Announcement

Collapse

Judaism Guidelines

Theists only.

Shalom!


This forum is a debate area to discuss issues pertaining to the world religion of Judaism in general and also its relationship to Christianity. This forum is generally for theists only. Non-theists (eg, atheistic Jews) may not post here without first obtaining permission from the moderator of this forum. Granting of such permission is subject to Moderator discretion - and may be revoked if the Moderator feels that the poster is not keeping with the spirit of the World Religions Department.

Non-theists are welcome to discuss and debate issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

"Virgin Birth" Questions

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by mitzi View Post
    A requirement for the messiah? Are you saying that the requirement (the virgin birth) was to a line towards the Levites or Priesthood - perhaps? Because I don't ever remember it being a requirement for being a King- Messiah? Actually I thought that the announcement of Jesus birth by the Angel Gabriel made him more "separate" and "holy" - like a priest or levite, where this tribe had held themselves distant from the rest of the people or set apart from the rest of the tribes, to show a distinction. In the announcement - "The angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God".

    Also, I don't understand why this would be difficult to understand considering Genesis (Bereshit) - the beginning of creation or the fact of the Exodus - was the creation or the beginning's of a nation. “I am Adonai, ... forming light and creating darkness.” Sound familiar? In otherwords, and for us - the birth of Jesus, would then be the beginning of the Christian faith, Bereshit (Out of the Wisdom of God - " In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. 5 The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.)
    It isn't in the old testament, but being so would a good credential. I am merely explaining the "christ"-messiah. The word of God mentioned is God's name in 4 hebrew letters, by the way. John 1:1c θεος ην ο λογος, "the God was a word". And the "christ"-messiah is also a priest-physician of Judah; which is unfortunate for explainations. The requirement of "Virgin Birth" would be in the Jeremiah book of Kings, and prohecied by Isaiah theoretically. Unfortunately, there are edits in the prophecy books which make the messiah's origin's inferior and easier to replicate by mankind. But I find the edit in the Torah where God tries to reform Cain before killing Abel is the most pathetic. Lightly telling him to excel instead of underacheiving rather, then promising "the gift will return itself", after saying hold thy peace.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Omniskeptical View Post
      It isn't in the old testament, but being so would a good credential. I am merely explaining the "christ"-messiah. The word of God mentioned is God's name in 4 hebrew letters, by the way. John 1:1c θεος ην ο λογος, "the God was a word". And the "christ"-messiah is also a priest-physician of Judah; which is unfortunate for explainations. The requirement of "Virgin Birth" would be in the Jeremiah book of Kings, and prohecied by Isaiah theoretically. Unfortunately, there are edits in the prophecy books which make the messiah's origin's inferior and easier to replicate by mankind. But I find the edit in the Torah where God tries to reform Cain before killing Abel is the most pathetic. Lightly telling him to excel instead of underacheiving rather, then promising "the gift will return itself", after saying hold thy peace.
      In a round about way and no not technically speaking - it doesn't list it. However, and in Leviticus, the statement or phrase that separates the Israelites from "all other nations", - " And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 2. Speak to the entire congregation of the children of Israel, and say to them, You shall be holy, for I, the Lord, your God, am holy. This is exactly what the pray of Hannah sites about the king Messiah (1 Samuel 2:10 "He will give strength to his king and exalt the horn of his anointed.”). My point about the birth of Jesus was that it brought out - to be separate from (all others) and to be holy.

      Thinking about it and trying to make a comparison on one towards another: In the story of the tower of Babylon and comparing the temple in Jerusalem, and going with the verse in mind: ". And they said, "Come, let us build ourselves a city and a tower with its top in the heavens, and let us make ourselves a name, lest we be scattered upon the face of the entire earth." - the difference between the two was that man "created" the tower (which the tower in Babylon - was considered the "gateway" or centered between "heaven and earth")but with the other, the temple in Jerusalem, it was built on the ground where Jacob saw the angel ascending and descending, " And Jacob awakened from his sleep, and he said, "Indeed, the Lord is in this place, and I did not know [it]." 17. And he was frightened, and he said, "How awesome is this place! This is none other than the house of God, and this is the gate of heaven."

      The point is (also) on the origins of a nation - and if, it will be scattered or under the blessings of God. (see Acts of the Apostles - "35And he said to them, "Men of Israel, take care what you propose to do with these men. 36"For some time ago Theudas rose up, claiming to be somebody, and a group of about four hundred men joined up with him. But he was killed, and all who followed him were dispersed and came to nothing. 37"After this man, Judas of Galilee rose up in the days of the census and drew away some people after him; he too perished, and all those who followed him were scattered.…)

      Therefore, in the present case I advise you: Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
        1) Fulfillment of prophesy. Same reason God 'needed' (it's usually a bad idea to discuss God's actions as 'needs') to make barren women deliver babies - Sarah, Hannah and Elizabeth coming immediately to mind.
        What prophecy? If you go and check the old version of this forum you'll see the virgin birth interpretation of Isaiah 7:14 was already debunked about ten million times. The text is clearly talking about a young girl who is already pregnant, and in fact the following verses make it quite obvious that the child in question was Hezekiah and that the topic under discussion was not the child himself but the defeat of Ahaz's two main enemies -- which happened exactly as Isaiah said it would. The use of this passage as a messianic proof-text by Christians is laughable.

        Comment


        • #34
          Let's face it, the virgin birth is something that was made up after Jesus' lifetime by the church in order to compete with rival mystery cults. Virgins impregnated by gods were a dime a dozen in the ancient Greco-Roman world. I don't think this in any way invalidates Jesus' legacy, though; it's just a reality check that the church were a pack of liars who made stuff up. Another lie being the trinity.

          Comment


          • #35
            'Debunked' does not mean 'a bunch of bad arguments disprove this'. You have no idea what you're talking about. Really, you can't come up with better than a rehash of a bunch of crap arguments no one took seriously when they were first proposed?
            "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

            "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

            My Personal Blog

            My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

            Quill Sword

            Comment


            • #36
              Therefore, in the present case I advise you: Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail.
              Have we failed? The goalpost was changed to make Gamaliel look good and as if we failed. Gamaliel was not a Levite, like Jewish history claims. He was the false prophet though.
              Last edited by Omniskeptical; 05-27-2014, 03:44 PM.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Xtian Rabinovich View Post


                From the birth of Cain to the birth of Jesus of Nazareth every pregnancy has been contaminated by the jus primae noctis practiced by the serpent.


                Huh? this sounds like a bunch of שתויות to me.

                With Jesus' birth, the reign of the serpent comes to an end. The Hebrew word for "loins" (the serpent) is motan מתן. The first two letters מת spell "death," while the last letter נ symbolizes the male reproductive organ (see Rabbi Ginsburgh). When the letter nun נ is found at the end of a word, it becomes ithyphallic, "extended," ן. A man's loins are the home of the serpent. The serpent is literally wrapped around the Tree of Life forming the Tree of Knowledge ידע. The word "knowledge" ידע (yada) is used as a euphemism for phallic-sex: "so-and-so came to `know' (yada) his wife and she conceived . . .."
                the hebrew word for "loins" which is plural is מתנים not מתן as you are trying to establish. What you are using is a singular form that generally isnt used in the Tanakh. I see you are trying to introduce a bunch of kabbalistic nonsense into your post. Save your breath because you dont understand it and you havent had the necessary training to begin to understand it. Any Tom, Dick, and larry off the street can pick up a book on kabbalah and draw their own conclusions from it.

                The word motan מתן means the serpent ן of death מת. If the letter symbolizing the womb מ is removed from the word for loins (motan מתן) the remaining letters תן spell "serpent" (tan). Any way it's parsed the word for "loins" reveals the need for Jesus' virgin birth.
                No it doesnt. You are trying to mechanically separate a word which grammatically cant be separated. there are many mistakes here with the hebrew its rediculous. For example תן does not mean "serpent" it would be the equivalant of "Jackal" in english. the word you want is תנין which is a "large sea serpent or sea monster." The word used in Genesis 3:15 is the word נחש which is either a "snake" or "land dwelling serpent." either way your connections here are far fetched and wrong as to what hebrew words mean what.

                The entire Tanakh, properly interpreted, speaks of the need for a virgin birth. The very foundation of the covenant to Abraham is the bleeding of the motan. Abraham takes a knife and wounds the serpent symbolizing (ritualistically) the death of the serpent of death. Issac is symbolically born of an emasculate pregnancy just like Abraham's greater son, Jesus of Nazareth, who is born not of a ritualistically emasculate pregnancy, but from the real deal.
                Do you make this stuff up as you go?

                Rabbi Samson Hirsch points out that the key symbol of a "Jewish" birth (as opposed to all other births) is set forth when Moses speaks of the firstborn "opening the womb":

                פטר means "to let out," also "to be let out." (פטר is related to פתר), to uncover the hidden-meaning of a dream, and the like [say a closed-statement], and . . . would seem to refer to the child, in which case it would mean: the one expelled from the womb. But then it would refer to every child. Hense, פטר should be taken as referring to the mother's womb, and as denoting the opening of a hitherto closed place.

                Rabbi Hirsch notes that if the Hebrew word used for "opening the womb’ פטר merely talks of opening the womb, then every child (not just the firstborn) would be included in the statement (and thus the statement would be meaningless since all offspring would automatically open the womb). In the same context, Rabbi Hirsch says: "The halachah, which links the consecration of the firstborn to פטר . . . teaches us that the meaning of this law is essentially the consecration of the womb. If the first child is a male, he is not born only unto his home and family, but, rather, unto God."

                Rabbi Hirsch realizes that the scripture makes "opening the womb" the key signifier of the sanctified "firstborn." But he understands that the signifier seems not to have significance since every child opens the womb at birth. There's only one "womb opening" that would set the true firstborn apart from all other births. He must open a closed womb, a closed mem, and the only way it can really be closed is if the membrane of virginity is not tore prior to his birth.

                In ritual circumcision there are two parts. If both parts aren't performed, the circumcision is bogus. The first part is removing the serpent (the orlah) wrapped around the Tree of Life. The second signifies Jesus' birth and Jesus' birth alone. The membrane of virginity is torn (periah) by the nails in a Jewish hand (in this case the mohel) signifying that the true circumcision will occur when the membrane of virginity normally torn by the serpent in a profane phallic pregnancy in this case is torn by the nails in a Jewish man's hand (Matt. 27:51).


                the first part was enough. This שטויות you are spouting really isnt worth my words that type on this page. come up with a sizable argument that has a logical concusion and i may entertain your comments with a response.

                Shalom,

                Avraham Ibn Ezra
                Last edited by Avraham Ibn Ezra; 05-28-2014, 03:28 PM.
                אברהם אבן עזרא

                Avraham Ibn Ezra

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Omniskeptical View Post
                  Have we failed? The goalpost was changed to make Gamaliel look good and as if we failed. Gamaliel was not a Levite, like Jewish history claims. He was the false prophet though.
                  Why are you attacking Rabban Gamliel when he isn't even part of the discussion unless I missed the post where he was introduced to the conversation? Rabban Gamliel wasn't a נביא in the sense of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and others. However, Judaism does bestow a certain lower level of prophecy upon the ancient Rabbis in What we call Chazal.
                  אברהם אבן עזרא

                  Avraham Ibn Ezra

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    I apologize for my prolonged absence. I will respond to those posts addressed to that I did not get to a little later.

                    Shalom
                    אברהם אבן עזרא

                    Avraham Ibn Ezra

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Avraham Ibn Ezra View Post
                      Why are you attacking Rabban Gamliel when he isn't even part of the discussion unless I missed the post where he was introduced to the conversation? Rabban Gamliel wasn't a נביא in the sense of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and others. However, Judaism does bestow a certain lower level of prophecy upon the ancient Rabbis in What we call Chazal.
                      Gamaliel was making a false prophecy, and he the apostles and their followers birch, beaten or whipped. He was prevaricating and getting started.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Omniskeptical View Post
                        Gamaliel was making a false prophecy, and he the apostles and their followers birch, beaten or whipped. He was prevaricating and getting started.
                        What "prophecy are you referring to? You are making broad claims but I don't see the substance of the argument. If you have already stated the "prophecy" you are referring to then please post it again. I also don't think you understand what I said to you in my post about prophets and the level of prophecy bestowed upon many of the Ancient Rabbis of Chazal. They aren't prophets in the sense of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and others. They don't have the level of communication and message giving. So what you are citing wouldn't be considered a "prophecy" anyway.
                        אברהם אבן עזרא

                        Avraham Ibn Ezra

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          He said the movement would come to no effect, being it was not from God; as though he were on God's side to begin with.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Er, wait, didn't he say that conditionally?
                            "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

                            "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                            My Personal Blog

                            My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                            Quill Sword

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              He was being pretentious.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Omniskeptical View Post
                                He said the movement would come to no effect, being it was not from God; as though he were on God's side to begin with.
                                Your first mistake with me is to assume that the NT has truth value for me as a Jew. It isn't a part of my religious beliefs or scriptures so I reject the premise immediately.

                                Second, there is no account in the Oral law that reflects this as ever having been said so I reject the validity that he said this at all. Much less that he is making a "prophecy" of any kind. To me, reading the narrative, he was defending the accused and basically telling his accusers that this movement isn't worth their time. He isn't making any type of "prophetic" claim at all.
                                אברהם אבן עזרא

                                Avraham Ibn Ezra

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X