Discussion:
TRUTH ON TRIAL THE VIRGIN
(too old to reply)
, (1 WITT)
2008-12-05 03:48:48 UTC
Permalink
This doctrinal falsehood of the virgin birth was written because the Catholics could
not comprehend, nor had any knowledge of, spiritual birth. God is a pure spirit. He
has no carnal substance. Substance is matter. The spirit is like the wind. The spirit
can be felt, but not seen. God is translucent. There is nothing carnal about God. He
is incorporeal and intangible. He is an entity. Carnally minded men believe God has a
nature. He does not have a nature, he has an essence. Nature is of the material
world. Essence is the code of conduct that men live by. Spiritual essence puts human
nature in subjection.

The essence of God is found in his law. You can not know God without knowing his law.
You can not even know yourself, without exploring your own essence. Therefore, man
must strengthen his essence. Man must honor God by NOT following heathen ways. When
your code of conduct and God's code unite, then you can be in the image of God. Your
spiritual genetics comes from the word of God. Which is not to just read, but to do.
Faith without works is dead. If you do not apply your spiritual faith to your carnal
actions, your faith is vain.

Heb.6:18. it is impossible for God to lie, Satan was a liar from the beginning, and
will cause you to lie. Satan is an instigator and your accuser. Satan will instigate a
situation that makes you tell a lie. If you fall into the trap, you become a sinner by
lying. Then Satan goes and reports the sin to God, as your accuser. It is you that
gets charged with the transgression. Luke 3:23 Jesus ...being (as was supposed) the
son of Joseph, Joseph would have to lie, to keep Mary from disgrace. Isa 63:8 For he
said, Surely they are my people, children that will not lie: Rev 21:8 and all liars,
shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone:

Mat 1:18. When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together,
she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. Espoused or betrothed or engagement is
punishable even as if they were married. Deu 22:23-24. This makes God guilty of
adultery or at the least the instigator of the evil act. 24 the damsel, because she
cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbor's
wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you. God does not teach you how to put
away evil by committing evil himself. The RCC have accused God of sin and
unrighteousness. Certainly God would not write such a thing and the living God would
not give man the opportunity to be more righteous than himself. This virgin birth
story was "edited" in by an inspired servant of Satan. It would seem that there were a
several women claiming virgin birth's from Gods or God's son's in those days.

According to catholic dogma of, Ever Virgin, the marriage was never consummated. Mat
1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the HUSBAND of Mary, Mat 1:19. Then Joseph her HUSBAND,
If the marriage was never consummated, Mary was never married to Joseph. This would
make Mat. 1:16 and 19 a lie. Mary went to Jerusalem till the birth of John. Then
returned home about three months pregnant. Joseph and Mary would be compelled to lie.
In fact these story's and other doctrines were just stolen from strange Gods. Because
those that used these lie's have no comprehension of the spiritual or second birth.
According to what was written, Jesus had no carnal father. Therefore making the human
Jesus, a bastard. That is, unless you are willing to state that Jesus did not come in
the flesh. 1 John 4:3

To have a human conception there must be a seed ( human sperm cell ) and a human egg.
God is a pure spirit and has no carnal human genes. A pure spirit can not emit carnal
seed. Some might say the seed could have been, a creation of God. But in an instance
like this, Jesus could not call himself the son of God. Because he would be, of the
seed, "of a creation", of God. This would make Jesus no more "a son of God" than a
tree or an animal. In fact, if any other means were to be used, other than a human
carnal sperm cell, the end result would be a bastard. Deu 23:2 A bastard shall not
enter into the congregation of the LORD; Much less to be called the leader of the
congregation. Some claim that Jesus and God are one in the same. This would be
regarded as incest. Same problem, the seed must be carnal. Jesus was not God
incarnate. Jesus became a son of God only after being born again of the spirit.

The seed carries the carnal genetic's or genes of the donor. God is a PURE SPIRIT
which has no "carnal" genetic's or "carnal human" genes. The only way to be "BORN OF"
God, is to be "BORN OF" his word. Without the carnal seed (sperm cell) and human
genetics of a human male, Jesus would have been nothing more than a clone of his
carnal mother. Which would make him a freak of nature or a mutant. Your doctrine
states that Jesus had a spiritual Father and a carnal mother. What is missing is the
carnal father and a spiritual Mother. His carnal mother could not produce a spiritual
son because birth in the spirit came after Jesus. Jesus the first born of the spirit.
The RCC claim they love Jesus, then they stab him in the back with false doctrine.
Then they try to slither away from their ignorance of spiritual birth by saying, God
can do what he wants. All the ways of God are righteous, and God does not lie. God
does not sin.

Jesus had to be born of the seed of David. Therefore to apply this carnally, the sperm
cell from the linage of David must be used. Jesus was born of Joseph and Mary. Later,
after carnal birth, Jesus was born again of spiritual birth. Psa 2:7 Thou art my Son;
THIS DAY have I begotten thee. Yet the RCC claim that "DAYS" began at Gen.1. Which
means that Jesus was born at some time AFTER DAY ONE. Psa 89:27 Also I will MAKE him
my firstborn, this is spoken in prophesy, for a time to come. Psa 89:19 I have exalted
one chosen out of the people. Which shows that Jesus existed in the flesh, before he
was begotten in the spirit. Baptized on the alter of fire, and baptized in the water
of the Laver in the court of the tabernacle. Spiritual birth. Luke 3:16 he shall
baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire: Mat 20:23 Ye shall ... be baptized with
the baptism that I am baptized with: The water of the Laver represents the water of
the womb of the Holy Spirit.

John 3:3 Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Jesus saw the
kingdom of God and he spoke of it. For this to be a true saying, he also must have
been "born again" with the second birth of the spirit. James 1:18 Of his own will
"BEGAT HE US" with the "word of truth", Therefore, Jesus was BEGOTTEN BY THE WORD or
"LOGOS"of truth. This is accomplished with birth in the spirit. John 3:6 and that
which is born of the Spirit is spirit. There are two births, one of flesh, the other
of spirit. It is the "word of truth" or the "logos of God" that are the genetic's of
the spirit. The more of the word of God that you have the proper interpretation to
,and live by, the more you can be in the image of God. There is nothing mystical about
the carnal birth of Jesus. Jesus was simply born of the flesh just like every one
else. Then later he was begotten of the WORD OR LOGOS OF TRUTH just like it says. You
are expected to be born of the spirit in the same manor as Jesus was. Jesus is the
mediator of the new covenant because he experienced the same things that you will be
required to experience. Heb.2:18.
There are many trials in the spiritual birth process. Even after this process when you
apply your knowledge to the word. The following is an example of a trial. Two verses
that sound similar, but there is a difference. I made a statement last night about
Jesus. How that if Jesus was to remain the lamb of God, he must have been slain within
his first year after his birth. So, I could tell you, that these two verses prove me
right. But I won't use them as such, because I know they have been tampered with and
altered. The virgin birth can only apply to the spirit.

Many say Isa.7:14 refers to Jesus. The Catholics claim this verse is speaking of
Jesus. Then Isa. 7:16 said. For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and
choose the good, This states that this child must reach the age of accountability,
before he can know and understand the truth. Which normally takes place in the
pre-adolescent or pre-teen years. Therefore this child had an early life that was like
all men. There is a period of time, as a child, when children don't know the
difference between right and wrong. So this child was not different from any other
child, until at least, the time of accountability. There would be no special early
life. In fact, Jesus was just like everybody else, until he was CHOSEN. Which would be
at least, AFTER the age of accountability. Therefore this child had a normal human
childhood.

Rev. 12:4-5. The Catholic's say this verse is also speaking of Jesus. "and the dragon
stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child AS
SOON as it was born." This child had no time to grow up to the age of accountability.
This catholic doctrine shows that this must be speaking about a different birth than
the one in Isa. 7:14. One child taken as soon as it was born, the other could only
have been taken AFTER the age of accountability. So the Catholics have two
conflicting doctrines. One doctrine shows Jesus as reaching the age of accountability
the other that he was caught up to God as soon as he was born. The catholic doctrine
would actually show the two birth doctrine, one carnal, the other spiritual. Which
would mean the origin of the carnal birth story about Jesus was false and Jesus was
not born of the spirit from a sinful union between God and Mary. First, born of the
flesh, and then, of the spirit. BEGOTTEN BY THE WORD

The trial was for how I would use this information. Just remember! that I told you
this doctrine was tampered with and corrupted. The true doctrine about this will not
be public information. It would create hardship for those who have a certain service
to perform. But this in no way relieves the responsibility of the Catholic's to
explain their contradictory doctrines. Or, they could admit they are liars and have no
knowledge of spiritual birth. The problem with this is, habitual liars don't even know
when they are lying. This also shows a deliberate forgery of Matt. and Luke to advance
the false doctrines of the tares. Which generally comes down to this. If they have no
understanding in a matter, they just make up something. But previous to 325 ce, they
just altered the bible.
THE FIRST WITNESS
Matthew Johnson
2008-12-09 01:43:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by , (1 WITT)
This doctrinal falsehood of the virgin birth was written because the Catholics could
not comprehend, nor had any knowledge of, spiritual birth.
Judging from your post, neither can you.

But more relevant to the topic, if you could actually READ the NT, you would
know: of COURSE His birth was a virgin birth. That is WHY Christ could say of
Jon the Baptist, "there is none greater among those born of a woman (Mt 11:11)".

What does this have to do with the Virgin Birth? Christ could say that because
He was Himself NOT born of a woman, He was born of a VIRGIN. The word 'woman' in
Greek almost always means a woman who is not a virgin anymore.
y***@yahoo.com
2008-12-12 03:35:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matthew Johnson
But more relevant to the topic, if you could actually READ
the NT, you would know: of COURSE His birth was a virgin
birth.
If you could actually READ the NT you would know it say that Jesus was
made from the seed of David. Romans 1:3. Who carries the seed? Why
would Matthew give a genealogy for Joseph if Joseph was not Jesus
father? That dont make no sense. If you could read the NT you would
know even Mary said Joseph was Jesus father. Luke 2:48.
Post by Matthew Johnson
He was Himself NOT born of a woman, He was
born of a VIRGIN.
Mary wasnt a woman? The Bible cuts you again. John 19:26. Done.
Finished.

See the virgin birth myth get destroyed in this vid


Matthew Johnson
2008-12-17 04:14:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by y***@yahoo.com
Post by Matthew Johnson
But more relevant to the topic, if you could actually READ
the NT, you would know: of COURSE His birth was a virgin
birth.
If you could actually READ the NT you would know it say that Jesus was
made from the seed of David. Romans 1:3. Who carries the seed? Why
would Matthew give a genealogy for Joseph if Joseph was not Jesus
father? That dont make no sense. If you could read the NT you would
know even Mary said Joseph was Jesus father. Luke 2:48.
And in the legal sense, he was. This justified the genealogy, too.
Post by y***@yahoo.com
Post by Matthew Johnson
He was Himself NOT born of a woman, He was
born of a VIRGIN.
Mary wasnt a woman? The Bible cuts you again. John 19:26. Done.
Finished.
Go ahead and crow over your imaginary victory. No one else will be fooled.

No, it is not 'finished'. What else did you EXPECT Him to call her in public?
Nor was this dishonesty on his part, since the distinction between 'woman' and
'virgin' was not so hard and fast, and was flexible with the context.

But the context in Mat 11:11 leaves no doubt. Christ is greater than John the
Baptist, but this is possible only because He is born of a virgin, NOT of a
woman:

Truly, I say to you, among those born of women there has risen no one greater
than John the Baptist; yet he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater
than he.
(Mat 11:11 RSVA)

You cannot come to grip with the truth of this verse as long as you cling to the
false hope you have in denying the Virgin Birth.

Loading...