any angle left uncovered in this topic?

[todd_vetter]

At the link is a study on the death and resurrection that appears to cover every possible angle of the death and resurrection with out speculation. Can anyone with knowlege on this topic see any area or verse of bible testimony or historical reference not illustrated in this study?

The objective is to make this the most complete and objective study on this topic to date.. it already stand way above the rest and uncovers many myths of the Christian world.

http://www.thedeathandresurection.com/pdf/gospel%20of%20holy%2012.pdf

Feel free to comment and make suggestions of what the study may be missing.

God Bless.

[Stewart (SDA)]

I am curious to know the source of these ideas.

They don't seem to come from the Bible...

"...Now Joseph was a just and rational Mind, and he was skilled in all manner of work in wood and in stone. And Mary was a tender and discerning Soul, and she wrought veils for the temple. And they were both pure before God; and of them both was Jesu-Maria who is called the Christ."

[Stewart (SDA)]

Are you introducing/offering another gospel of Scripture, Todd?

Stewart.

[Dr. Rich]

Todd, I have read this before and this is from a document that was written after what Luke and Matthew had written and the letters of Paul. It does not have any validated authorization and many scholors believe it was written as a combination of what others wrote and was filled in by the author(s) in an attempt to give credance to the Catholic Church's view that Mary was a God and that Jesus was an amalgamation of human dna and spiritual dna (if there is such a thing).

I also find it interesting that there are many conflicting disconnects between what is written here from the true eyewitnesses words.

However, more imporantly I suppose is that this writing has nothing to say about Revelation's events. To me it appears to be much like the 'Clear Word Bible' in that the words are just an opinion of what Jesus WOULD HAVE SAID verses what He really said.

It is also clear that the 'New Age Doctrine(s)' come about by many of the things in this writing. In fact, there are NEW books out there in regards to 'New Age' that have the same style of writing in them--very flowery and IF one did not study the words of Jesus given to us by ONLY His eyewitnesses first, one could easily form an opinion that what is said in these book are true.

Bottom line: Satan is a master at deception! And even though the truth is singular and absolute, it does not have many sides to it like a diamond! The God of Creation is not a god of confusion!

Dr. Rich

[BobRyan]

I am curious to know the source of these ideas.

They don't seem to come from the Bible...

"...Now Joseph was a just and rational Mind, and he was skilled in all manner of work in wood and in stone. And Mary was a tender and discerning Soul, and she wrought veils for the temple. And they were both pure before God; and of them both was Jesu-Maria who is called the Christ."

[todd_vetter]

You are correct that they are not from the bible but from a gospel which is verified more ancient and complete than the 4 Roman gospels we have in our bible today.

God has revealed a piece of our christian past to help us wake up.. Who today has an ear to hear?

[todd_vetter]

The validation of the document comes from being able to illustrate prophecy fulfilment where the bible falls short leaving the people of God divided and speculating on what Christ taught and accomplished. If you stop short of page 35 based on preconcieved perceptions of error built on Roman doctrine. You will never realize what it meant to find the other half of truth which reveals how all are born into deception and must come out of it.

[Dr. Rich]

Again Todd, who is it that was supposed to verify or validate this gospel? I will agree that there are many wonderful things found in this writing--but then a good counterfeit would do that. I don't have the time right now to provide much more input to all of this, but I will tell you this:

Please do not put much stock in this gospel. The very last paragraph is a warning not to change anything in it which is a clue as to the timeing of it's writing. Revelation was one of the last 'books' to be written and placed into the New Testament and it appears as though the writer took it upon himself to copy or use this same type of warning in order to try to keep people from thinking it was fake.

The writer has Jesus' parents being God which is good, but then the writer vacilates and states that Jesus is from the seed of Abraham and David. This could not possibly be true for if it were, then Jesus would have taken on sinful DNA from humans. Rev. 12 shows us that Jesus' real mother was the Holy Spirit and His real Father was God Almighty.

Don't give up your study though. It is good to see someone with a view that will ask questions that no one seems to want to answer.

Dr. Rich

[John317]

Again T the writer vacilates and states that Jesus is from the seed of Abraham and David. This could not possibly be true for if it were, then Jesus would have taken on sinful DNA from humans. Rev. 12 shows us that Jesus' real mother was the Holy Spirit and His real Father was God Almighty.

The Bible states clearly that the mother of the man Jesus of Nazareth was a virgin by the name of Mary. Luke 1: 43. It also states just as clearly that Jesus Christ our Lord was born of the seed of David according to the flesh. He was born of a woman. Romans 1: 3; Gal. 4: 4.

Explain how Rev. 12 shows that Jesus real mother was the Holy Spirit. Notice that Matt. 1: 18 specifically and clearly says that Mary was Jesus' mother. Verse 18 also shows that the conception was by, or through, or from (gk. "ek") the Holy Spirit.

If Jesus Christ was not born of the seed of David, then He is not the Messiah. One of the stipulations of prophecy is that the Messiah would be of the lineage of David, and the Bible clearly tells us that is exactly what happened. Compare 2 Sam. 7: 16; Jer. 30: 9; 33: 15, 26; Ezekiel 34: 23; and Luke 1: 31-33, 69, 70.

[Dr. Rich]

Did Jesus ever call Mary His mother? No! In fact the opposit is the truth. Granted, Mary was a mother to Jesus but there was no DNA from Mary that was in Jesus. Yes, women who have a baby today from an inplanted fetus are called 'mother'. But they could not be called the maternal mother.

Verse 1 of Rev. 12 tells us this Woman was in Heaven and neither Mary nor the church were ever in heaven so this rules them out. Verse 17 tells us this Woman's offspring (Her children) are the ones that Satan is angry with and it then tells us who these are: They keep the commandments AND have the testimony of Jesus (not Paul or Luke or Hebrews). Therefore, they are the ones that have/will overcome (Rev. 3:5) and have/will become born again by this Woman--the Holy Spirit.

Your verses given for Jesus to be the seed of David means that Jesus would be a King as David was a king. It is the linage of the king that was important. I also see that you very carefully left out Luke 1:35 where the angel told Mary HOW it would happen. That the Holy Spirit AND the MOST HIGH would work together (as Jesus' heavenly Parents, and place Jesus (as a fetus) into Mary.

[nuff sed]

Dr. Rich said,"there was no DNA from Mary that was in Jesus'

Then Jesus was not human at all. Only divine????

[John317]

Did Jesus ever call Mary His mother? No! In fact the opposit is the truth.

The apostle John, an eye-witness and someone who was very close to Jesus, specifically refers to Mary as Jesus' mother in John 19: 25, 26. Simply because we have no record of Jesus calling her "mother" is irrelevant. We also don't have a record of Jesus calling James or Jude "brother," but that fact is no proof that they were not his brothers.

Are you saying that because the NT does not record Jesus' using the word "mother" in reference to Mary, it means that Jesus never called her by that title? We may be certain that Jesus, like any son, would on occasion have called his mother by the title of "mother." This means that the fact we have no record of His doing so is simply due to their being no reason to record his having said it, just as there is no record of his having said or done many other ordinary things. An argument from silence is not very good grounds for arguing that Jesus never called Mary his "mother." cf. John 21: 25.

We may be sure Jesus called Joseph "father." Let's suppose the Bible recorded Jesus calling Joseph, "father." Would that mean Joseph was in fact his father? Of course not.

If we want to question whether Mary was Jesus' mother, we could do that even if Jesus called her "mother." Let's suppose he did call her "mother." In that case, it could be argued that he called her "mother" out of courtesy or out of habit or custom.

Therefore the fact that the Scriptures tell us plainly that Mary was Jesus' mother is much stronger testimony than Jesus' calling her "mother." After all, a person may call the step-mother, "mother."

Quote:

Granted, Mary was a mother to Jesus but there was no DNA from Mary that was in Jesus.

Besides the fact that the testimony of both the Bible and the writings of Ellen White are opposed to this view, in what sense was Jesus a real human being if he did not inherit DNA from any human being?

Do you believe Jesus was truly human? If so, what was the nature of His humanity?

How do you understand John 1: 14 which says clearly that the Word (the pre-existent, self-existent Christ) became flesh?

Hebrews 2: 17 tells us that "in all things He had to be made like His brethren," and Romans 8: 3 says that Jesus was "made in the likeness of sinful flesh."

Finally, Ellen White says that "He took human nature, and bore the infirmities and degeneracy of the race" (R & H, July 28, 1874). She also wrote, "Like every child of Adam, He (Christ) accepted the great law of heredity" (DA 49).

How did this happen if, as you claim, Jesus Christ did not inherit anything from either human parent?

I would be interested to know what you see as the purpose of Jesus' coming to this earth and why you believe that God would not allow Jesus Christ to inherit any human DA from his human mother.

[John317]

Dr. Rich said,"there was no DNA from Mary that was in Jesus'

Then Jesus was not human at all. Only divine????

It could be argued as some have that God made a special body for Christ, but if it by-passed all normal human DA-- that is, DNA such as all humans have-- Christ's humanity would not be truly human in any sense of the term. In that case, Christ would have looked human but He wouldn't have been human in any way that is recognizable to other humans. Satan would be right to call "foul" and protest that God was "cheating." The experience of Jesus would have been a fraud because it would have been nothing like Adam's either before the Fall or after the Fall. cf. Romans 5: 14; 8: 3. Personally I think this is the very kind of argument regarding Christ's nature that makes Satan take on a gleeful, wicked smile.

I could hear Satan laughing, ""Son of man! Ho-ho-ho! What a lark. Who does He think He's kidding?!!"

[John317]

Your verses given for Jesus to be the seed of David means that Jesus would be a King as David was a king. It is the linage of the king that was important.

Who, then, fulfilled the prophecies in the verses referred to?

I think your view that the Messiah would be "a king as David was a king" certainly fits in with the expectations of the Jews, but the Scriptures do not support that view when all of the OT prophecies are taken into consideration, as, for instance, Isaiah 53 and the prophecies in Zechariah and in the Psalms.

As I said before, if Jesus Christ was not born of the seed of David, then He is not the Messiah. This is a very important point. Because one of the stipulations of prophecy is that the Messiah would be of the lineage of David: Compare 2 Sam. 7: 16; Jer. 30: 9; 33: 15, 26; Ezekiel 34: 23; and Luke 1: 31-33, 69, 70.

Quote:

I also see that you very carefully left out Luke 1:35 where the angel told Mary HOW it would happen. That the Holy Spirit AND the MOST HIGH would work together (as Jesus' heavenly Parents, and place Jesus (as a fetus) into Mary.

You are wrong as to my motives in not referring to a particular verse.

Luke 1: 35 does not contradict Matt. 1: 18, 20. I believe the evidence is that God the Father willed for the pre-incarnate Word to be placed by the Holy Spirit in Mary's uterus. According to both the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy (i.e., the writings of Ellen White), this was done in such a way that Jesus Christ took the "seed," or the "heredity," of His human mother, Mary. If this did not happen, and if Jesus did not inherit any DA from Mary,-- since we know that he didn't inherit DNA from Joseph-- then it would make no sense for Matthew and Luke to give us the names of any human ancestors. Those lists would in that case be nothing less than fictions.

It's significant that Matt. 1: 25 specifically calls Jesus "her son" (Majority Text vs. Codices Vaticanus and Sinaiticus which read "a son."). This by itself would be relatively insignificant if it were not for all the other evidence pointing to Jesus as Mary's true progeny.

[Planey]

It could be argued as some have that God made a special body for Christ, but if it by-passed all normal human DA-- that is, DNA such as all humans have-- Christ's humanity would not be truly human in any sense of the term.

By using this argument you could also say that Adam was not truly human, couldn't you?

Graeme

[Dr. Rich]

It should be remembered that the SDA church's view on this is that Jesus before He was on earth was Michael. There is positive evidence for this found in the bible (not from the words of Paul though)