THE PANDEMIC TIMES...
TO A BELIEVER EVERYTHING HAPPENS IN ACCORDANCE TO GOD'S PLAN...
THINGS HAPPEN BECAUSE GOD WANTS IT TO HAPPEN...
REASONABLE BEING WILL CALL IT PREDESTINED OR SO CALL DESTINY ...
TO A BELIEVER THE 2020 PANDEMIC TIMES HAPPENS IN ACCORDANCE TO GOD'S WILL...
TO A SCIENTIST, THE 2020 PANDEMIC TIMES OCCURS DUE TO MAN-MADE VIRUS FROM A PLACE SOMEWHERE IN CHINA...
TO A BEAST IT IS THE END GAMES... AS MEN FIGHTS AGAINST MOTHER NATURE SO AS TO BE THE DOMINANT SPECIES... A WAR OF MEN AGAINST VIRUS....
WILL THE VIRUS BE ELIMINATED? SHOULD A MICROSCOPIC SPECIES WHICH IS UNSEEN TO THE NAKED EYES BE DESTROY? SHOULD MAN INTERVENE TO CREATE AN ANTI VIRUS / VACCINE? OR SHOULD THE FATE OF COVID19 BE TREATED NATURALLY BY MAN'S IMMUNE SYSTEM (GOD'S DESIGN)?
SHOULD MAN INTERVENE WITH THE DESIGNER OF DNA?
WHAT WOULD THE SCIENTISTS THINK OF THIS CONTROVERSIAL INTERVENTION OF MEN BY MANIPULATING ITS ORIGINS?
SEEMS TAT EVERYTHING IS BACK TO THE START, WHERE TIME STOOD STILLS. A TIME OF CAVEMEN DAYS TO BE TRAP IN A HOME DUE TO UNFORSEEN DANGER. BLEAK TIME IT SEEMS AS NOBODY SAY IT WAS EASY AND NO ONE SAYS IT BE THIS HARD TO KEEP AWAY THE DISTANCE TO FIND ANEW SO AS TO HAVE A LIFE WILL THIS BE A NEW NORM? NOBODY KNEW NO ONE WILL SAY LIVING WITH ROBOT PARTNER? AS HUMAN COUNTERPARTS IS A DISEASE HELL YEAH!!!
SHOULD MEN INTERVENE IN GOD'S PLAN?
FIRST OF ALL GOD EXIST THROUGHOUT TIME. GOD EXIST IN THE PAST, GOD EXIST IN THE FUTURE AND GOD EXIST IN THE PRESENT OR EVEN IN THE MOMENTS.
SECONDLY PLAN IS DEFINE AS:-
I. an intention or decision about what one is going to do.
II. decide on and make arrangements for in advance.
THIRDLY IF EVERYTHING SEEMS TO BE DESTINED SHOULD MEN INTERVENE IN SUCH DESTINY?
God is with us here today. God is also with those who are still in yesterday. And God is also with those who are already in tomorrow. Hence God is present every day wherever we may be. Only we are here today and no longer in yesterday and not yet in tomorrow because we are the created.
So, if God is present in yesterday, today and tomorrow all at the same time, that means God is still present 10,000 years ago and is already present 10,000 years from now. God cannot no longer exist 10,000 years ago and cannot not yet exist 10,000 years from now. God is omnipresent, as the Abrahamic faiths teach us.
The prefix ‘omni’ comes from Latin meaning ‘all’. So, to say that God is omnipresent is to say that God is present everywhere. In many religions, God is regarded as omnipresent, whereas, in both Judaism and Christianity, this view is further subdivided into the transcendence (beyond and above) and immanence (inherent or intrinsic) of God. Although God is not totally immersed in the fabric of creation (pantheism), He is present everywhere at all times.
That definition of omnipresent means God is here, there, today, yesterday and tomorrow.
If that is so, meaning God is everywhere and is present at all times, then yesterday has not ceased to exist and tomorrow has already existed. So, whatever happened 10,000 years ago is still happening (since that time still exists) and what is going to happen 10,000 years from now has already happened (since that time already exists).
We, because we are created, measure time in terms of past, present and future. God, because He is uncreated and not subject to time, has no past, present and future. God just exists, in all places at all times.
MAN CREATES A MASTERPIECE?? IN FUTURE WORLD...
Some religious scholars, are saying that the COVID19 "PANDEMIC" is God’s (Allah’s) punishment for those who have sinned and deviated from His teachings. Others are saying to be the End of The WORLD!!! — a time where God decide to destroy the World.
We of course cannot question God’s logic or question His actions. After all, in the insurance industry, earthquakes, floods, tidal waves (tsunamis), landslides, and such are classified as ‘Acts of God’ — so even those ‘non-religious’ people still do believe in Acts of God. So I suppose passing the recent tsunami tragedy off as an Act of God would not be wrong. But who are we mortals to analyse God’s action and come to this conclusion on behalf of God? Do we really know what God had planned that we are confident enough to pass judgment — that the tsunami tragedy is indeed God’s punishment for sinners and deviants?
It is in fact insensitive of the religious scholars to blame those who have died as ‘bringing it upon themselves’. Granted, religion teaches us that nothing befalls us that we do not bring upon ourselves. But if a plane were to crash can we also say that all those who died in the plane crash were sinners whom God wanted to punish? What about all those innocent children who died in the tsunami tragedy? Does not religion also teach us that those who have not reached puberty are not guilty of their actions? Even if they had done wrong they would not have committed any sin yet, until they are of the age where they can be held responsible for their actions? Why would God want to punish innocent children who have not sinned?
If God is omnipresent should there be God's Plan?
She moves like she don't care Smooth as silk, cool as air Ooh it makes you wanna cry She doesn't know your name And your heart beats like a subway train Ooh it makes you wanna die Ooh, don't you wanna take her? Ooh, wanna make her all your own?
When the angel announced to Mary that she would conceive a child, she said: “How can this be, since I do not know a man?” Mary’s response makes it clear that there was no seduction involved. Instead, it was a miraculous conception that had nothing to do with sexual intercourse. Mary remained a virgin until after giving birth to Jesus, at which time Mary and her husband Joseph came together in marital relations and conceived several other children.
Basically the major part of Christianity believes in Mary being still a virgin when she conceived her first son Yehoshua or Yeshua (otherwise known by his Greek name, Jesus).
Additionally, Mary was also completely blameless from the Original Sin by virtue of the merits of her son. What did/does this mean? Well, Mary, rather than being cleansed after a sin, was completely prevented from contracting Original Sin in view of the foreseen merits of Jesus, to be born as the Savior of the human race.
If God’s rescue project can involve coming to earth as a baby boy, then this same boy being born of a virgin is like special icing on the cake.
Doing something supernatural and super-special sounds like what a creative, all-loving Person would do as a way of announcing that fresh hope is about to begin.
On testaments of the virgin birth, Christians refer to the New Testament gospels of both Mathew and Luke, where in the former an angel came to Joseph to explain 'stuff' to him, whereupon:
Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus - Matthew - 1:24-25
'And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son' means that Joseph did NOT have sex with her until Jesus was born.
But in Luke, the revelation was a conversation between Mary and the angel Gabriel.
And in that conversation, Mary admitted to her own 'virginity' when she asked:
Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God - Luke 1:34-35
But predating the Gospels of Matthew and Luke was that of Mark, which does NOT bear any reference to the 'virgin' birth.
Most biblical researchers hold that Mark's was the first Gospel to be written, sometime around the year 70 CE, and that the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke were composed later sometime in the 80 CE or 90 CE.
Based on similar wordings, plus the gospels being in Greek (don't tell us each apostle translated from Aramaic into Greek on his own?), etc etc, biblical scholars believe there were lots of inter dependency in the latter two, especially on writings of Mark, meaning lots of copying.
So how did Matthew and Luke sourced information of the 'virgin birth' if Mark did not touch on that?
What predated(s) all the New Testaments Gospel was the Book of Isaiah in the Old (Hebraic) Testament, which informs us that during the reign of the evil King Jehoahaz of Judah (also known as Ahaz), the prophet Isaiah informs King Ahaz that his enemies will be destroyed before a child born to a young woman in his retinue is old enough "to refuse evil and know good"; this child, he says, will be named Immanuel:
10 Moreover the LORD spake again unto Ahaz, saying,
11 Ask thee a sign of the LORD thy God; ask it either in the depth, or in the height above.
12 But Ahaz said, I will not ask, neither will I tempt the LORD.
13 And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David; Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also?
14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
15 Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good.
16 For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings
- Isaiah 7:10-16 That was the first mention of the so-called 'virgin' and her birth to a son whose name was Immanuel - another church name for Jesus. And biblical scholars say that Matthew and Luke borrowed from Isaiah in writing about the 'virgin birth' in their own gospels. But wait, the spoilsports biblical scholars also generally agree that the Hebrew word used in Isaiah, namely, 'almah', means 'a girl of childbearing age' and not necessary the word 'virgin' which should be 'bethula'.
Biblical scholars pointed out that in other parts of the Book of Isaiah, the prophet used the virgin word, 'bethula', several times but in other context (not about virgin birth). These show Isaiah knew the difference between 'almah' and 'bethula' and did not make a mistake in the verse Isaiah 7:14, as some Christians claimed (hopefully) Isaiah might have.
Also, scholars note that Isaiah was talking about his own immediate circumstances in the year 735 BC, not the distant future when Jesus was to be born. In Isaiah the Immanuel prophecy had an immediate aim, but Matthew used it to 'find' patterns of God's dealings with Israel rather than a single and specific fulfilment.
Thus Isaiah 7:14 was NOT a source of the virgin birth as the Church would like us to believe. In fact the disappointing discovery for the Church was that there was no mention anywhere in the earlier books (Old Testament or in the first Gospel of Mark). Some biblical scholars said that Matthew and Luke could have been motivated to develop the concept of virgin birth because the Judeans (Jews) at that time, who were enemies of the new following of Yeshua ben Yosef, were mocking Mary as carrying an illegitimate baby, an 'bin Abdullah', so to speak.
As one observer mentioned: Hellenized and Romanized people who created the NT dogma attempted to syncretize their belief in incarnate savior kings born of virgins impregnated by gods.
Hellenized means influenced by Greek culture and beliefs, and Judaea under King Herod the Great, in the time of Jesus' birth around 3 BCE, was very Hellenized. It could be said about virgin birth that not unlike the Greek hero Perseus who was the son of a 'divine union' [a la The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee] between the No 1 Olympian God Zeus and Princess Danaë, a virgin daughter of a King Acrisius of Argos.
Zeus came to Danaë and impregnated her in the form of a shower of gold - Perseus was their son
There’s another view which states that people living two thousand years ago didn’t know how babies were created. This position has Joseph being so glib about childbirth that when Mary said she was pregnant “through the power of the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 1:18) he was like, yeah, that’s cool, it happens. (Yeah. And cows fly).
The Biblical account of the crucifixion, death, and resurrection of Jesus (Isa) recorded in the Christian New Testament is rejected by Muslims,[1][2][3][4] but like Christians they believe that Jesus ascended to heaven and he will, according to Islamic literary sources,[5][6]:9–25 return before the end of time.[1][3][4][5][6]:14–15, 25 The various sects of Islam have different views regarding this topic;[3][4][7]:430–431 traditionally, mainstream Muslims believe that Jesus was not crucified but was bodily raised up to heaven by God,[2][3][4][6]:14–15[8]:41 while Ahmadiyya Muslims reject this belief[3][5][7]:430–431 and instead contend that Jesus survived the crucifixion,[5][7]:430–431[9]:129–132 was taken off the cross alive and continued to preach in India until his natural death.[5][7]:431–436
Depending on the interpretation of the following Quranic verses (Quran 4:157-4:158), Islamic scholars and commentators of the Quran have abstracted different opinions and conflicting conclusions regarding the death of Jesus.[3][4][5][7]:430–431 Some believe that in the Biblical account, Jesus' crucifixion did not last long enough for him to die, while others opine that God gave Jesus' appearance to the one who revealed his location to those persecuting him. He was replaced as Jesus and the executioners thought the victim was Jesus, causing everyone to believe that Jesus was crucified. A third explanation could be that Jesus was nailed to a cross, but as his soul is immortal he did not "die" or was not "crucified" [to death]; it only appeared so. In opposition to the second and third foregoing proposals, yet others maintain that God does not use deceit and therefore they contend that the crucifixion just did not happen:
That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah";- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:- Nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise;- — Quran, surah 4 (An-Nisa), ayat 157–158[10]
THE BEST OF DECEIVERS...
