How did the myth of Jesus' resurrection originate?

[rightcoaster]

RC (requoting from a previous post) ...You are focused too much on the one word {almah}, when the context is dispositive. I’m ... enough of a “Hebrew scholar” to be able to read from the Tanakh ... and understand it, with some help ... I can reasonably assert the contextual accuracy of the translation. That “hineh ha’almah harah” refers to a woman who is nearby the speaker and his audience and who is already pregnant is clear in the context of the rest of Is 7 {Aractus, have you ever read and tried to follow all of Is 7?}. The full text of the sentence is: “hineh ha‘almah harah veyoledet ben; vekarat shemo Immanuel”. "Here is the young woman, pregnant; she will bear a son and call his name Immanuel". Compare this with when Hagar was already pregnant with Ishmael by Abraham ..., and the exact same form is used. In Gen 16:4 she conceives, she is pregnant; then in Gen 16:11 an angel tells her she will give birth to a son and will call him Ishmael ... “Hinokh harah veyoledet ben; vekarat shemo Yishmael …”. “Harah” in the Hagar case is unambiguously present tense-pregnant because seven sentences before we learned she had conceived. In the Isaiah case, it is unambiguously present-tense because of the context. In neither case is the “imperfect” or future tense implied, in both cases the woman is already preggers. Such pregnancies can be of young women or old women; but they cannot be of virgins. Note also the conflation of the angelic annunciation to Hagar with that to Mary. Literary stuff. Forget just "almah", it is a trap for the credulous; do the context.

AR: Gen 16:4 doesn't contain the word almah.

RC: You are correct in that the word almah does not appear, either in Gen 16:4 or in 16:11, the story of Hagar. However, that absent word is entirely, completely beside the point. The point is the use of the word "harah" in both Is 7:14 and Gen 16:11, as part of an identical Hebrew phrasing. It establishes (conclusively) that the woman in both cases is already pregnant, not that she will become so. Matthew wants it to be "will conceive", to fit his myth-building, his promotion of Jesus to a demigod like maybe Heracles. But the parallel story in Gen 16 removes that possibility of future tense or future sense. The author of Isaiah could well have drawn on Gen 16, it was certainly available to him. I was attempting to direct your attention to the exact parallelism in the language: the use of the term "harah" in 16:11 when we already know from 16:4 she is already pregnant. And the same formula: "...harah veyoledet ben; vekarat shemo ...".

I thought a bit about the word in Gen 16:11, "hinokh". I think it is likely a contraction of "hineh o'takh", or something like that -- "here you are ..." Thus, "Here you are, pregnant, and you will bear a son, and ..."
Go find a rabbi in Canberra to help you with this.

AR: No, [David] lived at least 1,000 years before Christ.

RC: Missing the point still. You are hopeless. Look: Pick any duration you want, within reason, for the interval between David and Jesus. I think I always said "about" 1000. The result, the conclusion, is the same: the two samples that are said without equivocation by Matt and Luke to be genealogies of Joseph are not drawn from the same population of humans because their average lengths are too different. Thus at least one is false. The conclusion is independent of the exact interval between David and Jesus.

AR: Matt counted 28 generations. He didn't count every generation, and nor did he have to.

RC: Then he can't have said with such certainty what he said in 1:17.
In addition to you being innumerate you are pretty challenged in logic and inference. I'm very disappointed, and have no more time for you.

---

Dear Min: who was governor of Syria in 6 BC?

Propraetorial Imperial Legates of Roman Syria (27 BC to 135 AD)
Date Governor
25 – 23 BC Marcus Terentius Varro
23 – 13 BC Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa
13/12 – 10/9 BC Marcus Titius
9 – 7/6 BC Gaius Sentius Saturninus
7/6 – 4 BC Publius Quinctilius Varus

Min, help him out a bit more. AR tends to be quite obtuse.

Propraetorial Imperial Legates of Roman Syria (27 BC to 135 AD)
Date Governor
25 – 23 BC Marcus Terentius Varro
23 – 13 BC Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa
13/12 – 10/9 BC Marcus Titius
9 – 7/6 BC Gaius Sentius Saturninus
7/6 – 4 BC Publius Quinctilius Varus
4 – 1 BC Unknown[1]
1 BC – 4 AD Gaius Julius Caesar Vipsanianus
4 – 5 Lucius Volusius Saturninus
6 – 12 Publius Sulpicius Quirinius