Mary chan and Jesus kun

Mary chan and Jesus kun

Attached: 71A89203-540E-47B1-B000-F769483CE665.jpg (543x768, 148K)

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Bible#Gospels_and_Acts
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Daily reminder that Joseph was a cuck.

thanks for sharing

Cuck's watch their mates git fucked, The holy Ghost impregnated Mary without sex, and Joseph never watched an sexual act.

Nah man, your girl having another guy's baby and you raising it is the ultimate, literal act of cuckoldry.

Jesus Christ isn't just some other guy's baby, it's thee god's son, he was protecting thee god's son, it was an honor and protection ship not a sexual fetish.

God isn't really just "another guy," though, is he?

I love you Jesus, I feel safe knowing you love us all.

Attached: the-sacred-heart-of-jesus.jpg (640x903, 91K)

>worshiping the guy who knocked up your girl
>feeling honored about getting cucked
Sounds like a cuck to me.
God is the biggest guy.

Attached: 662px-Spas_vsederzhitel_sinay.jpg (662x1280, 366K)

It's still not Joseph's baby, so he's a cuck

>youre a big guy
Sorry.

God didn't really knock Mary up, He manifested inside her. There wasn't any seed (other than Mary's) involved.

>I'm not a cuck, I'm a stag!
You sound like any other cuck trying to make excuses.
Fact: Mary was pregnant and not by Joseph
Fact: Joseph raised a kid that wasn't his.
Fact: Joseph was a literal cuck.

Cuck impiles it was a sexual fetish fantasy, Sexual..

>worshiping the guy who knocked up your girl
God came to the blessed virgin mary beofre st.Joseph

>feeling honored about getting cucked
It was his duty given to him by god, god wanted him to watch over his son on earth you sexual demented twit

It's not his bio baby but He's his creator so it's like they're related.

I wouldn't worry about it too much, he was probably honored to have berm chosen to be God's Son's earthly father.

It was his duty given to him by god, god wanted him to watch over his son on earth you sexual demented twit

Lol you're obsessed have fun with that.

I wasn't trying to say Joseph was a stagg.
You're looking at this like God is just another guy and Jesus is just a normal baby.
I mean, Jesus is no one's bio child, only Mary's.

But whatever, you have psych problems and I pray you get better.

Cuck impiles it was a sexual fetish fantasy, Sexual..

God came to the blessed virgin mary beofre st.Joseph

It was his duty given to him by god, god wanted him to watch over his son on earth you sexual demented twit

>Cuck impiles it was a sexual fetish fantasy
Wrong, there doesn't need to be any fetish involved for you to be cucked.
>God came to the blessed virgin mary beofre st.Joseph
...and?

It was his duty given to him by Tyrone, Tyrone wanted him to watch over his son. Your religion is built on cuckoldry, deal with it.

Attached: LastSupperSalvadorDaliLg.jpg (600x371, 32K)

...

>praying to the bull
ayy lmao

Praise Jesus Christ, God of all.

Attached: dali_corpushypercubus1954.jpg (744x1178, 141K)

>hurr hurr i think i know comparative religion

What are you referencing, please explain, I love tearing these things down.

Attached: James_Tissot_The_Confession_of_Longinus_400.jpg (400x667, 270K)

The bull is the guy cucking your girl newfriend.

Attached: icons-10.jpg (700x509, 97K)

Oh I sorry I thought you weren't retarded for a second.

God didn't have sex with Mary.
The title "Son of God" is a metaphore for saying "of the nature of God".
He's not even God's bio kid like how you're saying, He's the embodiment of God on earth.
Also, I'm not Joseph you blithering simp, lol

Attached: image.jpg (639x902, 198K)

This is now an ortho thread

Attached: Jesus-supped-with-his-apostles.jpg (460x353, 42K)

Attached: Ba0ZUQnCEAAbFJG.jpg (422x554, 44K)

>God didn't have sex with Mary.
Doesn't matter, she was still preggers.
>The title "Son of God" is a metaphore for saying "of the nature of God".
>He's not even God's bio kid like how you're saying, He's the embodiment of God on earth.
That's a whole other can of worms since the Trinity is retarded, but in the end it doesn't change anything. God still got all up in Mary's womb.
>Also, I'm not Joseph
No, but wouldn't you feel honored if God decided to "embody" himself using your girl, like a good Christian would?

ST. Matthew
.chapter 1.
>verse 18. Now the generation of Christ was in this wise. When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child, of the Holy Ghost..

>19 Whereupon Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing publicly to expose her, was minded to put her away privately.

meaning Joseph wanted to break off the marrige, because she was with child

>20 But while he thought on these things, behold the angel of the Lord appeared to him in his sleep, saying: Joseph, son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife, for that which is conceived in her, is of the Holy Ghost.

21. And she shall bring forth a son: and thou shalt call his name JESUS. For he shall save his people from their sins.

ergo, ST. Joseph wanted to break off the marrige, because she was with child, but god wanted him too marry mary and watch over his son and protect him.

The definition of a cuckold is a man who has been cheated on by his wife or significant other. A man whose wife has cheated on him is an example of a cuckold. To cuckold is defined as to engage in an affair with someone's wife, or to have an affair on your husband.

How could Mary cheat of St.Joseph when she and god were together first

see here

>god wanted him too marry mary and watch over his son and protect him.
i.e. the bull told the cuck to be a cuck
>The definition of a cuckold is a man who has been cheated on by his wife or significant other
>When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph
Sounds like a "significant other" to me. Mary wasn't some rando, God just beat him to the punch.

>
Actually it does matter because our Mary was a virgin even after the birth.
>
It actually changes a lot of things if the nature of God's fleshly embodiment had nothing to do with sex, hence the term "immaculate," and "ever virgin Mary".
>
It'd be kind of weird, since there's already one Jesus, and I've already deflowered my wife (and the holy sign is a pregnant virgin), I'd have to assume it was a demon baby and I'd probably either kill it or let it happen to make sure it's a demon baby.

But I mean if I WAS Joseph, no i wouldn't care because I was already previously married with a bunch of kids and Mary would be my younger who I'm marrying for Jewish custom reasons.

There wasn't any sex.
You're obsessing to the point that you're either a cuck yourself or a Talmudic Jew.
Either way, I'm so sorry.

Back to Christ-posting

Attached: throne.jpg (610x450, 171K)

>Actually it does matter because our Mary was a virgin even after the birth.
Doesn't. Still had a kid that wasn't Joseph's.
>It actually changes a lot of things
Changes nothing. See above.
>I'd have to assume it was a demon baby
What if God showed up and told you that you were wrong, and to lean not on your own understanding?
>But I mean if I WAS Joseph, no i wouldn't care
That's a good cuck.

>There wasn't any sex.
Doesn't matter. God still got all up in that womb.

Attached: 1515872913518.jpg (250x202, 11K)

Can you give one good reason to believe that the Christian god exists?

everything should be made into anime

Attached: 1520805013132.jpg (831x1024, 77K)

Technically He was always there, but w/e.
Sorry your bizarre fetish keeps you from salvation.

Prophecy, the historical facts surrounding Jesus, the b testimony of His saints, the fact that it's the only consistent worldview/philosophy.

Ayy lmao, I'm not the one in a religion built on that fetish. Christian salvation is something to be actively avoided.

Attached: gala-s-christblog-1.jpg (500x495, 25K)

>The definition of a cuckold is a man who has been cheated on by his wife or significant other. A man whose wife has cheated on him is an example of a cuckold. To cuckold is defined as to engage in an affair with someone's wife, or to have an affair on your husband.

A cuck is someone who has been cheated on, god and marry were together first.. and st.joseph didn't want mary, but god wanted him to be the guarding of the holy family

>told the cuck to be a cuck
hows he a cuck, the blessed virgin marry was with god first.. and Joseph didn't want to marry her becasue of this.. But in verse 20 it says >20. But while he thought on these things, behold the angel of the Lord appeared to him in his sleep, saying: Joseph, son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife, for that which is conceived in her, is of the Holy Ghost.

Meaning God wanted St.Joseph to protect his wife and his son Jesus christ. And being a just man, did the will of god.

I feel like this picture is what pops up when you search “Asian Earl Sweatshirt”

It's actually built on the love of God and the cross. But whatever, zero in on one detail.
You focus on the sex, Muslims focus on poop and pee (when discussing Christ), and athiest focus on spaghetti or daddy issues.

I'll spit on their faces with my dick

without sex, without sex, again without any sexual impure act.. according to you having a baby without sex is still sex

Some devotional folk art

Attached: two.jpg.CROP.original-original.jpg (1065x792, 131K)

>Prophecy
Prophecies fulfilled within the Bible, self-fulfilling prophecies, and vague / generic prophecies don't count.
>the historical facts surrounding Jesus
Going from "Jesus existed" to "God exists" is an unjustified leap.
>the b testimony of His saints
Hearsay that wouldn't be a good reason even if we could talk to them ourselves. Do you believe people who say they were abducted by aliens?
>the fact that it's the only consistent worldview/philosophy
Prove it.

see here ignorant scum and here

Attached: f30058cbd287ffb50bd5becd03ea9a57.jpg (450x472, 121K)

> god and marry were together first.
Were Mary and Joseph engaged?
>Meaning God wanted St.Joseph to protect his wife and his son Jesus christ. And being a just man, did the will of god.
Cuck doing the will of the bull.

Evolutionist/big bang theorists focus on Spaghetti too

No, according to you having a baby without sex isn't having a baby. The whole point is that she had a baby that wasn't his.

Already responded to Christ-cuck.

>can't stop fantasizing about cucks.

Attached: 1511738253432.gif (326x268, 1.38M)

no, meaning st. joseph isnt a cuck.

>Cuck doing the will of the bull.
A cuck is someone who has been cheated on, god and marry were together first.. and st.joseph didn't want mary, but god wanted him to be the guarding of the holy family.

an uncucked man doing what god wants him too do, to protect his wife and his son Jesus christ
marry and god were together first before any engagement happened between marry and st. joseph

The prophecies I'm referring to are Jesus's Sacrifice and ultimate triumph over paganism, the specific sings he had, all of which were prophesied hundreds, if not thousands of years earlier. The life of the church being predicted is pretty significant. No religion has such perfect prophecy. God literally told how the Jews were going to kill him (the manner and means) like 600 years prior to them doing it. Plus all the modern prophesy being fulfilled.

It's a totally justified "leap" to say the guy who claimed to be God, performed miracles, predicted He would die and rise again and then did it actually is who He says He is.

It's not hearsay I'm referring to. I'm talking about the bloody deaths of the people who witnessed and subsequently preached His resurrection, Some of which were enemies of Christ until they saw Him risen, line Paul and James.

>prove it
I am.

>there are scientists who believe string theory

Or you could admit materialism is wrong lol

>marry and god were together first before any engagement happened between marry and st. joseph
Your view is non-Biblical. Mary became with child during the betrothal period.

Attached: 1517197140995.jpg (306x480, 26K)

>ignores arguments
>keeps cucking
>Christ-cuck, Christ-cuck, christ-cuck, christ cuck, cuck

k.

Attached: 325tfwgsgw.jpg (400x300, 455K)

He means God was already with her by that time, because He's with everyone, and His word lives in all believers.

Attached: Facebook-c01c73.png (500x766, 202K)

>The prophecies I'm referring to are Jesus's Sacrifice and ultimate triumph over paganism, the specific sings he had, all of which were prophesied hundreds, if not thousands of years earlier.
Again, prophecies fulfilled within the Bible don't count, since you can simply write the Bible in such a way that it conforms with the prophecies (which is what they did).
>Plus all the modern prophesy being fulfilled.
All vague and generic. There's a reason all the end times predictions fail.
>It's a totally justified "leap" to say the guy who claimed to be God, performed miracles, predicted He would die and rise again and then did it actually is who He says He is.
First of all, it isn't. Second of all, Jesus performing miracles and rising from the dead isn't historically accepted, merely that people claimed he did these things.
>It's not hearsay I'm referring to
Many of the Gospels are hearsay, but like I said, even direct testimony simply isn't good enough.
>I am.
Where?

>No, according to you having a baby without sex isn't having a baby.
no you can have a baby without sex, jesus christ is an example of this.

>The whole point is that she had a baby that wasn't his.
and st. joseph didn't want it, or too marry mary, but god wanted him to be the guarding of the holy family, and wanted him to mary her.

You're just repeating yourself over and over.

Attached: of-donttimindmer-the-cosmos-justcreating-the-world-and-stuff-matlipoom-3854711.png (500x752, 200K)

And you just keep blithering "cuck," though we've demostrated this is categorically inaccurate.

All Evolutionist/big bang theorists believe the universe and life is a giant Spaghetti monster.

because it isn't sinking into that thick skull of yours.

Where did you demonstrate that?

This might be news to you, seeing as you're a Christian and all, but repeating something over and over doesn't make it true or convincing.

you dont have to believe it, but at least give an intelligent argument as too why you dont.. stop being so closed minded to your own personal believes, because they're wrong.

The Bible is actually will archeologically dated, we know which scriptures were written when, so no, the idea that the Bible was forged is false.
If it's true, I challenge you to show me where they changed anything.

And I'm not neccisarily referring to end times prophecy alone, I'm talking about the ongoing spread of Christianity matching what they predicted would happen in the first century, when Christianity seemed to be on the verge of being stamped out.

Jesus resurrection isn't accepted by athiest scholars, but they all admit *something* happened. For whatever reason, 500 people or so saw the same thing; a guy who died now alive eating and drinking with them for over a month.

Gospels aren't hearsay, if you could demonstrate that claim that'd be a good start for you.

What would be a suffecient piece of evidence for you? Do we need to start at deconstructing your false presuppositions?

Here. Again.

My immediate reaction to seeing this image was to wonder if there's hentai of Mary-chan.
I really need Jesus.

>The Bible is actually will archeologically dated, we know which scriptures were written when, so no, the idea that the Bible was forged is false.
You're missing the point. The point is that the people who wrote the scriptures which would go on to become the New Testament were familiar with the Old Testament and the prophecies within it. Another thing to note is that Jews don't agree that Jesus fulfilled prophecy.
>For whatever reason, 500 people or so saw the same thing
No, what we have is a claim that 500 people or so saw the same thing. We do not have 500 eyewitness testimonies.
>Gospels aren't hearsay
They are. They were written by anonymous authors who were writing down the oral traditions of early believers.
>What would be a suffecient piece of evidence for you?
It could be that Christianity is unverifiable.
>Do we need to start at deconstructing your false presuppositions?
Even if you could, it wouldn't get you any closer to supporting your own.

Except we've already established that "having sex" isn't the important part. Keep up.

Actually most Jews at that time were not familiar with scripture, they only read it in synagogue. People were familiar and might have a book or two but not like it is today where we have it all in a collected manner.
The first Christians were all Jews and there's actually a large uprising of Jewish converts in Israel, 50000 last year iirc (oh hey just like the Bible predicted).

The fact is is that we only have historical data supporting the 500 witnesses claim. Paul invites people to meet them so they can have faith. If they weren't real people would catch on pretty quick.

Only one of the gospels has doxology or "oral tradition" (if you can call a 30 year period "tradition") and all are claimed by the authors. You're just plain wrong there, lol.

So basically you're telling me that you've already made up your mind Christianity isn't true? Even when Christ comes in glory you'll be like "yeah but how do I know hurr"? Why am I even talking to you then if you lack the ability to change your mind?

The important part is that you've got something against God, isn't it?

>People were familiar and might have a book or two but not like it is today where we have it all in a collected manner.
And Jewish scholars today still say that Jesus didn't fulfill prophecy, so I'm not sure what your point is.
>The first Christians were all Jews and there's actually a large uprising of Jewish converts in Israel, 50000 last year iirc (oh hey just like the Bible predicted).
If you can cite both the number and a passage in the Bible that says "50000 Israeli Jews will convert in 2017", I'll be impressed.
>The fact is is that we only have historical data supporting the 500 witnesses claim.
Where?
>Paul invites people to meet them so they can have faith.
After the fact, and another claim.
>Only one of the gospels has doxology or "oral tradition" (if you can call a 30 year period "tradition") and all are claimed by the authors.
Actually you are the one who is wrong here. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Bible#Gospels_and_Acts
>So basically you're telling me that you've already made up your mind Christianity isn't true?
No, I'm telling you that I have no reason to believe that Christianity is true and it could be that no reason could ever be given.
>Even when Christ comes in glory you'll be like "yeah but how do I know hurr"?
My first impulse would probably be to think I'm hallucinating.
>Why am I even talking to you then if you lack the ability to change your mind?
Why are you talking to me if you can't prove Christianity is true?

To be a cuck, he'd have to raise someone else's baby. Jesus was his wife's baby, with no one else involved. God is involved in all baby births, he doesn't count.

There are just as many messianic Jews who would contradict them.

The passage is something like "they'll gather in unbelief, then come to the Lord again before judgement," or something. Anyways.

The evidence for the 500 is that Paul made the declaration, and no one ever contradicted it. The evidence is on my side here, all you can do is suppose and doubt, you don't have anything physical to back you up.

The authors wrote them anonymously at first to avoid getting killed but the reason we know who wrote it is because it was known in the circles of Christians who the apostles were.
And the idea that we can't know who wrote the gospels is a very recent one due to the popularity of liberalism and atheism (the two go together).

Consider this: the Talmudic Jews don't claim Jesus didn't perform miracles and rise from the dead, it was such a big deal everyone knew about it. To them, the events happened, even though they despised Christ.

Christ is the proof of Christianity and I keep pointing you to Him.

>"they'll gather in unbelief, then come to the Lord again before judgement," or something
That's not impressive.
>all you can do is suppose and doubt
Which is what we should do.
>you don't have anything physical to back you up.
Neither do you. Even if it was actually the case that you had 500 people willing to say that they witnessed something, that still isn't physical evidence.
>The authors wrote them anonymously at first to avoid getting killed but the reason we know who wrote it is because it was known in the circles of Christians who the apostles were.
At least several of the Gospels were not written by the apostles. Even Christians admit to this.
>Consider this: the Talmudic Jews don't claim Jesus didn't perform miracles and rise from the dead, it was such a big deal everyone knew about it.
The non-Christian sources don't make a big deal about it.
>Christ is the proof of Christianity and I keep pointing you to Him.
Historical Jesus isn't proof of Christianity. However, if Jesus is God and God is all knowing and all powerful, then presumably Jesus would know how to prove Christianity to me and be able to do it. Considering that, if Jesus wants to show up and talk to me, I'll listen.

Attached: ef498a710cf94e4c50e3873182b83ae7--prophetic-art-biblical-art.jpg (736x738, 132K)

At a certain point you're doubting to avoid the obvious. This place is here for a reason, something caused all this, there's a purpose.

Actually, I do have physical evidence, It's the first century manuscripts and archeological sites like Jerusalem itself, Sodom and Gemorah (decimated) and Jericho (obliterated).

Also, you mean Roman Catholics admit they don't know who wrote the gospels. Be mindful, there's a difference.

The Talmud actually spends a bit of time explaining the miracles, exorcisms, and resurrection. They claim it's the devil, basically lol.

I'm glad you're starting to trust Jesus, though, that's the first step.

Attached: masaccio_09.jpg (500x624, 382K)

Attached: N05897_10.jpg (1227x1536, 295K)

Attached: 1495618452093.png (1137x1600, 600K)

>At a certain point you're doubting to avoid the obvious.
On the contrary. I'm so doubtful because what you claim is so far beyond what we observe to be obvious.
>This place is here for a reason, something caused all this, there's a purpose.
This is not obvious. All that is obvious is that this place exists.
>It's the first century manuscripts
Writing down testimony does not suddenly make the testimony physical evidence. The most you can ever say is that you are accurately relaying the testimony.
>archeological sites like Jerusalem itself, Sodom and Gemorah (decimated) and Jericho (obliterated).
None of which is evidence of a god. Cities rise and cities fall.
>Also, you mean Roman Catholics admit they don't know who wrote the gospels.
I meant Christian scholars in general. I'm sure you can find minority opinions that say otherwise, but I see no reason to listen to them.
>The Talmud actually spends a bit of time explaining the miracles, exorcisms, and resurrection.
I was talking more along the lines of secular sources.
>I'm glad you're starting to trust Jesus
I never said that. What I said was that if Jesus wants to show up and talk to me, I'll listen.

Attached: Banned by Biable.jpg (480x757, 91K)

Attached: 1475401589416.jpg (500x500, 30K)

Russia plz

It's pretty obvious to me this place has a cause, a starting point. It's pretty obvious to me You need some unifying logic to make the universe work. That ground of reality would be supra personal, logically speaking.

If everyone in that time period attests to the events, and you have NOTHING to refute it with, I'd say the evidence is on my side. I mean you have Roman tacticians talking about Christ's resurrection and they didn't even like Christians in the first century.

Also S&G and Jericho are interesting examples because the former is atomized and the latter is crushed, and that matches the scriptures.

Which Christian scholars claim they don't know who wrote the gospels?

You were responding to my statement about the Talmud, so i don't know why you're acting like we weren't talking about the Talmud.
Also, secular sources like Tacticus, Josepheus, and so on reference the miracles and resurrection.

Well, I'm glad you're relying on Jesus for the truth.