NationStates Jolt Archive

Welp. So much for you claiming to be a christian.

What is your definition of a Christian?

Welp. So much for you claiming to be a christian.
Out of curiosity, what do you think is accomplished by making such remarks?

Does it make you feel superior, or somehow more virtuous? Do you think you will chastise this person into being a "better Christian" when you say these things? Do you feel that you are making some substantive point in the discussion at hand? Do you believe that you have put forward a convincing argument by stating that this person is (apparently) not as Christian as they claim? Is it simply a knee-jerk impulse to state your opinion as though it were fact?

I contend that we are all atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
When you quote someone, it's only polite to credit them. :)

Out of curiosity, what do you think is accomplished by making such remarks?

Does it make you feel superior, or somehow more virtuous? Do you think you will chastise this person into being a "better Christian" when you say these things? Do you feel that you are making some substantive point in the discussion at hand? Do you believe that you have put forward a convincing argument by stating that this person is (apparently) not as Christian as they claim? Is it simply a knee-jerk impulse to state your opinion as though it were fact?

If I may be allowed to guess, I think it was because Jocabia was stating that a view that is only held by Christians is suspect, and that because only Christian apologists are offering views that are different to GnI, that somehow makes GnI position more acceptable (because there are no objections coming from non-Christian sources). Clearly, Jocabia prefers a postion that is not in agreement with the general Christian consensus, but rather is the position that a non-believer, such as GnI, would take.

Personally, I would not call that grounds enough to claim that Jocabia was not a Christian, but I do think his position on this topic is not a 'Christian' one. It looks like his 'friendship' with GnI may have influenced him. I'm not saying that this is the case, but if it was, and if such a 'friendship' was more important than believing in the deity of Christ (linked to the virgin birth), then the term 'welp' would probably convey Corneliu's disappointment in Jocabia's position. It is as if a 'real' Christian would not compromise with an important matter such as the deity of Christ.

It all depends on the definition of the word 'Christian'. The definition that I go by means that anybody who does not accept the deity of Christ is not a Christian.

When you quote someone, it's only polite to credit them. :)

Hear, hear. Wasn't that quote from Dawkins? Or was it Hawkins?

One should never turn their backs to God, Jesus, and the Prophecy of his coming and of his return.

One should never compromise his belief in the Most Holy Savior for by doing so, you show yourself to be a hypocrit.

Ah, see, there's the rub, there are a number of noteable CHRISTIAN biblical scholars who will agree with you (As far as I am able to tell, being, as I mentioned neither a speaker of any of said languages or a biblical scholar).

But since they are Christian, they MUST be apologists and biased.

Even if they are respected scholars.
Oddly enough, those respected scholars who are apologists are probably quite proud of being Christian apologists, despite your indignation on their behalf.

If I may be allowed to guess, I think it was because Jocabia was stating that a view that is only held by Christians is suspect, and that because only Christian apologists are offering views that are different to GnI, that somehow makes GnI position more acceptable (because there are no objections coming from non-Christian sources). Clearly, Jocabia prefers a postion that is not in agreement with the general Christian consensus, but rather is the position that a non-believer, such as GnI, would take.

Personally, I would not call that grounds enough to claim that Jocabia was not a Christian, but I do think his position on this topic is not a 'Christian' one. It looks like his 'friendship' with GnI may have influenced him. I'm not saying that this is the case, but if it was, and if such a 'friendship' was more important than believing in the deity of Christ (linked to the virgin birth), then the term 'welp' would probably convey Corneliu's disappointment in Jocabia's position. It is as if a 'real' Christian would not compromise with an important matter such as the deity of Christ.

It all depends on the definition of the word 'Christian'. The definition that I go by means that anybody who does not accept the deity of Christ is not a Christian.

I guess I just don't see the point in questioning how 'Christian' somebody is, or in trying to tell them they aren't a True Christian(tm). What is accomplished by this? It's not something that can be argued effectively in this situation, since no one Christian has any more or less right to define what it means to be Christian than does any other Christian. It's not going to win anybody over, or convince anybody of anything, or provide any new information.

And, in addition to not accomplishing anything productive in the discussion, it also doesn't leave a very positive impression of the person who posted it, so it's not like they are gaining personal status or something by saying this sort of thing.

I guess what I'm getting at is that I don't see any difference between saying "I guess you're not a True Christian(tm)" and saying "You're a butthead." Why bother posting either one?

Hear, hear. Wasn't that quote from Dawkins? Or was it Hawkins?


Hheheh Hawkins and Dawkins sitting in a tree........

I have heard many people say on this forum many times with regards to religious debate that

"There is no evidence for God's existance"

Which is not true. There is plenty of evidence. You can find such evidence in the Bible (for Christianity, and I am a Christian myself so I am going to be refering to the Christian God when I say God) and many peoples personal experiances. However, I think what people should actually be saying when they say

"There is no evidence for God's existance"

Is something more along the lines of

"God's existance cannot be proven to a level of certainty"

There is plenty of evidence, and please feel free to scrutinise, debate and discuss the worthyness of this evidence, but to say there is no evidence displays a lack of understanding of theological debate.

for the record Time magazine Dec 18, 1995 had an excellent article on what has been scientifically proven from the bible and what has yet to be proven. It was their cover story on that day and should be easy to find in a library in case you are looking for it.

Anyhow according to the article based on scientific research, everything from King David onwards in the bible (except for King Solomon and ALL 'supernatural' events have been proven as fact). There was a Jesus of Nazareth living from 0-30 AD approx... Obviously his miracles are not proven by this research however does not mean they did not happen. Either way just passing you info. :)

Your opinion on that matter is not worth a grain of salt, unless you have tried to demonstrate that you are not prejudiced. I see no evidence of this.
Um... he doesn't have to show that he isn't, you have to show that he is. It is not evidenced by what he said. You are reading between the lines.

We can look at the possibility of the invention of the gospels. If that is true, Matthew, for example, was a liar. Not mistaken, but intentionally deceiving people with possibly the worst kind of deception--providing people with false hope. I'm not sure if you want to make such a claim about the invention of the virgin birth story, but that appears to be the question that you have raised.
No, no, no... Matthew wasn't a liar at all; he just didn't exist. Entirely fabricated authorship.
http://www.answering-christianity.com/abdullah_smith/did_matthew_exist.htm

I guess I just don't see the point in questioning how 'Christian' somebody is, or in trying to tell them they aren't a True Christian(tm). What is accomplished by this? It's not something that can be argued effectively in this situation, since no one Christian has any more or less right to define what it means to be Christian than does any other Christian. It's not going to win anybody over, or convince anybody of anything, or provide any new information.

And, in addition to not accomplishing anything productive in the discussion, it also doesn't leave a very positive impression of the person who posted it, so it's not like they are gaining personal status or something by saying this sort of thing.

I guess what I'm getting at is that I don't see any difference between saying "I guess you're not a True Christian(tm)" and saying "You're a butthead." Why bother posting either one?

It's probably called irritation. It means that when you are annoyed with someone, you attempt to feel better by taking out your anger on that person. Sure, I agree that it doesn't make for a good discussion, thus I would never condone name-calling. But I get irritated enough to know what it feels like to be tempted to drop a name. I cannot believe you have never felt the same way. You would be more machine than human, in that case.

Hear, hear. Wasn't that quote from Dawkins? Or was it Hawkins?
Oh.... I thought it was Buckaroo Banzai.

It's probably called irritation. It means that when you are annoyed with someone, you attempt to feel better by taking out your anger on that person. Sure, I agree that it doesn't make for a good discussion, thus I would never condone name-calling. But I get irritated enough to know what it feels like to be tempted to drop a name. I cannot believe you have never felt the same way. You would be more machine than human, in that case.
Oh, I've felt irritation, don't get me wrong. And I've called somebody a "butthead" before. But when on this forum, there's a nice delay between having a feeling and expressing it, due to having to type it out and click "submit." Usually that delay gives me a chance to expand on the "butthead" a bit, and include at least a little taste of something productive in my post, or some justification for why I feel the person in question is a butthead.

Oh.... I thought it was Buckaroo Banzai.
"You can check your anatomy all you want, and even though there may be normal variation, when it comes right down to it, this far inside the head it all looks the same. No, no, no, don't tug on that. You never know what it might be attached to."

Great movie.

Um... he doesn't have to show that he isn't, you have to show that he is. It is not evidenced by what he said. You are reading between the lines.

I thought I had pointed it out several times. For example, he was saying that the text of the prophecy of Isaiah was very clear, and that it referred to [insert GnI's interpretation here]. But I argued that it wasn't so clear, and that this debate (plus lots of others over this very scripture) is evidence that it isn't so clear, and that the clarity that he was claiming was evidence for his bias. I see it as a passive aggressive attempt to portray his opponents as deliberately muddying up the waters, or being excessively stupid, or just reading into it what they want, despite the clarity that he claims is obvious. I see this as evidence of his own bias, since I cant see the clarity which he is referring to. The terms used in the text seem to be consistent with the Christian interpretation, and his own favourite interpretation is not exclusive of the Christian one.

No, no, no... Matthew wasn't a liar at all; he just didn't exist. Entirely fabricated authorship.
http://www.answering-christianity.com/abdullah_smith/did_matthew_exist.htm

Written by Abdullah Smith, a recent convert to Islam, it appears. Do you believe him?

Here is another quote from this gentleman:

''I have compiled a list of verses that Christians neglect. They practice what is called 'selective morality' when it comes to the Bible. They choose verses and jam it down ours throats, and the rest they ignore and reject vehemently. Its about time we have exposed this truth about those who claim to be followers of Christ. They really don't follow him at all. My comments are in red.''

http://www.answering-christianity.com/abdullah_smith/challenge_to_christians.htm

Edit: In the article that you provided a link for, the gentleman was not arguing for the non-existence of Matthew, but the non-existence for an original Hebrew version of Matthew, i.e. that it was compiled by scribes at the end of the 2nd century in Greek.

Oh, I've felt irritation, don't get me wrong. And I've called somebody a "butthead" before. But when on this forum, there's a nice delay between having a feeling and expressing it, due to having to type it out and click "submit." Usually that delay gives me a chance to expand on the "butthead" a bit, and include at least a little taste of something productive in my post, or some justification for why I feel the person in question is a butthead.

Oh, you mean that if you are going to post an insult, it needs to be intelligently presented?

Oh, you mean that if you are going to post an insult, it needs to be intelligently presented?
Heh, I guess so. I just feel like stupid insults end up making you look like an ass, without really getting you anything in return.

But when it comes to a person's religion, I find it interesting that I (a vehemently non-Christian) tend to show more respect for the beliefs of individual Christians than do many of their fellow Jesus-ites. I don't think I've ever presumed to tell somebody they weren't a "real" Christian, nor have I ever questioned the way they feel about their relationship with Jesus. As far as I know, I've never implied that somebody shouldn't get to call themselves a Christian because they didn't follow Christianity the "right" way.

I kind of feel like that's an off-sides sort of thing to do. Which doesn't make a lot of sense, when you consider that I regard superstition as silly and generally futile...yet there you have it. Maybe it's because I view religious belief as a relationship between a person and themselves.

At any rate, enough of my hijacking. Beg pardon for the tangent, all.

I disliked your assertion that any site that was Christian in nature would automatically be suspect.

Strawman.

Jocabia illustrates examples of Christians that allow the Hebrew meaning of the word, rather than the 'common' translation to 'virgin'.

But since they are Christian, they MUST be apologists and biased.


Another strawman. They would, by the definitions Jocabia found, be 'apologists' if the were arguing to defend a certain view.

If their contribution was research, an attempt at objective translation, an argument presented but not actively fought... any of those, could be 'Christian', but not 'apologist'.

Written by Abdullah Smith, a recent convert to Islam, it appears. Do you believe him?

Here is another quote from this gentleman:

''I have compiled a list of verses that Christians neglect. They practice what is called 'selective morality' when it comes to the Bible. They choose verses and jam it down ours throats, and the rest they ignore and reject vehemently. Its about time we have exposed this truth about those who claim to be followers of Christ. They really don't follow him at all. My comments are in red.''

http://www.answering-christianity.com/abdullah_smith/challenge_to_christians.htm
I don't believe one way or another about Matthew; I have no vested interest in the authenticity of the Bible at all. (i.e. it's not about me.) However, he is not the only one who says that, he just happens to be the first one I found, and hence the one I linked to.

Re your quote, an attack on the person of those who point out such things about the authorship of Matthew is hardly a valid counter-point.

I don't believe one way or another about Matthew; I have no vested interest in the authenticity of the Bible at all. (i.e. it's not about me.) However, he is not the only one who says that, he just happens to be the first one I found, and hence the one I linked to.

Re your quote, an attack on the person of those who point out such things about the authorship of Matthew is hardly a valid counter-point.

It wasn't so much of an attack as simply pointing out that this chap appears to have been looking for ammunition to shoot the people he obviously dislikes. That means that his claims have to be read with caution, since he has made no attempt to be objective about things. He might be a nice intelligent chap, I don't know, but I do know that anything he says about Christian beliefs should be read carefully.

Edit: for example, he refers to the Matthew account of Joseph and Mary fleeing to Egypt. Because there is no evidence of this, except for this one reference in Matthew, he claims that it must be fabricated. Even more so because of the existence of earlier pagan stories of such events. Thus he concludes that the scribes must have lifted the story out of pagan myths. He does not even consider that the event may have really happened, despite the fact that this sort of thing probably happened all the time, but rules it out because of his alternative explanations, i.e., the pagans got there first. I don't think he is even trying to be objective.

Well, since Goliath was brought up earlier, here you go http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9997587 , maybe he was employed by Sauron like an ogre.

Its a name on pottery.......not a skeleton, nor does it answer other difficulties, such as the lack of evidence for the exodus, the Ark, creation etc and so on....

How do you know that you are not perverting the scripture?


By referencing the actual words that were written?

How is that logical? Anyone that reads what is written, rather than an extrapolation, is 'perverting the scripture'?

As my wife would say, that looks backasswards.


Your claim to read the original text does not impress me, since it appears that your opinions are based on your dislike of conventional Christian interpretation of the scriptures, and this results in your apparent willingness to believe anything that contradicts Christian beliefs.


Have you read the native scripture?

Where do you get 'willingness to believe anything that contradicts Christian beliefs'? You must see that that really IS dishonest, and the exact 'gutter tactics' you discuss later?

If I were "willing to believe anything that contradicts Christian beliefs"... I'd believe the Hebrew texts to be true... and those of Islam... which I clearly don't... another point you attack me on later.

But hey, don't let consistency stop you...


Thus, much of what you say on this subject could be translated as 'I reject Christianity', and possibly not much else.


I don't 'reject' Christianity... I just don't believe it.

I DO reject the organisation of the Christian Church, but that is because I see it as being directly opposed to what Jesus is supposed to have preached. There's a thorn for your side...


This only emphasises my criticism of your position. You appear to be preferring to believe that gospels to be an invention, rather than faithful accounts from people with integrity. Your opinion on that matter is not worth a grain of salt, unless you have tried to demonstrate that you are not prejudiced. I see no evidence of this.


On the contrary... as a person who has seen, and argued 'both sides' of the issue, and who has NO ulterior motive, and no advantage to be gained either way, I have the capacity to be 'objective' in a way you can only dream of.

Add to which - since I do not believe the scriptures to be literal fact, there is nothing for me to 'gain' from showing an inconsistency or flawed understanding.


There are plenty of good reasons to accept the gospels as relating to real events. There are, for starters, references to prominent people who are thought to have lived around that time, e.g., Herod, Pilate, etc. Sure, this isn't proof, but it is an indication that the literature is quite different to The Lord of the Rings.


Lord of the Rings refers to prominent events, and cultures, of the time. It just does so in metaphor. Not that 'different', after all.

Plus - I read a book where Hitler had won World War Two... it referenced real people, real events, real places... but it wasn't true.

Being SET in a real place or time, has no bearing on the literal truth of a tale.


If you are only making suggestions and using the word 'maybe', then there is room for objective discussion and debating.

We can look at the possibility of the invention of the gospels. If that is true, Matthew, for example, was a liar. Not mistaken, but intentionally deceiving people with possibly the worst kind of deception--providing people with false hope. I'm not sure if you want to make such a claim about the invention of the virgin birth story, but that appears to be the question that you have raised.


Not at all.

If Matthew misunderstood the Greek translations of the Hebrew scripture, and thought that Messiah should be born of virgin, recounting that tale would not be entirely dishonest. He might not be really privy to the data, but he might be able to guess how it MIGHT have been - based on his 'knowledge' that Jesus 'MUST' have been born of virgin.

Add to which - the book of Matthew, in all likelihood, wasn't written by anyone that even MET Jesus... reciting what is the 'urban myth' isn't fabrication.


It isn't clear, and hence the debate. The word that was used can refer to a virgin or a young woman.


No. It can't. As has been shown a dozen times.

It can refer to a young woman. She MIGHT be a virgin, but it is NOT implicit. She could also be reknowned for promiscuity, and still be a 'young woman'.


Those who believe in the deity of Christ are going to argue for the 'virgin' option, while those who don't believe in the deity of Christ are going to argue the other way.


Not everyone believes that a virgin birth is required for deity. You create a false dichotomy.

Thus, it really isn't clear at all. It might be clear to you, but I am far from convinced that you are in a position of objective clarity. I don't trust your judgment.


I don't care if you trust my judgement. The words are in the Hebrew scripture. The Hebrew language is there for you to examine.

And I believe in the deity of Christ.


Which, according to you, makes your "opinion on that matter... not worth a grain of salt". No?


I think it dishonest to claim dishonesty in the arguments of your opponents, particularly when you cannot establish any proof of dishonesty. That's just using gutter tactics, in my opinion.

Not at all. When my opponent is dishonest, it would be dishonest of me to conceal the fact.

Welp. So much for you claiming to be a christian.

Pride? You know what that leads to, no?

If I may be allowed to guess, I think it was because Jocabia was stating that a view that is only held by Christians is suspect, and that because only Christian apologists are offering views that are different to GnI, that somehow makes GnI position more acceptable (because there are no objections coming from non-Christian sources). Clearly, Jocabia prefers a postion that is not in agreement with the general Christian consensus, but rather is the position that a non-believer, such as GnI, would take.

Personally, I would not call that grounds enough to claim that Jocabia was not a Christian, but I do think his position on this topic is not a 'Christian' one. It looks like his 'friendship' with GnI may have influenced him. I'm not saying that this is the case, but if it was, and if such a 'friendship' was more important than believing in the deity of Christ (linked to the virgin birth), then the term 'welp' would probably convey Corneliu's disappointment in Jocabia's position. It is as if a 'real' Christian would not compromise with an important matter such as the deity of Christ.

It all depends on the definition of the word 'Christian'. The definition that I go by means that anybody who does not accept the deity of Christ is not a Christian.

Curious. I wonder why 'friendship' gets inverted commas in your response.

Are you implying you mean it to mean something other than, what might be understood by non-emphasised friendship?

I know Christians who do not accept the virgin birth... do not consider it necessary to the story... any more than any of the Patriarchs needed virgin births. To state the premise as non christian, is thus creating another of those false dichotomies.

One should never turn their backs to God, Jesus, and the Prophecy of his coming and of his return.

One should never compromise his belief in the Most Holy Savior for by doing so, you show yourself to be a hypocrit.

Why is it, whenever you run out of arguments, you drop, instead, into street-preaching?

It's probably called irritation. It means that when you are annoyed with someone, you attempt to feel better by taking out your anger on that person.


Ironically - such behaviour doesn't sound 'very Christian', now, does it?


I cannot believe you have never felt the same way. You would be more machine than human, in that case.

Or maybe, just less angry? More driven to find the logic?

I thought I had pointed it out several times. For example, he was saying that the text of the prophecy of Isaiah was very clear, and that it referred to [insert GnI's interpretation here]. But I argued that it wasn't so clear, and that this debate (plus lots of others over this very scripture) is evidence that it isn't so clear, and that the clarity that he was claiming was evidence for his bias. I see it as a passive aggressive attempt to portray his opponents as deliberately muddying up the waters, or being excessively stupid, or just reading into it what they want, despite the clarity that he claims is obvious. I see this as evidence of his own bias, since I cant see the clarity which he is referring to. The terms used in the text seem to be consistent with the Christian interpretation, and his own favourite interpretation is not exclusive of the Christian one.

I really don't understand how you don't see this.

The Hebrew text really DOES say 'young woman'.

I say, the Hebrew text says 'young woman'.

My opponent argues it means 'virgin'.

I show evidence the word means 'young woman', and show another word that means 'virgin', that COULD have been used, if they were discussing virgins.

My opponent says 'young woman' MEANS 'virgin' (a conjecture... it isn't written in the passage).

I point out this is conjecture, and that it is not what the passage SAYS.


Somehow - you equate this process, with me demonstrating 'bias'?

I know Christians who do not accept the virgin birth... do not consider it necessary to the story... any more than any of the Patriarchs needed virgin births. To state the premise as non christian, is thus creating another of those false dichotomies.
I didn't really get that part either, to be honest. Why is virgin birth required to believe in Jesus? Why would it be any less impressive for God to impregnate a woman who had had sex in the past? Why would the child be any less valuable, or any less capable to act as a religious leader?

Written by Abdullah Smith, a recent convert to Islam, it appears. Do you believe him?


I believe this is an example of 'poisoning the well'.

It is certainly an ad hominem fallacy.

I didn't really get that part either, to be honest. Why is virgin birth required to believe in Jesus? Why would it be any less impressive for God to impregnate a woman who had had sex in the past? Why would the child be any less valuable, or any less capable to act as a religious leader?

Plus, of course, the Hebrew teaching was that Messiah would be of mortal parents, like any other man. The whole thing ONLY gets muddied about virgins, because the Greek translation of Hebrew wasn't very good.

Also - the modus operandi, clearly established throughout all the previous scripture, was God 'opening the womb'.

He helped women get pregnant. He didn't 'do the deed' himself.

I believe this is an example of 'poisoning the well'.

It is certainly an ad hominem fallacy.

Why is that so?

P: muslims have nothing but mistaken notions about the Trinitiy.
T: Mr X is a muslim.
C: whatever mr X says about the Trinity is bollocks

Why is that so?

P: muslims have nothing but mistaken notions about the Trinitiy.
T: Mr X is a muslim.
C: whatever mr X says about the Trinity is bollocks

I hope this is a joke post.

It wasn't so much of an attack as simply pointing out that this chap appears to have been looking for ammunition to shoot the people he obviously dislikes. That means that his claims have to be read with caution, since he has made no attempt to be objective about things. He might be a nice intelligent chap, I don't know, but I do know that anything he says about Christian beliefs should be read carefully.
Fair enough.

Edit: for example, he refers to the Matthew account of Joseph and Mary fleeing to Egypt. Because there is no evidence of this, except for this one reference in Matthew, he claims that it must be fabricated. Even more so because of the existence of earlier pagan stories of such events. Thus he concludes that the scribes must have lifted the story out of pagan myths. He does not even consider that the event may have really happened, despite the fact that this sort of thing probably happened all the time, but rules it out because of his alternative explanations, i.e., the pagans got there first. I don't think he is even trying to be objective.
Such an account may be apocryphal. I'll see if I can find it when I get home.

I didn't really get that part either, to be honest. Why is virgin birth required to believe in Jesus? Why would it be any less impressive for God to impregnate a woman who had had sex in the past? Why would the child be any less valuable, or any less capable to act as a religious leader?
Because then his vessel (mother), and consequently he, is not 'pure'. Sex is a big issue; somewhere between the first century BC and the third century AD it wavered from being something entirely sacred to the vilest of impurity. It's easy (for feminists, at least) to blame such on misogyny, or the elevation of the One God over many, or even mistranslation, whether accidental or deliberate, but I suspect there is a lot more to it than that.

Because then his vessel (mother), and consequently he, is not 'pure'. Sex is a big issue; somewhere between the first century BC and the third century AD it wavered from being something entirely sacred to the vilest of impurity.

Well, by your own words then, it WASN'T such a vile thing when Jesus was (supposedly) conceived. So shouldn't Christians be more concerned with what actually happened, as opposed to ignoring the truth in favor of perpetuating sexual hangups from 300 CE?

Why is it, whenever you run out of arguments, you drop, instead, into street-preaching?

Why is it that you always bash Christians when they have done nothing to you but share the Word of the Lord that you have rejected?

Why is it that you always bash Christians when they have done nothing to you but share the Word of the Lord that you have rejected?
To be fair, Grave has also frequently bashed racists when they do nothing but spread the Word of Hitler that he has rejected. So you're not alone.

At any rate, in this thread I don't see him bashing the Word much. Instead, Grave appears to be advocating improved understanding of the Word, and greater attention to what was actually written in the Bible. If you disagree with the interpretation being presented then you are free to give your own information, but whimpering at people for rejecting your interpretation does not constitute a strong argument.

Well, by your own words then, it WASN'T such a vile thing when Jesus was (supposedly) conceived. So shouldn't Christians be more concerned with what actually happened, as opposed to ignoring the truth in favor of perpetuating sexual hangups from 300 CE?
I think that what it means is more important to most Christians than the actual facts. Mary being a 'virgin' means that Christ is pure godhood.

But you're right, some do get caught up in 'facts'.

I think that what it means is more important to most Christians than the actual facts. Mary being a 'virgin' means that Christ is pure godhood.
So they're just flat out putting their own sex-phobia ahead of reality, even if that means they slur their own Messiah and his mother on the way. I guess there's not much to say to that.

So they're just flat out putting their own sex-phobia ahead of reality, even if that means they slur their own Messiah and his mother on the way. I guess there's not much to say to that.

These guys are the same "christians" that do not even recognize catholics and other kind of believers as christians too, What were you expecting?

To be fair, Grave has also frequently bashed racists when they do nothing but spread the Word of Hitler that he has rejected. So you're not alone.

At any rate, in this thread I don't see him bashing the Word much. Instead, Grave appears to be advocating improved understanding of the Word, and greater attention to what was actually written in the Bible. If you disagree with the interpretation being presented then you are free to give your own information, but whimpering at people for rejecting your interpretation does not constitute a strong argument.

I have and all I get, and what many of us who have given a different interpretation from him, is grief that we are wrong and states that his is the only correct interpretation. Sorry but that is what is happening.

Welp. So much for you claiming to be a christian.

Yeah, I'm crazy because I read the Bible. Golly, please Corny, teach me to be a Christian just like you. Can I learn to change the text and pretend it's okay? Can I claim the text says things when I'm not actually educated enough to know? Can I judge people and tell them whether they're Christian or not? Can I worship Paul? Can I be just like you?

I'm so tired of people telling I must not be Christian because I don't think exactly like them. That's what the pharisees did. Didn't you learn ANYTHING from the Bible?

I have and all I get, and what many of us who have given a different interpretation from him, is grief that we are wrong and states that his is the only correct interpretation. Sorry but that is what is happening.
No, it's not. You have been presented with concrete arguments supported by facts, and you have chosen to reply by saying "Nuh-uh! You're wrong!" over and over.

If you have substantive points to add, please do!!! But if you just want to stamp your foot and insist that the facts are biased against you, then you might as well save yourself the trouble.

Yeah, I'm crazy because I read the Bible. Golly, please Corny, teach me to be a Christian just like you. Can I learn to change the text and pretend it's okay? Can I claim the text says things when I'm not actually educated enough to know? Can I judge people and tell them whether they're Christian or not? Can I worship Paul? Can I be just like you?

I'm so tired of people telling I must not be Christian because I don't think exactly like them. That's what the pharisees did. Didn't you learn ANYTHING from the Bible?

No. And pharisees is the perfect word to describe them, indeed.

By referencing the actual words that were written?

How is that logical? Anyone that reads what is written, rather than an extrapolation, is 'perverting the scripture'?

As my wife would say, that looks backasswards.


Isa 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

From this reference, I looked up the word 'virgin'.

http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=05959&version=kjv

Transliterated Word = `almah

''Definition
1. virgin, young woman
of marriageable age
2. maid or newly married ++++ There is no instance where it can be proved that this word designates a young woman who is not a virgin.''

It is used at least six other times in the OT, and in each reference, the woman/girl in question is either a physical virgin or a young woman (Song of Solomon). There is another term which Isaiah could have used, b@thuwlah, which also means 'virgin'. Does this mean that the use of the word `almah implies the young woman in question is NOT a virgin. I don't think anyone can conclude that, unless he was using his bias.

In other words, while the reference may not have been to a virgin (as opposed to the KJV), it may have been. In the context of the scripture, this fits with a prophecy of Christ, for Christ fits the name Immanuel.

In my view, what is written in the text fits with a Christian interpretation. I can see that. What I can't see is how you claim that the text is clearly against a Christian interpretation. I have concluded that you are therefore biased.


Where do you get 'willingness to believe anything that contradicts Christian beliefs'? You must see that that really IS dishonest, and the exact 'gutter tactics' you discuss later?


That is a general impression that I have of you from our discussions on NS. There is no dishonesty in this, nor is this a 'gutter tactic', in my view. Someone like Bottle is openly anti-Christian, and will admit this. There is no dishonesty in being anti-Christian. There is in claiming objectivity when there is none.


If I were "willing to believe anything that contradicts Christian beliefs"... I'd believe the Hebrew texts to be true... and those of Islam... which I clearly don't... another point you attack me on later.


OK, you got me on that one. Not everything.......


I don't 'reject' Christianity... I just don't believe it.


The way the claims of Christianity are set out, that means rejection. Jesus claimed that there are only two ways, the broad path and the path less traveled.


I DO reject the organisation of the Christian Church, but that is because I see it as being directly opposed to what Jesus is supposed to have preached. There's a thorn for your side...


The thing is that I am comparing your position to that of the words of Jesus, not the claims of the church.


On the contrary... as a person who has seen, and argued 'both sides' of the issue, and who has NO ulterior motive, and no advantage to be gained either way, I have the capacity to be 'objective' in a way you can only dream of.


Objectivity that I can only dream of, eh? Big claims there, fella. Personally, I think you are dreaming when you claim no ulterior motive in this issue.



Add to which - since I do not believe the scriptures to be literal fact, there is nothing for me to 'gain' from showing an inconsistency or flawed understanding.


That doesn't make sense to me.


Lord of the Rings refers to prominent events, and cultures, of the time. It just does so in metaphor. Not that 'different', after all.


I remember once reading one of Tolkien's essays, in which he claimed that his mythical world was not a metaphor. I've forgotten the name of the essay. But that aside, his fiction is written in a way that one can understand it to be fiction. That's the point. We enjoy it because we know it is fiction. The Gospels don't have that element. It reads like it was supposed to be an account of the literal truth, written so that others could know what happened.


Plus - I read a book where Hitler had won World War Two... it referenced real people, real events, real places... but it wasn't true.

Being SET in a real place or time, has no bearing on the literal truth of a tale.


Obviously.


If Matthew misunderstood the Greek translations of the Hebrew scripture, and thought that Messiah should be born of virgin, recounting that tale would not be entirely dishonest. He might not be really privy to the data, but he might be able to guess how it MIGHT have been - based on his 'knowledge' that Jesus 'MUST' have been born of virgin.

Add to which - the book of Matthew, in all likelihood, wasn't written by anyone that even MET Jesus... reciting what is the 'urban myth' isn't fabrication.


'in all likelihood'......that would depend on what you find likely, which depends on your world view, which depends on your choice, which depends on you and what you think are the facts. Are you still claiming a superior objectivity?

The way the gospel of Matthew is set out now, someone, somewhere along the line, is responsible for turning it into what looks like a factual account. If it was just an urban legend, (with no factual basis) someone must have known that. That person who changed things to make it look factual is responsible for the deception.



Not at all.
It can refer to a young woman. She MIGHT be a virgin, but it is NOT implicit. She could also be reknowned for promiscuity, and still be a 'young woman'.


What I said is that the word can refer to a virgin or a young woman (who could indeed be already married), and you say NO, but that she MIGHT be a virgin. It looks like you are agreeing with me, but that you just wanted to disagree.


Not everyone believes that a virgin birth is required for deity. You create a false dichotomy.


Do you mean that some people believe that Jesus had an earthly father, but that he was still God (and I don't mean 'God' in the sense that we all are 'gods')? Who believes that?


I don't care if you trust my judgement. The words are in the Hebrew scripture. The Hebrew language is there for you to examine.


I have examined the scriptures, and will continue to do so.


Which, according to you, makes your "opinion on that matter... not worth a grain of salt". No?


When I asked you why it could not be a Messianic prophecy, you could not come up with a good reason. And yet you still believe that it was not a Messianic prophecy. Thus, I don't think your opinion is grounded in reason. It appears to be based on your bias. And knowing your bias, I could have predicted your position before we had this particular discussion. Reasons, Grave, we are concerned here with reasons.


Not at all. When my opponent is dishonest, it would be dishonest of me to conceal the fact.

Even when you have no evidence for dishonesty? Hardly.

Yeah, I'm crazy because I read the Bible.
It's so sad it's silly, if you think about it.

Here you are, insisting that the language of the Bible be read carefully and interpretted accurately, and YOU are the one accused of being a 'bad Christian.' You're the one taking the time to examine the Word of God with the concentration and attention to detail that it deserves, and YOU are the one who's 'Christian-ness' is questioned.

Weird. Very, very weird.

If I may be allowed to guess, I think it was because Jocabia was stating that a view that is only held by Christians is suspect, and that because only Christian apologists are offering views that are different to GnI, that somehow makes GnI position more acceptable (because there are no objections coming from non-Christian sources). Clearly, Jocabia prefers a postion that is not in agreement with the general Christian consensus, but rather is the position that a non-believer, such as GnI, would take.

Personally, I would not call that grounds enough to claim that Jocabia was not a Christian, but I do think his position on this topic is not a 'Christian' one. It looks like his 'friendship' with GnI may have influenced him. I'm not saying that this is the case, but if it was, and if such a 'friendship' was more important than believing in the deity of Christ (linked to the virgin birth), then the term 'welp' would probably convey Corneliu's disappointment in Jocabia's position. It is as if a 'real' Christian would not compromise with an important matter such as the deity of Christ.

It all depends on the definition of the word 'Christian'. The definition that I go by means that anybody who does not accept the deity of Christ is not a Christian.

The virgin birth has nothing to do with the deity of Christ, first of all. Second of all, I am following the text. There are many Christian Bibles that do not translate Isaiah to include a virgin prophesy.

I didn't say all Christians are wrong or that being Christian is wrong. What I said is that if a translation, which is actually a scholarly act is only held by Christians and no one else then it is suspect. There is no reason why what scholars see in the text should vary dramatically depending on their belief system. Now what we get from that text is a different thing, but we are talking about the translation itself, not what one can conclude from what it says.

Are the beliefs of some Christians so weak that if they're challenged on any basis they have to attack people? I don't tow the Catholic line so I must not be a good Christian? There is no evidence that many of the Apostles or Paul held the view commonly held today. The religion I follow is much closer to that of early Christians than most Christians. Who do you think is more likely to have a close idea of what Christ was teaching? The people being taught directly by the apostles or some people arguing on the internet 2000 years later?

No, it's not. You have been presented with concrete arguments supported by facts, and you have chosen to reply by saying "Nuh-uh! You're wrong!" over and over.

What we have is ONE Interpretation. That's it.

I really don't understand how you don't see this.

The Hebrew text really DOES say 'young woman'.

I say, the Hebrew text says 'young woman'.

My opponent argues it means 'virgin'.

I show evidence the word means 'young woman', and show another word that means 'virgin', that COULD have been used, if they were discussing virgins.

My opponent says 'young woman' MEANS 'virgin' (a conjecture... it isn't written in the passage).

I point out this is conjecture, and that it is not what the passage SAYS.


Somehow - you equate this process, with me demonstrating 'bias'?

I thought your opponent was saying that the prophecy COULD be a messianic one, and that you were saying that it definitely wasn't.

Oh goodie, because I have lost all of mine. Let me be blunt then, YOUR bias is showing.


Oh dear, we MUST then discount everything Tropical Sands has thus far said because (as he admits) many of his professors are Christian, and they were the ones who pointed this out to him in the first place. We must also discount everything GnI has said because he admits that at one point he too was Christian.

What's next? Discounting a biologist because she's a Christian and therefore is biased about anything to do with evolution?

Strawman. You keep hyperbolizing what I said. What I said was that we must address the bias, not dismiss everything produced by someone with bias. If you can't read, don't post. I've said it and repeated it clearly several times. WE MUST ADDRESS BIAS.

Bias is only an issue when a conclusion that is supported by bias is only reached by people of that bias. You keep giving examples where it is not. You lose.


Then analyze this, you have stated that any site if the author is Christian must automatically be discounted due to bias. You are throwing away data without even looking at it. I'm not arguing the damn translation, what I am taking exception to is your automatic dismissal of ANY argument due to the researcher's religious stance. If you said anything that was wan't peer reviewed, I would have been silent, but instead you decide to throw away the knoweldge and experiance of 1/3 or so of the planet's population. Now you tell me how that is "smart" scholarship.

No, I didn't. I said if it is not the result of bias, then it would be supported by others who don't share a bias that would necessarily lead to that conclusion.

You keep altering my point and then arguing against it.


Bias analyse is a very great tool, and one that every researcher should be quick to look at, but you also have to remember to look at what it is they are saying and how they are saying it before you dismiss them.

Now the sites that the supporters for a different reading of that damn word will probably BE biased, and easily detected, but to blanket EVERYONE due to religious stance is flat out wrong.

And piss poor scholarship at that.
Seriously if you can't respond to my actual posts and instead you're just going to post about whatever you feel like then this is just white noise.

I never blanketed anyone. Only you did. I said that I don't accept a conclusion that only comes from a group that desperately wants that conclusion to be true when everyone outside that group disagrees and some withing that group. I offered an opportunity to prove me wrong and you chose to get upset instead. I don't plan to waste any more time with your inability to respond to what I say rather than what you're pissed at.

I didn't discount everyone or anyone. I discounted a particular stance that is ONLY held by certain Christian apologists but if it were the result of scholarship would be found elsewhere. A stance that is clearly supportive of the bias that Christian apologists have. If you can't understand that, then I have nothing for you.

Why is it that you always bash Christians when they have done nothing to you but share the Word of the Lord that you have rejected?

Let's do this in order:

1) I don't think I ever 'bash' Christians. I oppose some of the things some Christians do. I oppose ANY authoritarian system of government BY religion... not just Christianity. I oppose the rigid heirarchy of the modern Church, because I believe it is anathema to what Jesus 'taught'. I oppose the idea that the 'popular' version of a piece of scripture MUST be the correct version.

There are a lot of things I oppose about aspects OF Christianity, just as there are about other faiths, about Explicit Atheism, about various political standpoints, about various social perspectives.

But - I don't believe I 'bash' any of them.

2) I don't agree with your assertion: "when they have done nothing to you". There are a number of impacts the Christian church has on my life every day, and on the lives of others, unjustly. I am not a Christian - why should I be bound by Christian laws... even more so, why should I be bound by Jewish laws?

Sure - 'don't murder' is a good law, but it's also pretty much a given, central to a number of religions, pragmatically obvious, and certainly not exclusive.

But - why am I compelled to observe the sabbath of the Hebrew desert dweller?

Why can my gay friends not get married?

Why are you 'preaching' at me, in a debate forum? I don't want your preaching... it doesn't interest me - I have to put up with enough of that crap at work.

3) I have not 'rejected' the word of god. I have just never found it. I thought I had, for a while, but it turned out to be the word of man. But - I didn't 'reject' it... I just don't ACCEPT it, anymore.

4) Telling you to get off your high horse, and debate in debate forums, is not me 'bashing' you. If you want to preach, by all means start your own website, and preach. Hell - I might even come read/hear your preaching. I quite often partake of the teachings of Charles Hadyn Spurgeon.

But, THIS is a debate about biblical evidence... the topic was NOT 'Come hear Corneliu preach'

5) I am NOT going to apologise for wishing for the same degree of rigour to be applied to religious evidence, as I do for other evidence. If there is no corroboration, I'll be skeptical. If you tell me one thing, while your scripture tells me another - I'll call you on it.

That isn't 'bashing' Christians.

I thought I had pointed it out several times. For example, he was saying that the text of the prophecy of Isaiah was very clear, and that it referred to [insert GnI's interpretation here]. But I argued that it wasn't so clear, and that this debate (plus lots of others over this very scripture) is evidence that it isn't so clear, and that the clarity that he was claiming was evidence for his bias. I see it as a passive aggressive attempt to portray his opponents as deliberately muddying up the waters, or being excessively stupid, or just reading into it what they want, despite the clarity that he claims is obvious. I see this as evidence of his own bias, since I cant see the clarity which he is referring to. The terms used in the text seem to be consistent with the Christian interpretation, and his own favourite interpretation is not exclusive of the Christian one.

Don't say Christian interpretation. There are many Christians who do not interpret it that way and is evidenced in several Bibles. The most telling part of the bias is that the interpretation you claim is Christian is only found being made by Christians while the interpretation that is offered by the sites we've referenced is found both among Christians and non-Christians alike. Which is more likely, that some Christians just happened upon an PROPER interpretation that just happens to support what they already believed or that the multitude of other people who interpret it to be 'young woman' regardless of what bias they hold are correct? The answer to that one should be pretty easy.l

It wasn't so much of an attack as simply pointing out that this chap appears to have been looking for ammunition to shoot the people he obviously dislikes. That means that his claims have to be read with caution, since he has made no attempt to be objective about things. He might be a nice intelligent chap, I don't know, but I do know that anything he says about Christian beliefs should be read carefully.
Which is very similar to what I said about bias. We need to look for independent corroboration in instances where the only ones selling a particular view seem to have a vested interest in it being purchased.

I thought your opponent was saying that the prophecy COULD be a messianic one, and that you were saying that it definitely wasn't.

So - wait.. the ONLY part you claim shows bias, is now my position on the 'messianic prophecy'... nothing to do with the literal text verses what some others think the text 'means'?

What we have is ONE Interpretation. That's it.

You are correct. The interpretation that was already present in the text, centuries before the birth of Christ, that is still written in the literal text, and that is clearly evidenced by the choice of wording.

Oh - and then we have that 'other' interpretation, based on bad Greek.

Curious. I wonder why 'friendship' gets inverted commas in your response.

Are you implying you mean it to mean something other than, what might be understood by non-emphasised friendship?

I know Christians who do not accept the virgin birth... do not consider it necessary to the story... any more than any of the Patriarchs needed virgin births. To state the premise as non christian, is thus creating another of those false dichotomies.

There is a mountain of evidence that many early Christians including Paul and many of the writers of the Gospels did not. But, hey, when attacking people, Bruawrong shouldn't let a little things like facts and truth get in the way.

The virgin birth has nothing to do with the deity of Christ, first of all.

I see it as being definitely related. If Christ is the Son of God, then Joseph was not his genetical father.


Second of all, I am following the text. There are many Christian Bibles that do not translate Isaiah to include a virgin prophesy.

I think if you were really following the text, you would say that it might be a messianic prophecy, not that it definitely isn't a messianic prophecy.


I didn't say all Christians are wrong or that being Christian is wrong.

True, you didn't.

What I said is that if a translation, which is actually a scholarly act is only held by Christians and no one else then it is suspect. There is no reason why what scholars see in the text should vary dramatically depending on their belief system. Now what we get from that text is a different thing, but we are talking about the translation itself, not what one can conclude from what it says.

The thing is, Jocabia, that everything that we read or hear must be interpreted. For example, as you are reading my words, you are interpreting them. You are trying to get to the meaning of what I am wanting to communicate to you. In the same way, we are forced to interpret the Biblical texts to find the meaning. Christians (some at least) hold that the words of the prophets were divinely inspired. That means that even they did not always understand the full meaning of what they were saying, since they were only messengers. Now, it really does depend on your belief system as to whether you think the scriptures to be divinely inspired. If you can find someone who also believes that the words are divinely inspired and yet believes that this prophecy is not messianic, you might have a point. We would then need to look at the reasons provided by such a person.

Unlike you, I don't consider that a position is suspect if it is only held by Christians. I would want to see the reasons for their position before I consider it suspect.


Are the beliefs of some Christians so weak that if they're challenged on any basis they have to attack people?

Of course. Insecurity often leads to aggression. But not all aggression is due to insecurity.


I don't tow the Catholic line so I must not be a good Christian?

You are asking me? I'm not a Catholic.


There is no evidence that many of the Apostles or Paul held the view commonly held today.

That is quite a generalisation. Are you thinking of specific cases?


The religion I follow is much closer to that of early Christians than most Christians. Who do you think is more likely to have a close idea of what Christ was teaching? The people being taught directly by the apostles or some people arguing on the internet 2000 years later?

Well, I wouldn't exactly describe you as a saint (or myself either, for that matter). I would have thought the main characteristic of the early Christians was the contrast in their lives to that of the surrounding pagans. I'm currently reading a book called ''The Rise of Christianity'' by Rodney Stark. Very very interesting. He claims that one of the major reasons was, for example, during the times of the great plagues, the Christians nursed one another (and the pagans) back to health, despite the risk of falling sick themselves, consistent with the teachings of the scriptures. The pagans, however, treated a sick person as already dead, for fear of getting sick themselves. Stark says that this sort of contrast contributed to more than half of the population of the Roman empire becoming Christian by the end of the 4th century, and that the declaration that Constantine made did not result in mass conversion, but that his declaration was due to the recognition of the huge numbers of Christians within the empire and their power (and was consequently a tactic to enlist their support against his opponent).

*snip*

Quick, when referring to virgins, according to you, how many times did Isaiah use almah in the scripture? How many times did he use bethulah?

According to many apologists, almah was used once to refer to virgin in the place that supports Matthew and nowhere else. Similarly, every other virgin reference in Isaiah uses a different word, also according to apologists.

Most scholars recognize the inconsistency there.

According to most scholars, almah refers to young woman in Isaiah and virgin is referenced EVERY TIME using another word.

Now, of course, the second view is more consistent, but don't let that stop you.

Pretend a word that meant young woman meant something else. Pretend that anyone supports that view that doesn't already have conclusion in hand. Pretend that you didn't say that people who have a strong desire for something to be true make conclusions that logical people should suspect. Because if we stop pretending, you lost this argument a long time ago.

So - wait.. the ONLY part you claim shows bias, is now my position on the 'messianic prophecy'... nothing to do with the literal text verses what some others think the text 'means'?

Obviously everyone has a bias, to some degree. Your position appears to be ruling out a possibility (the messianic) with only the same sort of evidence that I have, and I would say that the evidence I have is not sufficient to rule it out.

Your opponent was also biased, but arguing for the possibility of a messianic prophecy, not the certainty of a messianic prophecy. Your bias would appear to be the greater of the two.

I see it as being definitely related. If Christ is the Son of God, then Joseph was not his genetical father.


And thus, Jesus is not part of the Davidic line. And thus, cannot be Messiah.

The ONLY way to keep Jesus as Messiah - and to be honest with the Hebrew scripture - is to allow that the 'miracle' of Jesus birth was the same as the miracle God wrought with Sarai.


I think if you were really following the text, you would say that it might be a messianic prophecy, not that it definitely isn't a messianic prophecy.


Why?

Why are we going to start collecting every verse of the Hebrew scripture, and calling it Messianic prophecy?

Surely - the theologically honest path - is to assume that NOTHING is Messianic prophecy, except for that which can clearly be shown to BE Messianic prophecy?

I see it as being definitely related. If Christ is the Son of God, then Joseph was not his genetical father.

Early Christians, including Paul, didn't see it that way. Perhaps they knew when dealing with God that hs is not limited to the flesh. It's a little unfortunate that for so many the most important thing they can find in a father is biology.

I think if you were really following the text, you would say that it might be a messianic prophecy, not that it definitely isn't a messianic prophecy.

No, if I were really following the text, I would know that that almah means young woman and that young woman may or may not be a virgin. Also if I was really following the text I would notice, reasonably, that the virgin birth is not the focus of that particular prophesy and that Matthew left the actual prophesy out.

True, you didn't.

Good, so we can admit that our friend is arguing a strawman.

The thing is, Jocabia, that everything that we read or hear must be interpreted. For example, as you are reading my words, you are interpreting them. You are trying to get to the meaning of what I am wanting to communicate to you. In the same way, we are forced to interpret the Biblical texts to find the meaning. Christians (some at least) hold that the words of the prophets were divinely inspired. That means that even they did not always understand the full meaning of what they were saying, since they were only messengers. Now, it really does depend on your belief system as to whether you think the scriptures to be divinely inspired. If you can find someone who also believes that the words are divinely inspired and yet believes that this prophecy is not messianic, you might have a point. We would then need to look at the reasons provided by such a person.

Yes, all things must be interpreted. However, if my interpretation of what someone says is inconsistent with the rest of what they said, is inconsistent with the use of the words at the time, is inconsistent with EVERY unbiased scholarly interpretation, and just happens to support my bias, then I suspect I will be dismissed as having a flawed interpretation. Much like not a couple of posts ago you dismissed a particular view due to bias.

Unlike you, I don't consider that a position is suspect if it is only held by Christians. I would want to see the reasons for their position before I consider it suspect.

No, apparently, you only consider a position suspect if it is held by Muslims.

Written by Abdullah Smith, a recent convert to Islam, it appears. Do you believe him?

When there is an obvious bias by those that hold a position and that position supports their bias and no one not of that bias holds the position there is much reason to consider their position suspect. You argued this yourself, but you deny it when talking about Christians.

Of course. Insecurity often leads to aggression. But not all aggression is due to insecurity.

If we were looking at a vacuum, this might have a point. We're not.

You are asking me? I'm not a Catholic.

Catholics are primarly responsible for erasing the fairly prevelant view that Christ was not born of a virgin.

That is quite a generalisation. Are you thinking of specific cases?

We're talking about a specific case. Please follow along. Don't erase the context of a discussion to analyze a single post. It's annoying and spurious.

Well, I wouldn't exactly describe you as a saint (or myself either, for that matter). I would have thought the main characteristic of the early Christians was the contrast in their lives to that of the surrounding pagans. I'm currently reading a book called ''The Rise of Christianity'' by Rodney Stark. Very very interesting. He claims that one of the major reasons was, for example, during the times of the great plagues, the Christians nursed one another (and the pagans) back to health, despite the risk of falling sick themselves, consistent with the teachings of the scriptures. The pagans, however, treated a sick person as already dead, for fear of getting sick themselves. Stark says that this sort of contrast contributed to more than half of the population of the Roman empire becoming Christian by the end of the 4th century, and that the declaration that Constantine made did not result in mass conversion, but that his declaration was due to the recognition of the huge numbers of Christians within the empire and their power (and was consequently a tactic to enlist their support against his opponent).

I don't think I'm a saint. I do, however, make strong efforts to follow the views that I find in scripture rather than being told what to think by people with an agenda, be that GnI or Corny or the Pope. The Bible is available for our own scholarship and I find it sad that so many are so quick to jump on board with the same tripe that's been trotted out for centuries that does NOT match up with the practice and views of those closest to Christ.

For example, was Mary a virgin throughout her life?

And thus, Jesus is not part of the Davidic line. And thus, cannot be Messiah.

The ONLY way to keep Jesus as Messiah - and to be honest with the Hebrew scripture - is to allow that the 'miracle' of Jesus birth was the same as the miracle God wrought with Sarai.

Oh, I forgot about that argument. Nice.

Obviously everyone has a bias, to some degree. Your position appears to be ruling out a possibility (the messianic) with only the same sort of evidence that I have, and I would say that the evidence I have is not sufficient to rule it out.

Your opponent was also biased, but arguing for the possibility of a messianic prophecy, not the certainty of a messianic prophecy. Your bias would appear to be the greater of the two.

This is a compound issue.

There is MUCH evidence that Jesus cannot be messiah. I could argue it for days.

But, most important, Jesus was a prophet. This is good - Deuteronomy 18 suggests we would be looking for a prophet.

So - why a problem? Deuteronomy 13 expressly states that any prophet who lures Hebrews away from strict observance of of their covenant form of interaction with God... will be a FALSE prophet.

It allows.. false prophets may be 'accurate' in their prophecy, and they MAY give 'signs' and 'wonders'.

Jesus changed the covenant. Thus - Jesus, even if he WAS prophet, and miracle-worker, could not be messiah.


So - the problem is - why do we think Isaiah MIGHT be a 'messianic prophecy' - when it can clearly be seen to refer to contemporary issues of the time?

Answer - because it matches the Matthew account. And, Matthew thinks Jesus is Messiah.

And - why does Matthew think Jesus is messiah? Well - a lot of reasons, but he claims evidence through the virgin birth... which we are ONLY assuming is messianic prophecy BECAUSE of the Matthew account.


Don't you see that the logic is circular?

Quick, when referring to virgins, according to you, how many times did Isaiah use almah in the scripture? How many times did he use bethulah?

According to many apologists, almah was used once to refer to virgin in the place that supports Matthew and nowhere else. Similarly, every other virgin reference in Isaiah uses a different word, also according to apologists.


http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=05959&version=kjv

In Isaiah,

`almah = 1 time
b@thuwlah = 5 times

This difference is reflected in the entire OT which has b@thuwlah 50 times and
`almah only 7 times.

However, there are several `almah references in the OT in which the girl in the reference was clearly a virgin.


Most scholars recognize the inconsistency there.

According to most scholars, almah refers to young woman in Isaiah and virgin is referenced EVERY TIME using another word.


Three of the b@thuwlah references refer to a people group, such as the virgin daughter of Zion, probably meaning the people of Judah, or the virgin daughter of Babylon (probably an irony, since there was nothing virginal about Babylon). Is 23:12, 37:22, 47:1

I don't think that numbers are going to help your cause here, considering you are left with two other references (23:4, 62:5), of which only one is actually referring to a literal virgin (65:5). The other (23:4) is not really relevant, since the verse refers to the term as female offspring.

And in none of the b@thuwlah cases is there a reference to woman giving birth, which might be his reason for the use of 'almah in the one case.


Now, of course, the second view is more consistent, but don't let that stop you.


On the contrary, I have considered your argument. I don't think it is very convincing, or at least it does not rule out that Isaiah meant 'virgin' when he used the term `almah.


Pretend a word that meant young woman meant something else.

No, I'm not pretending that it meant anything other than what it appears to be used for in several other locations of the bible--a young woman or a virgin.


Pretend that anyone supports that view that doesn't already have conclusion in hand. Pretend that you didn't say that people who have a strong desire for something to be true make conclusions that logical people should suspect. Because if we stop pretending, you lost this argument a long time ago.

Are you getting aggressive now? Are you trying to win another argument? Does that mean you are insecure?

Early Christians, including Paul, didn't see it that way. Perhaps they knew when dealing with God that hs is not limited to the flesh. It's a little unfortunate that for so many the most important thing they can find in a father is biology.


Indeed:

First Timothy 1:3-4 "As I urged you when I was going into Macedonia, stay at Ephesus that you might command certain men not to teach a different doctrine, neither to pay attention to myths and endless genealogies, which cause disputes, rather than God's stewardship, which is in faith..."


The Gospel attributed to Mark ignored geneology - and, if one reads it, one finds a mortal Jesus. The Gospel attributed to John ignored geneology - and, if one reads it, one finds a 'spirit' Jesus.

The earliest belief, then - was that Jesus was born in the regular fashion, and was mortal. The Johannine belief came later, and made Jesus divine.

Timothy, after the fact, refers to this debate about the orgins of Jesus... and argues that the 'myths and geneologies' actually DETRACT from BEING Christian. The passage advocates AGAINST teaching these 'speculations'.

http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=05959&version=kjv

In Isaiah,

`almah = 1 time
b@thuwlah = 5 times

This difference is reflected in the entire OT which has b@thuwlah 50 times and
`almah only 7 times.

However, there are several `almah references in the OT in which the girl in the reference was clearly a virgin.


Only the Isaiah references are DIRECTLY relevent... they show that Isaiah DID KNOW the word Bethulah, and CHOSE not to use it.


Three of the b@thuwlah references refer to a people group, such as the virgin daughter of Zion, probably meaning the people of Judah, or the virgin daughter of Babylon (probably an irony, since there was nothing virginal about Babylon). Is 23:12, 37:22, 47:1

I don't think that numbers are going to help your cause here, considering you are left with two other references (23:4, 62:5), of which only one is actually referring to a literal virgin (65:5). The other (23:4) is not really relevant, since the verse refers to the term as female offspring.

And in none of the b@thuwlah cases is there a reference to woman giving birth, which might be his reason for the use of 'almah in the one case.


Almah ALWAYS means a 'young woman'... who might or might NOT be virginal.

Bethulah ALWAYS refers to vitginity, but MIGHT be metaphorical or used as an apellation.

Neither ALWAYS means a literal virgin.

Thus - it is dishonest to keep saying that the Isaiah text points to a virgin. It points to a 'young woman', and the fact that Isaiah DOESN'T use Bethulah points to the fact that the 'virginity' of the 'young woman' is irrelevent.

-sorry I confused topic :P-

http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=05959&version=kjv

In Isaiah,

`almah = 1 time
b@thuwlah = 5 times

This difference is reflected in the entire OT which has b@thuwlah 50 times and
`almah only 7 times.

However, there are several `almah references in the OT in which the girl in the reference was clearly a virgin.

We're not talking about other places in the Bible. We're talking about Isaiah who according to ONLY Christian apologists suddenly used the word almah/young woman to mean virgin rather than the word he'd been using throughout to mean virgin that is generally referred to as the word for virgin. Comparing the writings of Isaiah to other writers does little for your argument.


Three of the b@thuwlah references refer to a people group, such as the virgin daughter of Zion, probably meaning the people of Judah, or the virgin daughter of Babylon (probably an irony, since there was nothing virginal about Babylon). Is 23:12, 37:22, 47:1

So, you're aware that when referring to virgins Isaiah used *gasp* the word for virgin. Wonderful. Yet, you still remain confused as to the use of the word almah.

I don't think that numbers are going to help your cause here, considering you are left with two other references (23:4, 62:5), of which only one is actually referring to a literal virgin (65:5). The other (23:4) is not really relevant, since the verse refers to the term as female offspring.

So again, Isaiah appears to know the term used for virgin and use it for virgin, but suddenly he decides to use the term for young woman. That Isaiah sure was a strange writer according to Christian apologists.

And in none of the b@thuwlah cases is there a reference to woman giving birth, which might be his reason for the use of 'almah in the one case.

You think? Perhaps because women giving birth are generally not virgins.

On the contrary, I have considered your argument. I don't think it is very convincing, or at least it does not rule out that Isaiah meant 'virgin' when he used the term `almah.

So, it's not striking to you that NO ONE comes to your conclusion unless they want to convince people of the deity of Christ. If your conclusion was an accurate one don't you think just a few Jews would want to actual respond to what the text says. I mean, there are more than a few Christians who do not view Isaiah as referencing a Christian birth. All evidence points to a conclusion reached by bias.

I can't rule out that he wasn't referencing a camel either, but I can follow the evidence which overwhelmingly points to his use simply meaning young woman.

No, I'm not pretending that it meant anything other than what it appears to be used for in several other locations of the bible--a young woman or a virgin.

No, it's used for a young woman who may or may not be a virgin.

Are you getting aggressive now? Are you trying to win another argument? Does that mean you are insecure?
Yes, debating means I'm insecure. If you can't see the difference between suggesting I'm not a Christian and suggesting you've lost an argument, I think you cannot be helped.

Oh, I forgot about that argument. Nice.

I honestly don't get it.

How does someone place SO much reliance on the literal interpretation of a whole raft of ideas... that they will chose to insist on EVERY stick of that raft being incorruptible, even when some of the sticks are shown to be concealed holes?

Would it not be more sensible to remove those corrupted sticks, and just bind the rest of the raft closer together... rather than to continually insist that the boat is fine, as the water seeps through?

Only the Isaiah references are DIRECTLY relevent... they show that Isaiah DID KNOW the word Bethulah, and CHOSE not to use it.
Not only that, but that Isaiah preferred the term. It would be odd for him to suddenly use a term that even if one buys that it could mean virgin generally means young woman when make such a profound prophesy as a virginal birth. If you were making a prophesy where virginity was so important wouldn't you make sure that fact was abundantly clear rather than speak in a way that would so likely to be interpreted the way we are interpreting it.

"Gee, I've been using a word that means virgin all over the place in my speech, but now that it's really important, I guess it's time to be vague."

Not only that, but that Isaiah preferred the term. It would be odd for him to suddenly use a term that even if one buys that it could mean virgin generally means young woman when make such a profound prophesy as a virginal birth. If you were making a prophesy where virginity was so important wouldn't you make sure that fact was abundantly clear rather than speak in a way that would so likely to be interpreted the way we are interpreting it.

"Gee, I've been using a word that means virgin all over the place in my speech, but now that it's really important, I guess it's time to be vague."

Exactly.... this was fuzzy in my head, but you've focused it.

Isaiah NEVER uses Bethulah in conjunction with pregnancy... and we should not be too surprised... obviously. And - in the case of this verse that some claim as 'virgin birth prophecy', he STILL doesn't use Bethulah.

Exactly.... this was fuzzy in my head, but you've focused it.

Isaiah NEVER uses Bethulah in conjunction with pregnancy... and we should not be too surprised... obviously. And - in the case of this verse that some claim as 'virgin birth prophecy', he STILL doesn't use Bethulah.

Yes, I giggled a little when he mentioned that virgin is not used elsewhere to refer to woman giving birth. Sometimes I wonder if people even know what they're arguing about anymore.

Sometimes I like it better when they just decide I'm not a True Christian and run off to hide from my sticking to the actual text and my holding up the teachings of Jesus above all else.

I'm tempted to bring up the 'only Jews' argument again.

About that Goliath guy.. Have you lot ever considered he might have had a few spare credits?

Yes, I giggled a little when he mentioned that virgin is not used elsewhere to refer to woman giving birth. Sometimes I wonder if people even know what they're arguing about anymore.


It really does seem that, if you leave it long enough... a lot of people will make your own argument for you.. :)

I can appreciate the idea that someone can discover something new, and present it in debate... even if it hurts their own case - but I don't really think thaqt's what we are seeing... I think we have someone who THINKS the argument they presented actually supports the opposite side to that which they THINK it supports.

Kind of - a 'Montoya Principle' of discernment.



Sometimes I like it better when they just decide I'm not a True Christian and run off to hide from my sticking to the actual text and my holding up the teachings of Jesus above all else.


See - I realise I'm a godless heathen and all... but, sticking to what's written (no matter how uncomfortable) in preference to 'commonly accepted thought'... and holding to the teachings attributed to Christ...

That doesn't sound like a bad approach to Christianity.

Obviously, I'm failing to understand something key.


I'm tempted to bring up the 'only Jews' argument again.

On the subject of which:

Exodus 19:5-6 "Now therefore, if you will indeed obey my voice, and keep my covenant, then you shall be my own possession from among all peoples; for all the earth is mine; and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests, and a holy nation.' These are the words which you shall speak to the children of Israel."

Isn't this an Old Testament verse, amking exactly the same argument we were making? Even if the message is going to be spread accross the world, the message is FOR Israel... because they are the 'kingdom of priests'?

It is their job to 'hear' the word, and to spread it...?

About that Goliath guy.. Have you lot ever considered he might have had a few spare credits?

Or a 1UP mushroom?

It really does seem that, if you leave it long enough... a lot of people will make your own argument for you.. :)

I can appreciate the idea that someone can discover something new, and present it in debate... even if it hurts their own case - but I don't really think thaqt's what we are seeing... I think we have someone who THINKS the argument they presented actually supports the opposite side to that which they THINK it supports.

Kind of - a 'Montoya Principle' of discernment.




See - I realise I'm a godless heathen and all... but, sticking to what's written (no matter how uncomfortable) in preference to 'commonly accepted thought'... and holding to the teachings attributed to Christ...

That doesn't sound like a bad approach to Christianity.

Obviously, I'm failing to understand something key.



On the subject of which:

Exodus 19:5-6 "Now therefore, if you will indeed obey my voice, and keep my covenant, then you shall be my own possession from among all peoples; for all the earth is mine; and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests, and a holy nation.' These are the words which you shall speak to the children of Israel."

Isn't this an Old Testament verse, amking exactly the same argument we were making? Even if the message is going to be spread accross the world, the message is FOR Israel... because they are the 'kingdom of priests'?

It is their job to 'hear' the word, and to spread it...?

The funny part about that argument is it's the same argument.

Us: "That's not what he said."
Them: "That's what he meant."
Us: "Um, no, it's not."
Them: "How dare you claim to know what he meant? Could you read his mind?"
Us: "No, but I could read what he wrote."
Them: "But that's not what he meant."

Ad infinitum.

When I asked you why it could not be a Messianic prophecy, you could not come up with a good reason. And yet you still believe that it was not a Messianic prophecy. Thus, I don't think your opinion is grounded in reason. It appears to be based on your bias. And knowing your bias, I could have predicted your position before we had this particular discussion. Reasons, Grave, we are concerned here with reasons.
Personally, I thought the reason Grave gave was a very good one. But that's probably just me.

When I asked you why it could not be a Messianic prophecy, you could not come up with a good reason. And yet you still believe that it was not a Messianic prophecy. Thus, I don't think your opinion is grounded in reason. It appears to be based on your bias. And knowing your bias, I could have predicted your position before we had this particular discussion. Reasons, Grave, we are concerned here with reasons.

Isn't this from the same person who said, "I want it to mean X, and it's not entirely impossible that it means X, therefore it MUST mean X and anyone who thinks otherwise is just showing their bias."

It appears that you hold everyone to a higher requirement EXCEPT you and the portion of Christians that agree with you. Doesn't that pretty much define bias?

Personally, I thought the reason Grave gave was a very good one. But that's probably just me.

Ah - you see the problem? You actually READ what I type... If I've learned anything in this thread, it's that you can't tell what people mean JUST because of what they do, say, or write.

Or something... ;)

Ah - you see the problem? You actually READ what I type... If I've learned anything in this thread, it's that you can't tell what people mean JUST because of what they do, say, or write.

Or something... ;)

Well, it's pretty consistent. They refuse to accept that what the Bible says is what it means, so why would they accept what you mean just because it's what you wrote.

Well, it's pretty consistent. They refuse to accept that what the Bible says is what it means, so why would they accept what you mean just because it's what you wrote.

Have you tried skywriting?

Have you tried skywriting?

Yes, but I got in trouble for not being compliant with FAA regulations.

Well, I didn't find what I was looking for re the line of 'sacred' children, but I did find some other interesting stuff…

Some excerpts from the Book of Mary. This Gospel is "attributed to St. Matthew, and received as genuine and authentic by several of the Christian sects." It was found in the library of Father Jerome in the fourteenth century. (This book reads like Mary is the poster child for virginity. I suspect it is of a type that was mentioned earlier, that was edited (or written) long after the third century AD to make some bits fit the new Christian mythology.)
Mary 2:1 But when (Joachim) had been there for some time, on a certain day when he was alone, the angel of the Lord stood by him with a prodigious light.
2 To whom, being troubled at the appearance, the angel who had appeared to him, endeavoured to compose him said:
3 Be not afraid, Joachim, nor troubled at the sight of me, for I am an angel of the Lord sent by him to you, that I might inform you, that your prayers are heard, and your alms ascended in the sight of God.
4 For he hath surely seen your shame, and heard you unjustly reproached for not having children: for God is the avenger of sin, and not of nature;
5 And so when he shuts the womb of any person, he does it for this reason, that he may in a more wonderful manner again open it, and that which is born appear to be not the product of lust, but the gift of God.
6 For the first mother of your nation, Sarah, was she not barren even till her eightieth year: And yet even in the end of her old age brought forth Isaac, in whom the promise was made of a blessing to all nations.
7 Rachel also, so much in favour with God, and beloved so much by holy Jacob, continued barren for a long time, yet afterwards was the mother of Joseph, who was not only governor of Egypt, but delivered many nations from perishing with hunger.
8 Who among the judges was more valiant than Samson, or more holy than Samuel? And yet both their mothers were barren.
9 But if reason will not convince you of the truth of my words, that there are frequent conceptions in advanced years, and that those who were barren have brought forth to their great surprise; therefore Anna your wife shall bring you a daughter, and you shall call her name Mary.
10 She shall, according to your vow, be devoted to the Lord from her infancy, and be filled with the Holy Ghost from her mother's womb…
Now, yes, barren old women are not 'young women', but the text makes careful distinction between the "virgins," and the "Virgin" or "Virgin of the Lord" as a title, which suggests different contexts. Although she was young (virgin) she was also unmarried (or wed to the Lord, though some think that's all …nun-sense). The angel also provides an odd explanation for miracle births as intended to have the appearance of gifts from God …if he only keeps them hanging on barrenness long enough.

But now let's look at the Holy Virgins of the neighbouring nation, Babylon:
"Holy Virgin" was the title of harlot-priestesses of Ishtar, Asherah, or Aphrodite. The title did not mean physical virginity; it meant simply 'unmarried'. The function of such Holy Virgins was to dispense the Mother's grace through sexual worship; to heal; to prophecy; to perform sacred dances; to wail for the dead; and to become Brides of God. Children born of such temple women were called by the Greeks 'parthenioi' or "virgin-born".
~Barbara Walker

So, even Mary's mother Anne would have qualified as a virgin when she became widowed. This excerpt is from The Protevangelion, attributed in authorship to James, and takes place after the angel has told Anne she will conceive of Mary.
Prot. 4:8 And Joachim went down with the shepherds, and Anna stood by the gate and saw Joachim coming with the shepherds.
9 And she ran, and hanging about his neck, said, 'Now I know that the Lord hath greatly blessed me:
10 For behold, I who was a widow am no longer a widow, and I who was barren shall conceive.'

And Mary, even as a sixteen-year old was considered to be old in the same sense as her barren cousin, who was old. This is the angel telling Mary of her birth of Jesus (they sure like to spoil the endings).
Prot. 9:11 And the angel said unto her, The Lord is with thee, and thou shalt conceive:
12 To which she replied, 'What! Shall I conceive by the living God, and bring forth as all other women do?'
13 But the angel returned answer, Not so, O Mary, but the Holy Ghost shall come upon thee and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee;
14 Wherefore that which shall be born of thee shall be holy, and shall be called the Son of the Living God, and thou shall call his name Jesus; for he shall save his people from their sins.
15 And behold thy cousin Elizabeth, she also hath conceived a son in her old age.
16 And this now is the sixth month with her, who was called barren; for nothing is impossible with God.
Bolded text mine. Anyway, make of it what you will.

As a side, re the changing attitude Bottle mentioned earlier, this is a quote from a book called The Myth of the Goddess by Anne Baring and Jules Cashford.
Central to the Christian doctrine from the fourth century AD was the teaching that as Christ as the Second Adam, so Mary was the 'Second Eve', that Mary through her virginity had redeemed the sin of Eve. The paradise that had been lost was now regained by the untainted birth of Christ. As Jerome said, 'Now the chain of the curse is broken. Death came through Eve, but life has come through Mary.' And Irenaeus declared: 'Eve by her disobedience brought death upon herself and on all the human race: Mary, by her obedience, brought salvation.'

If is fundamentally Mary's virginity that is the cornerstone of Christian theology, for without it there could be no 'Son of God' and no suspension of the laws of nature that manifest in the human being as original sin 'from the mother's womb', as Saint Augustine locates it. Jesus would have been a man like other men, and it would have been impossible to render him Christ the Redeemer of Sin. So, in the Christian tradition it was essential to provide a doctrine of the immaculate conception of Jesus, and equally essential, later, to extend the idea of immaculate conception to Mary herself, so that she would also be completely free of any taint of the 'original' sin, now unquestionably human sexuality. Logically, Mary's mother, Anne, should also have had the taint removed from her, and so, also, the whole line of ancestresses back to and including Eve. Divinity of parentage and a miraculous birth are common to all mythic traditions as a way of acknowledging the one who becomes the hero or the saviour of the community, but this myth bore the unique burden of redeeming the whole of nature.
Italics mine.

This is another quote from a book called The Myth of the Goddess, which I quote frequently (I should get some sort of reward for stimulating royalties) that has the best description of the Holy Ghost that I have ever heard.
Virginity has always been an image belonging to the Great Mother as the lunar goddess. The Virgin Goddess is Life itself, and Life, like the cycles of the moon, appears out of itself without union with anything external to itself. The virginity of the goddess had nothing to do with sexual 'purity' in the sense that has been given to it in our culture. The goddess is virgin because she carries within herself her own fertilizing power; and life pours into manifestation from the 'sea' of her womb in a never-ending stream. Virginity has to be understood as a symbol that describes a metaphysical dimension where the two aspects of the goddess, the fertilizing male phallus and the gestating female womb, are united in perpetual, life-giving embrace. The life that was born out of herself and taken back into herself is everlastingly her 'child'. A poem suggests that the goddess is the inner aspect or hidden face of the male gods who give form to her invisible being:
Begetting Mother am I, within the Spirit I abide and none see me.
In the word of An I abide, and none see me,
In the word of Enlil I abide, and none see me,
In the word of the holy temple I abide, and none see me.

Oddly enough, those respected scholars who are apologists are probably quite proud of being Christian apologists, despite your indignation on their behalf.
I would contend that some are probably proud of their faith and keep it. My beef is that there is an attempt to link evanglism sites who ignore evidence or make it up to actual biblical scholars who maintain their faith even while pulling it apart (Again, Tropical Sands made mention that it was his Christian professors who taught him about the word difference). They seem to be following the rules of scholarship and I object to a broad painting of ALL Christians who would arguge their faith as somehow being unable to accept evidence to the contrary.

Strawman.

Jocabia illustrates examples of Christians that allow the Hebrew meaning of the word, rather than the 'common' translation to 'virgin'.

Another strawman. They would, by the definitions Jocabia found, be 'apologists' if the were arguing to defend a certain view.

If their contribution was research, an attempt at objective translation, an argument presented but not actively fought... any of those, could be 'Christian', but not 'apologist'.
Go back and re-read what Jacobia was saying. He defined apoplgist as anyone who argues for a position of a certain group. This means he is defining anyone who promote their faith as an apologist and therefore biased.

If anything, this isn't a strawman on my part, it's argumentum ad hominem on his.

Either way, automatically dismissing the statement of someone without looking at their evidence smacks of bad debating and scholarship. So far I have read YOUR evidence and Tropical Sands' evidence, and the opossing side's evidence and found yours is stronger, but I do read because to do otherwise is sloppy.

Strawman. You keep hyperbolizing what I said. What I said was that we must address the bias, not dismiss everything produced by someone with bias. If you can't read, don't post. I've said it and repeated it clearly several times. WE MUST ADDRESS BIAS.
Really? So this is:

Can you name anyone other than Christian apologists who claim the text says virgin.
Is addressing bias by attacking the argument or just outright dismissal?

I never blanketed anyone. Only you did. I said that I don't accept a conclusion that only comes from a group that desperately wants that conclusion to be true when everyone outside that group disagrees and some withing that group. I offered an opportunity to prove me wrong and you chose to get upset instead. I don't plan to waste any more time with your inability to respond to what I say rather than what you're pissed at.
Bull.

You said:
Can you name anyone other than Christian apologists who claim the text says virgin.

I asked you how you defined an apologist. You replied:
An apologist is someone who argues to defend an institution or group, in this case Christianity.
You did not say poisition, you did not say point of view, you said group, in this case Christianity. You did not say uses poor scholarship, you did not say presents an unsupported argument, you used anyone who would defend a group.

You're so proud of your precise use of English so I must take you at your words, and your words blanket. I offered you a chance to redefine your paraemters but you chose to group me with those you are debating with so I must also conclude that my premsis is right. I have been responding to you.

I didn't discount everyone or anyone. I discounted a particular stance that is ONLY held by certain Christian apologists but if it were the result of scholarship would be found elsewhere. A stance that is clearly supportive of the bias that Christian apologists have. If you can't understand that, then I have nothing for you.
Oh, NOW you mention CERTAIN Christian groups. If you cannot use precise language while bashing others for their sloppy use...

Edit: for example, he refers to the Matthew account of Joseph and Mary fleeing to Egypt. Because there is no evidence of this, except for this one reference in Matthew, he claims that it must be fabricated...
Such an account may be apocryphal. I'll see if I can find it when I get home.
Here it is, the Book of Jesus Infancy I.

Mr. Henry Sike, Professor of Oriental Languages at Cambridge, first translated and published this Gospel in 1697. It was received by the Gnostics, a sect of Christians in the second century, and several of its relations were credited in the following ages by other Christians, viz. Eusebius, Athanasius, Ephiphanius, Chrysostom, etc. Sozomen says, he was told by many, and he credits the relations, of the idols in Egypt falling down on Jospeh and Mary's flight thither with Christ...

I Infancy 4:1 Now Herod, perceiving that the wise men did delay, and not return to him, called together the priests and wise men and said, Tell me in what place the Christ should be born?
2 And when they replied, in Bethlehem, a city of Judea, he began to contrive in his own mind the death of the Lord Jesus Christ.
3 But an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in his sleep, and said, Arise, take the child and his mother, and go into Egypt as soon as the cock crows. So he arose and went...

6 And now he drew near to a great city, in which there was an idol, to which the other idols and gods of Egypt brought their offerings and vows.
7 And there was by this idol a priest ministering to it, who as often as Satan spoke out of that idol, related the things he said to the inhabitants of Egypt, and those countries.
8 This priest had a son three years old, who was possesed with a great multitude of devils, who uttered many strange things, and when the devils seized him, walked about naked with his clothes torn, throwing stones at those whom he saw.
9 Near to that idol was the inn of the city, into which when Joseph and St. Mary were come, and had turned into that inn, all the inhabitants of the city were astonished.
10 And all the magistrates and priests of the idols assembled before that idol, and made inquiry there, saying, What means all this consternation, and dread, which has fallen upon all our country?
11 The idol answered them, The unknown God is come hither, who is truly God; nor is there any one besides him, who is worthy of divine worship; for he is truly the Son of God.
12 At the fame of him this country trembles, and at his coming it is under the present commotion and consternation; and we ourselves are affrighted by the greatness of his power.
13 And at the same instant this idol fell down, and at his fall all the inhabitants of Egypt, besides others, ran together.
14 But the son of this priest, when his usual disorder came upon him, going into the inn, found there Joseph and St. Mary, whom all the rest had left behind and forsook.
15 And when the Lady St. Mary had washed the swaddling clothes of the Lord Christ, and hanged them out to dry upon a post, the boy possessed with the devil took down one of them and put it upon his head.
16 And presently the devils began to come out of his mouth, and fly away in the shape of crows and serpents.
17 From that time the boy was healed by the power of the Lord Christ, and he began to sing praises and give thanks to the Lord who had healed him...
The power of the baby diaper.

Here it is, the Book of Jesus Infancy I.


The power of the baby diaper.

Ah... diaper on head magic. I'm surprised that didn't catch on... ;)

Ah... diaper on head magic. I'm surprised that didn't catch on... ;)
Considering some of the hats clergy wear, are you certain it didn't? ;)

We're not talking about other places in the Bible. We're talking about Isaiah who according to ONLY Christian apologists suddenly used the word almah/young woman to mean virgin rather than the word he'd been using throughout to mean virgin that is generally referred to as the word for virgin. Comparing the writings of Isaiah to other writers does little for your argument.

So, you're aware that when referring to virgins Isaiah used *gasp* the word for virgin. Wonderful. Yet, you still remain confused as to the use of the word almah.

The very least you could do, when you make assertions like that, is to read the actual three times he uses the word to see how he really used it. Your point would be better made if you did so because you just look silly when you say it and you are wrong. Isaiah does NOT use the word B'tulah when he is talking about 'actual' virgins, he uses the word when he is talking about figurative analogies.

Isaiah 23
11 The LORD has stretched out his hand over the sea
and made its kingdoms tremble.
He has given an order concerning Phoenicia
that her fortresses be destroyed.
12 He said, "No more of your reveling,
O Virgin Daughter of Sidon, now crushed!
"Up, cross over to Cyprus;
even there you will find no rest."


Isaiah 37
21 Then Isaiah son of Amoz sent a message to Hezekiah: "This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: Because you have prayed to me concerning Sennacherib king of Assyria, 22 this is the word the LORD has spoken against him:
"The Virgin Daughter of Zion
despises and mocks you.
The Daughter of Jerusalem
tosses her head as you flee.

Isaiah 47
1 "Go down, sit in the dust,
Virgin Daughter of Babylon;
sit on the ground without a throne,
Daughter of the Babylonians.
No more will you be called
tender or delicate.

The bolded sections are NOT real individuals, the word B'tulah is a description of an idea.

He used the world Almah for the mother description in question because one, it would be a real person, and two, it describes the woman as a person you can actually see that could stand before you and that she would be a young but sexually mature, ready to be married but not yet married, female virgin. The word b'tulah would NOT have conveyed that precise message being told. Mary, mother of Jesus, would fit the description of an Almah, and in the case of Matthew, he says she was the Almah. But if Matthew were trying to talk like Isaiah and called her the b’atulah she would sound like she was the symbolic embodiment of a community or country or something, and that would make no sense whatsoever.

Your accusation fails because it is simply based on untruths, no matter what your friends have told you about what the word means to them.

Don't say Christian interpretation. There are many Christians who do not interpret it that way and is evidenced in several Bibles. The most telling part of the bias is that the interpretation you claim is Christian is only found being made by Christians while the interpretation that is offered by the sites we've referenced is found both among Christians and non-Christians alike. Which is more likely, that some Christians just happened upon an PROPER interpretation that just happens to support what they already believed or that the multitude of other people who interpret it to be 'young woman' regardless of what bias they hold are correct? The answer to that one should be pretty easy.l

Which Christian Bibles do not translate the word as virgin?


So - wait.. the ONLY part you claim shows bias, is now my position on the 'messianic prophecy'... nothing to do with the literal text verses what some others think the text 'means'?


No, that isn't what I said. I actually said that everyone has a bias, but that you were making the larger claim.



Oh - and then we have that 'other' interpretation, based on bad Greek.


Why? Because it doesn't say what you want it to say? It was translated by a Jewish scribe (or perhaps 70 of the best).


There is a mountain of evidence that many early Christians including Paul and many of the writers of the Gospels did not.

If you have a mountain of evidence, perhaps you might care to share some of it.


And thus, Jesus is not part of the Davidic line. And thus, cannot be Messiah.

The ONLY way to keep Jesus as Messiah - and to be honest with the Hebrew scripture - is to allow that the 'miracle' of Jesus birth was the same as the miracle God wrought with Sarai.


Jesus was the adopted son of Joseph, and the son of Mary. Since both were of the house of David, Jesus is part of the Davidic line through parents.

I don't think that my honesty would compel me to think that Jesus would have to have been conceived in the same way as Isaac. I think there is a lot more room for possibilities than just the one you are claiming.


Why are we going to start collecting every verse of the Hebrew scripture, and calling it Messianic prophecy?

Surely - the theologically honest path - is to assume that NOTHING is Messianic prophecy, except for that which can clearly be shown to BE Messianic prophecy?


It is not necessary to assume that any scripture is or is not messianic. Honesty is not an issue here.


No, if I were really following the text, I would know that that almah means young woman and that young woman may or may not be a virgin. Also if I was really following the text I would notice, reasonably, that the virgin birth is not the focus of that particular prophesy and that Matthew left the actual prophesy out.

How do you know that Isaiah did not mean that the young woman was not a virgin, or even that a virgin birth was not the sign to which he was referring? His choice of the word 'almah, which means young woman? Perhaps he couldn't use B'tulah because a B'tulah can't have children. Consider the scenario in which Isaiah was actually meaning a virgin birth in his prophecy. Do you think he would have used the word B'tulah if there was a common understanding that B'tulah does not have children? Would he not rather use a word that refers to a young woman who could have children?

The other possibility is that Isaiah did not mean to prophecy a virgin giving birth, but because he was only the messenger, it was not relevant for him, but that it was indeed God's intention to convey a messianic prophecy to people after the time of Christ, in order that they might see and believe.

Matthew does not leave this prophecy out, but mentions it in the first chapter of Matthew, v. 23.


No, apparently, you only consider a position suspect if it is held by Muslims.

No, I don't. I do consider a position suspect, when, in the case of the example above, he made no intention of arguing objectively. That he was a recent convert to Islam made me think that his arguments were going to be anti-Christian, as might be expected, but not necessarily very biased. Reading some of his introductory comments made me consider his position hopelessly steeped in bias. Hence my reason for asking Willamena is she believed his arguments.


We're talking about a specific case. Please follow along. Don't erase the context of a discussion to analyze a single post. It's annoying and spurious.

I thought you were making a generalisation. It does read that way.


For example, was Mary a virgin throughout her life?

I don't think so. Jesus apparently had brothers, according to the gospels.

Which Christian Bibles do not translate the word as virgin?
It's not so much that they don't translate that word as 'virigin' as that 'virgin' does not mean what it is implied modern-day to mean, that is: a woman who has not had sex with a man.

The King James Bible, for instance:

Genesis 24:16
And the damsel was very fair to look upon, a virgin, neither had any man known her.

So, she was a virgin despite having never had sex with a man.

The very least you could do, when you make assertions like that, is to read the actual three times he uses the word to see how he really used it. Your point would be better made if you did so because you just look silly when you say it and you are wrong. Isaiah does NOT use the word B'tulah when he is talking about 'actual' virgins, he uses the word when he is talking about figurative analogies.

Isaiah 23
11 The LORD has stretched out his hand over the sea
and made its kingdoms tremble.
He has given an order concerning Phoenicia
that her fortresses be destroyed.
12 He said, "No more of your reveling,
O Virgin Daughter of Sidon, now crushed!
"Up, cross over to Cyprus;
even there you will find no rest."


Isaiah 37
21 Then Isaiah son of Amoz sent a message to Hezekiah: "This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: Because you have prayed to me concerning Sennacherib king of Assyria, 22 this is the word the LORD has spoken against him:
"The Virgin Daughter of Zion
despises and mocks you.
The Daughter of Jerusalem
tosses her head as you flee.

Isaiah 47
1 "Go down, sit in the dust,
Virgin Daughter of Babylon;
sit on the ground without a throne,
Daughter of the Babylonians.
No more will you be called
tender or delicate.

The bolded sections are NOT real individuals, the word B'tulah is a description of an idea.

He used the world Almah for the mother description in question because one, it would be a real person, and two, it describes the woman as a person you can actually see that could stand before you and that she would be a young but sexually mature, ready to be married but not yet married, female virgin. The word b'tulah would NOT have conveyed that precise message being told. Mary, mother of Jesus, would fit the description of an Almah, and in the case of Matthew, he says she was the Almah. But if Matthew were trying to talk like Isaiah and called her the b’atulah she would sound like she was the symbolic embodiment of a community or country or something, and that would make no sense whatsoever.

Your accusation fails because it is simply based on untruths, no matter what your friends have told you about what the word means to them.

Bethulah means virgin, either real or metaphorical.

If Isaiah had meant 'virgo intacta', the MOST appropriate word, would have been the one that suggested virgin - that is, bethulah.

You are apparently confused by the texture of Hebrew... the language is very comfortable with allusin and metaphor, much more so than our relatively technical language.

Almah, on the other hand - only truly reflects on the age and gender. It doesn't speak to the virginity status at all - even in metaphor.

Not ALL young women are virgins. A young woman who is NOT a virgin is 'almah', a young woman who IS a virgin is 'almah'... because 'almah' doesn't MENTION virginity.

On the other hand - if the virgin status is what you are trying to refer to, you would SAY 'virgin'... that is 'bethulah'.

As for: "But if Matthew were trying to talk like Isaiah and called her the b’atulah she would sound like she was the symbolic embodiment of a community or country or something, and that would make no sense whatsoever..." Again - no - bethulah CAN be used metaphorically, but it also has a literal meaning.

You really do seem to be getting bogged down by the symbolic nature of the native tongue.

It's not so much that they don't translate that word as 'virigin' as that 'virgin' does not mean what it is implied modern-day to mean, that is: a woman who has not had sex with a man.

The King James Bible, for instance:

Genesis 24:16
And the damsel was very fair to look upon, a virgin, neither had any man known her.

So, she was a virgin despite having never had sex with a man.

Also - just for the reference:

My "Bible in Basic English" version gives Isaiah 7:14 as: "For this cause the Lord himself will give you a sign; a young woman is now with child, and she will give birth to a son, and she will give him the name Immanuel."

And, my "JPS Tanakh" version gives Isaiah 7:14 as: "Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign: behold, the young woman shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."

Which Christian Bibles do not translate the word as virgin?


Look at the response I made to Willamena's post.


No, that isn't what I said. I actually said that everyone has a bias, but that you were making the larger claim.


I? How is my claim the larger? You are claiming that a certain verse MUST be messianic, and yet you have no evidence for that claim, other than the fact that you BELIEVE it has already been fulfilled.

I am claiming that it is non-Messianic - because the context clearly shows it to be contemporary, and fulfilled.

Yours is BY FAR the greater claim.


Why? Because it doesn't say what you want it to say? It was translated by a Jewish scribe (or perhaps 70 of the best).


It was translated into a much more technical language. To be honest, I couldn't TELL you who translated the Hebrew scriptures into Greek... but I can tell you WHY they did it... which was for the benefit of Hellenised Jews. So - it was either translated by someone for whom Hebrew is the first language - into a more technical tongue... or it is translated by someone in whom the familiarity with Hebrew is LESS complete, into a native tongue.

Either way - it is hardly surprising that problems might creep in.


Jesus was the adopted son of Joseph, and the son of Mary. Since both were of the house of David, Jesus is part of the Davidic line through parents.


Jesus cannot inherit the lineage of David through his mother... that isn't how it works. I'm also wary of the idea that God would make a 'special exception' to the order of inheritance, to allow a one-time gesture like making a non-related member be the fulfillment of Davidic covenant.


I don't think that my honesty would compel me to think that Jesus would have to have been conceived in the same way as Isaac. I think there is a lot more room for possibilities than just the one you are claiming.


Of course you don't think that. You have your decision already made before you even LOOK at the scripture.

This is one of the problems I have with modern Christianity... it teaches the Hebrew scriptures as somehow less 'important' than the Greek scriptures... which means, all to often, modern Christians just do not have any 'familiarity' with God... they couldn't recognise him in a crowd.

The other irony of that, of course, is that the Hebrew scriptures are the BASIS for 'messiah'... and if you devalue the Hebrew scripture, you make 'messiah' nothing but a name.


It is not necessary to assume that any scripture is or is not messianic. Honesty is not an issue here.


Actually - it IS necessary to assume scripture is or is not messianic. Especially if you are going to claim 'messianic prophecy' has been fulfilled based on it.


How do you know that Isaiah did not mean that the young woman was not a virgin, or even that a virgin birth was not the sign to which he was referring? His choice of the word 'almah, which means young woman? Perhaps he couldn't use B'tulah because a B'tulah can't have children. Consider the scenario in which Isaiah was actually meaning a virgin birth in his prophecy. Do you think he would have used the word B'tulah if there was a common understanding that B'tulah does not have children? Would he not rather use a word that refers to a young woman who could have children?


Yiou mean - like we KNOW the word 'virgin' doesn't allow for pregnancy and birth, now?

Do you really think that people two and three thousand years ago were SO much less intelligent than us?


The other possibility is that Isaiah did not mean to prophecy a virgin giving birth, but because he was only the messenger, it was not relevant for him, but that it was indeed God's intention to convey a messianic prophecy to people after the time of Christ, in order that they might see and believe.


Or - more likely - since the prophecy was fulfilled contemporarily - that the prophecy is NOT messianic, at all - and that all this quibbling over whether Jesus could be the 'virgin birth mentioned in Isaiah' is somewhere between subversion of scripture, and outright dishonesty.

Not ALL young women are virgins. A young woman who is NOT a virgin is 'almah', a young woman who IS a virgin is 'almah'... because 'almah' doesn't MENTION virginity.
...

Really, then it shouldn’t be a problem for you to find for us even a single verse anywhere in the scripture where someone is called Almah who is not a virgin.

Almah is not just 'young woman.' It IS, specifically, in it's entirety, a young woman OF marriageable age, not yet married and has no children. It does NOT mean all young women, it does not mean a young married women, or a young women with children. It does not mean a pre-pubescent young woman either. It IS, specifically, a young physically mature woman ready to be married but is not yet, a virgin to be married, desirable.

A B’tulah might already be married, might simply be widowed, can simply mean a celibate woman, and frequently means very young, pre-pubescent little girl. Not at all the same picture of saying “the Almah,” now is it? That is why Isaiah used the Almah word, because it describes what he was talking about, someone like Mary, not someone like a five year old girl or a senior citizen widow no a symbolic female sexless country.

I have heard many people say on this forum many times with regards to religious debate that

"There is no evidence for God's existance"

Which is not true. There is plenty of evidence. You can find such evidence in the Bible (for Christianity, and I am a Christian myself so I am going to be refering to the Christian God when I say God) and many peoples personal experiances. However, I think what people should actually be saying when they say

"There is no evidence for God's existance"

Is something more along the lines of

"God's existance cannot be proven to a level of certainty"

There is plenty of evidence, and please feel free to scrutinise, debate and discuss the worthyness of this evidence, but to say there is no evidence displays a lack of understanding of theological debate.

. You use the Bible as you proof of Gods existance. The Bible in my opion is nothing more than a great fiction novel.

Almah is not just 'young woman.' It IS, specifically, in it's entirety, a young woman OF marriageable age, not yet married and has no children. It does NOT mean all young women, it does not mean a young married women, or a young women with children. It does not mean a pre-pubescent young woman either. It IS, specifically, a young physically mature woman ready to be married but is not yet, a virgin to be married, desirable.
My understanding of the word (which, granted, comes from a very brief stint at Talmud Torah Latchkey) is that "almah" means a young, marriagable girl who has reached puberty but has not been wed.

My understanding of human history is that there has never been any point or any civilization in which all young, unmarried, post-pubescent girls were virgins.

I have heard many people say on this forum many times with regards to religious debate that

"There is no evidence for God's existance"

Which is not true. There is plenty of evidence. You can find such evidence in the Bible (for Christianity, and I am a Christian myself so I am going to be refering to the Christian God when I say God) and many peoples personal experiances. However, I think what people should actually be saying when they say

"There is no evidence for God's existance"

Is something more along the lines of

"God's existance cannot be proven to a level of certainty"

There is plenty of evidence, and please feel free to scrutinise, debate and discuss the worthyness of this evidence, but to say there is no evidence displays a lack of understanding of theological debate.

You are exactly right. God's existence cannot be proven to a level of certainty. Just as well as the nonexistence.
That is why no-one should actually maintain the position that a god actually exists. It is a possibility, not more.

And really, the Bible is no evidence at all. Both sections of the Christian Bible were fabricated by groups of people who have an interest in a certain type of world view. Evidence for the theological setup described in the Bible is indeed nonexisting.

Really, then it shouldn’t be a problem for you to find for us even a single verse anywhere in the scripture where someone is called Almah who is not a virgin.


Actually - all I would need to show, would be that 'almah' is used in instances where virginity is not an issue.

For example - situations in which Tanakh text uses 'almah'... but it is not necessary for the meaning, that it be translated as 'virgin'.

So - if I found an instance where the language refers to - say, a whole collection of women, but does NOT require that their sexual purity or marital status be known.

As, for example, in the Song of Solomon.

Song of Solomon 1:3 "Thine ointments have a goodly fragrance; thy name is as ointment poured forth; therefore do the maidens (almah) love thee."

In which passage, the sense is perfectly retained no matter if the 'young women' presented are virgins or not.


Or, Song of Solomon 6:8 "There are sixty queens, and eighty servant-wives, and young girls (almah) without number."

In which passage, again, it doesn't change the sense of the passage whether the 'young women' are virgins or not.

I have heard many people say on this forum many times with regards to religious debate that

"There is no evidence for God's existance"

Which is not true. There is plenty of evidence. You can find such evidence in the Bible (for Christianity, and I am a Christian myself so I am going to be refering to the Christian God when I say God) and many peoples personal experiances. However, I think what people should actually be saying when they say

"There is no evidence for God's existance"

Is something more along the lines of

"God's existance cannot be proven to a level of certainty"

There is plenty of evidence, and please feel free to scrutinise, debate and discuss the worthyness of this evidence, but to say there is no evidence displays a lack of understanding of theological debate.
Hm.
But the point is that there has been MORE proof that "God" doesn't exist. Also, the fact that the Bible is the ONLY evidence that you have, and that it was written by man, and that thousands of scriptures were written, but only a select few were chosen to be put into the Bible. And the Bible often contradicts itself.

Everyone on the planet is practically an Agnostic Atheist or an Agnostic Theist anyway. There is no hard evidence either way, but people will believe one or the other.

If there is a God, it's likely the Deist's version of a God: supreme being who does not interfere or much care for what happens on Earth.

My understanding of the word (which, granted, comes from a very brief stint at Talmud Torah Latchkey) is that "almah" means a young, marriagable girl who has reached puberty but has not been wed.

My understanding of human history is that there has never been any point or any civilization in which all young, unmarried, post-pubescent girls were virgins.

Totally true, but the fact that some people get away with being called something that they are not, like dressing up in a white wedding gown for their third marriage in modern times, doesn't change the meaning of what the white wedding gown was supposed to mean. The definition of Almah is supposed to be what you and I both described it as.

Actually - all I would need to show, would be that 'almah' is used in instances where virginity is not an issue.

For example - situations in which Tanakh text uses 'almah'... but it is not necessary for the meaning, that it be translated as 'virgin'.

So - if I found an instance where the language refers to - say, a whole collection of women, but does NOT require that their sexual purity or marital status be known.

As, for example, in the Song of Solomon.

Song of Solomon 1:3 "Thine ointments have a goodly fragrance; thy name is as ointment poured forth; therefore do the maidens (almah) love thee."

In which passage, the sense is perfectly retained no matter if the 'young women' presented are virgins or not.


Or, Song of Solomon 6:8 "There are sixty queens, and eighty servant-wives, and young girls (almah) without number."

In which passage, again, it doesn't change the sense of the passage whether the 'young women' are virgins or not.


It might not be important to you, but it would have been important to the description. The descriptions were of virgins and unmarried maidens, it is how they are differentiated from the other groups, and it changes their value.

But essentially, what you are saying, is that just because Almah is always used for virgins doesn't mean that you can't say it might mean anything you want it to mean. It doesn't say it doesn't mean not a virgin, it doesn't say a blue moon either, but I don't think almah means blue moon by default.

Hm.
But the point is that there has been MORE proof that "God" doesn't exist. Also, the fact that the Bible is the ONLY evidence that you have, and that it was written by man, and that thousands of scriptures were written, but only a select few were chosen to be put into the Bible. And the Bible often contradicts itself.
There is no proof that God does not exist.

Perhaps you are referring to evidence, rather than proof?

Heres some evidence that will kill ur brians to decide wat it goes toagainst or for i think it goes for for god personally because hell im christian(ps: name was a joke i jsut gotinto nation states and kept it after my friend made the account)

heres the evidence

Big bang blew shit up right so how did the original big bang happen??? because to blow somthing up u need it to blow up so think about that one.

Who created your God?

Hm.
But the point is that there has been MORE proof that "God" doesn't exist. Also, the fact that the Bible is the ONLY evidence that you have, and that it was written by man, and that thousands of scriptures were written, but only a select few were chosen to be put into the Bible. And the Bible often contradicts itself.

Yeah - right...

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=490703

*grin*

The fact of the matter is that only the dim wicks treat atheism as credible.

Heres some evidence that will kill ur brians to decide wat it goes toagainst or for i think it goes for for god personally because hell im christian(ps: name was a joke i jsut gotinto nation states and kept it after my friend made the account)

heres the evidence

Big bang blew shit up right so how did the original big bang happen??? because to blow somthing up u need it to blow up so think about that one.

I would try to answer you if I could understand what you're typing.

heres the evidence

Big bang blew shit up right so how did the original big bang happen??? because to blow somthing up u need it to blow up so think about that one.
Haha! :)

Well, it is logical. You're correct that in order to blow stuff up, the Big Bang would need stuff to blow up; however... :) the Big Bang did not "blow stuff up"; rather it is stuff blowing up.

The bang is the effect, not the cause.

It might not be important to you, but it would have been important to the description. The descriptions were of virgins and unmarried maidens, it is how they are differentiated from the other groups, and it changes their value.

But essentially, what you are saying, is that just because Almah is always used for virgins doesn't mean that you can't say it might mean anything you want it to mean. It doesn't say it doesn't mean not a virgin, it doesn't say a blue moon either, but I don't think almah means blue moon by default.

This makes no sense, has nothing to do with what I posted, and doesn't respond in any way to the fact that 'almah' doesn't have to mean virgins, in those examples.

In the first Song of Solomon example, the man is found attractive by young women. Indeed - one assumes he is found attractive by more than just that. It seems illogical... nonsensical even, that ONLY virgins would have been attracted.

This verse, then, strongly suggests a reading of 'almah' as a female... of a certain age.

Nothing at all about her marital or sexual status.


In the second Song of Solomon example - wives are listed, concubines are listed, and other young women are listed. If read in the context of the whole chapter, there is no reason why these other young women should be virgins... the verse goes on to talk about how the 'beloved' is praised, by queens, concubines, and other women. Again - 'virgin' would be an irrelevence.

Heres some evidence that will kill ur brians to decide wat it goes toagainst or for i think it goes for for god personally because hell im christian(ps: name was a joke i jsut gotinto nation states and kept it after my friend made the account)

heres the evidence

Big bang blew shit up right so how did the original big bang happen??? because to blow somthing up u need it to blow up so think about that one.

Maybe the big bang is the end of the previous incarnation of reality?

Big Bang Theory doesn't pretend to KNOW what came, or existed, before the 'bang'... only the mechanism.

Yeah - right...

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=490703

*grin*

The fact of the matter is that only the dim wicks treat atheism as credible.

That rather depends on your definition of 'atheism'... and how much or little evidence you personally think is required to make something 'credible'.

To my thinking - the fact that there is no objective evidence of any kind of god or gods... makes an 'atheistic' position the only logical one.

This makes no sense, has nothing to do with what I posted, and doesn't respond in any way to the fact that 'almah' doesn't have to mean virgins, in those examples.

In the first Song of Solomon example, the man is found attractive by young women. Indeed - one assumes he is found attractive by more than just that. It seems illogical... nonsensical even, that ONLY virgins would have been attracted.

This verse, then, strongly suggests a reading of 'almah' as a female... of a certain age.

Nothing at all about her marital or sexual status.


In the second Song of Solomon example - wives are listed, concubines are listed, and other young women are listed. If read in the context of the whole chapter, there is no reason why these other young women should be virgins... the verse goes on to talk about how the 'beloved' is praised, by queens, concubines, and other women. Again - 'virgin' would be an irrelevence.


You are wrong. The first song of solomon reference is to young virgin girls idol worhsip and want to marry him. It seems ONLY logical that he not talking about making married women want to marry him. The second reference is about married women and non-virgin women, AND virgins.... they must be virgins or else they are a part of one of the other two groups.

That rather depends on your definition of 'atheism'... and how much or little evidence you personally think is required to make something 'credible'.

To my thinking - the fact that there is no objective evidence of any kind of god or gods... makes an 'atheistic' position the only logical one.

Which proves to me that your thinking is reductionist, and that therefore, your thinking is the result of a dim wick mind. Depends on the definition.

Either we can understand a bit about our universe and manipulate it, or we can't.
En Bref: if there were no higher power, we would not be able have this discussion.

You are wrong. The first song of solomon reference is to young virgin girls idol worhsip and want to marry him. It seems ONLY logical that he not talking about making married women want to marry him. The second reference is about married women and non-virgin women, AND virgins.... they must be virgins or else they are a part of one of the other two groups.

Queens need not be married. Concubines are not just unmarried, sexually active women. Most women are neither queens nor concubines, no matter their status as virgins.

Regarding the other half of your post... I'm not really sure what it is you are trying to say... sorry.

Which proves to me that your thinking is reductionist, and that therefore, your thinking is the result of a dim wick mind. Depends on the definition.


Well, this is your strawman... make of it what you will.

Why is my thinking reductionist? I make no claims the every thing can be reduced to simpler terms. Indeed, 'Atheism' need not state that premise at all. Perhaps you misunderstand what 'Atheism' means?

As for a 'dim wick mind'... I'm not sure what one is... it's the first time I've encountered such a phrase. But, I'm probably not going to lose any sleep over it.

After all - if you have another 'approach' that you think is preferable to logic, I hardly need concern myself with the 'logic' of you comments directed towards me.


Either we can understand a bit about our universe and manipulate it, or we can't.


Okay. Does that have any bearing?


En Bref: if there were no higher power, we would not be able have this discussion.

Why? Just because you say so?

You're not making much sense, Boggy.

You're not making much sense, Boggy.

Since he considers others to be "dim wicks", he must be lit-up.

Since he considers others to be "dim wicks", he must be lit-up.
I've posted in that condition a number of times, myself. ;)

Well, this is your strawman... make of it what you will.

A] Why is my thinking reductionist? I make no claims the every thing can be reduced to simpler terms. Indeed, 'Atheism' need not state that premise at all. Perhaps you misunderstand what 'Atheism' means?

As for a 'dim wick mind'... I'm not sure what one is... it's the first time I've encountered such a phrase. But, I'm probably not going to lose any sleep over it.

After all - if you have another 'approach' that you think is preferable to logic, I hardly need concern myself with the 'logic' of you comments directed towards me.



b] Okay. Does that have any bearing?



c] Why? Just because you say so?

A] Because you rely on logic. Which is a bit silly. Prime example: we all take for granted that alfa centauri exists. We have no logical ebvidence. We see it as it was 4.5 years ago. That it still is, we infer. All reasonable people accept this. The fact that you reduce yourself to logic - and reject inferment - causes me to class you as a reductionist - and therefore a dim wick.

B] If we can't manipulate and understand our universe, we can't drive the electrons that allow you and me to exchange posts. And Bob's your uncle.

C] *grin* we have a non-random universe. Therefore, it is ordered. If it were not ordered, we could not communicate.

Not simmilarly at all. Prophetic evidence completely fails to fit in your idea. For instance, the prediction by Isaiah of King Cyrus returning the Jews to their land. This happened a good number of centuries later. If you could predict with accuracy a specific mass wave of immigration allowed by a specific dictator in the 2400's, I think that would qualifiy as miraculous evidence if it were to come true.

Then there is the accounts of the life of Jesus. I would like please an explaination from you of how he could do the things he did without resorting to the old "They are lies/wrong" line because I can show you that they are contemporary accounts of Jesus that survived due to the fact that they were promalgated to other people who saw Jesus and when they heard it and his message they believed it because they had seen him

Have you ever heard of a man called Hitler? I've heard that he was a magnificent orator and when he talked, the masses swayed. When he said something was this way, the people believed it. And when they went home, they told other people about it. And those who didnt, kept quiet out of fear.

the fact that Hitler was insane and a massmurderer does not change the fact that he could make any1 listen. And I bet there has been people like that before him, for example a certain Paul. And lots of Paul's disciplines were ready to go to arms against people who didnt believe, EVEN when the scripture says not to harm your fellow man, believer or not. From what I hear, those followers still do it... even against each other.

A] Because you rely on logic. Which is a bit silly. Prime example: we all take for granted that alfa centauri exists. We have no logical ebvidence. We see it as it was 4.5 years ago. That it still is, we infer. All reasonable people accept this. The fact that you reduce yourself to logic - and reject inferment - causes me to class you as a reductionist - and therefore a dim wick.
Haha! Silly bear... (Trix are for kids).

That Alpha Centauri exists by observation through telescope *means* that it exists 4.5 years in the past.

A] Because you rely on logic. Which is a bit silly. Prime example: we all take for granted that alfa centauri exists. We have no logical ebvidence. We see it as it was 4.5 years ago. That it still is, we infer. All reasonable people accept this. The fact that you reduce yourself to logic - and reject inferment - causes me to class you as a reductionist - and therefore a dim wick.

B] If we can't manipulate and understand our universe, we can't drive the electrons that allow you and me to exchange posts. And Bob's your uncle.

C] *grin* we have a non-random universe. Therefore, it is ordered.

A) You assume too much. Personally - I accept that Alpha Centauri (probably) existed a few years back... and that, given the fact I've seen no evidence suggesting such a close neighbour was unstable, it is PROBABLY still there.

Logic says it WAS there. It doesn't say it IS there.

I think this can all be explained by the fact that you appear to have a fairly shaky grasp on what logic is.

B) I'm not arguing that we cannot manipulate our universe... we obviously DO manipulate it in some respects. We obviously have SOME understanding of, at least, how it appears to be.

I still don't see how you think this has bearing.

C) Who says we have a non-random universe? I'd say it acts fairly randomly, but within some confines. Again... relevence?

there is no objective evidence of any kind of god or gods... makes an 'atheistic' position the only logical one.



God doesn't question your existence. :p

Queens need not be married. Concubines are not just unmarried, sexually active women. Most women are neither queens nor concubines, no matter their status as virgins.

Regarding the other half of your post... I'm not really sure what it is you are trying to say... sorry.

Well let's make it real simple then. If you want to say what words Isaiah 'should' have used, and we want Isaiah to say what YOU say he said (simply "young woman") without indicating that she was also an unmarried, sexually mature virgin waiting to be married, THEN he would have used the word "Na'arah" instead of Almah.

Na'arah is the simple term for all young women, NOT Almah (which is a pre-marriage, physically mature, young women virgin before her marriage). But of course Isaiah didn't call her Na'arah (Young Maid/woman) he called her the Almah, because he wasn't talking about a B'tulah nor a Na'arah, he was talking about the Almah.

Your arguments fail because Almah means more than simply young woman, it a whole list of specifics.

A] Because you rely on logic. Which is a bit silly. Prime example: we all take for granted that alfa centauri exists. We have no logical ebvidence. We see it as it was 4.5 years ago. That it still is, we infer. All reasonable people accept this. The fact that you reduce yourself to logic - and reject inferment - causes me to class you as a reductionist - and therefore a dim wick.

B] If we can't manipulate and understand our universe, we can't drive the electrons that allow you and me to exchange posts. And Bob's your uncle.

C] *grin* we have a non-random universe. Therefore, it is ordered. If it were not ordered, we could not communicate.

A) Find me one scientist who will state, conclusivly, with 100% certainty that Alpha Centauri exists, right now. They won't because we can't. Something theoretically possible could have happened in 4.5 years to cause it to cease to exists. What can be said is that no natural or artificial phenominon is known which could cause an entire star to be destroyed in such a short timespam. Inference is the fundamental principle of logic. That we may LOGICALLY INFER something is a pure exercise of logic

B) They physics of teh interweb are not the same as those governing wormholes. We can understand and manipulate one without knowing them all

C) please find me conclusive proof that an ordered universe necessitates a creator.

God doesn't question your existence. :p

Neither does the Tooth Fairy?

If it muddies the waters any, I could add that my dictionary lists the definition of a virgin as:

3. Eccles.an unmarried, religious woman, esp. a saint.

...which, of course, has no sexual connotation.

Well let's make it real simple then. If you want to say what words Isaiah 'should' have used, and we want Isaiah to say what YOU say he said (simply "young woman") without indicating that she was also an unmarried, sexually mature virgin waiting to be married, THEN he would have used the word "Na'arah" instead of Almah.

Na'arah is the simple term for all young women, NOT Almah (which is a pre-marriage, physically mature, young women virgin before her marriage). But of course Isaiah didn't call her Na'arah (Young Maid/woman) he called her the Almah, because he wasn't talking about a B'tulah nor a Na'arah, he was talking about the Almah.

Your arguments fail because Almah means more than simply young woman, it a whole list of specifics.

You have said 'THE' Almah. The Hebrew doesn't say THE almah.

As for Na'arah:

My Concordance tells me that Na'arah can mean concubine or prostitute, as well as it's more 'innocent' meanings... and it is ENTIRELY reasonable that Isaiah might not want to refer to the woman in question (whether Mary, prophetically, or his own wife) as a whore.

Thus - the use of the phrase 'almah', which doesn't carry those same connotations, seems a reasonable choice.

You have said 'THE' Almah. The Hebrew doesn't say THE almah.

As for Na'arah:

My Concordance tells me that Na'arah can mean concubine or prostitute, as well as it's more 'innocent' meanings... and it is ENTIRELY reasonable that Isaiah might not want to refer to the woman in question (whether Mary, prophetically, or his own wife) as a whore.

Thus - the use of the phrase 'almah', which doesn't carry those same connotations, seems a reasonable choice.

Isaiah 7:14 says Ha'Almah, not just Almah. Thus, it IS, "The Almah," not just any almah. I said "The" because Isaiah said, "The Almah."

Na'arah means ALL young women, any young woman. It simply means Young Woman whether a virgin or a harlot, or a queen or a street urchin. You're the one who made the argument that Isaiah simply meant, Almah to mean a young woman who could have been his own wife and already pregnant with a child of his very own.

You were wrong then and you are still wrong now, but at least you are getting closer.

I would contend that some are probably proud of their faith and keep it. My beef is that there is an attempt to link evanglism sites who ignore evidence or make it up to actual biblical scholars who maintain their faith even while pulling it apart (Again, Tropical Sands made mention that it was his Christian professors who taught him about the word difference). They seem to be following the rules of scholarship and I object to a broad painting of ALL Christians who would arguge their faith as somehow being unable to accept evidence to the contrary.

Keep arguing that strawman. I wasn't broadly painting all Christians. In fact, I pointed out that some Christian Bibles have the text translated the other way. I've explained exactly what I mean and I've shown you examples in case you still didn't understand. I have no interest in constantly trying to get you to address MY position rather than the one you made up.

Go back and re-read what Jacobia was saying. He defined apoplgist as anyone who argues for a position of a certain group. This means he is defining anyone who promote their faith as an apologist and therefore biased.

I defined the word apologist according the dictionary. It's not my word. It's called English. You don't like it, how's Spanish for you? I don't define words.

Meanwhile, I didn't say being an apologist is a bad thing. You did. What I said was that if a position is ONLY supported by a particular type of apologists and only some of those apologists at that and that opinion just happens to support their position, then it's suspect. It doesn't matter if they are Christian apologists or some other type. If you aren't going to actually deal with what I actually am talking about then why even post?

If anything, this isn't a strawman on my part, it's argumentum ad hominem on his.

It's a strawman when you're not talking about what I actually argued. It would be an argument ad hominem if I said what you said. I didn't. If you can't respond to what I wrote and still have a point, do you just choose to make up my point to hold yourself up?

Either way, automatically dismissing the statement of someone without looking at their evidence smacks of bad debating and scholarship. So far I have read YOUR evidence and Tropical Sands' evidence, and the opossing side's evidence and found yours is stronger, but I do read because to do otherwise is sloppy.

If I did that, you'd have a point. Since I didn't, you don't. As of yet, you have yet to reply to what I did say and have instead attacked ME. Can anyone say hypocrisy, boys and girls?

Really? So this is:


Is addressing bias by attacking the argument or just outright dismissal?

It's addressing the bias. It is an argument that is only supported by apologists. They happen to need that argument to be true to support their beliefs. Other people who have no interest in the argument don't reach the same conclusion. Other people who have the same interest in the argument reach the same conclusion. This makes the conclusion suspect. It was placed in with a PILE of other arguments against the conclusion. It was one in a number of arguments. Want to see them? (Even though if you haven't read them yet, there's no reaso to think you'll suddenly begin reading at this point.)

1. Almah means young woman. Young women are often virgins. This does not mean almah means virgin.

2. Bethulah means virgin. It always means virgin despite the fact that it is occasionally used metaphorically in the text.

3. Almah is used once in Isaiah. It is in direct contrast with all of the times virgins are referenced with a word that is nearly universally considered to mean VIRGIN. Therefore, Isaiah knew the word for virgin but chose to use the word for young woman.

4. The virgin reference is noticably absent from the earliest gospels and from Paul.

5. It is noticably absent from the teachings of all of the earliest Christian sects.

6. The author of Matthew was not translating from Hebrew. He was using a spurious Greek translation. All other references to the virgin Mary appear to be based on Matthew or this Greek translation.

and then the 7th argument is -

7. There is no one supporting this spurious translation other than Christian apologists who believe Jesus was born of a virgin and are looking for prophesy to support that assertion. There are many apologists and even some Christian Bibles that do not use that translation and there are no groups outside of Christianity that use that translation. That makes the translation automatically suspect.

Seven arguments. You haven't addressed ONE OF THEM. You've perverted the seventh argument and argued with yourself ad nauseum.

2.



Bull.

You said:

So you can't understand how that doesn't reference all or even most apologists? Basic reading.

"Can you name anyone OTHER than a Christian apologist?"

That means that I believe ONLY Christian apologists hold this view, but it says NOTHING about it being all.

I asked you how you defined an apologist. You replied:

I gave you the dictionary definition. You started complaining that the dictionary definition applied properly offends you. I don't care.

You did not say poisition, you did not say point of view, you said group, in this case Christianity. You did not say uses poor scholarship, you did not say presents an unsupported argument, you used anyone who would defend a group.

Yes, I used the dictionary definition of apologists. I don't know why that definition pisses you off. I quoted two sources for the definition.

I'm sorry that my grasp of the English language allows me to use words exactly as intended. What word would make you stop complaining about your lack of vocabulary?

You're so proud of your precise use of English so I must take you at your words, and your words blanket. I offered you a chance to redefine your paraemters but you chose to group me with those you are debating with so I must also conclude that my premsis is right. I have been responding to you.

No, they don't. They asked for people that weren't apologists. That means ONLY, not ALL. Is your reading comprehension really this bad or are you just being difficult?

Oh, NOW you mention CERTAIN Christian groups. If you cannot use precise language while bashing others for their sloppy use...

I used precise language and it was clear. You didn't read it properly. Get a dictionary. Slow down. And read what it SAYS. Not what you want it to say because it helps your argument.

I'll give an example for those that don't know the difference between ONLY and ALL.

Ex: Can you name anyone other than white males who have been President of the US?

Now, of course, that implies that I believe that ONLY white males have been President, but certainly no one could possibly accurately construe that to mean that I believe ALL white males have been President.

Admit it, you read my post incorrectly. I corrected you. You've compounded your error and now you won't drop it because I've made you look silly.

The very least you could do, when you make assertions like that, is to read the actual three times he uses the word to see how he really used it. Your point would be better made if you did so because you just look silly when you say it and you are wrong. Isaiah does NOT use the word B'tulah when he is talking about 'actual' virgins, he uses the word when he is talking about figurative analogies.

He only used it three times? Are you sure about that? Yes, he used it figuratively some of the times and literally other times, but he always uses it when he says virgin.

The bolded sections are NOT real individuals, the word B'tulah is a description of an idea.

Yes, and he's referencing the idea of a virgin. Are you now arguing that bethulah does NOT mean virgin. Meanwhile, those aren't all of his uses.

He used the world Almah for the mother description in question because one, it would be a real person, and two, it describes the woman as a person you can actually see that could stand before you and that she would be a young but sexually mature, ready to be married but not yet married, female virgin. The word b'tulah would NOT have conveyed that precise message being told. Mary, mother of Jesus, would fit the description of an Almah, and in the case of Matthew, he says she was the Almah. But if Matthew were trying to talk like Isaiah and called her the b’atulah she would sound like she was the symbolic embodiment of a community or country or something, and that would make no sense whatsoever.

So are you actually arguing that he only uses Bethulah figuratively? Seriously? And not only are you claiming that, but you are claiming that Bethulah must be figurative. You cannot be serious. Your arguments are getting desperate.

Do you have an scholarly support for Bethulah being only used figuratively?

Your accusation fails because it is simply based on untruths, no matter what your friends have told you about what the word means to them.
My friends? You mean EVERY scholar except some of the Christian scholars who just happen to have a large interest in it saying what you want it to say? Those friends? Again, I challenge you to find anyone defending your use that is not also claiming it is a necessary element of the divinity of Christ. I notice you've ignored that challenge. If it is an unbiased conclusion then there is no reason why it would not be as prominent with non-Christians as it is with Christians.

Which Christian Bibles do not translate the word as virgin?

I listed them once already. I get tired of doing everyone's research for them. Do a search for Hebrew and Isaiah? This really isn't complicated.

If you have a mountain of evidence, perhaps you might care to share some of it.

So, you're not willing to read the thread so I have to keep repeating myself. Lame. I'll tell you what. I'll repeat the evidence, but if I do, you have to admit that you don't have a clue about what you're talking about. Deal?

Meanwhile, can you reference how many times Paul said Jesus was born of a Virgin in all of his letters?


How do you know that Isaiah did not mean that the young woman was not a virgin, or even that a virgin birth was not the sign to which he was referring? His choice of the word 'almah, which means young woman? Perhaps he couldn't use B'tulah because a B'tulah can't have children. Consider the scenario in which Isaiah was actually meaning a virgin birth in his prophecy. Do you think he would have used the word B'tulah if there was a common understanding that B'tulah does not have children? Would he not rather use a word that refers to a young woman who could have children?

A bethulah can't have children? According to whom? Okay, let's follow this amazing logical leap. So he couldn't say a virgin will conceive a child, because people would be confused by his use of a word that means virgin ALWAYS either figuratively or literally and becuase of this by the definition of virgin means she would likely be without children. HOWEVER, he could us a word that means young woman and only means virgin when they happen to be virgins and there would be MUCH less confusion in using the wrong word and making no effort to explain why? Interesting. Next we'll be discussing the meaning of the word 'is'.

The other possibility is that Isaiah did not mean to prophecy a virgin giving birth, but because he was only the messenger, it was not relevant for him, but that it was indeed God's intention to convey a messianic prophecy to people after the time of Christ, in order that they might see and believe.

So, it was God's intention to make the original prophesy less clear and then to make the virgin part of the prophesy APPEAR after the fact by giving Matthew an errant translation. Interesting theory and no less of a logical leap than the claim that Isaiah didn't want to confuse people by using the word virgin to refer to a virgin.

Matthew does not leave this prophecy out, but mentions it in the first chapter of Matthew, v. 23.

Yes, using a Greek translation of the prophesy and it was errant.

No, I don't. I do consider a position suspect, when, in the case of the example above, he made no intention of arguing objectively. That he was a recent convert to Islam made me think that his arguments were going to be anti-Christian, as might be expected, but not necessarily very biased. Reading some of his introductory comments made me consider his position hopelessly steeped in bias. Hence my reason for asking Willamena is she believed his arguments.

So you don't have to address his points becuase you can dismiss him because of bias so long as no one does that to people you like? Got it. Or are you saying that his arguments would somehow have more merit if he'd lied about his bias?

I thought you were making a generalisation. It does read that way.

THE VIEW sounds like a generalization. I was referring to the view that Mary was a virgin when Jesus was conceived. It is commonly held today (among Christians, of course). It was an accurate statement about the view we wer discussing.

I don't think so. Jesus apparently had brothers, according to the gospels.

Yet you do realize that this was a widely-held and strongly defended position of the Church for some time. It was considered for a long period that Mary was a virgin throughout her life. People who want something to be true badly enough CAN, of course, reach accurate conclusions, but we should be immediately suspect when only people with such biases reach these conclusions. To do otherwise would be an obvious mistake. I don't think you were wrong in the case you addressed. It's very appropriate to take bias into account. This is all I did.

It might not be important to you, but it would have been important to the description. The descriptions were of virgins and unmarried maidens, it is how they are differentiated from the other groups, and it changes their value.

But essentially, what you are saying, is that just because Almah is always used for virgins doesn't mean that you can't say it might mean anything you want it to mean. It doesn't say it doesn't mean not a virgin, it doesn't say a blue moon either, but I don't think almah means blue moon by default.

You are making an assumption. There is no indication that it is being used for virgins, only young women. That's the point. You could make the assumption that pre-pubescent girl means virgin according to my writings because I've never used it to refer to anyone that was not a virgin in anything I've ever written, however no matter how you slice it, pre-pubescent girl =/= virgin even if every reference I make to that term happens to refer to a virgin. It IS NOT a part of the definition of the word as I am using it. Her virginity in those cases are not germaine to what I am writing. All one can gather from the term I used is that it is important to me to express that she has not hit puberty and she is female. Adding anything is reading something into the text I didn't write.

He only used it three times? Are you sure about that? Yes, he used it figuratively some of the times and literally other times, but he always uses it when he says virgin.

Find another one if you think there are more.


So are you actually arguing that he only uses Bethulah figuratively? Seriously?

You're the one that defined the parameters as Isaiah scripture only. You fine other uses of it.


My friends? You mean EVERY scholar except some of the Christian scholars who just happen to have a large interest in it saying what you want it to say? Those friends? Again, I challenge you to find anyone defending your use that is not also claiming it is a necessary element of the divinity of Christ. I notice you've ignored that challenge. If it is an unbiased conclusion then there is no reason why it would not be as prominent with non-Christians as it is with Christians.


Really, you are simply embarrassing yourself. I told you before, you should look it up yourself instead basing your arguments on what your friends told you.

But here, what it says is, “Hinnei ha-almah harah ve-yeldeth ben ve-karath shem-o Immanuel”

OJB rendering of Isaiah 7:14. "Therefore Hashem
Himself shall give you an ot (sign); hinei (behold), Ha-Almah (The unmarried young Virgin) shall conceive, and bear Ben (Son), and shall call
shmo (his name) Immanu-El (G-d is with us).
"OJB Copyright (c) 1999-2002 by AFI International”

http://www.afii.org/ojbc.txt

You are wrong. The first song of solomon reference is to young virgin girls idol worhsip and want to marry him. It seems ONLY logical that he not talking about making married women want to marry him. The second reference is about married women and non-virgin women, AND virgins.... they must be virgins or else they are a part of one of the other two groups.

First, again, you assume that if they are not married they must be virgins. There is nothing in that passage that says such a thing. You have to add it. Unmarried may be assumed. Unmarried =/= virgin. Your next sentence actual points out that unmarried and virgin are not equal.

Meanwhile, your second assumption not only destroys your first assumption but makes a new one. That the word concubines means non-virgin because they happen to be non-virgins. According to you, old woman means non-virgin just because 99% of the time an old woman is not a virgin. No matter how hard you try non-virgin is not an assumed part of the words old woman. Nor is it a part of the word concubine even if they are always not virgins.

I found this, if it helps:

An almah is an unmarried, virginal, sexually ripening young woman (all these notions in the definition are crucial); a betulah is a virginal married or unmarried woman, and she may be old, she does not have to be young; a na'arah is a girl or young woman; a zonah is a non-virginal harlot or prostitute; a noefet is an adulteress; an agunah is a woman whose husband's whereabouts are unknown [see Ro 7:2 OJBC]; a pilegesh is a concubine; an isha is a woman/wife; a gerushah is a divorcee; a gevirah is a noble woman or queen mother; a malkah is a queen, etc. Notice all these terms for women are defined vis-a-vis the man, since, according to the opening chapters of Genesis, woman was made for man.
http://www.waytruthlife.com/actsfellowship/OJB/Intro.html

Find another one if you think there are more.

Sure.

http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/freqdisp.cgi?book=isa&number=01330&count=5&version=kjv



You're the one that defined the parameters as Isaiah scripture only. You fine other uses of it.

Done and done.


Really, you are simply embarrassing yourself. I told you before, you should look it up yourself instead basing your arguments on what your friends told you.

Uh-huh. Yes, perhaps I would be less embarassed if I claimed the prophesy was vague until after the event happened like you claiming that God didn't complete prophesy until Matthew wrote it.

But here, what it says is, “Hinnei ha-almah harah ve-yeldeth ben ve-karath shem-o Immanuel”


"OJB Copyright (c) 1999-2002 by AFI International”

http://www.afii.org/ojbc.txt

Oops. Do you know who that group believes is the messiah? Now who's embarrassing themselves?

http://www.afii.org/notyushkatranscript.htm

Wow, you really aren't very good at this are you?

That same site asks Jews to realize the Jesus was the savior. They so revere him that they won't write his name out all the way just as they won't God's.

Zecharyah walked up to him and he said, “Behold the Man [J _ _ _ _ ] whose Name is Moshiach. His Name is Moshiach! His Name is Moshiach!” You say, “Where does it say that in our Hebrew Bible? Zecharyah 6:11-12. That’s where it says it! It says it in Rabbinic Judaism’s own Hebrew Tanakh! Yes, but I can’t help you if your own Hebrew Bible says it and you don’t believe it! And isn’t it ironic that even Rabbinic Judaism’s own Hebrew Bible says things that Rabbinic Judaism doesn’t accept? Well, you better start accepting it! Because the day is coming when you’re going to want to call upon him. And you NEED to call upon him NOW.

Hehe. That was fun. Do it again.

Now, do you have any sources not arguing for the divinity of Christ?

EDIT: By the way, how do you think I figured it out? I read their translation, guessed they were Jewish Christians and then searched their site till I could prove it. You think that's coincidence? You think you're luck is just that bad? Or perhaps you've just evidenced my point about as strongly as it could be evidenced (as the evidence you presented was selected by you in hopes of proving me wrong and turned out to support me).

I found this, if it helps:

Jews for Jesus, Willamena. Again, it's not a coincidence that these sites that offer these translations all just happen to support the divinity of Jesus.

Na'arah means ALL young women, any young woman. It simply means Young Woman whether a virgin or a harlot, or a queen or a street urchin. You're the one who made the argument that Isaiah simply meant, Almah to mean a young woman who could have been his own wife and already pregnant with a child of his very own.


Perhaps you can show me where else Isaiah uses na'arah?

As far as I'm aware, Isaiah refers to every incidence of a 'young woman' as EITHER a virgin (bethulah) OR 'almah'.

By exclusion, then... almah is his choice for a young woman who might not be a virgin, IS not a virgin... or it doesn't matter.

Jews for Jesus, Willamena. Again, it's not a coincidence that these sites that offer these translations all just happen to support the divinity of Jesus.
Okay. I'm just hoping to hurry this along so that we can get back to more interesting discussion.

You have said 'THE' Almah. The Hebrew doesn't say THE almah.

As for Na'arah:

My Concordance tells me that Na'arah can mean concubine or prostitute, as well as it's more 'innocent' meanings... and it is ENTIRELY reasonable that Isaiah might not want to refer to the woman in question (whether Mary, prophetically, or his own wife) as a whore.

Thus - the use of the phrase 'almah', which doesn't carry those same connotations, seems a reasonable choice.

My version says that the Na'arah would be considerably younger and Almah was more broad. Strong's says it applies only up until adolescence.

http://www.htmlbible.com/sacrednamebiblecom/kjvstrongs/STRHEB52.htm#S5291

http://www.htmlbible.com/sacrednamebiblecom/kjvstrongs/STRHEB52.htm#S5288

Look at both the male and female versions of the term.

One can do the same with Almah and it's male counterpart elem and see that while virgin is often referenced as a part of Almah, it's assumed and not implicit, much like in the male version of the word.

http://www.sacrednamebible.com/kjvstrongs/STRHEB59.htm#S5959

http://www.sacrednamebible.com/kjvstrongs/STRHEB59.htm#S5958

If it muddies the waters any, I could add that my dictionary lists the definition of a virgin as:

3. Eccles.an unmarried, religious woman, esp. a saint.

...which, of course, has no sexual connotation.

Except for 'temple virgins', of course. :)

Okay. I'm just hoping to hurry this along so that we can get back to more interesting discussion.

I was hoping we'd get back to the Thousand Deaths of Doctor Goliath...

My version says that the Na'arah would be considerably younger and Almah was more broad. Strong's says it applies only up until adolescence.

http://www.htmlbible.com/sacrednamebiblecom/kjvstrongs/STRHEB52.htm#S5291

http://www.htmlbible.com/sacrednamebiblecom/kjvstrongs/STRHEB52.htm#S5288

Look at both the male and female versions of the term.

One can do the same with Almah and it's male counterpart elem and see that while virgin is often referenced as a part of Almah, it's assumed and not implicit, much like in the male version of the word.

http://www.sacrednamebible.com/kjvstrongs/STRHEB59.htm#S5959

http://www.sacrednamebible.com/kjvstrongs/STRHEB59.htm#S5958

All of the terms seem to be feminisations of the root... elem to almah, na'ar to na'arah, etc. And, of course, Hebrews didn't keep 'virginity tokens' for the boys... indeed, virginity in males is, and historically has been, largely irrelevent. So - to simply feminise the masculine root implies a similar lack of emphasis on virginity. Indeed - there is a special phrase that can be used when virginity IS being specified.

All of the terms seem to be feminisations of the root... elem to almah, na'ar to na'arah, etc. And, of course, Hebrews didn't keep 'virginity tokens' for the boys... indeed, virginity in males is, and historically has been, largely irrelevent. So - to simply feminise the masculine root implies a similar lack of emphasis on virginity. Indeed - there is a special phrase that can be used when virginity IS being specified.

Exactly. Considering these are word pairs it is lax to ignore that there is not sexual context in the male counterpart.

Except for 'temple virgins', of course. :)

Interesting point.

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/virgin

The version of virgin that is used in almah definitions appears to be the first one.

1 an unmarried woman devoted to religion

So.......it depends on the interpretation of the word "evidence". What is evidence ?. What do we accept as evidence ?

Except for 'temple virgins', of course. :)

By the way, you gotta laugh that his non-Christian/Jewish source just HAPPENED to be a Jewish group that believes Christ is the messiah. I mean, you have to laugh. I wish I could say I set that up, but I'm truly not that imaginative.

By the way, you gotta laugh that his non-Christian/Jewish source just HAPPENED to be a Jewish group that believes Christ is the messiah. I mean, you have to laugh. I wish I could say I set that up, but I'm truly not that imaginative.

I did wonder. But then... this is clever marketing. I've encountered a lot of people that don't really understand what it 'means' when a group refers to themselves as 'Messianic Jews', or whichever is the current cipher.

I did wonder. But then... this is clever marketing. I've encountered a lot of people that don't really understand what it 'means' when a group refers to themselves as 'Messianic Jews', or whichever is the current cipher.

I didn't realize it until I read the page that I linked to. Like I said, I read the translation and guess that they were coming from a certain position and looked to see if I was right.

So.......it depends on the interpretation of the word "evidence". What is evidence ?. What do we accept as evidence ?
In its simplest form, evidence is anything that leads you to a conclusion, especially a truthful one.

Some evidence provides proof. Some implies or infers truth. Some can be downright misleading, having been deliberately set up to draw you to a certain conclusion that, while not untrue, does not reflect the whole truth.

For the scientist, the conclusion is based on logic and observation, experimentation and data.

Witness testamony, like that in the Bible, is evidence that for the scientist leads to the conclusion that some people long ago spoke and wrote and believed about God. That is the only reliable conclusion that can be drawn about that.

Witness testamony, like that in the Bible, is evidence that for the scientist leads to the conclusion that some people long ago spoke and wrote and believed about God. That is the only reliable conclusion that can be drawn about that.

Exactly. Witness testimony ONLY speaks to what the witness saw or claimed to see.

Having worked for a time with the Chief of Police near hear, and having seen how people give witness testimony about things they have LITERALLY just seen - I tend not to place to much weight in uncorroborated, or loosely corroborated witness testimony.

I didn't realize it until I read the page that I linked to. Like I said, I read the translation and guess that they were coming from a certain position and looked to see if I was right.

I find it bizarre, and a little frustrating. The Hebrew scripture makes it clear that Messiah will NOT be responsible for leading people away from the received Hebrew text. Messiah cannot be a false prophet.

This, then, gives me a conflict when Christians try to convert Jews...

I find it bizarre, and a little frustrating. The Hebrew scripture makes it clear that Messiah will NOT be responsible for leading people away from the received Hebrew text. Messiah cannot be a false prophet.

This, then, gives me a conflict when Christians try to convert Jews...

My personal view is that Jesus was trying to say that over time people had added things to the Law that weren't actually part of the Law, just as another major world religion has done their dogma. Can you think of other major world religions we might use as an example?

When you claim existence of such an uncommon item as a "God", "witness" is no evidence.
Who could witness God's omnipotence? Or God being a completely spiritual entity? Or... (fill the gap with any of 1,000 beliefs about God)?

If one asserts that a supernatural phenomenon happens, one has the burden of the proof. One cannot expect to exhibit unproven assertions and infer that "a God exists", or even that there is a fair probability this is the case. Even existence is ill-defined for such a "concept", as some philosophical debate has shown (the very concept has been used to deduce existence, or its contrary).

"God" is a speculation that, as things stand now, would be ridiculous to even consider as a possibility. It is only the social implications of the subject that make so many people believe in God, and make the whole thing relevant. If I made up a belief with the same level of implausibility and the same kind of support from facts, I would be considered a psychiatric case.

My personal view is that Jesus was trying to say that over time people had added things to the Law that weren't actually part of the Law, just as another major world religion has done their dogma. Can you think of other major world religions we might use as an example?

Oh, I can think of one or two that would fit the bill.

But - given the fact that God ordains that Israel will be his 'kingdom of priests' to the world... I still can't reconcile an outside source explaining TO the 'kingdom of priests' what the message of God is.

Oh, I can think of one or two that would fit the bill.

But - given the fact that God ordains that Israel will be his 'kingdom of priests' to the world... I still can't reconcile an outside source explaining TO the 'kingdom of priests' what the message of God is.

Outside source?

Outside source?

Christian Evangelism.

If I follow the idea that jesus was SENT to Jews, that still doesn't 'excuse' the Gentile Christians preaching their version (which is largely anaemic, now).

Christian Evangelism.

If I follow the idea that jesus was SENT to Jews, that still doesn't 'excuse' the Gentile Christians preaching their version (which is largely anaemic, now).

Oh, I see. Yeah, I agree. Particularly because even the Christian Bible says he came for Jews only.

Then they support yet another source modifying the text and then another (Paul and then the Catholic Church).

Oh, I see. Yeah, I agree. Particularly because even the Christian Bible says he came for Jews only.

Then they support yet another source modifying the text and then another (Paul and then the Catholic Church).

Exactly. Even if Jesus WAS bringing something new to the 'kingdom of priests', the chances that it bears even a passing resemblence to this modern church of 'traditions', the loss of 'personal relationship', and pharisees-by-another-name... seems fairly slim.

Exactly. Even if Jesus WAS bringing something new to the 'kingdom of priests', the chances that it bears even a passing resemblence to this modern church of 'traditions', the loss of 'personal relationship', and pharisees-by-another-name... seems fairly slim.

I find it amusing that Jesus, the King of Kings, the Messiah, the Savior washed the feet of his followers. Have you ever seen the clothes, the palace, the treatment of the Pope? Seriously how did millions of people manage to miss the speeches by Jesus against that very thing? Don't call anyone father... oh, unless it's a guy who is just like the guys I'm speaking out against who you'll now call a preist, and FATHER. Beware the man who takes the seat of honor at the table... oh, unless he calls himself the Pope or Bishop or some nonsense like that. Blessed are the meek and the poor... but hey why doesn't my church amass a fortune and become a powerful political force. The flashy clothes. The praying in public. The tithing of the poor. The rejection of the personal connection. The corporate hierarchy. The clear and utter rejection of some scripture from apostles and the inclusion of scripture from non-apostles. The rejection of proper translations of the OT.

Seriously, it's hard for me to understand how you can read the Christian Bible and go, um, yeah, we're doing this right.

I find it amusing that Jesus, the King of Kings, the Messiah, the Savior washed the feet of his followers. Have you ever seen the clothes, the palace, the treatment of the Pope? Seriously how did millions of people manage to miss the speeches by Jesus against that very thing? Don't call anyone father... oh, unless it's a guy who is just like the guys I'm speaking out against who you'll now call a preist, and FATHER. Beware the man who takes the seat of honor at the table... oh, unless he calls himself the Pope or Bishop or some nonsense like that. Blessed are the meek and the poor... but hey why doesn't my church amass a fortune and become a powerful political force. The flashy clothes. The praying in public. The tithing of the poor. The rejection of the personal connection. The corporate hierarchy. The clear and utter rejection of some scripture from apostles and the inclusion of scripture from non-apostles. The rejection of proper translations of the OT.

Seriously, it's hard for me to understand how you can read the Christian Bible and go, um, yeah, we're doing this right.

Animal Farm. It's not just for pigs. :) </cryptic>

Animal Farm. It's not just for pigs. :) </cryptic>

You think that's cryptic? You must suck at poker.

You think that's cryptic? You must suck at poker.

Well, maybe not cryptic for YOU, my friend. :)

Actually... I do suck at poker, too.

Once again, quite aside from the assinine beliefs that an old musty tome, that has been altered, mistranslated, and re-written several times is proof of anything, I will always maintain that the only "evidence" christians have is that wich they convince themselves to exist.

By that I mean that if a christian truly believes that the bible validates God, then they are only pretending to themselves, that they have proof.

I dont care what "strange and wonderful emotion came over you" when you accepted Jesus, becuase thats easily explained by mob mentality, and endorphines.
You felt that way because you were expected to, and the brain complied.

when we speak of "proof", we have to have solid, tangible evidence, that even a skeptic could not deny.
To date, there is none, and never will be any.

Quoting a musty old tome, that is the single most biased source of Christian propoganda, does not equal solid proof.

It would be the equivalent of a KKK Grand Dragon writing a book about "all them niggers is evil, and stupid", and quoting that book as evidence to back up the claims made within that very book.

I said it before, and I say it again, to quote the bible as "proof" of God, are the actions of the retarded.

I listed them once already. I get tired of doing everyone's research for them. Do a search for Hebrew and Isaiah? This really isn't complicated.

I did that search as you suggested, but I didn't find any *Christian* English versions of the Bible that used young woman, instead of virgin. There were a couple Jewish interpretations, but of course, their translations could either be more accurate than the Christians ones, or just as biased. I couldn't tell.

But I did read Grave's reply and saw one Christian Bible (Bible in Basic English) that used the term 'young woman'. All the others that I looked up use the word virgin.

What I did discover from this site
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt1007.htm is that they translated the prophecy as saying

16 Yea, before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land whose two kings thou hast a horror of shall be forsaken.

Both the lands of Aram and the Northen Kingdom of Israel were supposed to be conquered and destoyed and deserted before the baby in the prophecy could be born and grow to an age of being able to distinguish between good and evil. That would have to be a relatively short time span, depending on what the general consensus of the age of the ability to distinguish between good and evil. Someone might be able to help out there. I actually don't know it, and will have to look it up, but I'm guessing that it was something like a few years. Thus, in order for the prophecy to make sense, the complete destruction of Aram and Israel would have to have happened within just a matter of a few years of the prophecy. A possibility, perhaps, but perhaps not that likely.

Furthermore, I find it quite significant that the prophecy mentions THE young woman, with no other indication of who it might have been except that the child would be called Immanuel. We all know that it fits with Jesus, even though it certainly does not prove that it was Jesus. The idea that Isaiah was pointing to a woman present in the room who was pregnant is a possibility, but not a very likely one, I would say, since such an important prophecy (for the Jews at that time) would not have left such a detail out. The scribes took their work seriously, and omiting such a detail is hardly characteristic of them.
.

So, you're not willing to read the thread so I have to keep repeating myself. Lame. I'll tell you what. I'll repeat the evidence, but if I do, you have to admit that you don't have a clue about what you're talking about. Deal?


That's just silly. And coming from someone who once admitted that he couldn't be bothered to read one of my posts.


Meanwhile, can you reference how many times Paul said Jesus was born of a Virgin in all of his letters?


Is that it? This is your evidence that you think that Paul thought that Jesus was not born of a virgin? A lack of a reference? I call that lame. A better explanation is simply that Paul did not think Christ's birth was as important as his identity, and that the more important point in his identity is as God and saviour of the world. His references to Jesus would simply reflect this.


A bethulah can't have children? According to whom?

Because she would have to have sex first, meaning that she would no longer be a virgin. In such a scenario, it might be better to use a term that means a young woman capable of having a child, and not excluding the possibility that she was married.

Remember, for the phophecy to be messianic, Isaiah need not have meant to refer to a virgin. More importantly, it is a clear reference to Immanuel, God with us.


Okay, let's follow this amazing logical leap. So he couldn't say a virgin will conceive a child, because people would be confused by his use of a word that means virgin ALWAYS either figuratively or literally and becuase of this by the definition of virgin means she would likely be without children. HOWEVER, he could us a word that means young woman and only means virgin when they happen to be virgins and there would be MUCH less confusion in using the wrong word and making no effort to explain why?

Something like that. Since Isaiah was obviously not trying to emphasise that the mother was a virgin (perhaps he couldn't understand what the sign really meant), he used a general term, rather than a specific one. A prophet should only communicate the message that he believes that he has recieved. In this way, he would have avoided causing unnecessary confusion among his immediate listeners, and yet allowing for understanding among those who lived later.


So, it was God's intention to make the original prophesy less clear and then to make the virgin part of the prophesy APPEAR after the fact by giving Matthew an errant translation.

God could have had plenty of reasons for not wanting Isaiah to be too specific in the prophecy. You wouldn't explain every little detail to your children, would you? Hopefully, you would tell them what you think is necessary at the time.


Interesting theory and no less of a logical leap than the claim that Isaiah didn't want to confuse people by using the word virgin to refer to a virgin.


Since we don't know all the details, a sensible position to take would be to allow that Isaiah *may* have meant a virgin. If he was referring to a married woman, he could have used other terms to specify this. Does that mean that the woman in the prophecy was NOT married?


Yes, using a Greek translation of the prophesy and it was errant.


So you claim. Big claim.


So you don't have to address his points becuase you can dismiss him because of bias so long as no one does that to people you like? Got it. Or are you saying that his arguments would somehow have more merit if he'd lied about his bias?


Actually, if you were reading this thread, you would have seen that I did address one of his points.


THE VIEW sounds like a generalization. I was referring to the view that Mary was a virgin when Jesus was conceived. It is commonly held today (among Christians, of course). It was an accurate statement about the view we wer discussing.


Although I can't say this for all Christians, I can say that it's not Mary's virginity that is absolutely important to my faith. It is the deity of Christ that is.


Yet you do realize that this was a widely-held and strongly defended position of the Church for some time. It was considered for a long period that Mary was a virgin throughout her life.

Not THE church, just the Catholic church.


People who want something to be true badly enough CAN, of course, reach accurate conclusions, but we should be immediately suspect when only people with such biases reach these conclusions. To do otherwise would be an obvious mistake.

I think you are demonstrating more than suspicion in the case of Isaiah's messianic prophecy.

I? How is my claim the larger? You are claiming that a certain verse MUST be messianic, and yet you have no evidence for that claim, other than the fact that you BELIEVE it has already been fulfilled.

Before this discussion, I thought it was a clear case of a messianic prophecy. Now my position is that is isn't as clear as I thought, but I still think it likely. So I say that the verse might be messianic, is likely to be messianic, but not MUST be messianic. But since your position is that is must not be messianic, based only on the same evidence that I have, I consider your claim to be the larger one.


I am claiming that it is non-Messianic - because the context clearly shows it to be contemporary, and fulfilled.

I say that is isn't so clear (see my reply to Jocabia).


Yours is BY FAR the greater claim.


No, because my position allows more than one possibility, while yours is fixed on one option.


It was translated into a much more technical language. To be honest, I couldn't TELL you who translated the Hebrew scriptures into Greek... but I can tell you WHY they did it... which was for the benefit of Hellenised Jews. So - it was either translated by someone for whom Hebrew is the first language - into a more technical tongue... or it is translated by someone in whom the familiarity with Hebrew is LESS complete, into a native tongue.

Either way - it is hardly surprising that problems might creep in.


What an interesting 'problem' to creep in, and fancy creeping in right at that moment (before Christ) in such an important prophecy.

There is a Jewish legend of the Septuagint. Apparently the high priest in Jerusalem sent 72 learned, wise, and saintly scribes along with a copy of the Torah to Alexandria, upon the invitation by Pheladelphus, the second Ptolemy, in about 240 BC. Apparently, the Septuagint means 'the seventy'. This is just a legend, but at least it does give an indication of how important the translation actually was to the Jews.


Jesus cannot inherit the lineage of David through his mother... that isn't how it works. I'm also wary of the idea that God would make a 'special exception' to the order of inheritance, to allow a one-time gesture like making a non-related member be the fulfillment of Davidic covenant.

God is big enough to make exceptions.



Of course you don't think that. You have your decision already made before you even LOOK at the scripture.

Actually I made my decision to be a Christian after looking at the scriptures.


This is one of the problems I have with modern Christianity... it teaches the Hebrew scriptures as somehow less 'important' than the Greek scriptures...


I have heard no such teaching, neither do I accept such a position. Where do you get that from? Your impressions?


The other irony of that, of course, is that the Hebrew scriptures are the BASIS for 'messiah'... and if you devalue the Hebrew scripture, you make 'messiah' nothing but a name.


I think this is a clear case of arguing against straw.


Actually - it IS necessary to assume scripture is or is not messianic. Especially if you are going to claim 'messianic prophecy' has been fulfilled based on it.


And I say that it isn't necessary to assume scripture is or is not messianic. Assumptions are unnecessary. Arguments based on reasons is a much better approach. Thus my position is that I believe that Christ is God, but not necessarily because of the messianic prophecies.


Yiou mean - like we KNOW the word 'virgin' doesn't allow for pregnancy and birth, now?


If we want to avoid oxymorons, we need to use compatible terms.



Do you really think that people two and three thousand years ago were SO much less intelligent than us?


Probably more intelligent, I wouldn't know. But I do know that they knew less than us, just as you and I would have known less if we had lived back then. More knowledge comes with hindsight.


Or - more likely - since the prophecy was fulfilled contemporarily - that the prophecy is NOT messianic, at all - and that all this quibbling over whether Jesus could be the 'virgin birth mentioned in Isaiah' is somewhere between subversion of scripture, and outright dishonesty.

You can claim that the prophecy was fulfilled with the lifetime of Ahaz, but you have no more evidence for such a claim than I do, and I would say that such a claim is a big fat assumption. It is possible, in my opinion, but not a safe assumption. You insist on making it an issue in honesty, but I reckon thats just creating smoke. This has been, for the most part, a lively discussion involving people from different points of view. Where is the dishonesty in this? And who is lying? Where is your evidence of your claims of lying? Either provide your evidence, or just reveal yourself as using gutter tactics.

Sure.
http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/freqdisp.cgi?book=isa&number=01330&count=5&version=kjv
Every single one of those is a figurative symbolic example. Every, single, one. Isaiah never used the word B'Tulah to refer to an actual individual, I’m surprised you didn’t bother to read them when you found them. Admit it, by your own rationale, B'tulah could NOT have been used in the place of Ha'Almah, The Almah, you should know that now and stop making the accusation in future discourses on the topic.


Uh-huh. Yes, perhaps I would be less embarassed if I claimed the prophesy was vague until after the event happened like you claiming that God didn't complete prophesy until Matthew wrote it.

I didn't claim that, but I'll let the accusation stick anyway. Likewise, the prophesy of Jonah and the prophesy of Abraham being told to sacrifice his own son, were vague until Jesus fulfilled them as well.

Look into other ancient Middle East/Oriental writings in how they regard the messages of the various Oracles and prophesies. They are almost always vague and misunderstood until the event is fulfilled and only then are they understood. That's how prophesy works, it’s the very nature of the beast.


Oops. Do you know who that group believes is the messiah? Now who's embarrassing themselves?

http://www.afii.org/notyushkatranscript.htm

Wow, you really aren't very good at this are you?

That same site asks Jews to realize the Jesus was the savior. They so revere him that they won't write his name out all the way just as they won't God's.

Zecharyah walked up to him and he said, “Behold the Man [J _ _ _ _ ] whose Name is Moshiach. His Name is Moshiach! His Name is Moshiach!” You say, “Where does it say that in our Hebrew Bible? Zecharyah 6:11-12. That’s where it says it! It says it in Rabbinic Judaism’s own Hebrew Tanakh! Yes, but I can’t help you if your own Hebrew Bible says it and you don’t believe it! And isn’t it ironic that even Rabbinic Judaism’s own Hebrew Bible says things that Rabbinic Judaism doesn’t accept? Well, you better start accepting it! Because the day is coming when you’re going to want to call upon him. And you NEED to call upon him NOW.

Hehe. That was fun. Do it again.

Now, do you have any sources not arguing for the divinity of Christ?

EDIT: By the way, how do you think I figured it out? I read their translation, guessed they were Jewish Christians and then searched their site till I could prove it. You think that's coincidence? You think you're luck is just that bad? Or perhaps you've just evidenced my point about as strongly as it could be evidenced (as the evidence you presented was selected by you in hopes of proving me wrong and turned out to support me).

As to this nonsense you've written, how many secular no denomination of any kind translations of ancient scripture do you think there are going to be? Hebrew, Christian and people trying to sell bibles to Jews and Christians. Who writes and publishes about it except those that care about it? And who cares about it without having an opinion about it, pro or negative?

Your general accusation is ridiculous and you should know it. It's like asking for someone to specify the torque wrench settings for a 64' ford mustang cam cover but then saying you don't want it to come from a Ford or a Ford aficionado source. It's a farce argument on your part and you should try to learn to not delude yourself and others with such tactics because it doesn’t lead to finding correct answers. If all you like to do is argue and fight and you don't care about being correct or not, then by all means please continue with your misleading and pointless form.

Seriously, it's hard for me to understand how you can read the Christian Bible and go, um, yeah, we're doing this right.

You listed many reasons why I am not Catholic

Every single one of those is a figurative symbolic example. Every, single, one. Isaiah never used the word B'Tulah to refer to an actual individual, I’m surprised you didn’t bother to read them when you found them. Admit it, by your own rationale, B'tulah could NOT have been used in the place of Ha'Almah, The Almah, you should know that now and stop making the accusation in future discourses on the topic.

Actually the last one wasn't used as a metaphor. Even so, it doesn't matter. Metaphors follow the same rules of grammar and exegesis as literal events. At this point, I think you might need a lesson in exegesis. When an author uses a term consistently, rules of syllogisms would dictate that the term means the same thing when used later. Bethulah is always used to mean virgin in Isaiah, and should never be translated otherwise. The only Bibles that translate bethulah to virgin in Isaiah 7 today are those aimed toward a Christian audience and those not relied upon as translations for use in modern scholarship. If you read peer-reviewed, scholarly works on exegesis, for accuracy they all tend to use the JPS today, which translates Almah to young woman.

I think I started some 30 pages of ranting about Isaiah 7 when I posted my article on it from my website. Since then, I havn't been keeping up with this thread. But someone with a degree in religious studies, and as someone who has studied the subject and can read Hebrew sufficiently enough to pass graduate courses in it, I will tell you that the only reason it is translated to "virgin" in many Christian Bibles is because it is part of Christian tradition. The text does not read 'virgin' in Hebrew, and anyone who can read Hebrew without reading an English translation could not possibly deduce virgin from it. Likewise, you wont find a single scholarly source of merit today who still argues some possible translation into virgin.

I didn't claim that, but I'll let the accusation stick anyway. Likewise, the prophesy of Jonah and the prophesy of Abraham being told to sacrifice his own son, were vague until Jesus fulfilled them as well.

Again, it would seem like you need a lesson in exegesis. Unless you're talking about NT references to Jonah and Abraham being prophecy (like when Jesus talked of the sign of Jonah), these events weren't prophecy. Nor does the Tanach say that they were. Rather, these were intended to be narrative. If you're serious about studying the Bible, you'd better get familiar with the difference between prophecy, laments, narrative, parable, etc. The stories of Abraham and Jonah were narrative, not prophecy. They were intended to tell stories about persons and actual events, not be signs or symbols for future events.

Look into other ancient Middle East/Oriental writings in how they regard the messages of the various Oracles and prophesies. They are almost always vague and misunderstood until the event is fulfilled and only then are they understood. That's how prophesy works, it’s the very nature of the beast.

No, it isn't. Most cultures have always believed they could understand their prophecies quite clearly. In Judaism, most prophecy is debated on minor issues, not major ones. Likewise, if you read the accounts of the Prophets in the Tanach, the people understood fully what the prophets were saying to them. They never said "we don't get it." Rather, they simply didn't listen.

In other prophecy in the Middle East they understood the meanings quite well too. The Sibylline Oracle is a good example of that.

As to this nonsense you've written, how many secular no denomination of any kind translations of ancient scripture do you think there are going to be? Hebrew, Christian and people trying to sell bibles to Jews and Christians. Who writes and publishes about it except those that care about it? And who cares about it without having an opinion about it, pro or negative?

The JPS is a considered a secular translation. In that it is the one most used in modern Biblical scholarship when studying the Tanach (OT). It is also not used by many religious Jews in lieu of the Artscroll Tanach and others, due to secular translation.

There is a Jewish legend of the Septuagint. Apparently the high priest in Jerusalem sent 72 learned, wise, and saintly scribes along with a copy of the Torah to Alexandria, upon the invitation by Pheladelphus, the second Ptolemy, in about 240 BC. Apparently, the Septuagint means 'the seventy'. This is just a legend, but at least it does give an indication of how important the translation actually was to the Jews.

Something interesting about the Septuagint. It was translated by Hellenized Jews, long after a Rabbinic prohibition on studying Torah in any language other than Hebrew. The translators were outside of the mainstream Jewish community. This is one reason why we know from modern scholarship that people like Paul, though he claimed to be a Pharisee in his epistles, was not a Pharisee and may not have even been a religious Jew at any point in his life. The translation was important to secular studies and Hellenized Jews, but was far outside the realm of mainstream Judaism at the time.

Even today, some of my more religious Jewish friends have told me that they and others lament for the Septuagint once a year on Yom Kippur, for distorting the Torah, and that they have added verses to the Amidah to lament for the Seputagint.

In short, the Seputagint is not representative of traditional Jewish thought and learning, and should not be used as a source when evaluating Jewish scripture. If anything, much of the Seputagint is evidence against traditional Jewish thought on the issue.

I did that search as you suggested, but I didn't find any *Christian* English versions of the Bible that used young woman, instead of virgin. There were a couple Jewish interpretations, but of course, their translations could either be more accurate than the Christians ones, or just as biased. I couldn't tell.

Ok, so you couldn't find the Revised English Bible, for example. Or the Contemporary English Bible that mentions a virgin but specifically states in a footnote that the text does not indicate a virgin birth. Or the Revised Standard Version. Or the James Moffett Version. All Christian. All Bibles. All not prophesying a virgin birth.


But I did read Grave's reply and saw one Christian Bible (Bible in Basic English) that used the term 'young woman'. All the others that I looked up use the word virgin.

What I did discover from this site
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt1007.htm is that they translated the prophecy as saying

16 Yea, before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land whose two kings thou hast a horror of shall be forsaken.

Both the lands of Aram and the Northen Kingdom of Israel were supposed to be conquered and destoyed and deserted before the baby in the prophecy could be born and grow to an age of being able to distinguish between good and evil. That would have to be a relatively short time span, depending on what the general consensus of the age of the ability to distinguish between good and evil. Someone might be able to help out there. I actually don't know it, and will have to look it up, but I'm guessing that it was something like a few years. Thus, in order for the prophecy to make sense, the complete destruction of Aram and Israel would have to have happened within just a matter of a few years of the prophecy. A possibility, perhaps, but perhaps not that likely.

Furthermore, I find it quite significant that the prophecy mentions THE young woman, with no other indication of who it might have been except that the child would be called Immanuel. We all know that it fits with Jesus, even though it certainly does not prove that it was Jesus. The idea that Isaiah was pointing to a woman present in the room who was pregnant is a possibility, but not a very likely one, I would say, since such an important prophecy (for the Jews at that time) would not have left such a detail out. The scribes took their work seriously, and omiting such a detail is hardly characteristic of them.
.
Whether it pointed to a woman in the room or not is a GnI issue. Personally, I don't care if it did or not. If it did it's evidence against the virgin translation, but it's not really necessary since the evidence against Isaiah trying to convey that this was a virgin is overwhelming. It doesn't mean it couldn't have been a virgin, just that it's not in the text.

The point is that it doesn't say virgin, there is no evidence that early Christians thought Mary was a virgin, Jesus never mentioned it, Paul never mentioned, the Gospel of Q never mentioned it, the Gospel of Thomas never mentioned it, the Gospel of Mary never mentioned it, etc. Matthew, 130 years later, suddenly mentions it and it becomes the more popular belief, but there is no evidence it existed before that and much that it didn't.


That's just silly. And coming from someone who once admitted that he couldn't be bothered to read one of my posts.

I didn't complain at you because I wouldn't read your posts or ask you to repeat yourself. You were just complaining at the time and I got tired of it. So I didn't read your post and told you I DIDN'T care what it said.

In this case you're complaining because you didn't read what I'd already written and asking me to write it again. You want to join a debate, here's a clue, read the debate.


Is that it? This is your evidence that you think that Paul thought that Jesus was not born of a virgin? A lack of a reference? I call that lame. A better explanation is simply that Paul did not think Christ's birth was as important as his identity, and that the more important point in his identity is as God and saviour of the world. His references to Jesus would simply reflect this.

Yes, there is nothing significant about the fact that all of the earliest Christian references NEVER mentioned the virginity of Mary. Well, unless you consider it to be an important part of Christ's divinity, which you do and people ARE arguing. It was so significant that NO ONE mentioned it.


Because she would have to have sex first, meaning that she would no longer be a virgin. In such a scenario, it might be better to use a term that means a young woman capable of having a child, and not excluding the possibility that she was married.

An almah is capable of having a child and assuming it was a prophesy about Jesus and I've never claimed it wasn't, Mary wasn't married when she conceived. And if it's not Mary, what if it was a prophesy about an unmarried woman?


Remember, for the phophecy to be messianic, Isaiah need not have meant to refer to a virgin. More importantly, it is a clear reference to Immanuel, God with us.

I'm not arguing it wasn't messianic. Perhaps you can quote me saying otherwise. Here's a tip, I'm not GnI.

I said that Matthew misread the prophesy and thought the point was the mother had to be a virgin. He was wrong.

I told you this once, but you're not actually reading. As usual, you're so busy trying to wriggle around the fact that you're wrong that you've stopped responding to what we say because you're too busy worry about figuring out a way to push the focus off your errancy. Here is what I said.

No, if I were really following the text, I would know that that almah means young woman and that young woman may or may not be a virgin. Also if I was really following the text I would notice, reasonably, that the virgin birth is not the focus of that particular prophesy and that Matthew left the actual prophesy out.

I said Isaiah IS prophesy, but that the virgin birth wasn't the actual prophesy. You're so busy losing this argument that you'll say anything or twist anything to try and hide the fact that you're clueless. Again, I am NOT GnI.


Something like that. Since Isaiah was obviously not trying to emphasise that the mother was a virgin (perhaps he couldn't understand what the sign really meant), he used a general term, rather than a specific one. A prophet should only communicate the message that he believes that he has recieved. In this way, he would have avoided causing unnecessary confusion among his immediate listeners, and yet allowing for understanding among those who lived later.

So Isaiah was wrong and Matthew magically corrected the prophesy after it occurred. I can't believe you don't recognize how RIDICULOUS that is. Meanwhile, Matthew was using a translation of Isaiah. If Isaiah was using a term for young woman which you're indicating, the translation was STILL WRONG, even if Mary was a virgin. I am ONLY talking about the Isaiah prophesy and you're indicating it did not include virginity. Glad we agree.


God could have had plenty of reasons for not wanting Isaiah to be too specific in the prophecy. You wouldn't explain every little detail to your children, would you? Hopefully, you would tell them what you think is necessary at the time.

Yeah, wouldn't want to be too specific. That would be too clear.

This is the most bizarre argument I've heard. God didn't want us to know it would be a virgin until after it occurred and then he wanted some Greek translators to wrongly translate the prophesy to include virginity and then he wanted a bunch of people for thousands of years to continue that mistake. Jesus was sent to save the Jews. Encouraging people to mistranslate the text would simply make them call them false prophets as editting the text was FORBIDDEN. According to you, God is trickster fooling Jews into hell.


Since we don't know all the details, a sensible position to take would be to allow that Isaiah *may* have meant a virgin. If he was referring to a married woman, he could have used other terms to specify this. Does that mean that the woman in the prophecy was NOT married?

But he didn't say virgin. And that is the point. If he didn't say it then a translation that says it is erroneous. That's my point. It's always been my point. It's still my point. I'm not saying it couldn't have been a virgin birth. I'm saying there is nothing in the prophesy that says it was and that up until Matthew there is no indication that was a part of Christianity at all.

And according to you and ME, the mother of the messaih WAS NOT married.


So you claim. Big claim.

So I and every scholar that is not a Christian apologist claims and many Christian apologists also claim. Yep, the big claim is that a group of a Christian apologists and ONLY Christian apologists managed to translate it correctly when EVERYONE else translates it differently.


Actually, if you were reading this thread, you would have seen that I did address one of his points.

I did read it. Do I need to quote you? Seriously? You said his point was unreliable because he was a newly converted Muslim. Whether you addressed it later or not, your only reply initially was that he was Muslim and biased.


Although I can't say this for all Christians, I can say that it's not Mary's virginity that is absolutely important to my faith. It is the deity of Christ that is.

Me either. I don't actually believe Mary was a virgin. I do believe in the divinity of Christ. I believe him to be the Messiah.


Not THE church, just the Catholic church.

Um, you do realize that for LONG time THE Church referred to the Catholic Chuch. I'm talking about a long time ago. And the point is that it was widely-held despite the obvious scriptural evidence to the contrary.


I think you are demonstrating more than suspicion in the case of Isaiah's messianic prophecy.
I am suspect of the idea that he meant virgin. You seem to agree. I've never mentioned anything about whether it was messianic. I only pointed out that it wasn't the complete prophesy and that it certainly wasn't the point of the prophesy.

When only people who already believe Jesus to be the messiah translate a particular messianic prophesy a certain way, it's hideously suspect.

Oh, look theres me AGAIN calling it a messianic prophesy. How about you pay attention from now on? Being ignorant of my position while making accusations about my position is tiring. And you wonder why I get tired of reading your posts.

...
I think I started some 30 pages of ranting about Isaiah 7 when I posted my article on it from my website. Since then, I havn't been keeping up with this thread. But someone with a degree in religious studies, and as someone who has studied the subject and can read Hebrew sufficiently enough to pass graduate courses in it, I will tell you that the only reason it is translated to "virgin" in many Christian Bibles is because it is part of Christian tradition. The text does not read 'virgin' in Hebrew, and anyone who can read Hebrew without reading an English translation could not possibly deduce virgin from it. Likewise, you wont find a single scholarly source of merit today who still argues some possible translation into virgin.
...

Well isn't that cute.

First you try to awe with credentials and then you simply end by saying, "take my word for it," and, “then I'll try to preemptively discredit any source that disagrees with me by saying they don't have any merit...”

Nice.

But your argument is essentially, "because I said so," and, "I'm on a mission to attack anyone that disagrees with me."

Not very convincing I'm afraid.

Every single one of those is a figurative symbolic example. Every, single, one. Isaiah never used the word B'Tulah to refer to an actual individual, I’m surprised you didn’t bother to read them when you found them. Admit it, by your own rationale, B'tulah could NOT have been used in the place of Ha'Almah, The Almah, you should know that now and stop making the accusation in future discourses on the topic.

So I'm supposed to rely on your scholarship when you don't even know how many times the word appears in the text. Seriously, you suck at this. YOu don't get it. The word is not only used figuratively. It's not symbolic when you are talking about things that actually happen. If I say "Like when white people sometimes marry black people", there is nothing symbolic in that statement. I think the word you want is inspecific. But hey, you're pretending to be a scholar and you missed two of the references when finding out otherwise is completely necessary to any serious study. Face it, once again you got PWNed.


I didn't claim that, but I'll let the accusation stick anyway. Likewise, the prophesy of Jonah and the prophesy of Abraham being told to sacrifice his own son, were vague until Jesus fulfilled them as well.

You didn't say that. My apologies. However, prophesy does not change after the fact. Showing how he fulfilled a prophesy is not the same as amending the prophesy like happened in Matthew.

Look into other ancient Middle East/Oriental writings in how they regard the messages of the various Oracles and prophesies. They are almost always vague and misunderstood until the event is fulfilled and only then are they understood. That's how prophesy works, it’s the very nature of the beast.

They don't change what was said after the fact which is what happened in Matthew.


As to this nonsense you've written, how many secular no denomination of any kind translations of ancient scripture do you think there are going to be? Hebrew, Christian and people trying to sell bibles to Jews and Christians. Who writes and publishes about it except those that care about it? And who cares about it without having an opinion about it, pro or negative?

Are you kidding? The Bible and the Torah are some of the most studied documents in history both religiously and secularly. The Bible is the most referenced document in literature. It's a great tie-in to ancient languages and cultures. Seriously, if you don't know that there is scholarly debate about the Torah and the Bible then I don't know that you're educated enough to engage in this conversation.


Your general accusation is ridiculous and you should know it. It's like asking for someone to specify the torque wrench settings for a 64' ford mustang cam cover but then saying you don't want it to come from a Ford or a Ford aficionado source. It's a farce argument on your part and you should try to learn to not delude yourself and others with such tactics because it doesn’t lead to finding correct answers. If all you like to do is argue and fight and you don't care about being correct or not, then by all means please continue with your misleading and pointless form.
No, it isn't. This is a Hebrew prophesy that was translated by literally thousands of individuals for religious and secular purposes. My challenge is a scholarly one. If the translation is correct then it would be found in places with no bias or the opposite bias, the same way that the translation I am arguing for is found in Christian sources, thus in opposition to their bias.

You're ignorance of the scholarly debate about the Bible and the Torah does not make for an argument. At all.

Now, let me see if I've got this right? First, I'm embarrassing myself when you think you've answered my challenge. Then when I point out that your source was a Christian source, rather than simply admit I PWNed you, you claim that my challenge is impossible and try to squirm out another way. How intellectually honest of you.

Well isn't that cute.

First you try to awe with credentials and then you simply end by saying, "take my word for it," and, “then I'll try to preemptively discredit any source that disagrees with me by saying they don't have any merit...”

Nice.

But your argument is essentially, "because I said so," and, "I'm on a mission to attack anyone that disagrees with me."

Not very convincing I'm afraid.

Yes, be careful to ignore all the points he made and all the evidence he presented and then complain that he just asking you to trust him.

I don't actually like Tropical Sands. I think his bias colors his claims. However, I bet he can tell you how many times Bethulah is used in Isaiah. You couldn't.

Now, how about you address his points or admit you can't? Claiming he asked you to trust him when he posted a long post you didn't even address is absurd and dishonest.

...
In short, the Seputagint is not representative of traditional Jewish thought and learning, and should not be used as a source when evaluating Jewish scripture. If anything, much of the Seputagint is evidence against traditional Jewish thought on the issue.

Sounds like any other inter denominational squabble/dispute, nothing out of the ordinary there to accuse the other side of being a revisionist. Too bad “your” traditionalists didn’t even exist as a group at that time, maybe they could have written the Septuagint the way they want it to be if they had been around then huh?

Every single one of those is a figurative symbolic example. Every, single, one.
The point that that entire narrative of Isaiah is figurative, but the analogy made is to 'virgins' (in the modern sense).

Yes, be careful to ignore all the points he made and all the evidence he presented and then complain that he just asking you to trust him.

I don't actually like Tropical Sands. I think his bias colors his claims. However, I bet he can tell you how many times Bethulah is used in Isaiah. You couldn't.

Now, how about you address his points or admit you can't? Claiming he asked you to trust him when he posted a long post you didn't even address is absurd and dishonest.

You've failed to take an honest debating positions in nearly all of your posts, I wonder why we should think that you're qualified to be able to tell an honest argument from a bad one.


EDIT:
As to debating his 'points,' what's the point in arguing with someone that already stated that, "any evidence that disagrees with me is without merit."

You've failed to take an honest debating positions in nearly all of your posts, I wonder why we should think that you're qualified to be able to tell an honest argument from a bad one.

Again, you avoid all of the points and then attack the poster. I left a lot of points. So did he. I'll wait while you put together an answer to them. Or do you admit you don't know what you're talking about?

The point that that entire narrative of Isaiah is figurative, but the analogy made is to 'virgins' (in the modern sense).

No, the entire narrative of Isaiah is not figurative.

I did that search as you suggested, but I didn't find any *Christian* English versions of the Bible that used young woman, instead of virgin. There were a couple Jewish interpretations, but of course, their translations could either be more accurate than the Christians ones, or just as biased. I couldn't tell.

But I did read Grave's reply and saw one Christian Bible (Bible in Basic English) that used the term 'young woman'. All the others that I looked up use the word virgin.


The 'Bible in Basic English' version uses the 'young woman' translation. SO - there is at least ONE example.


What I did discover from this site
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt1007.htm is that they translated the prophecy as saying

16 Yea, before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land whose two kings thou hast a horror of shall be forsaken.

Both the lands of Aram and the Northen Kingdom of Israel were supposed to be conquered and destoyed and deserted before the baby in the prophecy could be born and grow to an age of being able to distinguish between good and evil. That would have to be a relatively short time span, depending on what the general consensus of the age of the ability to distinguish between good and evil. Someone might be able to help out there. I actually don't know it, and will have to look it up, but I'm guessing that it was something like a few years. Thus, in order for the prophecy to make sense, the complete destruction of Aram and Israel would have to have happened within just a matter of a few years of the prophecy. A possibility, perhaps, but perhaps not that likely.


The KJV actually puts a different compexion on this... it suggests that the land is 'forsaken' of both of it's kings, rather than the land of two kings, being forsaken.

Looking at the order of the Hebre, this is NOT an unreasonable approach.

Also, this fits logicall with the chronology:

Isaiah 7:8 "For the head of Syria is Damascus, and the head of Damascus is Rezin; and within threescore and five years shall Ephraim be broken, that it be not a people."

In other words - the kingdom (city-state) of Ephraim shall be destroyed, and it's 'people' scattered... within sixty-five years.

This is one of the reasons I am inclined to accept the KJV translation.. we already HAVE a time line for eestruction of Ephraim.

Isaiah 7:16 "For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings".

In other words - by the time the child reaches the age of majority, the two kings of the land shall be 'forsaken'.... dead, or dethroned, one assumes.

So - in about 16 years, maybe, the kings will be overthrown or dead... and within 65 years, Ephraim will be shattered.

Not at all inconsistent.


Furthermore, I find it quite significant that the prophecy mentions THE young woman, with no other indication of who it might have been except that the child would be called Immanuel. We all know that it fits with Jesus, even though it certainly does not prove that it was Jesus. The idea that Isaiah was pointing to a woman present in the room who was pregnant is a possibility, but not a very likely one, I would say, since such an important prophecy (for the Jews at that time) would not have left such a detail out. The scribes took their work seriously, and omiting such a detail is hardly characteristic of them.


Immanuel actually fits better with the idea that the child is a 'sign' to Ahaz... or maybe, a warning not to doubt again.

When one loks through the Gospels... one finds a surprising lack of that 'child' being called Immanuel.

Because she would have to have sex first, meaning that she would no longer be a virgin. In such a scenario, it might be better to use a term that means a young woman capable of having a child, and not excluding the possibility that she was married.


Which would be better served for that... the one that is non-specific about virginity, or the one that expressly states virginity?


Remember, for the phophecy to be messianic, Isaiah need not have meant to refer to a virgin. More importantly, it is a clear reference to Immanuel, God with us.


For the prophecy to be messianic, the requirement is that it discuss messiah. Thus - the child in question is enough to exclude this prophecy as messianic. Virginity is irrelevent.

And - again, you conform the Old Testement text to what you WANT to see... how does the name Immanuel suit Jesus any better than the possible child Isaiah was literally pointing out to Ahaz?

If Isaiah is talking about a child who is going to be the 'sign' of God's work... "God Is With Us" is an appropriate apellation... and one which we have no record of the Christ child ever being called.


Since we don't know all the details, a sensible position to take would be to allow that Isaiah *may* have meant a virgin.


How would that be 'sensible'? We are talking about a woman giving birth. 'Sensible' and 'virgin' are not likely bedfellows in that context.

If Isaiah had meant something as obviously miraculous as virgin giving birth, he would have used a term to show how miraculous that would be... rather than just pointing out she was 'young'.


If he was referring to a married woman, he could have used other terms to specify this.


And, if he was referring to a virgin, he could have used other terms to specify that. Which he didn't.

Logically... it is more of a stretch to assume a virgin is with child, than that a married woman is. I know which one seems the 'bigger' detail to have left out.

Does that mean that the woman in the prophecy was NOT married?


No. The being married is almost irrelevent. Indeed - it could be ASSUMED, just because she is pregnant.

On the other hand, the fact that Isaiah neglects to mention virginity (and this is something that is usually over-emphasised in scipture...) DOES mean that the woman in the 'prophecy' was probably NOT a virgin.

Something interesting about the Septuagint. It was translated by Hellenized Jews, long after a Rabbinic prohibition on studying Torah in any language other than Hebrew. The translators were outside of the mainstream Jewish community. This is one reason why we know from modern scholarship that people like Paul, though he claimed to be a Pharisee in his epistles, was not a Pharisee and may not have even been a religious Jew at any point in his life. The translation was important to secular studies and Hellenized Jews, but was far outside the realm of mainstream Judaism at the time.

How do you know it was translated by Hellenized Jews? Is there something in the text that indicates this?

As for Paul, by his claims, he studied under Gamaliel in Jerusalem.
Acts 22:3
Then Paul said: "I am a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city. Under Gamaliel I was thoroughly trained in the law of our fathers and was just as zealous for God as any of you are today.''

The city that he refers to is obviously Jerusalem, definitely within the mainstream Jewish community.


Even today, some of my more religious Jewish friends have told me that they and others lament for the Septuagint once a year on Yom Kippur, for distorting the Torah, and that they have added verses to the Amidah to lament for the Seputagint.


Is that like the way some Christians protest against some translations of the Bible because they feel that such translations distort the hold scriptures? The lament of your friends is not necessarily an indication that the Septuagint is a bad translation. It could be some sort of denomonational difference.


In short, the Seputagint is not representative of traditional Jewish thought and learning, and should not be used as a source when evaluating Jewish scripture. If anything, much of the Seputagint is evidence against traditional Jewish thought on the issue.

I can accept that you do not believe that the Septuagint is representative of ALL traditional Jewish thought, but I doubt that anyone can deny that it represented the thoughts of at least some Jews before the time of Matthew and of Christ. Thus the translation could not have been influenced by Christianity.

Before this discussion, I thought it was a clear case of a messianic prophecy. Now my position is that is isn't as clear as I thought, but I still think it likely. So I say that the verse might be messianic, is likely to be messianic, but not MUST be messianic. But since your position is that is must not be messianic, based only on the same evidence that I have, I consider your claim to be the larger one.


For me - the key to a messianic prophecy, is that it has to be a reference to messiah. Which means - if it clearly (or even obscurely, but still visibily) refers to something that is not indicative of messiah... then it is not a messianic prophecy.

There is a LOT of prophecy in the Hebrew scripture. MOST is not messianic... and we KNOW this, because it clearly points to events that are fulfilled without messiah.

The evidence, I think, strongly suggests Isaiah 7 is one such example.


No, because my position allows more than one possibility, while yours is fixed on one option.


My 'fixed' opinion is that prophecies do not automatically conform to a narrow definition, unless they can be shown to do so.

My 'fixed' position, is a far wider spectrum than the flexibility you seem to be implying.


What an interesting 'problem' to creep in, and fancy creeping in right at that moment (before Christ) in such an important prophecy.

There is a Jewish legend of the Septuagint. Apparently the high priest in Jerusalem sent 72 learned, wise, and saintly scribes along with a copy of the Torah to Alexandria, upon the invitation by Pheladelphus, the second Ptolemy, in about 240 BC. Apparently, the Septuagint means 'the seventy'. This is just a legend, but at least it does give an indication of how important the translation actually was to the Jews.


Fancy creeping in right at that moment? More than 200 years earlier is your argument for 'coincidental'?

And again - you have your Christian Tradition blinkers on... 'in such an important prophecy'... but it WAS NOT an important prophecy. It had been fulfilled hundreds of years earlier, already. A translation error in the 200 bc era makes no difference to the prophecy... it is not 'important' at all, except for the fact that Matthew LATER said it was, based on his faulty understanding.


God is big enough to make exceptions.


What about being constant? Your 'changable' god is not the one of the Hebrew scripture.


Actually I made my decision to be a Christian after looking at the scriptures.


Uh huh. Okay. You just 'happened' to be looking at it, right?


I have heard no such teaching, neither do I accept such a position. Where do you get that from? Your impressions?


Actually - such a position was stated directly, in one of the other current threads.


I think this is a clear case of arguing against straw.


Not at all. Messianic prophecy is absolutely a 'requirement' of the idea that Jesus be Messiah.


And I say that it isn't necessary to assume scripture is or is not messianic. Assumptions are unnecessary. Arguments based on reasons is a much better approach. Thus my position is that I believe that Christ is God, but not necessarily because of the messianic prophecies.


And yet -you admit yourself, that you had made 'assumptions' about Jesus fulfilling the 'messianic prophecy' of the virgin birth.

You can claim that the prophecy was fulfilled with the lifetime of Ahaz, but you have no more evidence for such a claim than I do, and I would say that such a claim is a big fat assumption. It is possible, in my opinion, but not a safe assumption. You insist on making it an issue in honesty, but I reckon thats just creating smoke. This has been, for the most part, a lively discussion involving people from different points of view. Where is the dishonesty in this? And who is lying? Where is your evidence of your claims of lying? Either provide your evidence, or just reveal yourself as using gutter tactics.

Isaiah became a prophet in Israel. The book of Isaiah started. Isaiah prophesied for about 62 years. (760 B.C.)

(There's a threescore and five - roughly - window)

Ahaz became the king of Judah. He ruled for 16 years and "did not right." (742 B.C.)

(There's a sixteen year window... that might be important)

Hezekiah became the king of Judah. He reigned 23 years and was noted as "good." Shalmaneaser invaded Israel. Israel, under King Hoshea, became a tributary to Assyria. (728 B.C.)

(That is within 14 years of the commencement of Ahaz' reign... and Ephraim is made a vassal of Assyria)

Assrya invaded Israel. (724 B.C.)

(Within 18 years of the commencement of Ahaz's reign, Assyria has invaded Ephraim)

The kingdom of Israel came to an end. Samaria was taken and Israel, comprised of the 10 northern tribes of the "Children of Israel," was carried away into Assrya, never to return. (They disappeared into the lands across the north, vanishing from worldview. Hence they are called "The Lost Tribes.") (721 B.C.)

(Within 23 years of the START of Ahaz's reign, Ephraim is 'made desolate')

http://www.wordsight.org/btl/000_btl-fp.htm


I guess it is important to know that Ephraim is not just a person, or one tribe... but also the collective name of the 'northern' tribes, when the Kingdom was broken in two.

Every single one of those is a figurative symbolic example. Every, single, one. Isaiah never used the word B'Tulah to refer to an actual individual, I’m surprised you didn’t bother to read them when you found them. Admit it, by your own rationale, B'tulah could NOT have been used in the place of Ha'Almah, The Almah, you should know that now and stop making the accusation in future discourses on the topic.


You know this is a false argument.

There is a word which means virgin - often used as a metaphor... but still LITERALLY meaning virgin.

There is another word which does NOT mean virgin.

Which do you use if you mean virgin?

Sounds like any other inter denominational squabble/dispute, nothing out of the ordinary there to accuse the other side of being a revisionist. Too bad “your” traditionalists didn’t even exist as a group at that time, maybe they could have written the Septuagint the way they want it to be if they had been around then huh?

This is funny.

Translating the Hebrew scripture into Greek (or any other langauge) IS revision.

Almost definitive, I'd say.


So - for the Jewish argument to be, that the later version is 'revisionist'... is not a statement of 'bias', but of ABSOLUTE fact, no?

This is funny.

Translating the Hebrew scripture into Greek (or any other langauge) IS revision.

Almost definitive, I'd say.


So - for the Jewish argument to be, that the later version is 'revisionist'... is not a statement of 'bias', but of ABSOLUTE fact, no?

What? How dare you accuse the people who revised the text of being revisionist? What the hell is wrong with you?

What? How dare you accuse the people who revised the text of being revisionist? What the hell is wrong with you?

I know. I know. I'm being illogical.

I blame fatigue. Or something. Oh - or maybe, paying attention.

One of those things. :)

Ok, so you couldn't find the Revised English Bible, for example. Or the Contemporary English Bible that mentions a virgin but specifically states in a footnote that the text does not indicate a virgin birth. Or the Revised Standard Version. Or the James Moffett Version. All Christian. All Bibles. All not prophesying a virgin birth.

So, that's three, not including the ones with footnotes, since they also prefer to use the term 'virgin'.

I would say that using the term 'young woman' instead of 'virgin' does not exclude a virgin birth. Rather, the reference would seem to be neutral, in relation to our debate.
Thus, Matthew's account may well be right in interpreting the prophecy as messianic.



Whether it pointed to a woman in the room or not is a GnI issue. Personally, I don't care if it did or not. If it did it's evidence against the virgin translation, but it's not really necessary since the evidence against Isaiah trying to convey that this was a virgin is overwhelming. It doesn't mean it couldn't have been a virgin, just that it's not in the text.


I don't think that there is much of an argument against Isaiah allowing for a virgin in his prophecy. It's not a conicidence that the same term was used to refer to virgins by other writers of the Bible books. You once asserted that we must restrict our arguments to only Isaiah's use of the terms, but I don't think that is very reasonable. Obviously, there should be a difference in the emphasis between Isaiah's usage and that of the other writers, but that is not the same as ignoring the other writers altogether.

It's also important to remember that the book named Isaiah was not all written in matter of months or even a year, but collected during the process of his life. This is likely to be many years, considering he was supposed to be a prophet for 4 kings of Judah. Thus, one might not expect the book to contain a strict consistency in the usage of terms.

I had previously thought that your position was virtually the same as Grave's in this issue. My apologies there.


The point is that it doesn't say virgin, there is no evidence that early Christians thought Mary was a virgin, Jesus never mentioned it, Paul never mentioned, the Gospel of Q never mentioned it, the Gospel of Thomas never mentioned it, the Gospel of Mary never mentioned it, etc. Matthew, 130 years later, suddenly mentions it and it becomes the more popular belief, but there is no evidence it existed before that and much that it didn't.


It is no surpise that many of them didn't mention it, since only Matthew and Luke tried to give an account of the early days of Jesus. However, both the accounts of Matthew and Luke indicate a virgin birth (and thereafter did not mention Mary's virginity). Matthew refers to Isaiah, while Luke does not. However, the story according to Luke certainly seems to indicate Mary's virginity prior to the birth of Jesus.


I didn't complain at you because I wouldn't read your posts or ask you to repeat yourself. You were just complaining at the time and I got tired of it. So I didn't read your post and told you I DIDN'T care what it said.


So you are allowed to complain, but I am not.


In this case you're complaining because you didn't read what I'd already written and asking me to write it again. You want to join a debate, here's a clue, read the debate.


Actually, I wasn't complaining this time, just asking a harmless simple question. If you didn't want to write the answer all out again, you could have just posted the link to your first post on it. That would have been just fine.


Yes, there is nothing significant about the fact that all of the earliest Christian references NEVER mentioned the virginity of Mary. Well, unless you consider it to be an important part of Christ's divinity, which you do and people ARE arguing. It was so significant that NO ONE mentioned it.


I'm not arguing that the virginity of Mary is such an important part of Christianity. It seems as though you are confusing me with others. What is important is the divinity of Christ. I suppose that means (to me) that no earthly man was his biological father, but I could have that wrong.



An almah is capable of having a child and assuming it was a prophesy about Jesus and I've never claimed it wasn't, Mary wasn't married when she conceived. And if it's not Mary, what if it was a prophesy about an unmarried woman?


I find it very likely the he was referring to an unmarried woman. So I suppose we might agree on that point.



I'm not arguing it wasn't messianic. Perhaps you can quote me saying otherwise. Here's a tip, I'm not GnI.


Yeah, ok, but you do sound like his parrot sometimes.


I said that Matthew misread the prophesy and thought the point was the mother had to be a virgin. He was wrong.


I still don't understand why you think Matthew had to be wrong. And if he was wrong about that, what else was he wrong about, e.g. the words of Jesus? And how would you know what parts to trust and what not to? By asking Grave?


I told you this once, but you're not actually reading. As usual, you're so busy trying to wriggle around the fact that you're wrong that you've stopped responding to what we say because you're too busy worry about figuring out a way to push the focus off your errancy. Here is what I said.


Jocabia, has anyone ever told you to never miss an oppportunity to pollute an otherwise nice discussion with another foul insult?


I said Isaiah IS prophesy, but that the virgin birth wasn't the actual prophesy. You're so busy losing this argument that you'll say anything or twist anything to try and hide the fact that you're clueless. Again, I am NOT GnI.


Sigh. Getting insecure again, are you?



So Isaiah was wrong and Matthew magically corrected the prophesy after it occurred. I can't believe you don't recognize how RIDICULOUS that is.

No, Isaiah was vague (not wrong), and Matthew claimed to understand the prophecy as messianic, because he knew the Messiah.


Meanwhile, Matthew was using a translation of Isaiah. If Isaiah was using a term for young woman which you're indicating, the translation was STILL WRONG, even if Mary was a virgin.

Why? Because he used a word that can also mean a virgin? I don't follow your logic.



I am ONLY talking about the Isaiah prophesy and you're indicating it did not include virginity. Glad we agree.

I think the term does include virgins, but is a general term for all young woman. A perfectly good, albeit vague, candidate that serves Isaiah's purpose quite well.




Yeah, wouldn't want to be too specific. That would be too clear.

Plenty of prophecies are not that specific.


This is the most bizarre argument I've heard. God didn't want us to know it would be a virgin until after it occurred and then he wanted some Greek translators to wrongly translate the prophesy to include virginity and then he wanted a bunch of people for thousands of years to continue that mistake. Jesus was sent to save the Jews. Encouraging people to mistranslate the text would simply make them call them false prophets as editting the text was FORBIDDEN. According to you, God is trickster fooling Jews into hell.


You are the one assuming mistranslation, and then attributing such a foolish argument to me?



But he didn't say virgin. And that is the point. If he didn't say it then a translation that says it is erroneous. That's my point. It's always been my point. It's still my point. I'm not saying it couldn't have been a virgin birth. I'm saying there is nothing in the prophesy that says it was and that up until Matthew there is no indication that was a part of Christianity at all.


The translators may have had a good reason to translate it into a term meaning 'virgin'. You are basically assuming that you know it better. Based on what? A lack of information?


And according to you and ME, the mother of the messaih WAS NOT married.


Got that point loud and clear.



So I and every scholar that is not a Christian apologist claims and many Christian apologists also claim. Yep, the big claim is that a group of a Christian apologists and ONLY Christian apologists managed to translate it correctly when EVERYONE else translates it differently.


You make it sound like the vast majority of Christian scholars think that the vast majority of English translations of Isaiah have got it wrong.



I did read it. Do I need to quote you? Seriously? You said his point was unreliable because he was a newly converted Muslim. Whether you addressed it later or not, your only reply initially was that he was Muslim and biased.


But then I later mentioned his point about the flight of Joseph and Mary and Jesus into Egypt. There I specifically referred to his conclusions, and suggested that they were quite biased because of the nature of his assertions (nothing to do with his belief in Islam).
In the initial post, where I first mentioned that he was a new convert to Islam, I merely asked Willamena whether she believed him. I did not mention that his conclusions were unreliable initially.



Me either. I don't actually believe Mary was a virgin. I do believe in the divinity of Christ. I believe him to be the Messiah.


So you are saying that Jesus was the son of Joseph and Mary AND God?



Um, you do realize that for LONG time THE Church referred to the Catholic Chuch. I'm talking about a long time ago. And the point is that it was widely-held despite the obvious scriptural evidence to the contrary.


The Catholic Church was THE church in the sense that it was the biggest institution--not the only one. Never the only one.


I am suspect of the idea that he meant virgin. You seem to agree. I've never mentioned anything about whether it was messianic. I only pointed out that it wasn't the complete prophesy and that it certainly wasn't the point of the prophesy.


Unlike you, I agree with Matthew that he was right to claim that Jesus was born of a virgin. But I'm not sure that such a difference between us is a really critical one. I think this would have been a nice discussion apart from your habit of insulting your opponents.


Oh, look theres me AGAIN calling it a messianic prophesy. How about you pay attention from now on? Being ignorant of my position while making accusations about my position is tiring. And you wonder why I get tired of reading your posts.

Oh, and your habit of complaining.

I'm going to deal with a couple of points later. For the moment I just want to point something out:

I had previously thought that your position was virtually the same as Grave's in this issue...

Yeah, ok, but you do sound like his parrot sometimes...

By asking Grave?


Add to this - you have told Jocabia that his Christianity is 'compromised' by agreeing with, or being friendly with, an admitted Atheist.... once in THIS thread, and once in an earlier one.


And then, you have the temerity to make points about what you consider 'insults' and 'complaining' in his posts.

You might want to meditate on that.

Adriatica III- Cobra II, what?

For me - the key to a messianic prophecy, is that it has to be a reference to messiah. Which means - if it clearly (or even obscurely, but still visibily) refers to something that is not indicative of messiah... then it is not a messianic prophecy.

On what basis do you assert such a 'key'? For me, a prophecy can be both messianic and contemporary, since both are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Since God's book is divinely inspired, such a scenario is possible. There need not be a mention of the messiah to be messianic. However, in this case, the name Immanuel is quite a good indication, since it means God with us. It is a good description of Jesus.


There is a LOT of prophecy in the Hebrew scripture. MOST is not messianic... and we KNOW this, because it clearly points to events that are fulfilled without messiah.


Fair enough.


The evidence, I think, strongly suggests Isaiah 7 is one such example.


There's the leap. I don't think that this prophecy *clearly* points to contempory events.


My 'fixed' opinion is that prophecies do not automatically conform to a narrow definition, unless they can be shown to do so.


So you assume innocence until proven guilty. What sort of 'proof' would you demand?


My 'fixed' position, is a far wider spectrum than the flexibility you seem to be implying.


I definitely don't get the impression that there is much flexibity in your views, particularly on this topic.


Fancy creeping in right at that moment? More than 200 years earlier is your argument for 'coincidental'?


Do you have a sufficient explanation for this 'creeping in', other than something like 'those stupid blighters got it hopelessly wrong'. If you have a good explanation for why they got it wrong, I would be happy to read it. Otherwise, your conclusion looks irrational.


And again - you have your Christian Tradition blinkers on... 'in such an important prophecy'... but it WAS NOT an important prophecy. It had been fulfilled hundreds of years earlier, already. A translation error in the 200 bc era makes no difference to the prophecy... it is not 'important' at all, except for the fact that Matthew LATER said it was, based on his faulty understanding.


Not at all. In those days, when Jerusalem itself was facing destruction and the inhabitants facing death or slavery, such a prophecy would have been the most important piece of written information in the whole kingdom. There is no doubt that it would have been a very important prophecy to whoever wrote the book of Isaiah.


What about being constant? Your 'changable' god is not the one of the Hebrew scripture.


The nature of God doesn't change. But he certainly is capable of doing new things, making changes.


Uh huh. Okay. You just 'happened' to be looking at it, right?


You are the one making the claim that I believed in Christ before I read the Bible. An interesting claim coming from someone who doesn't know that much about Bruarong, don't you think?


And yet -you admit yourself, that you had made 'assumptions' about Jesus fulfilling the 'messianic prophecy' of the virgin birth.


Conclusions, actually, based on the assumption/belief that God exists and that Jesus is God.


Isaiah became a prophet in Israel. The book of Isaiah started. Isaiah prophesied for about 62 years. (760 B.C.)

(There's a threescore and five - roughly - window)

Ahaz became the king of Judah. He ruled for 16 years and "did not right." (742 B.C.)

(There's a sixteen year window... that might be important)

Hezekiah became the king of Judah. He reigned 23 years and was noted as "good." Shalmaneaser invaded Israel. Israel, under King Hoshea, became a tributary to Assyria. (728 B.C.)

(That is within 14 years of the commencement of Ahaz' reign... and Ephraim is made a vassal of Assyria)

Assrya invaded Israel. (724 B.C.)

(Within 18 years of the commencement of Ahaz's reign, Assyria has invaded Ephraim)

The kingdom of Israel came to an end. Samaria was taken and Israel, comprised of the 10 northern tribes of the "Children of Israel," was carried away into Assrya, never to return. (They disappeared into the lands across the north, vanishing from worldview. Hence they are called "The Lost Tribes.") (721 B.C.)

(Within 23 years of the START of Ahaz's reign, Ephraim is 'made desolate')

http://www.wordsight.org/btl/000_btl-fp.htm


I guess it is important to know that Ephraim is not just a person, or one tribe... but also the collective name of the 'northern' tribes, when the Kingdom was broken in two.

I'm not sure what your conclusion has to do with the above information on dates, etc. Ephraim was a person, but the name also refers to one of the tribes and sometimes to the whole Northern Kingdom of ten tribes.

But don't forget that we are talking about the desolation of the Northern Kingdom (not just the kings), which is why the later population of that region are referred to as Samaritans (due the the Assyrian policy of forced migration), a mixture of the surviving Hebrews and other conquered peoples of the Assyrian empire.

Now, when we go back to the prophecy of Isaiah's, can we fit your notion of a contemporary fulfillment of the prophecy? The limitation is the age at which a child knows the difference between right and wrong. I have read that you are a father. How old do you think a child is before they realize the difference between right and wrong. 5 years? Less?

I'm going to deal with a couple of points later. For the moment I just want to point something out:



Add to this - you have told Jocabia that his Christianity is 'compromised' by agreeing with, or being friendly with, an admitted Atheist.... once in THIS thread, and once in an earlier one.


And then, you have the temerity to make points about what you consider 'insults' and 'complaining' in his posts.

You might want to meditate on that.

I said that his position could be seen as making a compromise. This is not the same as claiming that he is compromising his faith.

As for being your parrot, I didn't think that was a severe insult. Just a harmless joke. But if he is upset by this, I will apologize and try to refrain from making such jokes in the future. Of course he has an intelligence and personality of his own.

Both you and he certainly have got something going on between you, like some sort of agreement to stand by one another. I don't have a problem with standing by one another, but I can't help noticing how unusual it is for a Christian and an Atheist (if that is what you are) arguing together against all the Christians on this thread--indeed, you are usually supporting one another and chatting away galahs on fence in just about every thread I am interested in. I'm not surprised by your arguments. Jocabia's are sometimes a little unexpected, since they conform quite well with your own, despite his claim to be religious. It sort of looks like a disciple/student relationship (not that I am saying it is). As far as I am concerned, the both of you can go ahead with that. But you should not be surprised if some people find this amusing.

I said that his position could be seen as making a compromise. This is not the same as claiming that he is compromising his faith.

As for being your parrot, I didn't think that was a severe insult. Just a harmless joke. But if he is upset by this, I will apologize and try to refrain from making such jokes in the future. Of course he has an intelligence and personality of his own.

Both you and he certainly have got something going on between you, like some sort of agreement to stand by one another. I don't have a problem with standing by one another, but I can't help noticing how unusual it is for a Christian and an Atheist (if that is what you are) arguing together against all the Christians on this thread--indeed, you are usually supporting one another and chatting away galahs on fence in just about every thread I am interested in. I'm not surprised by your arguments. Jocabia's are sometimes a little unexpected, since they conform quite well with your own, despite his claim to be religious. It sort of looks like a disciple/student relationship (not that I am saying it is). As far as I am concerned, the both of you can go ahead with that. But you should not be surprised if some people find this amusing.

It isn't any ONE of your barbs that is the problem, it is the fact that it is tantamount to ad hominem... you attempt to weaken any point one Christian makes, because that particular Christian agrees with an Atheist on several points.

You previously (an earlier thread, I called you on it at the time) told Jocabia that he was compromisin his faith. You've made similar complaints in this thread. You continue to make similar claims, even now.

Example: "Both you and he certainly have got something going on between you, like some sort of agreement to stand by one another."

No - we have no such agreement. In our earliest posts on religion, Jocabia and I disagreed a lot, although we have since found a lot of issues we agree on, within the scripture, and elsewhere... but other threads find us just as far apart as ever.... death penalty debates, certain types of political commentary.


If anyone is 'compromising'... it is I, because I will argue religious material that (as an Atheist) is obviously not 'true' to me... but I will ASSUME it for the debate.

This debate is an example. I do not accept the validity of the concept of 'messiah'... but I damn well get to know what it means, and I argue the importance of Messianic Prophecy to that concept. nd - if you look real close - you'll notice that Jocabia and I still DISAGREE over whether there IS messianic prophecy at work in the matter at debate.

If there is a disciple/pupil relationship - I'll gladly admit that I'd consider myself the pupil. I've learned a lot about what it is to be a certain type of Christian from Jocabia.


The problem in this situation - is that you attack the sharing of common views, as though it were conspiracy. You can't get your head around, apparently, the idea that not ALL Christians might consider Paul to be as relevent as the Gospels. A step outside of the narrow confines of Nationstates, however, might show you this idea is neither totally unknown, nor even that uncommon.

Indeed, Paul has even been argued as the Antichrist before.

Thomas Jefferson, no less, was branded a heretic for excising the works of Paul from the Biblical canon.

Irenaeus said that the Ebionites similarly ignored the Pauline scripture, calling him 'apostate'.

Friedrich Nietzsche labelled Paul 'the Antichrist', claiming "God as Paul created him, [is] the negation of God".

And yet - you take the fact that ONE Atheist and ONE Christian might agree on this issue, to be some kind of symbol of selling out.

You might as well get used to the idea - not ALL 'Christians' think the way you do. Many of them find much to argue with, in the traditional versions of Christian theology.

That makes their Christianity 'different' to yours... but doesn't mean it is a 'lesser' or 'compromised' version.


I'm not sure why this annoys me so much. Perhaps - because you seem to be implying that people cannot agree, without one 'giving something up' to the other... and I consider that worldview destructive and archaic.

So, that's three, not including the ones with footnotes, since they also prefer to use the term 'virgin'.

There are more. Aren't the ones I posted enough to show you the translation of a non-virgin birth prophesy is an unbiased one?

How many widespread Bible versions do you think there are? Meanwhile it annihilates your point. Christians find both interpretations to be correct. Everyone else, everyone else finds the other version to be correct. Hmmm... let's see, one interpretation spans bias and one doesn't. One is supported by all other evidence the other isn't. It's clear which is an accurate interpretation to every scholar who doesn't desperately want the wrong interpretation to be correct.


I would say that using the term 'young woman' instead of 'virgin' does not exclude a virgin birth. Rather, the reference would seem to be neutral, in relation to our debate.
Thus, Matthew's account may well be right in interpreting the prophecy as messianic.

Um, I'm not debating whether it is messianic. It didn't say virgin. It said young woman. It doesn't prophesy a virgin birth. It doesn't exclude a virgin birth, but I've never suggested it did. It does not prophesy one. So Matthew was wrong when he said it did. Matthew used a faulty translation.


I don't think that there is much of an argument against Isaiah allowing for a virgin in his prophecy. It's not a conicidence that the same term was used to refer to virgins by other writers of the Bible books. You once asserted that we must restrict our arguments to only Isaiah's use of the terms, but I don't think that is very reasonable. Obviously, there should be a difference in the emphasis between Isaiah's usage and that of the other writers, but that is not the same as ignoring the other writers altogether.

No one is arguing that he didn't allow for a virgin. He didn't say there was one. You're equivocating and it's a sad debate tactic. You lost. It doesn't say virgin. It doesn't say virgin. How complicated is that statement that you are unable to follow it. It doesn't say virgin. Sexual status was not a part of the prophesy. That's the point. Matthew didn't just say it was part of it, Matthew said it was the point. It was wrong.


It's also important to remember that the book named Isaiah was not all written in matter of months or even a year, but collected during the process of his life. This is likely to be many years, considering he was supposed to be a prophet for 4 kings of Judah. Thus, one might not expect the book to contain a strict consistency in the usage of terms.

We would expect that he didn't forget the term for virgin.


I had previously thought that your position was virtually the same as Grave's in this issue. My apologies there.

You're full of crap. You're not apologizing. You call me a parrot again later in this post. It's not my fault that you're so used to get owned by both of us that you can't tell us apart.

You again mistake Grave's argument for mine in this post both above and below your 'apology' while continuing to suggest I'm a parrot.


It is no surpise that many of them didn't mention it, since only Matthew and Luke tried to give an account of the early days of Jesus. However, both the accounts of Matthew and Luke indicate a virgin birth (and thereafter did not mention Mary's virginity). Matthew refers to Isaiah, while Luke does not. However, the story according to Luke certainly seems to indicate Mary's virginity prior to the birth of Jesus.

It's no surprise? Really? A bunch of the earliest Christian authors and followers don't think it's important and you don't find that significant? Ridiculous. Paul was obsessed with the sin of sex and he doesn't happen to mention that Jesus was not the result of sex? That's not significant? Ridiculous.


So you are allowed to complain, but I am not.

If you can't understand the difference between refusing to read and then complaining because you didn't read and me refusing to read and saying why I don't care what it says, then I can't help you.


Actually, I wasn't complaining this time, just asking a harmless simple question. If you didn't want to write the answer all out again, you could have just posted the link to your first post on it. That would have been just fine.

I told you it's in the thread. I won't find it for you so I can link it. Don't blame me for your laziness. You complained when I didn't give you the information you could have found yourself.


I'm not arguing that the virginity of Mary is such an important part of Christianity. It seems as though you are confusing me with others. What is important is the divinity of Christ. I suppose that means (to me) that no earthly man was his biological father, but I could have that wrong.

No, I'm not. Ah, yes, that good old shifting the argument. Are you actually honestly trying to claim that you didn't argue that Jesus MUST not have an earthly father. Seriously?

You're continued dishonesty, provable dishonesty is just sad.

If Christ is the Son of God, then Joseph was not his genetical father.

Before you argued that Jesus could not be the Son of God and have a genetic father. Now you act like the idea isn't important. Well, unless being the Son of God isn't really important.

And you wonder why debating with you is a waste of time? Why should anyone debate a point with you when you're just going to pretend to believe something else in ten minutes?

I find it very likely the he was referring to an unmarried woman. So I suppose we might agree on that point.

Oh, *gasp*, you can't agree with me. If you agree with me, you're just a parrot and you're not a Christian. Don't believe me? Just ask you a few posts ago.


Yeah, ok, but you do sound like his parrot sometimes.

Uh-huh. Because I agree with someone who actually has a clue, I sound like a parrot. Would you prefer I kept changing what I believe and kept arguing in circles like you? I prefer honest debate. If GnI happens to be right, then you'll likely see me agreeing with him. Given that, I'd rather be a parrot than take on your particular style of debate.

Good thing insulting people is beneath you, hypocrite.


I still don't understand why you think Matthew had to be wrong. And if he was wrong about that, what else was he wrong about, e.g. the words of Jesus? And how would you know what parts to trust and what not to? By asking Grave?

Ha. You just can't stop can you? I proved my point. Now, you're agreeing with my point. I've been holding the EXACT same point the whole time. But because Grave also holds that point I must have gotten it from Grave. It just pains you doesn't it, that you came in this thread spewing crap and the only one it got on is you, doesn't it?

How can you argue that the translation doesn't say virgin and Matthew's translation says virgin and Matthew wasn't wrong?


Jocabia, has anyone ever told you to never miss an oppportunity to pollute an otherwise nice discussion with another foul insult?

Did I? Let's see. Who entered the thread saying I wasn't a Christian and that I was a parrot of GnI? You've never stopped saying it.

I can see how you can say a person who suggests you're wriggling because you're wrong is making a foul insult while you claim that SAME person is not a Christian. Golly, I sure hope that one day I can tone down my insults claiming someone is losing an argument to only be as harsh as saying they aren't a real Christian. One day, I'll be as patient and honest as you.


Sigh. Getting insecure again, are you?

Only one of us feels the need to be dishonest so people can't tell they lost an argument. It's not me.


No, Isaiah was vague (not wrong), and Matthew claimed to understand the prophecy as messianic, because he knew the Messiah.

I never said it wasn't messianic. However, he quoted Isaiah and what he quoted was WRONG. What he said the prophesy of Isaiah was, was not accurate to the actual prophesy.

Why? Because he used a word that can also mean a virgin? I don't follow your logic.

It can't also mean virgin. It can include virgins. That is not the same thing. If I say "I am going to get online and have a debate", it could mean "I am going to get online and have a debate with GnI", however it would be false to claim I said "I am going to get online and have a debate with GnI."


I think the term does include virgins, but is a general term for all young woman. A perfectly good, albeit vague, candidate that serves Isaiah's purpose quite well.

Good. Duh. We've been saying that all along. Meanwhile, if Isaiah knew it was a virgin it would be absurd to suggest he would leave out that point, since a virgin birth isn't just something you forget to mention.


Plenty of prophecies are not that specific.

Great way to miss the point.

You are the one assuming mistranslation, and then attributing such a foolish argument to me?

The Greek translation said virgin. You are claiming Isaiah didn't write virgin. That means a mistranslation. What is hard about this?


The translators may have had a good reason to translate it into a term meaning 'virgin'. You are basically assuming that you know it better. Based on what? A lack of information?

A good reason to translate it to a word that wasn't used? I'm not suggesting they didn't do it for a reason. I'm saying they are wrong. I am basing that on the FACT that the Hebrew term does not mean virgin, something you've since admitted.


Got that point loud and clear.

So Jesus meets the prophesy without a spurious translation. Good. We won't have to have that debate again.


You make it sound like the vast majority of Christian scholars think that the vast majority of English translations of Isaiah have got it wrong.

Um, no, I don't. I make it sound like the vast majority of Christians think the text says something it doesn't. All scholarly interpretations of the text have it as young woman.


But then I later mentioned his point about the flight of Joseph and Mary and Jesus into Egypt. There I specifically referred to his conclusions, and suggested that they were quite biased because of the nature of his assertions (nothing to do with his belief in Islam).
In the initial post, where I first mentioned that he was a new convert to Islam, I merely asked Willamena whether she believed him. I did not mention that his conclusions were unreliable initially.

Yes, when you got challenged on it, you eventually addressed his arguments. I don't care what you did later. You initially dismissed his arguments as the arguments of an anti-Christian while simultaneously bashing me for including an argument about the bias of Christian apologists in a whole line of other points. Hypocrite.

So you are saying that Jesus was the son of Joseph and Mary AND God?

No, that would be impossible. It's clear that God, who we have no reason to believe has any DNA and has no reason to have DNA and who we believe to be immaterial is the GENETIC father of Jesus. /sarcasm

Or perhaps, just perhaps, we can move past the pagan idea of Gods physically fathering humans and understand that the relationship between God and Jesus was a bit more profound than that. Jesus wasn't just some half-God like Hercules or Perseus.

The Catholic Church was THE church in the sense that it was the biggest institution--not the only one. Never the only one.

Why do you make arguments like this? Your point is right in line with mine. Why do you act like you're arguing against something I said while agreeing with me. I understand that agreeing with me is the only way you'll be correct, but why not just admit that you're agreeing with me instead of being intellectually dishonest and unnecessarily combative.


Unlike you, I agree with Matthew that he was right to claim that Jesus was born of a virgin. But I'm not sure that such a difference between us is a really critical one. I think this would have been a nice discussion apart from your habit of insulting your opponents.

Uh-huh keep being dishonest. According to you that point makes me not a Christian. Good thing telling me I'm not Christian or calling me a parrot of GnI isn't an insult, hypocrite.

Oh, and your habit of complaining.

You want to know why I get tired of you. Because when you get caught you just change your argument, making debate pointless. I've said it before, I'm saying it again, you like to be dishonest in your debates. And I don't enjoy proving it OVER and OVER again.

You try to keep your language weak so you can equivocate later and then claim it's our fault when we hold you to what you say. But why should anyone be surprised, you are arguing that God equivocates too.

I said that his position could be seen as making a compromise. This is not the same as claiming that he is compromising his faith.

Uh-huh. More dishonesty. I'm shocked. SHOCKED, I tell you.

As for being your parrot, I didn't think that was a severe insult. Just a harmless joke. But if he is upset by this, I will apologize and try to refrain from making such jokes in the future. Of course he has an intelligence and personality of his own.

Uh-huh. More dishonesty. I'm SHOCKED!!!

Both you and he certainly have got something going on between you, like some sort of agreement to stand by one another. I don't have a problem with standing by one another, but I can't help noticing how unusual it is for a Christian and an Atheist (if that is what you are) arguing together against all the Christians on this thread--indeed, you are usually supporting one another and chatting away galahs on fence in just about every thread I am interested in. I'm not surprised by your arguments. Jocabia's are sometimes a little unexpected, since they conform quite well with your own, despite his claim to be religious. It sort of looks like a disciple/student relationship (not that I am saying it is). As far as I am concerned, the both of you can go ahead with that. But you should not be surprised if some people find this amusing.
Yes, golly, if I don't use flawed translations of texts then I must not be religious. GnI and I disagree on other subjects on occasion. The reason we agree so often on this topic is because I believe that most Christians don't actual read the text they claim is infallible. In every one of these topics we are arguing for the EXACT wording of the original texts and we are arguing against Christians arguing for points that are NOT in the text and are often NOT consistent with all other evidence.

Amusingly, you started out insulting my position and then you admitted that my position is correct and that Isaiah didn't use the word for virgin, but for young woman. Better be careful. You start talking about what the Bible ACTUALLY says and a bunch of NS Christians will start telling you how you're not a real Christian.

Of course, you would never suggest a person wasn't a Christian. We'll just ignore your previous posts to the contrary. We'll pretend like this post where you claim you didn't say such a thing is the ONLY post in the thread, because if we start looking at the evidence, one might have to conclude that you're being dishonest.

Why is it that in EVERY thread I find you claiming one thing and then pretending you never claimed that. Must be coincidence. That's what it must be.

I'm not sure what your conclusion has to do with the above information on dates, etc. Ephraim was a person, but the name also refers to one of the tribes and sometimes to the whole Northern Kingdom of ten tribes.

But don't forget that we are talking about the desolation of the Northern Kingdom (not just the kings), which is why the later population of that region are referred to as Samaritans (due the the Assyrian policy of forced migration), a mixture of the surviving Hebrews and other conquered peoples of the Assyrian empire.

Now, when we go back to the prophecy of Isaiah's, can we fit your notion of a contemporary fulfillment of the prophecy? The limitation is the age at which a child knows the difference between right and wrong. I have read that you are a father. How old do you think a child is before they realize the difference between right and wrong. 5 years? Less?

All I can assume is - you didn't bother to even read what I took the time to cite. The people are scattered, and Ephraim is lost to Assyria, within 23 years of the start of Ahaz's reign.

Clearly, this is well within the 65 years figure for the destruction of Ephraim.

Similarly - within 14 years of the start of Ahaz's reign, Assyria makes a puppet of Ephraim... which is either the kings made desolation, or Ephraim made seolate, depending on your view.

Over a nine year period... the Assyrians destroy and disperse Ephraim... just as Isaiah's prophecy says. I can't be SURE when Isaiah made this prohpecy for Ahaz... but the start of Ahaz's reign gives us an outside figure.

So - somewhere between 14 and 23 years. Certainly - many ideas of the 'age of majority' (the ability to tell good from bad) have fallen within those confines.

The KJV actually puts a different compexion on this... it suggests that the land is 'forsaken' of both of it's kings, rather than the land of two kings, being forsaken.

Looking at the order of the Hebre, this is NOT an unreasonable approach.

Also, this fits logicall with the chronology:

Isaiah 7:8 "For the head of Syria is Damascus, and the head of Damascus is Rezin; and within threescore and five years shall Ephraim be broken, that it be not a people."

In other words - the kingdom (city-state) of Ephraim shall be destroyed, and it's 'people' scattered... within sixty-five years.

This is one of the reasons I am inclined to accept the KJV translation.. we already HAVE a time line for eestruction of Ephraim.

Isaiah 7:16 "For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings".

In other words - by the time the child reaches the age of majority, the two kings of the land shall be 'forsaken'.... dead, or dethroned, one assumes.

So - in about 16 years, maybe, the kings will be overthrown or dead... and within 65 years, Ephraim will be shattered.

Not at all inconsistent.


You think a child is normally something like sixteen before they know between wrong and right?
And you think that the destruction of the two nations simply means the death of their kings? Well, I suppose if you make those assumptions, then the prophecy might be consistent with a contemporary explanation.


Immanuel actually fits better with the idea that the child is a 'sign' to Ahaz... or maybe, a warning not to doubt again.


Fits better than all that the Messiah *means*? Conclusions like that one, Grave, make me wonder about your idea of 'better'. I thought you knew something about the nature of the messiah, according to the OT.


When one loks through the Gospels... one finds a surprising lack of that 'child' being called Immanuel.


It's not that surprising, since it was recorded that he was named Jesus, as requested by the angel, according to Luke. Matthew was careful to explain what the name Immanuel meant, and yet went on to say that Joseph named him Jesus. Within Christianity, it is easy to see how Jesus fulfills the meaning of the name. He is with us still.


Which would be better served for that... the one that is non-specific about virginity, or the one that expressly states virginity?


It really does depend on the situation, and on what was the common understanding of the terms involved. I was suggesting that there might be a good reason for his use of terms that we (or I) don't know about.


For the prophecy to be messianic, the requirement is that it discuss messiah. Thus - the child in question is enough to exclude this prophecy as messianic. Virginity is irrelevent.


The child in question was called Immanuel, and could be taken as an indication of being a messianic reference.


And - again, you conform the Old Testement text to what you WANT to see... how does the name Immanuel suit Jesus any better than the possible child Isaiah was literally pointing out to Ahaz?


Ahaz heard that God would destroy his enemies. That was his sign. The name Immanuel could have reminded both Ahaz (and the other listeners) of the meaning of the sign, and simultaneously been a messianic prophecy. Such is the nature of divine inspiration.


If Isaiah is talking about a child who is going to be the 'sign' of God's work... "God Is With Us" is an appropriate apellation... and one which we have no record of the Christ child ever being called.


As usual in Hebrew scripture, the meaning of the name as a description of the child would be the important point of including it in the prophecy. It isn't so necessary, perhaps, that Jesus was not called Immanuel. And more to the point, if the Gospels really were an invention, the inventors would probably not have overlooked an opportunity to use the name Immanuel to support their case.


How would that be 'sensible'? We are talking about a woman giving birth. 'Sensible' and 'virgin' are not likely bedfellows in that context.


But he didn't use the exclusive word for virgin. Thus he may have been avoiding an oxymoron. I don't know the Jewish culture and language of that time well enough to say.


If Isaiah had meant something as obviously miraculous as virgin giving birth, he would have used a term to show how miraculous that would be... rather than just pointing out she was 'young'.


What if Isaiah, the prophet was just a messenger, and was just giving the message as far as he understood it? What if he didn't know much more about it than what he said. Does his 'vagueness' rule out the possibility of God intending the prophecy to be messianic?


Logically... it is more of a stretch to assume a virgin is with child, than that a married woman is. I know which one seems the 'bigger' detail to have left out.


But if Isaiah meant that the sign was that a virgin was with child, his words do not rule out that possibility. It's ok of you to say which option you prefer, but I have criticised you for assuming that your interpretation could be the only right one.


No. The being married is almost irrelevent. Indeed - it could be ASSUMED, just because she is pregnant.


By your logic, if she was married, then he would have used another word that confers that meaning more specifically. Thus, she was not married, according to you.


On the other hand, the fact that Isaiah neglects to mention virginity (and this is something that is usually over-emphasised in scipture...) DOES mean that the woman in the 'prophecy' was probably NOT a virgin.

Even when the same term is used to describe virgins elsewhere in Scripture?

At any rate, I see that you have improved your position. You have gone from 'must not' to 'probably not'. That's a more intelligent position.

It isn't any ONE of your barbs that is the problem, it is the fact that it is tantamount to ad hominem... you attempt to weaken any point one Christian makes, because that particular Christian agrees with an Atheist on several points.

You previously (an earlier thread, I called you on it at the time) told Jocabia that he was compromisin his faith. You've made similar complaints in this thread. You continue to make similar claims, even now.

Example: "Both you and he certainly have got something going on between you, like some sort of agreement to stand by one another."

No - we have no such agreement. In our earliest posts on religion, Jocabia and I disagreed a lot, although we have since found a lot of issues we agree on, within the scripture, and elsewhere... but other threads find us just as far apart as ever.... death penalty debates, certain types of political commentary.


If anyone is 'compromising'... it is I, because I will argue religious material that (as an Atheist) is obviously not 'true' to me... but I will ASSUME it for the debate.

This debate is an example. I do not accept the validity of the concept of 'messiah'... but I damn well get to know what it means, and I argue the importance of Messianic Prophecy to that concept. nd - if you look real close - you'll notice that Jocabia and I still DISAGREE over whether there IS messianic prophecy at work in the matter at debate.

If there is a disciple/pupil relationship - I'll gladly admit that I'd consider myself the pupil. I've learned a lot about what it is to be a certain type of Christian from Jocabia.


The problem in this situation - is that you attack the sharing of common views, as though it were conspiracy. You can't get your head around, apparently, the idea that not ALL Christians might consider Paul to be as relevent as the Gospels. A step outside of the narrow confines of Nationstates, however, might show you this idea is neither totally unknown, nor even that uncommon.

Indeed, Paul has even been argued as the Antichrist before.

Thomas Jefferson, no less, was branded a heretic for excising the works of Paul from the Biblical canon.

Irenaeus said that the Ebionites similarly ignored the Pauline scripture, calling him 'apostate'.

Friedrich Nietzsche labelled Paul 'the Antichrist', claiming "God as Paul created him, [is] the negation of God".

And yet - you take the fact that ONE Atheist and ONE Christian might agree on this issue, to be some kind of symbol of selling out.

You might as well get used to the idea - not ALL 'Christians' think the way you do. Many of them find much to argue with, in the traditional versions of Christian theology.

That makes their Christianity 'different' to yours... but doesn't mean it is a 'lesser' or 'compromised' version.


I'm not sure why this annoys me so much. Perhaps - because you seem to be implying that people cannot agree, without one 'giving something up' to the other... and I consider that worldview destructive and archaic.

He's bothered. I don't compromise my beliefs to conform to yours. I do respect you as a poster. I think he's jealous because my respect for your academic commitment is obvious and because he can't even keep his argument straight for twenty posts the only 'respect' anyone every gives him is the blind acceptance because they agree with his position as a Christian. And when the only acceptance you get is based on such a thing, like his is, he has to turn our acceptance of one another into the same kind of blind ideological acceptance. Otherwise, he has to admit to us and himself that respect is earned and he hasn't.

You have driven me to better study parts of the Bible and to address my bias on such issues. In some cases, to no change and, in some cases, resulting in a great change. The difference being that when I change my position I simply admit my initial position was wrong instead of pretending like it was what I was saying all along.

Well, congratulations on being the person who has thus far brought me closest to using that 'headbang' smilie...

You think a child is normally something like sixteen before they know between wrong and right?


In legal terms?

We use the phrase 'old enough to know better'... and there is biological evidence that suggests, in some cases, that is true. We use the phrase 'grown up' or 'adult'... and we are talking about a generic area of development that tends to coincide with some right, or some rite of passage.

All I'm saying is - it seems most likely that Isaiah was talking about an individual... a person who stands alone as responsible for knowing right from wrong.. which implies one of these developmental stages... adulthood, the age of majority. Whatever you wish to call it.

Maybe he was 21. Maybe 14. Maybe 12... I don't know offhand, HOW far into Ahaz's term it was that Isaiah talked to him.


And you think that the destruction of the two nations simply means the death of their kings? Well, I suppose if you make those assumptions, then the prophecy might be consistent with a contemporary explanation.


There are two different stages to the prophecy. They MIGHT both mean detruction of the kingdom of Ephraim. Or - one of them CAN be read as just the death or deposition of the kings.

Either way - both events happened well within the 65 years, and started happening within 14.


Fits better than all that the Messiah *means*? Conclusions like that one, Grave, make me wonder about your idea of 'better'. I thought you knew something about the nature of the messiah, according to the OT.


And, the connection between Immanuel and Messiah, according to the OT?

And more to the point, if the Gospels really were an invention, the inventors would probably not have overlooked an opportunity to use the name Immanuel to support their case.


If they were inventions.. they would have called the character something different, until a latter editor pointed out that they had ignored the 'Immanuel' part.. in which case they would have wedged it in as a part of the early story, with a quick excuse as for why it didn't matter.


By your logic, if she was married, then he would have used another word that confers that meaning more specifically. Thus, she was not married, according to you.


No. No. No.

If it MATTERED if she was married, he would have used a different term.

Just as - if it MATTERED that the woman in question was a virign, he would have used the term that said that.

The fact Isaiah just says 'young woman', tends to suggest that it is the 'young' and the 'woman' parts that are important.


Even when the same term is used to describe virgins elsewhere in Scripture?


Irrelevent. It is not used to DEFINE their virginity.

I call my daughter my daughter. That doesn't mean she isn't a girl. That doesn't mean she isn't brunette.

The term 'almah' is NOT exclusive. It MEANS 'young woman'... but it doesn't wexclude those 'young women' from being virgins. It just doesn't mean they ARE virgins.


At any rate, I see that you have improved your position. You have gone from 'must not' to 'probably not'. That's a more intelligent position.

No - you've (consistently) misunderstood me. I have never aid she 'must not' be a virgin. ONLY that the text doesn't say she IS a virgin. It doesn't say she MUST be.

He's bothered. I don't compromise my beliefs to conform to yours. I do respect you as a poster. I think he's jealous because my respect for your academic commitment is obvious and because he can't even keep his argument straight for twenty posts the only 'respect' anyone every gives him is the blind acceptance because they agree with his position as a Christian. And when the only acceptance you get is based on such a thing, like his is, he has to turn our acceptance of one another into the same kind of blind ideological acceptance. Otherwise, he has to admit to us and himself that respect is earned and he hasn't.

You have driven me to better study parts of the Bible and to address my bias on such issues. In some cases, to no change and, in some cases, resulting in a great change. The difference being that when I change my position I simply admit my initial position was wrong instead of pretending like it was what I was saying all along.

Oy....

It just bothers me. You can't agree with someone, without one winning and one losing. You can't respect someone without an ulterior motive. You can't consider someone a friend, unless you have a identical worldview. Anything less is conspiracy.

It makes my brain feel fuzzy, just trying to get my head around a world-view that operates like that. :(

Irrelevent. It is not used to DEFINE their virginity.

I call my daughter my daughter. That doesn't mean she isn't a girl. That doesn't mean she isn't brunette.

The term 'almah' is NOT exclusive. It MEANS 'young woman'... but it doesn't wexclude those 'young women' from being virgins. It just doesn't mean they ARE virgins.

It's become relevant because he entered the thread attacking our position and then when we proved him wrong, repeatedly, he had to go into a position of just not being wrong. Notice the vast change in his wording since the beginning of the thread. You think you're still talking about the same thing as the beginning of the thread. You're not.

He clearly said the way one arrives at your position on the term is to take your conclusion in hand and start with it. Now he has the same conclusion, but he has to pretend yours is somehow different because if he doesn't he has to admit he was wrong.

It's become relevant because he entered the thread attacking our position and then when we proved him wrong, repeatedly, he had to go into a position of just not being wrong. Notice the vast change in his wording since the beginning of the thread. You think you're still talking about the same thing as the beginning of the thread. You're not.

He clearly said the way one arrives at your position on the term is to take your conclusion in hand and start with it. Now he has the same conclusion, but he has to pretend yours is somehow different because if he doesn't he has to admit he was wrong.

Like I said... closest I've ever come to the 'headbang' icon... :)