Let's have a discussion on the virgin birth

Author: Tradesecret

Posts

Total: 124
Topic's author
#1
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,432
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
No abuse. No derogatory language. No trolling or abuse. 

The NT indicates that Jesus was born of a virgin.  Matthew 1:23 indicates this confirms Isaiah 7:14. Luke also confirms Mary was a virgin.  Most of the NT does not refer to this event again - although it is picked up in John's Revelation. Silence of the topic is not a valid / compelling argument. 

Some scholars indicate rightly that the Hebrew word in Isaiah means young woman not virgin.  No one says it is impossible to translate it virgin.  The Septuagint - an OT Greek translation by Jewish scholars pre Jesus, did translate the word virgin.  

Some scholars indicate that there are better words for virgin if that meant to be the point. 

NT Christian scholars would indicate that the translation of the word in the NT from the OT is confirmed firstly, by the inspiration of the Spirit of God who breathed it out and confirmed its meaning.  Secondly that the Septuagint which was commonly used at that time by Jews and the Christians, including Paul, translated it that way. thirdly, that the context in the gospels of Matthew and Luke clearly understood it to mean virgin. Fourthly, though it is acknowledged it may well have other meanings and moreover virgin is not its primary meaning, it is not impossible for it to mean virgin since indeed Jewish scholars have translated it that way. Fifthly, the fact that other words could have conveyed virgin better does not prevent this Hebrew from using it.  6thly the context of Is 7:14 does not forbid this translation - or else the translators of the Septuagint would never have done so.  

so let's hear what others think. 


#2
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
A discussion for Pharisees who, had they been in the crowd listening to the Sermon on the Mount, would have called out,  "Wait, Rabbi!  Before I can take any of this too seriously, we need to discuss your mother's sex life... "

Jesus is not recorded as having made this claim and I am quite confident that he would have considered the question entirely irrelevant to the lessons he was teaching.   
#3
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,060
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Tradesecret
Painful one would imagine.


So what was Mary's age?

Is this mentioned in the Bible? 
Topic's author
#4
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,432
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@oromagi
A discussion for Pharisees who, had they been in the crowd listening to the Sermon on the Mount, would have called out,  "Wait, Rabbi!  Before I can take any of this too seriously, we need to discuss your mother's sex life... "

Jesus is not recorded as having made this claim and I am quite confident that he would have considered the question entirely irrelevant to the lessons he was teaching.   
How do you know Jesus never raised it? Surely you don't think everything Jesus ever raised is known? I accept Jesus never raised it in the gospels. But then again two of the 4 gospels which give us so much information about Jesus did raise it.   

If the Pharisees had known Jesus was born in Bethlehem, rather than thinking he was born in Nazareth, then it may have started their minds thinking in other directions.  The religious leaders certainly knew about the time Jesus was going to be born when Herod asked.  I wonder if you could put together the reasoning they had to be so concise and within two years.  

Do you think that the Pharisees did not know about the Isaiah passage? And its Greek translation in the Septuagint? Were they concerned about it? I don't know. But did they know about it? I'm confident they did.  

Yet the virgin birth was not for the Pharisees benefit. It is for us. And for Christians after that time who were reliant upon the Jewish Scriptures and prophecies.  

What makes you so confident Jesus would have thought it was irrelevant? 
Topic's author
#5
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,432
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@zedvictor4
Painful one would imagine.


So what was Mary's age?

Is this mentioned in the Bible? 
I think all births are pretty painful.  One of the unfortunate side effects of the curses. 

Mary's age is not mentioned anywhere in the Bible.   Not that I am aware anyway. 

Was there a legal age to get married in their time? If so, then obviously she was at the legal age. If not, then that would be unhelpful. 

Some people speculate and say she was very young, say 14.  The question is whether that was unusual for that time or not? I don't know.  


#6
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
I have to abuse the demonic study of



Biology
Topic's author
#7
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,432
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@RationalMadman
I have to abuse the demonic study of



Biology

No abuse. Even of demons. or their biology. 
#8
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@Tradesecret
What is the resolution here - 'Alma' can mean "virgin". If so, this is true. Does that mean it is always correct to translate it this way? No.  Does this mean Jesus was born of a virgin? No. 

I'm not sure what the argument is.
#9
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,608
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@SkepticalOne
Interesting that Jesus doesn't once mention his "miraculous conception" . And neither do any of Jesus' inner circle of 12 disciples. 
And they must have been far too dumb to work out for themselves that the woman said to be Jesus' Mother was all human with inherited sin making her offspring also riddled in sin and all very human.
#10
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 806
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
A couple of points:
the "Septuagint" refers to the translation by 72 scholars in the 2nd or 3rd century BCE. It was only of the 5 books of Moses, not the prophets. The larger text often referred to as the LXX has unknown authorship and is not an accurate translation. https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/messiahtruth/viewtopic.php?p=86541#p86541 for more info

the word in 7:14 means young woman. I don't think there is any place where it can be translated as virgin. In Gen 24:43, παρθένος is not found, though the same hebrew word as is used in Isaiah is used. Same with Ex 2:8 as far as I can tell.

The wiki page refers to 9 uses of the word in the Jewish texts. In two cases, the Greek chooses the word which you translate into English as "virgin" (though the wiki page indicates that it might not mean that, in terms of sexual identity, the woman has never been with a man). In the other case, the woman in question (Rebecca) is specifically called a betulah earlier in Gen 24 (by the divine narrator), and the text explains that she had never slept with a man. But when the story is retold by Eliezer, he uses the word Almah because there is no way that he could know her sexual history. So while the almah was, in fact, a virgin, that can't be derived from the retelling of someone who didn't know this and who chose a generic word instead of the one the text had recently used to give her sexual history.
#11
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tradesecret
I would describe the circumstances leading to a virgin birth as follows.


"She sat in it."
#12
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 968
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
What would happen if Jesus and the "virgin Mary" took a Paternity Test. 
Topic's author
#13
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,432
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@SkepticalOne
What is the resolution here - 'Alma' can mean "virgin". If so, this is true. Does that mean it is always correct to translate it this way? No.  Does this mean Jesus was born of a virgin? No. 

I'm not sure what the argument is.
The word may mean virgin.  That is the point.  It cannot be ruled out which is what some people wrongly like to say.  The argument that the NT has translated it incorrectly and that therefore since there was no virgin in the OT prophecy, Jesus could not born of virgin and therefore Matthew is reaching.  That is the argument made by those opposed to Jesus' claim to be the messiah.   

Matthew on the other hand does use it as the fulfillment of prophecy providing corroboration of Jesus' special place in history. 

My view is that those who argue the word is not virgin trying to use it as a "gotcha moment" need to go back and find another one. 
Topic's author
#14
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,432
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@rosends
Thanks for that rosends. 

Of course it doesn't change my argument.  The Septuagint did translate the word as virgin.  This surely is not in dispute. The fact that it might be notoriously inaccurate - although again that is debatable. My point is that it did.  I hear what you say about the first five books and not the prophets and yet the larger text was accepted by the Jews and even the Pharisees in the time of Jesus. 

so thanks. 
Topic's author
#15
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,432
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Bones
What would happen if Jesus and the "virgin Mary" took a Paternity Test. 
The entire world might become believers. 
#16
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 968
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@Tradesecret
Whos genes will you find?
Topic's author
#17
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,432
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Bones
Whos genes will you find?
Well that's the question isn't it? 


#18
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 806
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@Tradesecret
I'm not sure that you can take any claim that the Pharisees accepted the Septuagint at all seriously.  Some say that the original Sept was put into a proto Greek that would have been understood by the people and which would have been seen as having a level of sanctity within Judaism but the question is whether that claim is from a reputable source (of which there are notoriously few). This concern  has to be coupled with the knowledge that by the time the prophets were translated, Greek was not that language that was an acceptable alternative.

Regardless, the Sept (or whatever we want to call that particular translation) chose (for that particular use of the Hebrew word almah) "virgin." But so what? An unreliable translation, or an agendized translation shouldn't be seen as an authority.
Topic's author
#19
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,432
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@rosends
I'm not sure that you can take any claim that the Pharisees accepted the Septuagint at all seriously.  Some say that the original Sept was put into a proto Greek that would have been understood by the people and which would have been seen as having a level of sanctity within Judaism but the question is whether that claim is from a reputable source (of which there are notoriously few). This concern  has to be coupled with the knowledge that by the time the prophets were translated, Greek was not that language that was an acceptable alternative.

Regardless, the Sept (or whatever we want to call that particular translation) chose (for that particular use of the Hebrew word almah) "virgin." But so what? An unreliable translation, or an agendized translation shouldn't be seen as an authority.
I made my arguments above. My first was that (And I appreciate you don't agree) the Spirit of God confirmed it in the NT.  The second was that the Sept was being widely used at that time.  Paul was a Pharisee and trained by very eminent scholars such as Gamaliel.   Paul clearly used it.  and Paul was a leader in the Jewish religion for a significant time before he converted. Surely you would not seriously suggest otherwise? 

It seems like you are arguing from silence.  There are notoriously few therefore we can't rely upon it as a valid source.   

My point from the beginning has not been to attempt to prove the Christ was born of a virgin, but to show that the argument against it was slim and reaching.  Even you mentioned above that the young lady probably was a virgin even though it is not necessarily implied within it.  

If there were appropriate and legitimate  sources which can categorically say it could never mean virgin then I would concede the argument.  Yet that is not the case. And you are not saying it either.   Since I am not attempting to prove the virgin birth - but rather showing that the word possibly might mean virgin and that no one can categorically rule out virgin, then I think I am on reasonably safe ground.  

Again I thank you for your curtesy in your responses.  
#20
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@Stephen
Interesting that Jesus doesn't once mention his "miraculous conception" . And neither do any of Jesus' inner circle of 12 disciples. 

Valid point. 

And they must have been far too dumb to work out for themselves that the woman said to be Jesus' Mother was all human with inherited sin making her offspring also riddled in sin and all very human.
Yah...but magic solves any problemairtight?! ;-)
#21
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@Tradesecret
My view is that those who argue the word is not virgin trying to use it as a "gotcha moment" need to go back and find another one. 
Ultimately, this comes down to 'if the words are translated in a certain way, Jesus' birth was miraculous'. The obvious counter stands true as well though: if the words are translated in a certain way, the purported virgin birth conflicts with OT prophecy (if we assume the passage in question is a prophecy about the Messiah - that's another debate).

This type of semantic argument just makes me wonder why the "word of god" would be so unclear, but, hey, that's just me. :-)
#22
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,608
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@SkepticalOne
Interesting that Jesus doesn't once mention his "miraculous conception" . And neither do any of Jesus' inner circle of 12 disciples. 

Valid point. 

In fact the only thing that Jesus agrees himself to being in the whole of the NT is a messiah.

John 4:25-26 King James Version 

The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things. Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am he.


And he failed to perform anything at all that was expected of a messiah.


Topic's author
#23
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,432
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@SkepticalOne
My view is that those who argue the word is not virgin trying to use it as a "gotcha moment" need to go back and find another one. 
Ultimately, this comes down to 'if the words are translated in a certain way, Jesus' birth was miraculous'. The obvious counter stands true as well though: if the words are translated in a certain way, the purported virgin birth conflicts with OT prophecy (if we assume the passage in question is a prophecy about the Messiah - that's another debate).

This type of semantic argument just makes me wonder why the "word of god" would be so unclear, but, hey, that's just me. :-)
That is not my point.   The Semantics of the words only become an issue for those trying to say that the NT was not really saying what it was saying and was badly researched.   I'm not here trying to argue the merits of Jesus being born of a virgin.  I'm not attempting to say it was miraculous. That like you say is actually an entirely different question or issue.  

My point here was simply to point out that the so called gotcha moment against the NT author is not valid. I am not saying anything more or less. 

the Word of God is not being unclear.  It is quite clear for the most part. Some people do want to muddy it up though.  That is certainly true. 
Topic's author
#24
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,432
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@SkepticalOne
Interesting that Jesus doesn't once mention his "miraculous conception" . And neither do any of Jesus' inner circle of 12 disciples. 

Valid point. 
What makes it valid? It is an argument from silence. Hardly valid in anyone's book.  In any event - Matthew who was one of Jesus' inner 12 did raise it.  But we don't know whether Jesus raised it or not.    Jesus said and did many things that are not recorded.     Matthew and Luke raised it. One was his disciple and one was a doctor doing some serious research.  Mary raised it.  And Joseph her husband knew it to be true.  

What point would it have been necessary to raise it again anyway?  It served its purpose.  Many of other prophecies that Matthew raises has even less corroboration within the text.  Matthew used it as a fulfillment of prophecy in relation to the messiah.  Do you think that Jesus raising it again would have helped? I doubt it. People were skeptical in the time it was happened, take Joseph for instance.  People are skeptical today.  Raising it when he was an adult would really have been a bad tactic and unprovable anyway. It's not like they had parentage tests.  

For Matthew and Luke to raise it makes sense  in the context that they did.  


And they must have been far too dumb to work out for themselves that the woman said to be Jesus' Mother was all human with inherited sin making her offspring also riddled in sin and all very human.
Yah...but magic solves any problemairtight?! ;-)
Magic is not attempting to solve anything. Jesus was God and he was man.  That is not magic.  Magic is deception and mirrors.  There was no deception. In fact - if Jesus had tried to claim this later on - it may well have manipulated people to believe him.   Jesus didn't want people's attention falsely.  He often drove people away - he didn't want the attention.   As for sin - it is not inherited by blood anyway.  Christians don't teach that. It is covenantally passed. Like a will and testament.  God's spirit - which is Holy - would have sanctified the conception.  Jesus' being divine - the same thing. 

Yes, I know for non-believers it all sounds like magic.  Yet this is not what it is.  Jesus was a new thing.  And that is what the bible tells us. 
#25
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,060
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Tradesecret
Well I don't think that is regionally unusual even today.

So if we consider life expectancy 2000 years ago, coupled with probably no firm legal requirements. Then I think that it's fair to suggest that age was no limitation to sexual activity.

Mary of latter day picture book depiction is somewhat misleading.


By todays Western standards, GOD was a slick Arabian pedo.....Interesting that people still worship him then.
#26
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,608
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@SkepticalOne
@Tradesecret
Stephen wrote: Interesting that Jesus doesn't once mention his "miraculous conception" . And neither do any of Jesus' inner circle of 12 disciples. 

Valid point. 
What makes it valid? It is an argument from silence.

Which is an argument you use often in defence of these unreliable  half told stories in scripture.



In any event - Matthew who was one of Jesus' inner 12 did raise it. 

NOPE. You are attempting the pass off something written by an unknown author assumed to be 'Mathews' gospel by purposefully confusing it with the disciple named Mathew of which there is very little known to the point of being almost obscure.  You are also ignoring what I have actually wrote and purposefully conflating the Immaculate Conception with the so called - virgin birth.



But we don't know whether Jesus raised it or not.

Jesus doesn't mention his immaculate conception at all. Which strangely is one of those stories the likes of Christians  use to say that Jesus was the one prophesised about in the OT. In fact, the or A  Immaculate Conception, isn't written about anywhere in the OT.



  Jesus said and did many things that are not recorded. 

Maybe so.  Which leave only guesswork and conjecture, and hypothesis which you use often when it suites you to do so but never afford others the same curtesy.



Stephen wrote: Interesting that Jesus doesn't once mention his "miraculous conception" . And neither do any of Jesus' inner circle of 12 disciples. 

  Tradesecret wrote:  Matthew and Luke raised it. [the immaculate conception]

Nope. Luke is not even mentioned as being  the name of any of his inner circle of 12 disciples, so again you are attempting the pass off the unknown author assumed to be  'Luke's' gospel as one of Jesus' 12. He wasn't.


Mary raised it.  And Joseph her husband knew it to be true.  

But did any single one of the 12? And Mary doesn't once tell us her that she had actually Immaculately Conceived a child. Quite the opposite, she is simply  bewildered by it all and askes "how can this be"?


What point would it have been necessary to raise it again anyway?

Then what was the point of it even being in two of the gospels in the first place? 



Stephen wrote: And they must have been far too dumb to work out for themselves that the woman said to be Jesus' Mother was all human with inherited sin making her offspring also riddled in sin and all very human.
SkepticalOne wrote: Yah...but magic solves any problemairtight?! ;-)
Tradesecret wrote: Magic is not attempting to solve anything. Jesus was God and he was man. That is not magic.  Magic is deception and mirrors. 

As is religion on the whole. Intentional or not. imo


In fact - if Jesus had tried to claim this[ that he was immaculately conceived] later on - it may well have manipulated people to believe him.

Opinion. And one has to wonder why he didn't ?  Mark'  and John's gospels don't mention the conception or the birth of Jesus. One can only suppose it wasn't true, not important or simply hadn't heard about it....




Topic's author
#27
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,432
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen

What makes it valid? It is an argument from silence.

Which is an argument you use often in defence of these unreliable  half told stories in scripture.
An argument from silence is not an argument.  LOL! Infants are not baptised because there is no examples of baptism. so we also refuse ladies from communion because there are no valid examples. what nonsense.    An argument from silence is so pitiful - it is making me smile that you are actually getting upset by it. All of my baptist brethren shiver in fear once they realize what they are trying to use. 


In any event - Matthew who was one of Jesus' inner 12 did raise it. 
NOPE. You are attempting the pass off something written by an unknown author assumed to be 'Mathews' gospel by purposefully confusing it with the disciple named Mathew of which there is very little known to the point of being almost obscure.  You are also ignoring what I have actually wrote and purposefully conflating the Immaculate Conception with the so called - virgin birth.
the disciple Matthew is credited with writing his gospel. Yes lots of liberal scholars like to deny it.  but conservative scholars disagree with good reason. you believe what you want. No one is saying don't. We are ok with people wanting to exercise their prerogative. 


But we don't know whether Jesus raised it or not.

Jesus doesn't mention his immaculate conception at all. Which strangely is one of those stories the likes of Christians  use to say that Jesus was the one prophesised about in the OT. In fact, the or A  Immaculate Conception, isn't written about anywhere in the OT.
We don't know whether he raised it or not.  You don't know do you? Or do happen to have a statement of everything he ever said? Matthew did mention it was prophesied. From the book of Isaiah.  the Septuagint records it.  did you miss the memo? oops.  I would personally be surprised if Jesus did mention it.  Still an argument from silence is golden. LOL!  


  Jesus said and did many things that are not recorded. 

Maybe so.  Which leave only guesswork and conjecture, and hypothesis which you use often when it suites you to do so but never afford others the same curtesy.
shhh don't tell anyone.  I certainly don't care whether he mentioned it or not. The point is that Matthew and Luke did mention it.   You can forget those facts if you like - I know it sucks. But they did. How inconvenient for you? 

Stephen wrote: Interesting that Jesus doesn't once mention his "miraculous conception" . And neither do any of Jesus' inner circle of 12 disciples. 

  Tradesecret wrote  Matthew and Luke raised it. [the immaculate conception]

Nope. Luke is not even mentioned as being  the name of any of his inner circle of 12 disciples, so again you are attempting the pass off the unknown author assumed to be  'Luke's' gospel as one of Jesus' 12. He wasn't.
I am not saying Luke was a disciple. Matthew was.  Luke however was close associates with many of the disciples and even of Mary, the person in question. 

Mary raised it.  And Joseph her husband knew it to be true.  

But did any single one of the 12? And Mary doesn't once tell us her that she had actually Immaculately Conceived a child. Quite the opposite, she is simply  bewildered by it all and askes "how can this be"?

Mary raised it. And so did Matthew. Hello Matthew wrote the gospel Matthew was one of the 12.  he was a tax collector.  Do you really believe she is just bewildered? what a world you must live in? Sad and tragic. don't let the facts get in the road of it.  

What point would it have been necessary to raise it again anyway?

Then what was the point of it even being in two of the gospels in the first place? 
I already explained that. don't you read anything I write. No of course not. you know everything already.  Go back and read it. I am not going to repeat myself because of your laziness. 

Stephen wrote: And they must have been far too dumb to work out for themselves that the woman said to be Jesus' Mother was all human with inherited sin making her offspring also riddled in sin and all very human.
SkepticalOne wrote: Yah...but magic solves any problemairtight?! ;-)
Tradesecret wrote: Magic is not attempting to solve anything. Jesus was God and he was man. That is not magic.  Magic is deception and mirrors. 

As is religion on the whole. Intentional or not. imo
That is your entire MO.  you disbelieve in anything that is not material.  you can't believe in god so you think everyone who does is a nutter.  I don't believe in magic either. But God is not magic.  Of course you can't see the difference. That is your problem not mine. 


In fact - if Jesus had tried to claim this[ that he was immaculately conceived] later on - it may well have manipulated people to believe him.

Opinion. And one has to wonder why he didn't ?  Mark'  and John's gospels don't mention the conception or the birth of Jesus. One can only suppose it wasn't true, not important or simply hadn't heard about it....

Yes. Opinion. but one just as meritable as yours. And actually one that makes sense.  john doesn't mention lots of things that Matthew Mark and Luke mention and Matthew doesn't mention things that Luke and John mention and john mentions things that Matthew MArk and Luke mention. Wow! i guess that makes all of them just waste of times - unless everyone of them was an author in their own right and simply told the story they wanted to tell. 

Each of the gospels is different to the other.   I EXPECT each of them to tell different accounts and to give information that the others don't tell.  That you think that because John fails to mention something that two of the others did mention as evidence it is not true - is remarkable.  You are such a poor scholar it seriously is amazing you really want to be heard at all.   

Sad actually. 
#28
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 806
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@Tradesecret
Paul was a Pharisee and trained by very eminent scholars such as Gamaliel.   Paul clearly used it.  and Paul was a leader in the Jewish religion for a significant time before he converted. Surely you would not seriously suggest otherwise? 

Certainly I would, but not from silence -- your argument is based in, and requires, accepting the authority of a text I claim is not authoritative. The gospels include factual errors (things not in accordance with Judaism) and don't have a verifiable provenance that makes me accept their statements. So making some sort of claim about Paul being someone or studying with someone is not really useful because it is not corroborated by any text I would look at as an authority.


It seems like you are arguing from silence.  There are notoriously few therefore we can't rely upon it as a valid source.   

No, the fact that there are few simply means that there are few, and since the only one that might support your contention is the one that is subject to a circular argument of belief (your theology teaches you that the text is true and because it is true you accept your theology) it is of little probative value to anyone else.

Also, it isn't silence as much as a failure of the voice that is out there. I can't rely on something as a valid source if it is an invalid source.

The "Sept uses "virgin" and the Sept, even if full of errors, reflects a correct understanding, then "virgin" even though the text has errors is true". Since there is silence outside of this unreliable source (and on its face, the source conflicts with the earlier material) the conclusion fails.


Even you mentioned above that the young lady probably was a virgin even though it is not necessarily implied within it.  

I was speaking of a different young lady, one whom the text explicitly says is a virgin. But in the case of the Isaiah quote, with no other text to qualify the word, there is no reason to impute virginity to it. If I say that the girl probably had dark hair, that doesn't make "brunette" a valid translation or interpretation of the word almah.

If there were appropriate and legitimate  sources which can categorically say it could never mean virgin then I would concede the argument.

Isn't that waiting for someone to prove a negative, what a word does NOT mean? Instead, why not look at what the word means and how it is used and translated elsewhere to create context -- build meaning instead of assuming meaning and only considering changing if something comes to destroy the preconceived notion.

If I show you a Hebrew dictionary which doesn't include "virgin" as a meaning, will you say "therefore it CAN'T" or will you say "that doesn't say it CAN'T explicitly"? Dictionaries don't list all the things a word cannot mean.


and "maiden" as a noun (the way it is used in the verse) isn't about sexuality either. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/maiden


the word possibly might mean virgin and that no one can categorically rule out virgin, then I think I am on reasonably safe ground.  

But you haven't shown that it "might mean" virgin, only that the translation has it as "virgin" in one case. You are starting with the translation instead of with the Hebrew word. Similarly, I can claim to you that the Hebrew word "ish" 'might mean' tree. I can then pick one instance of "ish" and translate it as "tree" to prove that it can mean that, even though it never means tree and the verse I cite has nothing to do with trees.  But you can't show me that it can be ruled out because that's not how language works -- we learn what words mean, not what they can't be claimed to mean.



#29
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,608
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret

What makes it valid? It is an argument from silence.

Which is an argument you use often in defence of these unreliable  half told stories in scripture.
An argument from silence is not an argument.

Which doesn't stop you suggesting, surmising, guessing and theorising as to what things Jesus may or may not have said. And it doesn't stop you presenting your conjecture and theorise as biblical fact when it suites you to do so.

In any event - Matthew who was one of Jesus' inner 12 did raise it. 
NOPE. You are attempting the pass off something written by an unknown author assumed to be 'Mathews' gospel by purposefully confusing it with the disciple named Mathew of which there is very little known to the point of being almost obscure.  You are also ignoring what I have actually wrote and purposefully conflating the Immaculate Conception with the so called - virgin birth.
the disciple Matthew is credited with writing his gospel.

By whom?  There is absolutely no evidence as to the actual names of the authors of the scriptures . You are lying.



But we don't know whether Jesus raised it or not.

Jesus doesn't mention his immaculate conception at all. Which strangely is one of those stories the likes of Christians  use to say that Jesus was the one prophesised about in the OT. In fact, the or A  Immaculate Conception, isn't written about anywhere in the OT.
We don't know whether he raised it or not. 

We know that the bible doesn't mention Jesus himself speaking of his Immaculate Conception


Matthew did mention it was prophesied.

 Nope.  The author of Mathews gospel  does not say anything about an Immaculate Conception being part of any prophesy. Stop telling lies.


From the book of Isaiah. 

Nope.  Stop telling lies. Isiah mentions nothing of an Immaculate Conception. Stop telling lies.


the Septuagint records it.  did you miss the memo? oops.
NOPE!  And I notice sarcasm or what you would define as "abuse" creeping in.




  Jesus said and did many things that are not recorded. 

Maybe so.  Which leave only guesswork and conjecture, and hypothesis which you use often when it suites you to do so but never afford others the same curtesy.
shhh don't tell anyone.  I certainly don't care whether he mentioned it or not.

 Well that is all that is left for you to say once your own comments are broken down for the nonsense that they actually are.


The point is that [gospel of] Matthew  and [gospel of]Luke did mention it. 

But they were not members of the 12.  


 You can forget those facts if you like - I know it sucks. But they did. How inconvenient for you? 

They are not facts though are they. This is a perfect example of you presenting your own theories and conjecture as BIBLICAL facts

Stephen wrote: Interesting that Jesus doesn't once mention his "miraculous conception" . And neither do any of Jesus' inner circle of 12 disciples. 

  Tradesecret wrote  Matthew and Luke raised it. [the immaculate conception]

Nope. Luke is not even mentioned as being  the name of any of his inner circle of 12 disciples, so again you are attempting the pass off the unknown author assumed to be  'Luke's' gospel as one of Jesus' 12. He wasn't.
I am not saying Luke was a disciple. Matthew was. 

 And my point was that NONE of the 12 disciples mentioned the Immaculate Conception. And again, the author of 'Matthews gospel is unknown and was not a disciple of Jesus.


Luke however was close associates with many of the disciples and even of Mary, the person in question. 

Wouldn't that be hearsay?

hearsay
/ˈhɪəseɪ/
noun
  • 1.information received from other people which cannot be substantiated; rumour:       Or do Christians have a completely different definition for the word - hearsay?


Mary raised it.  And Joseph her husband knew it to be true.  

But did any single one of the 12? And Mary doesn't once tell us her that she had actually Immaculately Conceived a child. Quite the opposite, she is simply  bewildered by it all and askes "how can this be"?

Mary raised it. And so did Matthew. Hello Matthew wrote the gospel Matthew was one of the 12.

Nope.




Stephen wrote: And they must have been far too dumb to work out for themselves that the woman said to be Jesus' Mother was all human with inherited sin making her offspring also riddled in sin and all very human.
SkepticalOne wrote: Yah...but magic solves any problemairtight?! ;-)
Tradesecret wrote: Magic is not attempting to solve anything. Jesus was God and he was man. That is not magic.  Magic is deception and mirrors. 

As is religion on the whole. Intentional or not. imo
That is your entire MO.  you disbelieve in anything that is not material.

Wrong again. I believe all the characters in the bible existed I believe the stories too -  just minus the miracles. Which I have explained my stance many times now and to you in particular.



you can't believe in god so you think everyone who does is a nutter.

  Nope . I don't accept the scriptures as they have been passed on to us through the millennia.


I don't believe in magic either. But God is not magic.  Of course you can't see the difference. That is your problem not mine. 
It hasn't been a problem to me ever. 



In fact - if Jesus had tried to claim this[ that he was immaculately conceived] later on - it may well have manipulated people to believe him.

Opinion. And one has to wonder why he didn't ?  Mark'  and John's gospels don't mention the conception or the birth of Jesus. One can only suppose it wasn't true, not important or simply hadn't heard about it....

Yes. Opinion. but one just as meritable as yours.

Maybe. But in my case I have the bible showing that neither Jesus nor any of his 12 inner circle of disciples speaking of Jesus' Immaculate Conception. You on the other hand are assuming they did and presenting your assumptions - and lies as fact  even though you tell us that you
" don't even care if Jesus or his disciples mention the Immaculate Conception". And for  someone that doesn't even care, you going to great lengths to debunk my comments going as far as to outright lie.




  You are such a poor scholar it seriously is amazing you really want to be heard at all.   Sad actually. 

More sarcasm that no doubt you would define as abuse. I keep telling you. You do not have to read or respond to my posts.... at all..... ever.
Have you no self control man?


#30
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,572
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Bones
What would happen if Jesus and the "virgin Mary" took a Paternity Test. 
Maury would open the envelope and say: "God, you are not the Father!"