Virgin Birth of Jesus

Why are you posting Bible quotes irrelevant to the thread?

And Moses stretched out his hand over the sea; and the LORD caused the sea to go back by a strong east wind all that night, and made the sea dry land, and the waters were divided.

Who is this bird and where can I find more

It's a dual prophecy.

Unto us (Isaiah and his wife) a child is born

Unto us (mankind) a son is given (who is Christ the Lord).

Isaiah spoke of the coming of the Jewish Messiah, Jesus, extensively.

>Isaiah spoke of the coming of the Jewish Messiah extensively.

And not everything that Isiah spoke about was Messianic

> the Jewish Messiah, Jesus,

I didn't know you were a heretic who denied the divinity of Jesus. You do realize that the Jewish Messiah is a human, and not God, right?

Daily reminder that the original translation doesn't even state that Mary was a virgin but a young woman. Learn to philology.

>For nearly two millennia the Church has insisted that the Hebrew word almah עַלְמָה can only mean “virgin.” This is a vital position for defenders of Christianity to take because Matthew 1:22-23 translates alma in Isaiah 7:14 as “virgin.” The first Gospel quotes this well known verse to provide the only “Old Testament” proof text for the supposed virgin birth of Jesus. The stakes are high for Christendom. If the Hebrew word alma does not mean a virgin, Matthew crudely misquoted the prophet Isaiah, and both a key tenet of Christianity and the credibility of the first Gospel collapses.

Why would you even need to go into whether or not עַלְמָה means virgin? הָרָה וְיֹלֶדֶת leads to the inescapable conclusion that

A) She had sex,

B) Is pregnant at this moment, and not in the future.

Take it at face value because it is true.

1. Sign to the world. A son is born of a virgin. The naysayers will point out that the word for virgin can also be a young woman (who would also be a virgin), but this is God's sign to God's creation that the one and only messiah is born.

Young girls have sons every single day.

2. Descendant of David. To sit on David's throne forever, Jesus had to be a descendant of David. And he was, both through his mother and step-father. Matthew traces Jesus' lineage to David through Joseph, and Luke traces Jesus' lineage to David through Heli, Joseph's father in law, and hence through Mary. As Mary had no brothers, she can take if she marries within the tribe. She did. Both she and Joseph are of the tribe of Judah.

3. Joseph was disqualified to take the throne of David. Joseph was a direct descendant of Jeconiah, and the line of Jeconiah was cursed. Nobody in his line would sit on the throne. However, Jesus is not in the bloodline of Joseph, and so Jesus side-steps this curse and can take the throne. Heir to David, but not through Jeconiah.

4. King and Priest. Jesus' parents go back to David through both Nathan and Solomon; through the priesthood and the kingly line. And indeed Jesus is both King and High Priest, just of his own order, not a levite.

5. Jesus' father is God the Father. Jesus is the Father's only begotten son. While God has many sons, among them 2/3 of the angels and a remnant of Jews and all born again Christians, he has only one begotten Son, Jesus. And he has spoken very highly of Jesus, and elevated Jesus above all things except himself.

6. Sinless. Jesus never sinned on his own, and Jesus inherited no sin debt from his father, God the Father. It is only because Jesus is sinless that his sacrifice on our behalf was accepted by the Father.

7. Unique. Everything about Jesus is unique, including his conception. One robe without hem, made just for him. One grave, empty.

Pretty much, but theists still don't accept simple historical fact regardless.

Mary was pregnant without having sex.

That's the entire idea.

His name is Kass, from some Zelda game. They love him over on /trash/, specifically the bara threads.

Yes, idea of Maria was stealed from cult of Marina (Aphrodite).

The christian narrative has been an effective way of mentally and spiritually crippling people into accepting a philosophy that is built on fear and counter-intuitive fantasies. Fear of hell and absolute metaphysical confusion mayne, ain't nothing like it to keep the peasants peasantin away, while the actual explanations of the myths have been reserved (still are) to the elite.

A widow, or a divorced woman, or profane, or an harlot, these shall he not take: but he shall take a virgin of his own people to wife. (Leviticus 21:14)

>Jewish Messiah is a human

Jesus is both Son of Man and Son of God; the hypostatic union between Man and God.

As much man as though not God, and as much God as though not man.

The messiah came, almost 2000 years ago.

And he's coming back in a little more than 7 years from now.

I'd say it's time for you to say "blessed is he who comes in the name of YHWH".

None of that is corroborated by any other source and some of it is contradicted in the same source.

You associate young women with sluts. They didn't.

You also err because the prophecy is twofold; a near fulfillment in the child birthed by Isaiah's wife, not a virgin but a young woman, and the child birthed by Mary, a virgin and a young woman. The sign to the world the messiah was born.

The bible is deeper than you can possibly imagine.

>And he's coming back in a little more than 7 years from now

You must be insane if you believe this. What source do you get this from?

If you're not afraid of hell, you either know you're born again and do not face hell, or you are an utter and complete fool.

It's all in the bible.

You could find it in the bible, if you were capable of reading and understanding the bible.

It really isn't that deep.

The fact that the 70th week of Daniel, a period of 7 years, has not yet begun.

And is almost here.

And Jesus will be seen by the entire world descending on the clouds in glory.

>Mary was pregnant without having sex.

And yet הָרָה is masculine, not feminine. It's not "She conceived/will conceived". It's "She has been inseminated".

Since when did priests enter the equation?

>And he's coming back in a little more than 7 years from now.

Adorable. Ever hear of this?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Disappointment

It's inspired by God, and as all things of God, it is infinite.

Your grasp on it is very shallow indeed.

Is this projection? You still haven't answered my question.

Though, I'd bet anything that you're wrong. And then what will you do when you find out you are wrong?

Now this is what schizophrenia looks like, kids.

Yes, the Holy Spirit came over Mary and she became pregnant.

Just like Isaiah came over his wife and she became pregnant.

Dual fulfillment so that you can know Isaiah is a prophet of God. Read Isaiah 53. It's all about Jesus.

People who's hope is Jesus Christ are never disappointed.

You assume the bible needs corroboration.

You have no idea who the Holy Spirit is, how he inspired the authors, or how he has maintained the Word of God even unto today.

And since you are speaking so confidently, you should be able to source your claims. So you can prove that a god exists? If not, nobody here has any reason to believe anything you have to say.

An almanah, or a gerusha, or chalalah, or a zonah, these shall he not take; but he shall take a betulah of his own people to wife.

Of course.

Genesis 1:1

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.

There you go.

Of couse I don't, because I have not a single reason to believe he exists. Surely you have some proof?

You Christcuck faggots have been claiming dates for your Second Coming since the 7th Century, and not once have any of you been correct. And you expect us to think you're right. Lol no, take a hike.

Yes, the heavens and the earth, which you have observed, are proof of his existence.

So much so that you stand before him "without excuse".

My, if only you knew how bad a day it will be to stand before the judge of the universe "without excuse".

Wait until you find out you're "condemned already".

Ouch.

You people are literally retarded.

If Jesus had a virgin birth, would he not be famous and revered from birth? Exactly when did he learn about his birth?

No, we have not.

Idiots have, and you thought they were Christians. If you read any actual Christian literature, Christians were always looking to the reformation of Israel and the rebuilding of the temple to time the end days. Always.

Oh, hey, one of two of those exist today.

And the second one exists in pieces.

You need to look up "literally" before you use it again in a sentence.

I would counter with "literally believing the father of lies is foolish".

No proof still, just idle threats of damnation. I have received those from Muslims as well, they're just as useless.

In the past, when Isiaih is speaking, hundreds of years before Mary was born.

> Read Isaiah 53. It's all about Jesus.

No, it's all about Jerusalem/Zion, which is explicitly stated in the previous paragraph. And the suffering servant metaphor was never associated with messianism until..... Christians made it up.

And again, why are you talking about the high priest in a discussion about messianism? Do you even understand that they're separate roles?

But we've danced this dance before, and there seem to be other people willing to be your tard wrangler this evening. Good day.

He was, for a minute. Then they had to flee Herod who killed all baby boys born in Bethlehem under the age of 2 and hide out in Egypt until Herod died.

Then they moved to Nazareth, a backwater town that didn't do much except house a Roman garrison.

Jesus grew up poor. Maybe working class poor.

People worship rich people, not poor people who work with their hands.

They're not idle threats, as I am not threatening you, and hell is not an idle anything. Being on fire, in the dark, forever, where the flames never die, and you never lose consciousness.

If you're not afraid of that you're a fool.

Was he an Essene?

Actually, the suffering deity trope was something from Greek mystery religions. The rites of Attis, Orpheus, the Eleusinian mysteries. Very popular during the First Century CE, and likely the inspiration for Christianity's "suffering God" theme

You are not figuratively retarded, you people literally must have a mental disability to believe shit like this and honestly think you are vindicated.

I used "literally" correctly. Perhaps you should take a refresher couse in English.

Yes, so the people could not know if Isaiah was right about a child being given via a virgin, unless he himself was part of the first part of the fulfillment, a child born to him and his wife expectantly.

Near and far fulfillment to put God's seal of approval on the prophet. And because Isaiah's wife had a child after this prophecy, we can know that Jesus was born of a virgin.

Isaiah 53 is all about Jesus.

Israel is always she unless it refers to Jacob. Israel is always she, and the adulterous wife of Jehovah.

You don't have a High Priest. Or a Temple. Or a Tabernacle. Or an altar.

You just have a game some pharisees made up to pretend you're still under the Old Covenant.

You haven't been in touch with God for 2400 years, as a people.

Investigate the panic when the scarlet strand in the Temple failed to ever again turn white after Jesus was crucified.

For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. (Hebrews 4:15)

No. John the Baptist, Jesus' cousin, probably had some dealings with the Essenes, but the primary belief of the Essenes was that there would be two messiahs.

One to die for his people, Moshiac ben Joseph, and the second to establish an eternal throne of David's, Moshiac ben David.

Note John the Baptist in prison asked Jesus' followers if there was going to be another messiah, or just him. Jesus said just him.

The Essenes were the "Remember Masada" folks.

Rewritten after Jesus' resurrection.

Stop watching Zeitgeist. It's not a documentary.

My posts are coherent, cogent, communicate my thoughts and beliefs properly, and are sourced on the Word of God.

You are literally a fool for saying there is no God.

How would you know?

Aye, theirs had to perform a sacrifice for himself, and cleanse himself, and then perform a sacrifice with scapegoats for the nation, and that every year. And all that achieved was the atonement of sins; the covering up of sins.

Our High Priest is of a different order, one like the order of Melchizedek. He needed no sacrifice for himself; he is spotless. He performed his sacrifice once for all times. And our sins were not covered over by his sacrifice; they were taken away entirely.

Our unrighteousness went into him, and his righteousness is imputed to us.

As he is in heaven, so are we here on earth.

That Christianity was influenced heavily by Hellenistic ideas (neo-Platonism, Greco-Roman paganism) is widely accepted by scholars. Christianity undeniably took influence from other mystery cults at the time. It's not "Zeitgeist"-tier shit. The idea of a 'suffering deity' is completely alien to Jewish thought and theology; however, it existed and was quite pervasive in Greek mystery cults.

Christianity is the confession that Jesus is Lord, and the belief that God raised him from the dead.

There's nothing like that before, during or since.

I never did. I just said that you must have some proof if you are making such claims right? Now you're just blatantly lying.

Shouldn't be foreign to them. But then again, they want to stay Jews.

Isaiah 53
He was taken from prison and from judgment,
And who will declare His generation?
For He was cut off from the land of the living;
For the transgressions of My people He was stricken.
And they made His grave with the wicked—
But with the rich at His death,
Because He had done no violence,
Nor was any deceit in His mouth.
Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise Him;
He has put Him to grief.

All fulfilled literally by Jesus. Struck, tortured, killed, bruised by God Himself and put to grief.

>Why is it so important for Christians to maintain that their Jesus Christ was born of a virgin birth?
Because it's true. /thread

You are a fool for saying there is no God.

Where have you searched?

The 'virgin birth' is the single biggest misunderstanding people have about Christiainity. As our very own Constantine has taught us, Jesus was born from anal sex.

Where did I ever say that? Show me?

Can you seriously fuck off? You're not contributing; nobody takes you seriously. So go away: there's a containment board for people like you on Cripplechan.

Go there, and stop annoying the good people here.

t. buttblasted Pharisee

You are a fool for saying there is no God.

Have you even been off-planet?

That's two people.

And for one, no, I will not go away.

Maybe learn to samefag before you start sperging out next time.

I gave a comprehensive, sourced and accurate response to OP's question.

You sperged out.

Which one of us should leave again?

That dude has issues even beyond most of you people.

He had to be born of a virgin so sin couldn't affect him

>Why is it so important for Christians to maintain that their Jesus Christ was born of a virgin birth?
Because He was. Mary was keeping God's Commandments as best as humanly possible, thus He decided that she was capable to do what Solomon's Temple couldn't do, house God. This, through the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, God became Man. He, in His infinite glory, humbled Himself to becoming as His own creation, and a poor carpenter at that. Christ is this fully God and fully human. He bridged the chasm that was between Him and mankind through our sin and fallen nature, giving us everlasting life - defeating death itself via His resurrection. Remember, death is a result of Adam's sin and thus kept us from God. We cannot comprehend God, but through Christ and our efforts to fulfill the Law that Christ gave us, we can know God's grace and be with Him after this cortupted, fallen world. It's not easy, though.. and Salvation is not "a moment" as some Protestants would want you to believe.

>But yet, the notion of birthing a child is to God so obscene that he makes his incarnation be born in an un-natural fashion, rather than simply using the method he himself had created!

Incorrect. As stated above, the Virgin birth allowed God to be fully human without the sin that plagues humanity due to Adam. Christ is the only human to have ever existed outside of sin.

>It seems incredibly arbitrary for God to have spared Jesus the "impurity" of being conceived by the union of egg and sperm, but to have not cared whether his Divine Incarnation shat from his asshole or whether he stank to heaven after days of not bathing in the Judean desert.

This statement has me believe you're a Muslim. Why? Because of their refusal to believe that God in all His Holy and in His infinite Love for us, mankind, that He would humble Himself by becoming man, knowing our suffering, our fallen world, our emotions and sadness. "A mile in our shoes", so to say.

>Daily reminder that the original translation doesn't even state that Mary was a virgin but a young woman. Learn to philology.

Get lost. The Masoritic text is by a millenium newer than the oldest surviving OT text, the Septuagint which is in Greek.
The Masoritic text which you quoted was literally made by Jews to mislead Christians into not believing the divinity of Christ.
Simply put, it's a devious OT revision by the descendents of the Pharisees.
Stop spouting such uninformed shit.

>The passage he's quoting doesn't even mean a "virgin birth", or that it's to happen in the far future; the original Hebrew is quite explicit that she has been inseminated in the past, since it uses a perfect masculine conjugation for the siring, but an imperfect for the giving birth, i.e. she is pregnant right this minute.

Original Hebrew? Where is that? Because the oldest copies we have of it are from the Septuagint, again, which was written in Greek. It's from about 70 learned Jews from the Ptolemic age of Egypt. Hebrew practice was to burn their Book after use, thus why only a very revised and corrupted Masoritic text was created by them and completed around 1000AD.

You're absolutely wrong about your personal interpretation of Mary not being a Virgin, as well:

The Bible calls engaged couples husband and wife before their marriage (Rachel was called the wife of Jacob before marriage by virtue of their engagement in Gn 29:21; see also Dt 22:23, 24). Thus, Joseph is called the husband of Mary, and Mary is called his wife. In Orthodoxy, Joseph is remembered as the Betrothed, pointing out Mary's ever-virginity. (See also Est 2:7).

>Because the oldest copies we have of it are from the Septuagint, again, which was written in Greek.

Actually, the oldest copies we have of it are from the Qumrani collection, with the "Great Isaiah Scroll" being both in Hebrew and considerably older than the Septuagint.

dss.collections.imj.org.il/isaiah

You will notice that the Qumrani version, is not only older than the oldest surviving Septuagint manuscripts, but is quite possibly older than the actual composition of the Septuagint.

>Hebrew practice was to burn their Book after use,

I have quite literally never heard this before and would like a source, as well as wondering how then, we do have texts from the era.

>thus why only a very revised and corrupted Masoritic text was created by them and completed around 1000AD.

And yet far, far older texts like the Mishnah manage to quote from a very recognizable Masoretic text long before you claim it was composed. Funny how that works, huh?

>The Bible calls engaged couples husband and wife before their marriage (Rachel was called the wife of Jacob before marriage by virtue of their engagement in Gn 29:21; see also Dt 22:23, 24). Thus, Joseph is called the husband of Mary, and Mary is called his wife. In Orthodoxy, Joseph is remembered as the Betrothed, pointing out Mary's ever-virginity. (See also Est 2:7).

What does any of this have to do with

A) Mary supposedly not being a virgin (which, for the record, I never claimed or particularly cared about)

B) Isaiah's prophecy not referring to any of the above, and using a masculine conjugation for the past impregnation, doubly disqualifying Mary from it being about her?

You are deluded, bro

>Paragraphs of reasoning

>Harps on image.

Sounds like you took a heavy dose of bait

How dare you not have faith
There were EYE witnesses

EYES my man

EYES

>not an argument

Pffft

Idunno, when my High School history teacher was describing modern Christianity, he showed a megareverend or some shit.

The most memorable quote was "And the Angel said to Mary: The Spirit of the LORD will come into you."

This prompted the entire room (myself included) to burst into laughter.

Texts that have circulated independently for some time concurrent with the Proto-Septuagint text could be just as ancient as the Proto-Septuagint text itself, but because of the lack of manuscript evidence, we cannot know for sure. In fact, it becomes apparent that the very notion of an “original” text does not exist, because it is impossible to point to any particular point in the development of a book and say that it is “original.”
But again, the Septuagint is brought back as it is complete and verifiable. It's insincere to say that fragments of texts are comparable to a full set of books.

>And yet far, far older texts like the Mishnah manage to quote from a very recognizable Masoretic text long before you claim it was composed. Funny how that works, huh?

If you don't believe it was composed just 1000 years ago, look it up. It's new and revised.

>Texts that have circulated independently for some time concurrent with the Proto-Septuagint text could be just as ancient as the Proto-Septuagint text itself, but because of the lack of manuscript evidence, we cannot know for sure.

But I showed you a manuscript, and what's more, a manuscript that is older than any Septuagint manuscript by several centuries. How can you possibly think the Septuagint is the oldest around?

>In fact, it becomes apparent that the very notion of an “original” text does not exist, because it is impossible to point to any particular point in the development of a book and say that it is “original.”

It's also completely uncontested by anyone that Isaiah was a text in Hebrew long before it was a text in Greek.

> It's insincere to say that fragments of texts are comparable to a full set of books.

It's also very insincere to say that the Great Isaiah Scroll is a "fragment", which is why it's usually billed as the oldest copy of Isaiah.

>If you don't believe it was composed just 1000 years ago, look it up. It's new and revised.

So how did 2nd century Rabbis quote from it?

Discipline?

Mary has literally called herself a virgin in some of her appearances. Why argue with the woman herself?

Best answer this guy knows his stuff

>is a furfag
>close to God in any way

You will burn when the time comes, you know this, right?

If Jesus isn't of divine heritage his sacrifice couldn't have vicariously atoned for all of humanity, ergo all humans would still be tainted by original sin and Christianity would be illegitimate because humans couldn't save themelves through belief in Jesus

Just my two cents t. don't know that much about theology

You're pretty spot on as far as layman understanding goes.

I didn't say I was a furfag. I said you were triggered by parrotman.jpg

I was right.

>appearances
[citation needed]

>If Jesus isn't of divine heritage his sacrifice couldn't have vicariously atoned for all of humanity

Questions:
1) How does being of divine heritage qualify you for being able to done for all of humanity's sins?
2) Why is sacrifice required to atone for all of humanity's sins?
3) Why does humanity's sins need to be atoned for with divine sacrifice?

These sound like made-up rules. How does pic related result Chad Thundercock being forgiven for adultery 2000 years later?

huhuh ye he right too

thx

i feel validated