Jesus was a tranny
>>18534975Romans 1:3, "...concerning His Son, who is come of the seed of David according to the flesh"Cosmic sperm bank theory remains undefeated
>>18534975He had a Y chromosome and it was R1b like his Roman father Ben Pantera.
>>18535009I m not against trans rights, unlike your Semitic cult lol
>>18534983This is unironically true, the male DNA used for Jesus' body was David's. You don't even need a sperm bank, sperm is nothing but a carrier for genetic information. You just need to know David's DNA sequence.
>>18534975>Omnipotent God clearly can't do thing which falls well in the realm of possibility >Checkmate ChristiansYou expect me to clap like a seal at your retardation.
>>18534975No, he was real life Skywalker
>>18534975Jesus didn't 41% so I doubt that.
>>18535195This line of reasoning only exists to actualize a prophecy by force since Paul does not demonstrate awareness of a virgin birth. Matthew 1 and Luke 3 explicitly trace Jesus’s Davidic lineage through Joseph, Paul wrote his letters in the 50s CE, decades before the Gospels of Matthew and Luke were written. You're essentially saying Mary reproduced with David here, you know that right? Teleported/cloned sperm/genetic information invalidates virginity anyway depending on the definition used. Also it can mean literally sperm according to Strong's "From speiro; something sown, i.e. Seed (including the male "sperm")..." and Thayer's "the semen virile; α. properly: Leviticus 15:16-18; Leviticus 18:20f, etc.; (probably also Hebrews 11:11, cf. καταβολή 1, and see below); often in secular writings. By metonymy the product of this semen..."
>>18535425>since Paul does not demonstrate awareness of a virgin birth. He does. He shows that he has read the Gospel of Luke, which makes the virgin birth explicit in its first chapter.In 1 Timothy 5:18 Paul writes "For Scripture says, 'Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain'", which is Deuteronomy 25:4, and then writes "and 'The worker deserves his wages.'". That's a direct quote of Luke 10:7 - it's nowhere in the Old Testament. And the Paul and Luke's wording is identical, even in slight oddities of the sentence - as noted at http://biblehub.com/commentaries/pulpit/1_timothy/5.htm, “in Luke 10:7 the words are identical with those here used, even to the omission…of the verb ἔστιν”.>decades before the Gospels of Matthew and Luke were writtenPaul himself refutes the late dates some try to assign the Gospels without any evidence. >Teleported/cloned sperm/genetic information invalidates virginity anywayThat's absurd. Virginity is about sexual congress. Mary hadn't ever had sex and so was a virgin. Like the OP points out, there must be "Teleported/cloned" genetic information since Jesus had a Y chromosome. You need some sequences of DNA, who's better than David's?
>>18536123The Gospel of Luke was written 80–90 CE, 1 Timothy was written 100-150 CE (significantly older than Paul's letters even if you take the lower end) and is a known example of pseudepigrapha so that proves nothing.>Paul himself No he does not, provide your best piece of evidence. I hope it's not to the same standard as what you've just attempted to prove here.>Virginity is about sexual congressAgain depends on the definition. But in any case sexual reproduction is still sexual reproduction. And the Davidic lineage through Joseph is enough, no need to force it like Paul does if you must meet the standard of the OT prophecies >You need some sequences of DNAAdam did not require magical sperm, so why does Jesus? Even if you disagree, Joseph's genes are the obvious choice. There is no need to make Mary mate with David
>>18536154*Paul's letter are significantly older
>>18536154>The Gospel of Luke was written 80–90 CE, 1 Timothy was written 100-150 CE (significantly older than Paul's letters even if you take the lower end) What would you say is the #1 strongest piece of evidence for those dates for each document? Hit me with your very best shot.>and is a known example of pseudepigrapha Lay me out your standard for determining authorship of documents. And be objective. No "I eyeball it and decide based on how I feel". Hard, objective criteria.>Again depends on the definition.Luke itself spells it out: "Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?". "Knowing" of course meaning sexual congress. >no need to force it like Paul doesI'm not quite following your meaning here>Adam did not require magical spermAgain: you don't need actual sperm. Sperm is nothing but a carrier for genetic information. You only need the genetic information.>Joseph's genes are the obvious choiceThen why would it consistently call him the son of David, even in Romans 1:3, but when it comes to being the son of Joseph, Luke 3:23 says "being, *as was supposed*, son of Joseph"?
>>18536186I am quoting mainstream scholarship and have presented the reasons for their dating. Pick one you think is the weakest as I asked you earlier. Personally the vocabulary and literary style arguments convinces me that your (late and unproven) traditional attribution has zero weight.>Luke itself spells it out:That's not the definition of a virgin birth. Here I'll use wikipedia.>A virgin birth can refer to: Parthenogenesis, birth without fertilization>In accordance with these beliefs, Jesus had just one biological parent; Mary's husband Joseph was his father only in the familial and legal sense. Most Christians hold that Mary's virginity was perpetual. Though not biologically related, Jesus being Joseph's adoptive son is cited as linking him to the Davidic lineWhat's so hard to understand? Paul does not show any indication that he is aware of a virgin birth but he is aware of the OT prophecies. And you know this, which is why you attempt to make him quote Luke. Your argument about word similarity is rejected by you with James so you cannot use that here >you don't need actual spermDon't play games, we all know that. Whether the magical sperm has a head and a tail to travel to her egg is irrelevant to your belief that she functionally mated with David. But in any case I showed you that the word used by Paul can mean literal sperm/semen>Then why would it consistently call him the son of DavidFor the same reason David is called the son of Abraham. You can skip generations.>Luke 3:23 says "being, *as was supposed*Because they believed him to be born regularly like everyone else? I don't think he's genetically related to anyone else other than Mary but it still doesn't explain why he couldn't have been the model under your paradigm
>>18536215...or why there needs to be a model in the first place, why do you believe God cannot create a Y chromosome but he can create Adam with no genetic material and Eve with Adam's? If you're going to say for the latter that he just duplicated his X that does not explain mtDNA and you're still essentially making Eve almost a clone of Adam
>>18536215>Your argument about word similarity is rejected by you with JamesOh it's you again. In that case, like last time, we are going to focus on one specific point at a time since otherwise we'll just bounce around endlessly until you find "inclusive 'or'". Especially here since it illustrates the entire problem with the way you reason. You've gone "inclusive 'or'" again. You find anything that it is even theoretically possible to interpret as possibly supporting your point and then bite down onto it no matter how little sense that actually makes. This is the perfect illustration:>That's not the definition of a virgin birth. Here I'll use wikipedia.>A virgin birth can refer to: Parthenogenesis, birth without fertilizationThis is a mind-bogglingly horrible argument but it's the sort of thing you always do. You're using a Wikipedia page, written in English in the 21st century about an English term, to make theological declarations about what a Roman Greek text means. What on earth is the logic here? "A Wikipedia editor used the term fertilization therefore Jesus must have been haploid per the New Testament"? It doesn't even begin to make sense.And even then, the page you are quoting explicitly disagrees with you that it refers to something without fertilization. Look at it at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_birth anon, it says "Artificial insemination" is another meaning. So it _disagrees_ with what you're trying to make it say. You must have seen this, the page is a very short list. But you found something that let you make a (patently completely vacuous) semantic argument for your point.
>>18536252Yes you runner it's me, I know you cannot deal with substance so you just flee. Looks like I just made you accept James like Irenaeus if you think this poor similarity is enough to justify a literary dependence. And yes I explicitly made it clear that it depends on your meaning of what the word entails. I even pointed it out here >>18535425 "depending on the definition used" I personally don't believe Mary was artificially inseminated with David's sperm so I just stick to the traditional understanding where Jesus just has one parent Mary
>>18535195The prophecy which this is based on, 2 Samuel 7:12, says that once David is dead, God will take out the sperm from David's stomach/bowels (why did David have his own cum in his stomach?). It seems God prefers the cosmic sperm bank method.
>>18536252btw I can't believe you actually think the Pharisees were trying to please God genuinely with their rules and not just following the oral and written Torah to look good in the people's eyes like Jesus says
>>18536259We're not going to bounce from topic to topic to topic. One specific point at a time. That's the only way to make progress. Because you always wind up making unbelievable semantic arguments. Do you remember me calling you "Semantic Argument Muslim" before? This semantic argument you just made is like the Platonic Ideal of how conversations with you go.>I explicitly made it clear that it depends on your meaning of what the word entailsYou said outright: "That's not the definition of a virgin birth" and "birth without fertilization". But the very article you cited included a definition that has birth WITH fertilization. And you saw that. Please explain why you said "that's not the definition of a virgin birth" but cited a page that includes this as a definition.Or do you, to borrow a term from you that you use incessantly, ~concede~ that you were wrong and that page does not support your point?
>>18536273>Please explain why you said "that's not the definition of a virgin birth"Because Mary not realizing that she can be made pregnant without having a partner is literally not the definition of a virgin birth according to the bible... Look at how the angel replies to her.>And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.I don't see any mention of David's teleporting sperm here. This is exactly why I also linked the understanding of pretty much everyone with>In Christianity and Islam, it is asserted that Jesus of Nazareth was conceived by his mother Mary solely through divine intervention and without sexual intercourse, thus resulting in his virgin birth.[1] In accordance with these beliefs, Jesus had just one biological parent; Mary's husband Joseph was his father only in the familial and legal sense. Most Christians hold that Mary's virginity was perpetual. Though not biologically related, Jesus being Joseph's adoptive son is cited as linking him to the Davidic lineThe first definition was to show you that your insistence on virginity meaning strictly no sex and nothing else doesn't follow
>>18536279No. No bouncing from topic to topic. With you there needs to be hyperfocus on specific points. Answer me about your use of this argument based on the Wikipedia page.
>>18536280What's so hard to understand about what I said?
>>18536282To quote myself:You said outright: "That's not the definition of a virgin birth" and "birth without fertilization". But the very article you cited included a definition that has birth WITH fertilization. And you saw that.Please explain why you said "that's not the definition of a virgin birth" but cited a page that includes this as a definition.
>>18536280Are you just confused why that first result was relevant?
>>18536287I cannot believe you are doubling down on this. Anon. On that Wikipedia page you cited, what is the third item?
>>18536286And I explained that here >>18536279biblically it has no foundation. You were using that verse to prove Mary needed a man (his sperm). When the Angel and traditional understanding just means Jesus was conceived without a male. I showed you the first link because it is relevant. Context should make it clear that I never denied that virginity can entail that other meaning here >>18536154 "Again depends on the definition">>18536293The third item is the virgin birth of Jesus the first is parthenogenesis and the fifth is artificial insemination
Knowers know that not only did Jesus' Y chromosome come directly from David, but further, contrary to tradition, his X chromosome *wasn't* from Mary. In fact the X chromosome is the one that was supernaturally generated by the Holy Spirit, and in this way Mary maintained her virginity in every sense, because it wasn't one of her eggs that was fertilized.Gospel of Philip:"Some have said that Mary was impregnated by the Holy Spirit. Such people do not know what they are talking about. When has a woman ever impregnated another woman?"
>>18536307Are you saying the Holy Spirit is female? and this was prior to the dove form?
>>18536307Isn't it possible that the Y chromosome is from the woman who was fighting the dragon which invaded the first or second heaven in Revelation 12? It says that she gave birth and God immediately flew the child up to a higher heaven.
>>18536261>why did David have his own cum in his stomach?Like Chris-chan he drank back his own spilled cum to preserve testosterone.
>>18536154>Dating Luke's gospel to anything past 65 AD.Get a load of this godless idiot. Luke and Acts were clearly written just before St. Paul was martyred (hence the abrupt ending of Acts). >I am quoting mainstream scholarship(((Mainstream scholarship)))Oh wait we know why now.
>>18536293And of course I just have to do it to you. Irenaeus says "the scripture excluded all virile influence" and that she was from the lineage of David herself. This is what like the 5th time you go against the guy you say has almost direct access to apostolic teachings>The first recorded case of artificial insemination was by Lazzaro Spallanzani in 1784, who performed it on a dog>brooo why don't you use that meaning when talking about a +2000 year old event where the very context of the verse proves Mary's assumption wrongOkay next time you talk about seeing Jesus in the clouds I will assume you meant he was using a jet pack.
>>18536315The Spirit who descended on Jesus in the form of a dove at his baptism was the Savior, not the same Spirit who contributed to his virgin birth.
>>18536333I don't see any argument here except mindless racism. Are you saying the writing stops only when historians have no material left to write from?>>18536346Okay so who is the Savior Spirit and who is the one that contributed to his virgin birth? I am not sure of your position here. Do you even believe Jesus is part of the godhead?
>>18534975>Jesus was a trannyYes literally The kikeble states rabbi yeshua chopped off his balls and glans to control his lust
>>18536302>I never denied that virginity can entail that other meaningAnon you outright said "That's not the definition of a virgin birth". Despite that very page giving one of the definitions exactly as I am using it. Your argument doesn't make sense if you're trying to say "it can mean either", since in that case "That's not the definition of a virgin birth" wouldn't make sense because that is, in fact, one of the definition. It wouldn't even make sense to bring it up. It's like if the discussion was whether brick is liquid and I said "brick is a solid material so it isn't a liquid" and you said "That isn't the definition of solid. Merriam-Webster says 'solid' means 'serious in purpose or character'". So again I ask: how does the Wikipedia page show that "That's not the definition of a virgin birth"?
>>18536452You're so desperate lmao. Keep pretending that I haven't made it clear twice beforehand that the definition varies and how yours just doesn't fit given the context. Your literal best case here is me saying something I was not aware of because I just went by the first result.>Merriam-Webster says 'solid' means 'serious in purpose or character'"You literally went for the FIFTH definition and you're pretending this one is even relevant to the context. How is this in any way remotely similar?
>>18536484>the definition variesDo you understand the difference between the statements "the definition varies" and "that's not the definition"?>me saying something I was not aware of because I just went by the first resultDo you see the problem here? This is the fundamental issue with all of your reasoning. You grasp at anything that could conceivably have even just the semantic range to be interpreted to support your position and then bite down on it. >You literally went for the FIFTH definition...That's the lesson you took from what I said? You just can't stop with this thing you do. Anon, for crying out loud, in a scenario about whether bricks are liquid is the topic of discussion the order of definitions obviously is not the key point. >How is this in any way remotely similar?I am just...baffled, simply baffled, that you somehow missed my point and got the order of definitions as the key takeaway. Or more likely you understood exactly what I am saying (because the example is dirt simple) but, as always, bit down on whatever you could turn into a semantic argument. Only a level below that, now it's some sort of sub-semantic argument about how dictionaries are structured.
>>18536498>nooo you don't get it you're totally wrong Mary was actually referring to a process invented in the 18th century and first performed on Italian animals by Catholic priests Ah I get it now, you're beyond retarded. Why does it keep saying this? 2nd result
>>18536503......Anon.Ignoring trying to use English to define Greek.Ignoring trying to use basic explanations for specific subjects they were not written to address.Ignoring all of that.Your own link.It said "virgin birth" does not need to refer to an egg that is unfertilized.Yes?
>>18536513I even switched search engines for you and it keeps showing me this. Surely I have to go for the FIFTH fucking link on wikipedia and then it would make sense. Well here they aren't even as charitable as I was when I told you it depends on the definition. Apparently artificial insemination just does not count. You know what I might as well take this because you don't deserve me being charitable at all with your position
>>18534975Why are you trying to use biology to argue against a faith based belief while simultaneously being a supporter of trans ideology which is inherently anti-scientific and relies on 100% subjective beliefs about being born in the wrong body?
>>18536519>Apparently artificial insemination just does not count.Does the link you, yourself, brought forward agree with this?
it was a miracle or someth
>>18536592Can you point to the URL in my posts? I don't think google + gemini, duckduckgo. encyclopedia britannica, author of Luke, author of Matthew, St. Ireneaus, etc is trying to fool me. I think you are because you have perfectly shown this is what you're capable of when you were pretending to be an atheist. So I now officially change my position from a virgin birth possibly including artificial insemination depending on definition to it being exclusive to a 1 parent/parthenogenesis situation. I denounce all fringe heretical 5th link definitions
>>18536601>it being exclusive to a 1 parent/parthenogenesisSo the source that you, yourself, gave for what the term can refer to, you would now say is actually erroneous?
>>18536610So no URL? My source was google and it was correct in filtering out the erroneous artificial insemination bit so it was not included where I copied from. Why do the machines never side with you?
>>18534983>Cosmic sperm bank theory remains undefeatedhttps://earlywritings.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=160992
>>18536619>My source was googleDo you see how this illustrates your entire problem? You didn't even spend the seconds it would take to read the page before saying "Here I'll use wikipedia" and pasting the very first thing that appeared to support your position? You saw something that could be interpreted as agreeing and then you bit onto it.When in reality the source did nothing of the sort. You must be able to see that this is confirmation bias of the most extreme sort. You must be able to see that this is an abhorrent epistemological standard, and isn't an approach that can ever lead anyone to the truth.Look, we both agree on the virgin birth already, and would both disagree with OP's image, so discussing the mechanics of it is a purely academic exercise.I'd like to ask a different question, we've been speaking for quite a while so I'm curious about this. Wha would you say is the #1 thing that persuades you that Islam is true, that Muhammad actually had divine messages instead of being yet another religious teacher?
>>18534983But Jesus's descent from David was supposed to be via Joseph. That line only makes sense as a remnant of the Jesus myth from before he was God and was just an anointed prophet. Just one of the little crumbs that show how the story was edited and changed over time to aggrandize the man combined with an historical ignorance of how human reproduction actually happens. If anything, the story seems to imply that Jesus was descended from God and Joesph, with Mary only being the vessel. Genetics was beyond them, but that's not their fault any more than Henry VIII blaming his wives for daughters. For all they knew, that was totally viable. >>18534989>Ben PanteraNot gong to go into that greek slander attempt, but that's using the naming convention wrong. The roman soldier's name was "Pantera" and "ben Pantera" would be Jesus's patronymic name (as Yeshua ben Pantera). Like the way a "John", who's father is named "Anders," would be named "John Anderson".Pantera was a common name in the region at the time. Convention in the region was that people only had one name. If you needed specificity, then you would add on where they were from or their father's name (hence: Jesus of Nazareth and Jesus son of Joesph). Celsus, the source of the story, only claims he is a roman, so Pantera, which is a local name, would be his cognomen and there would be two other classically roman names to fill out his tria nomia. Probably named for his patron or emperor who granted him citizenship.
>>18536619how did muslims gain so much influence over chat GPT
>>18536651I just don't see the problem, I essentially looked up a quick definition and got the right answer. The idea itself is on point and very well supported by multiple different sources. Google in addition fixed the issue with the data provided by the wiki and seems to inherently just know what the right position is from both a secular and religious point of view. The issue itself was also a non-issue with my old position where I believed depending on the definition artificial insemination could actually count as a virgin birth. However I was wrong to believe that. 1 parent only is the correct definition thanks for making me see that.>we both agree on the virgin birth alreadyI used to believe this But my position has forcibly been changed since you don't let me hold it for some reason. And now upon further reflection I now think you believe in a regular birth with extra steps. If I am being reductionist what truly is the difference between Mary reproducing with a man naturally and Mary reproducing with a man via divine intervention? I think looking at it just from a perspective where sexual intercourse didn't happen (as you also believe) ruins the whole point. Even from a Pauline biblical perspective where he's seen as the 2nd Adam.>the #1 thingPreviously you implied that you don't care about theological/metaphysical stuff so that would go absolutely nowhere because that's the most important to me. In any case my #1 would be different from your #1. You seem to be particularly interested in fulfilled biblical prophecies, have you looked into the ones used by the salaf to prove the faith?
Everything has already been explained on many layers. Whether its literal, literaly, matephorically, scientifically, metaphysically, you name it!Just because almost everyone didn't like the answers is not my fault.
>>18536911I wonder what does chatgpt think of Isaac creampying rebecca at 3, or rabbi yeshua diddling little boys in cruising sessions at public gardens, or the Bible directly ordering the kidnapping and raping of goyim little girls in the books of numberNothing the quran says anything about Aisha nor her age, and she was 19 regardless
>>18537056>I just don't see the problemI find this bewildering. Look at your own image. The last part. She remains a virgin. So when she gives birth, a virgin is giving birth. Yes?The logic being used here doesn't even make physical sense. If you say no male genetic material can be involved whatsoever, then OP is correct: there could be no Y-chromosome. Jesus cannot be a male in that case.So you've built yourself your own personal Islamic Dilemma here. Either:1) Virgin birth can involve male genetic material, a Y-chromosome, being supernaturally added, in which case your position is incorrect, or2) Jesus cannot have been a male, in which case Islam is incorrect
>>18537295Science doesn't consider that to be a true virgin therefore it's not a true virgin. You don't believe Mary was truly a virgin I see, you instead believe David mated with her magically so on the outside it just seemed like a virgin birth. But truly it could not have been so since sexual reproduction took place. I stand with science and faith and you stand with flimsy social definitions.>EitherClassic false dichotomy. Or I can just believe Y chromosomes can get created from scratch like with the case of Adam. Oh what's that? God can't simply create random genetic material so he has to steal it from dead human beings? Why? Because Paul believed real sperm from dead people had to get involved? Yeah sorry I just don't buy that.So you've built yourself your own personal Christian Dilemma here. Either:1) Virgin birth does not involve male intervention, a sperm, being supernaturally teleported from the balls of biblical David, in which case your position is incorrect, or2) Mary cannot have been a virgin according to science, in which case Christianity is incorrect
>>18537374>Or I can just believe Y chromosomes can get created from scratch And then that Y-chromosome gets added to Mary's embryo, correct?
>>18537381Created. You see because unlike you I actually believe Mary did not reproduce with dead people. Invalidating her virginity scientifically and religiously
>>18537383So the Y-chromosome, and the necessary genes to make her egg diploid, are created in her egg/embryo, correct?
>>18537388The super intelligence has answered and it agrees with me that this scenario involves no other parent (there is no father) making this an example of a virgin birth according to science
>>18537390Anon that is exactly what I have been saying took place this entire thread. Do you recall the very first post of mine that you replied to, >>18535195? As I said at the very beginning:"the male DNA used for Jesus' body was David's. You don't even need a sperm bank, sperm is nothing but a carrier for genetic information. You just need to know David's DNA sequence"But then you replied:"Teleported/cloned sperm/genetic information invalidates virginity"But there is no mechanical difference between what you are saying took place and what I am saying took place. We both agree that male genetic material was supernaturally created within Mary. The sole difference is that I posit that if the non-Mary genes were sequenced, they would match David's DNA. So all along, it's revealed: this has been nothing but your usual procedure of taking things someone else says in the absolute most bad faith sense imaginable and then making vacuous semantic arguments.
>>18537397No you believe, sperm was extracted from a long dead man's balls and then it was teleported in Mary's womb to inseminate her with David's DNA making Jesus in actuality have a human father involved in his conception. My position necessitates no fathers at all preserving her virginity. How can you not see the difference?
>>18537419>No you believe, sperm was extracted from a long dead man's ballsAnd then the usual move of doubling down.Anon.My very first post.The one you replied to disagreeing.It said: "You don't even need a sperm bank, sperm is nothing but a carrier for genetic information".But even now you double down on trying to make the most bad-faith interpretation possible of my position, even when I explain to you we have the same position (in mechanical terms), and even when my very first post explicitly denied that this is my position, and was replying to someone who was advocating for the position I do not hold explaining to them why it isn't necessary.To be blunt: I cannot possibly conceive of a worse faith discussion partner.
>>18537425I'm sorry but the machine simply sides with me again no matter how you understand what that sperm Paul was talking about means. You don't believe in a virgin birth if you believe David's genes were used to create Jesus. Irenaeus was right!
>>18534975What MAGA Recucklicans will be saying in 20 years
>>18537432>You don't believe in a virgin birth if you believe David's genes were used to create JesusYou aren't making sense. There is no mechanical difference whatsoever. It's purely a matter of the sequence. If the sequences used, by pure coincidence, happen to match someone's genes, would it suddenly stop having been a virgin birth?Tell your machine exactly the scenario described, in a good-faith interpretation, and ask it if that would invalidate Mary's birth being a virgin birth. And provide a link to the conversation.
>>18537443>There is no mechanical difference whatsoeverWhat do you mean lmao? One involves taking the genes from another man making the offspring have a biological father, my scenario does not involve genetic information from another man making the offspring have no biological father. You know like Adam? The only similarity happens after the embryo starts to grow because in either case that's just Jesus developing in the womb like any other human being beside Adam/Eve
>>18537449>One involves taking the genes from another manAnon you don't need to "take" genes from somewhere. Genes are DNA sequences, like words on a page. You don't need to cut words out of one page with scissors and glue them onto a different page in order to get another page to say them. You simply write them elsewhere. You didn't answer my question or meet my challenge. I ask again: if the sequences used for Jesus' body, by pure coincidence, happen to match someone's genes who is born in the future, would it suddenly stop having been a virgin birth?And you keep citing AI. So meet my challenge. Tell your machine exactly the scenario described, in a good-faith interpretation, and ask it if that would invalidate Mary's birth being a virgin birth. Include a link to the conversation.
>>18537458I am not logged in so I cannot provide a link but you can ask it the same question yourself if you don't trust me. I hope the way I asked it is a steel man of your position
>>18537458Also I asked it the question you told me to ask and it says this
>>18537462...So you're relying on a free AI for this, in one single conversation, not even starting a new one? Anon free AI is not "super intelligence" as you called it. You need GPT Pro for that to even arguably be true. (And it is not - not quite yet)Start a new conversation to clear out what you've previously said, and ask it:"If God miraculously created male DNA inside Mary's egg, and the sequences were the same as David's DNA, and that is how Mary got pregnant with Jesus, would that be a virgin birth? Why or why not?"That's a good-faith summary of my position and doesn't influence it to answer one way or the other, I am sure you agree.I did so and you can read the results for yourself: https://chatgpt.com/share/6a34d2ee-d9dc-83ea-a90e-67d6cde684e5Normally I would be loathe to do something like this but you seem into it. So there.>>18537466So then the fact of matching sequences don't make it not a virgin birth, right? You couldn't present the future man who was a match and say "look, Jesus wasn't born of a virgin, this man's genetic sequences are a match!". Same if they matched David's.
>>18537483Bro I am not going to waste tokens on a 4chan argument lmao, openclaw is bleeding me dry as it is. From your link "DNA identical to David’s would not automatically make Jesus David’s genealogical descendant in the ordinary biological sense" and "It could nevertheless serve as a miraculous way of connecting Jesus biologically with David, depending on how “descent” is being defined". Okay so if I took DNA from inside your balls and put it through a DNA printer to replicate it and mate the result with a random egg. Would you consider this to be your actual son from the perspective of biblical law? Or let's say you had an identical twin and he had sex with a random woman? Is his son your son too?>So then the fact of matching sequences don't make it not a virgin birth, right?Yeah I think that's reasonable generally because we all have matching sequences in different regions. But when that sequence comes from a person who actually is living/lived then I draw the line.
>>18537505>Okay so if I took DNA from inside your balls and put it through a DNA printer to replicate it and mate the result with a random egg. Would you consider this to be your actual sonAt that point this is purely a philosophical question; in objective terms this is an exact description of what sperm is. It doesn't carry some sort of parent-energy, it's simply an organic version of precisely what you just described.>Or let's say you had an identical twin and he had sex with a random woman? Is his son your son too?Actually potentially yes! If I lived in Israel at this time and I had died childless and the woman was my wife, then yes according to Biblical law I would, even as a dead man, then have a son. There's very much precedent for your brother's son being your son in Biblical law, and for you having a son after your death. And since Jesus is older than any person, he is your oldest son and so automatically your heir to the throne. And to square things off then he gets adopted by the current heir, making him legally the heir to the throne that way too. It's quite clever if you think about it.>But when that sequence comes from a person who actually is living/lived then I draw the line.It doesn't sound like we disagree on anything anymore here besides labeling preferences. If you prefer not to use the label that's that, but there's in objective, concrete, mechanical terms there doesn't seem to be any point of disagreement here about what took place with Mary aside from the specific genetic sequences.
>>18535195That means we know Jesus was a manlet
>>18537714>It doesn't sound like we disagree on anything anymoreMy core issue is whether the extra genetic information used is produced by the biology of David (or any other male) and then it gets physically transported to Mary's egg or not. That's just mating with extra steps and I don't believe anymore that it would qualify as a virgin birth. It seems like you're not saying that at all though, but rather that it was just God creating a perfect replica of David's genetics and using that in the creation of Jesus' embryo. Honestly I don't really have a problem with this view, it's just unnecessary since Mary's (and Joseph's for different reasons) Davidic lineage is enough as far as I can tell>after your deathYes but this is a form of adoption. What if both you and your identical twin are still alive? Can his son have two literal dads according to the law, him and you? Also in the case where this is not an identical twin it does demonstrate that a perfect replica of the dead father's DNA is not a requirement to establish a family line in his name. Honestly I don't think God's prophecies or curses like Jeremiah 22:30 or Exodus 20:5 care about specific DNA sequences in the first place. >Jesus is older than any personI think you mean the Son from your paradigm. Jesus (the human who can inherit human titles) only came into being after the Son took on a human nature did he not?
>>18536379>t. did something similarDoes your local imam approve of your blasphemy against Isa?
>>18534975Nestorian posting? Hell nahTHEOTOKOS THEOTOKOS THEOTOKOSTHEOTOKOS THEOTOKOS THEOTOKOS
>>18534975will we ever get a mixed race black jesus from america given that its so easy to claim the you were inseminated by god himself. a woman can get pregged by a bbc and then claim to his cuck naive husband that it was actually god that fucked her. same as mary
