Jesus repudiates Mariolatry, Part the Fourth

[Agnus_Dei]

In the doctrine of the "Immaculate Conception" we have the RC argument for Mary (a sinless being like Christ) born of a sinful woman (Mary's Mother).

But the REASON that they "needed that bit of story telling" is that they needed Mary to be a "holy vessel" for carrying God.

So you are right that the RCC found a way for a SINFUL being to give birth to THE SINLESS BEING -- MARY!

in Christ,

Bob

The Immaculate Conception was a response of Augustine’s theology regarding Original Sin. In a nutshell, Augustine taught that man inherited Adam’s sin and therefore, when man is born he’s already hell bound, even as a baby…which is why we see Baptism in the RCC as “saving” the baby from hell and limbo for those babies not baptized shortly after birth. In light of Augustine’s theology, Mary couldn’t be tainted with sin at birth; therefore the Immaculate Conception was dogmatized.

In Orthodoxy, we believe that we inherited death from Adam and we each are responsible for our own sin, but man being in a fallen state will choose to sin. Yes, we baptize babies, but not in the same light as the RCC does, its much deeper than that.

ICXC NIKA
-

 

[mrtumnus]

Originally Posted by mrtumnus
The 'red' above would be a great argument Mike if it had any accuracy in any Catholic doctrine regarding Mary. However, it doesn't. That approach wouldn't even be logical. Catholic theology regarding the sinlessness of Mary has nothing to do with removing the 'sin nature' so Christ would not be polluted with it.

In the doctrine of the "Immaculate Conception" we have the RC argument for Mary (a sinless being like Christ) born of a sinful woman (Mary's Mother).

But the REASON that they "needed that bit of story telling" is that they needed Mary to be a "holy vessel" for carrying God.

So you are right that the RCC found a way for a SINFUL being to give birth to THE SINLESS BEING -- MARY!

in Christ,

Bob

I think my original comment indicates how illogical it would be if the basis for the IC doctrine was the need to prevent Christ from being polluted with the 'sin nature' of Mary. As you've pointed out, it goes nowhere as you start to work up the chain.

So to say it was "needed" for this purpose is as illogical as you say. Fortunately this isn't the basis, so it's a non-issue.

 

[mrtumnus]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt Black
Apparently a woman's work is never done...well, maybe if you organised yourselves a bit better, dears...

:tonofbricks:

Let me help you with this.:BangHead:

 

[Eliyahu]

To deny that Jesus was the biological son of Mary is a form of docetism, slice it or dice it, and I've already stated that the John the Evangelist roundly condemns that heresy. As Ann has pointed out, it also flatly contradicts the prophecy given by God Himself in Gen 3:15. Nothing is impossible for God; let's take care to remember that rather than try to hedge Him round with the so-called 'life science' knowledge of fallen men.

A typical Witch Hunt by Roman Catholics condemned the True Christians as Heretics by condemning them as Manichuans, Arians, Nestorians etc.

I don't know about Docetism and don't care whatever they were.

My logic is very clear and simple as follows:

1. If the Ovum of Mary was used, it means Flesh became Flesh.
If any tissue of Mary was used, it means Flesh became Flesh
If any cell of Mary was used, it means Flesh became Flesh
If any Blood of Mary was used, it means Flesh became Flesh
If any Nucleod or DNA of Mary was used, it means Flesh became Flesh
( DNA exist only where Protein exist)

All the above denies the Fundamental Truth that Word became Flesh !

If NOTHING of Mary could be used for the formation of Body of Jesus Christ, Mary can never be the Biological Mother.

There is NO WAY for Mary to be the Biological Mother as long as "the Word became Flesh " is True.


Therefore the Claimers of Biological Motherhood of Mary are Heretics! because they insist that Jesus was born out of a human flesh.

2. Nobody could refute my assertion either Biblically or Scientifically so far, but just brought John Hagee or Docetism, which is the typical Witch Hunting by Roman Catholics, Inquisitors, and the devout Roman Catholic politicians like Adolf Hitler and Mussolini.


If you are confident with your assertion, tell me which Bible verse refute the Word became Flesh and support the Biological Motherhood of Mary.

If you have a conviction for it, tell me how Mary could be the Biological Mother of Jesus, and what is the definition of Biological Motherhood.

 

[annsni]

A typical Witch Hunt by Roman Catholics condemned the True Christians as Heretics by condemning them as Manichuans, Arians, Nestorians etc.

I don't know about Docetism and don't care whatever they were.

My logic is very clear and simple as follows:

1. If the Ovum of Mary was used, it means Flesh became Flesh.
If any tissue of Mary was used, it means Flesh became Flesh
If any cell of Mary was used, it means Flesh became Flesh
If any Blood of Mary was used, it means Flesh became Flesh
If any Nucleod or DNA of Mary was used, it means Flesh became Flesh
( DNA exist only where Protein exist)

All the above denies the Fundamental Truth that Word became Flesh !

If NOTHING of Mary could be used for the formation of Body of Jesus Christ, Mary can never be the Biological Mother.

There is NO WAY for Mary to be the Biological Mother as long as "the Word became Flesh " is True.


Therefore the Claimers of Biological Motherhood of Mary are Heretics! because they insist that Jesus was born out of a human flesh.

2. Nobody could refute my assertion either Biblically or Scientifically so far, but just brought John Hagee or Docetism, which is the typical Witch Hunting by Roman Catholics, Inquisitors, and the devout Roman Catholic politicians like Adolf Hitler and Mussolini.


If you are confident with your assertion, tell me which Bible verse refute the Word became Flesh and support the Biological Motherhood of Mary.

If you have a conviction for it, tell me how Mary could be the Biological Mother of Jesus, and what is the definition of Biological Motherhood.

If Mary was not the biological mother of Jesus then He was not human. He did not become flesh. So to say that Jesus has no DNA from Mary denies His humanness and cannot say that the Word became flesh. The fact that the Son of God came to earth as a child is the fact of the Word becoming flesh. Where did the flesh come from? Mary and the Holy Spirit. It's completely Biblical.

I had asked for evidence that any reputable Christian believes as you do and I have not seen that yet. Where is the history of this belief? Does it originate with you or does it originate with Paul, Peter, Jesus or even more contemporary reputable Christian teachers? Please answer this question.

 

[Eliyahu]

Roman Catholic is a Pagan Heresy and their followers are Heretics.

The major paganism of Roman Catholics are following.

1. Mary is Mother of God - This denies Trinity because they claim God the Father is not God in the phrase of Mother of God.

2. Purgatory:
They honestly claim that they do not go to the Heaven after the death.
This is because they have no conviction of Salvation.
They do not know how many million years they will have to spend in the Inferno. Their conscience tell them that they cannot go to the Heaven.
They claim that they can get out of Inferno by the prayers and Almsgiving of their descendants. We know that they cannot change their spiritual status by any Human works. Are they praying for their families even during their lives? Will they satisfy God? NOthing but the Blood of Jesus can satisfy God. Therefore we can safely conclude that RCC is standing on the sinking sand.

3. Transubstantiation.
They honestly confess that they are Pagan Cannibalism believers because they confess they eat the human flesh and human blood prohibited by the Law, without knowing that the Blood was to be offered to God, not for human drinking.

4. Papacy
They honestly confess that their holy father is a corruptible human being, while the True Christian Believers have only one Holy Father who never dies.

5. Infant Baptism
They baptize the babies who do not know Jesus, never heard and understood the Gospel.
They honestly confess that they are performing Unbelievers Baptism in order to bring the billions of Unbelievers into the Christian world.

In conclusion, RCC is nothing but the pagan roman religion which contradict Christian Truth, killlng millions of Christians by Inquisition, Crusade, Proxy Wars etc.

" My people come out of her, that ye be not partakers of her sins " ( Re 18:4)

 

[annsni]

Just to make it clear Eliyahu - I don't believe any of those things. I just DO believe that Mary was the mother of Jesus - His earthly mother.

 

[Eliyahu]

If Mary was not the biological mother of Jesus then He was not human. He did not become flesh. So to say that Jesus has no DNA from Mary denies His humanness and cannot say that the Word became flesh. The fact that the Son of God came to earth as a child is the fact of the Word becoming flesh. Where did the flesh come from? Mary and the Holy Spirit.

So, are you claiming that the Ovum of Mary and the Holy Spirit were fertilized? Human ovum is not designed for it. You sound like an adultery between Mary and Holy Spirit.

Have you ever read Genesis? Read Genesis 18 where God appeared and ate the meals provided by Abraham. Didn't He eat the food because He had the flesh at that time? You are denying the Power of God !

It's completely Biblical.

Completely denying the Incarnation of John 1:14.

I had asked for evidence that any reputable Christian believes as you do and I have not seen that yet. Where is the history of this belief? Does it originate with you or does it originate with Paul, Peter, Jesus or even more contemporary reputable Christian teachers? Please answer this question.

Who are the reputable Christian teachers for you?
The Life Science has been developped only after 1950 such as DNA, Nuleod, Cell Biology etc and therefore this couldn't be scientifically studied very much. I studied and consulted with the Bible. Are you depending on how much famous the claimants are ?

 

[Eliyahu]

Just to make it clear Eliyahu - I don't believe any of those things. I just DO believe that Mary was the mother of Jesus - His earthly mother.

I do believe Mary was the mother of Jesus simply. But when RCC exalt Mary, they claim that Mary was the Biological Mother of Jesus. Behind the Immaculate Conception of Mary, there is the belief that she is the Bio- Mother.

Mary was born as a sinner, and Jesus didn't take anything from the sinner.

The Blood shed at the Cross was not inherited from Mary, the innate sinner. RCC claim that the Blood shed at the Cross was from Mary, which I reject !

 

[annsni]

So, are you claiming that the Ovum of Mary and the Holy Spirit were fertilized? Human ovum is not designed for it. You sound like an adultery between Mary and Holy Spirit.

No - God, in His power created a child with Mary's egg. I know it's not designed for it but neither was a 90 year old woman and a 100 year old man designed to have a child but Isaac was still born, wasn't he?

Have you ever read Genesis? Read Genesis 18 where God appeared and ate the meals provided by Abraham. Didn't He eat the food because He had the flesh at that time? You are denying the Power of God !

I'm not denying the power of God. I'm just not LIMITING the power of God. I think God could have done it any way He wished - but He wished from the beginning that the Messiah would be born from the seed of a woman. That's a Biblical fact.

Completely denying the Incarnation of John 1:14.

Nope, not doing that at all!

Who are the reputable Christian teachers for you?
The Life Science has been developped only after 1950 such as DNA, Nuleod, Cell Biology etc and therefore this couldn't be scientifically studied very much. I studied and consulted with the Bible. Are you depending on how much famous the claimants are ?

OK - Name ANY Christian teacher. A Christian teacher who has the respect of those here on the board would work. You and a few others are the only ones who have this "new revelation"? It doesn't take life science to figure out that Jesus was born of the seed of a woman because the Bible says so! To say otherwise is denying the words of Scripture, IMO.

 

[Eliyahu]

No - God, in His power created a child with Mary's egg. I know it's not designed for it but neither was a 90 year old woman and a 100 year old man designed to have a child but Isaac was still born, wasn't he?

If Jesus was born of a human egg ( ovum). the Bible cannot say " Word became flesh" It is just a human cloning of Mary, monogenic Asexual Reproduction. You are consenting to the atheists.

You believe that 50% miracle is believable, but not 100% miracle.

I'm not denying the power of God. I'm just not LIMITING the power of God. I think God could have done it any way He wished - but He wished from the beginning that the Messiah would be born from the seed of a woman. That's a Biblical fact.

As for the prophecy, I repeatedly said that the Surrogate motherhood is enough. If you strictly follow the prophecy, then Jesus shoud have been born between Joseph and Mary, then got the fullness of Holy Spirit as John the Baptist did.

Nope, not doing that at all!

You must explain how you can compromise between 2 themes:
1) Word became flesh
2) Ovum of Mary was used ( or any part of Mary)

OK - Name ANY Christian teacher. A Christian teacher who has the respect of those here on the board would work. You and a few others are the only ones who have this "new revelation"? It doesn't take life science to figure out that Jesus was born of the seed of a woman because the Bible says so! To say otherwise is denying the words of Scripture, IMO.

You may worship any other human beings if they are reputable, which I don't
I didn't get that belief from any other people, neither from John Hagee nor from Docetism, nor from Benny Hinn.
Whenever, any important doctrines matter, I consult with the Bible only. That's how I can eliminate the human influence.
On this board, I already claimed several times what was not claimed before, but I realized from the Bible for myself.

1) Jesus died on Thursday and Matthew 28:1 supports it as it has the plural Sabbaths.

2) Contradiction of Mark 2:26 which the most of English bible misunderstand - Abiathar was not the High Priest when David entered the temple but his father Ahimelch was the priest. So, most English bible contradict between OT and NT. WAs Jesus wrong when He mentioned Abiathar? Read Samuel 21:1-

3) I have been the only one who refuted Mother of God by pointing out the contradiction with Trinity. My defense and logic is quite different from Nestorius or any other people

4) I have refuted the Transubstantiation by pointing out the contradiction with Leviticus 17 which prohibits the drinking of Blood. Many people refuted it in different ways, but not by pointing out Leviticus 17.

5) I refuted that Son of God had a mother by pointing out Hebrews 7:1-5

6) I refuted Purgatory by pointing out that it is based on Works, not on the Grace

7) I objected Obligatory Celibacy by pointing out 1 Tim 3 and Titus 1 about children. Many refuted by pointing out that the Overseers should be a husband of one wife. BUt I pointed out they had children.

Except 2) I learned all from my God directly when I read the Bible as 1 John 2:27 says. As for 2) I learned it from J.N. Darby.

I have several more discovery which may be revealed when I finish the Bible translation.

I have translated Greek NT for myself and still am translating the Hebrew OT now, and when I read the Bible, I learn the Truth and find the mistakes of the Bible Translators too.

Do I need a reputable scholar to present the Truth? Read 1 John 2:27 and Gal 2:6

IN 2004, on this board, I claimed that Ovary of Mary was not used. At that time my apology depended mostly on Matt 1:20. It is only recent time that I found the contradiction between Jn 1:14 and Biological motherhood for Jesus.

Jesus cannot have any Biological Mother.
By claiming it, you are strongly denying that Word became Flesh.
Both are not compatible at all.

If you cannot find the contradiction there, please consult with someone who has higher IQ.

 

[D28guy]

mrtumnus,

I posted.....

"Mrtumnus, why do you think the Catholic Church goes to such great lenghths to manufacture all of these fairy tales about Mary being free of original sin, never commiting sin during her life, her supposed "Assumption" into heaven, etc etc etc.

They MUST find some way, no matter how outlandish, to get...that...sin...nature...out...of...Mary. If Mary contributed biologically to Christ, then Christ would have had a sin nature. He would have been "tainted".

And you then said...

The 'red' above would be a great argument Mike if it had any accuracy in any Catholic doctrine regarding Mary. However, it doesn't."

Oh my. mrtumnus, I'm afraid you dont know Catholic theology very well. Here is a brief view, with sources listed, including the Catholic Encyclopedia...

Some of the unbiblical teachings relating to the Mary of Catholic Tradition include the following:

"Mary’s immaculate conception: This doctrine teaches that she was born without original sin and was, therefore, sinless throughout her life.

Mary’s perpetual virginity: This dogma asserts that she had no children after Jesus.

Mary’s bodily assumption or physical ascension into heaven: This teaches that because of her sinlessness, Mary never experienced physical death. Instead she was raised bodily into the presence of Christ.

Mary’s role as Co-redemptrix and Mediatrix of all grace: This doctrine holds that the obedience and sufferings of Mary were essential to secure the full redemption brought by Christ.

Mary’s right to veneration and/or worship: This teaching argues that because of her unparalleled role in the economy of salvation, Mary is worthy of special adoration.

- Source: John Ankerberg and John Weldon, The Facts on Roman Catholicism, Harvest House, Oregon, 1993, p.40; citing "The Catholic Encyclopedia""

As you can see, the Catholic Church does indeed teach that Mary was born without the taint of original sin, and they teach that Mary lived sinless during her life.

"That approach wouldn't even be logical. Catholic theology regarding the sinlessness of Mary has nothing to do with removing the 'sin nature' so Christ would not be polluted with it."

As I just showed you, the Catholic Church teaches the "Immaculate Conception" of Mary. That she was born without "original sin", or....a sin nature. I was born and raised Catholic, and we were taught that lie all the way through 8 years of Catholic elementary school.

"Your theology seems to be that God has no ability to 'restore' nature to its original state of creation by an act of His will. To say that God couldn't use the seed of Mary (so the prophecy is accurate) without Jesus receiving a sin nature places a restriction on the power of God. Do you really mean to imply that God was limited in this way?"

Well, theoretically God of course can do anything He pleases to do, but we have no indication in the scriptures that God would cancel out the sin nature in Mary...particulary in light of the fact that Mary confessed herself that she needed a savior, which means she knew she sinned.

"Jesus calls himself the "Son of Man" for a reason you know. He is not a separate creation from the rest of humanity. He is a true "Son" of humanity."

I dont deny that at all.

God bless,

Mike

 

[D28guy]

Matt said...

"
Apparently a woman's work is never done...well, maybe if you organised yourselves a bit better, dears..."

Yes....yes....yes! :thumbs:

We are MEN!

Mike

 

[Matt Black]

A typical Witch Hunt by Roman Catholics condemned the True Christians as Heretics by condemning them as Manichuans, Arians, Nestorians etc.

I don't know about Docetism and don't care whatever they were.

Well you would do well to educate yourselves about it. The Apostle John worte against it. Try Googling for it. Or Wikipedia is your friend etc

My logic is very clear and simple as follows:

1. If the Ovum of Mary was used, it means Flesh became Flesh.
If any tissue of Mary was used, it means Flesh became Flesh
If any cell of Mary was used, it means Flesh became Flesh
If any Blood of Mary was used, it means Flesh became Flesh
If any Nucleod or DNA of Mary was used, it means Flesh became Flesh
( DNA exist only where Protein exist)

You're right. Your logic. Flawed human reasoning that seeks to put God in a little box and denies that He can work miracles. Thanks but no thanks.

All the above denies the Fundamental Truth that Word became Flesh !

If NOTHING of Mary could be used for the formation of Body of Jesus Christ, Mary can never be the Biological Mother.

There is NO WAY for Mary to be the Biological Mother as long as "the Word became Flesh " is True.


Therefore the Claimers of Biological Motherhood of Mary are Heretics! because they insist that Jesus was born out of a human flesh.

2. Nobody could refute my assertion either Biblically or Scientifically so far, but just brought John Hagee or Docetism, which is the typical Witch Hunting by Roman Catholics, Inquisitors, and the devout Roman Catholic politicians like Adolf Hitler and Mussolini.


If you are confident with your assertion, tell me which Bible verse refute the Word became Flesh and support the Biological Motherhood of Mary.

If you have a conviction for it, tell me how Mary could be the Biological Mother of Jesus, and what is the definition of Biological Motherhood.

I can do a lot worse than point you to DHK's admirable Scriptural exposition on the other thread about Mary.

And please please please stop banging on about the Catholics, Hitler and Mussolini. AFAIK, none of us on this thread are Catholics and none of us have voted for or would dream of voting for Hitler and Mussolini; the virgin birth is a doctrine adhered to by pretty much all Christians with the exception of a few uber-liberals and other whackjobs. Drop the straw men, please.

 

[Matt Black]

If Jesus was born of a human egg ( ovum). the Bible cannot say " Word became flesh" It is just a human cloning of Mary, monogenic Asexual Reproduction. You are consenting to the atheists.

You believe that 50% miracle is believable, but not 100% miracle.


As for the prophecy, I repeatedly said that the Surrogate motherhood is enough. If you strictly follow the prophecy, then Jesus shoud have been born between Joseph and Mary, then got the fullness of Holy Spirit as John the Baptist did.




You must explain how you can compromise between 2 themes:
1) Word became flesh
2) Ovum of Mary was used ( or any part of Mary)




You may worship any other human beings if they are reputable, which I don't
I didn't get that belief from any other people, neither from John Hagee nor from Docetism, nor from Benny Hinn.
Whenever, any important doctrines matter, I consult with the Bible only. That's how I can eliminate the human influence.
On this board, I already claimed several times what was not claimed before, but I realized from the Bible for myself.

1) Jesus died on Thursday and Matthew 28:1 supports it as it has the plural Sabbaths.

2) Contradiction of Mark 2:26 which the most of English bible misunderstand - Abiathar was not the High Priest when David entered the temple but his father Ahimelch was the priest. So, most English bible contradict between OT and NT. WAs Jesus wrong when He mentioned Abiathar? Read Samuel 21:1-

3) I have been the only one who refuted Mother of God by pointing out the contradiction with Trinity. My defense and logic is quite different from Nestorius or any other people

4) I have refuted the Transubstantiation by pointing out the contradiction with Leviticus 17 which prohibits the drinking of Blood. Many people refuted it in different ways, but not by pointing out Leviticus 17.

5) I refuted that Son of God had a mother by pointing out Hebrews 7:1-5

6) I refuted Purgatory by pointing out that it is based on Works, not on the Grace

7) I objected Obligatory Celibacy by pointing out 1 Tim 3 and Titus 1 about children. Many refuted by pointing out that the Overseers should be a husband of one wife. BUt I pointed out they had children.

Except 2) I learned all from my God directly when I read the Bible as 1 John 2:27 says. As for 2) I learned it from J.N. Darby.

I have several more discovery which may be revealed when I finish the Bible translation.

I have translated Greek NT for myself and still am translating the Hebrew OT now, and when I read the Bible, I learn the Truth and find the mistakes of the Bible Translators too.

Do I need a reputable scholar to present the Truth? Read 1 John 2:27 and Gal 2:6

IN 2004, on this board, I claimed that Ovary of Mary was not used. At that time my apology depended mostly on Matt 1:20. It is only recent time that I found the contradiction between Jn 1:14 and Biological motherhood for Jesus.

Jesus cannot have any Biological Mother.
By claiming it, you are strongly denying that Word became Flesh.
Both are not compatible at all.

If you cannot find the contradiction there, please consult with someone who has higher IQ.

Can anyone spot the humility in this post?

No, neither can I.

 

[mrtumnus]

Oh my. mrtumnus, I'm afraid you dont know Catholic theology very well. Here is a brief view, with sources listed, including the Catholic Encyclopedia...


[/I]

As you can see, the Catholic Church does indeed teach that Mary was born without the taint of original sin, and they teach that Mary lived sinless during her life.

Quote:
"That approach wouldn't even be logical. Catholic theology regarding the sinlessness of Mary has nothing to do with removing the 'sin nature' so Christ would not be polluted with it."



As I just showed you, the Catholic Church teaches the "Immaculate Conception" of Mary. That she was born without "original sin", or....a sin nature. I was born and raised Catholic, and we were taught that lie all the way through 8 years of Catholic elementary school.

Oh yes Mike, I know Catholic theology very well. I never said this was not the teaching of the church. The problem is the conclusion that you and others have reached that this teaching has anything to do with Jesus not 'inheriting' a sin nature. It doesn't. To imply it does denies that power of God to be able to overcome that issue. And there seems to have been a belief expressed here (on the other thread I think) that this would not have been an issue because the "sin nature" was passed from the father, not the mother. I thought that was interesting. But bottom line is -- the teaching of the IC has nothing to do with preventing the human "sin nature" from being passed on to Jesus. It has everything to do with the nature of God Himself.

Well, theoretically God of course can do anything He pleases to do, but we have no indication in the scriptures that God would cancel out the sin nature in Mary...particulary in light of the fact that Mary confessed herself that she needed a savior, which means she knew she sinned.

If you understand Catholic theology you will know that the fact that Mary required a Savior is in no way contradictory to the belief in the Immaculate Conception. We would agree with you that Jesus was indeed the Savior of Mary.

 

[Eliyahu]

Well you would do well to educate yourselves about it. The Apostle John worte against it. Try Googling for it. Or Wikipedia is your friend etc

You're right. Your logic. Flawed human reasoning that seeks to put God in a little box and denies that He can work miracles. Thanks but no thanks.

I can do a lot worse than point you to DHK's admirable Scriptural exposition on the other thread about Mary.

And please please please stop banging on about the Catholics, Hitler and Mussolini. AFAIK, none of us on this thread are Catholics and none of us have voted for or would dream of voting for Hitler and Mussolini; the virgin birth is a doctrine adhered to by pretty much all Christians with the exception of a few uber-liberals and other whackjobs. Drop the straw men, please.

There is nothing to remark in DHK's post because it doesn't explain the core part of the contradiction with Word became Flesh.

My argument will stand permanently as long as the Truth Word became flesh which you deny when you insist anything of Mary became Jesus !

As for the following, please remember that Ann asked me about the Reputable Source, and I didn't have any Reputable Source, but myself.
This is why I don't spend time for Docetism. I don't care who said this before. But I am sure that this belief was not available before the Life Science was available. I am not exalting myself but when asked for the Reputable sources, I myself discovered it and God is my Witness.

Can anyone spot the humility in this post?
No, neither can I.