Jayhawker Soule

Don't go there ...

alexie

Supposed Historical Biblical Inaccuracy

Virgin
The biblical record is perfectly clear: the Bible narrates the historical conception and birth of Jesus Christ in the womb of the virgin Mary. There is no question about the interpretation. No one has every seriously questioned the entire orthodox church's interpretation of the Christmas story. They have denied its factuality, asserted that it is myth and not historical fact, ridiculed the very idea of a virgin birth as primitive and silly—but no one denies that the authors of the Bible, particularly Matthew and Luke, intend to teach that Jesus' conception occurred out-of-wedlock by the supernatural intervention of the Holy Spirit in the virginal womb of the young girl Mary.

Luke's historical record is probably the most familiar. We'll listen to him first. He tells us that the angel Gabriel was sent "to a virgin betrothed to a man. . . . The virgin's name was Mary." Gabriel informs Mary that she will shortly give birth. Mary responds, "How can this be, since I am a virgin" (Luke 1:27, 34). The Greek word translated "virgin" (parthenon) refers to "a chaste, unmarried maiden, a virgin girl." This is evident in the angel's response to Mary. The child will be conceived miraculously through the instrumentality of the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:35). There is no room here for any other interpretation. Thus, the historian/physician Luke chronicles the virginal conception and the birth of Jesus as a straightforward, historical account.

Apparently, Luke has written his narrative from Mary's point of view, utilizing Mary's own eyewitness testimony (Luke 1:1). Luke's references to Mary "keeping all these things in her heart and pondering them" (2:19) indicate that Mary was the custodian of the mystery of Jesus birth. This perspective helps us understand Luke's genealogy of Jesus in chapter 3. Luke gives the genealogy of Jesus through Mary's line. This is most likely the genealogy of Mary's Father Heli. Joseph is really not part of the genealogy. Jesus was only "thought to be" Joseph's biological son (3:23), but he actually had no biological/genealogical connection to Joseph.

alexie

Jayhawker Soule

What is at issue is not the 'clarity' of Matthew or Luke, but the absurd attempt to use Isaiah 7:14.

Aaron

Argue all you want about the historical accuracy of the bible. When you convice me it is 100% accurate historically, I will still ask you - "Where"s your proof it is the word of god?".

So say it is the greatest of history books. Say you can prove all translations correct. So what? It still doesn't mean it's the word of god.

Enjoy your bible of choice. There are a great many moral lessons in any of them. Just quit coming here and professing it as the ultimate truth. The ultimate truth is ugly. Your book is an attempt to soften that truth. To attempt to put some meaning to it.

There, I argued with you. Now drag me down to your level and beat me with experience.

__________________
"The pump don't work cause' the vandals took the handle" - Bob Dylan

alexie

Hi Aaron

You stated:"Just quit coming here and professing it as the ultimate truth. The ultimate truth is ugly. Your book is an attempt to soften that truth. To attempt to put some meaning to it."

Firstly, Have you read what is under the heading of Agnosticforums. If so you would realise I am quite allowed, as anyone, to come on this forum and profess what I believe the ultimate truth is. If I quit coming here will you quit coming professing tell me and others what the truth is or is not?

As for the ultimate truth being ugly, that is obviously to do with your world view. My woorld view is one of hardships, but it is one of love, peace and eventually a glorious eternal life.

You see we can all have our beliefs and state them here. This is called tolerance. Just because mine may say your beliefs are wrong does not mean you are allowed to stop me stating them on this forum. Tolerance in our democracy is allowing others differeing opinions, traditions and beliefs even when they are opposed to yours.

alexie

alexie

Deay Jaywalker

The gospels of Matthew (1:18-25) and Luke (1:26-35) both claim that Jesus was born of a virgin, but only Matthew (1:23) appeals to the Hebrew scriptures as an explanation for why this should be the case. The verse appealed to is Isaiah 7:14, which reads: "Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call his name Immanuel."

Actually, Matthew doesn't supply a very causal 'why' in this passage, just as many of his other OT citations are more 'loose' than 'tight'. Matthew's reference to "all this" (totou de holon) has a wider reach than just to the conception: his narrative starts after Mary has become pregnant, and ends with the declaration that "He will save His people from their sins". The 'all this' seems to refer to the group of events (conception, prophecy, announcement) rather than just the conception. Even the verse citation might have NOTHING to do with the virginity aspect, but only with the 'Immanuel' aspect.

The excellent OT/Tanaach scholar John Walton (in NIDOTTE) who takes a less-traditional view (i.e. the virginity aspect of the word is not important), even though the lexical data is supportive of the 'alma as virgin' position:

"We conclude, then, that applied to a female, the term [almah] refers to one who has not yet borne a child and as an abstraction refers to the adolescent expectation of motherhood. This would be captured in Eng. by a combination of the terms “nubility” and “fertility”—a woman so described is full of childbearing potential. When applied to a male it [elem] describes a virile young man, (or, more neutrally, “a strapping young man”) and as an abstraction refers to youthful virility. None of the overlapping near synonyms refer as explicitly to childbearing interests and status. The passage that is least compliant with this profile is Exod 2:8, for neither this nor any other specific nuance serves any purpose to the narrator.

"The most significant theological issues surrounding this term center on its use in Isa 7:14. The citation of this verse in Matt 1:23 and the nature of the doctrinal affirmation at stake have greatly hindered objective lexical analysis through the centuries.

One can see in the lexicon entries above that 'virgin' still shows up for bethulah, and that 'young girl' still shows up for almah, but the modern climate/consensus (reflected in many of the later sources cited above) is that both words have been somewhat misunderstood until now. Now, from both cognate and fresh studies of the social context, NEITHER are words specialize in a focused, core meaning of virgo intacta. Bethulah has come to be understood to apply to a marriageable woman, living in her father's house (generally a virgin, but not so in the case of widows or the divorced); and almah has come to be understood as a 'young, fertile, unmarried--and hence chaste in that culture--woman'. What this means is that IF any notion of virginity were intended--even as only an 'implication'--almah was the best/only word to do that job. And hence, parthenos in the New Testament (the ONLY word that could be used for 'virgin') was the correct word for Matthew to use (as well as Luke).

But the most serious problem with this alleged messianic prophecy is that it has been taken out of context. Looking at the entire seventh chapter of Isaiah, it becomes clear that the child in question is to be born as a sign to Ahaz, King of Judah, that he will not be defeated in battle by Rezin, King of Syria, and Pekah, son of the King of Israel. Jesus' birth was some seven centuries late to be such a sign.

Virgin birth is obviously quite relevant to genealogy, and both Matthew and Luke present Jesus' genealogy in close proximity to the story.

It is NOT AT ALL "obvious" to me--esp. in the context of Jewish legal practice (but more on the genealogy issues later). The virgin birth passage in Is 7.14 is used STRICTLY as a messianic prophecy fulfillment, not as an argument over lineage or sinlessness or human nature (or any of the other things the church has tried to make it into!). The link with the genealogy is strictly 'locational'--in other words, one normally groups material about a common theme (e.g. background and birth) together in the same general literary 'location'. There are no explicit links, no alluded links, no theological links present in the text...to assert otherwise requires a least a little evidence.

Conclusion: When the linguistic, historical, literary, and cultural factors are considered in total...it looks messianic to me! ("If it LOOKS like a duck, and SOUNDS like a duck,...")

So maybe it is not that absurd for them to include what they did.

alexie

Jayhawker Soule

What is absurd is your pathetic plagiarism.

Og

I'm not sure how plagiarism can be considered pathetic. I know plenty of times when I have come across authors that have put a lot more effort in on a subject than I have that could more eloquently present it than I could.

There's nothing wrong with quoting a source. Just make sure that you do reference your source and/or link to it instead of copy/paste or filter down to some particularly important components of the third party argument.

I don't agree with the above post that it is absurd and pathetic to reference others. But I do think it's important to reference sources to some degree. So, alexie, in the future, please cite your sources.

Labeling it as plagiarism, however, is not at all the same as invalidating it.

__________________
Vi veri veniversum vivus vici. (By the power of truth, I, while living, have conquered the universe)
The self is not a fixed entity but a dynamic process of relationships
You & I, no distinction. - Tat Tvam Asi
Become Who You Are

revpo

Believe what you want, the Bible was written by man hundreds of years from the so called happenings..how could they remember is beyond me..I consider it some history and most of all a fable.
There are so many versions, it is obvious it must not be true , therefore start a newer version.

REVPO

__________________
HAVE A GREAT DAY
REVPO/AGNOSTIC CHURCH CLERIC

Aaron

You're right alexie. I appologise for any personal attack.

__________________
"The pump don't work cause' the vandals took the handle" - Bob Dylan