Christian Virgin Birth - Why Jews didn't buy it.

Whatever this thread was intended to be, it is by this point developed into something disgusting and obnoxious. As a Christian I find it highly offensive. It would be a simple thing to begin a thread designed to offend and insult Jews but if that is what this forum has descended to I question its' value altogether.

a reply to: toms54

Tom, I watched a documentary the other night of a christian group called Children of God in which the leader (David Berg) convinced his patronage that it was ok to have sex with children. Anyone questioning of his belief was of cause questioning the authority of Jesus thus was an agent of satan.

So when is one allowed to question belief. Even if it appears disgusting and obnoxious to your 'personal' belief system? If a religion is so rigid that it disallows questioning of beliefs, then I would suggest that its not a religion but a cult.

Please explain why you are offended,

a reply to: glend

Let me get this right. I am Christian so now I have sex with children? You are a pos.

a reply to: glend

What was God all about mating with a Human female to produce Jesus anyway?

I mean if memory serves he cast down and chained a few hundred angels for a similar transgression.

Hypocrisy much big'yin???

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: glend

What was God all about mating with a Human female to produce Jesus anyway?

I mean if memory serves he cast down and chained a few hundred angels for a similar transgression.

Hypocrisy much big'yin???

Interesting point that I'v never considered!

OP, is this your roundabout way of saying Game of Thrones was written by Jews?
All about the bastards.
Sorry, couldn't resist.

a reply to: Asktheanimals

George R.R. Martin's a lapsed Catholic, atheist type agnostic.

To be honest, though most of our Abrahamic religions share Jewish influence.

After all did they not start it all off with there 10 commandments Jazz?

a reply to: andy06shake



indeed.


the holy ghost (alien abduction case) impregnated Mary with the 'seed of King David'... that falls in line with the blood line ancestry requirement and the Royal lineage required of the Prophecied Messiah

(see...the Angelic team collected semen from King David at one of his Earthly nocturnal 'Dream/Visions' encounters and the samples were in frozen storage until needed some 9 months before the Prophetic TimeLine determined that a Jesus/Son-of-Man (yeshu) should enter the world (some 6 months After the future John-the-Baptiser was born)


So, the Angel told Mary of the Artificial insemination procedure

And a second Angel had to inform Joseph (the Groom) of the Pregnancy of Mary (Virgin) so that Joseph could exercise his free-will in the forthcoming marriage to Mary


the message is all in the scriptures, One just has to un-mask the cloaked verbiage, like holy ghost being a team of high tech specialists in female Egg-fertilizations,

The big question is : did Mary have a scar from the implanting procedure seeing as how Mary could still prove her case of still being a Virgin~~~ or just how long was Mary's (Missing Time Episode) Abduction, before her wedding to Joseph

a reply to: glend

Its sounds like Origen was explaining our spiritual nature from his understanding of Genesis. Christianity also must have had higher understanding that was given to advanced practitioners (like the apostles). Without being party to that knowledge we are not in a position to ridicule Origen. Origen once wrote "Scripture contains an unhistorical element in-woven with the history, in order that the worthlessness of the latter may drive us to seek the spiritual meaning”. I see nothing but truth in those words. Its how they wrote in those ages. So stories could be transmitted orally by the uninitiated. This I feel is lost with many of todays followers. They must stop seeing Jesus the man. And start seeing Jesus as the path. Else the great pearl will forever be outside their reach. My humble opinion of course.

Actually glend, there is some truth in all philosophy but that will not establish that which is untrue. Naturally this is a theological discussion and in that we all have a certain pattern that we follow. In other words if one is professing a certain pattern of philosophy then that one should adhere to the original pattern or declare his/her own philosophy.

Origen did not teach or believe the church pattern. Yes, he did want that umbrella of the church but his intent was to eventually reform the church into his own pattern. The Roman Catholic organization had the very same intent as they systematically murdered and by theft reformed a Judaic cult into a Roman cult. This they did successfully until this very day. Nevertheless, Origen not only rejected the Roman authority but also the teachings of the apostles who were the original pattern.

The central differences that revealed his rejection of Yahusha and His teachings was three main reformations. He believed in the pre-existence of the Spirit of a procreated soul. That alone would disqualify him as a Christian and would [if true] show the apostles as untruthful. That also would destroy the Nazarene movement which is the pattern of Christianity as well as the purpose of the Christ existing.

Origen also taught that eventually all of the Adamic seed and other seeds of creatures such as the watchers [demons] , fallen celestial entities, such as angels and Satan's, would be forgiven and saved from destruction. Again, this alone would be contrary to the Nazarene's, Prophets, and Apostolic teachings. That also would destroy the entire Revelation of Jesus to the apostle John.

Then we have the matter of reincarnation which is taught by some Kabbalistic cults and prohibited in the doctrine of the Christ. This is taught neither by the Prophets or the Nazarene's and is contrary to after life judgments and eternal existence of the spirit of a soul.

These are but some of the teachings of Origen which are not of Christianity or Nazarene patterns. Now glend, I am not inferring that Origen was not a brilliant philosopher but only that he did not accept the pattern of which he was subjected to and that put him in this category of being double minded. One cannot be double minded and have two masters. Theology does not work like that.

In all respect I love your posts --

a reply to: St Udio

Interesting take on the matter.

As to free will though.

Neuroscience has pretty much proven that our notion of free will is illusory as our neural pathways form and interact before the conscious decision process is initiated in the brain.

Not saying predestination is the name of the game completely but our further understanding of the subject is certainly required.

a reply to: Seede

Thanks Seede, I now see the conflicts. Origen knew Jesus was a Jew that believed in Judaism. So argued that differences between Judaism and Roman Christianity shouldn't exist. Question unanswered is why do they exist!

Reincarnation:

Reincarnation is a fundamental concept of Judaism that is explained in deeper teachings (Kabbalah). Book of Zohar goes into laborious length in how we can overcome the seeking of ego-joy (apple) which reflects GOD's light from our soul, keeping us dark inside. This fundamental concept is the entire premise to enlightenment in many religions - Judaism, Hinduism and Buddhism. With the goal of escaping reincarnation because birth is pain, death is pain, watching loved ones die is pain etc. etc. etc.

Personally I don't see a great contradiction in apostle writings. Was John the Baptist, Elijah reincarnated! But can see John 3 as being confusing. Born again in spiritual sense is to awaken to our true spiritual self from the reincarnation cycle into the spiritual realm. Not referring to birth in physical realms.

What Origen may not have realised is that the concept of reincarnation to the uninitiated can be misconstrued. Its not our ego/mind that reincarnates, its our soul. The soul is far more subtle than our ego mind which dies when our body dies. So as in Judiasm, I suspect they were secret teachings in Christianity, ( secret Gosepl of Mark etc) that were only taught to advanced practitioners. Not shared with the general public.

Forgiveness:

Judaism does not accept original sin. Rabbi Singer goes into great length about the differences
here.

I understand our beliefs are in deep conflict with each other. But its good to share each others understanding.

Thank You.

a reply to: andy06shake

Neuroscience has pretty much proven that our notion of free will is illusory as our neural pathways form and interact before the conscious decision process is initiated in the brain.

The ego-brain is the serpent in genesis. Its programmed by DNA to procreate at all costs. Religion teaches that our spirit remains at far lower level but can over-ride the ego-brain. If we first practice meditation/prayer to reduce neural noise so the spirit can be realised. That's why mediators meditate on emptiness to teach the serpent quietude.

originally posted by: glend

But in 2nd century, Celsus a Greek philosopher, wrote that Mary was convicted of adultery with a Roman soldier named Tiberius Pantera.

Don't you think Celsus might have been a bit too biased against Christians and Christianity to take his slander seriously?

"Slander" is another word for "abusive speech". The slanderer gets pleasure in revealing things that cause sensation. "Devil" is the descriptive name of Satan in the Christian Greek Scriptures, which means “Slanderer.” Satan was given the name Devil because he is the chief and foremost slanderer and false accuser of God, His good word, and His holy name.​

Jude 10

But these men are speaking abusively about all the things they really do not understand. And in all the things that they do understand by instinct like unreasoning animals, they go on corrupting themselves.

Proverbs 26:22

The words of a slanderer are like tasty morsels;* [Or “like things to be swallowed greedily.”]

They are gulped right down into the stomach. [see also the reminder under my accountname]

“Christianity” Becomes a Philosophy

The philosopher Celsus mockingly described Christians as “labourers, shoemakers, farmers, the most uninformed and clownish of men.” This mockery was too much for the apologists to bear. They determined to win over public opinion by resorting to a new tactic. Once rejected, worldly wisdom was now used in the service of the “Christian” cause. Clement of Alexandria, for example, saw philosophy as “true theology.” Justin, though claiming to reject pagan philosophy, was the first to use philosophical language and concepts to express “Christian” ideas, considering this type of philosophy “to be safe and profitable.”

From this point on, the strategy was, not to oppose philosophy, but to make supposed Christian thought a philosophy higher than that of the pagans. “On some points we teach the same things as the poets and philosophers whom you honour, and on other points are fuller and more divine in our teaching,” wrote Justin. Adorned with its new philosophical finery, “Christian” thought now claimed the dignity of old age. The apologists pointed out that Christian books were far older than those of the Greeks and that the prophets of the Bible lived earlier than Greek philosophers. Certain apologists even concluded that the philosophers copied from the prophets. Plato was made out to be a disciple of Moses!

Christianity Distorted

This new strategy led to a mixture of Christianity and pagan philosophy. Comparisons were made between Greek gods and Bible characters. Jesus was compared to Perseus; and Mary’s conception to that of Perseus’ mother, Danaë, who was said to be also a virgin.

Certain teachings were greatly modified. For example, in the Bible, Jesus is called “the Logos,” meaning God’s “Word,” or Spokesman. (John 1:1-3, 14-18; Revelation 19:11-13) Very early on, this teaching was distorted by Justin, who like a philosopher played on the two possible meanings of the Greek word logos: “word” and “reason.” Christians, he said, received the word in the person of Christ himself. However, logos in the sense of reason is found in every man, including pagans. Thus, he concluded, those who live in harmony with reason are Christians, even those who claimed or were thought to be atheists, like Socrates and others.

Moreover, by forcing the tie between Jesus and the logos of Greek philosophy, which was closely linked with the person of God, the apologists, including Tertullian, embarked on a course that eventually led Christianity to the Trinity dogma.* [For further information on Tertullian’s beliefs, see The Paradox of Tertullian]

Source: The Apologists—Christian Defenders or Would-Be Philosophers?

originally posted by: glend
a reply to: Seede

...So argued that differences between Judaism and Roman Christianity shouldn't exist. Question unanswered is why do they exist!

Winning the Battle for Your Mind

BEWARE OF ATTEMPTS TO DIVIDE AND CONQUER

Military strategists may use propaganda to undermine morale and weaken the fighting spirit. They may induce enemy soldiers to fight among themselves or fool them into isolating themselves from the main fighting force. A German general, it has been said, admitted that one reason for defeat in World War I was that the people “were hypnotized by the enemy propaganda as a rabbit is by a snake.” Satan uses similar tricks in his attempts to divide and conquer...

One of his main tools being a multitude of different religions that are all part of Babylon the Great.

Why does religion seem to be at the root of so many problems?

The fault lies, not with all religion, but with false religion. A widely respected religious figure, Jesus Christ, indicated that false religion produces bad works, just as a “rotten tree produces worthless fruit.” (Matthew 7:15-17) What fruit does false religion yield?

False Religion . . .

▪ MEDDLES IN WAR AND POLITICS: “Across Asia and beyond,” says the journal Asiaweek, “power-hungry leaders are cynically manipulating people’s religious sentiments for their own needs.” As a result, the journal warns: “The world threatens to sink into madness.” A prominent religious leader in the United States declared: “You’ve got to kill the terrorists before the killing stops.” His solution? “Blow them all away in the name of the Lord.” By contrast, the Bible says: “If anyone makes the statement: ‘I love God,’ and yet is hating his brother, he is a liar.” (1 John 4:20) Jesus even said: “Continue to love your enemies.” (Matthew 5:44) How many religions can you think of whose members engage in war?

SPREADS FALSE DOCTRINE:...

Source: The End of False Religion Is Near!
Hmm, let's see, since you brought up Christendom (by labeling it "Roman Christianity") and Judaism, both of those have members who engage in war. But so does Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Jainism, Sikhism, Shinto, Taoism, Chinese traditional religion, etc.

Song 141 Searching for Friends of Peace (with lyrics)

It was ironic when I googled "world's major religions" and google listed in the section "People also ask" the question "What is the most peaceful religion in the world?" In answer to that question it said:

You may have never heard of the religion known as Jainism, but it's considered one of the most peaceful on Earth. Jainism is one of the four major religions to come of out of India (the others are Hinduism, Buddhism, and Sikhism), and the vow of non-violence is one of its defining features.

Then when I googled "jainism military" I ran across:

It would be incorrect to say that Jainism bans all forms of violence. ... In Jainism, violence (Hinsa) has been broadly classified in four categories:

1. Sankalpi Hinsa (deliberate violence) – deliberately killing a living-being
...
4. Virodhi Hinsa (defensive violence)– hinsa resulting from war etc. to safeguard the country or fight injustice

Of the four categories, Sankalpi Hinsa is totally forbidden. The other three categories of hinsa is not totally forbidden for the shravaks or household persons as this is unavoidable.

Lamest false excuse ever for waging war, that incidentally all the other religions are using as well as an excuse to condone military service (which is especially hypocritical for those professing to be Christians, see bible quotation at the end).

Thus, killing even a small insect deliberately is a sin and not allowed whereas, in a fight for justice and out of necessity, even if thousands get killed, it is permissible. At the time of Bhagwan Mahavir, king Chetak had to fight a war for justice in which 18 million people lost their life in just two days. As the scriptures say, Chetak did not attract any bad karmas as he was fighting for justice.

Suuuure....all for justice right? Because it's supposedly so "out of necessity" and "unavoidable" and you're 'safeguarding the fatherland'. So much for being the supposed "most peaceful religion in the world". Slogans are vague statements that are typically used to express positions or goals. Because of their vagueness, they are easy to agree with.

For example, in times of national crisis or conflict, demagogues may use such slogans as “My country, right or wrong,” “Fatherland, Religion, Family,” or “Freedom or Death.” But do most people carefully analyze the real issues involved in the crisis or conflict? Or do they just accept what they are told?

In writing about World War I, Winston Churchill observed: “Only a signal is needed to transform these multitudes of peaceful peasants and workmen into the mighty hosts which will tear each other to pieces.” He further observed that when told what to do, most people responded unthinkingly.

2 Cor. 10:3

For though we walk in the flesh, we do not wage warfare* according to [what we are in the] flesh.

*: We do not wage warfare.” Lit., “we are not doing military service.” Gr., ou . . . stra·teu·oʹme·tha; Lat., non . . . mi·li·taʹmus.

a reply to: whereislogic

Celsus might have been a bit too biased against Christians and Christianity to take his slander seriously?

I have two thoughts, Celsus may have been biased from a superficial understanding of Christianity. But the first Bishop of Rome, St Peter warned "the Scriptures say all manner of things, that no one of those who inquire ungratefully may find the truth, but simply what he wishes to find" (Clementine Homilies, 3.10).

So are today's Christians any less biased!

One would hope not ....

For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.
Matthew 5.20

I applause your antiwar views. Sadly those that rule this world are blinded by the snake.

So it seems to me atheists and those who are opposed to Christianity don't believe in the virgin birth
I am in shock

a reply to: glend

a reply to: Seede Thanks Seede, I now see the conflicts. Origen knew Jesus was a Jew that believed in Judaism. So argued that differences between Judaism and Roman Christianity shouldn't exist. Question unanswered is why do they exist! Reincarnation:

Yes, Origen most certainly did realize that Jesus was a Hebrew and that Jesus did adhere to the laws of both Moses and the God of Moses, but whether or not Origen believed the same beliefs that Jesus taught is another matter. The foundation of national Judaism in that period was not the Judaism of Jacob by any means. The temple was not sanctified at all and the priests and High priest were nothing but pawns of the Romans. In addition to this blasphemy was the fact that most all were at this time Hellenistic and of the doctrine of the Sadducee's. Jesus was not of this sort at all.

Reincarnation was not a principle factor in the Jewish mind at this time. Reincarnation could not exist with the Sadducee doctrine which had enveloped the entire national mindset as Jesus began His ministry. Afterlife was nonexistent to most all and could not mix with any afterlife philosophy of reincarnation of any people. This reintroducing of life in a Hebrew philosophy actually did not take root till about the eighth to tenth centuries CE.. Even though there were fragments here and there scattered among the centuries and in assortments of doctrines, it never became a threat of national acceptance till many years later.

Reincarnation came into the minds primarily through fear that the God of Moses was not privy to the Sinai convention any longer. The hearts and minds of the Hebrews knew that they themselves broke the commands written on Sapphire and could see the wrath of their God unfolding. This revealed to them the fear of the darkness of Sheol forever and reincarnation was the doorway to escape this dreadful afterlife. This fear brought the new hope that they could escape death and judgment and live the ungodly life as their Babylonian and Greek conquerors had taught. The temple was decimated as was the priesthood, and the rabbis were opinionated teachers who had not the prophets teachings and Sheol was the reward of life.

Reincarnation then became embraced and slowly took foothold in the minds of most all Hebrews. Most all would not accept Jesus as the Christ of Moses or for that matter any doctrines of men. They had become a law to themselves and as a god could create their own salvation. They reasoned that a need for a Christ or judgment was not the answer but as a watcher they could reincarnate forever if need be. It became a soothing blanket of security to a injured mind and some then advanced into bodiless eternal consciousness of a new age.

This is where we are now. We are now in that new age of eternal bodiless existence of some sort. We are now on the threshold of being a god as was taught in Gan Eden by the beast of sin. Reincarnation is but one doctrine in the school of rejecting the Creator who is the Christ Jesus.
lol ----------

a reply to: Raggedyman

And it seems you are not widely read as to the formation of early Christianity. Why am I not surprised.

a reply to: glend


What about Horus? Or are You just dis-counting anything that doesn't abide what Pastor Dave said down at Church?

elpidiovaldes.wordpress.com...

a reply to: glend

If we possess an essence, spirit, soul, it most lightly resides/emanates from within the quantum realm.

I would love to try meditation, but to be honest i just don't know if i have the attention span.

If the ego-brain is the serpent in The Book of Genesis then who was talking to Eve? Or was she talking to herself or ego-brain?

My understanding is that the Ego comprises 3 theoretical constructs or parts, the id, ego, and super-ego, least according to Freud that is.