Post: #51

(12-06-2016 03:23 AM)DeusVult Wrote:  Can you accept the Resurrection? If so, what is substantially different with that breaking of the laws of science and nature with a Virgin Birth?

/thread-59039...pid1430706

Post: #52

(01-24-2017 01:02 PM)Captain Gh Wrote:  As someone who studied the Mystery Religions a while back, The same patters always occurs: People dismissed completely what a conspiracy theorist says... which makes him even nuttier down the line.

Which is why I stop delving into this... to avoid becoming a Mercenary! This shit is way too deep for most people who believe Humans just "came out", and all this symbology is just by chance.

But I ain't mad about that. I used to be, but not anymore. God mentioned that Lucifer is His most pleasing creation, His most conniving, and His smartest. Was also in charge of Entertainment in God's kingdom. And isn't there a Is Hollywood Satanic Thread on There?

And people are blaming the Jews in droves nowadays... exactly as Albert Pike wrote in His Moral & Dogma book! Man Lucifer is one smart MOFO. If I go to Hell... I'll shake his Hand and tell him job well done! You truly fucked Humans like you told God you would

I truly think I'll drop a datasheet on the knowledge I've gathered from the Mystery Religions... and keep it Rational and based on Religions

Some "beings" are not born only via BIOLOGY.. they Manifest via different channels.. PS: Born at midnight.. just like Krishna

Here's one..
/thread-49014...pid1495698

Post: #53

(11-18-2016 08:27 AM)The Beast1 Wrote:  If you read my previous posts, I wrote that if Mary was a whore that it makes Jesus being the son of God a much more powerful statement. In that God, in all of his infinite glory and power, chose his only son to be brought into this world as a peasant wood worker born from a loose woman. That's a heck of a God and adds credibility to the promise of redemption in the afterlife.

In the grand scheme of things, her fidelity or lack thereof is ultimately pointless when compared against the redemptive promise, moral lessons, and sacrifice Jesus made.

You are mistaken here because you are twisting things to create an effect in a very human way (to prove some other needless point) when your very point was already proven by what happened, history. It doesn't add any credibility, you are Hollywood-izing something in a weird way to try to get "more" out of a concept that is already 100% sound and there is an added detrimental effect, as I will describe.

Not only does it defy God's sanctity and holiness as a result (which is unnecessary and unsound, therefore also cannot be and wasn't) this is an even more (perhaps the most?) important point:

Mary cannot be the second Eve if she is not faithful to God, obedient to him unlike in the Garden of Eden, and through her salvation, unlike through Eve initially corruption and mortality in doing it on our own, as man was brought to this "knowledge" through her. "Let it be done to me according to your word" is the ultimate obedience.

Not only is she unholy if yours is the case, the story is incoherent. And what's more, it is totally unnecessary. He already was King born as a rural, humble servant. He already was Lord with a mouth that spoke with truth and acted with complete integrity, yet was spit on and hated "by his own". Everything human, in that regard, he turned upside down. We make repentance real by turning from our old ways, by changing our mind (metanoia) and being obedient --- this is why she is the foremost of the saints. The rejection again of the carnal, of the tribal (and of your suggestion here) is again seen in "Blessed is the womb that born you and the breasts that nursed you". "No, blessed rather are those that hear the word of God, and keep it" That is MARY and why she is so valuable as an example. It is referring precisely to the behavior and obedience at the annunciation.

Why did God raise Jesus up on the 3rd day and not later (for a whimsical effect similar to your whore birth)? As you should know from Jewish ritual, the corpse rots after 3 (Lazarus showed that he was putrid and would also die again when Jesus raised him). He cannot see corruption, nor will he, even after a willing death. This act maintains his humanity and divinity, preserves tradition, and makes complete everything known about the Messiah.

The completeness of the story must be preserved. And it is, and was, and will be, forever and ever.

Post: #54

(10-28-2016 04:12 PM)The Beast1 Wrote:  One of the last items bothering me in Christian theology is the concept of Jesus' immaculate birth.

Well for what it's worth, virgin births can happen in some species of animals, such as some types of sharks.

So even from a scientific perspective, it's possible in some extremely rare cases a woman could conceive without a man's seed:

http://www.businessinsider.com/animals-t...ths-2015-9

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/...australia/

Post: #55

(02-01-2017 01:37 PM)EDantes Wrote:  

(10-28-2016 04:12 PM)The Beast1 Wrote:  One of the last items bothering me in Christian theology is the concept of Jesus' immaculate birth.

Well for what it's worth, virgin births can happen in some species of animals, such as some types of sharks.

So even from a scientific perspective, it's possible in some extremely rare cases a woman could conceive without a man's seed:

http://www.businessinsider.com/animals-t...ths-2015-9

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/...australia/

With a Y chromosome though?

Post: #56

I can understand why the authors of the bible put it in...

After all, Jesus had to compete with all those Greek and Roman gods and demi-gods. No Roman worshipper of Hercules would take Jesus as a serious rival unless some amazing miraculous event occurred at impregnation (in Hercules' case, Jupiter came down to earth and pretended to be some woman's husband). Other miraculous impregnations include Theseus and Perseus, off the top of my head.

I can't imagine any Roman pagan taking Jesus seriously if he was just a Jewish preacher born from humble, normal beginnings, conceived in the normal, human way.

What I'm trying to say is, given the circumstances of the time, the authors of the gospels must have felt compelled to put in some propaganda. Because the Roman pagan world was hungry for miracle stories, and Roman paganism fulfilled that need, so the only way for Christianity to appeal to the Roman masses, and to compete with paganism, was to have some miracle stories of their own.

Which boils down to me saying that I disbelieve that the bible is literally true. It may be spiritually true, but I also cannot accept its literal truth. The gospel was deliberately dressed in a way to appeal to Roman paganism, so you have to dig beneath the propaganda and not accept it at face value.

Post: #57

My mother is a virgin. I can't imagine any other scenario.

Post: #58

I think Flavius Josephus, a Roman-Jewish historian who wrote around the time the gospel of Mark was written, said Jesus' father was a Roman soldier named Pantera. I may be mistaken though.

Post: #59

(01-27-2017 01:28 PM)Kid Twist Wrote:  Why did God raise Jesus up on the 3rd day and not later (for a whimsical effect similar to your whore birth)? As you should know from Jewish ritual, the corpse rots after 3 (Lazarus showed that he was putrid and would also die again when Jesus raised him). He cannot see corruption, nor will he, even after a willing death. This act maintains his humanity and divinity, preserves tradition, and makes complete everything known about the Messiah.

The Resurrection on day 3 has nothing to do with any tradition about corpses rotting. It goes back to Genesis chapter 1 and 2. Remember, Jesus is called the "second Adam". Adam was created on the third day of Creation. This is a bit of esoteric knowledge the Rabbi's know, and anyone who combines Genesis chapters 1 and 2 will realize, treating them as parallel accounts. Some people say they are not parallel accounts.

With man created on day 3 and woman created on day 6, it correlates with the birth of a male child requiring 40 days of recuperation, but 80 days for birth of a female child. Even the book of Jubilees, not a Bible book, understood this correspondance. It was written by someone who didn't know about Genesis 1 and 2 being parallel accounts, but it still made the connection between recuperation at childbirth, and the fact that woman was created after man.

So, with Jesus dead, and raised on the third day, it is like the first three days of creation, when there was no Adam. That is the symbolism, which Paul makes explicit later on in the New Testament.

Post: #60

An interesting result when you realize the Bible account has Adam created on day 3; it means the Bible is explicitly ruling out any possibility of a) man evolved from animals and b) man came from the stars. Since it has mankind created before the animals and the stars. Not bad for page one of an extremely ancient document eh? As if it knew such theories would rise up.

Post: #61

Your explanation is accurate. So is mine. And of course it has to do with what I said it did. I have contradicted nothing. Your comments are appreciated, nevertheless.

Post: #62

^ One has to look at a lot of the content of texts as "needs of the COMMUNICATION MEDIUM and author at THAT TIME" .. They did not have InfoGraphics and Wikis & HyperLinks.. so they have to create "structure" around "information" such that "the masses" (not highly educated or intellectual) could garner something from the content.. Hence, throughout all traditions, the information/ knowledge was passed on in a STORY format..

So, some things can be take literally, while others may be "metaphors" used to describe something without "video" and rich communication medium. Hence, interpretation, understanding and relevance to CURRENT LIFE scenarios and usage is not always straightforward.