Virgin Mary, Ark of the Covenant

[Bucky Ball]

Fuck your logic is so far up your ass. You're deflecting because you can't provide me with any evidence.

I do realize it's hard to accept. But if you really think there was a zombie invasion, and the people who wrote the book it's in are credible, you're beyond help.

So sorry dear. You've missed the ENTIRE POINT of the Ahaz/Isaih prophecy. Let me try to make it very very simple for you, dear.

1. The POINT of the Isaiah story was that the King's wife was was PREGNANT, and THAT was the "sign". NOT the manner of the birth. Isaiah did not tell the King (or make any reference for the King) that the child his "non-virginal" wife was going to have, was a "miraculous virginal" child. The CHILD itself was the sign. No one disputes THAT. Apparently you do.

2. In importing and referencing the story, Matthew's intent was obviously to say the CHILD (Jebus) was also a sign. Matthew, (and NO OTHER EARLY Christian) made no claim about "virginity" in Mary.

3. The translation (while demonstrably true, and accepted by ALL mainstream scholars, and you STILL have provided NOT ONE scholarly reference or rebuttal), is NOT the crux of the so-called "prophecy". The POINT is that the manner of the birth is irrelevant, as THE KING'S FUCKING WIFE IN THE ORIGINAL STORY WAS NOT, COULD NOT, AND DID NOT CLAIM to be VIRGINAL. NOT ONE PERSON in all of history and scholarship (except you) ever once claimed King Ahaz's wife WAS a virgin. If the parallel is drawn between the two, (Mary and her), then the parallel is drawn. In fact NO ONE EVER claimed Ahaz's wife was a "virgin mother" which IS what you two retards ARE doing. The parallel the editors of Matthew cooked up, interpreted as "virginal" MAKES NO SENSE IN CONTEXT and does not bear up under close inspection. Sorry dude. You lose. THE FUCKING PARALLEL DOES NOT STAND if you're claiming "virginal" was the intent. Isaiah NEVER claimed Ahaz's wife was a virgin, and neither did anyone else. Ever. Not once. Is that too hard for even a retard to get ?

Where did the other fucking 23 chromosomes come from ?

I'm done here with you two retards. But thanks for playing, and demonstrating how fucking retarded Christian believers are, and how totally ignorant you fools are with respect to you own damn books.

I could care less how many times the word is incorrectly translated. Sometimes "maiden" means "maiden". Sometimes "alma" means "young women of marriageable age". Sometimes it means "vrigin". It depends entirely ON CONTEXT, as anyone who knows anything about Archaic Hebrew knows. You do not know Archaic Hebrew. The CONTEXT here was MISAPPLIED. It's not my problem. The LOGIC of the (supposed) parallel between the two women is more than enough to debunk the Christian crap claim, (as IF science and genetics were not). The Councils cooked up the claim he was "fully human, fully divine". No human ever once had 23 chromosomes.

Scholars agree the word was mistranslated. You have provided NOT ONE reference or scholar of Archaic Hebrew IN THIS CONTEXT meant "virgin".
You can't. Nice try at affirming the preposterous notion that yet another (of course YOURS) of the vast number of ancient "virgin born" human-divine beings just happens to be THE one that's true.

Original sin, also called ancestral sin, is the Christian doctrine of humanity's state of sin resulting from the fall of man, stemming from Adam's rebellion in Eden.

Though it wasn't called original sin, the curse is in the Old Testament, not something invented by Christianity. Read the book of Genesis and get a real education please instead of growing like a mushroom: keeping yourself in the dark and feeding yourself with shit.

So you don't know if there was no Adam, but someone "fell". I see. Are you drunk or on drugs ?
Original Sin does not "fit" the Hebrew concept of evil, (which was "chaos") They got it from Sumeria/Babylonia. But since you know nothing about ancient cultures and mythology, you also wouldn't know that. The Hebrews NEVER said anything about "Original Sin", (not once) and the OT made perfect sense to them, without it. Christians cooked up the idea to justify their invention, ("salvation"). Is the world better since "Jebus saved you" ? Nope. It's the same. It failed in fact, and failed as a concept. Obviously YOU wouldn't know anything about that, since you have no education in these matters. Read Martin Buber's (the Jewish Philosopher/Talmud scholar's) "Good and Evil". The fact is, you NEED an explanation for the complex confusing world you see around yourself, and being uneducated, you have no better explanation. So you use religion. Just like billions before you. It's a crutch, as your brain NEEDS an explanation for what you see, and it's the only one you have. And it's easy. You read ONE old book. How idiotic.

Now let me try to help you too dear. You see, honey, IF THERE WAS NO "garden of Eden", there was no "fall". Oh oh oh. I know that blows your little mind. You on the one hand say you don't know "if there was an Adam", and then you claim there was an "Adam's fall". I could care less if something is "written in the OT". The writers were ancient desert dwellers who were TOTALLY ignorant of human psychology, science in general, and who, during the Babylonian Exile, cooked up a set of books, (the Torah of Moses), to unify, politically, a defeated nation, and to try to explain how their deity, (the Babylonian war-god whose name was Yahweh Sabaoth) had or could, let his "chosen people" be defeated, when he had promised to protect them. Instead of "reading the book of Genesis" how about reading ABOUT the Book of Genesis and ancient Near Eastern Literature, and how it was formed, and why, and what its origins were. You really are one of THE most ignorant theists EVER to stumble in here. You don't even know the history of the "doctrine" of Original Sin, and how and why and when it was cooked up. There is not a shred of evidence that humans EVER lived in a "perfect" state, or that the natural world "fell" from "preternatural" perfection. Dinosaurs got cancer. There never was a state of perfection. Any educated person knows that. There is no such thing as "free will" Modern Neuroscience has debunked it. In order for a human to be "morally culpable", he/she must be fully conscious of ALL the elements,simultaneously, that go into a moral decision. Science knows decisions are made in brains before they are fully conscious of the choice. If THAT is true, the entire "Christian" moral system is FALSE, and preposterous, So much for the crap of "Original Sin". There is no "mechanism" for perpetuating it from one generation to another.