The Messiah was supposed to destroy the Romans, not be tortured to death by them.

>>18666372
I thought there were old testament prophecies predicting the crucifixion of the messiah, no?

>>18666384
>I thought there were old testament prophecies predicting the crucifixion of the messiah, no?
No.

>>18666352
They believed the messiah would be a human warrior king who would start a violent revolt against Rome, restore Israel as an earthly kingdom as it was in the days of David, and genocide all goyim who refuse to abandon their native religions and become noahides. Because Jesus didn’t genocide the goyim and reestablish Israel as an earthly kingdom, the Jews decided that he couldn’t have been the messiah

File: file.png (95 KB, 733x563)

95 KB PNG

>>18666387
So you don't think these are references to crucifixion?

File: 1753474910660417.png (885 KB, 775x1084)

885 KB PNG

>>18666352
He was murdered by jews for identifying jews as just one part of Israel's lost sheep, and so that is why it is correctly said that he died for all his people.

>>18666396
>So you don't think these are references to crucifixion?
The AI overview is uncritically regurgitating post-hoc Christian reinterpretations. Isaiah 53:5 is referencing the nation of Israel as the crucified one for example.

>>18666352
So we agree Jesus was ethnically jewish yes? He literally has to be.

>>18666421
I mean I guess so. I'm open to all kinds of evidence if there is any but as far as I know that's true. I don't consider the prophecy that there will be people who falsely claim to be jews to be evidence that the people who claim they are jews now are not the same jews that were alive when Jesus lived.

I find it very strange that the largest religion on earth is rejected by the race of its founder.

File: matt2434P.png (175 KB, 1244x900)

175 KB PNG

>>18666352
For one thing, he was a lying sack of shit

>>18666352
>>>/lit/

>>18666430
Competent assassins don't drink their own poison.

>>18666396
1. The original word in the text is not even pierced.
2. The suffering servant throughout the whole story is israel
3. It's endlessly hilarious that christians have no clue about their own religion and use google search ai to regurgitate the lowest quality lies in order to argue

He was trying to assert new rules to a game full of players who didn't appreciate new competition in the first place. He had unconventional opinions about Jewish religious laws & scripture, for the time, and "how we (the Jews) ought to follow them most correctly", in addition to asserting himself as the chosen-among-chosen most specialist Jew of all. The pre-established religious authority of Jesus's time would naturally reject such a character in their community, trying to undermine them and everything.
>I've heard it said that he didn't fulfill certain prophecies but their hatred of him seems a lot more vehement than simply "you don't follow x and y technical qualifications therefore we don't believe you and we want you dead".
Jesus compromised their political rule, and you know what politics is like lol. Opponents get slandered

>>18666352
Jesus did not fulfil a single old testament messianic prophecy in it's context.

>>18666481
>3. It's endlessly hilarious that christians have no clue about their own religion and use google search ai to regurgitate the lowest quality lies in order to argue
I never said I was christian and I'm not arguing.

>>18666491
Fair.

>>18666384
>I thought there were old testament prophecies predicting the crucifixion of the messiah, no?
when the old testament what written, crucifixion was not a thing.

>>18666396
>it uses king james bible
kek

>>18666396
Jews at the time certainly didn't seem to think so

>>18666352
He was the false prophet spoken of in Deuteronomy 13:1-5

>>18666481
Its not lying though. You are just too stupid to get it.

>>18666514
Wrong. The old testament is written around the 2nd or 3rd century BCE, well after the Persians began using the practice, and around the time the Romans adopted it.

>>18666523
What ethnos do you think the people who wrote, spread and believed the new testament were for the first several generations?

>>18666598
Ad hominem is not an argument, try again.

>>18666605
>what is burden of proof

>>18666441
hes talking about the destruction of jerusalem chud

>>18666614
the burden of proof is on the one making a positive claim, you are the one that needs to actually prove jesus is the messiah and explain how he fulfiled the ot prophecies in their context first, my basic explanations werent even needed.

>>18666623
I thought the anon who said you were lying was replying to this post>>18666441
If that wasn't you then I guess I take it back because you didn't claim he was lying

>>18666384
All of the things Christians say Jesus did figuratively, the Jews expect their messiah to actually do literally.

>(re)build the third temple
>be of the Davidic line
>be a King or High Priest
>anointed by holy anointing oil
>actually lead Israel as a leader
>bring about and rule throughout a Messianic Age of peace and prosperity / the Kingdom of God

Also the idea that the Messiah is God is considered idolatry. There can only be one God in Judaism. At best the Messiah can be a Son of God.
The whole Jesus on the cross wooden carving that hangs in many churches is considered idolatry as well.

>>18666623
Well for starters the original word DOES mean "to pierce". So you are probably lying for some reason.

The jews were running a brothel in the temple, with drinking and gambling and other vices, sort of an Epstein Island. Jesus rampaged through and fucked them off. They didn't like it, and like all violent mobsters, had him whacked. So the schism opened up.

>>18666655
>the original word DOES mean "to pierce".

psalm 22:16
>כִּי סְבָבוּנִי כְּלָבִים ... כָּאֲרִי יָדַי וְרַגְלָי
כארי / ka'ari means "like a lion", it doesn't mean "pierce" at all
>“For dogs have surrounded me… like a lion [are] my hands and my feet”

there are like 5 hebrew words for "pierce" and not 1 of them was used here, despite some of those words being used elsewhere in other locations in the bible.

>>18666669
>The jews were running a brothel in the temple, with drinking and gambling and other vices, sort of an Epstein Island. Jesus rampaged through and fucked them off. They didn't like it, and like all violent mobsters, had him whacked. So the schism opened up.
I think for the jews to come up with myths of him in hell boiling in excrement he must have done something more threatening or offensive to them.

>>18666673
Buddy, the original dead sea scrolls which are closer to the actual word clearly says something else entirely. But you knew that already didnt you? Why do you keep lying? Are you trying to push some sort of agenda?

>>18666682
That's plenty offensive enough. You cut out Meyer Lansky, he's your enemy forever.

>>18666688
you had authoritative ancient hebrew texts that disagree with the pierced narrative, you're picking pireced because it fits what you want.

>>18666410
Haha, Isaiah refers to Israel as a whore actually.
Being far, far from sinless or innocent like the subject of this chapter is without violence or deciet.
They killed God's own prophets because they told them to stop whoring!

Many such cases, in many other books.
God makes Hosea marry a prostitute in order to demonstrate this more clearly.

The sheep that have gove astray at th beginning of the chapter, the one referred to as "we", that's Israel.
When Micaiah prophecies the ruin of Ahab before the battle of Ramoth Gilead, be describes Israel as sheep scattered over the hills without a shepherd.

The post-hoc rationalization and mental gymnastics belong to you, not the other way around.

>>18666669
Cool fanfic. The actual lore is money changers however, and that implies that they are in the temple defiling the "sacred" jewish sanctum with filthy goycoins.
So the story is about chastising impious jews for not being jewish supremacist enough.

>>18666703
The dead scrolls are closer in meaning to the original, this is obvious since they are closer to the date of the original writing. This is History 101. The fuck you are doing here? Its pierce, the lion thing is a distortion.

>>18666716
>The dead scrolls are closer in meaning to the original
you dont have any of the actual "originals" when it comes to any bible texts man

>>18666724
you mean autographs

sure, it's well known that Ezra translated the scriptures into square block Aramaic
everyone who's serious about this knows that Ezra is the editor, while Moses is the true author of Torah

what he have are witnesses to this ur-text, like the Septuagint
if there are questions about the meaning of a particular ancient Hebrew word, we can consult the Septuagint to see how it's rendered there

for example, the controversy surrounding "Almah" is kind of intractable if you completely ignore other scripts
but once you see that antique Jews, generations before Christianity ever existed, translated it into Greek as "parthenos" it becomes clearer how they actually contextualized this passage and what it really meant to them at that time

just because that understanding became highly unpopular after Christianity started growing, and eventually the LXX itself was totally abandoned by the Jews, doesn't mean that was some kind of Christian invention
clearly this understanding of that prophecy does indeed predate the advent of their religion significantly, you see similar things like the Word being referred to in various targums as "Memra" and the very same by Philo of Alexandria as Logos
Philo, as another witness, has a list of very curious beliefs about who this Word is in relation to God and the world
literally calling it the image of God, archetype of man, and paraclete among other things for example

>>18666724
And? If you are trying to determine the meaning of what was written there then it makes more sense to look at closest document you have, no? Why would you fixate on something that was written centuries later, when you have something closer to the original?

>>18666617
Are you saying all the apocalyptic world-wide imagery was metaphorical?

>>18666752
>but once you see that antique Jews, generations before Christianity ever existed, translated it into Greek as "parthenos" it becomes clearer how they actually contextualized this passage and what it really meant to them at that time
if this were true, then that interpretation would just mean that the original context makes very little sense. since the "virgin birth prophecy" then would still not be an actual messianic prophecy about jesus since its actual context is STILL about a specific child Immanuel from that specific time, and how before that specific child is old enough to distinguish right from wrong something will happen to the two kingdoms of the time. you literally have to ignore all of that actual context and say "well its actually talking about jesus specifically who will be born in 700 whole years from now."

>>18666775
so you're not disputing that the choice in words used in this translation clearly indicate the sense in question, namely that this female actually is a bona fide virgin, truly belonged to *those specific* Jewish translators of that time

it's hard to argue that "parthenos" does not mean virgin when it is so famously applied to Athena, and her virginity is a particularly important facet of her character

>STILL about a specific child Immanuel from that specific time
Who is simply never mentioned again for whatever reason.
Who has literally zero relevance whatsoever to these events. Yup, any regular kid named Immanuel will do I guess.
Just a random kid born to literally any woman who definitely has no connection to any miraculous sign whatsoever.

And he certainly has nothing to do with the other completely different unnamed child in chapter 9 who just so happens to definitely be the messiah, even though this name Immanuel only appears in the chapters 7 and 8 and the flow between them is quite natural.

>a specific child Immanuel from that specific time

You might like to make this argument, but it doesn't necessarily follow.
From what I can tell, the chronological indicators only say that these specific things will happen simply "before" he can say "mother, father" and etc.
As in, at any point beforehand and not necessarily immediately before.

think about it like this; God could have told Abraham "*before* I reveal my name to Moses, your son Issac will have a son named Jacob, and Jacob will have a son named Joseph, who will take his family into Egypt"

and that's all true, but the Israelites will still spend a very long time in Egyptian bondage before this name ever gets revealed to Moses
in this sense, God would be promising to Abraham that his descendants will survive the turmoil of Egypt, rather than saying immediately after Joseph comes Moses
it was centuries before, not immediately

>>18666600
When Jesus died it came as a shock. No one of the Jews around him went like: "Actually it says here he's supposed to get crucified."

if that was the case, I would worry people was trying to get crucified on purpose
this is so dumb

>>18666396
>computer, tell me what I pretend I believe in

>>18666900
see>>18666491

>>18666824
>so you're not disputing that the choice in words used in this translation clearly indicate the sense in question, namely that this female actually is a bona fide virgin, truly belonged to *those specific* Jewish translators of that time
i specifically begin saying "if this were true" and then explain how if it were it wouldnt make sense, so no, i am dispitung it.
>it's hard to argue that "parthenos" does not mean virgin
the problem is the usage of almah instead betulah.
>Who is simply never mentioned again for whatever reason.
>Who has literally zero relevance whatsoever to these events. Yup, any regular kid named Immanuel will do I guess.
the child is not some insanely special messiah to be talked about in detail, isaiah is speaking to ahaz during a crisis in isaiah 7, the king is afraid because syria and the northern kingdom of israel have allied against judah. isaiah gives ahaz a sign "Behold, the young woman [Hebrew: ‘almāh] shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.", "for before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste". the point is for him not to worry and that soon, "before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right", so in a few years only, everything will be fine and your enemies will be gone, it's not saying anything about a messiah, much less one 700 years from now.
>And he certainly has nothing to do with the other completely different unnamed child in chapter 9 who just so happens to definitely be the messiah, even though this name Immanuel only appears in the chapters 7 and 8 and the flow between them is quite natural.
isa 9 introduces a later davidic ruler whose reign will be everlasting, it doesnt call him immanuel nor point to the previous child, 'god with us' is mentioned multiple times again in isa 8:8; 8:10, but not later in 9, because its just used as a motif of the previous crisis and the immediate context.

>>18666907 (cont)
so there is immediate context thats very short term, meaning the birth which already uses the word almah and not the word for virgin, is just talking about that specific child for that specific context that already exists, there is simply no in-context messianic prophecy in isa 7. it cant be about jesus whos born 700 years later.

>>18666352
The answer is long, here's a short version:
> Jews create a power structure around their religion, the same way that nearly every other religion has also done
> They monetized the access to their faith (the people's access to God) both in their getting a cut of anything sacrificed, but especially in their system of requiring Sheckels as the means of payment when buying the animals to be sacrificed
> Jesus comes along, (seemingly) another in a long line of religious zealots preaching a message which implicates the leadership of the religion
> They threaten Jesus, telling him to STFU or else. He says no, and keeps talking, so they arranged to have him killed
> Not wanting to be seen as bad people, the leadership frames him for a civil crime, so they can blame the Romans.

So it was not 'all Jews'; but enough of the temple leadership to get the job done

>>18666947
I've read the gospels and know the basic story. what you've said basically boils down to "he claimed to be the leader so they arranged to kill him".
I'm more interested in why their hatred is so long lasting and passionate. Obviously they might hate him for being the head of a more popular religion but I feel like there must be something more essential, like his teachings or something.

Also, you didn't really explain how the first two bullet points relate to them killing Jesus. What did money have to do with them wanting to kill him (aside from the brief story where he whips jews for trading in the synagogue)?

>>18666907
>>18666909
>the lack of betulah
The thing is that "almah" means young unmarried woman, and in that ancient culture that almost always implies she is a virgin, why wouldnt she be one? Almost every young unmarried woman back then was a virgin. It would be rare for the time for this not to be case. The betulah is not needed.
>its about an immediate child and not Jesus 700 years later.
What if its about both? It doesnt have to be one way or the other.

>>18666949
>Also, you didn't really explain how the first two bullet points relate to them killing Jesus. What did money have to do with them wanting to kill him (aside from the brief story where he whips jews for trading in the synagogue)?

It comes down to Jesus calling them out for operating the temple as a for-profit organization; and especially for requiring payment for forgiveness; even from penniless widows and children. Also see the parable of the unforgiving debtor (Matthew 18:21-35) for the same general theme.

The temple was set up this way:
> in order to get forgiveness or favor (access to God), you had to make an animal sacrifice
> if you were rich, maybe a cow, if you were poor, maybe a bird, if you were super-poor, you could go in with others to buy a bird
The temple was the people operating the shops which sold you the animals to be sacrificed

> in order to buy the animals, you had to use 'acceptable' money, Sheckels.
> the money changers had tables where (for a fee) they would convert your dracma, ect to sheckels
The money changing tables were run by the temple authority

>Then your animal is sacrificed, some is burned, some is left over
The temple got to keep and eat what was left of the sacrificed animal.

So, instead of giving access to God freely as the had freely received it, they turned access to God into a business; screwing a lot of poor people in the process

>>18666957
>The thing is that "almah" means young unmarried woman, and in that ancient culture that almost always implies she is a virgin, why wouldnt she be one? Almost every young unmarried woman back then was a virgin. It would be rare for the time for this not to be case. The betulah is not needed.
1. because the almah choice is the choice you make when you cant use betulah. god wouldnt be imprecise and vague for no reason. if anything, this being argued around is itself proof that its imprecise and something that an omnipotent omniscient god would have known and thus used the proper precise term, especially for a supposedly huge important prophecy.
2. also in the context almah makes more sense, since its just a woman conceiving, instead of the insane supernatural thing of a virgin woman conceiving, especially a child in the immediate context which is not the messiah born 700 years later.
>What if its about both? It doesnt have to be one way or the other.
thats the thing in question, and the problem of there being nothing in the actual text around that child that ties the conception of that child with a messiah jesus 700 years in the future. you have to read jesus into it. but again if jesus being born of a virgin is such a big thing, and an omniscient god inspired the bible, in what reality will this huge prophecy about god himself being born of a virgin woman be this imprecise and unconnected? the bible certainly is very specific with a lot of other things and prophecies, so specificity is more than possible and yet nowhere here, despite the insane importance.

>>18666451
What does this have to do with literature are you retarded?

The better question is why Gentiles accept Jesus as their savior when Jesus never even claimed that

>>18666421
I guess if you accept the traditional matrilineal definition of Jewish identity, since his mom was a Jewish woman.

But from a biological standpoint, he was only half Jewish. His father was either God or a Roman soldier, so his other half was White whichever version of the story is true.

>>18666980
What sources do we have that his father was a Roman soldier? I feel like it's more rumor than historical evidence

>>18666352
For one, Jews believe that Jesus's claim to be the Son of God is blasphemous.

>>18666964
good post, thank you

>>18666967
The word almah has two meanings though, it can be read that way you are saying, while at the same time referring to a virgin. In that sense it can fulfill the context while also tying it to Jesus. There are far more clues in the OT besides this one which links Jesus to the OT, this is just one of many. Also, the Septuagint clearly uses the word greek word "parthenos". And that translation happened at least a century BEFORE Jesus was incaranted. Its not some later invention made to fit Jesus into the story. Those ancient scholars looked at the word "almah" and thought parthenos fit better before Jesus even walked the earth.

>>18666988
Its literal slander by naysayers, its has zero relevance to the truth, they are just calling the mother a whore as has been done since time inmemorial to people you dont like. And make it a roman soldier too while you are at it to make it more insulting.

>>18666973
>when Jesus never even claimed that
Except He did?

>>18666907
>then explain how if it were it wouldnt make sense

But it would still make sense.
A virgin giving birth would be an enormously clear sign that what was said to happen in the near future was immanent.

Whereas anyone at all giving birth regularly and just naming a kid Immanuel isn't propitious at all.
You could have ten couples each hear about the prophecy and just name their kids that, which is the one they're talking about?

Your objection is incoherent.
Moreover, you still refuse to address my thesis.
Namely, that the Jews who translated their scriptures into Greek deliberately chose the word "parthenos" for some reason.
It's because you can't actually acknowledge the existence and relevance of the LXX.

You want to draw some kind of special pleading dividing line between chapters 7/8 and 9 but that's completely artificial and relies entirely on post-hoc anti-Christian rationalizations being read into the text.

>nor point to the previous child, 'god with us'
Try reading 9:6 again and tell me that with a straight face.

>>18666909
>it cant be about jesus whos born 700 years later.

It simply doesn't follow necessarily.
You just refuse to accept that fact.

>>18667028
>The word almah has two meanings though, it can be read that way you are saying, while at the same time referring to a virgin
no, the meaning of almah is a young woman. a lot of young unmarried women were virgins indeed, but its literally not a synonym for virgin.
>In that sense it can fulfill the context while also tying it to Jesus
you are reinterpreting context that isnt there to say its supposedly an absolutely huge prophecy about a virgin birth of the messiah 700 years in the future despite this being the only place where such a stretch can even be vaguely talked about in the entire old testament. its just a silly position.
>There are far more clues in the OT besides this one which links Jesus to the OT, this is just one of many
jesus did not fulfil a single ot messianic prophecy in its actual context. not one.
list a single messianic prophecy in ot and then explain how it was fulfiled by jesus in its actual ot context.
>LXX
sure, parthenos is usually associated with virgin, but it doesnt have to be. after shechem sexually violates dinah we read
Genesis 34:3: "His soul clung to Dinah the daughter of Jacob, and he loved the young woman (parthenos)"

>>18667041
Really where? Where exactly does Jesus say Gentiles are included in his mission? He literally chooses 12 disciples to symbolize the 12 tribes of Israel. He explicitly tells his disciples to not go to the Gentiles.
Or are you referring to the line where he says to make disciples of all nations? Which was said after the resurrection and thus having been said in a vision which is definitely totally trustworthy and not at all just a false vision

>>18667050
NTA


Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

Many sheep I have that are not of this fold.
I will bring them too.

Of the Roman centurion; truly faith like this I have not found in all Israel.
I say to you, many from east and west will sit with Abraham, Issac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven.
While the children of the kingdom will be cast out into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Verily, I say unto you that the kingdom of heaven will be taken away from you and given unto a nation bearing it's fruits.
Your Temple will be desolate unto you, until you hear them saying; blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.


That's just a small sample from off the top of my head.

25 And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?

26 He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou?

27 And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.

28 And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live.

29 But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbour?

30 And Jesus answering said, A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead.

31 And by chance there came down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side.

32 And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side.

33 But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him,

34 And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him.

35 And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee.

36 Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves?

37 And he said, He that shewed mercy on him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise.

>>18667045
>A virgin giving birth would be an enormously clear sign that what was said to happen in the near future was immanent.
exactly, if the virgin birth was the central point there it would have been more precise in wording and most definitely mentioned again in ot directly. but that didnt happen. there is nowhere in the ot where future messiahs virgin birth is talked about.
>Whereas anyone at all giving birth regularly and just naming a kid Immanuel isn't propitious at all.
the point of the sign in ot context was to talk about how the imminent crisis of the kingdom will be solved, a child reaching the age where he would know good from bad would take only a few years, so yes, it would have been quick, not 700 years in the future, otherwise the crisis would have destroyed their kingdom and wouldnt have been solved.
>Namely, that the Jews who translated their scriptures into Greek deliberately chose the word "parthenos" for some reason.
answered in >>18667049
>You want to draw some kind of special pleading dividing line between chapters 7/8 and 9 but that's completely artificial and relies entirely on post-hoc anti-Christian rationalizations being read into the text.
no im merely reading what is written in the text, you are reading a regular text about a birth of a specific child from a young woman that will solve a specific imminent crisis and sayings its also an absolutely huge prophecy about a virgin birth of a messiah born 700 years later that isnt mentioned elsewhere in ot despite the importance of the prophecy.
>9:6
it cant be the same child, the previous child will be born during the imminent crisis, but the child in later isaiah then is something much much greater and someone who will reign on davids throne forever, isa 9:7 "Of the greatness of his government and peace there will be no end", but jesus was born 700 years later, so these are two different people.

>>18667066
And yet where is this child named Immanuel?
Despite this hype, he never shows up again until Matthew says so.

It would have been just as easy to write, and far FAR more clear, that within a few years of the next child born to your tribe these things shall pass.
But that is not what is written, instead this cryptic shit is what we deal with now.
If clarity were the main goal, and your presupposition that this prophecy applies only to the near future is true, then it would not have been necessary to invoke any pregnancy whatsoever. Just say "in a few years this whole thing is going to blow over" instead.

That is also deliberate.

>answered in >>186670...
That post was not addressed to me so I didn't read it.

In Genesis 34, it effectively reads that this maiden was raped.
And then avenged.

Basically I can apply this term in the past tense, since she was raped as a virgin.
She had her virginity stolen from her.

Do you have another example?
That's not rhetorical, I just learned something.

>will solve an immanent crisis
but the child themself solves nothing
they are just a sign that the solution is already at hand

to that end, there would really be no need to even mention this most mundane and almost meaningless of signs of your thesis that this applies only to the present moment, and can not possibly foretell future import were really true

>>18667049
>list a single messianic prophecy in ot and then explain how it was fulfiled by jesus in its actual ot context.
Name the ones you have an issue with. Shouldnt be a problem given how knowlegeable you seem to be on the bible. You probably know all of them. I think its faster that way.
I posted this earlier >>18666760 but there didnt seem to be a rebuttal for this one.

>>18667084
>Despite this hype
but as explained there wasnt hype in the actual context, it was just a timeframe sign given by isaiah to ahaz to calm him down about the imminent crisis of the kingdom. the hype would only exist if this was a virgin birth of the eternal davidic king which is what you think is the case, despite jesus not being born then (nor any other messiah).
>It would have been just as easy to write, and far FAR more clear, that within a few years of the next child born to your tribe these things shall pass.
but thats basically what he does write in its actual context, the only special attribute added is that he will be called immanuel, which is a motif of 'god with us' which is also mentioned later.
also its insane to argue about clarity when your position is that this is a dual fulfilment of jesus's birth 700 years later despite it being nowhere in the text, or even mentioned elsewhere in ot.
>But that is not what is written, instead this cryptic shit is what we deal with now.
whats cryptic? a child will be born and in a few years when he grows up this imminent crisis will be over with and your enemies done for. the cryptic part would be to read extra things into this about 700 year future birth as one of the biggest prophecies of virgin birth not mentioned again in ot.
>Just say "in a few years this whole thing is going to blow over" instead
i agree, this would be much better, but if we were to apply this rule of "why god didnt just simplify this" to the rest of the bible, you would have many more problems at every corner. the bible is full of these kinds of stories, and ones that are much more convoluted. i mean, we're talking about an omnipotent god doing all these things despite being able to snap his finger and change everything in the world.

>>18667049
>sure, parthenos is usually associated with virgin, but it doesnt have to be. after shechem sexually violates dinah we read
>Genesis 34:3: "His soul clung to Dinah the daughter of Jacob, and he loved the young woman (parthenos)"
Well then betulah doesnt always means virgin if you want to go that way. Genesis 24:16 "The young woman was very beautiful, a betulah, and no man had known her." The author felt the need to add "no man had known her" for some reason, why would he do that if betulah is supposed to imply virginity?

>>18667084
>>18667099 (cont)
>In Genesis 34, it effectively reads that this maiden was raped.
i specifically said genesis 34:3. she was already raped previously, and yet later in gen 34:3 it says "His heart was drawn to Dinah daughter of Jacob; he loved the young woman (parthenos) and spoke tenderly to her.", its not in some past tense.
>but the child themself solves nothing
i said the birth of the child will solve the crisis but yes, its imprecise, i didnt want to repeat the exact full context for the 5th time in the thread so i shortened it a lot but yes, I obviously meant what i previously explained about the birth of the child and it growing up being a sign and timeline before the problem will be solved, not that the child itself will solve it neccessarily.

>>18667099
But in the next chapter he's still talking about Immanuel, and then in the chapter after that the child we're talking about is the literal Messiah.
It's not so easy to just assert there's a sharp break in the flow here, you'd have to strongly justify your position.

I'm thinking you can't see the forest for the trees here.
Maybe it would have been nice for them to hear the coming of the Messiah was immanent.

Lots of Jews in the first century felt the same way.
They actually expected it to happen because of the Daniel 70 weeks timeline, it's why there were so many claimants and declarations, and why Jesus specifically told his disciples *not* to tell people he was the Christ.

>even mentioned elsewhere in ot
See above, the 70 "weeks" in Daniel.

>a child will be born
Any child at all?
Or a specific one?

Was nobody at all ever named Immanuel before this kid?

>if we were to apply this rule of "why god didnt just simplify this"
We agree, it only seems convoluted to us because it pertains to multiple senses of scripture which takes time and effort to unpack and correspond.
These senses aren't mutually exclusive, they can both be true at the same time.

>>18667107
Oh yeah?

Well Rebecca is called almah too, and it is also said that no man had known her.
So there.

>>18667114
It could easily be a past tense contextualization since they are describing the mode of her seduction.

>>18667121
So adding betulah would add nothing then since almah works just fine, which makes your main position pointless.

>>18666760
i argued elsewhere about the general problem that also touches this, and that is: even if everything here is granted in lxx with pierced, you have important ancient authoritative hebrew texts that were very imprecise, 5 words for pierced and not 1 was used about something important, to me, a lot of these arguments are silly because you are positing an omnipotent omniscient god who loves us and wants us to be saved, and in the inspired word of god by such a god and its later copies, he didnt work to actually preserve it but instead people have to argue about the actual meaning because its vague and imprecise in important places? how can something really be the word of such a god if he couldnt even preserve the information almost perfectly, let alone literally perfectly?

but, if we're to go back to this specific argument and ignore the problem above, the problem is actually tying psalm 22:16 being about a future messiah in the first place, it just talks about a suffering righteous person.

>>18667090
>Name the ones you have an issue with. I think its faster that way.
well a lot of the time christians say partial fulfilments are fine or "he will do this one later", so it would be faster for you to name the ones you think are true but sure:

>Isaiah 11
there are many specifics mentioned here, but lets pick some of the most obvious:
>The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them
>And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.
>And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den.
did this messianic prophecy come true? are the animals living peacefully like this together now? no.

all of the ot "prophecy fulfilments" i have seen are just reading jesus into ot where there is no prophecy, ignoring actual ot context, or just not even fulfiling the prophecy like the one above.

>>18667107
>The author felt the need to add "no man had known her" for some reason, why would he do that if betulah is supposed to imply virginity?
yes im familiar with this part, i dont know to which extent the lexical meaning of betulah can be pushed outside its primary meaning of 'virgin' towards just 'young woman', perhaps there is some, but its main meaning is definitely 'virgin', so it would still be the main word that should have been used if someone wanted to be precise. it makes a lot of sense that that the author was also simply confirming the virginity with a more flowery language descriptions to highlight it, but in either case it doesn't detract from what i previously argued.

>>18667132
Not nothing, it just makes extra explicitly clear the association of almah with virgin for all those who would be tempted to deny it after the fact.

It applies also to Miriam, sister of Moses.
While she was waiting by the river for Pharaoh daughter to receive him, wasn't she unknown to man?

It doesn't need to be said explicitly to be true regardless.
The mere implication is enough to determine that, and after all from what I can tell the rabbis declare she were seven years old at the time.
And when God struck her with leprosy, all Israel waited seven days for her to heal before going into the desert.

Not that I need to personally put any stock in this saying.
But there it is, Sotah 11a.

>>18667115
>Lots of Jews in the first century felt the same way.
lots of people throughout history and even today feel the same and think we're in the end times.
>It's not so easy to just assert there's a sharp break in the flow here, you'd have to strongly justify your position.
i explained my take multiple times over, let me ask you your position on the timeline then:
we have an imminent crisis in the kingdom of judah, its literally already being invaded by the armies of aram and israel, isaiah says to the king of judah ahaz that before this child is old enough to distinguish right from wrong, these two enemy kingdoms will already be devastated.
in what reality can ahaz wait 700 years for jesus?
>See above, the 70 "weeks" in Daniel.
i meant a virgin birth of the messiah prophecy which isnt talked about anywhere else in ot.
>Any child at all?
>Or a specific one?
>Was nobody at all ever named Immanuel before this kid?
it obviously has to be talking about a child who will soon be born and be called immanuel since the kingdom is already being invaded by two armies, the timeframe is very limited and the rest of the specificities not being said is on isaiah, if you want to argue that the verse in its context is "too vague" for you then you cant at the same time claim its also the obviously huge prophecy of a future messiah 700 years later. how can that important prophecy be left so vague in the bible.

>>18667133
>but, if we're to go back to this specific argument and ignore the problem above, the problem is actually tying psalm 22:16 being about a future messiah in the first place, it just talks about a suffering righteous person.
Yeah, and im sure every other OT verse that eerily matches the life of Jesus has to be something else. Because... just because I guess. Dont think too hard about it, they are just not related because this random anon with suspicious encyclopedic knowledge of the bible insists so.

>>18667125
it wouldnt make sense gramatically from what i understand and see online but i dont know hebrew so you would have to prove your case instead of me specifically debunking it

>>18666352
There is no real evidence of any Jesus Christ existing and being hated by Jews. The gospels are just fiction. This is a purely imaginary christtard persecution complex.

>>18666372
>we handed Him over to the Romans and insisted they put Him to death. that proves He is not the Messiah
What kind of talmudlogic is this?

>>18666387
Liar liar schnozz on fire
Jews don't read OT anyway, so theh have no idea what's written there

>>18667156
>eerily matches
how so? there are many people who suffered in all kinds of ways, including crucifixion, you would have to prove this.

but anyway, the bible actually already has many explicity defined prophecies, and it says to test prophecies and not believe false prophets whose prophecies fail:
>Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world
>Do not despise prophecies, but test everything; hold fast what is good
>When a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word that the LORD has not spoken

so it would be silly to have someone read a prophet into a text that isn't an obvious prophecy in its context, especially since most jesus's supposed fulfilments are only spiritual, and thus also go against the testability that is important as described above.

>>18667165
>since most jesus's supposed fulfilments are only spiritual, and thus also go against the testability
Not necessarily true, since the testability can be spiritual as well.
>By their fruits you shall know them

>>18667162
because how could some small group of ancient people scheme and kill an actual messiah/god that was meant to defeat all of their enemies but died instead?

>>18667165
There are plenty of non-spiritual prophecies if you know where to look. But you probably like pretend they are not there because you have an agenda to push. I am not going to be even bother listing them since you already know them and seem more iterested in pushing an agenda.
>>18667154
>But there it is, Sotah 11a.
Lmao. You are knowlegeable on that too? What a coincidence! Wonder how can that be.

>>18667166
alright quote 1 ot messianic prophecy and explain how jesus fulfiled it in its actual context first.
if you have none of those, which would be a big problem given the hundreds of prophecies christians claim jesus fulfiled, then give 1 spiritual fulfilment that i can actually meaningfully test as true.

>>18667169
>There are plenty of non-spiritual prophecies if you know where to look. But you probably like pretend they are not there because you have an agenda to push. I am not going to be even bother listing them since you already know them and seem more iterested in pushing an agenda.
ad hominem to deflect from the lack of prophecies. if you believed what you just said, you would list and explain how jesus fulfiled at least 1 prophecy in its actual ot context so that at least everyone else can see how wrong i am and how provable your god is.

>>18667155
>lots of people throughout history and even today feel the same and think we're in the end times

But these most of these Jews at the time could not believe that the time of their visitation was just a prelude to his finality.

They being fleshly minded, expected the warrior king to rule over all gentiles first, but not the servant God suffering at their own hands.

Jesus says that in his church, the greater serves the lesser.
God renders true service to Israel, while Israel gives back only a shadow of this thing to him.

>position on the timeline
You think about the words of scripture along a single dimension.
Whereas I recognize that they apply both to past, present, future, allegorically, morally, and analogically in simul.

My opinion.

>700 years
How about seventy weeks from the time of Babylon?

>>18667158
I don't fluently know Greek or Hebrew.

But I can translate, though it takes time and effort, and know literary techniques.

I know more Greek than Hebrew.
If you want me to prove a specific declination from LXX, here in this thread, I'm sorry but that's simply not likely.
Semantics, grammar in general, has never been my specialty even though I am a natural Englisher.

>>18667176
>But these most of these Jews at the time could not believe that the time of their visitation was just a prelude to his finality.
>They being fleshly minded, expected the warrior king to rule over all gentiles first, but not the servant God suffering at their own hands.
but this begs the question, i am specifically arguing to show that nt does not follow the ot, you are reinterpreting things completely outside what they were in the ot, its like how mormons reinterpret the nt through the book of mormon.
>Whereas I recognize that they apply both to past, present, future, allegorically, morally, and analogically in simul.
where does it say you should do this in the ot?
if you can interpret any basic text to apply to anything you want as long as there are some vague parallels between the two events while completely ignoring the original context, the prophecies are then worthless and the actual context in the ot is then unrealiable.
>>700 years
>How about seventy weeks from the time of Babylon?
this has nothing to do with isaiah 7's immediate crisis and a child being born soon and that crisis being solved in a few years when it grows up

>>18667173
We already did, my dear pilpul master. You just refuse to see it. Also, all of those OT passages are entirely unresolved if we go with your theories. You are pretty good at trying to mislead people. But you dont seem too interested in plugging the gaps you created for those OT passages that have no answer since only Jesus answers them. What else could they be if not Jesus?

>>18667185
>What else could they be if not Jesus?
unfulfiled prophecies from ancient jewish myth that you now reinterpret and read into what isnt there because believing in christianity is comfortable.

>>18667167
>but died instead
Oy vey the story does not end there. It ends with Titus because they got the proverbial 40 years grace

>>18667170
The Temple Destruction. That's a pretry easy one

>>18667190
quote that messianic prophecy from the ot and explain where jesus fulfils it in its context

>>18667186
>unfulfiled prophecies from ancient jewish myth
So like a future messiah of some sort?

>>18667191
From the OT you mean? I thought you meant in general. I can post lists of hundreds of OT prophecies fulfilled. The question is, are you asking sincerely or jewing around?

>>18667173
Okay ill list one, Isaiah 53. And no, its not Israel since they dont match the completely innocent sinless figure that the text describes, pretty sure most of the OT prophets constantly talk shit about how sinful Israel has become. Its obviously about Jesus. You will deny it though because of your very blatant agenda.

>>18667194
He literally quoted THAT book. And an extremely niche passage that very few people would now. I guess that paints the picture of who we are talking to.

>>18667192
the christians believe they are not all unfulfiled. they already believe in a messiah.

>>18667196
I think you replied to the wrong anon. Yes, He quoted from OT extensively, even when dying on the Cross. Non-Christians here have not read any of it, that's why they constantly ask quesrions that are easily answered

>>18667184
>specifically arguing to show that nt does not follow the ot

Well then, you started this fight on poor footing before either one of us were aware of it.
I've already invoked several witnesses who could testify to a certain understanding of OT passages common among these Jews during the the time of Iesu ha Nazarene.

Might as well claim the entire NT was forged by non-Jews, the Septuagint and Philo too for what it's worth.
But that's the real reason you're going to deflect instead of addressing them.
You can't actually establish this as fact, because it isn't.

>where does it say you should do this in the "ot".
What, you mean apply multiple senses of interpretation to a single passage?
I would struggle to recollect where the OT specifically recommends a particular sense in priority to all others, exclusive to all else in text.

Maybe you know better.
That would be meta af.

>vague parallels
no, you

>>18667196
btw i assume youre talking about >>18667154
>But there it is, Sotah 11a.
but that wasnt me nor are any other replies anywhere itt that are capitalized at the start with the exception of
>>18666488
>>18666501
>>18666481

>>18667194
pick one and >>18667191

>>18667202
anon
you just linked one of my posts

but by subsequent three are not my own

>>18666532
>“If there arises among you a prophet or a dreamer of dreams, and he gives you a sign or a wonder, 2 and the sign or the wonder comes to pass, of which he spoke to you, saying, ‘Let us go after other gods’—which you have not known—‘and let us serve them,’ 3 you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams, for the Lord your God is testing you to know whether you love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul. 4 You shall walk after the Lord your God and fear Him, and keep His commandments and obey His voice; you shall serve Him and hold fast to Him. 5 But that prophet or that dreamer of dreams shall be put to death, because he has spoken in order to turn you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt and redeemed you from the house of bondage, to entice you from the way in which the Lord your God commanded you to walk. So you shall put away the evil from your midst.

that passage is obviously about false prophets trying to lead the Israelites away from YHWH to worshipping entirely different false gods, such as Balaam

>>18667203
Psalm 21:17

>>18667195
my position on isa 53 is that it seems to be both talking about israel and an individual, although it doesnt seem to be too clear, which goes against a omniscient omnipotent inspired word of god book, nor does it seem too explicitly messianic, but you can resonably point towards that interpretation without a large problem, i wouldnt rest the whole deal of is jesus the messiah on this, but it can be accepted as messianic.

the problem is actually proving that this is jesus.
1. you dont really have a proper proof and can only make a cumulative case to fit jesus's life into it, which makes this kinda weak
2. how can i test that the data about jesus that you will give is even something that actually happened? for example the resurrection is one of the biggest things upon which christianity rests and yet it cant be proven to have happened despite the many claims about how it went about and what happened after, so other details required for this cumulative case would be even more unknown.

>>18667201
>You can't actually establish this as fact, because it isn't.
well i believe christianity is false entirely, like all other known religions, and would by default argue outside even the ot obviously, but im using it here as an internal critique since the argument chain is specifically about jesus messianic prophecies.
if you want to talk about christianity in general then you can go ahead and prove how its true outside of just the jesus prophecies topic. any logical argument or proof that would arrive at the christian god.
>What, you mean apply multiple senses of interpretation to a single passage?
you can do that, but there obviously has to be a limit otherwise everything can mean anything. the question is then on you to prove that a specific reading makes resonably sense on a case by case basis.

>God wouldn't use imprecise or ambiguous language or have hidden double-meaning prophecies or things that need to be interpreted or argued over
genuinely what is the basis for thinking this from the Bible itself? the whole angle and presentation of this kind of argumentation already assumes by default the agnostic position, that you don't *really* know/believe God is real and that he has to prove and justify himself to you somehow, that he needs humans to know, on their own terms that he empirically exists.
In the Bible itself God seems to always say that his existence is self-evident by the fact that creation itself exists (this is how he introduces himself to Job when he starts speaking to him, for example); God in the Bible often seems to say that people are supposed to accept de facto that he just exists and then have faith in him and that anything he says will come to pass, even if they don't fully understand it.

Maybe there's even some other value to the text being ambiguous that people haven't intuitively considered, such as it resulting in thousands of years of theological debate and development, for example. Maybe the debate itself actually IS the point.

>>18667204
i know.

the timeline is:
this guys asked me a question >>18667194
then he got a reply by someone else >>18667196
>He literally quoted THAT book
"he" here insinuates me. "quoted THAT book" means the talmud, which is from >>18667154
>Sotah 11a
but this isnt my comment, thats what i wanted to clear up. that >>18667196 was wrong and that it wasnt me who quoted from the talmud. you did.

>>18667224
I didn't quote from the talmud and I seem to have misunderstood your comment. I thought you were talking about Christ and LXX. I apologize for any misunderstanding.

>>18667212
psalm 21:17 doesnt exist, if youve meant 22:16 i've already gone over that itt

>>18667229
>doesn't exist
Oy vey lying hooknose, it does in my Book. And (you) have not explained fuck all

>>18667219
>God wouldn't
an omnipotent omniscient benevolent loving god that was a relationship with you wouldnt be that vague and imprecise, yes, especially for so many passages that are so insanely important that people have argued for 2k years.
>this kind of argumentation already assumes by default the agnostic position
well yes, what else is there as the default position? trusting any religious authority around you by default without proof?
>self-evident by the fact that creation itself exists
look at the trees argument, aside from being meme tier, can and is made by a lot of other religions, when a muslim makes the same claim, how can i test which one of you is right?
>Maybe the debate itself actually IS the point.
except its not just people debating, its people losing time talking about absolute truth because its apparently very unclear and then interpreting things how they want which deviates more and more from any initial understanding of christianity into many societaly problematic behaviours, for example christians themselves killed a huge amount of each other over their own religious beliefs.

Test >>18666666

>>18667231
quote it and explain how jesus fulfils it in its original ot context then as ive stated

>>18667233
>was a relationship
*wants a relationship

>>18667235
>theypiercedmy hands and my feet
Unless you claim Jesus died from the flu, it's self-explanatory

>>18667240
so as i predicted youve meant 22:16, not 21:17, which doesnt exist. and as ive said, i already covered it >>18667133

>>18667241
21:17 exists in LXX which is much older and more authoritative than the masoretic. That much is certain.
>I already explained
You pilpuled because the next passage belies your cope
>I may tell all my bones: they lookandstare upon me.
And the one after that
>They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture.

>>18666352
Apart from saying he was the Messiah he also said he was God (allegedly) or the literal son of God, and that he could forgive sins, both of which are extreme heresies&Blasphemies in Jewish eyes, while performing miracles, which being a heretic and a blasphemer could only occur through sorcery or as the doing of evil spirits, as he did so. All of these offenses are punished by execution and befitting of scorn.
Of course there are other hypothesis that do not center around Jesus Fellatio. Like the idea that he was killed to avoid a riot and subsequent Massacre by the Romans.

Also, you have to remember the Gospels did not literally happen. There is no reason to assume the Ancient Jews had any particular hatred of Jesus other than the gospels saying so in what are pretty obvious polemics. The idea that Jews had or have some deep hatred of Jesus is simply not true.

>>18667286
Hypotheses*

>>18667196
Haha, you two don't fully realize Miriam and Mary are two forms of the same name.

Niche?
I looked it up on the internet just a few hours ago now.

>>18667224
Oh man...

>>18666352
Yehoshua was a Jew. All of the earliest Christians were Jews. Christianity is a Jewish religion.

>implying

>>18667244
vague parallels that could have applied to many people suffering or even being crucified dont prove jesus was the messiah, and even if you had a cumulative case close enough, how can i even test this prophecy to see if its true or if the NT just wrote the fulfilment in?

>>18667286
In fact, I'd go as far as to say that Jewish preoccupation with Jesus is directly proportional with how much those specific Jews are interacting with Christians at that particular moment. Though obviously to Christian eyes this would appear differently.

And just because I know someone will bring it up. That the Talmud insults the man a single digit amount of times is only indicative of how little the Rabbis cared for the guy. The Pagans get so much shit thrown at them it stops being funny. Even on the topic of Jewish Heretics Jesus plays second fiddle to the Other One

>>18667360
>vague parallels that could have applied to many people suffering or even being crucified
Bones and garments are vague? How much more specific do you want it to be?
>dont prove jesus was the messiah,
You asked for fulfilled OT prophecies, I posted one of many. Now you're backpedaling and goalpost moving
>and even if you had a cumulative case close enough,
I do, or rather people of greater faith than me and greater knowledge than you have argued the case convincingly
>how can i even test this prophecy to see if its true or if the NT just wrote the fulfilment in?
Goalpost moving again. You got your answer, but you chose not to accept it because you din't have a time machine to go back in time and verify.

>>18666352
No one cared about jesus enough to reject him. If he existed at all, he was an irrelevant loser who left no historical traces.

>>18667615
>jesus
*yashua

>>18667615
delusional uneducated idiot
christ was easily the most consequential person ever
especially for europe

>>18667661
>christ was easily the most consequential person ever
>especially for europe

how?

>>18667676
His morality (Sermon on the Mount) was imperative for Europe for 2000 years. EVERYTHING that we're seeing in the sorry constitution of the modern day European is a direct consequence of 2000 years of education in this morality. It has been biologically imprinted on them. If you do not see that, you are an uneducated fool.

>>18666688
In the dead see scrolls the exact word of the passage is mispelled, it says "ka-aru" which doesn't mean anything

>>18667682
you must be smoking crack, sermon on the mount is just a bunch of platitudes

>>18667696
pearls before swine

File: 1769229520221.png (42 KB, 541x543)

42 KB PNG

>>18667692
>it says "ka-aru" which doesn't mean anything
Sure thing buddy, keep the lies coming

>>18667676
Have you ever looked at a calendar? Is it really that fun to pretend to be retarded?

>>18667661
That would be Paul. All Yeshu did was die.

>>18667738
Btw Christianity only becomes important a good two hundred years (being nice, three hundred if not) after it was putatively founded.

>>18667738
And who motivated Paul to do that again?

>>18667775
His temporal lobe epilepsy.

>>18666384
No, that was post-hoc cope

>>18666384
Most of the "prophecies" that are used to give credibility to Jesus are taken out of context or were already fulfilled much earlier.

>>18667162
>we handed Him over to the Romans and insisted they put Him to death. that proves He is not the Messiah
If he were the Messiah he wouldn’t have been handed over to the Romans. Every Jew would’ve seen him for who he was and rallied to his cause all at once.

>>18667886
Those who had eyes saw Him
The others were blinded and perished with the Temple

>>18666688
No, they don’t. The Dead Sea Scrolls validate the Masoretic text

>>18666752
The square block didn’t exist until the 2nd century BC. None of the books of the OT were written by the attributed author and all were written centuries after these authors are said to have live.

>>18666752
>for example, the controversy surrounding "Almah" is kind of intractable if you completely ignore other scripts
but once you see that antique Jews, generations before Christianity ever existed, translated it into Greek as "parthenos" it becomes clearer how they actually contextualized this passage and what it really meant to them at that time
Except pathénos didn’t mean virgin when the Hebrew Bible was translated into Greek, it also just meant “young woman” and had nothing to do with virgins, especially since several of Solomon’s queens and concubines are called parthénos even though they obviously weren’t virgins and in Genesis 34:3, Dinah is referred to as a parthénos even though she wasn’t a virgin by that point). The word was only used to specifically refer to virgins centuries after the Hebrew Bible was translated to Greek. The interpretation of Isaiah 7:14 referring to a virgin is a result of this linguistic shift, especially since the author of the Gospel of Matthew quoted the Greek version and not the Hebrew original.

>>18667059
The fact that Jesus preached monotheism automatically makes him a Jewish supremacist. The notion that the Jews were ever correct about anything whatsoever is inherently idiotic

>>18668014
Lying comes as easily as breathing to you, doesnt it?