Comment Thread for The Resurrection of Jesus - Apologiaphoenix vs Gary

[Gary]

The author of Matthew did not translate the book of Isaiah.

No, he didn't. But he took passages out of Isaiah, contorted them, and shoehorned Jesus into them.

[tabibito]

What was the average age of marriage and subsequent first childbirth in Iron Age Palestine? I will bet it was in the teens. Therefore for the prophet to prophesy that a young woman would conceive does not automatically confer the young woman was a virgin. Only if women in Iron Age Palestine were waiting to marry and give birth to their first child in the late twenties could your logic apply here.

Exactly so. The prophet said
the pregnancy
will be
a sign
from God.
"A sign from God" means it will be a miracle - which doesn't apply when a pregnancy arises in the normal way.

In addition, if you read the entire chapter, it is very obvious from the context that the prophecy was fulfilled during the reign of King Ahaz, seven hundred years before Jesus. Whoever wrote the gospel of Matthew went on a desparate scavenger hunt through the Hebrew Bible to shoehorn Jesus into passages that could be contorted to prophesy his future birth, life, and death. It is really shameful and pathetic. It would be like Muslims trying to shoehorn Mohammad into the New Testament (which they do!).

Yes - the extant Hebrew scriptures do make it seem that way. Maybe the pre-AD 150 copies could be made to read that way - but they haven't eliminated the statement
the pregnancy
will be
a sign
from God.

No Jew I have encountered was ever able to mess with the scripture enough to make it seem otherwise.

[Gary]

Few things:

1) There was a very, very early high Christology. Jesus was seen as God almost right off the bat. They were also argued to be the same thing, which is why adoptionism actually became a serious heresy. See Ehrman's Lost Christianities for a discussion of adoptionism.

2) The usual "parthenos" vs. "bethulah" vs. "almah" thing yet again raises its ugly head. What people should know is that "almah" refers to a young maiden, the implication of which is... guess what, a virgin.

3) The dating for some of the OT to Josiah has problems, and people love to ignore those problems. Josiah does have monotheistic reforms, but just claiming that the priestly class devised the entire thing very late on is simply wrong. There are clearly early traditions within it.

What Christian source do we have for the period between 30 AD to 55 AD? All we have is the Creed listed in First Corinthians. This Creed says nothing about Jesus relationship to Yahweh and the Holy Spirit in a Trinity, therefore, we have no contemporary record of what the earliest Christians believed on this concept. As the Islamic article states, not even Paul mentions a Trinity. The passages that could be interpreted as inferring a Trinity do not appear until the Gospel of John, written at the end of the first century! Therefore, every one of the original Eleven were most likely long dead when the author of John wrote his gospel.

We have zero evidence what the earliest Christians believed other than possibly the Creed in First Corinthians.

This is my point about the Christian belief system. It is so tenuously held together by assumptions and hearsay. It is like constructing a ship out of paper and scotch tape and expecting it to float.

[Gary]

Exactly so. The prophet said
the pregnancy
will be
a sign
from God.
"A sign from God" means it will be a miracle - which doesn't apply when a pregnancy arises in the normal way.

Yes - the extant Hebrew scriptures do make it seem that way. Maybe the pre-AD 150 copies could be made to read that way - but they haven't eliminated the statement
the pregnancy
will be
a sign
from God.

No Jew I have encountered was ever able to mess with the scripture enough to make it seem otherwise.

Isaiah 7Complete Jewish Bible (CJB)

7 During the days of Achaz the son of Yotam, the son of ‘Uziyahu, king of Y’hudah, Retzin the king of Aram and Pekach the son of Remalyah, king of Isra’el, advanced on Yerushalayim to attack it but were unable to conquer it. 2 It was told to the house of David that Aram and Efrayim had become allies. Achaz’s heart began to tremble, as did the hearts of his people, like forest trees shaken by the wind.

3 Then Adonai said to Yesha‘yahu, “Go out now to meet Achaz, you and your son Sh’ar Yashuv, at the end of the aqueduct from the Upper Pool, on the road to the Launderers’ Field; 4 and say to him, ‘Take care to stay calm and unafraid; don’t be demoralized by these two smoldering stumps of firewood, by the blazing anger of Retzin and Aram or the son of Remalyah; 5 or because Aram, Efrayim and the son of Remalyah have been plotting against you, thinking, 6 “We will invade Y’hudah, tear it apart, divide it among ourselves and appoint the son of Tav’el as king there.”


7 “‘This is what Adonai Elohim says:
“It won’t occur, it won’t happen.
8 For the head of Aram is Dammesek,
and the head of Dammesek Retzin.
In sixty-five years Efrayim will be broken
and will cease to be a people.
9 The head of Efrayim is Shomron,
and the head of Shomron is the son of Remalyah.
Without firm faith,
you will not be firmly established.”’”


10 Adonai spoke again to Achaz; he said, 11 “Ask Adonai your God to give you a sign. Ask it anywhere, from the depths of Sh’ol to the heights above.” 12 But Achaz answered, “I won’t ask, I won’t test Adonai.”


13 Then [the prophet] said,


“Listen here, house of David!
Is trying people’s patience
such a small thing for you
that you must try the patience
of my God as well?

14 Therefore Adonai himself
will give you people a sign:
the young woman* will become pregnant,
bear a son and name him ‘Immanu El [God is with us].
15 By the time he knows enough
to refuse evil and choose good,
he will [have to] eat
curdled milk and [wild] honey.
16 Yes, before the child knows enough
to refuse evil and choose good,
the land whose two kings you dread
will be left abandoned.

17 Adonai will bring the king of Ashur
on you, your people and your father’s house.
These will be days worse than any you’ve known
since Efrayim broke loose from Y’hudah.”
18 Yes, when that day comes,
Adonai will whistle for the fly
in the farthest streams of the Nile in Egypt
and for the bee in the land of Ashur.
19 They will come and settle, all of them,
in steep vadis and holes in the rocks
and on all thorn bushes and brambles.


20 When that day comes, Adonai will shave —
with a razor hired beyond the [Euphrates] River,
that is, with the king of Ashur —
the head and the hair between the legs,
and get rid of the beard as well.


21 When that day comes, a man will raise
a young cow and two sheep.
22 Will they produce in abundance?
No, he will [have to] eat curdled milk.
Indeed, everyone left in the land
will eat curdled milk and [wild] honey.


23 When that day comes,
wherever there once were a thousand grapevines,
worth a thousand pieces of silver,
there will be only briars and thorns.
24 One will go there [to hunt] with bow and arrow,
because all the land will be briars and thorns.
25 You won’t visit hills once worked with a hoe,
for fear of the briars and thorns;
it will be good only for pasturing cattle
and being trampled down by sheep.

Complete Jewish Bible (CJB)
Copyright © 1998 by David H. Stern. All rights reserved.

Gary: Where do you get that the pregnancy is a miracle? The passage says it is a sign that a child will be born, named Immanuel, and by the time he is old enough to distinguish between good and evil, the external thread to the kingdom will be eliminated by God.

You are reading the Christian interpolation into the Jewish text.

[Mikeenders]

Please note Gary's source. As usual, he's reaching for anything he agrees with, without critically evaluating its merit.

Its really quite ridiculous. He is just doing what he did with Ferguson's article and even Ferguson objected. he's just using Tweb to publish for other people in this space. Just today alone four or five of his posts are nothing but copy and pastes. He engages on nothing, runs away from every counter point and now he is off to the races on at least his 15th subject with the virgin birth and the trinity.

[Mikeenders]

pigeons (aka flying bundles of stupidity) much as I love them all, I have to admit that even the two geniuses in the flock, Tack and Doujou, are each as thick as a brick.

Late last week, I decided to move the eighty little darlings from home to a location where they - and the neighbours would be happier. First step was to get them from the back yard, and to a waypoint. I went to the lane behind the house, and started to toss small pieces of bread up to where they could see it, and into the lane.
First, they congregated on the side of the shed roof and watched me throwing the bread. Then they ran to the end of the shed and looked down into the yard where they were accustomed to being fed. I tossed another piece of bread - they ran back to the side of the shed roof and looked at me. Then they ran to the end of the shed roof again. (Corrugated Iron roof - you can imagine the clattering it made.) After they had repeated the procedure half a dozen times or more - they all took to the air and went straight to the old feeding area. After a couple of minutes the first of them came to me, and in short order, the rest followed.

All this messing around with Gary running off to sites with no food for thought and coming back here with nothing worthwhile ....

It kind of makes me wonder ...

ROFL.....what a PERFECT story for the moment. Take a bow.

[Mikeenders]

The author of Matthew did not translate the book of Isaiah.

HAHAHA . I am turning catholic today. Saints preserve us. Gary has spoken - Matthew did not write the Septuagint. Who knew?

[tabibito]

Depending on the scholar, Paul's date of death is listed as between AD 58 -67. Every epistle he wrote is likely have originated during the time frame you have nominated.

Peter died in AD64 - his epistles weren't written posthumously.

The author of the first epistle of John (if no other epistle) died circa AD 100 - but there is no doubt that he was a contemporary of Christ.
Jude is considered authentic, but the exact identity of the author is unknown.

So - At least 2 and probably 4 writers of the epistles - producing between them the bulk of the New Testament, even without taking the gospels into account, have recorded the beliefs of the first generation of Christians.

[Gary]

Depending on the scholar, Paul's date of death is listed as between AD 58 -67. Every epistle he wrote is likely have originated during the time frame you have nominated.

Peter died in AD64 - his epistles weren't written posthumously.

The author of the first epistle of John (if no other epistle) died circa AD 100 - but there is no doubt that he was a contemporary of Christ.
Jude is considered authentic, but the exact identity of the author is unknown.

So - At least 2 and probably 4 writers of the epistles - producing between them the bulk of the New Testament, even without taking the gospels into account, have recorded the beliefs of the first generation of Christians.

You are mad as a Hatter, on this one, Tabby.

Please give me a source who says that a majority of NT scholars believe what you have just written.

[Gary]

Not to mention that the people who produced the translation to parthenos were themselves highly educated native Jewish scholars - so we have modern Jewish scholars claiming that the ancient Jews who spoke the language as a mother tongue, and who were well acquainted with Koine ... didn't know what they were talking about.

Additionally - these modern Jewish scholars are claiming that a pregnancy arising in the normal way was somehow also a sign from God.

Here is what Jewish Hebrew Bible scholars say about the mistranslation of "almah" in the Christian Bible and about the Christian alterations of the Jewish Septuagint:

Question:

Rav (Rabbi) Singer,

Why did you say Christians mistranslate the Scripture by saying “almah” doesn’t mean “virgin,” when their translation of virgin comes from the Septuagint’s “parthenos,” not the Hebrew “almah”? “Parthenos” does mean “virgin.”

They didn’t mistranslate but used a different text. This is pretty well known. Did you not know? I don’t think this is a very good thing to have on your page.

Answer:

Your inquiry will undoubtedly make an enormous contribution to this work. Your question contains some of the most commonly held misconceptions regarding Matthew’s rendering the Hebrew word alma as virgin in Matthew 1:23. Highlighting your question will, no doubt, benefit countless others who are confused by the same mistaken presuppositions imbedded in your question.

Your assertion that Matthew quoted from the Septuagint is the most repeated argument missionaries use in their attempt to explain away Matthew’s stunning mistranslation of the Hebrew word alma. This well-worn response, however, raises far more problems than it answers.

Your contention that “parthenos does mean virgin” is incorrect. The Greek word Παρθένου (parthenos) can mean either a young woman or a virgin. Therrefore, Παρθένου can be found in the Septuagint to describe a woman who is clearly not a virgin. For example, in Genesis 34:2-4, Shechem raped Dinah, the daughter of the patriarch Jacob, yet the Septuagint refers to her as a parthenos after she had been defiled. The Bible reports that after Shechem had violated her, “his heart desired Dinah, and he loved the damsel (Sept. parthenos) and he spoke tenderly to the damsel (Sept. parthenos).” Clearly, Dinah was not a virgin after having been raped, and yet she was referred to as a parthenos, the very same word the Septuagint used to translate the Hebrew word alma in Isaiah 7:14.

Moreover, the Septuagint in our hands is not a Jewish document, but rather a Christian recension. The original Septuagint, translated some 2,200 years ago by 72 Jewish scholars, was a Greek translation of the Five Books of Moses alone, and is no longer in our hands. It therefore did not contain the Books of the Prophets or Writings of the Hebrew Bible such as Isaiah, from which you asserted Matthew quoted. The Septuagint as we have it today, which includes the Prophets and Writings as well, is a product of the Church, not the Jewish people. In fact, the Septuagint remains the official Old Testament of the Greek Orthodox Church, and the manuscripts that consist of our Septuagint today date to the third century C.E. The fact that additional books known as the Apocrypha, which are uniquely sacred to the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Church, are found in the Septuagint should raise a red flag to those inquiring into the Jewishness of the Septuagint.

Christians such as Origin and Lucian (third and fourth century C.E.) edited and shaped the Septuagint that missionaries use to advance their untenable arguments against Judaism. In essence, the present Septuagint is largely a post-second century Christian translation of the Bible, used zealously by the Church throughout its history as an indispensable apologetic instrument to defend and sustain Christological alterations of the Jewish Scriptures.

For example, in his preface to the Book of Chronicles, the Church father Jerome, who was the primary translator of the Vulgate, concedes that in his day there were at least three variant Greek translations of the Bible: the edition of the third century Christian theologian Origen, as well as the Egyptian recension of Hesychius and the Syrian recension of Lucian.1 In essence, there were numerous Greek renditions of the Jewish Scriptures which were revised and edited by Christian hands. All Septuagints in our hands are derived from the revisions of Hesychius, as well as the Christian theologians Origen and Lucian

Accordingly, the Jewish people never use the Septuagint in their worship or religious studies because it is recognized as a corrupt text.

To read the rest of this interesting Jewish article, click here: http://outreachjudaism.org/septuagint-virgin-birth/

[One Bad Pig]

Yet another copy/paste.

Drink!

[Gary]

Yet another copy/paste.

Drink!

The Christian assertion that the author of Matthew quoted from Isaiah and others of the Prophets, using the Septuagint, not the original Hebrew, is contradicted by the evidence:

The ancient Letter of Aristeas, which is the earliest attestation to the existence of the Septuagint, confirms that the original Septuagint translated by rabbis more than 22 centuries ago was of the Pentateuch alone, and not the Books of the Prophets such as Isaiah. The Talmud also states this explicitly in Tractate Megillah (9a), and Josephus as well affirms that the Septuagint was a translation only of the Law of Moses in his preface to Antiquities of the Jews.2

Therefore, St. Jerome, a Church father and Bible translator who could hardly be construed as friendly to Judaism, affirms Josephus’ statement regarding the authorship of theSeptuagint in his preface to The Book of Hebrew Questions.3 Likewise, the Anchor Bible Dictionary reports precisely this point in the opening sentence of its article on the Septuagint which states, “The word ‘Septuagint,’ (from Lat. septuaginta = 70; hence the abbreviation LXX) derives from a story that 72 elders translated the Pentateuch into Greek; the term therefore applied originally only to those five books.”4

In fact, Dr. F.F. Bruce, a preeminent professor of Biblical exegesis, keenly points out that, strictly speaking, the Septuagint deals only with the Pentateuch and not the whole Old Testament. Bruce writes,

"The Jews might have gone on at a later time to authorize a standard text of the rest of the Septuagint, but . . . lost interest in the Septuagint altogether. With but few exceptions, every manuscript of the Septuagint which has come down to our day was copied and preserved in Christian, not Jewish, circles.5"

Source: http://outreachjudaism.org/septuagint-virgin-birth/

The Jewish people charge the author of the Gospel of Matthew with deliberate FRAUD:

Regarding your assertion that Matthew was quoting from the Septuagint, nowhere in the Book of Matthew does the word Septuagint appear, or, for that matter, is there any reference to a Greek translation of the Bible ever mentioned in all of the New Testament; and there is good reason for this silence. The first century Church was well aware that a Jewish audience would be thoroughly unimpressed by a claim that Jesus’ virgin birth could only be supported by a Greek translation of the Bible. They understood that if Jews were to find their Christian message convincing, they had to assert that the Hebrew words of the prophet Isaiah clearly foretold Mary’s virgin conception. Matthew could not suggest that only a Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures supported his claim. Therefore, in Matthew 1:22-23, the author of the first Gospel insists that it was “spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, ‘Behold, a virgin shall be with child…’” Matthew loudly makes the point that it was specifically the prophet’s own words that proclaimed the virgin birth, not the words of any translator.

Isaiah, of course, did not preach or write in Greek, and therefore throughout his life the word parthenos never emerged from the lips of the prophet. All sixty-six chapters of the Book of Isaiah were spoken and then recorded in the Hebrew language. Matthew, however, claimed that Isaiah – not a translator – declared that the messiah would be born of a virgin. No such prophecy was ever uttered by the prophet.

[Gary]

It was the author of Matthew and his blatant corruption of the Hebrew Bible, shoehorning Jesus into Jewish prophecies in an effort to appeal to his Jewish audience, that resulted in the mass rejection of the Christian Faith by the overwhelming majority of Jews for the last two thousands years. The prophets of Baal had more success in converting Jews than did the Christians! Let's hear what Rabbi Singer says on this subject as he finishes the above linked article:

Ironically, the widespread Bible tampering found in the first Gospel was sparked by Matthew’s desire to convince Jews that Jesus was their promised messiah. Yet strangely, if the Book of Matthew had never been written, the Church, no doubt, would have been far more successful in its effort to evangelize the Jews. In essence, had promoters of Christianity avoided the wild Scripture tampering that clutters almost every chapter in the Book of Matthew, the Church might have enjoyed far more success among the Jews as did previous religions that targeted the Jewish people for conversion.

For example, the priests of Baal did not attempt to bolster the validity of their idol worship by misquoting the texts of the Hebrew Bible, as Matthew did. As a result, the Bible reports that the idol Baal gained enormous popularity among the Jewish people. In contrast, once the nation of Israel was confronted with a corruption of their sacred Scriptures by authors and apologists of the New Testament, their apostasy to Christianity for the most part became untenable. Therefore, throughout history the Jewish people remained the most difficult nation for the Church to sway. Consequently, whereas the Gospels of Mark, Luke, and John enjoyed overwhelming success among their gentile audiences, the Gospel of Matthew played an enormous role in the ultimate failure of the Church to effectively convert the Jews to Christianity, at least the knowledgeable ones.

Sincerely yours,

Rabbi Tovia Singer

Think about this: Why would God come to earth to preach a new message to the Jewish people about salvation but use a Greek translation of his Word to do it???

The Christian story has more plot twists than a Mexican novella.

[Mikeenders]

Regarding your assertion that Matthew was quoting from the Septuagint, nowhere in the Book of Matthew does the word Septuagint appear, or, for that matter, is there any reference to a Greek translation of the Bible ever mentioned in all of the New Testament.

That has to be one of the stupidest points I have ever seen made on a forum. Unless a translation is named in a text it can't be whats quoted from.

"to be or not to be "

is not a quote from who you think it is because I did not name him.

Garyisms : When you pretend you have a point but don't even understand the premise of it

[psstein]

What Christian source do we have for the period between 30 AD to 55 AD? All we have is the Creed listed in First Corinthians. This Creed says nothing about Jesus relationship to Yahweh and the Holy Spirit in a Trinity, therefore, we have no contemporary record of what the earliest Christians believed on this concept. As the Islamic article states, not even Paul mentions a Trinity. The passages that could be interpreted as inferring a Trinity do not appear until the Gospel of John, written at the end of the first century! Therefore, every one of the original Eleven were most likely long dead when the author of John wrote his gospel.

We have zero evidence what the earliest Christians believed other than possibly the Creed in First Corinthians.

This is my point about the Christian belief system. It is so tenuously held together by assumptions and hearsay. It is like constructing a ship out of paper and scotch tape and expecting it to float.

That's actually totally untrue. Paul quotes a number of what we would call "pre-Pauline creeds," and there are clear remnants of oral traditions throughout the book of Acts. The Trinity? How about the end of Matthew, where the risen Jesus says "go and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit."

You desperately need to read Hurtado's Lord Jesus Christ or One God, One Lord, as well as Bauckham's work on early high Christology. Or keep making stupid comments, doesn't matter to me at all.