Total Posts:43|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Jesus Fables Pt1: Conception

dee-em
Posts: 6,476
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2014 6:04:40 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Ah, the virgin birth. Firstly, 'Mark', the generally accepted first gospel from which 'Matthew' and 'Luke' both borrow extensively, starts with a fully grown Jesus who is baptised by John the Baptist and then immediately adopted by God as his son. There is nothing about his birth and childhood or details of his family. In fact, he soon disowns his mother and brothers when they come to collect him when they think he has lost his mind. The fact that 'Matthew' and then 'Luke' add (differing) nativity stories later in time is typical of myth-building. The story gets progressively more elaborate and exaggerated as time goes on. Details accrue with each retelling.

But let's assume that the nativity stories have some truth for the sake of argument. We have Mary, a virgin, conceiving a child via divine intervention (somehow). The first problem is that Mary only has an egg with her DNA. Without the injection of additional DNA from a sperm, any baby she produces will be a clone of herself. Further, the XY sex-determination system employed by humans means that any offspring of a parthenogenic process will have two X chromosomes and be female. So, the first problem is, how did Mary not give birth to Mary Jnr who looked just like her? Where did the male DNA come from?

Now Christians are going to jump in here and tell me that a supernatural God can do anything. That is precisely the point. Why would such a being, with such power, not simply zap her a baby boy and say "Here is my son. Raise him as our own and he will do fabulous things when he grows up". It would avoid the pointless nine months of pregnancy and the inherent dangers of child-birth. It would also avoid marital problems with Joseph who must have been livid at being cuckolded. In fact, why does God need Mary at all? Just zap Jesus as a man into existence and away you go. Which brings us back to Mark and the original version.

The answer is obvious, of course. Early Christians could not have been satisfied with a man appearing out of nowhere. They wanted more. So even earlier pagan myths were appropriated to have a miraculous birth narrative. The son of god would be born at exactly the same time of year as the rebirth of the sun. The gospel authors couldn't have a straight union between God and a human female since Christians had been mocking the Greek and Roman gods for exactly this sort of thing. They had to put a twist on it. Hence the 'virgin' birth to avoid any hint of carnality. And so the myth-building process continued.

Comments?
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2014 8:03:51 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/9/2014 6:04:40 AM, dee-em wrote:
Ah, the virgin birth. Firstly, 'Mark', the generally accepted first gospel from which 'Matthew' and 'Luke' both borrow extensively, starts with a fully grown Jesus who is baptised by John the Baptist and then immediately adopted by God as his son. There is nothing about his birth and childhood or details of his family. In fact, he soon disowns his mother and brothers when they come to collect him when they think he has lost his mind. The fact that 'Matthew' and then 'Luke' add (differing) nativity stories later in time is typical of myth-building. The story gets progressively more elaborate and exaggerated as time goes on. Details accrue with each retelling.

But let's assume that the nativity stories have some truth for the sake of argument. We have Mary, a virgin, conceiving a child via divine intervention (somehow). The first problem is that Mary only has an egg with her DNA. Without the injection of additional DNA from a sperm, any baby she produces will be a clone of herself. Further, the XY sex-determination system employed by humans means that any offspring of a parthenogenic process will have two X chromosomes and be female. So, the first problem is, how did Mary not give birth to Mary Jnr who looked just like her? Where did the male DNA come from?

Now Christians are going to jump in here and tell me that a supernatural God can do anything. That is precisely the point. Why would such a being, with such power, not simply zap her a baby boy and say "Here is my son. Raise him as our own and he will do fabulous things when he grows up". It would avoid the pointless nine months of pregnancy and the inherent dangers of child-birth. It would also avoid marital problems with Joseph who must have been livid at being cuckolded. In fact, why does God need Mary at all? Just zap Jesus as a man into existence and away you go. Which brings us back to Mark and the original version.

The answer is obvious, of course. Early Christians could not have been satisfied with a man appearing out of nowhere. They wanted more. So even earlier pagan myths were appropriated to have a miraculous birth narrative. The son of god would be born at exactly the same time of year as the rebirth of the sun. The gospel authors couldn't have a straight union between God and a human female since Christians had been mocking the Greek and Roman gods for exactly this sort of thing. They had to put a twist on it. Hence the 'virgin' birth to avoid any hint of carnality. And so the myth-building process continued.

Comments?

Men don't appear out of nowhere. Virgins don't have babies. Unless that is aliens are involved. Yeah that must be it! Solved.
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2014 2:51:56 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/10/2014 2:29:21 AM, dee-em wrote:

I see the Christians are leaping to defend their faith.

*crickets chirp*

God sent down "Magic Sperm" to impregnate Mary and carry DNA which he created in the image of his own DNA.
Then...
- Birth
- Jesus
- Ministry
- Crucifixion

... and now God can forgive.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2014 2:56:05 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/10/2014 2:29:21 AM, dee-em wrote:
I see the Christians are leaping to defend their faith.

*crickets chirp*

There are three kinds of Christians. Those who believe everything the bible says and defend it no matter how outlandish the claim. Those who know it's outlandish and try to compensate with creative interpretations. And those who are in denial and pretend they don't know what your talking about.
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
dee-em
Posts: 6,476
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2014 3:04:55 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/10/2014 2:51:56 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 11/10/2014 2:29:21 AM, dee-em wrote:

I see the Christians are leaping to defend their faith.

*crickets chirp*

God sent down "Magic Sperm" to impregnate Mary and carry DNA which he created in the image of his own DNA.
Then...
- Birth
- Jesus
- Ministry
- Crucifixion

... and now God can forgive.

Is that a marijuana leaf his angel is wearing? Lol.
dee-em
Posts: 6,476
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2014 3:11:32 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/10/2014 2:56:05 AM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 11/10/2014 2:29:21 AM, dee-em wrote:
I see the Christians are leaping to defend their faith.

*crickets chirp*

There are three kinds of Christians. Those who believe everything the bible says and defend it no matter how outlandish the claim. Those who know it's outlandish and try to compensate with creative interpretations. And those who are in denial and pretend they don't know what your talking about.

Yep, I've encountered all three. There might be a fourth kind. Those who don't care what your argument is if you're an atheist. They just go straight in to personal attacks. I think you may have run into a member of that group too. :-)
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2014 3:14:52 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/10/2014 3:11:32 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/10/2014 2:56:05 AM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 11/10/2014 2:29:21 AM, dee-em wrote:
I see the Christians are leaping to defend their faith.

*crickets chirp*

There are three kinds of Christians. Those who believe everything the bible says and defend it no matter how outlandish the claim. Those who know it's outlandish and try to compensate with creative interpretations. And those who are in denial and pretend they don't know what your talking about.

Yep, I've encountered all three. There might be a fourth kind. Those who don't care what your argument is if you're an atheist. They just go straight in to personal attacks. I think you may have run into a member of that group too. :-)

Yes, and I never said I was an atheist. I just said I like them. I guess I get crucified for sympathizing. Guilt by association. It makes atheism look even more attractive.
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2014 3:45:08 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/10/2014 3:04:55 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/10/2014 2:51:56 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 11/10/2014 2:29:21 AM, dee-em wrote:

I see the Christians are leaping to defend their faith.

*crickets chirp*

God sent down "Magic Sperm" to impregnate Mary and carry DNA which he created in the image of his own DNA.
Then...
- Birth
- Jesus
- Ministry
- Crucifixion

... and now God can forgive.

Is that a marijuana leaf his angel is wearing? Lol.

You wouldn't want him dangling while talking to God, would you?
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
dee-em
Posts: 6,476
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2014 3:48:18 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/10/2014 3:45:08 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 11/10/2014 3:04:55 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/10/2014 2:51:56 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 11/10/2014 2:29:21 AM, dee-em wrote:

I see the Christians are leaping to defend their faith.

*crickets chirp*

God sent down "Magic Sperm" to impregnate Mary and carry DNA which he created in the image of his own DNA.
Then...
- Birth
- Jesus
- Ministry
- Crucifixion

... and now God can forgive.

Is that a marijuana leaf his angel is wearing? Lol.

You wouldn't want him dangling while talking to God, would you?

Yes, but I thought the preferred covering was a fig leaf.

I know heaven is supposed to be up there, but I didn't know they got high in heaven. :-)
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2014 3:51:54 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/10/2014 3:48:18 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/10/2014 3:45:08 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 11/10/2014 3:04:55 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/10/2014 2:51:56 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 11/10/2014 2:29:21 AM, dee-em wrote:

I see the Christians are leaping to defend their faith.

*crickets chirp*

God sent down "Magic Sperm" to impregnate Mary and carry DNA which he created in the image of his own DNA.
Then...
- Birth
- Jesus
- Ministry
- Crucifixion

... and now God can forgive.

Is that a marijuana leaf his angel is wearing? Lol.

You wouldn't want him dangling while talking to God, would you?

Yes, but I thought the preferred covering was a fig leaf.

I know heaven is supposed to be up there, but I didn't know they got high in heaven. :-)

I may be wrong but I don't think that's what is meant by a "contact high". I don't think you can get high just by rubbing a leaf on your... "person". But what I like it the exposure... the exposure of the lack of logic employed in Christian doctrine.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
bulproof
Posts: 25,272
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2014 4:03:36 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/10/2014 2:51:56 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 11/10/2014 2:29:21 AM, dee-em wrote:

I see the Christians are leaping to defend their faith.

*crickets chirp*

God sent down "Magic Sperm" to impregnate Mary and carry DNA which he created in the image of his own DNA.
I have magic sperm.
P.O.A
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
bulproof
Posts: 25,272
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2014 4:10:14 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/10/2014 4:03:36 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 11/10/2014 2:51:56 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 11/10/2014 2:29:21 AM, dee-em wrote:

I see the Christians are leaping to defend their faith.

*crickets chirp*

God sent down "Magic Sperm" to impregnate Mary and carry DNA which he created in the image of his own DNA.
I have magic sperm.
P.O.A
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2014 4:11:23 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/10/2014 4:03:36 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 11/10/2014 2:51:56 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 11/10/2014 2:29:21 AM, dee-em wrote:

I see the Christians are leaping to defend their faith.

*crickets chirp*

God sent down "Magic Sperm" to impregnate Mary and carry DNA which he created in the image of his own DNA.
I have magic sperm.
P.O.A

Oh really?
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
POPOO5560
Posts: 2,489
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2014 4:16:41 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/9/2014 6:04:40 AM, dee-em wrote:
Ah, the virgin birth. Firstly, 'Mark', the generally accepted first gospel from which 'Matthew' and 'Luke' both borrow extensively, starts with a fully grown Jesus who is baptised by John the Baptist and then immediately adopted by God as his son. There is nothing about his birth and childhood or details of his family. In fact, he soon disowns his mother and brothers when they come to collect him when they think he has lost his mind. The fact that 'Matthew' and then 'Luke' add (differing) nativity stories later in time is typical of myth-building. The story gets progressively more elaborate and exaggerated as time goes on. Details accrue with each retelling.

But let's assume that the nativity stories have some truth for the sake of argument. We have Mary, a virgin, conceiving a child via divine intervention (somehow). The first problem is that Mary only has an egg with her DNA. Without the injection of additional DNA from a sperm, any baby she produces will be a clone of herself. Further, the XY sex-determination system employed by humans means that any offspring of a parthenogenic process will have two X chromosomes and be female. So, the first problem is, how did Mary not give birth to Mary Jnr who looked just like her? Where did the male DNA come from?

Now Christians are going to jump in here and tell me that a supernatural God can do anything. That is precisely the point. Why would such a being, with such power, not simply zap her a baby boy and say "Here is my son. Raise him as our own and he will do fabulous things when he grows up". It would avoid the pointless nine months of pregnancy and the inherent dangers of child-birth. It would also avoid marital problems with Joseph who must have been livid at being cuckolded. In fact, why does God need Mary at all? Just zap Jesus as a man into existence and away you go. Which brings us back to Mark and the original version.

The answer is obvious, of course. Early Christians could not have been satisfied with a man appearing out of nowhere. They wanted more. So even earlier pagan myths were appropriated to have a miraculous birth narrative. The son of god would be born at exactly the same time of year as the rebirth of the sun. The gospel authors couldn't have a straight union between God and a human female since Christians had been mocking the Greek and Roman gods for exactly this sort of thing. They had to put a twist on it. Hence the 'virgin' birth to avoid any hint of carnality. And so the myth-building process continued.

Comments?

Quran 3:59
The similitude of Jesus before Allah is as that of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him: "Be". And he was.

Its not about DNA. if God says something it becomes to existence, why he did that way and not throw straight away a man to earth? God knows what you dont know for the reasons he did things, if it was the the opposite, other people would criticize saying "why God did that way?" so for every thing you can find a troubles with it if you want so.
Never fart near dog
dee-em
Posts: 6,476
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2014 4:50:35 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/10/2014 4:16:41 AM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 11/9/2014 6:04:40 AM, dee-em wrote:
Ah, the virgin birth. Firstly, 'Mark', the generally accepted first gospel from which 'Matthew' and 'Luke' both borrow extensively, starts with a fully grown Jesus who is baptised by John the Baptist and then immediately adopted by God as his son. There is nothing about his birth and childhood or details of his family. In fact, he soon disowns his mother and brothers when they come to collect him when they think he has lost his mind. The fact that 'Matthew' and then 'Luke' add (differing) nativity stories later in time is typical of myth-building. The story gets progressively more elaborate and exaggerated as time goes on. Details accrue with each retelling.

But let's assume that the nativity stories have some truth for the sake of argument. We have Mary, a virgin, conceiving a child via divine intervention (somehow). The first problem is that Mary only has an egg with her DNA. Without the injection of additional DNA from a sperm, any baby she produces will be a clone of herself. Further, the XY sex-determination system employed by humans means that any offspring of a parthenogenic process will have two X chromosomes and be female. So, the first problem is, how did Mary not give birth to Mary Jnr who looked just like her? Where did the male DNA come from?

Now Christians are going to jump in here and tell me that a supernatural God can do anything. That is precisely the point. Why would such a being, with such power, not simply zap her a baby boy and say "Here is my son. Raise him as our own and he will do fabulous things when he grows up". It would avoid the pointless nine months of pregnancy and the inherent dangers of child-birth. It would also avoid marital problems with Joseph who must have been livid at being cuckolded. In fact, why does God need Mary at all? Just zap Jesus as a man into existence and away you go. Which brings us back to Mark and the original version.

The answer is obvious, of course. Early Christians could not have been satisfied with a man appearing out of nowhere. They wanted more. So even earlier pagan myths were appropriated to have a miraculous birth narrative. The son of god would be born at exactly the same time of year as the rebirth of the sun. The gospel authors couldn't have a straight union between God and a human female since Christians had been mocking the Greek and Roman gods for exactly this sort of thing. They had to put a twist on it. Hence the 'virgin' birth to avoid any hint of carnality. And so the myth-building process continued.

Comments?

Quran 3:59
The similitude of Jesus before Allah is as that of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him: "Be". And he was.

Hm. Seems to support Mark.

Its not about DNA. if God says something it becomes to existence, why he did that way and not throw straight away a man to earth? God knows what you dont know for the reasons he did things, if it was the the opposite, other people would criticize saying "why God did that way?" so for every thing you can find a troubles with it if you want so.

Not really. I've read science-fiction stories which are logically and internally consistent if you accept a handful of premises. The fable of Jesus doesn't even come close. It is riddled with puzzling events, purposeless plot twists, and contradictory reporting. What purpose does having Jesus physically born of a virgin add to the story other than introducing an embellishment to awe the credulous? It's a more colourful story that way and easier to sell.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2014 4:53:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/10/2014 2:51:56 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 11/10/2014 2:29:21 AM, dee-em wrote:

I see the Christians are leaping to defend their faith.

*crickets chirp*

God sent down "Magic Sperm" to impregnate Mary and carry DNA which he created in the image of his own DNA.
Then...
- Birth
- Jesus
- Ministry
- Crucifixion

... and now God can forgive.

Well when you say it like that.................
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
dee-em
Posts: 6,476
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2014 5:00:54 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/10/2014 4:03:36 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 11/10/2014 2:51:56 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 11/10/2014 2:29:21 AM, dee-em wrote:

I see the Christians are leaping to defend their faith.

*crickets chirp*

God sent down "Magic Sperm" to impregnate Mary and carry DNA which he created in the image of his own DNA.
I have magic sperm.
P.O.A

Look, I've tried, but I haven't been able to find a virgin for you to try it on. (I think the Jihadists have rounded them all up for the use of their suicide bombers).
Composer
Posts: 5,858
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2014 6:06:00 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/10/2014 5:00:54 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/10/2014 4:03:36 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 11/10/2014 2:51:56 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 11/10/2014 2:29:21 AM, dee-em wrote:

I see the Christians are leaping to defend their faith.

*crickets chirp*

God sent down "Magic Sperm" to impregnate Mary and carry DNA which he created in the image of his own DNA.
I have magic sperm.
P.O.A

Look, I've tried, but I haven't been able to find a virgin for you to try it on. (I think the Jihadists have rounded them all up for the use of their suicide bombers).

IF we hypothetically accept that bible Story book jebus was a second or third person pre-existent god, then whichever way you look at it, jebus ' spiritually raped & impregnated ' its own earthly Mother!

How disgusting!

That makes it a spiritual Mother FU#&*R
dee-em
Posts: 6,476
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2014 6:43:05 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/10/2014 6:06:00 AM, Composer wrote:
At 11/10/2014 5:00:54 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/10/2014 4:03:36 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 11/10/2014 2:51:56 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 11/10/2014 2:29:21 AM, dee-em wrote:

I see the Christians are leaping to defend their faith.

*crickets chirp*

God sent down "Magic Sperm" to impregnate Mary and carry DNA which he created in the image of his own DNA.
I have magic sperm.
P.O.A

Look, I've tried, but I haven't been able to find a virgin for you to try it on. (I think the Jihadists have rounded them all up for the use of their suicide bombers).

IF we hypothetically accept that bible Story book jebus was a second or third person pre-existent god, then whichever way you look at it, jebus ' spiritually raped & impregnated ' its own earthly Mother!

How disgusting!

That makes it a spiritual Mother FU#&*R

It's too confusing for me. If Jesus, the Son of God, was the Word then he was indeed pre-existing. That's clear. So where was he when Mary was being impregnated? Apparently that was his brother, the Holy Ghost, doing the deed with magic sperm. So at what point did the foetus become co-opted by Jesus? We must have the progeny of Mary and the Holy Ghost become the host for a mind invasion by Jesus. What?

And yet Mark has the Holy Ghost coming down to invade the newly baptised human Jesus who then magically turns into the Son of God even though the Son of God is pre-existing. What?

We need a Christian to explain this because I can't.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2014 8:35:16 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/9/2014 6:04:40 AM, dee-em wrote:
Ah, the virgin birth. Firstly, 'Mark', the generally accepted first gospel from which 'Matthew' and 'Luke' both borrow extensively, starts with a fully grown Jesus who is baptised by John the Baptist and then immediately adopted by God as his son. There is nothing about his birth and childhood or details of his family. In fact, he soon disowns his mother and brothers when they come to collect him when they think he has lost his mind. The fact that 'Matthew' and then 'Luke' add (differing) nativity stories later in time is typical of myth-building. The story gets progressively more elaborate and exaggerated as time goes on. Details accrue with each retelling.

But let's assume that the nativity stories have some truth for the sake of argument. We have Mary, a virgin, conceiving a child via divine intervention (somehow). The first problem is that Mary only has an egg with her DNA. Without the injection of additional DNA from a sperm, any baby she produces will be a clone of herself. Further, the XY sex-determination system employed by humans means that any offspring of a parthenogenic process will have two X chromosomes and be female. So, the first problem is, how did Mary not give birth to Mary Jnr who looked just like her? Where did the male DNA come from?

Now Christians are going to jump in here and tell me that a supernatural God can do anything. That is precisely the point. Why would such a being, with such power, not simply zap her a baby boy and say "Here is my son. Raise him as our own and he will do fabulous things when he grows up". It would avoid the pointless nine months of pregnancy and the inherent dangers of child-birth. It would also avoid marital problems with Joseph who must have been livid at being cuckolded. In fact, why does God need Mary at all? Just zap Jesus as a man into existence and away you go. Which brings us back to Mark and the original version.

The answer is obvious, of course. Early Christians could not have been satisfied with a man appearing out of nowhere. They wanted more. So even earlier pagan myths were appropriated to have a miraculous birth narrative. The son of god would be born at exactly the same time of year as the rebirth of the sun. The gospel authors couldn't have a straight union between God and a human female since Christians had been mocking the Greek and Roman gods for exactly this sort of thing. They had to put a twist on it. Hence the 'virgin' birth to avoid any hint of carnality. And so the myth-building process continued.

Comments?

Christians don't understand the prophecies. The "virgin" means the invisible Holy Spirit, not the visible mother of a Christian deity ( imaginary god ) called Jesus. Not one Christian knows why us saints are here or why we're all killed for our testimonies.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2014 9:48:48 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/10/2014 6:43:05 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/10/2014 6:06:00 AM, Composer wrote:
At 11/10/2014 5:00:54 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/10/2014 4:03:36 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 11/10/2014 2:51:56 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 11/10/2014 2:29:21 AM, dee-em wrote:

I see the Christians are leaping to defend their faith.

*crickets chirp*

God sent down "Magic Sperm" to impregnate Mary and carry DNA which he created in the image of his own DNA.
I have magic sperm.
P.O.A

Look, I've tried, but I haven't been able to find a virgin for you to try it on. (I think the Jihadists have rounded them all up for the use of their suicide bombers).

IF we hypothetically accept that bible Story book jebus was a second or third person pre-existent god, then whichever way you look at it, jebus ' spiritually raped & impregnated ' its own earthly Mother!

How disgusting!

That makes it a spiritual Mother FU#&*R

It's too confusing for me. If Jesus, the Son of God, was the Word then he was indeed pre-existing. That's clear. So where was he when Mary was being impregnated? Apparently that was his brother, the Holy Ghost, doing the deed with magic sperm. So at what point did the foetus become co-opted by Jesus? We must have the progeny of Mary and the Holy Ghost become the host for a mind invasion by Jesus. What?

And yet Mark has the Holy Ghost coming down to invade the newly baptised human Jesus who then magically turns into the Son of God even though the Son of God is pre-existing. What?

We need a Christian to explain this because I can't.

Nor can they. We simply understand the process to far greater detail than people did when the story was first fabricated. (And you've done an admirable job of illustrating that point.)
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
dee-em
Posts: 6,476
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2014 5:55:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
So despite the frequent complaints by Christians that there is not enough discussion of biblical issues in this forum, most of them won't touch this topic with a 10 foot barge pole.

* crickets chirp *
dee-em
Posts: 6,476
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2014 12:11:27 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/10/2014 8:35:16 AM, bornofgod wrote:
At 11/9/2014 6:04:40 AM, dee-em wrote:
Ah, the virgin birth. Firstly, 'Mark', the generally accepted first gospel from which 'Matthew' and 'Luke' both borrow extensively, starts with a fully grown Jesus who is baptised by John the Baptist and then immediately adopted by God as his son. There is nothing about his birth and childhood or details of his family. In fact, he soon disowns his mother and brothers when they come to collect him when they think he has lost his mind. The fact that 'Matthew' and then 'Luke' add (differing) nativity stories later in time is typical of myth-building. The story gets progressively more elaborate and exaggerated as time goes on. Details accrue with each retelling.

But let's assume that the nativity stories have some truth for the sake of argument. We have Mary, a virgin, conceiving a child via divine intervention (somehow). The first problem is that Mary only has an egg with her DNA. Without the injection of additional DNA from a sperm, any baby she produces will be a clone of herself. Further, the XY sex-determination system employed by humans means that any offspring of a parthenogenic process will have two X chromosomes and be female. So, the first problem is, how did Mary not give birth to Mary Jnr who looked just like her? Where did the male DNA come from?

Now Christians are going to jump in here and tell me that a supernatural God can do anything. That is precisely the point. Why would such a being, with such power, not simply zap her a baby boy and say "Here is my son. Raise him as our own and he will do fabulous things when he grows up". It would avoid the pointless nine months of pregnancy and the inherent dangers of child-birth. It would also avoid marital problems with Joseph who must have been livid at being cuckolded. In fact, why does God need Mary at all? Just zap Jesus as a man into existence and away you go. Which brings us back to Mark and the original version.

The answer is obvious, of course. Early Christians could not have been satisfied with a man appearing out of nowhere. They wanted more. So even earlier pagan myths were appropriated to have a miraculous birth narrative. The son of god would be born at exactly the same time of year as the rebirth of the sun. The gospel authors couldn't have a straight union between God and a human female since Christians had been mocking the Greek and Roman gods for exactly this sort of thing. They had to put a twist on it. Hence the 'virgin' birth to avoid any hint of carnality. And so the myth-building process continued.

Comments?

Christians don't understand the prophecies. The "virgin" means the invisible Holy Spirit, not the visible mother of a Christian deity ( imaginary god ) called Jesus.

Luke
26 In the sixth month of Elizabeth"s pregnancy, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, 27 to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin"s name was Mary. 28 The angel went to her and said, "Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you."

29 Mary was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind of greeting this might be. 30 But the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary; you have found favor with God. 31 You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you are to call him Jesus. 32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, 33 and he will reign over Jacob"s descendants forever; his kingdom will never end."

34 "How will this be," Mary asked the angel, "since I am a virgin?"

35 The angel answered, "The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called[b] the Son of God.


So it is your contention that the invisible (of course) Holy Spirit came and "overshadowed' (ie. copulated with) the Holy Spirit?
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2014 9:00:04 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/11/2014 12:11:27 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/10/2014 8:35:16 AM, bornofgod wrote:
At 11/9/2014 6:04:40 AM, dee-em wrote:
Ah, the virgin birth. Firstly, 'Mark', the generally accepted first gospel from which 'Matthew' and 'Luke' both borrow extensively, starts with a fully grown Jesus who is baptised by John the Baptist and then immediately adopted by God as his son. There is nothing about his birth and childhood or details of his family. In fact, he soon disowns his mother and brothers when they come to collect him when they think he has lost his mind. The fact that 'Matthew' and then 'Luke' add (differing) nativity stories later in time is typical of myth-building. The story gets progressively more elaborate and exaggerated as time goes on. Details accrue with each retelling.

But let's assume that the nativity stories have some truth for the sake of argument. We have Mary, a virgin, conceiving a child via divine intervention (somehow). The first problem is that Mary only has an egg with her DNA. Without the injection of additional DNA from a sperm, any baby she produces will be a clone of herself. Further, the XY sex-determination system employed by humans means that any offspring of a parthenogenic process will have two X chromosomes and be female. So, the first problem is, how did Mary not give birth to Mary Jnr who looked just like her? Where did the male DNA come from?

Now Christians are going to jump in here and tell me that a supernatural God can do anything. That is precisely the point. Why would such a being, with such power, not simply zap her a baby boy and say "Here is my son. Raise him as our own and he will do fabulous things when he grows up". It would avoid the pointless nine months of pregnancy and the inherent dangers of child-birth. It would also avoid marital problems with Joseph who must have been livid at being cuckolded. In fact, why does God need Mary at all? Just zap Jesus as a man into existence and away you go. Which brings us back to Mark and the original version.

The answer is obvious, of course. Early Christians could not have been satisfied with a man appearing out of nowhere. They wanted more. So even earlier pagan myths were appropriated to have a miraculous birth narrative. The son of god would be born at exactly the same time of year as the rebirth of the sun. The gospel authors couldn't have a straight union between God and a human female since Christians had been mocking the Greek and Roman gods for exactly this sort of thing. They had to put a twist on it. Hence the 'virgin' birth to avoid any hint of carnality. And so the myth-building process continued.

Comments?

Christians don't understand the prophecies. The "virgin" means the invisible Holy Spirit, not the visible mother of a Christian deity ( imaginary god ) called Jesus.

Luke
26 In the sixth month of Elizabeth"s pregnancy, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, 27 to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin"s name was Mary. 28 The angel went to her and said, "Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you."

29 Mary was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind of greeting this might be. 30 But the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary; you have found favor with God. 31 You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you are to call him Jesus. 32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, 33 and he will reign over Jacob"s descendants forever; his kingdom will never end."

34 "How will this be," Mary asked the angel, "since I am a virgin?"

35 The angel answered, "The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called[b] the Son of God.


So it is your contention that the invisible (of course) Holy Spirit came and "overshadowed' (ie. copulated with) the Holy Spirit?

I don't get my information from reading the Bible. I was taught directly by the ONE who created us all and formed illusions called flesh for us to experience life with in this make-believe world. I use prophecies to teach God's stupid people that they can't understand them.

Isaiah 7
14"Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel.

The "virgin" in this prophecy has nothing to do with a visible mother named Mary. It is a symbolic name of God's consciousness ( the invisible Word of God ) where ALL God's people are created. The flesh of man is formed as an illusion that isn't real. Our true existence is in the mind of God as a dream.

The "son" is the voice of the Lord that is spoken through all God's saints known as the invisible Messiah. Jesus, Peter, Paul, Timothy and the rest of us saints testify in writing and speaking from this invisible Messiah that the "virgin" birthed into this world ( the 1,000 year reign of Christ ). Christ is another name for the invisible Messiah that was birthed into this world to be spoken by God's saints of which I am the last.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2014 9:07:54 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/10/2014 5:55:12 PM, dee-em wrote:
So despite the frequent complaints by Christians that there is not enough discussion of biblical issues in this forum, most of them won't touch this topic with a 10 foot barge pole.

* crickets chirp *

I'm not a Christian but I understand exactly how God created everything.

I'll make a new OP for you to read called, "Who are we".
IEnglishman
Posts: 148
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2014 11:00:33 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/9/2014 6:04:40 AM, dee-em wrote:

Comments?

Your analogy of the virgin birth to myth stories is worthless if you don't mention a single god who was born that way.
Bulproof admits he's a troll http://www.debate.org... (see post 16). Do not feed.
dee-em
Posts: 6,476
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2014 5:49:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/11/2014 11:00:33 AM, IEnglishman wrote:
At 11/9/2014 6:04:40 AM, dee-em wrote:

Comments?

Your analogy of the virgin birth to myth stories is worthless if you don't mention a single god who was born that way.

These pagan stories of miraculous births are commonly known. The Greeks had them, and the Egyptians had them too. Look up Osirus, Isis and Horus.
dee-em
Posts: 6,476
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2014 5:56:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/11/2014 9:00:04 AM, bornofgod wrote:
At 11/11/2014 12:11:27 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/10/2014 8:35:16 AM, bornofgod wrote:
At 11/9/2014 6:04:40 AM, dee-em wrote:
Ah, the virgin birth. Firstly, 'Mark', the generally accepted first gospel from which 'Matthew' and 'Luke' both borrow extensively, starts with a fully grown Jesus who is baptised by John the Baptist and then immediately adopted by God as his son. There is nothing about his birth and childhood or details of his family. In fact, he soon disowns his mother and brothers when they come to collect him when they think he has lost his mind. The fact that 'Matthew' and then 'Luke' add (differing) nativity stories later in time is typical of myth-building. The story gets progressively more elaborate and exaggerated as time goes on. Details accrue with each retelling.

But let's assume that the nativity stories have some truth for the sake of argument. We have Mary, a virgin, conceiving a child via divine intervention (somehow). The first problem is that Mary only has an egg with her DNA. Without the injection of additional DNA from a sperm, any baby she produces will be a clone of herself. Further, the XY sex-determination system employed by humans means that any offspring of a parthenogenic process will have two X chromosomes and be female. So, the first problem is, how did Mary not give birth to Mary Jnr who looked just like her? Where did the male DNA come from?

Now Christians are going to jump in here and tell me that a supernatural God can do anything. That is precisely the point. Why would such a being, with such power, not simply zap her a baby boy and say "Here is my son. Raise him as our own and he will do fabulous things when he grows up". It would avoid the pointless nine months of pregnancy and the inherent dangers of child-birth. It would also avoid marital problems with Joseph who must have been livid at being cuckolded. In fact, why does God need Mary at all? Just zap Jesus as a man into existence and away you go. Which brings us back to Mark and the original version.

The answer is obvious, of course. Early Christians could not have been satisfied with a man appearing out of nowhere. They wanted more. So even earlier pagan myths were appropriated to have a miraculous birth narrative. The son of god would be born at exactly the same time of year as the rebirth of the sun. The gospel authors couldn't have a straight union between God and a human female since Christians had been mocking the Greek and Roman gods for exactly this sort of thing. They had to put a twist on it. Hence the 'virgin' birth to avoid any hint of carnality. And so the myth-building process continued.

Comments?

Christians don't understand the prophecies. The "virgin" means the invisible Holy Spirit, not the visible mother of a Christian deity ( imaginary god ) called Jesus.

Luke
26 In the sixth month of Elizabeth"s pregnancy, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, 27 to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin"s name was Mary. 28 The angel went to her and said, "Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you."

29 Mary was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind of greeting this might be. 30 But the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary; you have found favor with God. 31 You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you are to call him Jesus. 32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, 33 and he will reign over Jacob"s descendants forever; his kingdom will never end."

34 "How will this be," Mary asked the angel, "since I am a virgin?"

35 The angel answered, "The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called[b] the Son of God.


So it is your contention that the invisible (of course) Holy Spirit came and "overshadowed' (ie. copulated with) the Holy Spirit?

I don't get my information from reading the Bible. I was taught directly by the ONE who created us all and formed illusions called flesh for us to experience life with in this make-believe world. I use prophecies to teach God's stupid people that they can't understand them.

Isaiah 7
14"Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel.

The "virgin" in this prophecy has nothing to do with a visible mother named Mary. It is a symbolic name of God's consciousness ( the invisible Word of God ) where ALL God's people are created. The flesh of man is formed as an illusion that isn't real. Our true existence is in the mind of God as a dream.

The "son" is the voice of the Lord that is spoken through all God's saints known as the invisible Messiah. Jesus, Peter, Paul, Timothy and the rest of us saints testify in writing and speaking from this invisible Messiah that the "virgin" birthed into this world ( the 1,000 year reign of Christ ). Christ is another name for the invisible Messiah that was birthed into this world to be spoken by God's saints of which I am the last.

Your psychosis is deepening. Get help.