Jesus is The Christ, not the messiah. The Romans defeated Israel

Paul was from Tarsus, the area where Roman Mithraism was born.

Mithra was The Sun of God who wasn't born from sex, but from a stone, to defeat darkness (in the form of a bull), then he resurrected back to heaven. He brings Righteousness and Healing. Initiation includes bread and wine. Many of these elements are the same in Christianity. Paul never claimed to know Jesus, his family, no mention of Mary or Joseph, his life, miracles, his looks, only that he saw him in a vision. James is called "brother of the Lord", but "btother" is usually used as a metaphor in spiritual circles and James never mentions his life or miracles either. Paul's letters are the oldest Christian writings (besides James, MAYBE). The lifestory of Jesus (Gospels) were written later. If Paul writes his own letters, in his own life time, then why
couldn't Jesus wouldn't that be the best way to remove confusion and make sure the teachings are 100% accurate to Jesus's standards? He could've even talked and had someone else write like some people who couldn't write did back then.


Jews would not accept a man as God, but they COULD accept a Divine human being as a Christ/Messiah who would then be elevated to God-status over time as the Faith develops.

There were Jewish Zealots rebelling against the Roman Empire. Paul teachses to submit to the Roman Empire, so does Jesus

Give to Caesar what is Caesar.
Turn the other cheek.
Pick not up the sword (don't rebell)

The Jews sent Jesus to death.
Romans were forced to kill him.
All food is clean now (no kosher).
We can work and perform magical healings on Sabbath

Forget Saturn, darkness, sabbath, Saturday, Jesus can be honored on The Day of The Sun (Sunday).

The Law (of Moses) is done away with, now Jews and Gentiles can both forget Moses and follow The Law of Christ ( in everything, do unto others as you would have th m do to you).

The temple was destroyed as predicted and rebellions stop , no more animal sacrifices.

Romans my be corrupted human beings too, but The Christ is not.

Ave Christos
Hail The Christ

a reply to: lightofgratitude

'Christ' is from the Greek word meaning 'anointed one' and equivalent to the Hebrew word 'Messiah', which means 'anointed one'.

a reply to: lightofgratitude

Roman Mithraism, which is different to Ancient Persian Mithraism, arose post Christianity.

Instead of suggesting that Christianity borrowed from Mithraism, it is far more likely that Mithraism borrowed from Christianity and was a Roman reaction to the spread of Christianity through the military.

Definitely the Jewish elements of Christianity (virgin birth, suffering saviour, redeemer of all nations) had been codified thousands of years prior to Jesus and Roman Mithraism.

Interesting....leads me quite nicely to suggest you have a read of this old thread one of the rare old threads with 607 flags! The op suggests a very interesting intriguing hypothesis which I think you'll rather enjoy I know I did. A good long worthwhile read for those long dull week-end nights
All Roads Lead To Rome

a reply to: chr0naut

Jews who actually wrote the book and speak the language says that the prophecy doesn't say virgin birth. It says young woman.

Israel has "wrestled against God", and failed.

originally posted by: lightofgratitude
a reply to: chr0naut

Jews who actually wrote the book and speak the language says that the prophecy doesn't say virgin birth. It says young woman.

Israel has "wrestled against God", and failed.

Interestingly, the Septuagint Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures, written 300 years before Christ, translates the word 'almah' Isaiah 7:14 to 'virgin'.

In Hebrew, the word for a wife is 'ishshah' but 'almah' can also refer to a new bride. The difference is in the consummation of the marriage, so 'almah' means a young woman of child bearing age who has not consummated a marriage, i.e: a virgin.

Not only that but the gospels of Matthew and Luke seem to assume that the prophecy was about a virgin birth, too. If they were wrong, surely their contemporaries would have raised an objection.

The reason the Masoretic Jews suggest that Isaiah is not talking about a virgin is that they are deliberately opposed to Christianity. There are significant changes in several places in Isaiah, in post Christian Masoretic texts, when compared against the pre-Christian Septuagint texts.

I tend to think of Jesus as a Messiah. A man filled with the holy spirit. Christ comes from Greek, it has a similar meaning.

a reply to: lightofgratitude

I've always found 1Corinthians 9:19-23 interesting in this regard..

"19 For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win the more; 20 and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law; 21 to those who are without law, as without law (not being without law toward God, but under law toward Christ ), that I might win those who are without law; 22 to the weak I became as weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. 23 Now this I do for the gospel’s sake, that I may be partaker of it with you."

This basically implies that Saul molded his narratives of Jesus to conform to the cultural ideals of different groups in order for them to accept Jesus' teachings. You can argue that most of these groups were steeped in pagan traditions.

Messiah is transliteration of the Hebrew as Christ is the transliteration of the Greek. Both mean "anointed one".

originally posted by: lightofgratitude
Paul was from Tarsus, the area where Roman Mithraism was born.

Mithra was The Sun of God who wasn't born from sex, but from a stone, to defeat darkness (in the form of a bull), then he resurrected back to heaven. He brings Righteousness and Healing. Initiation includes bread and wine. Many of these elements are the same in Christianity. Paul never claimed to know Jesus, his family, no mention of Mary or Joseph, his life, miracles, his looks, only that he saw him in a vision. James is called "brother of the Lord", but "btother" is usually used as a metaphor in spiritual circles and James never mentions his life or miracles either. Paul's letters are the oldest Christian writings (besides James, MAYBE). The lifestory of Jesus (Gospels) were written later. If Paul writes his own letters, in his own life time, then why
couldn't Jesus wouldn't that be the best way to remove confusion and make sure the teachings are 100% accurate to Jesus's standards? He could've even talked and had someone else write like some people who couldn't write did back then.


Jews would not accept a man as God, but they COULD accept a Divine human being as a Christ/Messiah who would then be elevated to God-status over time as the Faith develops.

There were Jewish Zealots rebelling against the Roman Empire. Paul teachses to submit to the Roman Empire, so does Jesus

Give to Caesar what is Caesar.
Turn the other cheek.
Pick not up the sword (don't rebell)

The Jews sent Jesus to death.
Romans were forced to kill him.
All food is clean now (no kosher).
We can work and perform magical healings on Sabbath

Forget Saturn, darkness, sabbath, Saturday, Jesus can be honored on The Day of The Sun (Sunday).

The Law (of Moses) is done away with, now Jews and Gentiles can both forget Moses and follow The Law of Christ ( in everything, do unto others as you would have th m do to you).

The temple was destroyed as predicted and rebellions stop , no more animal sacrifices.

Romans my be corrupted human beings too, but The Christ is not.

Ave Christos
Hail The Christ

Whatever your point was here, I am going to pass on commenting on, something about Zealots, Mithras and an idea this is related to the fact that Messiah is English for the Hebrew word for "Annointed One", which is Mashiach.

That was translated to Christos because Greek was the common language of the Roman Empire and the Gospels written in Greek.

Either way there were other languages than Greek like Syriac, Arabic, where Jesus/Yeshua/Issa was and is the Messiah, Masih in Arabic. Forgive me if I am off on the transliterated spelling.

But even Arabic speaking Christians don't use Christ and use Masih, although Issa is unique to Islam and probably comes from the first half of Isaiah's name, Yesha in Hebrew, which is basically his real name (p).

It's a word, Christ is Messiah, Jesus/Issa/Yeshua is the Messiah pbuh, and he didn't speak Greek. I doubt he was called by his Aramaic speaking disciples, "The Christ."

Maybe you forgot he was Judahite from Galilee? In Judea? Was raised to Heaven in Judea and allegedly crucified in Judea?

In the reign of Pilate, born under King Herod, puppet King of Judea?

To a Judahite mother?

Lived as a Judahite?

I don't think he was called Christ until long after he Ascended to Heaven alive. Seriously doubt it as he didn't live as a Hellenistic Judahite of the dispersion but a Palestinian Judahites.

I see a trend lately of dejudaizing Jesus (p) by claiming his name wasn't Yeshua (Joshua), but actually Jesus, that Aramaic is a language of Babylonian sorcery (because the Talmud was written in Aramaic), even though it was the Phoenician/Canaanites who they learned it from and the language Yeshua the Messiah pbuh spoke.

Because he was a Hebrew Judahite and they spoke Aramaic, his friends didn't know any other languages until Pentacost and were all Judahites.

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: lightofgratitude

'Christ' is from the Greek word meaning 'anointed one' and equivalent to the Hebrew word 'Messiah', which means 'anointed one'.

Always there to state the obvious when someone makes a mistake!

At least here they actually did, although it's the simplest possible response.

The point isn't that Christ means Messiah, although it's important.

It's people trying to take the Jew out of Jesus and not understanding why it is insulting to say he isn't the Messiah but is the Christ.

1. It says that the Messiah of the OT has yet to arrive legitimizing the Jewish cause of waiting for their personal Jewish Messiah when if they wanted they could accept it because the Bible doesn't say "Jesus is God" as John 1 is mistranslated (Tontheon=God Word=theos, different words with different meaning, if the author intended to convey equality, which is denied by Jesus anyway, he would have used Tontheon for both) or "Trinity" and that is the biggest issue.

It's considered idolatry to worship a man, virgin born or not, who said "The Lord OUR God is ONE God worship HIM with ALL your heart", is the "Greatest Commandment."

Who denied being equal to God, ''Only the Father knows."

And only figuratively was referred to as "son of God" as David, too, was "Begotten (this day)" Psalms or Proverbs, I forget but this is quoted at his Baptism in older MSS. of Luke and from Gospel of the Hebrews or Ebionites.

Where the Holy Spirit he calls his (p), "Mother" as figuratively as "Father" in the Greek, as he tells us to obey the Commandments so WE may BECOME "Children of God."

"Our Father" in Heaven, as we should call no man (sorry Paul) "father" as we have 1 "Father in Heaven."

So Jesus pbuh was as anti-Hellenist as it gets, didn't even want his disciples to go out among the nations until the end of his mission when he said to go make disciples of "All nations."

It's not that he isn't the Messiah but isn't the "Christ."

Because he wasn't Greece's Annointed One, he was Israel's. He was made into Christ BY Hellenists like Paul who even in Talmudic literature loves Greek literature more than Torah. "Corrupted the teachings of Yesu."

Acher is an interesting term to call "Pol."

You have the "Acherusuian Lake" of Greek mythology and the "Visio Pauli."

The real lake once named "Acherusia-Polis."

Now go and pretend you know more about these topics I mentioned (as is your m.o.) and Google some irrelevant information to present as relevant so it seems you are rebutting something due to the fact you don't know half of what I just said is even existing information and fact but will pretend you know otherwise anyway!

Because you love to do that for some odd reason as if you only hunt down people for the purpose of "correcting" them and assert presumed superiority of knowledge.

I imagine it backfires quite a bit.

Herod the "Nabatean?"lol.

a reply to: lightofgratitude



For the sake of clarity, what does the military victory of pagan Rome have to do with the title of the Messiah?

It's not like God defeated the Judean revolt because the Romans allowed themselves to be persuaded to execute the Messiah pbuh when according to the Gospel that was the plan from the beginning and war isn't really mentioned as he died before Vespasian and Titus reign or campaign.

In the beginning it was a Judahite and Syrian movement, as far as Armenia and modern Turkey, only later spreading to Rome and much slower than the Church claims.

It wasn't until the 4th century that Rome made it the Universal/Catholic Church of Rome, which would be the death of the Western Empire shortly after and plummeted Europe into the Dark Ages.

There were still Judahite Nazarenes and Ebionites in Epiphanius' day that probably spoke Syriac or Arabic, as many Judeans fled to Mesopotamia and Arabia, Nazarenes or not. Christianity existed in Arabia for certain by that time so it's hard to imagine them using the term "Iesous Christos" when they spoke Semitic languages, Arabic and Syriac.

Syriac is sometimes called "Christian Aramaic."

a reply to: chr0naut


Are you arguing that the Greek version of Isaiah from 3 centuries before Jesus pbuh is something we have access to today and you KNOW FOR A FACT it translated "Almah" to "Virgin"?

I would have to laugh if you actually think you know what the LXX said 3 centuries BC when the oldest extant is from the 4th century!!!

AD!!! 6- 700 years later!!!

Meanwhile the Isaiah Scroll still doesn't say "virgin."

That's from sometime BC AND extant.

PLUS, the only part translated by the legendary 70 scholars was the Pentateuch/Torah, according to scholars both Jewish and not.

FACTUALLY SPEAKING, almah DOES NOT mean virgin.

The oldest extant LXX is Sainaiticus, 4th century.

Oldest Aramaic-Hebrew is the Isaiah Scroll and virgin is ABSENT.

Plus that specific prophecy is applied to the Messiah IN ISAIAH, who is King Cyrus, not virgin born and not Jesus pbuh.

I love debating your comments, you talk like you know so much and can't fathom that you know so little!

Cyrus was called Messiah, that is a fact, for good reason too.

And that passage applies to him, not Jesus, scholars know this, Jews don't use it as a Messianic Prophecy except as fulfilled by Cyrus a different Messiah, they know this.

David also was a Messiah. Jews today expect 2, ben Ephraim and ben David.

I know this and I believe in the virgin birth. I just don't need to lie about knowing what something that doesn't exist said at the time it was translated some 2200 years ago to do it.

Or accept lies like "Almah can mean virgin" when a young maiden(almah) could be a prostitute or a virgin and is what "Almah" means. Young maiden/girl. It doesn't indicate status re: chastity.

Apologists hate to let go so... lie.

It's likely that the RCC is responsible and unlikely that a Judahite MIStranslated Isaiah to "virgin."

But eisegesis like this is what Christians do thinking LITERALLY every OT passage is about Jesus (p), and if you explain that Israel the nation is the suffering servant or that Cyrus was the Messiah of Isaiah they go blank and refuse to listen.

There are Messianic prophecies that apply to Jesus pbuh, but those 2 are abused to be made to refer to Jesus (p), when they never did.

Eisegesis.

Interesting how you "know" what something that isn't extant TO KNOW WHAT IT SAID, said! Must be psychic!

Ask any Jew and they'll tell you Jesus is not the messiah. He didn't bring world Peace or the 3rd temple to make animal sacrifices to kill for their god. Nor did he create a one world Israeli government.


Jesus is not the messiah but he is The Christ.

Jesus Christ is not Jewish. Jesus told The Jews that His Father is different from their father and that is why they could not understand him and wanted to lie and kill him (John 8:40-50).

Some Jews followed Jesus Christ and learned about The True God, God The Father, who only Jesus Christ, The Son, was able to reveal to them (Matthew 11:27)

God is Love and everyone who Loves is Born of God and knows God (1 John 4:7-8).

Jesus Christ is The Perfect Image and Likeness of God (LOVE), none of them knew The True God until Christ revealed him.

Animal sacrifices, revenge, religious arrogance of believing you are chosen and everyone is below you, greed for money and power over others with a one world government, is not of The True God which Jesus Christ is The Perfect Likeness of and have revealed.

originally posted by: lightofgratitude
Ask any Jew and they'll tell you Jesus is not the messiah. He didn't bring world Peace or the 3rd temple to make animal sacrifices to kill for their god. Nor did he create a one world Israeli government.

That's got to do only with their religion.

They expect a xenophobic tyrant, Issa pbuh was of Peace, their loss.

It doesn't negate God's Will which never promised them what they seek.

They get that, it is from Samael. Not God.

I love how that a relatively small religion has the final say in whether or not TWO other religions Messiah is legitimate. In your opinion that is. Brilliant!

Ask any Jewish Christian or Arabic speaking Christian the same question and they will unanimously tell you that Jesus pbuh is the Messiah.

3.5 billion people, the Muslim and Christian population, outnumber a few million Jews by quite a bit.

And do not regard their opinions as relevant.

Funny that you think their opinions effect Islam and Christianity though, absolutely no logic to that! If they didn't reject the Messiah they wouldn't be Jewish. It's not that the Messiah didn't come but that they rejected his message of peace. Still do.

Jesus is not the messiah but he is The Christ.

Jesus Christ is not Jewish. Jesus told The Jews that His Father is different from their father and that is why they could not understand him and wanted to lie and kill him (John 8:40-50).

Some Jews followed Jesus Christ and learned about The True God, God The Father, who only Jesus Christ, The Son, was able to reveal to them (Matthew 11:27)

God is Love and everyone who Loves is Born of God and knows God (1 John 4:7-8).

Jesus Christ is The Perfect Image and Likeness of God (LOVE), none of them knew The True God until Christ revealed him.

Jesus pbuh was Jewish.

How anyone who has the slightest bit of knowledge of Christianity knows this for a fact.

His mother was Judahite. The correct word for the 1st century, that is not debatable, neither is his Judahite Nazarene upbringing, his 12 Judahite Apostles were too obviously.

People like that who say Jesus pbuh wasn't Jewish either are ignorant of facts or hate Jews SO MUCH they deny Yeshua the Israelite Messiah of the Bible, was of the faith he himself claimed to be of!

The Law of Moses wasn't Roman!

God didn't send a Greek to "The lost sheep of the House of Israel!"

They didn't reject him because he was Ethiopian!

They rejected him because he wasn't the tyrant that would destroy Rome on their behalf and wipe the Kittim off the map!

But that was never promised them, they know this. Most Jews today are not what you think they are. They are either Sabbateans or affiliated with through Jewish Freemasonry/Bnai Brit, and, according to Winston Churchill Communism was started by "Largely atheistic Jews."

What he means is not followers of God, but false Messiah Sabbatai Svi, which is their dirty secret.

You have good Jews, but they are not heard as much as the Zionists who have no room for conscience and could care less about the Messiah because theirs already came.

You just don't know it!

"Who says the Messiah has come, doesn't know, and who knows the Messiah, doesn't say."

Modern Jewish proverb.

Finally, what rationalization do you have for denying someone their true heritage?

Jesus pbuh was a Judahite from Galilee, not any other nationality or religion and nobody who wants to be taken seriously would deny such a well known fact except a racist against Jewish people or a person who hasn't heard of Jesus pbuh and thinks you mean his amigo, Jesus Santiago.

a reply to: lightofgratitude


Now "Ask any Jew" is the most futile proposition I've ever heard of!

Would they tell the truth?

All the times they denied the Talmud says what their are plenty with the stones today to confirm it says, THEY LIED!

It DOES say "The best of the goyim should be killed."

That it's "nothing" to have sex with children, give instructions on how to sacrifice them to Moloch but more relevant here is:

"The (Jewish version of the) Messiah will arrive when the world is all good, or all evil."

That was the inspiration behind Svi and later with Jacob Frank and his "salvation through sin" dogma designed to force God to send the Messiah.

By making the world all evil. This is history. And lunacy and the reason the world is all messed up today.

Despite Jesus pbuh saying only God knows, Christian Zionists have been duped EN MASSE to believe helping Israel rebuild Herod's Temple will FORCE GOD to send Jesus pbuh back!!

They REALLY believe they can MAKE God act by building a building!!!

And because Jews aren't stupid they're being taken advantage of and bilked for billions of dollars that WILL NEVER be used for anything but illegal settlements on Palestinian territories.

Because they are not going to get away with demolishing the 3rd holiest site in Islam, it would turn the world against them and not just Muslims. It will be the proverbial straw that broke the proverbial camels back in their endless deception.

I just can't believe ANYONE is uneducated enough to think that a European war gives Ashkenazi Jews (non Semites, the majority today, who are European) or even legitimate Hebrews who already lived in Palestine before it got invaded, occupied and nearly annexed because of something that happened 2,000 years ago.

Ask these people if Spain should be returned to the Muslims, which they had for until 1492, or America to the natives, and you get a blank stare like you are insane.

But Israel was not a country for 2,000 years and Jerusalem forbidden for Jews to enter UNTIL Umar, who built the first Mosque on the Mount, let them return upon capturing Palestine from Byzantium.

So why should the Palestinians have to pay for what Rome or Hitler did when they gave the Jewish people sanctuary for 1400 years in Muslim lands peacefully, and they know it, historians, politicians know it.

People don't because learning is hard.

Learning you have been lied to about everything is harder.

originally posted by: Disturbinatti

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: lightofgratitude

'Christ' is from the Greek word meaning 'anointed one' and equivalent to the Hebrew word 'Messiah', which means 'anointed one'.

Always there to state the obvious when someone makes a mistake!

At least here they actually did, although it's the simplest possible response.

The point isn't that Christ means Messiah, although it's important.

It's people trying to take the Jew out of Jesus and not understanding why it is insulting to say he isn't the Messiah but is the Christ.

1. It says that the Messiah of the OT has yet to arrive legitimizing the Jewish cause of waiting for their personal Jewish Messiah when if they wanted they could accept it because the Bible doesn't say "Jesus is God" as John 1 is mistranslated (Tontheon=God Word=theos, different words with different meaning, if the author intended to convey equality, which is denied by Jesus anyway, he would have used Tontheon for both)

'Word' is translated from 'logos' (Strongs number G3056).

'God' is translated from 'theos (Strongs number G2316).

In the case of John 1:1 it uses both 'ton theon' (the God) and 'theos' (God).

By inserting the Greek transliterations:

"In beginning was the Logos (Word) and the Logos (Word) was with ton Theon (the God) and Theos (God) was the Logos (Word)".

So, i'm not really getting what you are saying. The traditional translations seem fairly accurate to me.

Or, are you suggesting that a definite article has to go before every word, or it must be an indefinite one, like so: "In a beginning..." or "a John". Of course not, that's ridiculous. The writer had already clearly defined that he was talking about "the God", he didn't need to keep repeating it.

or "Trinity" and that is the biggest issue.

It's considered idolatry to worship a man, virgin born or not, who said "The Lord OUR God is ONE God worship HIM with ALL your heart", is the "Greatest Commandment."

Jesus also said "I and the Father are one" and "Before Abraham was, I AM". If you are in any doubt about what Jesus was actually saying there, look at what the Pharisees responded with.

Who denied being equal to God, ''Only the Father knows."

That isn't a denial of being equal to the Father'

And only figuratively was referred to as "son of God" as David, too, was "Begotten (this day)" Psalms or Proverbs, I forget but this is quoted at his Baptism in older MSS. of Luke and from Gospel of the Hebrews or Ebionites.

Where the Holy Spirit he calls his (p), "Mother" as figuratively as "Father" in the Greek, as he tells us to obey the Commandments so WE may BECOME "Children of God."

Where did Jesus explicitly or even implicitly give gender to the Holy Spirit?

"Our Father" in Heaven, as we should call no man (sorry Paul) "father" as we have 1 "Father in Heaven."

Do you think Jesus was negating the law that one must honour their father and mother?

Paul was not calling someone else his father, nor instructing others that he was to be called father. That would be against Jesus words. It is clear from context that he wasn't Timothy's father, nor the father of the Corinthian church but was using metaphor to describe affection.

So Jesus pbuh was as anti-Hellenist as it gets,

What do you base this statement upon?

He conversed with Pontius Pilate, Herod Antipas and an unnamed Roman Centurion. Most probably, they spoke Greek in preference to Aramaic and since many Roman soldiers in the area at the time were actually locally sourced mercenaries, not Romans, Greek was the common language amongst the troops (remember that the Greeks had ruled Jerusalem for some time after Alexander the Great conquered Jerusalem and before the coming of the Romans, which was quite recent historically).

Jesus referred to "Hades", not as a god but as a place of punishment, which is definitely not a Jewish idea, but Greek.

didn't even want his disciples to go out among the nations until the end of his mission when he said to go make disciples of "All nations."

Perhaps that is because He first had to complete His mission of bringing the kingdom, by dying and rising again. His resurrection was at the core of the 'good news' to be spread to the nations. He had to wait until it was immanent to send out the 70.

It's not that he isn't the Messiah but isn't the "Christ."

Because he wasn't Greece's Annointed One, he was Israel's. He was made into Christ BY Hellenists like Paul who even in Talmudic literature loves Greek literature more than Torah. "Corrupted the teachings of Yesu."

Acher is an interesting term to call "Pol."

You have the "Acherusuian Lake" of Greek mythology and the "Visio Pauli."

The real lake once named "Acherusia-Polis."

Why look for some vague inference when the Biblical canon is written quite plainly?

Now go and pretend you know more about these topics I mentioned (as is your m.o.) and Google some irrelevant information to present as relevant so it seems you are rebutting something due to the fact you don't know half of what I just said is even existing information and fact but will pretend you know otherwise anyway!

Because you love to do that for some odd reason as if you only hunt down people for the purpose of "correcting" them and assert presumed superiority of knowledge.

I imagine it backfires quite a bit.

Herod the "Nabatean?"lol.

Petra was within the borders of the old kingdom of Edom but was a Nabatean stronghold. In fact most Edomites had migrated North into Idumea which allowed the Nabateans to claim most of the old Edomite territory prior to Herod's birth.

Herod the Great's mother was a Nabatean princess who lived in Petra.

Why would his father have been called "Antipater the Idumean" if he was living there? Surely he would be most likely to be referred to by that name if he normally wasn't resident in Idumea.

Put two and two together and see if you can guess where was it likely that Herod the Great was born?

The Jewish Messiah is the anti-Christ.

Jesus is The Christ. Not only is Jesus The Christ but he is The Son of God and The Perfect Image of The Invisible God.

Muslims and Jews deny this.

If only Jesus The Son knows The Father God and whomever The Son reveals him to (Luke 10:22), then by rejecting Jesus as The Son/Image of God, they worship another god.

Moses didn't know God The Father, that's why he was a warrior. God said through Jesus Christ His Son and Image, to turn the other cheek and pick not up the sword.

Moses promoted war and the abuse of children (Numbers 31:18).


Jesus didn't promote killing and abuse. He is The Way to a better God (The Father).

originally posted by: Disturbinatti
a reply to: chr0naut


Are you arguing that the Greek version of Isaiah from 3 centuries before Jesus pbuh is something we have access to today and you KNOW FOR A FACT it translated "Almah" to "Virgin"?

I would have to laugh if you actually think you know what the LXX said 3 centuries BC when the oldest extant is from the 4th century!!!

AD!!! 6- 700 years later!!!

But we do have significant partial sources for the Septuagint which supports its veracity. For instance, Ecclesiasticus in its prologue makes note of the the Greek translations of "the Law and the Prophets and most of the Books". Which places their translation well before Christianity. Ecclesiasticus can be accurately dated to 135 BCE.

One of the greatest and earliest supports of the Septuagint over the Masoretic would be the Isaiah scroll from Qumran, which agrees with the Septuagint translation more than the Masoretic.

For instance, In Isaiah 53, the Masoretic has changed all references to "the suffering servant" to plurals, implying that it is speaking of Israel rather than the Messiah. The DSS and the Septuagint show that they are, in fact, not plural.

Also, it would appear that every time the 'Old Testament' is quoted in the Gospels, that the Septuagint is the specific text being quoted.

Meanwhile the Isaiah Scroll still doesn't say "virgin."

That's from sometime BC AND extant.

The gospel writers Matthew and Luke seemed to believe it said "virgin". All the people at the time thought it meant virgin and the translators of the Septuagint some time before thought it meant virgin.

Why did it take 900 years of study for those incredibly bookish and academic Jews to determine that Isaiah might not have explicitly written 'virgin'? Why did those same Masoretic writers pluralize Messianic prophecies so as to obfuscate their true meaning?

PLUS, the only part translated by the legendary 70 scholars was the Pentateuch/Torah, according to scholars both Jewish and not.

Nope, they were only the first parts they translated. As determined by dateable pre-christian texts, the Prophets and the Books were included well before Christianity. Isaiah, as one of the most important prophets would have been translated soon after the Torah.

FACTUALLY SPEAKING, almah DOES NOT mean virgin.

Factually, factually speaking, it is was entirely factually valid to call a factual virgin 'almah' and factual people of the factual time would have understood that you were factually talking about a factual virgin. We factually know this because they factually, repeatedly, did in the gospels and letters. Fact.

The oldest extant LXX is Sainaiticus, 4th century.

Big whoop! The oldest extant copy of the Masoretic text is the Aleppo codex and dates from the 10th century, a mere 600 years later (and it is missing its Torah section).

Oldest Aramaic-Hebrew is the Isaiah Scroll and virgin is ABSENT.

The Isaiah scroll says 'almah' which as explained previously can (and historically, did) refer to a virgin.

Plus that specific prophecy is applied to the Messiah IN ISAIAH, who is King Cyrus, not virgin born and not Jesus pbuh.

Isaiah 7:13-16 was addressed by YHWH to the tribe of David, it refers to a future child who would be called 'God with us' (Emmanuel). I don't think that term was ever applied to Cyrus (whose Persian name means 'young' of possibly 'far sighted').

I love debating your comments, you talk like you know so much and can't fathom that you know so little!

Cyrus was called Messiah, that is a fact, for good reason too.

And that passage applies to him, not Jesus, scholars know this, Jews don't use it as a Messianic Prophecy except as fulfilled by Cyrus a different Messiah, they know this.

David also was a Messiah. Jews today expect 2, ben Ephraim and ben David.

I don't deny that David was annointed, there's a whole bit where Samuel did it and Isaiah 45:1 calls Cyrus "His annointed". But Cyrus doesn't fit other messianic prophecies, which Jesus does.

So which Messiah was Cyrus, the fat one or one of the skinny ones? And why is there a kangaroo? < - (Monty Python reference)

I know this and I believe in the virgin birth. I just don't need to lie about knowing what something that doesn't exist said at the time it was translated some 2200 years ago to do it.

Or accept lies like "Almah can mean virgin" when a young maiden(almah) could be a prostitute or a virgin and is what "Almah" means. Young maiden/girl. It doesn't indicate status re: chastity.

Obviously, Proverbs 30:20 mentions an 'almah' as an adulteress who has oral sex, "wipes her mouth" and then says "I have done no wrong". This is obviously referring to a woman who is a virgin in regard to vaginal sex but is an adulteress in regard to oral sex.

(I seem to remember an American president making similar claims of "I did not have sex with that woman").

The meaning is clear, unequivocal and places clear boundaries on the definitions of terms, written significantly before both Isaiah and Christ.

Apologists hate to let go so... lie.

See, there you go. Exactly as you have done before. Now you are calling me a liar. Talk about predictable.

It's likely that the RCC is responsible and unlikely that a Judahite MIStranslated Isaiah to "virgin."

But eisegesis like this is what Christians do thinking LITERALLY every OT passage is about Jesus (p), and if you explain that Israel the nation is the suffering servant or that Cyrus was the Messiah of Isaiah they go blank and refuse to listen.

There are Messianic prophecies that apply to Jesus pbuh, but those 2 are abused to be made to refer to Jesus (p), when they never did.

Eisegesis.

Interesting how you "know" what something that isn't extant TO KNOW WHAT IT SAID, said! Must be psychic!

I don't need to be psychic (or claim special gnosis) because I accept what is plainly in the text of the Bible and have confidence of the fidelity of most modern translations.

a reply to: Disturbinatti

the name Jeshua is used many time in the preserved word of God it is pronounce with a silent 'J' which is Yeshua. Never is Jesus referred to as Jeshua or Yeshua this is a modern day perversion of the word of God.