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.....

[Jayhawker Soule]

Good post.

Tell me:

Have you read Udo Schnell's The History And Theology Of The New Testament Writings?

Also, have you ever wondered why these Jewish apologists seem so reliant upon the LXX? Your typical Orthodox Jew today reads/chants/discusses Torah daily and would have little trouble quoting chapter and verse of the Masoretic text (in Biblical Hebrew) irrespective of their facility with conversational Hebrew.

[ThatGirlAgain]

Good post.

Tell me:

Have you read Udo Schnell's The History And Theology Of The New Testament Writings?

Also, have you ever wondered why these Jewish apologists seem so reliant upon the LXX? Your typical Orthodox Jew today reads/chants/discusses Torah daily and would have little trouble quoting chapter and verse of the Masoretic text (in Biblical Hebrew) irrespective of their facility with conversational Hebrew.

I have read only a few abstracts from Schnell. From that it seems to me that he makes the same mistake that almost all apologists and many anti-apologists ( ) make. He assumes that the New Testament presents a single more or less coherent theology. I am of the opinion that it does not.

They used the Septuagint because that is what Jews of the Diaspora used and because Greek was the language of educated people outside of Judaea and many within as well. Neither Paul nor any of the Gospel writers were eye-witnesses or lived in Judaea. They were all concerned with communicating with people outside of Judaea. In the days of Paul there was an existing Jerusalem based Jesus movement. When the Gospels were written, Jerusalem was already destroyed. In neither case there was any Hebrew fluent audience that needed to be addressed. Non-Jews of course used neither the Greek nor the Hebrew texts, not being Jewish

The Jesus movement was NOT mainstream Judaism as practiced by any self-styled authoritative body. It was aimed at the people, the salt of the earth. (Someday I must get around to doing an essay on garum and the meaning of that 'salt of the earth' phrase). The Gospels present Jesus as rebellious against the Jewish 'powers that be', seeking to restore true righteousness (moral living, charitable works) to justify the restoration of Gods favor to the Jewish people, as urged by the prophets. The Jesus portrayed in the Gospels " sometimes only between the lines " would therefore have been in contrast to the more activist Zealots and the like. His targeted audience would have spoken Aramaic for the most part and may not have been able to read any language.

The Jewish dissatisfaction with the Septuagint began around the 2nd century CE. The use of the Greek work by the Christians may have been a factor. The rabbinic movement may also have felt that a return to roots was more appropriate in a world with no Temple to act as an anchor. Also the various discrepancies between the Hebrew texts and the Greek ones would have become more obvious to the scholars building the Mishnah and beginning the Talmud. As you point out, the use of Hebrew is one of the linchpins that has held Judaism intact these many centuries.


BTW the name Palestine derives from Syria Palaestina, the Roman province formed by the merger of Syria and Judaea that took place in 135 CE. I had intended to say this in an earlier post in response to the use of the name Palestine in reference to early Christianity.

[Jayhawker Soule]

Have you read Udo Schnell's The History And Theology Of The New Testament Writings?

I have read only a few abstracts from Schnell. From that it seems to me that he makes the same mistake that almost all apologists and many anti-apologists ( ) make. He assumes that the New Testament presents a single more or less coherent theology. I am of the opinion that it does not.

You must have been reading some other Udo Schnell.

Also, have you ever wondered why these Jewish apologists seem so reliant upon the LXX? Your typical Orthodox Jew today reads/chants/discusses Torah daily and would have little trouble quoting chapter and verse of the Masoretic text (in Biblical Hebrew) irrespective of their facility with conversational Hebrew.

They used the Septuagint because that is what Jews of the Diaspora used and because Greek was the language of educated people outside of Judaea and many within as well.

And the language of most educated Orthodox Jews in the U.S. is English yet they study, chant, and quote the Masoretic.

Neither Paul nor any of the Gospel writers were eye-witnesses or lived in Judaea.

With Paul studying at the feet of Gamaliel in ... New Jersey?

[ThatGirlAgain]

Have you read Udo Schnell's The History And Theology Of The New Testament Writings?

I have read only a few abstracts from Schnell. From that it seems to me that he makes the same mistake that almost all apologists and many anti-apologists ( ) make. He assumes that the New Testament presents a single more or less coherent theology. I am of the opinion that it does not.

You must have been reading some other Udo Schnell.

This is the guy whose writing style sounds rather postmodern, right? All about history generating meaning and the like? What I said is definitely the impression I got from excerpts. He talked about the different viewpoints by which the meaning of Christianity is constructed. However it seemed as if he was talking about different aspects of one single final meaning. But as I said I did not read the book.

Also, have you ever wondered why these Jewish apologists seem so reliant upon the LXX? Your typical Orthodox Jew today reads/chants/discusses Torah daily and would have little trouble quoting chapter and verse of the Masoretic text (in Biblical Hebrew) irrespective of their facility with conversational Hebrew.

They used the Septuagint because that is what Jews of the Diaspora used and because Greek was the language of educated people outside of Judaea and many within as well.

And the language of most educated Orthodox Jews in the U.S. is English yet they study, chant, and quote the Masoretic.

The Masoretic Texts date to possibly as early as the 7th century but are believed to be essentially identical in wording (if not pronunciation notes) to texts compiled by 200 CE, themselves the result of the efforts of the post-Temple rabbinic movement. The originals they represent are of course far older. It is interesting to compare this effort to establish a standardized text with the approximately concurrent Christian effort to establish a basic canon of writings in the wake of the Marcion episode. Both efforts had the same purpose " a commonly agreed basis for subsequent development of religious thought.

Orthodox Jews (I work with several including a Lubavitcher) retain the use of Hebrew as one of many means of preserving tradition throughout the ages in the absence of a centralized authority. Catholics at least do not need to retain the use of any ancient language because there is a monolithic central authority on which they rely. Non-Catholic Christians generally use the Bible as the basis of authority, as interpreted by their specific organizations or simply by themselves. The closest thing to a Masoretic-analog Bible is the King James Version.

But in the days of the Temple and the early post-Temple era, the Greek Septuagint was still widely used by Jews. Greek was also the lingua franca of the eastern Empire, where Christianity was born and initially grew.

Neither Paul nor any of the Gospel writers were eye-witnesses or lived in Judaea.

With Paul studying at the feet of Gamaliel in ... New Jersey?

Paul himself never claims such a thing. It is Luke the Storyteller who adds that unlikely detail in Acts. Luke disagrees with Paul on numerous details, not surprising since Acts was probably written three decades after Paul was dead and despite tradition Luke probably never met Paul.

And I think Gamaliel teaches in the Williamsburg section of Brooklyn.

[Jayhawker Soule]

Have you read Udo Schnell's The History And Theology Of The New Testament Writings?

I have read only a few abstracts from Schnell. From that it seems to me that he makes the same mistake that almost all apologists and many anti-apologists ( ) make. He assumes that the New Testament presents a single more or less coherent theology. I am of the opinion that it does not.

You must have been reading some other Udo Schnell.

This is the guy whose writing style sounds rather postmodern, right?

Read the book ... or don't.

The Masoretic Texts date to possibly as early as the 7th century but are believed to be essentially identical in wording (if not pronunciation notes) to texts compiled by 200 CE, ...

And they are essentially identical to the proto-Masoretic DSS dating to the 2nd century bce.

But in the days of the Temple and the early post-Temple era, the Greek Septuagint was still widely used by Jews. Greek was also the lingua franca of the eastern Empire, where Christianity was born and initially grew.

That is entirely irrelevant. English translations of the Torah are widely used in the States. But observant Jews would not be expected to consistently reference non-standard translations, which is precisely what we see in the gospels.

[The Tongue]

... would you please answer the question: Were the 70/72 Jews who translated the Greek Septuagint from the Hebrew bible some 200 years before the birth of Jesus, referring to a virgin when they translated the Hebrew Almah, which, according to Youngs Analytical Concordance, carries the meaning (Concealment-Unmarried Female) by using the Greek Parthenos?

1. The story of "the 70/72 Jews who translated the Greek Septuagint" is legend, not fact.
2. This legend has these Jews being called together by Ptolemy II Philadelphus, which would make your "200 years before the birth of Jesus" off by almost a century.
3. The legend has them being called together to translate the Torah in the 3rd century BCE. Isaiah is not part of the Torah but, rather, part of the Nevi'im and was probably translated mid 2nd century BCE.
4. The term parthenos was a reasonable translation of almah given the connotation of the terms at that time.
5. The woman referenced in Isaiah was most likely a virgin. Virgins give birth all the time: it's typically a nine month process initiated by sex.
6. Isaiah 7:14 had absolutely nothing to do with Jesus - hence the fanciful concept of 'dual prophecy'.
7. Matthew was penned long after Isaiah by someone familiar with LXX Isaiah. The Virgin Birth is best seen as a bit of 1st century CE embellishment.

[Jayhawker Soule wrote]. The story of "the 70/72 Jews who translated the Greek Septuagint" is legend, not fact.

Is this your opinion or can you supply evidence that it was Just a legend and that the Jews in Alexandria did not translate the Hebrew Bible into Greek in the third century?

[Jayhawker Soule]........This legend has these Jews being called together by Ptolemy II Philadelphus, which would make your "200 years before the birth of Jesus" off by almost a century.

Ptolemy Phildelphus was the king of Ptolemaic Egypt in the third century, from 283 BCE to 246. The Septuagint translation was said to have begun about 250 BC (In the third century) which would be about 4 years before the death of Ptolemy Phildelphus, and it is said to have been finished sometime around 200 BC. You do realise that BC, means before the birth of Jesus dont you? Just being a little facetious there.

[Jayhawker Soule wrote]........The legend has them being called together to translate the Torah in the 3rd century BCE. Isaiah is not part of the Torah but, rather, part of the Nevi'im and was probably translated mid 2nd century BCE.

Correct! Exactly as I had said in my previous Posts, somewhere around 200 BC..

[Jayhawker Soule wrote]........The term parthenos was a reasonable translation of almah given the connotation of the terms at that time.

The term Parthenos was the only Greek word that could be used to translate the Hebrew Almah which, according to Youngs Analytical Concordance means (Concealment.....Unmarried female) as the Greek has no other word for Virgin.

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, never remarrying, but remaining in her parthenia=unmarried and sexually chaste state, would be a parthenos.

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.

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.

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.

[Jayhawker Soule wrote]........The woman referenced in Isaiah was most likely a virgin.

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 woman referenced in Isaiah was an unmarried female and definitely not likely to have been a virgin, as Isaiah would have used the specific Hebrew term for VIRGIN which is Bethulah if he was referring to a virgin, which he was not.

[Jayhawker Soule wrote]........Virgins give birth all the time: it's typically a nine month process initiated by sex.

Not likely mate. She ceases to be a virgin with the sexual act that initiates the pregnancy process. The only virgin who could ever bear a child, would be a woman who was artificially inseminated and the child delivered by caesarean section. But her child would not be The Son of God, the biological father of that child would be the male sperm donor.

[Jayhawker Soule wrote]........Isaiah 7:14 had absolutely nothing to do with Jesus - hence the fanciful concept of 'dual prophecy'. Matthew was penned long after Isaiah by someone familiar with LXX Isaiah. The Virgin Birth is best seen as a bit of 1st century CE embellishment

Thats your opinion mate and you are entitled to it. But it is my opinion that the prophecy of Isaiah used by Matthew, was meant to convey the fact, that the child born to the unmarried woman (Mary), would be, and has been, called God is with us for over two thousand years.

[ThatGirlAgain]

But in the days of the Temple and the early post-Temple era, the Greek Septuagint was still widely used by Jews. Greek was also the lingua franca of the eastern Empire, where Christianity was born and initially grew.

That is entirely irrelevant. English translations of the Torah are widely used in the States. But observant Jews would not be expected to consistently reference non-standard translations, which is precisely what we see in the gospels.

According to this article in the Jewish Encyclopedia, the Septuagint satisfied a pressing need felt by the Jewish community, among whom a knowledge of Hebrew was rapidly waning before the demands of every-day life. The re-institution of knowing Hebrew as the sine qua non of being Jewish came about in the rabbinic period and the Septuagint faded from popularity beginning in the 2nd century CE (Ref). Before that the Septuagint was well thought of.

These titles refer to a legendary story, according to which seventy or seventy-two Jewish scholars were asked by the Greek King of Egypt Ptolemy II Philadelphus to translate the Torah from Biblical Hebrew into Greek, for inclusion in the Library of Alexandria. This legend is first found in the pseudepigraphic Letter of Aristeas to his brother Philocrates, and is repeated with embellishments by Philo of Alexandria, Josephus and by various later sources, including St. Augustine. A version of the legend is found in the Tractate Megillah of the Babylonian Talmud:

King Ptolemy once gathered 72 Elders. He placed them in 72 chambers, each of them in a separate one, without revealing to them why they were summoned. He entered each one's room and said: "Write for me the Torah of Moshe, your teacher." God put it in the heart of each one to translate identically as all the others did.

Philo of Alexandria, who relied extensively on the Septuagint, says that the number of scholars was chosen by selecting six scholars from each of the 12 tribes of Israel. This legend, with its miraculous details, underlines the fact that some Jews in antiquity wished to present the translation as authoritative.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint#Legend

The fact that Greek was in widespread use, even among Jews of the Diaspora, is entirely relevant. And the use of the Septuagint by the earliest proto-Christian writers without impacting the idea that it all started within Judaism.

[The Tongue]

[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.

You are mistaken on the first point. The doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church is that Jesus became entirely human while remaining entirely divine.

III. TRUE GOD AND TRUE MAN

464 The unique and altogether singular event of the Incarnation of the Son of God does not mean that Jesus Christ is part God and part man, nor does it imply that he is the result of a confused mixture of the divine and the human. He became truly man while remaining truly God. Jesus Christ is true God and true man.

During the first centuries, the Church had to defend and clarify this truth of faith against the heresies that falsified it.



IV. HOW IS THE SON OF GOD MAN?

470 Because "human nature was assumed, not absorbed", in the mysterious union of the Incarnation, the Church was led over the course of centuries to confess the full reality of Christ's human soul, with its operations of intellect and will, and of his human body. In parallel fashion, she had to recall on each occasion that Christ's human nature belongs, as his own, to the divine person of the Son of God, who assumed it. Everything that Christ is and does in this nature derives from "one of the Trinity". The Son of God therefore communicates to his humanity his own personal mode of existence in the Trinity. In his soul as in his body, Christ thus expresses humanly the divine ways of the Trinity

Catechism of the Catholic Church
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/a ... 22a3p1.htm

The Catholic Encyclopedia article on the Apocrypha says that The term apocryphal in connection with special Gospels must be understood as bearing no more unfavourable an import than "uncanonical". In discussing the Protoevangelium of James it says The birth, education, and marriage of the Blessed Virgin are described in the first eleven chapters and these are the source of various traditions current among the faithful. To say that the Church rejects the Protoevangelium is not accurate. It is considered a work of fiction but reflecting early beliefs. The Church considers the virginity of Mary to be a very early idea and even considers the perpetual virginity of Mary to be completely factual, which idea is reflected in the Protoevangelium.

496 From the first formulations of her faith, the Church has confessed that Jesus was conceived solely by the power of the Holy Spirit in the womb of the Virgin Mary, affirming also the corporeal aspect of this event: Jesus was conceived "by the Holy Spirit without human seed". The Fathers see in the virginal conception the sign that it truly was the Son of God who came in a humanity like our own.

499 The deepening of faith in the virginal motherhood led the Church to confess Mary's real and perpetual virginity even in the act of giving birth to the Son of God made man. In fact, Christ's birth "did not diminish his mother's virginal integrity but sanctified it." And so the liturgy of the Church celebrates Mary as Aeiparthenos, the "Ever-virgin".

Catechism of the Catholic Church
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/a ... 22a3p2.htm

[ThatGirlAgain].You are mistaken on the first point. The doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church is that Jesus became entirely human while remaining entirely divine.

And it my belief that only the nave and gullible would believe the false doctrines of R.C.C,. which teachings have nothing to do with the Holy Scriptures, but with the traditions that had been handed down from the old Roman religion of Isis their heavenly Queen, who conceived the godchild Horus by her brother Osirus, the god from the lower of inner world. Please dont tell me that she has sucked you in with her falsehoods?

And before you again state that Constantine had nothing to do with the actual establishment of the universal church, let me quote this from some book that Ive read somewhere: I think it may have come from Ian Wilsons JESUS The Evidence.

When Christianity was illegal and persecuted, the Christians were united against a common enemy. With the lid off, differences of opinion began to be voiced and very loudly, even to point of rioting and assassinations. Bishops were excommunicating each other all over the place, often enforced with mobs or hired thugs. The main hotbed of this civil unrest was Alexandria. Egypt was the primary source of both grain and tax revenue for Constantines Empire and Alexandria was its main port. Serious civil unrest there was a dangerous thing. Likewise, disturbances taking place in the more easterly regions of the Empire were an open invitation to the newly resurgent Persians.

A main point of contention behind all this trouble was the nature of Jesus, with opinions ranging from him being totally human to almost totally divine. Constantine invited all the bishops to a council at Nicaea to try to establish commonality and put an end to the divisive bickering.

Although there was a wide range of opinions, they fell into two main categories, whether Jesus was primarily human or primarily divine. The former fit well with the Greek tradition of humanism and made Christianity a more personal matter. An implication of that is that authority would be local, residing with the individual bishops. The latter fit in with the idea of central control by the Roman bishop (and by implication the Roman Emperor). It is no surprise that Constantine pushed the latter.


Constantine was to later appoint his mother Helena as Augusta, and gave her unlimited access to the imperial treasury in order to locate the relics of early Judeo-Christian times.

According to the traditions of the Church of Constantine, Mary and her child rested in a cave, called the Milk Grotto (la Gruta de la Leche), near the place where today stands the Church of the Nativity (la Iglesia de la Natividad).

There, (Or so it is said) their supposed Virgin Mary breastfed the child. A drop of milk fell on a stone of the cave, and the stone miraculously turned white. During the early centuries, this white rock, diluted in water, took the appearance of milk and was used as a religious relic.

Both Christians and Muslims believe scrapings from the stones in the grotto boost the quantity of a mothers milk and enhances fertility. Mothers usually mix it in their drinking water; would-be mothers place the MAGICAL rock under their mattress.

There is also an old tradition that identifies this as the burial site of the young victims of Herods Slaughter of the Innocents. There is a chapel dedicated to them in the caves beneath the Church of St. Catherine.

Along the south side of the church of the Nativity, theres a street that leads to the Milk Grotto which is venerated, by both the Christians and the Muslims, and its believed by them that its there that Mary hid with her child Jesus, from Herods soldiers as they slaughtered all the boys who were two years of age and younger until they could flee from there into Egypt, and it is believed by them that Mary spilt some milk there and it turned the rocks white and gave them the miraculous power to heal the problems of lactating mothers who grind the chalky stone to powder and mix it in their drinks.

It is believed by the church of Constantine and other daughter denominations, which have been born of her spirit/teachings, that if those people care to purchase a small bag of the white powder from those rocks, which had magically turned white by the mothers milk of Mary, that white powder has the magical power to heal their problems.

This is in total contradiction to the truth as revealed in Gods word. But if they, who believe the unbiblical teaching of the bride of the anti-christ, that a mortal virgin conceived in her womb the son of an alien life form that pre-dated the creation of the cosmos, and the human like body of the son of that alien, which was forming in the womb of their so-called virgin, was actually an eternal and immortal god, who himself was the co-creator of the cosmos, then they will believe anything that she is prepared to dish out for them.

Matthew is not concerned as to where the holy family actually lived, only that the child was born in Bethlehem of Judaea, he then skips forward in time, to speak of the wise men, who are believed to have been Astronomer/Astrologers from Mesopotamia, who had seen the star in the east, that they believed had heralded the birth of the promised Messianic King of Israel, and even if they had left their own country that very day, to travel to Jerusalem, we know from biblical records that it would have taken them some four months to reach there, and by then, the family, according to Luke, had returned to their home in Nazareth.

The most likely scenario is, that the wise men saw the triple conjunction of Jupiter the king star, with Mars the God of war, and Saturn, the Golden age on earth, this was in 6 BC, and would have been the sign that heralded the birth of the promised King and successor to the throne of David the warrior king, who would subdue all nations and bring in a golden age of peace on the earth.

But as Herod died in 4 BC, shortly after the slaughter of the innocents, which was immediately after the wise men were warned of what was going to occur and were told not to return to Herod and reveal the child's whereabouts as promised, they left the town of Nazareth, which was only spitting distance from Bethlehem of Galilee, which town today, is called "Beitlahm," and returned home by a different route from that by which they had travelled to Israel.

It would appear that the comet of 5 BC, was the deciding factor to convince them to travel to Jerusalem, to pay homage to the promised King, who had been born in Israel.

Here is a biblical example of how long it took Ezra to travel from Babylonia to Jerusalem, Ezra 7: 8-9; They left Babylonia on the first day of the first month, and with Gods help they arrived in Jerusalem on the first day of the fifth month.

Luke is more concerned with the approximate 2 month period that the family was in Bethlehem of Judaea. He speaks of the birth of the child in the stable of an Inn, and the visit of the shepherds, who were out in the fields, where they would not have been in the middle of winter of late December, where they saw the baby in the manger wrapped in swaddling cloth etc. There is no mention of any wise men there.

Luke 2: 21; A week after Jesus was born he was circumcised according to the law of Moses. Then CAME THE TIME according to the Law of Moses, for Mary to perform the ceremony of purification as the law of Moses commanded.

The time for the ceremony of purification to be performed is found in Leviticus 12: 3-4; On the eighth day the male child shall be circumcised. Then it will be thirty three days more until she is ritually clean from her loss of blood and then can she enter the tent/temple and perform the ceremony of purification.

After she had performed everything According to the law of Moses some 33 days after the baby was circumcised, they returned to the home of Mary in Nazareth, to where the wise men would later travel some months later, and shower the young child with gifts, which included Gold, which apparently the family did not have when Mary offered the two pigeons at the ceremony of purification. Leviticus 12: 8; poor families who cannot afford a lamb shall bring two doves or two pigeons one of which, would be used as the burnt offering etc.

As it has already been stated, even if the wise men had left their country of origin in the east, on the day that they had first sighted the heavenly phenomenon that had heralded the birth of Jesus, which is more that highly unlikely, they would not have reached Jerusalem until at the very least, some two month after Mary had returned to Nazareth.

I reject the traditional doctrines of the universal church of Constantine, and believe the Holy Scriptures.

[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.

I have already responded to this post, but I seem to have missed this point.

[ThatGirlAgain].........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.

You say that the Roman Martyrology did not exist until the 16th century? Well now fancy that.

You really have to take more care when reading my posts my dear friend, because I said that Clement was kicked out in the 17 th century as seen below:

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.

[faroukfarouk]

Greetings to all
Firstly I would like to apologize to any member in this forum if any thing that I say may cause hurt to any person.We are all in search of truth and to accept the truth can be very difficult expecially if one who has already made up his or her mind that Jesus is not the Messiah.One thing for sure no amount of evidence will be convincing. But for those who are honest in searching the truth the evidence speaks for itself.
Was Jesus the Jewish Messiah of the Hebrew Bible? This is a very good question because historically there have been false Messiahs. Among the most prominent were Bar Kochba and Shabbetai Zevi. Bar Kochba led a revolt against Rome in the years 132-135 C.E. During this revolt one of the most famous figures in Jewish history, Rabbi Akiva, proclaimed Bar Kochba to be the Messiah.Unfortunately, Bar Kochba, Akiva and thousands of Jews were killed in 135 C.E.by the Romans.
On the other hand Shabbetai Zevi was a self-proclaimed Messiah. Flourishing in 17th-century Europe the Shabbatean movement spread among both the common people and the rabbis. But when Shabbetai Zevi was arrested in 1666 by the Sultan of Turkey he converted to Islam rather than face death.Well I am quite sure the OT must mention about false Messiahs.So much for these corn Messiahs.
The idea of a Messiah is one that is found throughout the OT. There, the Messiah's "I.D." is given to us.His ethnic background, place of birth, time frame of his arrival and other identifying characteristics are given. These credentials enable us to identify the Messiah, and to recognize imposters.Of course it might be objected that if these credentials are so clear then why did most Jews not believe in Jesus as the Messiah and why were they so taken in by false Messiahs like Bar Kochba and Shabbetai Zevi?
To answer this question one must understand that at the time of Jesus birth the Messianic hope had become greatly politicized in the minds of the people. They were seeking deliverance from the tyranny of Rome. Although the Scripture speak of both the sufferings and of the victories of the Messiah, the victorious aspect had become uppermost in the minds of the common people because of the Roman domination. This one sided view of the Messiah has stuck with Jews and the politicization of the Messianic hope has continued right until this day.Thus the hope of a political rather than a spiritual Messiah contributes to both the acceptance of people such as Bar Kochba and hence the rejection of Jesus in his role as a Messiah. This is not to say that all Jews rejected the claims of Jesus. Far from that being the case all the first followers of Jesus were Jews. In fact, the rabbis of that time period and afterwards were well aware of the many Messianic prophecies which Christians claimed were fulfilled in Jesus. So for instance, although the Talmudic rabbis concurred that Isaiah 53 was a prediction of the Messiah, by medieval times the pressure from those who applied this prophecy to Jesus was so great that Rashi, that greatest medieval Biblical scholar, reinterpreted the chapter and said it referred to the nation of Israel. Many Jewish scholars maintain this interpretation today, though it only dates back to the Middle Ages.
What are some of the credentials of the Messiah? I list a few below and there are many others. All of these passages were recognized by the early Rabbis as referring to the Messiah from the OT.
1.Messiah was to be born at Bethlehem: Micah5:1
2.Messiah would be from the tribe of Judah:Genesis 49:10
3.Messiah would present himself by riding on an ass: Zechariah 9:9
4.Messiah would arrive before the destruction of the Second Temple: Daniel 9:24-27
5.Messiah's life would match a particular description, including suffering, silence at his arrest and trial, death and burial in a rich man's tomb, and resurrection: Isaiah 52:13/53:12
In detail as to lineage, birthplace, time, and lifestyle, Jesus matched the Messianic expectations of the OT. The record of this fulfillment is to be found in the pages of the NT. But several other factors combine to further substantiate the Messiahship of Jesus.
In the first place, he claimed to be the Messiah. When a woman said to him, I know that Messiah is coming.He replied, "I who speak to you am he."Naturally, that does not prove anything one way or the other. But if Jesus had never made the claim to be the Messiah then there is no point in us proving that he was the Messiah. His own claim lays the groundwork for the rest of the evidence.
Also the fact that Jesus life is in sharp contrast to that of the false Messiahs and it is a positive demonstration of what we would expect the Messiah to do. Thus, Jesus worked many miracles of healing, bringing wholeness into people's lives, restoring relationships etc... and Jesus carried out the Law of Moses as a devout Jew.
The resuscitation of Jesus is perhaps the most convincing vindication of Jesus claim of messiahship.Although there are many explanations that has been offered throughout history to explain away the resuscitation as never happened. But these explanations have never been proven.Use your intelligence and see for yourself what makes sense.
1.Did the Roman authorities steal the body of Jesus from the tomb?
2. Then why did they not produce it when the word started being spread that Jesus is alive?
3. Did the disciples steal his body?
4. There was a contingent of Roman soldiers guarding the tomb so who moved the stone to the entrance of the tomb?

There was no way that a resuscitated Jesus could have escaped and then convinced hundreds of skeptical eyewitnesses that he is alive.Or was it all a mass hallucination? It must have been quite a hallucination to be seen by vastly different kinds of people at different times of day in many different places. You might be able to fool one person, but can you fool five hundred who saw him at one time? And unlike the pattern of hallucinations, the appearances of an alive Jesus stopped as suddenly as they started, forty days after the resuscitation took place.
The only satisfactory explanation is that Jesus resuscitation and Jesus being raised up by God unto the heavens actually occurred just as the record says.And if that's the case then it's a solid reason for accepting the Messiahship of Jesus.
Note the Jews have missed the Jesus Messiahship boat nearly 2000 years ago and they caught the false messiah boat of Bar Kochba and Shabbetai Zevi which was very costly.
This time around,after another 2000 years, there is another 2 boats coming..The first boat to dock is going to be captained by the anti-christ.Every Rabbinical prophecy will be fulfilled by the anti-Christ.
The second boat will be captained by Jesus who is coming to complete his mission that he was sent to accomplish.
The big ???????????????????
Which boat are the Jews going to board this time?

May peace and blessings be upon Jesus,his mother Mary and all mentioned Prophets.
May you all have a peaceful day.