1. If Joseph had died,
and Mary, had other son after Jesus, with a non-Christian, even so, would she
continue a virgin? [X]
Tim Chiswell, former
Psychology of Culture and Beliefs
1 Joseph, Mary, and Jesus
were not Christians. They were Jews
2 A woman that's had sex is
not a virgin, regardless of the circumstances
3 According to the Bible,
Mary did have other children. James, Jesus' younger brother is
referred to several times
132 views
View Upvoters
Vern Wall, DD Bible
Research, Universal Life Church (2019)
If Joseph had died, and
Mary, had other son after Jesus, with a non-Christian, even so, would she
continue a virgin?
The bible was not written
in English. The word translated “virgin” meant a woman who had not had a baby
yet. After she bore Jesus she was no longer a virgin.
11 views
Jonatan Hainana, former HIV/AIDs Facilitator ,Paramedic
what is a virgin
according to your understanding?
Upvote
Original Author · January 14
i mean the reason why im doubts is cos after Maria got a
baby in the bible, no further scripture referring her as a virgin. I don't
understand why people further then called her virgin Maria (christians)
Reply
Upvote
Hi Jonatan, I think so I’ve even asked this here at Quora
already, if James were a son from a Roman soldier, for example, in case
Joseph had died first, if Mary would be still a virgin.. . As I told you,
Mary was a virgin because she delivered herself to the use of her
attributions: she didn’t cease to be woman, she continued serving God as a
sinner, and she would go back to be a virgin once again if God had appeared
once again wanting a son. The Father, the Son, the Man, the Woman, the
Marriage, the Birth, the Death, the Resurrection are conditions of
functioning, the Seed is that which falls in growth. The difficulty
in understanding the rationality of the Christianism it’s because these things
are involved with angles where that which is, ceases to be, and goes
back to be, at every instant: the permanence only exists in function of these
two movements. The end goes back to the beginning: this is a constant. So, while
saint, Mary was virgin, outside of the virginity, she goes back
to be a woman once again: it’s a relation of body-and-spirit.
Now, I’m not a Christian, so, if you’re a Christian, you
shouldn’t be asking these things for a non-Christian, because this is sin.. .
This was the condition of the woman, in those days, and it is until today, and
of any human being: hour he’s in the earth, hour he’s in heaven: it’s
unsustainable the position.. . Mary was virgin while Christ, after
this, she lost her virginity and died as woman: this is understood as
a natural death, for all those who served God in the ultimate
condition of total delivery of the body in attributions, these will be
transformed in Saints: because they’re served God in life, even though for a
small time. Working for God is losing and gaining the entire time.
Paul explains very well this functioning: read 1Cor15, it is a good intro.
But yes, thanks for asking, few times along the year I
come at Quora, and whenever I may, I try to clear things up, because, my
preoccupation is with the Forest..
I think so The Book stayed
owing informations, and talking about the nature, in these conditions, it’s
impossible, because, the understanding of The Book already is, by itself, a
misunderstanding, so, it would stay difficult explaining to the own woman, who
carries a ring in the head and only for this the sex is free, which is the
nature of the human procedence: the use: and only for this the innocence
existed.
You don’t lose the innocence for asking, you lose the innocence for having stopped serving, even though for just an instant: but you may be with God, in the following moment, and this is the Grace. For this, insist on it, don’t stay with my opinion only, do question the others about the virginity: pay attention that you will always arrive in two results: the ones who agree that Mary was a virgin, and the ones who agree that Mary continued virgin: because this is the state-of -the-being, in the Christianism. The question which no one clears up indeed is who is the father of Jesus. So, it’s plan that the woman localizes herself in two different positions, the pleasure of being with God, which’s spiritual, and the sexual pleasure of being with the Man. You may say it treats of two different things, but indeed, it treats of a same thing, because such localization it’s an angle. So, if you didn’t understand the Biblical angles, you don’t have how to understand indeed the Rationality of the Innocence. It was basically what you’ve asked.
Big hug.
You don’t lose the innocence for asking, you lose the innocence for having stopped serving, even though for just an instant: but you may be with God, in the following moment, and this is the Grace. For this, insist on it, don’t stay with my opinion only, do question the others about the virginity: pay attention that you will always arrive in two results: the ones who agree that Mary was a virgin, and the ones who agree that Mary continued virgin: because this is the state-of -the-being, in the Christianism. The question which no one clears up indeed is who is the father of Jesus. So, it’s plan that the woman localizes herself in two different positions, the pleasure of being with God, which’s spiritual, and the sexual pleasure of being with the Man. You may say it treats of two different things, but indeed, it treats of a same thing, because such localization it’s an angle. So, if you didn’t understand the Biblical angles, you don’t have how to understand indeed the Rationality of the Innocence. It was basically what you’ve asked.
Big hug.
Reply
2.
Is it written in the Quran
that Allah would have said to the Muslims that in situations of danger, high
risk, and survival, they should not fight and make a pact with the enemy? [X]
The Quran on Wars And Aggression
The religion of Islam, described by God in the Quran
stands for peace and tolerance. It does not condone or encourage terrorism.
When can Muslims resort to war? War is only allowed as a measure of security and is
restricted to fighting in self-defence. All aggressors have been strongly
condemned. As long as disputes can be settled through conciliatory means and
rights and claims can be peacefully attained and imposed, we are required to
refrain from fighting. Only, when there is no other option, must we then fight
with full vitality and induce the enemy to see his relief in peaceful and
equitable co-existence with the believers.
Aggression is Forbidden.
The Quranic verses on this are very clear. God repeats,
"do not aggress", multiple times. Only if attacked, is one
permitted to fight back. If the other party refrains from aggression
and offers one peace, we are told to stop fighting. […]
Hi, Jawa,
Thanks for answering. I’ve few knowledges on the Quran and
who wrote it: for this, I came try to clear up, along with the Muslims, if
Allah spoke about the shame and the cowardness, if
the Quran has understanding of the nature. It doesn’t exist pacts in
the nature, nor lesser yet promises of attack nor self-defense,
it doesn’t exist fight in the nature, neither instinct of survival: thing which
your religion seem to understand very well, Allah seems to have explained, in
the best way, to his people, how to act in difficult situations, those where he
feels inferior: and not fighting may be so easily
misunderstood as pact of defense… even more when the intention of
the enemy be clear, and it’s involved with the definition of the evil.. . The
nature indeed hasn’t such understanding, human, of the matter: the
existence of the enemy, of the evil: did Allah gave any instruction, to the Islamic,
of ending up with the evil.. [?]. The Christians signed this
commitment. By what you’ve written, it didn’t stay clear if Allah also
established this kind of charging, because, indeed, if it doesn’t exist the
enemy, the evil, that, narrated in The Book terms, the Laws which you’ve quoted
don’t clear up indeed that which was asked. So, if the enemy, in the condition
of the evil -Satan, so I think- ceases the oppression, so would Allah have
instructed this, some kind of alliance..? one making a pact of peace with
Satan..? because, Satan isn’t the aggressor anymore..? In mode that, if it
doesn’t exist Satan in your religion, what I’ve asked makes no sense. I don’t
know, Jawa, I didn’t stay with a good impression of Allah, or, then, you didn’t
pass me a good impression of Allah, because, there’s a very big tolerance from
Allah, almost an acceptation of the shame.. . It doesn’t exist, in the nature,
the preoccupation of an animal with the death, the nature doesn’t move in the
challenge, neither has how to understand what is attack and
defense , the nature moves in the taste.. for this, it
doesn’t exist such table pact, where one is better than the other.. . If the
Islamic stayed this way, it’s because they’ve become human beings, and this
explains Allah and the Islamism. It was what I came charge from the Christians
of the Occident, their naturalness, because, animal who doesn’t act as an
animal is a coward. And I’ve questioned myself, if it would be this
the sentiment of the Iranians, if they’re indeed Islamic, or if they’re
becoming each time more American, if Allah had written something about this,
which’s the compromise of the Islamic people with Allah.
I think so, that, for it be better cleared up some of my
collocations, one must take in count not only the understanding of the nature.
The oil reserve is up to only five more years.
Reply
Original Author · January 15
May peace with you. You seemingly complicated yourself
with your personal opinion of God (English equivalent for Allah), an Arabic
word used only if you’re expressing in Arabic. This would only gives the false
impression to the English speaking people that “Allah” is an Arabic God or a
Muslim God!
Reply
Upvote
1 upvote
Salam. The question is phrased very technically (“make
pact”!) so that many Muslim fall in trap and deliver a wrong message. You
covered the subject matter fully and beautifully.
Reply
Upvote
·
1
Original Author · January 14
W'Salaam
Reply
Upvote
1 upvote
from Maha Rizma
Very true. Some people are just unbelievable. I don't
spare them when they come my way…every type of devil.
Reply
Upvote
·
1
View More Comments
Good answer. However, I think the last paragraph should
have been the introduction.
Reply
Upvote
Original Author · January 15
Peace with you and thanks for the comment.
Reply
Upvote
Do you have an article on this subject I can share in a
blog or upload to Academia edu?
Reply
Upvote
Original Author · January 15
Peace, I don't, this is a random reply to a question.
Thanks.
Reply
Upvote
Robin Ward, former Former Owner of 3 Hates
Shops Retired
Quite the OPPOSITE—-without prejudice—-
Allah and Koran are INVENTIONS of Muhammad. They did not
exist before 600 AD .
ALLAH does not exist as a sentient deity.
I have listed a few verses for reference
Please try to remember
It was Muhammad that INVENTED ALLAH , KORAN , ISLAM and
SHARIA LAW ( the woman haters law>
Muhammad was a war lord and worse
It just is not true , that Islam is a religion of
peace.Muhammad was confused with the three moon Goddesses that his Pagan
parents worshiped , so he took the Arabic word ALLAH and invented his own GOD
His religion , ISLAM was spread by offering people the
chance to
ACCEPT ISLAM OR DIE.
Koran
2–191 , 3–28 , 3–85 , 5–33 , 8-12 , 8-60 , 8–65 , 9–5 ,
9–30 , 9–123 , 22–19 , 47–4 , 68–4 , 32–21 , 65–4
26 views
View Upvoters
Upvote
·
1
Share
Hi Robin, thanks for answering. Where do I find the
literature of the three Goddess of the moon, that Muhammad’s parents worshiped?
I think so much of the problem of the current religions are involved with
understanding of more primitive religions, and I have a special interest for
more ancient cults, by what you’ve said, the Koran might have happened in the
form as a you’ve understood: due to understanding or misunderstanding of
something which preceded it.
Reply
Robin Ward: Christian researchers have found that the
Bible has 800 verses condoning violence and the Quran has 300 verses on
violence.
“Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that
they have, and do not spare them. But kill both man and woman, infant and
nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.”
“If your brother …secretly entices you, saying, ‘Let us go
and serve other gods,’ … you shall surely kill him; your hand shall be first
against him to put him to death.”
(Quotes are from the Bible.)
Jo Wharrier, Read Bible and the Quran carefully which is why I'm
atheist
This was Mohammed’s strategy early on. When in the
minority then keep your head down but as soon as you have a majority it was on
with the “Convert, Tithe or Die.” mantra. Of the top ten countries which show
determined religious persecution, the vast majority are Muslim.
China and India have joined the list and much of it driven
by fear of Islam. When you look around the world and see what comes with Islam
then this is hardly surprising but nonetheless I view it as entirely
unacceptable.
As Heinlein said
It is a truism that almost any sect, cult, or religion
will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so,
and will follow it by suppressing opposition, subverting all education to seize
early the minds of the young, and by killing, locking up, or driving
underground all heretics.
[Robert A. Heinlein, Postscript to Revolt in 2100.]
[Robert A. Heinlein, Postscript to Revolt in 2100.]
That certainly appears to be the way of it in Islamic
countries. Given half a chance the evangelical right will take the US that way.
It is how the BJP are behaving in India and the communist leadership in China.
48 views
View Upvoters
Akintunde Ayorinde, Planner
at Hospitality Management (2006-present)
Somehow Yes. V 47:35 The admonition that when you are
gaining upper hand you should not make peace as God will give victory, is like
saying what you are saying in another way.
Very cunning to make peace when you know your enemy is
stronger than you. But show no mercy when you are winning. Absolute cult
John Smith, Chief Engineer
Nope, you’re just naive, is all.
The Quran does not permit “holy war” like the Jews engaged
in, nor “total war” like the Christians engaged in.
The Quran, in translation, only permits self defence and
defence of others. But one should not seek to fight, hence the need for pacts
and alliances.
Umar Abbas, BSc Religion & Sexuality,
University of Karachi (2019)
No
Anonymous
Contrary to popular opinion, there is every reason to
believe he was married and had children. The bulk of the writers would not have
known, and if they did, they would not have considered it worth mentioning. It
is not unusual to omit data about a spouse and famiily, given the low value
placed upon women in that cultutre, compounded by Jesus' desire for secrecy to
prevent retaliation by the High Priests and to prevent deification of his
children.
107 views
Jesus was gay and hung around with 12 men all the time. Of
course he wasn’t a virgin, he’d have had an arse like a wizard’s sleeve.
hi, Marshall, thank you… I know.. indeed, I don’t know,
but, I do find your concordance valid, yes, and I do hope Quora do not create
any kind of obstruction to it, because, it makes sense your answer, even
because, in the Biblical concordance, Jesus came performing the human
shame, thus he came at the image of the death and of the sins,
so, few matters what he did in life, because, the virginity is the state of
a saint, in mode that, even though Jesus be conform your
understanding, that one wasn’t exactly ‘Jesus’, there was an ‘other Jesus’ in
the scene, and it ‘wasn’t him’: because there’s the resurrected
Jesus and the Jesus who died. I say these things because,
for the good Biblical understanding, any sexual truth about Jesus hasn’t the
power of annulling his sanctity, that who delivered in
use his body for God: it’s the same condition as
Mary’s. I think so, yes, Jesus was gay, as much as many others who’ve read and
rewrote The Book, there does exists a relation of sexuality in Christ, and even
for this, being strange the innocence of Christ being hidden
in the angle of a truth, his virginity: it wasn’t exactly in the ass nor in the
penis, in the latu sensu of the body, because, the virginity is
something spiritual. Then you say ‘fuck, but a guy who does these things
could be a son of God..?!’: yes, the Biblical God did things way worse than
this.. Christ’s orgy is small, compared to other Biblical reports… : “fuck,
Anne, but what about Sodom and Gomorrah..?!”: Sodom and Gomorrah weren’t
in Christ, it’s a Biblical detail, the understanding of the relation,
that that which is allowed it’s also prohibited, and
that the prohibited were the angle of a relation..
. In mode that it is in Christ and it is as well in perfect
concordance with what you’ve written
No kidding, and despite all that he was still able to
manifest God what a marvel, are you capable of such heroism?
Reply
Upvote
Original Author · January 14
I could easily shag 12 men, all at the same time too. I
think that’s pretty heroic
Reply
Upvote
Good for you, but the real heroic part is to overcome
yourself without depriving yourself of any animal pleasure and still manifest
God, and that is really heroic.
Reply
Upvote
Joe Anthro, Master...
I hope not. I’m sure he was hung though and could get any
guy he wanted. ;) I’m not sure though. I didn’t know him personally. Or her. I
have no idea.
Ray Ross, Data Extraction at Mxkintl
(2007-present)
I was going to say if immaculate conception is genetic
maybe but his mom was not a virgin so anyways …. Jesus had at least one son and
probably a daughter but could have been a son.
4.
Why does the serpent, the
devil, persecute the woman that brought forth the man’s child? [X]
writer, editor, botanist
It doesn’t exist such a thing in the nature, the persecution..
and yes, you are wrong, it’s the contrary..: any animal in the
nature steps himself away from the Son of the Man.. : if an animal goes
after the other, it’s because he likes.. . That
whom invented the contrary must have better explanation for
this, the why of the enmity in His intention.. it can only be the
explanation of that who created the distaste.
But, indeed, animals and plants would like to understand,
what is it that who persecutes something, the spirit.. why does he need
so much of a certainty, to validate the force of his right, the ‘dominate over
the nature’..? who created the Son of the Man, created the Son of the
Demon: Otherwise, Eve would never be Mary, neither Cain would be Abel, neither
God would be Man, and neither the nature would be name… That who pointed the
evil, hated his reflex, and only for this, a conception existed.. I think so
Mary has a good understanding of that which she carries in the belly, at the
end of the bills, it was God, wasn’t it..?
6 views
5.
What are the problems with
natural law? [X]
·
writer, editor, botanist
This is the problem… the natural law isn’t natural. The
nature never proclaimed any law. The law isn’t natural. In mode that, that who
created the law, created a law for himself and created a law for the other. The
Creator is well-known of all’s, and He affirmed that the nature has a law, that
the nature moves in the displeasing: and that the proof of this
affirmation is that the nature had denied Him, that the nature said no. And
this makes sense in a certain form, when, on the lights of the current
understanding, the Science affirms this denial: the Science was also denied, on
example of what happened to its friend, the Religion. By the other side, God
could affirm, then, His own Law: the Law of God is the Law that the man
is not the nature, even though Him denying this as well: so, this is
the understanding of that which’s called Law, it’s a contradiction, a metaphor:
God, in Law, as much denies as affirm. And the juridical understanding is that
the Law is something which can only be understood in the Justice, the
unspecific Will of God. In mode that the nature went to stop by in the Court,
was judged in the condition of defendant, and the action of the nature was
understood as criminal. In mode that, the double aspect of a crime, the guilty
and the innocent, went to stop by in the table, in the evolutionist latu sensu
of the idea, the Christianism, so… In mode that, the matter which involves the
natural Law it’s quite broad, and it’s interesting how the authors of the Law
got to, along the history, writing in belief their judgement and passing
misperceived along the history as “impartial beings” which “sought indeed the
truth, independently of its results”: I think so the Scientists have
understanding of this, that the community indeed isn’t so naive, that it always
knew what it was looking for, a phylogenic answer for the Beginning, in mode
that this is only a preliminary adjust to my answer, once my understanding
don’t be characterized as a misunderstanding of the Law in matter, because
the purpose, in this sense, doesn’t go beyond an obligation, an availability,
in the latu sensu that the Available angles itself between the Freedom and the
Natural.
‘The Law of the man is the law of the
nature’: it’s not only Paul’s understanding, but Darwin’s as well. Yes,
Darwin believed in two consciences: inclusive, he didn’t
discard the possibility that the human conscience were original of the
monkey. And ‘original’, in Darwin, isn’t exactly equal to natural.
It is strange talking about the existence of a natural law, where the own
science discards the naturalness of the law: ones distrust that the nature has
a law, but the “knowledge” isn’t exactly equal to the natural :
in the human laws on which the nature was angled in grandness’s, movements and
substantiality, are involved with false constants, subjected
to the lens, and to the constant of the observer. The human being may affirm
that he’s the center of his observation, but he cannot affirm being this
the position of the nature. For that the human condition could
be considered valid, he’d have to be, obligatorily, at the center of the
universe. The homogeny and the isotropy, in the cosmological latu sensu, hasn’t
how affirming, for example, in which kind of direction the galaxies
move, in their imaginary center of stepping-away. The gravity still isn’t
comprehended by many physical aspects, on of them is the own mass,
the other, the understanding of the black matter, in the inflation
calculations. Einstein himself abandoned his table, and asked for others not to
try. The same had happened to Newton. The same had happened to Darwin. It’s not
the fact of them not being convinced, but not having arrived to any
convincement at all: The sentiment is the same: of frustration.
They’ve written many interesting things, many things of which were not only
inspiration for the posterior ones, but a base of an understanding closer to
that which could be called Science, a proof, things which could be called fact,
and not suppositions. In mode that, talking about ‘natural law’
is following supposing, and it would be improbable that the Theoretical
Theological model from the Humanists of the past could have better rationalists
explanations that the one of the current Science. The understanding of the
current Science is that it hasn’t naturalness. In mode that,
it’s innocuous talking about the existence of a natural law: in the maximum
affirming that the nature has a law, but that it is unknown, because
the entire tables were broken. I think so, in a certain form, it was what
ones have always looked for, since the tables appeared, but the Christian table
needs to understand that it has the same problem as the of the Judaic law: it
may yes be understood as an adaptation, or, as an evolution, in the latu sensu
that the human Tree of Life have such ontological understanding, the growth,
but it cannot misunderstand itself as structural condition creative of
anything at all in the universe: because it would be always in
route of stepping-away of the natural, which would result in the loss
of organic materialness in the equation of the life: the Unity would
lose its Integrity, if it stayed lacking something to
it, more yet, that this something which stayed lacking could
not be explained: In mode that the hypothesis falls in the singularity
of the natural.
Such a thing was not encountered in the nature, the one
of various: because all the forms of sequencing the nature, have failed:
the nature doesn’t repeat itself: the nature doesn’t move in a repetition. The
Science followed a sequence, but the sequence failed. In mode that, I do stay,
yes, upset with the Scientists, because they should be here explaining what
happened, and not, extending themselves overly in that which they don’t even
believe.
In mode that, ones tried, yes, humanizing the nature, and
calling this natural law, but, as it was already said, the most
capacitated person, Charles Darwin, already removed himself from the table. The
same happened to Einstein, and the Science, for still being sustained by an
Institutional vice, exposes, obligatorily, Scientists to the ridiculous, to
proclaim things, as if this was some kind of remedy in the maintenance of a
disease. I think so the community in matter knows this, and not being able to
offer another thing, resurrecting cadavers be seen as some Institutional favor,
because, nowadays there does is the understanding that all the theories
which tried to equation the nature in a juridical standard, have failed. In
mode that, it isn’t indeed a light in the end of the tunnel, aren’t purposes
considered not even valid by most of the serious scientists, the amount of
stupid things which affirm things in the base of easy-information. The nature
it’s the unknown, period. And the law, lesser yet.
65 views
6.
How can you effectively
characterize what human nature is? And do you believe this is all there is to
us, is a human nature? What’s your rationale? [X]
·
writer, editor, botanist
Yes, my friend… it’s what the Creation is.. the Creation
is a rationality.
The human nature is, rationally, of God. The
problem which involves the rationality, the model-judgement, is that neither
the everything is exactly everything and neither the nothing is exactly
nothing: it was where the word Nature was invented:
rationalized. In mode that, the object in matter, the nature, it’s
involved in a relative concept. The word nature, in the
understanding of The Book, refers to surface: because the surface
is the angle of a laterality. The rationality of God is plan: This
means that the nature may as much be a side, an affirmation, as it may
be the other side, a denial: the definition of nature it’s involved in
parallels of ends: the nature as much is as isn’t: and it’s used,
always, for inclusion and exclusion of God. So, the nature as much may
be of God as the nature may not be of God: so, in the
rationality-judgement there’s a break of rationality: this
break of rationality, in the understanding of The Book, is well-perceived in
all the analogies which involves the permanence and the
changing: ‘everything changes, but, nor everything changes’: generally
understood inside the philosophy as ambiguities. Indeed, it’s
upsetting, more yet, it drives one crazy. In mode that, this would be the first
important observation, in that which you’ve asked, because the nature
is an angle between God and the man. The man is also an angle of
God-and-the-nature, so, defining which is the right sequence of the
understanding it’s also a problem, because, the Biblical disposition is geometrical,
in the definition of the objects, but it is phylogenic, on
explaining its movements, so, it’s more an alert for the PhD’s, in not
elongating themselves in so many sequential misunderstandings: the
event loses its form in the time, if it anticipates to its causality: putting in
risk the permanence. The infinite loses its form if it tries to
anticipate to the movements.
The philosophy in the Occident emerged with a multiplexed
pyramidal treatment, where the ideological base it’s always increasing in size,
dispersing itself in theories, theories these which haven’t the capacity
of explaining the appearing of the point: and this is
basically explaining the appearing of the first side: because it’s
the first side who affirms the procedence of the second side: a
phenomenon of the reflexion: the arrival, in the latu sensu of
a separation.
What happened along the history is that the reflexion was
never well-accepted by other people: the resemblance wasn’t exactly an
equality, but a disexplanation of the loss of
property. Whether God had created something, this something wasn’t
exactly equal to Him: and, on the measure on which the Science passed to
explain the structural trace of God, it seemed to make sense
the sequence of The Book, the phylogeny, the Beginning, the First.. . However, in
the current studies, the scientific model of the past, encountered problems for
all the angles of naturalness: it were not found the sides, nor the
plan, nor the center, neither the point: in nothing in the nature:
because these things could only be explained through an elemental
substance which could be used as proof of a Unicity: such
a structure isn’t the structural-condition of nothing in the
universe. And this would be affirming that the human body
isn’t something structural of the nature.
In mode that God may have any kind of relation
with the man, since the man don’t be the nature: because
the understanding of nature is a surface. And I think so the
question should be this: ‘which would be the human surface?”: the human
surface is God. And the other question would be, “if the man were of
the nature, which would be his naturalness?”: it wouldn’t be human: Wouldn’t
be human because the humanity is a separatist concept. Because the
understanding of conception is something quite broad: God
describes a disposition, in His creationist action: and for the current
science, there’s a problem in God’s sequence, which structurally
isn’t natural: it isn’t present, in the entire universe: the
idea isn’t organic, the man isn’t nor animal nor plant, the human nature
is spiritual. It wasn’t found the spirit, in the nature: And, even
though one pleads the evil, it is also original from God, because the certainty
of the evil is the man. It happens that the man isn’t natural: in
mode that the human nature isn’t exactly equal to an affirmation, but the angle
of a denial: because it’s how the end and the beginning are related: The
man, in God, excludes the nature; the man, in nature, excludes God; God, in
nature, excludes the man: it’s a rule of three.. .but which doesn’t
result in a phylogenetic equation: the metaphor lost its efficacy in the
time, charging from the judgement a better relation of sides, for that the
rationality don’t be understood as a form of schizophrenia, in the latu sensu
that the reality indeed be an image
So, I think that this must be the tonics of any debate or
questioning, and it would be necessary that better definitions existed on the
nature, in the latu sensu that the unknown wouldn’t be one more
manifestation of God: the nature hasn’t how to be found at the lens, the
nature hasn’t how to be found in the spirit, and the nature also hasn’t how to
be found in the man anymore: the nature disappeared from the human eyes.. It’s
a sentiment. .. if you have it, or, if you want it, it’s because you’ve already
validated the entire human conditions and being human is the only thing you can
be, I think so the humanity has the perfect understanding of its acceptation,
even besides not having the understanding of the size of its violation, what to
say of that who accepted existing without the love..? of that who exchanged the
smile for the suffering..? and obstinate himself in usual standards, exchanging
even the infinite: it’s from the infinite to the dust, from the cement
to the ground, it’s from the innocent to the bread, from the yeast to the
bread. The human being misunderstood the life in death, realizations
as dreams, natural senses in existence.. I indeed haven’t words for the human
understanding. And talking about God, in this sense, would be accepting the
concordance of the table. More yet, I’d be extrapolating the misunderstanding
of the table.
I think so the virtue doesn’t reach so much, because the
attribution would be extrapolating its rational limit, in the latu sensu that
it would be putting in risk the existence of the end or of the beginning, the
religion also wouldn’t accept this understanding of the science, because
there’s an explicit charging, a satisfaction for those who took
seriously the proof: the acceptation hasn’t such a power on the believing.
There is had already a result in hands. In mode that the
conversation cannot assume a such unspecific result like this, because
the looking for would be always questioned: the looking
for an end arrived to an end, period: I think so the questioning about
what is indeed the nature, must begin by there: the man cannot be anymore the
center of an observation: the human being already knows who he is: the human
being already knows who is God, too: what’s known indeed, is what is
the nature. ..
So, I think so, to answer what you’ve asked, even though
one hasn’t in hands a scientific ballast, seeking for another form of
understanding what is it exactly the unknown, the nature, be another form of
evolution, once the science exhausted its possibilities.
Recently I’ve read a report that said the following
“abandon the ploughing, it is the worst thing, because it destructs the
rhizosphere”: the plough is the definition of a productive model: if the
production is seeking for a naturalness, and says itself today contrary to the
understanding of God, may be an understanding of naturalness: and the
naturalness of the capitalism may constitute itself in a naturalness of the
democracy as well, and this may be a changing and the humanity be abandoning
the understanding of The Book, and seeking for a restructuration, in the latu
sensu of an adaptation, in some kind of natural truth, even though very far
from what one could call a new beginning. Indeed, I don’t believe in this, I
think so humanity lost the gap, and I also don’t believe in fatalities, in the
apocalyptic latu sensu, because they’re all seated at the table, so, I think so
the worrying indeed with the natural it’s very far from even being a human
truth. And in the same mode, I think so it’s irrelevant, not for unknowledge,
talking about concepts of the past, where, in humanity, the nature was
described in concepts as the of natural law, humanized in a theological
dictionary, as Charles Darwin’s Evolutionism: because the human standard of
naturalness, it’s very far from ancient civilizations, as Greeks, Egyptians,
and even Romans and Barbarians: one would have to have in hands a
‘savage-model’, which don’t be involved in cannibalism, in an image of the
evil, in the reflex as procedence of the eyes… as I’ve already said in other
topics, I have descendance with Amazonian tribes which date from more than 10
thousand years. And if they got to stay for so long alone and, in certain form,
isolated, it was because their productive and organizational models do carry
some truth of the earth: truth this which is related to something in the
universe: the universe may be somehow related to God, in that on which something
was misunderstood as horizon. And in this sense, the concept of God would
have to be redefined for that the concept of nature may be redefined and,
consequently, redefining all the human concepts. Because, otherwise, talking
about nature, God, and the man, will be always a question which is
involved with the objects available at the table. I indeed refuse to seat at
it, in these conditions, because ones wouldn’t be talking indeed about the
nature, only explaining the problematics of the human concepts: one would be
only validating the existence of the world, and validating, implicitly,
that this is the human nature, that everything that
there is, for the man, is the world: I think so the world has the capacity
of explaining God’s nature, in the latu sensu of a surface, but the world
hasn’t how to explain the nature, so, what I can tell you is just
something of significative importance, and this may be understood as a help, in
understanding better what’s the nature, this, which is not from God: the
human nature it’s something which isn’t natural: and that which isn’t natural,
is God: because God is the inversion of the nature, and only for this, the
Heaven… : at the same time on which I affirm that The Book didn’t deny
this, on the contrary, It affirmed. God’s certainty is the pointing of
the evil, the typification of the nature as criminal, as
something contrary to His will: it’s the sentiment of a contrariety: why
did God see the nature as criminous? It would be the third important
observation. Independently of having created it or not, why did He see
with these eyes..? yes, the sentiment of the human being it’s
important, the human sentiments are contrary to the nature, a contrariety to
the senses: there exists an implicitly human necessity of destroying to construct,
it’s the latu sensu of The Seed, that which falls in growth.. . it’s
the understanding of the plough, so, it’s lacking earth in the human eyes,
other people didn’t see the nature like this, as a gain. So, how good that
you’re listening this from an Amazonian indian, no one better than these to
talk about it. The Atroaris of Amazon are the most ancient of the human
civilizations existent in the earth. Scientists from the entire world come to
the Amazon, just as the own Brazilian Army, to learn with these indians, how
did they got to survive for so long, and how does the human being with his entire
technology, it’s so close from the extinction..? this would be the fourth
important observation: the atroari indians like the amazon, they’ve refused to
inhabit the world. From where did it came the wisdom of these indians, and from
where did it came the of the human beings..? how to relate their grandness’s,
and extracting, with this, at least one drop of nature: and this be a natural
sentiment, and not of the human being.
22 views
Upvote
Share
7.
Why didn't the Jews accept
Jesus as the successor of King David? [X]
As Leonard Shapiro says, Jesus and Harry Potter are both
fictional. So is “King David”.
Let me quote again what I have written in response to
similar questions:
“The notion that there is any reality behind religious
texts is naive, if not absurd.
The human imagination created all religious texts.
Don’t search for rhyme or reason in religious mythology.
All religions are created equal, and there are thousands
of equally fictional scriptures.
Whether the source is Judaic, or Islamic, or Buddhist, or
Hindu, or Christian, or any other religion, all stories about Mary Magdalene,
the Judges, Solomon, the conquest of Canaan, Abraham, the crucifixion, the
Exodus, Saul, David, Joshua, Adam, Eve, Muhammad, Jacob, Moses, Jesus, Buddha,
Krishna, Zeus, or Osiris are fictional.”
153 views
View Upvoters
You upvoted this
Except we have independent confirmation of a House of
David: the victory stele commissioned by Pharaoh Shoshenq I describes a grand
raid into the Levant during which he “killed the King of the House of David”.
EDIT: Sorry, it was an Aramean king's stele that claimed to have killed the
king of the House of David separately, but the rest of the stuff about Shoshenq
is correct.
He's believed to be the same pharaoh as the “Shishak” whom
the Bible references in 1 Kings and 2 Chronicles as having plundered Solomon's
temple during the fifth year of King Rehoboam's reign.
Reply
Upvote
Original Author · February 2
Could you provide a reference or a copy of the
inscription? It does not appear in any sources.
Reply
Upvote
Okay, so I actually conflated a couple of different
things, my mistake. We've got the Biblical account of Shishak's raid
corresponding to Egyptian records of Shoshenq I (22nd Dynasty), and separately
a stele erected by an Aramean king claiming to have k
… (more)
Reply
Upvote
Original Author · February 2
The supposed evidence for David, which I hear about every
day, is no evidence at all. If the reading MLK BYTDWD, as suggested, is
correct, it may refer to a group that believed in was descended from DWD, who
might have been a god or a hero to them (Was it David or Dod?).
Many leaders in ancient and m
… (more)
Reply
Upvote
דוד, is David. No vowels in the scriptures doesn't mean
there wasn't a tradition of how to pronounce them.
“Dod" and “David" are different words.
MLK BYTDWD is “melech bet David". King from the house
of David. מלך בית דוד.
There are various mistakes in the transliterations for the
bible, but this isn't
… (more)
Reply
Upvote
Fabio Araujo, studied International Relations
In my view, the Jews were the only people that realized
that Jesus was a forgery created by the Romans, initially in the first century
to destroy the Jewish expectation of a Messiah which was to be a military
leader and fight the Romans. In a second moment, in the fourth century to make
all peoples under the rule of the Roman Empire to accept a religion that could
make them sweet as lambs and accept the Roman rule. Many Greek manuscripts of
the Gospel of Mark say it was originally written in Latin. Have you never asked
yourself why no Gospel was written in aramaic only in languages spoken in the
Western part of the Roman empire?
42 views
Barry Austern, studied Chemistry & Religion at Columbia
University (1963)
Why should they? What evidence is there that the guy was
in any way a worthy successor? Certainly, he was not a descendent of David by
the adult male line if he did not have a human father.
The burden of proof is upon those who think he was a
successor to David. I don’t see him as any more valid than Shabbatai Zvi,
another false messiah from about 5–600 years ago. He attracted many followers
at the time. The Turkish authorities gave him two choices: die or convert to
Islam. He converted.
86 views
View Upvoters
Al Lundy, Practicing Catholic for 60 years, Deacon, servant
of God
Not as King, Jesus never said that he came to succeed
David as King of the Isrealites. He came as the Messiah, the saviour of the
world. And many, many Jews saw him as the Messiah even some of the Pharisees.
You must remember that a huge number of the first Christian's were Jews who
believes that Jesus was the long awaited Messiah. Scripture tells of thousands
at a time becoming Christian.
123 views
View Upvoters
C.S. Friedman, Science Fiction and Fantasy
novelist
I assume you mean descendant. “Successor” suggests he
should have inherited the throne of Judea.
Doesn’t matter if he was or wasn’t. I seriously doubt
anyone back then talked about it or cared. Jews didn’t not believe he was the
son of God because to them, clearly, he wasn’t the son of God. God didn’t have
sons. End of story.
And,if we are going to get technical, tribal identity
inherits through he father, and he supposedly wasn’t really Joseph’s son, so he
wasn’t a descendant of David.
You can’t have your theological cake and eat it too.
426 views
View Upvoters
Upvote
·
22
Share
Hi, C.,
Thanks for answering.. . The succession is phylogenic it’s
not spiritual nor genetics, it’s the understanding of the King: anything
above him, is God, anything below him is man: the King is that who came to
solve the problem between God and the man, and this is the latu sensu of
the crown. The Jews understood this very well.. . Just as Paul understood
that the crown was the head, the Theology
doesn’t go beyond the bread: and the bread doesn’t go beyond the seed. David
was a seed planted by God. From David’s tree didn’t born Christian fruit,
therefore, you may eat all the apple, that even still, it won’t give King,
it will give man. The Theology which you refer to, doesn’t go
beyond the disappearing, of that who, by himself, disappeared. To God, it
didn’t exist the successor of David: for this, the story of the Jews finished
there: any Jew knows this: it didn’t exist other one equal to David. It’s a
super important detail: David killed Uriah, but he didn’t kill Bathsheba. God
didn’t need to invent Mary, He had already arrived in the result: and He knew
that the rest of the story would be of the men. You may stay with The Book, it
hasn’t importance for me.. and neither for God, as well.. .
Reply
1 upvote
The funny thing is, the way statistics work out, if Jesus
really was a descendant of David, then probably almost everyone in Judea and
Galilee was, after roughly a millennium. So it is almost certainly either
untrue or true but unremarkable. Sort of the way you can pick most any earlyish
European monarch and divide Europe into royal lines that went extinct, people
who can trace their royal descent, and people who can't trace descent due to
lacking documentation.
Jews DID believe it. Some of them. Christianity started
out as a JEWISH sect - well after the death of Jeshua ben Josef.
Reply
Upvote
Original Author · February 2 ·
1 upvote
I asssumed the question was talking about the Jews who
rejected Jesus, since the question makes no sense otherwise.
The early history of the sect, & why it split from
Judaism, are fascinating :d
1 upvote
But you can halve your theological cake and eat it two…
1 upvote
…but I want to eat my theological cake and have it too…
Reply
Upvote
·
1
Dwight Wascom, former Chaplain , Massachusetts
Department of Corrections (1987-1988)
In 70 AD the Romans came to Israel and destroyed the
country. The people scattered. This is know as the great diaspera. Rome did
this because the Jews rebeled against them. Christians didn't fight or rebel
with the Jews.
The Jews kicked Christians out of their synogogue and
blamed this new movement as the reason for the Diaspora. So with Christians
went any belief in Jesus as well.
104 views
The break between Judaism and Christianity preceeded the
destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE.Rather it began with Paul’s mission to the
gentiles (in the 40’s) and the message he brought to his putative converts.
Lucien Abramowicz, I
have an Ivy bachelor’s and a doctorate in a social science
The short answer is because Jesus was not the successor of
King David,
Here is the long answer: Faith Strengthened :
Index of Verses
Leonard J Shapiro, Owner
at Shapiro Tax Consultant (1980-present)
Same reason Christianity has not started worshiping Harry
Potter. Both are fictional
Upvote
·
10
Share
Elly Reichman, Reprographics Operator at
University of Otago (2000-present)
Most likely because he was not…
Kevin Todd Clepps, studied
at Michigan State University
Jews believe he did not fit the criteria of a messiah.
Karl Broberg, Over ten years blogging and Bible
teaching experience.
Their idea of a Messiah in their conventional wisdom was
one to deliver them from the yoke of Rome and bring back Israel to its former
glory as under King David. When this failed to materialize, they lost faith in
Him. He wasn’t a general with an army, but a pacifist in their understanding.
164 views
View Upvoters
Some did! They became Christian. Being that there was a
long time between the two, and there’s no linkage between them, I’d say the
point is moot.
John Smith, Chief Engineer
You’re confused.
He never said (or claimed) to be a successor or king. He
was just a rabbi and prophet, but the Jews were cowards and unwilling to fight
for their freedom from occupation. Nor were they willing to go back to the
faith fully.
Because Jesus had them over a barrel both ways, they could
not cope with him nor kill him and thus rejected him, and ratted him out to the
Romans.
The irony being the Romans are the ones who ended up
following Jesus. Mainly to maintain their subjugation of the Jews.
47 views
View Upvoters
Answer may need improvement
Upvote
·
3
Share
Hi, John,
Hehehehehe … I know.. . but, what about the sword..?
where’s the crown..? it’s interesting how the crown turned into a head..
. no confusion, and, I think so the crown went back to God, or then, the crown
was stolen: it’s strange a crown disappearing.. . I really wanted that the
Jews, these, which I refer to, explained better what happened to the King. I
think so nor all the Jews agree with this, I think so the grand majority died
for this. Of certain that David was an escroto [pt], but, God
proves to David the why that Uriah couldn’t be the king: certainly, he would
die in the hand of the enemy. I think so the Jews, in a certain form,
misunderstood what they’ve misunderstood with God. The King is that who follows
the Will of the Owner, the Will of God was never of freeing the Judaic people
from His sword, the word… God didn’t ask, He gave a command.. killing,
killing the evil. David killed the evil, in his time, destroying all the
oppressors, Christ didn’t do this in his time, if not, he would’ve destroyed
the Roman empire.. . I think so, for this, Christ hasn’t really how to be
King.., he may be another thing.
Reply
I fear, Mr. Smith, that it is YOU who are confused. In
fact those “cowardly” Jews drove out the Seleucids and initiated several
insurrections against Roman occupation and rule, resulting finally in the
eventual destruction of their kingdom.
Jesus, if he existed at all, was nobody special until
Christianity became the Roman state religion and it became a capital offense
not to espouse Christianity. This was convient for Rome because Christianity
required: "Slaves, obey in everything those who are your earthly masters,
not by way of eye-service, as people-pleasers, but with sincerity of heart,
fearing the Lord. Whatever you do, work heartily, as for the Lord and not for
men, knowing that from the Lord you will receive the inheritance as your
reward. You are serving the Lord Christ. For the wrongdoer will be paid back
for the wrong he has done, and there is no partiality." -- (Colossians
3:22-25)
"Slaves, be subject to your masters with all respect,
not only to the good and gentle but also to the unjust. For this is a gracious
thing, when, mindful of God, one endures sorrows while suffering
unjustly." -- (1 Peter 2:18-19)
"Let every person be subject to the governing
authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist
have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists
what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers
are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one
who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval,
for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he
does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who
carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer." -- Romans 13:1-4
"Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human
institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent
by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. Honor
everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor." -- (1 Peter
2:13-17)
Contrast that with: "That to secure these rights,
Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the
consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes
destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish
it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles
and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to
effect their Safety and Happiness."
But Christians still gobble the diaper pudding and wait
for pie in the sky by and by when they die.
Who are the cowards, Mr. Smith?
Reply
Upvote
Because he wasn't of the direct unbroken line, father to
son, from David. Joseph wasn’t his father.
John P. Herling, Reference Librarian
(2005-present)
Because the Jews were Jesus’ own people. They knew him
during his lifetime, and they knew exactly who and what he was and wasn’t. They
passed that knowledge down to their descendants.
[…]
·
writer, editor, botanist
Hi, Fabio,
Who sculpted Mary was Sharon Stone, the Jewish woman knew that she would be taken to a room, would be obliged to seat in a chair…. You must’ve seen the movie, the decharacterizing of the senses in a generality: the taste is null: anything which seats in this chair, will have the reach of result: the result is of the scene, and not of the taste: Mary accepted the man which she never saw, and called this God.. Mary sculpted Sharon Stone. The woman is the chair where God seats. Who sculpted the woman’s pleasure was the man. Now, of course, St. Cyril and Michelangelo helped, the image of the woman is a scene. It’s in the sin that the virginity develops itself. The woman would give to the man the motives of his interruption, while he walked in innocence: if it didn’t exist the evil, there wouldn’t exist Mary’s virginity, neither the innocence of Adam, for there wouldn’t be how to characterize the nature as a Creation.
Who sculpted Mary was Sharon Stone, the Jewish woman knew that she would be taken to a room, would be obliged to seat in a chair…. You must’ve seen the movie, the decharacterizing of the senses in a generality: the taste is null: anything which seats in this chair, will have the reach of result: the result is of the scene, and not of the taste: Mary accepted the man which she never saw, and called this God.. Mary sculpted Sharon Stone. The woman is the chair where God seats. Who sculpted the woman’s pleasure was the man. Now, of course, St. Cyril and Michelangelo helped, the image of the woman is a scene. It’s in the sin that the virginity develops itself. The woman would give to the man the motives of his interruption, while he walked in innocence: if it didn’t exist the evil, there wouldn’t exist Mary’s virginity, neither the innocence of Adam, for there wouldn’t be how to characterize the nature as a Creation.
16 views
10. Natural theology expresses itself in two basic modes. One
(1) primary continental (laws of form), the other British (adaptationism). How
and why? [X]
We cannot construct trees, only planting seeds…
Hi, Petra,
It’s all there, for that which you’ve asked.. . The logic
form of a form it’s a construction. The logic form of a
construction it’s a shape. The preemptive principle of a
result it’s the growth: it was in the nothing that the
idea happened. One wanted very much an explanation for the nature, that the
dust could make a star, and that, for this, the beginning happened, and one
unique thing could be the form of all the things… that from his feet
could come out roots, from the arms, be born leaves, and from the fingers be
born fruits., and that the head could be a sun, that the eyes were a seed, and
that this was the image of the human body... and that the belly was water, that
the nature was name and that the human form was the form of the nature, and
that the man’s form was God: The ‘formology’ failed in the
standard-form, in explaining its sequence: the nature it’s impossible of being
sequenced: the DNA of the universe still wasn’t found in nothing at all, to the
point of being proclaimed an Intelligent Design, that such a thing exists in
the nature, “adaptation”, that such a thing occurs in the universe, an
evolution… . None Theology may be applied to the nature, all the Tree of
Life models failed, ontologically, in explaining its growth through a
propagation: the purpose of the nature it’s unknown, will never be found: as
certain as the Higgs Particle. Without unicity of the matter, none shape may be
applied to anything: the image loses its permanence towards the changing: it’s
something that as much the religion as the science have the perfect
morphological understanding. It doesn’t exist a human face between the stars,
to the point of calling a black hole mouth, as if a straight line
could be drawn between the stars , and finding, with this, a center. So, I
leave there my artistic interpretation, of what I think about the Intelligent
Design, the image of the nature, the morphology of God.
Why..?
The love. The love is Two, the shape of the nature would
never be a unity.
How..?
The taste... the nature moves in the taste, and not in a
functionality: there isn’t a relation of use, neither of exchanges, nor losses
and gains, nor dynamic equilibriums turned to the self-preservation which could
be justified through a mutual cooperation, which result would be an importance,
the existence, the life.
‘It will birth, it will be a creation. It will grow, it
will be a creation. It will die, it will be a creation’: the nature hasn’t
shape, it’s not known the universe form. We know the formula: it is equal to 1:
but the nature it’s not a constant, the nature is the changing. Thus, I leave
it for the observation explaining that which it saw.. if any tree in the nature
looks like this, a Metal Tree.. .
32 views
View Upvoters
· Answer requested by Petra Radajic-Tucci
