Zone1 Mary's sinlessness

[BreezeWood]

In the minds of hardcore Christians, the punishment still fits the crime. That at least can't be denied.

Sometimes you have to go backwards before you can go forward.

the opening scene of the 1st century and throughout those events is the repudiation of judaism as a false religion - proven by the choice by the heavens of mary who did not fear judaism, their false commandments and never denied having sex on her own terms for reasons of her own choice.

 

[BreezeWood]

I'm happy for you to believe anything you want ... Because I won't be the one who has to experience those consequences.

you prove again ...

to be insincere and a liar when the extent of the vernacular is taken into account.

 

[BreezeWood]

Jesus was not born in sin ...

true, mary and joseph were not influenced or feared judaism, their false narrative concerning a&e who choose self determination instead of servitude and denial ...

the same path mary and joseph decided to follow and were blessed by the heavens.

 

[ding]

the opening scene of the 1st century and throughout those events is the repudiation of judaism as a false religion - proven by the choice by the heavens of mary who did not fear judaism, their false commandments and never denied having sex on her own terms for reasons of her own choice.

 

[ding]

you prove again ...

View attachment 1018974

to be insincere and a liar when the extent of the vernacular is taken into account.

Is that your satanic cult burning Christians?

 

[Donald H]

I don't know. An art major might be able to weigh in, or even better an art historian. I can associate Leonardo DaVinci with the Mona Lisa and the Last Supper, but off hand, that's about all. I never knew he blurred lines in his art work (not just one piece) and that he was known for it. Therefore, I wouldn't know why he sometimes did this.

DaVinci painted The Last Supper in the late 1400s. I doubt verbal evidence could have been past on to a single man without it appearing in other places as well.

If you want my wild and uninformed guess, that guess is that DaVinci noted those who were--or who he thought might be--homosexuals. That might be a reason for his works blurring the lines between the sexes. Why might Leonardo think that of John? John was at the breast of Jesus (a place of honor) at the Last Supper. John never married. John often referred to himself as the disciple Jesus loved. Reading scripture, DaVinci may have jumped to his own conclusions.

I think you're suggesting that Leonardo's Last Supper was a complete shot in the dark for him, as he had no way of determining the physical appearance of any of them That is, only judging their personal appearances from their performances? However, I have no idea whether he thought John was gay, or a woman.
I'm no further ahead on the question, but thanks for your effort!

 

[ding]

I think you're suggesting that Leonardo's Last Supper was a complete shot in the dark for him, as he had no way of determining the physical appearance of any of them That is, only judging their personal appearances from their performances? However, I have no idea whether he thought John was gay, or a woman.
I'm no further ahead on the question, but thanks for your effort!

Isn't that true for any event in antiquity that is being visually recreated at a later date either through a painting, play or movie? It seems like an insignificant point to me. Why do you think it is important?

 

[Donald H]

Isn't that true for any event in antiquity that is being visually recreated at a later date either through a painting, play or movie?

No. Even depictions of early man can be created using the fossil evidence, and other science that tells us something about their environment.
For another example, depictions of Adam and Eve must be extremely inaccurate!

It seems like an insignificant point to me. Why do you think it is important?

It's important enough to you too because you interpret the question as a challenge to your beliefs. Meri doesn't. If you need to question further, don't do it with me. I have no answers other than what I've already suggested to Meri.

 

[ding]

No. Even depictions of early man can be created using the fossil evidence, and other science that tells us something about their environment.
For another example, depictions of Adam and Eve must be extremely inaccurate!

What do you mean no? Did you watch the movie The Ten Commandments? Do you really believe Moses looked like Charlton Heston?

Did the Ramses really look like Yule Brenner?

Are you stupid or something?

 

[ding]

It's important enough to you too because you interpret the question as a challenge to your beliefs. Meri doesn't. If you need to question further, don't do it with me. I have no answers other than what I've already suggested to Meri.

Actually I am arguing it's not important to me. I don't interpret it as a challenge to my beliefs. I'm not stupid enough to believe recreations of events from antiquity are supposed to be historical documents.

But what you didn't say was why it was important to you. Don't you know that answer? So why is it important to you?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Am I supposed to tilt at every windmill you find offensive?

No! Just your honest opinion that their nonsense is nonsense does fine.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

My point is that if you don't believe the story, why change the story instead of simply saying, "This never happened in any shape or form." What is the purpose of changing the story of a miracle into a story of a rape?

What's the purpose of changing the story of rape into the story of a miracle?

That's the question.

 

[Donald H]

What do you mean no? Did you watch the movie The Ten Commandments? Do you really believe Moses looked like Charlton Heston?
View attachment 1019025

Did the Ramses really look like Yule Brenner?
View attachment 1019027

Are you stupid or something?

The depictions of them by actors chosen would be accepted more readily than having Tiny Tim, the singer of tip toe thru the tulips, employed for the job.

 

[Donald H]

Actually I am arguing it's not important to me. I don't interpret it as a challenge to my beliefs. I'm not stupid enough to believe recreations of events from antiquity are supposed to be historical documents.

But what you didn't say was why it was important to you. Don't you know that answer? So why is it important to you?

Take it up with somebody who is still interested. I've moved on a while ago.

 

[ding]

The depictions of them by actors chosen would be accepted more readily than having Tiny Tim, the singer of tip toe thru the tulips, employed for the job.

So you are agreeing with me. That's the first smart thing you have done today.

 

[ding]

Take it up with somebody who is still interested. I've moved on a while ago.

More likely it's that you don't want to say it because you know how much of a shit stain it would make you look like.

 

[ding]

No! Just your honest opinion that their nonsense is nonsense does fine.

The only one bringing that nonsense to me was YOU. As far as I'm concerned you are the problem.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The only one bringing that nonsense to me was YOU. As far as I'm concerned you are the problem.

That's right. That's what the world hears. From the religious folks.

 

[BreezeWood]

... is the repudiation of judaism as a false religion - proven by the choice of the heavens for mary who did not fear judaism, their false commandments and never denied having sex on her own terms for reasons of her own choice.

- heavenly ordination is not good enough for bing the crucifier found in their own bible the opening scene of the 1st century.

 

[BreezeWood]

What's the purpose of changing the story of rape into the story of a miracle?

That's the question.

because mary was not raped and was not afraid of the liar moses and judaism and is praised by the heavens for her courage and chosen path of self determination than servitude and denial.