Posted on 12/26/2009 6:09:29 AM PST by markomalley
Each Christmas, Christians tell stories about the poor baby Jesus born in a lowly manger because there was no room in the inn.
But the Rev. C. Thomas Anderson, senior pastor of the Living Word Bible Church in Mesa, Arizona, preaches a version of the Christmas story that says baby Jesus wasn't so poor after all.
Anderson says Jesus couldn't have been poor because he received lucrative gifts -- gold, frankincense and myrrh -- at birth. Jesus had to be wealthy because the Roman soldiers who crucified him gambled for his expensive undergarments. Even Jesus' parents, Mary and Joseph, lived and traveled in style, he says.
"Mary and Joseph took a Cadillac to get to Bethlehem because the finest transportation of their day was a donkey," says Anderson. "Poor people ate their donkey. Only the wealthy used it as transportation."
Many Christians see Jesus as the poor, itinerant preacher who had "no place to lay his head." But as Christians gather around the globe this year to celebrate the birth of Jesus, another group of Christians are insisting that Jesus' beginnings weren't so humble.
They say that Jesus was never poor -- and neither should his followers be. Their claim is embedded in the doctrine known as the prosperity gospel, which holds that God rewards the faithful with financial prosperity and spiritual gifts.
A clash of gospels?
The prosperity gospel has attracted plenty of critics. But popular televangelists such as the late Oral Roberts, Kenneth Hagin and, today, Creflo Dollar have built megachurches and a global audience by equating piety with prosperity.
(Excerpt) Read more at edition.cnn.com ...
When it expands to dozens of posts, it can be considered an obsession.
...with the JoA myth pervades in two realms - those studying the myths associated with King Author (whom JoA is associated) / holy grail OR Anglo-Israeli groups, many also hold to tenants of CI
. Don't include me in those generalities.
Only an observation based upon my research over the past day. The above are the only ones who lend any credibility to the myth, as you are.
So. Historians also dismiss Jesus. Ever watch the history channel? You'd think Jesus was just an intelligent orator and nothing else.
So, they don't try to make up stories about his life either.
And we all know all historians agree on everything.
When it comes to the point at hand, there is pretty good agreement - historian touching the JoA story refer to it as a myth or legend. Same for Christian history who trace the initial arrival of Christianity to post Roman invasion, who by the time of Tertullian (150 years later) had pushed out of the Roman enclave throughout England and Ireland (where ever that pesty citation is ACTUALLY found).
If those monks were making up fiction about Jesus and Joseph, why didn't monks from all other areas also make up stories about Jesus' youth? Why is it that British monks are the only ones that can come up with good forgeries? What is your evidence that they are forgeries in the first place?
At the time the myths appeared, there was a schism developing between Britain and Rome, these myths were written to give greater 'authority' to Britain. I've already cited ancient scrolls of Jesus in India. Gnostic writings of the 2d century produce alleged stories. So the monks are not the only ones with myth making ability. Evidence for forgeries? Where is the pre-myth documentation - textural traditions. How do the 'history' produced in these documents match provable events - they don't. If they don't match that which can be confirmed, their veracity on other matters is highly suspect. Context of the greater historical period show falseness in the story. And it is these HIGHLY questionable 'documents' that discuss the JoA myth. Factually, there are multiple ways that Christianity spread in to the British isles.
When it expands to dozens of posts, it can be considered an obsession.
...with the JoA myth pervades in two realms - those studying the myths associated with King Author (whom JoA is associated) / holy grail OR Anglo-Israeli groups, many also hold to tenants of CI
. Don't include me in those generalities.
Only an observation based upon my research over the past day. The above are the only ones who lend any credibility to the myth, as you are.
So. Historians also dismiss Jesus. Ever watch the history channel? You'd think Jesus was just an intelligent orator and nothing else.
So, they don't try to make up stories about his life either.
And we all know all historians agree on everything.
When it comes to the point at hand, there is pretty good agreement - historian touching the JoA story refer to it as a myth or legend. Same for Christian history who trace the initial arrival of Christianity to post Roman invasion, who by the time of Tertullian (150 years later) had pushed out of the Roman enclave throughout England and Ireland (where ever that pesty citation is ACTUALLY found).
If those monks were making up fiction about Jesus and Joseph, why didn't monks from all other areas also make up stories about Jesus' youth? Why is it that British monks are the only ones that can come up with good forgeries? What is your evidence that they are forgeries in the first place?
At the time the myths appeared, there was a schism developing between Britain and Rome, these myths were written to give greater 'authority' to Britain. I've already cited ancient scrolls of Jesus in India. Gnostic writings of the 2d century produce alleged stories. So the monks are not the only ones with myth making ability. Evidence for forgeries? Where is the pre-myth documentation - textural traditions. How do the 'history' produced in these documents match provable events - they don't. If they don't match that which can be confirmed, their veracity on other matters is highly suspect. Context of the greater historical period show falseness in the story. And it is these HIGHLY questionable 'documents' that discuss the JoA myth. Factually, there are multiple ways that Christianity spread in to the British isles.
Neither am I, but I found the reference a loooooong time ago. You want to push the historical, you need to get a grip on how to read the source documentation, rather than rely on quote mining pasted into a theologically and historically questionable narrative. Tertullian cited the spread of Christianity into Britain - 150 or so years since Christ - but absolutely NO citation how it spread there. Yet in that same period Christianity had spread across Europe and N. Africa WITHOUT having to resort to sly mythologies.
So lessee - you've provided mythologies from the middle ages as 'primary' source material, rebunked and considered fictional by real historians.
You've provide tons of arguments from silence which have been rebuked by the Bible itself in its narrative.
So tell me PG, when will I see REAL evidences and REAL historical documentation. Which ancient documents should I rely upon.
If not for answering replies it would have been a two-line post.
Only an observation based upon my research over the past day. The above are the only ones who lend any credibility to the myth, as you are.
Don't include me in those generalities.
So, they don't try to make up stories about his life either.
Artifacts, logic, and evidence is not "making it up".
When it comes to the point at hand, there is pretty good agreement - historian touching the JoA story refer to it as a myth or legend. Same for Christian history who trace the initial arrival of Christianity to post Roman invasion, who by the time of Tertullian (150 years later) had pushed out of the Roman enclave throughout England and Ireland (where ever that pesty citation is ACTUALLY found).
As I said, historians also dismiss Jesus.
At the time the myths appeared, there was a schism developing between Britain and Rome, these myths were written to give greater 'authority' to Britain.
Why just Britain?
I've already cited ancient scrolls of Jesus in India.
Which is illogical because India and Tibet did not become Christian strongholds.
Gnostic writings of the 2d century produce alleged stories.
Again, unsupported by events.
So the monks are not the only ones with myth making ability.
Historical evidence shows it was no myth. The history supports their claims, that's where the mines were.
Evidence for forgeries? Where is the pre-myth documentation - textural traditions.
There's no doubt tin was mined there for thousands of years. The connection between the area Joseph hailed from and Cornwall is established through the Phoenicians.
How do the 'history' produced in these documents match provable events - they don't.
Tin mines, Phoenicians, rise of Christianity so fast as to compete with Rome...it's there.
If they don't match that which can be confirmed, their veracity on other matters is highly suspect. Context of the greater historical period show falseness in the story. And it is these HIGHLY questionable 'documents' that discuss the JoA myth. Factually, there are multiple ways that Christianity spread in to the British isles.
It was a heck of a rise, faster than anywhere else.
“. . . what kind of inheritance do you believe God has to offer?”
Whatever He chooses. Sometimes prosperity. Sometimes martyrdom.
What 'artifacts', what physical evidence is there showing JoA in Britain BEFORE the church was even established in Rome. What kind of logic is based upon fiction - other than star trek. What 'evidence' - other than fictional accounts.
As I said, historians also dismiss Jesus.
You citation showed that while the History channel avoided Jesus' supernatural claims, they did not dismiss his person in Israel NOR did they place him in some other portion of the world.
Which is illogical because India and Tibet did not become Christian strongholds.
"Doctrines of the Apostles" (2d Century) states "India and all its own countries and those bordering it, even to the farthest sea, received the Apostle's Hand of Priesthood from Judas Thomas, who was the Guide and Ruler in the Church which he built there and ministered there."
Sounds like early Christianity found fertile ground there as well during the same time frame.
There's no doubt tin was mined there for thousands of years. The connection between the area Joseph hailed from and Cornwall is established through the Phoenicians.
Show the physical, archaeological evidence that JoA established Christianity in the way so described. Supposition is no substitute for physical evidence, myth and legend are not equivalent to facts and archaeological evidence. Are you able to prove your point without supposition or begging the point? We have yet to see.
Why just Britain?
No doubt there were others, but in this case study the history of the kings of Britain and you'll see efforts to raise their stature over those of their neighbors (and vice versa) and a myth suggesting AD37 establishment of the church in England would enhance their status. It was also a period of relics and pilgrimages - and that claim would bring the pilgrims in (and their money) as well as status. The reasons are numerous - you'd do well to study them more.
Tin mines, Phoenicians, rise of Christianity so fast as to compete with Rome...it's there.
Sad to uphold fiction as fact. Christianity spread very rapidly across ALL of Europe, and nothing indicates or supports an explosive growth in England. Christianity took advantage of the Pax Romania to grow throughout Europe - including the British isles, growth there did not exceed growth throughout the rest of the empire.
It was a heck of a rise, faster than anywhere else.
Again, supposition lacking facts but relying on faery tales. Prove it with sources outside myth. The first physical evidence of Christianity in England is from the late 2nd century AD. It wasn't until Emperor Constantine granted freedom of worship to Christians and during the 4th century Christianity became widespread in England. If you bother to look at broader church history, you will see that this was the case throughout the Roman empire - not just England alone.
Martyrdom is not an inheritance - it’s a choice.
I guess it's up for each man to discern what is myth and what is history. You believe that Jesus was ministorially inactive untill the age of thirty, I don't. Since I don't I look for evidence. The history of the area, the rise of Christianity in the area, the mercantile history and the local evidence and artifacts show me that Joseph of Arimathea is a main character is Jesus' whole life. God gave him the talent for business and the family connection to Jesus to allow Jesus to spread the Word to the outposts so that when Jesus had to fulfill his mission in the cultural centers there would be a population away from the cultural centers ready to a accept it and spread it so that it would eventually make it's way into the cultural centers. It's the same that is happening now in our country and conservatism. We can't put Sarah or any other conservative in the White house through the cultural centers, it has to be done in the more rural areas. Nothing has changed in 2000 years regarding the inability of a lot of city dwellers to see real truth past their busy lives.
So lessee - you've provided mythologies from the middle ages as 'primary' source material, rebunked and considered fictional by real historians. You've provide tons of arguments from silence which have been rebuked by the Bible itself in its narrative. So tell me PG, when will I see REAL evidences and REAL historical documentation. Which ancient documents should I rely upon.
As I said earlier...discernment and wisdom. Does it make sense that Jesus would have been ministorially inactive until 30? No. Does it make sense that Joseph would not have been related to Jesus and still claim the body after everyone else had fled? No. Does it make sense that Britain was such a stronghold for the teachings of Christ so fast without being primed beforehand? No. Does it make sense that anyone besides those from around where Phoenicia would have known how to run the tin mines? No. These were mines and they were Celtic outposts so documentation may be hard to come by...the Celts weren't big on scribes...but the logic, history, and the artifacts show that this is true. Is the Jewish Talmud a forgery? It states that Joseph was an uncle to Mary.
Hebrew names of place around where there would have been mines. Ancient carvings and paintings.
You citation showed that while the History channel avoided Jesus' supernatural claims, they did not dismiss his person in Israel NOR did they place him in some other portion of the world.
If they can't even get that he's the son of God correct, then why listen to them?
"Doctrines of the Apostles" (2d Century) states "India and all its own countries and those bordering it, even to the farthest sea, received the Apostle's Hand of Priesthood from Judas Thomas, who was the Guide and Ruler in the Church which he built there and ministered there." Sounds like early Christianity found fertile ground there as well during the same time frame.
You're saying India was a Christian nation then?
Show the physical, archaeological evidence that JoA established Christianity in the way so described. Supposition is no substitute for physical evidence, myth and legend are not equivalent to facts and archaeological evidence. Are you able to prove your point without supposition or begging the point? We have yet to see.
An old Welsh manuscript refers to Joseph was "decurion". That is a minister of mines.
No doubt there were others, but in this case study the history of the kings of Britain and you'll see efforts to raise their stature over those of their neighbors (and vice versa) and a myth suggesting AD37 establishment of the church in England would enhance their status. It was also a period of relics and pilgrimages - and that claim would bring the pilgrims in (and their money) as well as status. The reasons are numerous - you'd do well to study them more.
So not an honest man to be found in Britain at the time. Why is it the British lie so much more than anyone else?
Sad to uphold fiction as fact. Christianity spread very rapidly across ALL of Europe, and nothing indicates or supports an explosive growth in England. Christianity took advantage of the Pax Romania to grow throughout Europe - including the British isles, growth there did not exceed growth throughout the rest of the empire.Again, supposition lacking facts but relying on faery tales. Prove it with sources outside myth. The first physical evidence of Christianity in England is from the late 2nd century AD. It wasn't until Emperor Constantine granted freedom of worship to Christians and during the 4th century Christianity became widespread in England. If you bother to look at broader church history, you will see that this was the case throughout the Roman empire - not just England alone.
Several papal councils starting with Pisa concluded that Britain was the first to accept Christianity.
So what's your story? Why are you so passionate about disproving Jesus ministered before the age of thirty or that Joseph of Arimathea was uncle to Jesus?
And every man doeth what is right in their own eyes. . . .
Since I don't I look for evidence. The history of the area, the rise of Christianity in the area, the mercantile history and the local evidence and artifacts show me that Joseph of Arimathea is a main character is Jesus' whole life.
And once again, you cite 'evidence' and artifacts - citation for critical review of these items. So far you've provided nothing capable of supporting you assertions here. I'll wait, but since you cannot even cite source documentation for Tertullian, I figure it will be a long wait to see proper citation of these 'evidences and artifacts'.
It's the same that is happening now in our country and conservatism. We can't put Sarah. . . .
This is a laughingly crude comparison if it weren't so wrong at its fundamental levels. You cannot even tell me why I should believe Jesus spent 18 or so years in England when the same category of "evidences and artifacts" tell me he spent those years in India.
As I said earlier...discernment and wisdom.
Or in the case of those who believe the JoA myth - neither are in action.
Does it make sense that Jesus would have been ministorially inactive until 30?
He would have learned the trade of his earthly father over that period of time. He was known as a Nazarthene because he grew up in Nazareth. His baptism in the Jordan was his commissioning for his earthly ministry. This was the age required by the law, to which the priests must arrive before they could be installed in their office: (Nu 4:3). Jesus made it clear that his ministry was first to the jews and later to the gentiles - your myth places it bassackwards.
No, what IS present is the complete absence of any archaeological finds, but an ignorance of history by those adherents of this myth, the straining of credulity and a complete misunderstanding of the Judaism of Jesus' day & of the external and internal veracity of the New Testament records.
Is the Jewish Talmud a forgery? It states that Joseph was an uncle to Mary.
The same Talmud refers to Jesus being the illegitimate son of Mary and a roman named Pandira. While it does contain some confirmatory materials, it further contains other lies about Jesus. It was written between the second and fifth century, during a period of Jewish efforts to counter the gospel message. Secondly, you need to look up the definition of the word "forgery" , for you are misapplying it here. Because of its adversarial bent against Christianity, materials therein are suspect - and most scholars don't tout the citation because it is highly suspect.
Citations and pictures por favor
You're saying India was a Christian nation then?
There was a time in the early church Christianity got a foot hold. It held in England and the rest of Europe because of the Roman empire - that was not the case in India. But the report I cited to you states similar points as your (still to be located) quote by Tertullian. Not to hard to see the comparison if one bothers to read.
An old Welsh manuscript refers to Joseph was "decurion". That is a minister of mines.
You probably have your sources all mixed up again. Cite the manuscript - links do work here. But if is referring to the latin - it only describes a military officer in the Roman infantry or cavalry OR member of a Roman city or town council. A member of the Sanhedren would not be either.
So not an honest man to be found in Britain at the time. Why is it the British lie so much more than anyone else?
Oh, cry me a river time. The problem is - show me a MS from the period that says so - not what is widely acknowledged as a myth/fiction nearly 1000 years later.
Several papal councils starting with Pisa concluded that Britain was the first to accept Christianity.
Then I'm sure you can cite the specific councils. But wow, 1409 council of Pisa - really increases my confidence, how many years after the resurrection was that?.
So what's your story? Why are you so passionate about disproving Jesus ministered before the age of thirty or that Joseph of Arimathea was uncle to Jesus?
First it falsifies the Person, Nature and Work of Jesus. Jesus didn't study under Druids (who would be the 'teachers' in England at that time). Right, God the Son learning from Druids. Secondly, it is false history, based upon myth and legend, used to fortify heretical teachings of anglo-israel groups, including WWCOG and splnter groups. Finally, the scriptures make it clear that Jesus began his ministry at the age of 30 - not before.
What Joseph was and inferred to again is based upon unsubstantiated myth and legend originating in the middle ages - a thousand years or so after the resurrection. So if ya want to believe the world is flat, go right ahead FRiend. However since you have so far been incapable of providing concrete evidence that JoA went to England, or any other portions of the immediate story - it remains that - an unsubstantiated myth.
That's all I done is cite evidence. That claiming of the body, the trade route, the mines, Britain's quickness in Christianity, the papal councils, Joseph's title, Hebrew names in Britain, strangers tax, Nathanael, Phoenicians, Dan in ships.
This is a laughingly crude comparison if it weren't so wrong at its fundamental levels. You cannot even tell me why I should believe Jesus spent 18 or so years in England when the same category of "evidences and artifacts" tell me he spent those years in India.
If your discernment tells you India was on the same level as Britain in it's acceptance of Chritianity, then it's clear why you're not picking up on anything.
Or in the case of those who believe the JoA myth - neither are in action.
I'm not taking advise on discernment from anyone that says Britain and India were equally Christian.
He would have learned the trade of his earthly father over that period of time.
It took him 18 years to learn carpentry? And then after spending 18 years learning carpentry he was killed so he couldn't even apply all that learning? No, Jesus was gone with Joseph preparing people for the resurrection so that the outposts would immediately accept Christianiy.
He was known as a Nazarthene because he grew up in Nazareth. His baptism in the Jordan was his commissioning for his earthly ministry. This was the age required by the law, to which the priests must arrive before they could be installed in their office: (Nu 4:3). Jesus made it clear that his ministry was first to the jews and later to the gentiles - your myth places it bassackwards.
Gentiles = Rome. Jews were first all right, the ones around the mines in the outposts.
The same Talmud refers to Jesus being the illegitimate son of Mary and a roman named Pandira. While it does contain some confirmatory materials, it further contains other lies about Jesus. It was written between the second and fifth century, during a period of Jewish efforts to counter the gospel message. Secondly, you need to look up the definition of the word "forgery" , for you are misapplying it here. Because of its adversarial bent against Christianity, materials therein are suspect - and most scholars don't tout the citation because it is highly suspect.
So the Jewish Talmud is lies and forgeries too? The Jewish Talmud cannot even get descendency correct? What about the papal coucils starting with Pisa? Liars and forgers also? Why would Catholics in Italy confirm that Britain was the first to receive Christianty if it is all lies and forgeries? You said earlier pilgrimmage caused everyone to lie and forge the story of Joseph, How would the Italian cardinals benefit from making Britain a place of pilgrimmage? You need to make a list of the liars and forgers versus the list of "real" historians so we can keep this straight.
Bojewyan, Trejewas, Hebrides, and Ebro to name a few.
There was a time in the early church Christianity got a foot hold. It held in England and the rest of Europe because of the Roman empire - that was not the case in India. But the report I cited to you states similar points as your (still to be located) quote by Tertullian. Not to hard to see the comparison if one bothers to read.
It held in England because that's where Jesus and Joseph went.
You probably have your sources all mixed up again. Cite the manuscript - links do work here. But if is referring to the latin - it only describes a military officer in the Roman infantry or cavalry OR member of a Roman city or town council. A member of the Sanhedren would not be either.
Why not?
Oh, cry me a river time. The problem is - show me a MS from the period that says so - not what is widely acknowledged as a myth/fiction nearly 1000 years later.
What about some of the Welsh manuscipts? Are you not aware of them?
Then I'm sure you can cite the specific councils. But wow, 1409 council of Pisa - really increases my confidence, how many years after the resurrection was that?.
Every piece of evidence you call a lie or a forgery. Even the Jewish Talmud descendency record.
First it falsifies the Person, Nature and Work of Jesus. Jesus didn't study under Druids (who would be the 'teachers' in England at that time). Right, God the Son learning from Druids.
Jesus certainly didn't study under anyone. He prepared the Jews working around the mines to accept Christianity right after the resurrection.
Secondly, it is false history, based upon myth and legend, used to fortify heretical teachings of anglo-israel groups, including WWCOG and splnter groups. Finally, the scriptures make it clear that Jesus began his ministry at the age of 30 - not before.
The preparations started much before that. What about His trip to Jerusalem when He was a child. When He spoke to the Rabbis He wasn't teaching?
What Joseph was and inferred to again is based upon unsubstantiated myth and legend originating in the middle ages - a thousand years or so after the resurrection.
No, there are Welsh sources long before that you apparently aren't aware of. Of course I'm sure they're just lies and forgeries.
So if ya want to believe the world is flat, go right ahead FRiend. However since you have so far been incapable of providing concrete evidence that JoA went to England, or any other portions of the immediate story - it remains that - an unsubstantiated myth.
It is a myth to anyone who won't consider any evidence anything other than lies and forgeries.
Mary was cousin to Elizabeth whose husband was a priest. Mary and Joseph had connections and were probably “middle class”.
Have you been in Britain lately? There is precious little Christianity going on there with the exception of the Catholic Church.
I'm not taking advise on discernment from anyone that says Britain and India were equally Christian.
I should say not. Right now, India is more Christian than Britain is.
And no, Jesus never went on a secret mission to Britain; nor did he hang out in the Himalayas with the mystics there. His mission was to the Jews and only to the Jews. He said so.
We're discussing the years immediately following the resurrection.
And no, Jesus never went on a secret mission to Britain;
It was no secret.
nor did he hang out in the Himalayas with the mystics there.
Tell GZ, that's his topic.
His mission was to the Jews and only to the Jews. He said so.
He never mentioned the Gentiles?
Only the armed forces and the political leadership in Rome had even heard of Britain. To postulate that Joseph of Arimathea, given that there is no documented evidence, is his uncle (or granduncle) and led him there on on some sort of mission, is silly on the surface, and simply not documented when one looks at it. Jesus didn't go to Britain; he hung out on the eastern end of the Med with the rabble rousers known as Jews. Which Pilate detested and was eventually convicted of excessive violence against them and exiled to Gaul.
He never mentioned the Gentiles?
Matthew 10: 5 Jesus sent out these twelve 4 after instructing them thus, "Do not go into pagan territory or enter a Samaritan town. 6 Go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
Matthew 15: 24 10 He said in reply, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."
It was the Apostles and the disciples that were sent to the world. Therefore, Jesus heading out on a mission before Scripture caught up with Him to Britain or anywhere else is ludicrous.
Only the armed forces and the political leadership in Rome had even heard of Britain. To postulate that Joseph of Arimathea, given that there is no documented evidence, is his uncle (or granduncle) and led him there on on some sort of mission, is silly on the surface, and simply not documented when one looks at it. Jesus didn't go to Britain; he hung out on the eastern end of the Med with the rabble rousers known as Jews. Which Pilate detested and was eventually convicted of excessive violence against them and exiled to Gaul.
He never mentioned the Gentiles?
Matthew 10: 5 Jesus sent out these twelve 4 after instructing them thus, "Do not go into pagan territory or enter a Samaritan town. 6 Go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
Matthew 15: 24 10 He said in reply, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."
It was the Apostles and the disciples that were sent to the world. Therefore, Jesus heading out on a mission before Scripture caught up with Him to Britain or anywhere else is ludicrous.
Which all add up to a big fat zero. As pointed out England was no quicker in Christianity than any other european country, papal councils 1400 years removed, title - still pending proof from obscure welsh ms, bla bla bla. These suddenly 'appear' AFTER the myth was created in 1000 or so.
If your discernment tells you India was on the same level as Britain in it's acceptance of Chritianity, then it's clear why you're not picking up on anything.
Wrong again PG, only shows the foolishness of accepting JoA myths at face value.
It took him 18 years to learn carpentry? And then after spending 18 years learning carpentry he was killed so he couldn't even apply all that learning? No, Jesus was gone with Joseph preparing people for the resurrection so that the outposts would immediately accept Christianiy.
Wow another incredible nonbiblical leap of the imagination. You've already been given indications on Jesus' background and why his ministry didn't begin until he was 30. The bible indicates that His ministry was directed to the Jews first, not the jews second. Finally, Jesus said it would be the Holy Spirit that prepared the way for the gospel, not his visitation to England.
Gentiles = Rome. Jews were first all right, the ones around the mines in the outposts.
|Bzzzt, you are missing on all cylinders today. Once again, Jesus' ministry was constrained by his mission to the Jews in Israel. If he had to go FIRST to all the other enclaves of Jews to prep them, why only to GB? Oh, yes, that anglo-israeli colored glasses again. FYI, the term 'gentile' was used of all non-jewish people - not just the romans.
So the Jewish Talmud is lies and forgeries too?
In some cases, yes (and of course NEVER check the definitions of your word use)
What about the papal coucils starting with Pisa? Liars and forgers also? Why would Catholics in Italy confirm that Britain was the first to receive Christianty if it is all lies and forgeries?
The don't make that claim today do they. Catholicism of the middle ages was far from being pristine and pure, but was corrupted by various leaders vying for power. (and of course, apart for Pisa - which council - there were at least two) It is not surprising that the myth of JoA "appears" in this time frame out of thin air.
You said earlier pilgrimmage caused everyone to lie and forge the story of Joseph, How would the Italian cardinals benefit from making Britain a place of pilgrimmage? You need to make a list of the liars and forgers versus the list of "real" historians so we can keep this straight.
Since you have failed completely to provide one single extant piece of physical documentation confirming the JoA myth - except vague reference to the myth itself - such a list would not be beneficial - since you wouldn't refer to it anyway. Do some historical research on pilgrimages of the middle ages and the funds paid to reduce one's time in purgatory, and the cut that went to Rome. Lutherism began in part due that corruption.
Which all add up to a big fat zero. As pointed out England was no quicker in Christianity than any other european country, papal councils 1400 years removed, title - still pending proof from obscure welsh ms, bla bla bla. These suddenly 'appear' AFTER the myth was created in 1000 or so.
If your discernment tells you India was on the same level as Britain in it's acceptance of Chritianity, then it's clear why you're not picking up on anything.
Wrong again PG, only shows the foolishness of accepting JoA myths at face value.
It took him 18 years to learn carpentry? And then after spending 18 years learning carpentry he was killed so he couldn't even apply all that learning? No, Jesus was gone with Joseph preparing people for the resurrection so that the outposts would immediately accept Christianiy.
Wow another incredible nonbiblical leap of the imagination. You've already been given indications on Jesus' background and why his ministry didn't begin until he was 30. The bible indicates that His ministry was directed to the Jews first, not the jews second. Finally, Jesus said it would be the Holy Spirit that prepared the way for the gospel, not his visitation to England.
Gentiles = Rome. Jews were first all right, the ones around the mines in the outposts.
|Bzzzt, you are missing on all cylinders today. Once again, Jesus' ministry was constrained by his mission to the Jews in Israel. If he had to go FIRST to all the other enclaves of Jews to prep them, why only to GB? Oh, yes, that anglo-israeli colored glasses again. FYI, the term 'gentile' was used of all non-jewish people - not just the romans.
So the Jewish Talmud is lies and forgeries too?
In some cases, yes (and of course NEVER check the definitions of your word use)
What about the papal coucils starting with Pisa? Liars and forgers also? Why would Catholics in Italy confirm that Britain was the first to receive Christianty if it is all lies and forgeries?
The don't make that claim today do they. Catholicism of the middle ages was far from being pristine and pure, but was corrupted by various leaders vying for power. (and of course, apart for Pisa - which council - there were at least two) It is not surprising that the myth of JoA "appears" in this time frame out of thin air.
You said earlier pilgrimmage caused everyone to lie and forge the story of Joseph, How would the Italian cardinals benefit from making Britain a place of pilgrimmage? You need to make a list of the liars and forgers versus the list of "real" historians so we can keep this straight.
Since you have failed completely to provide one single extant piece of physical documentation confirming the JoA myth - except vague reference to the myth itself - such a list would not be beneficial - since you wouldn't refer to it anyway. Do some historical research on pilgrimages of the middle ages and the funds paid to reduce one's time in purgatory, and the cut that went to Rome. Lutherism began in part due that corruption.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.