A picture of a pretty, young, slim smiling lady standing on the stairs.
Letter:
Salut! Honestly I do not know what is usually written in such a situation. I just sat in the park, watching the passing sweet couple .... I think why not? This year I turn 26 years old, I think a good age for long-term relationship. My name is Svetlana. I hope to open response, as if it does not sound strange. They gave me your email in the agency, "The lonely Hearts" may sound silly,but I hope that it will return results. Please reply to me on my personal e-mail: svetisvet@ymail.com Have a nice day, hope see you soon... Svetlana!
The only thing is the above story supposedly records a single conversation. The angel hitting contradicting with the second statement with what he said in the first. He doesn't reveal more. He contradicts.
In ancient Jewish beliefs God was present at the conception of every legitimate child, hence the mention of the power of the Most High. God opened and closed the wombs. So the statement that the Spirit will come upon Mary simply meant she would legitimately conceive by her husband.
If you clicked on this thread don't blame me! It was your choice, so don't go on about how boring religion is. No need to be here.
Many of you have relatives who are devote Christians. I am giving you some info that may help you to open their eyes.
Oh, and this is indeed a dating site, I know, no need to remind me. If you think the subject is inappropriate, then ask the moderators to remove the religion/spirituality section from the forums, for as long as they are there this subject is appropriate. You will debate and people will learn about you more than from your profile. So in the end it has something to do with dating.
Now I put forward that I am an adoptionist in doctrine , so I don't believe the birth narratives are original anyway, no matter how nice these stories are and how engraved they are in our Christmas culture . So here are the verses, the two paragraphs are contradictory:
Luke 1: 30 But the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary; you have found favor with God. 31 You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you are to call him Jesus. 32 He will be great and will be called the son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, 33 and he will reign over Jacob’s descendants forever; his kingdom will never end.”
34 Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I am a virgin?” 35 The angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy child shall be called the son of God. 36 And behold, even your relative Elizabeth has also conceived a son in her old age; and she who was called barren is now in her sixth month. 37 For nothing will be impossible with God.”
The angel has just told Mary "behold, you WILL conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name Him Jesus". Notice, no timing is given. Just as with Abraham, God announces the event ahead of time, but with no indication about WHEN the event will take place. In that context Mary's question sounds quite foolish: "How can this be, since I am a virgin?” - lit. "I know not a man". The angel did not tell her that she HAS conceived, but that she WILL. She was betrothed to Joseph, her legal husband, and she knew that one day they would be together.
The expressions "the Holy Spirit will come upon you" and "the power of the Most High will overshadow you" are simply saying the same thing twice, which often occurs in Jewish writings and used for emphasis (funny that these two expressions actually identify the Holy Spirit with the "power of the Most High", rather than with the Most High Himself, yet, trinitarians ignore it).
Then the angel makes the statement: "for that reason the holy child shall be called the son of God".
In the first paragraph the angel stated that Mary would conceive, give birth and name her child Jesus. No mention of him being the son of God. But then he will be great AND will be called the son of the Most High. The title "son of God" is related to his greatness, that is, it is his righteous life that guarantees him this title, not his birth.
Therefore, the second paragraph contradicts the first. Considering other resources there is a strong internal evidence that these verses are spurious. Do we have ANY manuscript evidence to back it up? The manuscript evidence is weak. However, there seem to be new manuscript discoveries every decades. Once day we may discover fragments that will shed more light on this passage. Until then I think it is appropriate to question a passage when internal evidence is against it, and ignore it for doctrine.
Now AA will come and tell me the bible has no proof, etc
I think there is more proof than for most other ancient texts.
Which Jesus do you believe in? There are a few of them around. One of them was the patrilinear son of king David, the other was fabricated by the Greeks and supposedly had a virgin birth...
Russian bride sammer - enlightening times (multipart)
I know a Svetlana and she is nice also :-)Probably I should have removed that part...