Cholland said he would like to debate this point so here it is.
Was Jesus the the messiah as prescribed by the Hebrew bible?
What prophecies does he fulfill and why?
Can he be shown to not fulfill the Hebrew text?
Cholland your up.....
Was Jesus the messiah of the Hebrew bible?
Moderator: Moderators
-
The Tongue
- Under Probation
- Posts: 1667
- Joined: Fri May 04, 2012 12:08 am
- Location: Townsville Queensland Australia
Post #121
Continued from post #120:
[ThatgirlAgain wrote].Remember this?
The Tongue wrote:
The word Virgin in reference to the mother of Jesus was first introduced in the 5th century Latin Bible The Vulgate, due mainly to the effort of Jerome who was commissioned to make a revision of the books that had already been translated to Latin by, in most cases, persons unknown, and with those books translated by Jerome himself, which revision was completed in 405 A.D. became the official bible of the universal church that had been established by its unorthodox and non-christian champion, King Constantine, who had his father Constantius deified and was accorded the same honour himself after his death.
I certainly do. But this is not referring to the time that the false concept of the virgin birth had begun to develop, as is obvious from my previous post, but refers to the time when the WORD virgin was first introduced into the bible. I have since revised this statement.
Because the Old Testament which was first published by the English college at Douary, in 1609 AD and the New Testament which was first published by the English college at Rheims, in 1582 AD, had translated, from the Latin Vulgate, the word virgo as virgin, and not being a student of Latin, I originally thought that the Latin Virgo, was the specific term for virgin.
Since then, it has been brought to my attention that the Latin, just like the Greek language does not have a specific term for virgin, as does the Hebrew, and Matthew as with the Septuagint, in translating the Hebrew An unmarried woman is pregnant and shall bear a son who shall be called God is with us, as seen in Isaiah 7; 14; were forced to use the Greek word, Parthenos, which carries a basic meaning of unmarried girl or youth and refers to a virgin only by implication, as is seen in Luke 1: 34; when Mary, a Parthenos=unmarried girl, implied that she was still a virgin at that time, which was three months or more before she was found to be pregnant by the biological father of Jesus, Joseph the son of Heli, by saying that she had never known a man up til that point in time.
But of course, you have taken that verse out of all context to which it was written, in your attempt to twist and distort what I had said, and try to make it seem that I had insinuated that the idea of Mary being a virgin was invented by the Constantine church.
I dont believe that any person other than yourself of course, could possibly believe that I was inferring that the pregnant Mary was still a virgin, and the virgin birth was invented by the Constantine church, when that verse is read in the context in which it was written, as seen below:
Go to A Dictionary of Biblical Tradition in English Literature, by David Jeffery.
There you will find written, Many scholars consider the new Revised Standard Version of the King James translation, which is probably the most widely used version of the English bible today, and considered by most modern scholars to be to be the most accurate translation of the Old Testament. It follows the modern consensus in translating Almah as Young Woman in Isaiah 7: 14.
In 1973, an ecumenical edition of RSV was approved by both Protestant and Catholic hierarchies, called the common bible. As a matter of fact, I have in front of me, A New English Translation of the Bible, published in 1970 and approved by the council of churches in England, Scotland, Wales, the Irish council of churches, the London Society of Friends, and the Methodist and Presbyterian churches of England. And what do we read in Isaiah 7: 14; A young Woman is with child, and she will bear a son. I also have before me The Good News Bible, catholic Study Edition, with imprimatur by Archbishop John Whealon: and on turning to Isaiah 7: 14; and what do you know? It says here, A young woman who is pregnant will have a son, etc.
The word Virgin in reference to the mother of Jesus is thought to have been first introduced in the 5th century Latin Bible The Vulgate, due mainly to the effort of Jerome who was commissioned to make a revision of the books that had already been translated to Latin by, in most cases, persons unknown, and with those books translated by Jerome himself, which revision was completed in 405 A.D. became the official bible of the universal church that had been established by its unorthodox and non-christian champion, King Constantine, who had his father Constantius deified and was accorded the same honour himself after his death.
I have since added some revisions, (IN RED) which was not in the original, that you had read.
"But the Latin word virgo has the same multiple connotations as does the Greek parthenos and can mean a unmarried woman, a Young girl, a maiden or a virgin and the Latin term Virgo which has multiple connotations, was used by Jerome to translate what Isaiah had said in 7: 14, An Almah, (Unmarried woman) is with child and shall bear a son who will be called God is with us. The emphasis being on, that which the child would be and has been called for over two thousand years, and which Latin version, when translated into English, should now read An unmarried woman (Virgo) is with child and shall bear a son and he shall be called, God is with us, because this is now agreed by the majority of all christian denominations, to be what is said by Isaiah."
(But now back to the original posts)
In translating the Hebrew words of the prophet Isaiah, that an Almah an unmarried female is with child and will bear a son, into Greek, which unlike the Hebrew language, does not have a specific term for virgin, the authors of the Septuagint and Matthew correctly used the Greek word Parthenos, which carries a basic meaning of girl, or unmarried youth, and denotes virgin only by implication. A more accurate rendering of the Greek parthenos is a person who does not have a regular sexual partner, a widow with a family of children, would be a parthenos.
To translate something from the Hebrew to the Greek, or from any language to another, one must not lose the essence of the original, and the original was, that An young woman was with child. Therefore, as the greater majority of churches now admit, that the words of Isaiah, which refer to a child that had been sired by him, was, A young woman who is pregnant will have a son, etc. Matthew 1: 23; should now read, Now all this happened to make come true what the Lord had said through Isaiah, A young woman who is pregnant will have a son, etc. Because they all now admit that those were the words of Isaiah 7: 14.
Parthenos, was often used in reference to non-virgins who had never been married. Homer uses it in reference to unmarried girls who were no longer virgins, and Homer was the standard textbook for learning Greek all throughout antiquity, so any writer of Greek, including Matthew, who translated Isaiahs words, that (An unmarried woman would be with child etc) while being well aware of this words versatile and indefinite meaning; was in no way implying that Mary was a virgin.
For the Hebrew has a specific term for virgin, Bethulah which word is used in every instance in the Old Testament where a woman who has never had sexual intercourse with a man is referred to, which is obviously not the case with the unmarried woman/Almah, who is mentioned in Isaiah 7:14.
In Pergamos, as one of the final stages in the quest for enlightenment, the initiated adept would participate in sex with the Temple Virgin/Parthenos.
"Parthenos" did not mean possessing an intact hymen. A parthenos was simply an unmarried woman, a woman who claimed ownership of herself.
In Matthew you will find the genealogy of Joseph the son of Jacob from the tribe of Judah, this Joseph, is the 24th descendant of Solomon the biological son of King David and Bathsheba, who was originally, the wife of Uriah the Hittite, and this Joseph who married Mary, is not genetically connected to Jesus as he had no sexual relations with Mary until after she had given birth to Jesus, and although, according to the Torah, an adopted son inherits the rights of his adopted father, because this Joseph who was the step father of Jesus, was a descendant of the cursed line of Jehoiachim, through that particular Joseph, he had no claim to the throne of David.
In reference to Jehoiachim it is written in Jeremiah 22: 30; Thus saith the Lord. Write ye this man, a man that shall not prosper in his days; for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah.
In Luke 3: 23; you will find the genealogy of Jesus, Mary was the daughter of Heli and Anna, one of three daughters of Yehoshua/Jesus III, who was high priest in Jerusalem from 36 to 23 BC. Anna was given as a bride to Alexander Helios (Heli) and Jesus is the biological son of Joseph, the son of Heli, as was supposed by the people of his day who knew the family well.
And this Joseph, (A very common name in those days as well as today) who is the biological Father of Jesus, is about the 40th descendant of Nathan the half brother to Solomon the biological son of King David.
Nathan and Solomon were half brothers, as they were both sired by different fathers, but both had the same mother, Bathsheba the wife of Uriah the Hittite, who is the biological father of Nathan and a member of the tribe of Levi by his marriage to Bathsheba the daughter of Ammiel, the son of Obed-Edom, who is descended from Moses through his second wife, the daughter of Hobab, who is one of the two fathers-in-law to Moses the Levite. Jesus our high priest is not of the order of Aaron, but of Moses, who was to be to Aaron, as God on earth. See Exodus 4: 16.
Presumably, Joseph the son of Heli, would have met Mary for the first time, at the gathering of the family and friends of Elizabeth, who was the aged sister of Anna and aunty of Mary, who were both of the daughters of Levi. This was some months after the young parthenos (Unmarried) Mary had told the angel that up until that point in time she had never had any sexual relations with a man. Implying that the unmarried girl, Almah=Parthenos was still a virgin, before she met Joseph the Levite from Cyprus. Undoubtedly they did not realise at that time that they had a common father, Heli, from the tribe of Levi.
This Joseph the Levite who is the descendant of Nathan, came from Cyprus and he had a half sister by the name Mary, who was the adopted mother of John, who Jesus had surnamed Son of Thunder, and who is identified with the young John who was surnamed Mark, which means Hammer, or The Hammerer. After the death of Jesus, this Joseph the Levite, who is also named Barnabas, took his half sister and young John up north into the land of Pamphylia, where today, in the town of Ephesus, the grave sites of both Mary and John can still be visited.
Isaac, the biological son Abraham, who is the son of Terah, was born of Gods promise according to the workings of the Holy Spirit, as was Jesus the son of Joseph, who is the son of Heli.
.
Amplified Bible Galatians 4: 29; And just as at that time the child that was born according to the flesh (Ishmael) despised and persecuted (Isaac) who was born according to the promise and the workings of the Holy Spirit.
Isaac is a prototype of Jesus and like Jesus, was born of Gods promise according to the workings of the Holy Spirit. Both are seen as the seed that was promised to Abraham.
Both Isaac and Jesus were the sons of parents who were both sired by the one Father.
Terah, is the father to both Abraham and Sarah by different mothers, while Heli, is the father of both Joseph and Mary, by different mothers.
Both Mary and Sarah were informed by an angel that they would become Pregnant and bear the son of Gods promise. Isaac was offered up as a sacrifice by his physical father, Jesus was offered up by his spiritual father, who descended upon him in the form of a dove as the voice was heard to say, you are my beloved in whom I am well pleased, TODAY I have become your Father. Or rather, Today I have begotten thee. See the more ancient authorities of Luke 3: 22; and Isaac was offered up on the same mountain at the very spot where Jesus was crucified.
In Luke 3: 22; (In place of Thou art my beloved son in who I am well pleased.) The following authorities of the second, third, and fourth centuries read, This day I have begotten thee, vouched for by Codex D, and the most ancient copies of the old latin (a, b. c. ff.I), by Justin Martyr (AD 140), Clemens Alex, (AD. 190), Methodius (AD. 290), among the Greeks. And among the Latins, Lactaitius (AD 300), Hilary (AD) Juvencus (AD. 330), Faustus (AD. 400) and Augustine. All these oldest manuscripts were changed completely. They now read, This is my son in whom I am well pleased. Whereas the original variant was, Thou art my Son. This day I have begotten thee.
If Jesus was not born of the flesh as all human beings are, but was supposedly born of a virgin without male semen having been introduced into her uterus, then this would have been the greatest of all miracles, and would have been shouted from the roof tops by all four gospel writers and yet we see that Mark, who is believed to have been the son of Peter, and John, the beloved disciple, who walked and talked with Jesus, ignore the physical birth of Jesus as being totally irrelevant to the story of salvation and begin their account of He, who was sent in the name of the Lord, with the Baptism of the man Jesus, when he was born of the spirit that descended upon him in the form of a dove and the heavenly voice was heard to say, You are my beloved in whom I am well pleased, Today I have become your father.
Matthew merely translates the Hebrew, Isaiah 7: 14; A young unmarried woman who IS pregnant will have a son and will name him Immanuel.
While Luke simply reveals that the young unmarried 14 year old Mary, was still a virgin 3 months before she was found to be pregnant. Due to her obedience to our indwelling ancestral Father spirit, she conceived in her womb the child of the father, chosen by the Holy Spirit, which act of obedience by the handmaid of the Lord, was concealed in the shadows beneath the wings of the Lord of Spirits.
According to Young's Analytical Concordances to the Bible, the Hebrew "Almah," carries the meaning, "Unmarried female---Concealment."
Do you honestly think that any person who reads the verse that you pulled out of all context to which it was written, having now seen it in it true context, will believe for one moment your ridiculous statement, that I said that the idea of Mary being a (Pregnant) virgin was invented by the Constantine church centuries later.
[ThatgirlAgain wrote].Remember this?
The Tongue wrote:
The word Virgin in reference to the mother of Jesus was first introduced in the 5th century Latin Bible The Vulgate, due mainly to the effort of Jerome who was commissioned to make a revision of the books that had already been translated to Latin by, in most cases, persons unknown, and with those books translated by Jerome himself, which revision was completed in 405 A.D. became the official bible of the universal church that had been established by its unorthodox and non-christian champion, King Constantine, who had his father Constantius deified and was accorded the same honour himself after his death.
I certainly do. But this is not referring to the time that the false concept of the virgin birth had begun to develop, as is obvious from my previous post, but refers to the time when the WORD virgin was first introduced into the bible. I have since revised this statement.
Because the Old Testament which was first published by the English college at Douary, in 1609 AD and the New Testament which was first published by the English college at Rheims, in 1582 AD, had translated, from the Latin Vulgate, the word virgo as virgin, and not being a student of Latin, I originally thought that the Latin Virgo, was the specific term for virgin.
Since then, it has been brought to my attention that the Latin, just like the Greek language does not have a specific term for virgin, as does the Hebrew, and Matthew as with the Septuagint, in translating the Hebrew An unmarried woman is pregnant and shall bear a son who shall be called God is with us, as seen in Isaiah 7; 14; were forced to use the Greek word, Parthenos, which carries a basic meaning of unmarried girl or youth and refers to a virgin only by implication, as is seen in Luke 1: 34; when Mary, a Parthenos=unmarried girl, implied that she was still a virgin at that time, which was three months or more before she was found to be pregnant by the biological father of Jesus, Joseph the son of Heli, by saying that she had never known a man up til that point in time.
But of course, you have taken that verse out of all context to which it was written, in your attempt to twist and distort what I had said, and try to make it seem that I had insinuated that the idea of Mary being a virgin was invented by the Constantine church.
I dont believe that any person other than yourself of course, could possibly believe that I was inferring that the pregnant Mary was still a virgin, and the virgin birth was invented by the Constantine church, when that verse is read in the context in which it was written, as seen below:
Go to A Dictionary of Biblical Tradition in English Literature, by David Jeffery.
There you will find written, Many scholars consider the new Revised Standard Version of the King James translation, which is probably the most widely used version of the English bible today, and considered by most modern scholars to be to be the most accurate translation of the Old Testament. It follows the modern consensus in translating Almah as Young Woman in Isaiah 7: 14.
In 1973, an ecumenical edition of RSV was approved by both Protestant and Catholic hierarchies, called the common bible. As a matter of fact, I have in front of me, A New English Translation of the Bible, published in 1970 and approved by the council of churches in England, Scotland, Wales, the Irish council of churches, the London Society of Friends, and the Methodist and Presbyterian churches of England. And what do we read in Isaiah 7: 14; A young Woman is with child, and she will bear a son. I also have before me The Good News Bible, catholic Study Edition, with imprimatur by Archbishop John Whealon: and on turning to Isaiah 7: 14; and what do you know? It says here, A young woman who is pregnant will have a son, etc.
The word Virgin in reference to the mother of Jesus is thought to have been first introduced in the 5th century Latin Bible The Vulgate, due mainly to the effort of Jerome who was commissioned to make a revision of the books that had already been translated to Latin by, in most cases, persons unknown, and with those books translated by Jerome himself, which revision was completed in 405 A.D. became the official bible of the universal church that had been established by its unorthodox and non-christian champion, King Constantine, who had his father Constantius deified and was accorded the same honour himself after his death.
I have since added some revisions, (IN RED) which was not in the original, that you had read.
"But the Latin word virgo has the same multiple connotations as does the Greek parthenos and can mean a unmarried woman, a Young girl, a maiden or a virgin and the Latin term Virgo which has multiple connotations, was used by Jerome to translate what Isaiah had said in 7: 14, An Almah, (Unmarried woman) is with child and shall bear a son who will be called God is with us. The emphasis being on, that which the child would be and has been called for over two thousand years, and which Latin version, when translated into English, should now read An unmarried woman (Virgo) is with child and shall bear a son and he shall be called, God is with us, because this is now agreed by the majority of all christian denominations, to be what is said by Isaiah."
(But now back to the original posts)
In translating the Hebrew words of the prophet Isaiah, that an Almah an unmarried female is with child and will bear a son, into Greek, which unlike the Hebrew language, does not have a specific term for virgin, the authors of the Septuagint and Matthew correctly used the Greek word Parthenos, which carries a basic meaning of girl, or unmarried youth, and denotes virgin only by implication. A more accurate rendering of the Greek parthenos is a person who does not have a regular sexual partner, a widow with a family of children, would be a parthenos.
To translate something from the Hebrew to the Greek, or from any language to another, one must not lose the essence of the original, and the original was, that An young woman was with child. Therefore, as the greater majority of churches now admit, that the words of Isaiah, which refer to a child that had been sired by him, was, A young woman who is pregnant will have a son, etc. Matthew 1: 23; should now read, Now all this happened to make come true what the Lord had said through Isaiah, A young woman who is pregnant will have a son, etc. Because they all now admit that those were the words of Isaiah 7: 14.
Parthenos, was often used in reference to non-virgins who had never been married. Homer uses it in reference to unmarried girls who were no longer virgins, and Homer was the standard textbook for learning Greek all throughout antiquity, so any writer of Greek, including Matthew, who translated Isaiahs words, that (An unmarried woman would be with child etc) while being well aware of this words versatile and indefinite meaning; was in no way implying that Mary was a virgin.
For the Hebrew has a specific term for virgin, Bethulah which word is used in every instance in the Old Testament where a woman who has never had sexual intercourse with a man is referred to, which is obviously not the case with the unmarried woman/Almah, who is mentioned in Isaiah 7:14.
In Pergamos, as one of the final stages in the quest for enlightenment, the initiated adept would participate in sex with the Temple Virgin/Parthenos.
"Parthenos" did not mean possessing an intact hymen. A parthenos was simply an unmarried woman, a woman who claimed ownership of herself.
In Matthew you will find the genealogy of Joseph the son of Jacob from the tribe of Judah, this Joseph, is the 24th descendant of Solomon the biological son of King David and Bathsheba, who was originally, the wife of Uriah the Hittite, and this Joseph who married Mary, is not genetically connected to Jesus as he had no sexual relations with Mary until after she had given birth to Jesus, and although, according to the Torah, an adopted son inherits the rights of his adopted father, because this Joseph who was the step father of Jesus, was a descendant of the cursed line of Jehoiachim, through that particular Joseph, he had no claim to the throne of David.
In reference to Jehoiachim it is written in Jeremiah 22: 30; Thus saith the Lord. Write ye this man, a man that shall not prosper in his days; for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah.
In Luke 3: 23; you will find the genealogy of Jesus, Mary was the daughter of Heli and Anna, one of three daughters of Yehoshua/Jesus III, who was high priest in Jerusalem from 36 to 23 BC. Anna was given as a bride to Alexander Helios (Heli) and Jesus is the biological son of Joseph, the son of Heli, as was supposed by the people of his day who knew the family well.
And this Joseph, (A very common name in those days as well as today) who is the biological Father of Jesus, is about the 40th descendant of Nathan the half brother to Solomon the biological son of King David.
Nathan and Solomon were half brothers, as they were both sired by different fathers, but both had the same mother, Bathsheba the wife of Uriah the Hittite, who is the biological father of Nathan and a member of the tribe of Levi by his marriage to Bathsheba the daughter of Ammiel, the son of Obed-Edom, who is descended from Moses through his second wife, the daughter of Hobab, who is one of the two fathers-in-law to Moses the Levite. Jesus our high priest is not of the order of Aaron, but of Moses, who was to be to Aaron, as God on earth. See Exodus 4: 16.
Presumably, Joseph the son of Heli, would have met Mary for the first time, at the gathering of the family and friends of Elizabeth, who was the aged sister of Anna and aunty of Mary, who were both of the daughters of Levi. This was some months after the young parthenos (Unmarried) Mary had told the angel that up until that point in time she had never had any sexual relations with a man. Implying that the unmarried girl, Almah=Parthenos was still a virgin, before she met Joseph the Levite from Cyprus. Undoubtedly they did not realise at that time that they had a common father, Heli, from the tribe of Levi.
This Joseph the Levite who is the descendant of Nathan, came from Cyprus and he had a half sister by the name Mary, who was the adopted mother of John, who Jesus had surnamed Son of Thunder, and who is identified with the young John who was surnamed Mark, which means Hammer, or The Hammerer. After the death of Jesus, this Joseph the Levite, who is also named Barnabas, took his half sister and young John up north into the land of Pamphylia, where today, in the town of Ephesus, the grave sites of both Mary and John can still be visited.
Isaac, the biological son Abraham, who is the son of Terah, was born of Gods promise according to the workings of the Holy Spirit, as was Jesus the son of Joseph, who is the son of Heli.
.
Amplified Bible Galatians 4: 29; And just as at that time the child that was born according to the flesh (Ishmael) despised and persecuted (Isaac) who was born according to the promise and the workings of the Holy Spirit.
Isaac is a prototype of Jesus and like Jesus, was born of Gods promise according to the workings of the Holy Spirit. Both are seen as the seed that was promised to Abraham.
Both Isaac and Jesus were the sons of parents who were both sired by the one Father.
Terah, is the father to both Abraham and Sarah by different mothers, while Heli, is the father of both Joseph and Mary, by different mothers.
Both Mary and Sarah were informed by an angel that they would become Pregnant and bear the son of Gods promise. Isaac was offered up as a sacrifice by his physical father, Jesus was offered up by his spiritual father, who descended upon him in the form of a dove as the voice was heard to say, you are my beloved in whom I am well pleased, TODAY I have become your Father. Or rather, Today I have begotten thee. See the more ancient authorities of Luke 3: 22; and Isaac was offered up on the same mountain at the very spot where Jesus was crucified.
In Luke 3: 22; (In place of Thou art my beloved son in who I am well pleased.) The following authorities of the second, third, and fourth centuries read, This day I have begotten thee, vouched for by Codex D, and the most ancient copies of the old latin (a, b. c. ff.I), by Justin Martyr (AD 140), Clemens Alex, (AD. 190), Methodius (AD. 290), among the Greeks. And among the Latins, Lactaitius (AD 300), Hilary (AD) Juvencus (AD. 330), Faustus (AD. 400) and Augustine. All these oldest manuscripts were changed completely. They now read, This is my son in whom I am well pleased. Whereas the original variant was, Thou art my Son. This day I have begotten thee.
If Jesus was not born of the flesh as all human beings are, but was supposedly born of a virgin without male semen having been introduced into her uterus, then this would have been the greatest of all miracles, and would have been shouted from the roof tops by all four gospel writers and yet we see that Mark, who is believed to have been the son of Peter, and John, the beloved disciple, who walked and talked with Jesus, ignore the physical birth of Jesus as being totally irrelevant to the story of salvation and begin their account of He, who was sent in the name of the Lord, with the Baptism of the man Jesus, when he was born of the spirit that descended upon him in the form of a dove and the heavenly voice was heard to say, You are my beloved in whom I am well pleased, Today I have become your father.
Matthew merely translates the Hebrew, Isaiah 7: 14; A young unmarried woman who IS pregnant will have a son and will name him Immanuel.
While Luke simply reveals that the young unmarried 14 year old Mary, was still a virgin 3 months before she was found to be pregnant. Due to her obedience to our indwelling ancestral Father spirit, she conceived in her womb the child of the father, chosen by the Holy Spirit, which act of obedience by the handmaid of the Lord, was concealed in the shadows beneath the wings of the Lord of Spirits.
According to Young's Analytical Concordances to the Bible, the Hebrew "Almah," carries the meaning, "Unmarried female---Concealment."
Do you honestly think that any person who reads the verse that you pulled out of all context to which it was written, having now seen it in it true context, will believe for one moment your ridiculous statement, that I said that the idea of Mary being a (Pregnant) virgin was invented by the Constantine church centuries later.
Last edited by The Tongue on Thu Oct 11, 2012 7:31 am, edited 2 times in total.
-
Jzyehoshua
- Apprentice
- Posts: 120
- Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 10:14 pm
Post #122
The Daniel 9:24-27 prophecy really narrows down the time frame the Messiah was to come to 31 A.D. And the Messiah had to come before the stoppage of sacrifice and destruction of Jerusalem which occurred in 70 A.D., as that clearly is stated as occurring right after the coming of the Messiah.
He was also to be peaceful and trusted by the Gentiles. (Isaiah 42:1-7)
He was also to be peaceful and trusted by the Gentiles. (Isaiah 42:1-7)
-
ThatGirlAgain
- Prodigy
- Posts: 2961
- Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2011 1:09 pm
- Location: New York City
- Been thanked: 1 time
Post #123
I just quoted you in saying that exact thing.The Tongue wrote: [ThatGirlAgain wrote]To begin with you most definitely did say that the idea of Mary being a virgin was invented by the Constantine church centuries later.
To begin with I never did say that the idea of Mary being a virgin was invented by the Constantine church centuries later.
Here it is yet again.
Should I go count the number of times you posted that?The Tongue wrote: The word Virgin in reference to the mother of Jesus was first introduced in the 5th century Latin Bible The Vulgate, due mainly to the effort of Jerome who was commissioned to make a revision of the books that had already been translated to Latin by, in most cases, persons unknown, and with those books translated by Jerome himself, which revision was completed in 405 A.D. became the official bible of the universal church that had been established by its unorthodox and non-christian champion, King Constantine, who had his father Constantius deified and was accorded the same honour himself after his death.
Really no point in continuing this.
Dogmatism and skepticism are both, in a sense, absolute philosophies; one is certain of knowing, the other of not knowing. What philosophy should dissipate is certainty, whether of knowledge or ignorance.
- Bertrand Russell
- Bertrand Russell
-
Jzyehoshua
- Apprentice
- Posts: 120
- Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 10:14 pm
Post #124
Why is there disagreement over this? The virgin birth is not Biblical at all. There is no prophecy in the Bible about Jesus being born of a virgin. The Isaiah 7:14 and Matthew 1:23 passages both use words (almah and parthenos) that do not mean virgin but most likely widow. The Old Testament word for virgin is bethulah, and had that meaning been intended would have been used. Almah appears to be a variation of almanah meaning widow.ThatGirlAgain wrote:I just quoted you in saying that exact thing.The Tongue wrote: [ThatGirlAgain wrote]To begin with you most definitely did say that the idea of Mary being a virgin was invented by the Constantine church centuries later.
To begin with I never did say that the idea of Mary being a virgin was invented by the Constantine church centuries later.
Here it is yet again.
Should I go count the number of times you posted that?The Tongue wrote: The word Virgin in reference to the mother of Jesus was first introduced in the 5th century Latin Bible The Vulgate, due mainly to the effort of Jerome who was commissioned to make a revision of the books that had already been translated to Latin by, in most cases, persons unknown, and with those books translated by Jerome himself, which revision was completed in 405 A.D. became the official bible of the universal church that had been established by its unorthodox and non-christian champion, King Constantine, who had his father Constantius deified and was accorded the same honour himself after his death.
Really no point in continuing this.
Meanwhile in the New Testament, parthenos does not mean virgin but widow as seen from 1 Corinthians 7. The entire chapter is obviously about the divorced/widows and the Catholics originated their inaccurate priestly celibacy doctrine because they misread it as virgin to try and prop up their perpetual virgin myth. Furthermore, parthenos cannot mean virgin in Revelation 14:4 either since it would contradict verses saying God blesses marriage like Hebrews 13:4 and Proverbs 18:22.
Catholicism's "Queen of Heaven" as worshiped by cake/drink offerings and incense (i.e. Mass) is an Old Testament idol seen from the book of Jeremiah:
Jeremiah 7:17 Seest thou not what they do in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem?
18 The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead their dough, to make cakes to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto other gods, that they may provoke me to anger.
19 Do they provoke me to anger? saith the LORD: do they not provoke themselves to the confusion of their own faces?
20 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, mine anger and my fury shall be poured out upon this place, upon man, and upon beast, and upon the trees of the field, and upon the fruit of the ground; and it shall burn, and shall not be quenched.
Jeremiah 44:15 Then all the men which knew that their wives had burned incense unto other gods, and all the women that stood by, a great multitude, even all the people that dwelt in the land of Egypt, in Pathros, answered Jeremiah, saying,
16 As for the word that thou hast spoken unto us in the name of the LORD, we will not hearken unto thee.
17 But we will certainly do whatsoever thing goeth forth out of our own mouth, to burn incense unto the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, as we have done, we, and our fathers, our kings, and our princes, in the cities of Judah, and in the streets of Jerusalem: for then had we plenty of victuals, and were well, and saw no evil.
18 But since we left off to burn incense to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, we have wanted all things, and have been consumed by the sword and by the famine.
19 And when we burned incense to the queen of heaven, and poured out drink offerings unto her, did we make her cakes to worship her, and pour out drink offerings unto her, without our men?
20 Then Jeremiah said unto all the people, to the men, and to the women, and to all the people which had given him that answer, saying,
21 The incense that ye burned in the cities of Judah, and in the streets of Jerusalem, ye, and your fathers, your kings, and your princes, and the people of the land, did not the LORD remember them, and came it not into his mind?
22 So that the LORD could no longer bear, because of the evil of your doings, and because of the abominations which ye have committed; therefore is your land a desolation, and an astonishment, and a curse, without an inhabitant, as at this day.
-
The Tongue
- Under Probation
- Posts: 1667
- Joined: Fri May 04, 2012 12:08 am
- Location: Townsville Queensland Australia
Post #125
[ThatGirlAgain wrote].......I just quoted you in saying that exact thing.ThatGirlAgain wrote:I just quoted you in saying that exact thing.The Tongue wrote: [ThatGirlAgain wrote]To begin with you most definitely did say that the idea of Mary being a virgin was invented by the Constantine church centuries later.
To begin with I never did say that the idea of Mary being a virgin was invented by the Constantine church centuries later.
Here it is yet again.
Should I go count the number of times you posted that?The Tongue wrote: The word Virgin in reference to the mother of Jesus was first introduced in the 5th century Latin Bible The Vulgate, due mainly to the effort of Jerome who was commissioned to make a revision of the books that had already been translated to Latin by, in most cases, persons unknown, and with those books translated by Jerome himself, which revision was completed in 405 A.D. became the official bible of the universal church that had been established by its unorthodox and non-christian champion, King Constantine, who had his father Constantius deified and was accorded the same honour himself after his death.
Really no point in continuing this.
Here it is yet again.
The Tongue wrote:
The word Virgin in reference to the mother of Jesus was first introduced in the 5th century Latin Bible The Vulgate, due mainly to the effort of Jerome who was commissioned to make a revision of the books that had already been translated to Latin by, in most cases, persons unknown, and with those books translated by Jerome himself, which revision was completed in 405 A.D. became the official bible of the universal church that had been established by its unorthodox and non-christian champion, King Constantine, who had his father Constantius deified and was accorded the same honour himself after his death.
Obviously you have not yet read my post #121, but others have.
[ThatGirlAgain wrote].......Should I go count the number of times you posted that?
I certainly wish that you would, perhaps then you might begin to understand it, in the context in which it was written.
[ThatGirlAgain wrote].......Really no point in continuing this.
That's the third time you've said that in your last three posts, but you just keep coming back for more.
[ThatGirlAgain wrote] A woman in a puerperal state is one is giving birth or who has just given birth. Clement is saying that Mary did not give birth in the normal manner but miraculously and thereby remained a virgin. Obviously Clement thought that Mary conceived while a virgin in order to remain a virgin. This is also clear when Clement says that she conceived of herself and not from conjunction. Clement, whom you praise so much, believes the story told in the Proto-Evangelium of James.
You claim to have read my posts?
Go back and re-read my post #120, then try to explain to all who read this thread, how you have come to your ridiculous belief, that I praise the greatest of all liars, "Clement of Alexandria."
-
ThatGirlAgain
- Prodigy
- Posts: 2961
- Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2011 1:09 pm
- Location: New York City
- Been thanked: 1 time
Post #126
I have read post 120/121. It does not address the above quote from you at all.The Tongue wrote:Obviously you have not yet read my post #121, but others have.ThatGirlAgain wrote:I just quoted you in saying that exact thing.The Tongue wrote: [ThatGirlAgain wrote]To begin with you most definitely did say that the idea of Mary being a virgin was invented by the Constantine church centuries later.
To begin with I never did say that the idea of Mary being a virgin was invented by the Constantine church centuries later.
Here it is yet again.
The Tongue wrote: The word Virgin in reference to the mother of Jesus was first introduced in the 5th century Latin Bible The Vulgate, due mainly to the effort of Jerome who was commissioned to make a revision of the books that had already been translated to Latin by, in most cases, persons unknown, and with those books translated by Jerome himself, which revision was completed in 405 A.D. became the official bible of the universal church that had been established by its unorthodox and non-christian champion, King Constantine, who had his father Constantius deified and was accorded the same honour himself after his death.
Here is the context in which it was written. You were talking to Nickman.The Tongue wrote: [ThatGirlAgain wrote].......Should I go count the number of times you posted that?
I certainly wish that you would, perhaps then you might begin to understand it, in the context in which it was written.
You were extremely adamant to the point of being highly insulting to Nickman that the word virgin was not used to refer to Mary until the 5th century. I understand the context very well. Despite your repeated denials you very definitely did say this and you clearly meant it. But when I brought up the Proto-Evangelium of James to demonstrate that the belief in the virginity of Mary was well established long before that, you went off on this Clement was a liar trip and denied that you ever made the above claim. You backed off from the claim that the idea was invented in the 5th century. But nonetheless you did say it to begin with, something you have repeatedly denied.The Tongue wrote: When will it ever sink into that blind and stubborn atheistic brain of yours that Matthew was not referring to any pregnant virgin?
I will continue to repeat this time and time again until it finally smashes the mixture of that brain of yours that is all mixed up and set as hard as concrete.
The word Virgin in reference to the mother of Jesus was first introduced in the 5th century Latin Bible The Vulgate, due mainly to the effort of Jerome who was commissioned to make a revision of the books that had already been translated to Latin by, in most cases, persons unknown, and with those books translated by Jerome himself, which revision was completed in 405 A.D. became the official bible of the universal church that had been established by its unorthodox and non-christian champion, King Constantine, who had his father Constantius deified and was accorded the same honour himself after his death.
You called him Saint Clement of Alexandria, who was a saint in the Martyrology of the Roman universal church. But of courseI forgot that being considered an important part of the church that King Constantine created a few hundred years laterThe Tongue wrote: [ThatGirlAgain wrote] A woman in a puerperal state is one is giving birth or who has just given birth. Clement is saying that Mary did not give birth in the normal manner but miraculously and thereby remained a virgin. Obviously Clement thought that Mary conceived while a virgin in order to remain a virgin. This is also clear when Clement says that she conceived of herself and not from conjunction. Clement, whom you praise so much, believes the story told in the Proto-Evangelium of James.
You claim to have read my posts?
Go back and re-read my post #120, then try to explain to all who read this thread, how you have come to your ridiculous belief, that I praise the greatest of all liars, "Clement of Alexandria."
disqualifies him from having an opinion about what people in that era actually thought. My point was that he was yet another illustration that the idea of the virginity of Mary was well established. You claim that the Apostles had a different opinion but have never demonstrated that. (Last time I try sarcasm. It does not work in print. )BTW Clement of Alexandria is considered a Church Father by the Roman Catholic Church and is still a saint in Orthodox Christianity, Eastern Catholicism and Anglicanism. (Ref) He was dropped from the rolls of the Roman church for unorthodox beliefs such as salvation still being potentially available to those in Hell. The idea of the perpetual virginity of Mary that Clement got from James is in fact an article of faith in the Roman church. In short, all of your talk of Clement being dropped as a saint is irrelevant to the issue at hand.
BTW Clement was NOT a Martyr. No details of his death are known.
Since you never bothered to address my arguments that Matthew very clearly intended to mean that Mary was a virgin, I fail to see on what grounds you call Clement a liar except that you do not want Matthew to have said that. Instead you come up with this story about Mary getting knocked up by her half-brother Heli, something you STILL have not provided any documentation for.
One more thing
Yes as I already documented the Latin word virgo need not literally mean virgin.
Here is yet another reference
Girl, virgin
http://latindictionary.wikidot.com/noun:virgo
Note that the first meaning is girl not virgin.
And another one
maidenly; of/appropriate for girls of marriageable age; virginal;
http://www.the-goldenrule.name/Virgin_LATIN-Virgo.htm
And another
unmarried nubile girl
http://browse.dict.cc/latin-english/virgo.html
The meaning of virgo is essentially the same as parthenos in the circumstances of Mary. Jerome did not change anything. What matters is how it was understood at the time. Despite your STILL undocumented Heli knocked up his sister claim, everyone else at the time seems to have taken it as meaning virgin in the literal physical sense.
Dogmatism and skepticism are both, in a sense, absolute philosophies; one is certain of knowing, the other of not knowing. What philosophy should dissipate is certainty, whether of knowledge or ignorance.
- Bertrand Russell
- Bertrand Russell
-
Nickman
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 5443
- Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2010 8:51 am
- Location: Idaho
- Been thanked: 1 time
Post #127
Jzyehoshua
Matthew is explicit on Jesus being a virgin. He goes out of his way to enforce this idea. What sense does it make if Matthew is just saying Jesus would be born of a woman? Thats a no brainer to anyone who he would tell it to. Instead he is taking Isaiah 7:14 out of context and doesn't realize that it is not a messianic prophecy. He fails to realize that Isaiah chapter 7 is fulfilled in chapter 8.
To add, the messiah was never supposed to be a virgin, yet Matthew. Asserts that Jesus is the messiah and that he was born of a virgin. The gospel of Matthew shows his own ignorance of the Hebrew concept of the messiah.
Matthew is explicit on Jesus being a virgin. He goes out of his way to enforce this idea. What sense does it make if Matthew is just saying Jesus would be born of a woman? Thats a no brainer to anyone who he would tell it to. Instead he is taking Isaiah 7:14 out of context and doesn't realize that it is not a messianic prophecy. He fails to realize that Isaiah chapter 7 is fulfilled in chapter 8.
To add, the messiah was never supposed to be a virgin, yet Matthew. Asserts that Jesus is the messiah and that he was born of a virgin. The gospel of Matthew shows his own ignorance of the Hebrew concept of the messiah.
-
bluethread
- Savant
- Posts: 9129
- Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2011 1:10 pm
Post #128
That presumes a singular literalistic definition of the term "fulfilled". Could you show where Matthew is explicit on Jesus being a virgin? Not that I necessarily disagree with that, I just would like to see the passage. Also, if you could provide the passages where the Scriptures say the messiah was never supposed to be a virgin, that would be helpful.Nickman wrote: Jzyehoshua
Matthew is explicit on Jesus being a virgin. He goes out of his way to enforce this idea. What sense does it make if Matthew is just saying Jesus would be born of a woman? Thats a no brainer to anyone who he would tell it to. Instead he is taking Isaiah 7:14 out of context and doesn't realize that it is not a messianic prophecy. He fails to realize that Isaiah chapter 7 is fulfilled in chapter 8.
To add, the messiah was never supposed to be a virgin, yet Matthew. Asserts that Jesus is the messiah and that he was born of a virgin. The gospel of Matthew shows his own ignorance of the Hebrew concept of the messiah.
-
Nickman
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 5443
- Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2010 8:51 am
- Location: Idaho
- Been thanked: 1 time
Post #129
18 This is how the birth of Jesus the Messiah came about [d] : His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit.bluethread wrote:That presumes a singular literalistic definition of the term "fulfilled". Could you show where Matthew is explicit on Jesus being a virgin? Not that I necessarily disagree with that, I just would like to see the passage. Also, if you could provide the passages where the Scriptures say the messiah was never supposed to be a virgin, that would be helpful.Nickman wrote: Jzyehoshua
Matthew is explicit on Jesus being a virgin. He goes out of his way to enforce this idea. What sense does it make if Matthew is just saying Jesus would be born of a woman? Thats a no brainer to anyone who he would tell it to. Instead he is taking Isaiah 7:14 out of context and doesn't realize that it is not a messianic prophecy. He fails to realize that Isaiah chapter 7 is fulfilled in chapter 8.
To add, the messiah was never supposed to be a virgin, yet Matthew. Asserts that Jesus is the messiah and that he was born of a virgin. The gospel of Matthew shows his own ignorance of the Hebrew concept of the messiah.
22 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: 23 The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel [g] (which means God with us).
If Matthew was trying to say that Mary was just a woman, which is the only other option, it makes no sense because this is commen sense. Matthew appeals to fulfillment. How hard is it to fulfil being born of a woman? There is no need to appeal to it as a fulfillment, but by taking Isaiah out of context he has come up with an incorrect interpretation of the text then applies it to Jesus. This is his idea that Isaiah speaks of a virgin, and in a eureka moment asserts that Jesus fulfilled it.
The Hebrew messiah is never mentioned as being born of a virgin, which if he was supposed to, would have been something that wouldn't be left out. I mean it could, but highly unlikely. So nothing says he couldn't be born of a virgin, but nothing says he is either. So there is no reason to think that he is. The Hebrew bible says many things about the messiah, being born of a virgin and being god's son is a pretty big one to leave out.
-
The Tongue
- Under Probation
- Posts: 1667
- Joined: Fri May 04, 2012 12:08 am
- Location: Townsville Queensland Australia
Post #130
Nickman wrote: Jzyehoshua
Matthew is explicit on Jesus being a virgin. He goes out of his way to enforce this idea. What sense does it make if Matthew is just saying Jesus would be born of a woman? Thats a no brainer to anyone who he would tell it to. Instead he is taking Isaiah 7:14 out of context and doesn't realize that it is not a messianic prophecy. He fails to realize that Isaiah chapter 7 is fulfilled in chapter 8.
To add, the messiah was never supposed to be a virgin, yet Matthew. Asserts that Jesus is the messiah and that he was born of a virgin. The gospel of Matthew shows his own ignorance of the Hebrew concept of the messiah.
