Let's have a discussion on the virgin birth

Author: Tradesecret

Posts

Total: 124
Castin
Castin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,238
3
2
7
Castin's avatar
Castin
3
2
7
-->
@Tradesecret
No abuse. No derogatory language. No trolling or abuse.
You got it. 👍

Some scholars indicate rightly that the Hebrew word in Isaiah means young woman not virgin.  No one says it is impossible to translate it virgin.  The Septuagint - an OT Greek translation by Jewish scholars pre Jesus, did translate the word virgin.  
No, the Septuagint translated the word as parthenos -- which originally meant "young woman" but eventually came to mean "virgin." This left some ambiguity in its meaning, and that ambiguity is the source of all this confusion. So it may be more useful to say the Septuagint translated the word as maiden, since that has a similar ambiguity.

Matthew then interpreted parthenos as "virgin," and I don't really blame him. I mean, the Parthenon is named for Athena, the virgin goddess.

But the original Hebrew word, almah, had no such ambiguity that scholars can find evidence of. It meant young woman, not virgin.

Some scholars indicate that there are better words for virgin if that meant to be the point. 
Indeed. If Isaiah had meant "virgin," he would have used the Hebrew word bethulah.

NT Christian scholars would indicate that the translation of the word in the NT from the OT is confirmed firstly, by the inspiration of the Spirit of God who breathed it out and confirmed its meaning.
Critical historians and scholars cannot accept divine inspiration as an argument because it would mean they have to accept the veracity of all religious texts, i.e. we would also have to accept the Iliad as history because Homer claimed to have been divinely inspired by the muses.

Secondly that the Septuagint which was commonly used at that time by Jews and the Christians, including Paul, translated it that way.
The translators of the Septuagint simply made the mistake of using an ambiguous word.

thirdly, that the context in the gospels of Matthew and Luke clearly understood it to mean virgin.
We have no evidence that Luke understood it to mean virgin because he makes no reference to Isaiah 7:14.

Matthew certainly understood it to mean virgin, but Matthew could not read Hebrew, and Matthew made an interpretive error reading a translated manuscript.

Fourthly, though it is acknowledged it may well have other meanings and moreover virgin is not its primary meaning, it is not impossible for it to mean virgin since indeed Jewish scholars have translated it that way.
I see Christians using "not impossible" a lot in their apologetics, and here's the thing -- history and scholarship are not concerned with what is not impossible. They are concerned with what is plausible, probable, and most accurate. "Not impossible" is not enough.

It is not plausible, probable, or most accurate to say that almah meant virgin. If there had been any use of almah to mean virgin, you would not see such scholarly consensus on what that word means. Basically, nerds don't agree about anything there is room for disagreement about, and the nerds all agree on this.

So what you are essentially saying here is that the Septuagint has more divine authority than the Hebrew Bible. I don't really understand this position, since the Hebrew Bible came first.
Castin
Castin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,238
3
2
7
Castin's avatar
Castin
3
2
7
But my biggest problem with all this is that Isaiah 7:14 is not a prophecy about a future miraculous conception. It's a line in a story that Matthew took out of context, and misquoted to boot. Isaiah 7:14 does not say a virgin will conceive. It says a young woman has already conceived.

Here is how Matthew quotes Isaiah 7:14:

  • "Look, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall name him Emmanuel."
And here is what Isaiah 7:14 actually says:

  • "Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel."
Isaiah speaks in the present tense, not the future tense. She is with child.

Isaiah was written 700 years before Jesus was born, so this passage is discussing a woman in a story set 700 years before Mary.

Here is an expanded quote:

  • "Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel. He shall eat curds and honey by the time he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good. For before the child knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land before whose two kings you are in dread will be deserted."
Two kings? Dread? What does this have to do with Jesus?

If you read the passage in context, you realize it has nothing to do with Jesus at all.

Here is a summary of what this part of Isaiah is actually about, for any lazy-but-curious readers:

  • Ahaz, the king of Judah, is freaking out. He's being besieged by the kings of Israel and Syria. In distress, he asks his prophet, Isaiah, what to do. How does Isaiah reply? "Chill out. There's this pregnant young woman in your kingdom who's about to bear a son. Before the kid knows right from wrong, he'll be eating curds and honey. His name will be Immanuel." In other words, soon the kingdom will see prosperous times again. God's got this. Immanuel means "God is with us."
This young woman is already with child at the time of the narrative. So she, obviously, is not a virgin. If the author had intended us to understand her as a pregnant virgin, he would have used the word bethulah to describe her, and we would see some acknowledgment of this miracle in the text; we do not. It is treated like a conventional conception, just one of special import, one that is a sign from God. Any translation of "virgin" here is incorrect, both linguistically and narratively.

Isaiah 7:14 is not about Jesus. It is about an unborn child named Immanuel who will see prosperity (curds and honey) under the reign of King Ahaz of Judah, proving God is with them.
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Castin
Here is a summary of what this part of Isaiah is actually about, for any lazy-but-curious readers:

  • Ahaz, the king of Judah, is freaking out. He's being besieged by the kings of Israel and Syria. In distress, he asks his prophet, Isaiah, what to do. How does Isaiah reply? "Chill out. There's this pregnant young woman in your kingdom who's about to bear a son. Before the kid knows right from wrong, he'll be eating curds and honey. His name will be Immanuel." In other words, soon the kingdom will see prosperous times again. God's got this. Immanuel means "God is with us."
And as I have said many times when this ridiculous attempt to link Jesus to OT prophesies pops up.  One simply has to ask, what good would a child to be born 700 years into the future be of any use Ahaz in his hour of need? 

 I have said it many times before on this forum that this is the author of Matthew's gospel once  again reaching for his trusty OT in a desperate attempt to link Jesus to the OT prophesies as being the one to come and prophesised about.

Castin
Castin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,238
3
2
7
Castin's avatar
Castin
3
2
7
-->
@Stephen
And one simply has to ask, what good would a child to be born 700 in the future be of any use Ahaz in his hour of need? 
Precisely -- none at all.

I have said it many times before on this forum that this is the author of Matthew's gospel once  again reaching for his trusty OT in a desperate attempt to link Jesus to the OT prophesies as being the one to come and prophesised about.
Quite true. Matthew was really preoccupied with fulfillment of scripture.

We all tend to have an egocentric approach to reading. We interpret based on what is useful, meaningful, and inspirational to us. Matthew too was guilty of this. But it's important to remember that the authors of Isaiah were, just like us, more concerned with events closer to home.
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Castin
Stephen wrote: And one simply has to ask, what good would a child to be born 700 in the future be of any use Ahaz in his hour of need?

 Precisely -- none at all.


Stephen wrote: I have said it many times before on this forum that this is the author of Matthew's gospel once  again reaching for his trusty OT in a desperate attempt to link Jesus to the OT prophesies as being the one to come and prophesised about.
Quite true. Matthew was really preoccupied with fulfillment of scripture.

We all tend to have an egocentric approach to reading. We interpret based on what is useful, meaningful, and inspirational to us. Matthew too was guilty of this. But it's important to remember that the authors of Isaiah were, just like us, more concerned with events closer to home.
Exactly. A1.
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Castin
No, the Septuagint translated the word as parthenos -- which originally meant "young woman" but eventually came to mean "virgin." This left some ambiguity in its meaning, and that ambiguity is the source of all this confusion. So it may be more useful to say the Septuagint translated the word as maiden

The star sign for Virgo is the maiden. The bible alludes to astrology/astronomy often. In fact the ancients were obsessed with it from the day of Adam. To the ancients, the "heavens" were their calendar or star clock. Is it at all possible that Joseph simply married a Virgo/Virgin named Mary?
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 968
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@FLRW
Or better yet, "Jesus, wait a second, you don't even exist!" 
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@FLRW
What would happen if Jesus and the "virgin Mary" took a Paternity Test. 
Maury would open the envelope and say: "God, you are not the Father!"

Nor the son, nor the holy spirit!

zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@FLRW
And daft Joe would exclaim.

JESUS CHRIST!


I noticed that you didn't even bother to test daft Joe.

Mass screening might have been more successful....Though I'm guessing that the culprit had already disappeared into the desert on his camel.
BrotherD.Thomas
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,145
3
3
7
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
BrotherD.Thomas
3
3
7
-->
@Tradesecret
@Bones


Bones,

YOUR QUOTE OF QUESTIONING MY SERIAL KILLER JESUS EXISTING OR NOT!:  "Or better yet, "Jesus, wait a second, you don't even exist!" 

SILENCE! Shhhhhhhhh!  I can see you've done your historical homework, where even if your quote above was in jest, my serial killer Jesus probably didn't exist because of the outright shabby historical documents that do exist years upon years later after Jesus' death in approximately 30AD.

Bones, since I am the ONLY True Christian within this forum, can you keep a secret so as not to disturb the pseudo-christian crowd within this forum, especially the #1 Bible stupid, and runaway fool of same, Miss Tradesecret?  I am assuming that you said yes to my aforementioned question, therefore those damn historical FACTS get in the way of Jesus actually existing as shown herewith:

Allegedly, Josephus Flavius, who was a Roman Jewish Historian, was the first person mentioning a "Jesus character" outside of the JUDEO-Christian Bible in his Antiquities of the Jewish faith. Barring the fact of many historians stating that what Josephus wrote about Jesus in a minute way were interpolations, whereas the simple math is revealed nonetheless, in that my Jesus died approximately in 30AD. BUT, Josephus' birth was 37AD,  and his Antiquities were written in 93CE.  Therefore, Josephus through hearsay and non eyewitness accountings, wrote about a "Jesus character,” where this Jewish Jesus was not at all mentioned as the the Hebrew Yahweh God incarnate, the creator of man, earth,  and the entire universe, until 63 years later in doing the simple math!  Get it?

Think, such a notable one God concept named Jesus as the creator of ALL things, would have been mentioned throughout the world in historical records and writings in Roman, Greek, and Jewish history from the day Jesus celestially impregnated His own mother Mary through spiritual incest, and subsequently Him being born a Bastard Child through true Hebrew tradition because Joseph was not Jesus' paternal father. Therefore, no mention of Jesus' godly presence until 63 years later as shown in Josehus' Antiquities in 93AD?!  This would be like Neil Armstrong landing on the moon and walking on its surface for the first time in the history of man, and having not a single person write about it during the time it occurred, but to use Josephus historical facts about Jesus as a foundation, this historical moon landing wouldn't  be written until 63 years later!   2+2 does not equal 4!

Listen up, we Christians have to masturbate our minds in making them feel good about our serial killer Jesus actually existing subsequent to no meaningful historical records of His existence after Jesus  being within the Bible, surely you understand.  Therefore, don't make it worse for us in postulating the other historians that mention our Jesus character as well, like Tacitus, Pliney the Younger, Pilate, Suetonius, etc., because not only are they further away in time from Jesus' alleged existence, but are also hearsay and non eyewitness accountings, okay?  We thank you in advance. 


The Jewish Jesus outside of the JUDEO-Christian Bible in a historical sense is to be "mums the word" to save us Christians from further embarrassment!  Shhhhhhhhhhh!


.


Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
Gods having sex with women, especially virgins, was definitely a Greco-Roman thing and just another indication that the story of Jesus is nothing more than Rome trying to find a way to unify its population under religion because it was losing the battle of just domineering them army-wise.
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
The Semantics of the words only become an issue for those trying to say that the NT was not really saying what it was saying and was badly researched.
Well, we're going to disagree here, because the semantics is an issue for either camp. They both ultimately rely on the same authority: interpretation.


My point here was simply to point out that the so called gotcha moment against the NT author is not valid. I am not saying anything more or less. 
That doesn't seem to be true. If you weren't saying anything beside the 'gotcha' is invalid, you wouldn't be presenting argumentation for a virgin birth. Don't get me wrong, I much prefer an individual back up their views, and, let's be honest, you have been working to that end.


What makes it valid? It is an argument from silence. Hardly valid in anyone's book
An argument from silence is not always a fallacy as you seem to suggest. If it were prophesied the Messiah would be born of a virgin and Jesus thought himself to be the Messiah, there is a reasonable expectation he would have mentioned his birth fulfilled that prophesy. Unexpectedly for the Messiah, Jesus was never recorded making such an assertion. 

Matthew who was one of Jesus' inner 12 did raise it. Matthew and Luke raised it. Mary raised it. And Joseph her husband knew it to be true.  
Assuming these were real people, we have no way of knowing if Matthew, Luke, Mary or Joseph thought Jesus was born of a virgin. We have gospel accounts from anonymous people claiming this, but we don't know what these people believed.

Matthew used it as a fulfillment of prophecy in relation to the messiah. Do you think that Jesus raising it again would have helped? I doubt it. People were skeptical in the time it was happened,
I'm not sure I understand how Matthew's assertion would be treated with less skepticism than one from Jesus. 
-Jesus: I was born of a virgin!
-Skeptic: I don't believe you.
-Matthew: Jesus was born of a virgin!
-Skeptic: Makes sense.


God's spirit - which is Holy - would have sanctified the conception. 
Yes, I know for non-believers it all sounds like magic
Yes, it does. Sorry. 
TheMorningsStar
TheMorningsStar's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 398
2
3
7
TheMorningsStar's avatar
TheMorningsStar
2
3
7
Never forget that the Old Testament, in Hebrew, did not use the word virgin as a predictive/prophetic factor. Only when the text was translated into Greek was, due to a mistranslation, the predictive/prophetic factor turned from 'young woman' to 'virgin'. Combine this with the fact that the texts that include (originate?) this "Jesus born from a virgin" concept were written in Greek and that the authors clearly knew the Old Testament. Thus, it seems that they looked at a mistranslated text, saw the word 'virgin', and then invented such a story in order to make it so Jesus' story was more inline with what they felt it should have been.
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
@the Witch

Gods having sex with women, especially virgins, was definitely a Greco-Roman thing .....


It was a Mesopotamian thing too. Abram/Abraham originated from that part of the world. The bible if read carefully when speaking of Eve's offspring  explains that she had a child " from the Lord". <<< this was the" forbidden fruit of the tree of knowledge".

The book of Enoch explains that it was the sons of god that had committed the crime of having sex with human females there- by defiling themselves.  For to have sex with humans was completely taboo. They were forced to take them as wives as punishment and were never allowed to return to their heavenly realm. The BIBLE alludes to this at Genesis 6:2.  One of these son's of god slipped a bit into Eve there by introducing to her the knowledge of sexual intercourse. Hence, when we read terms of phrases - him knowing her, or he  knew her, or they knew her, it was all to do with sexual intercourse and sometimes it was rape;
Example
  • Judges 19:22-25 King James Version (KJV)
22 Now as they were making their hearts merry, behold, the men of the city, certain sons of Belial, beset the house round about, and beat at the door, and spake to the master of the house, the old man, saying, Bring forth the man that came into thine house, that we may know him.
23 And the man, the master of the house, went out unto them, and said unto them, Nay, my brethren, nay, I pray you, do not so wickedly; seeing that this man is come into mine house, do not this folly.
24 Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man do not so vile a thing.
25 But the men would not hearken to him: so the man took his concubine, and brought her forth unto them; and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go.

Indeed Witch. It doesn't get more misogynistic does it?

And its not the first time in the bible where character offers his own innocent daughter to the gang raping mob is it.   

And it takes one of those  what you call "lying, cowardly  and misogynistic atheist"  to reveal this too you.

Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@rosends
Paul was a Pharisee and trained by very eminent scholars such as Gamaliel.   Paul clearly used it.  and Paul was a leader in the Jewish religion for a significant time before he converted. Surely you would not seriously suggest otherwise? 
Certainly I would, but not from silence -- your argument is based in, and requires, accepting the authority of a text I claim is not authoritative. The gospels include factual errors (things not in accordance with Judaism) and don't have a verifiable provenance that makes me accept their statements. So making some sort of claim about Paul being someone or studying with someone is not really useful because it is not corroborated by any text I would look at as an authority.
Thanks for your response.  I am not suggesting you ought to take it as authoritative.  Yet there is no reason for me not take it so.  I disagree that the gospels contain factual errors.  Remember that the Judaism practiced in the NT and the OT for that matter is not the same as it is practiced today.  And just because things in the NT are different from how Judaism is practiced today does not ergo demonstrate a so called error in the gospels.  Paul was a Pharisee - before he ever became a Christian.  He was well studied.  Yes, I know it is problematic for a Jew to say anything about the NT is correct.  I do find it interesting that earliest records of synagogues in writing are Christian writings. 



It seems like you are arguing from silence.  There are notoriously few therefore we can't rely upon it as a valid source.   

No, the fact that there are few simply means that there are few, and since the only one that might support your contention is the one that is subject to a circular argument of belief (your theology teaches you that the text is true and because it is true you accept your theology) it is of little probative value to anyone else.

Also, it isn't silence as much as a failure of the voice that is out there. I can't rely on something as a valid source if it is an invalid source.

The "Sept uses "virgin" and the Sept, even if full of errors, reflects a correct understanding, then "virgin" even though the text has errors is true". Since there is silence outside of this unreliable source (and on its face, the source conflicts with the earlier material) the conclusion fails.
Circular reasoning is axiomatic reasoning. How do you know the Torah is correct?  I don't think it therefore reduces the probative value. It may well mean asking different questions.  You have said that the Sept contains errors.  You have not said the Sept only has errors.  Would you also agree that the Torah has errors? Just because a source has some errors does not make it an invalid source.  The fact is  - it is a source and it has been used for 1000s of years. 

I also said my highest argument for its use - as virgin is not the Sept, but rather the inspiration of God.  Yes, that doesn't help you. Yet, it does mean a different matter for me - it means I can't simply reject it because someone else says the text is invalid. 


Even you mentioned above that the young lady probably was a virgin even though it is not necessarily implied within it.  

I was speaking of a different young lady, one whom the text explicitly says is a virgin. But in the case of the Isaiah quote, with no other text to qualify the word, there is no reason to impute virginity to it. If I say that the girl probably had dark hair, that doesn't make "brunette" a valid translation or interpretation of the word almah.
ok. 


If there were appropriate and legitimate  sources which can categorically say it could never mean virgin then I would concede the argument.
Isn't that waiting for someone to prove a negative, what a word does NOT mean? Instead, why not look at what the word means and how it is used and translated elsewhere to create context -- build meaning instead of assuming meaning and only considering changing if something comes to destroy the preconceived notion.

If I show you a Hebrew dictionary which doesn't include "virgin" as a meaning, will you say "therefore it CAN'T" or will you say "that doesn't say it CAN'T explicitly"? Dictionaries don't list all the things a word cannot mean.


and "maiden" as a noun (the way it is used in the verse) isn't about sexuality either. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/maiden
My point was not about proving it means "virgin".  My point was always that the word itself does not exclude virgin from its meaning.  For me it is similar to another Greek word baptism.   Baptism means immerse.  and that is probably its primary meaning.  Yet, it can and does have other meanings.  It also provides for the sprinkling and pouring.  




the word possibly might mean virgin and that no one can categorically rule out virgin, then I think I am on reasonably safe ground.  

But you haven't shown that it "might mean" virgin, only that the translation has it as "virgin" in one case. You are starting with the translation instead of with the Hebrew word. Similarly, I can claim to you that the Hebrew word "ish" 'might mean' tree. I can then pick one instance of "ish" and translate it as "tree" to prove that it can mean that, even though it never means tree and the verse I cite has nothing to do with trees.  But you can't show me that it can be ruled out because that's not how language works -- we learn what words mean, not what they can't be claimed to mean.
That's  a fair point and I will come back to you on this point. 

Thanks again.  There are some people who are more reasonable to discuss matters with than others. 
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen

An argument from silence is not an argument.

Which doesn't stop you suggesting, surmising, guessing and theorising as to what things Jesus may or may not have said. And it doesn't stop you presenting your conjecture and theorise as biblical fact when it suites you to do so.
Whatever. 


the disciple Matthew is credited with writing his gospel.
By whom?  There is absolutely no evidence as to the actual names of the authors of the scriptures . You are lying.
Many scholars.  He is both traditionally credited with it. As well as by scholars. It has a VERY strong tradition. check out p. Nepper-Christensen's work. see Papias. see Eusebius. See Irenaeus. Pantaenus.  Origen.   Many modernist scholars reject the tradition of the church on an assumption that since Matthew seemed to have relied on Mark, Matthew couldn't have been the apostle Matthew, since apostles would not rely on non-apostles.  Of course there is nothing to support this notion except an assumption and a bad one at that.  Many other recent scholars however do accept Matthew - the apostle as the author - following both the traditions and their own independent studies. See Gundry for instance. Just because Matthew does not put his name to the document does not mean the tradition was not strong from the beginning. 



We don't know whether he raised it or not. 

We know that the bible doesn't mention Jesus himself speaking of his Immaculate Conception
True. But so what?

Matthew did mention it was prophesied.

 Nope.  The author of Mathews gospel  does not say anything about an Immaculate Conception being part of any prophesy. Stop telling lies.
Matthew 1:22 Matthew says "all this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: 23, The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son .....  and Matthew was referring to the incident 4 verses before in chapter 1: 18 Mary was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit  and then in v. 20 where Joseph had been told by the angel - "because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. 

From the book of Isaiah. 
Nope.  Stop telling lies. Isiah mentions nothing of an Immaculate Conception. Stop telling lies.
Isaiah 7:14 therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: the virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son. 

the Septuagint records it.  did you miss the memo? oops.
NOPE!  And I notice sarcasm or what you would define as "abuse" creeping in.
Well the Septuagint does record it.  but your point in relation to sarcasm is noted. 

  Jesus said and did many things that are not recorded. 
Maybe so.  Which leave only guesswork and conjecture, and hypothesis which you use often when it suites you to do so but never afford others the same curtesy.
You are the one raising the point that since Jesus did not raise it - it makes a point of some kind.  

shhh don't tell anyone.  I certainly don't care whether he mentioned it or not.
 Well that is all that is left for you to say once your own comments are broken down for the nonsense that they actually are.
No, I add it because I don't care.  

The point is that [gospel of] Matthew  and [gospel of]Luke did mention it. 
But they were not members of the 12.  
Matthew was. Luke wasn't. It doesn't matter whether they were of the 12 or not.  The point is that they had done their homework and were doing their research. 

 You can forget those facts if you like - I know it sucks. But they did. How inconvenient for you? 
They are not facts though are they. This is a perfect example of you presenting your own theories and conjecture as BIBLICAL facts
Well, yes they are.   It is a fact that the church tradition for many years from the very beginning, believed Matthew, the apostle wrote the book of Matthew. Luke has never seriously been questioned as the author of Luke, save and except a few would be scholars. 


 And my point was that NONE of the 12 disciples mentioned the Immaculate Conception. And again, the author of 'Matthews gospel is unknown and was not a disciple of Jesus.

Well that is your conjecture.  It is not consistent with church tradition nor with many scholars today. Yes, it is true, that the book does not have Matthew's name written as the author.  Yet church tradition from very early attributed it to him. 
Luke however was close associates with many of the disciples and even of Mary, the person in question. 

Wouldn't that be hearsay?
How is that hearsay? Do you mean because no one is alive today to corroborate the story?  Luke himself says he gathered the materials very thoroughly. 


Reading through the rest of your post - I don't see anything that requires responding. Perhaps if you think there is something more - ask again. 




Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
 I disagree that the gospels contain factual errors. 

Would you like a list of the many factual errors in the gospels?
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 806
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@Tradesecret
I am not suggesting you ought to take it as authoritative.  Yet there is no reason for me not take it so.  I disagree that the gospels contain factual errors.  Remember that the Judaism practiced in the NT and the OT for that matter is not the same as it is practiced today.  And just because things in the NT are different from how Judaism is practiced today does not ergo demonstrate a so called error in the gospels.

Understood but from the Jewish perspective there are absolute errors. The one people like to talk about is that the Sanhedrin could not meet at night. It is simple to say "well, things were different then" except it is the version of Judaism that the Pharisees taught which states explicitly that trials can't be at night. So saying Paul was a Pharisee just confirms that he would have pointed out that this trial could not have been at night. Was Judaism "different"? Sure, but it was different within parameters that we have written down. How can anyone brag that any of the characters in the gospels studied with Gamliel and yet discount the existence of the laws which Gamliel and his colleagues taught? If stuff is recorded that is not in accordance with the Judaism taught by the Pharisees (which we still use as our canon of law today) then it must be in error. If you are looking for early records of how things in synagogues operated, you should use the same oral law that the Pharisees did.

Circular reasoning is axiomatic reasoning. How do you know the Torah is correct?  I don't think it therefore reduces the probative value.

I know the Torah is correct because of faith, and that's it. So I don't use it to prove things outside the text to people who don't understand or accept the text because the simplest response would be "but I don't have faith that it is correct." But if someone tries to invoke the Torah and yet not accept that the Torah is authoritative then that seems hypocritical.

You have said that the Sept contains errors.  You have not said the Sept only has errors. 

Well, Jerusalem existed, so the textual claim that it existed is not an error. London exists but that doesn't make the "Harry Potter" books an authority on much else.

Would you also agree that the Torah has errors?

Nope.


I also said my highest argument for its use - as virgin is not the Sept, but rather the inspiration of God.  Yes, that doesn't help you. Yet, it does mean a different matter for me - it means I can't simply reject it because someone else says the text is invalid. 

But that's an important step -- you can acknowledge that you accept the use of virgin because you have faith in the translation in this case, not because there is any textual support elsewhere -- such support would not be necessary by you because you have faith in this particular translational moment. You believe it because it is there and you believe the text in which it is positioned.

My point was always that the word itself does not exclude virgin from its meaning. 

But then you accept that "ish" means tree if anyone claims it simply because it isn't explicitly excluded. The fact is, by looking at other uses and non-uses of the word, it is clear that "virgin" IS excluded.
BrotherD.Thomas
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,145
3
3
7
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
BrotherD.Thomas
3
3
7
-->
@Stephen
@Tradesecret


Stephen,

With you and me alone Bible Slapping Silly®️ Miss Tradesecret, I predict that she will once again be making a forced exodus from this forum to try once again to regroup from her Bible stupidity, before she tries again to frequent this most prestigious forum that she has absolutely no business in being here in the first place because she is an embarrassment to Christianity!




RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
Is it bible slapping copyrightable?
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
 I disagree that the gospels contain factual errors. 

Would you like a list of the many factual errors in the gospels?
You can certainly try and produce a list of things you think are errors.   
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@rosends
Understood but from the Jewish perspective there are absolute errors. The one people like to talk about is that the Sanhedrin could not meet at night. It is simple to say "well, things were different then" except it is the version of Judaism that the Pharisees taught which states explicitly that trials can't be at night. So saying Paul was a Pharisee just confirms that he would have pointed out that this trial could not have been at night. Was Judaism "different"? Sure, but it was different within parameters that we have written down. How can anyone brag that any of the characters in the gospels studied with Gamliel and yet discount the existence of the laws which Gamliel and his colleagues taught? If stuff is recorded that is not in accordance with the Judaism taught by the Pharisees (which we still use as our canon of law today) then it must be in error. If you are looking for early records of how things in synagogues operated, you should use the same oral law that the Pharisees did.
And from a Christian perspective, there are no errors.  The  trial by Sanhedrin at night is evidence by the Christians that the Jewish leaders knew they were doing the wrong thing. Why we consider it was a kangaroo court. Christians recognize that they would not ordinarily meet at night. So the fact that they did - going against their own law, demonstrated how concerned they were about Jesus.  Paul was not one to lie. And I am not suggesting that Jews ordinarily lied either. I just think that in that particular time - that the Jewish leaders were not going about God's business so much as their own one.  And possibly not even all of them - just a few powerful ones.  I would suggest that even you don't think that every Jewish leader in every time was without corruption.   

Circular reasoning is axiomatic reasoning. How do you know the Torah is correct?  I don't think it therefore reduces the probative value.

I know the Torah is correct because of faith, and that's it. So I don't use it to prove things outside the text to people who don't understand or accept the text because the simplest response would be "but I don't have faith that it is correct." But if someone tries to invoke the Torah and yet not accept that the Torah is authoritative then that seems hypocritical.
And that is a wise tactic.  I raised this because someone suggested I was running away - which I wasn't and I wanted to put it into a post where it could be actually addressed.  I take the NT to be correct out of faith too - for me I call that axiomatic.  Faith however is not blind faith - but considered faith.  I think the Torah is authoritative as well - it is after all the first five books of the Bible.     

You have said that the Sept contains errors.  You have not said the Sept only has errors. 
Well, Jerusalem existed, so the textual claim that it existed is not an error. London exists but that doesn't make the "Harry Potter" books an authority on much else.
So are you saying that the Sept has no value whatsoever in religious discussions? 

Would you also agree that the Torah has errors?
Nope.
good to hear - I reckon Stephen will be able to find factual errors.  


I also said my highest argument for its use - as virgin is not the Sept, but rather the inspiration of God.  Yes, that doesn't help you. Yet, it does mean a different matter for me - it means I can't simply reject it because someone else says the text is invalid. 
But that's an important step -- you can acknowledge that you accept the use of virgin because you have faith in the translation in this case, not because there is any textual support elsewhere -- such support would not be necessary by you because you have faith in this particular translational moment. You believe it because it is there and you believe the text in which it is positioned.
It is not a blind faith though. 

My point was always that the word itself does not exclude virgin from its meaning. 
But then you accept that "ish" means tree if anyone claims it simply because it isn't explicitly excluded. The fact is, by looking at other uses and non-uses of the word, it is clear that "virgin" IS excluded.
The word ish has other meanings apart from tree.  It doesn't exclude certain words so your point has some merit.  Yet the word for maiden - is distinguished from that argument in that it has been translated by some people - dodgy or not - as virgin. And this was accepted for many years without question - UNTIL the Christians used it to support Jesus' amazing birth. Then the critics came out and questioned it. 

but there is no evidence - unless you can point it out to us - that between the time it was allegedly wrongly translated and the Christian claim that it was considered an error.

That is also part of my point.   During the years after it was first translated - it was considered as credible.  It was considered appropriate and utilized around the known world by Jewish people in the Roman era with the Greek language.  This was for a considerable period of time - even into the NT period.  The question is WHEN was its accuracy first questioned? 

Was there a time after  the Sept allegedly wrongly translated it as virgin - and before the so called virgin conception of Jesus, that this translation was ever questioned and do you have the links to that questioning and sources? 

How long after Jesus and the Christian made the claim of the virgin birth did the Jewish leaders and scholars pick up on this bad translation and choose to deny its validity? 

Or are we all living by speculation? 





BrotherD.Thomas
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,145
3
3
7
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
BrotherD.Thomas
3
3
7
-->
@RationalMadman


.
RationalMadman,

YOUR QUOTE RELATING TO THE #1 BIBLE STUPID FOOL MISS TRADESECRET: "Is it bible slapping copyrightable?"

It doesn't matter because I "registered" the phrase that totally describes the Bible stupid fool Miss Tradesecret 100 percent!

.
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
I haven't taken off before - to ever do homework for you old boy.  I actually can't think of anything you have EVER said that has made me even consider doing some extra reading.  Most of what you produce is simply the same old regurgitated internet stuff of primary school kids.  I haven't yet seen you produce an original thought. a bit like Stephen really.  At least other atheists on this site do some original thinking and this might make me consider other sources. 

I do have a day job. I do take time off to go on leave. Sometimes I am away entirely from the internet. Sometimes I have others things to attend too.  This forum is not anywhere close to my number one priority.  I know it is for you - and kudos to you for that.  But really that you take some kind of pleasure that I am away from time to time - only really says how much I get up your nose.    I must really say things that upset you. Frustrate you. 

Still, I will try better old boy.   It is not my desire to upset you.  
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 806
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@Tradesecret
And from a Christian perspective, there are no errors.  The  trial by Sanhedrin at night is evidence by the Christians that the Jewish leaders knew they were doing the wrong thing. Why we consider it was a kangaroo court. Christians recognize that they would not ordinarily meet at night. So the fact that they did - going against their own law, demonstrated how concerned they were about Jesus.  Paul was not one to lie. And I am not suggesting that Jews ordinarily lied either. I just think that in that particular time - that the Jewish leaders were not going about God's business so much as their own one.  And possibly not even all of them - just a few powerful ones.  I would suggest that even you don't think that every Jewish leader in every time was without corruption.   

This brings up an interesting rhetorical moment. When confronted with a telling of an historical moment which doesn't conform with other documentation, one has the choice -- either to say that the retelling is in error or that the retelling is accurate and it bespeaks something about the people in the story that they didn't follow their own rules. The problem I have is that the entire narrative is so out of sync with Jewish law that one would have to assume a huge conspiracy of willful and intentional transgression by an entire community instead of saying that the retelling is not authoritative. I see the retelling as the problem here instead of casting aspersions on the entire Jewish community. As to the question about the possible corruption of the leaders, it certainly would seem that way by the retelling (but according to Jewish law and lore, the entire basis for the story is flawed and the Sanhedrin being discussed isn't even the Pharisaic sanhedrin) but that seems rather self-serving.

So are you saying that the Sept has no value whatsoever in religious discussions? 

That is a bit of an overstatement. Historically, it is very useful but I think that its value is compromised, by the fact that it is a translation, and one created (in the Jewish opinion) without a divine inspiration and following an agenda which is evidenced by the errors in word choice and in factual errors.

The word ish has other meanings apart from tree.  It doesn't exclude certain words so your point has some merit.  Yet the word for maiden - is distinguished from that argument in that it has been translated by some people - dodgy or not - as virgin. And this was accepted for many years without question - UNTIL the Christians used it to support Jesus' amazing birth. Then the critics came out and questioned it. 

The word "ish" doesn't mean "tree" at all and never does. But following your logic, I can claim it does because no where is there a lexicon that lists all the things it doesn't mean, and since, in at least one case, I can insist that it DOES mean that, it must mean that.

but there is no evidence - unless you can point it out to us - that between the time it was allegedly wrongly translated and the Christian claim that it was considered an error.

I have no idea about the Christian claim about error. I can only look at the Hebrew and speak from a position as informed by the Jewish scriptures. The Jewish view was never that it was an accurate translation. If you state that the Sept was either by or for the Jewish community and they didn't complain then you need to recognize that the text we have of the Sept version of texts after the 5 books of Moses was not by nor for the Jewish community.

The talmud recounts a version of the story of the translation of the Hebrew text to Greek but is only speaking of the 5 books. There is no reason to think that the LXX that we have of any text after those 5 was EVER accepted by the Jewish community. Once that is the groundwork, then wondering whether anyone when the LXX was assembled and revised saw parthenos as virgin (and not maiden, for example) is speculation. Not until the Greek switches to English (another level of translation mediation) and is fixed as virgin can we be sure that the error was codified. So if you discuss the LXX, then you should stick with the Greek and not a later English retranslation.
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@rosends
And from a Christian perspective, there are no errors.  The  trial by Sanhedrin at night is evidence by the Christians that the Jewish leaders knew they were doing the wrong thing. Why we consider it was a kangaroo court. Christians recognize that they would not ordinarily meet at night. So the fact that they did - going against their own law, demonstrated how concerned they were about Jesus.  Paul was not one to lie. And I am not suggesting that Jews ordinarily lied either. I just think that in that particular time - that the Jewish leaders were not going about God's business so much as their own one.  And possibly not even all of them - just a few powerful ones.  I would suggest that even you don't think that every Jewish leader in every time was without corruption.   

This brings up an interesting rhetorical moment. When confronted with a telling of an historical moment which doesn't conform with other documentation, one has the choice -- either to say that the retelling is in error or that the retelling is accurate and it bespeaks something about the people in the story that they didn't follow their own rules. The problem I have is that the entire narrative is so out of sync with Jewish law that one would have to assume a huge conspiracy of willful and intentional transgression by an entire community instead of saying that the retelling is not authoritative. I see the retelling as the problem here instead of casting aspersions on the entire Jewish community. As to the question about the possible corruption of the leaders, it certainly would seem that way by the retelling (but according to Jewish law and lore, the entire basis for the story is flawed and the Sanhedrin being discussed isn't even the Pharisaic sanhedrin) but that seems rather self-serving.
Agreed.  It is an interesting rhetorical moment.  It's too bad that there are no Jewish documents from the time of Jesus whereas there are many Christian ones.  And what I mean by that is in relation to specifically Jewish notions as opposed to Christian Jewish notions.  For many of the first Christians were Jews. That of course only adds to the dilemma since as Jews - they have no reason to try and put the Jewish world into disrepute.  I honestly, don't think there was widespread Jewish conspiracy.  I do hold to the view that there was a conspiracy at the very highest level and probably contained to not very many people at all.  Christians are not anti-Jewish (yes, I concede that over the years there have been sadly many Jew hating Christians, but I don't hold that view in relation to the early years of the church.) I don't agree that it is self-serving.  It is a little bit like the fact that woman are the first witnesses of the resurrection despite the fact that no one would ever use a Jewish woman to corroborate a story in those times.  It's got something to do with the truth.  And I say that respectfully knowing it could never be taken positively by someone from the Jewish faith.  

So are you saying that the Sept has no value whatsoever in religious discussions? 

That is a bit of an overstatement. Historically, it is very useful but I think that its value is compromised, by the fact that it is a translation, and one created (in the Jewish opinion) without a divine inspiration and following an agenda which is evidenced by the errors in word choice and in factual errors.
Thank you for your honesty.  I am not saying it was a translation of divine inspiration. The story behind it is rather - not the kind of thing  I find very admirable at all. Yet, it was widely used and has been considered valuable even despite its errors. 

The word ish has other meanings apart from tree.  It doesn't exclude certain words so your point has some merit.  Yet the word for maiden - is distinguished from that argument in that it has been translated by some people - dodgy or not - as virgin. And this was accepted for many years without question - UNTIL the Christians used it to support Jesus' amazing birth. Then the critics came out and questioned it. 
The word "ish" doesn't mean "tree" at all and never does. But following your logic, I can claim it does because no where is there a lexicon that lists all the things it doesn't mean, and since, in at least one case, I can insist that it DOES mean that, it must mean that.

Thank you i was beginning to think you were not very good with Hebrew. Etz. Man. 

Of course I think you are still misunderstanding my view.  I will attempt to explain my position better in future and reply in due course. 

but there is no evidence - unless you can point it out to us - that between the time it was allegedly wrongly translated and the Christian claim that it was considered an error.
I have no idea about the Christian claim about error. I can only look at the Hebrew and speak from a position as informed by the Jewish scriptures. The Jewish view was never that it was an accurate translation. If you state that the Sept was either by or for the Jewish community and they didn't complain then you need to recognize that the text we have of the Sept version of texts after the 5 books of Moses was not by nor for the Jewish community.
I'm not entirely sure what you are saying.  Is there any place where the Sept is considered not accurate prior to Jesus?  I am not asking whether it was inspired - since I would think that it would need to be either Jewish or Aramaic for that to be the case for Jews. I might be wrong about that.  Just saying that in the 21st century Jews would not consider it to be inspired does not necessarily mean that they thought it was in error back in the day.  It was widespread even in the Jewish community in the 1st century.  Why would any Gentile for instance want a copy of a Jewish bible - even in Greek?  The only people who would have needed it or required it were the Greek speaking Jews wherever they were.  The fact that it appears so widespread surely shows a real demand for it.  


The talmud recounts a version of the story of the translation of the Hebrew text to Greek but is only speaking of the 5 books. There is no reason to think that the LXX that we have of any text after those 5 was EVER accepted by the Jewish community. Once that is the groundwork, then wondering whether anyone when the LXX was assembled and revised saw parthenos as virgin (and not maiden, for example) is speculation. Not until the Greek switches to English (another level of translation mediation) and is fixed as virgin can we be sure that the error was codified. So if you discuss the LXX, then you should stick with the Greek and not a later English retranslation.

Again, I think you are missing the point.   Many Jews all over the world were wanting the Hebrew text of the Scriptures in their own tongue - which may well have been - and probably was Greek at that time.  The Romans certainly enforced this to some degree.  Why then would Jews only want the Talmud in Greek and not the rest of the OT?  And just for the record - can you confirm whether the first five books - the Torah was seen as inspired or not - despite it being in Greek? 

Did they ever complain that - it was in error or not worth reading?    Yes, they might have agreed it was not inspired - but in error?  If you are able to link back to that time - sources who were complaining about the Greek text then that would be helpful. 



rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 806
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@Tradesecret
It's too bad that there are no Jewish documents from the time of Jesus whereas there are many Christian ones. 

Judaism doesn't agree. The talmud was written down (using material transmitted orally from well before) in the time right after Jesus' death so there is material documenting Jewish belief and practice from both before and right after the turn of the era. Some of it draws stark contrasts between Jewish practice and non-Jewish practice. As to whether the first Christians were Jews, that is a matter of historical debate ranging from "the first Christians were just a sect of Jews" to "the Christians were ones who abandoned Judaism or were from the gentiles to whom the theology was preached". There is one view within Judaism that has the entirety of the Christian written canon as a Jewish subterfuge. 


It is a little bit like the fact that woman are the first witnesses of the resurrection despite the fact that no one would ever use a Jewish woman to corroborate a story in those times. 

But that, in and of itself, is an error. A woman might not be able to present certain testimony in a court setting but that doesn't mean that a woman couldn't corroborate a story. And none of the material presented was established as being in a proper and formal court setting. Entire concepts such as Jesus' supposed crime, the process and method of the court, the timing and other aspects are all inaccurate. But instead of saying that a preponderance of errors indicates a flawed retelling, people would rather assume that the entirety of the religious and social hierarchy was not following its own laws. If you start based on a misstatement of Jewish law then that might lead you to draw certain conclusions.


I'm not entirely sure what you are saying.  Is there any place where the Sept is considered not accurate prior to Jesus?  I am not asking whether it was inspired - since I would think that it would need to be either Jewish or Aramaic for that to be the case for Jews. I might be wrong about that.  Just saying that in the 21st century Jews would not consider it to be inspired does not necessarily mean that they thought it was in error back in the day.  It was widespread even in the Jewish community in the 1st century.  Why would any Gentile for instance want a copy of a Jewish bible - even in Greek?  The only people who would have needed it or required it were the Greek speaking Jews wherever they were.  The fact that it appears so widespread surely shows a real demand for it.  

The Sept of the prophets did not, according to Jewish understanding, even exist prior to Jesus, so asking about its accuracy in that period is a non-starter. As to what languages are considered inspired, the answer is "the original Hebrew/Aramaic" and "by some, one particular later Aramaic interpretation." That one was allowed to translate into Greek and have the text retain much of its meaning/religious value does not confer any inspiration on any particular Greek translation. We have English translations now and there are many people, Jewish and not, who want copies. This doesn't mean that they are fully accurate or perfect (even the ones put out by religious Jews). In fact, even within the Jewish community there is great argument over the utility and accuracy of various English versions. 

 Many Jews all over the world were wanting the Hebrew text of the Scriptures in their own tongue - which may well have been - and probably was Greek at that time. 

While many spoke Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew were still being used as the languages of Jews.

Why then would Jews only want the Talmud in Greek and not the rest of the OT? 

The Jews didn't want the Talmud in Greek (it is in Hebrew and Aramaic -- if people really wanted Greek, then it would be logical to assume that the language of the corpus of Jewish law would be in Greek -- the fact that it wasn't is rather telling). In fact, the Jews didn't want the first 5 books in Greek either. The translation was not at the people's behest.

And just for the record - can you confirm whether the first five books - the Torah was seen as inspired or not - despite it being in Greek? 

(Religious) Jews saw and see the first five books as divinely written, not just inspired. The prophets and writings are "inspired" in different ways.

Did they ever complain that - it was in error or not worth reading?    Yes, they might have agreed it was not inspired - but in error?  If you are able to link back to that time - sources who were complaining about the Greek text then that would be helpful. 

The translation of the first five books, according to the talmud, was under duress and the translators made a series of changes in the Greek (which rendered their version significantly different from the Hebrew, intentionally). Later discussions about material in the prophets show signs of Christian changes which Jews rejected https://www.biblicalcyclopedia.com/S/septuagint-talmudic-notices-concerning-the.html
(and the site https://ancienthebrewpoetry.typepad.com/ancient_hebrew_poetry/2007/06/the_high_valuat.html which makes reference to the wordpress blog)

also of interest would be https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint (scroll down to "Jewish use")



FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,595
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@rosends
So, When did Jesus stop being Jewish? He never did. From His birth and brit milah, to His life on Earth, to His imminent return and reign as King, Jesus has never stopped being Jewish. Both Jews and Gentiles would do well to remember this. 
Gentiles should never assume God has divorced His Chosen People. Jewish people should not cast Jesus off as a traitor to His people. He never denied the Jewish people, and His message of salvation by grace through faith is for all people, the Jew first and also the Gentile (Rom. 1:16).

Christianity ws made up by the Romans to steal power from the Jews.  One researcher considers that Hitler was Christian at least until the early 1930s, and that he saw Jesus as an Aryan opponent of the Jews.

rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 806
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@FLRW
If Jesus existed and if the stories in teh gospels are to be believed then, sure, it appears that he was Jewish. But so were a lot of other people and, like him (in the stories) some stuck with accepted ritual and practice and some rejected ritual and practice in whole or in part. It is important to remember this as well. 
BrotherD.Thomas
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,145
3
3
7
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
BrotherD.Thomas
3
3
7
-->
@Tradesecret


.
THURSDAY, JUNE 23, 2022


!!!!!!!!!   UPDATE ON MISS TRADESECRET’S COMICAL AND LAME EXCUSES TO RUN AWAY FROM YOUR LOGICAL BIBLICAL QUESTIONS PRESENTED TO HER BECAUSE SHE CAN’T ADDRESS THEM AND REMAIN INTELLIGENT LOOKING IN THE AFTERMATH, “OTHER THAN TO RUN AWAY FROM THEM AS SHOWN BY THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTED EXAMPLES”   !!!!!!!!!!



MISS TRADESECRET RUNAWAY EXCUSE #1: Tradesecret will call you a “bully,” for making her the Bible fool, or for asking questions that she could not answer, even though the questions asked were logically valid and biblically axiomatic!

MISS TRADESECRET RUNAWAY EXCUSE #2: Tradesecret will accuse you of “stalking” her if you repeat more than once why Tradesecret hasn’t addressed your questions in the first place! 

MISS TRADESECRET RUNAWAY EXCUSE #3: Tradesecret will use the ruse of “attacking them personally,” by name calling, which has nothing to do with the questions asked to her. Where the irony is she performs this act as well. Can Tradesecret spell H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E?  Sure she can.

MISS TRADESECRET RUNAWAY EXCUSE #4: she will just go “SILENT” to your questions in the hopes that you will forget about the fact that you presented them to her in the first place!  

MISS TRADESECRET RUNAWAY EXCUSE #5:  she will give you “cutesy” excuses and images to try and take your mind off of the FACT that she is running away again from your valid axiomatic biblical questions! Child-like, but what did we expect. :(

MISS TRADESECRET RUNAWAY EXCUSE #6: Now if you want to make her the continued Bible fool, she “may” answer you if your question or statement to her is “properly presented to her!“ LOL!

MISS TRADESECRET RUNAWAY EXCUSE #7:  She will tell you that you are not interpreting the scripture correctly, even though it is LITERAL in nature. She disagrees with the literal presentation of any passage or narrative that embarrasses her, then she will come up with another ungodly "convenient interpretation" of said verse to make you wrong!
  
MISS TRADESECRET RUNAWAY EXCUSE #8:  She will tell you that what you have found regarding her ungodly and despicable nature is because you have "hacked" into her DA account, and changed her posts to disgusting posts to further embarrass her! Priceless runaway tactic.

MISS TRADESECRET EXCUSE #9: She will divert the attention away from her in failing to prove her point by calling you a “creepy old man or a dunce.”

MISS TRADESECRET EXCUSE #10”:  She will use the term that you “Distract and Attack” to save her from further embarrassment to her outright Bible stupidity and ignorance that has no bounds!

MISS TRADESECRET EXCUSE #11: She will say that she is not answering personal questions even though she at times presents personal things of hers in her posts, like showing us she is an admitted SEXUAL DEVIANT!  https://www.imagebam.com/view/MEBCZRV

MISS TRADESECRET EXCUSE #12:  When you challenge her to a debate like I did, she will  tell you that you argue like a 12 year old girl or boy and have not matured enough, therefore she will RUN away from debating you, because in essence, she can't debate you in the first place!

MISS TRADESECRET EXCUSE #13:  She will tell you that you don’t have a brain and that you are a fake, and you don’t have the background to discuss religion with her. 

MISS TRADESECRET EXCUSE #14:  She will tell you that you look “dumb” and that you couldn’t really grasp the subject matter, therefore she will RUN AWAY from your posst to her and hide. 

MISS TRADESECRET EXCUSE #15:  Zeus forbid if you are an Atheist who outright owns her Bible stupidity, because she'll send up a smoke screen to prevent the Atheist from further embarrassing her regarding the Bible, she will call you names and blanket unwarranted claims about your denying any God.

MISS TRADESECRET EXCUSE #16:  Her computer tells her that she should not open up webpage links it does not recognize that you have posted to her, therefore releasing her from further biblical embarrassment!  LOL! 

MISS TRADESECRET EXCUSE #17:  If you make a derogatory comment to her it is enough for her to not address your question, BUT, she makes these same remarks to other members, can we say HYPOCRITE, sure we can!

MISS TRADESECRET EXCUSE #18: She will call your posts to her as LIES, therefore there is no need for her to discuss your posts, yes, this is true! Can we call Miss Tradesecret the habitual RUNAWAY? Sure we can! 

MISS TRADESECRET EXCUSE #19:  She will tell you that your posts are “not worth it” to respond too, in once again showing her outright Bible ignorance to run away from them!

MISS TRADESECRET EXCUSE #20:  She will tell you that she doesn’t give a “toss” about your stupid ideas of a post you’ve directed to her, again, in running away from it as usual.

MISS TRADESECRET EXCUSE #21:  When she opens a previous link that was directed to her, and after opening it and it showed her that she was wrong in her perceived biblical knowledge, she will tell you that she DID NOT open said post because she could care less in what you proposed!  LOL

MISS TRADESECRET EXCUSE #22:  She will tell you that you don’t have enough “integrity” to take her time in debating you or answer your questions as a little crybaby!

MISS TRADESECRET EXCUSE #23: If she knows you will easily “own her Bible stupidity,” and allegedly you are using a fake personna, she will not debate you or answer your questions, other than to run away and HIDE from them! 

MISS TRADESECRET EXCUSE #24: She will answer questions that she wants to answer, and not other questions that makes her the Bible fool! 



We can only assume that poor ol’ Miss Tradesecret, in being the #1 Bible stupid runaway fool of this forum, at one point will have so many excuses piled up not to address questions posed to her, that she will not be able to be in this forum anymore because the MANY EXCUSES that she has will cause her to be SILENT!  LOL!