"Virgin Birth" Questions

[robrecht]

What do you think of Isaac Luria's Tzimtzum mysticism? I could probably guess, but I would love to hear your thoughts.

[Avraham Ibn Ezra]

What do you think of Isaac Luria's Tzimtzum mysticism? I could probably guess, but I would love to hear your thoughts.

If you want a good look into where I primarily line up read Maimonides. I'm not 100% Maimonides only but primarily I am.

As far as kabbalistic shtuyot is concerned I do not read it and avoid it like the plague. It is pure nonsense to me. It makes complicated what is otherwise not logically.

Hope this answers your question.

[robrecht]

If you want a good look into where I primarily line up read Maimonides. I'm not 100% Maimonides only but primarily I am.

As far as kabbalistic shtuyot is concerned I do not read it and avoid it like the plague. It is pure nonsense to me. It makes complicated what is otherwise not logically.

Hope this answers your question.

Yes, and that's what I expected, but was struck by the language of 'self-limiting'.

[Omniskeptical]

Read 2 Samuel 7:8-15. It actually does. If this is your only argument then please exegete the passage and prove what I said incorrect.

No, the burden of proof is on you.

2Sa 7:14 ESV

"I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son... "

It doesn't sound like real sonship to me.

[Avraham Ibn Ezra]

No, the burden of proof is on you.

2Sa 7:14 ESV

"I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son... "

It doesn't sound like real sonship to me.

In any debate it is the job of the negative to provide a contrary to the affirmative while disproving the affirmative claim as untenable. Each part of the debate both affirmative and negative have their roles. There is as much burden of proof on a negative as there is an affirmative. All you are doing, boiled down, is saying "Nuh uh" with little support so it begs the question.

So please exegete the passage and show how I am wrong. The passage says "He shall be my son" how is that not calling Solomon his son? There is corresponding evidence that is paralleled in 1 chronicles 22:9-11 that explicitly says it is about Solomon. As I stated, being called a "son of G-d" is merely another title of a king of the line of David. This is NOTHING special.

1 Chronicles 22:9 Behold, a son shall be born to thee, who shall be a man of rest; and I will give him rest from all his enemies round about; for his name shall be Solomon, and I will give peace and quietness unto Israel in his days. 10 He shall build a house for My name; and he shall be to Me for a son, and I will be to him for a father; and I will establish the throne of his kingdom over Israel for ever. 11 Now, my son, the LORD be with thee; and prosper thou, and build the house of the LORD thy God, as He hath spoken concerning thee.

[Omniskeptical]

The passage says "He shall be my son" how is that not calling Solomon his son? There is corresponding evidence that is paralleled in 1 chronicles 22:9-11 that explicitly says it is about Solomon. As I stated, being called a "son of G-d" is merely another title of a king of the line of David. This is NOTHING special.

Your second verse does nothing for me again. 1 Chronicles 22:10 οὗτος οἰκοδομήσει οἶκον τῷ ὀνόματί μου καὶ οὗτος ἔσται μοι εἰς υἱὸν κἀγὼ αὐτῷ εἰς πατέρα. ".. A same will be to me thus the son, and myself to him thus the father." Even in the koine greek, the passage suggests future eternal life, not sonship. Solomon was not begotten by G-d. Thus calling him a son of G-d is ridiculous.

[Avraham Ibn Ezra]

Your second verse does nothing for me again. 1 Chronicles 22:10 οὗτος οἰκοδομήσει οἶκον τῷ ὀνόματί μου καὶ οὗτος ἔσται μοι εἰς υἱὸν κἀγὼ αὐτῷ εἰς πατέρα. ".. A same will be to me thus the son, and myself to him thus the father." Even in the koine greek, the passage suggests future eternal life, not sonship. Solomon was not begotten by G-d. Thus calling him a son of G-d is ridiculous.

and he will be a son to me, and I will be a father to himhttp://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/editi...suppl-nets.pdf

Either way I think you are just trolling now and purposely not answering my questions. Let's see if you can answer the above in any capacity beyond "Nuh uh."

[Omniskeptical]

and he will be a son to me, and I will be a father to himhttp://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/editi...suppl-nets.pdf

Either way I think you are just trolling now and purposely not answering my questions. Let's see if you can answer the above in any capacity beyond "Nuh uh."

There are prepositions before father and son in the Hebrew and the Greek, which nullify your hypothesis. It reads identically as a process. Solomon was not a human son of G-d; yesterday, G-d did not beget him. So why do persist in your retarded reasoning? You know what it looks like literally.

[Avraham Ibn Ezra]

There are prepositions before father and son in the Hebrew and the Greek, which nullify your hypothesis. It reads identically as a process. Solomon was not a human son of G-d; yesterday, G-d did not beget him. So why do persist in your retarded reasoning? You know what it looks like literally.

Spoken like a true amateur when it comes to Hebrew. The particle/preposition ל in Biblical Hebrew can denote many things. Like you said it functions as a preposition meaning to/toward/upon. It also function as a note of allative spatial set meaning in situations like this it denotes a type of possession and in this case it also denotes the indefiniteness of the noun and the object of the verb להיות. There is more going in here than a simple "there are prepositions." Here are some examples.

Ecclesiastes 2:16

דודי לי ואני לו My beloved is mine and I am his.

1 Samuel 16:18

ראיתי בן לישי I saw a son of Jesse.

The same concept is here in 2 Samuel 7:14 and in 1 chronicles 22:10 in it usage of ל. I have more examples of usage.

I noticed you didn't address anything I said nor the translation provided. I can safely say that you are now trolling! Am sure there us an ignore function I think I will use it.


P.S. I noticed your phrase "retarded reasoning." The only thing you have done is prove yourself incapable of debating this text by answering arguments. I see empty statements with no substance.

[Omniskeptical]

The same concept is here in 2 Samuel 7:14 and in 1 chronicles 22:10 in it usage of ל. I have more examples of usage.

And the usage still doesn't prove your point. Saying, "He will be mine, the son, and myself to his, the father" doesn't prove Solomon had the "title".. son of G-d. Are you going to swear that David and Solomon are uniquely begotten by G-d as well. There is biological statement or physical connection of sonship and fatherhood during the humanhood of these man. A relation with G-d is the only thing you can prove. Why waste time on the English, when I have both biblical languages to use."

I noticed you didn't address anything I said nor the translation provided.

The only thing you have done is prove yourself incapable of debating this text by answering arguments. I see empty statements with no substance.

I see lame contentions, sonships that were and are non-existant in human life. You are lying to me, because you know David and Solomon didn't have real sonship υιος.

[Omniskeptical]

Spoken like a true amateur when it comes to Hebrew. The particle/preposition ל in Biblical Hebrew can denote many things. Like you said it functions as a preposition meaning to/toward/upon. It also function as a note of allative spatial set meaning in situations like this it denotes a type of possession and in this case it also denotes the indefiniteness of the noun and the object of the verb להיות. There is more going in here than a simple "there are prepositions." Here are some examples.

Say what you will, but the lamed is also on the Hebrew word for father and son, thus implying only action where one is the father or the son is true, not the actual physicality which would be absurd. So, "He will be with me with the son's doing; and I with him with the father's doing." It get rather complicated because the indefinite article of Hebrew is not used here. And considering that you don't believe the English makes them related; I have been more than tolerant of your trolls.

[Avraham Ibn Ezra]

Say what you will, but the lamed is also on the Hebrew word for father and son, thus implying only action where one is the father or the son is true, not the actual physicality which would be absurd.

Huh? This literally makes zero sense as far as the grammar of the verse. So what if the ל in on both אב and בן. You are just creating your own strawman based on zero learning in Hebrew. I can make assumptions about languages I don't know too and still get called out by people who do know them.

So, "He will be with me with the son's doing; and I with him with the father's doing."

What verse are you supposedly translating? Lol it isn't either 2 Samuel 7:14 or 1 Chronicles 22:10.

It get rather complicated because the indefinite article of Hebrew is not used here.

Rofl! Please do tell us what that "indefinite article" is in Hebrew! Hahahahahahaha! That was the best laugh I've had all week!

Hint there is no such thing a indefinite article in Hebrew like we have with the definite article. The definite article "ה" is represented but the way we know the word is indefinite it through usage and the nikudot used in the word. Amateurs like you, and you proved it by the way, wouldn't know this. Pick up your concordance and take google translate with you as you exit.

And considering that you don't believe the English makes them related;

What are you talking about? Please be more specific

I have been more than tolerant of your trolls.

This is amusing. I call you out on trolling and when i call you out on it you come back and say I'm trolling you for it. That absurd and ridiculous!

[Avraham Ibn Ezra]

And the usage still doesn't prove your point. Saying, "He will be mine, the son, and myself to his, the father" doesn't prove Solomon had the "title".. son of G-d.

First you are definitely an amateur in Hebrew. Not even the first year students that I teach would make this mistake in translating אהיה לו לאב and יהיה לי לבן.

Second he just called Solomon, in both verses, His son. If G-d says that it would make Solomon a son of G-d. David was called this, Solomon was called this and so on.

Are you going to swear that David and Solomon are uniquely begotten by G-d as well.

I don't know why you are creating a strawman here. The phrase "son of G-d" has never meant that G-d gave birth to anyone. The idea of G-d giving birth or impregnating a person with a "mini or Demi-god" is absurd and foreign to Judaism.

A relation with G-d is the only thing you can prove. Why waste time on the English, when I have both biblical languages to use."

From what I can tell your best friend is google translate. I highly doubt you know much if anything at all about Hebrew and Aramaic based on the way you "translate" things above and in other posts. You are a complete amateur with Hebrew and I could tell because you had literally no clue what I was talking about concerning the use of the ל in Biblical Hebrew. So don't pretend to know things that you don't.

I see lame contentions, sonships that were and are non-existant in human life. You are lying to me, because you know David and Solomon didn't have real sonship υιος.

I have backed all of my assertions. Your answers are consistent "nuh uh" with an amateur google translate attempt at arguing the Hebrew which you are clueless about. Not even a first year student would argue what you are arguing. Your lack of knowledge on how "indefinite articles" are represented in Hebrew and translated into English is laughable!

You accuse me of lying here which is not unexpected from the losing end of this debate. Substantiate that claim. Name one lie and prove it!

I gave three verses that show G-d calling David and Solomon His son. All you continually say is "nuh uh" while trying to argue about a language that you know nothing about. It laughable. Go play with the rest of the children and let the adults speak.

[Omniskeptical]

First you are definitely an amateur in Hebrew. Not even the first year students that I teach would make this mistake in translating אהיה לו לאב and יהיה לי לבן.

Second he just called Solomon, in both verses, His son. If G-d says that it would make Solomon a son of G-d. David was called this, Solomon was called this and so on.

But he isn't called the son of God ever anywhere else. Where's the proof, and where is the proof in hebrew?

I don't know why you are creating a strawman here. The phrase "son of G-d" has never meant that G-d gave birth to anyone. The idea of G-d giving birth or impregnating a person with a "mini or Demi-god" is absurd and foreign to Judaism.

I didn't say Yeshu was god, but that he was uniquely begotten, which Solomon isn't.

From what I can tell your best friend is google translate. I highly doubt you know much if anything at all about Hebrew and Aramaic based on the way you "translate" things above and in other posts. You are a complete amateur with Hebrew and I could tell because you had literally no clue what I was talking about concerning the use of the ל in Biblical Hebrew. So don't pretend to know things that you don't.

You still haven't made the case for authentic sonship of Solomon. God certainly did not beget him, though I do admit the lamed brings out the verbal attributes of the nouns, and it communicates intended action, instead of actual action. "I will be to him to be the father..."

I have backed all of my assertions. Your answers are consistent "nuh uh" with an amateur google translate attempt at arguing the Hebrew which you are clueless about. Not even a first year student would argue what you are arguing. Your lack of knowledge on how "indefinite articles" are represented in Hebrew and translated into English is laughable!

Definite names don't carry the article, thus the Hebrew article is indefinite. That's not laughable.

You accuse me of lying here which is not unexpected from the losing end of this debate. Substantiate that claim. Name one lie and prove it!

You know the Hebrew kings were not called sons of God. If it isn't a lie, it is very self-delusional on your part.

I gave three verses that show G-d calling David and Solomon His son. All you continually say is "nuh uh" while trying to argue about a language that you know nothing about. It laughable. Go play with the rest of the children and let the adults speak.

There were only 2. The other one would either be about Israel-- absurd, or Yeshu.

[Avraham Ibn Ezra]

But he isn't called the son of God ever anywhere else. Where's the proof, and where is the proof in hebrew?

יהיה לי לבן perhaps you missed this part in both verses.

I didn't say Yeshu was god, but that he was uniquely begotten, which Solomon isn't.

I never said Jesus was god and I certainly didn't say you did either. You are creating another strawman.

You still haven't made the case for authentic sonship of Solomon. God certainly did not beget him, though I do admit the lamed brings out the verbal attributes of the nouns, and it communicates intended action, instead of actual action. "I will be to him to be the father..."

Hey you learned about Wikipedia! I'm almost impressed.

I have more than made my case. 2 Samuel 7:14 and 1 chronicles 22:10 both of which call Solomon G-d's son which you fail to exegete to show contrary beyond an "attempt" to translate the Hebrew which you did even worse here this time than before. The verse as you translate above would have to say אהיה לו להיות האב and it doesn't say that. Give up while you can!

Definite names don't carry the article, thus the Hebrew article is indefinite. That's not laughable.

Rofl! There are no definite names in the phrase אהיה לי לאב והוא יהיה לי לבן. Your whole argument about definite name being here is a joke. You truly are an amateur with Hebrew.

You know the Hebrew kings were not called sons of God. If it isn't a lie, it is very self-delusional on your part.

I gave two verse that prove you wrong. Your "nuh uh" approach is amusing. Still you haven't shown a lie anywhere or substantiated anything.

There were only 2. The other one would either be about Israel- absurd, or Yeshu.

Apparently you don't read the posts. Psalm 2:7 was cited previously. I don't see how Israel was mentioned in any of them. Maybe you can copy, past, highlight, underline, and italicize the word ישראל in any of the verses I gave. If you want me to give another Israel was called called G-d's first born in Exodus 4:21.

Your entire argument is absurd. You don't know Hebrew and you are just trolling.