aSlavesLife
Posts: 347
Joined: 12/1/2006 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Rule quote:
ORIGINAL: aSlavesLife As the Bible says that a bastard child is unworthy of entering the house of God Which god? I suppose that is somewhere in the old testament? Yahweh, didn't you read the bible? quote:
ORIGINAL: aSlavesLife this is a far cry from the kid being the hope of mankind. Nevertheless Christian cultures in which all people have bastards in their ancestral lineage are the dominant cultures on Earth, whereas cultures in which the people do not are typically backwards. Which has nothing at all to do with your claim. quote:
ORIGINAL: aSlavesLife The whole idea of making Jesus be a virgin birth was due to the new testament authors trying to tie Jesus with an alleged prophecy in Isaiah. The evidence available indicates that the hymen of Mary was not broken when she conceived by Panthera. Anyway, it offered an opportunity to neutralize that misinterpreted prophecy in Isaiah. Very little indication that Panthera was his father, let alone her being a virgin. If you have evidence otherwise.... Isaiah 7:16, "For before the child shall know to refuse evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorests shall be forsaken of both her kings." The "land that thou abhorest..." refers to Damascus and Samaria, and the refuse evil/choose good reference is some point of Immanuel's development, possibly some rite of adulthood. The flaw in their logic is that Damascus and Samaria fell to Assyria in 732 b.c.e., roughly 700 years before Jesus was born. That is an interpretation. Of course the prophecy did not apply to Jesus, it applied to the time when the prophecy was made. In fact the jews had forgotten all about their history until a couple of old books were retrieved from the temple by an evil priest - if I recall correctly - and then they misinterpreted what was in them, as lesser minds are wont to do. quote:
ORIGINAL: aSlavesLife Backing up just a bit, we now look at a mistranslation that leads many to assume Immanuel was Jesus. Isaiah 7:14, "Therefore, the Lord himself shall give a sign; behold a Virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." The mistranslation here is the word "virgin". The Hebrew word for virgin is "bethulah", but the mistranslated word is "almah", which means young woman, not virgin. Had the Hebrew meant virgin, they would have used bethulah in Isaiah 7:14, instead they used almah. So now we have a misnamed child born 700 years too soon that the authors wish to claim is Jesus because the Greeks didn't see the difference between the words and used the word parthenos to replace almah. Parthenos means young virgin woman. It seems to me that it is of more interest how Mary and her associates interpreted Isaiah. I doubt that they read the Greek 'mistranslation'. So it seems likely to me that the Greek translation was correct. Likely the term young woman / virgin refers to the virgin goddess, the pure one, unblemished by evil. I doubt that Mary was an incarnation of that goddess. Which virgin goddess? Seems as though only 1 goddess was mentioned in the Bible, Asherah, and she was hardly a virgin. quote:
ORIGINAL: aSlavesLife As for Thomas touching his wounds, you are offering what amounts to hearsay. While there is a shift near the end of the book of John from 3rd person to 1st, the first party writer takes on a prophetic bend, which makes it appear to be a later addition to the text designed to give the illusion of prophecy. There are no eye witness accounts of a resurrection at all. There are only claims by later authors that it was witnessed, but none of the authors claim to have actually seen the resurrection event. We have better documented accounts of people seeing Bigfoot. It sure did convince a lot of people at the time and at that location. It seems to me that their conviction is worth more than the opinion of someone who was not there and lives two thousand years later. Then we are to accept the resurrection of Osiris, Dionysus, and Tammuz as well? Lots of people believed that they were resurrected too. And for that matter, not many people in that area bought into it. It seems to have caught on in Rome, not Israel, replacing the Mithras cult in popularity. It also took a couple hundred years for it to take over even in Rome, so it certainly did not convince " a lot of people at the time and at that location. "
_____________________________
It takes a village to raise an idiot.
|