Embarrassing questions which cannot be asked

[Storm]

I'm by no means an expert, but I believe the Uncertainty Principle is something that has been shown mathematically, so it is not a technological issue.

The axioms and such used in the proof may prove to be incomplete though.

Oh. Forgive my ignorance, all.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, please don't put words in my mouth. The way you explained it, it's dependent on our current technological limitations.

The point I meant to express is that if Heisenberg is right, the real limitation on knowledge isn't our current technology, it's the intrinsic physical properties of this universe. If this can ever be surpassed (which I do believe you said you believed would happen), then Heisenberg is wrong.

I'd quibble with the hierarchical use of "higher," but I guess it's not important. I would agree that it's a different qulaity of comprehension, the kind that only comes with experience.

For frail, mortal humans, sure. For omniscient deities, I'd disagree.

Calling God's failure to grok what He has not experienced a deficiency in His omniscience strikes me no different from calling failure to create a square circle a deficiency of omnipotence.

I'm not sure I agree. I think it'd be a closer analogy to say that a god who could not create ex nihilo would have a deficiency of omnipotence.

It makes a twisted sense if you view women's bodies as evil. Is that doctrine, though? I thought it was more of a fringe thing.

I'm not sure whether there is doctrine on just how Original Sin is transmitted from generation to generation, and I think that the answer "passing through the birth canal doesn't imbue babies with Original Sin" doesn't have any intrinsic logical contradictions in it, but it would imply that one of two possible implications is true:

- babies don't have Original Sin after they're born, meaning that the Catholic Church is just flat-out wrong on a central matter of doctrine.

- babies have Original Sin before they're born, meaning that a fetus (or "baby", since we're taking as given Catholic belief and thought) who has spent its entire life unconscious is so sinful that it is fit for eternal suffering in Hell, which I think seriously casts doubt on the idea of a benevolent and just God, which is another central matter of Catholic doctrine.

Edit: I should probably point out that this problem isn't unique to the Catholic Church. A similar problem exists in any denomination that believes that anyone who hasn't gone through a certain process (e.g. baptism or being "born again") is destined for, or at least could rightly be assigned to, Hell.

 

[Storm]

The point I meant to express is that if Heisenberg is right, the real limitation on knowledge isn't our current technology, it's the intrinsic physical properties of this universe. If this can ever be surpassed (which I do believe you said you believed would happen), then Heisenberg is wrong.

OK. What was the relevance of this tangent, again? Sorry, I'm still groggy.

For frail, mortal humans, sure. For omniscient deities, I'd disagree.

Sorry, that's the definition of the word (iirc).

I'm not sure I agree. I think it'd be a closer analogy to say that a god who could not create ex nihilo would have a deficiency of omnipotence.

If my understanding of the word "grok" is correct, what you're demanding is a definitive impossibility, just like a square circle.

I'm not sure whether there is doctrine on just how Original Sin is transmitted from generation to generation,

Neither am I, but hey - speculation is fun.

- babies don't have Original Sin after they're born, meaning that the Catholic Church is just flat-out wrong on a central matter of doctrine.

Actually, I think there may be an "age of accountability" issue in this.

- babies have Original Sin before they're born, meaning that a fetus (or "baby", since we're taking as given Catholic belief and thought) who has spent its entire life unconscious is so sinful that it is fit for eternal suffering in Hell, which I think seriously casts doubt on the idea of a benevolent and just God, which is another central matter of Catholic doctrine.

Like you, I'm no expert on Catholic doctrine, but it makes more sense to me that Original Sin be a quality of the soul than an STD. Plus, the "transmitted by birth canal" notion would mean babies born by C-section would be exempt.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

OK. What was the relevance of this tangent, again? Sorry, I'm still groggy.

That it seems that at a fundamental, basic level, our understanding of natural laws runs into a wall of lack of knowledge, and therefore nothing natural can ever be fully explained by natural laws... or at least by our own understanding of them.

Sorry, that's the definition of the word (iirc).

Seeing how very few dictionaries have the word "grok" to begin with, I'm unclear how you can be so certain that the definition excludes "grokking" from omniscience.

If my understanding of the word "grok" is correct, what you're demanding is a definitive impossibility, just like a square circle.

Here's my understanding of the word: "grokking" is a deep level of intimate, thorough understanding of something as one would get through intense, personal experience.

The key word in all that is the "as". Not "that", "as". I think that the term "grok" deals with the quality of the knowledge, not the method by which it's obtained. And since "grokked" knowledge is a subset of all knowledge, then it logically follows that an all-knowing entity would grok all there is to grok.

Actually, I think there may be an "age of accountability" issue in this.

Not explicitly, at least not in the Catholic Church. The Catechism says "As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them."

This always struck me as an odd way to put it, since I would've thought that in their theology, that's all anyone would be able to trust themselves to anyhow... plus using the term "only" to describe the protection of a loving and all-powerful God to be an odd word choice; it makes it sounds as if doing that is deficient somehow. In any case, it is what it is.

So... the Church's position isn't that kids under an age of accountability are exempt from Hell; it's that they're going to just hope for the best for unbaptized kids and leave the question of where they end up unanswered. Personally, when you combine this with the notion that God is good and just, you get this idea that God may send the kid to Hell for eternal torment, but that would still be an okay thing to do, because it'd be God doing it and God doesn't do bad things.

Like you, I'm no expert on Catholic doctrine, but it makes more sense to me that Original Sin be a quality of the soul than an STD. Plus, the "transmitted by birth canal" notion would mean babies born by C-section would be exempt.

Yeah... I realize that. I was mainly trying to get at the idea that a baby might be intrinsically different in God's eyes from a moment before birth to a moment after birth, and wondered aloud what the cause of that difference might be.

 

[Storm]

That it seems that at a fundamental, basic level, our understanding of natural laws runs into a wall of lack of knowledge, and therefore nothing natural can ever be fully explained by natural laws... or at least by our own understanding of them.

OK. Are you using "natural law" interchangably with "our understanding of natural law?" Because I'm not, and that would make a big difference.

Seeing how very few dictionaries have the word "grok" to begin with, I'm unclear how you can be so certain that the definition excludes "grokking" from omniscience.

Hey, I could be wrong. That's just my understanding.

Here's my understanding of the word: "grokking" is a deep level of intimate, thorough understanding of something as one would get through intense, personal experience.

The key word in all that is the "as". Not "that", "as". I think that the term "grok" deals with the quality of the knowledge, not the method by which it's obtained. And since "grokked" knowledge is a subset of all knowledge, an all-knowing entity would logically know all "grokked" knowledge.

OK, I agree that that definition could be included in omniscience. Hell, my understanding could be. I just don't think that it necessarily is.

Not explicitly, at least not in the Catholic Church. The Catechism says "As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them."

You sound fairly certain, so I'll defer to you on this point.

Yeah... I realize that. I was mainly trying to get at the idea that a baby might be intrinsically different in God's eyes from a moment before birth to a moment after birth, and wondered aloud what the cause of that difference might be.

Given that neither of us are really sure about this, I suggest that we table it. Any other examples?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

OK. Are you using "natural law" interchangably with "our understanding of natural law?" Because I'm not, and that would make a big difference.

I thought that "understanding" was implied by your use of the word "explain". It doesn't necessarily have to be human understanding... I mean, if you want, we could hypothesize about some entity that isn't subject to human limitations, but if something's being explained, I think it's necessarily a matter of understanding by someone or something.

OK, I agree that that definition could be included in omniscience. Hell, my understanding could be. I just don't think that it necessarily is.

But since the concept is a human invention, we don't really need any uncertainty about what it means. We could just define it one way or the other and boom! that's what omnipotence means.

Whether it accurately describes any particular deities is a secondary matter... and IMO putting the cart before the horse a bit, kinda like arguing over the architectural style of Atlantis before you actually find it.

You sound fairly certain, so I'll defer to you on this point.

I copy-pasted it right out of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

For those playing along at home, here's the link:
Catechism of the Catholic Church - PART 2 SECTION 2 CHAPTER 1 ARTICLE 1

Given that neither of us are really sure about this, I suggest that we table it. Any other examples?

Off the top of my head... practically all the symbolism of Revelation if you take it literally, IMO.

 

[Storm]

I thought that "understanding" was implied by your use of the word "explain". It doesn't necessarily have to be human understanding... I mean, if you want, we could hypothesize about some entity that isn't subject to human limitations, but if something's being explained, I think it's necessarily a matter of understanding by someone or something.

Understandable miscommunication. I meant the territory, you meant the map. Now that that's cleared up, do we still disagree?

Perhpas I should clarify further. It might be called a matter of faith, but I believe nature has solid, inviolate laws (the inviolate part is my personal rejection of the supernatural). Our understanding of these laws is not complete, but again I have faith that it will continue to improve. I don't see any reason to assume that any aspect of natural law is inherently unknowable.

But since the concept is a human invention, we don't really need any uncertainty about what it means. We could just define it one way or the other and boom! that's what omnipotence means.

That's just it, though. There are different definitions.

Whether it accurately describes any particular deities is a secondary matter... and IMO putting the cart before the horse a bit, kinda like arguing over the architectural style of Atlantis before you actually find it.

Well said!

I copy-pasted it right out of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

For those playing along at home, here's the link:
Catechism of the Catholic Church - PART 2 SECTION 2 CHAPTER 1 ARTICLE 1

Well, then, I really, REALLY defer to them!

Off the top of my head... practically all the symbolism of Revelation if you take it literally, IMO.

Ugh, don't get me started on Literalism. At the absolute minimum, it's unnecessary. Personally I think it's crap theology, and idolatry to boot. I certainly won't defend it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Understandable miscommunication. I meant the territory, you meant the map. Now that that's cleared up, do we still disagree?

I think we do. Maybe an analogy would help: take gravity. It's (as far as we can tell) a universal phenomenon - no matter where you go in the universe, masses pull on other masses. However, an Earth-bound observer might say "When I jump into the air, I fall back to Earth. However, the Moon just hangs there in the sky. It must not be subject to the same physical laws that I am."

But the Moon is subject to the same physical laws as the person. It's just not immediately apparent to that human observer. I think that when you get right down to it, the physical laws (i.e. the real, fundamental physical laws) that govern the universe are the same for everything that exists. If they appear different, it's only because of our limited perspective or understanding.

Perhpas I should clarify further. It might be called a matter of faith, but I believe nature has solid, inviolate laws (the inviolate part is my personal rejection of the supernatural).

I think I believe something similar, though in my case, I think it's turned around a bit: I think that all physical laws are solid and inviolate, otherwise they're not laws. If a law applies to one set of things (e.g. what we term "natural") but not another set (e.g. the "supernatural"), then the law in question isn't a law at all.

Our understanding of these laws is not complete, but again I have faith that it will continue to improve. I don't see any reason to assume that any aspect of natural law is inherently unknowable.

I hope you're right, but I think it's far from certain that you are.

 

[Storm]

I think we do. Maybe an analogy would help: take gravity. It's (as far as we can tell) a universal phenomenon - no matter where you go in the universe, masses pull on other masses. However, an Earth-bound observer might say "When I jump into the air, I fall back to Earth. However, the Moon just hangs there in the sky. It must not be subject to the same physical laws that I am."

But the Moon is subject to the same physical laws as the person. It's just not immediately apparent to that human observer. I think that when you get right down to it, the physical laws (i.e. the real, fundamental physical laws) that govern the universe are the same for everything that exists. If they appear different, it's only because of our limited perspective or understanding.

I think I believe something similar, though in my case, I think it's turned around a bit: I think that all physical laws are solid and inviolate, otherwise they're not laws. If a law applies to one set of things (e.g. what we term "natural") but not another set (e.g. the "supernatural"), then the law in question isn't a law at all.

I don't see where we disagree with each other. I do see where we both disagree with CHristianity.

I hope you're right, but I think it's far from certain that you are.

So do I. Don't mistake me for being certain.

 

[lockyfan]

In most religions, there seem to be a near-infinite number of questions which simply cannot be asked, because they are embarrassing.

For example, in Genesis why is Eve created from one of Adam's rib bones? Why not his femur, or toenail?

Or: why was Jesus born of a virgin woman? Why wasn't he born of a virgin man, or materialize out of thin air?

I dont know if your post was answered, but i hope this helps you.
Bones are made up of living cells and are blood cell producers, plus they are the foundation of the body. The rib probably picked because it actually grows back if the membrane of connective tissue, called the periosteum, remains which God would have known as he created the human body. The femur doesnt grow back and the your nails are dead


The answer to the Jesus question is

"There was compelling reason for Jesus to be born of a virgin. Had his mother been married and had she had intercourse with Joseph before she conceived by holy spirit, the question might well have been raised as to whose son Jesus was—God’s or Joseph’s. Besides, even as the high priest in Israel could marry only a virgin, so it was fitting that God use a virgin to bring forth his Son" (quoted from Awake article Did Jesus Have Brothers and Sisters? 1976)

I hope that answers your question

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I dont know if your post was answered, but i hope this helps you.
Bones are made up of living cells and are blood cell producers, plus they are the foundation of the body. The rib probably picked because it actually grows back if the membrane of connective tissue, called the periosteum, remains which God would have known as he created the human body. The femur doesnt grow back and the your nails are dead

Do you think any of these technical considerations would matter to an all-powerful God?

The answer to the Jesus question is

"There was compelling reason for Jesus to be born of a virgin. Had his mother been married and had she had intercourse with Joseph before she conceived by holy spirit, the question might well have been raised as to whose son Jesus was—God’s or Joseph’s.

I don't think this part makes any sense. I think that the fact that Joseph and Mary married raised the question of whose son Jesus was, and it's not like it was unheard-of even in Judea 2000 years ago for people not to be virgins when they marry, but lie about it.

If you go by the Gospel account, the main reason people believed that Jesus was the Son of God was because angels came down from Heaven and explained things in detail. Why could that not happen after Mary and Joseph got married?

Besides, even as the high priest in Israel could marry only a virgin, so it was fitting that God use a virgin to bring forth his Son" (quoted from Awake article Did Jesus Have Brothers and Sisters? 1976)

Wait... so is Joseph a high priest, or is God married to Mary?

I hope that answers your question

Not really, but I do appreciate the effort.

 

[sojourner]

In most religions, there seem to be a near-infinite number of questions which simply cannot be asked, because they are embarrassing.

For example, in Genesis why is Eve created from one of Adam's rib bones? Why not his femur, or toenail?

Or: why was Jesus born of a virgin woman? Why wasn't he born of a virgin man, or materialize out of thin air?

Or: why was the prophet Muhammad sent a winged horse to transport him from Mecca to Jerusalem and back? Why wasn't he sent a piloted helicopter, or a matter-transporter?

Or: why is the angel Moroni depicted blowing a trumpet to herald the second coming? Why not a blast from a tuba, or an electric guitar?

These are the kinds of questions kids are encouraged not to ask early on in the indoctrination process. They are questions which are embarrassing because "of course" the alternatives would be ridiculous and impossible....but then this exposes how ridiculous and impossible the original propositions are in the first place. The believer is constantly left mystified, saying "I guess that's just how god wanted it"....while the rest of us know perfectly well the answers: because these myths were written by provincial human beings, and thus reflects their particular human tastes and symbolisms.

We know perfectly well why Muhammad was sent a winged horse, according to the story: because ancient people had to trudge around in the desert for days and weeks just to reach a neighboring city, probably in a caravan staring at the back of a donkey's butt, while birds flew freely overhead. It's natural that they would fantasize about a horse with wings, that could fly like the birds, and take you across the world in a few days. You can even put a beautiful woman's face on the horse for good measure. (And why not a beautiful man's face? Because the authors and those in power were MEN, of course.)

Most religions are highly mythical, and rely on metaphor and allegory to communicate their tenets. Your seem to have a problem with the nature of myth, which translates truth, instead of transmitting fact.

 

[lockyfan]

Do you think any of these technical considerations would matter to an all-powerful God?

Yeah I do actually

Why could that not happen after Mary and Joseph got married?

A Purity thing, couldnt have the life of Gods only begotten and perfect son to be placed inside the womb of a women who had already had relations with a man now would you?

Wait... so is Joseph a high priest, or is God married to Mary?

No you missed what it said, High Priests could ONLY marry Virgins.

For example the way it used to be in England before the whole Charles and Diana thing, the Future King had to marry someone pure.

So as we learn through the scriptures (Hebrews 6:19-20 This [hope] we have as an anchor for the soul, both sure and firm, and it enters in within the curtain, where a forerunner has entered in our behalf, Jesus, who has become a high priest according to the manner of Melchiz′edek forever.) Christ is a high priest so therefore it is only fitting that Mary, the human mother he was born to, was a virgin when his life was transferred from heaven into her womb



I hope that helps you understand a little more of what I was on about earlier


Not really, but I do appreciate the effort.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yeah I do actually

But not the technical considerations of a virgin giving birth? Aren't you exercising special pleading?

Still... take one of your reasons: you said that God wouldn't have created Eve from one of Adam's toenails, because toenails are dead. Didn't God create Adam from dust? Isn't dust dead? Apparently, the mere fact that something is dead is not an impediment to God creating a living, breathing human being from it.

A Purity thing, couldnt have the life of Gods only begotten and perfect son to be placed inside the womb of a women who had already had relations with a man now would you?

Why not? God's already lowering Himself by having a mere mortal human carry His child. If you're arguing that a non-virginal woman wouldn't be worthy to carry God's seed... well, why would a virginal woman be worthy? Fundamentally, you've still got the same problem.

No you missed what it said, High Priests could ONLY marry Virgins.

Yes... but what's the relevance? AFAICT, there's nothing in the Gospel story that works with your analogy. God didn't marry a virgin; he just knocked one up. And I've never seen any hint that Joseph was a high priest.

For example the way it used to be in England before the whole Charles and Diana thing, the Future King had to marry someone pure.

What "Charles and Diana thing"? Maybe you mean "Charles and Camilla"? Even so, it looks like they probably won't be marrying.

Anyhow, I think your assessment of history is a bit faulty. Off the top of my head, I know that Henry VIII married Catherine of Aragon after her first husband, Henry's brother, died. From a quick bit of Googling, I found that Elizabeth Woodville, Edward IV's wife, was a widow from a previous marriage in which she had already had two children. I'm sure that with a bit of reading, we could find many other instances where kings of England had married women who were open about the fact that they had known other men intimately before the king... to say nothing of the women who did so secretly.

So as we learn through the scriptures (Hebrews 6:19-20 This [hope] we have as an anchor for the soul, both sure and firm, and it enters in within the curtain, where a forerunner has entered in our behalf, Jesus, who has become a high priest according to the manner of Melchiz′edek forever.) Christ is a high priest so therefore it is only fitting that Mary, the human mother he was born to, was a virgin when his life was transferred from heaven into her womb

Hang on - you said that a high priest had to marry a virgin. You didn't say anything about a requirement that a high priest be born of a virgin... and I doubt there is such a requirement, since generally, it would be physically impossible to keep.

I hope that helps you understand a little more of what I was on about earlier

No, not really, but conversation's a good thing for its own sake.

 

[lockyfan]

Why not? God's already lowering Himself by having a mere mortal human carry His child. If you're arguing that a non-virginal woman wouldn't be worthy to carry God's seed... well, why would a virginal woman be worthy? Fundamentally, you've still got the same problem

Jehovah created humans in his image. We alone of all creations by him, were originally intended to live on this earth as perfect humans, why not put his son into the body or a "mere Mortal"if he did not want us to have the prefection he wanted for us in the first place. Oh and we are not "mere humans"in his eyes or else we would have been extinct long ago.

Yes... but what's the relevance? AFAICT, there's nothing in the Gospel story that works with your analogy. God didn't marry a virgin; he just knocked one up. And I've never seen any hint that Joseph was a high priest.

Did i actually say Joseph was a high priest? did I? No I didnt. Jesus is the high Priest his life was transferred into the womb of a woman who had not had relations with a man. Just as the High Priest was forbidden to marry any BUT a VIRGIN Jesus the High Priest of Gods Kingdom along with the King of said Kingdom has his angelic lifeforce tranferred into the body of a Virgin

What "Charles and Diana thing"? Maybe you mean "Charles and Camilla"? Even so, it looks like they probably won't be marrying.
No actually did mean the Charles and Diana thing. why do you think she was so young for him? because he had played around and at that particular point in time the Future King had to Marry a woman with "no past". Meaning a past with no man. A Virgin.

Still... take one of your reasons: you said that God wouldn't have created Eve from one of Adam's toenails, because toenails are dead. Didn't God create Adam from dust? Isn't dust dead? Apparently, the mere fact that something is dead is not an impediment to God creating a living, breathing human being from it.

Why would He create Eve from more dust? why not create Eve from Adam, she is the female version of man, mans helper, Adam could say she was flesh of his flesh and Bone of his bone because she came from him. Also when a husband and wife get married they become öne flesh two separate entities working together as one for the sake of their newly formed family.






God Jesus Man Woman

 

[McBell]

Did i actually say Joseph was a high priest? did I? No I didnt. Jesus is the high Priest his life was transferred into the womb of a woman who had not had relations with a man. Just as the High Priest was forbidden to marry any BUT a VIRGIN Jesus the High Priest of Gods Kingdom along with the King of said Kingdom has his angelic lifeforce tranferred into the body of a Virgin

How is this relevant to Mary being a virgin?
Are you saying that Jesus married his mother?
Cause that is about the only way I can think of that your claiming that a holy priest has to marry a virgin when talking about Mary's virgin birth of Jesus has any relevanc.

 

[lockyfan]

There had to be no doubt in anyones mind that Christ was Gods Son

Mary was a virgin of the line of David, she had no intercourse with a Man and carried the Prefect human life of Jesus in her for 9months, then raised him, all the while he remained perfect and sinless because he chose to

Mary had to be a virgin to make sure there was no question over who christ was the son of.

Also it is only fitting that the High Priest of Jehovah's Kingdom be born to a virgin, considering the human ones are only allowed to marry Virgins.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There had to be no doubt in anyones mind that Christ was Gods Son

Except it didn't work, did it? For example, there's doubt in my mind that Christ was God's Son. There was also doubt in the mind of the people who tried and crucified him. Even Joseph acknowledges that people will assume that Jesus was the product of some premarital sexual shenanigans when he first decides to "put Mary away" (i.e. either divorce her or end their engagement, if I understand the phrase properly), before he's dissuaded from doing so by an angel.

Mary was a virgin of the line of David, she had no intercourse with a Man and carried the Prefect human life of Jesus in her for 9months, then raised him, all the while he remained perfect and sinless because he chose to

Mary had to be a virgin to make sure there was no question over who christ was the son of.

When an unmarried woman is discovered to be pregnant and no father comes forward, there are other explanations besides "well, I guess God's the father". Even if you're 100% certain that she is a virgin (though I don't really see how you could be), once you allow magical possibilities like "God impregnated her", you also open the floodgates to other magical explanations:

- God created the child but did not "beget" him... kinda like Adam. God is the child's maker, not the literal father.

- the child was conceived with some other mystical creature... an angel sent by God, perhaps, or maybe Zeus (Zeus was big into impregnating mortal women). Either way, the Christian God would not be the father.

- Christ, being a magical creature Himself, created Himself through His magic. He has no father.

- the child is actually the son of Satan, not God.

In any case, even if you're predisposed to believing in the sort of God that goes around knocking up women, you still have other potential explanations open to you when you hear of an unmarried, pregnant woman or even an unmarried, pregnant, virgin woman besides "God's the daddy!"

Also it is only fitting that the High Priest of Jehovah's Kingdom be born to a virgin, considering the human ones are only allowed to marry Virgins.

You've said this several times, but repeating it hasn't helped it to make any more sense. You're not saying that Jesus married his mother, are you? And if you're not, how exactly are the rules about who high priests can and can't marry relevant here?

 

[lockyfan]

Except it didn't work, did it? For example, there's doubt in my mind that Christ was God's Son. There was also doubt in the mind of the people who tried and crucified him. Even Joseph acknowledges that people will assume that Jesus was the product of some premarital sexual shenanigans when he first decides to "put Mary away" (i.e. either divorce her or end their engagement, if I understand the phrase properly), before he's dissuaded from doing so by an angel.

Doubt planted by the thoughts of men rather than relying on Gods Word


you also open the floodgates to other magical explanations:

- God created the child but did not "beget" him... kinda like Adam. God is the child's maker, not the literal father.

Jesus was actually God's very first creation his Only begotten son

Proverbs 8:22 “Jehovah himself produced me as the beginning of his way, the earliest of his achievements of long ago. From time indefinite I was installed, from the start, from times earlier than the earth. When there were no watery deeps I was brought forth as with labor pains, when there were no springs heavily charged with water. Before the mountains themselves had been settled down, ahead of the hills, I was brought forth as with labor pains, when as yet he had not made the earth and the open spaces and the first part of the dust masses of the productive land. When he prepared the heavens I was there; when he decreed a circle upon the face of the watery deep, when he made firm the cloud masses above, when he caused the fountains of the watery deep to be strong, when he set for the sea his decree that the waters themselves should not pass beyond his order, when he decreed the foundations of the earth, then I came to be beside him as a master worker, and I came to be the one he was specially fond of day by day, I being glad before him all the time, being glad at the productive land of his earth, and the things I was fond of were with the sons of men. “And now, O sons, listen to me; yes, happy are the ones that keep my very ways

- the child was conceived with some other mystical creature... an angel sent by God, perhaps, or maybe Zeus (Zeus was big into impregnating mortal women). Either way, the Christian God would not be the father.

Jesus was not conceived by a magical creature, he was transfered from heaven to Marys womb, which I said in the previous post

- Christ, being a magical creature Himself, created Himself through His magic. He has no father.

See Proverbs Ch 8 quoted above

- the child is actually the son of Satan, not God.

matthew 4:3-11
Also, the Tempter came and said to him: “If you are a son of God, tell these stones to become loaves of bread.” But in reply he said: “It is written, ‘Man must live, not on bread alone, but on every utterance coming forth through Jehovah’s mouth.’”

Then the Devil took him along into the holy city, and he stationed him upon the battlement of the temple and said to him: “If you are a son of God, hurl yourself down; for it is written, ‘He will give his angels a charge concerning you, and they will carry you on their hands, that you may at no time strike your foot against a stone.’” Jesus said to him: “Again it is written, ‘You must not put Jehovah your God to the test.’”

Again the Devil took him along to an unusually high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory, and he said to him: “All these things I will give you if you fall down and do an act of worship to me.” Then Jesus said to him: “Go away, Satan! For it is written, ‘It is Jehovah your God you must worship, and it is to him alone you must render sacred service.’” Then the Devil left him, and, look! angels came and began to minister to him.


If the devil was his father would he keep trying to tempt him and say If you are a Son Of God? Also would Jesus being the kind of man he was tell his father to "Go Away"? I doubt that very much

 

[herushura]

The "RIB" of Adam to form "Eve" is a Pun, the word "RIB" from hebrew sources can also be translates as "Side".

Adam is the First Born lamb of Aries, and to His SIDE, Taurus (hathor) the mother cow of all Living things.

jesus is adam as they are both Aries.

Sun gods are alway Born a Virgin, The Father is the Sky - The Son is the Sun - The Mother is the Earth. The Horizon is the mother earths (mother natures) uterus, the sun is born here, and then dies, and is ressurected again.

Winged Horses or Chariots, are a comman icon for Sun gods, like Apollo,zeus,santa,helios.

Angels are Star, when the sun cross of which he blow the trumpet.

Angels are the Angles of stars to form the image of gods