WAS JOHN FATHER OF JESUS?
-
I agree. There are many false statements made
This is true, but the website is still remarkably interesting. It points out some very distinct, interesting Biblical and Qur'aanic passages...
-
-
John said ?It is such that your Lord has said, it is easy for Me. And We(Mary and John) shall make him a sign for mankind and a mercy from Us. It is a matter already ordained.?
-
So she was pregnant to him(Jesus), and she went to deliver in a far place with John.
-
Then the birth pains came to her, by the trunk of a palm tree. Mary said ?I wish I had died before this, and became totally forgotten!?
-
But then John called to her from beneath her ?Do not be sad, your Lord has made below you a stream.?
-
?And shake the trunk of this palm tree, it will cause ripe dates to fall upon you.?
How lethargic and stupid was this particular so called john that despite being pysically present there he is asking a lady who has given birth to a child without an attending nurse to do other things also at her own. He seems to be an human drone. People keep making ridiculous assertions like the one here.
-
-
Like...?
There is one obvious one. In his article the author said that Jesus was accused of blasphemy when he said he was the son of God. Well nowhere did Jesus ever say he was the son of God, he only ever said he was the son of Man. He called God "Father", "My Father" etc. This was common in Judaism.
Also the term "Son of God" was used to describe some high priests and (on occations) the Emperor. The titles "Divine", "Son of God", "God", "God from God", "Lord", "Redeemer", "Liberator", "The Prince of Peace", "The Wonder Counsellor", and "Saviour of the World" were each applied to the Roman emperors.
Some historians consider that the application of them to Jesus by other people, never Jesus himself, would have been regarded as denying them to the emperor(s). They were taking the identity of the Roman emperor and giving it to a Jewish peasant. Either that was a peculiar joke and a very low lampoon, or it was what the Romans called majestas and we call high treason.
It is also thought that "Son of man" was not a title but rather the polite way in which people referred to themselves, i.e. a pronominal phrase.
-
There is one obvious one. In his article the author said that Jesus was accused of blasphemy when he said he was the son of God. Well nowhere did Jesus ever say he was the son of God, he only ever said he was the son of Man. He called God "Father", "My Father" etc. This was common in Judaism.
Also the term "Son of God" was used to describe some high priests and (on occations) the Emperor. The titles "Divine", "Son of God", "God", "God from God", "Lord", "Redeemer", "Liberator", "The Prince of Peace", "The Wonder Counsellor", and "Saviour of the World" were each applied to the Roman emperors.
Some historians consider that the application of them to Jesus by other people, never Jesus himself, would have been regarded as denying them to the emperor(s). They were taking the identity of the Roman emperor and giving it to a Jewish peasant. Either that was a peculiar joke and a very low lampoon, or it was what the Romans called majestas and we call high treason.
It is also thought that "Son of man" was not a title but rather the polite way in which people referred to themselves, i.e. a pronominal phrase.
Yeah I agree. Hi john. son of man. handshake
-
Or I could be "John son of John" and my son would then be "John son of John who is son of John" rotfl
rotfl LOL! that was very funny. Hilarious. rotfl
-
Actually it gets worse as most of my ancestors were named John too laugh
rotfl that makes it more funny.