The Translation Games
Signs and Wonders

He who sits in the heavens

When the New Testament documents fell into Greek, and subsequently Latin, hands, the teachings underwent a change in accordance with the predilections of those particular nationalities. Because their minds were set in the key of a different structure, they projected into the documents their own prevailing national religions.

Doctrines were crystallised by the disputes among early Gentile church fathers who looked into the Pool of Narcissus (the scriptures), saw themselves imaged there, and then projected this, their own image, upon the world through the medium of ecclesiastical councils called by Roman Emperors from 325AD onwards.

They had no stomach for the stark reality that Jesus of Nazareth was not the son of the man to whom his mother was betrothed so they created 'Jesus Christ'.  Far from being fashioned in the 'image of God' (Genesis.1:27), this new god-man, born of a virgin, was fashioned according to their image, their likeness, their values, and their delusions of grandeur.

Christendom bears the image, not of the mind of Jesus and the character of the Supreme Being, but of early Gentile theology.

We are assured, however, that this state of affairs will not be permitted to continue forever: that it is God's anointed Jesus who will reign, not the paganised 'Jesus Christ' of the Christian Churches.

"Why do the nations rage, and the peoples plot a vain thing?
The kings of the earth take a stand, and the rulers take counsel together, against Yahweh, and against his Anointed, saying,
Let us break their bonds apart, and cast their cords from us.
He who sits in the heavens will laugh. The Lord will have them in derision.
Then he will speak to them in his anger, and terrify them in his wrath:
I have set my king on my holy hill of Zion." (Psalm 2:1-6)

Of course the Virgin Birth doctrine then spawned a host of theological problems that could only be solved by the adoption of yet more false doctrines...the Miraculous Incarnation, the Trinity...Original Sin...

I refer to my previous statement in 'The Smashing of the Tablets':

"According to Islam, every single word of the Qur'an is an 'exact' reproduction of tablets existing eternally in heaven. Unfortunately for Islam, the redactors of the Qur'an THOUGHT that the 'Virgin Birth' doctrine was based on the New Testament.

It was included in the Qur'an, and even enlarged upon, to enhance the Qur'an's claim to be a 'further revelation' from Allah.

Thus, by binding itself intimately to the Christian scriptures, the Qur'an could also partake in the enormous clout and authority invested in those scriptures by the Christian world..."

Now that is has been conclusively demonstrated that the doctrine of the Virgin Birth IS NOT based on the New Testament, the 'virgin Mary' sections of the Qur'an are revealed as fabrications of man, not as revelations from the God of truth.

That so many, for so long, have been seduced into worshipping the old pagan deities instead of the God of Jesus of Nazareth must surely be the pinnacle of the subtlety of the serpent.

This wraps up our Virginity on Trial series.

Coming up...Trinity on Trial

Comments

Mark Tubbs

Well, you've done it. You've singlehandedly wiped Christian belief off the map because you've "demonstrated conclusively that the doctrine of the Virgin birth..." etc. etc.

Vynette, I've read your post at Challies.com and responded to it. I'm not interested in carrying on a war of words and wit with you, but...

You have not demonstrated anything conclusively, and claiming you have simply discredits your argument. And the fact that you would consider your arguments 'irrefutable' because no one has taken the time to rebut them is beyond the pale! The logicians and rhetoricians of the ages are surely turning over in their graves.

All for now.

vynette

Mark, thanks for your comments.

You remarked that "The logicians and rhetoricians of the ages are surely turning over in their graves."

It brought to my mind, irresistibly, the conviction that one who would certainly be turning in his grave, if he were indeed in a grave, is the man in whose name so much wickedness has been perpetrated and about whom so many false doctrines have been preached.

What will he say, I wonder, if he does 'return?'

You also said: "You have not demonstrated anything conclusively, and claiming you have simply discredits your argument. And the fact that you would consider your arguments 'irrefutable' because no one has taken the time to rebut them is beyond the pale!"

If my claims are beyond the pale, then you easily demonstrate this by offering a rebuttal. Please feel free to show me where I am in error.

Vynette


The comments to this entry are closed.