|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: The fulfilment of Isaiah 7:14
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
The story so far from Purgatory:
Jamat:
My view of Scriptural texts sees prophecy as God reaching into time. Objectivity is ensured by his predictions that are measurable against history.
one eg is the incarnation. Isaiah said a virgin would conceive and 600 or so years later a virgin did.
Martin:
Objectively, truthfully, there is no mention of a virgin giving birth in Isaiah of course.
Especially 600 or so years later.
Jamat:
Perhaps you forgot Isaiah 7:14
"A virgin shall conceive and bear a son and shall call his name Immanuel."
Martin:
I didn't realise that Isaiah was Anglic! Wow, over two thousand years before Early Modern English existed.
If he'd have been Hebraic, he'd have used the word 'betulah' for virgin wouldn't he?
Isaiah 7 describes a prophecy for King Ahaz in 753 BC. The writer of The Gospel of Matthew took the liberty of arrogating that for the purposes of validating the Incarnation myth, using standards that no modern person possibly could, that are not acceptable in any modern discourse for the past 400 years. Even pre-modern, pre-scientific, pre-Enlightenment thinkers like Aquinas couldn't use such utterly outmoded 'reasoning'.
The past is another country. They do things differently there. It's IMPOSSIBLE even to visit.
The use of methods we have all long since evolved beyond in the educated West in all other discourses, to justify present abuse, is completely irrational, utterly invalid, as bizarre as witchcraft.
Jamat:
To the Jew the sign of a supernatural birth goes back to that of Isaac. To a human, it goes to Genesis 3.
Regarding Is 7:14 It was not about the king at all. Two births are mentioned in the passage, one was, one was not.
The word used here is 'Almah', a word used for young woman but also used in Song of Solomon (1:3, 6:8) for Virgin. It is a normal usage for 'virgin'. Some Rabbi's contest it, notably Rashi but his motive is to discredit Jesus and his messianic claims. He also mutilates Is 53.
All the Rabbis who created the Septuagint (250 of them) translated 'Almah' as 'parthenos' Greek for virgin.. The word is rightly translated as a virginal young woman. Remember, this Is 7:14 event was a sign..like Isaac it was a supernatural sign. These Rabbis lived about 1300 years closer to the time of Isaiah than Rashi did.
Refer also to Gen 3:15. Jesus(the Messiah) was the seed of a woman ie implying he would not have a father.
Jesus entered the earth via a virgin birth. This is a foundational truth, a fact not a myth. You point out yourself that the apostles concur with the translation of virgin in the New Testament, particularly Matthew. Perhaps your dismissiveness is a trifle displaced. Can you not learn from the way THEY interpret? THEIR hermeneutic?
Martin the arrogance of your claims is frightening; you are saying that the historical writers are all superseded by modern insights? I'm speechless! Shakespeare? .
Martin: The ignorance in that post is frightening and completely germane to the unreasoning throughout, there is nothing tangential about that.
The prophecy to Ahaz was completely fulfilled from the next chapter.
Alan Cresswell:
The particular example of the fulfillment of prophesy of the young woman/virgin giving birth is, of course, irrelevant to the establishment of the modern nation of Israel.
Martin:
And Jamat, Jews aren't human then?
And Jamat, where in the chapter is there another baby?
I can only find this reference which is obviously to one:
Isaiah7:14 All right then, the Lord himself will choose the sign—a child shall be born to a virgin![c] And she shall call him Immanuel (meaning, “God is with us”). 15-16 By the time this child is weaned[d] and knows right from wrong, the two kings you fear so much—the kings of Israel and Syria—will both be dead.
c. Isaiah 7:14 a child shall be born to a virgin. The controversial Hebrew word used here sometimes means “virgin” and sometimes “young woman.” Its immediate use here refers to Isaiah’s young wife and her newborn son (8:1-4).
This, of course, was not a virgin birth.
God’s sign was that before this child was old enough to talk (v. 4), the two invading kings would be destroyed.
d. Isaiah 7:15 By the time this child is weaned, literally, “For before this child shall know [is old enough] to refuse evil and to choose the good . . . and [is old enough to] eat curds and honey.” the kings of Israel and Syria, implied. will both be dead, or “the lands will be deserted [of their kings].”
Bible Gateway commentary.
I can't find a translation anywhere, including directly from the Hebrew, that talks of two?
What one are you using please? Can you quote from it if you can't say?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
Here's the English of Isaiah 7.13-16 quote:
Then Isaiah said: ‘Hear then, O house of David! Is it too little for you to weary mortals, that you weary my God also? Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel. He shall eat curds and honey by the time he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good.
and the Hebrew quote:
וַיֹּ֕אמֶר שִׁמְעוּ־נָ֖א בֵּ֣ית דָּוִ֑ד הַמְעַ֤ט מִכֶּם֙ הַלְא֣וֹת אֲנָשִׁ֔ים כִּ֥י תַלְא֖וּ גַּ֥ם אֶת־אֱלֹהָֽי׃ לָ֠כֵן יִתֵּ֨ן אֲדֹנָ֥י ה֛וּא לָכֶ֖ם א֑וֹת הִנֵּ֣ה הָעַלְמָ֗ה הָרָה֙ וְיֹלֶ֣דֶת בֵּ֔ן וְקָרָ֥את שְׁמ֖וֹ עִמָּ֥נוּ אֵֽל׃ חֶמְאָ֥ה וּדְבַ֖שׁ יֹאכֵ֑ל לְדַעְתּ֛וֹ מָא֥וֹס בָּרָ֖ע וּבָח֥וֹר בַּטּֽוֹב׃
and here's the passage in the Septuagint translation that was probably known to Matthew quote:
καὶ εἶπεν ᾿Ακούσατε δή, οἶκος Δαυιδ· μὴ μικρὸν ὑμῖν ἀγῶνα παρέχειν ἀνθρώποις; καὶ πῶς κυρίῳ παρέχετε ἀγῶνα; διὰ τοῦτο δώσει κύριος αὐτὸς ὑμῖν σημεῖον· ἰδοὺ ἡ παρθένος ἐν γαστρὶ ἕξει καὶ τέξεται υἱόν, καὶ καλέσεις τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Εμμανουηλ· βούτυρον καὶ μέλι φάγεται· πρὶν ἢ γνῶναι αὐτὸν ἢ προελέσθαι πονηρὰ ἐκλέξεται τὸ ἀγαθόν·
The decision that the Hebrew almah should be represented by the Greek parthenos was not as such a polemical Christian decision, but a prior Jewish translational choice. The Hebrew word neither precludes nor mandates parthenos as an appropriate translation.
In its original context in Isaiah it is a promise that a specific young woman is already expecting a child whom she will name Immanuel, and that by the time that child is old enough "to refuse the evil and choose the good" Ahaz and Judah will be delivered from what threatens them and experience a time of plenty.
Matthew coopts it to refer to Jesus. IMO, Matthew having a story of the virgin birth of Jesus finds a Hebrew scripture which he sees as in some way fulfilled by that event. Others would argue that the virgin birth story flows from the Isaiah 7.14 scripture. Personally I doubt that since the scripture is not messianic in any sense, so there is no point in making up a story of Jesus' birth to somehow fulfil that scripture.
My own feeling is that Matthew is not so interested in a chapter and verse fulfilment of Hebrew scriptures by the life and ministry of Jesus, as in a more general sense that Jesus is the one to whom the Hebrew scriptures look forward and in whom they find their fulfilment.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Magisterial BroJames.
The classical Jewish and Greek writers of the New Testament and their Subject used exegesis that is impossible today. He was still right of course.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
I agree with BroJames.
But wonder if he is right in saying
"My own feeling is that Matthew is not so interested in a chapter and verse fulfilment of Hebrew scriptures by the life and ministry of Jesus, as in a more general sense that Jesus is the one to whom the Hebrew scriptures look forward and in whom they find their fulfilment."
Maybe Matthew was not much bothered by the 'fulfolment' need. ( and therefore prophetic anticipation) But his Jewish audience were. Hence Matthew's frequent recourse to "this was in fulfilment of the scripture" - a refrain which he resorts to 14 times in a couple of chapters. Including a reference not in OT " he shall be called a Nazarene"
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
I agree with Shamwari. IMO it is neither here nor there that Jesus was born of a virgin or not. Have I missed a point?
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
I agree that Matthew feels a strong need to show Jesus as the fulfilment of the Hebrew Scriptures. It's just that he did not see fulfilment in quite the literal way that modern readers do. Thus,for example, he can find fulfilment of a text (Hosea 11.1-4) that was not even something we would regard as a prophecy.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Exactly, 'Matthew' and all his peers including Jesus used the hermeneutics of classical times. They are now two thousand years exponentially obsolete. Hermeneutics and biology were base metal at a time when mathematics, astronomy, philosophy were gold, silver and bronze.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Kwesi--
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
I agree with Shamwari. IMO it is neither here nor there that Jesus was born of a virgin or not. Have I missed a point?
AIUI, it's to show that Jesus' father wasn't human--i.e., if he didn't have a biological father that was human, then his father had to be God. Therefore, he was/is both God and human.
They knew how babies were made, and that didn't normally involve a pregnant virgin.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I don't know whether it's true or not, but I don't have a problem with it.
IIRC, the Koran has Jesus fathered by a jinni/genie. So something beyond human. Islam (because of previous polytheism, I think) is iron-clad about God being One, so God can't be Jesus' father.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
I doubt the virgin birth doctrine has anything to do with Christ being God. Nobody I'm aware of in mainstream Christianity thinks that Godhood is transmitted genetically/hereditarily, as blue eyes or pointy ears might be.
I think the function of the doctrine is to point out "hey, God is doing something new here, pay attention!" a la Isaiah 43, and also to emphasize both Jesus' continuity with the rest of humanity (via Mary) and his discontinuity (via the act-of-new-creation that made a fatherless birth possible).
A child born from these circumstances cannot be classified as non-human (and therefore unable to share in the burdens of humanity, or able to redeem them as an interested individual). Nor can he be classed as just an ordinary person. The doctrine forces us to look more closely.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
On the doctrinal level is it not significant that the virgin birth is not mentioned by two of the gospel writers, nor does it feature in Acts or the Epistles? In other words, true or not, it does not appear to be an important doctrine if a doctrine at all. Incidentally, one notes that none so far has raised the question of Original Sin!
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Everybody knew. The virgin birth of Jesus.
[ 03. November 2016, 20:42: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
On the doctrinal level is it not significant that the virgin birth is not mentioned by two of the gospel writers, nor does it feature in Acts or the Epistles? In other words, true or not, it does not appear to be an important doctrine if a doctrine at all. Incidentally, one notes that none so far has raised the question of Original Sin!
I find it odd to say it doesn't exist in Acts, when Acts is the other half of Luke. It deals with events much later than Christ's birth. Why would one even expect it to go back in time, in terms of its own internal timeline, to take in something not directly relevant to the events it is portraying?
Applying the argument from silence to the epistles makes little more sense. They are not about the biography of Christ. They deal mostly with soteriology and church polity and praxis. Not things that are directly touched on by the Virgin birth. The deity of Christ is not fully realized yet, or if they were aware of it, it is written in code. They certainly wouldn't be trotting out the v.b. in evidence. If Paul even knew about it.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
So I went looking for different theological opinions on the virgin birth. Still wading through those! ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Interestingly, I found some scientific ones.
(NOTE: Possibly NSFW, if your employer has a Net Nanny that looks for "sex", etc.)
-- "A Scientific Miracle: Theories of Mary's Virgin Birth." (Popular Science)
-- "Are There Really Virgin Births?" (mental_floss)
-- " Virgin conception would be more plausible if Mary was a man: Could testicular feminisation offer an explanation for the mystery of Jesus Christ's virgin birth?" (The Guardian)
I don't know what happened. But, IIRC, CS Lewis said (maybe in "God In The Dock"?) that since there are creatures capable of parthenogenesis (virgin birth), maybe God sort of went to an old part of the rule book. (Paraphrase.)
FWIW, YMMV.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sarah G
Shipmate
# 11669
|
Posted
The virginal birth thing doesn't have its roots in Isaiah 7:14, or any other part of the OT. A has been noted, the gist of alma is a young woman, the passage refers to the eschatological mission of Jesus, and there is nothing else in pre-Jesus OT Judaism which points to an expected virgin birth.
Parallel pagan tales are very different in feel and content, and making Jesus look like a pagan demi-god was not what the Early Church was all about.
In Matthew and Luke, we have two clearly independent and different sources, implying (a) multiple sources of number and form and (b) that the tradition pre-dates their composition, rather than being a late C1 composition.
Setting aside the 'miracle' thing, there's no easy historical alternative to the origin of the story other than that's what happened.
Finally, I don't see why anyone who believes God made the universe(s) should have a problem with Him fixing a virgin birth. He could do it simultaneously while checking His Facebook page and cooking a fry-up.
Posts: 514 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Mousethief quote:
I find it odd to say it doesn't exist in Acts, when Acts is the other half of Luke. It deals with events much later than Christ's birth. Why would one even expect it to go back in time, in terms of its own internal timeline, to take in something not directly relevant to the events it is portraying? Applying the argument from silence to the epistles makes little more sense. They are not about the biography of Christ. They deal mostly with soteriology and church polity and praxis. Not things that are directly touched on by the Virgin birth.
Sara G quote:
I don't see why anyone who believes God made the universe(s) should have a problem with Him fixing a virgin birth. He could do it simultaneously while checking His Facebook page and cooking a fry-up.
Fair points, but I think they help to make my point: namely, that the absence of references to the virgin birth, apart from early Matthew and Luke, suggests that it was not important for the development arguments regarding the provenance of Christ and his work of salvation. It is, however, important for those who link the notion of original sin to the biology of reproduction, but that argument has not been advanced here. Thus, while I would agree that God is capable of engineering a virgin birth and that could have been the case respecting the conception of Jesus, I don’t see why he would have chosen so to do.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Thus, while I would agree that God is capable of engineering a virgin birth and that could have been the case respecting the conception of Jesus, I don’t see why he would have chosen so to do.
I don't see why God chooses to do many of the things that he does.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Spot on Sarah G.
It happened, everybody knew, the synoptic writers were looking to explain what had happened from their now invalid hermeneutic.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
Agree that the NT authors and Matthew in particular do not "follow the rules" of hermeneutics as we understand them today, especially re OT prophecy. I think the "rules" are important, and useful, but I also think the fact that the NT authors don't follow them is also interesting. Among other things, I think it suggests interesting things about the way Christians read the OT in distinctly different ways that Jewish readers. Not wrong or better, just distinctly different, as per our own unique pov. Nothing wrong with that, but important to acknowledge it rather than pretending we're not.
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I doubt the virgin birth doctrine has anything to do with Christ being God. Nobody I'm aware of in mainstream Christianity thinks that Godhood is transmitted genetically/hereditarily, as blue eyes or pointy ears might be.
I think the function of the doctrine is to point out "hey, God is doing something new here, pay attention!" a la Isaiah 43, and also to emphasize both Jesus' continuity with the rest of humanity (via Mary) and his discontinuity (via the act-of-new-creation that made a fatherless birth possible).
A child born from these circumstances cannot be classified as non-human (and therefore unable to share in the burdens of humanity, or able to redeem them as an interested individual). Nor can he be classed as just an ordinary person. The doctrine forces us to look more closely.
Beautiful. ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Both wrong, but apart from that
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Moo quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Thus, while I would agree that God is capable of engineering a virgin birth and that could have been the case respecting the conception of Jesus, I don’t see why he would have chosen so to do.
Moo: I don't see why God chooses to do many of the things that he does.
In such cases, therefore, there is nothing much one can say about them, Moo. Like the virgin birth they are of little interest or reasonable consequence for our understanding of God and his purposes. That does not preclude them of being hugely important beyond our finite minuscule comprehension. Unfortunate, but there it is.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
Does nobody accept that the Virgin Birth is meant as a theological statement rather than a biological statement?
The theology is that our salvation begins and ends with God. God takes the initiative in our salvation.
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
I'd agree that it's significance is primarily theological rather than biological. I see 'rather than' as a false dichotomy though.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
There'd be no theological without the biological.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
shamwari--
Both theological and biological, I think. It was an event where God joined with a particular human (however that happened) and produced a baby (however that happened) who was also God.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
Does nobody accept that the Virgin Birth is meant as a theological statement rather than a biological statement?
The theology is that our salvation begins and ends with God. God takes the initiative in our salvation.
If we are speaking of the Biblical writers, I think it is fair that they would be puzzled by a distinction between the theological and the biological.
It's the problem with Dom Crossan who once argued that the ancients took everything symbolically and we moderns are foolish enough to take it literally. That perspective is a gross oversimplification of the pre-Enlightenment mindset. The ancient view was that the symbolic was real, they believed for example that Christ had a virgin birth, because reality was always imbued with meaning and purpose. It is the Enlightenment that disenchanted reality, that basically suggested that natural processes had no theological purpose.
To put it differently, in the story of Jacob begetting children through Leah and Rachel, the writer mentions that God "opened their wombs." Natural, "normal" human conception is still seen as an act of the divine will, the ancients did not believe that normal human conception was "natural" and the virgin birth was "supernatural". God who acted through the normal processes of biology, could indeed act differently if God so chose.
I don't have a huge issue with Christians who have intellectual doubts about the virgin birth and can only see it as allegorical or spiritual. I do however take issue with projecting a modernist theology of symbol, back to the ancient authors.
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Superb Anglican_Brat. Your post. If only Jamat would join in.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Anglican-Brat quote:
I don't have a huge issue with Christians who have intellectual doubts about the virgin birth and can only see it as allegorical or spiritual. I do however take issue with projecting a modernist theology of symbol, back to the ancient authors.
I don't think your point is in any way controversial. In this case, of course, there is the difficulty of deciding what Isaiah 7:14 means in terms of what the writer intended, and whether or not Matthew was "projecting a modernist theology" of his own! .
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Excellent Kwesi! I see no difficulty. That's exactly what he did.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
As a point of historical interest, many of these objections are not new discoveries of modern scholarship; Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho, dated from the second century AD, endeavours to address the objections that almah doesn't mean 'virgin' and that the virgin birth was taken from pagan myths.
Text here; the objection relating to the translation is first raised in chapter XLIII, although Justin doesn't get round to answering it until much further down the page.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Superb Ricardus. If there was such scholarship in the C2nd there will have been in the C1st, even though he critiques the red herring of Hezekiah, when it's obviously all about Isaiah's second son. How did he miss that? How did I?! We're so easily deceived by the false hermeneutic of Matthew!
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sarah G
Shipmate
# 11669
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Thus, while I would agree that God is capable of engineering a virgin birth and that could have been the case respecting the conception of Jesus, I don’t see why he would have chosen so to do.
A good argument for the conclusion that the Early Church didn't invent the virgin birth. They would have agreed with your point, and the Gospel would have proceeded perfectly well without it.
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Agree that the NT authors and Matthew in particular do not "follow the rules" of hermeneutics as we understand them today, especially re OT prophecy. I think the "rules" are important, and useful, but I also think the fact that the NT authors don't follow them is also interesting. Among other things, I think it suggests interesting things about the way Christians read the OT in distinctly different ways that Jewish readers. Not wrong or better, just distinctly different, as per our own unique pov. Nothing wrong with that, but important to acknowledge it rather than pretending we're not.
Care is needed here. One of the things Paul put a lot of energy into doing was showing how the whole Jesus-story fits into the OT. He's reading the OT in exactly the same way as any C1 Jew in that respect- the hermeneutic is identical.
The difference comes, in that he believed that the OT promises had been implemented in full, and more; whereas his C1 Jewish compatriots mostly denied that.
There also needs to be care about understanding what how NT authors use texts. For example, a short quote often refers to a much longer passage- and looking up the context of a quote should be standard procedure.
One difference is that many modern Xians tend to use OT-prophecy-coming-true as an apologetics proof of 'Jesus', whereas the NT writers and the Early Church were seeing how events they had experienced had been described in the OT texts (event to text rather than text to event).
Posts: 514 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Bugger, Sarah G, you've beaten me to it with precision and elegance that I will not touch. Still:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Agree that the NT authors and Matthew in particular do not "follow the rules" of hermeneutics as we understand them today, especially re OT prophecy. I think the "rules" are important, and useful, but I also think the fact that the NT authors don't follow them is also interesting. Among other things, I think it suggests interesting things about the way Christians read the OT in distinctly different ways that Jewish readers. Not wrong or better,
When I said, 'Both wrong', above, this was the first. And I was probably wrong. Seeing what I was loaded to see. I compared the NT hermeneutic with ours and ours IS more right and better. But that's not in there? In what you were saying?
Because what is in there is the obvious differentiation of Jewish and Christian readings of the OT. I assume you mean cumulatively, consensually on either side to date. Not in the C1st (in which they were one and the same initially: Jewish and Christian). If so I feel that there can, should be no valid difference. That postmodern Jews and Christians would agree on what the OT says. It's Christians in general who are more likely to get it wrong; the unscholarly, the paradoxically Zionist. Religious non-messianic Jews certainly don't believe that Isaiah 7:14 presages Christ. Neither should Christians. Do any Jews believe that the post-exilically fulfilled prophecies have duality in 1948?
quote:
just distinctly different, as per our own unique pov. Nothing wrong with that, but important to acknowledge it rather than pretending we're not.
Again, I would expect nothing distinctly different. We're both messianic, the devout Jews are still waiting for the first coming (except the messianic Jews of course ...). I would expect postmodern scholars to agree regardless of being devoutly Jewish, Christian or atheist.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I doubt the virgin birth doctrine has anything to do with Christ being God.
This was my second of both wrongs. And I'm obviously missing something. The virgin birth is essential in Christ being God unless one has Spongiform theolopathy. And you don't LC.
quote:
quote:
Nobody I'm aware of in mainstream Christianity thinks that Godhood is transmitted genetically/hereditarily, as blue eyes or pointy ears might be.
I don't see the connection.
quote:
quote:
I think the function of the doctrine is to point out "hey, God is doing something new here, pay attention!" a la Isaiah 43, and also to emphasize both Jesus' continuity with the rest of humanity (via Mary) and his discontinuity (via the act-of-new-creation that made a fatherless birth possible).
A child born from these circumstances cannot be classified as non-human (and therefore unable to share in the burdens of humanity, or able to redeem them as an interested individual). Nor can he be classed as just an ordinary person. The doctrine forces us to look more closely.
Beautiful.
And you seem to be confirming the essentiality of the virgin birth.
I'll get me coat.
[ 06. November 2016, 17:27: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sarah G:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Agree that the NT authors and Matthew in particular do not "follow the rules" of hermeneutics as we understand them today, especially re OT prophecy. I think the "rules" are important, and useful, but I also think the fact that the NT authors don't follow them is also interesting. Among other things, I think it suggests interesting things about the way Christians read the OT in distinctly different ways that Jewish readers. Not wrong or better, just distinctly different, as per our own unique pov. Nothing wrong with that, but important to acknowledge it rather than pretending we're not.
Care is needed here. One of the things Paul put a lot of energy into doing was showing how the whole Jesus-story fits into the OT. He's reading the OT in exactly the same way as any C1 Jew in that respect- the hermeneutic is identical.
The difference comes, in that he believed that the OT promises had been implemented in full, and more; whereas his C1 Jewish compatriots mostly denied that.
I was thinking of the gospels more than Paul. While I would agree that Paul takes great pains to show how the Jesus-story fits with the OT (as does Matthew even more so) I'll have to ponder whether or not I would agree that Paul reads the OT in "the same way as any C1 Jew does". Certainly Matthew does not. I think there are probably significant difference for Paul as well, but I'd have to ponder on that. But the point being that "fitting with the OT' is not the same as "read the same way". They are making an apologetic based on Hebrew Scriptures, but not necessarily reading them the same way as their contemporaries. This is anathema to most OT scholars, of course, but I think the evidence is unmistakeable and we do a great deal of damage when we try to deny that-- either to the clearest intent of the NT text or to the 1c Jewish understanding.
quote:
Originally posted by Sarah G:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Kwesi:
[qb] Thus, while I would agree that God is capable of engineering a virgin birth and that could have been the case respecting the conception of Jesus, I don’t see why he would have chosen so to do.
A good argument for the conclusion that the Early Church didn't invent the virgin birth. They would have agreed with your point, and the Gospel would have proceeded perfectly well without it.
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
There also needs to be care about understanding what how NT authors use texts. For example, a short quote often refers to a much longer passage- and looking up the context of a quote should be standard procedure.
One difference is that many modern Xians tend to use OT-prophecy-coming-true as an apologetics proof of 'Jesus', whereas the NT writers and the Early Church were seeing how events they had experienced had been described in the OT texts (event to text rather than text to event).
Agree with the above. "Foreshadowing" is often the word used instead of the more traditional "prophesy" to describe those sort of references to the OT. I don't think that translates into "the same as 1c Jews" through.
Martin: sorry buddy, once again, I'm not following what you're saying/ asking/ disputing so can't really respond. Sorry!
[ 15. November 2016, 05:16: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
Sorry-- messed up my editing in the middle there so it looks like the response to Kwei's comment on the virgin birth is mine, when in fact it was Sarah's. I'm not really disputing or commenting on what either is saying there, just a random thought that got left in there with my editing by mistake.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
...And then the final bolded quote is attributed to me when it is Sarah's comment, which I am responding to.
Not sure how I managed to mess it up so much. Enough there for much confusion. Bleh
[ 15. November 2016, 05:21: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Martin: sorry buddy, once again, I'm not following what you're saying/ asking/ disputing so can't really respond. Sorry!
Aye cliffdweller. I was confused by what LC said, which you endorsed: "I doubt the virgin birth doctrine has anything to do with Christ being God.", although she then went on as if she assumed the VB, which is what I expect of you both.
The Virgin Birth surely, therefore, has everything to do with Christ being God, although, of course, there is no God chromosome. A point she went on to make in effect.
Theological liberals beyond us would say that Jesus was conceived normally by Mary's lover before she married Joseph and that the Second Person of God intersected His nature, whatever that is, on the resulting completely ordinary human brain and its emergent mind in some way.
We conservative theological liberals don't accept the former, we accept the Matthian horse without the Matthian cart of Isaiah. And we accept the latter.
I see God's respect of Mary (who'd have been well within her rights to decline the honour) and subsequently of humanity in not taking possession of a normally conceived human.
We are still left with the ultimate mystery of what Jesus, the incarnate hypostatic union of natures - whatever they are, was.
Anybody else ever felt that there is an implicit promise of universalism in the Incarnation? If any human being can be given a divine nature then ALL can and will be. Otherwise God COULD have done something better: impart divine nature at EVERY conception.
[ 16. November 2016, 11:36: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Martin: sorry buddy, once again, I'm not following what you're saying/ asking/ disputing so can't really respond. Sorry!
Aye cliffdweller. I was confused by what LC said, which you endorsed: "I doubt the virgin birth doctrine has anything to do with Christ being God.", although she then went on as if she assumed the VB, which is what I expect of you both.
The Virgin Birth surely, therefore, has everything to do with Christ being God, although, of course, there is no God chromosome.
There is, of course, a mystery - how can the Infinite become incarnate in a finite human being, how can the Creator become one of His creatures?
I don't think the Virgin Birth actually directly addresses that mystery. Born of Mary, Christ is still begotten not created, still human, still finite. The birth narratives all point to His humanity, but they are also signs of something more. Signs point to something, they are not themselves that something. The Virgin Birth points to Christ being God Incarnate, that reality would not be any different in the absence of the sign.
I think it's possible to believe in the full divinity of Christ without accepting the Virgin Birth. Likewise, it's possible to accept the Virgin Birth and not accept the divinity of Christ.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
I like the bifurcations Alan. And the semiotics. Without the signs, the claims are even more vastly reduced for the vast majority of mortals. We end up with rationalized, reductionist humanism. No transcendent hope. The end result of Spongiform theolopathy. Well I do. Nothing in my back yard says 'Therefore God.'. Full Monte Jesus does.
For the liberal liberal He doesn't even need to have been resurrected, so He doesn't need to have been conceived of the Holy Ghost. Or even have existed. I don't have that much faith. The fullness of physicalist reality is otherwise totally overwhelming.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Martin: sorry buddy, once again, I'm not following what you're saying/ asking/ disputing so can't really respond. Sorry!
Aye cliffdweller. I was confused by what LC said, which you endorsed: "I doubt the virgin birth doctrine has anything to do with Christ being God.", although she then went on as if she assumed the VB, which is what I expect of you both.
The Virgin Birth surely, therefore, has everything to do with Christ being God, although, of course, there is no God chromosome. A point she went on to make in effect.
LC is of course very very capable of speaking for herself, but my interpretation of her remark (what I was agreeing with) is that the virgin birth is not essential to the notion of the incarnation-- i.e. God could become human in all sorts of ways, it didn't
have to be a virgin birth. I would see the virgin birth the way John in particular posits all the Jesus-miracle stories: as a sign. They as a whole and the virgin birth in particular are pointing us to the new thing that God is doing in brining about His Kingdom.
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Theological liberals beyond us would say that Jesus was conceived normally by Mary's lover before she married Joseph and that the Second Person of God intersected His nature, whatever that is, on the resulting completely ordinary human brain and its emergent mind in some way.
We conservative theological liberals don't accept the former, we accept the Matthian horse without the Matthian cart of Isaiah. And we accept the latter.
"Conservative theological liberal"??? A bit of an oxymoron, but that probably fits for me. And as such, I would agree. I accept the virgin birth, not because of a dubious (albeit bolstered by the LXX) translation of Isaiah 7, but because of Matthew's witness.
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
I see God's respect of Mary (who'd have been well within her rights to decline the honour) and subsequently of humanity in not taking possession of a normally conceived human.
hmmm... this does not follow for me. But it may hinge on what you mean by "taking possession of"-- if you're talking about "possessing" in something like what we envision with a demonic possession-- taking over the person's autonomy and control-- then yeah, I guess I would see declining to do so as an act of respect-- altho I would see the respect to be of the inhabited person (the "normally conceived human being") rather than of Mary per se. But I don't think those are the only options as to how it could have been done/look like. But we are way way off in the speculative weeds now. Suffice it to say that the virgin birth was a sign of the new thing that is becoming.
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Anybody else ever felt that there is an implicit promise of universalism in the Incarnation? If any human being can be given a divine nature then ALL can and will be. Otherwise God COULD have done something better: impart divine nature at EVERY conception.
I don't think Jesus was "given" a divine nature, I think he eternally was and is God-- i.e. his nature IS one with the divine nature. So I don't think universalizing that follows. The Christ-event is a unique event. We cannot become Christ. But we can follow Christ, we can become Christ-like, we can live into our creation as image-bearers. But we are the image of the Creator, not the Creator itself.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
Could Jesus be the Messiah if Joseph was the father?
I think not, according to Matthew's genealogy. The descendant of David, Jeconiah, was cursed and his offspring denied the privilege of sitting on the throne.
If Jesus was descended from him then he is debarred from being King.
quote:
“Record this man as if childless, a man who will not prosper in his lifetime, for none of his offspring will prosper, none will sit on the throne of David or rule anymore in Judah” (Jeremiah 22 v 30
If Jesus is the son of Mary and another man, not Joseph, then she is an adulteress.
[ 16. November 2016, 17:00: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
cliffdweller. Jesus was a new creation. A new Adam. A new entity. A new hypostasis, a new person according to Chalcedon. If He pre-existed as a person, then He replaced a human being. Didn't just possess one, obliterated it. If He pre-existed as the Son, congruently, the same entity, what happened to the transfinite, pre-eternal Second Person of the Godhead between Jesus' conception (the ultimate collapsar, of a Person of God in to a fertilized human ovum) and resurrection? Who was minding the store? And don't say it's a mystery!
It's all about what we mean by nature in the Chalcedonian Creed. We can't go any further until that is resolved.
I submit that you are not being Chalcedonian.
Chalcedon seems to be implying that Jesus is fully God the Son of God and fully Son of Man by nature and the (new, unique) hypostasis of those natures in a (new, unique) person.
No?
We HAVE to speculate. As Alan Guth does cosmologically in such a way as to make the physical self-explanatory, complete.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Sorry, you DO talk of His divine nature and that that constitutes Him being fully God.
But it DOESN'T. We blur God and Man as adjectival nouns. We say He was fully human, man and fully divine, God (in His natures) and forget we are talking natures. Whatever they are. And we strain toward ... and more ... Him being two persons, unconsciously. We assume it under the surface.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
[QUOTE] We HAVE to speculate.
Au contraire that is why we have the scripture.
Luke's genealogy is the bloodline and it excludes Jeconiah which is another tick for fulfilment of prophecy. Jer 22:30 (Coniah mentioned here is Jeconiah)
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Sorry?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
[QUOTE] We HAVE to speculate.
Au contraire that is why we have the scripture.
Luke's genealogy is the bloodline and it excludes Jeconiah which is another tick for fulfilment of prophecy. Jer 22:30 (Coniah mentioned here is Jeconiah)
Luke's genealogy is Mary's genealogy and, not including Jeconiah, proves that Mary (and Jesus) are related to King David by another route.
One must exclude Joseph.
[ 16. November 2016, 23:08: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
[QUOTE] We HAVE to speculate.
Au contraire that is why we have the scripture.
Luke's genealogy is the bloodline and it excludes Jeconiah which is another tick for fulfilment of prophecy. Jer 22:30 (Coniah mentioned here is Jeconiah)
Luke's genealogy is Mary's genealogy and, not including Jeconiah, proves that Mary (and Jesus) are related to King David by another route.
One must exclude Joseph.
Exactly
[ 16. November 2016, 23:45: Message edited by: Jamat ]
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
[QUOTE] We HAVE to speculate.
Au contraire that is why we have the scripture.
Luke's genealogy is the bloodline and it excludes Jeconiah which is another tick for fulfilment of prophecy. Jer 22:30 (Coniah mentioned here is Jeconiah)
Luke's genealogy is Mary's genealogy and, not including Jeconiah, proves that Mary (and Jesus) are related to King David by another route.
One must exclude Joseph.
Whatever works for you Mudfrog. I'm sure it's all totally accurate but it wouldn't matter to me if it wasn't recorded. It mattered then to some.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
[QUOTE] We HAVE to speculate.
Au contraire that is why we have the scripture.
Luke's genealogy is the bloodline and it excludes Jeconiah which is another tick for fulfilment of prophecy. Jer 22:30 (Coniah mentioned here is Jeconiah)
Luke's genealogy is Mary's genealogy
Not so fast. How the heck do you get that from quote:
Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli, 24 the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melchi,
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
As I understand it, Matthew says that Joseph’s father was a chap called Jacob but Luke says it was someone called Heli.
People greater than me have studied this and they say that actually, Heli is Mary’s father and the family tree is Mary’s. And where it says that Joseph was the son of Heli it signifies that he was actually adopted by Mary’s Dad.
That sounds really contrived but the law at the time said that if a woman had no brothers, and it seems Mary didn’t - then Joseph her husband had to become the adopted son and heir of his father in law, because only a man could inherit.
Mary’s father Heli had no sons, so Mary’s husband became Heli's son.
The family tree is therefore of Mary, with Joseph included as the adopted son of Heli, Mary's natural father.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
