What are your Thoughts on this:?

4/9/2017 6:26:49 PM	What are your Thoughts on this:?
iam_resurrected Reno, NV 46, joined Jul. 2014	Actually the "ORIGINAL text" for the Gospel of Christ, "did not" include, the virgin birth. The virgin birth, was "added", by the Romans (who were pagan). Here is Hebrew evidence, and historical proof, of Roman tampering: The Problems With the New Testament Notes James Still: "Biblical scholars have long ago dismissed the literal interpretation of the miraculous Virgin-Birth of the Messiah. Also, many...Christian denominations have either quietly purged this curious piece of teaching from their body of philosophy, or conveniently ignore the issue altogether. Despite this, the allure of such an intriguing concept is still very powerful and the Messiah's Virgin Birth continues to enjoy the unquestioning belief of millions of people" (Origins of the Virgin Birth Myth). There is a lot of evidence to show that the original Hebrew or Aramaic forms of both Matthew and Luke were -- like the present Gospel of Mark -- WITHOUT the first two chapters, starting their accounts of the Messiah's ministry with John the Baptist's calling. It is a fact that the Ebionites of the second to fourth centuries after the Messiah, used the Gospel of Matthew written in Aramaic but WITHOUT the Virgin Birth narrative -- unlike our version of this gospel that, like Luke, includes the Virgin Birth story. Writes Barrie Wilson -- "...they [the Ebionites] did not accept the virgin birth story at all since this MYTHOLOGY does not find its roots in Jewish thinking. So, unlike later Christians [of the Roman Catholic variety], they did not see Jesus as a divine being. Nor did they think that Jesus 'preexisted' his human form in any fashion...He was, like you and me, HUMAN IN ALL RESPECTS, feeling our pain, joy, sorrow, and gladness. He became God's CHOSEN Messiah because God judged him more righteous than any other person" (How Jesus Became Christian, St. Martin's Press, N.Y. 2008, p. 100). However, a conscientious "Seeker of Truth" can still spiritually discern most of the truth from the highly biased translations of the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) that have come down to us. The New Testament we have today is at least a THIRD LEVEL translation of the original Apostolic Writings and Epistles that have mysteriously vanished. These Gospels and Epistles were originally translated from the Aramaic or Hebrew by uninspired Hellenized Judahites -- followed by pagan Greeks and canonized by the equally paganized ancient Roman Universal (Catholic) Church and government of the Roman god and Emperor Constantine "the Great." Hope of Israel Ministries -- Proclaiming the Good News of the Soon-Coming Kingdom of YEHOVAH God! So the "virgin Mary" story, was added, by Roman pagans who made Christ a baby. By this proof, there would be "no myth" about a virgin birth. Meet singles at DateHookup.dating, we're 100% free! Join now!
4/9/2017 7:00:05 PM	What are your Thoughts on this:?
ludlowlowell Panama City, FL 64, joined Feb. 2008 online now!	If that part of tge Bible is made up, maybe the whole Bible is made up. See where that slippery slope goes? If Jesus has had a human father, how could He have been the Incarnate Son of God?
4/9/2017 7:20:38 PM	What are your Thoughts on this:?
cupocheer Assumption, IL 68, joined May. 2010	Does anyone find it "odd" that the virgin birth is only mentioned in 2 of the 4 gospels and the 2 gospels it is mentioned are the 2 gospels attributed to the influence of writers who relied heavily on the writings of (John) Mark, who never knew Jesus but learned and wrote from the teachings of his mentor, (Simon) Peter, the Apostle. If Mark (mentored by an original apostle) and John (an apostle) didn't write about the virgin birth, why wouldn't they? Wouldn't that have been more of a miraculous Godly intervention than healing a leper or making a blind man see? And the two original apostles (Peter & John) never mentioned this virgin birth? Yet here comes (Saul) Paul [who was stoned, beaten, and run out of town by Christians because of false teaching and heresy] telling his friend, Luke the story and Luke writing it down. And Matthew must have read or heard the story in later years because most of his book is a duplicate of Mark, except for the virgin birth story. Thoughts?
4/9/2017 7:20:39 PM	What are your Thoughts on this:?
bigd9832 Chicago, IL 64, joined Oct. 2007	It is amazing what liberties the Catholic church took with the Bible. But then, they think they own it. Haven't you heard ludlow say things that might lead you to believe that? It just never occurred to them that there might be some who might actually want to follow it. And even King James continued that tradition.
4/9/2017 7:51:00 PM	What are your Thoughts on this:?
followjesusonly Kingman, AZ 74, joined May. 2012	There was no "virgin birth." Joseph and Mary were married and had sex just like all other normal people. 122:5.8 When Joseph was a young man, he was employed by Mary’s father in the work of building an addition to his house, and it was when Mary brought Joseph a cup of water, during a noontime meal, that the courtship of the pair who were destined to become the parents of Jesus really began. 122:5.9 Joseph and Mary were married, in accordance with Jewish custom, at Mary’s home in the environs of Nazareth when Joseph was twenty-one years old. This marriage concluded a normal courtship of almost two years’ duration. Shortly thereafter they moved into their new home in Nazareth, which had been built by Joseph with the assistance of two of his brothers. The house was located near the foot of the near-by elevated land which so charmingly overlooked the surrounding countryside. In this home, especially prepared, these young and expectant parents had thought to welcome the child of promise, little realizing that this momentous event of a universe was to transpire while they would be absent from home in Bethlehem of Judea. -The Urantia Book Quote from iam_resurrected: Actually the "ORIGINAL text" for the Gospel of Christ, "did not" include, the virgin birth. The virgin birth, was "added", by the Romans (who were pagan). Here is Hebrew evidence, and historical proof, of Roman tampering: The Problems With the New Testament Notes James Still: "Biblical scholars have long ago dismissed the literal interpretation of the miraculous Virgin-Birth of the Messiah. Also, many...Christian denominations have either quietly purged this curious piece of teaching from their body of philosophy, or conveniently ignore the issue altogether. Despite this, the allure of such an intriguing concept is still very powerful and the Messiah's Virgin Birth continues to enjoy the unquestioning belief of millions of people" (Origins of the Virgin Birth Myth). There is a lot of evidence to show that the original Hebrew or Aramaic forms of both Matthew and Luke were -- like the present Gospel of Mark -- WITHOUT the first two chapters, starting their accounts of the Messiah's ministry with John the Baptist's calling. It is a fact that the Ebionites of the second to fourth centuries after the Messiah, used the Gospel of Matthew written in Aramaic but WITHOUT the Virgin Birth narrative -- unlike our version of this gospel that, like Luke, includes the Virgin Birth story. Writes Barrie Wilson -- "...they [the Ebionites] did not accept the virgin birth story at all since this MYTHOLOGY does not find its roots in Jewish thinking. So, unlike later Christians [of the Roman Catholic variety], they did not see Jesus as a divine being. Nor did they think that Jesus 'preexisted' his human form in any fashion...He was, like you and me, HUMAN IN ALL RESPECTS, feeling our pain, joy, sorrow, and gladness. He became God's CHOSEN Messiah because God judged him more righteous than any other person" (How Jesus Became Christian, St. Martin's Press, N.Y. 2008, p. 100). However, a conscientious "Seeker of Truth" can still spiritually discern most of the truth from the highly biased translations of the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) that have come down to us. The New Testament we have today is at least a THIRD LEVEL translation of the original Apostolic Writings and Epistles that have mysteriously vanished. These Gospels and Epistles were originally translated from the Aramaic or Hebrew by uninspired Hellenized Judahites -- followed by pagan Greeks and canonized by the equally paganized ancient Roman Universal (Catholic) Church and government of the Roman god and Emperor Constantine "the Great." Hope of Israel Ministries -- Proclaiming the Good News of the Soon-Coming Kingdom of YEHOVAH God! So the "virgin Mary" story, was added, by Roman pagans who made Christ a baby. By this proof, there would be "no myth" about a virgin birth.
4/9/2017 7:56:24 PM	What are your Thoughts on this:?
followjesusonly Kingman, AZ 74, joined May. 2012	And Ludlow says: "If Jesus has had a human father, how could He have been the Incarnate Son of God?" ============================================================================== That's God's problem, not yours. You don't even love God according to Jesus, so what do you care about the truth of the matter? You are confusion personified.
4/9/2017 8:22:41 PM	What are your Thoughts on this:?
followjesusonly Kingman, AZ 74, joined May. 2012	Ludlow says: "If Jesus has had a human father, how could He have been the Incarnate Son of God?" ================================================================================ I wonder how God managed to create the entire Universe without your input reminding Him of His limits as you see them?
4/9/2017 8:42:02 PM	What are your Thoughts on this:?
looptex1 Chatsworth, GA 49, joined Jun. 2008	Well what do you do with the prophet Isaiah? Did someone tamper with his writings also?? Isaiah 7 14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel
4/9/2017 8:57:43 PM	What are your Thoughts on this:?
ludlowlowell Panama City, FL 64, joined Feb. 2008 online now!	Quote from looptex1: Well what do you do with the prophet Isaiah? Did someone tamper with his writings also?? Isaiah 7 14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel For once Loop and I are in total agreement.
4/9/2017 9:38:16 PM	What are your Thoughts on this:?
iam_resurrected Reno, NV 46, joined Jul. 2014	Isaiah 7: 14 Wherefore, Yahweh Himself will give a sign to you: Behold! "the damsel" shall be pregnant and bear a son, and you call his name Emmanu-El." KJV Dictionary Definition: damsel damsel With her train of damsels she was gone. Dryden. Then Boaz said, whose damsel is this? Ruth ii. This word is rarely used in conversation, or even in prose writings of the present day; but it occurs frequently in the scriptures, and in poetry. [Edited 4/9/2017 9:38:36 PM ]
4/9/2017 9:38:33 PM	What are your Thoughts on this:?
followjesusonly Kingman, AZ 74, joined May. 2012	Loop says: Well what do you do with the prophet Isaiah? Did someone tamper with his writings also?? Isaiah 7 14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel ============================================================================ Have you ever considered asking a Jewish rabbi what Isaiah 7:14 means? It's their scriptures. What do they say about it?
4/9/2017 9:59:25 PM	What are your Thoughts on this:?
followjesusonly Kingman, AZ 74, joined May. 2012	Isaiah 7:14 – A Virgin Birth? Many Christians and professional missionaries like to quote the following verse as a proof-text. “Behold the Lord Himself will give you a sign, a Virgin shall conceive and bear a son and she shall call his name Immanuel.” Isaiah 7:14 They claim that this passage prophesies the miraculous virgin birth of the Messiah and that Jesus is the only one who could have fulfilled it. They also point out that the name Immanuel literally means “God is with us,” and use this as a proof of the divine nature of this individual. The New Testament book of Matthew recounts the genealogy[1] of Jesus starting from Abraham and ending with Joseph the husband of Mary. It claims (Matthew 1:18-25) that when they were betrothed and had not yet consummated their marriage Joseph discovered that Mary was with child and still a virgin. Not wanting to disgrace her he planned to put her away secretly. Only afterwards does the gospel claim that an angel comes and informs Joseph that this event is the fulfillment of the prophecy in Isaiah. This entire story is extremely puzzling and a major question begs to be answered. If the prophesy in Isaiah 7:14 is so clear and fundamental to the coming of the Messiah, why was Joseph, a descendant of King David, totally oblivious to it. Upon discovering that his virgin wife was with child he should have jumped for joy that this may be the precursor to the arrival of the Messiah. Instead he suspects her of infidelity. The answer is simply. This passage in Isaiah isn’t speaking about the Messiah or a virgin birth. Let’s begin by examining the context of the seventh chapter of Isaiah. In the same way that America and Korea were divided into North and South during their Civil wars, at this point in Jewish history the Jewish nation was divided into two kingdoms,[2] known as the Southern Kingdom of Judea and the Northern Kingdom of Israel. Each kingdom had its own capital, king and enemies. The Southern Kingdom of Judea had its capital in Jerusalem and was ruled by King Ahaz. The Northern Kingdom of Israel had its capital in Samaria and was ruled by King Pekah. To the north of both these kingdoms was a third, non-Jewish ruler, King Resin of Aram (Syria) whose capital was Damascus. God dispatched the prophet Isaiah and one of his sons to warn King Ahaz that the northern kingdom had formed an alliance with this King RezinThey had joined forces to “wage war against Jerusalem.” Isaiah tells King Ahaz (verse 4) that he should not be afraid because God will be with him and the invasion with fail. Additionally, within 65 years the northern kingdom will cease to exist and its 10 tribes would be led into exile by Assyria. This is where the idea of ten lost tribes originates. Although Ahaz was an evil king, God would continue to protect Jerusalem in the merit of his righteous predecessors. When Ahaz ignores Isaiah’s warning the prophet tells him to request a sign from God. After Ahaz refuses this offer, Isaiah informs him that God will give him a sign despite his stubbornness. He tells King Ahaz that: “The Lord Himself will give you a sign. Behold the Almah (?????????) shall conceive and give birth to a son and she shall call his name Immanuel.” Isaiah 7:14 The word Almah has been mistranslated by most Christians as “virgin.” In truth, this word means “young woman.” Additionally, the definite article (Ha-?) means “the” and indicates that the prophet is speaking about a specific woman who he can point to. Interestingly when Matthew quotes this passage he not only mistranslates “young woman” as “virgin” but, to deflect the reference from a specific woman standing before Isaiah, he intentionally mistranslates “the young woman” as “a virgin.” To prove that “Almah” does in fact mean “a virgin” missionaries fallaciously assert that this word is used 7 times in the bible and that it always refers to a woman who is a virgin. First, those who translate Isaiah 7:14 as “virgin” inconsistently translate the other six places a as “maiden or young woman” revealing their intentional mistranslation. The word “Almah” should always be translated as “a young woman.” This word alone does not teach us anything about her sexual status. It simply informs us that she is young. This is also true of the masculine form of the word “Almah” which is the Hebrew word (Alem ?????) which means “a young man“, as in the following examples: “Whose son is this young man (???????)” Samuel I (17:56) “If I say thus to the young man” Samuel I (20:22) In both cases the word “Alem” only teaches that this man is young, it gives no indication of his sexual status, which by men is indiscernible. The Hebrew bible has a completely different word for virgin. The specific Hebrew word is (Betulah – ??????????). This word has no masculine form and indicates the physical sexual status of a woman. It is always translated as “virgin.” For example: “the girl was very beautiful, a virgin (??????????), and no man had had any relations with her” Genesis 24:16 “I took the woman, but when I came near her, I did not find her a virgin (??????????)” Deut 22:14 “And they found among the inhabitants of Jabesh 400 young virgins that had known no man.” Judges 21:12 These verses show us that the word “Betulah” means “a virgin who has not had physical relations with a man,” regardless of her age. She could be 100 years old or 18 years old. If Isaiah had wanted to tell us the physical status of the woman he would have used the specific word “Betulah,” a word he was familiar with and uses in his writings (see Isaiah 47:1). Missionary are incorrect when they claim that whenever the word “Almah” is used it is referring to a young woman who is also a virgin.[3] Here are some examples were it cannot mean a virgin: “There are sixty queens, and eighty concubines and young women (Almot) without number, my dove my undefiled is but one, she is the only one of her mother, she is the choice of her that bore her,” Song of Songs 6:8-9 “There are three things which are to wonderful for me, yes, four which I know not. The way of the eagle in the air, the way of a serpent on a rock, the way of a ship in the midst of the sea and the way of a man with a young woman (Almah). Likewise, the way of an adulterous woman, she eats, and wipes her mouth and says, ‘I have done nothing wrong’.” Proverbs 30:18-20 The common characteristic: “the way” is that they all leave no trace, just like an adulterous woman who claims she has done nothing wrong, and there is no trace of her act, so too the eagle leaves no trace in the air, a snake leaves no trace on a rock, a ship leaves no trace in the midst of the sea, so too the young woman (Almah) with a man leaves no sign which is not the case of a virgin who leaves a sign of blood called “the token of her virginity” Deuteronomy 21:15-19. We also see this in the verse: “Bring out the evidence of the girl’s virginity” Deuteronomy 22:15 Missionaries attempt to prove that “Almah” means a “virgin” by referring to an ancient Greek translation of the Bible, called the Septuagint, which was carried out by 70 rabbis approximately 165 years before Jesus. They claim that in Isaiah 7:14 the word “Almah” is translated as the Greek “parthenos” which they claim means virgin. Continued in part 2
4/9/2017 10:00:17 PM	What are your Thoughts on this:?
followjesusonly Kingman, AZ 74, joined May. 2012	Part 2: There are several problems with this claim. First, the Septuagint also translates the Hebrew word (Narah-??????-maiden) in Genesis 34:3 as “parthenos-?a??????-.” “…Shechem…took her and lay with her by force. And his soul was drawn to her …and he loved the maiden (Narah -????), and he spoke to the heart of the maiden (Narah- ????).” Genesis 34:2-3 In context, this passage is speaking about Dinah the daughter of Jacob, after she was raped by a non-Jew know as Shechem. Obviously, she was not a virgin and we cannot rely on the Septuagint’s inaccurate translation. Secondly, according to both Jewish and Greek traditions, (see Babylonian Talmud Megila 9a and Aristeos’ letter to King Ptolemy) the Septuagint translation attributed to the 70 Rabbi’s was exclusively the Five Books of Moses and did not include the Prophets and the Holy writings, thereby distancing itself from any Greek translation of Isaiah. Additionally, there are no original copies of the Septuagint. Today’s versions are taken from second and third century manuscripts that had been corrupted by non-Jewish writers. That is why the introduction to the Zondervan Septuagint points out that “the Pentateuch is considered to be the best executed, while the book of Isaiah appears to be the worst.” Numerous Christian translations like The New Revised Standard Version recognize this mistake and correctly translate “Almah” as “the young woman.” Whether the woman mentioned by Isaiah is a virgin is completely irrelevant. How would anyone know without doing a physical examine and even then, this is not absolute proof. Examining the Hebrew more closely we note that the Hebrew verbs for “conceived – harah” and “will give birth – yoledet” are used throughout scriptures to refer to natural conceptions and birth, as in: “And man new his wife and she conceived (tahar) and bore (taled) and bore Cain” Genesis 4:1 These are the same verbs used in Isaiah 7:14 and refer to a natural birth. The sign mentioned in Isaiah 7:14 has nothing to do with a miraculous birth. In context Isaiah is speaking about a specific young woman who will become pregnant during the life time of Isaiah and King Ahaz. A miraculous virgin birth that supposedly took place over 560 years later would be irrelevant to Ahaz, who required a sign prior to an imminent military invasion. Christians attempt to avoid this problem by claiming that this is a “double level prophesy” that happens both during the time of Ahaz and again in the time of Jesus. If Christians want to believe that the word Almah means a virgin and simultaneously claim a “double level prophesy” they would have to believe that a virgin birth took place in the time of Ahaz. However, this never occurred and would also contradict the claim that Jesus’ virgin birth is unique. The sign mentioned in verse 14 to Ahaz is that the two kings who threatened King Ahaz would be destroyed quickly. This sign is described in the next verse: “before the child knows enough to refuse evil and choose good the land whose two kings you dread will be forsaken” Isaiah 7:15 It is fulfilled in the next chapter with the birth of a child to the prophet Isaiah: “he (Isaiah) approached the prophetess and she conceived (tahar) and bore (taled) a son and God said to me: Name the child “Maher-shalal-hash-baz” which means (the spoil speeds the prey hastens). For before the child shall know how to cry my father my mother the riches of Damascus and the spoil of Sammaria will be carried away before the king of Assyria.” Isaiah 8:4 Clearly, the woman mentioned in Isaiah 7:14 and 8:3-4 are one and the same and that she is Isaiah’s wife. The real sign to King Ahaz is that Isaiah’s child will be born quickly and before he matures (knowing the difference between good and evil and father and mother) the nations who threaten the Kingdom of Judea will be defeated. Interestingly, Isaiah’s children are specifically referred to as a “signs” from God. “Behold I and the children whom the Lord has given me are for signs and wonders in Israel.” Isaiah 8:18 King Ahaz was told to trust in G-d for assistance and to ask for a sign as proof that his enemies would be defeated. He is told that the sign will be the birth of a child from the young woman who will call the child (Immanuel –??????).[4] Although this name mean ‘God is with us” it does not mean that the child will be divine. It is very common for biblical personality to have names that include God and part of their name. For example, (Daniel –?????) means “God is my Judge.” The implication was that G-d would be with Ahaz and the Kingdom of Judah in their fight against their enemies. Isaiah refers to this when he says: “Contrive a scheme, but it will be foiled; conspire a plot, but it will not stand, for God is with us (Emanu El).” Isaiah 8:10 Eventually the Northern Kingdom of Israel and Aram-Syria are vanquished by the armies of Sennacherib King of Assyria (Babylon) who exiled the northern kingdom: “The king of Assyria invaded the entire country… the king of Assyria captured Samaria and exiled Israel” 2 Kings 17:5-6 “Thus God saved Hezikiah (son of Ahaz) and the inhabitants of Jerusalem from the hand of Sennacherib King of Assyria.” 2 Chronicles 32:22 The concept of a virgin birth preceded Christianity and has its roots in Greco-Roman mythology. Numerous Greek and Roman gods were born of virgin births, as recorded in the “Golden Bough” by Frazer, for example Tammus and Attis who both were claimed to be of virgin births. The concept of the virgin birth was adopted by Christianity from the pagan world and has no foundation in Judaism. Isaiah is clearly describing an event that has no Messianic connotations. In fact, the word Messiah is never used in this chapter. © 2005 Written and compiled by Rabbi Bentzion Kravitz
4/9/2017 10:24:48 PM	What are your Thoughts on this:?
cupocheer Assumption, IL 68, joined May. 2010	Quote from iam_resurrected: Isaiah 7: 14 Wherefore, Yahweh Himself will give a sign to you: Behold! "the damsel" shall be pregnant and bear a son, and you call his name Emmanu-El." KJV Dictionary Definition: damsel damsel With her train of damsels she was gone. Dryden. Then Boaz said, whose damsel is this? Ruth ii. This word is rarely used in conversation, or even in prose writings of the present day; but it occurs frequently in the scriptures, and in poetry. The ancient Hebrew word "rama" (sic) -- damsel in effect is the word "wonb". You're welcome.
4/9/2017 10:26:28 PM	What are your Thoughts on this:?
ludlowlowell Panama City, FL 64, joined Feb. 2008 online now!	Correctly translated versions say "virgin", not "damsal" or "young woman". A child born to just another youngvwoman, what kind of prophecy is that? And why is it hard to velieve that an all-powerful God can't allow a virgin to become pregnant? "How can this be, when I know not man?" "With God, all things are possible."
4/9/2017 10:44:12 PM	What are your Thoughts on this:?
iam_resurrected Reno, NV 46, joined Jul. 2014	John, the most detailed, of the Gospels Reveals: Christ, is the WORD manifested in flesh as God, "I AM TO BE" (the name by which God revealed to Moses/burning bush), the FATHER, and much more. John is the greatest Book, in the New testament, on Christ. And what did John not include? The "MYTH", about, the virgin birth story. That was added, by the pagan, Roman Catholics.
4/9/2017 10:49:04 PM	What are your Thoughts on this:?
ludlowlowell Panama City, FL 64, joined Feb. 2008 online now!	How could Jesus be the Incarnate Son of God if He had a human father?
4/9/2017 11:29:52 PM	What are your Thoughts on this:?
looptex1 Chatsworth, GA 49, joined Jun. 2008	Quote from iam_resurrected: Isaiah 7: 14 Wherefore, Yahweh Himself will give a sign to you: Behold! "the damsel" shall be pregnant and bear a son, and you call his name Emmanu-El." KJV Dictionary Definition: damsel damsel With her train of damsels she was gone. Dryden. Then Boaz said, whose damsel is this? Ruth ii. This word is rarely used in conversation, or even in prose writings of the present day; but it occurs frequently in the scriptures, and in poetry. maybe reading and finding out what a damsel is would help. A damsel is a female from infancy to adolescents Now, I understand they married young during those days, but surely your not going to try and claim the son of God came from the consensual sex of a girl that has not past the age of her flower.
4/9/2017 11:39:24 PM	What are your Thoughts on this:?
cupocheer Assumption, IL 68, joined May. 2010	Mary was approximately 12=13 when she became impregnated.
4/10/2017 12:22:15 AM	What are your Thoughts on this:?
ludlowlowell Panama City, FL 64, joined Feb. 2008 online now!	Why is it hard to believe Jesus had no human father? Isn't God all-powerful?
4/10/2017 2:20:43 AM	What are your Thoughts on this:?
followjesusonly Kingman, AZ 74, joined May. 2012	Ludlow says: "Why is it hard to believe Jesus had no human father? Isn't God all-powerful?" =========================================================================== Who said it was hard to believe? No one has said that. You lie by inference when you ask that question. Why is it hard to believe Jesus had a human father? Isn't God all-powerful? Can't God make the fetus in any woman He chooses into Jesus? Why do you need signs and wonders to believe? Jesus does not approve. "Except ye see signs and wonders, ye will not believe." (John 4:48)
4/10/2017 10:48:00 AM	What are your Thoughts on this:?
iam_resurrected Reno, NV 46, joined Jul. 2014	Quote from looptex1: maybe reading and finding out what a damsel is would help. A damsel is a female from infancy to adolescents Now, I understand they married young during those days, but surely your not going to try and claim the son of God came from the consensual sex of a girl that has not past the age of her flower. No, I found the article I posted, on page one, interesting. So, I shared it, with you. Clearly the bible, is not indicating, the "damsel" is not a child but first stages of a an adult woman (since Damsels is a term for woman to be "married"). After being married with a child, she suddenly is an "adult woman", all by being married and having a child even at 13. Seems odd, but, those were customs back then and found to be proper. I do believe and agree with this article I posted, on the merits, of the Book of John specifically. John reveals nothing of the birth, but goes directly to whom Christ is, the WORD and GOD. And from there, we find Christ as, "I Am" of the "burning bush" and God of the Old testament, including the Father (Philip saith: shew us the Father. Christ: Do you not know me, that I am, the Father?). So clearly, John the "beloved", wrote about the "facts" about Christ. Not like the Roman "pagans", WHO "ADDED", the birth story to two (2) accounts of the Gospel. I look at it like this: *READ CAREFULLY* 2 Samuel 1:18 and he ordered that the people of Judah be taught ... ... Also he told them to teach the children of Judah the use of the bow: behold, it is written in the *book of Jasher. ... Joshua 10:13 So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, till ... ... their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the ... their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher*? This "factual Old Testament" scripture telling us to look at things found in the "Book of JASHER". There is a "factual" Book of Jasher. So, why did not the "Roman (pagans)", add the "Book of Jasher"? Considering, within the 66 Books they formatted as the "bible", it speaks of the "Book of Jasher" (to follow)? The "Roman Pagans", messed up the bible so bad, you have to research to know the TRUTH...just like, the virgin birth story of MARY being an added myth. [Edited 4/10/2017 10:50:16 AM ]
4/10/2017 10:58:59 AM	What are your Thoughts on this:?
share_n_love Fort Wayne, IN 61, joined Dec. 2012	Quote from looptex1: Well what do you do with the prophet Isaiah? Did someone tamper with his writings also?? Isaiah 7 14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel Yes they did when they wrote the Septuagint. Just as they did when they injected the name lucifer which is not in the Hebrew version.
4/10/2017 11:01:23 AM	What are your Thoughts on this:?
share_n_love Fort Wayne, IN 61, joined Dec. 2012	Quote from ludlowlowell: If that part of tge Bible is made up, maybe the whole Bible is made up. See where that slippery slope goes? If Jesus has had a human father, how could He have been the Incarnate Son of God? He didn't say Yahshua had a human Father.
4/10/2017 11:19:08 AM	What are your Thoughts on this:?
freegratis Irving, TX 50, joined Dec. 2011	Quote from ludlowlowell: Correctly translated versions say "virgin", not "damsal" or "young woman". A child born to just another youngvwoman, what kind of prophecy is that? And why is it hard to velieve that an all-powerful God can't allow a virgin to become pregnant? "How can this be, when I know not man?" "With God, all things are possible." iam_resurrected, As ludlowlowell pointed out, is Luke 1:34-36 also tampered with? http://biblehub.com/interlinear/luke/1-34.htm How can this be, since I do not know a man? http://biblehub.com/interlinear/luke/1-35.htm The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God. http://biblehub.com/interlinear/luke/1-36.htm Now indeed, Elizabeth your relative has also conceived a son in her old age; and this is now the sixth month for her who was called barren. Even though the Chabad site's text claims Isaiah 7:14 was merely a young woman, their commentary says "And some interpret that this is the sign, that she was a young girl and incapable of giving birth." Virgins usually are incapable of giving birth. http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/15938#showrashi=true
4/10/2017 12:16:27 PM	What are your Thoughts on this:?
iam_resurrected Reno, NV 46, joined Jul. 2014	Quote from freegratis: iam_resurrected, As ludlowlowell pointed out, is Luke 1:34-36 also tampered with? http://biblehub.com/interlinear/luke/1-34.htm How can this be, since I do not know a man? http://biblehub.com/interlinear/luke/1-35.htm The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God. http://biblehub.com/interlinear/luke/1-36.htm Now indeed, Elizabeth your relative has also conceived a son in her old age; and this is now the sixth month for her who was called barren. Even though the Chabad site's text claims Isaiah 7:14 was merely a young woman, their commentary says "And some interpret that this is the sign, that she was a young girl and incapable of giving birth." Virgins usually are incapable of giving birth. http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/15938#showrashi=true This article specifies, towards Luke, as one of the Books being tampered with by the pagan Romans. I do respect the "pagans", for not tampering, with the written accounts of the actual Disciples (John). It is hard to add, a "myth birth", to a manuscript beginning with, Christ was in the BEGINNING as GOD the WORD. John, puts Christ, right at the time of Genesis 1:1. After that confirmation, there are no outlets, to add myth to it. But adding the "myth account, to two (2) of the Gospels, should make you question the account. The Gospels, are directly, about Christ. Who knew Christ, obviously better, than John? No One, and why John begins with: "In the Beginning was (CHRIST) the WORD and He is GOD", rather than, a myth birth account. [Edited 4/10/2017 12:17:57 PM ]
4/10/2017 12:21:17 PM	What are your Thoughts on this:?
iam_resurrected Reno, NV 46, joined Jul. 2014	Quote from iam_resurrected: This article specifies, towards Luke, as one of the Books being tampered with by the pagan Romans. I do respect the "pagans", for not tampering, with the written accounts of the actual Disciples (John). It is hard to add, a "myth birth", to a manuscript beginning with, Christ was in the BEGINNING as GOD the WORD. John, puts Christ, right at the time of Genesis 1:1. After that confirmation, there are no outlets, to add myth to it. But adding the "myth account, to two (2) of the Gospels, should make you question the account. The Gospels, are directly, about Christ. Who knew Christ, obviously better, than John? No One, and why John begins with: "In the Beginning was (CHRIST) the WORD and He is GOD", rather than, a myth birth account. here is the article: Notes James Still: "Biblical scholars have long ago dismissed the literal interpretation of the miraculous Virgin-Birth of the Messiah. Also, many...Christian denominations have either quietly purged this curious piece of teaching from their body of philosophy, or conveniently ignore the issue altogether. Despite this, the allure of such an intriguing concept is still very powerful and the Messiah's Virgin Birth continues to enjoy the unquestioning belief of millions of people" (Origins of the Virgin Birth Myth). There is a lot of evidence to show that the original Hebrew or Aramaic forms of both Matthew and Luke were -- like the present Gospel of Mark -- WITHOUT the first two chapters, starting their accounts of the Messiah's ministry with John the Baptist's calling. It is a fact that the Ebionites of the second to fourth centuries after the Messiah, used the Gospel of Matthew written in Aramaic but WITHOUT the Virgin Birth narrative -- unlike our version of this gospel that, like Luke, includes the Virgin Birth story. Writes Barrie Wilson -- "...they [the Ebionites] did not accept the virgin birth story at all since this MYTHOLOGY does not find its roots in Jewish thinking. So, unlike later Christians [of the Roman Catholic variety], they did not see Jesus as a divine being. Nor did they think that Jesus 'preexisted' his human form in any fashion...He was, like you and me, HUMAN IN ALL RESPECTS, feeling our pain, joy, sorrow, and gladness. He became God's CHOSEN Messiah because God judged him more righteous than any other person" (How Jesus Became Christian, St. Martin's Press, N.Y. 2008, p. 100). However, a conscientious "Seeker of Truth" can still spiritually discern most of the truth from the highly biased translations of the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) that have come down to us. The New Testament we have today is at least a THIRD LEVEL translation of the original Apostolic Writings and Epistles that have mysteriously vanished. These Gospels and Epistles were originally translated from the Aramaic or Hebrew by uninspired Hellenized Judahites -- followed by pagan Greeks and canonized by the equally paganized ancient Roman Universal (Catholic) Church and government of the Roman god and Emperor Constantine "the Great." Hope of Israel Ministries -- Proclaiming the Good News of the Soon-Coming Kingdom of YEHOVAH God!
4/10/2017 12:24:07 PM	What are your Thoughts on this:?
ludlowlowell Panama City, FL 64, joined Feb. 2008 online now!	If the virgin birth of Christ is a myth added by pagan Romans, the next logical step is to believe that all the miracles of the Bible are myths, and the next logical step after that is to believe the Bible itself is a myth. Your screen name is "Iamresurrected". Are you going to tell us that Jesus' resurrection is also a myth? [Edited 4/10/2017 12:26:02 PM ]
4/10/2017 1:18:29 PM	What are your Thoughts on this:?
iam_resurrected Reno, NV 46, joined Jul. 2014	Quote from ludlowlowell: If the virgin birth of Christ is a myth added by pagan Romans, the next logical step is to believe that all the miracles of the Bible are myths, and the next logical step after that is to believe the Bible itself is a myth. Your screen name is "Iamresurrected". Are you going to tell us that Jesus' resurrection is also a myth? Why? It is God , we should be concerned about knowing and devoted to, not the characters mentioned with God. But due to sure incompetence, the Roman "pagans" "ASSUMED", to have a God on the present scene means he had to be born, first. Nowhere, does it mention, Melchizedek's origin. But, he was the first preacher, on the scene. Abraham's, personal preacher/teacher.
4/10/2017 1:25:26 PM	What are your Thoughts on this:?
cupocheer Assumption, IL 68, joined May. 2010
4/10/2017 1:53:22 PM	What are your Thoughts on this:?
iam_resurrected Reno, NV 46, joined Jul. 2014	WE know: From John and Paul, that Christ, was the invisible Elohim. WE know: the physical appearance of God, was represented by the same body, used as Christ...Melchizedek as Abraham's pastor, the (A)ngel who wrestled with Jacob/Israel, O.T (A)ngel of God/Lord, backside of God to Abraham and finger that wrote the 10 Commandments, Man in white linen (standing upon the river waters) in Daniel, the 4th (fourth) man in the fiery furnace/Daniel, and into Christ. Nowhere in the bible, does any "prior" appearance of God (physically), have a beginning. So, why should Christ who is God, also have a beginning. Is not HE the same, yesterday, today, and tomorrow? I thought He is "this FIRST and the LAST, BEGINNING and the END, and nothing or no one came before or will AFTER HIM!!! He is GOD!!! He is the very OPPOSITE, of, "MYTH BIRTH"!!! HE IS!!! HE EXIST BECAUSE HE IS!!! Not because, some Roman PUNK, had his head up his rectum... [Edited 4/10/2017 1:56:29 PM ]
4/10/2017 2:03:50 PM	What are your Thoughts on this:?
iam_resurrected Reno, NV 46, joined Jul. 2014	Just like Peter, was never in Rome, to become the Catholics first pope. Them pagans, are full of lies. Surely God, will deal, with them accordingly.
4/10/2017 2:08:04 PM	What are your Thoughts on this:?
ludlowlowell Panama City, FL 64, joined Feb. 2008 online now!	If you believe John and Paul that Jesus is the Invisible Elohim (which He certainly is),why can't you believe Isaiah, Matthew, and Luke that Jesus was born of a virgin? And if Jesus had a human father, how could He be the Incarnate Son of God?
4/10/2017 2:08:27 PM	What are your Thoughts on this:?
cupocheer Assumption, IL 68, joined May. 2010	LUD, history can't confirm Peter was in Rome at any time except when he and his wife were crucified -- and that's on shaky ground because Crucifixions were not done inside the city walls. And we all know, except you, that Peter was not a Pope of the RCC. Lud, please check some historical timelines and when these events actually occurred.
4/10/2017 2:24:39 PM	What are your Thoughts on this:?
ludlowlowell Panama City, FL 64, joined Feb. 2008 online now!	You're off topic, here, Cup. The issue at hand is whether or not Jesus was born of a virgin. Cup, do you agreevwith Isaiah, Matthew, Luke, the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox churches, most Protestant denominations, and ol' Lud that Jesus was born of a virgin? Or do you agree with Iam Resurrected that this is a myth?
4/10/2017 2:38:24 PM	What are your Thoughts on this:?
followjesusonly Kingman, AZ 74, joined May. 2012	Ludlow writes: " Cup, do you agreevwith Isaiah, Matthew, Luke, the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox churches, most Protestant denominations, and ol' Lud that Jesus was born of a virgin?" ============================================================================ It doesn't matter if cup or anyone "agrees" with "Isaiah, Matthew, Luke, the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox churches, most Protestant denominations, and ol' Lud that Jesus was born of a virgin." Mary's virginity or lack of it cannot be proven by anyone and it is not decided by popular opinion or whose beliefs agree with whose, and last, Isaiah is not about Jesus. Ask a Rabbi. It's their scriptures. You're a very ignorant man, Lud. A very ignorant, sick, Cathlick man.
4/10/2017 2:40:30 PM	What are your Thoughts on this:?
kb2222 Jacksonville, FL 76, joined Apr. 2011 online now!	What difference does it make to you professed "Christians" how Jesus came into the world?
4/10/2017 2:46:55 PM	What are your Thoughts on this:?
iam_resurrected Reno, NV 46, joined Jul. 2014	Quote from ludlowlowell: If you believe John and Paul that Jesus is the Invisible Elohim (which He certainly is),why can't you believe Isaiah, Matthew, and Luke that Jesus was born of a virgin? And if Jesus had a human father, how could He be the Incarnate Son of God? I would firmly believe "the birth", had it been in every version of the (4), that are considered to be the Gospels of Jesus the Christ. After all, the Gospels are directly about, the life of Christ upon the face of the earth. But John goes with Christ directly to Genesis 1:1. 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Now, look at verse 14: *THIS clarifies Christ was not born* 14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. The Roman "pagans", could not "add" a birth, when John was so specific. [Edited 4/10/2017 2:47:55 PM ]
4/10/2017 2:47:44 PM	What are your Thoughts on this:?
followjesusonly Kingman, AZ 74, joined May. 2012	Ludlow says: "If you believe John and Paul that Jesus is the Invisible Elohim (which He certainly is),why can't you believe Isaiah, Matthew, and Luke that Jesus was born of a virgin? And if Jesus had a human father, how could He be the Incarnate Son of God?" ================================================================================ And Ludlow, Jesus wants to know: "Why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?" (Luke 6:46) If you believe that Jesus is "the Incarnate Son of God," why do you refuse to obey Him? Why do you defy Him and do what He clearly says not to do? Why do you contradict Him? And why can't you believe that God could make Jesus out of any fetus He choose to make Jesus from? Why do you need signs and wonders in order to believe? Your church has misled you in its Satanic ways. "Except ye see signs and wonders, ye will not believe." (John 4:48)
4/10/2017 3:24:47 PM	What are your Thoughts on this:?
ludlowlowell Panama City, FL 64, joined Feb. 2008 online now!	You (quite rightly) believe that Jesus is the Eternal Word of God because only one of the gospels says so. But you don't believe in the virgin birth when two gospels say so? And the book of Isaiah?
4/10/2017 3:33:34 PM	What are your Thoughts on this:?
cupocheer Assumption, IL 68, joined May. 2010	Quote from ludlowlowell: You're off topic, here, Cup. The issue at hand is whether or not Jesus was born of a virgin. Cup, do you agreevwith Isaiah, Matthew, Luke, the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox churches, most Protestant denominations, and ol' Lud that Jesus was born of a virgin? Or do you agree with Iam Resurrected that this is a myth? Don't attempt to lecture me, LUD. I've posted enough for anyone who reads these posts to know what I believe. Test a newbie.
4/10/2017 3:36:55 PM	What are your Thoughts on this:?
ludlowlowell Panama City, FL 64, joined Feb. 2008 online now!	Cupovheer, do you believe in the virgin birth of Christ?
4/10/2017 3:52:34 PM	What are your Thoughts on this:?
iam_resurrected Reno, NV 46, joined Jul. 2014	Quote from ludlowlowell: You (quite rightly) believe that Jesus is the Eternal Word of God because only one of the gospels says so. But you don't believe in the virgin birth when two gospels say so? And the book of Isaiah? I believe, John's version, is the absolute truth. Christ, is, Genesis 1:1 (WORD), and (flesh) Genesis 3:8 - walking in the Garden, with Adam and Eve, as Elohim. Adam had no mother or father and he was created to procreate. Christ has a "bride/Church", but Christ was never created, for the purpose of procreation. He was created, to represent Elohim, in the physical presence. And as, the "perfect Lamb, for our sin sacrifice. So no, I do not believe in the "myth birth", created by Roman pagan Catholics. [Edited 4/10/2017 3:54:35 PM ]
4/10/2017 4:48:03 PM	What are your Thoughts on this:?
ludlowlowell Panama City, FL 64, joined Feb. 2008 online now!	Only one hospel specifically says Jesus is the Eternal Word of God but two gospels say Jesus was born of a virgin, but you believe the former but not the latter. That doesn't make any sense, Iam.
4/10/2017 4:59:42 PM	What are your Thoughts on this:?
iam_resurrected Reno, NV 46, joined Jul. 2014	Quote from ludlowlowell: Only one hospel specifically says Jesus is the Eternal Word of God but two gospels say Jesus was born of a virgin, but you believe the former but not the latter. That doesn't make any sense, Iam. John is called, the beloved, for a specific reason. His total comprehension, of the totality, of who Christ really was. The other gospels, are, unsure. John is confirmation, much like he is confirmation, in the Book of Revelation about Christ. I accept John any day, over the lying account about a mythical birth, created by Roman pagan Catholics...sorry but fact, is, fact. [Edited 4/10/2017 5:00:43 PM ]
4/10/2017 5:03:17 PM	What are your Thoughts on this:?
ludlowlowell Panama City, FL 64, joined Feb. 2008 online now!	Iam, isn't that selective acceptance of the scriptures? Either all the books of the Bible are inspired of God, or none are. Right?
4/10/2017 5:19:14 PM	What are your Thoughts on this:?
kb2222 Jacksonville, FL 76, joined Apr. 2011 online now!	Quote from ludlowlowell: Iam, isn't that selective acceptance of the scriptures? Either all the books of the Bible are inspired of God, or none are. Right? The Bible is full of inconsistencies and contradictions and rampant with the murder of people for all sorts of absurd reasons and only church indoctrinated fools like you would claim its ungodly not to accept church doctrine about the book they compiled.
4/10/2017 5:23:28 PM	What are your Thoughts on this:?
iam_resurrected Reno, NV 46, joined Jul. 2014	No because, we are, to be discerning. And reading something, that is not included by all (4) accounts, makes it fishy to begin with. Why would John go from Christ, being God in Genesis 1:1 made "flesh, to suddenly a baby? Because, it never happened that way. I am sorry, but your Roman Catholics, are lying and have been. How can that be, a church, of God? Impossible!!! Just LOOK at all of the (factual LIES)(created by the Roman Catholics)? Must be a pathetic existence, living, a lie
4/10/2017 5:45:52 PM	What are your Thoughts on this:?
followjesusonly Kingman, AZ 74, joined May. 2012	Quote from iam_resurrected: No because, we are, to be discerning. And reading something, that is not included by all (4) accounts, makes it fishy to begin with. Why would John go from Christ, being God in Genesis 1:1 made "flesh, to suddenly a baby? Because, it never happened that way. I am sorry, but your Roman Catholics, are lying and have been. How can that be, a church, of God? Impossible!!! Just LOOK at all of the (factual LIES)(created by the Roman Catholics)? Must be a pathetic existence, living, a lie The Catholic church is a God hating, disobedient, God defiant, gold mongering, murderous abomination of a religious sect.
4/10/2017 5:50:49 PM	What are your Thoughts on this:?
followjesusonly Kingman, AZ 74, joined May. 2012	Ludlow says: "Cupovheer, do you believe in the virgin birth of Christ?" ====================================================================== It doesn't matter what anyone "believes" about it. It's just a belief. There is no way to know. Why do you need signs and wonders like a common Pagan? Why can't you believe that God can make any fetus in any woman at any time, in any way God chooses, into Jesus?
4/10/2017 6:24:32 PM	What are your Thoughts on this:?
ludlowlowell Panama City, FL 64, joined Feb. 2008 online now!	Where is your evidence that Roman soldiers, or the Catholic Church, tampered with Matthew or Luke? Did any of tge early Christian writers like Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Clement of Rome, Iraneus, Tertullian, or Origen ever say that Jesus wasn't born of a virgin?
4/10/2017 6:29:10 PM	What are your Thoughts on this:?
iam_resurrected Reno, NV 46, joined Jul. 2014	From real factual historians and the findings from the teachings of the original 1st Century churches. WE KNOW it is a fact, because, none of these churches were Catholic. They were "established" churches *before* Catholic pagans "BASTARDIZED the bible". Notes James Still: "Biblical scholars have long ago dismissed the literal interpretation of the miraculous Virgin-Birth of the Messiah. Also, many...Christian denominations have either quietly purged this curious piece of teaching from their body of philosophy, or conveniently ignore the issue altogether. Despite this, the allure of such an intriguing concept is still very powerful and the Messiah's Virgin Birth continues to enjoy the unquestioning belief of millions of people" (Origins of the Virgin Birth Myth). There is a lot of evidence to show that the original Hebrew or Aramaic forms of both Matthew and Luke were -- like the present Gospel of Mark -- WITHOUT the first two chapters, starting their accounts of the Messiah's ministry with John the Baptist's calling. It is a fact that the Ebionites of the second to fourth centuries after the Messiah, used the Gospel of Matthew written in Aramaic but WITHOUT the Virgin Birth narrative -- unlike our version of this gospel that, like Luke, includes the Virgin Birth story. Writes Barrie Wilson -- "...they [the Ebionites] did not accept the virgin birth story at all since this MYTHOLOGY does not find its roots in Jewish thinking. So, unlike later Christians [of the Roman Catholic variety], they did not see Jesus as a divine being. Nor did they think that Jesus 'preexisted' his human form in any fashion...He was, like you and me, HUMAN IN ALL RESPECTS, feeling our pain, joy, sorrow, and gladness. He became God's CHOSEN Messiah because God judged him more righteous than any other person" (How Jesus Became Christian, St. Martin's Press, N.Y. 2008, p. 100). However, a conscientious "Seeker of Truth" can still spiritually discern most of the truth from the highly biased translations of the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) that have come down to us. The New Testament we have today is at least a THIRD LEVEL translation of the original Apostolic Writings and Epistles that have mysteriously vanished. These Gospels and Epistles were originally translated from the Aramaic or Hebrew by uninspired Hellenized Judahites -- followed by pagan Greeks and canonized by the equally paganized ancient Roman Universal (Catholic) Church and government of the Roman god and Emperor Constantine "the Great." Hope of Israel Ministries -- Proclaiming the Good News of the Soon-Coming Kingdom of YEHOVAH God! [Edited 4/10/2017 6:30:30 PM ]
4/10/2017 6:50:28 PM	What are your Thoughts on this:?
cupocheer Assumption, IL 68, joined May. 2010	Just stopping by to stir the pot --- The idea of a virgin birth wasn't completely accepted until well into the 2nd century.
4/10/2017 7:08:01 PM	What are your Thoughts on this:?
iam_resurrected Reno, NV 46, joined Jul. 2014	Which the 2nd Century led to the creation, of the lying, Roman Catholic church.
4/10/2017 7:39:31 PM	What are your Thoughts on this:?
ludlowlowell Panama City, FL 64, joined Feb. 2008 online now!	The Jews waited for centuries for their Messiah, who was to be born of a virgin, as prophesied by Isaiah.
4/10/2017 8:06:59 PM	What are your Thoughts on this:?
iam_resurrected Reno, NV 46, joined Jul. 2014	According to "original Aramaic/Hebrew translations: the birth prophecy, "never" happened. So the Messiah, never, needed a birth. He just needed to do as He did as Melchizedek, God "walking" in the garden with Adam/Eve, Burning Bush, Angel who wrestled with Jacob and changed his name to Israel, in Daniel once as 4th man in furnace and Daniels prophecy of man in white linen standing upon the water.....which is, to just show up as God. God never once required, to be born, to show up before. And as the original texts conclude, BEFORE "Catholic BLASPHEMY", God did not need to be born. And 3 of 4 Gospels begin at, Christ, being baptized by John the Baptist. With John beginning with Christ, as the Word (MADE flesh to DWELL with us), in Genesis 1:1. [Edited 4/10/2017 8:08:58 PM ]
4/10/2017 8:29:31 PM	What are your Thoughts on this:?
followjesusonly Kingman, AZ 74, joined May. 2012	Quote from iam_resurrected: According to "original Aramaic/Hebrew translations: the birth prophecy, "never" happened. So the Messiah, never, needed a birth. He just needed to do as He did as Melchizedek... Indeed. 93:2.1 It was 1,973 years before the birth of Jesus that [Melchizedek] was bestowed upon the human races of Urantia. His coming was unspectacular; his materialization was not witnessed by human eyes. He was first observed by mortal man on that eventful day when he entered the tent of Amdon, a Chaldean herder of Sumerian extraction. And the proclamation of his mission was embodied in the simple statement which he made to this shepherd, “I am Melchizedek, priest of El Elyon, the Most High, the one and only God.” -The Urantia Book
4/10/2017 8:33:00 PM	What are your Thoughts on this:?
followjesusonly Kingman, AZ 74, joined May. 2012	Ludlow says: "The Jews waited for centuries for their Messiah, who was to be born of a virgin, as prophesied by Isaiah." =========================================================================== You are an monumentally ignorant Cathlick man. You know nothing of what Isaiah means. Contact a proper teacher of the Hebrew scriptures, a real Rabbi, and ask him. It's their scriptures.
4/10/2017 8:49:33 PM	What are your Thoughts on this:?
ludlowlowell Panama City, FL 64, joined Feb. 2008 online now!	God ptomised to send the Messiah, and that the Messiah would be born of a virgin. True, the Messiah didn't need to be born---he could have just floated down from Heaven, but if that has happened God wiuld not have kept His promise. And if Jesus had had a human father, Jesus would not have been the Incarnate Son of God. What reputable source or sources from the first or second century sais Jesus wasn't born to a virgin?
4/10/2017 9:23:50 PM	What are your Thoughts on this:?
kb2222 Jacksonville, FL 76, joined Apr. 2011 online now!	Quote from ludlowlowell: And if Jesus had had a human father, Jesus would not have been the Incarnate Son of God. You are a fool. God is Spirit - and Jesus was both human and divine and if Joseph was indeed the father of the flesh that would not alter one bit Jesus being God in Spirit.

skipthegames apps

megapersonals ads