You don't have to make up any new theories as all that history is well documented.I have a theory. Joseph grand father of the true father, which adds up age wise. Why? To hide the identity of the Father, and Son. Who is the Father?
Jesus will come
- Thread starter Saint
- Start date
It is rather stupid to think that any other person was Jesus' father than the person married, or engaged to his mother. The mystery is how did she conceive without intercourse. Nothing like that is impossible. What is impossible is God to be the biological father. That is absolutely against the Law of God and God would be a sinner if he broke his own laws. Come on get real.
I have a theory. Joseph grand father of the true father, which adds up age wise. Why? To hide the identity of the Father, and Son. Who is the Father?
Go to your scriptures and find out who they say the grandfather would be if Joseph were the father.
It blows up. Someone goofed. There are two entirely different accounts for the lineage of Joseph.
Maybe they were hiding the identity of Joseph! :m:
Problems like this make the literal interpretation of the Bible even more grievous than failing to recognize it's obviously ancient lore.
kx000
Valued Senior Member
The bible means nothing to me. If you have faith ask God about Knowledge91. Me and the Big Man are tight.
I asked God and he says you are soft in the head.
Where does the bible say that? Nope never says anything about the age of Mary.
All Praise The Ancient Of Days
I am giving a warning to you. That's not judging. I was exressing my fear for you.
All Praise The Ancient of Days
The Bible states that what was created in Mary was of the Holy Spirit. It does not talk of God having carnal sex with Mary. The flesh body of Jesus was a creation of God.
Thats why He was sinless. He was in the flesh but not of human origin.
All Praise The Ancient of Days
LIGHTBEING
Registered Senior Member
Isn't it just a tad bit curious that Jesus was not the first "virgin" birth recorded in religious history? :shrug:
kx000
Valued Senior Member
Fear is for the weak my friend. I am a Ancient of Days, why doth thou judge me as inferior? Is my faith not strong? I am warning you now, God has none, Jesus is a forgiver. Christianity will be scratched out of existence Kingdom come.
kx000
Valued Senior Member
I am of human origin, I am sinless. Jesus was born from the flesh of the flesh, we are all children of God. When you are taken to the Face of God will you say no, where is my God who incarnated Jesus without a fleshy father? Am I not worthy of the honor to father the Son? I think I was, and still am.
kx000
Valued Senior Member
Ask God what he thinks of the bible, I dare you.
You are delusional in the extreme. Your claiming that you are God again. You think you fathered Jesus. I think you need to either see an psychologist. Or maybe a Exorcist.
May Yaveh have mercy on you.
All Praise The Ancient Of Days
Not really. The Magi knew what they were doing, and they were expecting him because they were told he was coming by the ones who had started their traditions. A Buddhist, a Zoroastrian, and a Hindi?
Jmmanuel wasn't just a Jew, he was trained as a Buddhist in Egypt as well by others in the east . . .
IOW. . . Genetic engineering.
That's how you can have a baby w/o love, duh! No sin there. That's why jmmanuel's earthly father was assuaged by the visitors. They used the genes of an alien species, and the terrestrial human.
ooops, did I let the cat out of the bag?
Fascinating coincidence. And even how many other gods took on some material form so they could walk among men, so to speak? But how do gods "get born", you might have asked the ancient yarn spinner, back in the day, as you were sitting around the campfire trying to work this out. There is only one way to get born, and that is: with the considerate help of a hostess. So how does the seed get planted? Well, the yarn spinner would quickly realize--invariably feeling uncomfortably backed into the corner--it couldn't be the seed of a man, because we know it produces only human babies. So... well we've heard of births from women who swore they were virgins. Aha! the man-god must be of virgin origins, too.
What's really great about religion is that it's so flexible. Or, to be more accurate, it's so quick to turn hard solid evidence into Silly Putty.
One really great consequence of the internet is that this primordial campfire is brought to us daily, amid the mountain of evidence we have to ascertain truth, to see this kind of phenomenon, the evolution of religion, for what it really is. Plus, even more interesting, is the vast denial that still abounds, even molded into some highly developed apologetics. Take for example this site that caught on to folks like you:
So they set this site up just to help their followers defend against such reasoning. But look at the really lame defense they give:
What a crock. This reflects one of the great fallacies of fundamentalism, that the Old Testament Jews were anticipating Christ. The first cite, Zech. 12:10, is utterly bogus, it makes mention of a son being stabbed, but is completely unaware of a crucifixion, or that this son is the putative Son of God. Then of course is the famous prophecy from Isaiah 7:14 - Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel. This makes no sense either because Mary wasn't told by the angel to name him Emanuel, but Ieusous, which not only the wrong name, but the wrong language - Greek, not Hebrew. Besides, Isaiah 7:14 isn't connecting this son to a son of God either.
What these folks have done is: they have gone through the Old Testament and scoured it to find any phrase that might give them a clue that there was a connection. Then they invented the connection themselves. Then, to disguise their dishonesty, they accuse other Christian churches of being "man-made". This is especially effective in attacking Catholicism, so they can at the same time justify their heresy against the oldest surviving Western source of Christian tradition, which would seem to be more authentic - except of course it has this fatal flaw, it's a church created by men. Then they can just as easily rifle through their scriptures to find the passages that don't explain the things they see going on in Catholicism - that Jesus wanted a Roman pope to run his church, or that Mary was a saint etc.
This highly evolved dishonesty, with layer upon layer of deception, is acting under cover of the purveyor of the greatest standards of human ethical behavior. But it all boils down to the very thing that you pointed out, which is really remarkable: all of their basic tenets of faith are borrowed from other religions, other cultures, long lost legends and myths, and of course, generous doses of superstition. And then, since science conflicts with the tenets of their superstition, they get involved in politics, and try to bend society the same way they bend reality, the same way they bend the scriptures, and the same way they bend their followers.
I got a little carried away, but you made such a good point, it's often overlooked. Of all the flaws in fundamentalism, the many deep layers of denial blind them to the obvious connection between Jesus and Mithra, or of other similar archetypes in the region, from Persia to Egypt, and from Greek and Roman beliefs that prevailed during the time the Jesus story first took root.
Why doth thou speaketh like you have corn lodged between your incisors?
What is all of the game-playing about ? Why all the goofy sub text?
Are you so dishonest you can't even engage another person in a reasonable attempt to make sense?
How did you come about choosing Yaveh over the more common rendering, Yahweh?
Also, what is the meaning and purpose of:
I can't find that. Where is it stated?
If the bible means nothing to you, why are you speaking about names and events that are only recorded in the bible, and why are you speaking about these names and events as if they mean something to you?