3)Finally, I only mention this because it has spawned, at least in my country, some bizzare cult of sorts that has put every stupid conspiracy theory, from extraterrestials to underterrestials on the mix of some holy nationalistic utter craziness. It's about this line in the OT, about the "sons of God" that mated with "daughters of men". Again, what on earth does that mean and how is it particular to anything? It again reminds of those stories of divine origins of heroes. But what does it *mean*? Some say they were fallen "angels"? "Fallen"? Seriously? From where, the sky? The clouds? Or some spiritual beings "rebelled" and then saw some pretty chicks and all of a sudden decided to grow a penis? Again, as an image in ancient times, it makes sense. As a modern Christian, I don't even know what to do with it.

I'm only going to respond to this as trying to read the wall of text makes my head hurt.

There is a passage in the Old Testament that speaks (in the English translation) of angels descending from heaven and mating with human women. The offspring were giants (relative term as no further description of their height was given). God was displeased by this act and destroyed them. The interesting part and what sparks so many conspiracy theories is that the English translation of the original text is wrong. The literal translation of the ancient Hebrew into English is actually "Those that came down" or something similar. The term "angel" never appears in the original text. This leads many to assume that the beings that came down and mated with human women were not supernatural at all. It opens a particularly interesting can of worms, especially coupled with other "extraterrestrial" (note the quotes...) accounts in the Old Testament.

Oh and one more thing...there was NO virgin birth in the Bible. That was thought up by the catholic church. The book even lists Jesus' genealogy on his father's side.

I would love a source on that. I just read my room mate's copy and it did list his genealogy, but i wondered if it was possible. Matthew, first paragraph: "...the son of David, the son of Abraham:". It does this page-long list of famous Jews Jesus is the son of, finally getting to . "Thus there were fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the exile of Babylon, and fourteen from the exile to Christ." This does seem to suggest that Jesus had a human father.

It goes on to say that Mary gets pregnant and Josef is a little miffed because "...Mary was pledged to be married to Josef, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit." Josef was about to divorce her when an "angel of the lord" told him in a dream that the baby was of said Holy Spirit. If one considers all life sacred and from god, that every baby is a gift from god, then every baby could say to be conceived through god, or holy spirit, but "before they came together" is either a mistranslation or a very misleading line if Mary wasn't a virgin, unless she had an affair.

So if you're right, i believe that implies that section is mistranslated, or the bible implies Mary had an affair. I'd think a mistranslation is more likely. I don't know if it's plausible.

First of all: Sorry for the wall of text, I just had these questions that bugged me.

But, aren't the Christians waiting for their Messiah as well? The "second coming"?

I don't know. I prefer to think the "second coming" as an "descent" of better understanding of what Jesus was and did, in regard to both OT and NT, and thus radically transforming the human race. If there is an actual wise person(or group of persons) to explain things to us all the better I guess, but this could happen in 20 thousand years or something, nobody can know.

For those who don't know, the reason Jews believe Jesus was not the Messiah is because we're still here, on Earth.
[/quote]

Care to explain that a bit? Where Jews believe we would be, had the Messiah come?

In general, as I said, I've read the OT, but as a jewish tradition it confuses me in many parts. So Jews believe that 'beings' like angels, archangels, or demons or satan and such aren't just symbolic of the inclinations of the human nature in everyone, but actual physical beings?

[quote name='Shanee' timestamp='1296900490' post='4769939']Btw, Jewish people cut a part of their male born sexual organ Is that morally right? I know a lot of people who say no. What's God's opinion on this then, umm?

Is removing someone's appendix morally wrong? In some countries cutting your hair/beard is morally wrong. Why is removing some skin morally wrong?

....yet i'm an agnostic atheist.

No actually your not. Nor are you a Christian Muslim, a Jewish Buddhist or an Agnostic Mennonite. You are either Agnostic or Atheist. The two are different to such a degree that you can't be both.
[/quote]

Agnosticism is a philosophical stance on knowledge, not a religion, the word agnostic means "Without knowledge" and can be applied to pretty much anything.
Most commonly the word agnostic in a religious context would refer to a persons view on his religious beliefs rather than the beliefs as such. (In fact, a significant amount of atheists would consider themselves agnostic and quite a large number of christians do aswell)
Agnostics hold the view that it is impossible to prove or disprove the existance of a omnipotent god(proving may be possible with its cooperation but disproving is effectivly impossible) and as such it is unethical to claim that it does or does not exist since neither stance has or will have any solid evidence.
All agnostics either believe in a god (And are thus theists) or they don't believe (which makes them atheists)

As Robert Flint wrote in his book Agnosticism(1903), agnosticism is:

a theory about knowledge, not about religion. A theist and a Christian may be an agnostic; an atheist may not be an agnostic. An atheist may deny that there is God, and in this case his atheism is dogmatic and not agnostic. Or he may refuse to acknowledge that there is a God simply on the ground that he perceives no evidence for his existence and finds the arguments which have been advanced in proof of it invalid. In this case his atheism is critical, not agnostic. The atheist may be, and not infrequently is, an agnostic.
[/quote]

Agnosticism is a philosophical stance on knowledge, not a religion, the word agnostic means "Without knowledge" and can be applied to pretty much anything.

Very true. Its unfortunate that the colloquial term "agnostic" is equated with atheist and the colloquial term "atheist" is often taken to mean anti-theist. By themselves, the technical terms simply refer to orthogonal stances on epistemology and metaphysics that many people hold, regardless of religion (e.g. faith is required because God is mysterious, I'm spiritual but I don't believe in a particular god).

For those who don't know, the reason Jews believe Jesus was not the Messiah is because we're still here, on Earth.

Care to explain that a bit? Where Jews believe we would be, had the Messiah come?

In general, as I said, I've read the OT, but as a jewish tradition it confuses me in many parts. So Jews believe that 'beings' like angels, archangels, or demons or satan and such aren't just symbolic of the inclinations of the human nature in everyone, but actual physical beings?
[/quote]

I had to reference something before i responded, so i can explain about the Messiah, or you can read my source.
I was actually wrong, at least according to this source. I thought the Messiah was supposed to bring about something similar to the Christian Apocalypse, minus the judgment, housemen, brimstone, or hell. Actually, it's closer to playing Civilization and getting a diplomatic victory by converting every city on the map to your government, but being allowed to keep playing the game infinitely. This time is supposed to come naturally, not evangelically.

As for angels, demons, satan, etc.: We believe in angels. They appear often in our Bible. We don't believe in heaven and are agnostic about a life after death. I don't know what an archangel is, but i'm also not that religious. Demons: no. Satan: In the Old Testament, there is a character appearing in the Book of Jobe; a very well known story where a man is tested by god for whether he will lose his faith if his life suddenly becomes terrible. The antagonist of that story is about the closest we have. Demons, Satan, and stuff like that aren't symbols to us, they don't exist. Except for the talking snake. There really was a talking snake.

[quote name='Fl4sh' timestamp='1297552321' post='4773416']
Oh and one more thing...there was NO virgin birth in the Bible. That was thought up by the catholic church. The book even lists Jesus' genealogy on his father's side.

I would love a source on that. I just read my room mate's copy and it did list his genealogy, but i wondered if it was possible. Matthew, first paragraph: "...the son of David, the son of Abraham:". It does this page-long list of famous Jews Jesus is the son of, finally getting to . "Thus there were fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the exile of Babylon, and fourteen from the exile to Christ." This does seem to suggest that Jesus had a human father.

It goes on to say that Mary gets pregnant and Josef is a little miffed because "...Mary was pledged to be married to Josef, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit." Josef was about to divorce her when an "angel of the lord" told him in a dream that the baby was of said Holy Spirit. If one considers all life sacred and from god, that every baby is a gift from god, then every baby could say to be conceived through god, or holy spirit, but "before they came together" is either a mistranslation or a very misleading line if Mary wasn't a virgin, unless she had an affair.

So if you're right, i believe that implies that section is mistranslated, or the bible implies Mary had an affair. I'd think a mistranslation is more likely. I don't know if it's plausible.
[/quote]


http://www.infidels....inprophecy.html -

I liked this article.

But I feel that's the answer to this issue obvious just from reading. The original meaning of the text was that Jesus came "from God" through the line of Israelites from Abraham to Joseph...

This is the genealogy[sup][a][/sup] of Jesus the Messiah[sup][b][/sup] the son of David, the son of Abraham: [sup]2[/sup] Abraham was the father of Isaac,
Isaac the father of Jacob,
Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers,
[sup]3[/sup] Judah the father of Perez and Zerah, whose mother was Tamar,
Perez the father of Hezron,
Hezron the father of Ram,
[sup]4[/sup] Ram the father of Amminadab,
Amminadab the father of Nahshon,
Nahshon the father of Salmon,
[sup]5[/sup] Salmon the father of Boaz, whose mother was Rahab,
Boaz the father of Obed, whose mother was Ruth,
Obed the father of Jesse,
[sup]6[/sup] and Jesse the father of King David.

David was the father of Solomon, whose mother had been Uriah’s wife,
[sup]7[/sup] Solomon the father of Rehoboam,
Rehoboam the father of Abijah,
Abijah the father of Asa,
[sup]8[/sup] Asa the father of Jehoshaphat,
Jehoshaphat the father of Jehoram,
Jehoram the father of Uzziah,
[sup]9[/sup] Uzziah the father of Jotham,
Jotham the father of Ahaz,
Ahaz the father of Hezekiah,
[sup]10[/sup] Hezekiah the father of Manasseh,
Manasseh the father of Amon,
Amon the father of Josiah,
[sup]11[/sup] and Josiah the father of Jeconiah[sup][c][/sup] and his brothers at the time of the exile to Babylon.

[sup]12[/sup] After the exile to Babylon:
Jeconiah was the father of Shealtiel,
Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel,
[sup]13[/sup] Zerubbabel the father of Abihud,
Abihud the father of Eliakim,
Eliakim the father of Azor,
[sup]14[/sup] Azor the father of Zadok,
Zadok the father of Akim,
Akim the father of Elihud,
[sup]15[/sup] Elihud the father of Eleazar,
Eleazar the father of Matthan,
Matthan the father of Jacob,
[sup]16[/sup] and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, and Mary was the mother of Jesus who is called the Messiah.


[/quote]


What else could this possibly mean?

[color="#1C2837"][color="#000000"]

[color="#1C2837"]I really like to know, do official church priests and followers really believe that? That he was actually, factually, lifted from the earth and started going "up" and then to "heaven"?

[color="#1C2837"]If you accept the miracles that Jesus did as real, literal, factual miracles, why is it hard to believe that Jesus went "up" into the sky? Where he went to after disappearing from the view of the apostles doesn't really matter.

Without wanting to stir anything, without claiming to be wiser than all those that believe in it, if I can't reconcile it in my mind and just believe that he had a human father, Joseph, and he was indeed "conceived from the Spirit" at the same time...what do I lose?

You lose Christ's sacrifice being good enough to wipe out sin. If Christ was born of an earthly mother and father, he would have be born with the sin nature we all have, meaning he was an imperfect sacrifice and there would need to be more sacrifices to atone for our sins, just as there had to be constant sacrifices in the O.T.

I don't see why the teaching couldn't be extended to morals too - if you try to be good, what do you fear?).

It can't be extended to morals because it's not applicable. Being "good" is not enough.

[color="#1C2837"]It's about this line in the OT, about the "sons of God" that mated with "daughters of men". Again, what on earth does that mean and how is it particular to anything?
[color="#1C2837"][color="#000000"]

[color="#1C2837"]It's not really particular to anything that we have to worry about. Much of the O.T. history doesn't really matter to Christians. It's just there. It's good to study just for historical purposes, but it doesn't affect a Christian's salvation. I don't know exactly how it happened, but again, if God could cause a woman to conceive and if you accept that other supernatural beings had "powers" that were beyond the natural, it's certainly possible.

If he gave that teaching about tomorrow, do we really think that he wanted us to obsess about...afterlife? So again...what the hell is up with "Hell"?

Christians don't need to obsess about the afterlife. It has to be brought up because it's applicable to non-Christians.

You lose Christ's sacrifice being good enough to wipe out sin. If Christ was born of an earthly mother and father, he would have be born with the sin nature we all have, meaning he was an imperfect sacrifice and there would need to be more sacrifices to atone for our sins, just as there had to be constant sacrifices in the O.T.

It is generally accepted that Mary was born of both human parents, and she herself did not have the sin nature we all have, did she? I generally don't understand all those "genetic" rules and regulations we impose as to how it came that Jesus was pure of sin from the beginning. If Mary wasn't pure, and she was his only parent, then by the same token how he was pure? It is resolved I guess by the "Immaculate Conception" of Mary, which seems to me as yet another patch into a problem that isn't really a problem. I don't understand what genetics or bloodlines have anything to do with being pure of sin. We are not pure, but Jesus was because, well, that's how God made him to be and He didn't need to break biological laws to make it so...Anyway...

It can't be extended to morals because it's not applicable. Being "good" is not enough.
[/quote]

Hm, we've been known to argue about this before...I just can't accept, even though I'm a Christian, that a kid or generally a person born in a muslim or hebrew or hindu country will be "damned" because he/she was born in the "wrong" side of the planet. No matter what anyone might say, the choice of religion is, for most, a matter of background, and we all know it. Jesus did say, in fact, that he considers his students "not those that say to me "Lord,Lord" but those who do the will of my Father".

Hm, we've been known to argue about this before...I just can't accept, even though I'm a Christian, that a kid or generally a person born in a muslim or hebrew or hindu country will be "damned" because he/she was born in the "wrong" side of the planet. No matter what anyone might say, the choice of religion is, for most, a matter of background, and we all know it. Jesus did say, in fact, that he considers his students "not those that say to me "Lord,Lord" but those who do the will of my Father".

They would only be "damned" if they outright denied the existence of God. Being ignorant of the existence of God is not the same as denying the existence of God. I also put "damned" in quotes because there are a lot of people who think you won't get into heaven, but you won't necessarily spend eternity being tortured.