Ok, virgin birth happens with some species in the animal kingdom. What say you Mary?

[JJ50]

The conception of Jesus has no evidence to support it. It is much more likely Mary got pregnant before she was married by Joseph or another guy. The virgin birth nonsense was created by the gospel writers to cover this up, imo.

 

[Subduction Zone]

“The scriptures reveal that Mary was the daughter of Heli=Alexander Helios and Anna/Hanna, who was one of the three elderly daughters of Yehoshua/Jesus III, who was high priest in Jerusalem from 36 to 23 BC. Anna/Hanna, whose mother was ‘phanuel’ from the tribe of Asher, was given as a bride to young Alexander Helios (Heli), and Jesus is the son of “Joseph, who is the son of Heli, born to another woman from Cyprus.”

Joseph and Mary, the biological parents of Jesus were both sired by the one father, Alexander Helios=Heli. Joseph the son of Heli, the biological father of Jesus, is not to be confused with Joseph the son of Jacob, who Married the already pregnant Mary, and had no sexual relations with her until after she had given birth to the first of her sons.

Luke 3:23; (KJV) 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. The (AS WAS SUPPOSED) in brackets, was a later interpolation by those who believed the false teaching of the so-called virgin birth.

In the different translations of the KJV into Arabic, Afrikaan, Zulu, etc and even some of the more modern English translations, such as the Good News Catholic Study Edition Bible, the words (As was supposed) have been retained, but the brackets are removed, thus by, making those words appear to be the declaration of Luke, while the serious biblical students know that they were not written by Luke, but were a later interpolation and a corruption of the Holy Scriptures, by those Christians, who refuse to accept that Jesus was not a God who became a man, but a man, born of human parents, who was later CHOSEN by the Lord our saviour ‘The Son of Man,’ as his heir and successor.

If Jesus was not born of the flesh as all human beings are, but was born of a virgin without male semen having been introduced into her uterus, then this would have been the greatest of all miracles, and would have been shouted from the roof tops by all four gospel writers and yet we see that Mark, who is believed to have been the son of Peter, and John the beloved disciple, ignore the physical birth of Jesus as being totally irrelevant to the story of salvation and begin their account of He who was sent in the name of the Lord, with the Baptism of the man Jesus, when he was born of the spirit that descended upon him in the form of a dove, as the heavenly voice was heard to say, “You are my son, Today I have begotten thee.”

This was also changed by those who want you to believe that Jesus was not born of the flesh by two human parents and Later, on the day of his baptism, born of the spirit of our Lord God and saviour, ‘The Son of MAN’ and the MOST HIGH in the creation, when the spirit of our Lord descended upon him in the form of a dove

In Luke 3: 22; (In place of “Thou art my beloved son in who I am well pleased.”) The following authorities of the second, third, and fourth centuries read, “This day I have begotten thee,” vouched for by Codex D, and the most ancient copies of the old latin (a, b. c. ff.I), by Justin Martyr (AD 140), Clemens Alex, (AD. 190), Methodius (AD. 290), among the Greeks. And among the Latins, Lactaitius (AD 300), Hilary (AD) Juvencus (AD. 330), Faustus (AD. 400) and Augustine. All these oldest manuscripts were changed completely. They now read, “This is my son in whom I am well pleased.” Whereas the original variant was, “Thou art my Son. This day I have begotten thee.”

No source for this foolishness? Just because someone else said something stupid does not give it any credibility. "My myth fails if I do not use this bogus interpretation" is never a valid reason for making such an interpretation .

 

[The Anointed]

No source for this foolishness? Just because someone else said something stupid does not give it any credibility. "My myth fails if I do not use this bogus interpretation" is never a valid reason for making such an interpretation .

And the personal erroneous opinion of a biblical ignorant atheist, should cause me to lose any sleep? I think not.

Believe as you will, but remember this verse
When your coffin is placed in the back of the hearse
The reward that the mind must surely receive
Is that which the mind, (Not in the Hearse) believes. The Anointed.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And the personal erroneous opinion of a biblical ignorant atheist, should cause me to lose any sleep? I think not.

Believe as you will, but remember this verse
When your coffin is placed in the back of the hearse
The reward that the mind must surely receive
Is that which the mind, (Not in the Hearse) believes. The Anointed.

Most atheists understand the Bible better than most theists. You need to prove that I am more ignorant than you in that regard. And your empty threats only confirm your own ignorance of the Bible. You were caught repeating nonsense and are mad about that.

 

[The Anointed]

Most atheists understand the Bible better than most theists. You need to prove that I am more ignorant than you in that regard. And your empty threats only confirm your own ignorance of the Bible. You were caught repeating nonsense and are mad about that.

Subduction....... Most atheists understand the Bible better than most theists.

The Anointed...…. In your dreams sunshine.

Subduction...…. You need to prove that I am more ignorant than you in that regard.

The Anointed...…… Easily done. The scriptures state that Ezekiel describes the cherubs. Unless you can reveal to us the form in which the cherubs on the lid of the covenant box and the two greater cherubs in the Holy of Holies, under whose out stretched wings of the covenant box stood, are depicted, and where Ezekiel reveals those forms, I have answered your challenge to prove that you are more ignorant that I in relation to the scriptures.

Everyone who follows this thread is awaiting your proven ignorant answer.

 

[JJ50]

Some theists don't seem to have actually read the Bible.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Subduction....... Most atheists understand the Bible better than most theists.

The Anointed...…. In your dreams sunshine.

Subduction...…. You need to prove that I am more ignorant than you in that regard.

The Anointed...…… Easily done. The scriptures state that Ezekiel describes the cherubs. Unless you can reveal to us the form in which the cherubs on the lid of the covenant box and the two greater cherubs in the Holy of Holies, under whose out stretched wings of the covenant box stood, are depicted, and where Ezekiel reveals those forms, I have answered your challenge to prove that you are more ignorant that I in relation to the scriptures.

Everyone who follows this thread is awaiting your proven ignorant answer.

That is the minutia of Bible myth and you cannot justify your beliefs yourself. All you can give is a highly contrived excuse for your beliefs. Understanding which prophecies failed and why is far more important. Understanding why ancient people wrote myths, such as Genesis and Exodus, is far more important. You can't see the forest because you have your nose on a tree.

But thanks for confirming my claim.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Some theists don't seem to have actually read the Bible.

Or they have chosen some insignificant passage and out their own spin on it. Some theists do not even realize that Zeke was a failed prophet.

 

[The Anointed]

That is the minutia of Bible myth and you cannot justify your beliefs yourself. All you can give is a highly contrived excuse for your beliefs. Understanding which prophecies failed and why is far more important. Understanding why ancient people wrote myths, such as Genesis and Exodus, is far more important. You can't see the forest because you have your nose on a tree.

But thanks for confirming my claim.

There are no failed prophecies in the Holy Scriptures sunshine, there are of course Prophecies, such as those in Zechariah and other prophetic books, relating to God's chosen King establishing the throne of his world wide rulership in Jerusalem.

Being unable to answer the biblical question that was put to you---you have revealed to all, your total ignorance as to the truths revealed in the scriptures.

You might try studying those scripture next time before revealing your ignorance to such scriptures which in your ignorance you foolishly attack.