The Virgin Mary?

[loser]

Zhavric posted:

Quote: Quote by: loser The point was that the virgin birth story of Mary and Jesus was ridiculed on the grounds of it being scientifically impossible. We now know that it is very possible, after all. Hence, people thinking themselves wise when they were not wise, after all. What a dishonest sentiment? What an intellectually bankrupt line of reasoning?...

No and no.

I'm in awe...

Thank you, you should be.

As though scientific achievements that were fictional as recently as a few decades ago can excuse mythology from 2000 years ago

The pathetic shortcomings of men and their dismissal of science as myth and superstition are, indeed, no excuse for their ignorance...as though they have a clue.

What did you have planned for an encore? A link to a website about tasers with a rousing explanation about how hand held electricity guns "prove" that it was possible for Zeus to hurl bolts of lightning at people?

Tasers are infant's toys made by infantile humans. If an ET was named Zeus, the bolts he hurled would be quite more complex than what little minds would be able to understand. Highly advanced and intelligent beings are not limited by man's ignorance.

Loser, I invite you to consider the special pleadings you're invoking here

Z, I invite you to keep listening...one day, you might get it.

It's become obvious from this thread and others that you're more than willing to stretch and break the boundaries of intellectual honesty to try to get a point across.

What's becoming obvious is that not everyone has equal understanding.

Before you make a claim, please make sure it can be supported.

You appear to be making a lot of unsupported claims. Don't your rules also apply to you?

Interesting articles on emerging science, but the event in the OP supposedly occurred 2000 years ago.

If the event in the OP was predicated on man's scientific acheivement, your argument would be valid. However, I am speaking from the stance that a superior intelligent being that surpassed our scientific levels possibly billions of years ago (or more) performed this 'spectacle'. Try to imagine our acheivements a billion years from now being performed 2000 years ago and you will see it in a different light.

The Mary's Immaculate Conception story...

That doctrine does not relate to Jesus' birth, it relates to Mary's birth and is a Catholic myth.

Comparing the story of Mithra or Attis to the story of Jesus is like comparing the story of Hercules to the story of Samson. The former is fiction and the latter is not. Jesus was not born on December 25. Because the Christian religion was appropriated by the Roman Empire and the Romans had all of those pagan holidays that they were not willing to relinquish, Roman rule perverted the Christian faith by blending Christianity with pagan customs. Hence, Saturday Sabbath became Sunday worship (in memory of the pagan Sun god). Christ's birth became a holiday to be celebrated on an important pagan date December 25th). His death and resurrection was celebrated on Easter (in recognition to the goddess Astarte). Marian worship was adopted from ancient Babylon through Isis, Astarte, Ashterothe, Juno, Venus, Dianna and other 'mother goddesses'. A long pagan tradition of female worship was the progenitor of the Catholic Church. Contrary to modern belief, there is nothing Christian about the RCC...it is pagan through and through.

Another false teaching is the Trinity. The Holy Spirit is not some third person of a triune God. God is one, the Father. Jesus is His Son. The Holy Spirit is the POWER of God, nothing more. This is why Jesus could be born of the Holy Spirit and yet still receive the Spirit later when He was baptized. Jesus was a man without any special powers. The power He was imbued with was God's Spirit. Not magic but a powerful essence (or energy) working in the same way as magnetism and electricity. Superstitious people think otherwise.

People can interpret truth in many different ways often turning it into mythical and mystical superstition. Yet, when the smoke of deception clears, the truth remains.

[gallo]

Quote by: loser However, it takes a pretty ignorant person to believe that way in today's world. The ability of women to have children without a male sperm donor is now common knowledge.

But Mary isn't supposed to have lived in today's world. It also takes a pretty ignorant person not to know that offspring from a female without male participation are always female.

It's known as parthogenesis and is known to occur naturally only in a few arthropods, reptiles, and apparently, certain sharks. There are no known cases of natural mammalian parthogenesis. All examples have been artificially stimulated in the laboratory. Of course, such offspring more frequently than not suffer developmental abnormalities.

[gallo]

Quote by: loser That doctrine does not relate to Jesus' birth, it relates to Mary's birth and is a Catholic myth.

Exactly. Just as is the myth of the virgin birth.

[wolf_22]

firstly- you have to be religious to believe she was impregnanted by god.

secondly- there was a book removed from the bible that had a story about mary being confirmed pregnant and then being confirmed a virgin. her hymen was checked and was intact.

thirdly- joesph claimed the child as his own. he did this because (going on #1) an angel convinced him that mary was going to be the mother of the savior. thus there would be no police involvement. as far as anyone thought, they simply had premarital sex and were going to get married- thus the child was not a bastard.

[loser]

as far as anyone thought, they simply had premarital sex and were going to get married- thus the child was not a bastard.

I guarantee that you are wrong about that. I can't imagine how much tongue-wagging and snickering was going on about Mary's 'supposed' virgin birth. I'm sure Jesus was called Mary's bastard child more than any Christian would care to think about.

Jesus said that a prophet was without honor in his own country and in his own house and with his own kin. Because they knew His physical family, they did not believe Him to be the Messiah and He was not able to do many works there.

firstly- you have to be religious to believe she was impregnanted by god.

What if you believe in the possibility of advanced alien races visiting the earth...could you believe that an alien impregnated her, then? Would you have to be religious to believe that?

[wolf_22]

I meant he wasn't a bastard in the legal sense. bastards couldn't hold any status, but he was born when mary and joesph were married.

yes I assume believing in alien impregnantion of virgins doesn't make u religious. I stand corrected.

[Matt W]

The legal sense is conceived out of wedlock, not born.

[wolf_22]

Quote by: Matt W The legal sense is conceived out of wedlock, not born.

are you sure?
I know the dictinoary says "A child born out of wedlock" and not just concieved,
I've heard many people talk about the importance of 'giving a child a name' IE the last name of the father through marriage and that seems to protect them from the title of bastard.

[Apologist]

Quote by: Zhavric The virgin mary story (and Christianity, itself) only makes sense if viewed through the proper context: a tall tale created around 70 ce in an attempt to rally/unify the Jews who were being oppressed by the Romans. Christ needed to be everything to everyone. Fully human and fully god. Born into humble surroundings, but also heir the line of King David. The list goes on, but those four things are significant to this discussion because they explain why Mary had to be a virgin. We need Jesus to be fully the son of god so Mary couldn't have conceived with her natural husband... but we need the husband around so that Jesus can be of the line of David. Everything else that came afterwards is a lame justification for this nonsense.

If it was only an attempt to unify the Jews, I'd say they did an awful job.

[Apologist]

Isherwood,

Your sited reference sounds like it was written by a frustrated, emotional person. There is not much thought in the entire scrutiny of Christianity, yet the author suggests his views are without error.

Hehe, reading these posts makes me laugh.

I hope you guys seek advice and information elsewhere besides the internet and this forum.

[Apologist]

Quote by: Zhavric The virgin mary story (and Christianity, itself) only makes sense if viewed through the proper context: a tall tale created around 70 ce in an attempt to rally/unify the Jews who were being oppressed by the Romans. Christ needed to be everything to everyone. Fully human and fully god. Born into humble surroundings, but also heir the line of King David. The list goes on, but those four things are significant to this discussion because they explain why Mary had to be a virgin. We need Jesus to be fully the son of god so Mary couldn't have conceived with her natural husband... but we need the husband around so that Jesus can be of the line of David. Everything else that came afterwards is a lame justification for this nonsense.

Who are you talking about Zhavric? Are you telling me Mary and Joseph were conspirators to the future collapse of the Roman empire? That they are the masterminds?

Christians were enemies at the early time. Any chance to discredit or extinguish would have been successful if the claims of the early times were indeed false. The people and religious rulers were around to make a mockery of such propositions.

[Apologist]

Quote by: Rainbow Think, and you have got the answer.

Think harder and you will.

A similar thought pattern is arising amongst most on this forum: Mary obviously got pregnant by Joseph and she had to make this story up.

I'm sure that Mary was frightened as would anyone in her position, but she would not have been able to fabricate such a lie. You're implying that a young girl at that time period was able to pull off such a remarkable feat. You're putting your faith on the wrong side.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: Apologist Think harder and you will. A similar thought pattern is arising amongst most on this forum: Mary obviously got pregnant by Joseph and she had to make this story up. I'm sure that Mary was frightened as would anyone in her position, but she would not have been able to fabricate such a lie. You're implying that a young girl at that time period was able to pull off such a remarkable feat. You're putting your faith on the wrong side.

From Virgin Mary, to Rainbow's faith. :-)))
That is a quite remarkable turn of events, but I do not mind that.
(I wish there was a scale, so you can compare your faith with my one on that scale. I am positive that you would feel ashamed and/or remove your expression.)

Back to topic
Since Joseph was too old (individual) to have a sex with a woman - not to mention to impregnate a woman, how we can understand the biblical expression that Mary was about to become pregnant by the Holy Spirit, then ?

Example :
- The Bible
- Exodus 7:8

"Aaron's Staff Becomes a Snake
8 The LORD said to Moses and Aaron,

9 "When Pharaoh says to you, 'Perform a miracle,' then say to Aaron, 'Take your staff and throw it down before Pharaoh,' and it will become a snake."

10 So Moses and Aaron went to Pharaoh and did just as the LORD commanded. Aaron threw his staff down in front of Pharaoh and his officials, and it became a snake.

11 Pharaoh then summoned wise men and sorcerers, and the Egyptian magicians also did the same things by their secret arts:

12 Each one threw down his staff and it became a snake. But Aaron's staff swallowed up their staffs."

It clearly indicates that Pharaoh's magicians and/or sorcerers were able to compete with God successfully. That was a quite shocking event. (!)
Who was that "God" ? Would not be fair to call that "God" : Aliens ?

Who are We (read : Homo Sapiens), really ?
What our ancestors called God, appears to be chronicles of Alien supervising and/or monitoring of Homo Sapiens.
If the Bible is correct - and I believe that data is correct, then (I am not wondered) we would experience the 3-rd intervention, since 2 previous ones brought not much changes (with)in Homo Sapiens species, especially since They have created Us (using Genetics for that spurpose) and we can take it as the most conceivable reason They claim all the rights to Homo Sapiens species.

Why our ancestors labeled Them as God ?
Bacuse our ancestors were morons and/or intellectually impaired, while Science was at the stage of non-existence (almost) and/or magic at that time, and a bird was only a source for flying in the mid-air.
Try to explain to those morons the basic notions of Physics, not to mention the fundamental structure of atom, etc. I am afraid it would be a fruitless effort. Therefore, Aliens adopted Homo Sapiens' onomastics (read : to be recognized as "God") very quickly, what gave Them an advantage to manage and govern Homo Sapiens much more efficiently.

P.S.
If God has equipped one with a brain, then it is not a bad idea (for one) to use it. Furthermore, if that brain is being used for constructive purposes, then God is willing one to proceed with it.

The Faith is not for show, but for the Spirit and/or Soul.
(Read the Bible more carefully, guys. There is a chance you would understand that data accurately, one day.)