BS: Immaculate mis-conception

Subject: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: Once Famous
Date: 29 Dec 05 - 09:37 PM

So some of us were sitting around the other day over some Mogen David and the subject turned to Christmas and the birth of Jesus and all of the myth and superstition tied to it.

We came to this conclusion. If the virgin Mary was a virgin when Jesus was conceived and when she gave birth, then she is the first and only women to have lost her hymen from the inside out. Talk about knocking walls down.

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: Peace
Date: 29 Dec 05 - 09:43 PM

The story of virgin birth was around over 300 years before Mary was born. I will see if I can find a link.

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: Once Famous
Date: 29 Dec 05 - 09:47 PM

Peace, if it is, I doubt that it you can find it in the Old Testament. Or in any medical journals either for that matter.

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: number 6
Date: 29 Dec 05 - 09:49 PM

Hey MG ... with YHWH anything is possible !

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: Rapparee
Date: 29 Dec 05 - 09:53 PM

Nah, it's in the mythology of Egypt and Assyria and elsewhere, I think.

Consider this: Joseph, the "father" of Jesus of Nazareth, was supposed to be "of the house and family of David." But if Jesus of Nazareth was conceived by a virgin, he wasn't the son of Joseph and hence couldn't be of the "house and family." But the Messiah was supposed to come from the "house and family".... Moreover, Joseph was with "Mary, his espoused wife, who was with child" -- i.e., Jesus's parents weren't married....

I'm not making any theological or scriptural or any other comments here; just pointing out some discrepancies I figured out while hanging around church recently.

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: Peace
Date: 29 Dec 05 - 09:54 PM

"For example in the Greek myth, Perseus was born of the virgin Danae. Danae was conceived by the God Zeus who took the form of a shower of gold."

In the Greek, there was no mention of a virgin birth.

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: number 6
Date: 29 Dec 05 - 09:55 PM

You are correct MG.

Most certainly won't be found in a medical journal ... but then, there are those bogus medical schools.

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: michaelr
Date: 29 Dec 05 - 09:57 PM

A golden shower can get you pregnant??

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: Once Famous
Date: 29 Dec 05 - 09:57 PM

Is this about mythology or faith?

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: John O'L
Date: 29 Dec 05 - 09:58 PM

Virgin birth = non-vaginal birth = Caesarian.

The three wise men were Celtic midwives from Galatia.

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: number 6
Date: 29 Dec 05 - 10:15 PM

Mythology MG.

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Dec 05 - 10:34 PM

The story of the virgin birth is:

1. not literal (it's symbolic)
2. a story already found in some previous religions in that region long before Christianity, thus it was a rather familiar theme with which to market a religion in the Middle East at that time

If you can't figure out the symbolism intended, that's your problem.

Listening to literal minds debating about great religious texts which are filled with symbol and allegory is like listening to squids debating about the best method of farming aspargus in Utah.

Martin, your delusion is that your religion is the only right one. Feel good, my friend, because there are billions out there in all the various organized religions who think the same way you do, and you will have lots of fun arguing with them, but it won't change anything.

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: number 6
Date: 29 Dec 05 - 10:37 PM

What's the meaning of it's theological symbolism LH ?

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: number 6
Date: 29 Dec 05 - 10:39 PM

I should add I think there is nothing wrong in questioning and even doubting a facit of one's religion.

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 29 Dec 05 - 10:41 PM

No religion is "right"

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: number 6
Date: 29 Dec 05 - 10:42 PM

Geeeez Clinton ... there's always one in a crowd.

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Dec 05 - 10:54 PM

Spiritual texts are usually talking about spiritual matters, as opposed to physical matters. They don't NEED to talk about physical matters much. The language is symbolic. Her "virginity" was symbolic of the state of her consciousness. It was very pure. Purer than in most people. Is that really so hard to understand?

It is asinine to argue about whether someone had a "virgin" pregnancy in the physical sense, but it is not asinine to assert that the mother of a particularly enlightened soul might have herself had a purer than usual state of consciousness...in order to serve as a host for that soul.

If all you believe in is physicality, then spiritual writings will be opaque or foolish to you and will make no sense whatsoever.

Religions have always, historically, allowed the common people to have simple, literal faith (frequently in highly unlikely or impossible things), while the adepts in the spiritual disciplines (such as the mystery schools in Egypt during Christ's time) knew well enough to look beyond the literal and graps the symbols intended.

Let me tell you what a very wise man once told me. I asked him what he thought about the "immaculate conception". He smiled, and said,

"ALL conception is immaculate."

And he most certainly did NOT mean that it didn't involve sex! He meant that it is a pure movement of divine energy (moving through the physical human structures of man and woman, sperm, egg, etc) which enables conception to occur...and THAT is completely holy and immaculate...regardless of what idiotic negative ideas various people may have acquired about sex being dirty, sex outside of marriage being "illegitimate"...or their various other fearful notions of reality that they have gleaned from the prejudices of their culture.

People are incredible. They have the capability and potential of gods, but they would rather act like worms most of the time, it seems. They have completely forgotten what and who they truly are.

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Dec 05 - 10:58 PM

They might all be "part right" though, Clinton. Like you. Or me. You know, right some of the time....

They might all be describing the same elephant, but each from a different vantage point. You know that story?

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: Peace
Date: 29 Dec 05 - 11:01 PM

American poet John Godfrey Saxe (1816-1887) based the following poem on a fable which was told in India many years ago.


It was six men of Indostan
To learning much inclined,
Who went to see the Elephant
(Though all of them were blind),
That each by observation
Might satisfy his mind


The First approached the Elephant,
And happening to fall
Against his broad and sturdy side,
At once began to bawl:
"God bless me! but the Elephant
Is very like a wall!"


The Second, feeling of the tusk,
Cried, "Ho! what have we here
So very round and smooth and sharp?
To me 'tis mighty clear
This wonder of an Elephant
Is very like a spear!"


The Third approached the animal,
And happening to take
The squirming trunk within his hands,
Thus boldly up and spake:
"I see," quoth he, "the Elephant
Is very like a snake!"


The Fourth reached out an eager hand,
And felt about the knee.
"What most this wondrous beast is like
Is mighty plain," quoth he;
" 'Tis clear enough the Elephant
Is very like a tree!"


The Fifth, who chanced to touch the ear,
Said: "E'en the blindest man
Can tell what this resembles most;
Deny the fact who can
This marvel of an Elephant
Is very like a fan!"


The Sixth no sooner had begun
About the beast to grope,
Than, seizing on the swinging tail
That fell within his scope,
"I see," quoth he, "the Elephant
Is very like a rope!"


And so these men of Indostan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right,
And all were in the wrong!

Moral:


So oft in theologic wars,
The disputants, I ween,
Rail on in utter ignorance
Of what each other mean,
And prate about an Elephant
Not one of them has seen!

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: bobad
Date: 29 Dec 05 - 11:03 PM

Or they might all be using the same story to sell the snake oil.

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Dec 05 - 11:07 PM

The more immaculate mis-conceptions of modern times are that Bush is a good President and that he didn't lie.

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: number 6
Date: 29 Dec 05 - 11:08 PM

Very good LH ... but you don't have to be so 'abrupt' about it. But aren't all births pure. You didn't mention what I feel is the most important factor in regards to the 'virgin Mary' and that it brings forth the feminine side of 'man' into the big picture (i.e. God)

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: Ebbie
Date: 29 Dec 05 - 11:14 PM

There are medical records of pregnancies occurring in women whose hymens had not been broken, in fact were still present.

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: number 6
Date: 29 Dec 05 - 11:14 PM

Thanks for posting that Peace ... my father used to recite that to me and my sisters when we were very, very young. I haven't heard that since.

Again, much thanks.

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 29 Dec 05 - 11:38 PM

"They might all be "part right""

Part right is still wrong

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: number 6
Date: 29 Dec 05 - 11:43 PM

"Half of the people can be part right all of the time,
Some of the people can be all right part of the time.
But all the people can't be all right all the time
I think Abraham Lincoln said that.
"I'll let you be in my dreams if I can be in yours,"
I said that."

.... Bob Dylan exerpt from "Talkin' WWIII Blues"

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Dec 05 - 11:52 PM

My abruptness wasn't really toward you or anyone in particular, 6. I just get irritated when people subject allegorical spiritual writings (from an ancient time which used its own kind of symbolism) to the kind of modern technical literal investigation they might use to identify a fingerprint on a gun...

It's just downright silly. It's as silly as fundamentalists who believe every word in the Bible literally.

And, yes, I agree fully that Mary's role is very significant in that "it brings forth the feminine side of 'man' into the big picture (i.e. God)", as you said. Absolutely.

Religions that leave out the feminine side of divinity are missing on half the picture, in my opinion.

Yes, all births are pure. All conceptions are pure. I think, though, that the consciousness of the woman Mary was probably unusually heightened, and that's what the passages are symbolizing.

Ebbie - That's interesting, but I assume that a sperm was still presumed to be involved in those pregnancies, was it? Or was it not? A sperm can enter a womb despite the hymen being intact, can it not?

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: number 6
Date: 29 Dec 05 - 11:55 PM

I'm with ya LH ... well said! :)

"It's as silly as fundamentalists who believe every word in the Bible literally." .... and that's the danger with fundamentalists (of all religions).

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Dec 05 - 11:57 PM

Yup, sure is. Well, good night. Sweet dreams.

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: Peace
Date: 30 Dec 05 - 12:34 AM

"Some claim that the Old Testament prophecy in Isaiah 7:14 that "the Lord himself shall give you a sign: Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son" is a Greek mistranslation -- that the original Hebrew reads "young woman"(alma), not "virgin"(bethulah)."

from here.

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: dianavan
Date: 30 Dec 05 - 01:08 AM

Anyone interested in the roots of Christianity should read the link provided by Peace.

Little Hawk - Thank-you for confirming what I believed as a young child - "Her "virginity" was symbolic of the state of her consciousness."

I had no idea that virginity had a physical aspect to it. I truly believed that it meant purity of the spirit. If their was a physical aspect, I took it to mean I should take care to keep my body clean, ie: cleanliness is next to Godliness. What else is a child (who knows nothing about sexual intercourse)to believe? Maybe thats what is meant when Jesus said that to enter the kingdom of heaven, you must be as innocent as a child.

I was also taught that I was not born a sinner because I was conceived in love. I think that fits with the idea of immaculate conception.

As you must now realize, I am not a baptised Christian but since I grew up in a Christian country, I had alot of questions. Thank goodness my parents were able to help me realize that everyone has their own interpretation of the bible and that I only had to listen to my own heart to know the difference between right and wrong.

I was 10 years old when I decided that when I grew up I was going to re-write the bible in plain language that everyone could understand. I think now it will have to wait until I retire. ;>)

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: Peace
Date: 30 Dec 05 - 01:13 AM

The Bible rewritten: "Do unto other as you would have them do unto you."

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: Sandra in Sydney
Date: 30 Dec 05 - 01:56 AM

Many years ago I heard/read that the translators of the King James Bible used the word commonly used at that time for unmarried woman, because they were translating a word that meant "unmarried woman"

Dunno where or when I heard, or maybe read it, but it's one of the little snippets of knowledge that linger at the back of my mind.

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: Ebbie
Date: 30 Dec 05 - 02:35 AM

Just for clarification: Immaculate Conception as used by the Roman Catholic Church does not refer to Jesus' birth at all but to the birth of his mother, the Virgin Mary. The church 'decided' that in order for her to be an object of veneration she too had to be found free of sin.

Just as the day of Mary's birth is 'assumed' to be on a particular day, chosen, in other words, to be 'Assumption Day'.

Oh, what webs we weave...

Yes, Little Hawk. Given the chance, sperm can get inside the vaginal canal and on into the womb- the hymen is NOT a solid wall, which explains why girls and women can menstruate while virginal.

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: GUEST,sorefingers
Date: 30 Dec 05 - 03:25 AM

Humm won't that upset a lot of historians who say 'he' had brothers?, and one called James was older???

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: Pied Piper
Date: 30 Dec 05 - 07:43 AM

Season's greetings folks, lets not forget the council of Nicea in 325 AD, which Constantine organised to get the messy collection of ideas in the "Christian" Mystery religion into good Roman order.
By this time Christians made up most of the civil administration of the Roman Empire and persecution was no longer an option without paralyzing tax collection, so Constantine came up with the idea of fusing Christianity with Mithraism another mystery religion. Now Mithraism was the religion of the legions, so by combining the two he got the Army and the civil service batting for the same side.

Mithras

This of cause is not just true of the "New Testament" but the rest of the Bible was begged borrowed or stolen from other cultures; it's monotheism and concept of a Messiah from Akhenaton's Egypt, it's flood story from Babylon and lots of other ideas from the Canaanites.

Have a good New Year

PP

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: GUEST,A
Date: 30 Dec 05 - 08:44 AM

Well, this stayed pretty serious and a good thread!

Little Hawks' 10:54PM amd 11:52PM posts deserve a second reading. Good on Dianavan too. (and even Peace)

As I get older I find a few questions popping up. My initial preschool was probably "Sunday School" and it went on from there.
I am somewhat bothered by the strong Evangelicals who maintain a non-wavering stance and this includes their position on "Gay marriage". While in most religions there can be no such thing, they are still trying to get laws passed (done in some states) to prevent it. GWB and I are so far apart on that. The'Defense of Marriage act' being passed in states is an oxymoron. Three percent of the population who cannot procreate while ignoring a divorce rate approaching 50 percent which has a terrible effect on us all.

Sorry, sorta' got off subject here but the actions of many Evangelicals has steered me towards the concept of one God for all. If he 'created' all this stuff, why not allow for multiple religions as who better than God to know that we wouldn't agree on much of anything to start with.

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: Rapparee
Date: 30 Dec 05 - 08:48 AM

Just as the day of Mary's birth is 'assumed' to be on a particular day, chosen, in other words, to be 'Assumption Day'.

Nope, sorry Ebbie. The Feast of the Assumption celebrates the assumption of Mary bodily into Heaven -- ie., she didn't die and was buried, but was taken up bodily ("assumed") when her life was o'er.

The statement about the Immaculate Conception is correct and, in my original post, wasn't thinking clearly (I was just back from DC, a place that fogs minds). The idea that Jesus of Nazareth was conceived without the a man's help comes from the statements made at the Annunciation (the angel comes and gives Mary a Great Big Surprise) and the idea that she was virgo intacta before and after giving birth is called (obviously) the "Virgin Birth."

(Just because I was raised Catholic and had 18 years or so of Catholic education doesn't mean that I can swallow everything that church teaches. As my wife, similarily raised and educated says, "They made a big mistake -- they taught us to think.")

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: PeteBoom
Date: 30 Dec 05 - 08:51 AM

Half marks, Ebbie. The Immaculate Conception does indeed refer to Mary having been conceived and born without original sin (take *THAT* Augustine!) However, the Assumption of Mary has naught to do with her birth. It marks her being assumed into heaven, rather than have her body "suffer corruption" in the grave.

PP - I wondered when Mithras would enter the fray (so to speak).

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Dec 05 - 09:25 AM

Right on, Pied Piper, and others. Good contributions all the way around here.

You know, I have never doubted that Jesus brought forth great spiritual truths, and had great inner spiritual power and wisdom...but...

I have tremendously doubted that the historical Christian Bible is a wholly accurate or entirely trustworthy source of information ABOUT Jesus. It's a politically tampered-with bunch of documents written by a whole bunch of different people who all had their own particular ax to grind at their own particular time...and edited by other politically motivated people after that! It's helpful in learning about Jesus, but it is far from totally reliable.

When people take the Bible (or the Q'ran or any other ancient religious text) literally they are doing so for no other reason than that somebody they trusted when they were young and impressionable taught them to. Thus are the misconceptions of the fathers passed on the the sons, yea, even unto the 700th generation! ;-) And thus are the religious wars and pogroms inflicted on humanity.

The only way to know something spiritual for certain is to experience it yourself. Directly. (Even then, it may only apply to you.) All else is merely opinion...and human culture is largely arbitrary opinions based upon unthinking imitation of what went before. Monkey see, monkey do. That's why human society is so bizarre, and why it frequently imbues stark insanity with honor, respect, and major financial and political backing.

A wholly sane being does not build a hydrogen bomb nor does he devote vast amounts of national resources yearly to planning how to best slaughter his fellow human beings by waging war upon them. Nor does he destroy precious arable land to build more housing subdivisions and shopping centres. Spiritual wisdom would not countenance such nonsense.

Spirituality is very kind and very simple in its needs and its practices. The human ego/mind is fantastically complex, terrifically competitive, and utterly ruthless when it experiences fear (which is almost all the time). Our organized religions on this planet have spent 98% of their time servicing the imagined needs and insatiable ambitions of the human ego/mind, and the remaining 2% giving scant recognition to genuine spiritual truth.

As for science, without an awareness of the spiritual purpose behind this life it is lost. It's an eye that sees and measures and describes, but does not comprehend. It can only tell you what is happening and how...it describes the mechanisms of things, but it can't tell you why. If you don't know "why" you exist, why everything is as it is, then you have no real sense of meaning at the center of your existence. That leads to psychological emptiness. That can lead further to nihilism, hedonism, criminality, and despair.

If you wish to rise no further than to be a cleverly intelligent and glib talking animal...with appetites...who can "win" arguments and impress people...then science may seem like enough...until you get old and your body begins to fall apart on you. The pleasures of life then diminish radically. What then happens to your sense of meaning?

Both the traditional churches and the hallowed halls of science have to a great extent failed in giving people what they truly need...a sense of the sacred meaning at the heart of life which does not in any way deny the observable physical realities of our brief existence here.

They have each done so in their arrogance and exclusivity, imagining that their very fragmentary and selective chosen view of reality was..."all there is to know about the matter"...and..."the only valid approach to discerning reality".

That is why we live in such an alienated time. Our culture's innate sense of inner meaning and value has collapsed, destroyed by giving people the barren and useless choice between either:

1. irrational religions (belief without reason)

or:

2. a scientific/commercial mindset that espouses a form of fragmented, purely pragmatic rationality that is devoid of spiritual wisdom (a mind without a heart).

When your life is only about making more money, having more things, gaining more approval and recognition from others, having better sex....or....engaging in fanatical ritualized behaviours and beliefs, as specified by some bunch of religious rules laid down in an ancient book by a God you don't know personally but have only heard of...then your sense of meaning has devolved into a tale told by either an ethical barbarian or a madman.

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: Emma B
Date: 30 Dec 05 - 09:28 AM

Unfortunately the word 'maiden' can be translated correctly as a young woman, an unmarried woman or, indeed, a virgin. You pays your money......

Incidently, trying to get a camel through the eye of a needle was a similar linguistic disaster - it should have been a rope in fact - a difficult if nigh impossible task but at least a better metaphor

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: Donuel
Date: 30 Dec 05 - 09:39 AM

A virgin birth story was the only excuse they could come up with to side step the born out of wedlock scandal.
Illegitimacy was taboo.
It is still a death sentence for some women in the region today.
Later the "miracle" played into the hands of religious leaders as "proof" of god's special power.

If you think about it...
As a result of the immaculate conception doctrine teachings like "In heaven as it is on Earth" and "In god's image" applies to everything about god except for fucking.
how sad.

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Dec 05 - 10:33 AM

So, Donuel, you figure they weren't legally married in that society? Hmmm. I kind of doubt that. Old men often married quite young women in those times...since it was considered that what one must do with a daughter, at all cost, was get her married to someone substantially placed as soon as was reasonably expedient. Joseph seemed to be making a reasonable living as a carpenter, so he was suitable.

But...I can't say for sure they were legally married. I'll tell you what I think marriage really is: It's not a question of legality. It's a spiritual bond. It has nothing to do with a license, the sanction of church and government, or anyone else's opinion about the couple whatsoever. If the bond of love is genuine, the committment real, it's a marriage.

So in my terms at least, and in a what could be termed a godly sense...they were married. ;-)

And sex definitely is included as part of "God's image".

Emma - I think the camel was probably chosen to emphasize the extremity of the example! Yes, a rope would have done too, but not quite as dramatic. Kind of like comparing Errol Flynn's ego (or his libido) to the size of the state of Texas, for example. Not logical, but highly evocative.

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: Ebbie
Date: 30 Dec 05 - 10:58 AM

I stand corrected. A dingerous thang is a little knowledge.

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 30 Dec 05 - 11:09 AM

Emma B 'the camel through the eye of the needle' literally 'The eye of the needle'is the gate at the South end of Jerusalem through which only pedestrians could pass...Now blocked off anyway....No Camels could pass through it because it was not big enough! Best wishes, Mike.

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: Pied Piper
Date: 30 Dec 05 - 11:47 AM

Eye of a needle

I agree with your assessment of organised religion and it's total failure of modern people but yet again I don't recognise your description of science and scientists. Individual Scientist are generally motivated by a fascination with how a very small part of the Universe works, but the activity is a social one involving a great deal of cooperation and sharing of ideas between people that derive a lot of joy from their pursuit of truth (however fleeting). This to me is basically not ego led but what you might call a "spiritual" purpose. That doesn't mean that Scientists aren't as flawed as the rest of us just that Science works best that way.
I don't see Science as modern invention of the western world but an extension of the innate natural ability and drive of human beings to understand the world around us in all it's complexity and beauty.

This for me is enough.

And so far I have not surrendered to Nihilism, despair, or Criminality, all though I do like a touch of hedonism every now and again.

All the best for 2006

PP

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: Once Famous
Date: 30 Dec 05 - 11:52 AM

OK, so if you goys believe all of this stuff, why are so many campaigning so hard against Intelligent Design?

Please realize, Jews could care less if you think we are going to hell for not believing Jesus is the wherewithall. I will never say that he wasn't a good man, for he was. But his old man might have really been the milkman or the mailman.

People do not have babies without being impregnated the normal way in unless test tubes were used 2000 years ago.

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: Pied Piper
Date: 30 Dec 05 - 12:09 PM

Go and play with your train set Martin.

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: GUEST,G
Date: 30 Dec 05 - 12:10 PM

I don't remember exactly how long ago this happened, a dozen years or so ago, when a AstroPhysicist friend of mine attend a major, major conference intended to explain the final analysis of the "Big Bang Theory."

He was wandering around after the final day of this multi-day conference and got within earshot of several reporters and the primary moderator of the conference. He listened to several comments from one of the reporters who, he said, it was evident that the reporter was overwhelmed with the scope of the theory. The final comment he heard fom the moderator to the reporter was "Well, you gotta' have faith".

Subject: RE: BS: Immaculate mis-conception
From: GUEST,Knowall.
Date: 30 Dec 05 - 12:48 PM

Martin Gibson. The Messiah was promised in Isiah and Jesus fulfilled the criteria, so please tell me why Jews fail to recognise Him as what he undoubtably is, was, and ever shall be!