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

@Jasper10,

Perhaps you are unaware of the Deposit of Faith that throughout salvation history comes from Divine Revelation meaning COMES FROM GOD. As prophet, priest, and king, Jesus Christ the Second Person of the Triune Godhead shared in our humanity through the Immaculate Conception of his Holy Mother Mary. All dogmas of the Catholic Church COME FROM GOD acting throughout ALL of human history.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

want to forgive humans for offending it, by requiring them to first kill its son?

Has already been answered many times here... You have to accept or reject God's mercy as you will. I can't keep repeating the same things and expecting you to change your mind. True conversion comes from the heart. NOW is the time for MERCY - ask and you will receive, knock and it shall be opened.

0 Replies

@NealNealNeal,

All authority on earth is given by God to men. That's why capital punishment is right and just wars MUST be fought. Likewise, unjust laws need only not be obeyed, but MUST BE DISOBEYED, that we know bishops and popes canceling masses and shuttering churches for the plague is contrary to Traditional Catholic teaching. This is why thousands of martyrs were tortured and murdered for the greater glory of God and why thousands of witches and heretics were hunted and executed.

I think you know: Who will be judged harsher when he sins? The one who claims to do God's will or the one who professes the faith and keeps the commandments? There's no honor in making excuses for sin because you sought to avoid a greater sin. Likewise there is no forgiveness for the sin against the Holy Ghost.

2 Replies

@hester831,

catholics fight witches too?

0 Replies

@hester831,

So, if I understand you correctly then….it doesn’t say anywhere in the bible that Mary was without sin and so, as suspected, someone else has decided to add that little snippet.

Correct me if I’m wrong on that though and advise me of the specific biblical scripture where it does say she was without sin.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

God's love is like a parent. If a child goes around murdering puppies, does the parent hug them and tell them that they are such a sweet boy? Or do they get spanked (there are all these types that tell us spanking is abuse, but my parents would only spank on two sorts of occasions. These would be: if I was doing something that put the lives of others in danger, or my own life in danger. In other words, a child is hurt to teach them what pain feels like, so they won't go around being little shits who snap the necks of rabbits and one day maybe try to hurt other humans), and checked into a clinic to treat their murderous psycho tendencies?

Suppose then, this child falls in with some creepy suicide cult, and they are all gonna drink poison but the parent finds out. Does it have anything to do with egotism to think that maybe a mother might down that poison in hopes that her child lives on and straightens their lives out? Also, he didn't say "You have to torture and kill my son," the Jews and the Romans were quite willing to go around killing puppies on their own.o Or you know, ful grown humans.

For the record, I'm not sure I believe in eternal damnation. I've been in enough low points that I understand there's always a way out of things. Things do get better. Eternal damnation? Nahhh, it lasts only as long as you let it. I do believe in punishment, proportional to the perception of the crime.

1 Reply

@bulmabriefs144,

bulmabriefs144 wrote:

God's love is like a parent. If a child goes around murdering puppies, does the parent hug them and tell them that they are such a sweet boy? Or do they get spanked (there are all these types that tell us spanking is abuse, but my parents would only spank on two sorts of occasions. These would be: if I was doing something that put the lives of others in danger, or my own life in danger. In other words, a child is hurt to teach them what pain feels like, so they won't go around being little shits who snap the necks of rabbits and one day maybe try to hurt other humans), and checked into a clinic to treat their murderous psycho tendencies?

Suppose then, this child falls in with some creepy suicide cult, and they are all gonna drink poison but the parent finds out. Does it have anything to do with egotism to think that maybe a mother might down that poison in hopes that her child lives on and straightens their lives out? Also, he didn't say "You have to torture and kill my son," the Jews and the Romans were quite willing to go around killing puppies on their own.o Or you know, ful grown humans.

For the record, I'm not sure I believe in eternal damnation. I've been in enough low points that I understand there's always a way out of things. Things do get better. Eternal damnation? Nahhh, it lasts only as long as you let it. I do believe in punishment, proportional to the perception of the crime.

Yeah, and roses are red and violets are blue.

BUT...the question was:

"Why are you blindly guessing that there is a god...A LOVING GOD...but also guessing that the god would require a blood sacrifice in order to "forgive" people for offending it?"

WHY, OH, WHY?

A sin is just something a human does that offends the god.

If the god wants to forgive the "offense" it can, by just saying, "I forgive you."

And if the god wants to forgive the offense but wants to add the proviso, "I will forgive you for offending me, but first you must torture and kill my son"...IT CERTAINLY CAN DO THAT.

BUT WHY WOULD ANY SANE PERSON WORSHIP A GOD THAT WOULD DO THAT?

WHY?

Allow me a second question, because I doubt you will answer that one:

If you had a neighbor who claims you offended him...and predicated his forgiveness for offending him on first killing his son...

...would you feel any kind of love for that man?

Or would you report him to the police in hopes that the guy would end up in an asylum for the insane?

2 Replies

@Jasper10,

Wrong on both counts - keep trying, I am praying for you!

Perhaps it's all Greek to you, Mary Mother of God is called "full of grace" by the archangel Gabriel IN THE GOSPELS which are coincidentally in the Bible. God founded holy Church before the evangelists wrote the Bible. Before that God revealed to the prophets, namely Isaiah, the Virgin Birth of the Son of God (check out ch. 7).

But all this is moot, if I can call Holy Scripture moot, in this context, for God NEEDS NO BIBLE to explain himself. He chose to become man to found the Catholic Church. The first apostles and disciples understood the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary LONG before it needed to be written. Likewise, many understand the answers to your questions, but they would not have been provided had you not asked for them. Ask and you shall receive...

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Sacrifice is not something familiar to modern society. Doing without is anathema to throw-away culture which worships the acquisition of goods and money, i.e. materialism. For the poor today and for our ancestors life was hard, physically.

For the ancient Hebrew practice the sacrificed animal (a very valuable thing in those days when your life and your next meal and your clothing depended on animals and crops) was split into two halves; between which the priest walked from the altar to the people. When something is broken it must be repaired. The animal symbolizes the relationship between God and man. At first it is broken, but then the High Priest performs the sacrifice, and God does the rest. The necessity of sacrifice for the atonement of sins is well documented in the Scripture and Tradition. Not only a symbolic act, a sacrifice is a real offering - we the people will do without because we have offended God, who is without our proper worship. Only a proper sacrifice can atone for sins.

Now as you must be aware the Old Law was fulfilled by the perfect sacrifice of the Paschal Lamb with seven horns and seven eyes, not merely a symbol of God incarnate but a real, living man - just like anyone else. It's interesting you assert the necessity of torture and murder. From his earliest man's thoughts are filled with evil things. Hence, for the father Abraham who was circumcised at age 99 he had only one son, Isaac, which is translated, "laughter," who did not withhold his only son from the sacrificial altar even to the point of death as commanded by the angel. This covenant between God and man is through the Jews; but since salvation is for all men, the old law is no longer necessary. Hence, the perfidious Jews perform no animal sacrifices in Jerusalem (where the cult of the Mohammadeans is firmly entrenched) and no red heifer will be forthcoming for the rebuilding of a temple of stone. On the third day the stone was rolled away from the tomb and Christ is Risen.

If the old law brought condemnation for sin, death is required by everyone. But since we are now sons and daughters of Christ by adoption, we are not destined for death, but for life, through the sacrifice of Cavalry. God is ready to forgive all your sins; in fact they have already been forgiven. This is why Mary Most Holy was conceived without the original sin, because the merits of Jesus had already secured her redemption. You cannot worship what you do not know.

For your second question, all I can say is if your neighbor wrongs you, you must forgive him not seven times but seventy times seven times (forever, always, no grudges). You want to be confusing a sacrifice with a condition because you deny God's forgiveness. Every blasphemy against God and the Son of Man will be forgiven, but the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit WILL NOT BE FORGIVEN. Be careful not to let God's grace go unused.

1 Reply

@hester831,

Thanks for your response….Paul the apostle says in the the Christian bible that every word of scripture is the inspired word of God and that Jesus was without sin.Nowhere in the bible does it say that Mary was without sin.

0 Replies

@hester831,

Isaiah 7: 14; יד לָכֵן יִתֵּן אֲדֹנָי הוּא, לָכֶם--אוֹת: הִנֵּה הָעַלְמָה, הָרָה וְיֹלֶדֶת בֵּן, וְקָרָאת שְׁמוֹ, עִמָּנוּ אֵל. Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign: behold, the young woman shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

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.

The Hebrew has a specific term for ‘Virgin’ and that word is ‘Bethulah,’ which word is used in the Old Testament whenever a woman, who has never had any sexual contact with a man, is being referred too, but Isaiah does not use the word ‘Bethulah’ in the famous passage ‘Isaiah 7: 14,’ instead he uses the Hebrew ‘almah’ which refers to any woman of marriageable age, irrelevant as to her sexual status.

‘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 the authors of the Septuagint and those who translated Matthew’s Hebrew Gospel into the Greek, who translated Isaiah’s words, that an ‘almah’ (An unmarried woman would be with child etc) while being well aware of this words versatile and indefinite meaning; were in no way implying that Mary was a virgin when they were forced to use the Greek term ‘Parthenos’ in translating Isiah 7: 14.

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.
The Greek language did not have a specific word for virgin. The Greek ‘Parthenos’ refers to any youth, male or female, of marriageable age, irrelevant as to their sexual status, and denotes ‘virgin’ only by implication.

The young 13 years old unmarried Mary, was a ‘Parthenos,’ a young unmarried woman, who told the Messenger of God that she had never had sexual contact with a man, thereby implying that she was still, at that point in time, a virgin. But 6 months later after returning from the house of her aunty Elizabeth, where the family and friends had gathered their to rejoice with Elizabeth, when Mary was found to be pregnant to her half-brother Joseph the son of Heli, she was no longer a virgin.

When the Septuagint was translated from the Hebrew to Greek, hundreds of years before Jesus, the Hebrew translators were forced to use the Greek word ‘Parthenos’ when translating the Hebrew ‘almah’ to the Greek, and as Matthew’s gospel was originally written in Hebrew, when it was later translated to Greek, the same word ‘Parthenos’ was used to translate the Hebrew ‘almah.’

“The Greek word Parthenos (παρθένος) is ambiguous, but the Hebrew term “Almah” [Unmarried Female] is absolute, and is erroneously translated from Isaiah 7: 14, to English in Matthew 1:23; as “virgin,” whereas according to Young’s Analytical Concordance to the Bible, the Hebrew term “almah,” carries the meaning, (Concealment---unmarried female.)”

Isaiah 7: 14; Jewish Translation: “Therefore the Lord, of his own, shall give you a sign; behold the ‘YOUNG WOMAN’ is with child, and she shall bear a son and she shall call his name Immanuel.”

An ‘almah,’ [an unmarried girl,] can still be a virgin, as long as she has never had sexual intercourse with a man, but there is no way on this god’s earth that a young woman who is ‘WITH CHILD’ can still be a ‘virgin.’ There are of course those who would argue that an unmarried woman could be artificially inseminated without breaking her Hymen, and the male child that formed in her womb could be delivered by Caesarean Section, and the young woman would then remain a ‘virgin,’ but the child would be the biological son of the sperm donor, and not some miraculously born ‘Son of God.’

Isaiah 7: 14; Erroneous KJV Translation; “Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: behold the ‘Virgin’ shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Emmanuel.”

The actual word “Virgin” in reference to the mother of Jesus was not introduced, until the Latin Bible ‘The Vulgate’ was translated to English, when the Latin word ‘VIRGO’ was translated to Virgin. For just like the early Greek language, the Latin did not have a specific term for ‘VIRGIN’, their word “Virgo” refers to any young woman of marriageable age, whether or not she had previous sexual relations with a man. Even though, by the time of Jerome, the false teaching of the miraculous virgin birth of Jesus was firmly established.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Where is this "require" you speak of?

Read Genesis. A few chapters actually.

We are told that Adam and Eve originally sinned. But most of us don't realize that the original sin has nothing to do with sex or eating fruit or a snake which was obviously one-eyed, but humans rejecting the idea of living inside a perfect world in favor of an imperfect would of good and evil. Yes, that is really what's going on here. Eden is another dimension, where we left to live on Earth.

We are told the consequences of this is that we really screwed up. I actually think that since some Hindu text talks about a sort of fantastic nuke, that this wasn't so much God punishing us as having a ready to go coolant system in the form of rain. All that radioactivity, gets flushed deep underwater, were it gets diffused out. There are also hints of some sort of genetic crossbreeding, as we talk of the Nephilim. So yeah, big tech almost destroyed the world, and the point of religion is to put a halt on self-destruction and war. It's not about social justice, it's about not dooming humanity (it doesn't always work, btw).

Lastly, the story of Isaac. This is a sore point for non-religious types as they always go "See?!? See? This is why religion is bad!" But you don't understand what this scene looks like from the perspective of those there. God doesn't literally talk to us humans ( not as God, anyway). Rather events play out that make us do a course of action. Like so:
1. I, Abraham, must go to the mountain to make an offering to God for giving me a son.
2. I formerly thought Ishmael was going to have to be my son, but God showed me otherwise, so I sent him packing after the Lord provided Isaac.
3. I must make a sacrifice, because everyone is doing sacrifices around this time. The Canaanites, the Moabites, the Babylonians, you name it. I think that this God probably wants something too.
4. I don't really understand this God, but he has provided my son. I have no sacrifice. Maybe he's like these other gods and will require that I sacrifice my firstborn (also, I am a stupid tribal idiot who didn't think this through)
5. My son asks me where the sacrifice is. I tell him that the Lord will provide, as I know he already has.
6. The Lord provides another animal instead of my son, so I don't have to kill my own child.
7. (Because I am a stupid tribal idiot) I do not stop to think that maybe God doesn't need our sacrifices, but instead the Jews start butchering animals.

It's like that. Never at any point does God speak aloud to humans, except maybe in dreams. We humans hear what we wanna hear and interpret this as God's commands. God didn't ever command that Isaac be sacrificed, but rather there was a scarcity of sacrifices, so Abraham considered offering his own son. Between this and other signs, Israel decided that they were a chosen people (no more chosen than any other, but definitely more devoted to God).

So, back to Jesus. God didn't demand Jesus be sacrificed. Jesus was Emmanuel, God with us. The Bridge Between God and Man. By being born, and by dying in any way, including old age or suicide, he would be the connection between us and God. Because Jesus was there to beta-test, as you will, the situation of mankind would improve just by him living and dying. Yes, seriously, Jesus did Not have to die on the cross. Rather, he Chose to die on the cross because of two reasons:
1. He wanted to be a symbol to teach others that their sins were paid for (this was actually true before he came, but humans were in a state of misery because they did not know this), that they were forgiven.
2. The Roman and Jewish cultures had a shortage of mercy, and had to be shown for what they were. Jesus becoming a matrtyr was a fiasco from the standpoint of Roman society. Pilate's wife tells him not to do anything with this man. He tries and fails to instead kill Barabbas but the mob insists Jesus be killed. And then there is a cover up, where Romans and Jews insist his body was taken by the disciples. And then Christianity becomes a sort of plague on Roman society. They feed them to lions. But the more they persecute them, the more Christianity takes over Roman society. Soon, high ranking officials have converted. There is even a story of how 30 centurions were tortured to death in a cold water bath, trying to make them recant Christ. One did step out of the water, but he was taken over by someone who had just now converted. Basically, having Jesus die publicly on the cross was a blow to the Powers That Be, which were a killing machine. While Jesus could have quietly lived as a carpenter's son, he instead decided to make a difference. His death actually unraveled Rome, and produced a chain reaction that led to modern society.

We learn this from history. Roman empire gets weaker and weaker both from corruption and from fighting enemies without (to expand its empire, and because they were raiders not farmers, much like the Vikings) and within (trying to stop the conversion away from the pagan state religion which unified Rome and to people asking alot of questions). They get sacked by the Germans. The area becomes the HRE which is a number of small city-states. The Muslims sack much of the HRE. We have the Crusades and the Dark Ages. We finally expel the Muslims, and start reinventing things. We have the Renaissance. Then the remnants of the pagan-secular state form what is called the "Enlightment" where people question what actually got them out of the Dark Ages, which was a firm faith in God and a lot of librarians working hard to defend our records of history, no thanks to any atheists. Kinda like how when we abolished slavery, Dawkins' ancestors were busy holding slaves, but Christianity gets told they are part of the problem. So called "Enlightenment" . Didn't they cause the bloodbath that was the French Revolution?

1 Reply

@hester831,

I was with you until you started talking about Mary Most Holy.

Do yourself a favor. Get a Bible. Read Mark and Luke. You'll find that Jesus is the focus of this. That Mary is just some woman with a miraculous pregnancy. That Mary was not eternally chaste as the Catholic church teaches, and that several things they claim are unbiblical. There is no treasury of merit. You don't have to earn forgiveness, it's given as part of grace. Mary doesn't intercede (that's Jesus). We don't need to say Hail Mary. The Pope is not the head of the church (again, that's Jesus). And Mary had not only several sons but daughters as well.

https://www.gty.org/library/sermons-library/90-317/Exposing-the-Idolatry-of-Mary-Worship-What-the-Bible-Says

1 Reply

Oh. I thought it said "a Cod." Mighty tasty fish.

0 Replies

@bulmabriefs144,

bulmabriefs144 wrote:

Where is this "require" you speak of?

Read Genesis. A few chapters actually.

We are told that Adam and Eve originally sinned. But most of us don't realize that the original sin has nothing to do with sex or eating fruit or a snake which was obviously one-eyed, but humans rejecting the idea of living inside a perfect world in favor of an imperfect would of good and evil. Yes, that is really what's going on here. Eden is another dimension, where we left to live on Earth.

We are told the consequences of this is that we really screwed up. I actually think that since some Hindu text talks about a sort of fantastic nuke, that this wasn't so much God punishing us as having a ready to go coolant system in the form of rain. All that radioactivity, gets flushed deep underwater, were it gets diffused out. There are also hints of some sort of genetic crossbreeding, as we talk of the Nephilim. So yeah, big tech almost destroyed the world, and the point of religion is to put a halt on self-destruction and war. It's not about social justice, it's about not dooming humanity (it doesn't always work, btw).

Lastly, the story of Isaac. This is a sore point for non-religious types as they always go "See?!? See? This is why religion is bad!" But you don't understand what this scene looks like from the perspective of those there. God doesn't literally talk to us humans ( not as God, anyway). Rather events play out that make us do a course of action. Like so:
1. I, Abraham, must go to the mountain to make an offering to God for giving me a son.
2. I formerly thought Ishmael was going to have to be my son, but God showed me otherwise, so I sent him packing after the Lord provided Isaac.
3. I must make a sacrifice, because everyone is doing sacrifices around this time. The Canaanites, the Moabites, the Babylonians, you name it. I think that this God probably wants something too.
4. I don't really understand this God, but he has provided my son. I have no sacrifice. Maybe he's like these other gods and will require that I sacrifice my firstborn (also, I am a stupid tribal idiot who didn't think this through)
5. My son asks me where the sacrifice is. I tell him that the Lord will provide, as I know he already has.
6. The Lord provides another animal instead of my son, so I don't have to kill my own child.
7. (Because I am a stupid tribal idiot) I do not stop to think that maybe God doesn't need our sacrifices, but instead the Jews start butchering animals.

It's like that. Never at any point does God speak aloud to humans, except maybe in dreams. We humans hear what we wanna hear and interpret this as God's commands. God didn't ever command that Isaac be sacrificed, but rather there was a scarcity of sacrifices, so Abraham considered offering his own son. Between this and other signs, Israel decided that they were a chosen people (no more chosen than any other, but definitely more devoted to God).

So, back to Jesus. God didn't demand Jesus be sacrificed. Jesus was Emmanuel, God with us. The Bridge Between God and Man. By being born, and by dying in any way, including old age or suicide, he would be the connection between us and God. Because Jesus was there to beta-test, as you will, the situation of mankind would improve just by him living and dying. Yes, seriously, Jesus did Not have to die on the cross. Rather, he Chose to die on the cross because of two reasons:
1. He wanted to be a symbol to teach others that their sins were paid for (this was actually true before he came, but humans were in a state of misery because they did not know this), that they were forgiven.
2. The Roman and Jewish cultures had a shortage of mercy, and had to be shown for what they were. Jesus becoming a matrtyr was a fiasco from the standpoint of Roman society. Pilate's wife tells him not to do anything with this man. He tries and fails to instead kill Barabbas but the mob insists Jesus be killed. And then there is a cover up, where Romans and Jews insist his body was taken by the disciples. And then Christianity becomes a sort of plague on Roman society. They feed them to lions. But the more they persecute them, the more Christianity takes over Roman society. Soon, high ranking officials have converted. There is even a story of how 30 centurions were tortured to death in a cold water bath, trying to make them recant Christ. One did step out of the water, but he was taken over by someone who had just now converted. Basically, having Jesus die publicly on the cross was a blow to the Powers That Be, which were a killing machine. While Jesus could have quietly lived as a carpenter's son, he instead decided to make a difference. His death actually unraveled Rome, and produced a chain reaction that led to modern society.

We learn this from history. Roman empire gets weaker and weaker both from corruption and from fighting enemies without (to expand its empire, and because they were raiders not farmers, much like the Vikings) and within (trying to stop the conversion away from the pagan state religion which unified Rome and to people asking alot of questions). They get sacked by the Germans. The area becomes the HRE which is a number of small city-states. The Muslims sack much of the HRE. We have the Crusades and the Dark Ages. We finally expel the Muslims, and start reinventing things. We have the Renaissance. Then the remnants of the pagan-secular state form what is called the "Enlightment" where people question what actually got them out of the Dark Ages, which was a firm faith in God and a lot of librarians working hard to defend our records of history, no thanks to any atheists. Kinda like how when we abolished slavery, Dawkins' ancestors were busy holding slaves, but Christianity gets told they are part of the problem. So called "Enlightenment" . Didn't they cause the bloodbath that was the French Revolution?

The need to rationalize a pathetic myth runs deep in you, Bulma.

You must really fear this demon god of yours.

0 Replies

@bulmabriefs144,

bulmabriefs144 wrote:

I was with you until you started talking about Mary Most Holy.

Do yourself a favor. Get a Bible. Read Mark and Luke. You'll find that Jesus is the focus of this. That Mary is just some woman with a miraculous pregnancy. That Mary was not eternally chaste as the Catholic church teaches, and that several things they claim are unbiblical. There is no treasury of merit. You don't have to earn forgiveness, it's given as part of grace. Mary doesn't intercede (that's Jesus). We don't need to say Hail Mary. The Pope is not the head of the church (again, that's Jesus). And Mary had not only several sons but daughters as well.

https://www.gty.org/library/sermons-library/90-317/Exposing-the-Idolatry-of-Mary-Worship-What-the-Bible-Says

Now you're chopping wood, Bulma. Show how much you hate the Catholic Church...and how that makes you a better Christian...a truer follower of the teachings attributed to Jesus.

Now you are on the right track.

1 Reply

@hester831,

In the New Testament, "Holy Wars" are exclusively fought against Satan and demons in spiritual battles. Did Jesus kill people who were possessed by demons? No, He dealt with the demons. In the book of Acts, the apostles did likewise. In what is called the "Great Commission" Jesus said that all authority was given to Him in heaven and on earth. Did He then say "so fight Holy Wars against those who don't believe"? NO, NO, NO. Jesus told them to spread the gospel and make disciples.
Paul had to rebuke Peter for " acting like a hypocrite". Peter was not Jesus' replacement. He was a more mature version of the man who once was told by Jesus to "get behind me, Satan". The actual substitute for Jesus is the. Holy Spirit.
Constantine started a process that led to horrendous actions by the leaders of the Catholic Church. Would it be wrong to say that the actions of these leaders were the opposite of the actions of Jesus?
What did a Jew living in 11th century Europe have to do with the death of Jesus (beyond the responsibility that ALL people have of sinning against God)? Nothing.
I accepted Jesus as Lord and Savior because of Jesus. Catholicism had nothing to do with it. I would think that the various Popes would have acted a lot more like Jesus.

1 Reply

@The Anointed,

Note to all:
Isaiah 7:14 is one of several controversial verses in the Hebrew Bible between Christians and Jews. What is interesting is that the true argument is between the gospel and the Jewish individual.

1 Reply

@NealNealNeal,

Where would you say the Holy Ghost is now? How can God contradict himself? Isn't it more likely foolish men are falling short of perfection here? (Rhetorical questions - forgive me!)

Where would you like that hypothetical Jew victim in 11th century Europe to be NOW? How do YOU PRESUME INNOCENCE when all souls belong to Jesus Christ, who by the way, was a Jewish man? If a heretic or witch or criminal is executed (on a cross perhaps?) regardless of guilt, what more can be done to that person? Fear not the one who can destroy the body only, but the body and the soul. I accept everyone can choose their own religion. Everybody here rejects Traditional Catholicism which is news to me! I WILL NOT tolerate my own moral cowardice in the outrages committed in this forum against God Almighty, his Church triumphant and militant, and Mary Theotokos Queen of Heaven and Earth. Until then, there's not some "spiritual battle" remotely fought against invisible boogeymen. Without the Holy Wars and Crusades Europe would have fallen to the Muslims and their holy wars and jihads and you would be defending Mohammad instead of Paul. See the difference yet? I doubt it, but I tried!

1 Reply

@NealNealNeal,

If the Lord wanted to convey the message that a virgin would be pregnant and bear a son, he would have had his prophet 'Isaiah' use the Hebrew word 'Bethulah" which refers to any woman who has never had sexual contact with a man, and her hymen was still intact.

But instead, he had his prophet use the Hebrew "almah" which refers to an unmarried woman, even if she had 5 sons and was never married, she would remain an 'almah' but never a virgin.

In his 2nd letter to the Corinthians 11: 4; Paul says, “You gladly tolerate anyone who comes to you and preaches a different Jesus, not the one we preached; and you accept a spirit and a gospel completely different from the spirit and the gospel you received from us.”

So, what was that other gospel that was leading the people away from the truth and away from the Jesus as preached by the Apostles, to another false Jesus?

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, whose humanlike body was able to pass through Mary’s Hymen without breaking it, and who, like some Hologram, would appear and disappear at will.

Even in the days of John the beloved disciple, ‘Docetism,’ the concept that Jesus had existed as a spirit rather than a human being, and could appear and disappear like some hologram, had begun to rear its ugly head. That’s why it is written in 1 John 4: 1-3; My dear friends, do not believe all who claim to have the 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 whether it is God's Spirit: anyone who acknowledges that Jesus Christ 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 Christ; you heard that it would come, and now it is here in the world already.

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.” Where would one expect to find the teaching that Jesus was not a true human being, “Born of the seed of Adam” which teaching has been spread ALL OVER THE WORLD?

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.

Yet there still persisted the belief that their 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.” Even though the scriptures state that it was because Jesus was hungry, that Satan tried to tempt him into turning the 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, did not need to eat, drink, or go to the toilet, as was taught by one of the great teachers that the authorities of Emperor Constantine’s universal church, used as one of their authorities when trying to defend their false doctrines.

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 be at the birth of Jesus, (Non-biblical) 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. (All non biblical).

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?" they certainly got that right, but by then the false teaching of the so-called virgin birth had become firmly established in the minds of the gullible.

In 1973, an ecumenical edition of RSV was approved by both Protestant and Catholic hierarchies, called the common bible. A New English Translation of the Bible, published in 1970 and approved by the council of churches in England, Scotland, Wales, the Irish council of churches, the London Society of Friends, and the Methodist and Presbyterian churches of England, all translate Isaiah 7: 14; “A young Woman is with child, and she will bear a son.”

Also, The Good News Bible, Catholic Study Edition, with imprimatur by Archbishop John Whealon reads, Isaiah 7: 14; “A young woman who is pregnant will have a son, etc.” As these religious bodies all now accept that Isaiah was not referring to a virgin in that famous passage, they must now accept that the authors of the Septuagint and the translators of the Gospel of Matthew from the Hebrew to Greek, who were forced to use the Greek term “Parthenos” in reference to Isaiah’s prophecy, were in no way implying that the pregnant Mary, was still a virgin.

Matthew 1: 22-23; should now read; ‘Now all this happened to make come true what the Lord had said through the prophet [Isaiah],’ “An unmarried woman/Almah who is pregnant will bear a son and he will be called immanuel: (“which means God is with us.”)

The point of the prophecy is not in the fact that an unmarried woman would bear a son, but that a child conceived out of wedlock (A Bastad) would be seen as the vessel in which the Lord would fill with his spirit and reveal himself to us, (“God is with us.”)

In 1st Chronicles 17: 13; Concerning Solomon, who was born of the adulterous union of David and Bathsbeba and the murder of her husband Uriah, God says of Solomon, “I shall be his Father and he shall be my Son” and God blesses him with the rulership of one of the most glorious periods in Jewish history. God does not judge as we mere humans judge.

1 Reply

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know