PDA

View Full Version : The Bible debunks the virgin birth.



S-word
06-11-2011, 06:31 PM
Nothing in the bible confirms or gives any support whatsoever to the false teaching of the Anti-christ, which teaching refuses to acknowledge that Jesus came as a human being born of the seed of Adam, as is every human being who has ever, or will ever walk this earth. If it is born of an alien, it is an alien.

Although I hate the word/teaching of the anti-christ which is found in his bride, the universal church of the non-christian King Constantine, which he established from a hodge-podge group of argumentive religious bodies, who called themselves christians in 325 AD, some 300 years after the Apostolic Church of Jesus Christ had been established in Jerusalem.

Although I understand why that teaching was allowed to deceive the minds of the many, and I dearly love my eight sisters and my mother, who are all catholics, and I have long ago learned how upset they get when I attempt to reveal the evidence that proves the virgin birth to be Just so much mysterious hog-wash, and the greater majority of people in the universal church, and her daughter denomination that were spawned in her body from the spirit/word of her indwelling Lord, before breaking away from the mother body, in order to build houses for themselves and their expanding families, are wonderful people, who were born into those faiths, and whose every day lives and commitments, have not given them the time to analyse the teachings that they we taught and had accepted since their chilhood.

I do not really want to upset these people, but knowing that they have been deceived and the truth that could lead them to eternal life has been hidden from them, what am I to do?

Sit back and say nothing, and allow them to remain in their ignorance and unsaved bliss, in order that they should not be upset, or reveal to them, that they do not have to be an eternal and immortal God, to be given power over death and to be born a Son of God, as was our brother Jesus, the first fruits to be harvested from the body of the Most High in the creation, the first of many brothers to be born as the Sons of God.

For they, like Jesus, will not be born Sons of God, by blood, nor by the will of the flesh, nor by the will of man, but by the spirit of their Father, who, as occured with the man Jesus, will be filled with the immortal spirit that will descend upon them as the voice is heard to say, "You are my beloved in whom I am pleased. THIS DAY I have begotten thee." see the more ancient authorities of Luke 3: 22; before they were changed by the authorities of the universal church.

If Jesus was not born of the flesh as all human beings are, but was born of a virgin without the male semen having been introduced into her uterus, then this would have been the greatest of all miracles, and would have been shouted from the roof tops by all four gospel writers and yet we see that Mark and John ignore the physical birth of Jesus as being totally irrelevant to the story of salvation and begin their account of He who was sent in the name of the Lord, with the Baptism of the man Jesus, when he was born of the spirit and the heavenly voice was heard to say, “You are my beloved in whom I am well pleased, Today I have become your father.”

Matthew merely translates the Hebrew, Isaiah 7: 14; “A young unmarried woman "Almah," who is pregnant will have a son and will name him ‘Immanuel.’”

While Luke simply reveals that the "parthenos," the young unmarried 14 year old Mary, when speaking to the angel, was still a virgin, as she had implied, by saying that she had not known any man sexually up until that point in time. But that was three months before she was found to be pregnant.

Due to her obedience to our indwelling ancestral spirit, she conceived in her womb the child of the biological father, chosen by the Holy Spirit, which act of obedience by the handmaid of the Lord, was hidden in the shadows beneath the wings of the Lord of Spirits.

Bonneville
07-11-2011, 09:31 AM
If Jesus was not born of the flesh as all human beings are, but was born of a virgin without the male semen having been introduced into her uterus, then this would have been the greatest of all miracles,
So are you saying this did not happen? Do you not believe in miracles?

Hobbes
07-11-2011, 09:42 AM
Although I hate the word/teaching of the anti-christ

Others have made the same point in the past. But the anti-christ is free to post again (although fortunately he still seems to be self-banned!)

S-word
07-11-2011, 09:43 AM
So are you saying this did not happen? Do you not believe in miracles?

I do not believe in the unbiblical false teaching that Jesus was not a human being, but was supposedly sired by some unearthly alien life form and born of some supposed virgin, who herself is said to have been conceived without the introduction of male semen into her mother's uterus, which must make her a daughter of the alien life form that was the father of his grandson Jesus, whom he sired from his supposed daughter, of who, the preachers of this unbiblical yarn, claim that their supposed virgin was the wife of their "god the father" and the mother of "god his son."

You ask do I believe in miracles? Would you consider the events that occured in the days of the Exodus as miraculous?

The fourteenth day of the first month of the Jewish year, which was the first Passover ever, was the day in which all the first born sons of Egypt were killed.

Around that time the volcanic Island of Santorini or Thira as it is also known, which was situated in the Aegean sea, on the Anatolian plate, which is subject to the forces of the over-riding African Plate that grinds against the Arabian plate in it’s Northern migration, exploded with many times the force of Krakatoa, which was a volcanic island that exploded in 1883, and that explosion was heard 5,000 kilometres away, and caused a tsunami that killed at least 36,000 people. It has been estimated that when the island of Santorini exploded, 35,000 kilometers of material was lifted into the heavens, and that the explosive force would have created tidal waves of anything up to 130 ft high which would have travelled at speeds of around 150 miles per hour.

A cloud, that turned day into night in 1,500 BC, has been recorded in Chinese history, and would have covered all of North Africa.

The African and Arabian plates intersect in a line that runs through the Red Sea and up the Jordan valley through the Dead Sea which was created hundreds of years before the explosion of Santorini, when violent underground activity destroyed the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, which were then situated in the Jordan valley and in the days of Lot, that area was described, as like unto the garden of the Lord, with abundant fresh water flowing through it.

Look at the strange phenomenon that was occurring at the time of the Exodus. The cloud that blanketed north Africa and most of Europe, and turned day into a night so dark that a man was not able to recognise his own brother who was standing at arms length from him. The rain of sulphuric acid that caused so much crop failure and the death of the live stock which were forced to feed on the polluted pastures, the following series of shock waves along the great rift valley and the fractures in the Sini peninsular which is situated on the Arabian plate, the bulging of the earth’s crust beneath the Red Sea which caused a highway to rise from the waters, with it’s following tremor when it collapsed and tidal waves that rolled in like two walls of water on either side of where the highway had been.

Wisdom of Solomon 19: 7-8, ‘Then was beheld the cloud that shadowed the camp, and dry land rising up out of what was before water, Out of the Red sea an unhindered highway, and a grassy plain rising out of the violent surge.”

Look even where the Israelites camped on the shore of the Red sea, which was smack bang in the middle of a major coal field in Egypt The bulging earth rising from the surging sea before them, pressurised gas screaming from the opening fissures creating towering pillars of fire to burn behind them, a strong east wind blew all that night causing the thick smoke to blind the pursuing Egyptians while lighting up the camp of the Israelites on the eastern side of those wild fires.

All these events were caused from pressures that had been built up over tens of thousands of years and would have occurred in their proper time, irrelevant of the Israeli situation.

Where the miracle lays, was in the fact that an unseen deity was able, through his prophet Moses, to organise the events leading up to and including the exodus itself at the precise time in history that this cataclysmic event occurred.

Solomon has much to say about the days of Moses; he speaks of the strange hails that fell from heaven. Burning balls of frozen gases, some with the ability to burn even in water, some which burned with a heat so intense that they incinerated anything they came in contact with, while other hail, burned with a cold fire through which animals could walk unharmed.

Solomon also speaks of the cloud that covered the Israelites in the desert and of the Manna that fell from heaven during the night. According to Solomon, the heavenly covering was a cloud by day and a host of stars by night, (a night sky ablaze with falling balls of burning hail stones). Then concerning the heavenly Manna, he says, “And that which was not injured by fire, simply warmed by a faint sun beam melted away.

Each morning the desert floor was covered with a film of a flaky cellulose substance which would melt and breed worms and stink if left out in the sun, and yet could be preserved when cooked, and tasted something like coriander seed mixed with the purest of olive oils.

Carbohydrates are any of a group of chemical compounds, including sugars, starches, and cellulose, containing carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen only, with the ratio of hydrogen to oxygen atoms usually 2 : 1; of which there was an abundant supply in the stratosphere after the explosion of Santorini.

The early Egyptian magicians or scientists were able to duplicate some of the miracles of God as performed by Moses. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if our magician/scientists of today were able to perform the more mysterious of God’s miracles as seen in the days of Moses, and provide an abundant and cheap source of food to feed the ever growing population on this earth.

All those things that happened in Egypt at that time, were caused from pressures that had built up over many, many, thousands of years. Where the miracle is found, is in the fact that some invisible entity from some higher time dimension, was able to instigate the Exodus, at the precise time that the destructive forces beneath the island of Santorini, were beginning to awaken.

Rincewind
07-11-2011, 10:25 AM
All those things that happened in Egypt at that time were caused from pressures that had built up over many, many, thousands of years. Where the miracle is found, is in the fact that some invisible entity from some higher time dimension, was able to instigate the Exodus, at the precise time that the destructive forces beneath the island of Santorini, were beginning to awake.

Hardly "precise". You seem to want to attribute every miracle in the OT from Egyption plagues to the destruction of Gamorah to the Thera eruption which was pretty much a single cataclysm.

BTW Thera is not the largest known volcanic eruption. It is thought the Mount Tambora eruption of 1815 was larger and while that was locally devastating and did cause the 1816 "year without summer" global climate anomoly which caused crop failure and associated famine. But not the sort of darkness nor acid rain for any considerable distance such that one might not recognise his brother. If you were that close to Thera then you would have larger problems.

Back to Thera: there was reports of Thera ash found in the Nile delta but that was later found to be erroneous. So while it probably did have some impact (such as a volcanic winter) it was unlikely that Egypt suffered to greater from direct impact of Thera volcanic ejecta, The Levant even less so.

S-word
07-11-2011, 10:40 AM
Others have made the same point in the past. But the anti-christ is free to post again (although fortunately he still seems to be self-banned!)

1st letter of John 4:1-3; “My dear friends, do not believe all who claim to have the spirit, (My words are spirit) but test them to find out if the spirit they have comes from God. For many false prophets have gone out everywhere. This is how you will be able to know if it is Gods spirit/word: anyone who acknowledges that Jesus came as a human being has the spirit who comes from God. But anyone who denies this about Jesus does not have the spirit from God. The spirit that he has is from the enemy of the anointed one, the Anti-christ etc.”

2nd letter of John verses 7-10;.“Many deceivers have gone out all over the world, people who do not acknowledge that Jesus came as a human being. Such a person is a deceiver and an enemy of Christ.”

Would you care to mentally walk with me and discover where in this earth we can find a teaching/spirit thathas been broardcast throughout the earth, which refuses to acknowledge that Jesus came as a human being; but instead, teach that Jesus was supposedly sired by some unearthly alien life form and born of some supposed virgin, who herself is said to have been conceived without the introduction of male semen into her mother's uterus, which must make her a daughter of the alien life form that was the father of his grandson Jesus, whom he sired from his supposed daughter, of who, the preachers of this unbiblical yarn, claim that their supposed virgin was the wife of their "god the father" and the mother of "god his son.".

All who believe God's word, which refutes the word of the anti-christ, know in which body can be found the spirit of the anti-christ, and it is not in the bodies of those who believe that Jesus was born of the flesh as are all human beings, and was born, the first of many Son's of God, not by blood, nor by the will of the flesh, nor by the will of man, but by the spirit of our Lord God and saviour which descended upon him in the form of a dove as the heavenly voice was heard to say, "You are my beloved in whom I am pleased. "THIS DAY" I have begotten thee." See the more ancient authouities that were changed by the universal church that was established by the non-christian King Constantine in 325 AD, some three hundred years after the Apostolic Church of Jesus Christ was established in Jerusalem.

In Luke 3: 22; (In place of “Thou art my beloved son in who I am well pleased.”) The following authorities of the second, third, and fourth centuries read, “This day I have begotten thee,” vouched for by Codex D, and the most ancient copies of the old latin (a, b. c. ff.I), by Justin Martyr (AD 140), Clemens Alex, (AD. 190), Methodius (AD. 290), among the Greeks. And among the Latins, Lactaitius (AD 300), Hilary (AD) Juvencus (AD. 330), Faustus (AD. 400) and Augustine.
All these oldest manuscripts were changed completely. They now read, “This is my son in whom I am well pleased.” Whereas the original variant was, “Thou art my Son. This day I have begotten thee.”

Bonneville
07-11-2011, 10:53 AM
You ask do I believe in miracles? Would you consider the events that occured in the days of the Exodus as miraculous?
This is a very long post and thanks for writing it for my benefit.

In answer to your question quoted, yes, I believe in miracles. I also believe the virgin birth of Jesus Christ was a miracle. Like yourself I do not understand where aliens come into the picture and have never heard of such a theory before.

S-word
07-11-2011, 11:26 AM
Hardly "precise". You seem to want to attribute every miracle in the OT from Egyption plagues to the destruction of Gamorah to the Thera eruption which was pretty much a single cataclysm.

BTW Thera is not the largest known volcanic eruption. It is thought the Mount Tambora eruption of 1815 was larger and while that was locally devastating and did cause the 1816 "year without summer" global climate anomoly which caused crop failure and associated famine. But not the sort of darkness nor acid rain for any considerable distance such that one might not recognise his brother. If you were that close to Thera then you would have larger problems.

Back to Thera: there was reports of Thera ash found in the Nile delta but that was later found to be erroneous. So while it probably did have some impact (such as a volcanic winter) it was unlikely that Egypt suffered to greater from direct impact of Thera volcanic ejecta, The Levant even less so.


[Rincewind wrote].......Hardly "precise". You seem to want to attribute every miracle in the OT from Egyption plagues to the destruction of Gamorah to the Thera eruption which was pretty much a single cataclysm.

[S-word's Response]....I did not attribute the destruction of Sodom and Gomorah, to the explosion of Santorini some 200 years later, but have said, that the same tectonic forces that were the cause of the explosion of Santoni, were the same forces that had destroyed Sodom and Gomorah some 200 years previously, and BTW will be the same force that is to shift one half of the mount of Olives on the Africian plate, to the north of the half which is situated on the Arabian plate.

Zechariah 14: 4; "At that time (In the future) the Mount of Olives will be split in two from east to west by a larg valley. Half of the mountain will move northward, and half of it southward,etc." But I suppose there are some, who could believe that a couple of angels having a tug of war with the mountain may be the cause of that miraculous event that is prophesied to occure in the very soon future.

[Rincewind wrote].....BTW Thera is not the largest known volcanic eruption. It is thought the Mount Tambora eruption of 1815 was larger and while that was locally devastating and did cause the 1816 "year without summer" global climate anomoly which caused crop failure and associated famine. But not the sort of darkness nor acid rain for any considerable distance such that one might not recognise his brother. If you were that close to Thera then you would have larger problems.

[S-word's Response].... No one said it was matey, nor is it anywhere near the explosion of the rising magma chamber under Yellowstone Park, which is overdue, according to the recorded times between its previous eruptiouns.

Look to the huge rocks on the islands in the Aegean sea, which had been transported from other islands by the 130ft tidal waves which are estimated to have travelled at 150 miles per hour. If the cloud was recorded to have blackened the skies over China, and had turned day into night in 1500 BC, I think that we can safety assume that Egypt, which was much closer to the event than China, would not have seen to much sunlight in those days either.

[Rincewind wrote].....Back to Thera: there was reports of Thera ash found in the Nile delta but that was later found to be erroneous. So while it probably did have some impact (such as a volcanic winter) it was unlikely that Egypt suffered to greater from direct impact of Thera volcanic ejecta, The Levant even less so.

[S-word's Response]......It had more of an impact than you realise my friend, what other event do you suppose, had occured around the year 1500 BC, which could have caused a cloud to hover over that area for 40 years, under which cloud, the nomadic tribes, with their flocks of cattle, sheep, and goats, etc. remained at all times in order to receive their daily supply of carbo-hydrates. If the cloud moved, they moved: when the cloud remained stationary, there the tribes set up camp and remaned until the cloud moved once more. Or perhaps you believe that god sent some angels who built a cloud to hide behind, from where they could send down a supply of manna each night, except for the seventh night that preceeded the seventh day of course.

S-word
07-11-2011, 11:51 AM
This is a very long post and thanks for writing it for my benefit.

In answer to your question quoted, yes, I believe in miracles. I also believe the virgin birth of Jesus Christ was a miracle. Like yourself I do not understand where aliens come into the picture and have never heard of such a theory before.

An alien life form is one that is not of this earth, the alien life form who was the father of the supposed virgin and the father of her son, was from some place other than this earth and did not originate on this earth, and was therefore an alien life form.

But if you are happy in the knowledge that your faith is based on the fact that your god has never raised a human being to inherit eternal life and to sit in his throne of Godhead to the entire creation, but has only raised a human like body, which was not of the seed of Adam and not under the penalty of our inherited sin, as you are, in order that his eternal and immortal son, who is said to have been the co-creator of the cosmos, and who has lived from all eternitiy and will continue to live into all eternity, could walk this earth disguised as a human being, then go for it. I don't know where salvation lays in that false teaching, but if you're happy with it, then remain with it by all means.

Bonneville
07-11-2011, 01:19 PM
An alien life form is one that is not of this earth, the alien life form who was the father of the supposed virgin and the father of her son, was from some place other than this earth and did not originate on this earth, and was therefore an alien life form.

But if you are happy in the knowledge that your faith is based on the fact that your god has never raised a human being to inherit eternal life and to sit in his throne of Godhead to the entire creation, but has only raised a human like body, which was not of the seed of Adam and not under the penalty of our inherited sin, as you are, in order that his eternal and immortal son, who is said to have been the co-creator of the cosmos, and who has lived from all eternitiy and will continue to live into all eternity, could walk this earth disguised as a human being, then go for it. I don't know where salvation lays in that false teaching, but if you're happy with it, then remain with it by all means.
I think you are over complicating things somewhat. The Bible says the Holy Spirit came upon Mary and impregnated her. That is the spirit of God, not an alien.

S-word
07-11-2011, 01:39 PM
I think you are over complicating things somewhat. The Bible says the Holy Spirit came upon Mary and impregnated her. That is the spirit of God, not an alien.

And where do the Holy scriptures say that the Holy Spirit "IMPREGNATED" Mary?

But what the Bible does say, is that Isaac was born of the Holy spirit also, and we know that his biological parents were Abraham and his half sister Sarah.

Isaac, is the biological son Abraham, the son of Terah, and he was born according to the workings of the Holy Spirit as was Jesus, the son of Joseph, the son of Heli.

Isaac is a prototype of Jesus and like Jesus, was born of God’s promise according to the workings of the Holy Spirit.

Both are seen as the seed that was promised to Abraham.

Both Isaac and Jesus were the sons of parents who were both sired by the one Father. ‘Terah,’ is the father to both Abraham and Sarah by different mothers, while ‘Heli,’ is the father of both Joseph and Mary, by different mothers.

Both Mary and Sarah were informed by an angel that they would become Pregnant and bear the son of God’s promise.

Isaac was offered up as a sacrifice by his physical father, Jesus was offered up by his spiritual father, who descended upon him in the form of a dove as the voice was heard to say, ‘ you are my beloved in whom I am well pleased, today I have become your Father.” Or rather, “Today I have begotten thee.” See the more ancient authorities of Luke 3: 22; and Isaac was offered up on the same mountain at the very spot where Jesus was crucified.

In Luke 3: 23; you will find the genealogy of Jesus, who is the son of Joseph, the son of Alexander Helios III (Heli,) and Joseph the biological Father of Jesus is about the 40th descendant of Nathan the priest of David.

Nathan was the half brother to Solomon the biological son of King David, as they both had the same mother Bathsheba the wife of Uriah the Hittite, who is the biological father of Nathan and a member of the tribe of Levi by his marriage to Bathsheba the daughter of Ammiel, the son of Obed-Edom, the Levite.

“The Talmud states, "Whoever brings up an orphan in his home is regarded...as though the child had been born to him." (Sanhedrin 119b).” In other words, the adopted child is to be treated as a child born to the father of that house.

It is through Nathan the Priest, who, as an adopted son of David has a legal claim to the Throne of David, that Jesus inherits the throne of Melchizedek, who is both King and high priest. The other Joseph, recorded in the gospel of matthew, who consummated his union with mary, only after she had given birth to her firstborn son, was the son of Jacob from the tribe of Judah, but he is descended through the line of Jehoiachin, whose seed was cursed by God, of who it is written in Jeremiah 22: 30; "This man is condemned to lose his children, to be a man who will never succeed. He will have no descendants who will rule in Judah as David's successors. I the Lord have spoken"

The word “Virgin” in reference to the mother of Jesus was not introduced until the 5th century, in the Latin Bible ‘The Vulgate.’

In translating the Hebrew words of the prophet Isaiah, that an “Almah” an “unmarried female” would be with child and bear a son,” into Greek, which unlike the Hebrew language, does not have a specific term for ‘virgin,’ the authors of the Septuagint and Matthew, correctly used the Greek word ‘Parthenos,’ which carries a basic meaning of ‘girl,’ or unmarried youth, and denotes ‘virgin’ only by implication.

To translate something from the Hebrew to the Greek, or from any language to another, one must not lose the essence of the original, and the original was, that “An unmarried woman would be with child.”

‘Parthenos,’ was often used in reference to non-virgins who had never been married. Homer uses it in reference to unmarried girls who were no longer virgins, and Homer was the standard textbook for learning Greek all throughout antiquity, so any writer of Greek, including Matthew, who translated Isaiah’s words, that (An unmarried woman would be with child etc) while being well aware of this words versatile and indefinite meaning; was in no way implying that Mary was a virgin.

For the Hebrew has a specific term for ‘virgin,’ “Bethulah” which word is used in every instance in the Old Testament where a woman who has never had sexual intercourse with a man is referred to, which is obviously not the case with the unmarried woman/Almah, who is mentioned in Isaiah 7:14, as we are told that she was the prophetess (Temple virgin) that Isaiah went into.

In Pergamos, as one of the final stages in the quest for enlightenment, the initiated adept would participate in sex with the Temple Virgin/Parthenos.

"Parthenos" did not mean possessing an intact hymen. A parthenos was simply an unmarried woman, a woman who claimed ownership of herself.

You may argue from now until dooms day, but you will find no evidence in the bible to suppor the word/spirit of the anti-christ, which refuses to acknowledge that Jesus came as a human being born of the seed of Adam.

Our Lord God and saviour rose him as the first fruits to be harvested from the body of man, the first of many brothers who will inherit their share of the immortal body of our saviour which is poured out as fire upon the heads of all those who believed his words as spoken throgh the man he had chosen from among the people and sent to speak in his name.

Bonneville
07-11-2011, 01:46 PM
The Bible also says that Isaac was born of the Holy spirit, and we know that the biological parents were Abraham and his half sister Sarah.

Isaac, is the biological son Abraham, the son of Terah, and he was born according to the workings of the Holy Spirit as was Jesus, the son of Joseph, the son of Heli.

Isaac is a prototype of Jesus and like Jesus, was born of God’s promise according to the workings of the Holy Spirit.

Both are seen as the seed that was promised to Abraham.

Both Isaac and Jesus were the sons of parents who were both sired by the one Father. ‘Terah,’ is the father to both Abraham and Sarah by different mothers, while ‘Heli,’ is the father of both Joseph and Mary, by different mothers.

Both Mary and Sarah were informed by an angel that they would become Pregnant and bear the son of God’s promise.

Isaac was offered up as a sacrifice by his physical father, Jesus was offered up by his spiritual father, who descended upon him in the form of a dove as the voice was heard to say, ‘ you are my beloved in whom I am well pleased, today I have become your Father.” Or rather, “Today I have begotten thee.” See the more ancient authorities of Luke 3: 22; and Isaac was offered up on the same mountain at the very spot where Jesus was crucified.

In Luke 3: 23; you will find the genealogy of Jesus, who is the son of Joseph, the son of Alexander helios (Heli,) and Joseph the biological Father of Jesus is about the 40th descendant of Nathan the priest of David.

Nathan was the half brother to Solomon the biological son of King David, as they both had the same mother Bathsheba the wife of Uriah the Hittite who is the biological father of Nathan and a member of the tribe of Levi by his marriage to Bathsheba the daughter of Ammiel, the son of Obed-Edom, the Levite.

The word “Virgin” in reference to the mother of Jesus was not introduced until the 5th century, in the Latin Bible ‘The Vulgate.’

In translating the Hebrew words of the prophet Isaiah, that an “Almah” an “unmarried female” would be with child and bear a son,” into Greek, which unlike the Hebrew language, does not have a specific term for ‘virgin,’ the authors of the Septuagint and Matthew ,correctly used the Greek word ‘Parthenos,’ which carries a basic meaning of ‘girl,’ or unmarried youth, and denotes ‘virgin’ only by implication.

To translate something from the Hebrew to the Greek, or from any language to another, one must not lose the essence of the original, and the original was, that “An unmarried woman would be with child.”

‘Parthenos,’ was often used in reference to non-virgins who had never been married. Homer uses it in reference to unmarried girls who were no longer virgins, and Homer was the standard textbook for learning Greek all throughout antiquity, so any writer of Greek, including Matthew, who translated Isaiah’s words, that (An unmarried woman would be with child etc) while being well aware of this words versatile and indefinite meaning; was in no way implying that Mary was a virgin.

For the Hebrew has a specific term for ‘virgin,’ “Bethulah” which word is used in every instance in the Old Testament where a woman who has never had sexual intercourse with a man is referred to, which is obviously not the case with the unmarried woman/Almah, who is mentioned in Isaiah 7:14, as we are told that she was the prophetess (Temple virgin) that Isaiah went into.

In Pergamos, as one of the final stages in the quest for enlightenment, the initiated adept would participate in sex with the Temple Virgin/Parthenos.

"Parthenos" did not mean possessing an intact hymen. A parthenos was simply an unmarried woman, a woman who claimed ownership of herself.

So you are claiming the immaculate conception was really just an ordinary conception between two humans?

S-word
07-11-2011, 02:44 PM
So you are claiming the immaculate conception was really just an ordinary conception between two humans?

No I am not claiming the immaculate conception was really just an ordinary conception between two humans.

I am claiming that the bible proves beyond all doubt that there never was such a thing as the immaculate conception of Jesus or of his mother, which teachings are found ONLY in the body of the bride of the anti-christ, which is the church of Constantine, and all her daughters who were spawned by the word/spirit of the anti-christ that refuses to acknowledge that Jesus came as a human being born of the seed of Adam, and that after being conceived, those daughter bodies broke away from the mother body, to build their own houses in which to bring up their family in accordance to the word of their Father, the anti-christ.

morebeer
07-11-2011, 02:53 PM
S-word sounds like a bible bot.

S-word
07-11-2011, 03:09 PM
No I am not claiming the immaculate conception was really just an ordinary conception between two humans.

I am claiming that the bible proves beyond all doubt that there never was such a thing as the immaculate conception of Jesus or of his mother, which teachings are found ONLY in the body of the bride of the anti-christ, which is the church of Constantine, and all her daughters who were spawned by the word/spirit of the anti-christ that refuses to acknowledge that Jesus came as a human being born of the seed of Adam, and that after being conceived, those daughter bodies broke away from the mother body, to build their own houses in which to bring up their family in accordance to the word of their Father, the anti-christ.

Even in the later days of John, the false teaching that Jesus was not of the seed of Adam from which every human being who has, or ever will walk this earth, has descended, was already beginning to rear its ugly head, and concerning that evolving falsehood, John had this to say; 1st letter of John 4:1-3; “My dear friends, do not believe all who claim to have the spirit, (My words are spirit) but test them to find out if the spirit they have comes from God. For many false prophets have gone out everywhere. This is how you will be able to know if it is Gods spirit/word: anyone who acknowledges that Jesus came as a human being has the spirit who comes from God. But anyone who denies this about Jesus does not have the spirit from God. The spirit that he has is from the enemy of the anointed one, the Anti-christ etc.”

2nd letter of John verses 7-10;.“Many deceivers have gone out all over the world, people who do not acknowledge that Jesus came as a human being. Such a person is a deceiver and an enemy of Christ.” We all know where to find the teaching of the anti-christ that refuses to acknowledge that Jesus was a true human being, born of the seed of Adam, which has been spread ALL OVER THE WORLD.

In the days of the Apostle Paul who in 1st Timothy 1: 1; says: “From Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by order of “GOD OUR SAVIOUR’ and Christ Jesus ‘OUR HOPE.’” The people were already beginning to fall away from the truth, and following another gospel that was not taught by the word of God or the apostles.

Galatians 1: 6; I am surprised at you! In no time at all you are deserting the one who called you by his grace, and are accepting another gospel.

That gospel was the word of the anti-christ, that refused to acknowledge that Jesus had come as a human being, and instead, they believed that he was a spirit, who, like some Holagam, would appear and disappear at will.

Over the centuries the false teaching of the anti-christ continued to evolve, as the followers of the anti-christ became more enlightened and harder to deceive.

In Alexandria, by the second century, Docetism, the concept that Jesus had existed as a spirit rather than a human being, had all but theoretically been stamped out. But still, there persisted the belief that Jesus, although seen as a sort of human being, did not have our normal bodily needs, such as eating, drinking and excretion, and Clement the bishop of Alexandria, wrote: “It would be ridiculous to imagine that the redeemer, in order to exist, had the usual needs of man. He only took food and ate it in order that we should not teach about him in a Docetic fashion.” Satan must have had some trouble trying to tempt this false Jesus of theirs into turning stones into bread. Their Jesus was not the Jesus as taught by the apostles, but that other Jesus, taught by the Anti-Christ, who unlike we mere HUMAN BEINGS, as was taught by one of the great teachers that the members of the universal church, love to use as one of their authorities to their truth.

Saint Clement of Alexandria, who was a saint in the Martyrology of the Roman universal church, in support of the great lie, speaks of the time that some imaginary midwife, who was supposed to have been at the birth of Jesus, told some woman by the name Salome, that the mother was still a virgin after the birth and that her hymen was still intact, and that this supposed Salome, stuck her finger into the mother’s vagina to check, and her hand immediately withered up, but the baby Jesus reached out and touched her hand and healed it.

Down to the 17th century Clement was venerated as a saint. His name was to be found in the Martyrologies, and his feast fell on December 4. But when the Roman Martyrology was revised by Clement VIII (Pope from 1592 to 1605), his name was dropped from the calendar on the advice of his confessor, Cardinal Baronius. Pope Benedict XIV in 1748 maintained his predecessor's decision on the grounds that Clement's life was little-known; that he had never obtained public cultus in the Church; and that some of his doctrines were, if not erroneous, at least highly suspect.

"ERRONEOUS--HIGHLY SUSPECT," matey, you can say that again----and again ------- and again. But by then the falsehood was firmly established and its seeds had taken root in all the nations of the world. The Lord now has need of some good gardeners, to help root out those noxious weeds.

gambiteer
07-11-2011, 05:35 PM
I find it interesting when religious people dabble in science. Always seems a bit flawed when they do so to consolidate and reinforce their own beliefs.

S-word
07-11-2011, 06:23 PM
I find it interesting when religious people dabble in science. Always seems a bit flawed when they do so to consolidate and reinforce their own beliefs.

Oh Well, as long as it keep you interested matey.

So, what are your veiws on the evolution of Mind within the universal body that has evolved from the infinitely dense, infinitely hot, infinitesimally small singularity that was spatially separated by what is called the Big Bang?

And what do you believe that you evolved from, if not the information that was gathered by all your ancestors from all time, which includes your pre-human ancestors, in fact all the gathered information reaching back to the first organic molecule that evolved in the primeval slimy pools of inorganic material from which you have evolved, or even beyond that?

Do you believe that you could exist today, if all that has become "Who You Are," was not in the singularity of origin?

And if all that has become who you are, was not in the singularity of origin, from where did you come?

If you accept that all that has become "Who You Are" has evolved from the very beginning, then you must believe that "Who You Are," is connected to the beginning by an unbroken genetic thread of life, and that which has become "Who You Are" has existed for some 13.5 to14 billion years.

Do you have any thoughts of the evolved Mind, that is capable of comprehending the mind that it is?

Does it survive after the physical womb in which it develops is returned to the universal elements from which it was created?

Indeed , does the Mind that has evolved within the evolved universal body, survive the spontanious combustion of the universal body, when the universal elements become so excited they burn up and fall as massive columns of fire beyond all measure in height and depth into the Great Abyss, which is the prison of all the stars and the host of heaven, from which this universal body originated and from which seemingly bottomless pit, it will be resurrected.

And what is Mind, if not all the invisible information that has been taken in through the senses of your body?

Without those senses, no information could be gathered into that body and "YOU" the evolving mind, who is the controlling godhead to that body, could never have been conceived let alone develop.

I await in eager anticipation for your enlightened answers to these questions.

Kevin Bonham
07-11-2011, 08:10 PM
So, what are your veiws on the evolution of Mind

Mine is that the idea of "Mind" is a category error/philosophical blunder. If you are talking about the evolution of intelligence that is a different matter.

S-word
07-11-2011, 08:17 PM
Mine is that the idea of "Mind" is a category error/philosophical blunder. If you are talking about the evolution of intelligence that is a different matter.

And where would we find intelligence? In the creation? Yes. In the minds of man? Yes. There are other abodes of intelligence, but I'll leave them for you to reveal.

There has been extensive research on the presence of mind in our bodies, that suggests that the neuropeptides, chemical substances that form the communication network of our emotions, are present not just in the brain, but everywhere in the body. As Dr. Cadence Pert, cheif od brain biochemisttry at the National Institute of Mental Health in the US writes, "These findings go beyond the often mentioned concept of power of mindover body. Indeed, the more we know about neurpeptides, the harder it is to think in the traditional terms of a mind and a body. It makes more sense of a single intergrated entity, a body-mind."

Kevin Bonham
07-11-2011, 08:26 PM
And where would we find intelligence? In the creation? Yes.

Only if there was a deliberate "creation", of which there is again no evidence.

Intelligence exists to varying degrees in a wide range of creatures, and can at least theoretically exist in computers. The term "mind" is again best avoided since it implies something that is distinct from physical material, but there is no evidence "mind" exists in that sense. Being able to receive information, interpret it, learn, think etc are the sorts of things that really count.

S-word
07-11-2011, 08:55 PM
Only if there was a deliberate "creation", of which there is again no evidence.

Intelligence exists to varying degrees in a wide range of creatures, and can at least theoretically exist in computers. The term "mind" is again best avoided since it implies something that is distinct from physical material, but there is no evidence "mind" exists in that sense. Being able to receive information, interpret it, learn, think etc are the sorts of things that really count.

I'll just repeat this here, as you had posted your response before I had completed my edit of the previous post, and as far as your suggestion that mind can theoretically exist in computers, I don't want to venture into the feild of SF, with AI, being the "Son of Man," the intellectual mind that is born of the body of mankind.

There has been extensive research on the presence of mind in our bodies, that suggests that the neuropeptides, chemical substancs that form the communication network of our emations, are present not just in the brain, but everywhere in the body. As Dr. Cadence Pert, cheif of brain biochemistry at the National Institute of Mental Health in the US writes, "These findings go beyond the often mentioned concepts of power of mind over body. Indeed, the more we know about neurpeptides, the harder it is to think in the traditional terms of a mind and a body. It makes more sense of a single intergrated entity, a body-mind."

When man created the first wheel, he did not think to himself, "I have just created the first component to go toward our future space shuttle." But each of the billions of creations that followed the wheel, that eventually led up to the creation of the space shuttle, were, (Each and every one of those creations) expressions of the heights to which the mind of the creator had evolved to at the point in time of each of those creations.

The evolving Mind/or enclosure of all the gathered information, which was the mind or the evolving Godhead to this universal body, once ruled this earth for three million years, in the body of the most high in the creation at that point in time, which of course was the evolving intellect, in the higher invisible dimension, which was being fed on the information taken in through it's earthly body, the species of the old upright walking serpent. And no species can live that long without evolving some sort of intelligence, step into a fire, remember the pain, don't do it again.

gambiteer
07-11-2011, 09:31 PM
I agree with Kevin about the mind.

I have not studied abiogenesis enough to reach conclusions about the origin of life but believe we came from a simple form of life which gradually evolved over billions of years.

I don't believe in free determinism and think people have free will.

I think that everyone thing came from the beginning of the universe.

I don't really think about why we evolved with minds but likely because it was advantageous.

I think the world is materialistic so once we die everything is over and most likely everything will be destroyed in a big crunch or continue existing forever (unlikely).

I don't give most of your questions too much thought as other things to worry about. I don't believe in a God and think most of the bible is rubbish

Sir Cromulent Sparkles
07-11-2011, 09:40 PM
the bible is a really cool book. i use one to prop up a table that has a short leg. :whistle:

Kevin Bonham
07-11-2011, 10:00 PM
I'll just repeat this here, as you had posted your response before I had completed my edit of the previous post, and as far as your suggestion that mind can theoretically exist in computers, I don't want to venture into the feild of SF,

No SF required. It's a fact that some of the tasks we often associate with the concept of intelligence can be performed by machines already. It's a far from fanciful extrapolation that many others (by no means necessarily all) will be so in the near future. Whether that is considered enough to make a computer "intelligent" depends on the definitions being used, but care needs to be taken to avoid setting criteria specifically in order to exclude machines by definition from being capable of "intelligence".


There has been extensive research on the presence of mind in our bodies, that suggests that the neuropeptides, chemical substancs that form the communication network of our emations, are present not just in the brain, but everywhere in the body.

This is not research on the presence of "mind"; it is research on the presence of neuropeptides.


As Dr. Cadence Pert, cheif of brain biochemistry at the National Institute of Mental Health in the US writes, "These findings go beyond the often mentioned concepts of power of mind over body. Indeed, the more we know about neurpeptides, the harder it is to think in the traditional terms of a mind and a body. It makes more sense of a single intergrated entity, a body-mind."

All this quote means is that the properties associated with the term "mind" (by those who use that term) occur throughout the body and not just in the brain. If anything, it goes against the idea of a disembodied mind by indicating that physical processes that contribute to mental properties are distributed widely.

S-word
07-11-2011, 10:26 PM
No SF required. It's a fact that some of the tasks we often associate with the concept of intelligence can be performed by machines already. It's a far from fanciful extrapolation that many others (by no means necessarily all) will be so in the near future. Whether that is considered enough to make a computer "intelligent" depends on the definitions being used, but care needs to be taken to avoid setting criteria specifically in order to exclude machines by definition from being capable of "intelligence".



This is not research on the presence of "mind"; it is research on the presence of neuropeptides.



All this quote means is that the properties associated with the term "mind" (by those who use that term) occur throughout the body and not just in the brain. If anything, it goes against the idea of a disembodied mind by indicating that physical processes that contribute to mental properties are distributed widely.

Then of the Thee in Me who works behind
The Veil, I lifted up my hands to find
A lamp amid the Darkness; and I heard,
As from without---"The Me in Thee is blind.....Omar Khayyam.

Kevin Bonham
07-11-2011, 10:30 PM
Let me repeat here was is said in the previous thread in which this debate is also ongoing

I'm not entirely sure I should let you repeat it actually. After all the first paragraph of it was blatant strawmanning and the rest was riddled with false scientific claims and irrelevant mystical mumbojumbo. Anyway I answered as much of it as was worth responding to on the other thread.

And I'm not your dear friend, though I might be a little less impatient with your uneducated waffle if you actually demonstrated some interest in chess and hence were actually relevant to the purpose of this forum instead of using it as a platform for dissemination of your views.

S-word
07-11-2011, 10:42 PM
I'm not entirely sure I should let you repeat it actually. After all the first paragraph of it was blatant strawmanning and the rest was riddled with false scientific claims and irrelevant mystical mumbojumbo. Anyway I answered as much of it as was worth responding to on the other thread.

And I'm not your dear friend, though I might be a little less impatient with your uneducated waffle if you actually demonstrated some interest in chess and hence were actually relevant to the purpose of this forum instead of using it as a platform for dissemination of your views.

I have deleted that which you are not entirely sure should be repeated in this thread.

If you choose to reject my friendship that is your perogative, but you are wrong in believing that the mind is not conceived and evolves from the information that is taken in through the senses of your body, and no amount of denial on your part will convince any logically thinking person otherwise.

I will attempt to source a documentry by Dr David Suzuki on "The Brain-Our Universe within." But then, if you are really interested in the truth, you can download it your self.

But now, we're off for another walkabout, the wife and and I are going down to Canberra and intend to visit our FRIENDS in Bourke, Brewarrania, lightning Ridge, and the Blue Mountains, etc. We do have friends dont you know. And we know when we're not welcome, bye, bye, you non-friend.

I may look in on you, when I can access a computer somewhere along the track.

S-word
07-11-2011, 11:27 PM
I agree with Kevin about the mind.

I have not studied abiogenesis enough to reach conclusions about the origin of life but believe we came from a simple form of life which gradually evolved over billions of years.

I don't believe in free determinism and think people have free will.

I think that everyone thing came from the beginning of the universe.

I don't really think about why we evolved with minds but likely because it was advantageous.

I think the world is materialistic so once we die everything is over and most likely everything will be destroyed in a big crunch or continue existing forever (unlikely).

I don't give most of your questions too much thought as other things to worry about. I don't believe in a God and think most of the bible is rubbish

But before I leave yous all I'll just respond to gambiteer.

I have not studied abiogenesis enough to reach conclusions about the origin of life but believe we came from a simple form of life which gradually evolved over billions of years.

What about 13 to 14 billion years.

I don't believe in free determinism and think people have free will.

I am assuming that you mean pre-determinism, and you are correct, but that doesn't mean to say, that the Omega, who the Alpha becomes does not know everything that every one has done in his past, which has made him "Who He Is."

I think that everyone thing came from the beginning of the universe.

Now you're getting there.

I don't really think about why we evolved with minds but likely because it was advantageous.

No matey, because basically it had nothing to do with you, but everything to do the the re-creation of the universal body, in which the previous universal mind, bears his Son.

I think the world is materialistic so once we die everything is over and most likely everything will be destroyed in a big crunch or continue existing forever (unlikely).

What is the reward that a mind receives?
Surely it is, what that mind believes
So the mind that rejects eternity
When freed from its body, where will it be?

What is that body, which gave to you “Birth]
Is it nothing but elements taken from earth?
Or was it created from the spirits and soul
Of your ancestral parents, from times that is old?

Believe as you will, but remember this verse
When your coffin is placed in the back of the hearse
The reward that the mind must surely receive
Is that which the mind, (Not in the Hearse) believes.....By S-word

I don't give most of your questions too much thought as other things to worry about. I don't believe in a God and think most of the bible is rubbish

And that's what free will is all about, woops! I was nearly going to say "My dear friend," Which appears to be unacceptable termonology in this forum. But seeds have been planted and there is nothing you can do to stop them from taking root, I would advise you to water them for your own sake. Good bye.

Kevin Bonham
08-11-2011, 12:43 AM
If you choose to reject my friendship that is your perogative, but you are wrong in believing that the mind is not conceived and evolves from the information that is taken in through the senses of your body, and no amount of denial on your part will convince any logically thinking person otherwise.

Ah, so if someone is convinced by my argument you'll just decide it's because they are not "logically thinking" - in spite of all evidence to the contrary. In other words, the No True Scotsman fallacy.


I will attempt to source a documentry by Dr David Suzuki on "The Brain-Our Universe within."

I have met Dr David Suzuki. He is a geneticist who says things about the environment and makes unwise proposals about how to deal with climate change dissenters. His views are of no special relevance.


We do have friends dont you know.

I wasn't disputing that. I was just imparting the view that friendship declarations are generally not unilateral. A curious belief, no doubt.


And we know when we're not welcome, bye, bye, you non-friend.

Going so soon? You haven't even met antichrist yet. :lol: Judging by your use of red text in your latest post, the two of you would get on wonderfully!

Bonneville
08-11-2011, 01:56 AM
And where would we find intelligence? In the creation? Yes. In the minds of man? Yes. There are other abodes of intelligence, but I'll leave them for you to reveal.

There has been extensive research on the presence of mind in our bodies, that suggests that the neuropeptides, chemical substances that form the communication network of our emotions, are present not just in the brain, but everywhere in the body. As Dr. Cadence Pert, cheif od brain biochemisttry at the National Institute of Mental Health in the US writes, "These findings go beyond the often mentioned concept of power of mindover body. Indeed, the more we know about neurpeptides, the harder it is to think in the traditional terms of a mind and a body. It makes more sense of a single intergrated entity, a body-mind."

Aren't you getting completely off topic here? I asked you whether you believed that Jesus was born as a result of two humans procreating, and you said no. But the rest of your answer had me mystified. Can you please clarify?

S-word
08-11-2011, 05:27 AM
Aren't you getting completely off topic here? I asked you whether you believed that Jesus was born as a result of two humans procreating, and you said no. But the rest of your answer had me mystified. Can you please clarify?

Originally Posted by Bonneville
So you are claiming the immaculate conception was really just an ordinary conception between two humans?


[S-word's Response]....No I am not claiming the immaculate conception was really just an ordinary conception between two humans.

I am claiming that the bible proves beyond all doubt that there never was such a thing as the immaculate conception of Jesus or of his mother, which teachings are found ONLY in the body of the bride of the anti-christ, which is the church of Constantine, and all her daughters who were spawned by the word/spirit of the anti-christ that refuses to acknowledge that Jesus came as a human being born of the seed of Adam, and that after being conceived, those daughter bodies broke away from the mother body, to build their own houses in which to bring up their family in accordance to the word of their Father, the anti-christ.

Well, well, well, looky there, I did say NO didn't I? I said, "No, I'm not claiming the immaculate conception was really just an ordinary conception between two humans."

You can not have an immaculate conception between two Humans.

I said that I was claiming that the bible proves beyond all doubt that there never was such a thing as an immaculate conception. You must learn to try and comprehend that which you read, Bonneville.

S-word
08-11-2011, 07:15 AM
Ah, so if someone is convinced by my argument you'll just decide it's because they are not "logically thinking" - in spite of all evidence to the contrary. In other words, the No True Scotsman fallacy.



I have met Dr David Suzuki. He is a geneticist who says things about the environment and makes unwise proposals about how to deal with climate change dissenters. His views are of no special relevance.



I wasn't disputing that. I was just imparting the view that friendship declarations are generally not unilateral. A curious belief, no doubt.



Going so soon? You haven't even met antichrist yet. :lol: Judging by your use of red text in your latest post, the two of you would get on wonderfully!

What have you to say about Dr David Suzuki's mental capabilities as a geneticist? Do you truley believe that his veiws in that feild of expertese has no relevance to this subject?

I have never known of any great mind, that has not been condemned by a lesser mind as having views that are of no special relevance, that is, according to the mind that can never stand on an equal footing to the mind that he attempts to belittle, unless of course, you place yourself as being more qualified in that feild than Dr Suzuki.

Going so soon? No our house sitter has become incompacitated, and we are attempting to find another housesitter, a realiable person with who we are acquainted, a mutual friend you might say. So perhaps I may yet meet your anti-christ.

morebeer
08-11-2011, 07:39 AM
Reads to me like S-word may be a bit of a taker of the piss.

S-word
08-11-2011, 07:43 AM
Reads to me like S-word may be a bit of a taker of the piss.

God is perfect, man is not.
Man made piss, but God made pot.

morebeer
08-11-2011, 08:15 AM
Touche…sounds like your God made your pot with industrial strength tetrahydrocannabinol!

Kevin Bonham
08-11-2011, 10:27 AM
What have you to say about Dr David Suzuki's mental capabilities as a geneticist? Do you truley believe that his veiws in that feild of expertese has no relevance to this subject?

Yes, since the field in question is neuroscience and its relation to philosophy. Dr Suzuki has no expertise in that field. That doesn't make his views wrong, or right; it just indicates that your namedropping of his commentary is irrelevant.


I have never known of any great mind, that has not been condemned by a lesser mind as having views that are of no special relevance, that is, according to the mind that can never stand on an equal footing to the mind that he attempts to belittle, unless of course, you place yourself as being more qualified in that feild than Dr Suzuki.

Dr Suzuki is not (so far as I can determine) a greater intellect than me, merely a more famous one. Both of us are about equally unqualified in this particular area (although I should point out that at least I have degree-level quals in philosophy; I am unsure whether Suzuki does or not, though I note that he, like me, has a BA and a PhD in science.)

S-word
08-11-2011, 11:31 AM
Yes, since the field in question is neuroscience and its relation to philosophy. Dr Suzuki has no expertise in that field. That doesn't make his views wrong, or right; it just indicates that your namedropping of his commentary is irrelevant.



Dr Suzuki is not (so far as I can determine) a greater intellect than me, merely a more famous one. Both of us are about equally unqualified in this particular area (although I should point out that at least I have degree-level quals in philosophy; I am unsure whether Suzuki does or not, though I note that he, like me, has a BA and a PhD in science.)

Fair enough, but it is irrelevant how many BA's and Phd's you've got, it don't make you right old mate, and you know that you're belief that a body born lacking all physical senses, can still conceive within that body, a mind that can continue to evolve, without any infomation or experiences being taken into that body, is wrong/incorrect/and just so much rubbish.

I don't know who you are ever going to convince that your belief is correct?

BTW, there are a lot of nutters out there, who have added lots of degees to their name, that don't make them any more intelligent than my mates down the pub.

I'm sorry, if the realisation that you are not always correct in your beliefs, offends you, but that's just the way it is.

Bonneville
08-11-2011, 11:36 AM
I said that I was claiming that the bible proves beyond all doubt that there never was such a thing as an immaculate conception. You must learn to try and comprehend that which you read, Bonneville.
Is that so?

Unfortunately the truth train train derails your silly theories about aliens and what not.

The facts that are proven to my satisfaction is that God exists in three persons, the father, the son, and the Holy Ghost. The immaculate conception was the latter impregnating Mary (a human), and it gave rise to the birth of the son (Jesus).

You just saying this is not so is irrational and probably designed to stir up dissension and strife among members. If this site has moderators they should give you a good long staring down so you learn your lesson.

gambiteer
08-11-2011, 11:42 AM
I also don't like the title "The Bible debunks the virgin birth". Don't think the bible can debunk anything really. The oldest copies of the bible (excluding the codex sinaiticus) are only a few hundreds years old. The Old testament was written after being passed down by oral tradition for thousands of years which makes you question the authenticity. Old testament also states many things which are now incompatible with science (such as the Earth being flat). The New testament Gospels were written a fair time after Jesus' life and were based upon each other to some extent. The bible was put together by Constantine from memory in the 300's from a selection of gospels and only a few were chosen. Don't think that the bible is a very credible source of information.

I think that Kevin's viewpoint is entirely valid and you can't justify that your own belief is correct. You haven't shown any validity to your arguments which warrants anything more than an attempted marriage of the bible and what you call science.

S-word
08-11-2011, 11:48 AM
Touche…sounds like your God made your pot with industrial strength tetrahydrocannabinol!

Nah matey, never been into recreational drugs, although some 55 years ago, when playing Rugby league, I'd pop a few benzidines or meths, before a big game: made you run twice as fast, hit twice as hard, and immune to pain.

And even though they could be purchaced at "certain" chemists for about sixpence each, I never carried them over into my recreational life, I had enough problems with the grog, but now I've got the old "sugar" and I'm limited to one or two glasses of wine, 5 nights a week, although the quack didn't say how big the glasses had to be.

S-word
08-11-2011, 04:14 PM
Is that so?

Unfortunately the truth train train derails your silly theories about aliens and what not.

The facts that are proven to my satisfaction is that God exists in three persons, the father, the son, and the Holy Ghost. The immaculate conception was the latter impregnating Mary (a human), and it gave rise to the birth of the son (Jesus).

You just saying this is not so is irrational and probably designed to stir up dissension and strife among members. If this site has moderators they should give you a good long staring down so you learn your lesson.

Truth train? Truth train? What truth train? The only truth train that I know of, is the mighty word of God, which refuses to carry in its truthful wagons the lies of the church of Constantine.

I am saying that which the bible states.

Your belief does not come from the bible, but if you believe so, then go to the bible and bring your evidence into the Light. But let me assure you, that you will find no evidence in God's Holy Scipture to support the lie, by which you have been deceived.

It is you who are irrational, in believing that a virgin conceived a human child without human male semen being introduced into her uterus.

I can prove that there is nothing in the bible to suggest to a rational minded person, that there was ever such a thing as a virgin birth.

You are preaching as fact, something for which you can supply no evidence whatsoever, so if anyone needs a good long staring down from the moderators, it is the one who preaches that something can be found in the bible, when it can be proven beyond all doubt, that it can not.

Will you tell me that Isaiah 7:14; says that a virgin shall become pregnant and bear a son? Then I will prove to you from the Good News Bible. which is the Catholic Study Edition; imprimatur by Archbishop John Whealon, that Isaiah 7: 14; says a "young (Unmarried) woman" will be with child and she will bear a son, etc. The Hebrew word "Almah," here used by Isaiah, according to Young's Analytical Concordance, gives the meaning to the Hebew "Almah," as (Concealment---Unmarried female) The Hebrew has a specific term for "Virgin," which is "bethulah" the word used in every instance in the old Testament where a woman who has never had sexual intercourse with a man is referred to, which word Isaiah would have used if the intention was to convey that a virgin would be pregnant, which no sane minded person would ever believe.

If you want to give to me the truth, then go to God's word, that I believe. But I will not believe the lies of the anti-christ and his bride who refuse to acknowledge that Jesus came as a human being, and no Human being is born of an alien life form. If it did not originate on earth, it is an alien.

1st letter of John 4:1-3; “My dear friends, do not believe all who claim to have the spirit, (My words are spirit) but test them to find out if the spirit they have comes from God. For many false prophets have gone out everywhere. This is how you will be able to know if it is Gods spirit/word: anyone who acknowledges that Jesus came as a human being has the spirit who comes from God. But anyone who denies this about Jesus does not have the spirit from God. The spirit that he has, is from the enemy of the anointed one, the Anti-christ etc.”

2nd letter of John verses 7-10;.“Many deceivers have gone out all over the world, people who do not acknowledge that Jesus came as a human being. Such a person is a deceiver and an enemy of Christ.”

Go and look for a teaching that has been spread throughout the earth that refuses to acknowledge that Jesus came as a human being, then come back and tell me where it is to be found.

But as I have said before and will now say it again, "If you are happy to believe a teaching that is contrary to the word of God, then that is your perogative, so go, and be happy.

S-word
08-11-2011, 04:29 PM
I also don't like the title "The Bible debunks the virgin birth". Don't think the bible can debunk anything really. The oldest copies of the bible (excluding the codex sinaiticus) are only a few hundreds years old. The Old testament was written after being passed down by oral tradition for thousands of years which makes you question the authenticity. Old testament also states many things which are now incompatible with science (such as the Earth being flat). The New testament Gospels were written a fair time after Jesus' life and were based upon each other to some extent. The bible was put together by Constantine from memory in the 300's from a selection of gospels and only a few were chosen. Don't think that the bible is a very credible source of information.

I think that Kevin's viewpoint is entirely valid and you can't justify that your own belief is correct. You haven't shown any validity to your arguments which warrants anything more than an attempted marriage of the bible and what you call science.

[gambiteer wrote]…..I don't like the title "The Bible debunks the virgin birth".

So? I’m supposed to change the title because you don’t like it, am I?

[gambiteer wrote]…..The oldest copies of the bible (excluding the codex sinaiticus) are only a few hundreds years old.

I’m glad that you excluded the codex sinaiticus, which was hand written in the beginning of the eighth century and was copied from Jerome’s (at that time) existing translation of the Hebrew and Greek, Old and New testaments, which he had completed in 405 AD, some one thousand six hundred years ago.

So, what have we got here? We have that, which is considered to be the most accurate copy of the Latin Vulgate, which was (at the time that it was copied in the 8th century) Jerome’s existing translation of the Hebrew and Greek Old and New Testaments, which original manuscripts were in existence when Jerome finished his translation of them in 405 AD, which was considered to be very close to the original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts from which he had translated.

So we have Jerome’s excellent translation of the Hebrew and Greek Bible, from which the accurate codex sinaiticus, was copied, from which accurate translation, the bibles of today have been translated.

I think we can use the accuracy of today’s bible to debunk the false yarn of the virgin birth which cannot be supported by the accurate translations of the accurate copy of Jerome’s wonderful nearly accurate translation of the old Hebrew and Geek original manuscripts.

[gambiteer wrote]…..The New testament Gospels were written a fair time after Jesus' life and were based upon each other to some extent. The bible was put together by Constantine from memory in the 300's from a selection of gospels and only a few were chosen. Don't think that the bible is a very credible source of information.

Jerome completed his translation of the Hebrew and Greek Old and New Testaments in 405 AD, for the universal church that was established by the non-christian and almost certainly theologically illiterate king Constantine, who is portrayed as Invictus Constantinus beside the Syrian pagan god “Sol Invictus” on a medallion that he had struck in 313 AD, ten years before he called together the heads of all the bickering and “insult hurling” religious bodies, of that day, who called themselves Christians, to the first ever “World Council, in Nicaea,” where he established his universal church in 325 AD, some three hundred years after the Apostolic Church of Jesus Christ had been established Jerusalem.

gambiteer
08-11-2011, 06:59 PM
How much of the bible do you believe and how accurate do you think it is?

S-word
08-11-2011, 09:36 PM
How much of the bible do you believe and how accurate do you think it is?

I believe that the bible stories were recorded by chosen scribes, who were under the controll of our indwelling Ancestral Father, who dwells behind the veil to the inner most sanctuary of his temporary earthly tent/tabernacle, which is the body of mankind.

It is the message that is hidden within those stories that concerns me. It is totally irrelevant to me if those stories are actual fact or not. If it could be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that Jesus was not actually resurrected from the dead it would not concern me in the least.

For it is in the story of Jesus being brought to perfection, given divine glory, and chosen as the successor to the throne of Godhead of that body, which was resurrected, that reveals to me the secrets of the universal body and the mind of the Supreme Personality that evolves in that uiversal body through suffering, which universal body, after descending into the seemingly bottomless pit, is resurrected to continue in the eternal process of evolution.

I believe that errors have been introduced over the centuries, but that the bible itself is able to reveal those errors, the yeast that has been added to the unleavened bread of God, by the guardians of the books of our lord, who have attempted (IN some cases, in good faith) to interpret those words according to the limited data that had been accumulated by the mind of man some two thousand years ago.

Bonneville
09-11-2011, 09:06 AM
It is you who are irrational, in believing that a virgin conceived a human child without human male semen being introduced into her uterus.

I can prove that there is nothing in the bible to suggest to a rational minded person, that there was ever such a thing as a virgin birth.

Obviously it doesn't happen everyday. It has only happened once in the history of mankind - 2000 years ago.

S-word
09-11-2011, 09:39 AM
Obviously it doesn't happen everyday. It has only happened once in the history of mankind - 2000 years ago.

Oh no, no, no! It has happened many, many times in the beliefs of those who do not hold to the truth as revealed in God's Holy scriptures. Would you like me to name all the gods who have been born of human mothers from alien Fathers? Thor the god of thunder is but one of a multitude of gods just like yours.

gambiteer
09-11-2011, 12:51 PM
I believe that errors have been introduced over the centuries, but that the bible itself is able to reveal those errors, the yeast that has been added to the unleavened bread of God, by the guardians of the books of our lord, who have attempted (IN some cases, in good faith) to interpret those words according to the limited data that had been accumulated by the mind of man some two thousand years ago.

So you think that a document that you accept contains errors and admit is not can be used to prove something to be true?

Think that a more literal perspective on the virgin birth would be helpful. For a female to get pregnant, sperm needs to fertilise the egg. If no sperm is involved, very unlikely for someone to get pregnant. For a virgin female to give birth to a son is extremely unlikely, moving towards an impossibility. Think this is a better way to debunk the virgin birth rather than an irrelevant book.

Bonneville
09-11-2011, 01:29 PM
Oh no, no, no! It has happened many, many times in the beliefs of those who do not hold to the truth as revealed in God's Holy scriptures. Would you like me to name all the gods who have been born of human mothers from alien Fathers? Thor the god of thunder is but one of a multitude of gods just like yours.

Thor and the other Norse gods do not pre-date Christianity. They came after hearing about the virgin birth of Christ. So arguably, they modelled aspects of their mythology on Christianity.

Go home s word, your denial of truth is becoming tiresome.

Rincewind
09-11-2011, 01:57 PM
Thor and the other Norse gods do not pre-date Christianity.

That is not necessarily a fact. Germanic people conquered by Rome certainly worshipped a god very much like Thor in the 1st century well before they would have heard of Christianity. Although it is difficult to be certain that is was Thor as the Romans had an annoying habit of mapping foreign gods onto the Roman pantheon. However, as to whether there was any virgin birth elements in the 1st C Germanic religion would be disputable. (I don't think Thor counts anyway as he was supposed to be the child of Odin and the personification of the Earth.)

Kevin Bonham
13-11-2011, 09:48 PM
Go home s word, your denial of truth is becoming tiresome.

Yes; "Bonneville" is worried that he might have competition in the field of lying in which he is one of Australian chess's most constant and least competent exponents.

Capablanca-Fan
18-07-2012, 08:13 AM
In answer to the thread title, of course the Bible affirms the Virgin Birth, as I wrote a long time ago in the paper The Virginal Conception of Christ (http://creation.com/the-virginal-conception-of-christ).