Both Jesus and John the Baptist artifically inseminated or concieved in Sacred Prostitution?

John the Baptist was born to Elizabeth and Zechariah who were unable to conceive after an encounter with Gabriel. Gabriel also paid a visit to Mary and Mary spent 3 months in the house of Zechariah while Elizabeth was in her 2nd trimester.

One has to decide if both Elizabeth and Mary conceived out of wedlock or were artifically inseminated. It stands to reason that either Elizabeth or Zechariah were sterile. Since Elizabeth was able to conceive prior we must conclude that it is likely that Zechariah was impotent. There exists the possibilily that Elizabeth was artifically inseminated by Gabriel and that Mary was also artifically inseminated by Gabriel during her stay at Elizabeths house.

Luke 1:19
And the angel answering said unto him, I am Gabriel, that stand in the presence of God; and am sent to speak unto thee, and to shew thee these glad tidings.

20And, behold, thou shalt be dumb, and not able to speak, until the day that these things shall be performed, because thou believest not my words, which shall be fulfilled in their season.

21And the people waited for Zacharias, and marvelled that he tarried so long in the temple.

22And when he came out, he could not speak unto them: and they perceived that he had seen a vision in the temple: for he beckoned unto them, and remained speechless.

23And it came to pass, that, as soon as the days of his ministration were accomplished, he departed to his own house.

24And after those days his wife Elisabeth conceived, and hid herself five months, saying,

25Thus hath the Lord dealt with me in the days wherein he looked on me, to take away my reproach among men.

26And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth,

27To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.

matthew 1:18
Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

bibleresources.bible.com... 3=0&version4=0&version5=0&Submit.x=0&Submit.y=0

What does the bible say about sex and marriage?

Genesis 2:24
Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

bibleresources.bible.com...

Matthew 19:5
And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

bibleresources.bible.com...

Matthew 19:9
And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

Many of the world's major religions look with disfavor on sexual relations outside of marriage. Many non-secular states, mostly with Muslim majorities, sanction criminal penalties for sexual intercourse before marriage. Sexual relations by a married person with someone other than his/her spouse is known as adultery and is also frequently disapproved by the major world religions (some calling it a sin). Adultery is considered in many jurisdictions to be a crime and grounds for divorce.

Historically, children born outside of marriage were known as bastards and whoresons and suffered legal disadvantages and social stigma because of their illegitimacy. In recent years the legal relevance of illegitimacy has declined and social acceptance has increased, especially in western countries.

en.wikipedia.org...

So if both John and Jesus were born out of wedlock that would put them at a disadvantage in the world of their time. That is unless they were favored as God's chosen sons.

Be careful what you say, people have been found with their tongues suddenly eating out by worms for making blasphemous statements like that.

Originally posted by NoLoveInFear46and2
A double post!!!? Oh my leeerrd!!! What are we gonna ddeeerrr !!!!! Oh lerrdy lerrrrd!!!!

What...you mean your own double-posted silly & juvenile non-contributing bs?

Evil forces!!!! Oh my leeeerdy llllerd !!! What are we gonna deeerrr?!!!

www.abovetopsecret.com...

OP: Or it could be exactly as stated in the scriptures.

Originally posted by The GUT

OP: Or it could be exactly as stated in the scriptures.

Could be interpreted as you wish

Dear OP:

Here is my dilemma with such speculation. This is my personal opinion, and I don't mean to offend. What good does such speculation do if you can't prove it? Further, if you can't accept the faith as is, then I fail to see the point of picking parts to believe and then rejecting others. If I couldn't believe some of it, then I wouldn't believe any of it. That's just me though. I don't know why a person would bother.

reply to post by ImpartialObserver

I like that pic.

Do you have any spiritual beliefs that encompass a world normally outside our own rather limited senses?

I didn't mean to comment so lightly the first time around, but I got kind o' busy taking out the trash.

Originally posted by LeSigh
Dear OP:

Here is my dilemma with such speculation. This is my personal opinion, and I don't mean to offend. What good does such speculation do if you can't prove it? Further, if you can't accept the faith as is, then I fail to see the point of picking parts to believe and then rejecting others. If I couldn't believe some of it, then I wouldn't believe any of it. That's just me though. I don't know why a person would bother.

If the faith means to NOT read the bible and decipher it yourself then I don't want any part of it.

Faith shall come by hearing alone did I read somewhere?

Originally posted by ImpartialObserver

Originally posted by LeSigh
Dear OP:

Here is my dilemma with such speculation. This is my personal opinion, and I don't mean to offend. What good does such speculation do if you can't prove it? Further, if you can't accept the faith as is, then I fail to see the point of picking parts to believe and then rejecting others. If I couldn't believe some of it, then I wouldn't believe any of it. That's just me though. I don't know why a person would bother.

If the faith means to NOT read the bible and decipher it yourself then I don't want any part of it.

Faith shall come by hearing alone did I read somewhere?

Nobody said you should never read the scriptures. However, deciphering and interpreting it yourself? That's what practically everyone in heterodoxy does these days. It's mass confusion. People think their personal interpretations are better than those of others, or worse equal. The thing is most of these folks all think they've got 'the spirit' helping them out in that, yet they all contradict each other. In the end, it all becomes meaningless. There is one truth not a gazillion.

Originally posted by LeSigh

Originally posted by ImpartialObserver

Originally posted by LeSigh
Dear OP:

Here is my dilemma with such speculation. This is my personal opinion, and I don't mean to offend. What good does such speculation do if you can't prove it? Further, if you can't accept the faith as is, then I fail to see the point of picking parts to believe and then rejecting others. If I couldn't believe some of it, then I wouldn't believe any of it. That's just me though. I don't know why a person would bother.

If the faith means to NOT read the bible and decipher it yourself then I don't want any part of it.

Faith shall come by hearing alone did I read somewhere?

Nobody said you should never read the scriptures. However, deciphering and interpreting it yourself? That's what practically everyone in heterodoxy does these days. It's mass confusion. People think their personal interpretations are better than those of others, or worse equal. The thing is most of these folks all think they've got 'the spirit' helping them out in that, yet they all contradict each other. In the end, it all becomes meaningless. There is one truth not a gazillion.

So then you wish for faith to come from central command?

Romans 10:17
So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

bibleresources.bible.com...< br />

Originally posted by ImpartialObserver

So then you wish for faith to come from central command?

Romans 10:17
So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

bibleresources.bible.com...< br />

Don't be obscure, please. What exactly are you attempting to ask?

Originally posted by LeSigh

Originally posted by ImpartialObserver

So then you wish for faith to come from central command?

Romans 10:17
So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

bibleresources.bible.com...< br />

Don't be obscure, please. What exactly are you attempting to ask?

I believe this is a catholic tenent

Originally posted by LeSigh

Nobody said you should never read the scriptures. However, deciphering and interpreting it yourself? That's what practically everyone in heterodoxy does these days. It's mass confusion. People think their personal interpretations are better than those of others, or worse equal. The thing is most of these folks all think they've got 'the spirit' helping them out in that, yet they all contradict each other. In the end, it all becomes meaningless. There is one truth not a gazillion.

Are you in favor of a heirarical system of faith whereby it is decided by a few what is acceptable for the majority to believe?

and what about annakin skywalker ? I almost walked out when his mom said there was no father

c'mon

reply to post by The GUT

Hi the Gut

What do you mean exactly by 'or it could be exactly as it is stated in the Scriptures?'

You did know, didn't you, that the 2 Infancy Narratives (in canonical Greek 'Matthew'. and 'Luke' - but not found in the other two) don't match each other in details very closely ?

Take the time to do a LINE BY LINE comparison of the two contradictory Birth Narrative texts of th 1st Canonical Greek Gospel ('according to Matthew', whoever he was) with the text of the 3rd canonical Greek Gospel ('according to Luke' whoever he was) - you'll find that apart from the words for e.g.

The proper names 'Miryam', 'Yosef', 'Yehoshua' (Gk Iesous) and also 'Beth-Lechem' (Hebrew for 'Bakery' or 'house of Bread') and the term Parthenos' ('Virgin' - based on a midrash of Proto-Isaiah 7:14) the two legendary infancy stories in the Greek canonical Gospels share very little in common and on the other hand, contradict each other in not a few places - read them side by side if you want to catch a glimpse of some literary reality here.

'Matthew' has Magoi (Persian Zoroastuiran Priest-Magicians, NOT kings) following a 'Star' which seems to hover over the place (pointing -according to the legend - rather too exactly to a specific house - at least for a 'star', wouldn't you say ?) and eventually coming to a 'house' in 'Bethlechem' where gifts of Gold, Frankincense and Myrrh are offered a baby (NO cow trough and NO shepherds and NO swaddling bands). Also NO census - the family apparently hails from Bethlehem to start with, then flees (from a dream vision message) to 'Nazareth'
(or perhaps Genneseret ?) running from Herod's anti Daviddic Henchmen - with Herod the Great still very much alive (he died in BCE 4).

I suppose the 3 kings-stuff derives from a Midrash on trito-Isaiah chapter 60:1-16 etc.

For in that day the Gentiles shall come to your Light,
And Kings to the brightness of your Rising.
Lift up your eyes round about, and see:
Lo, how they all gather themselves together,
They come to thee as a group assembled:
The forces of the Gentiles shall come to you
Even the multitude of camels shall cover thee,
Even the dromedaries of Midian and Ephah;
ea, all they from Sheba shall come:
They shall bring gold and incense to you
All the flocks of Kedar shall be gathered to thee,
Yea, the Rams of Nebaioth minister unto you
Surely the ships of Tarshish shall come to you,
Their silver and their gold laden with them,
And, lo, their kings shall minister unto thee:
Therefore thy gates shall be open continually
That men may bring unto thee the forces of the Gentiles,
And that their kings may be brought forth in chains.
In that Day, you will suck the blood of the Gentiles,
Yea, you shall suck milk from the breast of their Kings:
So you will know that I YHWH am your only Saviour
And your Redeemer, even the mighty One of Jacob !: etc, etc.


The author of 'Luke' knows nothing about any Kings or Persian Magoi Priests bearing gold or any house in Bethlechem - the family according to that writer is alradyy living in 'Nazareth' and has to truck on down (9 months preggers) to Bethlehem because of some made up Roman Census (the Roman census of Quirinius did not take place until c. CE 6-10 - some 10-14 years later than Matthew's Henchman story pre BCE 4) and also a Cave with a cow-trough near to where 'shepherds watching their flocks by night' were summoned by 'angels' (and not or any other Magoi Persian Priest Magicians !) come to adore a 'baby wrapped in swaddling bands' - no wandering or otherwise pointing Magoi Star - !

So how can you go around claiming that 'Scriptures' can tell a coherent story when all we have are two contradictory texts clumsilly stitched together from a pile of OT Midrashic-Messianic junk?

Originally posted by ImpartialObserver

Originally posted by LeSigh

Originally posted by ImpartialObserver

So then you wish for faith to come from central command?

Romans 10:17
So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

bibleresources.bible.com...< br />

Don't be obscure, please. What exactly are you attempting to ask?

I believe this is a catholic tenent

Originally posted by LeSigh

Nobody said you should never read the scriptures. However, deciphering and interpreting it yourself? That's what practically everyone in heterodoxy does these days. It's mass confusion. People think their personal interpretations are better than those of others, or worse equal. The thing is most of these folks all think they've got 'the spirit' helping them out in that, yet they all contradict each other. In the end, it all becomes meaningless. There is one truth not a gazillion.

Are you in favor of a heirarical system of faith whereby it is decided by a few what is acceptable for the majority to believe?

The faith that was Traditioned by the Apostles? The faith that existed before the New Testament was written out for us? Then, yep. There is only one True Faith.

Well, it's a week early, but here ya go:

As the prophets beheld, as the Apostles have taught,...as the Church has received... as the teachers have dogmatized,...as the Universe has agreed,... as Grace has shown forth,...as Truth has revealed,...as falsehood has been dissolved,...as Wisdom has presented,...as Christ Awarded,...thus we declare,...thus we assert,...thus we preach Christ our true God, and honor as Saints in words, in writings, in thoughts, in sacrifices, in churches, in Holy Icons; on the one hand worshipping and reverencing Christ as God and Lord; and on the other hand honoring as true servants of the same Lord of all and accordingly offering them veneration.

This is the Faith of the Apostles, this is the Faith of the Fathers, this is the Faith of the Orthodox, this is the Faith which has established the Universe.

-- Confession of faith of the Day of Orthodoxy

reply to post by ImpartialObserver


I'm just wondering if your supposed 'conclusion' is just from these bible quotes and the information found on wikipedia?

If so, you don't really seem to have any research to support your 'conclusion'...

I have just recently read a book by Graham Phillips, called 'The Marion Conspiracy', where he did some actual research on Jesus' origins (meaning His father and other family background). Now I'm not taking everything in his book to be the 'gospel truth', yes pun intended, but there is some research that supports who Jesus' biological father was....and it was not Joseph or immaculate conception. If you really are interested in this subject you should do a little more research of your own, not only using bible quotes that are open to interpretation.


Side note:
When I was younger, and didn't even know where to begin to research things such as this, I always questioned how Joseph and the supposed Virgin Mary could have been considered married if she was in fact a virgin. Traditionally a marriage would not have been valid until it was consummated.
Doesn't really have anything to do with the topic, but I've always wondered.....

Originally posted by cybro
Be careful what you say, people have been found with their tongues suddenly eating out by worms for making blasphemous statements like that.

By the way, I am not afraid of my tongue being suddenly being eaten out by worms, because:

a) I don't actually question the validity of Jesus and his teachings, I do however question the teachings of organized religions because they have become so easily corrupted.
and b) I dont think the Bible that exists today is as irrefutable as it once may have been, as it has been translated from so many languages since it's inception. Who's to say there hasn't been any mistranslations or details left out long the way...

Originally posted by LeSigh

The faith that was Traditioned by the Apostles? The faith that existed before the New Testament was written out for us? Then, yep. There is only one True Faith.

Well, it's a week early, but here ya go:

As the prophets beheld, as the Apostles have taught,...as the Church has received... as the teachers have dogmatized,...as the Universe has agreed,... as Grace has shown forth,...as Truth has revealed,...as falsehood has been dissolved,...as Wisdom has presented,...as Christ Awarded,...thus we declare,...thus we assert,...thus we preach Christ our true God, and honor as Saints in words, in writings, in thoughts, in sacrifices, in churches, in Holy Icons; on the one hand worshipping and reverencing Christ as God and Lord; and on the other hand honoring as true servants of the same Lord of all and accordingly offering them veneration.

This is the Faith of the Apostles, this is the Faith of the Fathers, this is the Faith of the Orthodox, this is the Faith which has established the Universe.

-- Confession of faith of the Day of Orthodoxy

The persecuted son of the father

Hope for the fatherless?

Hope for those who have received no inheritance?

Originally posted by ignoranceisnotbliss2011

Side note:
When I was younger, and didn't even know where to begin to research things such as this, I always questioned how Joseph and the supposed Virgin Mary could have been considered married if she was in fact a virgin. Traditionally a marriage would not have been valid until it was consummated.
Doesn't really have anything to do with the topic, but I've always wondered.....

According to Tradition Joseph and the Theotokos were never married. They were only betrothed. In the Church we refer to him as Joseph the Betrothed.

Originally posted by ImpartialObserver

The persecuted son of the father

Hope for the fatherless?

Hope for those who have received no inheritance?

Again, please do be more clear.