God's Child(ren)?

[Loki_999]

Nope. The two geneaologies do not have to be litteral. Mathew is showing that Jews is a Jew, in fact He is related to David and many other kings. Sometimes you have to think about the principle, rather than thinking it has to be 100% true.
Luke is showing that Jesus is also a human, like them. Luke's gosphel is about showing that Jesus is a servant.

Ah, we are back to deciding which parts of the bible we should take literally and which we shouldn't? This always ends up in a mess. But hold on, Matthew is showing that Jesus was a Jew, Luke was showing that Jesus was a human and a servant.... erm, where did the immortal son of God creep in then?

Nope. Jews have some very distinct things about themselves. For example not eating pigs or farming them and the sabbath. There are some similarities and some differences.

Your point being? All religions evolve and change over time. Without this we would all be worshiping the sun, fire, lightning, etc. Its the same as evolution of species, you follow the chain and you see how one form evolved into another. You can do the same with religious evolution as well, tracing the heritage of gods back and back to the pre-literate ages.

Do you know what you are talking about?

Not always. Sometimes my mind wanders. This bit was just idle conjecture on my part, i thought I presented it that way...

If you reject the Bible then there isn't any way to prove that Jesus already existed. But for those of you who are openminded enough to examine the evidence, I suggest that you read the first chapter of John's gospel and Philippians 2:5-8.

Bingo! There is no proof of Jesus outside the Bible. But actually that is not what i said. Just in case you didn't know the bible is split into two parts. The Old and the New. What I actually said was you cannot use the New Testament to prove that Jesus existed at the beginning of time (ie: what should have been said in Genesis), because the books that were accepted into the NT were all written after Jesus died and in the main were accepted based on political and religious expedience, not whether they were accurate or not.

Now show me the OT passages that refer to Jesus in name (or Yeshuah to use a more accurate translation) and we can move somewhere on this. Sure, there are mentions of a messiah in the OT. But Islam also holds the tradition of a messiah and it ain't Jesus. IIRC they say Jesus will stand with the messiah on the day of reckoning so definitely can't be the same person. And Islam have their own holy books with the same core (the Pentateuch, same as Christianity and Judaism), so they can be just as right as you are... righter even, because their final prophet came later than yours, their information is more up-to-date. Perhaps you better convert to Islam quickly before you die, you wouldn't want to end up in hell would you? Its not much of a difference, its the same God after all Yahweh/Allah - same roots if only a different face on it. Its like Zeus/Jupiter or Mercury/Hermes.

Still, we had an even later update on the whole message of God as presented by Joseph Smith Jr. who was apparently guided to some golden plates by an angel which gave the new gospel. Yup, looking at it, you are probably better off becoming a Mormon, at least until God reveals a new updated wisdom. I'm guessing any new update these days will be posted on the internet though and not accepted as easily as in previous generations as worshipers would start posting questions like:
"God, you wrote in your post that we should be kind to animals. Do you mean all animals or just clean ones?"

Anyway, what does Philippians 2:5-8 say in relation to Jesus existing back at the start? It could be interpreted that he existed prior to taking form as a human, but that is not in contention here (for the moment).

First chapter of John, as I read it, is talking about God existing from the beginning, not Jesus. Jesus is referred to as his son, but with no mention of his birthday. Interpret it how you like, you don't have proof (even if we would accept a single suspect source as proof), you just have faith and interpretation.