Explaining The Virgin Birth?

[Kenny]

Not in this thread but in others. Of course to understand one must at least learn the basics of science and evidence. Creationists tend to refuse to do so. There is no need to reinvent the wheel 50 times over. If you want to discuss this in a creationism thread I would be glad to do so. But the first thing to do would be to learn the scientific method and the concept of scientific evidence.

so you say...

And you are back to spinning. Pretty desperately too since you had to rely on a book of the apocrypha.

I'm sorry Sub. You have to do better than just "you are spinning" with no supportive argumentation, otherwise it is you that is spinning.

Concentrating on just one portion (the Apocrypha) doesn't change what was said via the Bible.

So, please present a cogent response as we both said we wouldn't spin. I have presented a supportive response and you have given nothing in return.

 

[Subduction Zone]

so you say...

It is an observation made by countless people that do not deny reality. You could show me to be wrong. Demonstrate that you understand those concepts or, since you almost certainly do not understand them, take the time to learn. That alone would show that I was wrong about creationists. There is a problem. The few creationists that do learn the basics tend to accept the theory of evolution.

I'm sorry Sub. You have to do better than just "you are spinning" with no supportive argumentation, otherwise it is you that is spinning.

Concentrating on just one portion (the Apocrypha) doesn't change what was said via the Bible.

So, please present a cogent response as we both said we wouldn't spin. I have presented a supportive response and you have given nothing in return.

I did, you ignored it. You were so desperate that instead of quoting the Bible you cited a book of the apocrypha. The challenge was to deal with what Genesis says. You could not do that. You had to go outside of it to a poor source and that is spinning.

 

[Kenny]

It is an observation made by countless people that do not deny reality. You could show me to be wrong. Demonstrate that you understand those concepts or, since you almost certainly do not understand them, take the time to learn. That alone would show that I was wrong about creationists. There is a problem. The few creationists that do learn the basics tend to accept the theory of evolution.

strawman. Not part of the subject and quite irrelevant (and unsupported -- hearsay doesn't count)

I did, you ignored it. You were so desperate that instead of quoting the Bible you cited a book of the apocrypha. The challenge was to deal with what Genesis says. You could not do that. You had to go outside of it to a poor source and that is spinning.

spin.

I offered multiple Biblical positions and the word "hence" simply says "I have stated the case and by the way, even the Apocrypha speaks about it".

you will have to do better. Try taking the whole of what I said and not cherry picking and making it a strawman? Remember YOU said no spin, would appreciate it if you lived up to what you said you would do.

 

[Subduction Zone]

strawman.

Nope. Please learn your logical fallacies.

spin.

I offered multiple Biblical positions and the word "hence" simply says "I have stated the case and by the way, even the Apocrypha speaks about it".

you will have to do better. Try taking the whole of what I said and not cherry picking and making it a strawman?

Yes, the Apocrypha talk about all sorts of things. But they are not authorities. That was an error on your part. And even back then there were probably many Jews that realized that some of the stories of the Torah were more on the order of fables than of history. If you avoid blatant errors there will be no need to "cherry pick" them. And still not a strawman.

 

[Kenny]

Nope. Please learn your logical fallacies.



Yes, the Apocrypha talk about all sorts of things. But they are not authorities. That was an error on your part. And even back then there were probably many Jews that realized that some of the stories of the Torah were more on the order of fables than of history. If you avoid blatant errors there will be no need to "cherry pick" them. And still not a strawman.

Still no substance. You will still have to do better to work out the strawman spin.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Still no substance. You will still have to do better to work out the strawman spin.

More substance than you have posted. I offered to have a rational discussion. I am not the one that ran away.

And please, no false claims about a strawman. Learn what a strawman argument is.

 

[rational experiences]

Father. Adult human theist male.

A father by sexual human chosen conditions only.

Male man adult. To son baby life continuance not science.

Earth non science advice after ice age ice returning X mass increases every year versus sea of son sum mer.

Balanced natural stable genetic life returned and bio owned in that evidence ice.

Healing evolution in space womb science fake mother story about atmosphere cooling of giant life before living inside of the heavens which the garden and bio life always had owned by conscious reckoning. Above us is only sky.

gas burnt known science thesis. Evolution. Reason why small bio life returned. Evidence wisdom science machine parts male confession found inside of fusion. I caused it myself.

Science human reasons uses science to reason what humans knowingly caused to earth by science conditions.

Conscious. Self informed aware first naturally before thesis for designs for thesis for artificial satanism conver Sion of God stone mass spirit gases owned by stone.

Yet theoried by baby to adult evolved returned Father's DNA life and death.

Father self less in DNA in natural his story. Living involved in male son baby life return renewal. Father dies natural death. Natural death plus evolution of gases equals father reborn returned miraculously by aware information as a self imposed man male reasoning.

Baby life his claim to not actually having physically died. When he did. Due to heavenly natural evolution between knowing self as an adult to evolution time frame to becoming an adult again.

Teaching was about brain mind conscious effects. Consciousness itself versus fake thinking for invention. A true self deceit.

Why con science stated not true to being conscious.

Always fake self determined status.

Baby male DNA healed returned due to gases released in space by star asteroid stone disintegration. Plus ice amassing told lies in a scientific artificial claim. About his father adult science self being his life destroyer.

Science did it. Irradiated chemical imbalanced his self thoughts as a human. To impose self deification about the miracle of life survival in His God stone support theories.

Quotes I was originally science life sacrificed when I removed the only one holy state of stone. Cold fused radiation gas spirit energy mass.

Reason. Teaching. Why image and how image was encoded as feed...back.

How the story was known. Once taught and known. Today is just theoried against in self egotism.

 

[viole]

Christmas is approaching and this made me think about the virgin birth, in Christianity…

So according to scripture, Jesus was conceived by The Holy Spirit - who impregnated his mother, Mary

It did so without engaging in sexual intercourse, so although she was impregnated she remained a virgin

Some issues come to mind that perhaps we could debate and/or discuss:

1. Can this be explained, or must it remain a mystery?
2. Did Jesus exist before his mother was impregnated?
3. How can a human egg be fertilised without sperm?
4. Where did the 50% of Jesus’s DNA that was not from his mother come from, if no sperm were involved?
5. If no sperm was involved wouldn’t that mean that Jesus wasn’t actually conceived?

What I think must have happened is that the Holy Spirit made a zygote materialise in Mary’s womb, which then attached itself to her and turned into the embryonic Jesus

The question is how they knew she was a virgin.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Ajarn]

Artificial insemination by Aliens, an affair with a Roman soldier covered up by Joseph and Mary to save her being stoned, a God impregnating a woman, a Case of stories changing over time and a holy man's story being exaggerated as was customary at the time.
What sounds more plausible.

 

[Miken]

Artificial insemination by Aliens, an affair with a Roman soldier covered up by Joseph and Mary to save her being stoned, a God impregnating a woman, a Case of stories changing over time and a holy man's story being exaggerated as was customary at the time.
What sounds more plausible.

A story created by Matthew (the author of the Gospel) 80+ years after the putative event for the purpose of redirecting the narrative of Paul, which smacked of polytheism, to be more acceptable to Matthew's strict monotheist Jewish Christian audience.

 

[Miken]

The question is how they knew she was a virgin.

Ciao

- viole

I am guessing the question was raised back then as well. The non-canonical Infancy Gospel of James aka Protoevangelium of James, a 2nd century work, makes it clear that Mary was a virgin before during and after the birth of Jesus, which was miraculous. A doubting woman investigates and her hand is withered for failing to believe.

A painting by William Blake (1757-1827) depicts this miraculous event.

The woman with (blonde!) Mary is not Salome the midwife as in the story but Mary’s cousin Elizabeth, recognizable by her grey hair and aged features and her child, the 6-month old John the Baptist. There is no Nativity narrative that has Elizabeth present. Blake is merging in other parts of Luke’s story here.

The Infancy Gospel of James was quite influential in molding early views that would be preserved in Catholic beliefs. In addition to the doctrine of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary there is the tradition that Joseph was too old to have sex (*) and young Mary was originally his ward, and that the brothers and sisters of Jesus mentioned in the NT were children of Joseph by a previous marriage. The Perpetual Virginity is one of the elements in the complex Catholic imagery surrounding Mary.



* Must have been even older than me

 

[74x12]

Can this be explained, or must it remain a mystery?

It can be partially explained.

Did Jesus exist before his mother was impregnated?

Yes of course as God.

How can a human egg be fertilised without sperm?

The sperm is just bringing in the DNA from the male. God can do that without sperm.

Where did the 50% of Jesus’s DNA that was not from his mother come from, if no sperm were involved?

All of Jesus' DNA was made by God. I believe this is what the Bible means when it says the Word was made flesh. Jesus' DNA was the encoded Word of God. So God wrote it.

If no sperm was involved wouldn’t that mean that Jesus wasn’t actually conceived?

To conceive just means to become pregnant.

What I think must have happened is that the Holy Spirit made a zygote materialise in Mary’s womb, which then attached itself to her and turned into the embryonic Jesus

Interesting.

 

[Zaha Torte]

Christmas is approaching and this made me think about the virgin birth, in Christianity…

So according to scripture, Jesus was conceived by The Holy Spirit - who impregnated his mother, Mary

It did so without engaging in sexual intercourse, so although she was impregnated she remained a virgin

Some issues come to mind that perhaps we could debate and/or discuss:

1. Can this be explained, or must it remain a mystery?
2. Did Jesus exist before his mother was impregnated?
3. How can a human egg be fertilised without sperm?
4. Where did the 50% of Jesus’s DNA that was not from his mother come from, if no sperm were involved?
5. If no sperm was involved wouldn’t that mean that Jesus wasn’t actually conceived?

What I think must have happened is that the Holy Spirit made a zygote materialise in Mary’s womb, which then attached itself to her and turned into the embryonic Jesus

1.) I don't believe that the exact details can be explained but we know of artificial insemination today so its not actually all that mysterious
2.) The Bible claims that Jesus did in fact exist before His mortal birth
3.) Who says that there was no sperm? All we know is that no intercourse took place.
4.) The Bible claims that God the Father is the physical father of Jesus so I assume it came from Him
5.) Perhaps there was no sperm but some other kind of genetic material used