Announcement

Collapse

Judaism Guidelines

Theists only.

Shalom!


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

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

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

"Virgin Birth" Questions

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

  • #46
    Originally posted by Avraham Ibn Ezra View Post
    Your first mistake with me is to assume that the NT has truth value for me as a Jew. It isn't a part of my religious beliefs or scriptures so I reject the premise immediately.

    Second, there is no account in the Oral law that reflects this as ever having been said so I reject the validity that he said this at all. Much less that he is making a "prophecy" of any kind. To me, reading the narrative, he was defending the accused and basically telling his accusers that this movement isn't worth their time. He isn't making any type of "prophetic" claim at all.
    No, he was encouraging the Judai and perhaps the whole Israelite council to beat the followers of Yeshu. He made a prophetic claim, and continued to back it up, because he thought God wasn't backing them up.

    Secondly, the oral "torah" has few historical merits for this time, if any. It is just as meaningless to me as the NT is to you.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Omniskeptical View Post
      No, he was encouraging the Judai and perhaps the whole Israelite council to beat the followers of Yeshu. He made a prophetic claim, and continued to back it up, because he thought God wasn't backing them up.

      Secondly, the oral "torah" has few historical merits for this time, if any. It is just as meaningless to me as the NT is to you.
      Your take and my take on those events seem at odds. I am assuming you are referencing Acts 5 and the chief priests and Sadducees that arrested the apostles. Funny I notice the Pharisees defending the apostles and the priests and Sadducees were again them. Gamliel was the head of the Sanhedrin around that time and most respected Pharisee. If he spoke, the Pharisees went with him. The part I would question is the beating part. That makes little sense to me. Hey let's defend them but beat them also. Yeah ok!

      Oh well, what do I care it isn't part of my religion. You may as well include the Koran in our discussions well. Lol

      As for your acceptance of the Oral Torah I don't expect you to accept it and never expected you to accept it as true. From my standpoint it has more value for law and theology than your NT does.
      Last edited by Avraham Ibn Ezra; 05-28-2014, 07:14 PM.
      אברהם אבן עזרא

      Avraham Ibn Ezra

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Avraham Ibn Ezra View Post
        You may as well include the Koran in our discussions well. Lol
        Not at all likely, except to point out how it was made to be a fraud from the start.

        Originally posted by Avraham
        From my standpoint it has more value for law and theology than your NT does.
        While I don't believe it to be factual, I think it has more merit than the Koran. And I do believe there isn't idolatry in the Greek NT.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by Omniskeptical View Post
          He was being pretentious.
          Er, who was?
          "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

          "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

          My Personal Blog

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

          Quill Sword

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
            G-d did not need to make the promises in the first place, as far as I can tell.
            But he did make the promise to Avraham and Sarah and in order to fulfill that promise G-d needed to cause Sarah to not be barren which lead to the birth of Isaac.

            Your question assumes that I accept the premise that there was a “Virgin Birth” in the first place.

            How so? In a barren couple, either the man's seed or woman's seed is missing or not working (in ancient cultures, the problem would have been assumed to lie with the woman). In a virgin birth, the man's seed is missing. I'm fairly certain the G-d who made man out of the dust of the earth and woman from the rib of man would not have any problem doing the relatively minor tweaks necessary for giving a barren woman children or a virgin birth.
            Your analysis is flawed on this matter for the very fact that you leave out certain things

            1. The fact that being barren or infertile is completely natural in human beings. There is no lack of relations between man and woman and, as in this case, G-d needed to cause something to work properly in order for the couple to have a natural conception to fulfill his promises to Avraham. In the case of the biblical text it was Sarah who was Barren, obviously, because if it were Avraham, there wouldn’t have been an Ishmael via Hagar and his later children through Keturah.

            2. The concept of Virgin Birth, especially back in the first century, before, and even now, would have been unnatural and even super natural to the Jewish people. There is a lack of relations between man and woman and G-d would not need to cause something to work properly because everything is already working properly already they, man and woman, just weren’t getting jiggy with it at home.. He simply "says" waalaah! presto! Abra Cadabra! and there is a Virgin Birth.

            As we can see the concept and application of each of these goes well beyond so called “minor tweaks” between them and involves more than just “something missing” as well.

            sure.
            I am assuming that either you understand that these events are completely different despite both being miracles or it was sarcastic. I’ll let you decide.

            Christians, as far as I am aware, do not think that G-d would need to cause a virgin birth based on this verse; they believe that a virgin birth is a possible interpretation of the verse.
            I am not sure how one gets a “Virgin Birth” out of focusing on זרעה (her seed/children) in this verse when you compare it to other usages of the word in the same gender and number with variations in the suffix be it 3rd person singular or 2nd person singular. Just look at the usage of the same word when the Malak HaShem says it to Hagar in Genesis 16:10. The Word used is זַרְעֵךְ (your seed/children) with a second person feminine singular suffix instead of a third person feminine singular suffix as In Genesis 3:15. Does this mean that this can be interpreted as Hagar will have a virgin birth in the future? Of course not!

            With all due respect, you're not asking a question that has any meaning in our worldview. It's like asking someone who believes "the sky is green" the question "Why is the sky purple?"
            I thought this section was a section for discussion of Judaism, its beliefs, and its comparison to Christianity and its beliefs?

            I don’t think your Characterization of my question is accurate. It would be closer to asking someone who believes “the sky is green” the question “why they believe the sky is green?” and “what would cause the sky to be green?” as it would get to the cause for such belief and the reasoning behind the belief.

            We know enough to determine that there were differences between them and between them and the Pharisees (which you tacitly admit with your next sentence).
            We don’t know nearly as much as you may think we do. This is why I asked you to break these beliefs down for me in detail. The fact that you cant tells me that we don’t know as much about these groups as your broad statement indicated. We have literary writings from the Dead Sea Sect but we do not know for certain how they were taught to the community. Volumes of scholarly books have been written speculating on their meaning and conveyance to the adherents but they are only accepted as far as one accepts the premise of the author.

            It is the type of Judaism, as far as we can tell, closest to that adhered to by Jesus, but there were certainly differences. He indubitably thought they were overly concerned with splitting hairs over laws and outward observance.
            In my reading of the NT I don’t see too many differences, IMO. Except for the obvious gentile christian glosses that were probably inserted in the Pauline era or post Pauline era. For example Jesus’ debate about washing of the hands with the Pharisees and then at the end suddenly “declaring all foods clean.” Jesus’ entire debate had nothing to do with whether a certain food was clean or not. The whole theme was “why did your disciples not wash their hands before eating? The end declaration literally has nothing to do with the argument. IMO, there are gaps in what jesus would have said in the NT.

            The rabbis of Talmud and early Judaism constantly criticized each other for hairsplitting and being too strict or too lenient in observance. That isn’t new, it is and was a constant in Pharisaic/Rabbinic Judaism.

            No, I was stating the obvious as the basis for making my point. I was not intending to disparage you or your points.
            Thank you for clarifying

            I disagree with your synopsis somewhat, but it's really beside the point I was trying to make. I would be surprised to find anything in the Oral Torah which supported Christianity because of the long history of opposition between the groups; it's the type of information least likely to be passed down (or, if passed down, disclosed to the opposing out-group).
            There is nothing in the Oral Torah, per se, that would support Christianity as the Oral law is more concerned with Jewish Life and practices than anything else. However there are many bases in the Oral Torah for some Christian Beliefs such as resurrection of the dead, that there is a messianic notion, and a few others.

            This is at least a slight exaggeration; the final parting happened about the time of the bar Kochba revolt about 135 CE. Even after that, the overarching goal in the development of doctrine in normative Christianity was fidelity to the tradition they had received. My weekly service is based on the synagogue service from which it developed (with the Eucharist established by Jesus added).
            I would love to discuss each of these items but not in this thread. It is distracting from the main argument. I admit I embellished a little on that point. Sorry! I should have said slightly less than two millennia.

            That said, I think you missed part of the argument I was making. The gospels (as written, not simply as understood) equate Jesus with "the son of G-d." It is my understanding that this is not a title for the messiah in Judaism, but the gospels presuppose that it is.
            Actually that is a title of the Messiah in Judaism as well as for any King of the Davidic Line. David is called G-d’s son in Psalm 2:7, Solomon in 2 Samuel 7:14. Socially, among the Jewish people in ancient times, all of the anointed Kings were considered the "son of G-d." The problem is how Judaism and Christianity understand this title. Christians tend to feel that this title is more literal while we Jews tend to view it as describing the relationship G-d has with this person as if G-d “adopts” the person as His son.

            If you were ask a counter-missionary about this they would say no because they want to avoid any type of theological association with Christianity which may include terms that are synonymous with both religions.

            I agree. It's especially needed within Protestantism, which largely abandoned its tradition 5 centuries ago.
            From a Jewish perspective Christianity diverged in the time of Paul. Jesus, Jacob (James), Peter, and the early disciples would have been indistinguishable from other Pharisees of their day, IMO.

            As far as I understand, prophecies in general tend to be understood only in hindsight, or tend to be fulfilled in ways that people do not expect. When people experience something unexpected, they tend to search the scriptures for clues as to why. Jesus' rejection and humiliating death were certainly not what the Jews of his day were looking for in a messiah, but it was argued to be shown in the Tanakh afterward (and predicted by Jesus beforehand). The NT texts are replete with references to the Tanakh, and the Tanakh seems to have been the primary text for evangelism well into the 2nd century CE (see Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho (c. 150) and On the Apostolic Preaching (c. 180) by Irenaeus); the NT was written for internal edification, not evangelism. The texts are generally not written written as exegetical tools; Paul's epistle to the Romans and the epistle to the Hebrews are exceptions to the general rule, and neither of those addresses the virgin birth.

            That’s an interesting take. Its not one that I would espouse being in the field of NELC but, it is interesting outlook on how you personally view prophecy. I take the opposite view that prophecies are made and fulfilled in terms that humans understand and in ways that humans understand intellectually. My views are more towards the Rambam (Maimonides) on this matter.
            I agree that texts are not written as exegetical tools but that wasn’t what I was talking about. I was talking about employing exegetical methods in the text itself. For example the Aramaic Targumim to the Tanakh frequently employ exegesis and exegetical methods in its translations except for Onkelos which is more literal but does have some exegetical properties and readings in the text itself.

            An easy good example is Genesis 49:10 which the Hebrew text literally says nothing about משיח (Messiah) but, the Aramaic Targumim do state clearly the term משיחא the Aramaic expression of the Hebrew word משיח and links the passage to the messiah.

            I appreciate that you responded to me, by the way. I'm never sure how a Jew is going to respond to my user name (which was not chosen with interaction with Jews in mind).
            My first reaction as to chuckle and smile. Its kind of amusing.
            אברהם אבן עזרא

            Avraham Ibn Ezra

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Omniskeptical View Post
              Have we failed? The goalpost was changed to make Gamaliel look good and as if we failed. Gamaliel was not a Levite, like Jewish history claims. He was the false prophet though.
              The comment given from Gamaliel was on whether or not Jesus was the Messiah and whether "if" the followers would fail in there mission and as a "new creation" that was blessed by God.

              Quoting:"Our Saviour and Lord, not long after the beginning of his ministry, called the twelve apostles, [185] and these alone of all his disciples he named apostles, as an especial honor. And again he appointed seventy others whom he sent out two by two before his face into every place and city whither he himself was about to come. [186]" website

              Also, in the new testament, and if we're speaking of someone who was not a "truth" or "one" chosen by God,- the position of High Priest was questionable (He was appointed High Priest of the Jews by the Roman procurator Valerius Gratus in about A.D. 18, according to Josephus, a first century Jewish historian (Ant., XVIII, ii, 2). Gratus was the predecessor of Pontius Pilate). Caiaphas was not suppose to be in an authoritative position and given the status of High Priest....I consider that the Messiah during this period of time and considering the circumstances would not have "much" clout, in the first place. So I don't know why the question about the "Messiahship" was up for debate.

              ...although, there was a prophecy that came out of Caiaphas who had expressed this concern when he said that it would better for one man to die than for a whole nation to suffer (John 11:43-50). This was soon after Jesus had raised Lazarus from the dead. Also Caiaphas was also present at the trial of the Apostles John and Peter. He was one of the leaders who questioned the two men about the miraculous healing of a lame man at one of the gates of the Temple (Acts 4:6-7).

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Omniskeptical View Post
                He said the movement would come to no effect, being it was not from God; as though he were on God's side to begin with.
                Gamaliel was not prophesizing but was stating a fact that if the movement was not blessed by God that it would fail. In the same way of the two temples - one temple was made by humans and would not stand (Babylon) and the other was the temple in Jerusalem that was blessed by God. See Psalms 33:

                12Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord, the people he chose for his inheritance. 13From heaven the Lord looks down and sees all mankind; 14from his dwelling place he watches all who live on earth—

                You know when it came to the prophet Samuel, and he had said this correctly and true, this was"no" small thing that the people were asking when they asked to have a King. Also, if the King failed in his duties or if both the King and the people failed in faith and also turned away from the law, they would both fall. In the same way the Gamaliel was testifying toward the apostles. It is a truth that if the followers were not "ordained-blessed" by God and the followers of Jesus continued (and even Paul said it) then everything would be considered futile, then all will come to nothing.

                12But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. 16For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by mitzi View Post
                  Gamaliel was not prophesizing...
                  He then goes on to have the apostles beat; he was betting on weakness, and that was the start of his "prophecies".

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                    As far as I understand, prophecies in general tend to be understood only in hindsight, or tend to be fulfilled in ways that people do not expect. When people experience something unexpected, they tend to search the scriptures for clues as to why. Jesus' rejection and humiliating death were certainly not what the Jews of his day were looking for in a messiah, but it was argued to be shown in the Tanakh afterward (and predicted by Jesus beforehand). The NT texts are replete with references to the Tanakh, and the Tanakh seems to have been the primary text for evangelism well into the 2nd century CE (see Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho (c. 150) and On the Apostolic Preaching (c. 180) by Irenaeus); the NT was written for internal edification, not evangelism. The texts are generally not written written as exegetical tools; Paul's epistle to the Romans and the epistle to the Hebrews are exceptions to the general rule, and neither of those addresses the virgin birth.
                    Well put Mr. Pig.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Omniskeptical View Post
                      He then goes on to have the apostles beat; he was betting on weakness, and that was the start of his "prophecies".
                      Please read:


                      His name is Gamaliel, a renowned Jewish teacher and scholar of the first century. He lived in Jerusalem during the time of Christ and the early church. He is named twice in the book of Acts. Once by the apostle Paul when he reveals he was trained in Jerusalem “at the feet of Gamaliel" (Acts:22:3I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers, and was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day.). The other reference is in Acts:5:33-39 [33] When they heard that, they were cut to the heart, and took counsel to slay them. [34] Then stood there up one in the council, a Pharisee, named Gamaliel, a doctor of the law, had in reputation among all the people, and commanded to put the apostles forth a little space;[35] And said unto them, Ye men of Israel, take heed to yourselves what ye intend to do as touching these men.[36] For before these days rose up Theudas, boasting himself to be somebody; to whom a number of men, about four hundred, joined themselves: who was slain; and all, as many as obeyed him, were scattered, and brought to nought.[37] After this man rose up Judas of Galilee in the days of the taxing, and drew away much people after him: he also perished; and all, even as many as obeyed him, were dispersed.[38] And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought:[39] But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God.

                      where we see Gamaliel, "a teacher of the law held in respect by all the people" is among the Jewish elders who interrogate the disciples and attempt to dissuade them from preaching in the name of Jesus. Gamaliel, based on his advice, does not seem to be as agitated as some. His words are good advice then and now. They speak to taking a long view of history and having patience to judge people and events very carefully.

                      Here is what Gamaliel says to his fellow elders. “Men of Israel, be very careful of what action you intend to take against these men! Remember that some time ago a man called Theudas made himself conspicuous by claiming to be someone or other, and he had a following of four hundred men. He was killed, all his followers were dispersed, and the movement came to nothing. Then later, in the days of the census, that man Judas from Galilee appeared and enticed many of the people to follow him. But he too died and his whole following melted away. My advice to you now therefore is to let these men alone; leave them to themselves. For if this teaching or movement is merely human it will collapse of its own accord. But if it should be from God you cannot defeat them, and you might actually find yourselves to be fighting against God!” (Acts:5:35-39 [35] And said unto them, Ye men of Israel, take heed to yourselves what ye intend to do as touching these men. [36] For before these days rose up Theudas, boasting himself to be somebody; to whom a number of men, about four hundred, joined themselves: who was slain; and all, as many as obeyed him, were scattered, and brought to nought. [37] After this man rose up Judas of Galilee in the days of the taxing, and drew away much people after him: he also perished; and all, even as many as obeyed him, were dispersed.[38] And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought:[39] But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God., Philips Translation).

                      The tail end comment in scripture was the point that I was making along with If God is not behind it, it will fail. When it comes to spiritual works, God must be in the foundation and He must build the structure. Take God as a partner and don’t try to do it yourself when it comes to the things of the Spirit. (being that this is a direct quote from the website) Sometimes - to make a point, you need another (and a more professional one) one who will back up the comments being written.

                      .... And so that you know, the very "fact" that the Christian faith has evolved (and has grown through the Spirit of God) throughout the centuries, it is a testimony to itself (and to refer to Gamaliel point!). Also (and obviously) the community of believers have done so much research, in both the history of the faith and the background of the ancient writings and languages, you would think that "if" something was untrue or mistranslated in the scripture that the scriptures would be revised, which they have been - being that there are various forms of the bible (e.g. NIV addition, King James, Jerusalem bible - based on various Christian sects/dominations). There is so much to learn...to know and to study. I believe (with a strong faith) that God gives to each one of us through his Spirit so that He brings "us all" closer to himself and also to help us stay on the right path.

                      Our Lord said, " Jesus said to them, “Suppose you have a friend, and you go to him at midnight and say, ‘Friend, lend me three loaves of bread; 6a friend of mine on a journey has come to me, and I have no food to offer him.’ 7And suppose the one inside answers, ‘Don’t bother me. The door is already locked, and my children and I are in bed. I can’t get up and give you anything.’ 8I tell you, even though he will not get up and give you the bread because of friendship, yet because of your shameless audacity he will surely get up and give you as much as you need.

                      9“So I say to you: Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. 10For everyone who asks receives; the one who seeks finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened.

                      11“Which of you fathers, if your son asks for a fish, will give him a snake instead? 12Or if he asks for an egg, will give him a scorpion? 13If you then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!”


                      Another Added thought:
                      Gamaliel's Wisdom: see website
                      "What can we take from this short, straight-forward account of a private meeting among men who felt threatened by the growing movement of Christianity?

                      Learn a little history. Gamaliel studied the stories of failed movements within recent Jewish experience. He knew why they failed. He walked his friends through two incidents, reminding them of the failures. Gamaliel knew his history. So should we.

                      Be patient and let the fruits speak for themselves.

                      Time and fruits have a way of sorting things through to the truth.

                      I suggest you add Gamaliel to your list of wise counselors. His wisdom rings true today

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Gee, you really don't know what you are talking about, do you? And please don't copy-paste; it doesn't impress me.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Omniskeptical View Post
                          Gee, you really don't know what you are talking about, do you? And please don't copy-paste; it doesn't impress me.
                          Are you asking if I know what I'm talking about when it comes to the question about the Virgin Birth?

                          1. Why would G-d need to cause a "Virgin Birth?"
                          2. What event/events/issue/issues caused a need for a "Virgin Birth?"
                          3. Is there clear evidence or are there reasons within the Hebrew bible and the Oral Torah for the need of a Virgin Birth to bring the Messiah into the World?

                          The postings answered the questions that you posted.

                          The Virgin Birth - gave the Christians it's bible origins or its beginnings (creation) and the Apostle John states, "17 For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ." so the "why" question (#2) should be seen as being the answer for the "event/events/issue/issues"- . The birth of Jesus was seen as divine (holy) and also stated, "he (God) has made him known". As the Exodus was the beginning of the Jewish nation with the receiving of the Torah and also as to consummate the relationship with God, we were, as Christians, drawn (consumed) to the God through the son. Every steps that were made, as well as in the Exodus, where seen in the new testament writing with Pentecost - manifestation of the Spirit of God.

                          Maybe perhaps you don't understand the weight of your question, yet. It would be like someone asking "why" did God need to use Moses to deliver the Jews out of Egypt - and why did he have to divide the waters for the people to cross the sea of reeds, or to continue to "ask" for food and water (and this being lightly said) or why did you have to go out to the desert to receive the Torah, etc. Moses said it the best:

                          Your eyes have seen all that the Lord did in Egypt to Pharaoh, to all his officials and to all his land. 3 With your own eyes you saw those great trials, those signs and great wonders. 4But to this day the Lord has not given you a mind that understands or eyes that see or ears that hear. 5Yet the Lord says, “During the forty years that I led you through the wilderness, your clothes did not wear out, nor did the sandals on your feet. 6You ate no bread and drank no wine or other fermented drink. I did this so that you might know that I am the Lord your God.”

                          ....with the statement "with your own eyes you saw" but yet the people still doubted. Even with Abraham and Sarah the question was how can a woman being as old as her have a child? However, the angel of Lord said, "Is anything to impossible with God?"

                          quote:

                          17 Abraham fell facedown; he laughed and said to himself, “Will a son be born to a man a hundred years old? Will Sarah bear a child at the age of ninety?” 18And Abraham said to God, “If only Ishmael might live under your blessing!”

                          19 Then God said, “Yes, but your wife Sarah will bear you a son, and you will call him Isaac I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him. 20 And as for Ishmael, I have heard you: I will surely bless him; I will make him fruitful and will greatly increase his numbers. He will be the father of twelve rulers, and I will make him into a great nation.
                          Last edited by mitzi; 06-07-2014, 05:40 AM.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            The virgin birth was a marker of credentials for messiah, and of fatherhood for God. No other god could imitate it, and no other messiah could claim his "birth" to be this way. Virgin Conception, but I don't know about virgin birth, now that I think about it. Few could challenge God and his messiah enough.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Omniskeptical View Post
                              The virgin birth was a marker of credentials for messiah, and of fatherhood for God. No other god could imitate it, and no other messiah could claim his "birth" to be this way. Virgin Conception, but I don't know about virgin birth, now that I think about it. Few could challenge God and his messiah enough.
                              How is a "virgin birth" a marker of credentials in any capacity? Please elaborate.
                              אברהם אבן עזרא

                              Avraham Ibn Ezra

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                A virgin with child can't be faked at all.

                                Comment

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