Abraham & Sarah Never Happened?

[David Merrill]

I want this tied back to the guilt trip - Abraham being real or not - that would bring him to the edge of killing Isaac on the Temple Mount (before construction), Mount Moriah. That this was happening at puberty for Isaac brings the Key into focus. This whole deal about sacrifice is upon guilt. In the Bible, because Abraham was half-siblings with Sarah.

[xparte]

[george]

Dan Winter:

https://www.youtube.com/embed/KjDwZNbaic4

inspiring

[allodial]

People who attribute being to a God outside themselves reconcile the books with - God works in mysterious ways. - Just as they appraise the church building to be whatever value will balance the books that month, together in their Corporate PERSON 501(c)(3) - President, Secretary, Treasurer and... forming that artificial entity. They call it double-entry.

So Jesus felt so betrayed, having come so close to fulfilling the Last Prophecy. He had it worked out, he thought, with Judas. The Worthless Shepherd Prophecy of Zechariah clearly dictated that Judas was to go buy an expensive sword and return to the Last Supper and execute the new King with it; ending the role of Messiah ben Joseph. According to the Prophecy Jesus would arise in three days and fulfill execution of the second part - Messiah ben David. [Note that link is from Page 137 of the book - the number of the Qaballah - KOPH BETH LAMED HEY = 137.]

I was taught that the Wortheless Shepherd prophecies pointed to the fact that Pharisees, etc. would reject Jesus (name basically means means 'savior') and in turn would turn to or get a "worthless shepherd" which to knowledge led them to Bar Kokhba revolt (Maccabean): a leader that made thousands cut off their fingers of their right hand etc., and led them to destruction and judgement with Rome being used as instrument of such judgment. The worthless shepherd prophecy was fulfilled to the 't' after they rejected Jesus.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]3128[/ATTACH]

The Expositor's Bible Commentary gives some insight although their commentary still holds on to some vestiges of yet-to-be-futurism. There are many "midrashim" about Simeon bar Kochba/Kohkba, here is one:

Midrash Rabbah Lamentations 2.2 4
For three and a half years the emperor Hadrian surrounded Bethar. In the city was rabbi Eleazar of Mode'in [5], who continually wore sackcloth and fasted, and used to pray daily: 'Lord of the universe, sit not in judgment today!' so that Hadrian thought of returning home [6].

A Cuthean [7] went [to the emperor] and found him and said: 'My lord, so long as that old cock wallows in ashes, you will not conquer the city. But wait for me, because I will do something that will enable you to subdue it to-day.'

He immediately entered the gate of the city, where he found rabbi Eleazar standing and praying. He pretended to whisper in the ear of rabbi Eleazar of Mode'in. People went and informed Bar Kozeba: 'Your friend, rabbi Eleazar, wishes to surrender the city to Hadrian.'

He sent and had the Cuthean brought to him and asked: 'What did you say to him?'

He replied: 'If I tell you, the emperor will kill me; and if I do not tell you, you will kill me. It is better that I should kill myself and the secrets of the government be not divulged.'

Bar Kozeba was convinced that rabbi Eleazar wanted to surrender the city, so when the latter finished his praying, he had him brought into his presence and asked him: 'What did the Cuthean tell you?'

He answered: 'I do not know what he whispered in my ear, nor did I hear anything, because I was standing in prayer and am unaware what he said.'

{Simeon} Bar Kozeba flew into a rage, kicked him with his foot and killed him. A heavenly voice issued forth and proclaimed: 'Woe to the worthless shepherd that leaveth the flock! The sword shall be upon his arm, and upon his right arm!'[8]

It was intimated to him, 'Thou hast paralyzed the arm of Israel and blinded their right eye; therefore shall thy arm wither and thy right arm grow dim!'

Forthwith the sins [of the people] caused Bethar to be captured. {Simeon} Bar Kozeba was slain and his head taken to Hadrian. He asked: 'Who killed him?'

A Cuthean said to him: 'I killed him.'

'Bring his body to me,' he ordered.

He went and and found a snake encircling its neck. So Hadrian, when told of this, exclaimed: 'If his God had not slain him, who could have overcome him?' [9]

And there was applied to him the verse: Except their rock had given them over.[10]

Also, from the Palestine Talmud (,Ta'anit 4.5):

Rabbi Simeon ben Yohai taught: 'Aqiba, my master, used to interpret a star goes forth from Jacob [1] as 'Kozeba goes forth from Jacob'. Rabbi Aqiba, when he saw {Simeon} Bar Kozeba, said: 'This is the king Messiah!' Rabbi Johanan ben Torta said to him: 'Aqiba! Grass will grow on your cheeks and still the son of David does not come!'

jewishencyclopedia.com

The picture being painted is that Simeon bar Kochba it seems fulfilled the Worthless Shepherd prophecy. There is related book entitled Jewish Identity and Politics Between the Maccabees and Bar Kokhba by one Benedikt Eckhardt. However, there is a rather plausible notion of "the Worthless Shepherd" being composed of or alluding to each and every one the unreliable 'leaders' substituted for Jesus.

The Worthless Shepherd Prophecy brings Jeremiah 17:5 to mind:

Thus saith the LORD; Cursed be the man {geber} that trusteth in man {adam}, and maketh flesh his arm {zerowa}, and whose heart departeth from the LORD. {Note the word 'and' rather than 'or'--three-fold conditions.}

From Jeremiah I also glean that reliance upon mundane political or military forces or could not have been part of the fulfillment of messianic prophecies since the word for arm also means: "forces (political and military)". In view of Jeremiah 17:5, likelihood of Jesus then having been intending to stage a secular coup d'etat is greatly diminished. One might also consider, also, riding on a donkey (peace) vs. riding on a horse (war) which had very significant meanings then.

One might also consider Habbakuk 1:16 which to knowledge describes the Babylonian practice of "worshipping one's net":

Therefore they sacrifice unto their net, and burn incense unto their drag; because by them their portion is fat, and their meat plenteous. Habbakuk 1:16.

I was taught that net here mainly refers to their (Babylon's) military might or their of coercive force. The Hebrews, of course, would lack that kind of characteristic of worshipping (serving) or attributing their success or prosperity to military power. Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers lucidates:

The Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary (re: Habakkuk) echoes much the same:

In contrast to the Babylonians, it would have been most uncharacteristic of ancient Israel or of Hebrews generally to lawfully in God's eyes to worship their own 'net'. Jesus reliance upon secular or mundane military progress is highly diminished in light of the foregoing. The writings of Josephus and others clearly point to the divine and holy.

For further elucidation, earlier on in the Book of Zechariah we find:

Then he answered and spake unto me, saying, This is the word of the LORD unto Zerubbabel, saying, Not by might, nor by power, but by my spirit, saith the LORD of hosts. Zechariah 4:6

[xparte]

Judas the first paid informant, The People who attribute being to a God outside themselves reconcile the books with - God works in mysterious ways. A Worthless Shepherd and Secular scapegoats for God . Once your in the service of God. at low cost Guilt afford to be dirty, only its the Secular seduction that has to be clean. Getting rid of peace the no need for a savior. when your looking to war Christ any salvation renders peace render Caesar what's his and its peace. God holds mysterious ways the works part is why he never named any Saints. As prophecy Betrayal is the breaking or violation of a presumptive contract, trust, or confidence that produces moral and psychological conflict within a relationship amongst individuals, between organizations or between individuals and organizations. Often betrayal is the act of supporting a rival group, or it is a complete break from previously decided upon or presumed norms by one party from the others. Someone who betrays others is commonly called a traitor or betrayer. Betrayal is also a commonly used literary element and is often associated with or used as a plot twist. Roman arrest was possible with Pharisee complaint Judas was hired to identify Christ the irony is in Betrayal Christ recognition was no secret to Roman officers and Soldiers His great works and his identity were never mistaken and associated prophecy Pharisees Rejecting Christ IMHumbleO is Rejecting peace as your post has the villains NON SERVIAM

[xparte]

https://youtu.be/45trtAfWhYg

My father had taught me, looking at a bird, he says, "Do you know what that is? It's a Brown-Throated Thrush. But in Portuguese, it's a Hunto La Pero. In Italian, a Chutto La Pittida. In Chinese, it's a Chung Wong Tah." Etcetera. He says, "Now you'd know all the languages you want to know what the name of that bird is, and when you finish with all that," he says, "you'll know absolutely nothing whatever about the bird." He knew the difference between knowing the name of something and knowing something. - Richard Feynman

[David Merrill]

I was taught that the Wortheless Shepherd prophecies pointed to the fact that Pharisees, etc. would reject Jesus (name basically means means 'savior') and in turn would turn to or get a "worthless shepherd" which to knowledge led them to Bar Kokhba revolt (Maccabean): a leader that made thousands cut off their fingers of their right hand etc., and led them to destruction and judgement with Rome being used as instrument of such judgment. The worthless shepherd prophecy was fulfilled to the 't' after they rejected Jesus.



The Expositor's Bible Commentary gives some insight although their commentary still holds on to some vestiges of yet-to-be-futurism. There are many "midrashim" about Simeon bar Kochba/Kohkba, here is one:



Also, from the Palestine Talmud (,Ta'anit 4.5):





The picture being painted is that Simeon bar Kochba it seems fulfilled the Worthless Shepherd prophecy. There is related book entitled Jewish Identity and Politics Between the Maccabees and Bar Kokhba by one Benedikt Eckhardt. However, there is a rather plausible notion of "the Worthless Shepherd" being composed of or alluding to each and every one the unreliable 'leaders' substituted for Jesus.

The Worthless Shepherd Prophecy brings Jeremiah 17:5 to mind:



From Jeremiah I also glean that reliance upon mundane political or military forces or could not have been part of the fulfillment of messianic prophecies since the word for arm also means: "forces (political and military)". In view of Jeremiah 17:5, likelihood of Jesus then having been intending to stage a secular coup d'etat is greatly diminished. One might also consider, also, riding on a donkey (peace) vs. riding on a horse (war) which had very significant meanings then.

One might also consider Habbakuk 1:16 which to knowledge describes the Babylonian practice of "worshipping one's net":



I was taught that net here mainly refers to their (Babylon's) military might or their of coercive force. The Hebrews, of course, would lack that kind of characteristic of worshipping (serving) or attributing their success or prosperity to military power. Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers lucidates:



The Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary (re: Habakkuk) echoes much the same:



In contrast to the Babylonians, it would have been most uncharacteristic of ancient Israel or of Hebrews generally to lawfully in God's eyes to worship their own 'net'. Jesus reliance upon secular or mundane military progress is highly diminished in light of the foregoing. The writings of Josephus and others clearly point to the divine and holy.

For further elucidation, earlier on in the Book of Zechariah we find:

Xparte; Thank you! This is why I post - that kind of mindful input!

Allodial; Pragmatism is a radical interpretation and like the euphemism of Abraham and Sarah's incest, I find so much interpretation like you share to be rationale and justification. Thank you for bringing in the Bar Kokhba Revolution in. I had nearly forgotten about that very embarrassing episode in Jewish history.

I think this might be more along my line of thought. But please don't assume I have adopted this as mine.

The Worthless Shepherd.

The Sop.

When forming my impressions about the Last Supper I presumed that Jesus knew how his life and recently his ministry had been fulfilling prophecies from the writings of Israel. Things had taken a turn for Jesus. He had been brought up knowing he was the son of the King, Archelaus HEROD but that he was an embarrassment bastard. Now with John, Archelaus' prophet channeling Elijah crowning him King, Jesus felt that he would be executed by sword and then somehow be resurrected in three days.

This brings a lot of other passages into congruence. Like Peter finding two swords...


I will give your post some time and enjoyment too.

[David Merrill]

It helps with the legal questions around Jesus being King:

[David Merrill]

Upon a little more reading I must admit that The Nazarene Gospel Restored has indeed influenced my Bible interpretation. It was so long ago that I read it, that I had forgotten.

The Coronation.

[allodial]

... Now with John, Archelaus' prophet channeling Elijah crowning him King, Jesus felt that he would be executed by sword and then somehow be resurrected in three days.

What few may realize is that the significance of the Resurrection as pertains to the extent Zoroastrianism that may have influenced the Pharisees. Babylonian religion and ideas had begun to corrupt at the time may have incompatible with the Melchedizek and Hebrew and Mosaic doctrines. That many Israelites had mistaken the doctrine of the Hebrews for secular dabblings was a major problem even in Isaiah's and Jeremiah's time--i.e. they started have the idea of modeling their governance after worldly governments such as Egypt and Babylon (which is why they wound up in Babylonian captivity--conflict of laws). Zoroastrians from what I recall had a shorter time limit on when a body could be resurrected. The 3 days would have proven contrary to Zoroastrian restrictions.

There is a strong body of evidence that the Pharisees (similar word to Farsi the language of Persia) were strongly leaning toward or influenced by Zoroastrianism. If the Bible was trying to conform with what was acceptable to the Flavian (Vespasian--said to have been born 9 years after Jesus) family or to the Pharisees the resurrection would likely have happened in less time. Its been a long time since I researched the Pharisee-Zoroastrianism connection. Consider, the significance of Iran these days: Persia.

Re: Two swords.
There were two cherubim atop the Mercy Seat (the lid of Ark of the Covenant). That seems highly significant to two swords. Furthermore, the significance of two witnesses.

Re: execution by sword.
From what I've gathered, the prophecies spoke of crucifixion or hanging. I would figure even on the secular level he would have expected to be stoned, crucified or hung. Likely, he was well aware that the scepter had departed from Judah so would be handed over to the Romans.

Nonetheless, diverse interpretations are interesting. However, I came to discover a consistent, golden thread permeating all of the Bible works and the Tanach that fails to contradict itself AFAIK. That is, I find it all highly pragmatic: spiritually first and foremost, physically after that--a good and right order.. I've found that most people that have a problem with true saints and believers really have a problem with heretical Gnostic doctrines, Mithraic overlays: and so they might mistake the baby for the bathwater and the Son for the stranger. They mistake the true believers for Simonians, Zoroastrians or Mithraists--due to projection and false impersonation.

I give you the end of a golden string. Only wind it into a ball. It will lead you in at Heaven's gate: built in Jerusalem's wall. --William Blake

Re: Vespasian
In light of Cyrus's significance, Vespasian's prophetic significance was asserted by Josephus.

Josephus had to fight a defensive war against overwhelming force while refereeing internecine squabbles in the Jewish ranks. In 67 C.E. Josephus and other rebels were cornered in a cave during the siege of Jotapata and took a suicide pact. However, Josephus survived, and was taken hostage by the Romans, led by Vespasian.

Josephus shrewdly reinterpreted the Messianic prophecies. He predicted that Vespasian would become the ruler of the 'entire world'. Josephus joined the Romans, for which he was branded a traitor. He acted as consultant to the Romans and a go-between with the revolutionaries. Unable to convince the rebels to surrender, Josephus ended up watching the second destruction of the Temple and the defeat of the Jewish nation.

What Josephus (and many later Rabbinical writers) saw as Vespasian in this:

"...the people of the prince that will come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary." Daniel 9:26 in part

Is that not exactly what happened under Vespasian and his son Titus?

[allodial]

Xparte; Thank you! This is why I post - that kind of mindful input!

Allodial; Pragmatism is a radical interpretation and like the euphemism of Abraham and Sarah's incest, I find so much interpretation like you share to be rationale and justification. Thank you for bringing in the Bar Kokhba Revolution in. I had nearly forgotten about that very embarrassing episode in Jewish history.

I think this might be more along my line of thought. But please don't assume I have adopted this as mine.

The Worthless Shepherd.

The Sop.

When forming my impressions about the Last Supper I presumed that Jesus knew how his life and recently his ministry had been fulfilling prophecies from the writings of Israel. Things had taken a turn for Jesus. He had been brought up knowing he was the son of the King, Archelaus HEROD but that he was an embarrassment bastard. Now with John, Archelaus' prophet channeling Elijah crowning him King, Jesus felt that he would be executed by sword and then somehow be resurrected in three days.

This brings a lot of other passages into congruence. Like Peter finding two swords...

I will give your post some time and enjoyment too.

Thank you for the The Worthless Shepherd.pdf link. Very insightful. I have come to suspect that "the Messiah System" has a cherubimic aspect. Why? The design of the Ark with the two cherubim on the mercy seat and the temple itself having cherubim incorporated. In other words, Messiah protects the Holiness in two ways, one of which is keeping the stranger out.

I am uncertain which prophecies they suggest Jesus to have failed to fulfill--I'm referring to page 642 of that link--I perhaps need to take another look. The irony is that it is the very book of Deuteronomy--chapter 28 in particular--that serves as the basis for the consequence of rejecting Jesus and also for disobeying the commandments. Those who followed the Good Shepherd System were led into paradise (the fled to Pella, etc. and escaped the Deuteronomy 28 curses). Those who rejected him therefore could only expect captivity (i.e.the 'negative side' of the Cherubimic duty)--the curses of Deuteronomy to befall them. Around the time James the Just was killed (almost immediately as if that were the triggering event) the hedges of protection were removed from Jerusalem, etc. and the Romans were allowed to proceed with judgement 66AD through 70 A.D. in fulfillment of Daniel 9:26. That is, to look at Deuteronomy as a basis for designating Jesus to be a false prophet is one thing--the evidence? Its an entirely different matter to wholly ignore Deutoronomy 28 and fail to see what was called Roman-Jewish War wasn't mere secular war it was Deuteronomy 28 grade judgement and the captivity that followed likewise.

However, if you do not obey the Lord your God and do not carefully follow all his commands and decrees I am giving you today ...The Lord will cause you to be defeated before your enemies. --Deuteronomy 28:15-26 in part

Deuteronomy 28:49-57 in a sense fortells what came at the hands of Rome after Christ was rejected:

49 The Lord will bring a nation against you from far away, from the ends of the earth, like an eagle

Josephus and other historians wrote about the horrible consequences of the Roman invasion (Rome is often equated with Edom who characterized as being pitiless!) The outcome of the Roman-Jewish wars seems to almost eerily have been a rote fulfillment of Deuteronomy 28 curses with the consequences of the Bar Kochba revolt were reverberations of the same with the Worthless Shepherd prophecy woven in through it all.

Among the residents of the region beyond Jordan was a woman called Mary, daughter of Eleazar, of the village of Bethezuba (the name means "House of Hyssop"). She was well off, and of good family, and had fled to Jerusalem with her relatives, where she became involved with the siege. Most of the property she had packed up and brought with her from Peraea had been plundered by the tyrants [Simon and John, leaders of the Jewish war-effort], and the rest of her treasure, together with such foods as she had been able to procure, was being carried by their henchmen in their daily raids. In her bitter resentment the poor woman cursed and abused these extortioners, and this incensed them against her. However, no one put her to death either from exasperation or pity. She grew weary of trying to find food for her kinsfolk. In any case, it was by now impossible to get any, wherever you tried. Famine gnawed at her vitals, and the fire of rage was ever fiercer than famine. So, driven by fury and want, she committed a crime against nature. Seizing her child, an infant at the breast, she cried, "My poor baby, why should I keep you alive in this world of war and famine? Even if we live till the Romans come, they will make slaves of us; and anyway, hunger will get us before slavery does; and the rebels are crueler than both. Come, be food for me, and an avenging fury to the rebels, and a tale of cold horror to the world to complete the monstrous agony of the Jews." With these words she killed her son, roasted the body, swallowed half of it, and stored the rest in a safe place. But the rebels were on her at once, smelling roasted meat, and threatening to kill her instantly if she did not produce it. She assured them she had saved them a share, and revealed the remains of her child. Seized with horror and stupefaction, they stood paralyzed at the sight. But she said, "This is my own child, and my own handiwork. Eat, for I have eaten already. Do not show yourselves weaker than a woman, or more pitiful than a mother. But if you have pious scruples, and shrink away from human sacrifice, then what I have eaten can count as your share, and I will eat what is left as well." At that they slunk away, trembling, not daring to eat, although they were reluctant to yield even this food to the mother. The whole city soon rang with the abomination. When people heard of it, they shuddered, as though they had done it themselves. --Josephus on the Siege of Jerusalem

Zechariah in a sense could have been said to 'act it out' before it happened, as in: "If you will have no part in my right hand, then here is my left".



To reiterate they refer to Deuteronomy 22, but SIX chapters later is Deuteronomy 28 which attributes the calamities to judgement or curses. The kingdom DID come then, though it is not a secular kingdom. Jesus has been in session since ~30 AD.

Some interpret it: "I am is there" or "I am there".

Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. --2 Corinthians 3:17

[David Merrill]

Thank you for your thoughtful responses Allodial.

I actually use this and other forums to hash through my recent hypothesis and usually project the conclusions as I go; so it is a welcome read to find somebody questioning me on my way into convincing myself my interpretations are correct. The recent formulation that seems inconclusive is about Jesus and adopting his Kingship as if that is the bastard son, or his spiritual inheritance, while he was indeed a bastard embarrassment reminding Archelaus of his pubescent recklessness - bedding the Braider maidens.

So is the impact in that Archelaus, upon realizing that the Tetrarch in Jerusalem bedding in adultery the other Tetrarch in Syria's wife (Antipas TETRARCH was in the Jerusalem throne sleeping with Herodias, Philip TETRARCH's wife). This presented an opportunity to impeach Antipas and launching the accusation cost the King (Archelaus) his prophet (John BAPTIST).

So in the Spirit it seems beneficial to understand the truth and adopt Jesus CHRIST for his reconciliation of one with the other. He preached a spiritual inheritance while he was the embarrassing and disowned bastard, and then when reclaimed for political reasons he was willing to dance up the King's Road in the underwear of David to claim his place - even kicking the moneychangers out of the courtyard! - Which might have been a poor political choice of coronation policies...

[allodial]

I'd say the kind of bastardy to be shunned is one where God the Father abandons one as a Son. As in the 'observable model' points to something undesirable on another level even to the extent is calls for a brother to cover his brother's wives and children--ala doctrine of coverture--should he pass away or the like. This kind of coverture is expressed through Jesus too.

If brothers dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without to a stranger: her husband's brother shall go in to her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband's brother to her. --Deuteronomy 25:5 {Clearly, polygyny is not prohibited.}

Nonetheless, the 'faith contract' that was presented to Ahaz gives OT evidence of God's ability to facilitate a virgin birth.

I am convinced that Joseph and Mary were rightly betrothed. If Adam was formed from clay, God can in his Providence form a babe from the 'clay' of the womb (the womb is essentially a fertile field for planting man-seeds). Even among sorcerors and witches, the idea of a homunculus is well-known and found acceptable. Why demote God? Mary had faith in what Gabriel said thusly it came to pass: faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of thing not seen. Mary's (some suggest her to have been a northern (Mt. Carmel) Essene) participation in the process was not merely physical.

And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth,

27 To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.

28 And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.

29 And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be.

30 And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God.

31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus.

32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:

33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.

34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?

35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

36 And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.

37 For with God nothing shall be impossible.

38 And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her. --Luke 1:26-38

When Jesus approached people who wanted to be healed, their faith was important. For a moment, consider Gabriel approaching Mary concerning the birth of Jesus and how it paralleled how Jesus approached those who sought salvation through healing. Mary gave positive confession and faith. With Jesus healing someone or with Gabriel approaching Mary, both were creative acts bringing a desired result or vision into manifestation: born from above through faith (rather than from below--through fleshly reliance)--get it (even Abraham's story lucidates this in the Isaac vs. Ishmael paradigm)? Faith and works go hand in hand which is why faith without works would be considered to be 'dead' (doubt? debt?--consider the parable of the talents and failure to use the talents (or gifts)).

The thing about Jesus is that a savior was hoped for and faith was held in the manifestation of the Savior for thousands of years. Mary of course, had faith and confessed her faith.

After he had finished all his sayings in the hearing of the people, he entered Capernaum. 2 Now a centurion had a servant[a] who was sick and at the point of death, who was highly valued by him. 3 When the centurion[b]9 I tell you, not even in Israel have I found such faith.

Consider the faith of the Centurion and the doubt among Israel and Judah. Consider thousands of years of collective faith going all the way back to Abraham in support of the manifestation of Jesus (Salvation). Now lest someone make presumptions, I would not be so quick to suggest that Isaiah 7 prophecies the birth of Jesus because effectively unlike Mary, Ahaz and company may have rejected the 'offer' back then.

I will not ask, and I will not put the Lord to the test.

Did Ahaz have faith? Remember, the model of Jesus healing and requiring faith from the healed or from the requestor? If Ahaz rejected then the offer would have been foreclosed., no? Like Abraham, Noah, etc. Mary accepted and gave faithful confession. Thusly, I would not tend to suggest Isaiah 7 to be a direct prophecy about Jesus because it seems the sign to Ahaz was to come in his lifetime. However, one key point that many might miss is that nothing stopped God from making a similar extension of offer to someone else in the future. Similarly, where does it say in the Tanach that God couldn't or didn't approach others similarly as he approached Abraham?

[xparte]

Secular Patriotism gets betrayed and the heathen peasantry gets oppressed THE NON HEROICS HAVE THE GREATEST HEROIC HISTORICAL MEMORY YET THE HEROIC PEOPLE HAVE NO MEMORY Was i hollerin one underdag maccabee vs antiochus dead elephant make some room . I will impart thank you to the HEROIC on the site those elephant droppers

[David Merrill]

Thank you Xparte. The writing of Pragmatism was in the spirit of radical.

So Allodial, my faith is that God had no need for supernatural stunts. Ergo my post about the supercomputer. I tweaked resonance in reality, the material time-space continuum and out popped the Name of God and the Name of Jesus CHRIST. So I might be biased. The whole thing is supernatural because the natural state of mankind is unity with God.

Thank you though, for somebody as studied as you to support Virgin Birth of Jesus is really worth considering. I have been around Christians lately who are confused on that. They want to give it lip service but as I see it, they detect ritual magic there at some level. - Like a God who toys with the man trying to get into the pool before the Holy Spirit leaves it. How many young women wonder if they can be good as can be and have the God they worship knock them up while they sleep?