Virgin Mary Conspiracy

a reply to: CB328

For sure, the immaculate conception and the Assumption are not biblical teachings.
At the General Audience at the Vatican on June 25, 1997, Pope John Paul II said: “The New Testament provides no information on the circumstances of Mary’s death. This silence leads one to suppose that it happened naturally, with no detail particularly worthy of mention. . . . The opinions that wish to exclude her from death by natural causes seem groundless.”
Pope John Paul’s statement opened a deep crack in the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. If Jesus’ mother was “preserved free from all stain of original sin,” how could Mary die from “natural causes,” which result from sin passed on by sinful Adam? (Romans 5:12) This theological dilemma is due to the Catholic Church’s distorted view of Jesus’ mother. Little wonder that division and confusion have arisen within the Catholic Church over the matter.

While the Bible portrays Mary as being humble, faithful, and devout, it does not ascribe these qualities to an “immaculate conception.” (Luke 1:38; Acts 1:13, 14)
Fortunately, the Bible’s teaching is free from such confusion. Nowhere does it teach—or even hint—that Mary was the product of “immaculate conception.” On the contrary, it indicates that Mary was an imperfect human in need of redemption. For this reason, after the birth of Jesus, she went to the temple and made a sin offering to God. (Leviticus 12:1-8; Luke 2:22-24) Like all other imperfect humans, Mary eventually died.—Romans 3:23; 6:23.

a reply to: Sparky63



The Bible doesn't have the story of the death of Mary but it does exist in the Apocrypha, meaning secret or hidden and not fake or uninspired.

You don't need the Churches permission to read about it, there are several websites that have all the Apocrypha of the NT era and more was rejected than selected.

Since it is well established the hierarchy of Catholicism only lies when it says something, what stops you from believing that the story told of her death is legit?

Certainly nothing in the Apocrypha is harder to believe than the Gospels.

And unlike the retarded epistles of Paul they are worth reading.

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: glend

Also two of the Gospels don't mention the virgin birth, neither did Paul/Saul. If someone was verified to be born of a virgin wouldn't that have been an exceptionally noteworthy event to preach? The Gospels that do mention the virgin birth sadly disagree with whom fathered Joseph (Matthew 1:2-17 and Luke 3:23-38). So if those Gospels cannot even get genealogy right, we can presume the inaccuracy occurred because they were written long after the event (aka folklore and not eye witness accounts). With no virgin birth, no original sin, is Jesus still the son of GOD. Or does he face a demotion to an ordinary man that did extraordinary things. For me this is the greater message, that anyone can attain spiritual enlightenment by conquering their demons. This message has unfortunately been lost in TODAYS christianity. So one needs to ask themselves, is TODAYS Chrisitianity a religion that teaches enlightenment or a cult that denies it. Your call.

Please clarify the geneaology problem you have in your above post.

He is saying that there are conflicting records of Jesus genealogy.

Why does that require clarification?

Open your Bible and compare, they don't agree.

Again, what needs clarification about this?

a reply to: glend

The Gospels that do mention the virgin birth sadly disagree with whom fathered Joseph (Matthew 1:2-17 and Luke 3:23-38). So if those Gospels cannot even get genealogy right, we can presume the inaccuracy occurred because they were written long after the event (aka folklore and not eye witness accounts).

When I asked for clarification i meant from what source you have read that you think is inaccurate. In the two accounts of Matthew and Luke there is confusion in some bibles but not that they are inaccurate. Matthew has only thirteen generations accounted for and Luke has the fourteen generations accounted for.

In the Hebrew scriptures it is explained that the Matthew account is that of Miriam and in the Luke account the genealogy is that of Joseph. That is why the Matthew account is short one generation and thus confusion. Bear with me as I show you the difference between translations

Here is the KJV account of Matthew --------
16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
17 So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations.

Here is the Jewish New Testament and the Cepher account of Matthew ----
16 Ya`akov was the father of Yosef the husband of Miryam, from whom was born the Yeshua who was called the Messiah.
17 Thus there were fourteen generations from Avraham to David, fourteen generations from David to the Babylonian Exile, and fourteen generations from the Babylonian Exile to the Messiah.

There was a Joseph who was also the father of Miriam as well as there was Joseph who was a husband of Miriam and there is your lost generation in the Matthew account. You have two Josephs in the genealogy accounts. So the Matthew account is that to the Father of Miriam while the Luke account is to the husband of Miriam. The translators were not wrong but only incomplete to a layperson's understanding.

I want no arguments from the uneducated but if there is another valid explanation then feel free to express. My understanding is from the Hebrew MSS. This is what I meant when I said that I wanted clarification as to your source.

a reply to: Seede


You really don't like the fact that the Bible is imperfect and contains legitimate contradictions, do you?

It is not an issue of erroneous MSS. or poor translation, the FACT is that the two don't agree. Why not just say that it is true, since it is. Most Christians don't fear contradictions in genealogy of Jesus to the point they deny ACTUAL FACTS.

Why do you?

a reply to: TerriblePhoenix

You really don't like the fact that the Bible is imperfect and contains legitimate contradictions, do you? It is not an issue of erroneous MSS. or poor translation, the FACT is that the two don't agree. Why not just say that it is true, since it is. Most Christians don't fear contradictions in genealogy of Jesus to the point they deny ACTUAL FACTS. Why do you?

I see you do not understand and I expected that you would not understand. Let me print this out for you from the KJV bible.

KJV bible .
Matthew 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

KJV bible
Luke 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,

In the Luke account it says that Jesus was the son of his father Joseph who was the son of his father also named Joseph Heli. So here you have two Josephs which make the fourteen generations.

Now in the Matthew account it says that Jesus was the son of Joseph the husband of Mary. But it does not tell us that this Joseph had a father named Joseph Heli which would make the fourteenth generation. So in Matthew we have one generation short in not listing the senior Joseph Heli.

Both translations are correct from the MSS that they were translated from. The translators cannot inject words that are not there in the MSS. And in fact shows the honesty in their translations and not discrepancies as you try to show. You need to really get a life and quit tearing down what you do not know. You need some serious teaching.

a reply to: Seede

Lets take a step back. The virgin birth was introduced to christianity in Matthew and Luke to try unite the virgin birth of Jesus to the prophency in Book of Isaiah (Matt 1:22-23) but in doing that, they made a mistake. In Isaiah 7:14, "hinei ha'almah harah veyoledet ben" is "behold (hineih) the young woman (ha - the almah- young woman) is pregnant (harah) and shall give birth (ve-and yoledet-shall give birth) to a son (ben)". They mistranslated "almah" as "virgin" instead of "young woman". Virgin in hebrew is "betulah" (See here).

The genealogy of Jesus was only stated in the two Gospels that mention the virgin birth. So even if the illiterate population at the time kept genealogy records going back hundered of years (most don't know it today even with computers) it was based on a misendeavor. Both gospels state the genealogy starts with Joseph. Both are likely theological constructs trying to prove Jesus was the same bloodline of King of David for the sake of that prophency.

Gospel of Mark is thought to be the first Gospel written. In our oldest bible, Codex Sinaiticus (330–360AD), there is no mention in Mark 1:1 that Jesus is the Son of God. That was added to the gospel at a latter date. So we see a common theme through the ages. To turn Jesus into a god by rewriting history.

This I feel is detrimental to christianity. How can we aspire to be a god? We cannot. But we can aspire to be a pacifist like Jesus that feared nothing, not even death. So I see belief in the Roman Jesus as an empty promise. We can only earn heavon as Jesus did by facing our demons and conquering them. The four noble truths in buddhism tells how we can conquer those demons whilst remaining loyal to christianity or any other faith.

New Testament - "Make them to astonish" said Constantine, and "the books were written accordingly"
(Life of Constantine, vol. iv, pp. 36-39).

a reply to: glend

Lets take a step back. The virgin birth was introduced to christianity in Matthew and Luke to try unite the virgin birth of Jesus to the prophency in Book of Isaiah (Matt 1:22-23) but in doing that, they made a mistake. In Isaiah 7:14, "hinei ha'almah harah veyoledet ben" is "behold (hineih) the young woman (ha - the almah- young woman) is pregnant (harah) and shall give birth (ve-and yoledet-shall give birth) to a son (ben)". They mistranslated "almah" as "virgin" instead of "young woman". Virgin in hebrew is "betulah" (See here).

Point well taken and I am in agreement with your intent. The point in my understanding is that the translators did not make a mistake but were deliberate in their false transcription. The King James translators of 1611 were very much aware of the correct interpretation of that Messianic codex but insisted in unifying the two sources to bolster Christianity.

Along with this we must also note that we cannot be certain of how Matthew came to his conclusion of Isaiah. In his era there were no NT letters or even a prophetic book that he could reference. The Torah scrolls were forbidden to the general public and even so were they the same as we see today? We have no original Aleppo codex since the Muslims destroyed all but a few pages and only copies of copies of the original remain. Our best source is the dead sea scrolls but even so were the dead sea scrolls the same as when Matthew walked t6he earth?

We realize that there is a great possibility that the letter of Matthew was originally penned in Hebrew and if true then we are dealing with copies of copies of perhaps different Christian Greek scribes. Actually we do not know the entire story of either rendition. Then again it would be very difficult to believe that all of the literature of the NT could be altered to agree with the virgin concept. In fact it would seem impossible to my understanding. That is why I keep returning to the question as to where did Matthew tie Isaiah into the liturgy of what James taught? Most interesting.

a reply to: Seede

Good points Seede but they would have surely had access to the Greek Septuagint at the time and that also includes the virgin mistranslation. Also Matthew 21:2-7 donkey and colt aims to tie Jesus to Zechariah 9:9 "See, your king comes to you, righteous and victorious, lowly and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey" Whereas the other three Gospels understand the hebrew singularilty of a donkey in Zechariah 9:9, Mathew does not, introducing a secondary colt.

But if the original gospel was written in Hebrew the scribes could have mistranslated the original gospel of Matthew as was done in Septuagint. And then got over zealous expanding on the virgin birth etc.

Without the original text in Hebrew we can never be certain.

a reply to: glend

Good points Seede but they would have surely had access to the Greek Septuagint at the time and that also includes the virgin mistranslation. Also Matthew 21:2-7 donkey and colt aims to tie Jesus to Zechariah 9:9 "See, your king comes to you, righteous and victorious, lowly and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey" Whereas the other three Gospels understand the hebrew singularilty of a donkey in Zechariah 9:9, Mathew does not, introducing a secondary colt. But if the original gospel was written in Hebrew the scribes could have mistranslated the original gospel of Matthew as was done in Septuagint. And then got over zealous expanding on the virgin birth etc. Without the original text in Hebrew we can never be certain.

As for the Septuagint, it is very complicated to determine it as evidence as it also has many problems. There is some evidence that the NT was referenced by the Septuagint but then when Jesus died and James formed the Jesus movement known as the Nazarene congregation, the Septuagint was forbidden and the entire liturgy was Hebrew/Aramaic. In fact the Hellenist Jew was not welcome nor any Greek influence allowed in the synagogue of James.

Where is the Hebrew Torah that James used? Where are the Hebrew scrolls of the prophets and writings that James used? How could James forbid Greek literature and yet the NT use Greek literature? All of the apostles taught in the synagogue of James and they taught in Hebrew/Aramaic yet their letters come down to us in Greek. How can this be? So you can see how I am also just as confused as are the translators and interpreters.

The Septuagint of Jesus’ day included much more than did the original Septuagint of Ptolemy. The original translation was that of Torah and through several hundred years other scrolls were added. But what I reference is this from the oral Torah by ME’AM Loez. As the Greeks translated the Torah they changed the very first verse among other verses. “In the beginning God created” [In Hebrew this is Bere#h Bara Elohim], which can literally be translated as “In the beginning created God” – Thinking that this can be eventually confused and lead to many interpreting this as to mean that an entity named “Beginning” created God, the sages then changed it to read [Elohim Bara Bere#h] “God created in the beginning the heaven and the earth.”

Now this may seem silly to many people today but then read the Masoretic text and see that it is written as the changed Hebrew text. Where is that Hebrew text that the Greek sages used to translate to this Septuagint? It is lost. It disappeared? No one can prove that it even existed. So then are the Jews simply making things appear to justify their own agenda? We simply do not know.

Now let us get back to our modern day Septuagint. Some say there are from six to eight renditions of the Greek scriptures being taught today. Let’s take the most recent account
Quote
Isaiah 7:14: The Septuagint clearly writes of a virgin (Greek παρθένος) that shall conceive.[42] While the Hebrew text was, according to Irenaeus, at that time interpreted by Theodotion and Aquila (both proselytes of the Jewish faith) as a young woman that shall conceive. According to Irenaeus, the Ebionites used this to claim that Joseph was the (biological) father of Jesus. From Irenaeus' point of view that was pure heresy, facilitated by (late) anti-Christian alterations of the scripture in Hebrew, as evident by the older, pre-Christian, Septuagint.[43]
Unquote

But you now see more of the problem. Yes the translators had the Septuagint and it simply added more confusion. Where does the confusion lay? It lies between the Greek and Hebrew languages and it influenced the KJV translators. The KJV translators did examine the Septuagint in 1611 and decided to use the Masoretic MSS instead of the Septuagint in their OT. When they came to Isaiah’s virgin account they tried to compromise.

We now see that Isaiah authors probably penned their work in the mid eighth century BCE and we have only the fourth century BCE copies from the DSS. By this we actually do not know what James, Matthew and Luke were using in 32 CE. It is a proven fact that we simply have nothing to determine who used what in teaching of that era.

So when we read Matthew and Luke’s accounts they were using Hebrew teachings from Hebrew sources which they were taught in the liturgy of James. Why would Matthew make a statement using the word virgin unless it could have been verified with their Isaiah scroll? It seems logical to me that if Matthew did not have Isaiah scroll in Hebrew to verify the word virgin in Hebrew then he would not have even mentioned it at all.

a reply to: glend

Also Matthew 21:2-7 donkey and colt aims to tie Jesus to Zechariah 9:9 "See, your king comes to you, righteous and victorious, lowly and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey" Whereas the other three Gospels understand the hebrew singularilty of a donkey in Zechariah 9:9, Mathew does not, introducing a secondary colt.

Zec 9:9 Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass.

Mat 21:5 Tell ye the daughter of Sion, Behold, thy King cometh unto thee, meek, and sitting upon an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass.
Mat 21:6 And the disciples went, and did as Jesus commanded them,
Mat 21:7 And brought the ass, and the colt, and put on them their clothes, and they set him thereon.

Quote
The Two-Messiah Theory
When one studies rabbinic views of the Messiah one finds something very interesting. Many ancient rabbis spoke of two Messiahs, one who was the "Son of David" and another who was the "Son of Joseph." Though one can find the sufferings of Messiah attributed to the sufferings of the Davidic Messiah in many rabbinic writings, often a second Messiah is posited, the "Son of Joseph" or "Son of Ephraim," who is the one who suffers while the Davidic Messiah conquers. The rabbis struggled with Biblical portraits of a suffering Messiah, as found in Isaiah 53 and other places, and portraits of a conquering Messiah, also found in the Hebrew Bible. They posited two Messiahs, but could it not also be reasonable to believe there is just one Messiah but two aspects of his mission, a suffering aspect and a conquering aspect?
The eminent scholar Raphael Patai, who "taught Hebrew at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem" and served as Professor of Anthropology at Dropsie University,1said this of the two-messiah theory:

"When the death of the Messiah became an established tenet in Talmudic times, this was felt to be irreconcilable with the belief in the Messiah as Redeemer who would usher in the blissful millennium of the Messianic Age. The dilemma was solved by splitting the person of the Messiah in two: one of them, called Messiah ben Joseph, was to raise the armies of Israel against their enemies, and, after many victories and miracles, would fall victim Gog and Magog. The other, Messiah ben David, will come after him (in some legends will bring him back to life, which psychologically hints at the identity of the two), and will lead Israel to the ultimate victory, the triumph, and the Messianic era of bliss."2

There is only one Messiah, but there are two comings and two aspects of his ministry. The Messiah came the first time to provide atonement for sin.
Unquote

Source - www.chaim.org...

a reply to: Seede

There is only one Messiah, but there are two comings and two aspects of his ministry. The Messiah came the first time to provide atonement for sin.

Jesus didn't die for your attonement because Jews don't believe in original sin. So his death, although unfortunate, was just the ending of his life (one door closes, another opens). Something none of us can escape from.

Moses promised...

Deuteronomy 30:10-14

if you will hearken to the voice of the Lord your God, to keep His commandments and His statutes which are written in this Book of the Law; if you turn unto the Lord thy God with all your heart and with all your soul; for this commandment which I command you this day is not too hard for you neither is it too far off. It is not in heaven, that you should say, “Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it to us, and make us hear it, that we may do it?” Neither is it beyond the sea that you should say: “Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, and make us to hear it that we may do it?” The word is very near to you, in your mouth and in your heart, that you may do it.

a reply to: glend

Jesus didn't die for your attonement because Jews don't believe in original sin. So his death, although unfortunate, was just the ending of his life (one door closes, another opens). Something none of us can escape from.

I am not quite sure what you mean. If you mean that Jews did not adhere to ancestral sin then I must disagree. The reason I would disagree is that the world was not restored after the sins of the first man and woman nor were the minds of the man and woman restored to their original state when created. In that respect they inherited the results of sin did they not?

But my teaching is far different than most other teachings and is centered totally around the first century James. In my understanding the human spirit is everlasting and was destined to an afterlife in Sheol. As The Most high knew that eventually this entire world would one day be dissolved in the ethereal fire, He then devised the salvation of the justified spirits that were imprisoned in Sheol. This was His his foremost intent in sending His Begotten Son to His creation.

The mission of the Christ was to gather the justified spirits who were in Sheol along with all justified spirits in the future and give them everlasting celestial existence. In other words The Most High shut down the terrestrial prison for the justified spirits and brought them up to the celestial kingdom of heaven, gave them celestial bodies and a new name. We believe this to be the paradise in the New Jerusalem where the people enjoy the fruit and water of life and enjoy everlasting life.

Now when one understands this concept it is then that that one can understand the word atonement in relation to the mission of the Christ. The Begotten Son made atonement for all who should want this everlasting life and naturally that one must have forgiveness to enter this celestial realm. It is not to say that all of the human race has automatic collective forgiveness of sin. That is not what the atonement of Christ Jesus meant to the Apostles and first congregation.

In time [we believe] that this entire concept became corrupted in the minds of the people through the corrupt teachings of the religious organizations. There is no atonement by the Christ if one does not accept the rules laid down and does not repent from that known sin. The mission of the Christ Jesus was not to simply come on down here and forgive your sins. People had that many centuries before Jesus appeared. Even John the baptist had that message. The entire message of the Christ was to establish His celestial kingdom [New Jerusalem] and invite you into His world. He made atonement for that cause.

a reply to: Seede

Thanks for explaining your beliefs. Buddhism and Judiasm (as deciphered in The Zohar) explain that's its our sensual desires that keep us re-incarnating in realms of sensual gratification (your sheol).

The concept of ancestral sin denies that it is our free will, promised to us by our creator, that drives our destiny. So I suspect Christianity was altered to give meaning to the death of Jesus. And in doing so have compromised Christianity itself.

We all need to face our demons (sensual desires) if we want to leave the realms of sensual gratification. Not all of us do and that's everyone's God given choice. But Buddhism teaches that sensual gratification only results in temporary happiness which turns into suffering when our desires aren't fulfilled. Only spiritual happiness is ever lasting.

Again this is my belief from my understandings of text, we all need find our own truths.

a reply to: whereislogic

Was Mary the Mother of God?

The angel who informed her of the coming miraculous birth did not say that her son would be God. He said: “You are to conceive and bear a son, and you must name him Jesus. He will be great and will be called Son of the Most High. . . . The child will be holy and will be called Son of God.”—Luke 1:31-35, JB; italics added.

Heb. 2:14, 17, JB: “Since all the children share the same blood and flesh, he [Jesus] too shared equally in it . . . It was essential that he should in this way become completely like his brothers.” (But would he have been “completely like his brothers” if he had been a God-man?)

The New Catholic Encyclopedia says: “Mary is truly the mother of God if two conditions are fulfilled: that she is really the mother of Jesus and that Jesus is really God.” (1967, Vol. X, p. 21) The Bible says that Mary was the mother of Jesus, but was Jesus God? In the fourth century, long after the writing of the Bible was completed, the Church formulated its statement of the Trinity. (New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, Vol. XIV, p. 295; see page 405, under the heading “Trinity.”) At that time in the Nicene Creed the Church spoke of Jesus Christ as “very God.” After that, at the Council of Ephesus in 431 C.E., Mary was proclaimed by the Church to be The·o·toʹkos, meaning “God-bearer” or “Mother of God.” However, neither that expression nor the idea is found in the text of any translation of the Bible. (See pages 212-216, under “Jesus Christ.”)

Source: Mary (Jesus’ Mother): Reasoning

Interesting. Cayce says mary was the other half of the master soul (not sure if i buy cayce or not). but it would fit that she rose from the dead