askrealjesus.com

Searched but couldn't find a thread about this site...Anyone here checked it out? It's from some guy who supposedly channels Jesus and answers questions about EVERYTHING. Most of the answers are very interesting...

Could you provide a link or something?

Oh nevermind you said you couldn't find a thread...

[edit on 10-3-2008 by MissInformation]

Im not a google search master, but I think this is it.

www.askrealjesus.com...

Hmm, don't really know what to say about that one. I'm not too spiritual, so I'm not offended by this person claiming to channel Jesus. However, if you go for that, then this man/woman is in for a world of hurt in the afterlife. I have a feeling it isn't such a grand idea to put words into Jesus' mouth. Interesting stuff in the Q&A section. I almost caught a South Park Jesus vibe for a minute while looking through some off the current events questions. --> Current Affairs Q&A with Jesus!

Er... I didn't spend too much time on the 'About Us' type pages but is this guy actually claiming to channel Jesus or is it just a 'humorous' gimmick that his readers know he is using?

If it is the former, then I have to say 'Jesus' is wrong on a few things. For one, 'Jesus' said the Bible states Adam and Eve only had sons. However, this is a common mistake. We are specifically told in Genesis Adam and Eve had sons and daughters. That's just one example- There were about three other errors I saw after spending only five minutes on the site.

Apparently 'Jesus' needs to read the Bible a bit more.

[edit on 3/12/2008 by AshleyD]

Wow, I really wish this were true. I would give anything to talk to Jesus and ask Him some questions, but erm:

From "http://askrealjesus.com/K_JESUS_ANSWERS/B_ABOUT_GOD/burrito.html"

"


k, but then we have here:

"For I am the Lord, I change not;" - Malachi 3:6
"Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, and today, and forever." - Hebrews 13:8

And God not changing's kind of an important aspect of Him. You know, people change, but God never changes. His standards, rules, opinions, etc., stay the same. And that's pretty awesome, because we don't have to guess what mood He's in and try to catch Him at a good time when we pray, we don't have to wonder how He feels about Britney Spears now that it's socially appropriate to show your wrists and ankles publicly, etc.

FAIL.

Would be nice, though.

I don't know about this guy.... But, I do suppose he IS just a human.
So that may Inspire all of you to take the word of something higher ..."a book"

But, I would like to note that if ...or when.. god comes down to earth to show himself to you all ...and or... answer your questions... you wouldn't be comparing his answers to the bible would ya?

.....
I had gotten a bad feeling when reading over your posts on the bible..
Im sorry... ... ...they were personal and a bit weird... **edited**

no offense.... but life is solid and concrete... and besides trying to figure out some guys personality or what children he had millions of years ago. the bible is not worth much else...... errr... well. IMO.

Figuring out life is pretty simple... (not the details, obviosly)

It is unchanging but chock full of variables ...yet... very simple to know.

**edited** err... I mean that trying to know right and righteous is not a thing you need to look to god for... errr I mean a book about god.... a book about god that is touted by the humans in power of this world.... that probably doesn't say much to any one other than people I'm not saying this for.... errr... that may be untrue and a generality... I apologize, I am not smart enough or thinking well enough at the moment to state it better...

the facts are in life... the righteous.. is in life. ...heh... **edit** this point doesnt do me much good eh.... what is in life can be written in a book ...I just now caught that...

[edit on 12-3-2008 by WishI]

First of all, even though you've said "no offense," it's clear that you did mean offense when you called us "the friggin followers we seem to be." You also disrespected our faith when you called our Holy Book worthless. I'm not asking you to be a Christian or read the Bible or anything else. I am asking for the same respect that I'd give you and whatever beliefs you have.



Actually, yeah. There are many false prophets, many people claiming to be Jesus and there's going to be one really huge guy called the Antichrist who's going to perform miracles and trick us. Of course, the latter is if you believe what's written in the Bible, but because of that, the smart Christians *are* going to be questioning everything. And, I mean, what, you expect us not to question things? Are you offended that we're questioning some dude that claims to be Jesus on a website?



While you're not saying not to question it, you're calling questioning it "dumb." Personally, I think *not* questioning it would be pretty dumb.



Yes, people that believe in certain religions do tend to be followers of that religion. Very apt observation.



If you think life's simple, then I'm happy for you. This means that either you've had a very easy life, or that perhaps it's simple for you because you seem to be against questioning anything.

And I do believe that someone claiming to be God, the Creator of the universe, the Creator of your soul, mind and body, would be worth trying to "figure out." God's personality's very important, and I believe it would be to anyone who believed.



Thank you for sharing your opinion. This thread was actually about some guy claiming to be Jesus, and we were discussing what we thought of his site. And we, as *Christ*ians, decided to chime in with what we knew of the Bible, since Jesus was a figure of... you guessed it, the Bible.

reply to post by jackieisinlove

---

I apologize, I went off on an inspired feeling... and I mostly regret now, especially since you pretty much pegged my poorly thought out writing.....

I edited my first post a bit... though I couldnt do much with it (I am lacking ... but I didnt want to delete it)

maybe I should ask jesus about this...... hmmmm.....

Where did 'Jesus' say the Bible states Adam and Eve had only sons total? If you're referring to this incest question, I think he was merely pointing out the physically impossibility in the Bible for Cain and Seth to have wives when only males were born at the time. The Bible says after Seth was born Adam lived another 800 years and then had sons and daughters. And can you please state the other errors you found? thanx.

Here are some of things that article said (and yes, it was that article):





The article makes it clear the author is going off the premise Genesis explicitly states Adam and Eve only had sons. But just like you brought up, the author misses this verse:

'When Adam had lived 120 years he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image. After Seth was born Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters. Altogether Adam lived 930 years and then he died.

That doesn't mean Adam didn't have other children until the age of 800. That just simply means he started having Seth and his siblings at the age of 130. He was even younger when he fathered Cain. But the fact remains: Adam and Eve had daughters.

Oops.

Then the author continues on to the modern genetic problem of siblings having children but completely misses out on the other sections on the Genesis account that the human race didn't fully begin to degenerate at high speed until after the flood, as shown in the rapidly decreasing lifespans. That is when our genetic material really started to deteriorate in the Bible- not at the high rate with Adam.

So, that's two fumbles right there in just one article. The author is trying to mesh antediluvian and postdiluvian genetics as alluded to in the Bible. Now, there could very well have been other people alive on the earth or preceding Adam. I don't believe it but it is possible. However, using the arguments the author uses, his case fails miserably because he is not aware of what else the Bible says. And is Jesus really going to be unaware of what the Bible says? Of course not.



No. I'm entirely too lazy. The above example from that one article should be enough to see where I'm going with this.

Do I believe Jesus still communicates with us? Absolutely! Do I believe that author is channeling Jesus? Not remotely.

No I think you're missing the point. The question was about incest in the Garden of Eden, because it's physically impossible for Cain and Seth to have had wives if they were the only people in the garden of eden, and especially since Adam and Eve didn't start having daughters until sometime after Seth was born. Therefore, if you're a bible follower, Where did Cain's wife come from??? THAT was the point of the article...



Not really, the whole point of the flood was to wipe out the genetic mess the 'Sons of God' had made when they started mating with the daughters of man, (Gen 6:2) but I digress :p Anyway, you're going all over the map and missing the entire point of this one article. The point 'Jesus' was bringing with modern genetic problems of siblings having children was to show there is no way the entire family lineage of Adam and Eve could've thrived healthily as it did if you really think the entire race was literally concieved through just 2 people, that would make everything incest lol. Not to mention it would be physically impossible since there HAD to have been other women for Cain to get a wife (Where did she come from?!?!?).

Anyway, Jesus goes on to explain:

this would explain the genetic deterioration you mentioned



Makes perfect sense to me :]

No, I understand that perfectly. But they had daughters whereas the article states they only had three sons. Since Abel was murdered, that leaves two. Obviously two men, Seth and Cain, could not populate the earth. But we are told there were females, too. Not just Seth and Cain.

So where did Cain get his wife? All we're told is that he had a wife and had children with her. We're never told specifically she came from anywhere else. We're never specifically told she was not of any relation. She was just there.

Again, the topic of discussion is not whether or not there were necessarily other people (this has been debated for centuries) but the unbiblical argument the author is using to support it. The author is saying there were no female descendants of Adam and Eve but the Bible says there were.



Some believe the Nephilim ('sons of God') were fallen angels while others believe the 'sons of God' were the descendants of Seth and the 'sons of Man' were the descendants of Cain. But that is getting off on bunny trails.



Not really. The author is saying it would have been a physical impossibility for only men to have offspring (true) but leaves out the part there were females, too. THEN he goes into the genetics problem but totally misses the point of antediluvian genetics.

Again, I don't want to debate whether or not there were other people alive at the time as this debate has raged on for centuries. I'm simply saying the biblical reasons the author gives are not correct.

So Cain's wife was "just there", gotcha. Once again, you're not understanding the context of the passage (Gen 4:16) Jesus brings up to show there were only males at the time Cain took a wife. Yes the bible DOES say later on that Adam and Eve did have daughters, but Jesus doesn't bring up that passage in the article because the question was about incest, and not relevant to the issue at hand. Jesus never says in the article that Adam and Eve only had sons throughout their whole life, he's just saying according to the Bible that at the time Cain took a wife, Adam and Eve had only bore male children. Other females had to have been there for Cain and Seth to marry.



There were no females(besides Eve, of course). Once again, Adam and Eve DID NOT HAVE DAUGHTERS AT THE TIME Cain and Seth had children. Therefore, yes, it IS an impossibilty to follow the bible literally and chronologically and believe Adam and Eve created the entire race themselves. And Jesus is saying even if they did take their sisters as wives, that would be incest and that was the reason he brought up modern genetics, which shows had 2 people technically created the entire population through incest, "the gene pool would have been too narrow and the inevitable effect would have been degenerative birth defects that would have led the race to become extinct within a few generations."

Again, I get it. If Adam and Eve did not have daughters yet at the time Cain 'knew his wife' then this obviously would not have been a relative. But when does Cain's wife come into the picture? You keep trying to pull me into the debate there were other people in the world and I am trying to tell you that really doesn't matter at the moment because the author's logic behind his reasons of other people existing is flawed.

But since this is apparently an issue, What About Cain's Wife?

So not even that causes a problem.

But going back to the author's logic and not even the explanation for Cain's wife, he still says (And I quote again):



So he is not even talking about Cain here but Adam and Eve not having daughters.

His biblical knowledge is flawed. We can completely keep the Cain issue out of the equation and keep the debate about other people being alive at the time. It's not relevant. The point is, this author made a biblical mistake and Jesus doesn't make mistakes... especially such an obvious one. Get it?

[edit on 3/13/2008 by AshleyD]

If it's Jesus you're quoting, he could easily have meant that Adam and Eve had only sons "at the time" the sons took wives, without needing to be any more specific for the point being made. Not every statement can be qualified to account for every question. Points have to be made with the the most relevent source material, and done so with economy. Else it becomes unweildly. I thought Anciel did a fair job of explaining a valid rationale for the way the answer was framed.

Also, while Jesus may be the "same" Jesus "yesterday, today and forever" doesnt mean he hasn't grown and become greater than he was 2000 years ago--- yet is still Jesus. You've changed AshleyD and you will change more (hopefully becoming an even better christian as you improve with age) but you will still be 'AshleyD'. We don't live as static beings in a static universe. And .... "I am the Lord, i change not", can be read in the same context of transcendent growth. It is a question of identity and the validity of change as a natural phenomenon of identity. Everything does and everyone can, change.