show_no_mercy

How do you know that?

I get it. So when you assert that Mary was a virgin before, during, and after childbirth, you mean the complete opposite.

Fiction sure is fun, but I find the reference section much more enlightening.

Not according to the Protevangelium of James.

So you've first said that Joseph (in the gospels) is not Mary's husband but her father. To correct the contradiction between two canonical gospels who say that Joseph was Mary's husband, you claim that his real name was Joachim and (according to the P. James) he was thus Mary's father.

Why should we believe the P. of James? It is a late 2nd century work that already presupposes Jesus' miraculous birth from a virgin; explaining why this particular virgin was so special to earn the right to be the θεοτόκος.

At this point, any intelligent person would be wondering how you've verified any of your sources.

And so you expect us to do the same with your shenanegins?

I'm surprised you haven't brought up the Toledot Yeshu. That, in and of itself, seems much more plausible (and Jewish) than your ideas.

Sheshbazzar

Oh the irony of it!!!
And this from the guy that is going to tell us the 'facts'!!!???
He 'reads' what he wants to 'read'.

:banghead::hysterical:

Littlejohn

It's simple: THROUGH THE SEARCH!.....

Listen me.... The Virgin Mary has had THREE CHILDREN: Jesus, Judas Thomas and James the 'minor' or 'the just'. Ergo, in the face of the one even a child would understand that Mary, at the maximum, can be remained a virgin of ears only !!... (perhaps even of 'ass'...)

Mary was a virgin, in the sense that you mean, until the day of her first sexual intercourse (as with every woman who comes into the world!). After that, whatever may have been the meaning of the 'Virgin' term, it certainly had no reference to the physical integrity of Mary, even if the counterfeiters fathers have wanted us to believe just that!

This is the main reason why I tell you to do very careful what I write. 'Joachim' WAS NOT the real name of the father of the Virgin Mary, who instead was JOSEPH!.. His mother, ie the wife of Joseph, was not named 'Anna', as reported in the protoevangelium, but had another name.

The catholic counterfeiter fathers misrepresent all, ie falsified the names of the two characters, to try to make it impossible to reconstruct the actual descendants of Jesus and his carnal brothers. The fact that some 19 centuries have passed since everything was done, without that no one has yet managed to reveal the deception, is a sign that the work of forgers was 'optimal'!

Do you know what it wants mean the 'proto' term?... It means that it was used for the composition of the successive canonical gospels, whose authors quite probably were inspired by that text, mystifying and manipulating 'ad-hoc' all that they thought it was appropriate manipulate! ... Maybe the version of the Proto-Evangelium of James we know today, it is not even the original one, because most probably it was corrupted by scribes Catholics on the precise arrangement of their 'saints' chiefs.

"..explaining why this particular virgin was so special to earn the right to be the θεοτόκος.."

Having determined, in a quite arrogant and arbitrary way, that Jesus was a 'God', to define the Virgin Mary θεοτόκος was a step entirely 'natural' and taken for granted ....

The sources you will can check 'de visu' when will be published (as I hope) the book that I'm slowly composing. Before that moment, I'm afraid you should limit you to just read what I write and, possibly, to advance constructive criticism, which are not the ones you have been carrying up to now !....

If you think I have anything against the 'Toldoth Yeshu', then thou are 'arrived'! ... It's just 'thanks to this text, in fact, that about 10 or 11 years ago I managed to find the 'key' that allowed me to unravel the whole tangled skein of 'wires', as it appear the truth concealed for so long, too much also, by the forger clergy...


Littlejohn

.

Littlejohn

And you understand what you want to understand: c'est a dire ZERO!

The exegetical is a thing for adult people ... it does not for you ... I advise you to drop everything and go back to playing with 'Big Jim'! ..


Greetings


Littlejohn

.

WVIncagold

Better use a proof reader, because your writing is atrocious. Typical bullshit claims. you have the truth nobody else in 2000 years has and your are composing a "book" to reveal these supposed truths, yet you can’t/ won’t point to a single source. Dunning Kruger anyone? Sorry we do not find your word sufficient to change a view we hold. But regardless you are talking about Magic poofism when it comes virgin births. Magic does not happen, period. Sorry but without a single shred of evidence cited your entire posts are interpreted as nothing more than the rambling delusions of another wannabe prophet who opened his bible and that search led him to all these wondrous information that no one else seems able to find. As far as we know you could be reading tea leaves and you’re basing all your research on that. Considering the propensity of Xian’s to warp reality to their whims for Jesus we tend to not take your word for anything.

Toto

Littlejohn composes in Italian and runs his text through a machine translator. I have given up trying to make sense of it.

Littlejohn

"..Better use a proof reader, because your writing is atrocious.."

Here's another who prefers to attack me in terms of smoothness or comprehension of my writing, rather than the substance of the content!

An insipid pretext that explains all too well a 'certain' way of thinking ... I received extensive claims about the fact that not being also 'fluenty' my own English (at least according to English that you speak in U.S: significantly different, in my opinion, from that spoken in England, to which I'm referring, as in line with that of the British texts that I have read), but, however, it is perfectly understandable for those who want understand!

I do present that the basis of my translations is that produced by the machine translation of Google, whose program was written by American experts in computer science, which, of course, they know the one much more than you! .. I intervene only for the purpose to ensure that the translated text can be the most understandable, based on my knowledge of English. Besides, if someone responds to 'tone' to what I write, it means unequivocally that he understood very well what I write!

If you feel that my writing is not grammatically or syntactically correct, and probably in some cases it is, point out me and at the other participants in the forum, what should be the correct translation, instead of merely sterile as well as insipid criticism ....

"..Typical bullshit claims.."

For example ...?

It is possible understand even from a mile away that your intent is that of pure provocation of racist kind, like they make 'certain' Americans!....

"..yet you can't/ won't point to a single source..."

WON'T and NOT CAN'T!!........Is it clear for you the difference?

I have already explained the reason of the one a thousand times! ... For what purpose going back on that again? ... We say: 'To good connoisseur, few words'

If, instead, you think that I 'CAN NOT', well ... these are just your own business ...

"..Sorry we do not find your word sufficient to change a view we hold.."

"Sorry we.."??...What's this? .. A 'plural maestatis'?... On behalf of who are you speaking about? Of "Sheshbazzar", of "show_no_mercy" or who else? ..

NOBODY forces you to believe what I write (and that, 'strangely', you aren't able to understand ..), but this does not authorize you to impede others, who do not think like you, to judge and evaluate by serenity what I'm writing.

Contrary to what you have been able to understand (very little), you and other of the 'club', I'm well aware that there are some people here in the forum which have understood much of what I write; people who rarely intervene to write, but whose presence is constant. This is also one of the reasons which force me to be 'miser' of details ...

"..But regardless you are talking about Magic poofism.."

What's a 'poofism'?... It's obvious that I can not comment the' slang ', which I know not!

"..Magic does not happen, period..."

I have already explained that about Mary, the mother of Jesus, I don't mean the attribute 'Virgin' in the same way as you, and your 'clap', mean it.. If you are unable to understand, then refrain you from criticisms and limit yourself to just read what others write! ...

"..your entire posts are interpreted as nothing more than the rambling delusions.."

Interpreted by WHO??.... You continue to use the 'plural maestatis'!...

"..and that search led him to all these wondrous information that no one else seems able to find.."

What, exactly, do you expect to find in the texts useful to the exegetical research? ... Whole chapters that explain for 'wire and sign' things that are happened about 20 centuries ago? ... If you think that, then you're completely insane! .. If there were these texts, do you think they would be in the public domain or that otherwise would have come down to us? ... But why do not you strive to use a little common sense? .. Thus you make the chickens laugh! ...

What you can find today in the patristic texts and/or in the New Testament ones, are individual data or, if you are lucky, short phrases, which, when placed in the general context, a kind of vast mosaic that demands to be filled with suitable 'tiles ', can acquire enormous importance for the exegesis. The logical and 'environmental' approach of this data, thanks to indications and evidences in other sources, allowed me to rebuild gradually, year after year, the truth that the forger clergy has held jealously hidden for about 19 centuries .

"..As far as we know you could be reading tea leaves.."

If think the one provokes to you orgasms galore, no one impedes you from thinking about it, and, however, surely not I. ...

"..we tend to not take your word for anything.."

Ah!...I'm desolated..


Littlejohn


PS: I take this opportunity to point out that if my interventions provoke widespread impatience among readers of the forum, I can refrain from writing here.

.

Littlejohn

Please, read you the following:

All this seems to you understandable, or not? ... Because if it is understandable, then one does not explain why WVIncagold and its 'clap' keep talking about 'magic' event... Here things are two: either they understood and pretend not to understand, in order to cause, or they are unable to understand: what, this, that should encourage them to refrain to do certain insipid criticism! ..


Greetings


Littlejohn

.

Littlejohn

Thus just as it happens in the Italian language, I think that even in the English language a concept may be expressed either using idiomatic phrases or instead building such phrases with the normal means syntactic offered by the language and with its grammar rules.

It is my conviction that a person speaking in native English, should be able to understand a determinated concept, whether it is expressed by idiomatic phrases, which make sense only for a particular linguistic context, and when also this concept is expressed by phrases constructed according to the normal rules of English grammar and syntax.

In short, I believe that the use of the idiomatic expressions (or 'slang') is alternative and not excluding with respect to the use of phrases commonly constructed according to the syntactic, lexical and grammatical rules.

In case things are not so, I pray to do it known to me..


Thanks.


Littlejohn

.

Sheshbazzar

As this thread was by name addressed to questions posed to Littlejohn by me, Sheshbazzar, I continue to follow it.

Nowhere have I complained that I could not understand his 'broken' English.

I understand what Littlejohn has been asserting very well, and it is those assertions that I am questioning.

What I have been asking from the beginning is, are these asserted claims valid?

Thus far, I have remained very lenient in the examining and questioning of those replies he has given in response to my questions.

If Littlejohn does not want to, or is afraid to reveal whatever unknown 'secret sources' he is basing his particular assertions on, there really is nothing left to discuss concerning these assertions and possible scenarios, Except for the fact that all he presents here is his own otherwise unprovinenced assertions, 'possible' scenarios, and personal opinions -claimed- to be derived by an admitted 'pick and choose' method from many unidentified and unknown sources.

When asked; "And you know this 'fact' how?.."
I received a four paragraph reply whose essential substance is the assertion that Littlejohn is a better scholar, with more information, and with greater skill in the interpretation of that (unidentified) information than anyone else who has ever before examined and written concerning it.
Perhaps. Time will tell.

Perhaps someday when he finally unleashes all of his top secret, copyright protected information, he will be acclaimed as the greatest scholar of the Christian religion and its origins that the world has ever known.
Perhaps. Time will tell.

This out of the way, I'll return to my first specific question to Littlejohn regarding the real 'history' of 'Jesus of Nazareth';

What year was he born ?

Before going into examining Littlejohn's reply, I wish to point out that most who are reading this know that this question has been examined extensively by countless Biblical scholars down through the ages.
The views of these thousands of erudite Biblical scholars are readily accessible to anyone who cares to examine the details of all of the various dates and their supporting arguments.
This subject of an actual date for 'Jesus birth' has also been extensively and repeatedly discussed within these forums since their inception.

As anyone might detect, I posed Littlejohn with what is a 'loaded' question, one to which -as was expected- he replied to with an assertion of the year of birth being 6 AD.

Now, given all of the volumes of discussion and learned opinions that have been offered as to the correct, the 'possible', or the 'impossible' dates for Jesus birth, (well over a hundred have been presented)

Doesn't it make sense then to ask Littlejohn exactly what incontrovertible evidence, or what infallible sources he was able to employ to arrive at his asserted and otherwise unproven date for the real birth of his real 'historical' Jesus?
Books or information that no other scholar has access to?

Is it too much to ask that one asserting a thing as being the real 'history', (contradictory to what has been generally accepted as 'history') back up that claim with some real contemporary historical evidence?
So far Littlejohn has presented nothing of the sort.