Was Jesus the messiah of the Hebrew bible?

[Nickman]

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.....

[The Tongue]

[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.

I just quoted you in saying that exact thing.

Here it is yet again.

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.

I have read post 120/121. It does not address the above quote from you at all.

[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.

Here is the context in which it was written. You were talking to Nickman.

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 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.

[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."

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 later 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.

[ThatGirlAgain wrote]......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.

No, no, no, no, no, you "HAVE" taken it out of the context in which it was written. Let me repeat the post from which you have cut and pasted one verse out of many that prove beyond any doubt whatsoever that I was not inferring that the concept of the virgin birth originated with the establishment of the universal church by Constantine in the year 325 AD.

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.


(Let me just add here, before continuing with the post from which you cut and pasted that verse in your futile attempt to denigrate my beliefs which I have exponded since day one of Joining this forum. When I first wrote that post, I was under the impression that the Latin Virgo, was the specific term for Virgin.

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.
Now I make the claim that the first time that the WORD Virgin in referrence to to the pregnant Mary which was introduced into the bible, was when the Latin Vulgate was translated to English.

But now, let us return to my original post from which You, in your futile attempt to twist and distort and make it seem that I was inferring that the CONCEPT of the virgin birth originated with the establishment of the universal church by Constantine in the year 325 AD.)


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 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, 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 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 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."

Apparently, after having read that post, including the verse that you have taken out of the context in which it was written, it is only you who could possibly believe, that in that one verse, out of, how many verses were in that post? I was insinuating that the concept of Mary still being a virgin whilst pregnant, was not introduced until the 5th century. WOW!

[The Tongue]

CONTINUED from post#131:

[ThatGirlAgain Wrote]Despite your repeated denials you very definitely did say this and you clearly meant it.[/b]

Of course I meant It. At the time that I wrote that post, I was still under the impression that the Word VIRGO was the specific Latin term for VIRGIN. I have now revised that to: The WORD virgin, (Not the concept of a virgin birth, but the WORD virgin) in reference to the pregnant Mary was first introduced into the bible, when the WORD virgo, which was used to translate the Hebrew word Almah, was erroneously translated to the English, as Virgin.

[ThatGirlAgain Wrote]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.

To begin with, I have never denied saying that the WORD virgin in reference to the pregnant Mary, was not introduced into the bible until the 5th century Latin Vulgate. I have since conceded, that because I was under the impression that the word VIRGO was the specific Latin term for Virgin I was in error and have since revised that portion of the post, to read, The first time that the WORD Virgin was introduced into the bible in reference to the pregnant Mary, was when the Latin VIRGO was erroneously translated to English, as VIRGIN.

What I have denied, is your ridiculous statement that I believed that the virgin birth was not introduced until the 5th century.

And as to another of your ridiculous statements, 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.

Dont kid yourself Matey, I was calling Clement a liar since God only knows when, I could go back further for this little exercise if I wanted to waste the time, but this will do for now. Try going back to Tuedsday May the 22 ND, Post subject, Re: Christianity and the ToE Part 2.

Here is that post as seen below:

First of all, one must understand how the universal church of 325 AD, was founded and from what it was founded and upon what foundation it was built: because you are not referring here to the Apostolic Church of Jesus Christ, but rather, to the universal church of Constantine.

Not only did the apostles not teach the Jesus of the universal church, neither did they teach the false doctrine of the trinity, nor the so-called unbiblical immaculate conceptions, of Jesus, and of his mother Mary.

We know that the universal church of King Constantine was formed from a rag-tag group of quarrelling and insult hurling religious bodies that called themselves Christians. King Constantine, finally sick to the stomach with their constant bickering, called together all the heads of those quarrelling bodies to the first ever World Council of Churches where, under the dominating presence of the non-christian and almost certainly theologically illiterate King Constantine, the universal church was established in 325 AD, some 300 years after the Apostolic Church of Jesus Christ had been established in Jerusalem.

In the days of the Apostle Paul who in 1st Timothy 1: 1; says: From Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by order of GOD OUR SAVIOUR and Christ Jesus OUR HOPE. The people were already beginning to fall away from the truth, and following another gospel that was not taught by the word of God or the apostles.

In his 2nd letter to the Corinthians 11: 4; Paul says, You gladly tolerate anyone who comes to you and preaches a different Jesus, not the one we preached; and you accept a spirit (The Lie) and a gospel completely different from the spirit (Of Truth) and the gospel you received from us.

Then in Galatians 1: 6; Paul says again, I am surprised at you! In no time at all you are deserting the truth and are accepting another gospel.

So, What was that other gospel, Way back in the days of Paul, that was leading the people away from the truth and away from the Jesus as preached by the Apostles, to another false Jesus?

That gospel was the word of the anti-christ that refused to acknowledge that Jesus had come as a human being, and instead, they believed that he was a spirit, who, like some Hologram, would appear and disappear at will.

Even in the later days of John, the false teaching that Jesus was not of the seed of Adam from which every human being who has, or ever will walk this earth, has descended, and had not come as a human being, but as a spiritual being, was already beginning spread throughout the world, and concerning that evolving falsehood, John had this to say.

1st letter of John 4:1-3; My dear friends, do not believe all who claim to have the spirit, (My words are spirit) but test them to find out if the spirit they have comes from God. For many false prophets have gone out everywhere. This is how you will be able to know if it is Gods spirit/word: anyone who acknowledges that Jesus came as a human being has the spirit who comes from God. But anyone who denies this about Jesus does not have the spirit from God. The spirit that he has is from the enemy of the anointed one, the Anti-christ etc.

2nd letter of John verses 7-10;.Many deceivers have gone out all over the world, people who do not acknowledge that Jesus came as a human being. Such a person is a deceiver and an enemy of Christ.

If you would care to open your eyes, I"m sure that you will have little difficulty in finding the teaching of the anti-christ, that Jesus was not a descendant of Adam and therefore, not a true human being, which has been spread ALL OVER THE WORLD.

Over the centuries the false teaching of the anti-christ continued to evolve. But as the followers of the anti-christ became more enlightened and harder to deceive, in Alexandria, by the second century, Docetism, the concept that Jesus had existed as a spirit rather than a human being, had all but theoretically been stamped out.

But still, there persisted the belief that their false Jesus, although seen as a sort of human being, did not have our normal bodily needs, such as eating, drinking and having to go to the toilet, and Clement the bishop of Alexandria, wrote: It would be ridiculous to imagine that the redeemer, in order to exist, had the usual needs of man. He only took food and ate it in order that we should not teach about him in a Docetic fashion. Satan must have had some trouble trying to tempt this false Jesus of theirs, who had no need of food, into turning stones into bread.

Their Jesus was not the Jesus as taught by the apostles, but that other Jesus, taught by the Anti-Christ, who unlike we mere HUMAN BEINGS, did not need to eat, drink, or go to the toilet, as was taught by one of the great teachers that the members of the universal church, love to use as one of their authorities when trying to defend one of their false doctrines.

Saint Clement of Alexandria, who was a saint in the Martyrology of the Roman universal church, in support of the great lie, speaks of the time that some imaginary midwife, who was supposed to be at the birth of Jesus, told some woman by the name Salome, that the mother was still a virgin after the birth and that her hymen was still intact, and that this supposed Salome, stuck her finger into the mothers vagina to check, and her hand immediately withered up, but the baby Jesus reached out and touched her hand and healed it.

Down to the 17th century Clement was venerated as a saint. His name was to be found in the Martyrologies, and his feast fell on December 4. But when the Roman Martyrology was revised by Clement VIII (Pope from 1592 to 1605), his name was dropped from the calendar on the advice of his confessor, Cardinal Baronius. Pope Benedict XIV in 1748 maintained his predecessor's decision on the grounds that Clement's life was little-known; that he had never obtained public cultus in the Church; and that some of his doctrines were, if not erroneous, at least highly suspect.

"ERRONEOUS--HIGHLY SUSPECT," you can say that again. But by then the falsehood was firmly established and its seeds had taken root in all the nations of the world. The Lord now has need of some good gardeners, to help root out those noxious weeds.


And when did you introduce to me, the fraudulent Proto-Evangelium of James ?

[ThatGirlAgain]

No, no, no, no, no, you "HAVE" taken it out of the context in which it was written. Let me repeat the post from which you have cut and pasted one verse out of many that prove beyond any doubt whatsoever that I was not inferring that the concept of the virgin birth originated with the establishment of the universal church by Constantine in the year 325 AD.

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.

Here is the accurate quote of what you said.

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.

Two things:

First, in quoting yourself you have CHANGED what you said to now give it a different spin.

Second, the clear meaning of the above quote from you is that assigning the meaning of virgin to parthenos is wrong and that this idea did not appear until the 5th century, invented by the church of King Constantine.

Let me just add here, before continuing with the post from which you cut and pasted that verse in your futile attempt to denigrate my beliefs which I have exponded since day one of Joining this forum. When I first wrote that post, I was under the impression that the Latin Virgo, was the specific term for Virgin.

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.

Now I make the claim that the first time that the WORD Virgin in referrence to to the pregnant Mary which was introduced into the bible, was when the Latin Vulgate was translated to English.

Since the WORD Virgin is an English word, that is obviously true but hardly relevant. But as I have repeatedly argued is that Matthew clearly intended parthenos to be understood as virgin and that this meaning is in fact the way it was understood in the popular imagination. Yet another extended lecture on the several meanings of almah, a word Matthew never used, and parthenos, the word Matthew did use, is both unnecessary and irrelevant.

Your counter to this is that there were really two Josephs and that one of them was Marys half-brother and that this is the one who knocked her up. Further you appear to be claiming that this is what the Apostles believed and anyone who thought Mary conceived while a virgin was lying. All without supporting documentation of course. Say it again and I will invoke Rule 5.

Note: In various past posts, I sometimes accidentally omitted the word ben in front of Heli. I had originally introduced the phrases ben Jacob and ben Heli to distinguish the hypothetical two Josephs. Wherever I might have said that Marys brother was Heli, I meant to say ben Heli, that is, the hypothetical second Joseph.

Since Jerome was working with the already existing Vetus Latina texts, he did not translate the word almah at all. Nor did he translate the word parthenos. He would already have found the word virgo, which is the closest Latin has to the Greek parthenos that Matthew used.

propter hoc dabit Dominus ipse vobis signum ecce virgo concipiet et pariet filium et vocabitis nomen eius Emmanuhel

Isaiah 7:14 Latin Vulgate
http://www.latinvulgate.com/lv/verse.aspx?t=0&b=27&c=7

You have moved the goalposts so much that they are now in a different stadium. As I mentioned in an earlier post, when it comes to things for which documentation exists you keep changing your stance when shown to be wrong. Your only consistent stance is one that to date you still have not documented. Rule 5 is warming up in the bullpen.

[The Tongue]

CONTINUED from post #132:

[ThatGirlAgain wrote].You backed off from the claim that the idea was invented in the 5th century.

What a load of unadulterated rubbish. I have never claimed that the Idea of the virgin birth originated in the 5th century. Only you, after reading my posts could possibly make that false claim.

[ThatGirlAgain wrote].But nonetheless you did say it to begin with, something you have repeatedly denied.

No, no, no! Dont you go tellin fibs again girly, I have never denied that I said that the word virgin, in reference to Mary was not introduced into the bible until the fifth century Latin Vulgate.

[ThatGirlAgain wrote].You called him Saint Clement of Alexandria,

I certainly did, because that is what he is called by the people in Orthodox Christianity, Eastern Catholicism and Anglicanism, who still venerate him as a saint.

[ThatGirlAgain wrote].who was a saint in the Martyrology of the Roman universal church.

That is correct, WAS being the operative word there.

[ThatGirlAgain wrote].But of courseI forgot that being considered an important part of the church that King Constantine created a few hundred years later disqualifies him from having an opinion about what people in that era actually thought.

No, No, No, Matey, just because the Universal church of Constantine, which was established in 325 AD, made clement, who lived in the second century a saint in the Roman Martyrology, he wasnt disqualified from having an opinion about what people in that era actually thought.

I did tell you that it was Clement of Alexandria, who, in the second century wrote: It would be ridiculous to imagine that the redeemer, in order to exist, had the usual needs of man. He only took food and ate it in order that we should not teach about him in a Docetic fashion. Didnt I?

Of course I did, but perhaps you had forgotten, I also revealed to you that in support of the great lie, Clement spoke of the time that some imaginary midwife, who was supposed to be at the birth of Jesus, told some woman by the name Salome, that the mother was still a virgin after the birth and that her hymen was still intact, and that this supposed Salome, stuck her finger into the mothers vagina to check, ansaint in thered her hand immediately withered up, but the baby Jesus reached out and touched her hand and healed it.

Perhaps you had forgotten that also. But nevertheless, Clement was in no way disqualified from having an opinion about what people in that era actually thought.

[ThatGirlAgain wrote].My point was that he was yet another illustration that the idea of the virginity of Mary was well established.

Exactly my point, which I have explained to you time and time again.

[ThatGirlAgain wrote].You claim that the Apostles had a different opinion but have never demonstrated that.

Of course I did, but as per-usual you were blind to it, as you apprear to be, to the words in most of my posts, which you and you alone, seem to think, refer to the concept of the virgin birth as having originated in the 5th century with the universal church of Constantine, when I have argued otherwise countless times.

[ThatGirlAgain wrote]. (Last time I try sarcasm. It does not work in print.

Yes, I was amazed when you tried it again with this, your little sarcastic remark: [ThatGirlAgain wrote]. But of courseI forgot that being considered an important part of the church that King Constantine created a few hundred years later disqualifies him from having an opinion about what people in that era actually thought.[/b] Didnt work this time either, did it?

[ThatGirlAgain wrote]. 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.

It proves that even the bride of the Anti-Christ, who has condemned the Proto-Evangelium of James as being fraudulent, didnt believe his ridiculous outlandish claims either, which made their "false virgin birth story" seem more unbelievable that it already was.

[ThatGirlAgain wrote]. BTW Clement was NOT a Martyr. No details of his death are known.[/b]

But he was a saint in the Roman Martyrology, which nobody can deny, which nobody can deny.

[ThatGirlAgain wrote]. Since you never bothered to address my arguments that Matthew very clearly intended to mean that Mary was a virgin,

I did! Time and time again, But apparently you were blind to what was written there, or you just couldnt understand. Matthew's only intent was to translate the Hebrew, "A young woman is pregnant and shall bear a son WHO Shall BE CALLED GOD IS WITH US. Which words were fulfilled in The son of the parthenos=unmarried girl Mary, who, down to this day, her child is still being called God is with us.

How many time have you seen this in my posts or words to this effect

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.

[ThatGirlAgain wrote]. I fail to see on what grounds you call Clement a liar except that you do not want Matthew to have said that.

Nope, Clements lies and Matthews translation of the Hebrew Almah, have nothing in common.

[ThatGirlAgain wrote]. 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.

Again you show yourself to be either blind to what you read, or are simply unable to understand that which you read. Never have I said that Mary got knocked up by her half-brother Heli. Mary conceived in her womb the child of Gods promise according to the workings of the Holy spirit, who had chosen Joseph the SON of Heli, to be the biological father of Jesus.

[ThatGirlAgain wrote]. 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.

No my friend, the only thing that matters, is the fact that Matthew, who used the Greek Parthenos which means, a young physical attractive girl of marriageable age, and denotes virgin only by implication, and Jerome, who uses the Latin Virgo, which carries the same meaning as Parthenos, were simply translating the Hebrew word Almah, which can in no way be translated Virgin.

[ThatGirlAgain]

CONTINUED from post #132:

[ThatGirlAgain wrote].You backed off from the claim that the idea was invented in the 5th century.

What a load of unadulterated rubbish. I have never claimed that the Idea of the virgin birth originated in the 5th century. Only you, after reading my posts could possibly make that false claim.

[ThatGirlAgain wrote].But nonetheless you did say it to begin with, something you have repeatedly denied.

No, no, no! Dont you go tellin fibs again girly, I have never denied that I said that the word virgin, in reference to Mary was not introduced into the bible until the fifth century Latin Vulgate.

I showed it over and over and over. You were quite explicit about it. And considering the context of the conversation you were having with Nickman it was clear that it was your intent to say that.

[ThatGirlAgain wrote].You called him Saint Clement of Alexandria,

I certainly did, because that is what he is called by the people in Orthodox Christianity, Eastern Catholicism and Anglicanism, who still venerate him as a saint.

Yes, I know that. I just told YOU that.

[ThatGirlAgain wrote].who was a saint in the Martyrology of the Roman universal church.
That is correct, WAS being the operative word there.

Actually, the official Roman Martyrology did not exist until the 16th century. There were numerous other conflicting martyrologies before then but they were traditional not official. But in any case, dropping Clement of Alexandria had nothing to do with his views about the virginity of Mary. So why do you keep harping on that?

[ThatGirlAgain wrote].But of courseI forgot that being considered an important part of the church that King Constantine created a few hundred years later disqualifies him from having an opinion about what people in that era actually thought.

No, No, No, Matey, just because the Universal church of Constantine, which was established in 325 AD, made clement, who lived in the second century a saint in the Roman Martyrology, he wasnt disqualified from having an opinion about what people in that era actually thought.

I did tell you that it was Clement of Alexandria, who, in the second century wrote: It would be ridiculous to imagine that the redeemer, in order to exist, had the usual needs of man. He only took food and ate it in order that we should not teach about him in a Docetic fashion. Didnt I?

Of course I did, but perhaps you had forgotten, I also revealed to you that in support of the great lie, Clement spoke of the time that some imaginary midwife, who was supposed to be at the birth of Jesus, told some woman by the name Salome, that the mother was still a virgin after the birth and that her hymen was still intact, and that this supposed Salome, stuck her finger into the mothers vagina to check, ansaint in thered her hand immediately withered up, but the baby Jesus reached out and touched her hand and healed it.

Perhaps you had forgotten that also. But nevertheless, Clement was in no way disqualified from having an opinion about what people in that era actually thought.

So his opinion that people understood Matthew as saying that Mary conceived while a virgin was correct.

[ThatGirlAgain wrote].My point was that he was yet another illustration that the idea of the virginity of Mary was well established.

Exactly my point, which I have explained to you time and time again.

No, I said it to you time and time again.

[ThatGirlAgain wrote].You claim that the Apostles had a different opinion but have never demonstrated that.

Of course I did, but as per-usual you were blind to it, as you apprear to be, to the words in most of my posts, which you and you alone, seem to think, refer to the concept of the virgin birth as having originated in the 5th century with the universal church of Constantine, when I have argued otherwise countless times.

You keep changing what you are arguing. You absolutely did start out saying that the idea started in the 5th century. But whenever evidence is presented that your current theory is wrong you claim that you never said that.

[ThatGirlAgain wrote]. (Last time I try sarcasm. It does not work in print.

Yes, I was amazed when you tried it again with this, your little sarcastic remark: [ThatGirlAgain wrote]. But of courseI forgot that being considered an important part of the church that King Constantine created a few hundred years later disqualifies him from having an opinion about what people in that era actually thought.[/b] Didnt work this time either, did it?

So you DID understand that the original was sarcastic reversal of meaning. Sure did not sound that way from how you carried on about it.

[ThatGirlAgain wrote]. 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.

It proves that even the bride of the Anti-Christ, who has condemned the Proto-Evangelium of James as being fraudulent, didnt believe his ridiculous outlandish claims either, which made their "false virgin birth story" seem more unbelievable that it already was.

I have no idea what you are saying. Who is this bride of the Anti-Christ? If this is supposed to be the Catholic Church, the official Article of Faith is the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, which James described. Who is doing this condemning of James?

[ThatGirlAgain wrote]. BTW Clement was NOT a Martyr. No details of his death are known.[/b]

But he was a saint in the Roman Martyrology, which nobody can deny, which nobody can deny.

The point was that martyrologies are not exclusively lists of martyrs but also include other saints. But again the Roman Martyrology did not exist until the 16th century. Clement was in some traditional martyrologies but did not make the big time. But also again, so what? His views on the virginity of Mary reflected the understanding of the times and became Church doctrine.

[ThatGirlAgain wrote]. Since you never bothered to address my arguments that Matthew very clearly intended to mean that Mary was a virgin,

I did! Time and time again, But apparently you were blind to what was written there, or you just couldnt understand. Matthew's only intent was to translate the Hebrew, "A young woman is pregnant and shall bear a son WHO Shall BE CALLED GOD IS WITH US. Which words were fulfilled in The son of the parthenos=unmarried girl Mary, who, down to this day, her child is still being called God is with us.

How many time have you seen this in my posts or words to this effect

As I have pointed out over and over, Matthew was reading the Greek Septuagint, not the Hebrew scriptures. The Greek version of Isaiah says parthenos which can mean virgin, there being no other Greek word for it. And as I have also pointed out over and over, Matthew says that Joseph was not the father and makes absolutely no mention of any other father by the Holy Spirit. As James and Clement make clear, people understood parthenos to mean virgin because that was what Matthew obviously intended. The Hebrew meaning is irrelevant because Matthew was reading and writing in Greek.

[ThatGirlAgain wrote]. I fail to see on what grounds you call Clement a liar except that you do not want Matthew to have said that.

Nope, Clements lies and Matthews translation of the Hebrew Almah, have nothing in common.

Matthew did not translate almah. He used what he read, parthenos. In context it obviously meant virgin, as James and Clement understood very well.

[ThatGirlAgain wrote]. Instead you come up with this story about Mary getting knocked up by her half-brother ben Heli, something you STILL have not provided any documentation for.

Again you show yourself to be either blind to what you read, or are simply unable to understand that which you read. Never have I said that Mary got knocked up by her half-brother Heli. Mary conceived in her womb the child of Gods promise according to the workings of the Holy spirit, who had chosen Joseph the SON of Heli, to be the biological father of Jesus.[/quite]

I already explained about the accidental omission of ben.

[ThatGirlAgain wrote]. 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.

No my friend, the only thing that matters, is the fact that Matthew, who used the Greek Parthenos which means, a young physical attractive girl of marriageable age, and denotes virgin only by implication, and Jerome, who uses the Latin Virgo, which carries the same meaning as Parthenos, were simply translating the Hebrew word Almah, which can in no way be translated Virgin.

Neither Matthew nor Jerome were translating from the Hebrew. Parthenos and virgo can mean virgin, there being no other word in the respective languages for it. Matthew says that Joseph was not the father and mentions no other father but the Holy Spirit, he meant virgin.

Now, I am challenging you to provide sources for your claim that your hypothetical second Joseph is a different person from the Joseph described by Matthew as the husband of Mary and that he is the half-brother of Mary.

Rule 5

5. Support your assertions/arguments with evidence. Do not persist in making a claim without supporting it. All unsupported claims can be challenged for supporting evidence. Opinions require no support, but they should not be considered as valid to any argument, nor will they be considered as legitimate support for any claim.

Take your time. I am gone for the weekend as usual.

[Goat]

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)

Ah yes, the good old '70 weeks' passage. Since the time frame which Daniel was written about was much longer the 70 weeks', the Christian has to take an end date, and then work backwards to try to find something they can interpret as being the starting point. As a 'prophecy' to predict Jesus, it's a total and utter failure.

Isaiah 42:1-7 is part of the '4th servant song'. If you read it in context.. .. you will see the writer of deutro Isaiah specifically identifies who the servant is.. and guess what, it's not the messiah.

Isaiah 43:9
He said to me, "You are my servant, Israel, in whom I will display my splendor."

Reading in context is important, I think.

[The Seeker]

How many times has this thread been done?

Atheist: No prophesies in OT fulfilled in Christ.
Christian: Here are X number of prophesies fulfilled.
Atheist: Those weren't fulfilled, but just made to look like they were.
Christian: No, they were.
Atheist: No, they weren't.

wash, rinse, repeat.

LOL

[The Seeker]

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.....

Well, as the OT clearly describes the Messiah as a Teacher/Leader/Warrior, and the NT describes Jesus as a hellenistic Savior/Redeemer that is found nowhere in the OT descriptions, it seems clear that Jesus could not be the Messiah, and that Christians don't even consider him as such.

"Do Good for Good is Good to
do. Spurn Bribe of Heaven
and Threat of Hell"
Wow.

[Jzyehoshua]

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)

Ah yes, the good old '70 weeks' passage. Since the time frame which Daniel was written about was much longer the 70 weeks', the Christian has to take an end date, and then work backwards to try to find something they can interpret as being the starting point. As a 'prophecy' to predict Jesus, it's a total and utter failure.

Isaiah 42:1-7 is part of the '4th servant song'. If you read it in context.. .. you will see the writer of deutro Isaiah specifically identifies who the servant is.. and guess what, it's not the messiah.

Isaiah 43:9
He said to me, "You are my servant, Israel, in whom I will display my splendor."

Reading in context is important, I think.

The prophecy clearly stated what the starting point was, "the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem". It's not like the prophecy is at all unclear with the wording.

Daniel 9:25 Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.

Nehemiah 2 clearly stated when the wall was built according to the Persian calendar too, so it's not like there's any ambiguity there, either:

Nehemiah 2:1 And it came to pass in the month Nisan, in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes the king, that wine was before him: and I took up the wine, and gave it unto the king. Now I had not been beforetime sad in his presence.

Nehemiah 2:5 And I said unto the king, If it please the king, and if thy servant have found favour in thy sight, that thou wouldest send me unto Judah, unto the city of my fathers' sepulchres, that I may build it.

The prophecy is pretty obvious. 69 weeks from the building of Jerusalem's wall in 445 B.C. until the Messiah, and then shortly after the temple was to be destroyed and sacrifice to cease:

Daniel 9:26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.
27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

Jerusalem got destroyed and the sacrifices stopped in 70 A.D. so that was your cut off point for the Messiah having come. This isn't rocket science, it's right there in black and white.

[The Tongue]

CONTINUED from post #132:

[ThatGirlAgain wrote].You backed off from the claim that the idea was invented in the 5th century.

What a load of unadulterated rubbish. I have never claimed that the Idea of the virgin birth originated in the 5th century. Only you, after reading my posts could possibly make that false claim.

[ThatGirlAgain wrote].But nonetheless you did say it to begin with, something you have repeatedly denied.

No, no, no! Dont you go tellin fibs again girly, I have never denied that I said that the word virgin, in reference to Mary was not introduced into the bible until the fifth century Latin Vulgate.

I showed it over and over and over. You were quite explicit about it. And considering the context of the conversation you were having with Nickman it was clear that it was your intent to say that.

[ThatGirlAgain wrote].You called him Saint Clement of Alexandria,

I certainly did, because that is what he is called by the people in Orthodox Christianity, Eastern Catholicism and Anglicanism, who still venerate him as a saint.

Yes, I know that. I just told YOU that.

[ThatGirlAgain wrote].who was a saint in the Martyrology of the Roman universal church.
That is correct, WAS being the operative word there.

Actually, the official Roman Martyrology did not exist until the 16th century. There were numerous other conflicting martyrologies before then but they were traditional not official. But in any case, dropping Clement of Alexandria had nothing to do with his views about the virginity of Mary. So why do you keep harping on that?

[ThatGirlAgain wrote].But of courseI forgot that being considered an important part of the church that King Constantine created a few hundred years later disqualifies him from having an opinion about what people in that era actually thought.

No, No, No, Matey, just because the Universal church of Constantine, which was established in 325 AD, made clement, who lived in the second century a saint in the Roman Martyrology, he wasnt disqualified from having an opinion about what people in that era actually thought.

I did tell you that it was Clement of Alexandria, who, in the second century wrote: It would be ridiculous to imagine that the redeemer, in order to exist, had the usual needs of man. He only took food and ate it in order that we should not teach about him in a Docetic fashion. Didnt I?

Of course I did, but perhaps you had forgotten, I also revealed to you that in support of the great lie, Clement spoke of the time that some imaginary midwife, who was supposed to be at the birth of Jesus, told some woman by the name Salome, that the mother was still a virgin after the birth and that her hymen was still intact, and that this supposed Salome, stuck her finger into the mothers vagina to check, ansaint in thered her hand immediately withered up, but the baby Jesus reached out and touched her hand and healed it.

Perhaps you had forgotten that also. But nevertheless, Clement was in no way disqualified from having an opinion about what people in that era actually thought.

So his opinion that people understood Matthew as saying that Mary conceived while a virgin was correct.

[ThatGirlAgain wrote].My point was that he was yet another illustration that the idea of the virginity of Mary was well established.

Exactly my point, which I have explained to you time and time again.

No, I said it to you time and time again.

[ThatGirlAgain wrote].You claim that the Apostles had a different opinion but have never demonstrated that.

Of course I did, but as per-usual you were blind to it, as you apprear to be, to the words in most of my posts, which you and you alone, seem to think, refer to the concept of the virgin birth as having originated in the 5th century with the universal church of Constantine, when I have argued otherwise countless times.

You keep changing what you are arguing. You absolutely did start out saying that the idea started in the 5th century. But whenever evidence is presented that your current theory is wrong you claim that you never said that.

[ThatGirlAgain wrote]. (Last time I try sarcasm. It does not work in print.

Yes, I was amazed when you tried it again with this, your little sarcastic remark: [ThatGirlAgain wrote]. But of courseI forgot that being considered an important part of the church that King Constantine created a few hundred years later disqualifies him from having an opinion about what people in that era actually thought.[/b] Didnt work this time either, did it?

So you DID understand that the original was sarcastic reversal of meaning. Sure did not sound that way from how you carried on about it.

[ThatGirlAgain wrote]. 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.

It proves that even the bride of the Anti-Christ, who has condemned the Proto-Evangelium of James as being fraudulent, didnt believe his ridiculous outlandish claims either, which made their "false virgin birth story" seem more unbelievable that it already was.

I have no idea what you are saying. Who is this bride of the Anti-Christ? If this is supposed to be the Catholic Church, the official Article of Faith is the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, which James described. Who is doing this condemning of James?

[ThatGirlAgain wrote]. BTW Clement was NOT a Martyr. No details of his death are known.[/b]

But he was a saint in the Roman Martyrology, which nobody can deny, which nobody can deny.

The point was that martyrologies are not exclusively lists of martyrs but also include other saints. But again the Roman Martyrology did not exist until the 16th century. Clement was in some traditional martyrologies but did not make the big time. But also again, so what? His views on the virginity of Mary reflected the understanding of the times and became Church doctrine.

[ThatGirlAgain wrote]. Since you never bothered to address my arguments that Matthew very clearly intended to mean that Mary was a virgin,

I did! Time and time again, But apparently you were blind to what was written there, or you just couldnt understand. Matthew's only intent was to translate the Hebrew, "A young woman is pregnant and shall bear a son WHO Shall BE CALLED GOD IS WITH US. Which words were fulfilled in The son of the parthenos=unmarried girl Mary, who, down to this day, her child is still being called God is with us.

How many time have you seen this in my posts or words to this effect

As I have pointed out over and over, Matthew was reading the Greek Septuagint, not the Hebrew scriptures. The Greek version of Isaiah says parthenos which can mean virgin, there being no other Greek word for it. And as I have also pointed out over and over, Matthew says that Joseph was not the father and makes absolutely no mention of any other father by the Holy Spirit. As James and Clement make clear, people understood parthenos to mean virgin because that was what Matthew obviously intended. The Hebrew meaning is irrelevant because Matthew was reading and writing in Greek.

[ThatGirlAgain wrote]. I fail to see on what grounds you call Clement a liar except that you do not want Matthew to have said that.

Nope, Clements lies and Matthews translation of the Hebrew Almah, have nothing in common.

Matthew did not translate almah. He used what he read, parthenos. In context it obviously meant virgin, as James and Clement understood very well.

[ThatGirlAgain wrote]. Instead you come up with this story about Mary getting knocked up by her half-brother ben Heli, something you STILL have not provided any documentation for.

Again you show yourself to be either blind to what you read, or are simply unable to understand that which you read. Never have I said that Mary got knocked up by her half-brother Heli. Mary conceived in her womb the child of Gods promise according to the workings of the Holy spirit, who had chosen Joseph the SON of Heli, to be the biological father of Jesus.[/quite]

I already explained about the accidental omission of ben.

[ThatGirlAgain wrote]. 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.

No my friend, the only thing that matters, is the fact that Matthew, who used the Greek Parthenos which means, a young physical attractive girl of marriageable age, and denotes virgin only by implication, and Jerome, who uses the Latin Virgo, which carries the same meaning as Parthenos, were simply translating the Hebrew word Almah, which can in no way be translated Virgin.

Neither Matthew nor Jerome were translating from the Hebrew. Parthenos and virgo can mean virgin, there being no other word in the respective languages for it. Matthew says that Joseph was not the father and mentions no other father but the Holy Spirit, he meant virgin.

Now, I am challenging you to provide sources for your claim that your hypothetical second Joseph is a different person from the Joseph described by Matthew as the husband of Mary and that he is the half-brother of Mary.

Rule 5

5. Support your assertions/arguments with evidence. Do not persist in making a claim without supporting it. All unsupported claims can be challenged for supporting evidence. Opinions require no support, but they should not be considered as valid to any argument, nor will they be considered as legitimate support for any claim.

Take your time. I am gone for the weekend as usual.

[ThatGirlAgain wrote]You keep changing what you are arguing. You absolutely did start out saying that the idea started in the 5th century. But whenever evidence is presented that your current theory is wrong you claim that you never said that.

Nowhere did I ever say that the idea of the virgin birth originated in the 5th century, and anyone who would accuse me of so doing has obviously never read my posts, or were simply to blind to see what was written in those posts, which go back in this forum, to May 2010.

Either provide documentation that I had ever said that the concept of the virgin birth originated in the 5th century, or admit, that once again, you are mistaken.

[ThatGirlAgain wrote]I have no idea what you are saying. Who is this bride of the Anti-Christ? If this is supposed to be the Catholic Church, the official Article of Faith is the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, which James described. Who is doing this condemning of James?

The universal church of Constantine, the mother of most of those who profess to be christians, is united with the spirit of the Anti-Christ, who refuses to acknowledge that Jesus came as a human being, and who claims that he was not born of the seed of Adam, is the Bride of the Anti-Christ and the mother of all those lesser denominational daughters that were spawned of her spirit=Words/teachings, before breaking away from their mother body, and SHE, the universal church of Constantine, the bride of the Anti-Christ, has always rejected the Protoevangelium of James and to this day, the R.C.C, regards it as fraudulent.

[ThatGirlAgain wrote]I most definitely do NOT say that the genealogy given in Luke is Marys. I have been saying from the beginning that Matthew and Luke give different genealogies for one and the same Joseph.

No, of course you wouldnt, because you appear to believe the fraudulent Protoevangelium of James, which is the source of the erroneous claim that Anna was married to Jehochim, who was in fact the husband of her elder sister Joanah the first born daughter of Yehoshua/Jesus III, who was high priest in Jerusalem from 36 to 23 BC.

The Ancestors of Jesus in First and Second Century Judea BCE
By Robert Mock M.D.
robertmockbiblesearchers.com
December 2007
Book One
Chapter Two
This young maiden, Miriam, was a child of sorrow. Her father, Heli, a Davidic and Hasmonean prince, called Alexander helios III, was apparently executed, in the world where many Davidian aspirants, as the young lions of Judah, were eliminated by the cruel and tyrannical King Herod the Great., Etc.

I Googled that up for those who wish to know from where, other than the bible, can the biological grandfather of Jesus be sourced. The families of the daughters of Yehoshua III, were very important families in Israel and should not be seen as merely peasant type people. According to Jewish traditions, the daughters of Yehoshua III, the great grandfather of Jesus were initially placed in the protective custody of the Davidian Zealots of Galilee, who were plotting to overthrow the throne of Herod.

Mary grew up in the shadows of the high priests of Israel. Her grandfather, the High Priest Yehoshua (Jesus) III, died, it is believed, prior to her birth about three years. Yet, he MAY have been living until about 16 to 13 BCE, when the pogroms were fully activated against the Davidian princes by King Herod the Great.

Yehoshua III was the ruling High Priest in Jerusalem during this chaotic Herodian period between the years of 36 to 23 BCE. A father, with no sons, he knew that his Zadokian lineage would become extinct unless his three daughters; Jane (Joanna), Elizabeth, and Anna (Hannah) as dynastic heiress were properly placed according to the Torah with future husbands.

Anything written in blue is my own.

Because it is believed that the end of Jehoshua the thirds time as High priest, came with his death in 23 BC, and that he died three year prior to the birth of his granddaughter Mary, which would have been in 20 BC, and that her Father, Alexander Helios (Heli) was murdered at the command of Herod the Great in 13 BC, Mary would have been about seven years old when she was then placed in the protective custody of the Davidian Zealots of Galilee, who were plotting to overthrow the throne of Herod, and she would have been about 14/15, when Jesus was born in either 6 or 5BC shortly before the death of Herod the Great, in April of 4 BC around the time that he ordered the death of all the male children who were two years and below, according to the time that he had learned from the wise men, the exact time that they had seen the star that had heralded the birth of the prophecied Messianic King of Israel.

One daughter, Elizabeth, was betrothed to be the wife of a priest of a noted priestly lineage. Since Elizabeth was an heiress of the house of her father the High Priest and her husband was of the Tribe of Levi and the House of Aaron the High Priest, her son, John the Baptist, would be eligible to become the High Priest of Israel.

Two daughters, Joanna and Hannah, were betrothed to husbands of the House of David. According to the royal primogenitor law, they would be eligible to be mothers of Prince and Princesses of the House of David. According to the recent ruling of the Great Sanhedrin in 37 BCE, their sons would also be eligible to sit on the throne of David as the King of Israel. If the Lord blessed, it was possible that either one of them Joanna or Hannah, could be blessed to be the mother of the expectant messiah.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hanna/Anna, was betrothed to Alexander Helios (Heli) of the tribe of Levi, being a descendant of Nathan the priest who was the adopted son of King David, thereby having a legitimate claim to the throne of his adopted Father, but Nathan was the biological son of Bathsheba and Uriah the Hittite, who became a member of the tribe of Levi by his marriage to Bathsheba the daughter of Ammiel, the son of Oded-edom, who was a descendant of Moses from the house of Levi.

The Talmud states, "Whoever brings up an orphan in his home is regarded...as though the child had been born to him." (Sanhedrin 119b). In other words, the adopted child is to be treated as a child born to the father of that house.

Joanna, was betrothed to Joachim from the genetic lineage of David. Little is known of Joanna or Joachim, although the universal church, claim that he was the husband of Hanna, yet not the father of Mary, but the teachings of the universal church are so far removed from the revelations of scripture as to be rejected by any who are searching for the truth that is revealed through the stories recorded in the bible. The fact that the Universal church implies that Joachim is the grandfather of Jesus, simply does not gel with the bible, which states that Heli is the biological grandfather of Jesus, the promised high priest and King in the line of succession to Melchizedek.

[ThatGirlAgain wrote]Did Matthew deliberately misquote scripture, or did he relate what he found in his version of the Old Testament, the Septuagint?
.see the parthenos in belly she shall be having and she shall be bringing forth [a] son and you shall be calling the name of him Emmanuel.

[. , ]

Matthew 1:23 copies this almost word for word:
see the parthenos in belly she shall be having and she shall be bringing forth [a] son and they shall be calling the name of him Emmanuel.

[ , ]

No! Matthew did not deliberately nor unintentionally misquote scripture, he related what he found in his version of the Old Testament, the Septuagint, which was translated from the Hebrew into the Greek by Jews, who had no thoughts whatsoever of their Messiah being anything other than one, who was to be a son of David, who is born of the seed of Adam, which translation was completed some two hundred Years before the birth of the man Jesus.

The authors of the Septuagint and Matthew correctly used the Greek word Parthenos, 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.

[ThatGirlAgain wrote]As I have pointed out over and over, Matthew was reading the Greek Septuagint, not the Hebrew scriptures.

Correct! He read from the Septuagint which translation was begun in about 250 BC and completed somewhere around 200 BC, by Jews who definitly were not referring to a virgin when they were forced to translate the Hebrew term ALMAH which, according to Youngs Analytic Concordance, means, CONCEALMENT---Unmarried female with the Greek word Parthenos, because unlike the Hebrew language, which does have a particular term for VIRGIN which word if Bethulah a word that Isaiah would have used if it was his intention to refer to a virgin, the Greek language does not have a particular term for Virgin and Matthew and the authors of the Septuagint, were forced to use the Greek "Parthenos," which carries a basic meaning of girl, or unmarried youth, and denotes virgin only by implication,which neither Matthew or the authors of the Septuagint were implying..


[ThatGirlAgain wrote]The Greek version of Isaiah saysparthenos which can mean virgin, there being no other Greek word for it.

Correct! It CAN mean Virgin. But ONLY, If that is somehow implied, such as the time that Mary, the young Parthenos=unmarried female, implied that she was still a virgin, by saying to the angel, three months before she was found to be pregnant, that she at the time that she spoke with the angel, had never known a man.


[ThatGirlAgain wrote]And as I have also pointed out over and over, Matthew says that Joseph was not the father and makes absolutely no mention of any other father by the Holy Spirit. As James and Clement make clear, people understood parthenos to mean virgin because that was what Matthew obviously intended. The Hebrew meaning is irrelevant because Matthew was reading and writing in Greek.

In saying that Joseph the son of Jacob had no sexual relations with Mary until after she had given birth to the first of her sons, Matthew was correct, as Luke, who tells us that the people supposed that Jesus was the biological son of Joseph the son of Heli, verifies by stating in 2: 5; that he went to Bethlehem of Judaea to register with Mary, who was "promised" in marriage to him.

According to Luke, who reveals that Joseph, the son of Heli the husband of Anna the mother of Mary, was supposed to have been the biological father of Jesus, The union between the heavily pregnant Mary and Joseph the son of Jacob, had not at that time been consummated.

As to your comment on James and Clement, James who is supposed to have written the Protoevangelium of James from which Clement quoted, who had his robe of sainthood removed by the Universal church of Constantine, who to this day rejects, the Protoevangelium of James as fraudulent, only make clear, that they were lying.

[ThatGirlAgain wrote]Matthew did not translate almah. He used what he read, parthenos. In context it obviously meant virgin, as James and Clement understood very well.

What Clements relates from the fraudulent Protoevangelium of James is totally irrelevant, and Mathew who followed the Septuagint almost word for word "DID" translate ALMAH as Parthenos, as did the Jewish authors of the Septuagint some two hundred years before the birth of the man Jesus.

Matthew relates that which was said through the prophet Isaiah, you claim that he did not. Either provide documental proof, or admit that this is merely your opinion.

[ThatGirlAgain wrote]Neither Matthew nor Jerome were translating from the Hebrew. Parthenos and virgo can mean virgin, there being no other word in the respective languages for it. Matthew says that Joseph was not the father and mentions no other father but the Holy Spirit, he meant virgin.

You are correct in stating that Parthenos and virgo can mean virgin, there being no other word in the respective languages for it. But let me repeat, They CAN mean Virgin. But ONLY, If that is somehow implied, such as the time that Mary, the young Parthenos=unmarried female, implied that she was still a virgin, by saying to the angel, three months before she was found to be pregnant, that she, at the time that she spoke with the angel, had never known a man.

As to your erroneous statement that Jerome did not translate from the Hebrew, I would advise you to do a little more research on that subject. Jeromes Latin translation of the Bible, was from the original Hebrew (see *Bible, Latin Translations). Together with his translation of the New Testament from the Greek Septuagint to Latin, this was accepted by the universal church of Constantine as the official version of the Scriptures.

[ThatGirlAgain wrote]Now, I am challenging you to provide sources for your claim that your hypothetical second Joseph is a different person from the Joseph described by Matthew as the husband of Mary and that he is the half-brother of Mary.

No my dear girl, I am challenging you to provide biblical documentation that the two completely different genealogies in the New Testament relate to the one man by the name Joseph. One being that of Joseph the son of Jacob, who is about the 24th descendant of Solomon and a descendant of the cursed Jehoiachin, the other being that of Jesus, whose mother was Mary the daughter of Heli, who is the biological grandfather of Jesus, who, according to Luke, had sired a son, who was also named Joseph, a very common name, then as now, who is about the 40th descendant of Nathan the son of Bathsheba, who was the adopted son of King David.

Now then, either reveal your evidence that the bible according to you, is speaking of the same Joseph, or admit that you are once again, only presenting your own erroneous opinion.