/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.15233289]

Catholics of /lit/, was Fulton Sheen a hack?

[Anonymous No.15233358]

>>15233289
No, that would Hans Kung

[Anonymous No.15233362]

>>15233289
no, he was pretty based

[Anonymous No.15233370]

>>15233289
No, I genuinely love this man. Bless his soul, and please don't dirty his good name.

Btw, not a Catholic. But Fulton Sheen more than anyone else got me the closest to converting. If more Catholics were like Sheen I might have actually converted.

[Anonymous No.15233383]

I watched his video on Dostoevsky and he seemed to misunderstand or at least try to pigeonhole him into his own beliefs

[Anonymous No.15233460]

>>15233383
what he did?
Because dosto was deeply religious

[Anonymous No.15233532]

His shoes target audience was teenagers, so of course this board would love him

Too braindead to read an actual book, just enough brain to watch a tv show for teenagers

[Anonymous No.15233852]

>>15233289

Do not address your prompt only to Catholics as if they are the only ones capable of answering the question well, because they aren't.

[Anonymous No.15233867]

>>15233289
He was a great man and a great speaker.

[Anonymous No.15233868]

>>15233289
The question seems a little vague, and I don't think I understand. Could you be more specific?

[Anonymous No.15233966]

>>15233289

I'm not even Catholic but I honestly love this man and his message. He ought to be canonised. Even if you dislike his message and beliefs, you should watch his broadcasts just to see what really, truly powerful oration looks like.

He's also pretty based with his Shakespeare and Dostoevsky (not in the cringe Peterson sense), and actually seems to predate Bloom's "invention of the human" stuff, as it respects the former.

[Anonymous No.15234797]

>>15233289
No, he was extremely based

He wasn't as good when talking off the cuff, but give him something prepared and he was the probably the last public Church figure that could have converted people just by speaking

[Anonymous No.15235091]

>>15234797
>he was probably the last public Church figure that could have converted people just by speaking
I take it you haven't heard of Bishop Robert Barron.

[Anonymous No.15235104]

>>15233370
I didn't intend to dirty his name. I asked because he seems fascinating but I'm always a little skeptical of public figures.

[Anonymous No.15235123]

Sheen is based . "Hearing nuns' confessions is like being stoned to death with popcorn"

[Anonymous No.15235501]

>>15233289
he was a great man

[Anonymous No.15235510]

>>15235091
Barron is a terrible orator. He has mass appeal because he makes short videos that are easy to understand.

[Anonymous No.15235533]

what is your favorite speech? for me it's "the woman i love"

[Anonymous No.15235653]

>>15233289
He was gay

[Anonymous No.15236148]

>>15233289
I would really recommend Fulton Sheen's 'life is worth Living' series, for anyone who's interested. It's a series of audio recordings which take a deeper dive into the faith and are aimed at an older audience. They were a real influence in the development of my own faith and many others.

[Anonymous No.15236168]

>>15233289
no hes actually pretty cool

[Anonymous No.15236238]

>>15233289
who?

[Anonymous No.15236258]

>>15233532
Negating this post with cringe.

[Anonymous No.15236316]

>>15233289
How do I learn to articulate myself like he did?

[Anonymous No.15236329]

Everyone's talking about his TV show, but let's not forget his books too (The World's First Love, The Priest Is Not His Own). He writes very good popular theology, and some of his insights have stayed with me to this day, which is something I can't say of many other pop-theologists.

[Anonymous No.15236330]

Is the art of Oratory basically dead?

[Anonymous No.15236337]

>>15236330
Read any speech from the 19th ce and compare it to now. Yes.

[Anonymous No.15236650]

>>15236330
>>15236337
if only one person could master the art, the world would be his oyster.

[Anonymous No.15236692]

>>15236650
The masses would still prefer a Trump.

[Anonymous No.15236770]

>>15236692
>implying Trump isn't a master orator

[Anonymous No.15236797]

>>15236770
I'll outright state it, he's a retard.

[Anonymous No.15237129]

>>15236316
This. I need to know, anons

[Anonymous No.15237467]

>>15233289
I agree with a lot of his ethical views, but I cringe at everything that involves Jesus. I don't give a shit about a Jew from the deserts.

[Anonymous No.15237542]

>>15237467
cringe

[Anonymous No.15237548]

>>15237542
>t. shabbos goy in denial

[Anonymous No.15237594]

>>15237548
>shabbos goy
Unironically speaking, modern 'Israelites' known as 'Jews' have long become goys (one of the nations) by adopting cringe pagan practices like associating sephirot as partners to God and believing in reincarnation and emanations. Anywhere the Holy Bible mentions the goyim you could just substitute in 'modern rabbis' and it still makes sense.

[Anonymous No.15237621]

>>15237467
>I don't give a shit about a Jew from the deserts.
>NOOOO THE ETERNAL WORD OF GOD CANT JUST FRICKIN INCARNATE AS A JEW THATS ANTISEMITIC!

[Anonymous No.15237622]

>>15236770
He had good dictation in the 80s.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nAgJAxkALyc
Not now. I think that reflects more on society than Trump himself, though. The Internet has turned everyone into pathos driven dimwits who can only understand ideas which are 200 characters or less.

[Anonymous No.15237632]

>>15237594
>like associating sephirot as partners to God
christcuck lies no.1
> believing in reincarnation and emanations
they believe if a child died before reaching adulthood and before having the full mental capacity to choose between Good and Evil, he/she is reincarnated to live a full and choose. it's not the same as hindu or buddhist reincarnation, christcuck lie no.2
> Anywhere the Holy Bible mentions the goyim you could just substitute in 'modern rabbis' and it still makes sense
substitute? you dare to change the word of God? I mean I know the new testament is full of substitution and straight corruptions from the Hebrew bible but come on. christcuck lie no.3

[Anonymous No.15237647]

>>15237632
>>like associating sephirot as partners to God
>christcuck lies no.1
>> believing in reincarnation and emanations
>they believe if a child died before reaching adulthood and before having the full mental capacity to choose between Good and Evil, he/she is reincarnated to live a full and choose. it's not the same as hindu or buddhist reincarnation, christcuck lie no.2
>> Anywhere the Holy Bible mentions the goyim you could just substitute in 'modern rabbis' and it still makes sense
>substitute? you dare to change the word of God? I mean I know the new testament is full of substitution and straight corruptions from the Hebrew bible but come on. christcuck lie no.3

[Anonymous No.15237660]

>>15237632
>they believe if a child died before reaching adulthood and before having the full mental capacity to choose between Good and Evil, he/she is reincarnated to live a full and choose.
lmao. no. they literally believe that a Jew will keep on reincarnating until he fulfills all of the 613 mitzvot. it doesn't matter either way, preexistence of souls in any form is a pagan goy belief.

[Anonymous No.15237667]

>soijacks are the last resort for christcucks

[Anonymous No.15237669]

>>15233289
HIs eyes betray him

[Anonymous No.15237672]

>>15237632
>it's not the same as hindu or buddhist reincarnation

>Gilgul/Gilgul neshamot
>In Hebrew, the word gilgul means "cycle" or "wheel" and neshamot is the plural for "souls." Souls are seen to cycle through lives or incarnations, being attached to different human bodies over time. Which body they associate with depends on their particular task in the physical world, spiritual levels of the bodies of predecessors and so on. The concept relates to the wider processes of history in Kabbalah, involving cosmic Tikkun (Messianic rectification), and the historical dynamic of ascending Lights and descending Vessels from generation to generation.

OH NO NO NO NO NO

[Anonymous No.15237683]

>>15237672
>Kabbalah
> cosmic Tikkun
check the orthodox theology before posting, christcuck

[Anonymous No.15237691]

>>15237683
>orthodox theology
Jews have no such thing. They've lost the pre-second-temple teaching and constantly innovate new pagan nonsense as it suits them.

[Anonymous No.15237704]

>>15237683
are you saying that kabbalah is heresy? orthodox rabbis literally build their customs/prayers based on what the "Zohar" says.

[Anonymous No.15237721]

>>15237691
>Jews have no such thing
its always fun to nice what cope you fags will come up with, especially since you used Kabbalah as an argument, you do know thats part of theology, right? as for pagan nonsense, christianity is filled with it, a catholic church is basically a roman temple where instead of pagan Gods, Jesus and his three other persons are worshipped

[Anonymous No.15237743]

>>15237704
No, he presented a Mystic interpretation of the Tanakh as a the mainstream view of all Jewish rabbis, which is false. Rabbis and other theologians will mainly rely on The Hebrew bible and the talmud.

[Anonymous No.15237751]

>>15237721
>you used Kabbalah as an argument
Kabbalah is a part of cringe teaching accepted by the 'orthodox' jews. It's unorthodox even for them because it's a middle-ages innovation and even the jews who crucified Christ didn't believe in it.
>as for pagan nonsense, christianity is filled with it
Lmao. Even if we accept this, how does that negate jews becoming goyim by losing the uniqueness of their teaching and mass-adopting pagan false teaching?
>Jesus and his three other persons are worshipped
>Jesus and his three other persons
??

[Anonymous No.15237758]

>Kabbalah
>reincarnation
>rabbis
>talmud
>hidden tradition

[Anonymous No.15237769]

>>15237751
>Kabbalah
sure, but it's still theology. you used it as an argument and then said jews have no theology after the second temple
> how does that negate jews becoming goyim by losing the uniqueness of their teaching and mass-adopting pagan false teaching
they didn't, its just you spewing nonsense and expecting anyone to believe it. the Jews who became Goyim and adopted pagan teachings were the early christians.

[Anonymous No.15237795]

@15237769
>jews have no theology
I said they have no orthodox theology. Which is true, you can't get two kikes from the same team to actually agree on anything substantial and decide with certainty if it's the truth. They're just judaism-flavoured perennialists who pick and choose traditions as it suits them.
>adopted pagan teachings were the early christians
Which pagan teaching was taught by the early Christians?

[Anonymous No.15237816]

>>15237795
>no orthodox theology
>Hebrew bible
>talmud
and before you seethe at the talmud, remember that it's just discussion and opinions of Rabbis. if you think it's not orthodox, then the writings of the church fathers are also not orthodox.
> pagan teaching was taught by the early Christians
1.Virginal birth
2.God manifesting in the flesh/physical manifestation
3. Substitutionary atonement

[Anonymous No.15237832]

>>15237816
>1.Virginal birth
how is that pagan? are you denying miracles?
>2.God manifesting in the flesh/physical manifestation
how is God taking on human nature without losing his divinity pagan? He created the human nature in his image, who are you to tell him that he cannot join it to himself?
>3. Substitutionary atonement
>early Christians
is this bait?

[Anonymous No.15237850]

@15237816
>>Hebrew bible
>>talmud
So is kabbalah heterodox then? Why do most 'orthodox' rabbis use it if that's the case?

>1.Virginal birth
2.God manifesting in the flesh/physical manifestation
3. Substitutionary atonement
>pagan
In what way?

[Anonymous No.15237905]

>>15237832
> how is that pagan?
the messiah is never prophesied in the Hebrew bible to be born of a virgin, it's a septugiant corruption of the word "almah" which means young woman, not virgin. christcucks took the corrupted greek translation and based their teachings on it. matter of fact most greek/roman legendary figures are said to be born of a virgin like Alexander the great, its a completely Pagan thing
> how is God taking on human nature without losing his divinity pagan?
the messiah is never prophesied to be God manifesting in the flesh, he is described a servant of God. find me a verse of passage in the Hewbrew bible that says the messiah will be God manifesting in the flesh, you won't find it, why? because it's a completely pagan concept, it's present in the hindu religon for example, where their Gods manifest in human forms. like krishna is the human form of the God vishnu. this idea is called "Avatar" and it's only present in Pagan religion and christianity, of course
> Substitutionary atonement
it's present in the earliest Gospels, are you saying the early christians didn't believe that Jesus died for their sins? either way, again its a pagan concept, the Hebrew bible completely opposes the idea of someone dying or getting punished for someone else's sins
Jeremiah 31 29:30
In those days people will no longer say, ‘The parents have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge.’ Instead, everyone will die for their own sin; whoever eats sour grapes—their own teeth will be set on edge

Ezekiel 18:20
The one who sins is the one who will die. The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child. The righteousness of the righteous will be credited to them, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against them.

[Anonymous No.15237915]

>>15237850
see >>15237905

[Anonymous No.15237947]

>>15237905
>> how is that pagan?
>the messiah is never prophesied in the Hebrew bible to be born of a virgin, it's a septugiant corruption of the word "almah" which means young woman, not virgin. christcucks took the corrupted greek translation and based their teachings on it. matter of fact most greek/roman legendary figures are said to be born of a virgin like Alexander the great, its a completely Pagan thing
>> how is God taking on human nature without losing his divinity pagan?
>the messiah is never prophesied to be God manifesting in the flesh, he is described a servant of God. find me a verse of passage in the Hewbrew bible that says the messiah will be God manifesting in the flesh, you won't find it, why? because it's a completely pagan concept, it's present in the hindu religon for example, where their Gods manifest in human forms. like krishna is the human form of the God vishnu. this idea is called "Avatar" and it's only present in Pagan religion and christianity, of course
>> Substitutionary atonement
>it's present in the earliest Gospels, are you saying the early christians didn't believe that Jesus died for their sins? either way, again its a pagan concept, the Hebrew bible completely opposes the idea of someone dying or getting punished for someone else's sins
>Jeremiah 31 29:30
>In those days people will no longer say, ‘The parents have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge.’ Instead, everyone will die for their own sin; whoever eats sour grapes—their own teeth will be set on edge
>Ezekiel 18:20
>The one who sins is the one who will die. The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child. The righteousness of the righteous will be credited to them, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against them.

[Anonymous No.15237951]

>>15237721
>its always fun to nice what cope you fags will come up with, especially since you used Kabbalah as an argument, you do know thats part of theology, right? as for pagan nonsense, christianity is filled with it, a catholic church is basically a roman temple where instead of pagan Gods, Jesus and his three other persons are worshipped
>>15237769
>>Kabbalah
>sure, but it's still theology. you used it as an argument and then said jews have no theology after the second temple
>> how does that negate jews becoming goyim by losing the uniqueness of their teaching and mass-adopting pagan false teaching
>they didn't, its just you spewing nonsense and expecting anyone to believe it. the Jews who became Goyim and adopted pagan teachings were the early christians.
>>15237816
>>no orthodox theology
>>Hebrew bible
>>talmud
>and before you seethe at the talmud, remember that it's just discussion and opinions of Rabbis. if you think it's not orthodox, then the writings of the church fathers are also not orthodox.
>> pagan teaching was taught by the early Christians
>1.Virginal birth
>2.God manifesting in the flesh/physical manifestation
>3. Substitutionary atonement

[Anonymous No.15237964]

@15237905
> he is described a servant of God.
How does that contradict the Christian account of the Messiah?
Didn't even read the rest.

[Anonymous No.15237975]

>>15237721
>a catholic church is basically a roman temple where instead of pagan Gods, Jesus and his three other persons are worshipped

[Anonymous No.15237976]

>>15237964
>Didn't even read the rest
well there you go, faggot. should've just admitted that you have no arguments.

[Anonymous No.15237984]

>>15237964
>Didn't even read the rest.

[Anonymous No.15237997]

>if I use chad and quote the christcuck that means his arguments are true
this is the power of christianity.

[Anonymous No.15238007]

>>15237905
Where in scripture is it said that the Messiah will NOT be born of a virgin? Where is it said that the Son of God will NOT be God?

[Anonymous No.15238021]

>>15237964
>How does that contradict the Christian account of the Messiah?
>Didn't even read the rest.

[Anonymous No.15238023]

>>15237997
>if I use an image of a disapproving woman and ">strawman" my opponents that means I win

[Anonymous No.15238051]

>>15238007

> the Messiah will NOT be born of a virgin?
this is just sad, but all go with it anyway
>Isaiah 7:11–16.
he word "VIRGIN" is never mentioned. its only mentioned in the greek translation of the Septuagint, and that is of course a mistranslation.
>Where is it said that the Son of God will NOT be God?
the messiah will not Be God because as mentioned above he is born of two biological parents. if you believe in the Pagan concept of "Avatar" then you agreed on my point, of christianity's pagan influence

[Anonymous No.15238059]

>that is of course a mistranslation
I guess the Jews did not know their language well enough to properly translate it into greek.

[Anonymous No.15238062]

>>15238023
you don't even know what a strawman is, got any copes left?

[Anonymous No.15238068]

>>15238051
>as mentioned above he is born of two biological parents
Where? The kikes do not accept that passage as messianic lmao.

[Anonymous No.15238075]

>>15238051
>the messiah will not Be God because as mentioned above he is born of two biological parents.

[Anonymous No.15238078]

>>15238059
the original Septuagint was only of the 5 books of Moses, that one was translated by Jews, indeed. the translations of the books of the prophets were all done much much later by Greek scholars. faggot

[Anonymous No.15238088]

>>15238051
Fine, you have shown that the word means woman and not virgin. But as a virgin is still a young woman, how would a virgin birth contradict scripture? It is not enough to say there are parts not in scripture--you must show how scripture is contradicted. If the messiah were born of a virgin, then the messiah is born of only one biological parent, and therefore it would be most reasonable to think that Son of God means he is God like his Father who is God. I ignore the avatar gibberish, because no such claim is made and you have provided it yourself.

[Anonymous No.15238090]

>>15238078
>the original Septuagint was only of the 5 books of Moses

[Anonymous No.15238098]

>>15238068
> The kikes do not accept that passage as messianic lmao
Isaiah is the most messianic book, stop coping retard, the reason why you say that is because it goes against your narrative, if the passage contained the word "virgin" then you would've accepted it as messianic, you pathetic retard

[Anonymous No.15238101]

>>15238078
How do you suppose to demonstrate this? Jews throught the Greek world held otherwise.

[Anonymous No.15238104]

>>15238078
>the original Septuagint was only of the 5 books of Moses
>the translations of the books of the prophets were all done much much later by Greek scholars.
>this is actually what the kikes believe

[Anonymous No.15238114]

>>15238051
Even if you dismiss the word virgin in that passage from Isaiah, it still holds as referring solely to the woman conceiving the messiah, why no mention of the father
Also the notion of Avatar is completely different from Incarnation.

[Anonymous No.15238123]

>>15238098
>Isaiah is the most messianic book, stop coping retard
>messianic book
>passage
Cringe. The whole book being messianic does not mean that kikes accept that particular passage as messianic.
>if the passage contained the word "virgin"
It actually does in the uncorrupted text untouched by kike hands.
>then you would've accepted it as messianic
I do accept it as messianic. The problem is that kikes do not (or at least claim not to when engaging in polemics with Christians as per their two-faced nature, you can literally never know what kikes actually believe about things), and you as a good shabbos-goy hold them as an authority.

[Anonymous No.15238125]

>>15238088
> But as a virgin is still a young woman
>another cope
not necessarily, a woman can be in her 30s and still a virgin. as for the rest of what you said, if the scriptures say a young woman will give birth, then there is only one way that would happen, by sexual intercourse, if it said a virgin will give birth then sure that would be a miracle and that would fit the christian narrative but as proven thats not what the scriptures say.

[Anonymous No.15238137]

>>15238078
>the original Septuagint was only of the 5 books of Moses, that one was translated by Jews, indeed. the translations of the books of the prophets were all done much much later by Greek scholars. faggot

[Anonymous No.15238143]

>>15238125
>then there is only one way a young woman can give birth
>by sexual intercourse
i thought jews weren't atheists and accepted the possibility of miracles?

[Anonymous No.15238148]

>>15238088
To elaborate--a sudoku puzzle can only ever have one solution. From some given pieces of information the full puzzle is revealed. However, if there are fewer numbers given, the puzzle still has a solution, but cannot be solved. Therefore, if God comes and reveals the full solution, would you deny it because he used information thay was not revealed to you? No--it would be a wonder and a glory to God. Unless one can show how Christ contradicts the law, then he must be accepted as the messiah. No one has done this, and no one can do this, for Christ, as God, is the author of the Law and the Prophets.

[Anonymous No.15238152]

>>15238125
>woman in her 30s
>still virgin
hahahahahahahaha

[Anonymous No.15238162]

διὰ τοῦτο δώσει κύριος αὐτὸς ὑμῗν σημεῗον ἰδοὺ ἡ παρθένος ἐν γαστρὶ ἕξει καὶ τέξεται υἱόν καὶ καλέσεις τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Εμμανουηλ
Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; behold, a virgin shall conceive in the womb, and shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Emmanuel.

[Anonymous No.15238163]

>>15238123
> untouched by kike hands
more like untouched by greek hands, the original Hebrew doesn't comply with the christian narrative, you can cope by saying that the Hebrew bible was corrupted but then you would be adopting a muslim view.

> The problem is that kikes do not
no, the kikes do accept it as messianic. they don't accept that greek translation is all. they prefer the original

> you as a good shabbos-goy
stop projecting, christians are the biggest shabbos goys in the world, I'm just using the scriptures of your masters to prove your false shabbos goy religion

[Anonymous No.15238169]

>>15238143
sure but only if it's mentioned in the scriptures, your virgin birth narrative isn't mentioned in the scripturess. you retard.

[Anonymous No.15238171]

>>15238125
Why must that be the interpretation? The scripture says a young woman will give birth. Mary was a young woman. How has scripture been contradicted? Scripture says that Abraham knew Sarah and Sarah bore Isaac; scripture does not say a man will know a young woman and bear the messiah; rather, it only says a young woman will give birth. You assume it will only be by natural means, but what in scripture justifies this assumption?

[Anonymous No.15238212]

>>15238171
> Why must that be the interpretation?
something as important as that would've been mentioned by God. he would've said "a virgin woman will give birth to my messiah" but instead he said "a young woman will give birth to my messiah". you see the difference? you were raised probably raised as a christian and thats why you're not noticing the significance in the difference between what the christian narrative says and what the Scriptures actually say

[Anonymous No.15238216]

τῷ Δαυιδ ψαλμός εἶπεν ὁ κύριος τῷ κυρίῳ μου κάθου ἐκ δεξιῶν μου ἕως ἂν θῶ τοὺς ἐχθρούς σου ὑποπόδιον τῶν ποδῶν σου
ῥάβδον δυνάμεώς σου ἐξαποστελεῖ κύριος ἐκ Σιων καὶ κατακυρίευε ἐν μέσῳ τῶν ἐχθρῶν σου
μετὰ σοῦ ἡ ἀρχὴ ἐν ἡμέρᾳ τῆς δυνάμεώς σου ἐν ταῖς λαμπρότησιν τῶν ἁγίων ἐκ γαστρὸς πρὸ ἑωσφόρου ἐξεγέννησά σε
ὤμοσεν κύριος καὶ οὐ μεταμεληθήσεται σὺ εἶ ἱερεὺς εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα κατὰ τὴν τάξιν Μελχισεδεκ
κύριος ἐκ δεξιῶν σου συνέθλασεν ἐν ἡμέρᾳ ὀργῆς αὐτοῦ βασιλεῖς
κρινεῖ ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν πληρώσει πτώματα συνθλάσει κεφαλὰς ἐπὶ γῆς πολλῶν
ἐκ χειμάρρου ἐν ὁδῷ πίεται διὰ τοῦτο ὑψώσει κεφαλήν

A Psalm of David.
The Lord said to my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool. The Lord shall send out a rod of power for thee out of Sion: rule thou in the midst of thine enemies. With thee is dominion in the day of thy power, in the splendours of thy saints: I have begotten thee from the womb before the morning. The Lord sware, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever, after the order of Melchisedec. The Lord at thy right hand has dashed in pieces kings in the day of his wrath. He shall judge among the nations, he shall fill up the number of corpses, he shall crush the heads of many on the earth. He shall drink of the brook in the way; therefore shall he lift up the head.

[Anonymous No.15238239]

>>15238163
>you can cope by saying that the Hebrew bible was corrupted
it literally was lmao.
psalm 145 has verses starting with each letter of the alphabet and has a literal missing verse which is intact in the Greek.
surely this is a deep kabbalistic message the stupid goy just cannot see.

[Anonymous No.15238243]

>>15238212
Why do you presume to know how God wpuld have done it? Do you not see that Mary's virginity has become a stumbling block to you? If she were not a virgin, and it had never been claimed she was a virgin, what in Christ's life would cause you to doubt him? Rather, because he has shown even greater miracles than you presumed to have been prophesied, you say he is not the Messiah. Christ has exceeded your expectations, and so you disbelieve in him. What in Christ's life contradicts either the law or the prophets?

[Anonymous No.15238248]

>>15238163
>> untouched by kike hands
>more like untouched by greek hands, the original Hebrew doesn't comply with the christian narrative, you can cope by saying that the Hebrew bible was corrupted but then you would be adopting a muslim view.
>> The problem is that kikes do not
>no, the kikes do accept it as messianic. they don't accept that greek translation is all. they prefer the original
>> you as a good shabbos-goy
>stop projecting, christians are the biggest shabbos goys in the world, I'm just using the scriptures of your masters to prove your false shabbos goy religion

[Anonymous No.15238252]

>>15238216
>τῷ Δαυιδ ψαλμός εἶπεν ὁ κύριος τῷ κυρίῳ μου κάθου ἐκ δεξιῶν μου ἕως ἂν θῶ τοὺς ἐχθρούς σου ὑποπόδιον τῶν ποδῶν σου
>ῥάβδον δυνάμεώς σου ἐξαποστελεῖ κύριος ἐκ Σιων καὶ κατακυρίευε ἐν μέσῳ τῶν ἐχθρῶν σου
>μετὰ σοῦ ἡ ἀρχὴ ἐν ἡμέρᾳ τῆς δυνάμεώς σου ἐν ταῖς λαμπρότησιν τῶν ἁγίων ἐκ γαστρὸς πρὸ ἑωσφόρου ἐξεγέννησά σε
>ὤμοσεν κύριος καὶ οὐ μεταμεληθήσεται σὺ εἶ ἱερεὺς εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα κατὰ τὴν τάξιν Μελχισεδεκ
>κύριος ἐκ δεξιῶν σου συνέθλασεν ἐν ἡμέρᾳ ὀργῆς αὐτοῦ βασιλεῖς
>κρινεῖ ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν πληρώσει πτώματα συνθλάσει κεφαλὰς ἐπὶ γῆς πολλῶν
>ἐκ χειμάρρου ἐν ὁδῷ πίεται διὰ τοῦτο ὑψώσει κεφαλήν

[Anonymous No.15238253]

>>15238239
>it literally was lmao.
so you say the Hebrew bible was corrupted, then that just delegitimizes the entirety of the abrahamic religion, we don't know which passages are true and which are corrupted and all what we can rely on is a bad greek translation of it. you're self refuting.

[Anonymous No.15238257]

>>15238239
It is worth noting also that 7 is a divine number, associated with the Messiah, and 7 books have been removed between the septuagint and the masoretic. Of these 7, there are two books of wisdom, which makes the total books of wisdom aslo 7. Further, these seven removed books contain the strongest prefigurations of Mary.

[Anonymous No.15238262]

>>15238253
No, for the Masoretic text was not written until after the destruction of the second temple, but Christ came before it, and the Church of Rome had already been established.

[Anonymous No.15238270]

>>15238253
>so you say the Hebrew bible was corrupted
The masoretic version of the Hebrew Bible from the tribe that killed Christ was corrupted*

>abrahamic religion
No such thing. It's a modernist invention by atheist scholars.

>you're self refuting.
Only if no uncorrupted version of the original existed. God in his perfect foreknowledge allowed for a Greek translation and protected it from the tribe that would betray his Christ.

[Anonymous No.15238273]

Youtube has been throwing this guy into my recommended feed in the last month. I had never heard or seem me in my life. I'm atheist, but I love listening to this guy.

[Anonymous No.15238288]

>>15238243
> Why do you presume to know how God wpuld have done it
Something as Grand as the Birth of the Messiah, can't be left to speculations, are you saying God doesn't give a shit? the answer is probably no, he did mention exactly the birth of the messiah but it just doesn't fit the christian narrative, thats why you're having a hard time accepting it. and you pushing on these arguments without proof, even if we dismiss the virgin birth, how do you explain the other things? like how the scriptures never say the messiah has to die for the world's sins. in fact they're against such a thing.
Ezekiel 18:20
The one who sins is the one who will die. The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child. The righteousness of the righteous will be credited to them, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against them.

Jeremiah 31 29:30
In those days people will no longer say, ‘The parents have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge.’ Instead, everyone will die for their own sin; whoever eats sour grapes—their own teeth will be set on edge

[Anonymous No.15238293]

>>15238270
Yes. There is only one faith of Abraham, and it is the faith in Jesus Christ kept and taught by the Catholic Church.

[Anonymous No.15238309]

>>15238270
>>15238262
> the Masoretic text
it mainly contains the oral law, all of this is just ironic considering you shit on Jews for even having such a thing, the masoretic text doesn't prove your claims .

> God in his perfect foreknowledge allowed for a Greek translation and protected it from the tribe that would betray his Christ.
Biggest Cope of the thread, the scriptures don't contain your narrative, so you go to the translation of it to prove your bullshit

[Anonymous No.15238346]

>>15238309
>ou shit on Jews for even having such a thing
No? Oral law/written down interpretations of the texts is fine and even inevitable. What's wrong is that they corrupted it and added contradictions onto the law over time. A thing even Christ criticized 2000 years ago. Just imagine how bad it has gotten since then.
>the scriptures don't contain your narrative
They do though? The Septuagint perfectly contains all of the prophecies used by early Christians to justify Christ's identity and convert the Jews. Why would there even be early Jewish converts if the main Christian arguments would be easily refuted merely by checking the verses Christians cite? This shows that even the Jews who did not use the Greek translation would be able to perfectly see the Septuagint's validity and coherence with the original Hebrew they were familiar with.

[Anonymous No.15238387]

>>15238288
Christ lives and only in Christ is there life. The Ezekial you quote is the very thing that necessitates Christ's crucifixion--no greater love doth a man have than to lay down his life for his friends. Just as Job offers sacrifices for his sons in case they are lacking, so may any righteous person offer sacrifices for thr justification of another. Now, in the sin of adam, all men are made unrighteous; how then may we be reconciled with God, our Father? Note how Ezekiel says that the child will not share the guilt of the father; well, in this regard, only does can Christ justify us, for he is Son of Man and Son of God; as God, he is the Father who does not share the guilt of thr child Adam; as Son of God, but Son of Man, Christ does not share the guilt of Adam, his father. And so only Christ is innocent and righteous among men and only he may give the proper sacrifice by which we may be redeemed. And like God asked of Abraham his son Isaac, The Son of God is the sacrifice of God for us, given freely. And, as Christ is man, it is a perfect love, for Christ is our brother and friend, laying down his own life on our behalf. Morever, as Christ is God, he does not truly die, but is risen. Therefore, he gives us his flesh and blood perpetually in thr Eucharist so that we may be one with him and receive the fruit of his self-sacrifice. By this, we are invited to join in his rigtheousness, a righteousnesd no man can have except by Christ. And so, all who oppose this are truly wicked, and they will be like the scapegoat sent to Azazel. In this way this line from Ezekiel is fulfilled, and Jeremiah likewise. This is not my teaching, but what is said explicitly in the words of Christ. Please then, if you would say that Christ is not the messiah, show me how he contradicts scripture. That is, whay unrigtheousness does Christ ever commit?

[Anonymous No.15238389]

>>15238346
>Oral law/written down interpretations of the texts is fine and even inevitable.
sure thing, and that text doesn't prove your claim, faggot

> The Septuagint perfectly contains all of the prophecies used by early Christians to justify Christ's identity and convert the Jews.
exactly, and the Septuagint contains mistranslations and straight out corruptions of the original Text to prove the christian claims. glad we agreed on that.

> Why would there even be early Jewish converts if the main Christian arguments would be easily refuted merely by checking the verses Christians cite
the early "christians" were basically Jews, they had Jewish blood, they followed Jewish law, they were 100% jews only difference is that they believed the messiah had arrived. they didn't consider Jesus a God. only after the writing of the Gospels and the letters of Paul (which were much later) did they start to diverge from that view and held that Jesus died for their sins and that he is God in the flesh etc etc

[Anonymous No.15238403]

>>15238389
>the early "christians" were basically Jews, they had Jewish blood, they followed Jewish law, they were 100% jews only difference is that they believed the messiah had arrived. they didn't consider Jesus a God. only after the writing of the Gospels and the letters of Paul (which were much later) did they start to diverge from that view and held that Jesus died for their sins and that he is God in the flesh etc etc

[Anonymous No.15238409]

>>15238309
It matters not what else the masoretic texts contain. They also give, according to a council of rabbis, a definitive canon and a definitive translation. There is no other canon for Jews, and this is where it was given. It is after the death of Christ, and after the destriction of the temple. What other scripture do you have to compare it to except the septuagint, or the dead sea scrolls?

[Anonymous No.15238430]

>>15238409
>It matters not what else the masoretic texts contain
then why did you use it as a proof for your claims, you dumb fuck?

> What other scripture do you have to compare it to except the septuagint, or the dead sea scrolls?
alright, lets use the dead sea scrolls, it's much older, in the original language and more reliable than the greek translation. where in the dead sea scrolls of the Book of Isaiah does it say the messiah will be born of a Virgin?

[Anonymous No.15238460]

>>15238430
Where does any text say she will not be a virgin?

[Anonymous No.15238476]

He tears apart the communist ideology and sees it for what it really is
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8qqZup3Bg4

[Anonymous No.15238479]

>>15238460
in Isaiah 7:11–16., where it's explicitly said that she is a young woman, not a virgin. I just love going in circles with you, faggot, I have a question for you, why didn't the holy spirit inspire Isaiah to write down the word "virgin"?, just one word could've proven the legitimacy of the christcuck religion but instead it proven that you're no more than a shabbos goyim bunch

[Anonymous No.15238512]

>>15238479
Because any man who who need such a proof does not deserve such a proof. Who are you that you can say the mind of God? Every time I have replied, I have asked you to put forward even one sin of Christ. You can make no criticism of his life or his teaching directly, and so make up calumnies against his mother. If you had any faith in God, how could you ask him for proofs? God already gave you his only Son; what more could he give you that you would believe?

[Anonymous No.15238551]

>>15238512
>the text says young woman but I'm going to assume its a virgin, never mind that it contradicts what the scriptures say
>I have no proof for my claims? its alright, I'll just through some bullshit at him about christ being sinless and how he should have faith in God even if that faith straight out contradicts God's scriptures
lmao, christcucks are just pathetic, all this thread you've proven nothing, absolutely nothing from the scriptures. do you have any last cope or thing to say?

[Anonymous No.15238574]

>>15238551
>doesn't answer anything he said
cringe pharisee. trying to one-up God with your pilpul techniques isn't going to end well for your soul. repent.

[Anonymous No.15238598]

>>15238551
How do you not understand? The sign given is the sign of Jonah--Christ went down into hell and rose from the dead on the third day. I do not believe that Jesus was Christ because Mary was a Virgin. Rather, I believe Mary is the virgin of virgins because Jesus is the Messiah and the onlybegotten Son of God. I believe this because He is risen from the dead. How does Mary's virginity prevent Christ from being the Anointed?

[Anonymous No.15238606]

>>15238574
>God's Scriptures are pilpul techniques
now this is just low, God has hardened your heart and prevented you from swallowing your pride and admitting that all christcuckery is bullshit, to the point where you blasphemed against him. Now go larp as holier than thou somewhere else, faggot, kek.

[Anonymous No.15238621]

>>15238551
>>15238479
>>15238389
>>15238288
עַלְמָה, vigour of puberty what do you think this implies?
>A servant of Abraham tells his master how he met Rebeccah. He prayed to the Lord that if an almah came to the well and he requested a drink of water from her, that should she then provide him with that drink and also water his camels; he would take that as a sign that she was to be the wife of Isaac. Rebecca, a young, unmarried girl, is that almah.
read also >>15238114

[Anonymous No.15238622]

>>15238606
sorry, that wasn't me (>>15238512). Though I must admit this dialogue has its frustrations, I do not doubt the sincerety of your intentions, nor your desire to genuinely understand scripture.

[Anonymous No.15238636]

>>15238598
>I believe just because JEEBUS killed himself for me, not because there is any prove from God's scriptures
thanks for admitting that, faggot.
> because Jesus is the Messiah
except he isn't, he hasn't fulfilled any messianic prophecies but thats a whole another discussion, I'm sure you wouldn't want to get BTFO'd again.

[Anonymous No.15238675]

>>15238621
Yes, Almah means young woman. and yes, a young woman will give birth to the messiah, how does any of that prove christian claims? I'm tired of you going in circles and hopping up and down because you can't prove your claims. I have just one request, since you couldn't prove almah means virgin, Prove from the Hebrew bible a passage or verse where God says he will manifest in the flesh as messiah and will die for our sins (the core tenant of Christianity) thats all what you have to do, if you can't do that, then don't even bother responding to this post

[Anonymous No.15238677]

>>15238636
How is it a different discussion? I have asked you to demonstrate even one contradiction or failed prophecy, and you have failed to do so. I explained to you how Ezekiel was fulfilled. If you read Matthew, you would see how all is fulfilled. The only worthwhile discussion here is whether Jesus is the messiah. All you have said against this is that the original (but unprovided) scripture onky says young woman and not virgin. What proof is this? Where does it ever speak of the father or their marriage? Do you suppose the messiah will be born of an unfaithful woman? Either his mother must be married or unmarried. If she is married it would certainly be thr father's son. If she is unmarried, she would certainly be a virgin. If neither a husband nor her virginity are mentioned, then how do you say it is one and not the other?

[Anonymous No.15238695]

This kills the midwit

[Anonymous No.15238710]

>>15238675
read that again
>Rebecca, a young, unmarried girl, is that almah.
how can an unmarried woman give birth (and here you can understand it as a woman who was not ''known'')? You are still dodging the question about why there is no mention at all of the father or at least parents of messiah, but only (young woman, in the vigour of puberty)? Do you want Scripture to also develop a whole book on mariology? another on diophysitism?

[Anonymous No.15238715]

>>15238677
alright, a simple yet most crucial messianic prophecy, the messiah must build the third temple. did Jesus do that?

[Anonymous No.15238758]

>>15238710
>>Rebecca, a young, unmarried girl, is that almah.
that passage refers to Rebecca as the unmarried girl, not the word "almah". if you translate the whole thing, it would be. "Rebecca, a young, unmarried girl, is that young woman", is this your best cope?

>You are still dodging the question about why there is no mention at all of the father or at least parents of messiah,
because for example when someone says "the young woman will give birth", you just immediately know that she has a husband and they had sexual intercourse and she will give birth as a result of that, when a doctor says the young woman will give birth in March, do you just assume that the young woman is a virgin? If the passage said "the virgin will give birth" then yes, that would've fit your narrative but as of now, its a pathetic cope.

[Anonymous No.15238763]

>>15238715
Yes. The temple is the dwelling of God. This is literally the Body of Christ. Jesus explains this when he says "I will tear down this temple and in three days rebuild it," speaking directly to his imminent death and resurrection. And if you would say this is not a literal enough interpretation, remember that the second temple was not built according to the measurements foretold by Elijah. Does the prophecy refer to stones, which are but dust that God can make at his leisure, or does it refer to where God, in his Glory, will choose to make his dwelling?

[Anonymous No.15238788]

>>15238763
> This is literally the Body of Christ
already heard this cope, the prophecy is simple, the third temple must be built LITERALLY, not FIGURATIVELY. why, you ask? because there is a whole new sacrificial system / temple in the book of Ezekial that completely contradicts the old one, that is the third temple, you get it? also the messiah would use this third temple to give Sacrifices to God. of course, Jesus done none of the above.

[Anonymous No.15238814]

Fulton Sheen is based and fuck all the cocksuckers in the US hierarchy that are holding up him being beatified. They're probably literal faggots.

[Anonymous No.15238823]

>>15238788
Yes, exactly. Jesus Christ is Priest, Victim, and Temple. Every valid consecration is the sacrifice of calvary remade. All other sacrifice has been made innefficacious. If you would disagree with Catholic teaching, you oughg at least to familiarize yourself with the teachings. That you deny these obvious and glorious fulfillments of prophecy can be nothing but a cope for your pride.

[Anonymous No.15238826]

>>15238758
>"Rebecca, a young, unmarried girl, is that young woman"
lol stop being dishonest
read Genesis 24:43, that is the same word to refer to Rebekah, and no other one.

>when someone says "the young woman will give birth", you just immediately know that she has a husband
and that is exactly what almah implies, a non married young girl (giving birth) how is that possible? there is no question of failing the prophecy of Mary. this is all sterile, you don't want to see anything besides your own delusion.

[Anonymous No.15238841]

>>15238823
I dont care what catholic teachings say, we are discussing the Hebrew bible and as I said the temple must be built literally. Jesus didn't fulfill that. do you have any thing from the Hebrew bible or a historic account of Jesus building the temple to refute what I said?

[Anonymous No.15238864]

>>15238814
It is a serious sin to slander, defame, or in any way calumniate priest, let alone the order if the bishopric itself. Further, paradise itself is the reward. We do not add anything to a Saint by canonizing him. That we recognize saints is not any added benefit or reward to them, but solely for the edification of the faithful. I am all but certain that the venerable archbishop is hurt, along with Christ, by your langauage and your attitude towards your superiors.

[Anonymous No.15238893]

>>15238841
How can we adequately discuss the scriptures of the Old Law without making reference to thr New Law for which it was a prefiguration? The Temple was rebuilt literally. Christ had a real body and was really God. What prophesy of the third temple does this contradict?

[Anonymous No.15238896]

>>15238826
how am I being dishonest? it said Rebecca is that young, unmarried young woman, did you get brain damage while writing that post?

> a non married young girl (giving birth)
no nigger, almah just means young woman, the unmarried part is your addition, it holds no meaning in the Hebrew language, a wiki search would've told you that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almah
in case you're too retarded to figure it out, a young woman can be married. you dumb fuck. although still it's pretty funny to see twist verses and passages to justify your narrative. still you haven't bothered to reply to my request here >>15238675

[Anonymous No.15238933]

>>15238893
the New testament contradicts the Hebrew bible and the catholic teaching is a cope they made up because Jesus didn't fulfill the prophecy, when I say literally I mean built with stone, as in a building, the temple must be a real life stone building, not a body.

[Anonymous No.15238936]

>>15238896
>it said Rebecca is that young, unmarried young woman
wrong, it only says almah when referring to rebecca, why would it say, as you write, young twice? you are literally retarded

> the unmarried part is your addition
wrong again, when referring to rebecca it meant she was young and unmarried, why would it be different in the case of Mary? see all the semantic range of the word almah, do yourself a favor and start reading something in your wasted life

[Anonymous No.15238951]

>>15238933
oh now you are trying to find fault in another case, lol you are pathetically wretched

[Anonymous No.15238956]

>>15238933
Why must it be stone? You demand that the young woman be called virgin if she be a virgin. Follow your own standards. If scripture must be explicit and not mystical when the prophecies are about inportant things, what are the explicit demands put on the third temple which have been contradicted?

[Anonymous No.15238996]

>>15238951
Brother, the only thing that exceeds the Devil's pride is his malice. Though he would suffer no humiliation for the glory of God, he would and will suffer all humiliation merely to cause souls to fall. Be careful never to slip into mockery and derision, for these have no part in Christ. Rather, he says that if we call a man "fool," we are liable to hell. Even if it were true, avoid all condemnation that does not have charity in its heart.

[Anonymous No.15239018]

>>15238936
you used a wiki passage and passed your linguistic argument on it, you dumb fuck. the genesis passage doesn't contain that retardation, you mouth breathing single digits IQ nigger. https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/8219/jewish/Chapter-24.htm

almah means young woman, it doesn't matter what mental gymnastic you do, you kike worshipping retard, you haven't been able to prove one of your claims. This is the last (you) you're getting, christcuck.

[Anonymous No.15239025]

>>15238956
it needs to be stone, i.e a building. so that sacrifices be made in it.

[Anonymous No.15239037]

>>15239025
I think the christian explanation for the third temple is a lot more layered and interesting. Christians could've built another temple all those centuries when they controlled Jerusalem, so I dont think their explanation is cope. Maybe you just got filtered

[Anonymous No.15239060]

>>15239025
I asked you for scripture. If you are going to demand explicit scripture in one ppace, you must demand it in all places. What is the scripture that says it must be stone?

[Anonymous No.15239061]

>>15239037
>I think the christian explanation for the third temple is a lot more layered and interesting.
christian explanation doesn't hold to the book of Ezekiel that explicitly states the third temple will be built in different dimensions to the second temple and sacrifices will be made in it. in fact the messiah himself will sacrifice inside the new temple. not be the temple himself

[Anonymous No.15239070]

>>15239060
kek, it can be marbel, glass, cement, brick. it doesn't matter, the dimensions and regulations for building it are written in the book of Ezekiel, don't tell me you haven't read it?

[Anonymous No.15239086]

>>15239061
As I already said, Christ is Priest, Victim, and Temple. The sacrifice does happen within him, as it is a total gift of self for the remission of all sins. But again, provide the explicit scripture that gives exactly your opinion, and nothing more or less. If you demand this scriptural explicitness for the mother if the messiah, certainly it would be necessary for the third temple. Give it or desist.

[Anonymous No.15239092]

>>15238078
>the original Septuagint was only of the 5 books of Moses
You do realise the modern canon is based off the Septuagint right? The Old Testament canon literally is the Septuagint. With the exception that Septuagint Daniel is often replaced by Theodotion (A 2nd century Jew), for who knows what kind of sneaky reasons.

[Anonymous No.15239107]

>>15239086
again the messiah isn't supposed to be sacrificed, he is the one who sacrifices (animals) to god in the third temple, you coping retard. you're making God look bad by negating the entirety of the book of Ezekiel, you're saying Ezekiel and God were God and that catholic doctrine is right

[Anonymous No.15239111]

>>15238479

>Being this retarded

In ancient times, a 'young woman' is by definition a virgin. Because if she's not a virgin anymore, she becomes a mother, and is not considered a 'young woman' anymore.

[Anonymous No.15239115]

>>15239092
>The Old Testament canon literally is the Septuagint
the Septuagint adapted the Hebrew bible canon, not the other way around, its simply a translation you dumb fuck. how can a translation change the the canon of the original

[Anonymous No.15239128]

>>15238163
Jews used the Septuagint because most of them could no longer understand Hebrew. It was used from 300 BC which is a long time before Christianity even existed, so how exactly did they change things to fit when it didn't even exist yet? Meanwhile, we're supposed to believe that Masoretic Text of 1000 AD is original, when they invented vowel markings which never existed in Hebrew before, and can alter the meaning of every single word.

[Anonymous No.15239148]

>>15239111
>a 'young woman' is by definition a virgin
an ass pull, you checked Genesis and realized you were retarded and now back tracked, almah means young woman, you dont assume she's a virgin because she's young, at least provide a proof from an ancient sources for you claim. oh, and make it better than that wikipedia stunt you made, kek.

[Anonymous No.15239165]

>>15239128
Babylonian and middle eastern Jews (religious ones) spoke hebrew since the destruction of the second temple, you're probably think askenzai/european jews are representative of the whole population

[Anonymous No.15239172]

>>15238253
The "Hebrew Bible" is not the original. Christian commentators from the first few centuries tell that the Jews had already begun to change the text they used in the synagogues to undermine the fulfilled prophecies of Christ.

[Anonymous No.15239285]

>>15239070
>>15239107
Have you read Ezekiel? In his literal meaning he describes a Second Temple, not a Third. That there is to be a Third is not an explicit statement of his, but a mystical understanding. So, if you will insist that the mother of the messiah cannot be a virgin because scripture onky says young woman, then give the scripture that gives explicitly what you say. Or are you unfamiliar that you no longer give specifics, and only suggestions?

[Anonymous No.15239302]

>>15239148
Young women who were unmarried but not virgins were stoned under the law.

[Anonymous No.15239309]

>>15239285
>mystical understanding
alright and?, still doesn't prove Christianity true, A religion fucked majorly in their theology based on mistranslation of a one word, almah, its funny really.

[Anonymous No.15239344]

This thread is full of cringe

[Anonymous No.15239345]

>>15239309
So you've totally given up on providing scripture to support your arguments? How long can you look in a mirror before you see a hypocrite?

[Anonymous No.15239359]

>>15239302
again, you're trying to tie the word almah with your retarded definition. a young woman can be married and divorced and still be an almah, a young woman can be a whore and ride dicks all day and still be an almah, whether she gets killed or not is arbitrary

[Anonymous No.15239375]

>>15239359
So the messiah would come from a divorced woman? Or maybe a harlot?

[Anonymous No.15239380]

>>15239345
you said the body of christ is the temple. alright, I'll act like I agree with you. how does this justify the virginal birth retardation? why didn't the "holy spirit" fix it? are you saying I haven't provided proof from scriptures for my almah/virgin argument?

[Anonymous No.15239396]

>>15239380
You said ezekiel explicitly calls for a physical third temple where the messiah must offer animal sacrifices. When I have read Ezekiel, I have not found this passage. Provide it, or be a hypocrite.

[Anonymous No.15239402]

>>15239375
no, he will come from a married woman like the scriptures say and that doesn't negate her "almah" status because almah doesn't mean virgin, glad we reached an understanding

[Anonymous No.15239416]

>>15239402
But it only says young woman, not a married woman. Why should we suppose she is married if scripture does not tell us she is married?

[Anonymous No.15239445]

>>15239416
see >>15238758, you're going in circles retard.

[Anonymous No.15239456]

>>15239445
If I have only ever asked you the same question, I'm not the one going in circles.

[Anonymous No.15239473]

>>15239456
that same question was answered and you still go back to it

[Anonymous No.15239479]

>>15239148

I'm literally not the person you were arguing with lol.

[Anonymous No.15239525]

>>15239473
You haven't answered it without contradicting your own standards. You say that the mother of the messiah cannot be a virgin, because scripture only says young woman and does not say virgin. You say the mother of the messiah must be married, even though scripture only says young woman and does not say married. If the mother of the messiah must be a young woman, but cannot have any other attribute which is not explicitly stated, then she must have the messiah by the sin of fornication. It cannot be that the messiah is born of the sin of fornication. Therefore, it must be accepted that the mother of the messiah has some attribute other than young woman that is not given in scripture, as no scripture explicitly says either married or virgin. Therefore, using only explicit scripture, how do you say she must be married and cannot be a virgin?

[Anonymous No.15239553]

>>15239525
I said I lean towards young woman because "virgin" is a big revelation and God would've specifically mentioned something as important as that in the verse, instead he chose "young woman". even in ancient times, if someone said the young woman will give birth, you would immediately assume that she's married and that pregnancy is a result of it because as you mentioned fornicating women were stoned. you get it?

[Anonymous No.15239561]

>>15239553
I said I lean towards *married woman

[Anonymous No.15239606]

>>15239553
You did not say lean. You said, in absolute terms, that God woukd have revealed that the mother of the messiah was a virgin. You have changed your argument from an absolute and deterministic one that relies on explicit scripture to a vague and probablistic argument that relies on what would be reasonable for God to do. We have already tread this ground. I asked you how it was that you could know the mind of God and you did not respond. Considering that the Gospels tell us that Mary was married to Joseph, it would seem that God already foresaw your weak refutations.

[Anonymous No.15239641]

>>15239606
sure, take it my argument as in absolute terms, either way it doesn't matter
> it would seem that God already foresaw your weak refutations.
no, the writers of the testament saw this problem whole trying the fulfill the prophecies of the Septuagint where it says virgin, of course they didn't know it was a mistranslation and had to come up with the Joseph narrative where he is mary's husband but at the same time he didn't have sex with her and only married her as form of protection or pity.

[Anonymous No.15239651]

>>15239641
this problem while* trying

[Anonymous No.15239707]

>>15239641
But none of the Apostles spoke Aramaic, not Greek

[Anonymous No.15239711]

>>15239641
>>15239707
Changed the way I was writing it part way through and slipped up.

All of the Apostles spoke Aramaic and not Greek

[Anonymous No.15239761]

>>15239707
Most new testament authors are unknown, the Gospel of Luke wasn't written by Luke, as well for the other gospels, we know that Paul wrote the letters and Hebrews but no one is sure if the Gospels were written by those named at the beginning, its a catholic tradition that the apostles wrote the Gospels but there is no historic account or surviving manuscripts that prove that

[Anonymous No.15239774]

>>15239761
>the Gospel of Luke wasn't written by Luke
sorry I meant Mark. not luke

[Anonymous No.15240195]

>>15238758
>you just immediately know that she has a husband and they had sexual intercourse and she will give birth as a result of that
How do you 'just immediately know' that? Did God tell you that He will never perform this miracle?

[Anonymous No.15240208]

>>15239761
>Most new testament authors are unknown
Which ones are unknown? All of the ones in my Holy Bible are marked.

[Anonymous No.15240227]

>>15240208
thats catholic tradition, the actual writers of the 4 canonical gospels are anonymous.

[Anonymous No.15240231]

>>15240208
>Which ones are unknown? All of the ones in my Holy Bible are marked.

[Anonymous No.15240240]

>>15240227
>thats catholic tradition
How is it unknown then lol?

[Anonymous No.15240255]

>>15240240
for example, the gospel of mark doesn't end with, yours truly, Mark. no one knows who wrote the 4 gospels, there are no surviving Aramaic manuscripts of them. we only know that the letters of Paul and Hebrews were indeed written by Paul.

[Anonymous No.15240265]

>>15240255
>the gospel of mark doesn't end with, yours truly, Mark
Why does it have to end with that?
>no one knows who wrote the 4 gospels
>thats catholic tradition
So which one is it?

[Anonymous No.15240285]

>>15240265
Stop playing dumb, the authors of the canonical gospels are all anonymous, so the catholics decided to give them names and assert that they were wrote by the actual apostles. did the catholics do historic research and fact checking? no, because like I said there are no surviving original Aramaic manuscripts, all the manuscripts were copy and written by the greeks, not the actual apostles.

[Anonymous No.15240296]

>>15240285
>did the catholics do historic research and fact checking?

[Anonymous No.15240310]

>>15240285
>historic research and fact checking

[Anonymous No.15240369]

>>15238695
Lethal. Imagine retroactively refuting midwits back in the 1950s.

[Anonymous No.15240435]

>>15240285
>historic research and fact checking
Which historic research and fact checking lead you to the 'fact' that you need to do these to arrive at truth?

[Anonymous No.15240457]

>>15240435
the gospels are named after the apostles, we need to make sure its actually written by them. in the case of the canonical gospels they were all anonymous authors.

[Anonymous No.15240686]

>>15240457
>we need to make sure its actually written by them
and how is the Holy Spirit telling the Church not a good enough sign for you?

[Anonymous No.15240956]

>>15240457
>we need to check
Only if you doubt Catholic tradition. But what reason do you have to doubt it?