| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Truth Hunter" |
| Date: |
17 Dec 2005 07:08:54 AM |
| Object: |
Can anybody believe this child is God? |
Can anybody believe this child is God?
What did Mary contribute? A normal egg with half the DNA of Jesus? And
what did the Holy Spirit contribute? A miraculous sperm with the other
half of the DNA of Jesus? And did the DNA supplied by Mary and the DNA
supplied by the Holy Spirit somehow specify that the being created
would be God? What miraculous DNA that was! How can a series of
molecules possible specify a baby God?
http://www.jewsforjudaism.org
Bumper Sticker
DIVINE INSANITY
God killed himself on the cross to save his own creation fro=ADm his own
wrath! (Author unknown)=20
One God, father-son-ghost?
.
|
|
| User: "Zadok" |
|
| Title: Re: Can anybody believe this child is God? |
17 Dec 2005 09:23:28 AM |
|
|
"Truth Hunter" <> wrote in message...
Can anybody believe this child is God?
What did Mary contribute? A normal egg with half the DNA of >Jesus? And
what did the Holy Spirit contribute? A miraculous sperm with the >other
half of the DNA of Jesus? And did the DNA supplied by Mary >and the DNA
supplied by the Holy Spirit somehow specify that the being >created
would be God? What miraculous DNA that was! How can a >series of
molecules possible specify a baby God?
You are asuming that the Holy Spirit did not just deposit a tiny fetus in
Mary's womb.
There is nothing in the bible, to suggest that he deposited sperm to join
with Mary's egg.
Perhaps her job was simply to be an incubator for the Godly fetus??
.
|
|
|
| User: "The_Sage" |
|
| Title: Re: Can anybody believe this child is God? |
17 Dec 2005 03:16:00 PM |
|
|
Reply to article by: "Zadok" <nobler@accesswave.ca>
Date written: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 15:23:28 GMT
MsgID:<Q3Wof.2669$h86.591@edtnps89>
Can anybody believe this child is God?
What did Mary contribute? A normal egg with half the DNA of >Jesus? And
what did the Holy Spirit contribute? A miraculous sperm with the >other
half of the DNA of Jesus? And did the DNA supplied by Mary >and the DNA
supplied by the Holy Spirit somehow specify that the being >created
would be God? What miraculous DNA that was! How can a >series of
molecules possible specify a baby God?
You are asuming that the Holy Spirit did not just deposit a tiny fetus in
Mary's womb.
There is nothing in the bible, to suggest that he deposited sperm to join
with Mary's egg.
Perhaps her job was simply to be an incubator for the Godly fetus??
The problem with that theory is that Jesus was prophecized to be a direct
descendent of King David. Unless he had DNA from Joseph (as only the male seed
was considered relevent in Biblical inheritence), Jesus failed to fulfill that
prophecy.
The Sage
=============================================================
My Home Page : http://members.cox.net/the.sage
"Careful when you cast your devil out of you lest you cast
out the best thing in you." -Nietzsche
=============================================================
.
|
|
|
| User: "David" |
|
| Title: Re: Can anybody believe this child is God? |
19 Dec 2005 05:11:05 PM |
|
|
The_Sage wrote:
Reply to article by: "Zadok" <nobler@accesswave.ca>
Date written: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 15:23:28 GMT
MsgID:<Q3Wof.2669$h86.591@edtnps89>
Can anybody believe this child is God?
What did Mary contribute? A normal egg with half the DNA of >Jesus? And
what did the Holy Spirit contribute? A miraculous sperm with the >other
half of the DNA of Jesus? And did the DNA supplied by Mary >and the DNA
supplied by the Holy Spirit somehow specify that the being >created
would be God? What miraculous DNA that was! How can a >series of
molecules possible specify a baby God?
You are asuming that the Holy Spirit did not just deposit a tiny fetus in
Mary's womb.
There is nothing in the bible, to suggest that he deposited sperm to join
with Mary's egg.
Perhaps her job was simply to be an incubator for the Godly fetus??
The problem with that theory is that Jesus was prophecized to be a direct
descendent of King David.
He was promised to be a descendent of King David.
Unless he had DNA from Joseph (as only the male seed
was considered relevent in Biblical inheritence),
Wrong, DNA evidence was not considered relevant in Biblical
inheritance. That would be because DNA evidence could not be examined
at the time of the New Testament.
Jesus failed to fulfill that
prophecy.
Wrong. Joseph was recognized as Jesus' father for the purposes of
Biblical inheritance. Judaic law was silent on the subject of virgin
births.
You have failed to make your case Sage, just like you failed to show
that Jesus did not meet the requirements for Old Testament sacrifice.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The_Sage" |
|
| Title: Re: Can anybody believe this child is God? |
19 Dec 2005 08:43:45 PM |
|
|
Reply to article by: "David" <davecheryll@earthlink.net>
Date written: 19 Dec 2005 15:11:05 -0800
MsgID:<1135033865.572824.307830@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
Can anybody believe this child is God?
What did Mary contribute? A normal egg with half the DNA of >Jesus? And
what did the Holy Spirit contribute? A miraculous sperm with the >other
half of the DNA of Jesus? And did the DNA supplied by Mary >and the DNA
supplied by the Holy Spirit somehow specify that the being >created
would be God? What miraculous DNA that was! How can a >series of
molecules possible specify a baby God?
You are asuming that the Holy Spirit did not just deposit a tiny fetus in Mary's womb.
There is nothing in the bible, to suggest that he deposited sperm to join with Mary's egg.
Perhaps her job was simply to be an incubator for the Godly fetus??
The problem with that theory is that Jesus was prophecized to be a direct
descendent of King David.
He was promised to be a descendent of King David.
That is what I just said.
Unless he had DNA from Joseph (as only the male seed
was considered relevent in Biblical inheritence),
Wrong, DNA evidence was not considered relevant in Biblical
inheritance. That would be because DNA evidence could not be examined
at the time of the New Testament.
Irrelevent. I wasn't talking about DNA evidence, but that Jesus had to have some
of King David's DNA in order to fulfill the prophecy that he would be a direct
descendent of King David.
Jesus failed to fulfill that prophecy.
Wrong. Joseph was recognized as Jesus' father for the purposes of
Biblical inheritance.
The Bible says that Jesus would be the *SEED* of King David (and Abraham and
Adam). "Seed" as used in those days, referred to the illusion that men planted
"seed" (semen) into "fertile" women where the "seed" could grow. That is why
only men were considered in Biblical geneologies and never women.
Joseph didn't sire Jesus, he adopted Jesus, which means Jesus wasn't really
Joseph's son and therefore Jesus had no claim to being of Joseph's seed. And if
Jesus had no claim to being the seed of anyone who was in the lineage of King
David, Jesus clearly failed to fulfill the prophecy that said he would.
Judaic law was silent on the subject of virgin births.
That's because there is no such thing. Intelligent people generally don't make
laws concerning non-existent phenomenon.
You have failed to make your case Sage, just like you failed to show
that Jesus did not meet the requirements for Old Testament sacrifice.
Wrong. Try again.
The Sage
=============================================================
My Home Page : http://members.cox.net/the.sage
"Careful when you cast your devil out of you lest you cast
out the best thing in you." -Nietzsche
=============================================================
.
|
|
|
| User: "David" |
|
| Title: Re: Can anybody believe this child is God? |
19 Dec 2005 09:13:02 PM |
|
|
The_Sage wrote:
Reply to article by: "David" <davecheryll@earthlink.net>
Date written: 19 Dec 2005 15:11:05 -0800
MsgID:<1135033865.572824.307830@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
Can anybody believe this child is God?
What did Mary contribute? A normal egg with half the DNA of >Jesus? And
what did the Holy Spirit contribute? A miraculous sperm with the >other
half of the DNA of Jesus? And did the DNA supplied by Mary >and the DNA
supplied by the Holy Spirit somehow specify that the being >created
would be God? What miraculous DNA that was! How can a >series of
molecules possible specify a baby God?
You are asuming that the Holy Spirit did not just deposit a tiny fetus in Mary's womb.
There is nothing in the bible, to suggest that he deposited sperm to join with Mary's egg.
Perhaps her job was simply to be an incubator for the Godly fetus??
The problem with that theory is that Jesus was prophecized to be a direct
descendent of King David.
He was promised to be a descendent of King David.
That is what I just said.
You said direct descendent, attempting to imply that only a natural son
would suffice, this is untrue.
Unless he had DNA from Joseph (as only the male seed
was considered relevent in Biblical inheritence),
Wrong, DNA evidence was not considered relevant in Biblical
inheritance. That would be because DNA evidence could not be examined
at the time of the New Testament.
Irrelevent.
Agreed, DNA is irrelevant.
I wasn't talking about DNA evidence, but that Jesus had to have some
of King David's DNA in order to fulfill the prophecy that he would be a direct
descendent of King David.
Wrong, he has to be the legal son of Joseph, according to Judaic law,
which he was.
Jesus failed to fulfill that prophecy.
Wrong. Joseph was recognized as Jesus' father for the purposes of
Biblical inheritance.
The Bible says that Jesus would be the *SEED* of King David (and Abraham and
Adam).
True.
"Seed" as used in those days, referred to the illusion that men planted
"seed" (semen) into "fertile" women where the "seed" could grow.
Also true.
That is why
only men were considered in Biblical geneologies and never women.
Until the Gospel of Luke.
Joseph didn't sire Jesus, he adopted Jesus,
Judaic law recognized legal rights passing down to adopted as well as
natural sons.
which means Jesus wasn't really
Joseph's son
According to Judaic law, Jesus is Joseph's son.
and therefore Jesus had no claim to being of Joseph's seed.
Incorrect, Judaic law recognized Jesus as being Joseph's seed, even
though he was of virgin birth.
And if
Jesus had no claim to being the seed of anyone who was in the lineage of King
David, Jesus clearly failed to fulfill the prophecy that said he would.
But since Jesus was Joseph's son according to Judaic law, he did
fulfill the prophecy.
Judaic law was silent on the subject of virgin births.
That's because there is no such thing.
Unsupported assertion.
Intelligent people generally don't make
laws concerning non-existent phenomenon.
Correction, people don't make laws concerning phenomenon they don't
think can happen.
You have failed to make your case Sage, just like you failed to show
that Jesus did not meet the requirements for Old Testament sacrifice.
Wrong. Try again.
Wrong. I refuted you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The_Sage" |
|
| Title: Re: Can anybody believe this child is God? |
20 Dec 2005 12:20:32 AM |
|
|
Reply to article by: "David" <davecheryll@earthlink.net>
Date written: 19 Dec 2005 19:13:02 -0800
MsgID:<1135048381.981349.249490@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
Can anybody believe this child is God?
What did Mary contribute? A normal egg with half the DNA of >Jesus? And
what did the Holy Spirit contribute? A miraculous sperm with the >other
half of the DNA of Jesus? And did the DNA supplied by Mary >and the DNA
supplied by the Holy Spirit somehow specify that the being >created
would be God? What miraculous DNA that was! How can a >series of
molecules possible specify a baby God?
You are asuming that the Holy Spirit did not just deposit a tiny fetus in Mary's womb.
There is nothing in the bible, to suggest that he deposited sperm to join with Mary's egg.
Perhaps her job was simply to be an incubator for the Godly fetus??
The problem with that theory is that Jesus was prophecized to be a direct
descendent of King David.
He was promised to be a descendent of King David.
That is what I just said.
You said direct descendent, attempting to imply that only a natural son
would suffice, this is untrue.
It is the Bible that implies that only a natural son would suffice -- bastards
were forbidden from family inheritences and since Joseph did not conceive Jesus
for himself, Jesus was his ***** son...
"A ***** shall not enter into the assembly of Yahweh; even to the tenth
generation shall none of his enter into the assembly of Yahweh" (Dt. 23:2)
Unless he had DNA from Joseph (as only the male seed
was considered relevent in Biblical inheritence),
Wrong, DNA evidence was not considered relevant in Biblical
inheritance. That would be because DNA evidence could not be examined
at the time of the New Testament.
Irrelevent.
Agreed, DNA is irrelevant.
It is irrelevant if you agree or not since this is your strawman and not an
actual point of agreement or disagreement.
I wasn't talking about DNA evidence, but that Jesus had to have some
of King David's DNA in order to fulfill the prophecy that he would be a direct
descendent of King David.
Wrong, he has to be the legal son of Joseph, according to Judaic law,
which he was.
What "Judaic law"? The one you just made up out of thin air?
Jesus failed to fulfill that prophecy.
Wrong. Joseph was recognized as Jesus' father for the purposes of
Biblical inheritance.
The Bible says that Jesus would be the *SEED* of King David (and Abraham and
Adam).
True.
Seed means "direct descendent", not ***** or orphan.
"Seed" as used in those days, referred to the illusion that men planted
"seed" (semen) into "fertile" women where the "seed" could grow.
Also true.
Seed means "direct descendent", not ***** or orphan.
That is why
only men were considered in Biblical geneologies and never women.
Until the Gospel of Luke.
Luke says that Jesus was the son of Joseph, not Mary. Got any other guesses?
If you are saying that you are willing to negate Old Testament law just so you
can justify your fairytale Jesus fantasy, then no amount of reason of facts will
persuade you to come to your senses because you are without rhyme or reason.
Joseph didn't sire Jesus, he adopted Jesus,
Judaic law recognized legal rights passing down to adopted as well as
natural sons.
Show me where it says that.
which means Jesus wasn't really Joseph's son
According to Judaic law, Jesus is Joseph's son.
What "Judaic law"? The one you just made up out of thin air?
and therefore Jesus had no claim to being of Joseph's seed.
Incorrect, Judaic law recognized Jesus as being Joseph's seed, even
though he was of virgin birth.
What "Judaic law"? The one you just made up out of thin air?
And if
Jesus had no claim to being the seed of anyone who was in the lineage of King
David, Jesus clearly failed to fulfill the prophecy that said he would.
But since Jesus was Joseph's son according to Judaic law, he did
fulfill the prophecy.
What "Judaic law"? The one you just made up out of thin air?
Judaic law was silent on the subject of virgin births.
That's because there is no such thing.
Unsupported assertion.
Your make believe "Judaic law" is the only unsupported assertion around here. I
showed you the quote from Deut now where's yours?
Intelligent people generally don't make
laws concerning non-existent phenomenon.
Correction, people don't make laws concerning phenomenon they don't
think can happen.
Same thing. That is why there are no laws concerning virgin births. They don't
happen anywhere except in your poorly thought out imagination.
You have failed to make your case Sage, just like you failed to show
that Jesus did not meet the requirements for Old Testament sacrifice.
Wrong. Try again.
Wrong. I refuted you.
In your wildest dreams. Unsupported assertions about non-existent Judaic laws
are not an example of "I refuted you".
The Sage
=============================================================
My Home Page : http://members.cox.net/the.sage
"Careful when you cast your devil out of you lest you cast
out the best thing in you." -Nietzsche
=============================================================
.
|
|
|
| User: "David" |
|
| Title: Re: Can anybody believe this child is God? |
20 Dec 2005 01:55:07 AM |
|
|
The_Sage wrote:
Reply to article by: "David" <davecheryll@earthlink.net>
Date written: 19 Dec 2005 19:13:02 -0800
MsgID:<1135048381.981349.249490@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
Can anybody believe this child is God?
What did Mary contribute? A normal egg with half the DNA of >Jesus? And
what did the Holy Spirit contribute? A miraculous sperm with the >other
half of the DNA of Jesus? And did the DNA supplied by Mary >and the DNA
supplied by the Holy Spirit somehow specify that the being >created
would be God? What miraculous DNA that was! How can a >series of
molecules possible specify a baby God?
You are asuming that the Holy Spirit did not just deposit a tiny fetus in Mary's womb.
There is nothing in the bible, to suggest that he deposited sperm to join with Mary's egg.
Perhaps her job was simply to be an incubator for the Godly fetus??
The problem with that theory is that Jesus was prophecized to be a direct
descendent of King David.
He was promised to be a descendent of King David.
That is what I just said.
You said direct descendent, attempting to imply that only a natural son
would suffice, this is untrue.
It is the Bible that implies that only a natural son would suffice -- bastards
were forbidden from family inheritences and since Joseph did not conceive Jesus
for himself, Jesus was his ***** son...
You are confused, a ***** son is sired out of wedlock. For Jesus to
be Joseph's *****, he would have to be sired by Joseph by a woman not
Joseph's wife.
"A ***** shall not enter into the assembly of Yahweh; even to the tenth
generation shall none of his enter into the assembly of Yahweh" (Dt. 23:2)
Since Jesus is not a *****, this requirement is met.
Unless he had DNA from Joseph (as only the male seed
was considered relevent in Biblical inheritence),
Wrong, DNA evidence was not considered relevant in Biblical
inheritance. That would be because DNA evidence could not be examined
at the time of the New Testament.
Irrelevent.
Agreed, DNA is irrelevant.
It is irrelevant if you agree or not since this is your strawman
Wrong, you are the one that started talking about DNA evidence, I
simply called you out on it and pointed out it is irrelevant.
and not an
actual point of agreement or disagreement.
Actually, it is a point of disagreement, for Jesus is biologically
descended from David, just not through Joseph.
I wasn't talking about DNA evidence, but that Jesus had to have some
of King David's DNA in order to fulfill the prophecy that he would be a direct
descendent of King David.
Wrong, he has to be the legal son of Joseph, according to Judaic law,
which he was.
What "Judaic law"?
Laws of the Jews. People that lived in Palestine, does that ring a
bell?
The one you just made up out of thin air?
I assure you, Judaic law is quite real.
Jesus failed to fulfill that prophecy.
Wrong. Joseph was recognized as Jesus' father for the purposes of
Biblical inheritance.
The Bible says that Jesus would be the *SEED* of King David (and Abraham and
Adam).
True.
Seed means "direct descendent", not ***** or orphan.
Jesus is neither a ***** nor an orphan. And you only succeeded in
pointing out Jesus is not the seed of Joseph, you failed to show he is
not the seed of David.
"Seed" as used in those days, referred to the illusion that men planted
"seed" (semen) into "fertile" women where the "seed" could grow.
Also true.
Seed means "direct descendent", not ***** or orphan.
Jesus is neither a ***** nor an orphan. And you only succeeded in
pointing out Jesus is not the seed of Joseph, you failed to show he is
not the seed of David.
That is why
only men were considered in Biblical geneologies and never women.
Until the Gospel of Luke.
Luke says that Jesus was the son of Joseph, not Mary.
Wrong. Luke does not say Jesus is the son of Joseph. Only that he was
the supposed son of Joseph.
Got any other guesses?
That is why you fail Sage, you guess, I actually check the Bible.
If you are saying that you are willing to negate Old Testament law
No, I am saying that Jesus fulfilled the law.
just so you
can justify your fairytale Jesus fantasy,
There is no fantasy here, I am just pointing out what the Biblical text
says. You are the one who wanted to show that the Biblical text is
wrong on its own terms, I have shown you have not made your case.
then no amount of reason of facts
I am using reasoning the facts.
will
persuade you to come to your senses because you are without rhyme or reason.
On the contrary, I have debunked your erroneous assertions with what
the Biblical text says.
Joseph didn't sire Jesus, he adopted Jesus,
Judaic law recognized legal rights passing down to adopted as well as
natural sons.
Show me where it says that.
Ask, and you shall receive.
http://www.jewfaq.org/birth.htm
which means Jesus wasn't really Joseph's son
According to Judaic law, Jesus is Joseph's son.
What "Judaic law"?
Laws of the Jews. People that lived in Palestine, does that ring a
bell?
The one you just made up out of thin air?
I assure you, Judaic law is quite real.
and therefore Jesus had no claim to being of Joseph's seed.
Incorrect, Judaic law recognized Jesus as being Joseph's seed, even
though he was of virgin birth.
What "Judaic law"?
Laws of the Jews. People that lived in Palestine, does that ring a
bell?
The one you just made up out of thin air?
I assure you, Judaic law is quite real.
And if
Jesus had no claim to being the seed of anyone who was in the lineage of King
David, Jesus clearly failed to fulfill the prophecy that said he would.
But since Jesus was Joseph's son according to Judaic law, he did
fulfill the prophecy.
What "Judaic law"?
Laws of the Jews. People that lived in Palestine, does that ring a
bell?
The one you just made up out of thin air?
I assure you, Judaic law is quite real.
Judaic law was silent on the subject of virgin births.
That's because there is no such thing.
Unsupported assertion.
Your make believe "Judaic law" is the only unsupported assertion around here.
I assure you, Jews had laws. And you even conceded that by agreeing
that Judaic law does not cover virgin births.
I
showed you the quote from Deut now where's yours?
Romans 1:3
concerning his Son, who was born of the seed of David according to the
flesh,
Intelligent people generally don't make
laws concerning non-existent phenomenon.
Correction, people don't make laws concerning phenomenon they don't
think can happen.
Same thing.
Wrong. What you think, and reality, can differ greatly.
That is why there are no laws concerning virgin births. They don't
happen anywhere except in your poorly thought out imagination.
Sage mistakenly asserts I wrote the New Testament, he is as wrong in
this as in his claim that the Gospels are poorly thought out.
You have failed to make your case Sage, just like you failed to show
that Jesus did not meet the requirements for Old Testament sacrifice.
Wrong. Try again.
Wrong. I refuted you.
In your wildest dreams.
No, on Usenet. Your three "irrefutable" examples were quite easily
refuted.
Unsupported assertions about non-existent Judaic laws
Jews had laws regarding adoption, one of those things that you have to
have laws about.
are not an example of "I refuted you".
True, just an example of refuting you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The_Sage" |
|
| Title: Re: Can anybody believe this child is God? |
20 Dec 2005 10:19:00 PM |
|
|
Reply to article by: "David" <davecheryll@earthlink.net>
Date written: 19 Dec 2005 23:55:07 -0800
MsgID:<1135065307.304275.248590@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
You are confused, a ***** son is sired out of wedlock. For Jesus to
be Joseph's *****, he would have to be sired by Joseph by a woman not
Joseph's wife.
You are confused. Mary was not married to anyone when she got pregnant. That
means she got pregnant out of wedlock. That makes her son a *****. Her *****
son's name was Jesus.
"A ***** shall not enter into the assembly of Yahweh; even to the tenth
generation shall none of his enter into the assembly of Yahweh" (Dt. 23:2)
Since Jesus is not a *****, this requirement is met.
You are confused. Mary was not married to anyone when she got pregnant. That
means she got pregnant out of wedlock. That makes her son a *****. Her *****
son's name was Jesus.
Unless he had DNA from Joseph (as only the male seed
was considered relevent in Biblical inheritence),
Wrong, DNA evidence was not considered relevant in Biblical
inheritance. That would be because DNA evidence could not be examined
at the time of the New Testament.
Irrelevent.
Agreed, DNA is irrelevant.
It is irrelevant if you agree or not since this is your strawman
Wrong, you are the one that started talking about DNA evidence, I
simply called you out on it and pointed out it is irrelevant.
You are still missing the point. The point was that the genetic material used to
make Jesus wasn't derived from a male descendant of King David as it was
supposed to have, because Jesus wasn't sired by Joseph.
and not an actual point of agreement or disagreement.
Actually, it is a point of disagreement, for Jesus is biologically
descended from David, just not through Joseph.
There is no proof that Jesus was biologically descended from Jesus, so there is
nothing to agree or disagree about, there is only your denial of facts.
I wasn't talking about DNA evidence, but that Jesus had to have some
of King David's DNA in order to fulfill the prophecy that he would be a direct
descendent of King David.
Wrong, he has to be the legal son of Joseph, according to Judaic law,
which he was.
What "Judaic law"?
Laws of the Jews. People that lived in Palestine, does that ring a
bell?
Show me. All we have is your storytales but no proof.
The one you just made up out of thin air?
I assure you, Judaic law is quite real.
Your "assurance" isn't enough. I need to see some proof, not your meresay.
Jesus failed to fulfill that prophecy.
Wrong. Joseph was recognized as Jesus' father for the purposes of
Biblical inheritance.
The Bible says that Jesus would be the *SEED* of King David (and Abraham and
Adam).
True.
Seed means "direct descendent", not ***** or orphan.
Jesus is neither a ***** nor an orphan.
Wrong. Mary was not married to anyone when she got pregnant. That means she got
pregnant out of wedlock. That makes her son a *****. Her ***** son's name
was Jesus.
And you only succeeded in
pointing out Jesus is not the seed of Joseph, you failed to show he is
not the seed of David.
Women do not provide the seed, only men can do that and the only man around who
could have provided the seed, didn't do the deed.
"Seed" as used in those days, referred to the illusion that men planted
"seed" (semen) into "fertile" women where the "seed" could grow.
Also true.
Seed means "direct descendent", not ***** or orphan.
Jesus is neither a ***** nor an orphan. And you only succeeded in
pointing out Jesus is not the seed of Joseph, you failed to show he is
not the seed of David.
You sound like a broken record of a blind faith mantra gone wrong. Mary was not
married to anyone when she got pregnant. That means she got pregnant out of
wedlock. That makes her son a *****. Her ***** son's name was Jesus.
That is why
only men were considered in Biblical geneologies and never women.
Until the Gospel of Luke.
Luke says that Jesus was the son of Joseph, not Mary.
Wrong. Luke does not say Jesus is the son of Joseph. Only that he was
the supposed son of Joseph.
http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Luk/Luk003.html#23
"And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was
supposed) the son of Joseph, which was [the son] of Heli" (Luke 3:23)
You stand corrected.
Got any other guesses?
That is why you fail Sage, you guess, I actually check the Bible.
I just proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that you do no such thing. Got any
other fairytales you want to tell us?
If you are saying that you are willing to negate Old Testament law
No, I am saying that Jesus fulfilled the law.
So you say without a shred of evidence.
just so you can justify your fairytale Jesus fantasy,
There is no fantasy here, I am just pointing out what the Biblical text
says.
You have yet to quote the Bible.
You are the one who wanted to show that the Biblical text is
wrong on its own terms, I have shown you have not made your case.
All you are showing is your ignorance of the Bible.
then no amount of reason of facts
I am using reasoning the facts.
Could someone translate that nonsense sentence into english?
will persuade you to come to your senses because you are without rhyme or reason.
On the contrary, I have debunked your erroneous assertions with what
the Biblical text says.
You are deluding yourself. You are all talk and no facts.
Joseph didn't sire Jesus, he adopted Jesus,
Judaic law recognized legal rights passing down to adopted as well as
natural sons.
Show me where it says that.
Ask, and you shall receive.
http://www.jewfaq.org/birth.htm
This site is based on the Talmud, which didn't exist at the time of the birth of
Jesus. The only relevant laws in Jesus' time were from the Torah (read: the
first five books of the OT). The Torah says that bastards (not orphans or
adopted sons) had no rights, in fact, the bastards descendants were not even
considered Jews for ten generations.
which means Jesus wasn't really Joseph's son
According to Judaic law, Jesus is Joseph's son.
What "Judaic law"?
Laws of the Jews. People that lived in Palestine, does that ring a
bell?
Show me. All we have is your storytales but no proof.
The one you just made up out of thin air?
I assure you, Judaic law is quite real.
Your "assurance" isn't enough. I need to see some proof, not listen to your
meresay.
and therefore Jesus had no claim to being of Joseph's seed.
Incorrect, Judaic law recognized Jesus as being Joseph's seed, even
though he was of virgin birth.
What "Judaic law"?
Laws of the Jews. People that lived in Palestine, does that ring a
bell?
Show me. All we have is your storytales but no proof.
The one you just made up out of thin air?
I assure you, Judaic law is quite real.
Your "assurance" isn't enough. I need to see some proof, not listen to your
meresay.
And if
Jesus had no claim to being the seed of anyone who was in the lineage of King
David, Jesus clearly failed to fulfill the prophecy that said he would.
But since Jesus was Joseph's son according to Judaic law, he did
fulfill the prophecy.
What "Judaic law"?
Laws of the Jews. People that lived in Palestine, does that ring a
bell?
Show me. All we have is your storytales but no proof.
The one you just made up out of thin air?
I assure you, Judaic law is quite real.
Your "assurance" isn't enough. I need to see some proof, not listen to your
meresay.
Judaic law was silent on the subject of virgin births.
That's because there is no such thing.
Unsupported assertion.
Your make believe "Judaic law" is the only unsupported assertion around here.
I assure you, Jews had laws.
That was never the issue. Try another strawman.
And you even conceded that by agreeing
that Judaic law does not cover virgin births.
And since no law covers non-existent virgin births, there is no legal grounds
for accepting them...and why should they since they never happen in real life?
I showed you the quote from Deut now where's yours?
Romans 1:3
concerning his Son, who was born of the seed of David according to the
flesh,
Which is contradicted by the accounts given in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John,
which state that Joseph did not get Mary pregnant. Even if we pretend that God
mixed His seed with Mary's egg, the geneology of Mary is not only unknown, it is
legally irrelevant since only the male side counts in such matters, ie --women
do not provide the seed, only men can do that and the only man around who could
have provided the seed, didn't do the deed.
But congratulations anyway! This is the first time you actually quoted anything
from the Bible in order to try to defend your argument.
Intelligent people generally don't make
laws concerning non-existent phenomenon.
Correction, people don't make laws concerning phenomenon they don't
think can happen.
Same thing.
Wrong. What you think, and reality, can differ greatly.
They can differ but in this case they don't differ. You stand corrected. Again.
That is why there are no laws concerning virgin births. They don't
happen anywhere except in your poorly thought out imagination.
Sage mistakenly asserts I wrote the New Testament,
You are asserting I said something I never actually said. Try another lie.
he is as wrong in this as in his claim that the Gospels are poorly thought out.
Just because you say so? Your say so is seriously lacking any credibility at
this time, seeing as your arguments so far have consisted mainly of meresay,
lies, and blind faith assertions.
You have failed to make your case Sage, just like you failed to show
that Jesus did not meet the requirements for Old Testament sacrifice.
Wrong. Try again.
Wrong. I refuted you.
In your wildest dreams.
No, on Usenet. Your three "irrefutable" examples were quite easily
refuted.
In your wildest usenet dreams.
Unsupported assertions about non-existent Judaic laws
Jews had laws regarding adoption, one of those things that you have to
have laws about.
You have yet to prove that.
are not an example of "I refuted you".
True, just an example of refuting you.
False, you are just deluding yourself as usual.
The Sage
=============================================================
My Home Page : http://members.cox.net/the.sage
"Careful when you cast your devil out of you lest you cast
out the best thing in you." -Nietzsche
=============================================================
.
|
|
|
| User: "The_Sage" |
|
| Title: Re: Can anybody believe this child is God? |
20 Dec 2005 10:35:25 PM |
|
|
Reply to article by: The_Sage <The_Sage@msn.com>
Date written: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 21:19:00 -0700
MsgID:<l2jhq1ddd6g702kvov016d0clcpcbtbt67@4ax.com>
Minor correction:
The statement:
There is no proof that Jesus was biologically descended from Jesus, so there is
nothing to agree or disagree about, there is only your denial of facts.
Should read:
There is no proof that Jesus was biologically descended from King David, so there is
nothing to agree or disagree about, there is only your denial of facts.
I hope you understand but I doubt it.
The Sage
=============================================================
My Home Page : http://members.cox.net/the.sage
"Careful when you cast your devil out of you lest you cast
out the best thing in you." -Nietzsche
=============================================================
.
|
|
|
| User: "David" |
|
| Title: Re: Can anybody believe this child is God? |
21 Dec 2005 03:23:35 AM |
|
|
The_Sage wrote:
Reply to article by: The_Sage <The_Sage@msn.com>
Date written: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 21:19:00 -0700
MsgID:<l2jhq1ddd6g702kvov016d0clcpcbtbt67@4ax.com>
Minor correction:
The statement:
There is no proof that Jesus was biologically descended from Jesus, so there is
nothing to agree or disagree about, there is only your denial of facts.
Should read:
There is no proof that Jesus was biologically descended from King David, so there is
nothing to agree or disagree about, there is only your denial of facts.
I am not trying to prove anything. I am only pointing out that your
claims that the Bible shows Jesus is not of the seed of David are
false.
I hope you understand but I doubt it.
Put your doubts to rest.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David" |
|
| Title: Re: Can anybody believe this child is God? |
21 Dec 2005 03:20:04 AM |
|
|
The_Sage wrote:
Reply to article by: "David" <davecheryll@earthlink.net>
Date written: 19 Dec 2005 23:55:07 -0800
MsgID:<1135065307.304275.248590@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
You are confused, a ***** son is sired out of wedlock. For Jesus to
be Joseph's *****, he would have to be sired by Joseph by a woman not
Joseph's wife.
You are confused. Mary was not married to anyone when she got pregnant. That
means she got pregnant out of wedlock. That makes her son a *****. Her *****
son's name was Jesus.
Everyone, let's take a look at what Sage said a couple of posts ago.
Joseph did not conceive Jesus
for himself, Jesus was his ***** son
Notice how Sage has flip-flopped from Jesus is Joseph's *****, to now
Jesus is Mary's *****. When I corrected his obvious error, he
attempted to blame me for being confused.
Now I shall correct his errors in his latest post:
You are confused. Mary was not married to anyone when she got pregnant.
Wrong. She was betrothed to Joseph, and betrothal was part of the
marriage. The Jews had no engagement period like we do.
That
means she got pregnant out of wedlock.
Wrong. She was betrothed to Joseph, and betrothal was part of the
marriage. The Jews had no engagement period like we do.
That makes her son a *****.
Wrong. Check the definition of *****. It is born out of wedlock, you
didn't even get the definition right.
Her *****
son's name was Jesus.
But you did get Mary's son's name correct. You were right about one
thing in that paragraph.
"A ***** shall not enter into the assembly of Yahweh; even to the tenth
generation shall none of his enter into the assembly of Yahweh" (Dt. 23:2)
Since Jesus is not a *****, this requirement is met.
You are confused. Mary was not married to anyone when she got pregnant. That
means she got pregnant out of wedlock. That makes her son a *****. Her *****
son's name was Jesus.
Everyone, let's take a look at what Sage said a couple of posts ago.
Joseph did not conceive Jesus
for himself, Jesus was his ***** son
Notice how Sage has flip-flopped from Jesus is Joseph's *****, to now
Jesus is Mary's *****. When I corrected his obvious error, he
attempted to blame me for being confused.
Now I shall correct his errors in his latest post:
You are confused. Mary was not married to anyone when she got pregnant.
Wrong. She was betrothed to Joseph, and betrothal was part of the
marriage. The Jews had no engagement period like we do.
That
means she got pregnant out of wedlock.
Wrong. She was betrothed to Joseph, and betrothal was part of the
marriage. The Jews had no engagement period like we do.
That makes her son a *****.
Wrong. Check the definition of *****. It is born out of wedlock, you
didn't even get the definition right.
Her *****
son's name was Jesus.
But you did get Mary's son's name correct. You were right about one
thing in that paragraph.
Unless he had DNA from Joseph (as only the male seed
was considered relevent in Biblical inheritence),
Wrong, DNA evidence was not considered relevant in Biblical
inheritance. That would be because DNA evidence could not be examined
at the time of the New Testament.
Irrelevent.
Agreed, DNA is irrelevant.
It is irrelevant if you agree or not since this is your strawman
Wrong, you are the one that started talking about DNA evidence, I
simply called you out on it and pointed out it is irrelevant.
You are still missing the point. The point was that the genetic material used to
make Jesus wasn't derived from a male descendant of King David as it was
supposed to have,
When it comes to DNA, as we both know, it derives from mother and
father.
because Jesus wasn't sired by Joseph.
But Jesus is descended from David through Mary.
and not an actual point of agreement or disagreement.
Actually, it is a point of disagreement, for Jesus is biologically
descended from David, just not through Joseph.
There is no proof that Jesus was biologically descended from Jesus, so there is
nothing to agree or disagree about, there is only your denial of facts.
I noticed your correction, so I will address it there, and not bother
with something like:
"Could someone translate that nonsense sentence into english?"
I wasn't talking about DNA evidence, but that Jesus had to have some
of King David's DNA in order to fulfill the prophecy that he would be a direct
descendent of King David.
Wrong, he has to be the legal son of Joseph, according to Judaic law,
which he was.
What "Judaic law"?
Laws of the Jews. People that lived in Palestine, does that ring a
bell?
Show me. All we have is your storytales but no proof.
I showed the link in the prior post.
The one you just made up out of thin air?
I assure you, Judaic law is quite real.
Your "assurance" isn't enough. I need to see some proof, not your meresay.
You need proof that Jews wrote laws?
Jesus failed to fulfill that prophecy.
Wrong. Joseph was recognized as Jesus' father for the purposes of
Biblical inheritance.
The Bible says that Jesus would be the *SEED* of King David (and Abraham and
Adam).
True.
Seed means "direct descendent", not ***** or orphan.
Jesus is neither a ***** nor an orphan.
Wrong. Mary was not married to anyone when she got pregnant.
Wrong. She was betrothed to Joseph, and betrothal was part of the
marriage. The Jews had no engagement period like we do.
That
means she got pregnant out of wedlock.
Wrong. She was betrothed to Joseph, and betrothal was part of the
marriage. The Jews had no engagement period like we do.
That makes her son a *****.
Wrong. Check the definition of *****. It is born out of wedlock, you
didn't even get the definition right.
Her *****
son's name was Jesus.
But you did get Mary's son's name correct. You were right about one
thing in that paragraph.
And you only succeeded in
pointing out Jesus is not the seed of Joseph, you failed to show he is
not the seed of David.
Women do not provide the seed, only men can do that and the only man around who
could have provided the seed, didn't do the deed.
As you yourself admitted, the seed as understood in ancient times is an
illusion. Women do provide the "seed" as well as men.
"Seed" as used in those days, referred to the illusion that men planted
"seed" (semen) into "fertile" women where the "seed" could grow.
Also true.
Seed means "direct descendent", not ***** or orphan.
Jesus is neither a ***** nor an orphan. And you only succeeded in
pointing out Jesus is not the seed of Joseph, you failed to show he is
not the seed of David.
You sound like a broken record of a blind faith mantra gone wrong.
I only refute your repeated erroneous assertions every time you make
them.
Mary was not
married to anyone when she got pregnant.
Wrong. She was betrothed to Joseph, and betrothal was part of the
marriage. The Jews had no engagement period like we do.
That
means she got pregnant out of wedlock.
Wrong. She was betrothed to Joseph, and betrothal was part of the
marriage. The Jews had no engagement period like we do.
That makes her son a *****.
Wrong. Check the definition of *****. It is born out of wedlock, you
didn't even get the definition right.
Her *****
son's name was Jesus.
But you did get Mary's son's name correct. You were right about one
thing in that paragraph.
..
That is why
only men were considered in Biblical geneologies and never women.
Until the Gospel of Luke.
Luke says that Jesus was the son of Joseph, not Mary.
Wrong. Luke does not say Jesus is the son of Joseph. Only that he was
the supposed son of Joseph.
http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Luk/Luk003.html#23
"And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was
supposed) the son of Joseph, which was [the son] of Heli" (Luke 3:23)
You stand corrected.
Let's look at that everyone, shall we? I said Luke said Jesus is the
supposed son of Joseph. Notice how Sage quotes the words "(as was
supposed)" and then pretends that they do not exist. He has to, because
otherwise he cannot pretend he corrected me.
Also notice that the words "[the son]" are in brackets. That is because
the words do not exist in the Biblical text. They have been added. The
correct Biblical text reads
"which was of Heli"
Luke is clearly referring to Mary here, Joseph is only the supposed
father, and Mary was of Heli. Adding the words "the son" is simply
another erroneous assertion. An edit of the text. Sage did not do this
himself, he simply doesn't know enough about the Bible to realize this
is an edit.
Got any other guesses?
That is why you fail Sage, you guess, I actually check the Bible.
I just proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that you do no such thing.
If you did, why was it so easy to refute you?
Got any
other fairytales you want to tell us?
No fairy tales, just the Biblical text, without edits like the words
"the son".
If you are saying that you are willing to negate Old Testament law
No, I am saying that Jesus fulfilled the law.
So you say without a shred of evidence.
I have provided the Biblical text, without edits.
just so you can justify your fairytale Jesus fantasy,
There is no fantasy here, I am just pointing out what the Biblical text
says.
You have yet to quote the Bible.
Wrong.
You are the one who wanted to show that the Biblical text is
wrong on its own terms, I have shown you have not made your case.
All you are showing is your ignorance of the Bible.
On the contrary, I have corrected your ignorance of "the son".
then no amount of reason of facts
I am using reasoning the facts.
Could someone translate that nonsense sentence into english?
Sure, I am using/reasoning the facts. Sorry for the typo.
will persuade you to come to your senses because you are without rhyme or reason.
On the contrary, I have debunked your erroneous assertions with what
the Biblical text says.
You are deluding yourself.
Correcting your unknowing Biblical edits(like [the son]), your
erroneous assertions(Jesus is Joseph's *****) and your incorrect
definitions(***** are born, not conceived, out of wedlock) is not
deluding myself.
You are all talk and no facts.
Correcting your unknowing Biblical edits(like [the son]), your
erroneous assertions(Jesus is Joseph's *****) and your incorrect
definitions(***** are born, not conceived, out of wedlock) is dealing
in facts, not talk.
Joseph didn't sire Jesus, he adopted Jesus,
Judaic law recognized legal rights passing down to adopted as well as
natural sons.
Show me where it says that.
Ask, and you shall receive.
http://www.jewfaq.org/birth.htm
This site is based on the Talmud, which didn't exist at the time of the birth of
Jesus.
If you want to show some radical changes in adoption laws in that time
frame, be my guest.
The only relevant laws in Jesus' time were from the Torah (read: the
first five books of the OT). The Torah says that bastards (not orphans or
adopted sons) had no rights,
Notice how Sage continues to try to change the subject from adopted
sons to bastards, despite the fact that I already refuted his erroneous
assertion that Jesus was a *****, and despite the fact that I was
providing him with the link he requested with respect to Judaic law
recognizing adoption.
in fact, the bastards descendants were not even
considered Jews for ten generations.
But since Jesus was not a *****, this point is irrelevant.
which means Jesus wasn't really Joseph's son
According to Judaic law, Jesus is Joseph's son.
What "Judaic law"?
Laws of the Jews. People that lived in Palestine, does that ring a
bell?
Show me. All we have is your storytales but no proof.
I have to show you proof Jews lived in Palestine?
The one you just made up out of thin air?
I assure you, Judaic law is quite real.
Your "assurance" isn't enough. I need to see some proof, not listen to your
meresay.
I have to show you proof Jews had laws?
and therefore Jesus had no claim to being of Joseph's seed.
Incorrect, Judaic law recognized Jesus as being Joseph's seed, even
though he was of virgin birth.
What "Judaic law"?
Laws of the Jews. People that lived in Palestine, does that ring a
bell?
Show me. All we have is your storytales but no proof.
I have to show you proof Jews lived in Palestine?
The one you just made up out of thin air?
I assure you, Judaic law is quite real.
Your "assurance" isn't enough. I need to see some proof, not listen to your
meresay.
I have to show you proof Jews had laws?
And if
Jesus had no claim to being the seed of anyone who was in the lineage of King
David, Jesus clearly failed to fulfill the prophecy that said he would.
But since Jesus was Joseph's son according to Judaic law, he did
fulfill the prophecy.
What "Judaic law"?
Laws of the Jews. People that lived in Palestine, does that ring a
bell?
Show me. All we have is your storytales but no proof.
I have to show you proof Jews lived in Palestine?
The one you just made up out of thin air?
I assure you, Judaic law is quite real.
Your "assurance" isn't enough. I need to see some proof, not listen to your
meresay.
I have to show you proof Jews had laws?
Judaic law was silent on the subject of virgin births.
That's because there is no such thing.
Unsupported assertion.
Your make believe "Judaic law" is the only unsupported assertion around here.
I assure you, Jews had laws.
That was never the issue. Try another strawman.
You are the one who started talking about my "make believe 'Judaic
law'".
And you even conceded that by agreeing
that Judaic law does not cover virgin births.
And since no law covers non-existent virgin births, there is no legal grounds
for accepting them...
Exactly, which is why Jesus is legally Joseph's father.
and why should they since they never happen in real life?
Unsupported assertion.
I showed you the quote from Deut now where's yours?
Romans 1:3
concerning his Son, who was born of the seed of David according to the
flesh,
Which is contradicted by the accounts given in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John,
which state that Joseph did not get Mary pregnant.
Wrong. Matthew and Luke agree with Romans 1:3. Matthew traces Jesus
descending from David through Joseph legally, and Luke traces Jesus
descending from David through Mary biologically. Mark and John don't
have much to say on the subject.
Even if we pretend that God
mixed His seed with Mary's egg,
The Bible makes no such claim.
the geneology of Mary is not only unknown, it is
legally irrelevant since only the male side counts in such matters, ie --women
do not provide the seed, only men can do that
As you yourself admitted, that is only an illusion. Women can provide
the seed as well.
and the only man around who could
have provided the seed, didn't do the deed.
Your fallacy is assuming that Jesus cannot be the seed of David through
Mary.
But congratulations anyway! This is the first time you actually quoted anything
from the Bible in order to try to defend your argument.
Thanks, it was the first time it was necessary.
Intelligent people generally don't make
laws concerning non-existent phenomenon.
Correction, people don't make laws concerning phenomenon they don't
think can happen.
Same thing.
Wrong. What you think, and reality, can differ greatly.
They can differ but in this case they don't differ.
Wrong. Have you hear of parthenogenesis? It is possible.
You stand corrected. Again.
Wrong. I have corrected you again.
That is why there are no laws concerning virgin births. They don't
happen anywhere except in your poorly thought out imagination.
Sage mistakenly asserts I wrote the New Testament,
You are asserting I said something I never actually said.
Wrong. I pointed out you asserted I wrote the New Testament, not that
you said I wrote the New Testament.
Try another lie.
Let's see if I am lying.
"They don't happen anywhere except in your poorly thought out
imagination."
If that is true, and since it does happen in the written New Testament,
then obviously the New Testament comes from my poorly thought out
imagination.
Pointing out the logical conclusions from your words is not a lie.
he is as wrong in this as in his claim that the Gospels are poorly thought out.
Just because you say so? Your say so is seriously lacking any credibility at
this time,
Correction, it is your credibility which is being destroyed by my
refutation of your arguments.
seeing as your arguments so far have consisted mainly of meresay,
lies, and blind faith assertions.
Correcting your unknowing Biblical edits(like [the son]), your
erroneous assertions(Jesus is Joseph's *****), your wild
accusations(that I am lying) and your incorrect definitions(***** are
born, not conceived, out of wedlock) is not meresay, lies, or blind
faith assertions.
You have failed to make your case Sage, just like you failed to show
that Jesus did not meet the requirements for Old Testament sacrifice.
Wrong. Try again.
Wrong. I refuted you.
In your wildest dreams.
No, on Usenet. Your three "irrefutable" examples were quite easily
refuted.
In your wildest usenet dreams.
I don't have usenet dreams. Your three "irrefutable" examples were
quite easily refuted on Usenet.
Unsupported assertions about non-existent Judaic laws
Jews had laws regarding adoption, one of those things that you have to
have laws about.
You have yet to prove that.
I need to prove to you Jews adopted other Jews?
are not an example of "I refuted you".
True, just an example of refuting you.
False,
Wrong.
you are just deluding yourself as usual.
Correcting your unknowing Biblical edits(like [the son]), your
erroneous assertions(Jesus is Joseph's *****), your wild
accusations(that I am lying) and your incorrect definitions(***** are
born, not conceived, out of wedlock) is not deluding myself, though I
will concede that it is pretty usual.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The_Sage" |
|
| Title: Re: Can anybody believe this child is God? |
21 Dec 2005 11:18:40 PM |
|
|
Reply to article by: "David" <davecheryll@earthlink.net>
Date written: 21 Dec 2005 01:20:04 -0800
MsgID:<1135156804.615117.102170@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>
You are confused. Mary was not married to anyone when she got pregnant. That
means she got pregnant out of wedlock. That makes her son a *****. Her *****
son's name was Jesus.
Everyone, let's take a look at what Sage said a couple of posts ago.
Joseph did not conceive Jesus for himself, Jesus was his ***** son
Notice how Sage has flip-flopped from Jesus is Joseph's *****, to now
Jesus is Mary's *****. When I corrected his obvious error, he
attempted to blame me for being confused.
It's not a flip-flop, it's the same thing: Jesus was a ***** son of Mary's and
a ***** son of Joseph's. The only difference is that Joseph was an *ADOPTED*
***** son. Get a clue! Please!
Now I shall correct his errors in his latest post:
You can't even correct your own errors, how can you correct anyone else's?
You are confused. Mary was not married to anyone when she got pregnant.
Wrong. She was betrothed to Joseph, and betrothal was part of the
marriage. The Jews had no engagement period like we do.
The Jews never equated betrothal as being married. Jewish Law is defined in the
first five books of the OT and it never equates betrothal as being married. This
is your usual lies and uneducated nonsense.
A ***** is defined as anyone born out of wedlock. Period. Wedlock is defined
as being married. Period. Being engaged/betrothed is not considered not being
married. Period. That is just as true 2000 years ago as it still is today. Get a
dictionary!
"A ***** shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his
tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD" (Deut.
23:2)
"And ye have forgotten the exhortation which speaketh unto you as unto
children, My son, despise not thou the chastening of the Lord, nor faint when
thou art rebuked of him: For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and
scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. If ye endure chastening, God dealeth
with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not? But
if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye
bastards, and not sons" (Heb. 12:5-8)
See how I quote the Bible instead of making up things as you do? These verses
show if Jesus was a *****, he was no son of God. Was Jesus a *****? Of
course he was...
"Now this is how Jesus the Messiah was born. His mother, Mary, was engaged to
be married to Joseph. But while she was still a virgin, she became pregnant
by the Holy Spirit. Joseph, her fiance, being a just man, decided to break
the engagement quietly, so as not to disgrace her publicly." (Matt 1:18,19)
They were engaged/betrothed but not married when Mary got pregnant with child.
That fits the definition for a ***** child, perfectly.
You have no Bible verses to quote or Jewish Laws (read: no Bible verses to quote
from the first five books of the OT) to reference that say otherwise.
You lose. Again.
The Sage
=============================================================
My Home Page : http://members.cox.net/the.sage
"Careful when you cast your devil out of you lest you cast
out the best thing in you." -Nietzsche
=============================================================
.
|
|
|
| User: "David" |
|
| Title: Re: Can anybody believe this child is God? |
22 Dec 2005 02:58:33 AM |
|
|
The_Sage wrote:
Reply to article by: "David" <davecheryll@earthlink.net>
Date written: 21 Dec 2005 01:20:04 -0800
MsgID:<1135156804.615117.102170@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>
You are confused. Mary was not married to anyone when she got pregnant. That
means she got pregnant out of wedlock. That makes her son a *****. Her *****
son's name was Jesus.
Everyone, let's take a look at what Sage said a couple of posts ago.
Joseph did not conceive Jesus for himself, Jesus was his ***** son
Notice how Sage has flip-flopped from Jesus is Joseph's *****, to now
Jesus is Mary's *****. When I corrected his obvious error, he
attempted to blame me for being confused.
It's not a flip-flop, it's the same thing:
Wrong. A ***** son of Joseph is not a ***** son of Mary, unless the
two had the child together while not married.
Jesus was a ***** son of Mary's and
a ***** son of Joseph's.
By this logic, all married couples with children have bastards. I guess
you have to have a child out of wedlock in order to produce a
legitimate child.
The only difference is that Joseph was an *ADOPTED*
***** son.
Now Sage asserts that Joseph was an adopted ***** son. Where he gets
this idea has yet to be determined.
Get a clue! Please!
Sage first claims Jesus is Joseph's ***** son. I correct him, and
then he says Jesus is Mary's ***** son. I correct him again, and
point out his flip-flop, and then suddenly a couple who is married can
only have a ***** son. I also point out that a ***** is one born
out of wedlock and not simply in the womb out of wedlock(as Sage first
claimed), and Sage below ignores my correction and acts as if he always
knew that. And now suddenly Joseph is not only adopted, but a *****
son as well. Perhaps Sage thinks Nazareth was some sort of hippie
free-loving commune back then.
Now I shall correct his errors in his latest post:
You can't even correct your own errors,
Wrong, I did correct my typo, but thanks for pointing it out.
how can you correct anyone else's?
Careful research, checking sources, that sort of thing.
You are confused. Mary was not married to anyone when she got pregnant.
Wrong. She was betrothed to Joseph, and betrothal was part of the
marriage. The Jews had no engagement period like we do.
The Jews never equated betrothal as being married.
I didn't say betrothal was equal to marriage, I said it was part of the
marriage.
Jewish Law is defined in the
first five books of the OT and it never equates betrothal as being married.
True, but you ignore rabbinical law which at the time of Jesus
recognized for betrothal that:
1) You could only break betrothal by divorce.
2) Fidelity was required, violating it was considered adultery and a
betrothed husband denouncing his betrothed wife meant her death.
3) Children born during the betrothal were legitimate.
3) would reduce your argument that Jesus was a ***** to shambles,
except that your argument was already obliterated by the Gospel of
Matthew, which makes clear Joseph and Mary completed the betrothal
before Jesus was born.
Your argument is refuted in depth.
is your usual lies
I am not lying.
and uneducated
I assure you, I am educated.
nonsense.
Historical facts are not nonsense.
A ***** is defined as anyone born out of wedlock. Period.
Thank you Sage, for conceding that I am correct. I am happy to correct
your error.
Wedlock is defined
as being married. Period.
Betrothal is part of the marriage.
Being engaged/betrothed is not considered not being
married. Period.
Correction, you just equated engaged with betrothal. As I pointed out
to you, they are not the same. The Jews did not have an engagement like
we do, they had a betrothal, which was the first part of the marriage.
That is just as true 2000 years ago as it still is today.
Really? Has some woman been stoned for having sex with someone else
while engaged? I must have missed that story the day my newspaper
wasn't delivered.
Get a
dictionary!
Ah, I see your problem. You need to consult historical texts as well as
dictionaries in order to understand Jewish history. But I am glad to
see that my correcting you on the definition of ***** convinced you
to crack open a dictionary.
"A ***** shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his
tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD" (Deut.
23:2)
Note that Sage continues to quote Biblical text referring to bastards,
a futile act since he has already lost his case that Jesus was a
*****. Although I suppose if he does prove that Joseph was an adopted
***** son, then he could argue Jesus was one of the ten generations
not allowed to enter the congregation.
"And ye have forgotten the exhortation which speaketh unto you as unto
children, My son, despise not thou the chastening of the Lord, nor faint when
thou art rebuked of him: For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and
scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. If ye endure chastening, God dealeth
with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not? But
if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye
bastards, and not sons" (Heb. 12:5-8)
Note that Sage continues to quote Biblical text referring to bastards,
a futile act since he has already lost his case that Jesus was a
*****. Although I suppose if he does prove that Joseph was an adopted
***** son, then he could argue Jesus was one of the ten generations
not allowed to enter the congregation.
See how I quote the Bible instead of making up things as you do?
Notice that Sage has not provided any evidence that I am making things
up. That is because he does not have any.
These verses
show if Jesus was a *****, he was no son of God.
Not arguing with you here. But your "if" could marry a "but" and you
still won't have a *****.
Was Jesus a *****? Of
course he was...
....not.
"Now this is how Jesus the Messiah was born. His mother, Mary, was engaged to
be married to Joseph. But while she was still a virgin, she became pregnant
by the Holy Spirit. Joseph, her fiance, being a just man, decided to break
the engagement quietly, so as not to disgrace her publicly." (Matt 1:18,19)
Notice that Sage has not produced any Biblical text which says Jesus
was a *****, that is because there is no such text.
They were engaged/betrothed
Again Sage pretends that betrothed is engaged, but as I have already
pointed out, Jews did not have engagement, they had betrothal.
but not married when Mary got pregnant with child.
That fits the definition for a ***** child, perfectly.
Here Sage flip-flops on the definition of *****. Let's take a look at
what he says about the definition of ***** above in the same post:
A ***** is defined as anyone born out of wedlock. Perod.
Hmm..Period no less. And then let's read what he last said again:
but not married when Mary got pregnant with child.
That fits the definition for a ***** child, perfectly.
Is it asking too much from Sage to stay consistent in the same post?
Even John Kerry avoided flip-flopping during the same speech, he would
wait at least a day.
You have no Bible verses to quote
Wrong. I simply quote the verses you left out, whether deliberately or
through ignorance I cannot say, but these verses refute your claim that
Jesus was a *****. They pick up right where you left off:
Matthew 1:20-24
But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the LORD
appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear
not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her
is of the Holy Ghost. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt
call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins. Now
all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the
Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and
shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which
being interpreted is, God with us. Then Joseph being raised from sleep
did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his
wife.
Take a look at the last line Sage "and took unto him his wife." Not his
fiance, not his wife-to-be. Just his wife.
or Jewish Laws (read: no Bible verses to quote
from the first five books of the OT) to reference that say otherwise.
I don't need to do so, Matthew is sufficient.
You lose.
Yeah, that's a real objective analysis of the situation.
Again.
Notice Sage did not point out what my original loss was, that is
because he can't.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The_Sage" |
|
| Title: Re: Can anybody believe this child is God? |
23 Dec 2005 12:31:43 AM |
|
|
Reply to article by: "David" <davecheryll@earthlink.net>
Date written: 22 Dec 2005 00:58:33 -0800
MsgID:<1135241912.948260.39830@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
You are confused. Mary was not married to anyone when she got pregnant. That
means she got pregnant out of wedlock. That makes her son a *****. Her *****
son's name was Jesus.
Everyone, let's take a look at what Sage said a couple of posts ago.
Joseph did not conceive Jesus for himself, Jesus was his ***** son
Notice how Sage has flip-flopped from Jesus is Joseph's *****, to now
Jesus is Mary's *****. When I corrected his obvious error, he
attempted to blame me for being confused.
It's not a flip-flop, it's the same thing:
Wrong. A ***** son of Joseph is not a ***** son of Mary, unless the
two had the child together while not married.
So Jesus wasn't both Joseph's and Mary's son? Bwahaha! Can't you get anything
right?
Jesus was a ***** son of Mary's and a ***** son of Joseph's.
By this logic, all married couples with children have bastards.
Now you are being completely stupid. A ***** is only a child born out of
wedlock. Jesus was born out of wedlock; the Bible clearly says so.
Betrothal is not a part of marriage, anymore than engagement is not marriage.
Matthew 1:20-24
But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the LORD
appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear
not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her
is of the Holy Ghost. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt
call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins. Now
all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the
Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and
shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which
being interpreted is, God with us. Then Joseph being raised from sleep
did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his
wife.
Take a look at the last line Sage "and took unto him his wife." Not his
fiance, not his wife-to-be. Just his wife.
Yes, take a look at the last line! It says an angel told Joseph to take Mary as
his wife because Mary wasn't his wife yet. DUH!!
So it was too late! Mary got pregnant with a ***** son and then afterwards, an
angel told Joseph took Mary as his wife. Before then they were only engaged to
be married but Joseph wanted to dispose of Mary because she had a ***** son.
As soon as Joseph took Mary for his wife, Mary's ***** son also become
Joseph's ***** son.
You clearly have no logical thinking abilities whatsoever. You also have nothing
to stand on except your ignorant and make believe nonsense. So either quit
talking out your arse or post some actual facts.
The Sage
=============================================================
My Home Page : http://members.cox.net/the.sage
"Careful when you cast your devil out of you lest you cast
out the best thing in you." -Nietzsche
=============================================================
.
|
|
|
| User: "David" |
|
| Title: Re: Can anybody believe this child is God? |
23 Dec 2005 02:35:35 AM |
|
|
The_Sage wrote:
Reply to article by: "David" <davecheryll@earthlink.net>
Date written: 22 Dec 2005 00:58:33 -0800
MsgID:<1135241912.948260.39830@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
You are confused. Mary was not married to anyone when she got pregnant. That
means she got pregnant out of wedlock. That makes her son a *****. Her *****
son's name was Jesus.
Everyone, let's take a look at what Sage said a couple of posts ago.
Joseph did not conceive Jesus for himself, Jesus was his ***** son
Notice how Sage has flip-flopped from Jesus is Joseph's *****, to now
Jesus is Mary's *****. When I corrected his obvious error, he
attempted to blame me for being confused.
It's not a flip-flop, it's the same thing:
Wrong. A ***** son of Joseph is not a ***** son of Mary, unless the
two had the child together while not married.
So Jesus wasn't both Joseph's and Mary's son? Bwahaha!
Notice Sage's attempted sleight of hand here. I point out that Jesus is
not a ***** son of Joseph, and Sage pretends that suddenly Jesus is
not Joseph's son.
Can't you get anything
right?
Apparently for me to get things "right" according to Sage, I simply
have to realize that all sons are ***** sons, whether they are born
from married couples or not. Now I see Sage's logic, Jesus is a *****
son by definition, because all sons are ***** sons by definition.
Jesus was a ***** son of Mary's and a ***** son of Joseph's.
By this logic, all married couples with children have bastards.
Now you are being completely stupid.
Pointing out your flawed logic, and your incorrect definitions is not
stupid.
A ***** is only a child born out of
wedlock.
Sage flipflops back to the correct definition of *****.
Jesus was born out of wedlock; the Bible clearly says so.
Where? In the Gospel according to Sage?
Betrothal is not a part of marriage,
Wrong.
anymore than engagement is not marriage.
True, engagement is not marriage.
Matthew 1:20-24
But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the LORD
appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear
not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her
is of the Holy Ghost. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt
call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins. Now
all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the
Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and
shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which
being interpreted is, God with us. Then Joseph being raised from sleep
did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his
wife.
Take a look at the last line Sage "and took unto him his wife." Not his
fiance, not his wife-to-be. Just his wife.
Yes, take a look at the last line! It says an angel told Joseph to take Mary as
his wife because Mary wasn't his wife yet. DUH!!
Sage fails his reading comprehension test again.
Let's read that verse again:
"fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife:"
And let's read Sage's rendition of the line:
It says an angel told Joseph to take Mary as his wife
Notice how Sage has edited the Biblical text. He removes the words
"unto thee" and adds the word "as" before wife. Obviously Sage needed
to edit the Biblical text to make his claim, since Matthew does not
support him. As I suspected, when Sage claims "the Bible clearly says
so", he is referring to the Gospel according to Sage. Basically the
Gospel according to Sage is the Gospel according to Matthew plus a few
minor changes here and there, just enough so that the Gospel matches
Sage's preconceived notions of what he thinks it means.
Now let's analyze what the angel was actually saying.
The angel tells Joseph to "take unto thee" Mary. And who is Mary? The
angel tells us who she is: "thy wife". She is already Joseph's wife.
For Sage's assertion to be true, the angel would have to tell Joseph,
"fear not to take Mary as thy wife", or "fear not to take Mary to be
thy wife". But the angel does not say that, because Mary is already his
wife. They are betrothed, and they are husband and wife. As I pointed
out in my last post, betrothed husbands and wives are bound by the same
laws as husbands and wives.
One thing I did not mention, which is the key difference between
betrothed husband and wife and a husband and wife who have completed
their betrothal.
4) Betrothed husbands and wives do not live together.
Yes, betrothed need divorce to break the betrothal, their children are
legitimate(note how Sage ignored this point in my last post, to
acknowledge it is to acknowledge his claim fails), and to cheat was
adultery. But there is one difference, betrothed live apart, until the
wedding and the husband takes his wife into his home.
So the angel is simply telling Joseph to take Mary in, ending the
betrothal.
Oh, and Sage's last point:
because Mary wasn't his wife yet
This text is nowhere to be found in the actual Bible.
So it was too late! Mary got pregnant with a ***** son
And Sage flipflops back to the incorrect definition of *****.
and then afterwards, an
angel told Joseph took Mary as his wife.
Only in the Gospel according to Sage. In the Gospel according to
Matthew, the angel tells Joseph to "take unto thee Mary" who is his
wife. Take unto thee means take her into his home. The betrothal part
of the marriage is at an end.
Before then they were only engaged to
be married
Notice how Sage insists on using the word engagement, that word has no
application for Joseph and Mary, or any Jewish couple in that
historical time period, but he appears to want to associate their
betrothal with modern engagement, even though nothing could be further
from the truth.
but Joseph wanted to dispose of Mary because she had a ***** son.
Not according to the definition of ***** you started this post with.
And of course, you neglect to mention that Joseph changed his mind once
he learned she was still a virgin.
As soon as Joseph took Mary for his wife,
The Gospel of Matthew makes clear Mary was already his wife.
Mary's ***** son also become
Joseph's ***** son.
Sage, since you are having so much trouble with this, I will help you
out. A man adopting a woman's ***** son does not suddenly have a
***** son, it is his adopted son. It is somebody else's *****.
You clearly have no logical thinking abilities whatsoever.
Unsupported assertion.
You also have nothing
to stand on except
except the Bible, and Jewish law.
your ignorant
Unsupported assertion.
and make believe
Notice that Sage has not produced any evidence I am making anything up.
That is because he has none.
nonsense.
Historical facts and reading comprehension skills are not nonsense.
So either quit
talking out your arse
This from the man who claimed that Joseph was an adopted ***** son?
or post some actual facts.
I have posted historical facts, whether you choose to acknowledge those
facts or not is up to you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The_Sage" |
|
| Title: Re: Can anybody believe this child is God? |
23 Dec 2005 02:22:08 PM |
|
|
Reply to article by: "David" <davecheryll@earthlink.net>
Date written: 23 Dec 2005 00:35:35 -0800
MsgID:<1135326935.200949.139640@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>
Joseph did not conceive Jesus for himself, Jesus was his ***** son
Notice how Sage has flip-flopped from Jesus is Joseph's *****, to now
Jesus is Mary's *****. When I corrected his obvious error, he
attempted to blame me for being confused.
It's not a flip-flop, it's the same thing:
Wrong. A ***** son of Joseph is not a ***** son of Mary, unless the
two had the child together while not married.
So Jesus wasn't both Joseph's and Mary's son? Bwahaha!
Well? Was Jesus the son of both Mary and Joseph? Yes or no? If Jesus was both
the son of Mary and Joseph, and Jesus was a ***** son, then Joseph had a
***** son and Mary had a ***** son. No "flip-flop" there by saying that.
Duh!
Apparently for me to get things "right" according to Sage, I simply
have to realize that all sons are ***** sons, whether they are born
from married couples or not. Now I see Sage's logic, Jesus is a *****
son by definition, because all sons are ***** sons by definition.
What I have always said was for Jesus to be a ***** was simply for him to be
born out of wedlock. For you to claim anything else makes you a blatent liar.
What kind of moral system do you subscribe to that teaches you to do nothing but
lie?
"fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife:"
And let's read Sage's rendition of the line:
It says an angel told Joseph to take Mary as his wife
Notice how Sage has edited the Biblical text.
Another lie! You are so full of lies! I'm simply paraphrasing what I read and
paraphrasing isn't "editing". The Bible doesn't say that Mary was Joseph's wife,
in Matt 1:18 is says they were *BETROTHED*, which means they weren't married.
Maybe the problem is you use words that you don't understand, so here is a link
to the proper definition for betrothed:
http://www.answers.com/topic/betrothed?gwp=19
It clearly means "not married". Get it? Got it? Good!
The angel tells Joseph to "take unto thee" Mary. And who is Mary? The
angel tells us who she is: "thy wife". She is already Joseph's wife.
Yet another blatent lie. The angel does not tell us, "Mary is your wife", it
tells Joseph "fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife". It says "take" not
"keep", which can only mean "you are afraid to take Mary as your wife in
marriage but don't be afraid".
For Sage's assertion to be true, the angel would have to tell Joseph,
"fear not to take Mary as thy wife", or "fear not to take Mary to be
thy wife".
That is exactly what it says: "As he considered this, he fell asleep, and an
angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream. 'Joseph, son of David,' the angel
said, 'do not be afraid to go ahead with your marriage to Mary. For the child
within her has been conceived by the Holy Spirit'" (Mat 1:20, New Living
Translation © 1996 Tyndale Charitable Trust
Yes, betrothed need divorce to break the betrothal
Nonsense. No such custom has ever existed. This is another one of your blatent
lies.
because Mary wasn't his wife yet
This text is nowhere to be found in the actual Bible.
Only if you consider Matthew and Luke nowhere in the actual Bible. I would call
that a lie but I think this is just your ignorance of the Bible showing through.
So it was too late! Mary got pregnant with a | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
