Another Slight Against Christ

[RozzySean]

Probably not a site devoted to attacking him as he's simply not taken seriously by by any branch of academia and hasn't been in the 100 or years since he published his first book.

It's like asking if there are any sites that disprove the claims of David Icke!

As for whether there are other virgin births in the myth's of other civilisations, the answer is not really.

There are many legends of gods or heroic deities who had miraculous births but there wern't virgin births. The video says for example that mithras was born of a virgin. That is completely untrue, it was Joseph Campbell who likened the birth of Mithras to the birth of Christ. However it's stretching the story to ridiculous lengths. Mithras was created out of solid rock, hewn and born as an adult so technically you could say he was born of a virgin as he didn't have a father but it's really stretching things to say that those two forms of birth are evenly remotely similar.

People in this day and age also have no understanding of the culture of ancient Israel and assume that people could just make up anything and people would believe it.

To have a child outside of wedlock in ancient Israel was a mortal sin, punishable by death. The parent's of the women who got pregnant would usually be shunned as they had failed to protect their daughter's innocence and there would have been a tremendous social stigma attached to any child born a bastard.

Therefore to claim that Mary was an unmarried mother of Jesus was a tremendously risky thing for the Gospel writers to do, as it exposed the whole religion of Christianity to ridicule and contempt.

To have a bastard as your 'saviour' would have been considered a laughable and disgusting thing, and exposed his followers to mockery, ridicule and worse.

To then compound that by claiming that he was a born of a virgin was to invite both the Jewish and Hellenistic worlds to literally rain down scorn, laughter, mockery and humiliation.

It was as absurd a claim then as it was now, but even more so becuase of the stigma associated with unmarried mothers. The idea that God's own Son would be born a bastard would have been abhorrent to the Jews of the first century AD.

So the idea that the early Christians just looked around and found some other mythical figure and decided to copy and paste his birth details is just ridiculous.

I can't remember the other names mentioned on the video, I may have another watch later, but there is no evidence whatsoever, supported by any credible historians, arhaeologists or theologians that suggests that Christianity got all of it's ideas from Pagan sources.

The greatest influence on Christianity, obviously was Judaism.

All of the details of Jesus' birth, life, mission, major life events, death and resurrection are to be found within the pages of the Old Testament.

In fact the entire Old Testament was a foreshadowing of God's redemptive plan of salvation through Christ, from Abraham being asked to sacrifice his son Isaac right through to the prophectic words of Isiah.

If you want to know where the Gospel writers got the idea for a virgin birth then look to the Old Testament and Isiah 7:14 'Behold, 'A Virgin shall shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us'

We know from the Dead Sea Scrolls that Isiah was both already written and widespread use long before the brith of Christ.

In fact the Gospel writers are at pains to point out where Jesus fufilled all the Old Testament prophecies.

The Bible, if actually read, is an extraordiary book and anyone who reads it from start to finish will have literally dozens of 'Oh my fucking God I can't believe that you HAVE to be shitting me!' type moments.

It's absolutely amazing, all of the prophecies in the Old Testament that explicitly detail Christ's birth, life and mission, the history of nations and empires, the immensely detailed history and future prediticions regarding Isreal, God' own special people and prophecies regarding our own times and that are being fufilled as we speak.

There will always be those who just don't want to believe and so will unquestionally and immediately latch on to anything that discredits it.

As the apostle Paul warned (2 Tim. 4:3) The time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear'.

Isiah 7:14 is a direct and intentional mistranslation from the original Hebrew. In the original Hebrew, it reads, "Behold a young woman will come with child..." There is different word in Hebrew for young woman and virgin. In Hebrew, the verse reads "young woman." Fact.

Jesus actually fulfills ZERO prophecies about what the real Messiah is supposed to do. That's why most Jews in Israel wouldn't buy into the idea that he was the Messiah. Paul took the writings of the prophets, twisted them around, and sold it to non-Jews who didn't know any better. Learn Hebrew and read the originals and it will be much clearer to you.

Paul invented Christianity. Not Jesus. Jesus was a pretty cool dude. He was the worlds first "Reform" Jew and his message is revolutionary and powerful. He was a great teacher and Rabbi. It's really too bad Paul and Augustine screwed up his real message.

This really is typical of the bizarre logic of those who try and discredit Christianity.

They see Christ and his mission in every pagan religion and the myths of every ancient civilisation and say that Christianity just stole the ideas from them, yet when it's showed that all of Jesus' mission was blatently prophecised in the Old Testament they say that in every case it meant something else.

We see the same thing in science, we are told the idea of a global flood on a planet 75 percent covered with water is nonsense, and yet now scientists account for the strange canal like features on Mars as being the result of global flooding of the whole planet, and this a planet with no liquid water at all?

If you want to split hairs over this, as I did study this at university, the word 'almah' actually comes from the root word 'alam' which means to 'cover, conceal, protected.' Thus it is clearly a picture of a young, inexperienced and hence virgin girl. The same word is used in Genesis when talking about Rebekah being the young woman drawing water from the well. It is made clear she is explicity clear in that instance that they are referring to a virgin girl.

And your whole argument is redundant anyhow as the Greek Septuagint, the earliest translation of the Hebrew Bible in existence, written at least 200 years before the birth of Christ translates the word 'almah' as virgin clearly and unequivecly attesting to the fact that that was how the word was to be taken.

That's absolute nonsense that emphasis of the world "almah" is the virginity status of a young woman. It may be somewhat implicit, but drawing that out as the primary meaning is not true to the intent of the word and the verse does not "clearly and unequivecly" attest to a virgin birth. The world means young woman of marriage age, or young woman who is fit for marriage. That's pure prooftexting. So what if the mistranslation happened for Hebrew/Aramaic to Greek instead of Hebrew to English.

Here's a little read on what the messiah really is:

Judaism 101: Moshiach: The Messiah

I could like you to other sites, but I'll you can find them on your own if you are interested different perspectives.