The bible says nothing of the kind. That's some human's view being wished on the text.
2 Timothy 3:16
All Scripture
is given by inspiration of God, and
is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,
Obviously there would be exceptions but tell a religious Jewish person that their TaNaKh was not inspired by God… I’m not sure you would find agreement. But, again, there are always exceptions because you can even find atheistic Jewish people
What sin nature? Have you not by now carefully re-read Genesis 2 and 3?
Ephesians 2:3
among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others.
And as I showed you, according to the Tanakh, sin can't be inherited, hence 'original sin' is impossible.
I don’t think that is referencing our sin nature. But the nature of the given propensity of sin, is within us. Unless you can say you have never sinned.
Additionally, and quite separately from that, the idea that the child must hang for its remote ancestor's alleged crimes is absurd, unjust, arbitrary, disgusting.
Ok - agreed.
Only the Jesus of Matthew and the Jesus of Luke were said to be born of a virgin.
By the witness of two not to mention the context in the TaNaKh.
The Jesus of Mark was an ordinary Jew until God adopted him as [his] son the same way [he]'d adopted David in Psalm 2:7.
No… not quite but some truth. David had the Holy Spirit rest on him and maybe even the soul… but was never filled with the Holy Spirit as Jesus was. Not to mention David sinned and Jesus didn’t.
The Jesus of Paul and the Jesus of John are never said to be born of a virgin, an inexplicable omission if the claim were thought historical. Instead their parentages are never explained.
I don’t think that is the issue. There was no need to have every author declare what was already known.
Those two, unlike the synoptic Jesuses, pre-existed in heaven with God and created the material universe (you'll recognize the gnostic demiurge in that).
Exactly! Notice that the other authors didn’t have to declare what was already known.
Gnosticism may intersect at some point but it is still wrong,.
As to how they came to earth, we have to guess.
Not really. It is pretty clear IMU
Since the claim is made that they were descended from David, I assume they respectively entered the zygote of a Jewish couple at the moment of conception, but of course that's entirely guesswork. (Not guesswork about history, of course, but guesswork as to what those authors might have written if pressed on the topic.)
Not really. Jesus was born through a Jewish woman but still was birthed (created) by the Holy Spirit and The Word. So, in the legal sense, he was of the line of David but in the spiritual sense was not. Remember, Ruth was not “Jewish” in the zygote sense but was still in David’s lineage.
