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.
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.
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.