How did I miss this?

What's so controversial about it? Are we pretending that Joseph and Mary didn't sleep together afterwards? And what do Muslims have to do with it?
 
I love it....anything that brings attention to the irrationality of religious belief.

I'm confused about the muslim reference as well.
 
lol..that was the whole idea..to get ppl talking about it..
i think it is stupid for ppl to make a big deal about it..it shows their true colors..
they make a big deal about it because it is offensive to them..WAKE UP ppl..to get offended means it is a selfish thing, IOW its not supposed to be how you feel about it..its not supposed to be about you..its supposed to be about god..


sorry..i had a moment...:(
 
It is offensive because it is saying that God had sexual relations with Mary.

God did not have sex with mary. The Holy Spirit caused the pregnancy. Mary was a surrogate of God. Jesus was not 50% God and 50% mary. He was 100% divine.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days
 
It is offensive because it is saying that God had sexual relations with Mary.

God did not have sex with mary. The Holy Spirit caused the pregnancy. Mary was a surrogate of God. Jesus was not 50% God and 50% mary. He was 100% divine.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

So, are you saying that neither Joseph nor Mary can claim parenthood of Jesus?

I'm not starting a flame war..I'm just curious.

Are you saying he had no earthly parents?
 
I want a DNA test and I want it NOW!

Several years ago, some Texas researchers did a DNA study of supposed Shroud bloodstains, but the provenance of the samples they used was questionable and their results have not been officially recognized. Nonetheless, their findings concluded that the blood on the Shroud is from a male human. They also stated that the blood is so old and degraded that very few DNA segments were found, eliminating any possibility of "cloning" anything from the blood found on the cloth. Other DNA experts argue however, that so much contamination exists on the Shroud that no DNA test, no matter how carefully done, could ever be considered definitive. During the 1978 exhibition and scientific examination, the cloth was handled by many people, including most members of STURP, the Church authorities who prepared it for display, the Poor Clare nuns who unstitched portions of it, visiting dignitaries (including the Archbishop of Turin and the emissary of King Umberto) and countless others. During the five days and nights of the 1978 examination, the Shroud was continuously exposed to contamination as it lay unprotected on the support table. Every member of our research team, including myself, left DNA on the cloth. And remember, the cloth has been displayed and handled thousands of times throughout its history. Once again, the Shroud presents us with an enigma that even DNA evidence may not definitively unravel.

from here..

Happy?
 
Several years ago, some Texas researchers did a DNA study of supposed Shroud bloodstains, but the provenance of the samples they used was questionable and their results have not been officially recognized. Nonetheless, their findings concluded that the blood on the Shroud is from a male human. They also stated that the blood is so old and degraded that very few DNA segments were found, eliminating any possibility of "cloning" anything from the blood found on the cloth. Other DNA experts argue however, that so much contamination exists on the Shroud that no DNA test, no matter how carefully done, could ever be considered definitive. During the 1978 exhibition and scientific examination, the cloth was handled by many people, including most members of STURP, the Church authorities who prepared it for display, the Poor Clare nuns who unstitched portions of it, visiting dignitaries (including the Archbishop of Turin and the emissary of King Umberto) and countless others. During the five days and nights of the 1978 examination, the Shroud was continuously exposed to contamination as it lay unprotected on the support table. Every member of our research team, including myself, left DNA on the cloth. And remember, the cloth has been displayed and handled thousands of times throughout its history. Once again, the Shroud presents us with an enigma that even DNA evidence may not definitively unravel.

from here..


Happy?

They also stated the shroud was only a few hundred years old as well, you forgot about that important item.
 
So, are you saying that neither Joseph nor Mary can claim parenthood of Jesus?

I'm not starting a flame war..I'm just curious.

Are you saying he had no earthly parents?

Well it depends on what definition one uses when they say parenthood. Did Joseph and Mary raise Jesus from infancy to adulthood? Yes. Is that a legitimate definition of what parenthood is about?

So Joseph and Mary to my mind where pairents of Jesus. But not in a genetic sence. Jesus came direct from the Holy Spirit. He was formed by the power of the Holy Spirit. Mary played an important role, one of great honor. But she did not have sexual relations with God, as the poster in question was suggesting.

The Bible referes to Jesus as the second Adam. So like Adam who had no human mother and father, Jesus had no human mother or father, in the genetic sence.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days
 
Several years ago, some Texas researchers did a DNA study of supposed Shroud bloodstains, but the provenance of the samples they used was questionable and their results have not been officially recognized. Nonetheless, their findings concluded that the blood on the Shroud is from a male human. They also stated that the blood is so old and degraded that very few DNA segments were found, eliminating any possibility of "cloning" anything from the blood found on the cloth. Other DNA experts argue however, that so much contamination exists on the Shroud that no DNA test, no matter how carefully done, could ever be considered definitive. During the 1978 exhibition and scientific examination, the cloth was handled by many people, including most members of STURP, the Church authorities who prepared it for display, the Poor Clare nuns who unstitched portions of it, visiting dignitaries (including the Archbishop of Turin and the emissary of King Umberto) and countless others. During the five days and nights of the 1978 examination, the Shroud was continuously exposed to contamination as it lay unprotected on the support table. Every member of our research team, including myself, left DNA on the cloth. And remember, the cloth has been displayed and handled thousands of times throughout its history. Once again, the Shroud presents us with an enigma that even DNA evidence may not definitively unravel.

from here..

Happy?

Personally i have never believed that the shroud of Turin is the actual sheet that Jesus was wrapped in when He was buried.

There was big business in pilgrimage in the middle ages all kinds of fakes where pumped out to try and get a piece of that action.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days
 
Well it depends on what definition one uses when they say parenthood. Did Joseph and Mary raise Jesus from infancy to adulthood? Yes. Is that a legitimate definition of what parenthood is about?

So Joseph and Mary to my mind where pairents of Jesus. But not in a genetic sence. Jesus came direct from the Holy Spirit. He was formed by the power of the Holy Spirit. Mary played an important role, one of great honor. But she did not have sexual relations with God, as the poster in question was suggesting.

The Bible referes to Jesus as the second Adam. So like Adam who had no human mother and father, Jesus had no human mother or father, in the genetic sence.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

I basically see what you're saying..But...

Unlike Adam, who was brought forth from the "dust", Jesus was born of a human mother..

I assume she carried him the normal nine months, and that he should have carried her DNA.. That would make her his true mother...

Unlike Adam who was never raised by parents, nor born to any.
 
Well then we disagree. I believe Jesus carried none of Mary's DNA. If He did then He would have inherited Sin from Her. The catholic church tried to fix this problem by calling Mary sinless but of cource Marys mother and father had to be sinless to make mary sinless and so forth and so forth. And that ends up with making Adam and Eve sinless, which they where not.

The only way that Jesus could be sinless is if He was 100% from God. And He was 100% from God. As Jesus said Himself.

John 10
30 "I and My Father are one.”


All Praise The Ancient Of Days
 
Well then we disagree. I believe Jesus carried none of Mary's DNA. If He did then He would have inherited Sin from Her. The catholic church tried to fix this problem by calling Mary sinless but of cource Marys mother and father had to be sinless to make mary sinless and so forth and so forth. And that ends up with making Adam and Eve sinless, which they where not.

The only way that Jesus could be sinless is if He was 100% from God. And He was 100% from God. As Jesus said Himself.

John 10
30 "I and My Father are one.”


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

So why bother with all that nasty birth stuff, just "poof" into place.
 
Back
Top