It’s useful to be reminded of the argument why Mary wasn’t a virgin based on a mistranslation of Isaiah 7:14.
The overall narrative about Mary in both Matthew and Luke supports the authors intention to present her as a virgin. It is possible of course for her to be both a virgin and a young unmarried women.
For most of those who believe in a God that can perform miracles it probably won’t change much. For those who disbelieve in such a God it’s another useful argument.
Adrian009……..It’s useful to be reminded of the argument why Mary wasn’t a virgin based on a mistranslation of
Isaiah 7:14.
The Anointed…….. it is also useful to be reminded of the argument that the Roman Church of Emperor Constantine which was established in the fourth century A.D. changed Luke 3: 22, which originally read; “After all the people had been baptised, Jesus also was baptised. While he was praying, heaven was opened, and the Holy Spirit came down on him in bodily form like a dove. And a voice came from heaven; “You are my Son, THIS DAY I have begotten thee.”
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.”
The Roman Church in their recorded canon have changed this to; “You are my beloved son in whom I am pleased,” in order to support their lie, that the physical birth of Jesus occurred through the union of some alien lifeform that pre-existed the creation of the Cosmos, and some supposed earthly ever virgin.
Whereas the scriptures reveal that it was on the day that he was baptised, when he was born a Son of God not by blood, nor by the will of the flesh, nor by the will of man, but by the spirit of our Lord God and saviour, The Son of Man, the most high in the creation, which descended upon him in the form of a dove, as the heavenly voice was heard to say; “You are my Son [My chosen heir and successor] THIS DAY, [The day of his baptism] I have begotten thee.
it is also useful to be reminded of the fact that it was the Roman Church of Emperor Constantine, from whose body of false teachings many denominational daughters were spawned, who added the interpolation in brackets, in Luke 3: 23; When Jesus began his work, he was about thirty years old. He was the son [
SO PEOPLE THOUGHT] of Joseph the son of Alexander Helios/Heli.
Again, this was done in order to cast doubt on the fact that Jesus was born of the flesh, as are all human beings, who are born of the seed of Adam.
Adrian009…….. The overall narrative about Mary in both Matthew and Luke supports the authors intention to present her as a virgin.
The Anointed…….. The authors that you refer to, are of course Jerome and other obedient scribes of the Roman Church of Emperor Constantine, who translated the Hebrew bible into Latin and the Gospels according to their erroneous interpretations.
Adrian009…….. It is possible of course for her to be both a virgin and a young unmarried women.
The Anointed……… Not in the Hebrew language as used by Isaiah, she cannot be. If she was a woman who had never had sexual intercourse with a man, she would have been a “
BETHULAH/a virgin,” but as she was a
PREGNANT, young unmarried woman, she was an “
ALMAH,” and no longer a virgin.
Adrian009…….. For most of those who believe in a God that can perform miracles it probably won’t change much.
The Anointed………. You are correct there my friend. . . . . Ian Wilson...Jesus The Evidence....In Alexandria, by the second century, ‘Docetism,’ the concept that Jesus had existed as a spirit rather than a human being, had all but theoretically been stamped out. But still, there persisted the belief that their Jesus, although seen as a sort of human being, did not have our normal bodily needs, such as eating, drinking and excretion, and Clement the bishop of Alexandria, who was later to become a Saint in the Roman Church of Emperor Constantine, wrote:
“It would be ridiculous to imagine that the redeemer, in order to exist, had the usual needs of man. He only took food and ate it in order that we should not teach about him in a Docetic fashion.” [Satan must have been some idiot thinking that this Jesus of theirs who had no need of food, was so hungry, he could tempt this false Jesus of theirs into turning stones into bread.]
This is the same Clement of Alexandria, who was a saint in the Martyrology of the Roman universal church, who, in support of the great lie, speaks of the time that some imaginary midwife, who was supposed to be at the birth of Jesus, (
Non-biblical) told some woman by the name Salome, that the mother was still a virgin after the birth and that her hymen was still intact, and that this supposed Salome, stuck her finger into the mother’s vagina to check, and her hand immediately withered up, but the baby Jesus reached out and touched her hand and healed it.
Down to the 17th century Clement was venerated as a saint. His name was to be found in the Martyrologies, and his feast fell on December 4. But when the Roman Martyrology was revised by Clement VIII (Pope from 1592 to 1605), his name was dropped from the calendar on the advice of his confessor, Cardinal Baronius. Pope Benedict XIV in 1748 maintained his predecessor's decision on the grounds that Clements life was little-known; that he had never obtained public cultus in the Church; and that some of his doctrines were, if not erroneous, at least highly suspect.
"
ERRONEOUS--HIGHLY SUSPECT," they certainly got that right. But by then the falsehood was so entrenched in the minds of the gullible, and their minds are now so mixed up and set as hard as concrete, one would need a Sledge Hammer to crack them and allow the light of truth to enter in.
So you were correct in saying that for most of those who believe in a God [
Who was conceived from the union of an alien father who pre-existed the creation of the cosmos, with a human mother who has never experienced a sexual relation with another human male] and which God can perform miracles, it probably won’t change much.
Adrian009…….. For those who disbelieve in such a God it’s another useful argument.
The Anointed…….. It most certainly is.