Visitors Now:
Total Visits:
Total Stories:
Profile image
By Arthur Trafford
Contributor profile | More stories
Story Views

Now:
Last Hour:
Last 24 Hours:
Total:

The True Reasons Why Christians Have Accepted the Virgin Birth

Friday, October 21, 2016 13:16
% of readers think this story is Fact. Add your two cents.

(Before It's News)

It is true that the virgin births spoken about by the pagans and taught in Greek Mythology NEVER happened to any teenage or adult female.  But these pagans believed the virgin birth stories past down to them by family members and their religion who now are mandating and promoting the virgin birth IN CHRISTIANITY “As FACT” nonetheless.

For the sake of argument, the 4th Century Christians have deviated from what was taught in the 1st Century (for Jews and gentiles originally believed Joseph is the father of Jesus and he doesn’t preexist his conception).  The zealous individuals who are proselytes from their previous pagan religion, now reveals their hearts desire is to have Jesus being born of a virgin and preexist his conception (just like the pagans are being taught in the 4th Century A.D.).

There was pressure on the Pope of Rome and the Catholic priest to postulate and embrace the pagan beliefs in the 300 + A.D time frame or Christianity would have died in the 4th Century because the pagans then were just as zealous and fanatical as any TCB, Mayhem, smfresh82, Gordon, or Maxwell personality (on Beforeit’snews.com) in this 21st Century L.O.L. 

The Protestant reformers in the 1500’s didn’t know what changes in the Bible took place in the 4th Century (because they weren’t there DUH —obvious).  Christians at the beginning of the Protestant Reformation are trying very hard to keep these “Traditions of men” alive (presupposing that their forefather’s were righteous in what has been pasted down to them in the 16th Century). 

Therefore, the PAGAN myth facts MADE IT INTO CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY because the passionate, devout, devoted, dedicated and committed pagans were refusing to become Christians in the 4th Century A.D., if their humanistic logic mindset is refused or rejected by the Christian community they are trying to join. 

It’s all about money (in religion, politics and health-care), for the Pope of Rome desperately wanted to appease and promote the wishes of the pagans, and if the numbers are right, there are about 10,000,000 Christians (with mostly pagan backgrounds) converted in the 4th Century.  This will provide an abundance of wealth to Catholics and future Protestants churches (especially if someone takes a permanent vow of celibacy — for that celibate person can be given a smaller paycheck (for they have NO WIFE or CHILDREN to support) L.O.L.

The below information is taken from TorahOfMessiah.com

The fact is, there is NOTHING in Scripture that REQUIRES a miraculous birth of Messiah but there is a LOT of of evidence that requires he be LITERALLY of the seed of David through his father.

As a final argument, ask yourself the following question: IF Messiah was born of a “virgin” with no earthly father, why is it so rarely mentioned in the New Testament? IF such an event occurred, it would have been an astounding miracle and frequently discussed! Yet, the New Testament authors virtually never even mention it! This fact alone makes its actual occurrence extremely unlikely.

1. It is NEVER mentioned in ANY of the epistles.
2. It is NEVER mentioned by Yeshua.
3. It is NEVER mentioned in ANY recorded presentations of the “gospel” in Acts or the epistles.
4. It is NEVER mentioned ANYWHERE as part of a necessary belief a person must accept! EVER!
5. The ONLY place it is mentioned, or even hinted at, is in the alleged (and contradictory) birth accounts of Matthew and Luke!
6. Yet Christianity, counterfeit Messianism, and many monotheistic Messianics consider it a crucial doctrine even though Scripture most certainly shows it to NOT be crucial!

“The virgin birth was probably copied from other pagan religions”.

“It is a matter of historical fact that there were MANY pagan, mystery religions that flourished during the time the “church fathers” canonized their “New” Testament “scripture”. Mithraism was but one of those religions. Oh! Of course many of these were based in worship of a sun god. Guess where the church gets the idea for the halo or sun that surrounds the head of “jesus” and/or Mary in many artists renderings?

The pagan foundation of MANY aspects of Christianity is obvious; however, most Christians prefer to ignore it. Truth is too difficult or embarrassing for most Christians and counterfeit Messianics to accept.

History records that:

* Buddha was born of the virgin Maya after the Holy Ghost descended upon her.
* The Egyptian God Horus was born of the virgin Isis; as an infant, he was visited by three kings.
* In Phrygia, Attis was born of the virgin Nama.
* A Roman savior Quirrnus was born of a virgin.
* In Tibet, Indra was born of a virgin. He ascended into heaven after death.
* The Greek deity Adonis was born of the virgin Myrrha, many centuries before the birth of Jesus. He was born at Bethlehem, in the same sacred cave that Christians later claimed as the birthplace of “Jesus”.
* In Persia, the god Mithra was born of a virgin on DEC-25. An alternate myth is that he emerged from a rock.
* Also in Persia, Zoroaster was also born of a virgin.
* In India, the god Krishna was born of the virgin Devaki.
* Virgin births were claimed for many Egyptian pharaohs, Greek emperors and for Alexander the Great of Greece.

One source is quoted as saying that there were many mythological figures: Hercules, Osiris, Bacchus, Mithra, Hermes, Prometheus, Perseus and Horus who share a number of factors. All were believed to have:

* been male.
* lived in pre-Christian times.
* had a god for a father.
* human virgin for a mother.
* had their birth announced by a heavenly display.
* had their birth announced by celestial music.
* been born around December 25th.
* had an attempt on their life by a tyrant while they were still an infant.
* met with a violent death.
* rose again from the dead.”

The above information is taken from TorahOfMessiah.com

I remember that wonderful blessed Bible verse:  Believe on the VIRGIN birth and thou shalt be saved L.O.L.

And the two song lyrics:  What can wash away my sins, nothing but the VIRGIN birth L.O.L.

What can make me whole again, nothing but the VIRGIN birth L.O.L.

You can be a Christian without believing in the virgin birth !!!

It is amazing that Christians think the God of the universe can’t protect Jesus from sin entering his body; Mary has to help protect Jesus from sin while he is in the womb by staying a virgin, until the child is born.  Joseph has to “Choose the state of celibacy”, which is very unnatural for married couples to do in a marriage.  Joseph and Mary are not really married until they consummate the marriage in sexual intercourse (they were dysfunctional roommates those 1st nine months they were together.

Christians lie when they say that Jesus is like us.

Jesus never wanted to dated and French kiss a female, never desired to get married, have sex and children, no parent ever wanted their daughter to date or marry Jesus, no female ever wanted to date and marry Jesus, no female wanted Jesus to be the father of her child or children.  Somehow Jesus being “Like us” seems to be a very unnatural and contradictory statement.  And I assure you, that no one wants to be “Like” Jesus in his asexual lifestyle, abnormal birth, or dysfunctional relationships with females, which would only produce emotional pain if we tried to follow in his footsteps in our male and female relationships.

We have deified the body of Jesus until his body and lifestyle is totally unnatural, and most definitely “Not like us”.  Jesus could get married; have sex and children because his body is human like us.  God doesn’t have a body, and it is a human Jesus that gets his human wife pregnant, therefore God isn’t committing incest with a female of the human race.  Any children that Jesus had would have a sin nature, simply because God only put His Spirit in one child (the body of Jesus).  The children of Jesus would have human created spirits inside of them; therefore they would have a sin nature. 

Sincerely,

ArthurTrafford.com

Report abuse

Comments

Your Comments
Question   Razz  Sad   Evil  Exclaim  Smile  Redface  Biggrin  Surprised  Eek   Confused   Cool  LOL   Mad   Twisted  Rolleyes   Wink  Idea  Arrow  Neutral  Cry   Mr. Green

Total 25 comments
  • There is no such thing as ‘religion’ and there is no such thing as ‘pagan’. The first is a modern categorization of anything not in the natural sciences and the latter is a roman term for unmetropolitan Roman rural peoples and cultures.

    You are trying to make Christianity square with a ‘religion’ (Judaism) that came 2 to 3 centuries after it.

    Does Hillary Clinton want war? Yes. Does ‘Christianity’? No. Therefore Christianity is like all other people in the past who haven’t wanted war and as such is pagan because Clinton says so

  • TCB

    HEADLINE:

    The TRUE reasons why Christians have accepted the virgin birth.

    All right. You stake your claim to authority and verity. Now buck up for the suds. And I hope this headline will be less misleading than the abortion article headline. But we’ll see, won’t we.

    “It is true that the virgin births spoken about by the pagans and taught in Greek Mythology NEVER happened to any teenage or adult female.”

    Um. Arthur? Can one even have a ‘virgin’ birth without a virgin? You are apparently preparing to argue from a position of utter absurdity. I think you’ve been feverishly looking for evidence of a pagan virgin birth older than the Gospels and, having come up empty, you have pivoted to a new angle from which to defend your assertions rather than retreat from the untenable premise. That’s just plain, old-fashioned stubbornness.

    “But these pagans believed the virgin birth stories past down to them by family members and their religion who now are mandating and promoting the virgin birth IN CHRISTIANITY “As FACT” nonetheless.”

    We have the Bible which records the virgin birth for us: Isaiah from the Old Testament and the Gospels in the New Testament. You have no form of documentation whatsoever to support your claim of pagan myths pre-dating the Gospels – and I haven’t even seen you suggest that any such pagan myths predate the Book of Isaiah. (NOTE: Please don’t try arguing that Isaiah used the Hebrew word ‘ALMAH’ – meaning ‘maiden’ and not the Hebrew word ‘BETHULAH’ – meaning virgin. A maiden is a virgin. If she stops being a virgin, then she becomes either a wife or else a lawless reprobate and no maiden.)

    “Jews and gentiles originally believed Joseph is the father of Jesus…”

    More talk. How many times will you repeat this empty falsehood without even TRYING to substantiate it with evidence of some kind? Why are you so enamored with your own opinion? Repeat it another ten thousand times and it will be no more true then than it is now.

    “…and he (Jesus) doesn’t preexist his conception.”

    Either you are lying or Moses and Isaiah and King David and King Solomon and the Apostle John and the Apostle Paul are all liars. ALL of the evidence points to the former. I guess you just want everyone here to submit to your opinions as being the highest authority. Not going to happen, friend.

    “There was pressure on the Pope of Rome and the Catholic priest to postulate and embrace the pagan beliefs in the 300 + A.D time frame…”

    This is a verifiable fact, but unfortunately it does nothing whatsoever to support your argument.

    “…or Christianity would have died in the 4th Century…”

    Baseless speculation at its finest.

    And except to say this, your ad hominem will be ignored.

    “The Protestant reformers in the 1500’s didn’t know what changes in the Bible took place in the 4th Century (because they weren’t there DUH —obvious).”

    This is a moot point. Why? Because we have in our possession TODAY New Testament Manuscripts and Papyri dating back to the SECOND CENTURY A.D. This fact gives the lie to any vain assertion that modern Manuscripts are all irreparably plagued with corruptions. Your argument is false, Arthur. Demonstrably false. Would you like a lesson in the extant Manuscript and Papyri evidence and its transmission to us across the millennium? I would be happy to oblige.

    “…PAGAN myth facts MADE IT INTO CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY…”

    A point you have thus far utterly failed to prove, and stand to earn a goodly sum if ever you are ABLE to prove.

    “The fact is, there is NOTHING in Scripture that REQUIRES a miraculous birth of Messiah but there is a LOT of of evidence that requires he be LITERALLY of the seed of David through his father.”

    Isaiah 7:14

    Therefore the Lord himself will give you A SIGN. BEHOLD!!!…

    …some sign it would be if a chick got pregnant in the usual way. And it would really be something to BEHOLD!!! wouldn’t it? No. It wouldn’t. In order for it to be an impressive sign and in order for Isaiah’s use of the word BEHOLD to be appropriate, something way out of the ordinary had to have taken place. And that is precisely what we see:

    THE VIRGIN (הָעַלְמָ֗ה – HA ALMAH) shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

    Good enough? No. We need a confirming witness, which we find here:

    Matthew 1:23

    Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel” (which means, God with us).

    And who is this virgin?

    Luke 1:27

    …to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. And the virgin’s name was Mary.

    So the claim that there is nothing in Scripture that requires a virgin birth is false, as proven by the Word of God itself. Easily.

    “IF Messiah was born of a “virgin” with no earthly father, why is it so rarely mentioned in the New Testament?”

    How many times would you like for it to be mentioned? A thing need only be mentioned twice – once and then a confirming witness – in order to be deemed biblically factual. And do you know something Arthur? … even if Scripture never came out directly and taught plainly (which it does) about the virgin birth, we as prudent and diligent students of the Word of God should be able to deduce the ABSOLUTE NECESSITY of the virgin birth as a result of sound understanding of the Biblical Narrative. So, not only can we show (easily) that the Bible teaches a miraculous virgin birth, but we can also demonstrate that the virgin birth is a SINE QUA NON (literally, without which, not) of the Gospel message. To fail to recognize this truth, is to fail to rightly comprehend the Biblical Narrative in its fullness.

    “IF such an event occurred, it would have been an astounding miracle…”

    It was. That’s why Isaiah said: BEHOLD!!!

    “It is NEVER mentioned in ANY of the epistles.
2. It is NEVER mentioned by Yeshua.”

    How many times must something be repeated for you? The Bible would be very repetitive, not to mention awkwardly voluminous, if every biblical personage were required to expound on every biblical tenet.

    “It is NEVER mentioned ANYWHERE as part of a necessary belief a person must accept!”

    Um, Arthur? That claim is now proven false. You can stop repeating it now. Come to the table with evidence that Scripture has been changed, or change your tune. Those are your only options if you’re at all interested in honesty.

    “The ONLY place it is mentioned, or even hinted at, is in the alleged (and contradictory) birth accounts of Matthew and Luke!”

    Tell it to Isaiah. And there are no contradictions in Scripture.

    “The virgin birth was probably copied from other pagan religions.”

    And Santa Clause probably likes Budweiser beer because the cans have the same colors as his suit. ‘Probably’ doesn’t get a seat at the table when we’re discussing the Word of God.

    “It is a matter of historical fact that there were MANY pagan, mystery religions that flourished during the time the “church fathers” canonized their “New” Testament “scripture”.”

    Yes it is. But that fact does nothing to further your argument.

    “Mithraism was but one of those religions.”

    Absolutely true.

    “Of course many of these were based in worship of a sun god. Guess where the church gets the idea for the halo or sun that surrounds the head of “jesus” and/or Mary in many artists renderings?”

    Um, Arthur? That’s what we call a canard. What the Catholic Church does has no bearing whatsoever on the Word of God. Zero. Nada. Zilch. The Catholic Church is itself a pagan institution, not a scripturally valid one.

    “Buddha was born of the virgin Maya after the Holy Ghost descended upon her.”

    Not until AFTER the Gospels were written. Not so? Then prove it and collect ten thousand dollars for your trouble.

    “The Egyptian God Horus was born of the virgin Isis; as an infant he was visited by three kings.”

    Not until AFTER the Gospels were written. Not so? Then prove it and collect ten thousand dollars for your trouble.

    “In Phrygia, Attis was born of the virgin Nama.”

    Not until AFTER the Gospels were written. Not so? Then prove it and collect ten thousand dollars for your trouble.

    “A Roman savior Quirrnus was born of a virgin. In Tibet, Indra was born of a virgin.”

    Not until AFTER the Gospels were written. Not so? Then prove it and collect ten thousand dollars for your trouble.

    “The Greek deity Adonis was born of the virgin Myrrha, many centuries before the birth of Jesus. He was born at Bethlehem, in the same sacred cave that Christians later claimed as the birthplace of “Jesus”.”

    Prove it and ten thousand dollars is yours.

    “In Persia, the god Mithra was born of a virgin on DEC-25.”

    December 25th is a date which has NO connection whatsoever with the Bible. As you well know. Another canard.

    “Virgin births were claimed for many Egyptian pharaohs, Greek emperors and for Alexander the Great of Greece.”

    Not until AFTER the Gospels were written. Not so? Then prove it and collect ten thousand dollars for your trouble.

    Again we see that you come to the table with nothing but your own baseless assertions and the assertions of some other author. You have an argument which is based solely in speculation and conjecture. Your argument is based in nothing at all but the vain imaginations of those who hate the Word of God.

    Evidence.

    Produce it.

    Or take your place among the other bearers of false witness.

    • http://www.arthurtrafford.com/layout/inside.php?pgID=237&sn=Many%20Mythological%20Virgins

      Arty Farty is mindlessly pasting his messy old “works” verbatim into BIN articles again.

      I hope one of these evenings he picks up a bottle and actually reads the comments.

      • TCB

        He reads the comments, Chet.

        Every word.

        • Regardless whether or not Arthur reads your work, TCB, i sure do. Every last bit of it.

          But you’re right he’ll be poring over it looking for any weakness which allows him to ignore your reasoning.

          • TCB

            He should be poring over it looking for any weakness so that he can rebut my arguments with sound argumentation of his own. Either that or he should reverse himself on the matter. Sometimes pushing back against a fella like Arthur can cause him to cement his erroneous beliefs into place (like Aleph) in such a way that nothing in this world will ever be able to change his mind. That’s unfortunate. But when someone comes posting ‘the TRUE reason’ in a headline (which he changed, incidentally. I copied and pasted his original headline in my quotation, which had ‘true’ in all caps), then I feel at liberty (if not duty-bound) to address the claims as head-on and indelicately as I feel the matter warrants (previous apologies for tyranny not withstanding).

            I’m still hoping that occurs to him.

            And if there are any weaknesses in my answer to his above article, I sure don’t know what they are. I’ve been refining this argument for almost ten years now. First time I had it was with a messianic rabbi who handed me my hat because I was a newbie who didn’t know anything about the Word. But today? It’s an open-and-shut case just like the preexistence of Messiah is.

        • …mayhem…always. always fascinating…

          • The enemies of truth will say…

            “It is a matter of historical fact blah blah blah”

            … and yet the evidence seldom supports their case. Fascinating is the only way to put it, maxwell, and thank you for your support.

  • It looks like someone was mightily impressed by the Mockumentary – Zeitgeist – or, if not, then the writings of Frazer, Cumont, Freke, Gandy et al but does the assertion that the Jesus story was copied from pagan mythologies really stand up to scrutiny?

    Arthur lists many mythological figures (eg Adonis, Bacchus, Krishna) and claims, among other things, that all had a human virgin for a mother, had been born around December 25th, had met with a violent death (crucified) and rose again from the dead (resurrected).

    Except Adonis was killed by a boar while he was still a boy – Apollodorus, The Library, Book III, 3.14.4 (AD100-200) http://www.theoi.com/Text/Apollodorus3.html – Lucian, De Dea Syria, p46 (AD217-8) http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/luc/tsg/tsg07.htm

    Except Bacchus, aka Dionysus, was never born to Semele but upon her death was sown into his father’s, that is Zeus’s, thigh to finish gestating. Metamorphoses, book III, section 273-315 (AD8) http://ovid.lib.virginia.edu/trans/Metamorph3.htm#476975710

    Except Krishna was born of Devaki and Vasudeva, both mortals, who had several children prior to Krishna. Mahabharata Book 12, Section 48 (AD400) http://sacred-texts.com/hin/m12/index.htm

    Now then; since these accounts were written well after the Bible who was copying whom exactly? Finally, Arthur, Jesus was born while the shepherds tended their flocks (Luke 2:8) not the middle of winter which occurs around Dec 25th so right off the bat you don’t have a leg to stand on.

    You presume “we” are not well studied. You are wrong about that and i could go on till your eyes roll back and your head starts to swim.

    • Will you put up no supporting evidence, Arthur, for your claimed similarities being a “matter of historical fact”?

  • You can attack around the edges, throw in some facts, muddy the waters, & try to confuse & confound the faithful.
    But what you can’t do is tear down the cross, people much greater than you have been trying for 2000 years
    Or erase the resurrection and the historical account
    Or change the minds of people throughout history who have experience with Jesus or God the Father
    That alone validates everything you try to disprove,

    Yes, other accounts of a virgin birth exist.
    But you certainly have no idea if they were written before or after the birth of Jesus.

    The one thing we all know is that no other virgin birth produced a man & a life like Jesus
    Nobody else performed miracles, or raised people from the dead, or healed the blind.

    Or we would all still be talking about them for the last several thousands years.
    Just like Jesus

    His invisible attributes can be clearly seen through creation itself

    You better hope that your first realization that Jesus is real & alive isn’t after you die.

    You claim to know so much about the bible, Read about the rich ruler who feasted sumptuously & Lazarus who sat outside his gate

    You dope

    • TCB

      “Yes, other accounts of a virgin birth exist. But you certainly have no idea if they were written before or after the birth of Jesus.”

      But by now he’s learning. Because he’s looking for solid evidence to bring here for his next article about the virgin birth. He will come up empty though. And hopefully that will cause him to reconsider his stance on the matter, and reconsider ever posting another article with an enormously erroneous headline falsely advertising truth.

  • Looks like very few who reply to and complain about my essays have stories contributed by them on beforeit’snews.com

    The Clucker & Maxwell are honorable individuals who post many writings on Beforeit’snews.com and at the same time give their opinions on essays posted by others.

    But I couldn’t find any essays by Mayhem, TCB or smfresh, so you can’t really respect them since they are too lazy to write and post their own essays on Beforeitsnews.com. They are only here to bully others, if you don’t agree with their religious dogma. It was vary revealing when some of my critics tells me they can’t be apart of any religious group because they are to rebellious to fit in any Christian groups

    I guess they think they have been hired to approve or disapprove everyone’s essays posted on Beforeitsnews.com. The world is full of paid critics and the armature critics on Beforeitsnews.com almost all seem to have an unloving critical spirit past down to their generation. They have been sucking on lemons for too long and their glass of life’s blessings is half empty.

    • TCB

      “…I couldn’t find any essays by Mayhem, TCB or smfresh, so you can’t really respect them since they are too lazy to write and post their own essays…”

      If you weren’t so new to this website Arthur, you would know how hackneyed and worn out that charge is. Because we don’t come here to teach, we’re automatically labeled disreputable? By you? Who comes here to teach lies?

      “They are only here to bully others…”

      You should be ashamed to behave as you are right now. You come and post your material to a public forum. There are comment sections beneath your posted material offering anyone the opportunity to remark or rebut your posted material. You have the capacity to render those comment sections inoperable, but you don’t. You then whine like a little child whenever anyone posts material which disagrees with what you have written in your material? You whine when someone like me shows from Scripture that your claims are erroneous and based solely in conjecture? Is that biblically acceptable behavior on your part?

      “It was vary (sic) revealing when some of my critics tells me they can’t be apart (sic) of any religious group because they are to (sic) rebellious to fit in any Christian groups…”

      More false witness. You’re quickly becoming quite the liar, aren’t you, sir. I don’t believe the doctrine of the Trinity. This alone disqualifies me from membership in most mainline Christian churches. I don’t believe in Sunday worship. This too qualifies as a disqualifier in almost all instances. But I can stand in debate with anyone and offer a positive argument for my beliefs, directly from the Word of God. You cannot do the same. Again I can offer anyone a defense of any of my beliefs – something you refuse to do, despite a scriptural instruction to do so. You call me a rebel because I have the courage to stand by my convictions?

      “I guess they think they have been hired to approve or disapprove everyone’s essays posted on Beforeitsnews.com.”

      Your behavior is shameful.

      “The world is full of paid critics and the armature (sic) critics…”

      And you are utterly careless with your communication. You are not careful with doctrine, you’re not careful with language, with spelling, or with actual word/terms. ‘Armchair critics’ is the term you were looking for. There is no such thing as an ‘armature critic.’ Yet you presume to teach.

      “…all seem to have an unloving critical spirit past down to their generation.”

      I would ask you again: WHAT DO YOU WANT FROM US? YOU COME HERE AND POST LIES ABOUT THE BIBLE. We then respond. Would you rather we prostrated ourselves before you and kissed your ring, telling you how great and wonderful all of your non-biblical ideas are? Why is strenuous disagreement something for which you have no stomach? Why is your constitution so anemic? You came here to share your ideas about the Bible. But you have proven yourself unqualified to do so for two reasons:

      1. You haven’t the faintest notion of what sound biblical exegesis looks like.

      2. You have no ability whatsoever to tolerate dissenting ideas.

      These two strikes disqualify you from being a legitimate teacher of anything even tangentially related to the Word of God.

      “They have been sucking on lemons for too long and their glass of life’s blessings is half empty.”

      If you could stand where we’re standing Arthur, you would see the altogether mistaken impression you have of us. Any of us.

    • What could i tell them that Moses and the Prophets have not already said? Do you get that Arthur, it comes from Luke 16, i rest upon the word of God and my opinion isn’t worth the time it would take to put in writing. My sole purpose is to show the fence sitters that scripture can be trusted.

      So which “Church” would you recommend, Arthur, how many have you studied in order to know if they are acceptable? The very reason i choose the word of God over religion, pagan or otherwise, is because i have tested many of them and none have managed to stick to what is written.

      And calling us paid shills, or words to that effect, is nothing new to us. It’s so often the miserable come back of the arguably inadequate that you shouldn’t be surprised to get laughed at for repeating it.

      Glass half full? You’d only know that if it were you dishing out the blessings. Is that what you’re saying, Arthur, that you know God’s mind? Of course you are.

    • “The Clucker & Maxwell are honorable individuals who post many writings on Beforeit’snews.com and at the same time give their opinions on essays posted by others.”

      I appreciate what I should probably perceive as a compliment… but you don’t know me as well as you may think. I do appreciate the kind words, but if you’ve read my contributions you’d know that some are serious but most are intended as jokes. I ain’t got sh*t.

      Arthur: “But I couldn’t find any essays by Mayhem, TCB or smfresh, so you can’t really respect them since they are too lazy to write and post their own essays on Beforeitsnews.com.”

      Arthur, a person like myself could post a thousand postings to this website, but it wouldn’t bring my understand of things any closer to the truth. It’s when we perk up our ears and listen, instead of teach, that we truly learn. I have learned more from Mayhem and TCB than I could tell you. Just because someone isn’t posting articles, does not mean that they aren’t “contributing.” I learn more from the comments than I ever have from an article at this website. (Notice I didn’t include smfresh in the conversation, for obvious reasons.)

      BTW, have you seen my work on KOS? :lol:

      I think you mean well, Arthur, but you should step back from the teaching and get to the learning. Therein lies your peace. Our teacher already exists. He wrote a very long book. For us.

  • I remember that wonderful blessed Bible verse: Believe on the VIRGIN birth and thou shalt be saved L.O.L.

    And the two songs: What can wash away my sins, nothing but the VIRGIN birth L.O.L.
    What can make me whole again, nothing but the VIRGIN birth L.O.L.

    You can be a Christian without believing in the virgin birth !!!

    It is amazing that Christians think the God of the universe can’t protect Jesus from sin entering his body; Mary has to help protect Jesus from sin while he is in the womb by staying a virgin, until the child is born. Joseph has to “Choose the state of celibacy”, which is very unnatural for married couples to do in a marriage. Joseph and Mary are not really married until they consummate the marriage in sexual intercourse (they were dysfunctional roommates those 1st nine months they were together.

    Christians lie when they say that Jesus is like us.

    Jesus never wanted to dated and French kissed a female, never desired to get married, have sex and children, no parent ever wanted their daughter to date or marry Jesus, no female ever wanted to date and marry Jesus, no female wanted Jesus to be the father of her child or children. Somehow Jesus being “Like us” seems to be a very unnatural and contradictory statement. And I assure you, that no one wants to be “Like” Jesus in his asexual lifestyle, abnormal birth, or dysfunctional relationships with females, which would only produce emotional pain if we tried to follow in his footsteps in our male and female relationships.

    We have deified the body of Jesus until his body and lifestyle is totally unnatural, and most definitely “Not like us”. Jesus could get married; have sex and children because his body is human like us. God doesn’t have a body, and it is a human Jesus that gets his human wife pregnant, therefore God isn’t committing incest with a female of the human race. Any children that Jesus had would have a sin nature, simply because God only put His Spirit in one child (the body of Jesus). The children of Jesus would have human created spirits inside of them; therefore they would have a sin nature.

    • We have deified the body of Jesus

      =======

      What the hell is this WE garbage?! WHY DO YOU KEEP SAYING WE?

      Christ is JEHOVAH. Christians believe JEHOVAH is GOD.

      Euhemerist ‘religions’ that emerged after Christianity such as Judaism, Islam, all America’s post Zionist ‘God Fearer’ cults etc are NOT Christians.

    • JEHOVAH never wanted to dated and French kissed a female, never desired to get married, have sex and children, no parent ever wanted their daughter to date or marry JEHOVAH, no female ever wanted to date and marry JEHOVAH, no female wanted JEHOVAH to be the father of her child or children. Somehow JEHOVAH being “Like us” seems to be a very unnatural and contradictory statement. And I assure you, that no one wants to be “Like” JEHOVAH in his asexual lifestyle, abnormal birth, or dysfunctional relationships with females, which would only produce emotional pain if we tried to follow in his footsteps in our male and female relationships.

      We have deified the body of JEHOVAH until his body and lifestyle is totally unnatural, and most definitely “Not like us”. JEHOVAH could get married; have sex and children because his body is human like us. JEHOVAH doesn’t have a body, and it is a human JEHOVAH that gets his human wife pregnant, therefore JEHOVAH isn’t committing incest with a female of the human race. Any children that JEHOVAH had would have a sin nature, simply because JEHOVAH only put His Spirit in one child (the body of JEHOVAH). The children of JEHOVAH would have human created spirits inside of them; therefore they would have a sin nature.

      ==================

      Jesus as God out, Jews as Gods in. :roll:

      • The children of JEHOVAH would have human created spirits inside of them; therefore they would have a sin nature.

        =========

        Is that what happened when your Seventh Day Adventists created the spirits that are in you Arthur?

        How did they do it?

        Where there lots of lovely smells and men in red robes and pointed hoods chanting lovely spirituals over the disembowled heaps of offerings?

        :twisted:

    • TCB

      “I remember that wonderful blessed Bible verse: Believe on the VIRGIN birth and thou shalt be saved…”

      Wow, Arthur. You’re going right down the list of logical fallacies for argumentation. We’ve already been subjected to your red herrings and ad hominems and now this, the strawman argument – artificially inserting words or ideas into the arguments of your opponents (in debate) which don’t otherwise exist. You wrote:

      “You can be a Christian without believing in the virgin birth !!!”

      Lots of people consider themselves Christian who believe lots of different things. But the real problems arise when someone claiming to be Christian believes contrary to what is written in Scripture, and does so absent any sound reasons for believing in some (yet to be named) authority instead of God’s Word.

      “It is amazing that Christians think the God of the universe can’t protect Jesus from sin entering his body…”

      Another strawman. No one here, certainly not I, has said at any time that God is unable to do anything. You yourself are the one who attempted to impose limitations on God in your previous articles and comments.

      “Mary has to help protect Jesus from sin while he is in the womb by staying a virgin, until the child is born.”

      Which she did. After that, she had other children via more ‘mundane’ means.

      “Joseph and Mary are not really married until they consummate the marriage in sexual intercourse…”

      There is, as you make note, a difference between ‘betrothed’ and ‘married’.

      “Christians lie when they say that Jesus is like us.”

      I have agreed the Christian doctrine that Jesus was both fully God and fully man is a flawed doctrine. He has come in the flesh – but He has come in the likeness of sinful flesh, sinful flesh being what man consists of. Messiah’s flesh was of another kind – His flesh was sinless flesh.

      “I assure you, that no one wants to be “Like” Jesus in his asexual lifestyle…”

      Have you not read the Apostle Paul?

      “…which would only produce emotional pain if we tried to follow in his footsteps in our male and female relationships.”

      This is an inappropriate dismissal of a pattern we are adjured to follow.

      “We have deified the body of Jesus…”

      Speak for yourself and not everyone else. No one here has deified anything.

      “…his body and lifestyle is totally unnatural, and most definitely “Not like us”…”

      Because He is not of this world.

      “Jesus could get married; have sex and children because his body is human like us.”

      Not while remaining a viable atoning Sacrifice for the sins of mankind, He couldn’t. You have well demonstrated your failure to rightly understand that truth.

      “God doesn’t have a body…”

      Man was made in the image of God. You pretend to know what that means. God doesn’t have a body like ours, that much is certain. But to say that God has no body may well be presumptuous and wrong-headed in the extreme.

      “…and it is a human Jesus that gets his human wife pregnant…”

      Only in your imagination and in the minds of those who reject the Word of God.

      “Any children that Jesus had…”

      …come to Him through our receiving of His Gospel.

      “…God only put His Spirit in one child (the body of Jesus).”

      Yet further evidence you reject what is written.

      “The children of Jesus would have human created spirits inside of them; therefore they would have a sin nature.”

      Your conclusion is immaterial because it is rooted in nothingness.

    • Arthur… You cannot be a Christian if you don’t believe in the virgin birth. If he were born from a congregation of the flesh he could not be free of sin, in the same way that we were born in sin. He came to us as the perfect sacrifice. This is signified by his virgin birth. The Man WITHOUT sin. You and I could not boast the same credentials. That’s why we are taught to seek after his ways. There’s no shame in giving up the reigns.

      • His hardly afraid of giving up the reigns! He wants domination and isn’t a all scared of Jesus.

        Jesus is scared of him though. :shock:

        • Could you elaborate, please? I didn’t understand that at all. No offense intended.

  • Ask the Rabbi:

    Taken from ohr.edu

    Dear Rabbi,
    Why don’t Jews believe in Jesus? Doesn’t it say in the Psalms, “They pierced my hands and feet”? Doesn’t Isaiah say, “Behold a virgin shall give birth”?

    JESUS – NOT THE MESSIAH
    1 Scriptural References In order to understand anything in the Torah one must look at the original Hebrew. You will see that the Christians distorted, changed and misinterpreted many of the Hebrew words in order to fit things into their beliefs. The two places that you mentioned are good examples. In Psalm 22:17 the Hebrew states “hikifuni ca’ari yaday veraglay” which means “they bound me (hikifuni) like a lion (ca-like ari-lion), my hands (yaday) and my feet (ve-and raglay-my feet). The Christians translate this as “they pierced my hands and feet”. Nowhere in the entire Torah, Prophets and Writings do the words ca’ari or hikifuny mean anything remotely resembling “pierce”. 
In Isaiah 7:14 the Hebrew states “hinei ha’almah harah veyoledet ben” “behold (hineih) the young woman (ha – the almah- young woman) is pregnant (harah) and shall give birth (ve-and yoledet-shall give birth) to a son (ben)”. The Christians translate this as “behold a virgin shall give birth.” They have made two mistakes (probably deliberate) in the one verse. They mistranslate “ha” as “a” instead of “the”. They mistranslate “almah” as “virgin”, when in fact the Hebrew word for virgin is “betulah”. Aside from the fact that if you read the context of that prediction you will see clearly that it is predicting an event that was supposed to happen and be seen by king Achaz who lived 700 years before Jesus! 
In addition their whole line of reasoning is illogical. The New Testament was written in order to impress people that Jesus was Messiah, so obviously they looked at the Torah and tried to write that he did all the predicted things. Then 2,000 years later they try to prove from their own ficitional books that Jesus did what the Messiah is meant to do! We call this "chutzpah". There are many reasons that Jews do not accept Jesus as the messiah, or Mashiach, below are a few of them:
    2 Genealogy He was not descended from the House of David. According to Jewish law, tribal identification comes from the father’s side, being Jewish, from the mother’s side. According to Matthew 1, Joseph was descended from David (Although there are many contradictions between his genealogy there and that listed in Luke, however according to the same text, Joseph did not have sexual relations with Mary, therefore Jesus was not related to Joseph, and not a descendant of King David. 
Three answers to this problem are given in classic Christian sources:

    a The genealogy is that of Mary – This is inadequate, since if he is claimed to be the Jewish messiah, and according to Jewish tradition he must be descended on his father’s side, Mary’s genealogy is irrelevant.
    b He was adopted by Joseph -According to Jewish law, adoption does not change the status of the child. If an Israelite is adopted by a Cohen, (A descendant of Aaron the High Priest), the child does not become a Cohen, likewise if a descendant of David, adopts someone who is not, he does not become of the tribe of Judah and a descendant of David.
    c It doesn’t matter, he was a spiritual inheritor of King David – If it doesn’t matter, why do Christian scriptures spend time establishing his genealogical pedigree? And if he is claimed to be the Jewish messiah, then according to Jewish tradition it does matter!
    3
    4 Messianic Predictions The main predictions concerning the Messiah are that he will bring peace to the world, gather the Jewish people from their exile to the land of Israel and rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem. After Jesus’ appearance, the Temple was destroyed, the Jews were exiled all over the world and we have not even had one day of peace in the past 2,000 years. (Many of the wars in fact were started and fought by followers of Jesus) These events are enough to show that he was not the messiah. 
The main Christian responses to these objections are:

    a The Second Coming – First of all, we find this to be a contrived answer, since there is no mention of a second coming in the Jewish Bible. Second, why couldn’t G-d accomplish His goals the first time round. Most importantly, the second coming idea is just an attempt at answering an obvious question but it certainly does not constitute proof of messianic claims.
    b There is peace within his followers hearts – That is wonderful for them, but does that help the victims of the Inquisition, the Crusades, the Hundred Years War, the First World War, the Second World War etc. In each of the events that I mentioned most if not all the combatants, the violent oppressors and torturers where people who claimed to be followers of Jesus. And is peace in the heart a fulfillment of “swords into plowshares etc.”
    5
    6 Messiah’s Qualifications Messiah is a prophet, a scholar and a pious king. Jesus made a prediction that “The time is fulfilled, the kingdom of God is at hand.” (Mark 1:15) That was 2000 years ago, has the kingdom of God come? Do you call the holocaust, Pol Pot and Stalin a world in which the kingdom of God has come? Jesus was not a great scholar – one of the requirements of the Messiah. Was Jesus a king? He was not anointed as king by a prophet (as was the rule in Jewish kings), he was not appointed by any judicial body as a leader and he did not rule over the Jewish people nor was he accepted by them. He was arrested, tortured and killed by the Romans like a common criminal. He had no army or government. The answer to my question is an obvious, “no.” 
JESUS – NOT A DEITY
    a The Trinity The Christian idea of a trinity contradicts the most basic tenet of Judaism – that G-d is One. Jews have declared their belief in a single unified G-d twice daily ever since the giving of the Torah at Sinai – almost two thousand years before Christianity. 
The trinity suggests a three part deity: The Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost (Matthew 28:19). 
In Jewish law, worship of a three-part god is considered idolatry; one of the three cardinal sins for which a person should rather give up his life than transgress. The idea of the trinity is absolutely incompatible with Judaism.

    b Physical Manifestation Christianity believes that G-d came down to earth in human form, as Jesus said: “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30). 
The Torah states that G-d cannot not take any form.: 
”You will not be able to see My face, for no human can see my face and live” (Exodus 33:18-20) 
”You did not see any form on the day G-d spoke to you at Horeb from the midst of fire” (Deuteronomy 4:15) 
As little as we may know about G-d’s nature, Judaism has always believed that G-d is Incorporeal, meaning that He assumes no physical form. G-d is Eternal, He is Infinite; above time and beyond space. He cannot be born, and cannot die.
    7 CHANGES TO THE LAW
    Christianity denies the eternal relevance of Torah Law, basing the concept of the New Testament on a mistranslation of a verse in Jeremia. In Jeremia 31:30 the Hebrew states: “Henei yamim baim Neum Hashem VeCharati Brit Chadash” They translate: “Behold, days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new Testament with the house of Israel ” 
”Brit” does not mean Testament. Throughout Scripture “Brit” means covenant. See for example Genesis 17:2, 15:18 Exodus 24:8, Leviticus 26:42, Numbers 25:12. 
It is a fundamental principle of Judaism that the Torah received at Sinai will never be changed nor become obsolete. This concept is mentioned in the Torah no less than 24 times, with the words: 
”This is an eternal law for all generations” 
(Exodus 12:14, 12:17, 12:43, 27:21, 28:43, Leviticus 3:17, 7:36, 10:9, 16:29, 16:31, 16:34, 17:7, 23:14, 23:21, 23:31, 23:41, 24:3, Numbers 10:8, 15:15, 19:10, 19:21, 18:23, 35:29, Deuteronomy29:28) 
It is absurd to accept the Divine origin of the Torah yet deny it’s eternal relevance. Judaism is a religion of action; it has always taught that through performance of the commandments one declares the belief of the heart. To dispense with the legal body of the Torah and reduce it to a book of morals would cut it down to less than half it’s size. Can this really be the meaning of those words an eternal law for all generations?

    Ask the Rabbi:
    The above information taken from ohr.edu

Top Stories
Recent Stories

Register

Newsletter

Email this story
Email this story

If you really want to ban this commenter, please write down the reason:

If you really want to disable all recommended stories, click on OK button. After that, you will be redirect to your options page.