"Virgin Birth" Questions

[Avraham Ibn Ezra]

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

So what? That doesn't answer my question.

[Omniskeptical]

So what? That doesn't answer my question.

Fakes are a security problem. How many fake messiahs will the Jews continue to have? It answers your question; you are trolling for something else.

[Avraham Ibn Ezra]

Fakes are a security problem. How many fake messiahs will the Jews continue to have? It answers your question; you are trolling for something else.

So by calling you out on you non answer to my question I am trolling my own thread. That's hilarious!

You assume that a "virgin birth" is
Some sort of credential and I asked you to back it up. all you are doing is giving blanket statements in hopes that I accept the premise. Funny but you still aren't answering the question.

[Omniskeptical]

So by calling you out on you non answer to my question I am trolling my own thread. That's hilarious!

It wasn't a non-answer, stewpid.

You assume that a "virgin birth" is
Some sort of credential and I asked you to back it up. all you are doing is giving blanket statements in hopes that I accept the premise. Funny but you still aren't answering the question.

No, I am expecting you to understand the premise, and I didn't assume. Your king messiahs have always been BarKochbas; there will never be a successful one. Same can be said of the failure of the Akiba messiahs.

[Avraham Ibn Ezra]

It wasn't a non-answer, stewpid.

So I suppose you fancy ad hominem attacks in place of actually answering the question.

No, I am expecting you to understand the premise, and I didn't assume. Your king messiahs have always been BarKochbas; there will never be a successful one. Same can be said of the failure of the Akiba messiahs.

Your premise needs support. That's what I asked for and in response you give blanket statements that are either circular in conclusion or don't really help in supporting the premise.

Um you do know that there was only one Bar Koziba and only one messiah that Akiva supported and that was bar Koziba right? Apparently, according to you there is plurality of Bar Kozibas out there in the year 135CE.

By the way, Rabbi Akiva thought Bar Koziba was the messiah because he was doing things that the messiah was supposed to do see Hilchot Melachim U'Milchmoteihem 11. And when Bar Koziba died, Rabbi Akiva admitted he was wrong unlike other messianic claimants, Jesus and Shabbatai Tzvi, and their followers when their claimant died.

[Omniskeptical]

Your premise needs support.

The existence of the Christian religions supports it, so the son of star's name. Thus my premise doesn't need support; it already has it. I never said there was more than one BarKogba during that short spanse of time.

[Avraham Ibn Ezra]

The existence of the Christian religions supports it, so the son of star's name. Thus my premise doesn't need support; it already has it. I never said there was more than one BarKogba during that short spanse of time.

All you are doing is committing the fallacy of Argumentum Ad Populam. An appeal to the mases, popularity, people, etc. this also and Argumentum ad numerum as well.

I guess your shtick is making empty general statements based on fallacious reasoning. Come back when you can support your empty broad statements.

And yes you did say there were more than one. You specifically wrote "your king messiahs have always been BarKochbas" and "failure of the Akiba messiahs." You seemed to have a plurality in mind when you used the plural each of these times. Are you denying that you wrote this?

[Omniskeptical]

All you are doing is committing the fallacy of Argumentum Ad Populam. An appeal to the mases, popularity, people, etc. this also and Argumentum ad numerum as well.

I guess your shtick is making empty general statements based on fallacious reasoning. Come back when you can support your empty broad statements.

And yes you did say there were more than one. You specifically wrote "your king messiahs have always been BarKochbas" and "failure of the Akiba messiahs." You seemed to have a plurality in mind when you used the plural each of these times. Are you denying that you wrote this?

A messiah who could be anyone is a security risk waiting to happen. The bar "Kochba" credentials are weaker than the uniquely begotten son credential.

[Avraham Ibn Ezra]

A messiah who could be anyone is a security risk waiting to happen. The bar "Kochba" credentials are weaker than the uniquely begotten son credential.

I guess as answers go you are consistent in how you answer or rather you don't answer. See previous post.

A messianic claimant must be a son of David through Solomon to sit on the throne of the kingdom. It isn't just any Tom, Dick, and Harry that can be the Moshiach Ben David. So your concerns are just a tad exaggerated and pretty much irrelevant.

According to Hilchot Melachim U'Milchmoteihem 11, which sums up who and what the messiah son of David is and will do, Bar Koziba actually came closer than Jesus did. But unlike Jesus when Bar Koziba died without completing the job, his supporters admitted they were wrong. Thy didnt start a whole new religion and say he will come back and do the rest.

Also, being called "son of G-d" is not all that unique for kings or even the messiah son of David. In fact King David was called G-d's son in Psalm 2:7 and Solomon was called G-d's son in 2 Samuel 7:14. What you are saying isn't profound. What is profound is how you interpret "son of G-d" as a literal thing. It amazes me sometimes.

With all of that said I still don't see how this would cause a need for a virgin birth!

[Omniskeptical]

I guess as answers go you are consistent in how you answer or rather you don't answer. See previous post.

A messianic claimant must be a son of David through Solomon to sit on the throne of the kingdom. It isn't just any Tom, Dick, and Harry that can be the Moshiach Ben David.

The sons of God are not human, even Adam and Jesus, and what you said means any Tom, Dick, or Harry can be the Messiah Ben David, if he has a fake ID. So I find your claims amusing.

With all of that said I still don't see how this would cause a need for a virgin birth!

God did not want a pretender who could be anybody.

[Avraham Ibn Ezra]

The sons of God are not human, even Adam and Jesus, and what you said means any Tom, Dick, or Harry can be the Messiah Ben David, if he has a fake ID. So I find your claims amusing.

Funny the scriptural references disprove your claim concerning "son of G-d" and all I get in return is another broad empty statement.

Apparently you missed the part about the criteria and the location of the criteria. If you don't meet the criteria it means you aren't messiah. Of course I anticipated you not reading that little but because if you did you wouldn't have made this naieve statement.

God did not want a pretender who could be anybody.

Scriptural proof that G-d needed to cause a "virgin birth" because he didn't want a pretender. Your proof must state he did it because he don't want a pretender otherwise you are eisegeting the text. I won't hold my breath.

[Omniskeptical]

Funny the scriptural references disprove your claim concerning "son of G-d" and all I get in return is another broad empty statement.

Apparently you missed the part about the criteria and the location of the criteria. If you don't meet the criteria it means you aren't messiah. Of course I anticipated you not reading that little but because if you did you wouldn't have made this naieve statement.

Your criteria is crock and has been for at least 19 centuries.

Scriptural proof that G-d needed to cause a "virgin birth" because he didn't want a pretender. Your proof must state he did it because he don't want a pretender otherwise you are eisegeting the text. I won't hold my breath.

It doesn't have to, and God doesn't care anymore the Jews than any other people on the planet. Why is him being the son of God so important in the NT? Oh, I am sorry, you believe in a smaller canon which also has history gaps concerning Israel.

[Avraham Ibn Ezra]

Your criteria is crock and has been for at least 19 centuries.

So your answer is call it a "crock" with no substantiation as to why and to disparage the Jewish people. Awesome! You almost won with that one.....almost!

It doesn't have to,

Sure it does otherwise you are making stuff up. Evidence please.

and God doesn't care anymore the Jews than any other people on the planet.

Did G-d lie in Jeremiah 31:35? As far as I can tell we are still here.

Why is him being the son of God so important in the NT?

Because being called "son of G-d" is what the kings of Israel are called see Psalm 2:7 for David being called G-d's son and 2 Samuel 7:14 for Solomon being called G-d's son. . The NT narrative is trying to establish his claim to the throne of David. This isn't rocket science,

Oh, I am sorry, you believe in a smaller canon which also has history gaps concerning Israel.

Since you love making broad empty statements just like this one. Can you name those gaps and cite where these gaps are in the Tanakh? I won't hold my breath on this.

Also, I follow the cannon. Judaism is not sola scriptura and I doubt you know the first thing about Judaism to argue to the contrary.

[Teallaura]

Av, did God need to make Sarah bear Isaac in her old age?

[Avraham Ibn Ezra]

Av, did God need to make Sarah bear Isaac in her old age?

Shouldn't you have asked "Did G-d need to cause Sarah to bear Isaac in her old age?" That would be a comparable question to mine. You might want to re-read my OP very carefully. Your question and my initial question are not the same.