Total Posts:54|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The virgin birth

Gentorev
Posts: 2,877
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2014 3:41:38 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Does the bible truly teach that Jesus was born of a virgin. Born of a woman who conceived without male sperm having been introduced into her uterus?
The tongue, the sharp two edged sword that divides the spirit from the soul.
dee-em
Posts: 6,444
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2014 4:30:47 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/25/2014 3:41:38 AM, Gentorev wrote:
Does the bible truly teach that Jesus was born of a virgin. Born of a woman who conceived without male sperm having been introduced into her uterus?

Yep, even though the Son of God already existed since before creation.
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2014 5:42:32 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/25/2014 3:41:38 AM, Gentorev wrote:
Does the bible truly teach that Jesus was born of a virgin. Born of a woman who conceived without male sperm having been introduced into her uterus?

That would be correct.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2014 5:46:37 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/25/2014 3:41:38 AM, Gentorev wrote:
Does the bible truly teach that Jesus was born of a virgin. Born of a woman who conceived without male sperm having been introduced into her uterus?

The authentic (undisputed) writings of Paul and the gospel of Mark, which are the earliest writings if Christianity do not mention a virgin birth. It clearly is a later synthesis, with the Q document (which Luke and Matthew share), John and Acts describing it.

The earlier books of the NT (including the synoptic Gospels) also make no mention of Jesus' divinity, the claim just becomes more fantastical over time.
Emilrose
Posts: 2,479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2014 5:56:07 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/25/2014 3:41:38 AM, Gentorev wrote:
Does the bible truly teach that Jesus was born of a virgin. Born of a woman who conceived without male sperm having been introduced into her uterus?

Lol :D

The NT does indeed teach that. Christians often identify that Yesha'yahu (Isaiah) 7:14 is a prophecy for the future birth of Jesus and that it explicitly states "virgin". When in actual fact the Hebrew term used is "Almah" which only translates as "young maiden". Additional context taken into account it was actually a prophecy for his own "Almah" conceiving a child.
Commentator on a picture with David Cameron and a Cat: 'Amazing what you can achieve with photoshop these days. I'm sure that used to be a pig.'

Commentator on Hillary Clinton: 'If Clinton is now what passes for progressive, maybe this country deserves Trump.'

Commentator on British parliament: 'All that talent in one place, where is Ebola when you need it?'

John Kerry on words: 'These aren't just words, folks.'
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2014 7:23:10 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/25/2014 5:46:37 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 11/25/2014 3:41:38 AM, Gentorev wrote:
Does the bible truly teach that Jesus was born of a virgin. Born of a woman who conceived without male sperm having been introduced into her uterus?

The authentic (undisputed) writings of Paul and the gospel of Mark, which are the earliest writings if Christianity do not mention a virgin birth. It clearly is a later synthesis, with the Q document (which Luke and Matthew share), John and Acts describing it.

You'd have to give something close to proof before you'd be allowed to merely assume the existence of a Q document.

The earlier books of the NT (including the synoptic Gospels) also make no mention of Jesus' divinity, the claim just becomes more fantastical over time.

Ummm ... are you counting the Gospel of John as a "synoptic" gospel?
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Composer
Posts: 5,858
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2014 7:37:53 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/25/2014 5:42:32 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 11/25/2014 3:41:38 AM, Gentorev wrote:
Does the bible truly teach that Jesus was born of a virgin. Born of a woman who conceived without male sperm having been introduced into her uterus?

That would be correct.

That would be incorrect actually -

Story book Proof: . . . . his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing. 49 And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business ? 50 And they understood not the saying which he spake unto them. (Luke 2:41-50) KJV Story book
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2014 7:52:39 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/25/2014 7:37:53 AM, Composer wrote:
At 11/25/2014 5:42:32 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 11/25/2014 3:41:38 AM, Gentorev wrote:
Does the bible truly teach that Jesus was born of a virgin. Born of a woman who conceived without male sperm having been introduced into her uterus?

That would be correct.

That would be incorrect actually -

Story book Proof: . . . . his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing. 49 And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business ? 50 And they understood not the saying which he spake unto them. (Luke 2:41-50) KJV Story book

Pfffffffftt
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Composer
Posts: 5,858
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2014 8:02:21 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/25/2014 5:42:32 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 11/25/2014 3:41:38 AM, Gentorev wrote:
Does the bible truly teach that Jesus was born of a virgin. Born of a woman who conceived without male sperm having been introduced into her uterus?

That would be correct.

At 11/25/2014 7:37:53 AM, Composer wrote:
That would be incorrect actually -

Story book Proof: . . . . his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing. 49 And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business ? 50 And they understood not the saying which he spake unto them. (Luke 2:41-50) KJV Story book

At 11/25/2014 7:52:39 AM, annanicole wrote:
Pfffffffftt
I was trying to be subtle about your proven spurious claim, but I see now in view of your dismissive admission, you accept your claim was spurious and only deserving of your Pfffffffftt!

I remain vindicated whilst you remain corrected!

QED
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2014 8:07:46 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/25/2014 7:23:10 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 11/25/2014 5:46:37 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 11/25/2014 3:41:38 AM, Gentorev wrote:
Does the bible truly teach that Jesus was born of a virgin. Born of a woman who conceived without male sperm having been introduced into her uterus?

The authentic (undisputed) writings of Paul and the gospel of Mark, which are the earliest writings if Christianity do not mention a virgin birth. It clearly is a later synthesis, with the Q document (which Luke and Matthew share), John and Acts describing it.

You'd have to give something close to proof before you'd be allowed to merely assume the existence of a Q document.

It really doesn't matter if it did or didn't exist for the purposes of this thread.

There is the synoptic problem, of which large almost-verbatim sections of non-quote text are shared by Luke and Matthew that are not shared by Mark. Sections that are much too precise to be from separate oral traditions, so either Luke or Matthew built on the other, or they shared a source.

The former is rather unlikely because there is unique material in both Luke and Matthew that probably would have been included if one literally used the other as a basis (as the other used Mark). If it was the case then it probably would be Matthew that used Luke that used Mark. One good reason to believe that is that Matthew attempts to correct the geographical errors present in Mark, which are not shared in the Luke Gospel.

Also, textual criticism puts their compositional dates very close to each other, so if one was completed, then there would have been very, very few copies of the manuscript around when the other was commissioned. Much more reasonable to take the hypothesis that they simply just share two sources (Mark and Q).

I am sure there has been loads of textual criticism on the matter which provides other reasons but I am not familiar with the field.

The earlier books of the NT (including the synoptic Gospels) also make no mention of Jesus' divinity, the claim just becomes more fantastical over time.

Ummm ... are you counting the Gospel of John as a "synoptic" gospel?

No.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org...
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2014 1:12:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/25/2014 3:41:38 AM, Gentorev wrote:
Does the bible truly teach that Jesus was born of a virgin. Born of a woman who conceived without male sperm having been introduced into her uterus?

No it doesn't. The "virgin" used in the prophecies of the old testament mean the Holy Spirit, which is the consciousness ( information ) where all God's illusions came from. The virgin is considered the mother of all God's people, beasts and the other objects of this universe.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2014 3:04:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/25/2014 3:41:38 AM, Gentorev wrote:
Does the bible truly teach that Jesus was born of a virgin. Born of a woman who conceived without male sperm having been introduced into her uterus?

Yes it does, and what is more, though many will try to deny this, it t3eaches that Jesus was not teh first.

Ther point in teh case of Jesus is that there was no other way to produce the sort of human needed for a genuione sacrifice to balance out what Adam threw away. It entailed altering the DNA of an egg in Mary's womb so that the resultant human had all the qualitites that the body of Adam posessed, right down to teh right to eternla human life.

It only works because it si a like for like exchange, as scripture says, , the first Adam brought death on mankind Christ bought us back the right to perfect human life in the Kingdom of God when it is finalised after the final test.

The other example was back in the time of Ahaz.

Isaiah 7:11-16
ASV(i) 11 Ask thee a sign of Jehovah thy God; ask it either in the depth, or in the height above. 12 But Ahaz said, I will not ask, neither will I tempt Jehovah. 13 And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David: Is it a small thing for you to weary men, that ye will weary my God also? 14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. 15 Butter and honey shall he eat, when he knoweth to refuse the evil, and choose the good. 16 For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land whose two kings thou abhorrest shall be forsaken.

That has been pointed out later in scripture to have been a precursor of Christ, and this is true. However it was also a sign fo Ahaz, and therefore must have happened as Isaiah foretold or it would not have been a sign at all.

There are many thing in scrpture that poeple are frightened to admit to vecause it damages their precious doctrines, but if scripture says it happened, it happened. Any doctrine which denies it denies scripture, and as with the Mosaic Law if you deny the accuracy of one scripture you deny, or at the very least cast doubt on them all.

As someone else said at another time and in another thread, now sit back and wait for the fireworks.
dee-em
Posts: 6,444
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2014 5:12:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/25/2014 5:46:37 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 11/25/2014 3:41:38 AM, Gentorev wrote:
Does the bible truly teach that Jesus was born of a virgin. Born of a woman who conceived without male sperm having been introduced into her uterus?

The authentic (undisputed) writings of Paul and the gospel of Mark, which are the earliest writings if Christianity do not mention a virgin birth. It clearly is a later synthesis, with the Q document (which Luke and Matthew share), John and Acts describing it.

Yes, Mark not having a birth narrative ties in with the idea that he was originally conceived of as a celestial being who came down to Earth to teach and to be a saviour.

The earlier books of the NT (including the synoptic Gospels) also make no mention of Jesus' divinity, the claim just becomes more fantastical over time.

Not on a status with God, no.
Gentorev
Posts: 2,877
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2014 5:40:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Gentorev wrote.......Does the bible truly teach that Jesus was born of a virgin. Born of a woman who conceived without male sperm having been introduced into her uterus?

Post #1

Dee-em wrote.........Yep, even though the Son of God already existed since before ,

Gentorev replies.........Wrong. The man Jesus did not exist until he was conceived in the womb of Mary, whose egg was fertilised by the sperm of her half brother, Joseph the son of Alexander Helios or Heli, the father of Mary. This Joseph, a descendant of Nathan the prophet, who was a half brother to Solomon, should not be confused with Joseph the descendant of Solomon through the cursed line of Jehoiachin.

There are many men in the NT by the name Joseph, but only Joseph, "The son of Heli" is the biological father of Jesus.
The tongue, the sharp two edged sword that divides the spirit from the soul.
Gentorev
Posts: 2,877
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2014 5:42:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Annanicole wrote.........In answer to the question, Does the bible truly teach that Jesus was born of a virgin. Born of a woman who conceived without male sperm having been introduced into her uterus? "That would be correct."

Gentorev replies.........Nope, any serious student of the bible will disagree with you.
The tongue, the sharp two edged sword that divides the spirit from the soul.
Gentorev
Posts: 2,877
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2014 5:52:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Envisagewrote........The authentic (undisputed) writings of Paul and the gospel of Mark, which are the earliest writings if Christianity do not mention a virgin birth. It clearly is a later synthesis, with the Q document (which Luke and Matthew share), John and Acts describing it.

The earlier books of the NT (including the synoptic Gospels) also make no mention of Jesus' divinity, the claim just becomes more fantastical over time.

Gentorev replies........ To begin with, the imaginary Q document never did exist. Luke and Matthew share the same source, which were the stories handed down by people who either knew Jesus, or who had heard the stories of Jesus from those who did know him. Luke 1: 1; Many people have done their best to write a report of the things that have taken place among us. They wrote what "WE" have been told by those who saw these things from the beginning and who proclaim the message. And so Your Excellency I have carefully studied all these matters (All the written reports by the many people who had been told of the things that had taken place by those who saw these thing from the beginning) etc.

You are correct in stating that Paul makes no mention of the so called virgin birth of the man Jesus, who was later given divine Glory by the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

Acts 3: 13; "The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our ancestors, has given divine glory to his servant Jesus."

But you are wrong to suppose that there is no mention of the divinity of Jesus, who we once knew as a man, who, after being glorified by our God (The Lesser Jahweh) confronted Saul on the road to Damascus, in his new body of glorious light.

When Saul asked who it was that was speaking to him from out of the blinding light, the voice said to him, "I am Jesus of Nazareth whom you persecute. So Saul/Paul does make mention of the divinity of Jesus, who has won the victory and now sits in the throne of our Father and invites all who win the victory also, to sit with him in the throne of the controlling head of all creation.
The tongue, the sharp two edged sword that divides the spirit from the soul.
dee-em
Posts: 6,444
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2014 5:56:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/25/2014 5:40:22 PM, Gentorev wrote:
Gentorev wrote.......Does the bible truly teach that Jesus was born of a virgin. Born of a woman who conceived without male sperm having been introduced into her uterus?

Some advice. Hit "Reply & Quote" so you don't have to copy text around. Also, I then receive a notification of your post to alert me that I may need to respond.

Post #1

Dee-em wrote.........Yep, even though the Son of God already existed since before ,

Gentorev replies.........Wrong. The man Jesus did not exist until he was conceived in the womb of Mary, whose egg was fertilised by the sperm of her half brother, Joseph the son of Alexander Helios or Heli, the father of Mary. This Joseph, a descendant of Nathan the prophet, who was a half brother to Solomon, should not be confused with Joseph the descendant of Solomon through the cursed line of Jehoiachin.

Are you on drugs? Where are you getting this from?

There are many men in the NT by the name Joseph, but only Joseph, "The son of Heli" is the biological father of Jesus.

So Jesus was just a man? Yet Paul, 2 decades later, knew nothing about his birth and "Mark" also knew nothing about his birth at least 4 decades later. Yet you apparently, 2,000 years later, claim you know more than they did. I see.
Gentorev
Posts: 2,877
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2014 6:18:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Emelrose wrote........ The NT does indeed teach that. Christians often identify that Yesha'yahu (Isaiah) 7:14 is a prophecy for the future birth of Jesus and that it explicitly states "virgin". When in actual fact the Hebrew term used is "Almah" which only translates as "young maiden". Additional context taken into account it was actually a prophecy for his own "Almah" conceiving a child.

Gentorev replies...........Correct! Although most prophecies refer to the times in which they were written, plus to a time in the future, and as Isaiah" child was never called "IMMANUEL=GOD IS WITH US" it is quite probable that the prophecy does indeed refer to the man Jesus, who was filled with the spirit of the Lord, who revealed himself to us through his obedient servant, "Jesus.".

The word for Tabernacle, mishkan, is a derivative of the same root and is used in the sense of dwelling-place in the Bible, e.g. Psalm 132:5 ("Before I find a place for God, mishkanot (dwelling-places) for the Strong One of Israel.") Accordingly, in classic Jewish thought, the Shekhinah refers to a dwelling or settling in a special sense, a dwelling or settling of divine presence, to the effect that, while in proximity to the Shekhinah, the connection to God is more readily perceivable.

Some Christian theologians have connected the concept of Shekhinah to the Greek term "Parousia", "presence" "arrival," which is used in the New Testament in a similar way for "Divine Presence".

The Light of man, (The Lesser Jahweh) came In the body of a human being, which he had filled with his spirit and lived with us, and we saw his Sh'khinah, (Dwelling place) the Sh'khinah, or Dwelling place, which was the body of the man Jesus that the Father had prepared for his Son, who was to come down and fill, with his spirit, the body that his Father had prepared for him, Jesus, the earthly dwelling of the Father's only Son, full of grace and truth.

In translating the Hebrew words of the prophet Isaiah, that an "Almah" an "unmarried female" is with child and will bear a son," into Greek, a language which unlike the Hebrew language, does not have a specific term for "virgin," the authors of the Septuagint and Matthew correctly used the Greek word "Parthenos," which carries a basic meaning of "girl," or unmarried youth, and denotes "virgin" only by implication.

A more accurate rendering of the Greek "parthenos" is a person who does not have a regular sexual partner, a widow with a family of children who abstains from sexual activity, would be a "parthenos".

In reference to Hanna who nursed the baby Jesus before Mary performed the ceremony of purification, it is said that Anna was a prophetess who earnestly hoped for the coming of the Messiah, she was an old woman of 84 and had been a widow for seven years, never remarrying, but remaining in her parthenia=unmarried and sexually chaste state, ect, but that does not mean that she was a virgin.

To translate something from the Hebrew to the Greek, or from any language to another, one must not lose the essence of the original, and the original was, that "A young unmarried woman was with child." Therefore, as the greater majority of churches now admit that the words of Isaiah, which refer to a child that had been sired by him, was, "A young woman who is pregnant will have a son, etc," Matthew 1: 23; should now read, "Now all this happened to make come true what the Lord had said through Isaiah, "A young woman who is pregnant will have a son, etc." Because they all now admit that those were the words of Isaiah 7: 14.

If you go to "A Dictionary of Biblical Tradition in English Literature," by David Jeffery.
There you will find written, "Many scholars consider the new Revised Standard Version of the King James translation, which is probably the most widely used version of the English bible today, and considered by most modern scholars to be to be the most accurate translation of the Old Testament. It follows the modern consensus in translating "Almah" as "Young Woman" in Isaiah 7: 14.

In 1973, an ecumenical edition of RSV was approved by both Protestant and Catholic hierarchies, called the common bible. As a matter of fact, I have in front of me, A New English Translation of the Bible, published in 1970 and approved by the council of churches in England, Scotland, Wales, the Irish council of churches, the London Society of Friends, and the Methodist and Presbyterian churches of England. And what do we read in Isaiah 7: 14; "A young Woman is with child, and she will bear a son." I also have before me The Good News Bible, catholic Study Edition, with imprimatur by Archbishop John Whealon: and on turning to Isaiah 7: 14; and what do you know? It says here, "A young woman who is pregnant will have a son, etc."

The word "Virgin" in reference to the mother of Jesus is thought to have been first introduced,. when the 5th century Latin Bible "The Vulgate," was translated to English.

But the Latin word virgo has the same multiple connotations as does the Greek parthenos and can mean a unmarried woman, a Young girl, a maiden or a virgin and the Latin term "Virgo" which has multiple connotations, was used by Jerome to translate what Isaiah had said in 7: 14, "An Almah, (Unmarried woman) is with child and shall bear a son who will be called "God is with us."

The emphasis of the prophecy, being on that which the child would be and has been called for over two thousand years, and which Latin version, when translated into English, should now read "An unmarried woman (Almah=Virgo) is with child and shall bear a son and he shall be called, "God is with us," because this is now agreed by the greater majority of christian denominations, to be what is said by Isaiah.
The tongue, the sharp two edged sword that divides the spirit from the soul.
Gentorev
Posts: 2,877
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2014 6:22:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Annanicole wrote..... You'd have to give something close to proof before you'd be allowed to merely assume the existence of a Q document.

Gentorev replies.......Agreed! there is no evidence whatsoever of the existence of the imaginary Q document.
The tongue, the sharp two edged sword that divides the spirit from the soul.
Gentorev
Posts: 2,877
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2014 6:24:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Composer wrote....... Actually - his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing. 49 And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business ? 50 And they understood not the saying which he spake unto them. (Luke 2:41-50) KJV

Gentorev replies........And his mother and her husband at that time, who was Alpheaus/Cleophas, who both knew the identity of the biological father of Jesus, could not understand what the child was one about.
The tongue, the sharp two edged sword that divides the spirit from the soul.
Gentorev
Posts: 2,877
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2014 6:28:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Envisage wrote...... It really doesn't matter if it did or didn't exist for the purposes of this thread.

There is the synoptic problem, of which large almost-verbatim sections of non-quote text are shared by Luke and Matthew that are not shared by Mark. Sections that are much too precise to be from separate oral traditions, so either Luke or Matthew built on the other, or they shared a source.

The former is rather unlikely because there is unique material in both Luke and Matthew etc.

Gentorev replies........Mark makes no mention of the wise men, or the flight of the family into Egypt after the wise men left them in Nazareth, which was the home town to which the family had returned some 41 days after the birth of Jesus, according to Luke.

Mark, who is believed to be the son of Peter, and John the beloved, totally ignore the physical birth of the man Jesus as being irrelevant to the story of salvation, and begin their account with the baptism of Jesus when he was filled with the spirit of the Lord that descended upon him in the form of a dove as the heavenly voice was heard to say, "You are my beloved in whom I am pleased, "This day, I have begotten you."

In Luke 3: 22; (In place of "Thou art my beloved son in who I am well pleased.") The following authorities of the second, third, and fourth centuries read, "This day I have begotten thee," vouched for by Codex D, and the most ancient copies of the old latin (a, b. c. ff.I), by Justin Martyr (AD 140), Clemens Alex, (AD. 190), Methodius (AD. 290), among the Greeks. And among the Latins, Lactaitius (AD 300), Hilary (AD) Juvencus (AD. 330), Faustus (AD. 400) and Augustine. All these oldest manuscripts were changed completely. They now read, "This is my son in whom I am well pleased." Whereas the original variant was, "Thou art my Son. This day I have begotten thee."
The tongue, the sharp two edged sword that divides the spirit from the soul.
Gentorev
Posts: 2,877
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2014 6:31:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Bornof God wrote............ No it doesn't. The "virgin" used in the prophecies of the old testament mean the Holy Spirit, which is the consciousness ( information ) where all God's illusions came from. The virgin is considered the mother of all God's people, beasts and the other objects of this universe.

Gentorev replies.........And where in the OT, does the bible refer to the Holy Spirit as being "VIRGIN?"

The "Virgin may mean the androgynous body of mankind, which is the expanded and pregnant body of Eve, who still lives as the body of mankind, in which body the spirit of God"s son is being formed, which son, is "The SON of MAN." But the "Virgin" is never the mother of the beasts and the other objects of this universe.
The tongue, the sharp two edged sword that divides the spirit from the soul.
dee-em
Posts: 6,444
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2014 9:46:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Gentorov, you do know that none of the people you have replied to will be aware of it?

You seem a little slow on the uptake. There's an option labeled "Reply & Quote". This option sends notifications to people. Using "Add Post" does not. Also, you will be able to avoid your clumsy way of identifying who has written what.

Got it?
Gentorev
Posts: 2,877
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2014 10:06:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/25/2014 5:56:34 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/25/2014 5:40:22 PM, Gentorev wrote:
Gentorev wrote.......Does the bible truly teach that Jesus was born of a virgin. Born of a woman who conceived without male sperm having been introduced into her uterus?

Dee-em wrote.......Some advice. Hit "Reply & Quote" so you don't have to copy text around. Also, I then receive a notification of your post to alert me that I may need to respond.

Gentorev replies......... OK, I hear you.

Dee-em wrote.........Yep, even though the Son of God already existed since before ,

Gentorev replies.........Wrong. The man Jesus did not exist until he was conceived in the womb of Mary, whose egg was fertilised by the sperm of her half brother, Joseph the son of Alexander Helios or Heli, the father of Mary. This Joseph, a descendant of Nathan the prophet, who was a half brother to Solomon, should not be confused with Joseph the descendant of Solomon through the cursed line of Jehoiachin.

Dee-em wrote........Are you on drugs? Where are you getting this from?

Gentorev replies........Nah mate, I have never done drugs, I get my highs from living and learning.

There are many men in the NT by the name Joseph, but only Joseph, "The son of Heli" is the biological father of Jesus.

There is Joseph the son of Jacob, who married the already pregnant Mary, he is about the 24th descendant of Solomon, through the cursed line of Jehoichin, of whom Jerimiah says in chapter 22: 30; Thus saith the Lord. "Write ye this man, a man that shall not prosper in his days; for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah."

Then there is Joseph the son of Alexander Helious (Heli) the father of Mary also, this Joseph is about the 40th descendant of Nathan the prophet and this Joseph is the biological father of Jesus.

There is also Joseph from Arimathea, who is the son of Mary"s first husband and the half brother to Jesus. This Joseph was the one who laid the body of Jesus in his own family tomb which had never been used, suggesting that his father, Joseph the son of Jacob, was still alive.

And what about Joseph the Levite from Cyprus, who was surnamed "Barnabas?"

Dee-em wrote...........So Jesus was just a man? Yet Paul, 2 decades later, knew nothing about his birth and "Mark" also knew nothing about his birth at least 4 decades later. Yet you apparently, 2,000 years later, claim you know more than they did. I see.

Paul did not know the man Jesus, having only experienced an encounter with the spiritual Jesus (The Second Adam) after he had been given divine glory from our lord God and saviour and received his share of the hidden manna, or the spiritual body of our Lord and saviour, whose spiritual body was torn asunder and poured out upon the heads of those who believed his words as spoken through his obedient servant, "Jesus."

And neither Mark or John saw the physical birth of Jesus as being that important to the story of salvation, it was left to Matthew and Luke to reveal what occurred around the time of his physical birth.
The tongue, the sharp two edged sword that divides the spirit from the soul.
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2014 10:25:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/25/2014 5:56:07 AM, Emilrose wrote:
At 11/25/2014 3:41:38 AM, Gentorev wrote:
Does the bible truly teach that Jesus was born of a virgin. Born of a woman who conceived without male sperm having been introduced into her uterus?

Lol :D

The NT does indeed teach that. Christians often identify that Yesha'yahu (Isaiah) 7:14 is a prophecy for the future birth of Jesus and that it explicitly states "virgin". When in actual fact the Hebrew term used is "Almah" which only translates as "young maiden". Additional context taken into account it was actually a prophecy for his own "Almah" conceiving a child.

That's actually really interesting. Fascinating actually. My mother has been learning Hebrew so that she can understand more of the bible. She's Catholic... but very open minded. I'm surprised no one here has challenged you on this posting. Maybe you should take it as a compliment or maybe its just because they'd rather bicker about pregnant virgins. Lol! Freaks!
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: 6,444
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2014 11:17:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/25/2014 10:25:16 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 11/25/2014 5:56:07 AM, Emilrose wrote:
At 11/25/2014 3:41:38 AM, Gentorev wrote:
Does the bible truly teach that Jesus was born of a virgin. Born of a woman who conceived without male sperm having been introduced into her uterus?

Lol :D

The NT does indeed teach that. Christians often identify that Yesha'yahu (Isaiah) 7:14 is a prophecy for the future birth of Jesus and that it explicitly states "virgin". When in actual fact the Hebrew term used is "Almah" which only translates as "young maiden". Additional context taken into account it was actually a prophecy for his own "Almah" conceiving a child.

That's actually really interesting. Fascinating actually. My mother has been learning Hebrew so that she can understand more of the bible. She's Catholic... but very open minded. I'm surprised no one here has challenged you on this posting. Maybe you should take it as a compliment or maybe its just because they'd rather bicker about pregnant virgins. Lol! Freaks!

The bit about a mistranslation of "young maiden" to "virgin" when the Christians were 'borrowing' from scripture has been known for a long, long time. There's not much new under the sun. Nothing deters the Christians though. They want their Messiah to have been born from a virgin!
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2014 11:26:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/25/2014 11:17:25 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/25/2014 10:25:16 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 11/25/2014 5:56:07 AM, Emilrose wrote:
At 11/25/2014 3:41:38 AM, Gentorev wrote:
Does the bible truly teach that Jesus was born of a virgin. Born of a woman who conceived without male sperm having been introduced into her uterus?

Lol :D

The NT does indeed teach that. Christians often identify that Yesha'yahu (Isaiah) 7:14 is a prophecy for the future birth of Jesus and that it explicitly states "virgin". When in actual fact the Hebrew term used is "Almah" which only translates as "young maiden". Additional context taken into account it was actually a prophecy for his own "Almah" conceiving a child.

That's actually really interesting. Fascinating actually. My mother has been learning Hebrew so that she can understand more of the bible. She's Catholic... but very open minded. I'm surprised no one here has challenged you on this posting. Maybe you should take it as a compliment or maybe its just because they'd rather bicker about pregnant virgins. Lol! Freaks!

The bit about a mistranslation of "young maiden" to "virgin" when the Christians were 'borrowing' from scripture has been known for a long, long time. There's not much new under the sun. Nothing deters the Christians though. They want their Messiah to have been born from a virgin!

Right, and they are hopeless romantics who want everything surrounding their Messiah to be magical. I just can't understand why they won't challenge her on this. Is it because they'll lose the debate? Well... yes, yes they would. :)
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
Gentorev
Posts: 2,877
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2014 12:12:58 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/25/2014 11:17:25 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/25/2014 10:25:16 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 11/25/2014 5:56:07 AM, Emilrose wrote:
At 11/25/2014 3:41:38 AM, Gentorev wrote:
Does the bible truly teach that Jesus was born of a virgin. Born of a woman who conceived without male sperm having been introduced into her uterus?

Dee-em wrote....... The bit about a mistranslation of "young maiden" to "virgin" when the Christians were 'borrowing' from scripture has been known for a long, long time. There's not much new under the sun. Nothing deters the Christians though. They want their Messiah to have been born from a virgin!

Gentorev responds.........Yes! It's sad isn't it? To think that grown adults could be so gullible.

In the days of the Apostle Paul who in 1st Timothy 1: 1; says: "From Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by order of "GOD OUR SAVIOUR" and Christ Jesus "OUR HOPE."" The people were already beginning to fall away from the truth, and following another gospel that was not taught by the word of God or the apostles.

In his 2nd letter to the Corinthians 11: 4; Paul says, "You gladly tolerate anyone who comes to you and preaches a different Jesus, not the one we preached; and you accept a spirit (The Lie) and a gospel completely different from the spirit (Of Truth) and the gospel you received from us."

Then in Galatians 1: 6; Paul says again, "I am surprised at you! In no time at all you are deserting the truth and are accepting another gospel.

So, What was that other gospel, Way back in the days of Paul, that was leading the people away from the truth and away from the Jesus as preached by the Apostles, to another false Jesus?

That gospel was the word of the anti-christ that refused to acknowledge that Jesus had come as a human being of the seed of Adam, and instead, they believed that he was a spirit, who, like some Hologram, would appear and disappear at will.

Even in the days of John, the false teaching that Jesus was not of the seed of Adam from which every human being who has, or ever will walk this earth, has descended, and had not come as a human being, but as a spiritual being, was already being spread throughout the world, and concerning that evolving falsehood, John had this to say.

1st letter of John 4:1-3; "My dear friends, do not believe all who claim to have the spirit, (My words are spirit) but test them to find out if the spirit they have comes from God. For many false prophets have gone out everywhere. This is how you will be able to know if it is Gods spirit/word: anyone who acknowledges that Jesus came as a human being has the spirit who comes from God. But anyone who denies this about Jesus does not have the spirit from God. The spirit that he has is from the enemy of the anointed one, the Anti-christ etc."

2nd letter of John verses 7-10;."Many deceivers have gone out all over the world, people who do not acknowledge that Jesus came as a human being. Such a person is a deceiver and an enemy of Christ."

If you would care to open your eyes, I"m sure that you will have little difficulty in finding the teaching of the anti-christ which does not deny that Jesus had come, but which refused to acknowledge that Jesus was a true human being descended from Adam, which has been spread throughout the entire WORLD.

Over the centuries the false teaching of the anti-christ continued to evolve, and the followers of the anti-christ became more enlightened and harder to deceive. In Alexandria, by the second century, Docetism, the concept that Jesus had existed as a spirit rather than a human being, had all but theoretically been stamped out.

But still, there persisted the belief that their false Jesus, although seen as a sort of human being, did not have our normal bodily needs, such as eating, drinking and having to go to the toilet, and Clement the bishop of Alexandria, wrote: "It would be ridiculous to imagine that the redeemer, in order to exist, had the usual needs of man. He only took food and ate it in order that we should not teach about him in a Docetic fashion."

Satan must have been some sort of an idiot believing that this false Jesus of theirs, who had no need of food such as we human beings do, was starving hungry after a mere 40 days without food, who then tried to tempt their false Jesus into turning stones into bread.

Their Jesus was not the Jesus as taught by the apostles, but that other Jesus, taught by the Anti-Christ, who unlike we mere HUMAN BEINGS, did not need to eat, drink, or go to the toilet, as was taught by one of the great teachers that the members of the universal church, love to use as one of their authorities when trying to defend one of their false doctrines.

Saint Clement of Alexandria, who was a saint in the Martyrology of the Roman universal church, in support of the great lie, speaks of the time that some imaginary midwife, who was supposed to be at the birth of Jesus, told some woman by the name Salome, that the mother was still a virgin after the birth and that her hymen was still intact, and that this supposed Salome, stuck her finger into the mother"s vagina to check, and her hand immediately withered up, but the baby Jesus reached out and touched her hand and healed it.

Down to the 17th century Clement was venerated as a saint. His name was to be found in the Martyrologies, and his feast fell on December 4. But when the Roman Martyrology was revised by Clement VIII (Pope from 1592 to 1605), his name was dropped from the calendar on the advice of his confessor, Cardinal Baronius. Pope Benedict XIV in 1748 maintained his predecessor's decision on the grounds that Clement's life was little-known; that he had never obtained public cultus in the Church; and that some of his doctrines were, if not erroneous, at least highly suspect.

But by then the false teaching was firmly entrenched in the world, and the gullible people of today still believe the lie that cannot be substantiated by the Holy Scriptures.
The tongue, the sharp two edged sword that divides the spirit from the soul.
Emilrose
Posts: 2,479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2014 4:08:09 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/25/2014 10:25:16 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 11/25/2014 5:56:07 AM, Emilrose wrote:
At 11/25/2014 3:41:38 AM, Gentorev wrote:
Does the bible truly teach that Jesus was born of a virgin. Born of a woman who conceived without male sperm having been introduced into her uterus?

Lol :D

The NT does indeed teach that. Christians often identify that Yesha'yahu (Isaiah) 7:14 is a prophecy for the future birth of Jesus and that it explicitly states "virgin". When in actual fact the Hebrew term used is "Almah" which only translates as "young maiden". Additional context taken into account it was actually a prophecy for his own "Almah" conceiving a child.

That's actually really interesting. Fascinating actually. My mother has been learning Hebrew so that she can understand more of the bible. She's Catholic... but very open minded. I'm surprised no one here has challenged you on this posting. Maybe you should take it as a compliment or maybe its just because they'd rather bicker about pregnant virgins. Lol! Freaks!

Yes, that's probably one of the most significant but there's been a number of mistranslations and misinterpretations made by Christian sources. One is that Messiah Within Judaism there's actually only a select verses that are truly considered Messianic. (Jeremiah 22:5) being one of the biggest.

Hehe, I'd say that's the case! Not many Christians respond to my posts.
Commentator on a picture with David Cameron and a Cat: 'Amazing what you can achieve with photoshop these days. I'm sure that used to be a pig.'

Commentator on Hillary Clinton: 'If Clinton is now what passes for progressive, maybe this country deserves Trump.'

Commentator on British parliament: 'All that talent in one place, where is Ebola when you need it?'

John Kerry on words: 'These aren't just words, folks.'
Gentorev
Posts: 2,877
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2014 6:09:12 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/26/2014 4:08:09 AM, Emilrose wrote:
At 11/25/2014 10:25:16 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 11/25/2014 5:56:07 AM, Emilrose wrote:
At 11/25/2014 3:41:38 AM, Gentorev wrote:
Does the bible truly teach that Jesus was born of a virgin. Born of a woman who conceived without male sperm having been introduced into her uterus?

Lol :D

The NT does indeed teach that. Christians often identify that Yesha'yahu (Isaiah) 7:14 is a prophecy for the future birth of Jesus and that it explicitly states "virgin". When in actual fact the Hebrew term used is "Almah" which only translates as "young maiden". Additional context taken into account it was actually a prophecy for his own "Almah" conceiving a child.

That's actually really interesting. Fascinating actually. My mother has been learning Hebrew so that she can understand more of the bible. She's Catholic... but very open minded. I'm surprised no one here has challenged you on this posting. Maybe you should take it as a compliment or maybe its just because they'd rather bicker about pregnant virgins. Lol! Freaks!

Yes, that's probably one of the most significant but there's been a number of mistranslations and misinterpretations made by Christian sources. One is that Messiah Within Judaism there's actually only a select verses that are truly considered Messianic. (Jeremiah 22:5) being one of the biggest.

Hehe, I'd say that's the case! Not many Christians respond to my posts.

Gentorev responds...........Jeremiah 22: 5; "But if ye will not hear these words, I swear by myself, saith the Lord, that this house will become a desolation."
Are you sure that you know what you are talking about?
The tongue, the sharp two edged sword that divides the spirit from the soul.