Why did He say it like that??

Originally posted by dawnstar

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Hmmmmmmmm. If I follow you ... Using this, Christ puts John into the same
category as the 'unsaved heathens'. Or am I missing what you said?

Hey, I'm only guessing....it's been a long time since I've been in a church....but, according to some preachers I have heard, King David seems to refer to Christ as his lord...just can't remember just how that sermon went. But well, it's kind of like just how all the christians of today put their faith in the Christ's life long ago, those that came before him, put their faith in his coming. Through that faith, ect, ect......

But, then well, if you have ever read some of what the bible says of these prophets of old, I think they were considered to be a little odd then also. Maybe Jesus was just trying to reassure people that yes, he's a human just like the rest, even if he is a little strainge.
Want to come over for some locust and honey tonight? yummy!!!

Does it actually say, "man born of woman", there are many different words for man and woman in Hebrew, man born of bethullah, would mean born of virgin, born of Almah would mean young woman...

Maybe something has been lost/gained in translation...

Originally posted by dawnstar
"I solemnly assure you, history has not known a man,
BORN OF WOMAN, greater than John the Baptizer. Yet the
least born into the kingdom of God is greater than he."

Well, barring the idea that he know of a time in our future where women wouldn't be needed to bring children into the world, or that the church just thought it sounded good and threw it in there.
Well, my guess would be that those men, born of women are the "unsaved heathens" of the world, and those that are born into the kingdom of God are those that have been "born again" by accepting Christ as their savior.

...history* has not known a man, BORN OF WOMAN, greater than ...

my take is like dawnstars'
the BORN OF WOMAN line represents 'Humble Origins', even 'Adamic Man' or
even 'fashioned from the clay' =(? evolving from terrestial origins?) earth bound 'man'?
as opposed to the 'spirit' born individual.

which, in a very Politically Incorrect way, says there is a 'class system' in effect....
the 'seed of man' on a lower rung of status than a 'born in spirit' person...
~~~~~~~~

history*- in the mystical, Kabbalistic way, history includes both the past AND all future tenses
beyond that point in time which Jesus spoke these words

maybe, maybe not

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Not sure if this is Religion Forum or UFO Forum ....

Yesterday's reading was Matthew 11:2-11 - Part of it reads like
this - "I solemnly assure you, history has not known a man,
BORN OF WOMAN, greater than John the Baptizer. Yet the
least born into the kingdom of God is greater than he."

I'd think that the born of woman part must also have a connection to its 'opposite' in the sentence. The 'born into the kingdom' bit. Of all man, in their material, earthly existence, J the B is the greatest. But the very lowest of these other men are even greater than that. IOW, man's 'spirit' or whatever the born into heave is supposed to mean, is greater than material man.

Here is a my spin on it. Could he be saying: Born a woman? Like a homosexual who believe they are a man in a womans body or a woman born into a mans body.

Like I have said before, the first secret society were homosexual groups and that was there secret and the reason they were persecuted.

The people who wrote the bibles were homosexuals, and that is why there were no mention of woman, other than as beasts or servants.

My belief is he meant anyone truley born again. If a person is murdered particularly by poison. He goes to jugement, if he passes he may be returned to his earthly body but he retains some of the strength from having been born of the spirit. That is having abandoned all beastial drives.
The spirit, soul and beast (chinese call the monkey mind) equate to super ego, ego and id. In heaven there is no beastial drive, for that is left on earth. The spirit is combined with the soul (two bodies become one) into a vopor filled crystal body. This body does not need to blink or breath, sleep or dream. Once back in the flesh the reborn person becomes a greater servant to the Lord now knowing that He does exist. I would suspect he is better watched over by the angels as well. These "born agains" can accomplish great deeds but with the Casandra Syndrom, that is, no one believes what they have done. One more oddity, they must work with someone else (one born of woman) to make great achievements. If they can get only one person to help then nearly anything is possible.
I hope this helps.

Christ was big on equal rights. Could be he mentioned Mary to point out that God saw her (and by inference, women in general) as an important part of the world, not second-class citizens.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Not sure if this is Religion Forum or UFO Forum ....

Yesterday's reading was Matthew 11:2-11 - Part of it reads like
this - "I solemnly assure you, history has not known a man,
BORN OF WOMAN, greater than John the Baptizer. Yet the
least born into the kingdom of God is greater than he."

Now, none of us were there 2,000 years ago when these words
were spoken so all we can do is guess and hypothesize based on
other scripture readings, etc. ...

Why didn't He (Jesus) just say - History has not known a man
greater than John the Baptizer. WHY did He feel the need to
put in BORN OF WOMAN? I know ... no one here is Christ, but
does anyone have any ideas on why he had to specify men
BORN OF WOMAN? Were there men NOT born of woman?
Was He talking about men vs angels? Was He talking about
those giants that the bible says roamed the earth? Was He
alluding to OTHERS that were not born of woman ... like space
creatures (ET's)?? Was he talking about those who have already
died and are in heaven ... the saints as those others not born
of woman? (that'd be a stretch)

Any thoughts on why He used the words 'BORN OF WOMAN'??

The answers to your question flyersfan is Jesus said "i solemnly assure you,history has not known a man,BORN OF A WOMAN,greater than John The Baptizer,yet the least born in heaven is greater than he.
John the baptist was the first man to say that everyone needed to be born again of the Holy Spirit,so the least of these born again into the Kingdom of heaven were greater than the baptist,because born again Christian`s are not of this world therefore they are greater than he(John).Hope that helps you.

So Jesus was accually saying John the baptist was a greater man than all that had lived before Christs life,that means John was above David,Noah,Moses etc,because they had not been born again into the Holy Spirt now that dos`nt mean John the baptist was`nt baptized before he was beheaded and if he was`nt i dont think Moses John the Baptist etc went to hell because they did`nt,it was only after Christ died then rose that his full work was complete.

All good input. I'm digesting it all. It could be spiritual, or
it could be actually a physical 'born of woman'. Like LadyV
said, we probably won't know for sure. But these are all
good answers and they are all providing good meditations.

It just sounds funny, ya know?

Man, born of woman, .... Like it's extra or something.
But Christ never spoke extra ... he was teaching all the time
and he was exact.

Anyways. Thanks for the input. If anyone has anything
more, or deeper, please feel free to post. I'm open to it all.

Originally posted by gps777
John the baptist was the first man to say that everyone needed to be born again of the Holy Spirit,so the least of these born again into the Kingdom of heaven were greater than the baptist,because born again Christian`s are not of this world therefore they are greater than he(John).Hope that helps you.

Wouldn't john the baptist have been baptized?

Originally posted by DrHoracid
Genisis speaks of Son of God and daughters of man. These were half-gods. I forget the proper term. But may have been to source of the greek and norse "gods".

Are you saying that these Christian "demi-gods" were the source of the gods from ancient Norse and Greek religions?
If you are this would make no sence because both the Norse and Greek religions predate Christianity by a long time, and had they're own explanations for them for such people exsisting.

Hi Johnny Redburn,

How are you? Fine I hope.

Basically saying do as I say, when I say, dont question and you'll be rewarded. To any intelligent person it would seem ridiculus to not think for yourself and not question the acts of others.

Where does Rev. 2:27 ( or for that matter anywhere else in the bible) does it ask to follow blindly. Infact, quite the reverse. Do you remember doubting Thomas?


John 20:24-29
Now Thomas, one of the twelve, called the Twin, was not with them when Jesus came. So the other disciples told him, "We have seen the Lord." But he said to them, "Unless I see in his hands the print of the nails, and place my finger in the mark of the nails, and place my hand in his side, I will not believe". Eight days later, His disciples were again in the house, and Thomas was with them. The doors were shut, but Jesus came and stood among them, and said, "Peace be with you." Then He said to Thomas, "Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side; do not be faithless, but believing". Thomas answered Him, "My Lord and my God!."

Please don�t generalize. It's dishonest.

Ok.. so the reward for obeying without question is to be placed in a position of power as a dictator ruling people with an iron fist and smashing the 'people' into pieces of pottery.

You're misreading the bible. According to scripture the Saints won�t be dictators but co-rulers with Christ on earth. Christ told his followers that the present system of the world is infact dictated by Satan, he's in charge. And he's done a horrible job so far.. The signs of mismanagement are everywhere; how many children starve to death each day; how many millions die each day due to natural causes, disease and pestilence? In Christ�s kingdom,when it comes, there would be no hunger, death, hate, sin, frustration, disease. Which do you prefer ? Satan's dictatorship or Christ's? �or are you like the Devil whome Milton quotes as saying in his Paradise Lost; �Better to reign in hell than serve in Heaven�? � Do you know our present world system is basically hell on earth? � hunger, disease, death, murder,sexual immorality, lies, hate, ed nauseum . Even the rich and powerful are not happy. Why? Because Satan is still the �ruler of this world� and "he's a liar and the father of lies". As Sir Issac Newton (the great scientist/inventor) succinctly put it, the vacum in man's heart can only be filled by Christ. . According to the Bible, a time comes when Satan will no longer be in charge of running the world, then we shall have paradise on Earth indeed, under the rulership of God Almighty. The Bible says those who do not wish God to Lord it over them will be cast into the everlasting darkness.

So whatever any priest says in any church is automatically true, simply because the spirits he heard in his head told him so?.

Please don�t confuse �priest� or �Catholic� with Christian. For that matter any old �Protestant�,�Lutheran�,� Mormon� is not automatically a Christian . That's another generalization. Only God knows his own. A safe bet oto christianhood would be Shindler who saved thousands of Jews in WWII at tremendious risk to his own life.

"Religion is a social disease of the intellectually disabled."

You�re again generalizing. By your logic the following very �religious persons� were �intellectually disabled�� Nicolaus Copernicus, Johannes Kepler,Blaise Pascal, Issac Newton, Michael Faraday, Lord Kelwin, Jimmy Carter, Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, John Adams, etc. etc�.

This coming from someone who�s probably not achieved anything of substance intellectually.


God Bless you,

Originally posted by Nygdan
Wouldn't john the baptist have been baptized?

Ya' know ... I thought he was, but then when Christ appeared and
asked to be baptised, John said 'but I should be baptised by YOU'.
So ... Was he, or was he not baptised. He wouldn't have said that
to Christ if he had already been baptised, would he? But then ...
Christ leaves and doesn't baptise John. And Christ wouldn't have
left him unbaptised after John said he needed to be baptised, right?
But scripture says nothing of John being baptised then. Something
that significant would definately have been said. It does mention that
the Apostles baptised, but it doesn't say that they baptised John.

So .... hmmmm .... where does that leave John? Baptised in water or
not? Major mystery. I have no doubt he was baptised by the Holy
Spirit in his mothers womb. The bible talks of him 'leaping for joy'
when he heard Mary's voice (the visitation) while still in Elizabeth's
womb. He and Christ 'met' while they were both still in the womb.
They were aware of each other, otherwise John wouldn't have lept
for joy at being in the presence of Christ. Perhaps the water in the womb
counts as a water baptism at the same time as the baptism by the Holy
Spirit?