It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 2
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by ignoranceisnotbliss2011
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.


No my supposition comes after reading Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and reading some other post on this board about Lilith for which I find no biblical reference.

So who was Jesus Biological father then?



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.....


Well if Mary was impregnated prior to marrying Joseph then her act of impregnation would not be considered unfaithfulness I suppose, but still peculiar by nature.

edit on 26-2-2012 by ImpartialObserver because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 04:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Sigismundus
 

My remark refers solely to a "semen-less" birth in regards the musings made by the OP. The majority of the rest of your scholarship is obviously up for debate as any survey of the subject matter makes clear.

Also, whether the various versions of the Bible--including the ancient texts--contain contradictions or not is up for debate as well, although I understand your point.

It's my personal belief that the scriptures are written in such a way that the "truths" we should be most concerned with can't be altered by man.

The minutiae becomes rather irrelevant in that case.

I find, for myself, the following to be true and relevant to my points above:


For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. (Hebrews 4:12)

But that's just me, of course. Mileage may vary.

edit on 26-2-2012 by The GUT because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeSigh

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.


What are you my psychiatrist?

You sound like an all or nothing type of person LeSigh


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.



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sigismundus

'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.


Temple prostitution was widely practiced in Mesopotamia. The same area as from where the Magicians came from.



In the Ancient Near East along the Tigris and Euphrates rivers there were many shrines and temples or "houses of heaven" dedicated to various deities documented by the Ancient Greek historian Herodotus in The Histories where sacred prostitution was a common practice. According to Samuel Noah Kramer in The Sacred Marriage Rite, in late Sumerian history kings established their legitimacy by taking part in the ceremony in the temple for one night, on the tenth day of the New Year festival Akitu. It came to an end when the emperor Constantine in the 4th century destroyed the goddess temples and replaced them with Christianity.


Since it appears that Temple prostitution was frowned upon in the Hebrew Bible that calls Gabriel into question. Once again we are referenced to the Babylon, Mesopotamia, Persia region.



Gabriel is mentioned in the Book of Daniel, in the Hebrew Bible where he is sent as a messenger of YHWH (see God in Judaism) to Daniel during the Jewish captivity in Babylon.

en.wikipedia.org...

edit on 26-2-2012 by ImpartialObserver because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 05:44 PM
link   
reply to post by NoLoveInFear46and2
 



That made me lol ofr the first time in years.

On Topic: I believe it more believable that Gabriel just explained to the women that he was there to impregnate them "In the name of the lord" and supernaturally inseminated them. Therefore giving them baby god powers, as it does state that Gabriel was there to do God's bidding. But who knows.



posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by The GUT

Hi The Gut

You quoted the anonymous 'levitical-messianic' author of the mangled text of 'the Epistle to the Hebrews' (not written by Paul - the Greek is not his) -

QUOTE

"For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. (Hebrews 4:12)

UNQUOTE

You did know, didn;t you, that the anonymous levitical priestly Messianic author of 'Hebrews' was referring not to any New Testament writings/scriptures (whiich by c. AD 50 had not come into existence or regarded as 'holy scrpture' defiling tha hands, yet) , but the anonymous author was referring ONLY to the 'Hebrew Scriptures' when he wrote the above quotation?

In those days the Hebrew Canon had not yet been finally settled - the Jews of the days of 'Iesous' (=R. Yehoshua bar Yosef the Galilean Nazir) did NOT have an established set of books (or even an established VERSION of any of their books) which 'defiled the hands' i.e. were considered sacred scriptures. The book of the prophet Hezekiel. the book of Esther, the Book of Job and the Book of Qoheleth ('Ecclesiastes') were still being debated by Rebbes as late s as 140 CE as to whether they should be condered 'canonical'. It was not until after the council of Jamnia (Javneh) in 90 CE (long after the execution of R. Yehoshua bar Yosef / Iesous !) and after Jerusalem and its temple had been ground to Powder by the Roman Army did the Rebbes start replace their temple with 'scriptures' that 'defiled the hands' i.e. were sacred and inspired...

In other words, the earliest Christian communities did NOT have a 'bible' as a firm set of writings between two covers - just a hotchpotch of books which included various versions of the supposedly ancient Torah, along with various sets of 'writings' (i.e. 'wisdom books' (which sometimes included books like Daniel ! ) along with various collections of prophetic oracles.

We can see one version of what was then (pre 68 CE) considered to have 'defiled the hands' i.e. considered 'canonical' (at least by the Dead Sea Scroll Priestly Scribal Covenanters who commented ONLY on the books they considered to be holy by means of Pesherim) by what was buried amongs the Dead Sea Scroll fragments which included 'for commentary' most of the holy books which today are regarded as the 'old testament' all of which was sealed up in a Time Capsule in 68 CE in Caves 1-11 near Qumran (ancient Seccacah) during the 1st failed Jewsih war against Rome) - preserving many many many earlier readings that were 'shock and awe' to scholars when they found them to be DIFFERENT from much of the material in modern 'bibles' e.g. the book of Jeremiah which is 20% different from the Masoretic text versions if you count letter for letter and word for word !!!!!!

As for 'the Scriptures' of the Jews cutting both ways....you DID know, didn't you, that in those days, the Hebrew scriptures ALSO included OTHER books (not currently in the 'official canon' of today's;bibles) such as The Wisdom of Ben-Sirach (aka 'Sirach' aka 'Ecclesiasticus'), the Scroll of the Words of Henoch the Scribe, The Book of Divisions of the Times into their Jubilees &Weeks (aka 'The Book of Jubilees'), the Testaments of the 12 Patriarchs and The Book of Tobit - but DIID NOT include books like Qoheleth ('Ecclesiastes') and 'Esther' ?

And please do NOT tell me you did NOT know any of this !!!!!!!![
edit on 27-2-2012 by Sigismundus because: this stuttttttttering keyyyboarddd makes forrrr sooooome innntereesstttting spellingggsssss



posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 05:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Sigismundus
 
Greetings, Sigimundis, and may the Spirit of the Lord provide a lamp for thy feet.


Of course I know about the so-called pseudepigrapha.

I'm especially fond of 1 Enoch and am delighted to make up my own mind on the rest of the writings.

I happen to agree with much of what the early "church fathers" had to say about the matter…but not all.

What I'm really wondering is: What part of, "It's my personal belief that the scriptures are written in such a way that the "truths" we should be most concerned with can't be altered by man," AND, "The minutiae becomes rather irrelevant in that case," didn't you understand?


Looking at it again, I believe it was a coherent statement. Maybe you're a little quick on the trigger so-to-speak? Either that, or your reading comprehension is a little weak. That would explain the error of some of your other assumptions.

Besides, as I've mentioned; your scholarship is decent, but not that great...not that scholarship is the end-all-be-all. I often find the autodidact to be more informed.

You are contradicted, however, in many of your "guesses" by folk who are probably--and I'm just guessing myself here--more qualified scholastically than yourself.

You do understand that, don't you? Peace.



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 04:20 PM
link   
reply to post by The GUT

Hello again, The Gut -

You wrote: QUOTE

“Of course I know about the so-called Pseudepigrapha…it's my personal belief that the Scriptures are written in such a way that the "truths" we should be most concerned with can't be altered by man," AND, "The minutiae becomes rather irrelevant in that case," didn't you understand?”…

UNQUOTE

You DID know (didn’t you?) that many ‘originally holy’ scriptures listed by me in my last ATS post addressed to you were NOT ALL Pseudipigrapha (‘falsely attributed writings’ e.g. like the 'Book of Daniel', the 'Testaments of the 12 Patriarchs being the Sons of Yakkov', 'The Book of the Words of Henoch' etc. ) but that some books on my list posted to you WERE NOT Pseudipigrapha at all but in fact were 'Apocryphal' writings (‘hidden writings’ e.g. the Books of Tobit and Sirach-Ecclesiasticus)?

You DO know the difference between these two technical terms, I hope ?

If you do not, well then, YOU are the one who will have to be more formally-trained in Biblical scholarship, not me…since I already am well versed in unpointed paleoHebrew, Aramaic and Koine Greek, and have no trouble handling the ancient texts for myself…up close and personal.

Can the same be said for you ? –

Judging from your childish posts back to me, evidently, not, for your jejune discussion (at least so far) on this ATS thread bespeaks a person who CAN ONLY READ BAD ENLGISH TRANSLATIONS of ancient texts and has ZERO ability to translate them for himself – and also you show on these posts no working knowledge of the wider history of these writings in their original languages.

It is ALSO very clear from your comments quoted above that YOU are the one who is mightily confused on text critical matters – for (as of to-day) you DID NOT answer my observation about WHAT EXACTLY DO YOU CONSIDER TO BE THE LIST of ‘HOLY SCRIPTURES’

i.e. those specific books ‘which defile the hands’ i.e. holy writ – and also IN WHAT VERSION (e.g. which exact family of the Dead Sea Scroll Hebrew and Aramaic texts are the versions which YOU feel ‘defile the hands’, and which do not?

Also, which of the later ‘non canonical’ texts of the ‘Hebrew’ scriptures might you consider to be holy writ – i.e. those texts NOT IN YOUR BIBLES (like 1 Henoch) which are included in your own personal list of scriptures that ‘defile the hands’ – e.g. the Hebrew consonantal Vorlage to the LXX Septuaginta (c. BCE 250) Alexandrian Greek family of texts, or the Palestinian Hebrew Vorlage to Aquilla’s Greek,text or the mixed Hebrew consonantal Vorlag to Symmachus’ Greek text or the Hebrew consonantal Vorlag to Theodotion’s Greek text, or the protoMasoretic consonantal Hebrew text used after the Council of Javneh?

So now is your BIG chance to answer me – my question is simple: since you used the term SCRIPTURES as a basis for your belief-Weltanschauung, which EXACT list of books DO YOU CONSIDER TO BE ‘holy’ SCRIPTURES and which do you not? Also WHICH EXACT text version(s) of those SPECIFIC books do you consider to be ‘scriptural’ - and why, exactly?

If you cannot answer these questions immediately, you are not ‘conversant’ in the material at hand – proof that you are in no position to make bald statements about ‘scriptures’ and their textual variants, especially since 1991 when the dead sea scroll fragments FINALLY began to come to light for 'outside' scholars to examine up close and personal.

My advice to you would be for you to take an ancient languages course (paleoHebrew, Aramaic and 1st Century Koine Greek) then do a year or two of close reading of the texts in their original languages.
Then you’ll be able to converse more intelligently on this subject – until then, you are doing nothing but spouting your blind ignorance about this whole subject….


edit on 28-2-2012 by Sigismundus because: Stutterinnggg keeeyboooarddsss can beeee funnnnnn



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 04:29 PM
link   
Well Christians,,,,,,,,,,,,,


Answer the OP. I'd love to hear what your thoughts on the matter are. NOT REALLY,,cuz someone is yanking your jock straps .

I'd also like you to know that the person or people most likely behind this thread and most of these types of posts are the same flawed humans you worship and you would gladly throw your first born in front of a speeding car to save your idols life.

Then proclaim your child gave his life to save one of God's own
edit on 28-2-2012 by alienorgy because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by alienorgy

Well Christians,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Answer the OP. I'd love to hear what your thoughts on the matter are.


To be clear this is the jist of the thread.

A certain Elizabeth, mother of John the Baptist and Mary, Mother of Jesus did agree and conspire in secret to be artificially inseminated by the act of sacred prostitution with the seed of the angel Gabriel.
edit on 28-2-2012 by ImpartialObserver because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 06:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImpartialObserver

Originally posted by alienorgy

Well Christians,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Answer the OP. I'd love to hear what your thoughts on the matter are.


To be clear this is the jist of the thread.

A certain Elizabeth, mother of John the Baptist and Mary, Mother of Jesus did agree and conspire in secret to be artificially inseminated by the act of sacred prostitution with the seed of the angel Gabriel.
edit on 28-2-2012 by ImpartialObserver because: (no reason given)


Umm in a word..... NO!

Let's be very clear here;

Elizabeth was able to conceive, even in old age, but the father of John was her husband. God gave her the miracle of fertility.

Mary conceived of the Holy Spirit, not the Angel Gabriel. Yes, she agreed to Gabriel's request, but she could have said no and God would have been cool with that too as he is all about choices.

There are conflicting stories out there about Mary as she did marry Joseph. However, Catholic tradition teaches that she remained a Virgin throughout her life and that she did not actually die, she was assumed into heaven as a select few other prophets from the old testament were. Joseph most likely had more that one wife, as was tradition back then, so it is most likely Jesus did have brothers and sisters, but from different mothers and consequently were from the same family but not actually related.

None of this is written in the new testament and this is why it is not generally accepted by Protestant faiths.

Mary is actually still around today as in she appears to people here in earth and her role is as a heavenly emmisary converting and healing people. One of her titles in the church is 'spouse of the Holy Spirit' which is very relevant to your slanderous suggestion toward her.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join