebrated.

Do you know what paul finally said as to this observance, about the celebration?

I am convinced, being fully
persuaded in the Lord Jesus,
that nothing is unclean in itself.
But if anyone regards
something as unclean, then for
that person it is unclean. If
your brother or sister is
distressed because of what
you eat, you are no longer
acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy someone for whom Christ died.
Therefore do not let what
you know is good be spoken
of as evil. For the kingdom
of God is not a matter of eating
and drinking, but of
righteousness, peace and joy
in the Holy Spirit.

I do not personaly choose Any day of the year to observe an event cus of these scripture

Gal 4:10,11
You are observing
special days and months and
seasons and years! 11 I fear for you, that somehow I have
wasted my efforts on you.

I also agree to the statement that the day of ones death is more important than his birth.

2 things,
1. flapping gum about pagan this or that won't improve your intelligence or weight of your argument. It just makes you look silly and you sound like a broken record. If God becoming flesh is pagan, am guilty as accused

The celebration is what I'm talking about and not about the word becoming flesh, why was such event celebrated using the many paganistic customs, rituals and mode of worship?

2. The Angels worshipping my Lord and my God
Hebrews 1:6 (ESV)
6 And again, when he brings the firstborn into the world, he says,
“Let all God's angels worship him.”

Are you trying to tell us that this event occured when jesus became flesh? To imply that the angels did obeisance to jesus when he was born by mary? If that is ur view, you are totally wrong.

verse 3 and 4 helps us to understand that these event occured after jesus death, not during his birth.
The angels did obeisance to jesus when he was exalted above them, when he sat at the right hand of the most high and inherited a name that is superior to theirs.!
This did not occur when jesus became flesh.

The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word.
After he had provided
purification for sins, he sat
down at the right hand of the
Majesty in heaven. So he
became as much superior to
the angels as the name he has
inherited is superior to theirs.

If all your knowledge is restricted to Watchtower garbage, and you run into wisdom, you will call it pride. Be wise, receive sense in Jesus name!

Like I said, I do this for the glory of my Lord and Savior and my reward is in heaven. Don't thank me, don't cheer me, just sit and learn

The use of demeaning words or statement, derogatory or abusive words is for politicians and worldly people.
They use it in discussion so as to look important or superior, and to try to make the other party look inferior or bad, more so when attempting to look meek.
They do this expecially when they know that their points lack merit or truthfulness. It is not the way of a worshiper of jehovah.
Let him that think he stands be care he does not fall!

Lastly, ill take ur continued use of derogatory terms, either politely or not as a method derived to end the discussion

vooks:
WHY celebrate the birth of Christ?
Has your feeble mind wondered why?

I hope you can comment or discuss without the use of abusive or derogatory speech.

The answer is INCARNATION.
That's why Angels were COMMANDED to worship him at His birth as per Hebrews 1.
That's why John did somersault before he was even born at the mere fact of being near my Lord and My God

So you celebrate jesus birthday cus of incarnation? Pls give us more info on these. The mere mention of incarnation does not explain why you celebrate jesus birthday.

Pls quote the verse(s) you are reffering to in Hebrews and explain to us its link with the celebration of jesus birthday.
Want to know how angels where told to worship him at his birth and how you now use pagan practices to celebrate these.

Don't thank me for educating you, my reward is in heaven for exorcising/fumigating ignorance and naivety

Pride.

obixcel:
Merry Christmas to all movie lovers of this thread. 2015's been a great year for all categories of movies. Op, u've done well for keeping this thread up and running from its inception. We hope 2016 will surpass more of our expectations. I think I'd like to end d movie year with "Star Wars: The Force Awakens", it's been breaking records in d box office. Thanks guys, see u in 2016.

Why dnt you guys (you , cao, and others) do a award/list/selection of best films you've watched in each category for 2015. For example, best 3 action films, best 3 romance etc .
It might help .

My best film in romance: the longest ride.

And nobody should put mad max under action film, dat one is already under "crazy/mad" section.

obixcel:
IN THE HEART OF THE SEA...just watched it on cinemas, Fabulous movie I must say,really enjoyed their battle for survival. Chris acted brilliantly and really blended with his role.

I thought the movie has low ratings

alexis:
Can you quote where I used it so that I can explain better in context

This is part of your post where soul is mentioned.

I Corinthians 15:50 Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God. "The Apostle Paul turns to the subject of transformation of the body not the soul.

The statement brought about the question : what is the soul? Or what do you think the soul is.
Note : the question is not directly related to the post where you mentioned the word "soul", therefore your response need not be based on the post I quoted above but rather it should be based on the question I asked. So there is no need for context.

vooks:
No, the subject is celebrating INCARNATION you Arian heretic

Bro, the thread is about Christmas celebration. Last time I checked, christmas is about the birthday celebration of jesus Christ.

Cus you have a new definition of Christmas does not change the reason such celebration was established. In fact, it shows that there was something wrong with the celebration as done by people for a while, hence the need by people like you to re-analyse, redefine, re-explain and readjust the fundamentals behind the celebration. But after all these is done, it still does not make right a pagan celebration.!

vooks:
As usual, you dwell on trivialities and ignore the Word made Flesh. Do look for me when your eyes are enlightened enough to worship Jesus Christ

The topic is on the "trivialities" and not on "word made flesh" .

I do not need to look for you, my eyes re enlightened enough to worship the only true God, the father, who commanded and made the word flesh!

vooks:
The date of birth of Jesus is a very MINOR point of Christmas, Christians celebrate INCARNATION; God/Word becoming flesh.

Nice adjustment from the reasons giving by those who founded christmass. Never knew it has changed from the commemoration of jesus birth to celebrating "incarnation".
So what date did you now choose for this incarnation.

alexis:
What has that got to do with the discussion? I asked a simple question. If Jesus was a spirit or a spirit creature as JW claim He was; why did e explicitly say He wasn't a Spirit. I have used scripture in context stating a historical fact that Jesus is not and was not a Spirit. I am asking JW here to explain why Jesus would claim He is not a Spirit. Was Jesus lying?

You can see that I initially said I'm not intruding into ur discussion , I was only interested when you mentioned soul. That's y I asked your own view on what the soul is. Someone is already discussing the issue of spirit with you.

Image123:
So how old is Jesus that they are celebrating His birthday? How many sing the Happy birthday song or make birthday cake for Him? Forget the semantics brother, no need weeping more than the 'bereaved'.

Maybe I'm wrong, but what do they do on Dec 25th? of was that not the day they said jesus was born?

That fewer and fewer people are singing happy birthday song for jesus shows two things
1. Pagans are Taking their celebration back
2. People are realizing the truth that they have been fed lies about Dec 25th.

And you are right, no need to weep more than the bereaved

alexis:
Ganoderma



Angels don't come to us as the savior of the world or represent God as His incarnate; that is what I mean



I asked you, do you believe Jesus is an angel of some sort. Jehovah Witnesses confirm that Jesus is an Arch Angel = http://www.jw.org/en/publications/books/bible-teach/who-is-michael-the-archangel-jesus/. This will throw light unto this discussion because Christians don't believe that Jesus is an angel or arch angel. There is no where in the Bible, Jesus is called an angel



I don't disagree with this and I agreed. Angels can manifest as humans when required and perform actions that humans do but Angels where never born with a human body. Angels don't resurrected, angels don't come back from the dead. These things happen only in human bodies which don't apply to Angels.



Luke 24:39 = Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. Here is Jesus saying that he is not a spirit. From this passage, where did you gather that He is a Spirit. That is what I mean when you read a passage in context. Read the entire chapter and tell me where it suggest that Jesus rose as a Spirit creature and compare that to verse 39 where Jesus himself said He is not a Spirit or Angel or Spirit creature



The expression "flesh and blood" occurs only five times in the New Testament. We need to define our definition of its meaning from the overall teachings. If we examine the following references we see the writers are often speaking of "flesh and blood" as being synonymous with "fallen man", just as it is of the physical body. If you substitute the words "fallen man" (unregenerate) in the place of "flesh and blood" we can understand better what the writer is saying:

Sometimes the word for flesh (sarx) is used literally (as in Heb.10:20) Sometimes it is used in a figurative manner as in Rom.8:9 (you are not in the flesh but the Spirit). Meaning the new nature rules over the old.

Matthew 16:13-17: "Flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee but my Father who is in heaven." Is this speaking of the physical flesh, or the corrupt nature of man not revealing Christ's identity to Peter? It came from God who is Spirit.

Galatians 1:16: Straightway I conferred not with flesh and blood.... “ Obviously Paul was not referring to the physical flesh but rather to corrupt and sinful man.

Ephesians 6:12: "For we wrestle not against flesh and blood. "A case can be made either way in the interpretation of this text. For instance, because Christians do not physically wrestle with their opposition. Paul is not be referring to the physical body, we don't wrestle against sinful corrupt nature of other men but the spiritual forces of evil influencing him.

Hebrews 2:14:, "For as much then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same. . . "Here the text does refer to the physical flesh but Jesus did not take on Himself a sinful nature. It means he became a human having the same physical flesh and blood minus the sin nature. As Rom.8:3 says Jesus came in the "likeness of sinful flesh", in other words he was fully man, he looked like any other but without the sin. The word for flesh used here refers to mankind in their fallen state (the body of flesh).

When speaking of sinful man who consists of flesh and blood he cannot enter the kingdom of God without a new birth. [b]John.3:3-5 Jesus explains that a fallen man cannot enter God's kingdom without being spiritually regenerated, he will not even see the kingdom of God.

I Corinthians 15:50 Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God. "The Apostle Paul turns to the subject of transformation of the body not the soul. The body that we now possess is not suitable for the heavenly kingdom. It is corrupted, subject to disease, and decays. Only that which is pure, incorruptible and immortal can enter heaven, this is why there must be a change. Paul is answering the question of what kind of "body" believers will receive in the resurrection (vs. 35). It will be a "spiritual body" (vs. 44). A "spiritual body" must be defined by the ONLY example we have of one, the first fruits from the dead, the body of Jesus. He described his body as one of flesh and bone, (possibly bloodless) (Lk.24:39). The resurrection body has no need of blood as its life because its nature will not be the same. Presently the blood nourishes the cells that are in need of constant repair but food and water to supply nourishment will no longer be needed. No cells will be in need of repair in our glorified bodies so we will no longer need blood. As it states in Revelation we will neither hunger or thirst. We can eat but not from necessity. We will still have our body and its functions but obviously some things will change.

In verses 51-52, Paul then proceeds to tell us a mystery which involves the change that all believers will go through, The corruptible will put on in-corruption, and mortality will become immortality. We need to have a complete change to make us suitable for our new environment. This implies a conversion of our same physical bodies to a body with heavenly qualities. Nature does not know extinction but transformation, as science says energy cannot be destroyed but transformed.

Paul states that their dead body is sown and will be resurrected to new life. God has it become a new body (1Cor.15:38). The old body puts on (is swallowed up) by the new body it is transformed into something permanent.

The Jehovah's Witnesses make the same mistake the disciples did even with the Bible in their hands to correct them. Jesus' grave was empty with only the linens left. There are no Scriptures used to validate a spirit resurrection rather than a bodily one. Nowhere does Jesus say I'm spirit instead he makes it clear he is flesh and bone. Some of the discrepancies that people often use to support this position are found in the Emmaus road encounter where the disciples did not recognize Jesus. We need to realize that they were in a state of distress, shock, fear, and unbelief of His resurrection. This became apparent after he revealed himself to them. Luke 24:16 in the beginning of his encounter tells us that “their eyes were restrained so they did not know Him.” This possibly could refer to the fact that Jesus was not revealing himself to them because of their unbelief even after they were testified to His resurrection by the women. So he was trying to draw them into faith, as he states in v. 25. “O foolish ones and slow of heart to believe in all the prophets have spoken.” In verses 30-31 He blessed and broke bread with them, and then “their eyes were opened and they knew Him.” This event opened their eyes. Jesus broke bread many times with them, at the feeding of the 5,000 he broke bread in prayer. The last night they spent with Jesus he broke bread and gave the true meaning of the Passover. V.35 when they arrived with the disciples they told the story of his resurrection and how he was made known to them in the breaking of the bread. Whether this is a natural or supernatural explanation for their inability to recognize Him, one thing is for sure, it was not because He was a spirit or raised in a completely different body.

The Jehovah's Witnesses make the same mistake that Jesus corrected the disciples on. In Luke 24:39 The Disciples are terrified thinking they saw a Ghost. Jesus calms them down and said, “I am not a spirit but I have flesh and bone (not blood, so here is the answer to flesh and blood not able to enter heaven). One thing that is clear is that it was not because he did not have a body. He had the same scars in His hands and feet proving His fulfillment of the prophecy that He would raise up His body from the grave (John 2:19-22). A spirit does not scar. He shows them the scars saying it is I, myself. He then eats with them to prove it. Once again He repeats what was said on the Emaus road Luke 24:44. Then He said to them, “These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me.” Vs.45-46 And He opened their understanding, that they might comprehend the Scriptures. Then He said to them, “Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day” Just as Paul states in 1 Cor.15:1-4 as the scripture says.

Also resurrection accounts show that people were raised in their physical bodies. Two examples are Lazarus (Luke 11), and Jairus' daughter. Jesus also rose from the dead in the flesh (Luke 24:39; Acts 2:31; 1 John 4:2; 2 John 7). Numerous times they were told to eat proving it was a physical resurrection and that the body needed immediate nourishment.



Actually it does - The Bible say when some of the disciples went to the tomb, His body wasn't there. If indeed Jesus was raised as a Spirit, wouldn't His body be there?



Dude, read my response above



Sound reasoning and logic! Are you kidding me? - Here is a person who claims Jesus is a Spirit even after Jesus Himself confirming He is not a Spirit. If you use reason and logic, you will realize that we interpret scripture based on what is revealed as compared to what is inferred.



I can only answer that question if you tell me who Jesus is . Please respond to the points I raised.

Also, you still keep ignoring my question - what did Jesus tell his disciples that He is not a Spirit if infact He was as you claim?

At the moment, I do not want to intrude in ur discussion, but ill like to ask: using scripture as backup, pls what is the soul.?

Image123:
Brother, you're virtually crying more than the bereaved. One man celebrates Jesus everyday, another picks a day/season to celebrate Him. Let them be. The issue is not why Christ died or what He called us to/for.

Celebrate jesus or celebrate jesus birthday?
I'm not talking about celebration, I'm talking about celebration using a pagan induced observance that has no correlation with the word of God.

You left my points alone to reply me on celebration.

There is no crying here, just laying out my points and views.

business4all:
yes they were used in the old testament. Pagans used musical instruments first before God talked about it. Study your bible well. So it has pagan origin. Even many old testament practices including some ordained by God Himself were not practicable in the new testament. Or have you even seen Jesus praised God with music or acknowledged musical instruments? Or the apostles too? Apostles didn't authorize it.

Mind you. I am not saying musical instruments are sins. But it was used for idolatry first in the bible. The question of pagan origin is not the issue. What the issue is, is what you make of that now.

You seem to be putting different things into the same basket, and they are
1. What pagans can do in their everyday life.
2. The customs or practise of pagans when it comes to worshipping their Gods.
3. Gods approved practises when it comes to praise and worship.

I will discuss the use of the origin of musical instruments when you quote the scriptures that makes you feel it has pagan origin.

I will also discuss the use of musical instrument by christians after the first part has been addressed by you.

malvisguy212:
in 1 Cor. 8:1-13 Paul is teaching the church about meat sacrifice to idol, what Paul is saying is that a christian have PERFECT freedom over everything God had created, a christian who eat meat sacrifice to idol knowingly or unknowingly, is not a sin why ? Because the idol is NOTHING to him, and his conscience is not offended. the truth is that, the wood and bronze use to create those pagan gods were ALL made by GOD. This object mean nothing to a true christian.

@ first bold, how did you come about that reading 1 cor 8: 1-13

Paul was teaching about conscience and the stumbling of weak christians by the strong ones.

@ second bold. If you read the verses you will note that paul said not all have the knowledge and thus have a different view on eating meat sacrificed to idols. You who has the full knowledge of these idols should guide against ur actions and not confuse these weak ones.
Those weak ones might go and follow you to eat this meat out of inacurate knowledge, they might feel its right to eat the meat while still feeling the idols as significant.
Do not stumble others,expecially the weak ones cus we have a better knowledge of things and thus feel its right to do them.
You sin when you stumble others.
that's what paul is trying to tell us
3rd bold, you seem to forget that the reason that jehovah purnished and condemed idol worship is not because of the source or type of material used in making the idol, but because of what the idol is being used for.

The use of these images means something cus it challenges the supreme authority of God, the right to our worship as creator and supreme being.

malvisguy212:
concerning Food sacrifice to idol, how did Paul solve this issue ? 1 Cor. 8:1-13.

1. I do not see the correlation between your question , the topic and my post.

2. Paul is encouraging us to give consideration to those who might be stumbled by our actions, even though our actions are not wrong, for example, eating of food sacrificed to idols.

gimakon:
ISIS Struggles with Libya, Syria, Iraq.
Al Shabab struggles with Kenya, Ethiopia, Somalia
Al Qaeda Struggles with USA, Britain, Israel, France.
Hamas struggles with Israel, Lebanon.
Hezbollah struggles with Israel.
Al nusra front struggles with Israel, USA, Britain and the entire west.
Abhishek (abi what's the name) struggles with America
Boko haram struggles with Chad, Nigeria, Cameroon,Mali, Central African Republic


I just named a few. One religion produces different sect. Is this the way your Imam asks you to preach peace?

I dnt know the specific way imam preaches peace but I think they copy their history.
1. Be peaceable when you are not many or dnt have clout.
2. Demand for ur views to be adhered to when you are many enough.
3. Demand more with vigour when you are strong enough , either through strenght in population or political authority.
4. Command that the condition peace be held if you are strong enough to enforce it.

This situations are however determined by geography and population index. History has shown that that's the procedure for the propagation of peace.

business4all:
What about the use of musical instruments. Be it for personal use or church use. It's use was associated with paganism. Pagans were the first to use musical instruments. Early Christians avoided it. Some churches today use only their clapping because of that, for example, Church of Christ.

1. If you read the scriptures, you would have seen that different musical instruments was used by servants of jehovah. Both on earth and in heaven.

though its use is not the same as its used by most churches today.

2. Can you tell me how you came about this statement "early christians avoided it"?

3. I dnt know about how church of Christ compose and sing their songs of praise.

Through personal experience, experience of others, historical events and present day news on TV and newspapers, I've seen that the religion is a religion of peace . The only bad part is that the peace is conditional and the terms are wholly set by the religion.
Ones the terms and condition are not met by the other party.............(I dnt need to tell you what happens next)

God wants to protect his servants, but the servants too must be willing to abide by Gods directives. The creations of a religious practise and belief devoid of scriptural guidance will only allow Satan a chance to make us do the wrong things.

If you think you are smarter than the devil and try to create a celebration out of his own celebration, the result is what we see today in the world.

Its funny how people justify the christmass celebration.
1. You are celebrating an occassion without prior instruction to do so. You feel you could do so cus its for someone important in the Christian world and you have a right to choose a day for it.
2. Instead of even trying to get a date close to the actual event, you choose a date far off the mark.
3. The date choseen is not only far off the mark, it goes against all scriptural markers for that period in which the event occurred.
4. To make matters worse, that date is previously been used for the same type of celebration even though it was for a false God.
5. To make matters even more worse, the practise, process ways at which you do this celebration is same or similar to that of the pagan God.

As you did ojoro for the pagan God to snatch its own celebration under its nose, the pagan God is now doing ojoro to snatch his celebration back. You can see that from the debauchery and festivities associated with christmass. And also the reasons why most people do any bad thing throughout the year just to be able to celebrate it with parties and merriment.

Christmass is a perfect example of Christian association with paganism. The modification of pagan ideas to make it look good in the eyes of God. God sees through all these.

parisbookaddict:
Merry Christmas buddy.. This is front page worth. lalasticlala OAM4J take note.

Brilliant write up and analysis as usual.

There are several things we do today that evolved from pagan civilization besides the days of the week ; including the Hindu-Arabic numerals aka our numbering system. I wonder if the overzealous deeper lifers and jh know this.

Christmas is a day set aside to celebrate christ's birth. A huge surge in charity donations and selfless services happen on this day. A happy period celebrated by billions and a lot of parents get to see their children(with their grand kids) who have been away all year making a living.


Yet some ignorant people come out to say its a sin to celebrate it.

At bold, Is there any religious practise or rites or observance that comes from the things you mentioned above.?

Richirich713:
What are ur views about Isaiah seeing Yahweh Almighty, do u agree with John that Isaiah saw Jesus?

Hope you dnt expect me to first read the whole book of Isaiah and john! To look for where Isaiah said he saw yaweh .!
Pls quote the verse(s)

@ malvisguy, hope you will reply me in ur next post on this thread. And I hope you will comment and share your view on Richirich beliefs.

Again I repeat, always show which part of my post you are quoting by replying directly under the quote.

Jolliano:
1. BROTHERS.
Let me help you expand your list. So we can use in context and not individual verses.

Matt 12:46–50, Luke 8:19-22 and Mark 3:31-35.
In all these readings, Jesus when replying also says brothers and mothers but never mentions sisters. Either Jesus is saying the Kingdom of God is for males only or the word “BROTHERS” refers to both sexes and that would go back to the actual interpretation of adelphos as kinsmen which is what you are trying to deny.

We already know all the possible meanings of brothers and adelphos. What it means in each individual verse is what we are discussing. This you have failed to do. I quoted the verses and told you what it meant.

1. It seems you dnt read the scriptures .
Mark 3:35
Whoever does the will of God, this one is my brother
and sister and mother.

2. You keep on destroying your own views with your own words . Parts of your statement says : "and that would go back to the actual interpretation of adelphos as kinsmen which is what you are trying to deny.

Did jesus call them "brothers and mothers" cus they where his kinsmen?! If not, why do you use those verses to defend adelphos as being used for kinsmen?

its his step brothers that came along with their mother. They would not be moving around so often with someone else mother.

John 2:11-12.
Jesus traveled with his mother, brothers and disciples. I wonder why the same brothers who disbelieved him were travelling with him. This does not prove that they were biological brothers.

1. They travelled together cus they are family, all children of the same mother who was also present.
2. They travelled together cus they where all going in the same direction, all coming from the same direction.
The verses helps to understand that they all went to the same wedding in cana, that is why they all travelled from there.

3. The import of why I quoted that verse is lost on you. You failed to see that the verse mentioned disciples so as to prove that those brothers where not his spiritual brothers.
You also fail to see that once again , they where with jesus biological mother! Wonder why they are so close if its not because she is their biological mother. Cus as at that time, they dnt believe in jesus.

Matthew 13:55-56.
List the names of Jesus’ brothers and sisters. Does not say they are his blood brothers and sisters?

Maybe you where expecting their date of birth to be included.
In your own case, no use of the word brothers refer to biological brothers right?

ADELPHOS
Matthew 23:8, Jesus says you are all brothers and sisters. So all of them came from the same parents now abi?

Who was jesus talking to when he made that statement? He was talking to the crowds who where listening to his words and then to his disciples.
In fact on translation said "his followers".
Matt 23:1.
[b]Then Jesus spoke to the
crowds and to his disciples, saying.

Are jesus disciples brothers ? Yes , in a spiritual sense and not through blood or kinship.

I never said Matt 28:8 used adelphos cus they where all from same parent(s) and you have not proved their relationship.
The meaning of the word brothers here is same as when jesus told us who his mother and brothers and sisters are.

Acts 1:14-15.
This is how you contradict yourself and your arguments.
Apostles(12), Mary(1), some women(let’s assume they were twenty) and his brothers(X) = 120.
This means the brothers were about 87 in number.
Now either you accept that the brothers were family relatives or you explain to us how Mary gave birth to the about 87 children who were grown up when Jesus the first son just died at the age of 33/34.

1. You view is flawed, ur data on women is incomplete or innacurate, dnt use selective assumptions to come up with a theory.

2.if you do read the scriptures , you would have understood it.
Verse 15 is not talking about those who prayed or those in the upper room, it was talking about peters speech to those present.

During those days Peter
stood up in the midst of the
brothers (the number of people
was altogether about 120) and
said:

If you have read and quoted the scriptures, you would have seen that the verse began with "during those days" to signify that there was time difference consisting of days between when they came back and prayed and when peter made his speech. The number and qualification of people in the house would have changed. They would have been joined by others.

Now does the number 120 consist of only the step brothers of jesus, mary and jesus disciples. ? No.
The number 120 is the number of people present during peters speech and the verse did not mention who they were. That the verse use persons/people instead of brothers when mentioning numbers shows that some present where not brothers yet.
But does other verses add qualifications for people present other than brothers , disciples, women or mary? Yes
Verse 16 .
King James Bible
Men and brethren, this
scripture must needs have
been fulfilled, which the Holy
Ghost by the mouth of David
spake before concerning
Judas, which was guide to
them that took Jesus.

Verse 21
[b]Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us.

The selection of an apostle was focal point of peters speech.

1 Cor 9:5
After mentioning apostles, it would only be logical to mention disciples. So brothers of the Lord would be disciples and not blood brothers. Why would Paul be making references to Jesus’ blood brothers and not mention the disciples whom Jesus said were his brothers?

But the verse did not mention disciples, it mentioned the "lords brothers ". This mention was made for a reason , read the verse again know the reason why lords brothers was mentioned and not disciples.

Gal 1:19
Still, James the less. Son of Alphaeus (Clopas). Not a blood brother of Jesus.

It was james the half brother of jesus!

All these talk of Jesus blood brothers converting to disciples and apostles is not mentioned in the bible. So are you no longer s Sola Scriptura guy?

That the half brothers of jesus where present in the upper room with their mother shows they had accepted jesus. Remember jesus personally appeared to his step brother after his ressurection, in a similar understanding as that of paul.

What's sola scriptura guy?

Also, you falsely accuse St Jerome (who was in charge of translating the whole bible) of inventing a tradition and not referencing anyone earlier. Abeg show us one person before 383AD who taught or wrote that the brothers are blood brothers of Jesus.

Very funny request. Did you not read my post at all .
Let me show you again :

The majority of Bible scholars accept the cumulative
evidence that Jesus had at
least four brothers and two
sisters and that all were
offspring of Joseph and Mary
by natural means after the
miraculous birth of Jesus.
The arbitrary notions that
these brothers of Jesus were
sons of Joseph by a former
marriage, or by levirate
marriage with Joseph’s sister-
in-law, must be classified as
fictitious, since there is no
factual confirmation or even a
suggestion to this effect in the
Scriptures. The claim that
“brother” (a•del•phosʹ) here
means “cousin” (a•ne•psi•osʹ)
is a theoretical contention, the
invention of which is credited
to Jerome, and dates back no
earlier than 383 C.E

You did not show prove of the false accusation and you are now asking me to show you prove that I have been showing repeatedly since.!
The scriptures has explained to us the status of brothers in each of its mentions in the greek scriptures, non of them means cousin.!
You now want explanation on
Blood brothers by people during that time when the state church would have done bad things to them and burn the books. The scritures is a good enough example.

2. first born?
The greek word used in Luke is Protokon which occurs only thrice in the bible and does not in any place speak about a second child.

Whoever opens the womb is called firstborn both biblically and historically. Read Exodus 13:1-2.

In verse 7, the word “firstborn” (protokon) is particularly noteworthy. This term had above all a juridical-legal meaning, and designated the “firstborn” who was to be offered to God for his ransom (Ex 13:1-6; Num 3:12-13; 8:5-26; 18:15-16), who had the right to his father’s first and most important blessing, and who received a double inheritance in comparison to other sons. Therefore, the first son was called firstborn even if there were no other sons after him.

your refusal to quote the other two occurence shows you are hiding something.
Now let's see the other 2 occurence of prōtotokon in the scriptures.

1. Rom 8:29
because those whom he
gave his first recognition he also foreordained to be patterned after the image of his Son, so that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.
Do you see that he was firstborn cus they where others involved? This others being also sons of God! (read verse 14, 16,17 and 19)
Jesus would have been called only son if there where no other sons sharing such similar sonship with jesus.
Key word: among!
The firstborn is an elevated position, but there must be others before such elevation can occur. So as to differenciate your position from theirs.

2 Heb 1:6
But when he again brings his Firstborn into the inhabited
earth, he says: “And let all of
God’s angels do obeisance to
him.”

Angels are also sons of God in which jesus has become
better than the angels to the
extent that he has inherited a
name more excellent than theirs.(verse 4).
If the angels where not equally Gods sons, there will not be any need for jesus to be called firstborn!

Applying this to Luke 2:7 points to the fact that the writer acknowledges and knows that mary had other children , hence making jesus the first from the group of children.

You can never be first if there is no group.
You can never be elevated if there are no companions of similar heritage to be elevated above.
You can never firstborn if there are no other born(s)!(dnt mind the English).

3. Until.
The greek word for until is “heos”. Check through everywhere it is used. It means to, unto, till and until. They are used interchangeably.

1. Strong's Concordance
heós: till, until
Original Word: ἕως
Part of Speech: Adverb
Short Definition: until, as far
as
Definition: (a) conj: until, (b)
prep: as far as, up to, as much as, until.

2. NAS Exhaustive Concordance
Definition: till, until

Thayer's Greek Lexicon
STRONGS NT 2193: ἕως
ἕως, A particle marking a limit,

(Latindonee,usquedum); as in
the best writings a. with an
preterite indicative, where
something is spoken of which
continued up to a certain time:

Do not let me and other readers search the scriptures endlessly for what you already know, pls show us where "heos" is translated to mean "to" in the Scriptures.

Matthew 11:12 uses until and it does not connote that something different will occur in heaven.

The question to you is, did something different occur in the way people seek the kingdom when Christ came?
The answer to that question will help you understand "until", as used by jesus.

And yes, Jesus was still in heaven even when he was present in Earth.

Show prove that why jesus was on earth, he was also present in heaven! Failure to do so shows that you just lied.

My question is based on jesus coming. Was he still sitted at Gods right hand?

There are mentions of God meeting Moses on a mountain. Would you say God left heaven to come talk to Moses?

Show scripture! , then we examine.

4. Jerome.

You are using someone’s lie to argue against Jerome. This is Jerome’s response to Helvidius. Just in case you did not know, Helvidius is only known because of this letter Jerome wrote.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3007.htm

If Jerome invented the cousin/
relative talk, how come Helvidius who was “teaching the truth” was not known and at the same time, show us one early Christian who shared Helvidius’ theory?[/quote]Pls show me where I used helvidius lie o!

Read my post again and see what I posted, who I quoted and where the quote came from.
Note: the quote is not the basis for my belief or posts, its
Just to enlighten you to some facts.

5. quotes from church fathers on Mary’s perpetual virginity.

Origen
The Book [the Protoevangelium] of James [records] that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who say so wish to preserve the honor of Mary in virginity to the end, so that body of hers which was appointed to minister to the Word . . . might not know intercourse with a man after the Holy Spirit came into her and the power from on high overshadowed her. And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the first fruit among men of the purity which consists in [perpetual] chastity, and Mary was among women. For it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the first fruit of virginity (Commentary on Matthew 2:17 [A.D. 248]).

Hilary of Poitiers
If they [the brethren of the Lord] had been Mary's sons and not those taken from Joseph's former marriage, she would never have been given over in the moment of the passion [crucifixion] to the apostle John as his mother, the Lord saying to each, "Woman, behold your son," and to John, "Behold your mother" [John 19:26-27], as he bequeathed filial love to a disciple as a consolation to the one desolate (Commentary on Matthew 1:4 [A.D. 354]).

Athanasius
Let those, therefore, who deny that the Son is by nature from the Father and proper to his essence deny also that He took true human flesh from the ever-virgin Mary (Discourses against the Arians 2:70 [A.D. 360]).

We believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of all things, both visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God . . . who for us men and for our salvation came down and took flesh, that is, was born perfectly of the holy ever-virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit (The Man Well-Anchored 120 [A.D. 374]).

It helps us to understand the terms "firstborn" and "only begotten" when the Evangelist tells that Mary remained a virgin "until she brought forth her firstborn son" [Matt. 1:25]; for neither did Mary, who is to be honored and praised above all others, marry anyone else, nor did she ever become the mother of anyone else, but even after childbirth she remained always and forever an immaculate virgin" (The Trinity 3:4 [A.D. 386]).[/quote]What do you expect your church fathers to say na. Do you expect them to say the truth and lose their position, wealth, power and authority?


Lastly: there are a lot of my posts and points which you deliberately ommitted in ur attempt to attack my views.
Ill encourage you to at least try to explain what something means when you are trying to prove me wrong.

And pls dnt tell me to look for any church fathers again, jesus has told us that that title or position is fake and false and came out of mans fleshly desires.

Imagine, expecting me to look for church fathers to support my views when everyone knows what happened to to those who had contrary views to the state church.