#Thread 1. Why do Protestants disown the Tanakh (Old Testament) claiming, the only part that they have anything to do with it is the so-called prophecy of Jesus mentioned in Isaiah 7:14? That is because even they find most of the contents absurd, indecent, sexual, graphic, so on.
2. Talking snake & donkey told as historical events, their god's mandate to kill babies, his act of drowning innocent animals, his curse to dash infants to the ground, rip open pregnant wombs are too absurd & violent to the modern minds. And so the best thing to do is disown it.
3. But as masters at cherry picking, they pick the so-called prophesy because it justifies Christianity's dominion theology. It is the Christian political ideology of establishing a Christian world nation in the name of saving the world from damnation through the grace of Jesus.
4. What's the verse? Is it really a prophesy & about Jesus of the NT?
In the Tanakh (OT) the verse says: Hinneh ha-almah harah ve-yeldeth ben ve-karath shem-o immanuel.
Honestly translated it reads: Behold, the young woman has conceived & bears a son & calls his name Immanuel.
5. Christians cherry-pick this verse from the Tanakh which they otherwise don't want anything to do with, as the prophecy for Jesus' virgin birth. But did Isaiah really mean a virgin will bear a son? Or it this a slip in translation or is it #PiousFraud?
6. Almah means a young woman, of marriageable age. She may be married or not, may be a virgin or may have had sexual experience. Almah DOESN'T specifically mean a VIRGIN.
Another Hebrew word, Betulah has been consistently used to refer to women who were definitely virgins.
7. Betulah is used where the writer doesn't want to leave any room for uncertainty as to the virignity status of the woman. Eg: Lev. 21:14; Deut. 22:15-19, 23, 28.
Almah: used when the emphasis is on the age group of the woman.
Betulah: used to emphasize the virginity status.
8. Four imp points to note here: 1. Isaiah is considered an imp prophet by Jews & Cs. 2. The virgin birth prophecy is the crux of C'ity. 3. Mary HAS to be a virgin mother. It can't be an indefinite adjective. 4. C'ity stands or falls on the basis of Mary's virginity status.
9. On this bg, if the Hebrew writers who:
a. wrote down Isaiah's prophesy
b. know its significance
c. are aware of the word betulah
d. are aware of the ambiguity of the word almah
wud've used bethulah & not almah.
10. Especially when the word betulah definitely meant virgin with no ambiguity as to the woman's virginity status & has been used even to refer to ordinary Hebrew women whose virginity status did not determine Christianity's credibility & ofc did not effect "mankind's salvation."
11. Then why did Isa. use almah?
Because he wasn't referring to a virgin & it was most definitely NOT a reference to Jesus' alleged birth some 800 yrs after the prophecy. Isa. was referring to a young woman giving birth in the most natural way.
What was the prophecy about?
12. Isaiah's prophecy was a reassurance to King Ahaz when Ahaz was troubled about the Syrian siege of Jerusalem. It was a prophet's job to use his divine calling to console Jewish ppl & the king with psychic readings/soothsaying, called prophesies by some religious cultures.
13. Isaiah's soothsaying is one such reassurance where he is consoling King Ahaz that despite the ongoing siege, Ahaz's royal line would survive through a boy who will be given birth to by a young woman & will be named Immanuel. No reference to betulah giving birth.
14. Jesus wasn't named Immanuel at birth. The anonymous writer of Matthew 1:25 says he was named Yeshua. He craftily quotes Isa. 7:14 in passive tense claiming the prophecy is fulfilled.
Yeshua (God saves) & Immanuel (God with us) aren't similar even in their Hebrew meanings.
2. True @NameIsNani. You were talking abt the ppl & not the customs. Why didn't you talk about how Christians demonize Hindu rituals? You should have asked me and I would have given you a ton of examples from my own family & so-called friends. You got gall to debate me on this?
3. Ironically the film written/directed by Vivek Athreya, a Brahmin, is abt a Brahmin Sundar & a Christian Leela trying to convince thr resp parents of their marriage.
Athreya conveniently paints Leela's fam as progressive/tolerant; Sundar's fam as foolishly orthodox/intolerant.
1. It's hilarious to still come across videos from self-styled apologists in India repeating the outdated, now debunked lie which goes like this:
"Dionysius Exiguus, the 6th century monk dated the birth of Jesus to Dec 25th based on the year of the founding of the Roman empire."
2. The date for the founding of the Roman empire itself is shrouded in mystery. Imagine how accurate the dating for Jesus is.
Modern #ChristianMythologists fraudulently promoted that every historical event is dated based on the birth of Jesus. This is the greatest lie ever told.
3. The Christian calendar (A.D/B.C.) was not invented until the 6th century. Does that mean historical events in that part of the world were not dated until the 6th century? Of course, they were. Events weren't waiting for the #JesusBirthMyth to be created for being given a date.
What Abrahamics have & Hindus lack is a physical platform where families commune every week along with their kids, even as young as infants, share ideas of growth & development of their resp. religious group, discuss concerns, keep up brotherhood, demand govt to listen to them..
Churches & mosques serve as that place for the other two communities. Worshipping their respective deities is just a small part of the activity in their so-called places of worship.
Where are such places for Hindus? How long will we whine that temples were taken away from us?
Who's stopping us from creating our own physical spaces now? Why foreign fund? Not all churches run on foreign fund. A ton of them are established thru local member funds. Why can't we do that?
Hindu community (minus the seculars) has the best minds. Why not put that to use?
Christians that claim that their god YHWH is not author of evil must go back to the basics of their religion.
In the early stages of Jewish theology YHWH & "the satan" were used interchangeably. As their theology evolved Satan became a proper noun & a separate being from YHWH.
Christians: Bible god, YHWH is the source of morality in humans.
Scholars: taking the Bible seriously will make YHWH a hateful racist sexist monster- the opposite of what Christians claim. Either he is a figment of imagination of barbaric ancient men or he's really a monster.
Let's see who is right- Christians or the critical scholars.
YHWH tortures/punishes ppl for no reason other than to just satisfy his ego or to win a "bet" or to simply prove he is "Lord." He doesn't spare even innocent babies, pregnant women &even animals who are programed.
1. Beginning in the Garden of Eden, he pronounces punishment on Adam&Eve's future progeny, who had nothing to do with the so-called sin of Adam&Eve. Genesis 3:16-18. 2. Punishes the 1st born sons and slave girls who had nothing to do with Egyptian slavery.
Exodus 11.5.
The Catholic Church tortured & killed those that simply rejected their teachings; burnt at stake those that questioned them.
But somehow spared Martin Luther - the guy who led a whole protest against Catholicism, nearly uprooting their dominion. Ever wondered why?
Read on...
By 16th c. the Church became v powerful & dominant. Thereby corrupt. It had immense political & spiritual power over the Roman empire and the emperor.
It made salvation a business enterprise. It began selling INDULGENCES saying ppl's punishment for sins could be reduced.
What are INDULGENCES?
Catholic Christianity of that time taught that sin was of 2 types: Mortal sin which directly earned hell after death & Venal sin which was a few years of purification in purgatory - an interim state between life on earth & eternal life in heaven.