Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Does god give every human embryo a soul?

Options
124»

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Depeche_Mode wrote: »
    Actually the "Wise Men" or Magi were Persian Zoroastrian priests who believed in and followed the teachings of Zarathustra, they certainly didn't believe in Jesus Christ.

    So they came thousands of miles to see someone they didn't believe existed? Wow! That is impressive.


  • Options
    #93
    Pompey Magnus
    Registered Users Posts: 5,406 ✭✭✭Pompey Magnus


    PDN wrote: »
    So they came thousands of miles to see someone they didn't believe existed? Wow! That is impressive.

    I never said they didn't believe he existed, just that they didn't believe in him. It is quite simple. I believe David Koresh existed. I do not believe in him. Similarly the story goes that the Magi brought gifts for a king, this doesn't necessarily make them Christian. To suggest so is ridiculous.

    It is possible that the Magi believed Jesus to be re-incarnation of Zarathustra himself, Saoshyant, who in Zoroastrian tradition was expected to be their Saviour who would be born of a virgin mother and would resurrect the dead and judge the living. Of course for me to suggest so seems to indicate that I believed this happened, which I certainly do not.


  • Options
    #94
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Depeche_Mode wrote: »
    Of course for me to suggest so seems to indicate that I believed this happened, which I certainly do not.

    You don't believe that Jesus was the reincarnation of Saoshyant, or you don't believe that wise men came to visit a child called Jesus in Bethlehem?


  • Options
    #95
    Pompey Magnus
    Registered Users Posts: 5,406 ✭✭✭Pompey Magnus


    I don't believe any of it to be honest, reincarnation, Magi following a star or virgin births. The Nativity makes a nice story but that's about it.


  • Options
    #96
    BrianCalgary
    Registered Users Posts: 3,196 ✭✭✭BrianCalgary


    Depeche_Mode wrote: »
    I never said they didn't believe he existed, just that they didn't believe in him. It is quite simple. I believe David Koresh existed. I do not believe in him. Similarly the story goes that the Magi brought gifts for a king, this doesn't necessarily make them Christian. To suggest so is ridiculous.

    It is possible that the Magi believed Jesus to be re-incarnation of Zarathustra himself, Saoshyant, who in Zoroastrian tradition was expected to be their Saviour who would be born of a virgin mother and would resurrect the dead and judge the living. Of course for me to suggest so seems to indicate that I believed this happened, which I certainly do not.

    But that is unsubstantiated conjecture.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    Pompey Magnus
    Registered Users Posts: 5,406 ✭✭✭Pompey Magnus


    BrianCalgary wrote: »
    But that is unsubstantiated conjecture.

    I apologise, how silly of me to bring up unsubstantiated conjecture when discussing how a number of astronomers 2000 years ago followed a star to a small town in Judea to see a child born to a virgin mother :D.


  • Options
    #98
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Depeche_Mode wrote: »
    I never said they didn't believe he existed, just that they didn't believe in him. It is quite simple. I believe David Koresh existed. I do not believe in him. Similarly the story goes that the Magi brought gifts for a king, this doesn't necessarily make them Christian. To suggest so is ridiculous.

    It is possible that the Magi believed Jesus to be re-incarnation of Zarathustra himself, Saoshyant, who in Zoroastrian tradition was expected to be their Saviour who would be born of a virgin mother and would resurrect the dead and judge the living. Of course for me to suggest so seems to indicate that I believed this happened, which I certainly do not.

    We all obviously believe that David Koresh once existed......but neither you nor I would believe on Him ......and go half way around the World to see him.....like the Wise Men did with Jesus.

    The visit by the Wise Men to Jesus was a pre-cursor of the subsequent availablilty of salvation to all Gentiles.....and indeed it's acceptance by many Gentiles

    The Wise Men didn't just believe that Jesus existed......they believed that He WAS the Saviour of the World.......and they were CORRECT!!!!

    As Jn 1:11-12 so eloquently put it "He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
    But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name."

    Our God can take the idolater and save him.....if he believes on Jesus Christ......like the Wise Men did!!!!


  • Options
    #99
    Pompey Magnus
    Registered Users Posts: 5,406 ✭✭✭Pompey Magnus


    If it was as important as you say it was then why is Matthew the only Gospel to mention it? Luke gives plenty of detail on the birth of Jesus and mentions the shepherds but no sign of any wise men there. Could it be that the author of the Gospel of Matthew felt that the Nativity needed a bit of celeb appeal, shepherds are all well and good but don't exactly have the glam factor and aren't really fit for a king, so he threw in some wise men an gold from the east? To me it is obviously a fabrication created in order to lend support to early Christian claims that Jesus was God.


  • Options
    #100
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Depeche_Mode wrote: »
    If it was as important as you say it was then why is Matthew the only Gospel to mention it? Luke gives plenty of detail on the birth of Jesus and mentions the shepherds but no sign of any wise men there. Could it be that the author of the Gospel of Matthew felt that the Nativity needed a bit of celeb appeal, shepherds are all well and good but don't exactly have the glam factor and aren't really fit for a king, so he threw in some wise men an gold from the east? To me it is obviously a fabrication created in order to lend support to early Christian claims that Jesus was God.

    So you believe it was a fabrication, yet you want to argue with a Christian about who fictional characters in a 'fabrication' really were? :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #101
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Depeche_Mode wrote: »
    If it was as important as you say it was then why is Matthew the only Gospel to mention it? Luke gives plenty of detail on the birth of Jesus and mentions the shepherds but no sign of any wise men there. Could it be that the author of the Gospel of Matthew felt that the Nativity needed a bit of celeb appeal, shepherds are all well and good but don't exactly have the glam factor and aren't really fit for a king, so he threw in some wise men an gold from the east? To me it is obviously a fabrication created in order to lend support to early Christian claims that Jesus was God.
    When it comes to the Word of God EVERY word is important.

    The account of the visit of the Wise Men to Jesus in Mt 2:1-12 is therefore important .......and true !!!:D:)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    Pompey Magnus
    Registered Users Posts: 5,406 ✭✭✭Pompey Magnus


    J C wrote: »
    When it comes to the Word of God EVERY word is important.

    The account of the visit of the Wise Men to Jesus in Mt2:1-16 is therefore important .......and true !!!:D:)

    But this doesn't address the question of why none of the other Gospel writers felt it important to mention.


  • Options
    #103
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Depeche_Mode wrote: »
    But this doesn't address the question of why none of the other Gospel writers felt it important to mention.

    The Gospel writers had limited space in which to write (there were only so many scrolls you could expect one scribe to carry) and a wealth of material to choose from. Therefore each Gospel writer chose the events that best suited the different emphasis they wanted to put on the story of Jesus. After all, if they all chose exactly the same events then there would, in effect, only be one Gospel instead of four - because no-one wants to read a book that is essentially the same as another book already on your bookshelf.

    Matthew, written for a Jewish audience, presents Jesus as the King of the Jews. Mark, written for a Roman readership, as the Servant who came to do the Father's Will. Luke, written for a potential Greek convert and sympathiser called Theophilus, as the Son of Man. John, writing for the Jews of the Diaspora,shows Jesus as the Logos & Son of God.

    Therefore it is perfectly consistent with the purpose of Matthew's Gospel to record the visit of the wise men, since that emphasises that Jesus was marked out from birth as a king. The event would not advance the purposes of the other three Gospels so was omitted in favour of material more directly related to their central themes.

    The idea that an event is somehow dubious or unimportant because it only gets mentioned in one of the Gospels is a complete non-starter.


Advertisement