If Jesus wasn’t a real historical figure, where did Christian theology come from?

[Anonymous]

Oh Lordy, the Jew Who Hates Christians Who Studied Christianity For One Semester in Rabbinical School in Brooklyn is among us.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I haven’t read the whole thread, but what I have heard makes sense. His geographic location was in the crossroads of east and west. He most likely was exposed to eastern philosophy, think India at the time.
If he had lived in a different time perhaps he would have become a philosopher like Karl Marx or Kiergegaard.
He certainly upset the status quo by becoming a reformist like Martin Luther.
His death was not that unusual, plenty of people were crucified and continued to be for a long time

Jesus was also exposed to Greco-Roman philosophy because they ruled the Middle East in his time.

No, only the most wealthy Jews were exposed to Greco Roman scholarship. It’s possible that Paul and Matthew had been exposed to such teaching, but Jesus would have received only traditional Jewish teaching. Exposure to Greco Roman mythology would explain why Matthew, and only Matthew, described a Virgin Birth. The idea of God impregnating a human woman was common in Greco Roman mythology. Such an idea would be repulsive to Jews.

Isaiah 7:14 (Jewish) prophesied a virgin birth. “Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.” If she was a virgin, the impregnation must have been supernatural. No need to fall back in Greco-Roman mythology.

Wrong. Isaiah never said that. That’s a Christian mistranslation. The Hebrew word is “alma.” “Alma” means young woman,” not “virgin.”

What other words are mistranslated by Christians, in your view?

How much time have you got? There’s a reason that Jews teach their children to read the Bible in the original and Christians do not.

Christians who want to take their understanding to a new level study Koine Greek, Aramaic and maybe Hebrew if they’re going for a doctorate or something No, they don’t teach their children Hebrew so they can learn about God slaughtering Canaanites and teenagers taunting bald guys in the original. Koine Greek and Aramaic would be the languages taught, if any.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I haven’t read the whole thread, but what I have heard makes sense. His geographic location was in the crossroads of east and west. He most likely was exposed to eastern philosophy, think India at the time.
If he had lived in a different time perhaps he would have become a philosopher like Karl Marx or Kiergegaard.
He certainly upset the status quo by becoming a reformist like Martin Luther.
His death was not that unusual, plenty of people were crucified and continued to be for a long time

Jesus was also exposed to Greco-Roman philosophy because they ruled the Middle East in his time.

No, only the most wealthy Jews were exposed to Greco Roman scholarship. It’s possible that Paul and Matthew had been exposed to such teaching, but Jesus would have received only traditional Jewish teaching. Exposure to Greco Roman mythology would explain why Matthew, and only Matthew, described a Virgin Birth. The idea of God impregnating a human woman was common in Greco Roman mythology. Such an idea would be repulsive to Jews.

Isaiah 7:14 (Jewish) prophesied a virgin birth. “Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.” If she was a virgin, the impregnation must have been supernatural. No need to fall back in Greco-Roman mythology.

Wrong. Isaiah never said that. That’s a Christian mistranslation. The Hebrew word is “alma.” “Alma” means young woman,” not “virgin.”

What other words are mistranslated by Christians, in your view?

How much time have you got? There’s a reason that Jews teach their children to read the Bible in the original and Christians do not.

I have a lot of time. And I am interested. Please proceed.

[Anonymous]

Young girls during Jesus’ time were supposed to be virgins. This is a no-brainer. Unless they were married or widowed, but that wasn’t the claim in the Gospel of Matthew.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I haven’t read the whole thread, but what I have heard makes sense. His geographic location was in the crossroads of east and west. He most likely was exposed to eastern philosophy, think India at the time.
If he had lived in a different time perhaps he would have become a philosopher like Karl Marx or Kiergegaard.
He certainly upset the status quo by becoming a reformist like Martin Luther.
His death was not that unusual, plenty of people were crucified and continued to be for a long time

Jesus was also exposed to Greco-Roman philosophy because they ruled the Middle East in his time.

No, only the most wealthy Jews were exposed to Greco Roman scholarship. It’s possible that Paul and Matthew had been exposed to such teaching, but Jesus would have received only traditional Jewish teaching. Exposure to Greco Roman mythology would explain why Matthew, and only Matthew, described a Virgin Birth. The idea of God impregnating a human woman was common in Greco Roman mythology. Such an idea would be repulsive to Jews.

Isaiah 7:14 (Jewish) prophesied a virgin birth. “Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.” If she was a virgin, the impregnation must have been supernatural. No need to fall back in Greco-Roman mythology.

Wrong. Isaiah never said that. That’s a Christian mistranslation. The Hebrew word is “alma.” “Alma” means young woman,” not “virgin.”

It's actually a Jewish translation (mis or otherwise), the Greek of the Septuagint was produced by Jews, before there were Christians.

Wrong. The Septuagint translates “alma” into “neanis” which means “ young woman,” not “virgin.” Jews have never said that the yet to come Messiah will be born of a virgin.

Young, unmarried women were generally virgins. Also, Matthew was writing for an audience in Antioch that was still part of the Jewish community, even if the relationship was deteriorating—yet the “virgin” language was apparently accepted.

In any case, whether or not the translation works is irrelevant. Matthew’s text relies on the fact that Isaiah was talking about a virgin, not on a Greek god that was popular in the 2nd and 3rd centuries CE, i.e well after the gospel of Matthew was put together towards the end of the first century.

Wrong. Isaiah merely said that the child would be born of a young woman. Isaiah never said the woman would be impregnated before she was married. Jews have never said that the Messiah’s mother would be a virgin. Jews who believe in an individual Messiah have always said that in every generation, there is one Jew is is sufficiently righteous to become the Messiah. But the Messiah is a man, not God. He will not be born of a virgin.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I haven’t read the whole thread, but what I have heard makes sense. His geographic location was in the crossroads of east and west. He most likely was exposed to eastern philosophy, think India at the time.
If he had lived in a different time perhaps he would have become a philosopher like Karl Marx or Kiergegaard.
He certainly upset the status quo by becoming a reformist like Martin Luther.
His death was not that unusual, plenty of people were crucified and continued to be for a long time

Jesus was also exposed to Greco-Roman philosophy because they ruled the Middle East in his time.

No, only the most wealthy Jews were exposed to Greco Roman scholarship. It’s possible that Paul and Matthew had been exposed to such teaching, but Jesus would have received only traditional Jewish teaching. Exposure to Greco Roman mythology would explain why Matthew, and only Matthew, described a Virgin Birth. The idea of God impregnating a human woman was common in Greco Roman mythology. Such an idea would be repulsive to Jews.

Isaiah 7:14 (Jewish) prophesied a virgin birth. “Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.” If she was a virgin, the impregnation must have been supernatural. No need to fall back in Greco-Roman mythology.

Wrong. Isaiah never said that. That’s a Christian mistranslation. The Hebrew word is “alma.” “Alma” means young woman,” not “virgin.”

It's actually a Jewish translation (mis or otherwise), the Greek of the Septuagint was produced by Jews, before there were Christians.

Wrong. The Septuagint translates “alma” into “neanis” which means “ young woman,” not “virgin.” Jews have never said that the yet to come Messiah will be born of a virgin.

Young, unmarried women were generally virgins. Also, Matthew was writing for an audience in Antioch that was still part of the Jewish community, even if the relationship was deteriorating—yet the “virgin” language was apparently accepted.

In any case, whether or not the translation works is irrelevant. Matthew’s text relies on the fact that Isaiah was talking about a virgin, not on a Greek god that was popular in the 2nd and 3rd centuries CE, i.e well after the gospel of Matthew was put together towards the end of the first century.

Wrong. Isaiah merely said that the child would be born of a young woman. Isaiah never said the woman would be impregnated before she was married. Jews have never said that the Messiah’s mother would be a virgin. Jews who believe in an individual Messiah have always said that in every generation, there is one Jew is is sufficiently righteous to become the Messiah. But the Messiah is a man, not God. He will not be born of a virgin.

You’re still arguing this backwards. A young, unmarried women may or may not be a virgin, but she would be assumed to be a virgin.

Check out this link if you don’t want to take my word for it. https://www.gotquestions.org/virgin-or-young-woman.html

None of these instances demands the meaning “virgin,” but neither do they deny the possible meaning of “virgin.” There is no conclusive argument for “almah” in Isaiah 7:14 being either “young woman” or “virgin.” However, it is interesting to note, that in the 3rd century B.C., when a panel of Hebrew scholars and Jewish rabbis began the process of translating the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek, they used the specific Greek word for virgin, “parthenos,” not the more generic Greek word for “young woman.” The Septuagint translators, 200+ years before the birth of Christ, and with no inherent belief in a “virgin birth,” translated “almah” in Isaiah 7:14 as “virgin,” not “young woman.” This gives evidence that “virgin” is a possible, even likely, meaning of the term.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I haven’t read the whole thread, but what I have heard makes sense. His geographic location was in the crossroads of east and west. He most likely was exposed to eastern philosophy, think India at the time.
If he had lived in a different time perhaps he would have become a philosopher like Karl Marx or Kiergegaard.
He certainly upset the status quo by becoming a reformist like Martin Luther.
His death was not that unusual, plenty of people were crucified and continued to be for a long time

Jesus was also exposed to Greco-Roman philosophy because they ruled the Middle East in his time.

No, only the most wealthy Jews were exposed to Greco Roman scholarship. It’s possible that Paul and Matthew had been exposed to such teaching, but Jesus would have received only traditional Jewish teaching. Exposure to Greco Roman mythology would explain why Matthew, and only Matthew, described a Virgin Birth. The idea of God impregnating a human woman was common in Greco Roman mythology. Such an idea would be repulsive to Jews.

Isaiah 7:14 (Jewish) prophesied a virgin birth. “Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.” If she was a virgin, the impregnation must have been supernatural. No need to fall back in Greco-Roman mythology.

Wrong. Isaiah never said that. That’s a Christian mistranslation. The Hebrew word is “alma.” “Alma” means young woman,” not “virgin.”

It's actually a Jewish translation (mis or otherwise), the Greek of the Septuagint was produced by Jews, before there were Christians.

Wrong. The Septuagint translates “alma” into “neanis” which means “ young woman,” not “virgin.” Jews have never said that the yet to come Messiah will be born of a virgin.

Young, unmarried women were generally virgins. Also, Matthew was writing for an audience in Antioch that was still part of the Jewish community, even if the relationship was deteriorating—yet the “virgin” language was apparently accepted.

In any case, whether or not the translation works is irrelevant. Matthew’s text relies on the fact that Isaiah was talking about a virgin, not on a Greek god that was popular in the 2nd and 3rd centuries CE, i.e well after the gospel of Matthew was put together towards the end of the first century.

Wrong. Isaiah merely said that the child would be born of a young woman. Isaiah never said the woman would be impregnated before she was married. Jews have never said that the Messiah’s mother would be a virgin. Jews who believe in an individual Messiah have always said that in every generation, there is one Jew is is sufficiently righteous to become the Messiah. But the Messiah is a man, not God. He will not be born of a virgin.

You’re still arguing this backwards. A young, unmarried women may or may not be a virgin, but she would be assumed to be a virgin.

Check out this link if you don’t want to take my word for it. https://www.gotquestions.org/virgin-or-young-woman.html

None of these instances demands the meaning “virgin,” but neither do they deny the possible meaning of “virgin.” There is no conclusive argument for “almah” in Isaiah 7:14 being either “young woman” or “virgin.” However, it is interesting to note, that in the 3rd century B.C., when a panel of Hebrew scholars and Jewish rabbis began the process of translating the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek, they used the specific Greek word for virgin, “parthenos,” not the more generic Greek word for “young woman.” The Septuagint translators, 200+ years before the birth of Christ, and with no inherent belief in a “virgin birth,” translated “almah” in Isaiah 7:14 as “virgin,” not “young woman.” This gives evidence that “virgin” is a possible, even likely, meaning of the term.

So if there was a mistranslation, it’s on the heads of Jewish translators 200 years BC, not on early Christians, many of whom spoke Greek and were probably taking the Jewish Septuagint at face value?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I haven’t read the whole thread, but what I have heard makes sense. His geographic location was in the crossroads of east and west. He most likely was exposed to eastern philosophy, think India at the time.
If he had lived in a different time perhaps he would have become a philosopher like Karl Marx or Kiergegaard.
He certainly upset the status quo by becoming a reformist like Martin Luther.
His death was not that unusual, plenty of people were crucified and continued to be for a long time

Jesus was also exposed to Greco-Roman philosophy because they ruled the Middle East in his time.

No, only the most wealthy Jews were exposed to Greco Roman scholarship. It’s possible that Paul and Matthew had been exposed to such teaching, but Jesus would have received only traditional Jewish teaching. Exposure to Greco Roman mythology would explain why Matthew, and only Matthew, described a Virgin Birth. The idea of God impregnating a human woman was common in Greco Roman mythology. Such an idea would be repulsive to Jews.

Isaiah 7:14 (Jewish) prophesied a virgin birth. “Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.” If she was a virgin, the impregnation must have been supernatural. No need to fall back in Greco-Roman mythology.

Wrong. Isaiah never said that. That’s a Christian mistranslation. The Hebrew word is “alma.” “Alma” means young woman,” not “virgin.”

What other words are mistranslated by Christians, in your view?

How much time have you got? There’s a reason that Jews teach their children to read the Bible in the original and Christians do not.

Christians who want to take their understanding to a new level study Koine Greek, Aramaic and maybe Hebrew if they’re going for a doctorate or something No, they don’t teach their children Hebrew so they can learn about God slaughtering Canaanites and teenagers taunting bald guys in the original. Koine Greek and Aramaic would be the languages taught, if any.

You say Christians would study Aramaic and “maybe Hebrew”? The New Testament has one phrase in Aramaic where Jesus quotes Psalm 22 (originally written in Hebrew): “Eloi Eloi lama sabachthani?” Mark 15:34. Matthew quotes it in the original Hebrew: “Eli Eli lema sabachthani?” Matthew 27:46. Why “Aramaic and maybe Hebrew”? Moreover, you say Christians don’t teach their children Hebrew so they don’t have to read about God killing people. So why don’t adult Christians learn Hebrew? Is the Old Testament not the word of God? Why isn’t koine Greek taught to Christians as a matter of course as Hebrew is taught to Jewish children?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I haven’t read the whole thread, but what I have heard makes sense. His geographic location was in the crossroads of east and west. He most likely was exposed to eastern philosophy, think India at the time.
If he had lived in a different time perhaps he would have become a philosopher like Karl Marx or Kiergegaard.
He certainly upset the status quo by becoming a reformist like Martin Luther.
His death was not that unusual, plenty of people were crucified and continued to be for a long time

Jesus was also exposed to Greco-Roman philosophy because they ruled the Middle East in his time.

No, only the most wealthy Jews were exposed to Greco Roman scholarship. It’s possible that Paul and Matthew had been exposed to such teaching, but Jesus would have received only traditional Jewish teaching. Exposure to Greco Roman mythology would explain why Matthew, and only Matthew, described a Virgin Birth. The idea of God impregnating a human woman was common in Greco Roman mythology. Such an idea would be repulsive to Jews.

Isaiah 7:14 (Jewish) prophesied a virgin birth. “Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.” If she was a virgin, the impregnation must have been supernatural. No need to fall back in Greco-Roman mythology.

Wrong. Isaiah never said that. That’s a Christian mistranslation. The Hebrew word is “alma.” “Alma” means young woman,” not “virgin.”

It's actually a Jewish translation (mis or otherwise), the Greek of the Septuagint was produced by Jews, before there were Christians.

Wrong. The Septuagint translates “alma” into “neanis” which means “ young woman,” not “virgin.” Jews have never said that the yet to come Messiah will be born of a virgin.

Young, unmarried women were generally virgins. Also, Matthew was writing for an audience in Antioch that was still part of the Jewish community, even if the relationship was deteriorating—yet the “virgin” language was apparently accepted.

In any case, whether or not the translation works is irrelevant. Matthew’s text relies on the fact that Isaiah was talking about a virgin, not on a Greek god that was popular in the 2nd and 3rd centuries CE, i.e well after the gospel of Matthew was put together towards the end of the first century.

Wrong. Isaiah merely said that the child would be born of a young woman. Isaiah never said the woman would be impregnated before she was married. Jews have never said that the Messiah’s mother would be a virgin. Jews who believe in an individual Messiah have always said that in every generation, there is one Jew is is sufficiently righteous to become the Messiah. But the Messiah is a man, not God. He will not be born of a virgin.

You’re still arguing this backwards. A young, unmarried women may or may not be a virgin, but she would be assumed to be a virgin.

Check out this link if you don’t want to take my word for it. https://www.gotquestions.org/virgin-or-young-woman.html

None of these instances demands the meaning “virgin,” but neither do they deny the possible meaning of “virgin.” There is no conclusive argument for “almah” in Isaiah 7:14 being either “young woman” or “virgin.” However, it is interesting to note, that in the 3rd century B.C., when a panel of Hebrew scholars and Jewish rabbis began the process of translating the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek, they used the specific Greek word for virgin, “parthenos,” not the more generic Greek word for “young woman.” The Septuagint translators, 200+ years before the birth of Christ, and with no inherent belief in a “virgin birth,” translated “almah” in Isaiah 7:14 as “virgin,” not “young woman.” This gives evidence that “virgin” is a possible, even likely, meaning of the term.

You just don’t get this. Isaiah never said the child would be born of an unmarried woman. Presumably the woman would be married and impregnated by her husband.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I haven’t read the whole thread, but what I have heard makes sense. His geographic location was in the crossroads of east and west. He most likely was exposed to eastern philosophy, think India at the time.
If he had lived in a different time perhaps he would have become a philosopher like Karl Marx or Kiergegaard.
He certainly upset the status quo by becoming a reformist like Martin Luther.
His death was not that unusual, plenty of people were crucified and continued to be for a long time

Jesus was also exposed to Greco-Roman philosophy because they ruled the Middle East in his time.

No, only the most wealthy Jews were exposed to Greco Roman scholarship. It’s possible that Paul and Matthew had been exposed to such teaching, but Jesus would have received only traditional Jewish teaching. Exposure to Greco Roman mythology would explain why Matthew, and only Matthew, described a Virgin Birth. The idea of God impregnating a human woman was common in Greco Roman mythology. Such an idea would be repulsive to Jews.

Isaiah 7:14 (Jewish) prophesied a virgin birth. “Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.” If she was a virgin, the impregnation must have been supernatural. No need to fall back in Greco-Roman mythology.

Wrong. Isaiah never said that. That’s a Christian mistranslation. The Hebrew word is “alma.” “Alma” means young woman,” not “virgin.”

What other words are mistranslated by Christians, in your view?

How much time have you got? There’s a reason that Jews teach their children to read the Bible in the original and Christians do not.

Christians who want to take their understanding to a new level study Koine Greek, Aramaic and maybe Hebrew if they’re going for a doctorate or something No, they don’t teach their children Hebrew so they can learn about God slaughtering Canaanites and teenagers taunting bald guys in the original. Koine Greek and Aramaic would be the languages taught, if any.

You say Christians would study Aramaic and “maybe Hebrew”? The New Testament has one phrase in Aramaic where Jesus quotes Psalm 22 (originally written in Hebrew): “Eloi Eloi lama sabachthani?” Mark 15:34. Matthew quotes it in the original Hebrew: “Eli Eli lema sabachthani?” Matthew 27:46. Why “Aramaic and maybe Hebrew”? Moreover, you say Christians don’t teach their children Hebrew so they don’t have to read about God killing people. So why don’t adult Christians learn Hebrew? Is the Old Testament not the word of God? Why isn’t koine Greek taught to Christians as a matter of course as Hebrew is taught to Jewish children?

You’re asking Christians to teach their kids two languages, koine Greek and Hebrew? Really?

Hebrew is still spoken in its modern form, it’s Israel’s state language, and it’s a large part of Jewish identity. Not so for Christians. As you know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I haven’t read the whole thread, but what I have heard makes sense. His geographic location was in the crossroads of east and west. He most likely was exposed to eastern philosophy, think India at the time.
If he had lived in a different time perhaps he would have become a philosopher like Karl Marx or Kiergegaard.
He certainly upset the status quo by becoming a reformist like Martin Luther.
His death was not that unusual, plenty of people were crucified and continued to be for a long time

Jesus was also exposed to Greco-Roman philosophy because they ruled the Middle East in his time.

No, only the most wealthy Jews were exposed to Greco Roman scholarship. It’s possible that Paul and Matthew had been exposed to such teaching, but Jesus would have received only traditional Jewish teaching. Exposure to Greco Roman mythology would explain why Matthew, and only Matthew, described a Virgin Birth. The idea of God impregnating a human woman was common in Greco Roman mythology. Such an idea would be repulsive to Jews.

Isaiah 7:14 (Jewish) prophesied a virgin birth. “Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.” If she was a virgin, the impregnation must have been supernatural. No need to fall back in Greco-Roman mythology.

Wrong. Isaiah never said that. That’s a Christian mistranslation. The Hebrew word is “alma.” “Alma” means young woman,” not “virgin.”

It's actually a Jewish translation (mis or otherwise), the Greek of the Septuagint was produced by Jews, before there were Christians.

Wrong. The Septuagint translates “alma” into “neanis” which means “ young woman,” not “virgin.” Jews have never said that the yet to come Messiah will be born of a virgin.

Young, unmarried women were generally virgins. Also, Matthew was writing for an audience in Antioch that was still part of the Jewish community, even if the relationship was deteriorating—yet the “virgin” language was apparently accepted.

In any case, whether or not the translation works is irrelevant. Matthew’s text relies on the fact that Isaiah was talking about a virgin, not on a Greek god that was popular in the 2nd and 3rd centuries CE, i.e well after the gospel of Matthew was put together towards the end of the first century.

Wrong. Isaiah merely said that the child would be born of a young woman. Isaiah never said the woman would be impregnated before she was married. Jews have never said that the Messiah’s mother would be a virgin. Jews who believe in an individual Messiah have always said that in every generation, there is one Jew is is sufficiently righteous to become the Messiah. But the Messiah is a man, not God. He will not be born of a virgin.

You’re still arguing this backwards. A young, unmarried women may or may not be a virgin, but she would be assumed to be a virgin.

Check out this link if you don’t want to take my word for it. https://www.gotquestions.org/virgin-or-young-woman.html

None of these instances demands the meaning “virgin,” but neither do they deny the possible meaning of “virgin.” There is no conclusive argument for “almah” in Isaiah 7:14 being either “young woman” or “virgin.” However, it is interesting to note, that in the 3rd century B.C., when a panel of Hebrew scholars and Jewish rabbis began the process of translating the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek, they used the specific Greek word for virgin, “parthenos,” not the more generic Greek word for “young woman.” The Septuagint translators, 200+ years before the birth of Christ, and with no inherent belief in a “virgin birth,” translated “almah” in Isaiah 7:14 as “virgin,” not “young woman.” This gives evidence that “virgin” is a possible, even likely, meaning of the term.

You just don’t get this. Isaiah never said the child would be born of an unmarried woman. Presumably the woman would be married and impregnated by her husband.

You don’t get this. Or you don’t want to get this.

Even Jews in the centuries before Christ translated this as “virgin” in the Greek. Early Christians were reading these Jewish translations. Apparently Jews were fine with “virgin” until Christians came along and used that Jewish translation.

You write “presumably she would be married.” That doesn’t work because she wouldn’t be a virgin after her wedding night. There’s no need to write “of a virgin” (per Jewish Septaguint) in an era when every young woman was “presumably” a virgin until (but not after) she got married, unless there was something different about this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is the skinhead poster a troll?

He just copy & pastes the same thing over and over again.

I think it's the same person who called some of us Christian-hating bigots

No - that person throws tantrums, he doesn’t post random, irrelevant quotes from evangelical nutjobs.

but both are evasive and engage in some very nasty name-calling.

Evangelical nut jobs? And you are complaining about name-calling?

That pastor calls people who disagree with him “skinheads”. So, yeah, a nut job.

He’s a professor, author, scholar and historian.

He is not calling people who disagree with him “skinheads.”

He’s comparing people who are in denial that Jesus was a real historical person and disagree with the entirety of academia, disagree with phd level scholars of antiquity, that Jesus was a real person, and comparing their level of delusion and ignorance with people who deny the earth is round (flat earthers) and Nazi skinheads who go against all respectable historians and claim the holocaust was a hoax.

You are just focusing on the skinhead word to feign outrage, and ignore the fact that he is comparing people who deny the historical certainty of Jesus to flat- earthers, too.

Maybe the comparison offends you because it’s so very accurate? It’s not a thing to be proud of. It’s embarrassing to be so wrong yet steadfast in your ignorance. If you don’t want to be grouped with idiots, don’t be an idiot. It’s simple as.

There’s absolutely zero evidence the man who is being quoted is a bigot or hateful.

Yes, he is calling people “skinheads” because he disagrees with them. He uses inflammatory language in a lame attempt to shame people instead of making a valid argument. Sounds hateful to me.

Again, NONE of those posts from this thread denied historical Jesus. No one said he didn’t exist.

I guess you still don’t have a valid argument to make so you continue to throw out insults. Lame.

Are you insulted because you deny Jesus was a man who walked the earth, and are in the same class as a holocaust denier, a climate denier, or believe the earth is flat?

People throw the insult “Nazi” around very easily in today’s political climate. People who deny the holocaust actually happened are rightly disparaged for doing so; and their denial stems from hate and bigotry and ignorance. Likewise, historians believe that the denial of the historicity of Jesus stems from the same ignorance and hatred. If no respected scholar or historian in the western world denies the historicity of Jesus, no respected historian denies the holocaust, no respected scientist denies the earth is round…yet you feel totally confident that Jesus didn’t exist, he was a myth, he was multiple people vaguely wandering through time as a charismatic cult like figure, he was an invention of a schizophrenic man, etc, you are a bigot and an ignorant liar who will not accept the truth.

You belong in the bin of weirdos who deny climate change, deny the holocaust, get in the RV with the flat earther and adjust your tinfoil hats together. Then you can drive to a local vaccination site and protest the vaccine, that’s who you are.

I haven’t denied that Jesus lived so…

Maybe you’re just trolling at this point?

Why are you defending people here who have? I am not defending Nazi holocaust deniers, kooky flat earthers, frankly dangerous covid conspiracy theory proponents, and climate change skeptics. No reputable or respected historian or scholar denies the historicity of Jesus. Why would you even concern yourself complaining about liars being called out? A post a few pages back stated : “Should we just agree Jesus “most likely existed?”

No. We don’t agree on anything here like that. He existed. Periodt. Dcum anon posters don’t even know basic history. This has zero to do with the divinity of Jesus. If someone is so very ignorant and wrong about basic history, they are probably wrong about a host of other issues.

Nobody on this thread has denied he lived so…

So what? -- nothing. People "on this thread" are irrelevant.

The PP has repeatedly accused people on this thread of denying historical Jesus. And made repeated ad hominem attacks based on that.

It’s not clear if PP is trolling or just has poor reading comprehension.

DP. Good grief. On the very last page somebody, I assumed pp, posted multiple examples of people denying Jesus existed. Did you lose your reading glasses?

Go back and reread - none of the posts from this thread deny that historical Jesus existed.

“There is no convincing evidence that Jesus as a historical person - one whose life closely resembled that of the Biblical Jesus - ever existed at all. Which doesn't mean he didn't, just that there is no evidence of it. However, for most scholars who study early Christianity, it just isn't relevant at all if he existed or not, anymore than say, if you are studying a people who believe the world rests on a giant turtle, it is relevant or not if the turtle exists. The study of religion is the study of belief, and people have never needed actual evidence to believe in religious mythology. They did it fine before Christianity, and do it fine without Christianity in other parts of the world. Christianity is not an exception - the one religion where the stories are actually true - unless you are Christian. Anyone who studies religion from the point of view of a member of the religion is no longer engaged in an objective academic study of that religion, although there is plenty of fine scholarship of that sort from within the academic world of Christian theology. But don't confuse that with scholars proving Christ existed - it's scholars who believe he existed arguing various issues surrounding the internal workings of the religion.“

12/24 9:23 from this thread

Along with multiple posts that state that “Jesus may or may not have existed, but people love a good story.” Several of those types of posts.

Along with the Mithras story (only exists in crude paintings, born of a “virgin” rock, was not crucified, no resurrection) was actually copied by early Christians, that was feebly attempted by several posters.

DP. Bumping this post which identifies some on this thread who denied that Jesus existed.

Another post pointed out the Jesus denier at 12/19 15:35.

Nope. Re-read it.

"Which doesn't mean he didn't, just that there is no evidence of it."

Do you split hairs for a living? Is your reading comprehension poor? Or are you just trolling?

Tell us, what does “there is no evidence” mean in your little troll world.

To me it depends on what you call evidence. Speculation and hearsay wouldn't be allowed in a court of law. It does depend on circumstantial evidence and a leap of faith - and I'm not a denier btw.

The existence of historical figures isn't determined in a court of law. It's determined by the consensus of scholars on the subject.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I haven’t read the whole thread, but what I have heard makes sense. His geographic location was in the crossroads of east and west. He most likely was exposed to eastern philosophy, think India at the time.
If he had lived in a different time perhaps he would have become a philosopher like Karl Marx or Kiergegaard.
He certainly upset the status quo by becoming a reformist like Martin Luther.
His death was not that unusual, plenty of people were crucified and continued to be for a long time

Jesus was also exposed to Greco-Roman philosophy because they ruled the Middle East in his time.

No, only the most wealthy Jews were exposed to Greco Roman scholarship. It’s possible that Paul and Matthew had been exposed to such teaching, but Jesus would have received only traditional Jewish teaching. Exposure to Greco Roman mythology would explain why Matthew, and only Matthew, described a Virgin Birth. The idea of God impregnating a human woman was common in Greco Roman mythology. Such an idea would be repulsive to Jews.

Isaiah 7:14 (Jewish) prophesied a virgin birth. “Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.” If she was a virgin, the impregnation must have been supernatural. No need to fall back in Greco-Roman mythology.

Wrong. Isaiah never said that. That’s a Christian mistranslation. The Hebrew word is “alma.” “Alma” means young woman,” not “virgin.”

It's actually a Jewish translation (mis or otherwise), the Greek of the Septuagint was produced by Jews, before there were Christians.

Wrong. The Septuagint translates “alma” into “neanis” which means “ young woman,” not “virgin.” Jews have never said that the yet to come Messiah will be born of a virgin.

Young, unmarried women were generally virgins. Also, Matthew was writing for an audience in Antioch that was still part of the Jewish community, even if the relationship was deteriorating—yet the “virgin” language was apparently accepted.

In any case, whether or not the translation works is irrelevant. Matthew’s text relies on the fact that Isaiah was talking about a virgin, not on a Greek god that was popular in the 2nd and 3rd centuries CE, i.e well after the gospel of Matthew was put together towards the end of the first century.

Wrong. Isaiah merely said that the child would be born of a young woman. Isaiah never said the woman would be impregnated before she was married. Jews have never said that the Messiah’s mother would be a virgin. Jews who believe in an individual Messiah have always said that in every generation, there is one Jew is is sufficiently righteous to become the Messiah. But the Messiah is a man, not God. He will not be born of a virgin.

You’re still arguing this backwards. A young, unmarried women may or may not be a virgin, but she would be assumed to be a virgin.

Check out this link if you don’t want to take my word for it. https://www.gotquestions.org/virgin-or-young-woman.html

None of these instances demands the meaning “virgin,” but neither do they deny the possible meaning of “virgin.” There is no conclusive argument for “almah” in Isaiah 7:14 being either “young woman” or “virgin.” However, it is interesting to note, that in the 3rd century B.C., when a panel of Hebrew scholars and Jewish rabbis began the process of translating the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek, they used the specific Greek word for virgin, “parthenos,” not the more generic Greek word for “young woman.” The Septuagint translators, 200+ years before the birth of Christ, and with no inherent belief in a “virgin birth,” translated “almah” in Isaiah 7:14 as “virgin,” not “young woman.” This gives evidence that “virgin” is a possible, even likely, meaning of the term.

You just don’t get this. Isaiah never said the child would be born of an unmarried woman. Presumably the woman would be married and impregnated by her husband.

You don’t get this. Or you don’t want to get this.

Even Jews in the centuries before Christ translated this as “virgin” in the Greek. Early Christians were reading these Jewish translations. Apparently Jews were fine with “virgin” until Christians came along and used that Jewish translation.

You write “presumably she would be married.” That doesn’t work because she wouldn’t be a virgin after her wedding night. There’s no need to write “of a virgin” (per Jewish Septaguint) in an era when every young woman was “presumably” a virgin until (but not after) she got married, unless there was something different about this.

“
Wrong. The Greek speaking Jews translated “alma” into “neanis” in the Septuagint. “Neanis” means “young woman,” not virgin. Jews who believe in a personal Messiah have never believed that he would be born of a virgin. The idea of God impregnating a woman comes from Greco/Roman mythology and is abhorrent to Jews. Jews who believe in a personal Messiah believe that in every generation, there is one man sufficiently righteous to become the Messiah. Therefore, God can anoint the Messiah at anytime because there is always a candidate who qualifies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I haven’t read the whole thread, but what I have heard makes sense. His geographic location was in the crossroads of east and west. He most likely was exposed to eastern philosophy, think India at the time.
If he had lived in a different time perhaps he would have become a philosopher like Karl Marx or Kiergegaard.
He certainly upset the status quo by becoming a reformist like Martin Luther.
His death was not that unusual, plenty of people were crucified and continued to be for a long time

Jesus was also exposed to Greco-Roman philosophy because they ruled the Middle East in his time.

No, only the most wealthy Jews were exposed to Greco Roman scholarship. It’s possible that Paul and Matthew had been exposed to such teaching, but Jesus would have received only traditional Jewish teaching. Exposure to Greco Roman mythology would explain why Matthew, and only Matthew, described a Virgin Birth. The idea of God impregnating a human woman was common in Greco Roman mythology. Such an idea would be repulsive to Jews.

Isaiah 7:14 (Jewish) prophesied a virgin birth. “Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.” If she was a virgin, the impregnation must have been supernatural. No need to fall back in Greco-Roman mythology.

Wrong. Isaiah never said that. That’s a Christian mistranslation. The Hebrew word is “alma.” “Alma” means young woman,” not “virgin.”

It's actually a Jewish translation (mis or otherwise), the Greek of the Septuagint was produced by Jews, before there were Christians.

Wrong. The Septuagint translates “alma” into “neanis” which means “ young woman,” not “virgin.” Jews have never said that the yet to come Messiah will be born of a virgin.

Young, unmarried women were generally virgins. Also, Matthew was writing for an audience in Antioch that was still part of the Jewish community, even if the relationship was deteriorating—yet the “virgin” language was apparently accepted.

In any case, whether or not the translation works is irrelevant. Matthew’s text relies on the fact that Isaiah was talking about a virgin, not on a Greek god that was popular in the 2nd and 3rd centuries CE, i.e well after the gospel of Matthew was put together towards the end of the first century.

Wrong. Isaiah merely said that the child would be born of a young woman. Isaiah never said the woman would be impregnated before she was married. Jews have never said that the Messiah’s mother would be a virgin. Jews who believe in an individual Messiah have always said that in every generation, there is one Jew is is sufficiently righteous to become the Messiah. But the Messiah is a man, not God. He will not be born of a virgin.

You’re still arguing this backwards. A young, unmarried women may or may not be a virgin, but she would be assumed to be a virgin.

Check out this link if you don’t want to take my word for it. https://www.gotquestions.org/virgin-or-young-woman.html

None of these instances demands the meaning “virgin,” but neither do they deny the possible meaning of “virgin.” There is no conclusive argument for “almah” in Isaiah 7:14 being either “young woman” or “virgin.” However, it is interesting to note, that in the 3rd century B.C., when a panel of Hebrew scholars and Jewish rabbis began the process of translating the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek, they used the specific Greek word for virgin, “parthenos,” not the more generic Greek word for “young woman.” The Septuagint translators, 200+ years before the birth of Christ, and with no inherent belief in a “virgin birth,” translated “almah” in Isaiah 7:14 as “virgin,” not “young woman.” This gives evidence that “virgin” is a possible, even likely, meaning of the term.

You just don’t get this. Isaiah never said the child would be born of an unmarried woman. Presumably the woman would be married and impregnated by her husband.

You don’t get this. Or you don’t want to get this.

Even Jews in the centuries before Christ translated this as “virgin” in the Greek. Early Christians were reading these Jewish translations. Apparently Jews were fine with “virgin” until Christians came along and used that Jewish translation.

You write “presumably she would be married.” That doesn’t work because she wouldn’t be a virgin after her wedding night. There’s no need to write “of a virgin” (per Jewish Septaguint) in an era when every young woman was “presumably” a virgin until (but not after) she got married, unless there was something different about this.

“
Wrong. The Greek speaking Jews translated “alma” into “neanis” in the Septuagint. “Neanis” means “young woman,” not virgin. Jews who believe in a personal Messiah have never believed that he would be born of a virgin. The idea of God impregnating a woman comes from Greco/Roman mythology and is abhorrent to Jews. Jews who believe in a personal Messiah believe that in every generation, there is one man sufficiently righteous to become the Messiah. Therefore, God can anoint the Messiah at anytime because there is always a candidate who qualifies.

Um, wrong. The Jewish Septaguint uses the Greek word “parthenos” which means virgin.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I haven’t read the whole thread, but what I have heard makes sense. His geographic location was in the crossroads of east and west. He most likely was exposed to eastern philosophy, think India at the time.
If he had lived in a different time perhaps he would have become a philosopher like Karl Marx or Kiergegaard.
He certainly upset the status quo by becoming a reformist like Martin Luther.
His death was not that unusual, plenty of people were crucified and continued to be for a long time

Jesus was also exposed to Greco-Roman philosophy because they ruled the Middle East in his time.

No, only the most wealthy Jews were exposed to Greco Roman scholarship. It’s possible that Paul and Matthew had been exposed to such teaching, but Jesus would have received only traditional Jewish teaching. Exposure to Greco Roman mythology would explain why Matthew, and only Matthew, described a Virgin Birth. The idea of God impregnating a human woman was common in Greco Roman mythology. Such an idea would be repulsive to Jews.

Isaiah 7:14 (Jewish) prophesied a virgin birth. “Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.” If she was a virgin, the impregnation must have been supernatural. No need to fall back in Greco-Roman mythology.

Jews were teaching their children Hebrew centuries, millennia in fact, before Israel was founded. Even Hasidic Jews who oppose the existence of Israel study Hebrew.

Wrong. Isaiah never said that. That’s a Christian mistranslation. The Hebrew word is “alma.” “Alma” means young woman,” not “virgin.”

What other words are mistranslated by Christians, in your view?

How much time have you got? There’s a reason that Jews teach their children to read the Bible in the original and Christians do not.

Christians who want to take their understanding to a new level study Koine Greek, Aramaic and maybe Hebrew if they’re going for a doctorate or something No, they don’t teach their children Hebrew so they can learn about God slaughtering Canaanites and teenagers taunting bald guys in the original. Koine Greek and Aramaic would be the languages taught, if any.

You say Christians would study Aramaic and “maybe Hebrew”? The New Testament has one phrase in Aramaic where Jesus quotes Psalm 22 (originally written in Hebrew): “Eloi Eloi lama sabachthani?” Mark 15:34. Matthew quotes it in the original Hebrew: “Eli Eli lema sabachthani?” Matthew 27:46. Why “Aramaic and maybe Hebrew”? Moreover, you say Christians don’t teach their children Hebrew so they don’t have to read about God killing people. So why don’t adult Christians learn Hebrew? Is the Old Testament not the word of God? Why isn’t koine Greek taught to Christians as a matter of course as Hebrew is taught to Jewish children?

You’re asking Christians to teach their kids two languages, koine Greek and Hebrew? Really?

Hebrew is still spoken in its modern form, it’s Israel’s state language, and it’s a large part of Jewish identity. Not so for Christians. As you know.