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

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: glend

Yes it's possible
But wouldn't the people who actually witnessed it then written it was all a lie like you are doing now
Isn't it possible that Buddha was a little golden book written for children by a man who was high as a kite smoking gunja under a bodie tree and someone took it literally

There wouldn't have been any witnesses alive when Matthew and Luke were released. Peter the Apostle was crucified in Rome between 64-68AD. Estimates for release of Matthew and Luke is around AD 85–90. Some 55-60 years after crucifixion of Jesus. So Christians in Rome at least would have seen two new gospels that supported each other with no-one to say yea or nay.

It fits but still an assumption.

smoking gunja under a bodie tree and someone took it literally

Is that similar to Moses that saw GOD talk from a burning bush. You make fun but shamanism was practised world wide those days.

a reply to: Raggedyman

you originally made this universal declaration

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

I said

And it seems you are not widely read as to the formation of early Christianity

you responded

I bet you are a big fan of zietgist and have never questioned its accuracy and you question me You are so clever

Way to avoid doing the hard work of how the idea of a virgin birth came about
Heres a hint even the early Christians were divided on the idea of a virgin birth


Start here
en.wikipedia.org...

then
en.wikipedia.org...


en.wikipedia.org...

Trinity The council of Nicaea dealt primarily with the issue of the deity of Christ. Over a century earlier the term "Trinity" (Τριάς in Greek; trinitas in Latin) was used in the writings of Origen (185–254) and Tertullian (160–220), and a general notion of a "divine three", in some sense, was expressed in the second century writings of Polycarp, Ignatius, and Justin Martyr. In Nicaea, questions regarding the Holy Spirit were left largely unaddressed until after the relationship between the Father and the Son was settled around the year 362.[83] So the doctrine in a more full-fledged form was not formulated until the Council of Constantinople in 360 AD,[84] and a final form formulated in 381 AD, primarily crafted by Gregory of Nyssa.[85]

a reply to: Raggedyman

You're the religious dude with faith in some anthropomorphic sky god and you wish to question my common sense?

That's priceless.

Tell you what please present any form of unequivocal proof that any of our Abrahamic religious texts contain anything other than the words of Man?

Wheres all that common sense now?

a reply to: whereislogic

"They don't worship Jehovah."

They do however worship Jesuses daddy(Christians anyway), now for all intents and purpose, is that not Jehovah?

The Abrahamic religions may well be very divergent from one another but their roots are of similar origin.

It's all directly linked to Sun and nature worship if truth be told.

a reply to: glend

"Look, I will guide her to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every female who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of Heaven"

And what if this alluded to anal sex? The whole area of sexual alchemy and mystical union of the forces, sublimation.

Its not like women were encouraged or even took part in many rituals in early Christianity. Could this be a fall back to Eve being the fallen the tempted? A 2nd class creature, an afterthought of Gods Creation?


Referring to the Q source

davidgmcafee.wordpress.com...

Thomas and ‘Q’ are important, but not as controversial among the Christian community as some of the forgotten Gospels, like the ‘Secret Gospel of Mark’. The Gospel of Mark is the first canonical Gospel in the New Testament and, in 1958, a letter was found containing what scholars believe to be a secret ending to the Mark Gospel, meant only to be witnessed by spiritual elite in the Christian community. You won’t find this passage in any modern bible, but scientists believe that this ancient scripture was indeed part of the original Holy Bible; here is a passage:

“And they come into Bethany. And a certain woman whose brother had died was there. And, coming, she prostrated herself before Jesus and says to him, ‘Son of David, have mercy on me.’ But the disciples rebuked her. And Jesus, being angered, went off with her into the garden where the tomb was, and straightway a great cry was heard from the tomb. And going near Jesus rolled away the stone from the door of the tomb. And straightway, going in where the youth was, he stretched forth his hand and raised him, seizing his hand. But the youth, looking upon him, loved him and began to beseech him that he might be with him. And going out of the tomb they came into the house of the youth, for he was rich. And after six days Jesus told him what to do and in the evening the youth comes to him, wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the kingdom of God. And thence, arising, he returned to the other side of the Jordan.”

This passage doesn’t just have a homosexual undertone, but implies that Jesus may have taken part in such “sinful” behavior. Nobody knows for sure what was meant by this original passage in the Gospel of Secret Mark and there are numerous other forgotten Gospels,

mysticalsex.wordpress.com...

Sex in Babylon
Modern Tantric teachers often downplay the role of Buddhism in Tantric sex, while teachers of Tantric Buddhism tend to downplay the role of sex in Buddhist practice. In fact the two – Tantric Sex and Tantric Buddhism – are inextricably linked, as John T. Houseman explains in his fascinating new book Great Bliss: Tantric Sex and the Path to Inner Awakening. This is the first complete modern instruction book on Tantric Buddhism, and the first on Buddhist sexual yoga.

The heart of the book is a first-ever translation from the Sanskrit of the Ninth Century master Shabara’s The Sadhana of Secret Vajravilasini, a masterpiece of the world’s spiritual-erotic literature, and an ideal text for sexual yoga practice. Great Bliss reveals thousand year-old secrets, and is a landmark contribution to the study and practice of Tantric sex in the West.

a reply to: Raggedyman

In the bible Paul describes females as sons of God, equal to men Funny little nuance but so very deep if you understand what it is actually saying

What nuance?

Pauls misogyny is there in black & white.
1 Corinthians 14:34

Women should be silent during the church meetings. It is not proper for them to speak. They should be submissive, just as the law says.

a reply to: andy06shake

Woman to be rather more spiritual than Man just down to the fact that they can bring life into the world.

hagia sophia, holy wisdom, feminine.

www.sakara.com...

Masculine energy is the Moon -- mobile and dynamic, with the ability to affect the individual's enterprise and psychological development. Masculinity rules the left side of the brain: logic, thought, risk and rush.

Feminine energy is the Sun -- radiance and warmth, with the ability to bring life into this world and nurture it with it's fundamental nutrients. Femininity rules the right side of the brain: being, understanding, feeling and nurturing.

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

Right hand, left hand, Men and Woman are two halves of the one whole really.

Balance is the key, when that's out of whack, chaos, and strife, generally ensure.

a reply to: Raggedyman

Isn't it possible that Buddha was a little golden book written for children by a man who was high as a kite smoking gunja under a bodie tree and someone took it literally

The same has been said about your Christianity - whats the purpose of you insulting other peoples faiths?


You're using the same tactics you use in the evolution threads. It just shows how shallow your thinking is

en.wikipedia.org...

Theories The book relates the development of language to the development of myths, religions, and cultic practices in world cultures. Allegro argues, through etymology, that the roots of Christianity, and many other religions, lay in fertility cults, and that cult practices, such as ingesting visionary plants to perceive the mind of God, persisted into the early Christian era, and to some unspecified extent into the 13th century with reoccurrences in the 18th century and mid-20th century, as he interprets the fresco of the Plaincourault Chapel to be an accurate depiction of the ritual ingestion of Amanita muscaria as the Eucharist.

Allegro argued that Jesus never existed as a historical figure and was a mythological creation of early Christians under the influence of psychoactive mushroom extracts such as psilocybin.[1]

a reply to: andy06shake

Balance is the key, when that's out of whack, chaos, and strife, generally ensure.

perfectly stated

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: whereislogic

They do however worship Jesuses daddy...

The ones you were referring to do not worship Jesus' Father no matter what they claim. For that reason they are also not Christians (followers of Christ, who worshipped his God and Father, Jehovah; and taught his followers to do the same). They are professing to be Christians and they are professing to worship the Father of Jesus, however, they are also worshipping Jesus and claiming that Jesus is the God who is referred to as "the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" at Eph.1:3, yet somehow, Jesus is not "the Father" as they confusingly label Jehovah there conveniently in that argument to distract from the issue and hide their contradictions. And they never mention the phrase 'the God of Jesus' of their own accord to facilitate that process. Don't want to remind people that Jesus has a God when you're trying to conflate Jesus with this particular God who has a personal name of his own that is not Jesus that makes it even more clear that they are not the same individual (in different modes or whatever fancy interpretation of that contradiction one comes up with). And it all still follows the pattern described at Jeremiah 23:27,28:

They intend to make my people forget my name by the dreams they relate to one another, just as their fathers forgot my name because of Baʹal. 28 Let the prophet who has a dream relate the dream, but the one who has my word should speak my word truthfully.”

“What does the straw have in common with the grain?” declares Jehovah.

"you can't use his name!"

Jesus was created by Jehovah as "the firstborn of all creation,” “the beginning of the creation by God.” (Col 1:15; Re 1:1; 3:14), therefore he is part of "the creation".

Romans 1:25

They exchanged the truth of God for the lie and venerated* [Or “worshipped.”] and rendered sacred service to the creation rather than the Creator, who is praised forever. Amen.

a reply to: whereislogic

Let's just say the dude in the old book does not seem to be the same fellow in the new.

Patterns are where it's at, and organized religious practices are full of them, patterns like control and comply that is.

Well seeing as to how there are so many different books in all three religions, there was so many to choose from. It known that the NT was never illustrated, like the Quran. As to why the jews never idolized Jesus is too political for me, some of them revered him as other would of loathed them.

Although the character and his origins are mysterious, as to where he is either a Hebrew or Roman/Greek construct, or actually existed wether being the son of a man, or/an performed such feats called miracles like the son of a god. Virgin birth, well wasn't she a virgin?

a reply to: glend

In my house at home, I have a statue that sits in the middle of carved animals from the Ark. Like those found in Ubaid it also has a reptilian head with a child suckling on its left breast. The statue is very very old
Lets face it the Bible or whatever you want to call it is a direct rip off from the Epic of Gilgamesh
Nobody ever asks if Jesus was of Anunnaki decent because you see in reptilian belief a virgin birth is possible. If you doubt what I say just google asexual reproduction in Komodo dragons.
There is a history of this planet that is being kept from you -- just saying

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: whereislogic

Let's just say the dude in the old book does not seem to be the same fellow in the new.

Let's not, cause 'we' don't wanna sound too much like Marcion or George Dorsey. Well, I don't at least. Besides, it's such an unconvincing argument for those who have heard it so many times already in different forms. Trinitarians use a form that involves the verb "revealed" and modified in such a manner that the core argument is almost unrecognizable or uncomparable to Marcion's argument for example, which included the slander I mentioned earlier.

Does God Change? Awake!—2000

ANTHROPOLOGIST George Dorsey described the God of the “Old Testament” as “a savage God.” He added: “Yahweh is . . . utterly unlovely. He is the God of plunderers, of torturers, of warriors, of conquest.” Others have reached similar conclusions regarding the God of the “Old Testament”—Yahweh, or Jehovah. Thus, some today wonder whether Jehovah was in fact a cruel God who eventually changed his character to become the loving and merciful God of the “New Testament.”

Such an idea about the God of the Bible is not new. It was first propounded by Marcion, a semi-Gnostic of the second century C.E. Marcion repudiated the God of the “Old Testament.” He considered that God to be violent and vindictive, a tyrant who offered material rewards to those worshiping him. On the other hand, Marcion described the “New Testament” God—as revealed through Jesus Christ—as a perfect God, a God of pure love and mercy, of graciousness and forgiveness.

Jehovah Meets the Challenge of Changing Conditions

God’s very name, Jehovah, means “He Causes to Become.” This implies that Jehovah causes himself to become the Fulfiller of all his promises. When Moses asked God his name, Jehovah elaborated on its meaning in this way: “I shall prove to be what I shall prove to be.” (Exodus 3:14) Rotherham’s translation puts it this way: “I Will Become whatsoever I please.”

So Jehovah chooses to become, or proves to be, whatever is needed to fulfill his righteous purposes and promises. An evidence of this is the fact that he bears a wide array of titles and descriptive terms: Jehovah of armies, Judge, Sovereign, Jealous, Sovereign Lord, Creator, Father, Grand Instructor, Shepherd, Hearer of prayer, Repurchaser, happy God, and many others. He has chosen to become all of these—and much more—in order to carry out his loving purposes.—Exodus 34:14; Judges 11:27; Psalm 23:1; 65:2; 73:28; 89:26; Isaiah 8:13; 30:20; 40:28; 41:14; 1 Timothy 1:11.

Does this mean, then, that God’s personality or standards change? No. Regarding God, James 1:17 says: “With him there is not a variation of the turning of the shadow.” How could God meet the challenge of varying circumstances while remaining unchanging himself?
...
For example, Jehovah is revealed as a God of love and mercy in both the Hebrew and the Christian Greek Scriptures. The prophet Micah of the eighth century B.C.E. asked about Jehovah: “Who is a God like you, one pardoning error and passing over transgression of the remnant of his inheritance? He will certainly not hold onto his anger forever, for he is delighting in loving-kindness.” (Micah 7:18) Similarly, the apostle John wrote the famous words: “God is love.”—1 John 4:8.

On the other hand, in both parts of the Bible, Jehovah is presented as the righteous Judge of those who repeatedly, grossly, and unrepentantly violate his laws and harm others. “All the wicked ones [Jehovah] will annihilate,” said the psalmist. (Psalm 145:20) In a similar vein, John 3:36 states: “He that exercises faith in the Son has everlasting life; he that disobeys the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God remains upon him.”

Unchanging in Qualities

Jehovah’s personality and cardinal qualities—love, wisdom, justice, and power—have not changed. He told the people of Israel: “I am Jehovah; I have not changed.” ... (Malachi 3:6)

a reply to: whereislogic

Well, people change over time, guess Gods do also, after we kind of look alike.

Created in his image and all that jazz.

Gods are a fickle subject really these days, the guy does not bother to turn up and fix his mess, and his apparent beloved creation is just about ready to build our own.

If i was God, i would get my skates on else his parking space is going to be occupied rather soon.

Interesting times to say the least in which we live.

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

In many religions including Judaism, GOD (ethereal) is recognised as fire (Hebrews 12:;29 For our God is a consuming fire) which is why they sacrifice animals to fire. In astrology you have four elements (fire, earth, air, and water) each with a gender. The gender of the fire element is male. In astrology the opposite of fire is earth, Which is of cause female.

As soon as I saw "Son of David" in that lost episode of Mark I knew it was fake. Gospel of Mark does not have Davidic ancestry in any of its preceding text. As I stated before, Jesus cannot have Davidic ancestry if he is also a son of God because Jews only accept ancestry through the Father. Davidic ancestry of Jesus was invented somewhat latter to try attract Jews to the New testament.

Tantric sex is a fallout from Hinduism. I have heard its also described in some Judaic texts. It goes against eating the apple in Genesis no. Just hocus pocus.

The virgin birth was never in any of the doctrine of the Jews, it was a white man pagan myth and was in many of the doctrines from the Romans and Geeks.

Why would there have to be an explanation for why the Nazarenes and the Apostles of the Lord did not include the virgin birth in their doctrine, how is it possible for a virgin to give birth? Oh ok you believe in magic and miracles - that is why you believe the white man over Christ.

Really, to you Christians, your belief in the way that Christ has been depicted to the world - will be your exact downfall, and I am very happy that you all are going to look like complete fools. The reason why I will be happy is because you always push your prideful arrogant beliefs on other people - being that you sin all the time, and you stubbornly deny it. That crap is not allowed in the universe, but since you think you are so so smart, and you believe that miracles and magic is true because the white man told you it was, you do not listen, to Christ, or his apostles, or anyone that opposes what the Romans say. Well you are even more stupid because the Romans were cold hearted murderers, and for you to put all your blind faith in what they say - over what Christ and his Apostles said - means that your mind and soul is filled with sin. We are all blind, some blind in God and some blind in the devil, like modern Christians, so gullible you just believe anything a roman emporer tells you - Pitiful!

a reply to: glend

What about Jinn?

Apparently, they were created from smokeless fire.

Sounds like a plasma-based life form to me.

a reply to: andy06shake

I was an atheist as well, had to many questions, I am guessing you don't have any.
That's fine, I understand that