Is it egotistical to think that a God would die for you?

It died. Yes, exactly what I am suggesting. What every Christian suggests to you (I assume you must be some sort of Jew, because your comments on the other thread about Heli and Jesus), that the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.

God, who is God (not "this god") , sacrificed his mortal body to live and die as one of us.

Why did he do this? Well several reasons:
1. To die for our sins. This is something every real Christian accepts.
2. To act as a bridge between God and Man (we see this in the tearing of the temple veil, there is no longer any division)
3. To be human. This is something that is lost on most people, but I'm a game programmer and I know that in order to test that something actually works, you need to playtest, and see the end result running.
4. To overcome the power of the grave. Humans believed that death was an absolute, but Jesus canonically raised not only himself but emptied the nearby gravesites.
5. To teach humans about God from a human perspective.

.

Only a biblical ignoramus such as yourself would claim that Jesus raised himself from the grave.

I have neither the time, nor the inclination to respond further to your crap.

Good night,

To everyone,
Abraham would be considered to be the "father" of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (In Islam through Ishmael instead of Isaac).
The Bible does not tell us how old the earth is. However, people disagree with one another.
A critical difference between people is whether reality consists of the Spiritual as well as the Physical. This difference in belief makes a big difference in our perspective on life.

And what was that a response too Neal?

BTW, the bible does tell us that there were six periods of universal activity or six generation of the universe, before this world in which mankind lives, was completed.

Genesis 2: 4; concerning the six creative days; "These are the generations of the universe when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the universe."

And do you believe the statement of bulmabriefs who said; "Jesus canonically raised not only himself but emptied the nearby gravesites?"

I was responding to the general discussion.
99 percent of people have no idea about Origins. I believe in Creation because Jesus confirmed it. He was the only One there at the time.
Some interesting things happened right after Jesus said "it is finished". One thing that occured was the opening of graves.

But a more important and reasonable question would be:

Did the Prince actually think that ONLY Cinderella's foot would fit that glass slipper?

The story tells us that it was a size 8 1/2...which is the average shoe size of a woman in the US?

Why do you suppose the Prince would think something so absurd? And if he did try the shoe onto many others before coming to Cinderella...why do you think it is that none of them managed to fit their foot into it?

And don't even get me started on the notion of women jamming the feet into smaller sizes than they should be using.

So, you don't believe in the virgin birth and you don't in the resurrection, but I saw you quoting earlier from Revelation. Ummm, can you explain what exactly you believe out of the New Testament? Because it's not clear what the remaining point is.

Also, not "only a biblical ignoramus (like me)" would believe it. I'm afraid most Christians do.

So... what exactly are you?

They use American sizes in Fairy tales, who’d a thought?

Hi Frank. How are you doing? I have been praying for you (as well as CC and many others on this board).
Here is the answer to your question:
Her slippers were made to fit the feet of a woman with many bunions and scars on them. The slippers only fit one woman.
Likewise, people need to look for the One with many injuries to His body.

I understand this is a troll question here.

But what if she was 8 1/2 NarrowAF?

Or the shoe was one of those genetic signature self-shrinking shoes that I heard about on the news?

Correct! Jesus was born of the flesh through the union of his parents, Mary and her half-brother Joseph, who were both sired by Alexander Helios=Heli, by different mothers. And he was born ‘Son of God’, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, But of the spirit of the Lord that descended upon him as he came up out of the baptismal waters of the Jordon, and the heavenly voice was heard to say; “You are my Son, ‘THIS DAY’ I have begotten thee”, or as said in Hebrews 5: 5; “You are my Son ‘TODAY’ I have become your Father.”



But I do believe in the resurrection as anyone would understand who has read my posts and who (unlike yourself), have the ability to comprehend that which I had written.

Also, I believe Act 3: 13; where it is written; “The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of our ancestors has given divine glory to his servant Jesus, etc”. And I believe that Jesus is now incontestably divine and sits in the heavenly throne of our Father, from where, according to Revelation 3: 21; he invites all, who like himself are able to win the victory, to sit beside him in his heavenly throne.



All that was recorded therein by the Holy Spirit through his obedient servants, His apostles, but not the added interpolations, and erroneous interpretations, which have been added by the Roman church.



Like I have said before, and here repeat, only the biblically ignorant, naïve, and gullible, would accept the Roman churches false teaching of some supposedly virgin birth.

Catch ya later sunshine.

I don't comprehend it, because it feels like you missed the entire point of the New Testament.

No, I'm not stupid. I honestly don't get it. I don't get how you can believe any of this and call yourself a Christian. And I think you're the gullible one. My belief in a female Jesus does not interfere with the core teachings of Christianity. Your Heli thing very much does.

Okay, so you think that the baptismal waters magically gave him the status of Son of God? I don't think you understand how genetics works. You see, a woman gets together with God and they... (makes several obscene gestures) and that's how a Son of God is born.

Firstly, you have misunderstood this passage. When I do something that makes my father proud, or shows him that I am following in his footsteps, he may say, "You are my son." It is a symbol of pride that a father has in his child. But no amount of water can create an inheritance that isn't there. Joseph had given him an inheritance through marriage, a sacred oath before God. By your theory, God had no natural connection with Jesus , except His connection to Adam. That Jesus is somehow incarnate through two mortals having normal sex.

https://hillsong.com/faith/baptism/

Baptism is about a move from death to new life, it's about a commitment to God. But it's not a change of parents.

You seriously mocked me as being gullible enough to believe in the resurrection.

Virgin birth is not a Roman teaching. Again.

https://jpmerritt.com/2018/12/06/was-josephs-bloodline-under-a-curse/



The line of Joseph CANNOT be the Messiah, nor the King of the Jews.

Therefore, it must be on Mary's line that Jesus is King of the Jews. Notice I say "he" despite the fact that Jesus is really a she. This is because God (and by extension Jesus) is always ALWAYS referred to in male pronouns. Why?

https://billygraham.org/answer/why-does-the-bible-refer-to-god-in-masculine-terms/

Billy Graham has an answer. Because we are married to God.



Even if you are male, you are the Bride of Christ. Even if Jesus was female, he is the Groom. And in fact, Jesus frequently uses female metaphors. Talking about hens, for instance.

So, back to Mary's line. You seem to have a habit of hastily reading, half-understanding, and calling other people idiots for disagreeing. So let's address this.



Gasp, see? He's the son of Heli.

No. No. No.

Notice the red and blue text. First, the red is about Jesus's false father, Joseph. Not a drop of blood from Joseph is in his veins. The genealogy confirms this. However, Jewish genealogies, as a rule do not include women, because Jews are chauvinist and don't think women should inherit anything. So when a genealogy is actually a woman's genealogy (this is Mary's line), it starts with her husband. So this really should read... "Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being son of Mary, son of Heli,"

https://jewsforjesus.org/publications/issues/issues-v05-n06/the-genealogy-of-the-messiah/
(Jews for Jesus verifies that this is how Jewish genealogies work)

Sorry Joseph...


Which brings us to point 2. The blue one. This is not referring as you seem to think to Jesus's father, but his grandfather. This would be mother-daughter incest.



Some people think that this only refers to men sleeping with their mother, but this passage means that when you have sex with your father, because the two become one flesh you are by extension having sex with your mother.

No, sorry, if having the blood of Joseph was out, we have compounded this with not one but two major sins (actually three, if she told this story that it wasn't her father but God). Incest, sex outside marriage (and possibly lying about it). This is a child, who like the rest of us is born into sin. But while God can certainly forgive such sins, it doesn't make for a satisfying explanation as to why he's the Son of God. This corrupts the narrative of Jesus's birth to the point where you cannot find a satisfying reason to keep reading about these people. Some harlot who slept with her father gets pregnant, and we should care why?
Solomon's entire line was cut off from God for their wickedness, but this woman gets a child not from God but from her own dad. And you call me gullible, because I don't feel like swallowing that story? That story is disgusting, and offers no hope of goodness for the human race. It's the story of a kid from the slums, pretty much trying to rise out of the slums and be a prophet only to get executed. There is no point to this story, it's a needless tragedy tempered only with claims that God spoke to Jesus and called him his Son. Not the story of God dying for our sins.

Yes, not just me, but no real Christian accepts that story. Jesus was called God's son because HE WAS GOD'S SON. Because he is God's son. Even if he is a daughter, which is what happens when God impregnates someone through the Holy Spirit (XX+null = XX). There is no father. She becomes pregnant having not slept around, but being suspected of sleeping around.

Why is this relevant? Because we see the sick cycle of false accusation perpetuated from mother to child. If Mary is actually guilty, then this entire point is gone. So what makes us think that Jesus is innocent? The Jewish Talmud accuses him of corrupting youth, being a false prophet, etc. No Christian accepts this either. It unravels the entire point of Christianity.

Now there is a Roman lie. The Roman (Catholic) lie is that Mary kept herself eternally pure.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_virginity_of_Mary
She most certainly did not. She had a husband, and she settled down. After Jesus, she got busy with Joseph and had about 6 or so kids. This is Bible canon. Mary was a virgin, once her cherry popped, she had kids. She didn't enter some pledge to God. She was married to Joseph, but her first child was through God.

Would God die for me? He has. This is the core teaching of Christianity, and I'd far sooner believe Jesus is female or intersex than any of your nonsense. That's basically butchering two of the Gospels because you think the Romans came and wrote this, just so you can justify Jesus being male.

No, the Romans didn't write this. Why would they assert that God came and bore a son, a rival to their pagan gods? Nor would the Roman Catholics write this. The Roman Catholics would prefer to write Joseph out of the picture entirely and have Mary exclusively married to God. She was married to Joseph, and the only way this wasn't incest or adultery is if God made her pregnant with his Son. Which validates Jesus as his Son. Which explains why WELL BEFORE HIS BAPTISM, there is a star shining overhead. Which explains why he says when lost in the temple that he is in his Father's house. Jesus doesn't BECOME God's Son. He is not "made" into God's Son. He was "begotten" as Mary's son, not "made" into God's Son. He was always God's Son.



The meaning of Trinity is that there is Father, Son, and Spirit. Before Jesus is born in the flesh, he is part of the Trinity, and after he gave up his flesh, he is part of the Trinity. He is Lady Wisdom. He is Chokhmah. He is the man Jacob wrestled with (who is not called an angel). That's right, those red letter Bibles should add that part. Because Jesus is in the Old Testament too.

Nope! You don’t understand, because you don’t have the mental capacity to comprehend that which you read.



Luke 3: 23; Luke 3:23; (KJV) And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli. The (AS WAS SUPPOSED) in brackets, was a later interpolation by those who would have you believe the false teaching of the so-called virgin birth.

In the different translations of the KJV into Arabic, Afrikaan, Zulu, etc and even some of the more modern English translations, such as the Good News Catholic Study Edition Bible, the words (As was supposed) have been retained, but the brackets are removed, thus by, making those words appear to be the declaration of Luke, while the serious biblical student know that they were not written by Luke, but were a later interpolation and a corruption of the Holy Scriptures, by those Christians, who refuse to accept that Jesus was not a God who became a man, but a man, born of human parents, who was later CHOSEN by the Lord our saviour ‘The Son of Man,’ as his heir and successor, and who was given divine glory, as revealed in Acts 3: 13; where it is said that the God of our ancestors, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, has given divine glory to his servant Jesus etc.

Jesus, according to the scriptures, is now incontestably divine and sits in the heavenly throne of our Father, where in Revelation 3: 21; He invites all those who like himself, are able to win the victory over the ruler of this world, to sit beside him in his throne.

Revelation 2: 17; “To those who win the victory I will give some of the hidden manna. I will also give each of them a white stone on which is written a new name that no one knows except the one who receives it.

Verses 26-28; To those who win the victory, who continue to the end to do what I want, I will give the same authority that I received from my Father: I will give them authority over the nations, to rule them with an iron rod and to break them to pieces like clay pots. I will also give them the morning star.

It amazes me how any intelligent person can be deceived into believing the false teaching of the so-called virgin birth of the man Jesus.



You are definitely a very confused little puppy, aren’t you? And No, I do not think that the baptismal waters magically gave him the status of Son of God.
Jesus became the chosen Heir and successor to the throne of the MOST HIGH in the creation, when the spirit of our Lord God and saviour. ‘THE SON OF MAN,’ descended upon him in the form of a dove as he came up out of the baptismal waters of the Jordon, and the heavenly voice was heard to say; “You are my son, ‘THIS DAY’ I have begotten thee.”

The Roman church of Emperor Constantine, changed Luke 3: 22 which originally read, “You are my Son, THIS DAY’ I have begotten thee,” to “You are my son, in whom I am well pleased,” this was done to hide the fact that Jesus, who was born of the flesh by the union of Mary and her half-brother Joseph, who were both sired by Heli, short for Alexander Helios III, from different mothers.

Luke 3:22; Now reads; “Thou art my beloved son in whom I am pleased,” which was not the original variant, but was changed by those who want you to believe that Jesus was not born of the flesh by a physical biological father, and (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.

I’ll deal with the rest of your rubbish later on. The football is about to start, a glass or two of wine awaits me, so. Night, night for now.

Aren't you glad you post here. You learn all sorts of interesting things.

(Aside from the # differences, I understand that women in the UK have larger feet than women in the US. You know anything about that?)

The One????

All sorts of people with many injuries.

And so you suppose there is a slipper that fits ONLY ONE WOMEN.

That helps explain a lot, Neal.

It was not a troll question, but thanks for the response.

I do not know what a genetic signature self-shrinking shoe is, but I seriously doubt it is made of glass.

MOST OF THE POSTS HERE WOULD MAKE MUCH MORE SENSE IF THE PEOPLE POSTING WOULD SIMPLY SUBSTITUTE (BLINDLY GUESS) FOR EVERY TIME THEY USE (BELIEVE.)

Most would!

Try it a few times...you'll see.

It’s a folk tale with lots of different versions all over the World, according to Wikipedia the earliest version dates from Biblical times and is about a Greek slave girl who ends up marrying the King of Egypt.

I know nothing about the relative foot sizes of American vs British women.

It sounds a bit nonsensical to be honest especially as America is very mixed, even more so than Britain.

If it was a comparison of African and European or Chinese women it would make more sense.

Continued from my post #7,156,095.



Fair dinkum! Have you ever done anything for which your father has been proud of you?



I agree with you, no water can create an inheritance, but the spirit of the Lord which descended upon the man Jesus when he came up out of the baptismal waters of the Jordon, as the heavenly voice was heard to say; “You are My son (My chosen heir and successor) ‘THIS DAY’ I have begotten thee,” means that Jesus definitely inherits the heavenly throne of our Father.



And what inheritance did Jesus receive from Joseph ben Jacob from the cursed line of Jehoichin, who married the already pregnant Mary 'AFTER' she had given birth to Jesus, the biological son of her half-brother Joseph ben Heli?



BS, The Lord God our saviour, filled the man Jesus with his spirit, on the day of his baptism, when he said; “You are my son, ‘THIS DAY’ I have begotten thee”.



No! Jesus was a normal human being, born of the union between Mary and her half-brother Joseph, who were both sired by Heli, the shorten name of Alexander Helios III, until the day that he was born ‘Son of God’, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of the spirit of our Lord God and saviour, which descended upon him in the form of a dove on the day he was baptised, as the heavenly voice was heard to say; “You are my Son, ‘THIS DAY’ I have begotten thee”.

Acts 17: 31; “For HE (The Lord God our saviour) has fixed a day when he shall judge the whole world with justice by means of a ‘MAN’ He has ‘CHOSEN’. He has given proof of this to everyone by raising that ‘MAN’ from death”.

Who do you believe was the 'MAN' who the Lord God our saviour raised from death, and who He had chosen to judge the whole world with Justice, on the 'DAY' that HE has fixed?

A discussion of the nuances of Cinderella or Snow White or The Little Mermaid...makes as much sense as the discussion here about some god or another.

That was my point.

Bottom line: None of that garbage makes much sense at all. But it is interesting, and a bit humorous, to watch some of these people taking the bullshit so seriously.