Friday, March 12, 2010

Shalmo The Dishonest Debater Part Two

Ok. Let's get down to business.

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.
Are you retarded Shalmo? Do you really think that repeating the same point magically makes it right? Do you have a lose wire somewhere in your head? I'm not Garnel, you give me bull shit I'm gonna let you have it, and here it is.


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.

9 comments:

Garnel Ironheart said...

No, you're not me. You should wish you were but too bad for you.

Anyway, "almah" means young woman. Virgin has nothing to do with that. The Bible consistently used betulah for a young virgin. Almah is used to indicate that she was NOT a virgin, this was not her first time.

Second, messiahship is a matter of inheritance. The Moshiach must be from Beit David through patrilineal linkage. Claiming anything else is changing the rules to fit a new theory and doesn't work.

Third, why are you arguing with Shalmo? You might as well convince JP to go off the derech for the all the good it'll do ya.

SJ said...

>> Anyway, "almah" means young woman. Virgin has nothing to do with that.


In this case it does, Almah means maiden. And as per the Torah, pre-marital sex is chayav mita. Why would God do a miracle for someone who is chayav mita?


Also, the Jewish writers of the Septuagint translated almah into virgin 300 years before Christ.





>> The Bible consistently used betulah for a young virgin.


Not true. Joel 1:8 refers to a betulah with a בעל which means as per Jewish tradition, the marriage was already consummated.




>> Almah is used to indicate that she was NOT a virgin, this was not her first time.


Genesis 24:43 refers to Rebeccah as עלמה at a point that I'm sure it was before she got knocked up by Issac.



>> Second, messiahship is a matter of inheritance. The Moshiach must be from Beit David through patrilineal linkage. Claiming anything else is changing the rules to fit a new theory and doesn't work.


In the verses where the it says the messiah will be a descendant of King David (Isaiah 16:5, Jeremiah 23:5); and nothing more.




Anything beyond that like "Second, messiahship is a matter of inheritance. The Moshiach must be from Beit David through patrilineal linkage. Claiming anything else is changing the rules to fit a new theory and doesn't work" is baseless assumption.


>> Third, why are you arguing with Shalmo? You might as well convince JP to go off the derech for the all the good it'll do ya.


LOL Shalmo is arguing with me. XD

SJ said...

The link for Almah means maiden does not appear to be working so I'm reposting the URL here-

http://morfix.mako.co.il/default.aspx?q=%u05E2%u05DC%u05DE%u05D4

Anonymous said...

Why argue about virgin birth or Paul and James.
Why can't you just believe in Jesus without accepting all the Christian doctrines that go along with him?

Garnel Ironheart said...

You continue to be wrong about Almah but whatever.

The Septuagint is not a reliable text and I'm told there's good evidence the Church altered it to fit their doctrines.

Premarital sex is not punishable by death in the Torah.

Come on, get your facts straight.

SJ said...

>> You continue to be wrong about Almah but whatever.

All I heard was "Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah! I can't here you!!!!!!" XD



>> The Septuagint is not a reliable text and I'm told there's good evidence the Church altered it to fit their doctrines.

Garnel, your own Talmud says that the Septuagint was divinely insipred. XD


>> Premarital sex is not punishable by death in the Torah.


Deuteronomy 20-21: "20But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: 21Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you."




Come on, get your facts straight.

Garnel Ironheart said...

1) The original Septuagint was not Divinely inspired but the 70 sages who wrote it were helped by God to make certain adjustments to the text to prevent Ptolemy from asking questions.

2) The case you brought is of a woman who, while betrothed (which is the first step of marriage in Jewish law) had sex with another man. In other words, she was NOT single at the time so you are, again, incorrect.

I'm sorry, all I heard was "Wah, wah, wah, I'm a dumbass!"

SJ said...

>> 1) The original Septuagint was not Divinely inspired but the 70 sages who wrote it were helped by God to make certain adjustments to the text to prevent Ptolemy from asking questions.


So why would God be ok with rendering Almah as virgin? XD



>> 2) The case you brought is of a woman who, while betrothed (which is the first step of marriage in Jewish law) had sex with another man. In other words, she was NOT single at the time so you are, again, incorrect.


If you read the whole chapter 22 of Deuteronomy 22:20-21 (I forgot to put down the chapter in my last comment), there is no such mention of the stipulation you bring up.


I'm sorry, all I heard was "no cooking an animal in its mothers milk = total separation of meat and dairy and you have to wait a couple of hours in between consuming meat and dairy."

SJ said...

On the reliability of the Septuagint.