Hello, and welcome.
I am going to explain a problem. This problem has been overlooked for nearly 2000 years, and most people don’t even seem to know that the root issue of their faith is in jeopardy. Mainstream Christianity is going to be my focus, however- the issue at hand also affects every other New Testament based religion, Catholicism, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, etc. .
The problem, is the Virgin Birth. Most Christians don’t realize that this is a problem, because if confronted, they cannot even tell you where to find the only prooftext for the VB. That is because most Christians, and what I call "Blind Faith" Christians, meaning they were born into a Christian home, or were brought into the "fold" a long time ago, and they simply trusted that the information presented to them was accurate. Of course that would be the most beneficial way to follow any faith, and you would exert minimal effort in the areas of study and discovery. Of course it would be easy to just take somebody at their word, and not have any responsibility of your own, religiously.
There are Christians who know exactly what they believe, and they comprise around 15 to 20% of Christianity. Those individuals can shw you exactly where the Virgin Birth is, they can show the prooftexts for most if not all the major, or "core", doctrines. And if they can’t, they can find the needed information rather quickly, and they can present a stunning arguement. Those Christians are the ones this issue is being presented to, but all are welcome to try and keep up.
A little about me before I start. I am 35, and I was born into a Christian home. I was a Christian until October 29th, 2000. That is the date that I unknowingly went to a group of people who changed my thinking forever. They actually did believe in the VB, at the beginning. It was not until a year later, that the group split in half, due to a very startling discovery, a serious problem with the Virgin Birth. (Known hereafter as "VB").
Where I am today is not at issue here, my current beliefs are not at issue, the issue, reguardless of my current faith, is the problem with the VB. This problem is so huge, that it cannot be ignored. There is another issue, that I discovered when I was still a Christian. My family and friends hated it when I tried to discuss this matter with them, because although they were unwilling to waver in their view, in this instance they had nothing to say, no scripture to read, to validate their position. My position however, was based on written scripture, and in this case the scripture in question could not be mis-interpreted, or denied, and they knew it. Their only recourse, was to use "Christian Apologetics". That, is a way of giving an answer to a biblical problem, without actually using scripture. Many times their answer sounds fantastic, but it is just an answer, without scriptural, or doctinal validation.
In this case, the topic was going to church on Sunday. Without going into any detail, my arguement was what scripture said, their answer was "We go to church on Sunday to celebrate the resurrection of Jesus." But that answer, as great as it is, is not a scriptural answer. And I was not a "blind faith" Christian, my doctrine, everything I believed about God, was litrally based on written scripture. I had no clue that more than half of my doctrines were based on scripture that wasn’t even scripture!! More on that later. The point is, that the Bible says the "Sabbath" is to be practiced on "the 7th day". Although we use a "Gregorian" calendar here in America, the actual days of the week are in sink with the ancient Israeli’s days of their week. For us, is is Sunday, for them, it is 1st day. For us, it is 12am to 12am, and that’s Sunday. For them, it is sunset 7th day (Saturday) through sunset 1st day (Sunday.)
Now onto the real issue. The VB is the most central doctrine of Christianity, since it literally holds everything else together. Without it, every other doctrine about Christ becomes irrelevant, and they cannot exist. If Joseph was Jesus’ father for example, then he couldn’t be "God in the flesh", because he’d be fully man. How did he forgive our sins? Through the Resurrection. Why did he have to die to forgive our sins? Because the wages of sin is death. How did he qualify to be that sacrifice in our place? He lived a sinless life. If we are all "born into sin", then how could he have lived a sinless life? He’s God. How is he God? Through the Holy Spirit, via the VB. So, without the VB, the rest CAN NOT WORK. Here’s the problem:
If your faith is based on written scripture, then you know that in Matthew 1, an angel talks to Mary, and tells her everything is dandy. Then he talks to Joseph, tells him not to be afraid to take Mary as his wife, (he found out she was pregnant, and supposedly, knew it wasn’t his, which would be fornication, a death penalty command, if broken, hence, he was afraid to marry her, supposedly.) and the angel also said that what was concieved in her was concieved from the Holy Spirit. Then, the writer of Matthew steps in, and exclaimes; "These thing took place to fulfill the scripture, for it is written:" The virgin will be with child, and will give birth to a son, and she will call his name ‘Immanuel’." " If you look it up in any concordance, that passage will be found in Isaiah 7:14. But the problem is that everyone automatically accepts this fantastic passage, as the prooftext to the VB. Even though in this case, it is the ONLY prooftext for the VB, and even though in this case the VB isthe MOST important doctrine, since it is literally connected to all others, everyone still chooses to automatically believe. Even me, when I was a Christian, when I was so maticulous in my beliefs that I HAD to have written scripture to back up each doctrine, for some strange reason, this doctrine was the one acception to the rule, and I didn’t even know it!
Now, I can present a stunning arguement that the word "virgin" in Isaiah 7:14 is wrong, and should be "maiden", or "young woman". But, this is not even the point. That issue, as incredibly serious as it would be, as big of a problem as that is, that is not the issue I’m going to share. The real issue, is that most Christians have never even studied Isaiah 7, they have only studied 7:14. They may have read further than 14 at some point, but since they never read from vs 1, they always seemed to miss the problem. So right now, stop reading this, and get out your NIV or KingJames, and read Isaiah 7, the whole chapter.
At this point in time, Israel is now Israel, and Judah. Israel and Syria, (or whatever nation occupied that region then), are attacking Jerusalem, Judah’s capital, but they are unable to succeed. But, King Ahaz and the people of Judah are afraid for their lives. (They are shaken as the trees are shaken by the wind.) So, God sends Isaiah to Ahaz. Isaiah tells Ahaz to ask a sign from God, so he will know that Isaiah is telling the truth, and that God is with them. Ahaz refuses, in fear, and Isaiah gives Ahaz a sign from God: "The virgin will be with child, and will give birth to a son, and she will call his name, ‘Immanuelle’. AND, he will eat curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, but before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the 2 kings you dread will be laid waste." That was 14, 15 and 16.
Since the sign is to Ahaz, and since Isaiah is speaking to Ahaz, then the kings in question, are 2 kings that AHAZ dreads. Folks, that means that the king of Israel, and the king of Syria, (or whatever nation that was then), will be destroyed, before Immanuelle knows right from wrong. How old, approximately, are you when you still don’t know right from wrong? That would be 1, 2 or three years old, possibly a little more depending on the mental state of the child. However, that would be any age under 14, for a Jewish boy, or an Israeli boy, since the Bar-Mitzvah is a celebration of manhood, and until that age, you are considered innocent. Whoever Immanuele was, he could NOT have been Jesus, since Jesus was not born until after 700 years into the future!!! If the 2 kings in question were Israel and Syria, which they were, then Immanuelle was born before Israel was destroyed, and if you read on, it actually explains WHY Immanuelle ate curds and honey. Immanuelle was not Jesus. And this was not a "dual prophecy" either, since a dual prophecy is a prophecy in which every aspect of the prophecy is fulfilled twice. How many aspects of this prophecy were fulfilled in Jesus day? That’s right, NONE. Besides, this was NOT, I repeat, NOT, a prophecy. It was a SIGN, to king Ahaz of Judah. If Jesus were Immanuelle, then how could it be a sign to Ahaz, since he’d be dead at it’s fulfillment?? Jesus was not Immanuelle. Also, this was a sign to Ahaz, and although it was "prophetic", it was not a prophecy. This was an event God allowed on rare occasion, in order that He could prove a point to the specific person or group that the sign was given to. Therefore, it does not fit in the category of a prophecy. Dual prophecy? Not even possible.
So, if Jesus is not Immanuelle, then the VB has NO prooftext, and since Matthew 1 CLAIMS that it’s the prooftext, then Matthew 1 is either just wrong, OR- someone wanted you to believe in a Virgin Birth. Who has been in control of all existing New Testament documents for the last 2000 years?? What organization actually "canonized" the New Testament? Yep- the Vatican. Where? ROME. So, before the Catholic church that existed 2000 years ago meddled in God’s affairs, what was scripture? The Old Testament. Could it be, that some form of original Judaism was, and today STILL IS, the truth?? I don’t know, but one thing I do know, Christianity is leading millions of people to believe a lie- the Virgin Birth.
-DSM
Re: The Virgin Birth dilemma
Ninjahound - what a wonderful comment - and here was I thinking that OST had finally ground to a halt and I could take a break for six months (years?) or so.
What I like about the comment is how much I agree with it, rather than disagree - which is my normal opening gambit on many forum topic discussions. That’s to say, I think you are right that the ‘virgin birth’ cannot be sidelined as an inessential belief in mainstream Christianity, and there are some serious problems if Jesus was proved to be the natural son of Joseph and Mary. (Somebody will pick me up on this - at least, I hope they will, for the sake of fully rounded discussion).
Also, I’m glad you set Matthew 1:23 ("The virgin shall be with child" etc.) in context, in which a virgin birth of Jesus is clearly being described by Matthew. At this point, we might ask whether the birth story isn’t really a ‘midrash’ - an expanded and rather fanciful commentary on some OT verses, taking into account some contemporary legends (see Geza Vermes) and was never meant to be taken as ‘history’. To which I can only, personally, say that this passage does indeed contain midrashic elements, only this midrash was history, not legend.
However, as regards the verse (Matthew 1:23) itself: doesn’t this in the first place raise the question of Matthew’s apparently rather eccentric (to us) way of quoting OT verses as prophecy in NT contexts, eg Matthew 2:15; 2:18? This is a debate which has been going on for a long time, and, some would say, Matthew’s prophetic ‘proof texts’ seem to be distinctly flakey. Shouldn’t this be the wider discussion? I don’t see that the quoting of Isaiah 7:14 in itself invalidates the proposition that Jesus was born of a virgin - which, I agree with you, is somewhat central to orthodox Christian belief.
Just a thought on the context of Matthew 1:23 in Isaiah - I agree with everything you affirm about the context; but what are the outer boundaries of the context? I don’t think it stops in Isaiah 8, but continues into Isaiah 9 - where we have the prophecy of a child to be born who will reign on David’s throne for ever. I think you have to look at the whole picture to understand what is wrapped up in a little verse such as Matthew 1:23/Isaiah 7:14.
Concerning ‘Sunday’ as equivalent to the Jewish sabbath - I don’t think it ever was, historically (despite the attempts of religious die-hards to make it so). But this does become tied up with questions about the way the ‘sabbath’ has been redefined: first by Jesus, then in passages such as Hebrews 4. As a day - it is a principle which was meant to be for our benefit, and still can be, whatever day we choose to observe as a ‘sabbath’. As a principle, it was always an illustration of a wider issue, which is the ‘sabbath rest’ we enter into by believing the gospel, as opposed to doing works of the law. It reflects the principle of faith, which was always the key to inheritance of the promise - whether exercised by Abraham, Israel - Hebrews 4:2; or us today - Hebrews 4:3.
Re: The Virgin Birth dilemma
It may make some difference to this point to note that the substantive point is correct-ish in Hebrew but not so in the Greek that Matthew was using. That is, ‘almah [the Hebrew underlying ‘virgin’] was often used to mean a young girl and that it may be appropriate to translate it ‘girl’ or ‘young woman’ [unmarried], but culturally, that generally meant also ‘virgin’ and so the term is ambigious in settings where both may be appropriate. However, the translators into Greek [which was the lingua franca of the eastern mediterranean in the first century] used the word ‘parthenos’ which is more clearly virginal in meaning which appears to be what Matthew is in fact working with.
So we should notice that almah is potentially translated ‘virgin’ and that the Greek quoted in Matthew has that translation. Note also that for most early Christians, the Greek OT was THE bible …
While this does not take away from the issues about interpretation, literalism, prophecy etc, it does seem to offer a way of understanding the reception of the Isaiah text by Matthew and other early Christians.
For what it’s worth, I don’t think that Matthew thought of the Isaiah quote as a fulfilled prophecy in the way we often take it in the ‘post Nostradamus west’: I think that he thought typologically [to use the term without exactness] and that this passage had things about it that were typologically interesting to him. So he is not offering it as proof of the virginal conception [which is historically and physiologically different to the VB, btw, but what this discussion is actually about] but as a support for the propriety of a virginal conception in terms of what we call the old testament.
Andii
nouslife.blogspot.com
abbeynous.schtuff.com
Re: The Virgin Birth dilemma
ANDII!!! Welcome to the thread!
Your points are well layed out. But what you are not taking into consideration, is that first, we do not know if the NT was ORIGIONALLY written in Greek, or Hebrew, we know that there is a HEBREW Matthew that was recently discovered though. All we know for sure, is that TODAY, we only have Greek texts to work with concerning the NT, with that Matthew exception. But you said something about a Greek OT?? Since when? If there ever was, it was not the text used by the first Christians. Latin, I believe, was the more commonly used texts, wich after only a couple hundred years, came to include several of our current NT documents, but even so that text for the OT was still based upon the original and available, HEBREW texts. As far as the OT goes, one way or another, the Hebrew is the only legitimate source, other translations lack the accuracy of thought.
Second, what that passage says in Matthew, concerning the English word "virgin", is irrelevent, because it is a QUOTE of an OT passage, that WAS written in Hebrew. And that word as you said, is Almah, whereas every other time our English versions say "virgin", (in the OT that is), the Hebrew being translated from is "Bethulah", except for 1 passage, Genisis 24:43. That passage in English also says "virgin", and the Hebrew is also "almah". However, in the NIV, that passage does NOT say virgin, in the NIV, Gen.24:43 says MAIDEN in English!! Is a maiden a virgin? Sure it is possible, and many maidens WERE, but Mary was still referred to as a maiden after Jesus already had brothers!
You also said that "culturally", the word "almah" was meant to be taken to mean "virgin". No offence, but that comment is 100% unsubstantiated, 100% supposition. There is only 1 source you can go to to find out the true meaning of that word, and that is a Jew who speaks Hebrew every day, AND has studied the roots of Hebrew, or, "Paleo/ancient Hebrew". If you ask a Jew what "almah" means, they will tell you "young woman". Besides, unless a Hebrew word were used that SPECIFICALLY meant virgin, (Bethulah), then it is only heresay as to whether a non-specific word (almah) means "virgin". In addition, the only way you would be justified in using "virgin" as a proper interpretation, from a non-specific root word, would be if there were some other information within the context of said passage, (Isaiah 7) that referred to that woman and her sexual history. That information simply doesn’t exist in Isaiah 7.
And I have to point one thing out in closing, regardless of the comments that some have posted on this thread about believing in the virgin birth, and that their belief in this particular doctrine was based upon faith, mine was not. The only times my beliefs were based upon faith, and for that matter the only PARTS of my beliefs that were based upon faith, were when scripture did not support, or supplement that belief. The bulk of my beliefs, my "doctrines", were backed by written scripture. That was the "proof". For me, the word "faith" did not really have to do with my actual doctrines, I had scripture to support those. For me, "faith", was simply the "TRUST" I put in Jesus to honor what written scripture said about him, covering my sins. Just blindly believing an actual doctrine, ESPECIALLY a CORE doctrine, like the virgin birth, is something I cannot do, and never could. The virgin birth is actually directly linked with the rest of the core doctrines, because without it, Jesus can’t be God, couldn’t have lived a sinless life, couldn’t have died for our sins, and we’d be toast. The virgin birth is what I call a "corner-stone" doctrine, without it, the rest of Christian doctrine just falls apart like a house of cards. Of course, there will always be those who choose to believe "just because". They claim that their beliefs are based upon scripture, but in reality, if that were true, then their actual doctrines would not be based on "trust", and they are. They are risking their eternal life, on blind faith, they don’t truely "trust" scripture, they trust Jesus, despite scripture. But when I was a Christian, the ONLY reason I believed in Jesus, WAS SCRIPTURE. Just believing in some religion because a bunch of MEN say it’s the truth, carries no weight with me, there has to be more, and it was written scripture. It isn’t that I blindly trusted written scripture either- but the Bible is OLD, possibly containing some of the oldest original manuscripts on the planet. We actually have the great Isaiah scroll- and it is believed to be the original, it would be well over 2000 years old! And archeology seems to support the bible in many ways, ESPECIALLY the Old Testament. Other cultures even support many of the events in scripture, very closely to the way the bible lays it out. So, there is ample reason to put your trust in written scripture, at least if we have some reliable texts to use, like the OT texts. But can you really trust a doctrine, like the virgin birth, if the context of the passage it’s in takes away from the Christian interpretation, the way Isaiah 7 takes away from Immanuell being alive 700 years later?
Re: The Virgin Birth dilemma
Sorry mate, but most of what you assert in the first para is simply incorrect. I’d love to find a way through that allows you to change your mind without losing face, but I can’t at this point see how to do it except to say that I think more of those who bite the bullet and admit that maybe they were mis- or underinformed than those who keep arguing from an ever smaller fact base when it becomes obvious to onlookers that the evidence is against them …
First up, Hebrew Matthew? Can you substantiate that? And can it be shown that if such a document exists, it was [a] original and [b] not itself a translation of a Greek doc and/or [c] it is not a translation of a (more likely than Hebrew) Aramaic document?
We do know that the NT was written in Koine Greek. Or at least that the documents [that a while later were recognised as what] we now call the new testament were circulated in Greek, as you say. This was for the very good reason that Greek was the common language of the time and area; it would be assumed that everyone could understand it, that’s why it was used for documents meant for use by a mixed audience. Even the Romans used it for day to day business in the eastern mediterranean. Latin was was a relative late comer into the scripture business and NT docs were translated into it, not from it. Anyway, this makes it even more probable that the docs were actually written in Greek. More probable, that is, even given the sheer amount of relatively early manuscripts and fragments and quotes in other early church writings [and some are really early]. Even given the stylistic forms that suggest original words not translated … It’s a cumulative case.
We also know that there had been a commonly used Greek version of the OT for some time by the time of Christ, called the Septuagint [and abbreviated to “LXX” by biblical scholars, archeologists and the like]. This translation was *the* scriptures for hellenised Jews [ie those whose first or second language was Greek] and for ‘Godfearers’ [would-be converts to Judaism, trying to work out whether they really wanted to be circumcised]. It would be fair to say, therefore, that for most early Christians outside of Palestine, and many inside, the Septuagint was THE version of the OT they were familiar with. Given that most Jews actually, by that time, spoke as their ‘mother tongue’ Aramaic and not Hebrew, it is also quite likely that for Palestinian Jews, that reading or hearing the scriptures in Greek would be easier than in Hebrew which was not a language of daily converse for them.
Sorry to rain on your parade in this instance, but that’s the way it is/was.
Okay, next up, para 2.
You need to read what I wrote more carefully, please.
The point is that it appears that Matthew is not quoting the Hebrew but the Greek translation of the OT (rather as you quote the English NIV translation]. That is to say the wording indicates not an ‘on the hoof’ translation from Hebrew while he wrote but a quote from a Greek translation already in use.
It’s interesting that you should draw attention to the word ‘maiden’ because one of the meanings is ‘a virgin’ (Check it out and recall phrases such as “maidenhead”, ” a maiden aunt” who is presumed not to have sex because unmarried, and in cricket ‘bowl a maiden over’ -metaphorically relying on the unsullied nature of a maiden to designate a no-score over). In fact the English usage kind of paralells, I suspect, the Hebrew in that similar cultural forces were at work, the primary focus of meaning may be a young woman, but in a culture which expected and enforced sexual exclusivity especially in women, it tended to pick up the meaning of ‘virgin’ aswell. That’s what will have influenced the Greek translation [also with strict cultural prohibitions of pre- and extra-marital sex on the part of ‘respectable’ women -which is what most families wanted for their daughters].
To sum up: ‘maiden’ is probably quite a good English parallel (not least because of similar cultural forces impacting the semantic field of the word in the past), and while it encompasses a broader meaning and different primary semantic focus than ‘virgin’ it can reasonably be supposed to normally include it unless modified not to, especially as that approach seems to accord well with the other instances and usages of the word that we have from the OT. Notwithstanding the Hebrew meanings, it is in any case the Greek text that was informing Matthew, and that clearly has ‘parthenos’ which is much more unambiguously to be translated ‘virgin’. Added to which Matthew isn’t proof-texting, but rather searching about for OT parallels to what he is recording of Christ. In other words the event comes first and the text afterwords to underscore the meaning of the event. And that means he is not using the Isaiah 7 text to make a doctrine of the virginal conception but to explain how a virginal conception fits typologically with prior revelation.
Could you elucidate on Mary being called a maiden after Jesus’ brothers were on the scene? That’s a new one on me and would be an interesting issue in this discussion.
I will leave you to decide whether the case I am making is more or less plausible than what you have written in your third paragraph.
Doctrinally; I have a handful of friends who are otherwise orthodox Christians who are not convinced by the virginal conception on grounds mainly that their understanding of the incarnation does not require it. They have a point. I happen not to agree with their ‘unconviction’ but agree that their reasoning is sound. The lack of this doctrine in their belief system appears to have little effect on the rest of their Christian faith. Clearly it is not as central as you would have us believe, I would suggest.
I’ll leave it at that for now.
Andii
nouslife.blogspot.com
abbeynous.schtuff.com
Re: The Virgin Birth dilemma
Hello again Andii.
You are totally right about there being a Greek OT, the Septuagint. Actually, I know that there was a Greek OT- I am trying to figure out why the heck I said there wasn’t, But for some reason I just wasn’t thinking!! And you’re also right- my face is pretty red at the moment. However, I still hold on my thoughts about the original language of the NT, neither of us knows, or can prove, what the original language was, an educated guess is the best we can come up with.
I’ll try to keep this reply fairly short, and I want you to know that most of my comments/observations come from my own personal knowledge and understanding. I do not have a Doctorate in Theology, or any other kind of educational degree. But I don’t believe that one is necessary either, to understand scripture. Obviously, from my rather sizeable mistake above, my understanding is not perfect, nor do I claim that it is. And as I said in another post here, my beliefs in general, will not waver, and I suspect that yours won’t either. These issues I bring out aren’t intended to convert anyone, but mostly, I want to hear what you all have to say, and I want to give my 2 cents worth as well, and like you said about your friends’ believe about the virgin-birth, that you disagree but can see the logic in their arguements, I’m also looking for that same understanding from all of you. Not that I’m right, because we will most likely disagree about that in the end, but that you can see where I’m coming from, and that, though you disagree, my position holds a degree of logic, and it does make some sense to you.
About the Hebrew Matthew, one is on the edge of my mind, I’d type in "Hebrew Matthew" and look online. The other is called the "Dutile Matthew". (Doo-Ti-Lay.) As far as proving that one of these was the original, again, my beliefs on this are heresay, and I admit it. I cannot prove it, just like you cannot disprove it, since neither of us knows for certainty, what the original language of the NT was, we can only assume what it was, or make an educated guess, and as great of a guess as it may be, it is a futile point to argue about since the proof for either side is nonexistant. Is it or are they translations of Greek, or Aramaic? Nobody can say. Nobody can’t say. But, what motive would someone have for translating this/these documents into Hebrew from Greek/Aramaic, especially if, as you say, Hebrew was virtually nonexistant at the time period??
But, you were right about one thing- the Septuagint was used mostly, by HELLENIZED Jews, like Paul for instance. However you were wrong also- when you claimed that most Jews of the period were Hellenized, and spoke Greek, since it was the common language then. It wasn’t the common language, from the standpoint that everyone used it, it was common from the standpoint that th Romans used it, and were in control of the region at the time. I need to point out also, that there were not millions of Romans all over the place. Herod was not Jewish, he was a king, placed by Rome, and he was a puppet. They required him, (and other "governors") to rule the region, and report to them, but he had his own armies, and they were not Roman armies. There were always contingents of Roman centurions patrolling the areas, but not entire armies all the time. Therefore, I believe that Aramaic was the more common language than Greek. But you were right again, when you said that alot of Jews spoke Aramaic, but most of them were not bilingual, because most of them were uneducated. But many of the scholars and scribes probably did read and write Greek as well, but again- out of the Jews who were serious about their "faith", alot of them did know Hebrew, and weren’t willing to trust the Greek OT, only the Hebrew. That group, that knew Hebrew, was mainly comprised of the leaders of the various sects of Judaism at the time, and were not in the majority by a longshot- I’m just trying to point out that Hebrew was not totally unused. Among the Jews of the period, Aramaic was the common language, and Greek came next, and Hebrew comprised a smaller third party. As far as the NT being origonally written in Greek- it is possible.
Now on to defend my comments on the word "almah", verses the Greek version. You may be right about that entire arguement- but my point still holds, because even if our current English versions stem from a Greek Septuagint OT rather than the Hebrew OT, if the Hebrew was the original OT, which it was, then the Greek can not be trusted OVER the Hebrew. The Hebrew word, IS Almah, and the Greek is a Greek word. OK- so the Greek word used in translation of Almah was more often accepted to mean "virgin". You may even be able to prove that point- but that doesn’t change the fact that "almah" is not meant to automatically be taken that way. If that woman’s virginity were of key importance to the passage, then the writer WOULD have used "bethulah", but he did NOT. Therefore it was not important enough to the writer of the passage that you percieve her as a virgin.
If I am trying to tell you a story that included a woman, then if her virginity is of any real importance to the story, I would only use ONE word to describe her, the word "virgin". If I used girl, lady, woman, young woman, WHAT EVER- your idea of her being a virgin would not be based on fact, but on your own supposition, and if the information about that woman were seriously LIMITED in the passage where I mentioned her, as is the case in Isaiah 7:14, you would not have any justification in believing she was a virgin, but ironically enough, Christianity has done JUST that. And ONLY in the last 500 YEARS!!!!
In closing- if you are right in saying that the event, a "virgin"-birth, came first, and THEN the prooftexting, then there is NO prooftext for the VB, and hence you should at least be able to admit, that my entire claim here, that Isaiah 7:14 is not a reference to Jesus, is a legitimate claim! If Matthew (or whomever wrote the book) was "searching" for a passage that "seemed" to support HIS belief in a VB, and he DECIDED to use Isaiah 7:14, then wouldn’t it be fair to say that not only COULD he be wrong, but in light of the context of the passage that he HAS to be wrong?? If Immanuell lived while Israel was still a nation, then how could Immanuell be Jesus, who lived over 700 years later??
Re: The Virgin Birth dilemma
I’m glad my direct approach was not taken amiss. I was worrying about it all night!
I think that the Hebrew Matthew probably goes back to an early church father or three making the claim that Matthew wrote in the dialect of the Hebrews, or collected saying of Christ in it. Of course there is some ambiguity about that: most Palestinian Hebrews spoke Aramaic, as far as we can tell, so it is more likely that here we have testimony to an underlying collection of Aramaic sayings of Christ which may have been written up later into a Greek gospel [and the quotations from a Greek Tanach seem to indicate the later stage of writing was Greek, for reasons already outlined].
YOu wrote: "you claimed that most Jews of the period were Hellenized, and spoke Greek, since it was the common language then. It wasn’t the common language, from the standpoint that everyone used it, it was common from the standpoint that th Romans used it, and were in control of the region at the time. "
Hmmm, I reread what I wrote and I didn’t actually. I made a distinction between those living in Palestine and those in diaspora [though not in those words]. The Romans used Greek because in was the main language, nearly everyone spoke it so the Romans did too in order to administer the empire in the east. Not everyone had it as a first language, but it was the common second language. A bit like English seems to be becoming in world terms at the moment.
You went on to write: "Therefore, I believe that Aramaic was the more common language than Greek. But you were right again, when you said that alot of Jews spoke Aramaic, but most of them were not bilingual, because most of them were uneducated. But many of the scholars and scribes probably did read and write Greek as well, but again- out of the Jews who were serious about their "faith", alot of them did know Hebrew, and weren’t willing to trust the Greek OT, only the Hebrew. "
In Palestine Aramaic was probably the first language for most Jewish people. However, we have to note that there were a lot of Greek speakers around. Galilee was nicknamed ‘Galilee of the Gentiles’, the Decapolis [Gk name] was a region of 10 Greek cities, and significantly, some of Jesus’ apostles have Greek names as well as the whole thing about Greek speaking widows in the Jerusalem church in Acts … I think it very likely that Jesus was what we would now call ‘bilingual’ if not trilingual. I guess most Jewish men would have some Hebrew from synagogue.
" If that woman’s virginity were of key importance to the passage, then the writer WOULD have used "bethulah"," Maybe so. But that’s not the point. If I’m right in seeing Matthew’s use of it as typological and not prophetic (for want of better terms). However the point that almah/maiden normally connotes a virgin remains strong and so the Greek translation is not only fair but probably the best. So Matthew’s typology is strong.
So, you overstate your case here: "in Isaiah 7:14, you would not have any justification in believing she was a virgin, but ironically enough, Christianity has done JUST that. And ONLY in the last 500 YEARS!!!!"
Not only that but to mangle your own words a little; your idea of her NOT being a virgin would not be based on fact, but on your own supposition. I’m also puzzled that you appear to be claiming that the virginal conception as a doctrine or major idea dates from the 1500’s; ‘cos if so that’s just plain wrong.
Andii
nouslife.blogspot.com
abbeynous.schtuff.com
Re: The Virgin Birth dilemma
Hello Andii, Good weekend so far??
Ok, in your last, you quoted me, ‘If that woman’s virginity were of key importance the writer WOULD have used bethulah’. You said that wasn’t the point, that Matthew’s usage was "typological" not "prophetic". Again, here is the problem with that line of thinking: in Isaiah7:14, the passage IS prophetic, there is no way to argue around that. So if you are RIGHT about Matthew not being prophetic, then Matthew is automaticlly WRONG with his entire approach ANYWAYS, Since the SOURSE he used, WAS being prophetic. Besides, let me ask you this- if you were right, and that passage was NOT prophetic, then How could it be referring to JESUS?? (Assuming it DID refer to Jesus in the first place, which it didn’t.)
Next, you immediately delve into the almah issue again. You say that it is the norm for almah to be taken to mean virgin. But you are not getting this idea from JEWS, who speak HEBREW for a LIVING. That whole concept, that "almah" is normally taken to mean "virgin", is taken from the normal interpretations of that word by most scholars, who happen to be Christian, not Jewish. Amongst Christian scholars, you are correct. That concept surely IS the norm, but that does not make it right. A Christian is automatically biased to interpreting scripture in a way that it will fit his doctrine. What happened to me, seeing a different interpretation for Isaiah 7 for example, That changed my belief structure, is truely a RARE occurance. Most Christians are "locked" in to their faith.
You mentioned that from my own words, claiming that the woman in Isaiah 7:14 was NOT a virgin, was just supposition, as well as what I said about your interpretations of her being a virgin. You are absolutely right, but still, you are missing the point. YES- since the passage does not specifically state in so many terms that she is a virgin, then yes, both our opinions are based upon supposition. The difference is, my interpretation is merely based upon the lack of evidence of her being a virgin, YOUR position, takes an unclear and unprovable passage, and creates a doctrine, that the rest of your religion rests upon. So my supposition is less than your supposition. I’m just saying, "There is not enough support to prove she’s a virgin." You’re saying, "Just because of the possibility of what this one word COULD mean, I will build an entire religion upon the idea."
But enough bickering back and forth about this philosophy or that- the real issue is not Matthew, the real issue is Isaiah 7. And so far, not one person that has responded to my words in this post, has actually tried to disprove my claims about what Isaiah 7 says in it’s entirety. THAT is what I am waiting for. If you are so right, and I am so wrong, then hit the issue in the heart, and take me through the entire chapter of Isaiah 7, and show me the proper interpretation of each verse, as you progress through the chapter. As far as the word Almah is concerned, as important as it seems, in the overall outlook of things, it is unimportant. Let’s just focus on this passage’s interpretation, from verse 1 onward.
Re: The Virgin Birth dilemma
Comment posts getting shorter: I think we’re getting to the nub and shedding the side issues…?
Whichever: I think there are two things I should respond to in this. The least important first.
" you are not getting this idea from JEWS, who speak HEBREW for a LIVING"
And the only such Jews who would be relevant to this would be those living at Isaiah’s time and at the time of Jesus. Language changes, even a written language, in the course of only a couple of generations words can change radically in meaning for a variety of reasons [new usages, attempts to differentiate, loan words impinge, sounds similar, etc etc]. In English a couple of examples off the top of my head: in the Book of Common prayer there is a prayer which starts, "Prevent, O Lord …" which would now have to be rendered, "Go before us O Lord …", in the course of 300 years [and the distance beween Christ and ‘Isaiah’ is about twice that]. Or more recently, I would not now use the word ‘gay’ to mean happy. When I was a little boy, that was its meaning. In the dictionary, that is still one of its meanings … So which Jew living when and in what context.
Given this, we have to do what anyone dealing with language has to do; look at context, at other instances of usage, cultural mileu etc to determine meaning. Heck, that’s even how children learn meanings. So I stand by my interpretation as being the most likely and best explanation of the various shreds of evidence.
More important issue now. And your comment is quite helpful to me in clarifying why we seem to be writing past each other.
"in Isaiah7:14, the passage IS prophetic, there is no way to argue around that. So if you are RIGHT about Matthew not being prophetic, then Matthew is automaticlly WRONG with his entire approach ANYWAYS, Since the SOURSE he used, WAS being prophetic. Besides, let me ask you this- if you were right, and that passage was NOT prophetic, then How could it be referring to JESUS?? (Assuming it DID refer to Jesus in the first place, which it didn’t.)"
Okay. We agree that the passage in Isaiah 7:14 did not originally refer to Mary. It’s a commonplace of Christian scholarship. It never even occured to me to argue that the original reference was to Mary. I suspect in broad terms we agree about the kind of reference it had and likely historical first-fulfilment. And look: it does not affect my belief in the virginal conception one iota or jot.
My belief was never out of the Is.7:14 mold. It was because I broadly trusted the gospel writers.
I suspect that Matthew may even have agreed with you about the primary referant of Is.7:14 -or at least not have been fazed by what I take it you [and I] believe about it. And that is because once a prophecy is *fulfilled and yet remains a part of scripture*, what are Faithful readers to do with it? Do they consign it to historical interest, or is it still in some way usable, capable of conveying God’s word to them/us? These passages stayed in the Tanach because when the council of Jamnia/Yavneh met to solidify what Jewish people accepted as scripture, Isaiah had, among other things, been found to be useful as ongoing scripture, I think. Even though some of it was fulfilled.
This is because such passages were often used typologically. That is they became specific examples of the way that God works. Metaphors, if you will, of the ongoing dialogue of God and God’s people. [I’m reminded of the episode of Star Trek TNG, where Picard encounters a people who only speak in phrases from their repertoire of stories which are, to an ear used to ‘hearing’ Jewish and Christian scriptural handling from around the 1st Cent AD, ‘typological’. The new situation is a ‘type’ of the archetype [the story which is in the canon].
I would suggest that part of the difficulty you seem to be having with what I am trying to convey, is that you are actually approaching these texts with the reading habits of a ‘modern’ global North/Westerner, and little acquaintance with the way that scripture was thought about and used by Jews [and later Christians] of the period of time we are dealing with. Part of the advantage of ‘formal’ study of such things is that it forces you to be exposed to these things and to confront [albeit imperfectly] our own cultural biases and default positions for handling scriptures. Matthew is handling Isaiah as a first century Jew who has become a Christian. The point for him is not that Almah gave birth to an Immanuel in the 6/7Cent BC, but the way that the event and [more importantly] the prophecy underlying it can be used to ‘symbolise’ and recycle the event to show how a virginal conception is ‘with the grain’ of God’s dealing with God’s people and has a kind of metaphorical precedent.
I’ll leave it at that for now…
Andii
nouslife.blogspot.com
abbeynous.schtuff.com
Re: The Virgin Birth dilemma
Hey there, Andii-
Are we shedding the side issues? Well that might be, but one reason a couple of my posts have gotten shorter is timing, and at what point in my day I respond. After work, my posts are generally lengthy, but a couple of times I responded in the morning before I went to work, and had to limit my response time. But I think the smaller issues are pretty well laid out on both sides, not that we couldn’t find new ways to debate them!
Regarding the first issue, I think I’ll concede. There are definately a few good points I could use to uphold my side, but your current contributions were pretty good, and honestly, I’m more eager to start hitting on the more important topic anyway!
OK. You are saying, unless I misunderstood, that Matthew thought of Isaiah 7:14 as metaphoric, or typological, and in another place you said “that the point for him was not that an almah gave birth to an Immanuel in the 6/7 cent BC, but the way that the event and the prophecy underlying it can be used to “symbolize” and recycle the event to show how a virginal conception is with the grain of how God deals with his people and has a kind of metaphorical precedant.”
More with the typological/metaphoric Bible? Here is the issue I take with that “theorhetical” misconception. You are saying that in one way or another, you underwent some type of study (specify type??) and that study “opened your eyes” to the proper way scripture should be looked at, which is, from your viewpoint, “typological”. You seem to be hinting, or implying, that ALL scripture with rare exception is to be viewed this way. But whatever courses you took, or seminary classes you went to, or whatever pastor was mentoring you, whatever the case, what you learned in this regard was not 100% FACT, that was PROVEN with EVIDENCE; but someone elses’s personal opinion of how THEY thought scripture was/is/should be viewed/interpreted. You can’t expect me to believe that there are “SCROLLS” that were written and preserved that were around in the days that scripture was written, and that these scrolls actually explain to us in the future, that everything the Jews and the Greeks wrote was meant to be taken METAPHORICALLY. Your beliefs in this regard do not come from that type of evidence, but rather from modern scholars who personally believe for whatever reason, that the Bible was written in that manner. And you are taking their “hypothetical” concepts to be fact.
There is a visible contradition to that concept, right in the very passage we are discussing. In Matthew 1:22, Matthew himself says that “these things took place to fulfill the scripture, FOR IT WAS WRITTEN:” In that very passage Matthew is CLAIMING that Jesus’ birth is a direct fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14. Matthew says nothing about typological, he says nothing about metaphoric, he directly makes a claim of Jesus’ birth. So what about the “Wheel within a wheel” in Ezekiel? Was that metaphoric as well? OR- was he seeing something in a vision from God, something which he never saw before, something possibly from TODAY, or even in the future? If a man, from back then, saw a missile flying through the sky, what would his words be in describing that thing? Probably some kind of “Arrow”. But that word was NOT meant as a metaphore by him, it was the only word he could THINK OF, to describe something that he could not explain. In Armageddon, when all the nations are converging on Israel in the last days, what happens? Before they can destroy Israel, “Fire from heaven” comes down, and destroys that incredibly vast army, just like that! BUT- then it talks about (Ezekiel 39:12-15) Israel burying the dead from that army, and it takes 7 months! And there will be specialized men hired to take care of this situation- when they find a bone, they don’t touch it, they MARK it, for the specialized men to take care of later. 7 months? Marked bones? Specialized search parties? Sounds like a nuclear or Ion based weapon went off.
I can see your idea that I’m seeing scripture from a “western” and therefore a “wrong” view, but the truth is that ALOT of scripture is NOT typological, and scripture that IS, usually has clues within the context of said passage to put you into that frame of mind, for example, Jesus speaks in parables. Well duh, I comprehend that parables are a metaphoric way of making a point of some kind. Metaphore has it’s place in scripture, even in a good portion of it. But to believe that ALL scripture is automatically a metaphore, is plain irresponsible.
And I personally believe that the virgin birth problems are the biggest proofs against the idea that Jesus was “God in the flesh”, and in my opinion that idea disproves Jesus being the Messiah as well. BUT, there are plenty of other issues that I have with the whole concept of Jesus being God/Messiah, besides the virgin birth. But I might be required to start a new subject in the forum to get into that.
I have a couple of questions for you in closing:
1) If Jesus was born of a virgin, and not of Joseph, then how can you justify Jesus sitting on David’s throne, without being blood-related? (And if you believe THAT is metaphoric as well, then why was God so specific in the requirements He made for Israel’s kings??? And for that matter, the priesthood, which also required a SPECIFIC BLOODLINE?)
2) If Jesus was born of a virgin, then how can he be MARRIED in the Ezekiel passages that describe the “prince”, who is king of Israel, AND a high preist too?? (Presumably in the order of Melchizedek) Ezekiel 45:17-19, Ezekiel 46:16, Ezekiel 46:18 etc.
3) Lastly, if Jesus sacrifice was the FINAL attoning sacrifice for ALL sin, then in Ezekiel 45:17, why does he or WHOEVER, offer SIN SACRIFICES in the future temple, FOR ATTONEMENT?!!?
These are some of the stronger issues, though there are plenty of smaller ones. Like I explained in another post, I’m not trying to convert you or anything, I think you’ll still sleep at night, as will I. I am just here to learn what you all have to say, and what your responses are to all these issues I and my group have discovered. Later!
Re: The Virgin Birth dilemma
It does look like the focus of this is sharpening. Your wrote a few things that I would like to explore or push further or controvert. Usual format: quote and comment.
“You are saying that in one way or another, you underwent some type of study (specify type??)” Yes, but incidently and partly in response to a slightly disparaging comment of yours which I didn’t at the time pick up from an earlier comment.
I have an honours degree in linguistics, and postgraduate diplomas in theology, cultural studies and an MA in life-coaching, spiritual direction and culture. I don’t make a big thing of them because either they make people overawed or belligerent in conversation. I happen to tutor people with few or no ‘paper’ qualifications in theology: I’m actually sympathetic to the idea that the academic thing can be overrated. However, it does make me more sensitive to what benefits guided reading and study can bring in terms of taking us out of the smaller thought-worlds we habitually build for ourselves.
“… and that study “opened your eyes” to the proper way scripture should be looked at, which is, from your viewpoint, “typological”. You seem to be hinting, or implying, that ALL scripture with rare exception is to be viewed this way.”
Actually, that is not at all an accurate depiction of what I was trying to communicate.
First I want to address an important background issue. The tone of what you write seems to indicate that you have taken what I wrote as some kind of implied put-down or disparagement.
If so, I should say that I was merely trying to point out that we might need to recognise that there are skills to be acquired in reading things that have been written in cultures that are very different to our own, otherwise we tend to miss things or even to see things that aren’t really there. We all have a tendency to deal with thing in familiar ways. We have to learn to recognise that sometimes things/people can operate very differently to how we have come to think of as natural and obvious and that it may be us that have to grow to encompass the new-to-us. That’s what directed study does at its best. (At its worst, of course, it makes us cleverer at arguing our prejudices!).
So I note my concern both that you think I’m talking down to you and that, later on, you seem to lump me together with others and so attribute views to me that I do not hold and have actually tried to distance myself from. Both these things are mistakes.
Now to the substantive point which is sharpened by what you go on to write. “Your beliefs in this regard do not come from that type of evidence, but rather from modern scholars who personally believe for whatever reason, that the Bible was written in that manner. And you are taking their “hypothetical” concepts to be fact.” [in short, no] And then you take me to task for, allegedly, saying all scripture is metaphorical. “But to believe that ALL scripture is automatically a metaphor, is plain irresponsible.”
There’s a lot to unpick here. The short of it is that we have plenty of evidence about the ways that early Christians and Jewish writers of the period interpreted scripture: they wrote commentaries and treatises on how to interpret scripture. So, yes we do have scrolls and codices that can be taken as evidence of how they did it. There’s no real argument about this because the evidence is fairly abundant. You can even buy books of the writings of these people and see for yourself.
Then I have to say that I am certainly not saying all scripture is metaphor. I actually agree with what you wrote. I think that you may be conflating me with a position that you see as related but that in fact I don’t hold. Again, please read what I actually wrote. I plead not guilty to the charge of saying all scripture is metaphorical. That is a view you have attributed to me with no real justification.
I used the word ‘metaphorical’ in conjunction with [mainly] ‘typological’ because I was concerned that ‘typological’ might not mean much to you [and others] and so I tried to find a word that was nearby in meaning terms to ‘lean against it’. However, it is not the same, and if you want to critique my assertions at this point it should be in terms of what I’m saying about ‘typology’. Plainly, my attempt to help the meaning along by using ‘metaphor’ was not successful! -Except to stir up a negative connotation in you…
I’m not, either, saying a global north/western view is wrong; just that it is not the way that other people in other times have seen, in this case, the art of writing and interpretation of scriptures. It becomes wrong if we take our way of thinking to be the way that others thought [or think] and then use it to interpret what they write or say. When we do that, we only see a reflection of our own point of view and we lose what they have to tell us.
Typology was -and is- a way of approaching the Tanach which early Christians used (with roots in Jewish use of the Bible at the time I think), that read the (OT) scriptures as pointing to Christ both as a whole and in its parts. So when reading a passage a big question in their minds would be, how might this be seen as pointing to Christ, or exemplifying something about Christ. We can see this happening when we read their commentaries on the OT scriptures. To us this can look a bit like metaphoric usage, but it is different in that it is based on the idea that Christ does indeed fulfill the law and the prophets. What we have to get our heads round is that ‘fulfillment’ for them is not just about prophecy [and that answers one of your points] but about the way that events, people, phraseology can function as pointers to Christ. It is a way of reading that offends our modern historical and scientific sensibilities, but it was very, very common.
Embarrassingly so.
However it does flow logically out of the idea the Christ fulfills the law and the prophets. Add to that the idea that Christ is in all and the one for whom all things exist, and it becomes nigh unstoppable as a way of reading. Furthermore, at this point the Christian scriptures were not yet collected and identified as ‘scripture’ so the OT was scripture for them, and naturally they wanted to find Christ in it.
What I have been trying to say in respect of Matthew is that Matthew seems to have been doing the same thing with at least some of his ‘fulfilleds’; the meaning is wider than being the direct [intended?] object of what we normally understand to be prophecy. The fact that this way of reading things was around and used a lot makes it very likely, in my view, that this is what is happening here.
On a couple or more occasions you have used a line of reasoning which goes something like this, in short: “you have no ‘solid proof’ of this, therefore it might be wrong, and therefore my proposal is as good.”
At least that’s how it comes over. If my cartoon of it is at all accurate, then I would like to encourage you not to use it.
-Just because something might not be right doesn’t make it wrong.
Neither does it make any alternative of necessity equally valid, right or more right.
It also is a slippery little device in that there are several standards of proof we might be talking about. What you are doing is applying an absolute standard to my proposals [that is a very stringent one by which it would be difficult to demonstrate anything very much] but a much less stringent, in effect, one to your own proposals.
I have always tried to argue what, given the evidence of which I am aware, is the most likely way of taking this. I don’t claim to be always right, merely that I have what appear good reasons for seeing it like this and these are the reasons. I’m merely, at this point, asking what is the more likely interpretation.
I’m running out of energy for this just now, but I think that the ‘couple’ of questions [in my dictionary that’s two not three ;-) -but I have to acknowledge that there are circumstances where that absolute meaning is ‘unstable’ and can be widened a bit] at the end are answered in large part by the question of how one interprets OT prophecy which is dependent on the kind of issues of context and approach we are dealing with above.
I’m not really well versed in Ezekiel, so I wouldn’t want to do much with that lot in detail until such time as I’d had time to look again and think.
Just in closing, you wrote:
I suspect that this is a bigger issue for you personally than we have acknowledged so far. It looks like you are pretty committed to this PoV now, and so for me to chip away at one of the foundations [perhaps the original] by opening up a whole raft of issues that you didn’t originally think of is probably uncomfortable. I want you to know that I think I understand that to some extent.And, yes, you’d have to start a new subject!
Andii
nouslife.blogspot.com
abbeynous.schtuff.com
Re: The Virgin Birth dilemma
Andii:
Sorry for the late reply! Also- sorry for making assumptions about the way you percieve things- I neve intended to put you in a box with anyone else via things I’ve said in my comments- being rude or judgemental is not in any way my intention, unless you are KKK. Anyway, I won’t categorically answer your post this time, I just want to make a few points.
You were right about one thing, I am pretty set in my views. However, as you said about your views, I do not claim that "I have all truth". Also, I used to be 100% certain of my views, and you were plain wrong, and you better not argue with me back then, you lose. That was my mindset, when I was a CHRISTIAN. I believed that my doctrine was THE TRUTH, for most of my life, and then all of a sudden, a few of my doctrines that I didn’t even consider significant, were torn from me, and replaced with a clear, logical, realistic interpretation. Those doctrines were the ones I mentioned from Acts 15, where the (Christian or Judaism??) "Counsel" was trying to determine whether the Gentiles should keep the Law. In 29 years of being a Christian, the idea that the descision James made in that passage could have been a TEMPORARY descision, never even crossed my mind. Then I was taken deeper into the passage, and the idea of it being temporary, that Gentiles only had to keep the 4 commands mentioned, until they learned the law over the course of a year- the time it took to get through the torah readings in a synagogue, that concept just fit, and my former interpretation, (one that was "handed" to me by Christian Pastors), just didn’t make as much sence based on the passage’s circumstances.
After that day, and through the next couple of months, more of my former doctrines were compared with interpretations that I never even heard of before, and these new interpretations CLICKED IN MY HEAD!! Since then, I have been carefull to make sure I don’t claim anything scripturally- is an absolute. Because before I THOUGHT my previous interpretations were absolutes, and they were torn away from me, and that was hard to take. I even fought it, ferociously, but I lost, because my interpretations were not taking into consideration, who was speaking, what their FAITH WAS, who was being spoken to, and especially, my interpretions did not utilize CONTEXT. With the exception of Paul’s writings, since he uses Greek philosophy in his writings, all the rest of the NT, including Jesus teachings, can not be properly interpreted without understanding Jewish customs, and Judaism, their religion. Judaism is even evident in Paul’s writings, in Colossians 2:13-17. (Emphasis on vs 16!) You see, Paul was not speaking to the Colossians, he was speaking to a specific GROUP of Colossians, "converted" Colossians. If the religion was Judaism, then verse 16 falls RIGHT INTO PLACE; "So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival, or a new moon, or sabbaths," . Obviously, food or drink is speaking of the Kosher laws, festivals would be speaking of the JEWISH high-holy days, Sukkot, Purim, etc., all days commanded by God. Plus, the weekly sabbaths, it seems that other Colossians, were giving THESE Colossians, a hard time. Therefore, Paul seems to be encouraging them to continue living by the Torah’s standards. Incidentally, this very passage was one more reason I believed that Acts 15 was a TEMPORARY situation, because if the descision for the Gentiles to not be required to keep the law was PERMANANT, then WHY is Paul encouraging HIS followers in Colossians, to KEEP THE LAW??? And if Paul was "Christian", and his Gentile followers, why in this example, are they following JUDAISM, AFTER JESUS IS GONE NO LESS!!
There are times when I look at a passage, and I understand that it was written in a way that tries to get a point across in an "indirect" manner. And you’re right, the word "metaphore" is close, but not entirely accurate. I think the concept of a parable is closer though. But the problem I see in your ideas in this regard, is that you say that "this is they way scripture was read back then". Your main points were, that the early Christians were the ones who read scripture this way, and that would put the time-frame about 150+ years after the NT was written. It wasn’t until around that time that the "documents" that are now "the New Testament", were really looked upon as significant. In the days they were written, most of them with the exception of the gospels, were simply "letters" written by certain individuals. So you see, for me, just because a society that lived CLOSE to the timing of the NT writings interpreted the Bible a certain way, does not lead me to believe that was the way those passages were WRITTEN. Also, MOST early Christians were hellenized, or utilized Greek philosophy in their thinking, that would not make their preferred way of interpreting scripture accurate. ESPECIALLY when it came to the OT, because even if they used the Septuagint most of the time, the fact of the matter is, it is not a Greek document, it is a Hebrew document that happened to be TRANSLATED into Greek, and that would not have been done in some bizarre way that you’d have to use "metaphoric/typological" thinking to interpret it. If a Greek mind writes a story, fine. It is typological. But that same Greek mind is not going to go through all the hell necessary to change a NON-typological Hebrex text, into a typological Greek text. Language simply doesn’t work that way. Not without a tremendous amount of effort. It seems to me that Greek Christians, who were so used to typology, automatically interpreted EVERYTHING that way, even this new Septiagint; though they wrongly thought it was typological too, since it was written in Greek. (But it wasn’t, it was TRANSLATED INTO Greek, in which case the "typological" leanings in the writings would not exist.)
But none of those NT writings, were ever "scripture". Today, because they are in one book, people BELIEVE they are scripture, because they are TOLD they are scripture. But what about the "Apocrapha"?? They were origionally part of the "Holy Bible". Before any of the Christian versions came out, including the King James, the Roman Catholic Bible,contained your NT, AND the Apocrapha. Where did your Bible come from? Probably either a translation of that original Holy Bible called the Latin Vulgate, or by direct translation of the available texts. Where are they? Yeah, ROME. The Catholic church has been in almost total control of these texts since ancient times, that is documented fact. Our English versions all stem from them, one way or another. I think I’ll end on that note. I do apologize again for being too "aggressive" in my explanations of your views in the last post. But although we don’t agree on how to interpret scripture, one thing is for sure, there is only one proper way. Maybe your way is right and mine is wrong, maybe your way is partially right and mine partially wrong. Maybe we’re both totally wrong, who knows. But personally, I just know one thing- when I began viewing the Bible from a "Jewish" perspective, (IE: from at least a basic understanding of their culture, beliefs, customs and lifestyle back then), all of a sudden I started seeing things that I never would have discovered, as a Christian. And I’m pretty darn smart and creative.
Re: The Virgin Birth dilemma
Shalom Aleichem, my name is Daniel I am born in France and live right now in the Philippines where I lead a small assembly .
I was really interested to read about the different comments concerning the virgin birth and would like to join the group to bring maybe some new challenging questions. First of all have mercy with me if there is some uncorrect words, because english is not my birth language and as well known, french people are not so fluent in language.
Now the comment concerning YeshaYahu is good and interesting and always, when it comes to the birth of Messiah, this quotation from YeshaYahu 7:14 comes. I would like to bring some new insight. First of all, as somebody wrote, if Messiah is not born of a virgin, he cannot be “god” , by the way he never says he was !! but much more interesting is that if Messiah is NOT born of a virgin, there is NO MORE Adam sin in man called “original sin” because if the original sin is in man and Messiah is born from a relation between a man and a woman , he cannot have a pure body and therfore is no more sinless. This would be a great problem for the Roman Catholic Church and it’s doctrine.
It has been said that in the Ebionites document the passage in Mattyatiyahu /Matthew was no mention of virgin birth.
What shall be also look at is that none of the apostle or Messiah himself refer to this virgin birth and Shaul/ Paul write in 2 Ti 2:8 Remember that יהושע Messiah, of the seed of Dawid, was raised from the dead according to my Good News, (scriptures 98) Here the word “seed” is the greek word “sperma” , which is the strong’s # 4690 and relate to a physical action of man. Same in the KJV. in another place, Galatian 3:29, Shaul speaking to the believers tell them that if they are in Messiah they are also from Abraham’s sperma / seed /strong’s # 4690.
We can also see that the virgin birth in Messiah’s time was “tradition” for the birth of “gods” and this seem to be very important that a “god ” is born without man intervention , here some examples:
[1] Crishna; Indian saviour god, born of the virgin Devaki; before sixth century BC. Buddha; Indian god born of Virgin Maya or Mary; third century BC. Fo-Li; Chinese mythological god, born of a virgin in 3468 BC. Lau-Kiun (Lao-Tsze), born of a virgin in 604 BC. Ra; Egyptian god, born from the side of his mother. Before 2000 BC. Zoroaster; Persian (Iranian) god; born in innoncence, of an immaculate conception of a Ray of Divine Reason. Perseus, son of Jupiter by the virgin Danae, daughter of Acrisius, King of Argos. Hercules, son of Jupiter by mortal mother, Alcmene. Apollo; son of Jupiter and mortal mother, Latona. Romulus, alleged founder of Rome, son of god by a pure virgin, Rhea-Slyvia.
[2] “laken yittan adonai hu lakem oth (omen) hinneh ha-almah (young woman) harah (is pregnant) ve-yeldeth ben ve-karath shem-o immanuel.”
- withoiut forgetting Tammuz born of Simeramis the goddess of the Babylonians.
If we look at this and consider that indeed the word used in YeshaYahu is the hebrew word “Alma” , we can easely take distance from this virgin birth. Is Elohim (god) able to give birth without man intervention ? for sure YES. the question is to know if it is necessary and that NOT what the Torah says. Yahushua (jesus) didn’t have to be born of a virgin to FULFIL (see Matt. 5:17 and explanation in Luke 24:44). there is no mention of virgin birth in the Torah. In B’reshit :Genesis 3:15, the word used for seed is the hebrew word “zerah” which mean also the natural seed! sorry for the Roman Catholic, but praise be to YaHWeh Elohim who restore the truth before the second coming of His Son Yahushua HaMoschiach.
It is enough for today. Thanks for your thoughts and desire for the truth. I hope I have brought more insight to be discussed.
Shalom Sabbath, Daniel
Re: The Virgin Birth dilemma
ELIJAH!!!!
Shalom! I liked your post very much! I agree with many of the points that you made. Are you "Messianic"?? I am just curious- after I left my church, I was "Messianic" for about 1 year, then our group kind of evolved into Judaism. But the way you expressed your points, reminds me of how I thought when I was a Messianic. Anyway, I look forward to hearing more from you! And I really disagree- Captain Jean-Luc Picard is French, and he can speak quite well!!!!!!!!!!!
What do you think about Hebrews 10:26-29?? And what about Acts15?? -NinjaHound
Re: The Virgin Birth dilemma
Why do you see the virgin birth as so important? If it didn’t happen, so what. We don’t have any records of Jesus talking about it, so why does it matter? It didn’t seem to be part of his message. I think most Christians today have thrown out this and other ancient myths without throwing out the importance of Jesus.
Let me make your case even easier. Instead of trying to create a web of logic to prove the VB didn’t happen, you can just say that it didn’t happen because that isn’t how God made the world work. Why would anyone expect God to break the rules he created? It seems more miraculous that God would send his message using the constructs of the world he made. To me, Jesus is more believable as a man instead of as something out of a sci-fi movie. Rather than always trying to look for the "supernatural" to prove God exists wouldn’t it make more sense to just accept that stories like this were created to add weight to Jesus’ message? It makes sense to me, and it doesn’t change his message. I also still love the stories and myths because they show how important Jesus was to his followers. No body ever created a myth about me, because I’ve never said anything worth preserving for centuries. Jesus on the other hand did. The myths were crucial to the preservation of his message.
All these doctrines about Jesus’ divinity detract from the importance of his message today even though originally they were created to add to the importance of his message. Keeping these beliefs around force Christianity to the same level as cults and ancient pagan religions. I was thinking about this while I was in church yesterday. All of the songs and the sermon were about the myths of Jesus, but none of them were about his message. It is horrible that we focus more on the proof of Jesus rather than the man himself.
I’m going to start an experiment. I’m going to keep score in church for the next month (probably a bad time because it is easter season) and count the number of references to Jesus’ legend or myths as compared to references to anything he said.
Re: The Virgin Birth dilemma
I would also agree that the virgin birth is of some importance but for slightly different reasons. I am not convinced that either Matthew or Luke understood Jesus conception by the Holy Spirit as evidence or an argument for the ‘incarnation’ in the way we have traditionally understood it - ie. as the means by which the divine and human were combined in Jesus. (I think Danutz misses the point here as well in the comment he has justed posted: the manner of the conception is not presented as proof of Jesus’ divinity.) Rather they seem to connect it with a messianic expectation: it is a sign to Mary in particular that the child really will be both saviour and king of his people as the angel had promised (eg. Luke 1:34-35). The title ‘Son of God’ in Luke 1:35 is not the same as the later trinitarian formulation ‘God the Son’. The New Testament nowhere makes either the effectiveness of Jesus’ death or his ‘sinlessness’ dependent on the virgin birth in the way that NinjaHound suggests. See also these comments on Matt. 1:20-23.
Exactly in what sense Matthew understood Jesus conception by the Holy Spirit as a ‘fulfilment’ of Isaiah 7:14 is difficult to say, but I agree with Peter that the larger context in Isaiah 7-9 has to be taken into account. It is characteristic of the New Testament’s use of scripture that brief quotations or allusions bring whole narratives and arguments into play - they are not merely ‘prooftexts’ (see these comments). I think we could say in this case roughly that Matthew has borrowed Isaiah’s sign and reapplied it in order to make sense of the story that Joseph was not the father. But as Peter points out, the analogy does far more than simply support the belief in a virgin birth. Matthew transfers to Jesus a whole narrative about judgment and salvation and the inauguration of an utterly different type of rule in Israel. (It is interesting to note that in Isaiah the name ‘Immanuel’ is associated with judgment and destruction (7:14-17; 8:7-10) rather than with salvation and comfort.)
So, NinjaHound, you are right to draw attention to the problems posed by the Gospel accounts of Jesus’ conception. But before we start jumping up and down and blaming the Vatican for pulling the wool over our eyes, we should look more closely at what the Bible is actually saying.
Here’s a hermeneutical parable. Suppose you ask someone the way to the city of truth, and they say to you, ‘Follow this road, it will take you across a number of fast flowing rivers, and eventually you will come to the city of truth.’ So you travel along the road and you come to a bridge across a river. It’s a mighty fine bridge, though of a rather quaint and antiquated design - but as you start across it, you hear a horrible cracking noise and the bridge lurches violently, and you scramble back to the river bank. At that point you might say to yourself, forget it, I’m not going to risk my neck crossing that bridge, and you abandon your journey. But you also have the option of trying to repair the bridge, reinforce it, or even of knocking it down and starting again using a better methodology. Which is the better course of action?
I think that there are a number of flimsy bridges on the road to the city of truth at the moment - bridges that have fallen into disrepair, or were not well-constructed in the first place. Part of the task of an emerging theology may be to do that reconstructive work for the sake of others who follow.
Re: The Virgin Birth dilemma
Could it be that some form of original Judaism is still the truth? Yes. Let’s call it…um…Chrisitianity. (I apologize for the sarcasm) Didn’t many of the early followers of Jesus celebrate the Sabbath and the 1st/8th day on Sunday? It seems to me we gather on Sunday to remember the life, death, resurrection of Jesus, celebrate the Lord’s Supper and the new life to which we have risen having shared in Jesus’ death and for which we are being nourished.
On to the real issue. I think it is always important to remember that our faith is not in written Scripture but in Jesus Christ to whom Scripture witnesses. Most Biblical scholars will point out that the VB is a later development in the canon with no mention of it in Paul. Paul did not preach "Christ and him virgin birthed," but "Christ and him crucified." From the cross (and Jesus’ message) we are asked to take all sorts of leaps of faith, many of which are blind. Isn’t that the nature of faith? (Though I don’t think that prohibits us from using our "all our mind" before taking that leap.)
While it may not be the way the world works, it does seem to be the way God works. By that I mean, Jesus seems to be another in a long line of God’s chosen who have been born through God’s intervention. For example, the Genesis patriarchs and Samuel. I think the virgin birth stories were meant to join Jesus with Jewish tradition (and fulfill it through the Holy Spirit) rather than equate him with outside, Hellenistic divinities.
There is no doubt that Isaiah 7:14 presents problems in interpretation. But my devotion to God through Jesus Christ (my Christian faith) does not hinge on the virgin birth. There is evidence for the incarnation without any mention of how it took place (Phil. 2:1-11).
I’ve lost anything that might resemble a train of thought so I’ll stop and respond more later. A new baby and lack of sleep make my mind foggy.
Re: The Virgin Birth dilemma
This is really a reply to andrew, though not excluding PastorPete, and not wishing to exclude danutz, as previously undiscovered depths of agreement and cordiality seem to be breaking out everywhere from the hitherto hidden hinterland of my theological persona.
With andrew, I agree that a messianic reference may be intended in the birth account of Jesus, but it would be difficult to exclude a greater significance because of the precise details of the divine nature of the conception. This wasn’t a miraculous birth akin to the conceiving of Elizabeth through Zechariah in old age, nor an otherwise ‘normal’ human conception which was the recipient of a divine effusion. The account is clear enough without Matthew 1:23 - the conception was a virgin conception through God (the Holy Spirit). Incidentally, the echoes here of pagan mythology need have no more significance than than that this was a cross-cultural fulfilment of paganism’s own shadowy and confused sense of the interaction of the human and divine in history. But the whole episode is profoundly unlike the circumstances of pagan mythology, and profoundly Jewish - notwithstanding a similarity of theme.
The ‘greater significance’ would surely be that not only was Jesus the expected messiah, but he was also the expected presence of God Himself returning to His people (and ultimately to His temple) - in an entirely unexpected way. Narrative/historical interpretations need perhaps to take a fuller account of this ‘unexpectedness’. Whether the return of God (and his glory) to the temple through Jesus’s ‘triumphal entry’ was ‘actual’, or a prophetic prefiguring of judgement to come, does not really matter. What does matter is that in Jesus we see a combination of roles: prophet, messiah, king in David’s line, temple, and supremely, presence of God: God’s glory "dwelling as a tabernacle amongst us" - John 1:14. The virgin birth described by Matthew provides a basis for this distinction between Jesus and any other biblical messiah figure. It’s not the only basis, but it is an important one.
The virgin birth is not disconnected from the meaning of the atonement. The question of Jesus’s lineage is significant to the atonement - and a natural extension of Paul’s closely argued contrasts between ‘in Adam’ and ‘in Christ’. An ‘atonement’ by one of Adam’s line would create enormous problems: not least to do with its effectiveness, but more significantly in justifiably raising the accusation levelled at ‘penal atonement’ as ‘cosmic child abuse’. Again, even a narrative/historical interpretation of Jesus cannot avoid some kind of explanation of the atoning significance of Jesus’s death, and cannot avoid the arguments which, in one way or another, wind their way back to Jesus’s own nature and the nature of his birth.
Admittedly, the virgin birth is not something taken up explicitly by any other NT author, but how much of a ‘later’ development in the canon can it be? I’m no expert, but maybe someone could explain how something in Matthew could be a ‘later development’ from the rest of the canon - unless it was an interpolation. (I don’t think anyone is suggesting that).
I have no interest in adopting some kind of ‘noble cause’ of defending traditional orthodoxy for its own sake. I simply cannot avoid seeing a combination of biblical motif, biblical logic and biblical theology when it is staring me in the face.
Re: The Virgin Birth dilemma
I’m sure there are ways of connecting the birth with the motif of divine presence if we take a general narrative perspective - but maybe this is one of the key issues here, that the conception by the Spirit of God is to be interpreted narratively rather than ontologically or metaphysically. It also seems to me that Jesus becomes the place of God’s dwelling in repentant Israel at his baptism. Whether the conception by the Spirit is meant to anticipate that or has overtones of a new creation, I don’t know.
Isn’t it significant that Matthew does not directly call Jesus ‘Immanuel’? Here I prefer NinjaHound’s ‘sign’ interpretation: it is the birth of a child by the Spirit of God that is a sign that God is actively present in Israel for judgment and salvation; it is not Jesus here who is Immanuel, God with us.
I disagree with this. Luke happily traces Jesus’ lineage back to Adam. Paul happily constructs his atonement theology/theologies with no apparent knowledge of the conception by the Holy Spirit. Jesus was in human form when he became obedient unto death. Orthodox theology doesn’t allow him to be anything less than fully human.
I imagine it wouldn’t be too difficult to argue that the nativity and infancy stories were compiled at a fairly late stage - after Paul and most of the Gospel material assumed written form. The question would then be, What were they compiled from? Is there any reason for rejecting the view that they have their origins in family traditions, memories? Do they reflect the theological and apologetic interests of the church in the later part of the first century?
Re: The Virgin Birth dilemma
"Blind Faith is FOOLISH Faith. There is a reason, an answer for everything, it is up to us to seek and find that Truth."
All of you are far too philosophical about this entire issue. Here is the problem with your thinking- whether talking about the virgin birth, or any other concept from the Bible, we are talking about a religion, or in this case several religions based on the same writings. That is the problem! THESE RELIGIONS ARE BASED UPON THE WRITINGS OF THE BIBLE. People don’t believe in Jesus because they must, or because it’s the truth, people believe because they either hear about it from scripture, via a man (Pastor) who reads to them weekly, in most cases, or these days, it is more likely that they believe because they have read it themselves. Today, there would only be a few hundred, PERHAPS but not necessarilly a few thousand, Christians in the WORLD, if the Bible did not exist. If that system were only spread by word of mouth, there would be far less Christians around, and those who were around would differ VASTLY in their doctines. But that is not the case, the Bible exists, and because of this, people believe a certain way. Sure, there are denominations that have different doctrines, but as a whole, their beliefs are remarkably similar to everyone elses.
Now, when I mentioned this Virgin Birth issue, I certainly didn’t expect a bunch of Platos and Socrates type individuals to respond. Personally, I never did like Paul. However, since you all talked about Jesus’ lineage, and being on the throne of David, ok. I’m game. As it turns out, this is another very serious problem with Jesus being God, or the Messiah, or the next king. There are 2 places that really go into Jesus’ lineage- Matthew 1, again, and Luke 3. The first note, would be that both these lineages are vastly different, neither containes the same number of names, and each has many names the other does not have. That alone is a huge problem for consistency and trustworthyness. However, both lineages also have several names in common, and if you can sit down for several hours at a time, you can trace the lineage back to David, if you use both Matthew’s and Luke’s variations of the lineage as reference. So yes, according to other writings in the Bible, the lineage can be traced back to David. But there are TWO problems with this lineage.
The first, is that this is not Jesus’ lineage, but Joseph’s lineage. Unless you believe Joseph was the physical father of Jesus of course, which would be against the whole arguement in the first place, is Jesus God. It has to be noted, that this can only be Jesus’ lineage, by adoption. (If his dad was a ghost.) Therefore, Jesus, can NOT be a descendant of King David, nor the Messiah, nor can he at some point reign on David’s throne. That is the first problem.
The second problem, is a little more complex. In Matthew 1:11, depending on your translation, "Josiah begot Jeconiah…". This is actually very significant. Note that there is a number next to the name "Jeconiah". Why? Because they want you to know that "Jeconiah" is another name for "Jehoiakin". Now hold that for a moment. In Luke’s lineage, that name or a similar name is not given. Both lineages, though there are some similarities here and there, are different, in that Matthew’s version is through David, but descended from his son Solomon. In the Luke lineage, it is descended through Nathan instead of Solomon. I don’t remember the passage, but I beleive that God made a promise that the kingship would always be descended from David, but because of something Solomon did, (my thoughts are fuzzy on this) God promised Solomon at one point that the line would also pass specifically through Solomon. If I’m right, then the Luke lineage is invalid automatically. But here’s the kicker.
Jeconiah, aka Jehoiakin, is mentioned in another lineage. He is the only Jehoiakin descended through Solomon. The passage is: Jeremiah 22:18-30. Now, this begins with JehoiakiM, the father of JehoiakiN. (Emphasis mine.) It starts with a word from God about the father, then near the end God switches his disdain toward the son, and notice- concerning Jehoiakin/Jeconiah/Coniah- "No man of his seed shall ever reign on the throne of king David again!" Interestingly enough, I don’t remember whether it was his son or grandson, but Jehoiakin had one heir that was totally righteous, and God allowed him to rule Israel, but not as king, God told him that because of the sins of his father or grandfather, (whichever), he could only GOVERN Israel, and so it happened. So, God was serious about this particular curse upon this man. The point is, that since this lineage has "Jeconiah", then if Jesus is Joseph’s literal son, Jesus can’t rule on the throne of David, proving false many a prophecy about Jesus. Likewise, if Jesus is using this lineage through adoption, which would be invalid anyway by Jewish standards, since "Jeconiah" is in the lineage at all, Jesus couldn’t rule on the throne of David, proving false many a prophecy about Jesus. OH! But there’s that Luke lineage- we’ll just reject Matthew’s, it must be wrong, and we can use Luke’s!! Then Jesus wins afterall!!! How conveniant. However, If I was correct about the lineage of David also travelling through Solomon, then that would not be an option either, so we’d have a lose, lose, lose situation for Jesus. What was it about three strikes?!?
Re: The Virgin Birth dilemma
I’m not sure many of the people who contribute to this site would be as anxious to defend such a literalistic reading of the genealogies as you appear to think - so I doubt if many will be particularly shocked by your critique. Of course there are discrepancies within and between the genealogies in Matthew and Luke if you are going to insist on reading them with a modernist mindset. Matthew and Luke were writing history, but they weren’t writing modern, post-enlightenment history. They were dependent on the methods and limited resources of ancient Jewish historiography.
We should not be surprised, therefore, if the genealogies are to some extent shaped theologically, or if they obscure distinctions between biological and legal descent - or for that matter symbolic descent: Jesus’ kingship was very unlike that of David, and he doesn’t seem to have been too concerned to establish his claim on the basis of biological descent (cf. Luke 20:41-44). Pick up any decent scholarly commentary on Matthew or Luke and you will find plenty of discussion of these matters - that is, if it’s not all too philosophical for you.
Re: The Virgin Birth dilemma