In Shalmo's comment of March 11, 2010 11:27 PM in the previous thread, Shamo says
- No where do the messianic prophecies mention a virgin birth (isaiah 7:14 has to do with Ahad wife who already was pregnant, hence the past tense of the almah is pregnant is used). So if the messiah was to come from a female line then the Tanakh should support that. The writer should have said since the messiah is virgin both, his mother's line will be used. But as I said, female successorship does not exist in semetic religions
OMG. Wow, such amazing insight. Shalmo is a regular scholar who belongs in Harvard. Right? Wrong.
I've already begun to answer Shalmo in the previous thread by saying
- And I'm glad you brought up Isaiah 7:14 so that you can get the smothering of a lifetime.
The word alma means maiden, a young unmarried woman, which as per Deuteronomy, pre-marital sex is disallowed, so it can mean virgin also.
DO YOUR OWN HOMEWORK SHAMLO.
It gets better.
Shalmo says, "isaiah 7:14 has to do with Ahad wife who already was pregnant, hence the past tense of the almah is pregnant is used"
Isaiah 7:14 obviously can't be Ahad's wife since we established that almah inherently means virgin due to the context of the Tanach. Now, here Shalmo actually makes up some bull shit and says almah in the past tense is used.
Moron, עַלְמָה (maiden/virgin) IS A NOUN!!!!!!!!!! וְיֹלֶ֣דֶת (she shall beget) IS THE VERB!!!!!!!!!!!
Shalmo you think you are so smart but what you really know falls short of what you think you know.
In the previous thread Shalmo, you also say ...
- SJ inheritance is always patrilineal in semetic religions and as I tried explaining to you matrilineal descent only was invented with the so-called Oral Torah which you reject.
MESSIAHSHIP IS NOT AN ISSUE OF INHERITANCE!!!!!!!!!!!! MESSIAHSHIP IS CHOSEN BY GOD ALONE.
You then repeat Shalmo "I say it again the Zelophad story does not count. It had to do with property, not with messianic inheritance." To which I said for the second or third time already, "THERE ARE NO SEPARATE INHERITANCE LAWS (that I know of, I'm not an expert) FOR PASSING DOWN THE MONARCHY AND FOR PASSING DOWN PROPERTY."
I also said "If messianic title is property ownership, then the Zelophehad issue is relevant. If messianic title is not property ownership, then you can't use inheritance laws to argue against it."
Somehow Shalmo, you seem to think that if you repeat something, it magically makes your point valid. IT DOESN'T!!!!!! STOP BEING A MENTAL CASE!!!!!!!!!
In the last part of your March 11, 2010 5:51 pm post in the previous thread Shalmo, you REPEAT REPEAT REPEAT, "And yes there is a significant variance between Jesus, Peter and James who teach a religion of both faith and works and Paul who teaches a religion of faith alone. Attempts to reconcile the opposing messages of Paul and James are as ad-hoc as things get"
THERE YOU GO AGAIN THINKING YOU CAN MAGICALLY MAKE PRONOUNCEMENTS TO TRY TO WHITEWASH FACTS.
As I said before, in Titus 3:14, Paul says, "Let our people also learn to maintain good works, to meet urgent needs, that they may not be unfruitful."
Look, Shalmo, I'm not Garnel. If you are gonna come up to my blog and argue bull shit, I'm gonna treat you the way I treated the religiosos who came to my blog and argued bull shit while I was a wavering agnostic/atheist.