Examining the Doctrine of the Virgin Birth and Other Doctrines

[StTruth]

This thread might benefit from 2 relevant issues that have been overlooked in this discussion:

(1) On another thread, the claim is repeatedly made that Isaiah 7:14 originally referred to Ahaz, Hezekiah or Isaiah. But Matthew employs Jewish pesher interpretative techniques found at Qumran, which find no need to be faithful to the original intent of Hebrew prophecy. Should not the virgin birth tradition be assessed on the basis of prevalent interpretive techniques from the time of Christ rather than in terms of modern literalistic impositions? On Jewish interpretation of Bible prophecy in Jesus' day, read:

http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/eq/1964-1_012.pdf

Thanks, Deadworm, for your post. I'm always a little careful when I reply to either your post or Hedrick's because it's hard to keep up with the intellectual level and any shortcoming on my part might be attributed to 'immaturity' by those who hate me and there are many on CF. But to be fair, I think if we measure all posts by the level of maturity, mine must be the highest after the two of you. LOL.

I will feel more comfortable if I depend on the view of writers whose works I've read. One of them says that after Jesus' death, the church was in a lot of turmoil. Early Christians started to trawl the OT for anything that could be viewed as a reference to Jesus. When I was much younger, I used to be very uncomfortable every time I read some of the supposed fulfilling of OT prophecies by Jesus because some of them aren't even prophecies. I can only think of very few examples offhand and the one that comes to mind is 'Out of Egypt have I called you'. That is hardly a prophecy but the evangelist who wrote St Matthew (I'll just call him St Matthew) had to tell a tale of the slaughter of the innocents (which is not in recorded history and is not even recorded in any of the Roman records) to explain that the Holy Family went to Egypt and to tell the tale of the Roman census to explain why they went to Bethlehem (for another 'prophecy' about Bethlehem). Please forgive me if I don't give quotations. I'm typing this on my phone and I can't search the net now. Historians say that the Roman census was always carefully recorded and there was none at the time of Jesus.

One reason given by a scholar why there was this need to make the OT affirm or prophesy Jesus is the need for legitimacy. Christianity could exist either on its own (which would give it no rights under Roman law) or it could exist as a branch of Judaism (which would give it some legitimacy under Roman law which has already recognised Judaism). The early church chose the latter even after it was excommunicated by the synagogues.

If this view is correct, it would not be surprising to see the early church adopting a method of interpretation of OT prophecies that does not require complete compliance with the ingredients of the prophecy. But whether such a method of interpretation is legitimate is debatable.

(2) Most of the Jewish Christian and Gentile first century converts lived in the Diaspora, spoke Greek, and used the LXX as their Scripture. So why couldn't God decide to fulfill the LXX version of the virgin birth prophecy in Isaiah7:14? Remember that the LXX prophecy can be construed to promise a virgin birth that results in the presence of Emmanuel ("God with us"). Matthew may have realized that neither Ahaz, nor Hezekiah, nor Isaiah was adequate to fulfill such a grandiose claim.[/QUOTE]

The LXX was a badly translated version of the Hebrew Bible. There are many other errors pointed out by the evangelical and conservative scholar FF Bruce himself. It is attractive to try to accord some legitimacy to a badly translated version of God's word and to give more credence to the erroneous translation than the original work when the erroneous translation bears out more of our Christian doctrines. I understand that some churches (I think it might be the Syrian tradition) treat the Septuagint as divinely inspired. Personally, I find this hard to accept. If the Hebrew Bible is divinely inspired, I think it's wrong to give an erroneous translation greater credence. But that's just my opinion.

 

[StTruth]

I think the second one is reaching. But my original response was that Matthew's belief in the Virgin Birth didn't come from a mistranslation, largely because I'm not convinced that the Virgin Birth was created to fit an OT prophecy in the first place.

Even liberal commentators think Matthew and Luke both got the story from existing tradition. Whether that tradition was accurate is a separate question, which can't be discussed here. But there's a tendency for Christians to be overly influenced by apologists, who like to see NT events as being proven because they fulfill the OT prophecy. I'm not convinced that this is based on a proper understanding either of OT prophecy or the NT use of the OT. But this misunderstanding seems to underlie the OP: because Is 7:14 didn't really predict the Virgin Birth, the Virgin Birth must be wrong.

You point out that the NT often uses non-literal interpretations, which basically see current events in light of the OT. There's no problem with authors getting creative in their use of the OT, since their intent isn't to use the OT as a source of predictions that have to come out right in some literal sense. Rather, they're using the OT as a model for other events. It's more an analogy than a literal prediction, and thus techniques such as pesher can get creative about how current events correspond to the OT.

Furthermore, the main job of a prophet wasn't to produce miraculous predictions, which would then be ammunition for Christian apologists. Their job was to interpret events in light of God's will, attacking corrupt rulers and upper classes, and proclaiming that they would be held accountable by God. In that respect it wasn't critical for them to make miraculous predictions. Many of the things prophets predicted were things that anyone could see were likely to happen. The importance of the prophets wasn't being oracles, but connecting events with God's will, interpreting them as judgement.

It looks to me like the OP is operating within an understanding of prophecy and the relationship of OT and NT that's too close to the apologists', even though he's coming to opposite conclusions.

Thanks for this perspective. I see what you mean. You are right that I might be looking at a prophecy as something miraculous whereas, as you have rightly pointed out, many of the prophecies are just warning to rulers not to do something which anyone can tell would result in something bad. But you will of course realise that that view of yours would probably not be greeted with fondness by many Christians on CF. I'm not sure if they would prefer my treatment or yours. LOL.

But what you say makes a lot of sense. But I don't think the NT writers merely use the OT as an analogy. The way they say that Jesus fulfilled the OT prophecy seems more like an attempt to legitimise our Lord than merely using OT examples as an analogy. But of course I may be wrong and I must confess I've not thought of your view which is it isn't really a fulfilling prophecy but a mere analogy. It's a very plausible view, I must say.

 

[Deadworm]

StTruth: "...any shortcoming on my part might be attributed to 'immaturity' by those who hate me and there are many on CF."

"Let no one despise your youth (1 Timothy 4:12)."

I think it will be more interesting for you if I play devil's advocate with the rest of your comments.

"Early Christians started to trawl the OT for anything that could be viewed as a reference to Jesus...the one that comes to mind is 'Out of Egypt have I called you'.

The version of Jesus' life circulated by Jewish opponents of Jesus claims that Jesus DID spend time in Egypt for the purpose of studying magic (so Celsus in Origen, Against Celsus)! You can read about this Jewish anti_Gospel in Morton Smith, "Jesus the Magician." Is this claim ultimately derived from Matthew? Probably.

"That is hardly a prophecy...the evangelist...had to tell a tale of the slaughter of the innocents (which is not in recorded history and is not even recorded in any of the Roman records)"

The Jewish historian, Josephus, documents how paranoid Herod became about potential rivals late in life. He even killed several members of his family. Although Josephus fails to mention a slaughter of Bethlehem children to get the supposed newborn "Messiah," that mass murder would be entirely consistent with Josephus's reports. When I toured Israel a few years ago, I was impressed by the sight of the Herodium (Herod's towering castle) towering near Bethlehem. Roman sources would not be expected to report the Bethlehem slaughter because they say nothing of Herod's other atrocities. Still, the credibility of all the New Moses typology in Matthew is a serious problem.

"Historians say that the Roman census was always carefully recorded and there was none at the time of Jesus."

Egyptian sources say that the Romans conducted a census every 14 years and the Quirinius census occurred around 7 AD. So there may well have been an earlier census in 7 BC, the most likely hear of Jesus' birth; and Luke may simply have misidentified the name of the Roman governor's at the time. In his magisterial commentary, "The Birth of the Messiah," Raymond Brown argues that the so-called "star" of Bethlehem was in fact the triple conjunction of Jupiter, Saturn, and Mars that occurred in 7 BC. When this conjunction reappeared centuries later, the rabbis were hysterical about the imminent appearance of the Messiah! The earlier census might not have been mentioned by Josephus because the Romans weren't yet ready to use a census as a prelude for immediate taxation.

"If this view is correct, it would not be surprising to see the early church adopting a method of interpretation of OT prophecies that does not require complete compliance with the ingredients of the prophecy. But whether such a method of interpretation is legitimate is debatable."

True, but not that debatable by the interpretive standards of Jesus' day,

(2) Most of the Jewish Christian and Gentile first century converts lived in the Diaspora, spoke Greek, and used the LXX as their Scripture. So why couldn't God decide to fulfill the LXX version of the virgin birth prophecy in Isaiah7:14? Remember that the LXX prophecy can be construed to promise a virgin birth that results in the presence of Emmanuel ("God with us"). Matthew may have realized that neither Ahaz, nor Hezekiah, nor Isaiah was adequate to fulfill such a grandiose claim.[/QUOTE]

"The LXX was a badly translated version of the Hebrew Bible...If the Hebrew Bible is divinely inspired, I think it's wrong to give an erroneous translation greater credence."

Don't forget that the Hebrew text used by the LXX translators was very different than ours. The same is true of the Hebrew OT texts found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. In the case of Isaiah 7:14, "parthenos" is a possible, though inaccurate, translation of the Hebrew "almah." Remember, that the LXX "virgin" translation was not offered in support of a virgin-born Messiah. My point is a question, not a claim: why might not God fulfill a prophecy in the wording of the OT text that most of His first-century converts actually read. Many Jews spoke Greek, even in Palestine, and especially in Jerusalem, where kids studied Homer in school.

 

[StTruth]

StTruth: "...any shortcoming on my part might be attributed to 'immaturity' by those who hate me and there are many on CF."

"Let no one despise your youth (1 Timothy 4:12)."

I think it will be more interesting for you if I play devil's advocate with the rest of your comments.

"Early Christians started to trawl the OT for anything that could be viewed as a reference to Jesus...the one that comes to mind is 'Out of Egypt have I called you'.

The version of Jesus' life circulated by Jewish opponents of Jesus claims that Jesus DID spend time in Egypt for the purpose of studying magic (so Celsus in Origen, Against Celsus)! You can read about this Jewish anti_Gospel in Morton Smith, "Jesus the Magician." Is this claim ultimately derived from Matthew? Probably.

"That is hardly a prophecy...the evangelist...had to tell a tale of the slaughter of the innocents (which is not in recorded history and is not even recorded in any of the Roman records)"

The Jewish historian, Josephus, documents how paranoid Herod became about potential rivals late in life. He even killed several members of his family. Although Josephus fails to mention a slaughter of Bethlehem children to get the supposed newborn "Messiah," that mass murder would be entirely consistent with Josephus's reports. When I toured Israel a few years ago, I was impressed by the sight of the Herodium (Herod's towering castle) towering near Bethlehem. Roman sources would not be expected to report the Bethlehem slaughter because they say nothing of Herod's other atrocities. Still, the credibility of all the New Moses typology in Matthew is a serious problem.

"Historians say that the Roman census was always carefully recorded and there was none at the time of Jesus."

Egyptian sources say that the Romans conducted a census every 14 years and the Quirinius census occurred around 7 AD. So there may well have been an earlier census in 7 BC, the most likely hear of Jesus' birth; and Luke may simply have misidentified the name of the Roman governor's at the time. In his magisterial commentary, "The Birth of the Messiah," Raymond Brown argues that the so-called "star" of Bethlehem was in fact the triple conjunction of Jupiter, Saturn, and Mars that occurred in 7 BC. When this conjunction reappeared centuries later, the rabbis were hysterical about the imminent appearance of the Messiah! The earlier census might not have been mentioned by Josephus because the Romans weren't yet ready to use a census as a prelude for immediate taxation.

"If this view is correct, it would not be surprising to see the early church adopting a method of interpretation of OT prophecies that does not require complete compliance with the ingredients of the prophecy. But whether such a method of interpretation is legitimate is debatable."

True, but not that debatable by the interpretive standards of Jesus' day,

(2) Most of the Jewish Christian and Gentile first century converts lived in the Diaspora, spoke Greek, and used the LXX as their Scripture. So why couldn't God decide to fulfill the LXX version of the virgin birth prophecy in Isaiah7:14? Remember that the LXX prophecy can be construed to promise a virgin birth that results in the presence of Emmanuel ("God with us"). Matthew may have realized that neither Ahaz, nor Hezekiah, nor Isaiah was adequate to fulfill such a grandiose claim.

"The LXX was a badly translated version of the Hebrew Bible...If the Hebrew Bible is divinely inspired, I think it's wrong to give an erroneous translation greater credence."

Don't forget that the Hebrew text used by the LXX translators was very different than ours. The same is true of the Hebrew OT texts found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. In the case of Isaiah 7:14, "parthenos" is a possible, though inaccurate, translation of the Hebrew "almah." Remember, that the LXX "virgin" translation was not offered in support of a virgin-born Messiah. My point is a question, not a claim: why might not God fulfill a prophecy in the wording of the OT text that most of His first-century converts actually read. Many Jews spoke Greek, even in Palestine, and especially in Jerusalem, where kids studied Homer in school.

What you have said is all very thought-provoking and I thank you for them. I agree your proposition or questions are beyond dispute. At least I can't think of a suitable reply. But surely you will agree that what I have suggested (actually a repeat of other writers' views because honestly, I'm not that brilliant to come up with my own suggestions) is also plausible.

You mentioned Morton Smith. Isn't that the great scholar who claimed to have found a letter by Clement which has a reference to the Secret Gospel of Mark in St Catherine's monastery in Egypt? Apparently he implies that our Lord had inappropriate relations with the naked young man in linen cloth. Is that the same Morton Smith? Do you believe he actually saw the letter or do you think it was just a weird joke by Smith? I find this intriguing but probably it's just a joke.

 

[Galilee63]

A belief in our Blessed Virgin Mother of God's Holy Immaculate Conception and Blessed Holy Virginal Birth by God and through God should be believed by every Catholic and Christian for many reasons, one being that it occurred and is spoken about within God's Holy Word of which as Catholics and Christians we must believe, trust, read and follow just as all of Jesus, God and The Holy Spirit's followers read and trusted, accepting every Holy Passage of God's Holy Word.

The ArchBishops are wrong to state that it is not a necessity to believe in The Immaculate Conception or Virginal Birth of Jesus Christ our Saviour with all respect.

Love in our Lord Jesus Merciful Saviour and our Blessed Virgin Mary Mother of God and our Mother.

 

[hedrick]

But what you say makes a lot of sense. But I don't think the NT writers merely use the OT as an analogy. The way they say that Jesus fulfilled the OT prophecy seems more like an attempt to legitimise our Lord than merely using OT examples as an analogy. But of course I may be wrong and I must confess I've not thought of your view which is it isn't really a fulfilling prophecy but a mere analogy. It's a very plausible view, I must say.

I will feel more comfortable if I depend on the view of writers whose works I've read. One of them says that after Jesus' death, the church was in a lot of turmoil. Early Christians started to trawl the OT for anything that could be viewed as a reference to Jesus.

This might make sense if the NT way of handling the OT was unusual. But it's the way Jews commonly operated. The same approach is used in the Dead Sea Scrolls, from Qumran. And apocalyptic writers used it regularly. The essay cited below will note that many of the NT approaches were standard for Jewish rabbis. It's not just Christians after Jesus death that trawled the OT. Jews did it all the time.

Unfortunately I haven't found it easy to find a single explanation of all of this in an online source. However this comes close: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdo...4A0A17AD?doi=10.1.1.731.724&rep=rep1&type=pdf. When talking about typology, he makes the following point:

"the Exodus events are said to be "types for us", to have happened "by way of example" and to have been written down "for our admonition upon whom the end of the ages has come" ([1 Cor] 10:6,11 ). Covenant typology accords with the Jewish conviction that all of God's redemptive acts followed the pattern of the Exodus; it is, then, an
appropriate way for Jesus and his community to explain the decisive messianic redemption. More generally, covenant typology approaches the whole of Old Testament as prophecy. Not only persons and events but also its institutions were "a shadow of the good things to come.""

It's true that early Christian "trawled" the OT. But they did it because of the assumption that the OT establishes the pattern of God's activity, and so current events must follow that pattern. And that's the way Jewish writers always worked.

(It's interesting to note that the author of this essay taught at the S Baptist seminary. So he's actually a relatively conservative scholar.)

What scholars are you reading? Are you reading mainstream critical scholarship?

 

[StTruth]

What scholars are you reading? Are you reading mainstream critical scholarship?

The part about the early church trawling the OT for prophecies they could squeeze Jesus in comes from (hahahaha) Bart Ehrman. Ehrman is easily the most entertaining scholar I have ever come across. His book Lost Christianities is so exciting I just couldn't put it down. And I learnt so much from it including that bit about Morton Smith and the Secret Gospel of Mark. And really, he's not such a bad scholar because if you look at Metzger's The Text of the New Testament - Its Transmission, Corruption and Restoration, the fourth edition is written with Bart Ehrman.

 

[hedrick]

Ehrman is definitely entertaining. He is a competent scholar. Unfortunately not all of his work shows it. He has a tendency to write atheist propaganda. His idea of what was going on in NT use of the OT is simply not consistent with what we know. Although if you read his text carefully you'll often find that the facts are actually right, but they're given a "spin" that most people wouldn't. You also should pay attention to citations. I've almost never seen Ehrman cited by commentaries for interpretation of NT texts, nor by historical Jesus scholars. His primary theory of the historical Jesus is from the early 20th Cent, and is not widely accepted today. He is definitely not an author I would give to someone in your position to start, because you don't have enough perspective to know what of him you can believe and what is questionable. There are highly skeptical scholars that I'd prefer, e.g. Borg or Crossan, though I think you'd be better off to start with mainstream Anglican scholars such as Dunn.

NT authors definitely mined the OT for precedents. The question is why. I think it's inconceivable that Christianity could have started without many people experiencing Jesus' resurrection. Consider the experience subjective if you like (though you should read Wright's critique of that first), but I don't think many people think that disappointment would cause 1st Cent Jews to manufacture Christianity out of OT quotations. A better model is that once they had experienced what they considered to be a resurrection, they looked for OT precedents to help them understand how such an unexpected thing could fit into God's plan. Along with Jesus' own teachings, of course.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The part about the early church trawling the OT for prophecies they could squeeze Jesus in comes from (hahahaha) Bart Ehrman. Ehrman is easily the most entertaining scholar I have ever come across. His book Lost Christianities is so exciting I just couldn't put it down. And I learnt so much from it including that bit about Morton Smith and the Secret Gospel of Mark. And really, he's not such a bad scholar because if you look at Metzger's The Text of the New Testament - Its Transmission, Corruption and Restoration, the fourth edition is written with Bart Ehrman.

Thanks, Deadworm, for your post. I'm always a little careful when I reply to either your post or Hedrick's because it's hard to keep up with the intellectual level and any shortcoming on my part might be attributed to 'immaturity' by those who hate me and there are many on CF. But to be fair, I think if we measure all posts by the level of maturity, mine must be the highest after the two of you. LOL.

I will feel more comfortable if I depend on the view of writers whose works I've read. One of them says that after Jesus' death, the church was in a lot of turmoil. Early Christians started to trawl the OT for anything that could be viewed as a reference to Jesus. When I was much younger, I used to be very uncomfortable every time I read some of the supposed fulfilling of OT prophecies by Jesus because some of them aren't even prophecies. I can only think of very few examples offhand and the one that comes to mind is 'Out of Egypt have I called you'. That is hardly a prophecy but the evangelist who wrote St Matthew (I'll just call him St Matthew) had to tell a tale of the slaughter of the innocents (which is not in recorded history and is not even recorded in any of the Roman records) to explain that the Holy Family went to Egypt and to tell the tale of the Roman census to explain why they went to Bethlehem (for another 'prophecy' about Bethlehem). Please forgive me if I don't give quotations. I'm typing this on my phone and I can't search the net now. Historians say that the Roman census was always carefully recorded and there was none at the time of Jesus.

One reason given by a scholar why there was this need to make the OT affirm or prophesy Jesus is the need for legitimacy. Christianity could exist either on its own (which would give it no rights under Roman law) or it could exist as a branch of Judaism (which would give it some legitimacy under Roman law which has already recognised Judaism). The early church chose the latter even after it was excommunicated by the synagogues.

If this view is correct, it would not be surprising to see the early church adopting a method of interpretation of OT prophecies that does not require complete compliance with the ingredients of the prophecy. But whether such a method of interpretation is legitimate is debatable.

(2) Most of the Jewish Christian and Gentile first century converts lived in the Diaspora, spoke Greek, and used the LXX as their Scripture. So why couldn't God decide to fulfill the LXX version of the virgin birth prophecy in Isaiah7:14? Remember that the LXX prophecy can be construed to promise a virgin birth that results in the presence of Emmanuel ("God with us"). Matthew may have realized that neither Ahaz, nor Hezekiah, nor Isaiah was adequate to fulfill such a grandiose claim.

The LXX was a badly translated version of the Hebrew Bible. There are many other errors pointed out by the evangelical and conservative scholar FF Bruce himself. It is attractive to try to accord some legitimacy to a badly translated version of God's word and to give more credence to the erroneous translation than the original work when the erroneous translation bears out more of our Christian doctrines. I understand that some churches (I think it might be the Syrian tradition) treat the Septuagint as divinely inspired. Personally, I find this hard to accept. If the Hebrew Bible is divinely inspired, I think it's wrong to give an erroneous translation greater credence. But that's just my opinion.

Hi StTruth,

In relation to what Hedrick and Deadwood state above in posts #63, #66, and #68, you might also want to check out G.K. Beale's, "Handbook on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament." He gives a nice treatment of Matthew's use of the Hosea prophecy you alluded to regarding Jesus' being "called out of Egypt," and his approach seems to accord somewhat with some of the things Hedrick and Deadwood have said.

In sum: I agree with the proposition that New Testament authors were not so much seeing OT prophecies as ultra-literal, linear, predictions of exact events, but rather they were perceiving typological patterns that God cryptically set in place beforehand and by which the NT writers, and us, would recognize God's work in the future via the similar patterns. I call this the "Elijah Principle."

2PhiloVoid

 

[StTruth]

Hi StTruth,

In relation to what Hedrick and Deadwood state above in posts #63, #66, and #68, you might also want to check out G.K. Beale's, "Handbook on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament." He gives a nice treatment of Matthew's use of the Hosea prophecy you alluded to regarding Jesus' being "called out of Egypt," and his approach seems to accord somewhat with some of the things Hedrick and Deadwood have said.

In sum: I agree with the proposition that New Testament authors were not so much seeing OT prophecies as ultra-literal, linear, predictions of exact events, but rather they were perceiving typological patterns that God cryptically set in place beforehand and by which the NT writers, and us, would recognize God's work in the future via the similar patterns. I call this the "Elijah Principle."

2PhiloVoid

Thanks. Together with your recommendation, I now I have too many books to read. These scholars should take a leaf from Ehrman's book and write books that are exciting to the lay person. Ehrman's books are so exciting that I couldn't put them down.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Thanks. Together with your recommendation, I now I have too many books to read. These scholars should take a leaf from Ehrman's book and write books that are exciting to the lay person. Ehrman's books are so exciting that I couldn't put them down.

Well...."exciting" and "true" are not necessarily the same thing. (...I know you know that.)

 

[Alonso_Castillo]

"almah" (young maiden)

¿What novelty would be that a young maiden gave birth? If all women on those year began their sexual life at 15-16 ¿wasn't that enough Young? or was this Almah younger? How much younger 9 years old?

Sorry but I don't buy your interpretation. The purpose of Isaiah to say that a Almah was about to give birth is that She was virgin. Not an ordinary young maiden.

 

[StTruth]

Well...."exciting" and "true" are not necessarily the same thing. (...I know you know that.)

Of course they need not be the same thing. And of course Ehrman will give a more atheistic slant to everything but that's only natural. He doesn't believe in God. But one thing I can say of Ehrman is he's rational and honest. He will give ideas that are plausible even if we, as Christians, do not embrace them. But he does not make dumb propositions like what Josh McDowell does. My dad gave me his book and McDowell is dumb. He regurgitates what CS Lewis first proposed that Christ had to be a liar, a madman or the Son of God. I think that's the dumbest thing anyone has ever said and McDowell adopted it lock stock and barrel. Even though I was younger when I read that dumb book I already saw the dumbness of the suggestion. I mean I can think of a hundred other possibilities and Jesus doesn't have to be one of those three.

At least Ehrman is never dumb. He may be a non-believer but he's brilliant and honest and it's not wrong of him to suggest plausible models for what happened 2000 years ago.

 

[StTruth]

"almah" (young maiden)

¿What novelty would be that a young maiden gave birth? If all women on those year began their sexual life at 15-16 ¿wasn't that enough Young? or was this Almah younger? How much younger 9 years old?

Sorry but I don't buy your interpretation. The purpose of Isaiah to say that a Almah was about to give birth is that She was virgin. Not an ordinary young maiden.

Why is novelty important? It's common in any form of literature to see words like that. It's more a precursor to the birth of an important person. Not every sentence in a prophecy must be novel. The novelty here is the child who is about to be born and not the manner of birth or the virginity of the mother.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Of course they need not be the same thing. And of course Ehrman will give a more atheistic slant to everything but that's only natural. He doesn't believe in God. But one thing I can say of Ehrman is he's rational and honest. He will give ideas that are plausible even if we, as Christians, do not embrace them. But he does not make dumb propositions like what Josh McDowell does. My dad gave me his book and McDowell is dumb. He regurgitates what CS Lewis first proposed that Christ had to be a liar, a madman or the Son of God. I think that's the dumbest thing anyone has ever said and McDowell adopted it lock stock and barrel. Even though I was younger when I read that dumb book I already saw the dumbness of the suggestion. I mean I can think of a hundred other possibilities and Jesus doesn't have to be one of those three.

At least Ehrman is never dumb. He may be a non-believer but he's brilliant and honest and it's not wrong of him to suggest plausible models for what happened 2000 years ago.

Well... ...I think that in the case of C.S. Lewis, and even with McDowell, some of the things they've said are contingent on their assumption that Jesus was a real person who said at least most of what is reported about Him as having had said.

If we assume some other position about Jesus as an entity in history, then of course, there are more possibilities--a lot more--than just the Lord, Liar, Lunatic trichotomy.

2PhiloVoid

 

[StTruth]

Well... ...I think that in the case of C.S. Lewis, and even with McDowell, some of the things they've said are contingent on their assumption that Jesus was a real person who said at least most of what is reported about Him as having had said.

If we assume some other position about Jesus as an entity in history, then of course, there are more possibilities--a lot more--than just the Lord, Liar, Lunatic trichotomy.

2PhiloVoid

Even if we assume Jesus was a real person and he said most of the things he's said to have said, he doesn't have to be one of the three. Trichotomy sounds cool - you've cleverly extended a dichotomy. He could have been honestly mistaken. He could have believed he was going to rise again. I mean I'm not saying he didn't. I'm only suggesting that there are other possibilities and the trichotomy as the only possibilities is wrong.

 

[StTruth]

"almah" (young maiden)

¿What novelty would be that a young maiden gave birth? If all women on those year began their sexual life at 15-16 ¿wasn't that enough Young? or was this Almah younger? How much younger 9 years old?

Sorry but I don't buy your interpretation. The purpose of Isaiah to say that a Almah was about to give birth is that She was virgin. Not an ordinary young maiden.

I'm sorry I forgot to give an example to make my meaning clear. Supposing I prophesy that a man (hint: Jesus) would ride a donkey into Jerusalem. You'd probably where's the novelty. Lots of people in those days chose the donkey as a common means of transport. So you say it's got to be a flying donkey. Otherwise where is the novelty? I hope you see why it's not necessary to have novelty in every aspect of a prophecy. As I've said, the baby to be born is the novelty.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Even if we assume Jesus was a real person and he said most of the things he's said to have said, he doesn't have to be one of the three. Trichotomy sounds cool - you've cleverly extended a dichotomy. He could have been honestly mistaken. He could have believed he was going to rise again. I mean I'm not saying he didn't. I'm only suggesting that there are other possibilities and the trichotomy as the only possibilities is wrong.

Jesus' being "mistaken" would actually fit into the "Lunatic" category without too much trouble, if we take the trichotomy as general categories. Since things like delusion and/or mental illness are a range of symptoms expressed through various degrees of intensity, Jesus' possible delusion doesn't have to be a separate category unto itself. So, in this instance, I would agree with C.S. Lewis and McDowell.

[BUT...before you assume that since my education isn't quite PhD or ThD level, you can just dismiss me out of hand, you might want to know that I do have several hundred books of theology, philosophy, history, etc. sitting on bookshelves and about 90% of them are PhD level (some of which are Bart Ehrman and F.F. Bruce, by the way). And I've been studying for quite some time.

And I'm saying all of the above not so much to be challenging to you or to your respected Mr. Ehrman, but to try to suggest some other additional avenues of inquiry that can be helpful with your overall evaluations.]

2PhiloVoid

 

[lstnag2016]

Isaiah 9:7 LeMarbeh ~ The Increase

Mem - closed / waters~womb

Resh - head

Bet - house

Hey - revealed

From closed womb, head of house revealed.

A Sign

It's in the Hebrew Zephaniah 3:9

Zephaniah 3:8 Is the Only verse in the Hebrew Scriptures with all 22 Letters and the five final forms, called sofits.

 

[StTruth]

Jesus' being "mistaken" would actually fit into the "Lunatic" category without too much trouble, if we take the trichotomy as general categories. Since things like delusion and/or mental illness are a range of symptoms expressed through various degrees of intensity, Jesus' possible delusion doesn't have to be a separate category unto itself. So, in this instance, I would agree with C.S. Lewis and McDowell.

[BUT...before you assume that since my education isn't quite PhD or ThD level, you can just dismiss me out of hand, you might want to know that I do have several hundred books of theology, philosophy, history, etc. sitting on bookshelves and about 90% of them are PhD level (some of which are Bart Ehrman and F.F. Bruce, by the way). And I've been studying for quite some time.

And I'm saying all of the above not so much to be challenging to you or to your respected Mr. Ehrman, but to try to suggest some other additional avenues of inquiry that can be helpful with your overall evaluations.]

2PhiloVoid

No, delusion is not lunacy. If Jesus mistakenly believed he would rise again that's not lunacy. Lots of sane people believe they will rise again after they're dead, don't you agree?