Immaculate birth of Jesus?

Subduction Zone said:

What makes you think that your Isaiah passage was about Jesus? And you pretty much shoot yourself in the foot when you include clearly fictitious characters in your argument. You might as well have said that Bigfoot had a hand in it too.

Click to expand...

The Spirit of Truth said:

Because you replied to my post within seconds of my posting it, you obviously didn't give much thought to my reply to Rider. Atheist or not, you should be aware that those verses of Isaiah that I quoted, are universally accepted as referring to Jesus; sadly, they have just been ignored by the Pauline Christians, because once they invented the virgin birth, these verses had to be overlooked. Go back and read my post properly.

Click to expand...

Just as a favour to you, Subduction zone, I am going to tell you how Subduction zones came about. Genesis 1:1, And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.” This verse has been misunderstood by atheists along with Jews, Christians and Muslims since Moses wrote it. The truth of this verse is this: if something exists at all it must have form. What Moses was trying to say was that the Earth had perfect form, i.e., it had no top, no bottom, no front, no back, no left, and no right, it was a sphere, as we now know that it is. ‘Without’ also applies to ‘void’. So, without form and without void means that God created the Earth spherical and without voids, or solid as we know a ball of molten plasma would be with only its own gravity in space. We know that it was a molten sphere, because Moses said that darkness was upon the face of the deep (plasma). He also said that the Spirit that is God moved upon the face of the water. (liquid earth)

Click to expand...

And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. Yes, but Moses’ just got verse 16 out of order, 16 should follow verse three. 16 And God made two great lights; (he created the Sun and the Moon) the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also.” Is confirming that God created the whole Solar System, including the planets, on day one. Unfortunately, as atheist’s only waste their God given intelligence to disprove the existence of a Creator, they will find it difficult to accept any of this. They want only to understand the Bible literally.

So now, this is for you, Sir, And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.” That is how Moses explained what God inspired to him, which all have misinterpreted as meaning the space between the ocean and the water in space, which is where? God told Moses that the Earth was in a liquid state and that He was going to create H2o water to quench the molten earth to form the ‘firmament’, i.e., the firm surface that Moses, also mistakenly, called Heaven, because it was still covered with water. And let it divide the waters (liquid earth) below the firm surface from the H2o water, now the ocean, above the firm surface. When God quenched the liquid earth to form the oceans, the huge stresses caused the firmament to fracture into seven land masses, which continue to drift around the planet powered entirely by the Spirit that created them, and which enabled you to use the phenomenon that is called Subduction Zone as your name which will forever be known by me as Bigfoot.

The Spirit of Truth

Click to expand...

Subduction Zone said:

That is not true. They may be accepted by almost all Christians, but that is far from being universally recognized. That is why I asked you to defend your claim.

I mistakenly left this out of my post to you regarding the virgin birth, so while i am responding to your reply to me here is something else for you to knock.
The Spirit of Truth

The authors of the New Testament artificially fulfilled some 300 prophecies that had little or no relevance to Jesus, to confirm what God wanted Paul to go to the Gentiles of Japheth with, after He had inspired Paul to believe that he had seen Jesus alive on the road to Damascus; this was to deceive satan that the Christians from Japheth were not also God’s people along with the Jews from Shem. Then, to confirm what Paul was teaching, i.e., that Jesus must be God, or the son of God or both, the Roman Christians, or most likely Constantine, plagiarised Isaiah 7:14, which was never a prophecy relating to Jesus, a virgin shall conceive and bare a son and he shall be called Emanual, which the Jews insist never meant God with us anyway.

So, if Mary was raped by a Roman soldier, why would the Roman Catholics invent such a load of baloney as is the virgin birth when it is obvious that God had already inspired Isaiah below, of what He was going to do, and who He was going to choose to call the Gentiles, and to forgive our past sins.

Isaiah 42:1 tells us that He would choose His “servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles.” Isaiah 11:1a tells us from whom God would choose the Way “And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse.” Isaiah 11:10 confirms that Jesus was to, and certainly did, call the Gentiles; the Gentiles, are exclusively from Japheth Gen 10:5 By these were the (Greek) isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands; every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations.”

It is abundantly clear to thinking Christians and Jews, that God chose Joseph and Mary, the most perfect couple to have descended from Shem, as the parents of the Sacrificial lamb (a good tree cannot bare bad fruit) and He continuously inspired Jesus of what His destiny was from conception. You will notice that I said descended from Shem, not Mrs No Name Noah. When females barely get a mention in the Torah, I do not know why the Jews believe that Judaism follows the mother. Furthermore, when a Jewess was captured are you telling me that the child that she produces in captivity is a Jew. Not bloody likely, the child would have no choice but to accept the religion and beliefs of the captors. On the other hand, if a female descendant of Ham, the illegitimate son of Noah, is taken captive, do you mean to tell me that her descendants will never become Jews even though her descendants from that day on will be fathered by Jews. The reverse does not apply if a Jew is captured by the Arab nations from Ham, he was either killed or enslaved, and, in the unlikely event that a Hamite was captured by the Jews, he would either have been killed or enslaved. No, it is time for the Truth, either Joseph was Jesus’ father, otherwise Jesus was not even a Jew.

The Spirit of Truth

Click to expand...

Subduction Zone said:

That is not true. They may be accepted by almost all Christians, but that is far from being universally recognized. That is why I asked you to defend your claim.

No, you didn't ask me to defend my claim, you refuted my claim outright. Why would I have meant to include atheists, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc., etc. as knowing that the prophecies I mentioned related to Jesus, or at least to the man that the Christians claimed was the Messiah. You proved you knew who I meant, by conceding that almost all Christians might accept them, as they do. But then, they have been deceived by the Pauline Christians for 2000 years, which is what I am in the process of correcting as the Spirit of Truth. But as I am merely a man, I cannot, and do not, claim to be infallible John 16:13 “Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.”

Moses is a legend at best. A lot of those stories came from other cultures. Those stories can be tested and falsified if one makes the error of reading Genesis literally. Once again, you may believe that, but it does not make it so.

There you go, throwing the baby out with the bath water. While much of what Moses wrote, especially the exodus from Egypt, is fanciful and probably did not happen that way, you want to throw out the whole of Genesis, rather than to remove the baby before throwing out the dirty water. Up until the ‘prince of this world’ was judged, in 1945, God’s plan to destroy satan has never been revealed to anyone. Now, I can say with 90% surety that it has been revealed to me in great detail, hence I do not speak of myself, but what I hear (from God) that shall I speak. Without this information, much of the OT will remain a mystery and 90% of the NT will remain an adulterated version of who Jesus really was and stood for. I hear it all the time that much of the account of Noah and the flood has been plagiarised from other races in the middle east, but remember, the original inhabitants of the middle east, i.e., the forefathers of both the Jews and the Arabs, were also onboard the ark. You should also be aware, as described in my inspired version of "Ishmael was not the son of Abraham, so who is allah", that only three of the eight races that occurred when Eve was seduced by satan, giving birth to his deviate son, Cain, were passengers on the ark. The other five races had previously been moved to their allotted continents which were then moved offshore before God flooded only southern Europe, which was the only world known to the sons of man (Cain) and the sons of God (Seth).The eldest of the three was Japheth, the forefather of the Christians, who God sent to Europe via the Greek Isles for protection from adulteration by Ham/satan. Shem, i.e., the Jews, God inspired to go south of the Mediterranean, closely followed by Ham and the future Muslims. So, it is inevitable that both Shem and Ham's descendants would tell similar stories, especially as Ham's descendants have always been arch enemies of the Jews
I will deal with the rest of your comments when I return from work next Monday
The Spirit of Truth

Click to expand...

The Spirit of Truth said:

The authors of the New Testament artificially fulfilled some 300 prophecies, that had little or no relevance to Jesus, to confirm what God wanted Paul to go to the Gentiles of Japheth with, after He had inspired Paul to believe that he had seen Jesus alive on the road to Damascus; this was to deceive satan that the Christians from Japheth were not also God’s people, along with the Jews from Shem. Then, to confirm what Paul was teaching, i.e., that Jesus must be God, or the son of God or both, the Roman Christians, or most likely Constantine, plagiarised Isaiah 7:14, which was never a prophecy relating to Jesus, a virgin shall conceive and bare a son and he shall be called Emanual, which the Jews insist never meant God with us anyway.

So, if Mary was raped by a Roman soldier, why would the Roman Catholics invent such a load of baloney as is the virgin birth when it is obvious that God had already inspired Isaiah below, of what He was going to do, and who He was going to choose to call the Gentiles, and to forgive our past sins.

Isaiah 42:1 tells us that He would choose His “servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles.” Isaiah 11:1a tells us from whom God would choose the Way “And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse.” Isaiah 11:10 confirms that Jesus was to, and certainly did, call the Gentiles; the Gentiles, are exclusively from Japheth Gen 10:5 By these were the (Greek) isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands; every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations.”

It is abundantly clear to thinking Christians and Jews, that God chose Joseph and Mary, the most perfect couple to have descended from Shem, as the parents of the Sacrificial lamb (a good tree cannot bare bad fruit) and He continuously inspired Jesus of what His destiny was from conception. You will notice that I said descended from Shem, not Mrs No Name Noah. As females are barely mentioned in the Torah, I do not know why the Jews believe that Judaism follows the mother. Furthermore, when a Jewess was captured are you telling me that the child that she produces in captivity is a Jew. Not bloody likely, the child would have no choice but to accept the religion and beliefs of the captors. On the other hand, if a female descendant of Ham, the illegitimate son of Noah, is taken captive, do you mean to tell me that her descendants will never become Jews even though her descendants from that day on will be fathered by Jews. The reverse does not apply if a Jew is captured by the Arab nations from Ham, he would either be killed or enslaved, and, in the unlikely event that a Hamite was captured by the Jews, he would either have been killed or enslaved. No, it is time for the Truth, Joseph was Jesus’ father, otherwise Jesus was not even a Jew.

The Spirit of Truth

Click to expand...

Dogknox20 said:

particularly reliable in affirming the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Mother

Click to expand...

ChristineM said:

No direct proof but said soldiers name was Tiberius Julius Abdes Pantera.

Hebrew writings in the Talmud and other works refer to jesus as "Yeshu ben Pantera"

Click to expand...

GardenLady said:

In what way is it "particularly reliable"? I suspect it is considered reliable to those to make the a priori assumption of perpetual virginity.

ETA: I find the Catholic and Orthodox obsession with Mary and her sex life appalling. It is in no way associated with salvation or a relationship with God. And in some cultures it is extended to the point of idolatry. Finally, I will say that, being raised female in the Catholic church, it is a damaging doctrine to women.

Click to expand...

YoursTrue said:

And so you believe that?

Click to expand...

Subduction Zone said:

Have you read Luke? Do you know how the author of Luke (not Luke by the way) put part of his story at 4 BCE? He claimed that the Mary was betrothed to Joseph at that time, 4BCE. He had the angel give the message at that time. Ten years later and Joseph has not married Mary yet.

Meanwhile in Matthew Jesus is already ten years old.

Click to expand...

muhammad_isa said:

It seems likely that somebody made a mistake..
The presence of such mistakes in the Bible, does not mean that it is all fiction..
..in particular, that Jesus was born by the virgin Mary, and had no earthly father.

It is easy for God..
Why would God do that?
..perhaps it draws attention towards His messiah?

Click to expand...

Subduction Zone said:

Did I say that it was all fiction? Now you are using a black and white fallacy.

Click to expand...

Muffled said:

I believe I have read it several times in different versions.

I believe that is fallacious speculation.

I believe I have not seen those words in the text. Are you able to make words appear in a text that are not there?

I believe that is also speculation because there is no textual evidence to say that Joseph didn't marry her when he got the message from God that he could.

I believe that is not in the text either.

Click to expand...

Muffled said:

I believe the fictional parts are usually introduced by "he told them a parable."

Click to expand...

GardenLady said:

In what way is it "particularly reliable"? I suspect it is considered reliable to those to make the a priori assumption of perpetual virginity.

ETA: I find the Catholic and Orthodox obsession with Mary and her sex life appalling. It is in no way associated with salvation or a relationship with God. And in some cultures it is extended to the point of idolatry. Finally, I will say that, being raised female in the Catholic church, it is a damaging doctrine to women.

Click to expand...

• For your Maker is your husband, the LORD of hosts is his name . . . (Isaiah 54:5).
• . . . as the bridegroom rejoices over the bride, so shall your God rejoice over you (Isaiah 62:5).
• . . . my covenant which they broke, though I was their husband, says the LORD (Jeremiah 31:32).
• I feel a divine jealousy for you, for I betrothed you to Christ to present you as a pure bride to her one husband (2 Cor. 11:2).

GardenLady said:

I fully support your right to believe that. I don’t, not today if I find your assertions persuasive.

Click to expand...

Dogknox20 said:

.
Merry Christmas
GardenLady Fact is "Mary is The Mother of The One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church" the Body of Jesus! She remains a Virgin because she is married to God!
One because; God is one!
Holy because; God is Holy!
Catholic because; God is "Universal" (everywhere)
Apostolic because; only the Church Jesus established on Rock has roots going all the way back to the Apostles! Jesus did not build on sand Jesus is not a fool! ALL...

GardenLady all other churches are man-made they must believe Jesus failed, believing that his church fell otherwise they would not exist!
Matthew 7:26
But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand.
Fact: Jesus never left his body. Satan did Not somehow overpower Jesus and take the body (Church) of Jesus from Jesus! Jesus is Always With his Church to the end of time!
Matthew 28:20
Teach them to do everything I have commanded you. “And remember that I am always with you until the end of time.”

To reject the Only Church Jesus established on Rock you are then forced to reject the scriptures & logic!

Click to expand...