Search results

The honest absurdity is that after giving birth to the Lord , mary remained a virgin. Especially concerning a biological/anatomical literal plain meaning definition of virgin. Thankyou for sharing your beliefs. There's no need for repetitive long post about topics that have nothing to do with...

Jesus opening the womb also entails that due to his birth Mary is no longer a virgin. Which is a very basic understanding of what "came in the flesh" means. Something that is denied by certain sects and calls into question why a further denial of joseph and mary consummating the marriage after...

The op made no such claim. You are reacting based on a defense mechanism due to the instilled dogmatic oath. The op only mentioned brothers.

I'll have to presume that your evasion is a resound NO to my que. Meaning you deny Yeshua "came in the flesh". A very basic understanding is that the Lord is concieved of The Holy Spirit. Mary carried him in the flesh for Nine months of gestation. Then came the birth. All of which entails...

Opps, Sorry about that. I misread croquet as cricket. The allegory kind of works though heheh.

Virgin birth is a no to "Yeshua came in the flesh". Did he break/openeth the matrix? Exodus 13:12 Yes or No will suffice.

https://bible.knowing-jesus.com/topics/Too-Many-Words

Think about the physical stature differentiated between goliath and david. Then consider what is said of david being a man after The Most High in his heart. Stone and bread. David spoke to the stone unlike moshe and delivered a promise. When Yeshua spoke of stones raised. Consider the stones...

And more Revelation 1:8

Yes. It's an interesting sport similar to baseball in that there is a batter and pitcher. Yet the fielders catch the ball with their bare hands. Though the history of the interaction has many controversies concerning Britain and India. I respect the virility of players who enjoy the challenge...

Because This is the "Christianity Theology Forum". Ephesians 4:25 And a tennet of said theology is to truthfully represent scripture including ole sh'aul expounding in his letter to the romans

Where, why, and how maccabees claims a surgical reversal of circumcision shows that there is very little if not zero integrity or veracity to the account in whole. Physical circumcision is permanent. Matthew 3:9 Blessed be The Holy One

Do you believe Yeshua(Jesus) came in the flesh? Yes or No will suffice [ Therefore each of you must put off falsehood and speak truthfully to your neighbor, for we are all members of one body.]

Both

Spiritually yes. But not a physical surgery as maccabees claims.

Matthew 5:33-34 When a person is bound by oath and creed there is no way to reach them. Especially those that deny Yeshua came in the flesh. The benefit of communicating the Truth here and now is for the readers. Stay the course pollard. Blessings Always

By "Early church councils" I suppose you mean the Romans. That is what is very suspect in my opinion. Along with the supposed historians that followed. There is no such thing as reversing or covering circumcision ever mention in Torah, Hebrew halacha, or history. Blessed be The Truth

I am showing you evidence for the reason I don't see any connection between Daniel and maccabees. And a plausible explanation as to why the books are excluded from the Hebrew TaNaKh. Blessings Always

Reverse circumcision surgery. Excerpt; [ Foreskin restoration is of ancient origin and dates back to the reign of the Roman Emperor Tiberius (AD 14-37),] Coincidence that Rome is the originator?