Ignorance Now, Can be Eternally Deadly, if you don't know...

If you had something to "handle" then I would have handled it (and I even handled what I stated by restating it); but by your own admission, you "presented nothing". . ."but what you said"; and you even got all of that convoluted. And you in no way "accepted" what I presented; you did, however attempt to opine. . .and that to your detriment. But I peeped that in your first reaction to my initial post, when you stated, "i would love to talk about the parts that i colorized"; the word "talk" gave you away.
With or without Scripture, you couldn't contradict anything that I stated; and when believers and/or unbelievers can't do that, then whatever they opine, which is all you did/have done, is of no consequence to me.
In other words, if you cannot take Scripture, literally and/or perceptually, and absolutely contradict it, then all you've done at best, is told me "a tale … full of sound and fury; signifying nothing."

I believe JESUS CHRIST [THE WORD of GOD]; and you, nor anyone else, ("intelligently") have yet to show me the slightest of an iota of a lie that HE told or contradiction that HE made. . .or that is Written.

 

You edited during my response to you. . .but I'll just continue rather than follow suit.
You're speculating about what may happen. When JESUS CHRIST, "THE SON of Man" was born of "a virgin", the kind of stuff you're speculating about now, wasn't even a gleam in your ancestors' eye. . .now was it?
BTW, this may be how the anti-Christ comes to be. . .as you speculate.

 

i agreed with what you said at the beginning. i agreed with jesus. i disagreed with satan. i pointed out that you do not disagree with satan.
you got mad. follow what i wrote. follow what you wrote.
by the way i believe that god might be ET the same one that made the pyramids. they would have had the knowledge

 

As long as you agree with JESUS CHRIST, you do well. . .and for all the rest of Eternity.

 

Show me one historical document from that time that mentions the existence of this imaginary person. The whole story about virgin birth started because the word young girl and virgin is the same in Greek. In Hebrew, the mother of Messiah is a young girl but since the early Christians were making up the story based on Greek Translation, they said that their Messiah (Jesus) was born from a virgin.
I don't think if there is any God, he would have need to do Marry to give birth to himself.

 

but you do not. your understanding of god is corrupt. your understanding of jesus is corrupt.

 

Regarding your demand for "one historical document from that time that mentions the existence of this imaginary person", I'll give you three, which would render her a real person, rather than an "imaginary" one:
Isaiah (7:14), Matthew (1:23), and Luke (1:27). All 3 of these fellow are penned at least one "historical document". You do know what a "historical document" is, don't you?
And just what kind of an extraordinary "sign" would it have been for a "young girl", as opposed to a "virgin", to get pregnant?

If "think" is what you really did, then you'd know and understand that:
1. GOD IS Omnipotent; HE can merely speak and things become (Did you miss reading Genesis, chapter one?), because HE's got it "goin on" like that.
2. The only "do" that GOD did to Mary was with HIS WORD and HIS POWER (both of which she gave her permission/consent); Mary was impregnated by THE WORD of GOD (Luke 1:38), via THE POWER of GOD (Luke 1:35).

Question, do any of you un/nonbelievers do due diligence in researching Biblical doctrine/theology, instructions, teachings, etc., before formulating your convoluted theories and suppositions that you then adopt as fact?

 

even if god[dr. god] did impregnate mary with some sort of clone baby, why would he be the father. and are you saying that jesus is geneticly same as god. like god only used his own dna in the cloning.

now don't go trying to say something about validity of dna and the procedure of cloning here trying to avoid the real question, keep in mind that god created dna and set up all these biological relationship, rules and everything else. ad this is how he wanted it done.

 

Citing the bible as a historical source is citing your mother for a job interview.

Give us a Roman Historian. There were a few.

 

From Biology 101: The male who impregnates the female is the father of the offspring born to the female that the male impregnated.

 

so if a male doctor impregnated a patient with a test tube baby the doctor is the father?

 

And if your mother had given birth to a smarter offspring, he'd know that Isaiah, Matthew (Levi) and Luke are all "historical" sources.

 

what happened to turn the other cheek

 

lol you aren't expecting him to practice what he preaches are you? He's a "christian", that's not what they do.

 

Wow, I am called stupid by someone with the comprehension of a rock. I must really be inane in the brain then.

 

Nobody has even claimed that all these different bibles which are full of inaccuracy and contradiction are from the same time as this imaginary person.
If your mama had given birth to a smarter offspring, you would have known that.

 

gworld - you make me want to start posting 'yo mamma' jokes.

 

Provided the sperm in/from the "test tube" belongs to, and/or was physically donated by "the male doctor" that "impregnated a patient"; otherwise whoever ejaculated the sperm that was use to impregnate the "patient" is "the father"!

Did you ever notice that "cheek" is singular. . .not plural? No, you couldn't have; otherwise you would not have asked that question. BTW, Did David "turn the other cheek" with Goliath?

Come now, I didn't call you that; not knowing something doesn't make you "stupid". . .but...

Why then, don't you man up and show at least one "inaccuracy and contradiction"; you can't can you? otherwise you would have done so; but, alas, all caterwauling as one having their salad tossed over and over again.
BTW, the "imaginary person", as you now refer to HIM as, is ETERNAL (without beginning...); you, on the other hand, have a beginning, which would negate your unbelief about being "from the same time".

 

one cheek and another cheek
and are you saying god used his own sperm

 

Come on now pizzaman, what part of, "Mary was impregnated by THE WORD of GOD (Luke 1:38), via THE POWER of GOD (Luke 1:35)", don't you understand?
Did GOD speak stuff into being in Genesis/Bereshit One? When, "GOD said, 'Let the be light'." What happened? Is there anything to hard for GOD? If GOD could make Baalam's ass talk, how hard would it be for HIM to, by HIS WORD and POWER, impregnate a virgin. . .without using "sperm"?