The Virgin Birth

Interesting. Makes some sense. Of course if he created this earth he should be able to control that aspect of his life as well. We all have the capacity to become gods like him.

Of course you first need to demonstrate Jesus existed in order for his message to be misunderstood.

No Jesus = No message = No Misunderstanding.

Unfortunately it works like this.

Lots of different Pre Christian Ideas = Jesus = contradicting message = Lots of Misunderstanding = Lots of dead people.

Jesus is one of many, because what Jesus was is the end game for all humans. The fullfillment of a long journey.

They are no longer "required" to be here. They've graduated. They visit, but little point to a human existance now.

School is no longer needed.

There is a level beyond what is taught in Christianity. One finds it by applying the essence of Jesus' teachings. Compassion.

To be able to feel the pain of another as if it were your own, is only the beginning. The idea is to expand this sensitivity outward until all of creation is your "body". Your "kingdom" as Jesus spoke of.

When this becomes realized, the individual self is reborn as a component part of "God". It still has it's own individuality, but is no longer bound to it in the way of most people. It can travel all of creation, but can still put it's foot in the door of this world anytime it wants to.

Often offering hints as to where the door is. It's all a big game really. God likes to play with his toes. They have individual realities, but are still connected at the base, as is all of creation.

In more advanced understanding, the idea of being apart from God evaporates away.

There is a singular consciousness at work, manifesting in many different forms. Of which you and I are a part of.

Separate. Yet still joined at the base. Those who are in love with themselves as individuals cannot see this connection.



x

In the Gospel of Luke in 1:35 it gives a good description how the virgin birth happens,

"The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God."

Therefore, the sinful nature of Mary didn't matter because her nature was undermined by the coming of the Holy Spirit and the power of God overshadowed her.

Mary was a vessel for the Lord to develop into a baby in. Since it was a virgin birth He did not share any of Marys characteristics. This is very important because He needed to be an entirely new creation, a second Adam not tainted by the sin nature shared by every human being since the fall of man. He had to be The spotless Lamb without any defect in order for his sacrifice to be effectual. Just as Adam's sin was passed on to us all. Christ's perfection could be credited to all his people.

Your argument may be interesting but that is all they are to me. The Bible is very clear that we do not believe because of any evidence in fact Jesus said," they will NOT believe even if a man rises from the dead". Jesus was speaking of course of non believers who not only did not believe but were and are incapable of believing because of the nature of a fallen humanity. When Jesus said regarding entering into the kingdomof heaven," You MUST be born again," He was refering to the fact that the chosen of God hear the gospel and believe it only because the spirit of God takes their dead {spirtually}heart and regenerates it into an alive heart that then believes and trusts in the Gospel. It is for this reason that I am opposed to any type of Christian teaching that tries to prove anything about God and his Kingdom through reason or logic or historical facts etc. The Bible says that "the things of God are nonsense to the NATURAL man." It also tells us that the message of the cross is an offence to anyone not regenerated by the Spirit. It does very plainly teach that us Believers are to preach the Gospel message and God will do the rest to bring His people into the Kingdom. It is very sad to me to see so much of modern day Christanity veer so far away from this fundamental truth.

So you are going to use the bible to prove the bible...LOL...the Gospels were not written by eye witnesses, nor by individuals with access to eye witnesses. Instead they were written around a century later (contrary with what most Christians believe) and written not as true reports of what was said or done but as recruiting tools. If the Gospels are really the word of god, then why does Matthew have jesus born during the reign of Herod (Herod died in 4 BCE) and Luke have him born when Caesar declared that "all men must be taxed" (Augustus himself reported that he only held one such taxation and that was in 6 CE). Why then does the gospels report that jesus died after John the Baptist, when by the NT reports Jesus died around 31 CE and according to recorded history John was executed in 35-36 CE...not much accuracy there and this lack of accuracy shows that the entire story is on shaky ground...just remember faith is believing what you know ain't so. LOL
:patriot:

Your historical facts are not facts at all and are in much dispute by scholars. Also in my post I say that it is the duty of all Christians to share the gospel and not try to reason with people over it because the gospel message is beyond reason. The Bible also tells us,
"Not to cast our pearls to swine." So I won't

The bible is just a book. A patchwork quilt of different ancient stories and chronicles of people who had divine experiences. It is NOT the "Word of God". Only a living person can hold that title.

Why would you not believe that such people walk the world today?

Hippies have been accused of being stuck in the 60's. I charge that Christians have a similar problem. Jews have been waiting at the bustop even longer than you have.

I'm ballsy enough to tell you that the church bus doesn't go to heaven. This is a journey that requires footwork. You need to start walking.

It is belief that hides God from you. Remember that.

Let go of belief, God comes rushing in.



x

My philosophy as well.

The human self is never so smart as to ignore something new.

The mind likes playthings. The spirit just waits until it's done.

Like walking the dog...



x

No...you have that backwards. The Holy Scriptures declare the existence of Jesus, as demonstrated in "Eye Witness" testimony ( 2 Peter 1:16). You have as of yet to prove one historical event as recorded in the New Testament as not being historically accurate. All you offer is an ad hominem "straw" argument presented with no empirical evidence to debunk the historicity of Jesus. While on the other hand there is a plethora of externally existing evidences declaring the fact of Jesus history. The most damaging to your straw argument is the fact of the writings of the Roman Empire and in particularly the works of the Jewish historian "Josephus" in his historical documentation entitled {Antiquities of the Jews}.....he directly references the existence of Jesus not once but twice in this work (18:3:3...a work that has merely been disputed in RECENT HISTORY, simply by OPINION only...and another passage 20:9:1, which has never been the subject of dispute).

But a STRONG majority have CONCLUDED that much of the "Testimonium Flavianum"...the disputed passage, disputed only by the opinion of the modern "Jesus Mythologists"..those that are attempting to place Jesus into realm of myth, without evidence........is the AUTHENTIC work of Josephus, as pointed out by Louis H. Fieldman...a historian that has dedicated his life to studying the works of Josephus....between the years of 1937 and 1980 an extensive study was performed entirely dedicated to the particular passage concerning Josephus testimony in relation to Jesus and out of the 52 highly qualified historical scholars 39 found portions of the disputed passage to be very authentic. But even a partial authentication proves the historical fact that an individual named Jesus in fact existed in the early 1st century.

Thus...clearly, the burden is for you to prove that both the Holy Scriptures were errant in their eye witness accounts and the following historical recordings that mention the fact of Jesus historicity within a hundred years after his death are wrong....and you are correct. We will patiently be awaiting your EMPIRICAL proof that debunks the authenticity of the Holy Scriptures and the other external historically valid recordings....in something other than your personal "straw" opinion. The Holy Scriptures are not negative...they exist even today...the only thing negative is YOUR OPINION, in trying to disprove the actual physically recorded writings of the New Testament authors. Please enlighten us with YOUR PROOF. :rollinglaugh:

Did Josephus Refer to Jesus

What he said :thumbup:

Or in order to avoid being stoned for having sex out of wedlock and getting pregnant, Joseph and Mary devised a simple story: We never had sex, but a god impregnated me. Which was in fact a very accepted belief of the time, gods impregnating women. Thats my view on the spill. Cya's

Mako, when you copy and paste bad and dated history at least cite the source, because its hardly academic. Virgin Births in History

parthenogenesis - Google Search
:whistling:

:rollinglaugh:It only makes sense to delusional people who think their gods. :rollinglaugh: That's called 'delusions of grandeur." The irrational degree that atheists go to deny God & pretend that humans are gods is endless. :rolleyes: