| Re: It's Christmas! | |
| Posted By Evangelical Christian on 16 Dec 2013 at 2:29AM |
Commentary
|
| JimC says, "Luke doesn't mention a virgin birth." What???? Try Luke 1:26-28. She is identified as a virgin expressly. And Mary, in verse 34, is mystified because "...I am a virgin." | It's debateable that she is a virgin due to the mistranslation. But the point is she is not pregnant at the time. |
| JimC says, "Luke says Gabriel gave the explanation to Mary while she was awake before Jesus was conceived." That is true, but you have no point. Again, it would be helpful for you to read Luke 1:26-28. That passage is clear. | The point is she is not pregnant at the time. |
| JimC says, "Matthew says Mary’s pregnancy was announced by an angel only to Joseph while he was dreaming, after Jesus had been conceived." Even a so-called circular and fallacious argument--a phrase JimC is prone to use--does not keep the statement from being an outright distortion of what Matthew says. | There is no circular argument here. Matthew doesn't mention the angel described by Luke. Matthew says Joseph was informed by an angel in a dream. That's not a distortion. |
| You say in Matthew the angel only announced it to Joseph. Sure, the angel appeared and "spoke" to Joseph in a dream. Mary was pregnant, i.e., "...found to be with child." The angel tells Joseph "...do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit." At this point, Joseph is not the ONLY one to whom the angel appeared; first, obviously, there was Mary. | Why “obviously”? There is no mention in Matthew that the angel had appeared first to Mary. |
| JimC says, "virgin" is a mistranslation of Isaiah 7:14. In making that argument, JimC is trying to present someone's minority opinion argument to be fact. | That is the opinion of many historians, Christian theologians and Jewish theologians. It is not a minority opinion |
| The word the translations of the Bible interpret as "virgin" was in fact used a few times in the Old Testament to also describe a young girl. | In fact there is a different word for virgin used in the Bible |
| All translations I know of translate the word as "virgin". | Obviously there are transalations you don't know of |
| Realize that non-biblical material does exist; these experts know lots about how people lived and talked. For example, a friend might politely ask a father about the sickness of the daughter; to have the word understood as a "young girl" is less ... awkward than asking about the father's virgin | Yes that would be awkward and confusing. That's why Hewbrew has different words for virgin and “young girl”. |
| I will not type it out, but reading Isaiah. 7:10-14 is helpful in seeing the obvious context. | It is the prophecy which the author of Matthew was attempting to show had come true. And he mistranslated it. |
| And, of course, Mary expressly speaks her astonishment, being told she is to have a baby but having never been with a man. | Not in Isaiah she doesn't |
| God in Isaiah is saying He is giving "...a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive...." A pregnant young girl not a virgin would not be much of a sign! Context, context, context! | Actually a young girl conceiving via an angel would be pretty amazing |
Posted By JimC on 16 Dec 2013 at 7:23AM
To clarify:
| Re: It's Christmas! | |
| Posted By Evangelical Christian on 17 Dec 2013 at 12:46AM |
Commentary
|
| The two Gospels, Luke and Matthew, do not conflict. You seem to be bothered that all four Gospel do not repeat each other or cover the same subjects totally. | The two gospels tell the story so differently it's almost like two different stories |
| When you say there's nothing to suggest she will be a virgin when she gets pregnant, I am proud that I have refrained myself from saying what I might easily have said to you. Read the Gospels for yourself! Certainly, no one has to believe Mary or Paul or Matthew, Mark, Luke or John, but it doesn't surprise me that you don't believe. Still, the Gospels would be better sources for you than your internet reading. | This is just a rant - there's no argument here. So to repeat: There is no explicit statement that Mary will be a virgin while she is pregnant with Jesus. I have read the Gospels and also several academic and theological studies of the gospels. |
| Your idea of mistranslation is nothing more than repeating your opinion that someone else's opinion is better than the basically unanimous translations of the word meaning "virgin". I have already responded to that, with reasons. Again, you bring the exact claim back with no further reasoning included. You have no reason to insist on the mistranslation claim being factual. I look forward to your third bare claim of mistranslation. | The translations are obviously not unanimous because there is an academic and theological debate about the translations. |
| Sources unknown? Matthew was the tax collector, much hated by the Israelies. His tax collector name was Levi. He was one of the disciples chosen by Jesus and he was there from near beginning of Jesus' ministry until the end. | There is a character called Matthew in the Gospels, but there's no evidence he wrote the gospel of Matthew |
| Mark was the nephew of Barnabus and the son of a widow in whose home or compound the disciples and Jesus frequently stayed when in the area. As a young man Mark was around the disciples and Jesus. Further, on the night of Jesus' arrest in the Garden of Gethsemane there is reason to believe the young man in night clothes was Mark. When the men left Mark's home that night, the young Mark may have covertly followed to watch, we suppose (like a youngster sneaking in under the circus tent these days--sorry, all I could think of.) He fled the scene quickly when the armed men came to arrest Jesus. One grabbed for him and Mark (it is thought) slipped out of his night clothes leaving the "soldier" with a handfull of cloth. Later, Mark traveled with Peter and was his interpreter--Mark being well educated and the area having considerable international trade with several languages spoken. He also went on a missionary journey with Paul and Barnabus--but left them after awhile to come home. Also, the "anonymous" Mark (hee hee hee) had the nickname of "stubby fingers". So, three cheers for your claim that the "sources of the information are unknown and the authors are anonymous." That is crazy--note that I didn't express say you were crazy. | This is all off topic. Mark is not part of the discussion. But the fact is there's no evidence that the character of Mark who features in various stories is the person who wrote the gospel of Mark. The gospels are anonymous. |
| Luke traveled with Paul lots. He is thought to have been Paul's physician. Luke tells us at the start he compiled "a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us." (ESV) "Eyewitnesses," he says, from the beginning is his source. Luke also said he personally had followed all things closely for some time past. He wrote the Gospel of Luke and Acts--add that to your reading list. | Again, there's no evidence that Luke wrote the gospel of Luke. There is evidence that the same author wrote Luke and Acts, to the extent that they are considered to be a single document. |
| His major sources would likely include the disciples and even Mary, mother of Jesus. | Likely? There's no evidence to support that statement. |
| Think upon that! | I am! |
| John's Gospel is not one of the synotic Gospels. He was not trying to set things out in chronological order, but to concentrate on the teachings and the Spiritual things of God. In addition, John wrote other New Testament books. | Again, John is not part of the topic. And again, no evideuce that someone called John wrote the gospel of John. |
| So, three cheers for your claim that the "sources of the information are unknown and the authors are anonymous." That claim is crazy--note that I didn't expressly say you were crazy. | It is not my claim. It is the opinion of many historians, academics and theologians, including Christian theologians. |
Posted By JimC on 17 Dec 2013 at 7:57AM
In answer to your latest points:
| Re: It's Christmas! | |
| Posted By Evangelical Christian on 17 Dec 2013 at 5:00PM |
Commentary
|
| You actually think the opinions on wikipedia are of the finest academic opinions! No, you can't be that naive and get by in the world. | Fair enough – using wikipedia was lazy. Guilty as charged |
| If it were possible to certify a color as the standard for the color--for red, for example. Then if you allowed people without knowledge of the "certification" to choose "red" and express their opinions about a series of redish swatches (color samples), you would undoubtedly find multiple opinions, some arguing vigorously for dark pink, while others go for a shade of purple, etc, etc. | I don't understand this analogy at all. It seems to imply that interpretation of Scripture is as subjective as one's taste in interior decoration, which is arguably true. But perhaps that's not what it's supposed to illustrate. |
| Your first point is silly. You say "no mention" Mary will be a vigin when she conceives. With the same silliness, I counter simply that there is no mention that she wasn't. | Indeed there is no mention in the Luke gospel that Mary will be a virgin when she conceives. Christians assume she was a virgin when jesus was conceived because of the back-reference (in the Matthew gospel) to the prophecy. Assuming that Mary is a virgin because there is no mention that she wasn't is indeed a silly argument. Assuming Mary was a virgin when there's no evidence that she was is also silly I suppose. |
| What is not silly is the angel going to Joseph, who was ready to end his engagement because of Mary being pregnant. The angel explains it Joseph. Joseph worries no more about the virtue or purity of his wife-to-be. Oh...you could say the Gospels don't tell us Joseph took Mary out to eat on their first wedding anniversary. Ohhh, good point! Well, better than yours anyway. | There is no mention of an angel going to Joseph. According to Matthew it was a dream. Luke chooses not to mention this at all. |
| "The translations...are obviously not unanimous, otherwise there would be no debate." Oh yeah! I'm choosing my red from the blood red swatch--with less brown in it maybe. | Again there seems to be an implication that Biblical interpretation is a subjective matter of taste. |
| What is beyond serious debate is that the word for "virgin" is consistently used to say "virgin" in the Old Testament accounts and in the New Testament over and over. | The Hebrew texts use different words for “virgin” and “young girl”. The prophecy which is assumed in Matthew to predict a virgin birth is not using the word for virgin. It's using the world for young girl. |
| It is no secret among Christian scholars that the same word can be used in different ways. Context is why the translations say "virgin". Yes, the word was also used to talk of a young woman of marriageable age--which was very young by modern standards. The reasonably informed Christian sees no shame in that--and the reasonably informed atheist would realize he has no point. | As we shall see later, the mistranslation of “young girl” for “virgin” comes from Christian and Jewish scholars. It has nothing to do with atheism. |
| This interchange of meaning poses no problem--except to atheists--because of context, context and more context. | It's not a problem for atheists. None of the analyses of the Bible referred to here come from atheists. |
| The OT prophets told of a miraculous sign of a virgin giving birth. The NT's constant recognition of the proper use of the word to mean "virgin" definitely gives us the unmistakeable context. Yep, that's what the nativity narratives were all about. | Virgin births are a common feature in many myths and legends in many cultures. But in this case it does seem the prophecy in the Bible has been mistranslated. And of course the same word can be used in diferent ways. But when there's one word for virgin, and a different word for young girl, it doesn't make sense to use the word for “young girl” when referring to “virgin”. |
| P.S, I bet you don't believe Jesus called Lararus from the tomb, or healed those with leprosy, or walked on water. So? I would not expect you to believe in the virgin birth either. You are entitled to your opinion and to take your alleged facts from wikipedia contributors if you want. I point out, this is the third time you've made this claim. | I don't believe in those events because there's no evidence. But it's true that referring to wikipedia was a bit lazy, even though the Wikipedia entry is based on academic sources. |
| I'm out of time and this post is long. I'll try to respond later to the other bullets of your offering. Don't you worry; you'll find it interesting and educational with facts of which you apparently were not aware. | I don't think the original points were ever responded to. |
Posted By JimC on 17 Dec 2013 at 7:36PM
You are right to criticise me for using wikipedia, it is a lazy thing to do. All contributors please note: Wikipedia is officially out of bounds on this db from now on !
All four Gospels are anonymous in the sense that none includes the author's name. The traditional names - Matthew, Mark, Luke and John - did not become associated with these writings until the second century. In the early centuries of Christianity, our four Gospels coexisted with a number of other Christian writings, many of which have not been preserved. Finally, the Synod of Carthage adopted the present twenty-seven New Testament books, including the four Gospels, as the canon of the New Testament in the year 397.
| Re: It's Christmas! | |
| Posted By Evangelical Christian on 18 Dec 2013 at 2:12AM |
Commentary
|
| Your "The Christian Bible Reference Site" is a joke. It even expresses that the material you cite so proudly came from Marshall and Lockyer, individuals entitled to their opinions...even if wrong. | The site doesn't appear to be a joke. It appears to be a well established Christian resource. And Marshall and Lockyer are well respected historians and academics. |
| Without question, the author did not identify himself. This causes a highly respected Christian writer and editor of a best selling study Bible and otherwise an academic giant to consider all objections to Matthew being the author of the Gospel named after him, citing other scholars as well as Papias, Eusebius and Irenaeus from the first and second century--all taking it for granted that there was no dispute about Matthew writing Matthew--and he states Matthew may have been written as early as A.D. 50, according to scholars. The estimates vary, but "Almost no one" would say it was written after A.D. 100. "Subsequent tradition is unanimous"...that Matthew, one of the disciples, was the author of the Gospel. And "...not until the eighteenth century was this tradition doubted." | There's no citation here so it's hard to tell where this information is coming from, other than a reference to a “best selling study Bible”. But it seems there is agreement that the authors of the gospels did not identify themselves. Therefore they are anonymous. |
| JimC says, "I think there's a flaw in your logic that Mary was a virgin because, to use your words, there is no mention that she wasn't." | Well, there is! |
| With this, JimC has hit a new low in discussion board argument. I responded to JimC when he was saying that nothing says Mary was a virgin when she became pregnant. I expressly described that as a silly argument and expressly said I could be just as silly and say nothing says she wasn't a virgin. | I must admit I missed the point that this silly argument was being deliberately posted as a silly argument. So that was my mistake. But it is still a silly argument. The argument that nothing says Mary was a virgin when she became pregnant is a different argument and is not silly. We should not assume things are true if there's no evidence. |
| Now he cuts that discusion and distorts what I said. I urge every reader of this discussion thread to go up to the top and read for yourself. You will see that what I say is correct. JimC has shown himself as intentionally dishonest; he even flaunts his deceit for all of us to see. I suppose he thinks he'll get by with it because people won't take time to look it up...so please go see for yourself. The man is not truthful. | I certainly didn't mean to distort what was said. I referred to what was said word for word and pointed out it was a silly argument. We're all agreed it's a silly argument. |
Posted By JimC on 18 Dec 2013 at 8:14AM
I'm surprised at your contempt for the theologians Ian Howard Marshall and Herbert Lockyer, who are both highly respected.
Nelson's Illustrated Bible Dictionary (Herbert Lockyer, editor)
| Re: It's Christmas! | |
| Posted By Evangelical Christian on 18 Dec 2013 at 5:24PM |
Commentary
|
| Nonsense! You knew exactly what you said when you first made your argument and then you repeated it--and knew it was stupid when you did. Therefore, you took my response illustrating your argument was stupid and framed it to make it appear it was my stupid argument and not as showing the stupidity of yours. | I have already admitted that I didn't spot the silly argument was being posted as a deliberately silly argument. I made a mistake! However, the (silly) argument that Mary was a virgin because the Bible doesn't say she wasn't, is not the same as the (sensible) argument that we mustn't assume Mary was a virgin (according to Luke) when she conceived because Luke doesn't say that. Matthew does. Luke doesn't. |
| You still don't acknowledge it was you that argued the Bible doesn't say Mary was a virgin when she became pregnant. | I'm being misquoted. What I said was Luke doesn't say Maray was a virgin when she became pregnant. It's Matthew who implies that with a back-reference to the OT prophecy |
| Also, if you have any sincerity about your argument, read Matthew 1:25 where good translations say Joseph did not know her and she remained a virgin until she had given birth to her Son--so as meaningless as your argument is, it is also factually wrong. | Well, let's ignore the point that the word “good” is being used here as a euphemism for an argument that supports a particular opinion. This argument is somewhat pointless because it was made clear that Matthew says this. The point was Luke doesn't |
| My point about the "conference" was it is not some widespread group representing Protestantism in the U.S. or anywhere else, most probably. You say they are highly respected--probably so, by people like you. I'm sure each of the two men have opinions. Big deal. Pick and choose an opinion! Opinions are everywhere. | There seems to be a confusion here between the Christian website which explains the flaws in the virgin birth translations, and the “two men” Marshall and Lockyer, who have no connection with the wesite at all. The website refers to their work. |
| You try to say Matthew was not the author of Matthew. Instead of reading conclusions of the clowns, try examining their flimsy reasoning for the argument, to-wit: Some say Matthew used some passages of Mark's work to make his points. (To me that shows Matthew had confidence in Mark.) Oh, but some doubters say Mark was not even one of the original Apostles and Matthew would never use what Mark said--(yet probably no Gospel author knew the words and sermons of Peter and Paul as well as Mark.) | If the reference to “clowns” is aimed at academics such as Marshall and Lockyer then that's just ad hominem. The argument that the gospels are anonymous has nothing to do with the reference to Mark. It's a simple fact that they are anonymous. |
| If you think that line spurious shallow argument is good, you should see that your "heros" were not original Apostles either and they didn't know Peter and Paul on a personal basis. Suddenly, eighteen centuries later they shouted "Eureka" and claim superior knowledge? | Not sure who my “heros” [sic] are. If there's an implication here that people in the 18th century had superior knowledge to people in the first century, I'd say that's generally true. |
| You can cite to your favorite opinions, but the great body of work is done by scholars recognizing that Matthew was accepted as the author from the first century--without douobt--until the late 1800s when Biblical "criticism" became a fad in German Theological circles. | No citation, so hard to judge how reliable this opinion is. |
| By the way, the influence of such "criticism" has faded greatly in more recent times--but probably not in athiest circles. | Again a reference to “athiest” [sic]. None of the sources used here are from atheists. |
Posted By JimC on 18 Dec 2013 at 5:53PM
I honestly didn't realise you were deliberately making a silly argument. I agree it was a silly argument.| Re: It's Christmas! | |
| Posted By Evangelical Christian on 19 Dec 2013 at 11:46PM |
Commentary
|
| You're not being honest and you know it. | This is just ad hominem. I have been honest. And the points made above are just ignored. |
<END OF THREAD>
No comments:
Post a Comment