Examining the Doctrine of the Virgin Birth and Other Doctrines

[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?

No, I don't necessarily agree, but keep in mind you are talking to a philosopher. And I can tell you didn't actually read my previous post very closely. But, oh well!! I won't hold it against you, especially since I inherently do agree that there can be more categories than just that of Lewis' trichotomy.

2PhiloVoid

 

[Alonso_Castillo]

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.

It is not the same case, since the Context of the virgin being a child is in the context of the Promise of God of a Sign to come to the House of David, it is to the Linage of Kings, and in this prophesy the Prophet says that the Kings of Samaria and Damascus are complotting against Jerusalem, and the Prophet says that The Virgin will be a child when this kingdoms cease to Exist. This child will live in a world of Peace but that world of Peace will be followed by the desertification of Israel as well, the Fields are portrayed empty as it happened after The Romans destroyed Jerusalem, While the Lord was born and growing the Roman Peace was the Peace of Caesar Augustus and after the Death and resurrection of Jesus, the Jews were unrested to the point of exasperating the Romans and declare them war. We all know that The Romans destroyed the City and the entire Israel.

So it is the context the one which matter, Aram and all the Kings of Samaria and Damascus who were also related to The House of David were not liked by God any more, the woman then will give a child to the house of David but none of the heirs of David will be his father. Since no one of them were of the pleasant of God. It is then clear that The woman who give birth to a Child of the House of David will not yet meet any man of the house of David as father of her child.

It is the announcement of a new Creature of the House of David but not beget of the masculine seed of David descendants. Verses after Isaiah clarifies that this child is son of God, Isaiah 9:6.

 

[lstnag2016]

Increase info:

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.

Yad - Arm

Hey - Behold

Waw - Nail

Hey - Behold

The Name of YHWH

YaHuWaH

* When a Letter is Unique in the Torah Scroll, written Differently than in other places, like the Mem in Marbeh Isaiah 9:7 It means it's prophetic

Mem Resh Bet Hey ~ The letters translated as Increase, this is the only time that the Mem is closed in this word in the Hebrew text.

The very first letter in Many of the Torah Scrolls is Enlarged, also prophetic

TheTimesOfTheNations net com info org

1st Post B'reshyt

BetReshAlephShinYadTaw

 

[StTruth]

It is not the same case, since the Context of the virgin being a child is in the context of the Promise of God of a Sign to come to the House of David, it is to the Linage of Kings, and in this prophesy the Prophet says that the Kings of Samaria and Damascus are complotting against Jerusalem, and the Prophet says that The Virgin will be a child when this kingdoms cease to Exist. This child will live in a world of Peace but that world of Peace will be followed by the desertification of Israel as well, the Fields are portrayed empty as it happened after The Romans destroyed Jerusalem, While the Lord was born and growing the Roman Peace was the Peace of Caesar Augustus and after the Death and resurrection of Jesus, the Jews were unrested to the point of exasperating the Romans and declare them war. We all know that The Romans destroyed the City and the entire Israel.

So it is the context the one which matter, Aram and all the Kings of Samaria and Damascus who were also related to The House of David were not liked by God any more, the woman then will give a child to the house of David but none of the heirs of David will be his father. Since no one of them were of the pleasant of God. It is then clear that The woman who give birth to a Child of the House of David will not yet meet any man of the house of David as father of her child.

It is the announcement of a new Creature of the House of David but not beget of the masculine seed of man.

Haha. In your eagerness to show that Isaiah prophesied a VIRGIN, you have effectively cut off our Lord from the House of David which incidentally is part of another prophecy which evangelists were quick to show as fulfilled in Christ. And then you cooked up another category you termed a Creature of the House of David. Sounds awful. Haha

 

[Alonso_Castillo]

Haha. In your eagerness to show that Isaiah prophesied a VIRGIN, you have effectively cut off our Lord from the House of David which incidentally is part of another prophecy which evangelists were quick to show as fulfilled in Christ. And then you cooked up another category you termed a Creature of the House of David. Sounds awful. Haha

Go to

Isaiah 9:6

For our sakes a child is born, to our race a son is given, whose shoulder will bear the sceptre of princely power. What name shall be given him? Peerless among counsellors, the mighty God, Father of the world to come, the Prince of peace.


¿Can mighty God be born of man seed?

Isaiah is talking of the same Child in 9:6 and in 7:14.

 

[StTruth]

Go to

Isaiah 9:6

For our sakes a child is born, to our race a son is given, whose shoulder will bear the sceptre of princely power. What name shall be given him? Peerless among counsellors, the mighty God, Father of the world to come, the Prince of peace.


¿Can mighty God be born of man seed?

Isaiah is talking of the same Child in 9:6 and in 7:14.

Can mighty God be born of a woman's womb?

Do you see how set and fixed your preconceived ideas are?

 

[Alonso_Castillo]

Can mighty God be born of a woman's womb?

Do you see how set and fixed your preconceived ideas are?

Yes he can, if God puts the seed and the Woman puts her womb. That is why Christ is BEGOTTEN of the Father. Being Son of Woman, Christ is Man and being son of God Christ is God as well.

But if a man puts his seed and the Woman puts her womb, Then Divine Nature/Substance of God is not present and that child can't be called Mighty God.

 

[StTruth]

Yes he can, if God puts the seed and the Woman puts her womb. That is why Christ is BEGOTTEN.

So it's OK for our Lord to take the mother's chromosomes but not the father's? But Jesus i's fully God and he's also fully human. A human being must have chromosomes from both parents. Jesus is not half human. He's fully human and fully God.

 

[Alonso_Castillo]

So it's OK for our Lord to take the mother's chromosomes but not the father's? But Jesus i's fully God and he's also fully human. A human being must have chromosomes from both parents. Jesus is not half human. He's fully human and fully God.

The Holy Spirit Lord and Giver of Life Can put the Chromosomes. But in the equation you can not put aside the Womb of the Woman.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

So it's OK for our Lord to take the mother's chromosomes but not the father's? But Jesus i's fully God and he's also fully human. A human being must have chromosomes from both parents. Jesus is not half human. He's fully human and fully God.

So, are there more than a couple of possibilities here, StTruth? Or, in your thinking, is the way in which Jesus gained His humanity not open to trichotomization, (or additional categories), but only to dichotomization?

 

[StTruth]

So, are there more than a couple of possibilities here, StTruth? Or, in your thinking, is the way in which Jesus gained His humanity not open to trichotomization, (or additional categories), but only to dichotomization?

I'm not the one with fixed inflexible ideas. I'm saying there is no greater objection to CHrist having both parents' DNA than his having only the mother's DNA.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'm not the one with fixed inflexible ideas. I'm saying there is no greater objection to CHrist having both parents' DNA than his having only the mother's DNA.

There are various questions we could apply to the objection you pose, one of which is: According to the theology of the Bible, where did Adam get his DNA from?

 

[StTruth]

I

There are various questions we could apply to the objection you pose, one of which is: According to the theology of the Bible, where did Adam get his DNA from?

I come from a tradition that does not look at Adam as an individual in history but a representation of humans.

 

[Deadworm]

StTruth: "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?"

No, the Mar Saba monastery in Jerusalem.


"Apparently he implies that our Lord had inappropriate relations with the naked young man in linen cloth. Is that the same Morton Smith?"

Just the opposite! "Clement" repudiates the claim such such relations can be found in the Secret Gospel. But the late Morton Smith was gay. So m any scholars believe he inserted his gay agenda into this forgery. The alleged Clement manuscript has been photographed and the photos have been published in Smith's book. Some scholars claim to have seen the manuscript. The problem is that it has vanished from the monastery. I fear the consensus now is that it was a brilliant fraud. Smith is smart enough to replicate Clement's Greek style.
But his book "Jesus the Magician" is unique and fascinating.

NOTE: I'm not yet allowed to post on your Satan thread. So let me say this: The OT has no concept of Hell or of postmortem punishment. Sheol is NOT a realm of postmortem survival of individual identity. In fact, Daniel 12:3 is the only OT text that clearly teaches postmortem survival and it is the latest OT text. These facts in themselves imply that the concept of "Satan" has evolved from an OT adversary, akin to a prosecuting attorney who does not have our best interests at heart, to NT "the god of this world (2 Corinthians 4:4).

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I

I come from a tradition that does not look at Adam as an individual in history but a representation of humans.

So do I. But so what? I don't believe in a literal Adam and Eve, but that doesn't mean I disregard the intended theology. We are looking at the Bible from it's own paradigm, or even a set of similar, multiple paradigms shared among the writers, by which in this case I am insinuating a reference to Goldingay (1987), and another to Gregerson, Drees, & Gorman (2000).

References
Goldingay, J. (1987). Theological diversity and the authority of the Old Testament. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing.

Gregersen, N. H., Drees, W., & Görman, U. (Eds.). (2000). Human Person in Science and Theology. A&C Black.

The theological meanings can be studied from our present 21st century paradigm, but we need to remember that they haven't necessarily been defined by it. Christ's humanity is not defined by what we today would impute to the meaning of humanity by its genetic make up. You know and I know that the writers of the Bible, both Old and New, had nothing of the sort in mind when they wrote their representations of the things they were theologizing and historicizing about.

Here is a second question: If it was God--the Holy Spirit who overshadowed Mary in the conceptual process, why couldn't God simply fill in the missing information through His fiat? We see Mary asking, "How can this be done?," with the theological reply penned by Luke saying, "God can do the impossible." Unless, somehow, we don't think God ever really does the impossible.

2PhiloVoid

 

[StTruth]

StTruth: "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?"

No, the Mar Saba monastery in Jerusalem.


"Apparently he implies that our Lord had inappropriate relations with the naked young man in linen cloth. Is that the same Morton Smith?"

Just the opposite! "Clement" repudiates the claim such such relations can be found in the Secret Gospel. But the late Morton Smith was gay. So m any scholars believe he inserted his gay agenda into this forgery. The alleged Clement manuscript has been photographed and the photos have been published in Smith's book. Some scholars claim to have seen the manuscript. The problem is that it has vanished from the monastery. I fear the consensus now is that it was a brilliant fraud. Smith is smart enough to replicate Clement's Greek style.
But his book "Jesus the Magician" is unique and fascinating.

NOTE: I'm not yet allowed to post on your Satan thread. So let me say this: The OT has no concept of Hell or of postmortem punishment. Sheol is NOT a realm of postmortem survival of individual identity. In fact, Daniel 12:3 is the only OT text that clearly teaches postmortem survival and it is the latest OT text. These facts in themselves imply that the concept of "Satan" has evolved from an OT adversary, akin to a prosecuting attorney who does not have our best interests at heart, to NT "the god of this world (2 Corinthians 4:4). "

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.

[/QUOTE]
Of course you can post on that thread. First go to the Rules under the Apologetics thread and you'll see a thread where people ask the admin for rights to post. If admin is around they'll authorise you. It's that easy. Do post something there. We need all the scholars in that thread.

 

[StTruth]

So do I. But so what? I don't believe in a literal Adam and Eve, but that doesn't mean I disregard the intended theology. We are looking at the Bible from it's own paradigm, or even a set of similar, multiple paradigms shared among the writers, by which in this case I am insinuating a reference to Goldingay (1987), and another to Gregerson, Drees, & Gorman (2000).

References
Goldingay, J. (1987). Theological diversity and the authority of the Old Testament. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing.

Gregersen, N. H., Drees, W., & Görman, U. (Eds.). (2000). Human Person in Science and Theology. A&C Black.

The theological meanings can be studied from from our present 21st century paradigm, but we need to remember that they haven't necessarily been defined by it. Christ's humanity is not defined by what we today would impute to the meaning of humanity by its genetic make up. You know and I know that the writers of the Bible, both Old and New, had nothing of the sort in mind when they wrote their representations of the things they were theologizing and historicizing about.

Here is a second question: If it was God--the Holy Spirit who overshadowed Mary in the conceptual process, why couldn't God simply fill in the missing information through His fiat? We see Mary asking, "How can this be done?," with the theological reply penned by Luke saying, "God can do the impossible." Unless, somehow, we don't think God ever really does the impossible.

2PhiloVoid

Of course God can do that. He could've had Jesus appearing on earth with full human DNA and without having to be born through a woman.

Or he could have Jesus having DNA from both parents and spiritual DNA from God. That would make more sense

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Of course God can do that. He could've had Jesus appearing on earth with full human DNA and without having to be born through a woman.

Or he could have Jesus having DNA from both parents and spiritual DNA from God. That would make more sense

I think it would be more accurate to say that it makes more sense "to you," without the implication that what makes sense to any one of us must be the truth on this matter. Especially since a portion of the truth of the matter is that, until we get to the great bye-and-bye, we'll never know just how it was done.

 

[hedrick]

Honesty in Biblical analysis is hard to define, much less detect. First, none of the scholars presented here, whether by conservatives or radical are likely to be dishonest in the sense of saying something that don’t believe.

So what’s the next definition? I’d say willingness to follow evidence even if you don’t like where it’s going. Even that is hard to define. I’d like to say that conservatives start with an assumption that the Bible is inerrant, and no matter what arguments they look at, they’ll always find a way to conclude that 2 Peter was written by Peter.

But every scholar has starting assumptions. You can’t interpret individual passages in isolation. You need some understanding of what was going on in NT Christianity in general and with the specific author you’re interpreting. The question to me is how willing you are to adjust that understanding over time. There have been plenty of critical scholars that have hung onto schemes after evidence seems against them.

In my view, mainstream critical scholarship is best at this. It has been willing to adjust interpretations based on better information about 1st Cent Judaism, and things like an increasing understanding of just how tied traditional Christian has been to Greek concepts rather than Hebrew ones.

However liberal scholarship can have the exact same kind of biases. I think Ehrman is an example. In mainstream scholarship you can’t tell from their writing whether the scholar is a Christian, an agnostic, or a Jew. Of course conservative Christians think this a bad thing. But I don’t. I don’t think this is true for Ehrman. I haven’t read any of his professional work. It may well be OK. But the popular books I’ve read from him don’t have the kind of even-handedness that you expect to see in a scholar.

I agree that it’s easier to make his position interesting than it is to carefully weigh evidence, and help you understand enough to make intelligent judgements. But as someone new to NT scholarship, I would think that would be the priority for you.

 

[StTruth]

Honesty in Biblical analysis is hard to define, much less detect. First, none of the scholars presented here, whether by conservatives or radical are likely to be dishonest in the sense of saying something that don’t believe.

So what’s the next definition? I’d say willingness to follow evidence even if you don’t like where it’s going. Even that is hard to define. I’d like to say that conservatives start with an assumption that the Bible is inerrant, and no matter what arguments they look at, they’ll always find a way to conclude that 2 Peter was written by Peter.

But every scholar has starting assumptions. You can’t interpret individual passages in isolation. You need some understanding of what was going on in NT Christianity in general and with the specific author you’re interpreting. The question to me is how willing you are to adjust that understanding over time. There have been plenty of critical scholars that have hung onto schemes after evidence seems against them.

In my view, mainstream critical scholarship is best at this. It has been willing to adjust interpretations based on better information about 1st Cent Judaism, and things like an increasing understanding of just how tied traditional Christian has been to Greek concepts rather than Hebrew ones.

However liberal scholarship can have the exact same kind of biases. I think Ehrman is an example. In mainstream scholarship you can’t tell from their writing whether the scholar is a Christian, an agnostic, or a Jew. Of course conservative Christians think this a bad thing. But I don’t. I don’t think this is true for Ehrman. I haven’t read any of his professional work. It may well be OK. But the popular books I’ve read from him don’t have the kind of even-handedness that you expect to see in a scholar.

I agree that it’s easier to make his position interesting than it is to carefully weigh evidence, and help you understand enough to make intelligent judgements. But as someone new to NT scholarship, I would think that would be the priority for you.

Of course you can compare and when you do,you'll see that inerrantist scholars are blatantly dishonest. As you say they will insist against all evidence that 2 Pet was written by Peter. They will never admit any book is pseudepigraphical. But liberal and even atheist scholars are more honest. They weigh the evidence and come to a rational conclusion. They say 2 Pet is pseudepigraphical but they accept Paul wrote Gal. This is what made me so disgusted by some Christian writers who are demonstrably dishonest. And why I think atheists like Ehrman are far more honest than we Christians because we have an agenda. Ehrman was a Christian. He wanted desperately to believe but he lost his faith. If he ever has any agenda it can only be the hope to recover his faith. Most Christians don't understand atheists. We don't understand that they were once like us and if there were rational arguments or evidence for faith, far from suppressing it, they would be happy to embrace it.