MrMontella:

you were interracting with a known deist..yet...atheism couldnt evaporate from your mind for once..and you finally happily called him an atheist...

The deists I know even in History are repulsed by atheism : DeepSight UyiIredia (you need to see how atheism irks him ) , Albert Einstein , Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz etc . But 4kings unctuous admiration for atheism leaves room for doubt - he could be an atheist clandestinely .

MrMontella:

you were interracting with a known deist..yet...atheism couldnt evaporate from your mind for once..and you finally happily called him an atheist...

KingEbukasBlog doesn't want to believe that 4kings is a deist

Romans 1 King James Version (KJV)

3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David
according to the flesh;

Here the word "seed"
is literally in the Greek "sperma." This same
Greek
word is translated in other verses as
"descendant
(s)" or "offspring."...which means physical descendants...or as paul put it according to the flesh....


I believe you can use common sense..or unless you still want schooling on jewish culture of the interpretation...

I also saw how you changed ''form of god'' to ''god''....well done

dalaman:


KingEbukasBlog doesn't want to believe that 4kings is a deist

As in eh . I strongly doubt it .

I mean I understand the religious skepticism but two things here :

1. The other side 4kings seems to accept without skepticism is heretical and heterodox and you wonder why he took such position

2. He takes the side of atheists a lot . I mean its shocking

But that is his business sha . Just don't lick that atheist booty where I dey

4kings

KingEbukasBlog:


There is evidence for the existence of God .

Please make your researches on the complexity of life alone and then ask yourself if you are in your right senses to deny the existence of God .

Please don't respond with 'who designed the designer' BS as if that has anything to do with acknowledging that indeed the complexity of life should be attributed to an eternal designer .

Atheist logic : because we can't understand the complexity of the eternal designer , therefore the life and the universe were not designed.

irreligious = atheism..

Carry on

MrMontella:

Here the word "seed"
is literally in the Greek "sperma." This same
Greek
word is translated in other verses as
"descendant
(s)" or "offspring."...which means physical descendants...or as paul put it according to the flesh....


I believe you can use common sense..or unless you still want schooling on jewish culture of the interpretation...

I also saw how you changed ''form of god'' to ''god''....well done

I read the meaning here sometime : https://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-son-of-David.html

And this rebuttal is too weak bro .. haba

MrMontella:

irreligious = atheism..

Carry on

You are on a thread created by me on being without religion and acknowledging the existence of God and somehow you think I'm equating irreligion to atheism?

You are 4kings' fidus Achates , no wonder both of you think alike

Shey una dey see this boy?

How does ''seed of david according to the flesh'' translate to ''son of david''?
The only connective thing in that page are these

The answer is that Christ
(the Messiah) was the fulfillment of the
prophecy of the seed of David (2 Samuel 7:12– 16). Jesus is the promised Messiah, which means He had to be of the lineage of David....through Joseph, Jesus’
legal father.
Jesus
is a descendant of David by adoption through
Joseph

this is a rubbish stupid claim..
1)Bloodlines and tribal lines cannot be passed on by adoption according to jewish law

2)Joseph cannot pass on what he does not have...
Joseph descended from jehoiachin (Matt 1:1) who fell under the curse of yahweh that none of his descendants could ever sit upon the throne of david.
(Jeremiah 22:30; 36:30)...and being King on David's throne is a must for the messiah...unless jesus is not the messiah..and so cannot have been a descendant of david through joseph and remain the messiah..

and by blood through Mary. “As to his
earthly life [Christ Jesus] was a descendant of
David” (Romans 1:3).

again..
1) Tribal affiliation and bloodlines go only through the father and not the mother ( Numbers 34:14-29,Numbers 1:18-44)

2)if Jesus became a ''seed of david'' through mary..then he could not have been the messiah..because the Messiah must be a
descendent of David through his son Solomon(I Chron 17:11-14,
22:9-10)

3)if jesus became a ''seed of david'' through mary..he could not have been the messiah because Luke 3:27 lists shealtiel and zerubbabel in his geneology...These two also appear in Matt 1:12 as descendants of the cursed jehoiachin..if mary descends from them,it would also disqualify her from being a messianic progenitor...

---

P.s i took my time to answer you because i wanted to make sure you keep quiet this time and that you will

KingEbukasBlog:


You are on a thread created by me on being without religion and acknowledging the existence of God and somehow you think I'm equating irreligion to atheism?

You are 4kings' fidus Achates , no wonder both of you think alike

i wonder why you think the existence of the nazaranes validates jesus...they are no better than paul.

dalaman:

KingEbukasBlog doesn't want to believe that 4kings is a deist

no mind am

MrMontella:
Shey una dey see this boy?

How does ''seed of david according to the flesh'' translate to ''son of david''?
The only connective thing in that page are these
this is a rubbish stupid claim..
1)Bloodlines and tribal lines cannot be passed on by adoption according to jewish law

2)Joseph cannot pass on what he does not have...
Joseph
descended from
Jehoiachin (Mat. 1:11)who fell under the curse of yahweh that none of
his descendants could
ever sit as king upon
the throne of David.
(Jeremiah 22:30; 36:30)...and being King on David's throne is a must for the messiah...unless jesus is not the messiah..and so cannot have been a descendant of david through joseph and remain the messiah..


again..
1) Tribal affiliation and bloodlines go only through the father and not the mother ( Numbers 34:14-29,Numbers 1:18-44)

2)if Jesus became a ''seed of david'' through mary..then he could not have been the messiah..because the Messiah must be a
descendent of David
through his son
Solomon (I Chron 17:11-14,
22:9-10)

3)if jesus became a ''seed of david'' through mary..he could not have been the messiah because Luke 3:27 lists
Shealtiel and
Zerubbabel in his
genealogy...These two
also appear in
Matthew 1:12 as descendants of the
cursed Jehoiachin. If
Mary descends from
them, it would also
disqualify her from
being a Messianic progenitor...

---

P.s i took my time to answer you because i wanted to make sure you keep quiet this time and that you will

I don't think you actually understand what you are arguing against . I am saying that there is no way Jesus came from Joseph's sperm then my link explains what the expression "seed of David" means : Primarily, the title “Son of David” is more than a statement of physical genealogy

Secondly , since Christ had no earthly father to bear his surname or hereditarily tied to before his adoption , he then becomes solely the legal son of Joseph .

Ps : Read and understand next time

KingEbukasBlog:


I don't think you actually understand what you are arguing against . I am saying that there is no way Jesus came from Joseph's sperm then my link explains what the expression "seed of David" means : Primarily, the title “Son of David” is more than a statement of physical genealogy

Secondly , since Christ has no father to bear his surname before his adoption , he then becomes solely the legal son of Joseph .

Ps : Read and understand next time

the bolded statement is bull.
Fantasy..with no evidence...

According to jewish law...bloodlines and triballines cannot be passed on by adoption...

Did you miss this?

Or did you miss the messianic prophecy that you have to be a ''descendant''...is the definition of ''descendant'' hard for you?

MrMontella:

the bolded statement is bull.
Fantasy..with no evidence...

According to jewish law...bloodlines and triballines cannot be passed on by adoption...

Did you miss this?

Or did you miss the messianic prophecy that you have to be a ''descendant''...is the definition of ''descendant'' hard for you?

You and your knee-jerk responses .

Christ was not adopted from someone whom he should have been hereditarily tied to therefore he is Joseph's legal son since He was born as the son of Mary by blood and Mary was married to Joseph .

Then primarily , the title “Son of David” is more than a statement of physical genealogy : whether you agree with this or not does not change anything

I'm not sure why I'm even arguing about this .

KingEbukasBlog:


You and your knee-jerk responses .

Christ was not adopted from someone whom he should have been hereditarily tied to therefore he is Joseph's legal son since He was born as the son of Mary by blood and Mary was married to Joseph .

Then primarily , the title “Son of David” is more than a statement of physical genealogy : whether you agree with this or not does not change anything

I'm not sure why I'm even arguing about this .

stories with no evidence...

Mind you...
It all started from ''seed of david''...

Like i said..the word used by paul is ''sperma''..which means literally--offspring or descendant...

To further butress what paul had in mind..by paul himself...

He added---''according to the flesh''...

Maybe adoption can also be according to the flesh...

The primary subject is ''virgin -birth''...

Whether jesus fulfilled the prophecy..can come later...

Paul believed in a literal birth of christ.

MrMontella:

stories with no evidence...

Mind you...
It all started from ''seed of david''...

Like i said..the word used by paul is ''sperma''..which means literally--offspring or descendant...

To further butress what paul had in mind..by paul himself...

He added---''according to the flesh''...

Maybe adoption can also be according to the flesh...

The primary subject is ''virgin -birth''...

Whether jesus fulfilled the prophecy..can come later...

Paul believed in a literal birth of christ.

Guy!

I've explained the two ways to see this .

Philippians 2:6-7
6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,[a] 7 but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.

How will Paul believe the literal birth of Christ when he clearly supported the preeminence of Christ

Colossians 1:15-20
15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16 For by[a] him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. 17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. 19 For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.

Does this look like someone who supports the literal birth ?

And again , "literal birth" will make it impossible for God's spirit to incarnate as man . It has to be done through virgin birth .

Pay attention to these two quotations

KingEbukasBlog:


Guy!

I've explained the two ways to see this .

Philippians 2:6-7
6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,[a] 7 but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant,[b] being born in the likeness of men.

How will Paul believe the literal birth of Christ when he clearly supported the preeminence of Christ

Colossians 1:15-20
15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16 For by[a] him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. 17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. 19 For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.

Does this look like someone who supports the literal birth ?

nothing there eliminates a natural birth...

Pre-existence has no effect on a natural birth..

And again , "literal birth" will make it impossible for God's spirit to incarnate as man . It has to be done through virgin birth .

Pay attention to these two quotations

baseless assumptions...


What makes it impossible?


If he can become a zygote...what stop him from being both a sperm cell and an egg?

MrMontella:

nothing there eliminates a natural birth...

Pre-existence has no effect on a natural birth..

baseless assumptions...


What makes it impossible?


If he can become a zygote...what stop him from being both a sperm cell and an egg?

There are two main ways Christians believe souls are being created by God.

1. Creationism : Souls are created at the moment of conception

2. Traducianism : Souls are created through reproductive process

Now if you choose creationism , the bible said that God has stopped creating : this makes it impossible that Christ incarnated since he has pre-existed . If you choose Traducianism it also makes it impossible that Christ incarnated since the soul is begotten through a reproductive process involving the human parents .

Christianity can't decide which it is but in both cases , it is impossible for Christ to have incarnated through those ways .

I can't give a biological explanation for virgin birth since it defies the laws of nature but God transcends the laws of nature and can interfere to achieve His aim .

KingEbukasBlog:


There are two main ways Christians believe souls are being created by God.

1. Creationism : Souls are created at the moment of conception

2. Traducianism : Souls are created through reproductive process

assumptions...all non-biblical

Now if you choose creationism , the bible said that God has stopped creating : this makes it impossible that Christ incarnated since he has pre-existed

did i say he was created then?

2) didnt jesus create loaves of bread and fish from nothing?
What has God's creation of the universe got to do with this?

. If you choose Traducianism it also makes it impossible that Christ incarnated since the soul is begotten through a reproductive process involving the human parents..

and a zygote is gotten as a product ffrom a process involving human parents..but he was a zygote in the belly of mary...

Your rebuttal is weak..

Christianity can't decide which it is but in both cases , it is impossible for Christ to have incarnated through those ways .

I can't give a biological explanation for virgin birth since it defies the laws of nature but God transcends the laws of nature and can interfere to achieve His aim .

you just said it's impossible for bla bla bla..because it seems to defy nature...
But now you're saying its possible to defy the laws of nature?

Choose one abeg

Sorry for late reply oo, I didn't know much about Nazarene unlike Ebionite(who were mostly Gnostic ). So I had to read up to make reasonable comment unlike someone reading this.

KingEbukasBlog:


Because many factions claim to have seen Christophanies therefore every experience is false ? I dey hail your freethinking oo

Is Mr.President1 Christophany true?
Or have you had one before?

I gave you a link where scholars and intellectuals from different top universities gave their contributions to support the evidence for Christ's life on earth and you said it was an appeal to authority ? I didn't bother responding to that because I felt it was a joke

Appealing to Authority again.
So University Scholars determine the veracity of stories now abi...
Why not mention those "contributions" they gave, so we can examine them.

Exactly ! This is what I'm talking about . You won't show any modicum of skepticism on whatever that piques your interest like Gnosticism but you quickly attack anything as false that impugns your position.

Have I ever accepted being a Gnostic.
I've told you their "belief system" is somewhat psychological and I find it interesting, there's hardly any contradiction(or fairy tales) like mainstream Christianity. Though they make some claims on Christian beliefs, I have never made a definite opinion on this. It seems you can't absorb "Freethinking" and "Skepticism" very well...

I'm giving you strong evidence that requires you to make quick connections and discover the truth . I gave an example of Paul who was Christ's coeval ; he conversed with the Apostles whom Christ appeared to and he also had similar experiences

I also mentioned the Ebionites and Nazarenes : these sects quickly emerged after Christ's death . The Nazarenes accept the Virgin Birth
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazarene_(sect) and according to this link half of the Ebionite accepted the Virgin Birth .

The Nazarene was a commonly known name given to followers of Christ (Act24:5).
The Ebonites were also Nazarene(at least for a while) (just like Catholics are Christians) who were followers of John the Baptist then Christ
The split of the Nazarene occurred during the late 2nd Century, obviously due to beliefs which we are discussing.

Now, we know the the concept of Virgin birth, never appeared in any of the Epistles, Book of Acts, Revelations, and Mark these books had been(though some modified later) long before the split.
It only appeared in the revised edition of Mathew and Luke.
***I don't wanna go further on this, but if you have time to defend the veracity of the Gospels, then... ***

Mark Zuckerberg's on his rejection of atheism . You just didn't want to accept that he was a theist from the onset .

I gave you reasons while other options are welcome.
O ye of big Faith, Skepticism must be difficult for you.
So because I didn't admit Mark was a theist, that makes me an Atheist. SMH

And you have many opinions that resonate with atheism ?

Oh 4kings , praise ye nothingness for that

Freethinking!!!
I have opinions that resonate with some atheists(not atheism) and others that don't.
Same for theists.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazarene_(sect)

This link repeated the same thing : half of the Ebionites accepted the virgin birth

Another Wikipedia page author, typing without references.
Eusebius and other early authors already made this distinction, I don't know where the author of that page is getting his/her info from.

Can you prove those stories were not true ? Or are you gona appeal to common sense ? You have a wont for committing logical fallacies .

I asked you a question.
Don't you understand basic communication skills

MrMontella:

i wonder why you think the existence of the nazaranes validates jesus...they are no better than paul.

I DOUBT anyone heard of the idea of "virgin birth" in the first century.

KingEbukasBlog:


There is evidence for the existence of God .

Please make your researches on the complexity of life alone and then ask yourself if you are in your right senses to deny the existence of God .

Please don't respond with 'who designed the designer' BS as if that has anything to do with acknowledging that indeed the complexity of life should be attributed to an eternal designer .

Atheist logic : because we can't understand the complexity of the eternal designer , therefore the life and the universe were not designed.

MrMontella Is not an atheist na...

MrMontella:

assumptions...all non-biblical


did i say he was created then?

2) didnt jesus create loaves of bread and fish from nothing?
What has God's creation of the universe got to do with this?



and a zygote is gotten as a product ffrom a process involving human parents..but he was a zygote in the belly of mary...

Your rebuttal is weak..

you just said it's impossible for bla bla bla..because it seems to defy nature...
But now you're saying its possible to defy the laws of nature?

Choose one abeg

Your just talking nonsense . How are souls created since the two reasons I gave are non biblical ?

KingEbukasBlog:


Your just talking nonsense . How are souls created since the two reasons I gave are non biblical ?

you say he was pre-existing...so he need not be created....simple..

4kings:

I DOUBT anyone heard of the idea of "virgin birth" in the first century.

maybe late first century..

50 years is enough for the myth to build up.

MrMontella:

you say he was pre-existing...so he need not be created....simple..

Mister , you claimed that the two ways souls are created in Christianity are non biblical and that I was I assuming , please can you state the biblical one ?

I strongly doubt you even read before you rebut , you just type anything : you make weak outlandish claims , honestly

So please can you state biblical ways souls are created in Christianity since you say what I posted is non biblical ?

MrMontella:

maybe late first century..

50 years is enough for the myth to build up.

Nah, one of the first Gospels written(during the late first century) Mark, never mentioned a "virgin birth".

This is a pagan idea from the Egyptian stories and Krishna, permitted by Eusebius and Constantine.
Jesus == Krishna

KingEbukasBlog:


Mister , you claimed that the two ways souls are created in Christianity are non biblical and that I was I assuming , please can you state the biblical one ?

I strongly doubt you even read before you rebut , you just type anything : you make weak outlandish claims , honestly

So please can you state biblical ways souls are created in Christianity since you say what I posted is non biblical ?

please post your biblical references then you can start expecting what you ask of me..

4kings:

I DOUBT anyone heard of the idea of "virgin birth" in the first century.

Are you okay ?

I gave you two different sects that emerged immediately after Jesus died and they both believed in the virgin birth . So stop talking trash .

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05242c.htm

Here is another source stating that some Ebionites accepted the virgin birth

I just enjoy shattering the beliefs of dishonest people

MrMontella:

please post your biblical references then you can start expecting what you ask of me..

For the fact you rejected the two known ways souls are created in Christianity , that means you know the biblical means

Mr scholar , here was your response

MrMontella:

assumptions...all non-biblical

So show me the ways

Oya be fast ...

Ps : I won't respond if you don't post the biblical way . You really have a wont for making idiotic claims

4kings:

Nah, one of the first Gospels written(during the late first century) Mark, never mentioned a "virgin birth".

So the logic is that since Mark never mentioned the virgin birth , therefore it is not true . Right ?

The same logic should go : The death and resurrection of Jesus was recorded in the four gospels , therefore the resurrection is true ... right ?

KingEbukasBlog:


Are you okay ?

I gave you two different sects that emerged immediately after Jesus died and they both believed in the virgin birth . So stop talking trash .

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05242c.htm

Here is another source stating that some Ebionites accepted the virgin birth

I just enjoy shattering the beliefs of dishonest people

I told you that before the name "Christian" was given Nazarene and Ebionite were used.

The link you posted said Eusebius said a group believed in the Virgin birth of course there were "Nazarene".
Even if this Nazarene are subjected to scrutiny - can't trust Eusebius the Liar.

KingEbukasBlog:


So the logic is that since Mark never mentioned the virgin birth , therefore it is not true . Right ?

The same logic should go : The death and resurrection of Jesus was recorded in the four gospels , therefore the resurrection is true ... right ?

Ya, from a Gnostic point of view.