who was jesus father ?

Debates: 2

Posts: 3,343

01.16.2022 05:49AM

-->

@Stephen

Yep as I said elsewhere - creepy. You are a creepy old man.

Oh by the way - you seem to have forgotten a few things on my CV.

Was I ordained or not? Hmmm.

And what about my economics degree? You seem to have forgotten that one too.

I am surprised you find what I have done so difficult to do in such a life as mine. Y

Did I mention I have 6 kids? Did I mention I was a director on a bank Board? Did I mention that I was a director with a Christian Counseling Service Inc? Did I mention that I was a significant partner with the United Way Charity?

Did I mention that I was appointed as an Assistant Prosecutor with the Bangladesh Court? This was during the times I was also senior lawyer with the DHHS in Australia.

And did I mention anything about my musical talents? I was quite a cool musician in my teenage years - in a little Victorian Band. And that was when I did not have duties with the highland pipe band. I played the drums - couldn't sing. I was not very good at singing. But I loved the guitar.

Did I mention that I was also quite an impressive sportsperson excelling in cricket - as an opening batter / keeper? I played AFL for a well known footy team and was a state champion in both table tennis and chess. Did I mention that I was quite proficient as a tennis player although I didn't take it up until I was in my 40s. But still was able to win some of the local tournaments.

You seem to find it difficult to believe that people actually tell the truth and it startles you because your life - is well - obviously so mundane. That's ok. I feel the pain.

I am who I am. I don't have to pretend otherwise. I referred to other situations in discussions with people in respect of different scenarios and points. It was never to brag or boast. I suppose that is the only reason you would refer to such things. Each time was a specific point. In hindsight - I would not have done such a thing - but I did not know that you were such a CREEPY OLD MAN.

I mention these things now - because obviously you don't have clue - but please add them to your list. Please brag about me.

I have a whole list of others things you can add. Just let me know when you want to know more.

Creep.

#34

Debates: 0

Posts: 8,322

01.16.2022 08:09AM

-->

@Tradesecret

Oh by the way - you seem to have forgotten a few things on my CV.

And what about my economics degree? You seem to have forgotten that one too.

Did I mention I was a director on a bank Board?

Did I mention that I was a director with a Christian Counseling Service Inc?

Did I mention that I was a significant partner with the United Way Charity?

Did I mention that I was appointed as an Assistant Prosecutor with the Bangladesh Court?

This was during the times I was also senior lawyer with the DHHS in Australia.

And did I mention anything about my musical talents?

I was quite a cool musician in my teenage years - in a little Victorian Band.

And that was when I did not have duties with the highland pipe band.

I played the drums - couldn't sing. I was not very good at singing. But I loved the guitar.

Did I mention that I was also quite an impressive sportsperson excelling in cricket - as an opening batter / keeper?

I played AFL for a well known footy team and was a state champion in both table tennis and chess.

Did I mention that I was quite proficient as a tennis player although I didn't take it up until I was in my 40s. But still was able to win some of the local tournaments.

Reverend "Tradey" Tradsecret. The gift that keeps giving of his own accord to faceless strangers on the WWW.

Definition of of one's own accord

—used to indicate that someone does something because he or she wants to, not because someone has asked the person or forced him or her to do it.

I have a whole list of others things you can add. Just let me know when you want to know more.

I'll have them now, if you have the time and don't mind continuing sharing them- your personal information- on a forum of the WWW, Reverend?

#35

Debates: 2

Posts: 3,343

01.17.2022 12:01AM

-->

@Stephen

Hi there creepy man.

#36

Debates: 0

Posts: 8,322

01.18.2022 09:20AM

-->

@Tradesecret

Did I mention that I was appointed as an Assistant Prosecutor with the Bangladesh Court?

No you didn't. And I find that particularly interesting considering that you ARE also a defence lawyer in the English speaking country of Australia. And you would have had to ALSO have been also able to speak the Bengali language, the national language of Bangladesh. This is not to mention the fact that you would ALSO have had to have studied Bangladeshi law.

So please you just keep em coming Reverend Munchausen.

#37

Debates: 2

Posts: 3,343

01.23.2022 09:59PM

-->

@Stephen

Did I mention that I was appointed as an Assistant Prosecutor with the Bangladesh Court?

No you didn't. And I find that particularly interesting considering that you ARE also a defence lawyer in the English speaking country of Australia. And you would have had to ALSO have been also able to speak the Bengali language, the national language of Bangladesh. This is not to mention the fact that you would ALSO have had to have studied Bangladeshi law.

So please you just keep em coming Reverend Munchausen.

You seem to understand little of the legal world. Yet that does not surprise me. Barristers are engaged by both the prosecution and the defence. Don't forget a lawyer working for DHHS is a prosecutor. Bangladesh law is historically based on the Common Law being a former colony. Many people speak English especially in the courts. I reckon you would be surprised to know that Bangladesh has a significant number of female lawyers as well. And as I said - I have not even told you very much about myself at all. How many languages do I speak? And can you recall which ones?

Context also accounts for much.

#38

Debates: 0

Posts: 8,322

https://www.sai.uni-heidelberg.de/workgroups/bdlaw/1987-a02.htm

01.24.2022 11:01AM

-->

@Tradesecret

Did I mention that I was appointed as an Assistant Prosecutor with the Bangladesh Court?

No you didn't. And I find that particularly interesting considering that you ARE also a defence lawyer in the English speaking country of Australia. And you would have had to ALSO have been also able to speak the Bengali language, the national language of Bangladesh. This is not to mention the fact that you would ALSO have had to have studied Bangladeshi law.

So please you just keep em coming Reverend Munchausen.
Don't forget a lawyer working for DHHS is a prosecutor.

That'll be DHHS ( Department of Health and Human Services) https://www.dhhs.vic.gov.au/? So? That will be an English speaking lawyer practicing in English in the English country of Australia. And irrelevant to your bullshite claims of being fully trained in the Bangladeshi Judicial System and qualified and fully versed in the Bengala language.. Keep digging.

Bangladesh law is historically based on the Common Law being a former colony. Many people speak English especially in the courts.

Sorry but you are wrong AGAIN and bullshiting, AGAIN!

Sharia courts aside( Bangladesh is an Islamic country) you appear to have completely missed the FACT the Bengali Language Implementation Act 1987 requires all the courts of Bangladesh to use only Bangla as its official or working language. The act does not make any exception for the Supreme Court of Bangladesh. And all the applications and appeals filed in any other language other than Bangla are illegal, null and void.

You really should do your homework before posting your claims Reverend Munchausen.

I reckon you would be surprised to know that Bangladesh has a significant number of female lawyers as well.

No I wouldn't be the slightest bit surprised. And irrelevant to your invented bullshite claims of being a practicing Assistant Prosecuting lawyer in the Bangladeshi.

And as I said - I have not even told you very much about myself at all.

You just love being clouted with your own stick, don't you Reverend Munchausen..

If this is you not telling "very much about yourself " I don't know what is:

Here > #32 and here>#34. And all on top of a family and farm to run and look after too.

How many languages do I speak?

One, is my guess. Regardless of the multilingual tongue you claim to possess.

Yet you came here gloating and preening and parading all of your alleged qualifications, titles and accreditations claiming "most families are to stupid" and in pure Ethangesque fashion you accusing most the atheist that you meet of being "kiddie fiddlers".

Most atheists I know are impractical and airhead. Many end up in prison, for theft and sex related crimes, mostly kiddie crime. Many commit suicide and or are on drugs and alcohol. Not too many get married, or if they do - are on to their 4 or 4th marriage. Many are gay or lesbian. #33

#32 And Atheism is one of the most arrogant positions I have come across - it is not dissimilar to the Leftwing progressive position.
Tradesecret

https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/4977-suicidal-thoughts-generally-low-self-esteem-and-atheism?page=2&post_number=33

#39

Debates: 2

Posts: 3,343

01.24.2022 11:20AM

-->

@Stephen

It doesn't really matter what rubbish you bring up. When I was there - it was not sharia law. In fact Bangladesh was considered a secular Islam country.

English was ok as well. Hence I don't particularly care what you think. You were not there.

It is uncanny how ignorant you are.

Doesn't surprise me.

Also I never claimed to be fully versed in the Bangladesh legal system. I never even put a context in - but you like EVERY other time - make assumptions

I hope your family is ok.

#40

Debates: 0

Posts: 8,322

https://www.sai.uni-heidelberg.de/workgroups/bdlaw/1987-a02.htm

01.24.2022 11:51AM

-->

@Tradesecret

When I was there - it was not sharia law.

Stop telling lies. Shariah has been practiced there in Bangladesh since its independence. And I did say - shariah aside. Keep digging.

In fact Bangladesh was considered a secular Islam country.

It may well "consider itself to be " and that is because it has a secular constitution. BUT Islam was made the official religion of Bangladesh in a 1988 constitutional amendment.. and it does practice sharia. and marriage, divorce, alimony and property inheritance are regulated by Sharia for Muslims. The Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937 (XXVI of 1937) applies to Muslims in all matters relating to family affairs. Do you see that date, dummy.

That is why I said and clearly wrote "shariah aside" you are just far to dumb and stupid to have understood why I pointed that out FIRST.

Keep digging Reverend Munchausen.

Also I never claimed to be fully versed in the Bangladesh legal system.

You would have had to have been you clown , to hold such a high position, or have you forgot that you claimed "I was appointed as an Assistant Prosecutor with the Bangladesh Court".#34. You are full of shite.

Keep digging Reverend Munchausen.

Bangladesh law is historically based on the Common Law being a former colony. Many people speak English especially in the courts.

Sorry but you are wrong AGAIN and bullshiting, AGAIN!

You really should do your homework before posting your claims Reverend Munchausen.

Here endeth the lesson. Off you go now.

#41

Debates: 2

Posts: 3,343

01.24.2022 09:12PM

-->

@Stephen

To be frank - you honestly have no idea do you?

And just as frankly - I don't have to justify anything to you.

Bangladesh is not a fundamentalist Islam nation. It is not Pakistan.

I repeat I never claimed to know everything about the legal system in Bangladesh. And despite your nonsense - this has not changed.

Even a cursory reading of your link to the law does not change my view. They refer to written language not oral language.

And you also omitted to note it specified an exemption - foreign relations. Not that you would have picked it up.

In any event - even if the law is EXACTLY as you say it was - which it is not - it does not change what actually happened.

I have no reason to lie about this - not one.

This is actually all about you Stephen. You are the one on trial here. Not me. You are the creep who wants to know everything about me.

You are the creep who wants to discredit every thing I say. It is you who gets cheap thrills.

I will now ask you nicely - please stop talking about me or repeating my words.

#42

Debates: 0

Posts: 8,322

https://www.sai.uni-heidelberg.de/workgroups/bdlaw/1987-a02.htm

01.24.2022 10:14PM

-->

@Tradesecret

Bangladesh is not a fundamentalist Islam nation.

And nowhere have I said it is, you clown. IN FACT I said Bangladesh has a secular constitution. Although it national religion is Islam. Stop your bullshite.

I repeat I never claimed to know everything about the legal system in Bangladesh.

And I said following your claims to be an appointed Assistant Prosecutor with the Bangladesh Court".#34. That you would have had to be trained in the Bangladeshi justice system and would have had to have been able to speak Bangal. SEE A BELOW and stop your bullshite.

Even a cursory reading of your link to the law does not change my view. They refer to written language not oral language.

I don't care what you think about the link. The link shows you to be totally wrong in your claim;

HERE>

Tradesecret wrote: Bangladesh law is historically based on the Common Law being a former colony. Many people speak English especially in the courts.#37

You are a liar! Reverend Munchausen

Read this slowly.

And you also omitted to note it specified an exemption - foreign relations. Not that you would have picked it up.

Oh I picked up on that alright . But are you now also claiming to have worked as an Assistant Prosecutor with the Bangladesh for Foreign Relations? ? Yes or No?#21

In any event - even if the law is EXACTLY as you say it was -

It it not me that his showing you to be the fkn bare faced liar that you are. It is the facts. You claim one thing according to Bangladeshi law when the Bengali Language Implementation Act 1987 shows you not only to be totally wrong , but also to be a bare faced liar.

I have no reason to lie about this - not one.

I haven't accused you of lying about anyone else but yourself.

This is actually all about you Stephen.

Nope. You made it about yourself, you idiot. I haven't made all those claims about you. I didn't ask you if you were a Lawyer, I didn't ask you if you were a Pastor or a Chaplain to your countries Defence Force. I didn't ask you if your worked in a bank, or tutored students in universities. I didn't ask you to tell us who you were tutored and trained under in so many ancient languages that you have freely claimed that you have been. And neither did I ask you if your were a Assistant Prosecuting lawyer in the Bangladeshi courts . YOU did that all on your own accord. SEE HERE:

Definition of of one's own accord

—used to indicate that someone does something because he or she wants to, not because someone has asked the person or forced him or her to do it.

You are the one on trial here. Not me. You are the creep who wants to know everything about me.

"On trial"🤣 I didn't want to know anything at all about you. You handed it on a plate to the www, you idiot.

You put yourself under the microscope, with all of your wild claims about yourself. The more claims you made the more I looked.

You are the creep who wants to discredit every thing I say.

You discredit yourself with every single new claim..... about yourself, Reverend Munchausen

I will now ask you nicely - please stop talking about me or repeating my words.

I thought you said appreciated me quoting you and thanked me for doing so.. And you have made it clear many times that you "own all your own words and are proud of them ". It appears now that you have regrets and want to distance yourself from these wild claims.

Then simple do not give me genuine cause to do so. I have told you, you invite me to do so and gave you a perfect example of you inviting me to do so HERE>>#415.

You are the clown defence lawyer that keeps opening the door for the prosecution; something no real lawyer would ever do.

I will repeat and remind you of the claims you made in the past every time that you make claims to the contrary to what you say in the present. And when you have the audacity to accuse others of double standards, hypocrisy or telling lies.

I have said it before and I will repeat it. You are a fkn fraud, Reverend Munchausen.

And I believe that Castin is hoping for a genuine response from you;>>>>>#21 It is all to do with even more contradictions thrown up by YOU!.

We all know that you have a pure hatred of atheists, all very Ethangesque if you ask me. But it does have your name on it, Reverend Munchausen .

Most atheists I know are impractical and airhead. Many end up in prison, for theft and sex related crimes, mostly kiddie crime. Many commit suicide and or are on drugs and alcohol. Not too many get married, or if they do - are on to their 4 or 4th marriage. Many are gay or lesbian. #33

#32 And Atheism is one of the most arrogant positions I have come across - it is not dissimilar to the Leftwing progressive position.
Tradesecret

https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/4977-suicidal-thoughts-generally-low-self-esteem-and-atheism?page=2&post_number=33

#43

Debates: 22

Posts: 11,278

01.25.2022 06:37AM

-->

@Tradesecret

So are we suggesting that Jesus was in fact Bangladeshi?

Or his dad was?

Or what the f**k are you two arguing about now?

I would personally suggest that judging from all the pictures I've seen of Jesus,

His dad was probably of Northern European or Scandinavian origin.

#44

Debates: 2

Posts: 3,343

01.25.2022 08:17AM

-->

@zedvictor4

Fair point.

I take the view Jesus was middle eastern. Whatever that entails.

Stephen is the one arguing, I am merely making assertions.

#45

Debates: 2

Posts: 3,343

01.25.2022 08:22AM

-->

@zedvictor4

Again you miss the important words in the section you quote -

"in written Bengali".

Oral applications can be made in another language if the court is pleased or disposed to hear it.

And you also once again - miss the exception - "foreign relations".

Go back to school, creep,

Do you even know what that is referring to? LOL @ you.

And why do you think I cannot speak Bengla? I never said I could or could not.

Once again - you make so many assumptions. Assume assume assume.

#46

Debates: 22

Posts: 11,278

01.25.2022 11:29AM

-->

@Tradesecret

Who are you calling a creep?

LOL.

#47

Debates: 2

Posts: 3,343

01.26.2022 09:13AM

-->

@zedvictor4

Stephen.

#48

Debates: 22

Posts: 11,278

01.26.2022 11:43AM

-->

@Tradesecret

Guessed so.

#49

Debates: 0

Posts: 8,322

01.26.2022 05:54PM

-->

@Tradesecret

"in written Bengali".

Oral applications can be made in another language if the court is pleased or disposed to hear it.

And you also once again - miss the exception - "foreign relations".

Bullshit. It clearly says it is an offence. try reading it for what it states and not for what you are begging for it to state.

"except in the case of foreign relations, in all other cases records and correspondences, laws, proceedings in court and other legal actions shall necessarily be written in Bengali, by Government offices, courts, half-official and autonomous institutions everywhere in Bangladesh.

(2) If any person puts forward an appeal or petition at any of the institutions mentioned in sub-section 3 (1), in any other language than Bengali, it will be considered as illegal".

Do you see that>>> must be written in Bengali - and for one to be able to read such "correspondence written in Bengali" one would have to be able to speak the language.

And why do you think I cannot speak Bengla? I never said I could or could not.

I have asked you if you do speak Bengla . I didn't assume one way or the other. .

YOU KEEP MISSING THIS >> I also asked you are you also now claiming to have worked as an Assistant Prosecutor with the Bangladesh for Foreign Relations? ? Yes or No? <<<<<< and you need to be very fkn careful before you answer that question.

So when you are ready Reverend Munchausen.

#50

Debates: 2

Posts: 3,343

01.26.2022 09:51PM

-->

@Stephen

The biggest thing which refutes your incompetency and sheer stupidity is the truth.

I know what I did, when it happened and why.

You can produce anything you like - it does not change the facts.

I simply cannot be bothered with you. I have met many imbeciles over the years - but you take the cake.

Yes, you can add that to your CV.

You talk so much garbage and threaten with no teeth at all.

Please explain what "foreign relations" in the context means before you issue such hollow warnings.

#51

Debates: 2

Posts: 3,343

01.26.2022 09:56PM

-->

@Stephen

Since you fail to understand how to read the legislation and since you are a dummy when it comes to court life - I can see how you might interpret it that way.

Of course - you are wrong. But that's ok. Why don't you go and get a law degree and see why.

Oh that's right. You failed school.

#52

Castin

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,222

Castin

01.29.2022 06:14PM

-->

@Lunar108

Do you agree or not on that
jesus true father would have been known if they had DNA tests back then ?
instead of this garbage about god's son .

This may be an anachronistic question.

The idea that Jesus was literally the son of God and a virgin probably didn't develop, or at least become mainstream, until well after his death. So there's every possibility that if we hopped in a time machine and offered DNA testing to Jesus's contemporaries, they would say something like, "What do you mean? His father is Joseph, we all know that."

Let's look at what data we have:

Mark, our first Gospel to be written, mentions nothing about a divine virgin birth. Scholars usually consider it more adoptionistic -- God adopts Jesus as his son at Jesus's baptism. My guess is the Markan community was unaware of the virgin birth narrative. Maybe it hadn't developed yet, maybe it hadn't circulated to that community.
John, our last Gospel to be written, is also mum about Jesus's virgin birth. It even refers to Jesus as the "son of Joseph." The Johannine community may have been unaware of the virgin birth narrative too, or they may have just been uninterested in incorporating it. The progression sort of goes:

Mark: "Jesus was special from his baptism on" --> Matthew & Luke: "Jesus was special from birth" --> John: "Jesus was special even before his birth."

Matthew and Luke are the only two books in the entire New Testament which attest to the divine parthenogenesis, and their accounts conflict.
Matthew, at least, seems to have based his virgin birth narrative on a misunderstanding of an Old Testament prophecy. Matthew was reading the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, which renders the Hebrew almah ("young woman") as parthenos (which is apparently more ambiguous, like "maiden" -- it could mean "young woman" or "virgin"). So Matthew, who was kind of obsessed with prophecy fulfillment, said, "Ah! The prophecy says he must be born of a virgin!" even though it doesn't say that. It wasn't even really a prophecy, by the way. Matthew just sort of took one bit of Isaiah out of context and called it a prophecy.
Paul, our earliest and potentially best-informed source on Jesus, whose writings predate even the Gospels, also says nothing about the virgin birth, even though he directly addresses the issue of Jesus's birth: he says only that Jesus was "born of a woman, born under the law" -- as if Jesus was born like any other Jew. Bart Ehrman notes that Paul only needed to change one word ("born of a woman" to "born of a virgin") to incorporate the virgin birth story. He didn't. Paul claims to have met Jesus's brother James, and I actually believe him. He does not appear to have come away from this meeting with any knowledge that Jesus's birth was out of the ordinary.
Jesus's original followers were Jews, who likely believed in the messiah as Jews of that time and place understood the term: a human hero, born to human parents, descended from David, and chosen by God to rule his kingdom on Earth. In Jewish scripture, the messiah was never supposed to be born of a virgin. They may have indeed called Jesus the son of God -- but this is a term we see applied elsewhere in the Old Testament with no implication that God literally fathered that person (except in the sense that God is everyone's father).

This all indicates to me that the virgin birth narrative was not widespread or mainstream in the first century. By the time John is written, 90-100 CE -- sixty to seventy years after Jesus's death -- it still isn't widespread or mainstream. Of the two Gospels which mention it, we can eliminate Matthew as basing his narrative on a translation misunderstanding, leaving only Luke. This is rickety foundation indeed on which to base the assertion that Jesus was born of a virgin, or that everyone knew he was reputedly born of a virgin in his century. Mark and John and even Paul would have found the virgin birth very relevant and very useful information -- it heightens Jesus's importance and exceptionalism, aids their ideological and rhetorical goals in every way. Why did they leave it out? The simplest answer is that they did not know about it.

My guess? Jesus's biological father was Joseph.

I honestly cannot believe I typed all that. I must be procrastinating.

#53

Lemming

Debates: 6

Posts: 3,205

Lemming

01.30.2022 04:07PM

-->

@Castin

Procrastinating or not, I found it interesting to read.

19 days later

#54

Debates: 0

Posts: 8,322

02.19.2022 10:50AM

-->

@Castin

My guess? Jesus's biological father was Joseph.#52
Castin

A+1 . Excellent post.

And in accordance with the many that believe in "inherited sin" from our original parents- Adam and Eve it follows that Jesus, being of of human stock was sinful too.

#55

Debates: 0

Posts: 1,145

02.21.2022 04:43PM

-->

@Lunar108

Lunar108,

YOUR QUOTE OF WHO JESUS' FATHER WAS: "Do you agree or not on that jesus true father would have been known if they had DNA tests back then ?

instead of this garbage about god's son ."

I, as a TRUE Christian, still wonder in why this question keeps coming up, especially when doing the "simple biblical math!"

When Jesus becomes the Hebrew serial killer Yahweh God incarnate of the Old Testament (1 Timothy 3:15-16), and there being only one god (1 Corinthians 8:6), then Jesus is god and was the Father of Himself, get it? Maybe this image will help you to logically understand this simple biblical axiom: https://ibb.co/ZMywGrc

#56

Debates: 0

Posts: 1,145

02.22.2022 05:47PM

-->

@Castin

@Stephen

Castin,

YOUR QUOTE OF JESUS' JEWISH ETHNIC GROUP: "Jesus's original followers were Jews, who likely believed in the messiah as Jews of that time and place understood the term:"

Not only were Jesus' followers were Jews at the beginning, they have to be Jews today to be Christians! A Christian is a follower of Jesus, and Jesus ONLY came for the Jews to begin with, and to no other ethnic group, period!

Jesus stated: “He answered, "I was sent ONLY to the lost sheep of Israel [Hebrews].” (Matthew 15:24)

Jesus' inspired words stated: “For thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God: the Lord thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth [Hebrews].” (Deuteronomy. 7:6)

When you speak with Bible ignorant pseudo-christians, remember to ask them in what Jewish sect they belong too to be TRUE Christians!

YOUR UNGODLY QUOTE OF JOSEPH BEING JESUS' FATHER: My guess? Jesus's biological father was Joseph.

WRONG! There need be no guessing! “Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned.” (Romans 5:12) Therefore, for Jesus to be pure and SINLESS as He was promoted to be throughout the Bible, then Joseph could not be the father as the verse above so states, get it?

To further this premise along, in where Joseph could NEVER be Jesus' "biological" father, is when the following Jesus inspired passages support this fact:

What is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit" (Matthew 1:20).

Matthew states that the virgin "was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit" (Matthew 1:18)

Therefore, Joseph WAS NOT the Holy Spirit, only Jesus was the Holy Spirit, therefore He celestially impregnated Mary to be Her son, and His own father at the same time, case closed!

Therefore, like my post #55 easily shows, and doing simple biblical math, then Jesus impregnated His own mother through a "spiritual celestial impregnation," and therefore was a Bastard Child in true Hebrew tradition because Joseph was NOT His biological father. Because of this fact, Joseph was embarrassed and stated herewith: "Because Joseph her husband was a righteous man and did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly" (Matthew 1:19)

Therefore, I being a TRUE Christian in having to be Jewish, and accepting that Jesus was a Bastard Child as biblically shown, and through His "spiritual celestial impregnation" of His own mother, I also have to accept that Jesus "spiritually did this impregnation incestually!" It is very hard in being a TRUE Christian in the 21st century, to say the least. :(

#57

eventuality001

Debates: 0

Posts: 66

eventuality001

02.26.2022 03:28PM

-->

@Castin

The Manuscripts say that

The Father of Yahashua was the Holy Spirit, a creative deity who creates all life.

His father was a spirit, the same spirit that conceived him spiritually, forming and creating a body in the womb of a woman and then the spirit conceiving itself.

this same spirit was the very spirit that was his own spiritual identify in him, Yahashua, his very character and own deity, Yahashua came out of God and returns back to God from where he exited out from.

#58

Debates: 22

Posts: 11,278