Is God a Woman?

[Draka]

Sigh! In order for Jesus to be fully man He needed a full complement of genetic material. He could not have recieved it from Mary.

So you do believe god put his sperm into Mary? And how did it get there hmm?

Of course if Jesus actually lived he had a full complement of DNA...from Mary AND Joseph. :sarcastic

 

[sandy whitelinger]

So you do believe god put his sperm into Mary? And how did it get there hmm?

Of course if Jesus actually lived he had a full complement of DNA...from Mary AND Joseph. :sarcastic

Double Sigh! Your understanding of Scripture is spurious. As to how the conception happenned the Bible says this, " The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee [Mary], and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God[Jesus]." Luke 1:35 KJV

Scripture is very clear, Joseph was not the father.

 

[Draka]

Double Sigh! Your understanding of Scripture is spurious. As to how the conception happenned the Bible says this, " The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee [Mary], and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God[Jesus]." Luke 1:35 KJV

Scripture is very clear, Joseph was not the father.

Le sighhh. Not that clear...as parthenogenesis does not occur in humans and, as you said, Christ would need a "full complement of genetic material". Now, where was the rest of that genetic material obtained from if not from Joseph? Was it the holy ghost or god that impregnated Mary and what sperm did they use? If you want to attribute half of Jesus' DNA to god then you must believe that god was/is a physical being with a physical body and physical functions to even have DNA to pass on. However, it becomes much easier to accept the logical idea that Jesus was begat of Mary AND Joseph physically and that his SPIRIT was of god. Perhaps viewed as a small portion of god itself. Thus making the claims that Jesus was god AND the son of god both accurate. There is nothing in that scripture that definitively claims that Jesus was the biological son of god. Perhaps it is you who needs to work on your understanding of scripture a bit better.

 

[Sententia]

Double Sigh! Your understanding of Scripture is spurious. As to how the conception happenned the Bible says this, " The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee [Mary], and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God[Jesus]." Luke 1:35 KJV

Scripture is very clear, Joseph was not the father.

I deny the holy spirit. :yes:

So the holy spirit came upon Mary. Great. That is not subject to interpretation right? And the power of the highest shall overshadow thee... hmmm very clear... No need to interpret that? The holy thing? Thing? Seriously...

This will be easier if you restate what you think all that means and why.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I deny the holy spirit. :yes:

So the holy spirit came upon Mary. Great. That is not subject to interpretation right? And the power of the highest shall overshadow thee... hmmm very clear... No need to interpret that? The holy thing? Thing? Seriously...

This will be easier if you restate what you think all that means and why.

It means that God was the father of Jesus.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Le sighhh. Not that clear...as parthenogenesis does not occur in humans and, as you said, Christ would need a "full complement of genetic material". Now, where was the rest of that genetic material obtained from if not from Joseph? Was it the holy ghost or god that impregnated Mary and what sperm did they use? If you want to attribute half of Jesus' DNA to god then you must believe that god was/is a physical being with a physical body and physical functions to even have DNA to pass on. However, it becomes much easier to accept the logical idea that Jesus was begat of Mary AND Joseph physically and that his SPIRIT was of god. Perhaps viewed as a small portion of god itself. Thus making the claims that Jesus was god AND the son of god both accurate. There is nothing in that scripture that definitively claims that Jesus was the biological son of god. Perhaps it is you who needs to work on your understanding of scripture a bit better.

You obviously put more thought into the mechanics of the conception than I care to or Scripture deems appropriate.

I understand this. Jesus was the only begotten of the Father and Joseph did not play a role in the conception. When informed of the upcoming pregnancy Mary had this to say, "... How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?" Luke 1:34 KJV

Scripture also relates that all of the descendants of Adam were condemned to death through Adam. If this were true, then if Jesus were the direct descendant of Adam then He could not have been the sacrificial Lamb due to His death being ordained through Adam. Jesus had to come from a different bloodline than Adam. That made God the provider of the untainted flesh of Jesus. How that happened I'll leave your lurid fantasies to fill in the details.

 

[Draka]

You obviously put more thought into the mechanics of the conception than I care to or Scripture deems appropriate.

So sorry, didn't know god didn't want us to use our brains and to use logic and reason when thinking. I'll try to be more dense from now on.

I understand this. Jesus was the only begotten of the Father and Joseph did not play a role in the conception. When informed of the upcoming pregnancy Mary had this to say, "... How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?" Luke 1:34 KJV

Uh huh, right. Was Joseph her husband or not? You really want to say that they didn't have sex once they were married? And yeah...I really believe that everything written in the bible has no flaws. Like it was impossible to misinterpret anything anyone supposedly said. :sarcastic

Besides...you were the one who originally pointed out in all this that Jesus would have to have had a full genetic complement didn't you? You have yet to address that. For you to say that you would have to be saying that god has DNA and a physical body with which to impregnate Mary with. If you don't want to explain your own words then why say them?

Scripture also relates that all of the descendants of Adam were condemned to death through Adam. If this were true, then if Jesus were the direct descendant of Adam then He could not have been the sacrificial Lamb due to His death being ordained through Adam. Jesus had to come from a different bloodline than Adam. That made God the provider of the untainted flesh of Jesus. How that happened I'll leave your lurid fantasies to fill in the details.

Excuse me...but exactly where did Mary come from then? If you honestly believe that the bible is literal then we are all of the bloodline of Adam...including her...and thus Jesus no matter who knocked her up.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Uh huh, right. Was Joseph her husband or not? You really want to say that they didn't have sex once they were married? And yeah...I really believe that everything written in the bible has no flaws. Like it was impossible to misinterpret anything anyone supposedly said. :sarcastic

Besides...you were the one who originally pointed out in all this that Jesus would have to have had a full genetic complement didn't you? You have yet to address that. For you to say that you would have to be saying that god has DNA and a physical body with which to impregnate Mary with. If you don't want to explain your own words then why say them?



Excuse me...but exactly where did Mary come from then? If you honestly believe that the bible is literal then we are all of the bloodline of Adam...including her...and thus Jesus no matter who knocked her up.

I'll try to be more dense from now on.

It's working.

 

[soleil10]

There is a very interesting book out which I just started to read. It is called "The Virgin and the Priest". from Mark Gibbs
It explains what I already suspected. The Father of Jesus was Zachary. If you remember Mary went to spend 3 months in the High Priest home.

Despite the fact that Elisabeth told Mary that "she was the mother of my lord", Jesus ended being born in a manger. Later on the relationship between John the Baptist with Jesus did not work out well. They were supposed to stand together not separately.

John was famous but denied to be in the position of Elijah. People got confuse because Elijah had to come before the Messiah comes. John the Baptist sent his diciples to ask Jesus if he was the one to come. If he had been Jesus first disciple, it would have made a big difference for Jesus.

 

[Draka]

It's working.

Great, then maybe I can understand where you're coming from.

 

[McBell]

Great, then maybe I can understand where you're coming from.

Seems to me that perhaps you are not nearly dense enough for that.....

But then, I am only speculating :yes:

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Great, then maybe I can understand where you're coming from.

Only when you want to.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

There is a very interesting book out which I just started to read. It is called "The Virgin and the Priest". from Mark Gibbs
It explains what I already suspected. The Father of Jesus was Zachary. If you remember Mary went to spend 3 months in the High Priest home.

Despite the fact that Elisabeth told Mary that "she was the mother of my lord", Jesus ended being born in a manger. Later on the relationship between John the Baptist with Jesus did not work out well. They were supposed to stand together not separately.

John was famous but denied to be in the position of Elijah. People got confuse because Elijah had to come before the Messiah comes. John the Baptist sent his diciples to ask Jesus if he was the one to come. If he had been Jesus first disciple, it would have made a big difference for Jesus.

WOW!!!! It all makes perfect sense now.

 

[Draka]

Only when you want to.

Sorry, I think I'm going to have to go with Mestemia at this point. I really don't think I can just throw common sense and logic out the window like that. Even if it means getting closer to understanding where you're coming from. Sorry No can do.

 

[McBell]

I understand this. Jesus was the only begotten of the Father and Joseph did not play a role in the conception. When informed of the upcoming pregnancy Mary had this to say, "... How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?" Luke 1:34 KJV

So what you are saying is that Jesus was born out of wedlock?

 

[Willamena]

Besides...you were the one who originally pointed out in all this that Jesus would have to have had a full genetic complement didn't you? You have yet to address that. For you to say that you would have to be saying that god has DNA and a physical body with which to impregnate Mary with.

He is proposing a God of flesh, yes.

 

[Draka]

He is proposing a God of flesh, yes.

And then he said it was the holy ghost that did it. So was the holy ghost physical as well? Was the holy ghost the "transmitter" of god's sperm? Just what, exactly, does he think happened to get Mary in the "family way"? Just where did the other half of Jesus' genetic make up come from and how if not through biological processes and from Joseph? That's what I want him to answer.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

So what you are saying is that Jesus was born out of wedlock?

Mary was impregnated by God after she was betrothed but before the marriage ceromony was performed. Joseph wished to "put her away" thinking that Mary had cheated on him. God intervened on Mary's behalf and Joseph married her. Jesus was born after the marriage ceremony.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

He is proposing a God of flesh, yes.

No I wasn't.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

And then he said it was the holy ghost that did it. So was the holy ghost physical as well? Was the holy ghost the "transmitter" of god's sperm? Just what, exactly, does he think happened to get Mary in the "family way"? Just where did the other half of Jesus' genetic make up come from and how if not through biological processes and from Joseph? That's what I want him to answer.

As I said before, I'll leave the mechanics of it to your lurid imagination.