Originally posted by CivilDiscourse
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Civics 101 Guidelines
Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
Why do some Americans believe weird things?
Collapse
X
-
"It ain't necessarily so
The things that you're liable
To read in the Bible
It ain't necessarily so."
Sportin' Life
Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin
-
In one thread we have HA arguing that the Gospels argue for physically attacking Jews when it absolutely does not and in another she argues that it doesn't support virgin birth when it unequivocally does (e.g., Matthew 1:18-25; Luke 1:26-38).
And yet she has the temerity to say to someone else
Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
Your ignorance of the origins of Christianity is duly noted.
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
Comment
-
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostIn one thread we have HA arguing that the Gospels argue for physically attacking Jews when it absolutely does not and in another she argues that it doesn't support virgin birth when it unequivocally does (e.g., Matthew 1:18-25; Luke 1:26-38).
And yet she has the temerity to say to someone else
Comment
-
Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Postπαρθένος ἐν γαστρὶ ἕξει, καὶ τέξεται υἱόν, καὶ καλέσεις τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ ᾿Εμμανουήλ [my emphasis] It is that word that the later Greek writer of Luke's gospel [or the writer of the first two chapters of Luke's gospel] turned into the phrase not knowing a man. That is the nub of our exchange.
However, as I have illustrated the Greek word παρθένος [i.e. virgin] did not necessarily carry the same meaning [i.e. to be without any sexual experience] within Judaism at the time.
Clearly the Greek writer of the gospel of Luke assumed [based on his reading of the Greek Septuagint word παρθένος] that Mary was virgo intacta and had never had any sexual intercourse. However, as I have previously pointed out, "virgin mothers" were not unknown within first century Judaism.
Originally posted by oxmixmuddNo, it's not. in the old testament text, when it talks about a sex or the consummation of marriage, it uses the euphemism 'to know'. She's asking how she can be pregnant with respect to knowing a man. It has nothing to do with the meanings of individual words. She is saying how can she be pregnant since she has never had sex.
BUT
Clearly since Matthew correlates HER pregnancy without having known a man with Isaiah 7:14, the early church (which means early, Jewish, Christians) did in fact believe that Isaiah 7:14 referred to a woman like Mary that had "man not I know", or who had not yet known a man. And that is what 'virgin' means.
So the context is what defines this, not potential meanings of words. And in this case, the context is so clear we don't really need to be concerned about differences in culture either - except wrt the euphamism for sex as it relates to 'knowing a man'. So in summary:
(1) Mary is called a 'righteous woman', more righteous than any around her. She has found favor with God. This is not a girl that plays the field with men, or has had a few trysts prior to the Angel's appearing. To be be righteous wrt jewish law is to be a virgin if one has never been married.
(2) Mary does not understand HOW she is to become pregnant, SINCE she "man not I know". IOW, you can't get pregnant without intercourse, and that is something she hasn't had.
(3) Matthew clearly interprets Isaiah 7:14 in a manner consistent with Mary's state as declared in the gospels, a young maiden who has not known a man. Incidentally, this also means at the very least the EARLY church, which means early, Jewish Christians (not some later group) treated Isaiah 7:14 as Messianic, as a prophecy about the coming Messiah.
This is what the Church has taught and believed about this event since the gospels were written, and the evidence is those gospels were written within the first generation of believers in Christ. There really isn't another conclusion here wrt the fact the Christ is declared to have been miraculously conceived by a woman who was a virgin in the English sense of the word.Last edited by oxmixmudd; 09-17-2020, 07:45 AM.My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1
If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26
This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19
Comment
-
Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View PostOh, come now, don't quote-mine.
I said it was "That "muddy" definition from older text is irrelevant to the way its been taught and understood for centuries"
Among those various sects were the the Psilanthropists and Adoptionists who did not accept the virgin birth, and nor did Marcion and Docetists."It ain't necessarily so
The things that you're liable
To read in the Bible
It ain't necessarily so."
Sportin' Life
Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin
Comment
-
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View PostI would classify you cutting my post content as manipulating your response HA. I was making a point from the context which trumps individual potential meanings of words. You are arguing based on speculation about a what a word might mean independent of context. Again what I actually wrote:
Clearly the author of Luke had no knowledge of the original Hebrew. As I have previously pointed out, for that writer, he clearly assumed that parthenos/virgin meant virgo intacta and no sexual experience.
However, as I have also pointed out [and please do not accuse me of cutting your post when you singularly failed to acknowledge a single point I made in post #95 concerning contemporary Judaism and its attitude towards virginity] the term "virgin" in contemporary Judaism [and I assume you are accepting that Mary/Mariam was a Jewess] did not always infer a complete lack of any sexual experience.
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View PostClearly since Matthew correlates HER pregnancy without having known a man with Isaiah 7:14
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post, the early church (which means early, Jewish, Christians)"It ain't necessarily so
The things that you're liable
To read in the Bible
It ain't necessarily so."
Sportin' Life
Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin
Comment
-
Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Postorthodoxand God; other said that he was a man, but not God; others contended that he was God, but not a man. Still others maintained that he was a man who had been temporarily inhabited by God. Yet others asserted that his death had had no bearing on salvation, while some alleged that he never even died.
Among those various sects were the the Psilanthropists and Adoptionists who did not accept the virgin birth, and nor did Marcion and Docetists.
Essentially, the definition to christians has been crystalized, it's been taught, it's been understood that way. So, the fact that you believe it's not as clear cut stopped being an issue as to what is CURRENTLY believed ever since.
It's like complaining about the fact that "Orange" used to be called red having some bearing on people using the word "Orange" now.
Comment
-
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View PostNo - that is the teaching of the church from the time of the writing of the gospels. Behold, a virgin shall conceive is part of the Gospel of Matthew, It is explicitly used in connection with Mary's conception and the birth of Christ. And this Gospel is dated to the AD 80 or 90 (with earlier dates possible) (1st century, within 50 or so years of Christs death and resurrection). There are 5 fragments of the Gospel that exist that are likely from the first century, confirming its content is an early understanding of Isaiah 7:14 wrt the birth of Jesus in the church."It ain't necessarily so
The things that you're liable
To read in the Bible
It ain't necessarily so."
Sportin' Life
Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin
Comment
-
Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Postorthodoxand God; other said that he was a man, but not God; others contended that he was God, but not a man. Still others maintained that he was a man who had been temporarily inhabited by God. Yet others asserted that his death had had no bearing on salvation, while some alleged that he never even died.
Among those various sects were the the Psilanthropists and Adoptionists who did not accept the virgin birth, and nor did Marcion and Docetists.
This is where we don't have common ground HA and so I'm not sure there is a way to find any sort of common starting point to reason from. There were many different sects at first, we can agree there. But there was only one core set of teachings about the Christ whose origin is the disciples themselves - and that is what is recorded in the gospels and the letters. And that is how we can differentiate between the early heresies and the early church. WRT the idea that was later called 'the virgin birth' - that is well codified in the Gospels, which again, were written within the first century or so.My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1
If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26
This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19
Comment
-
Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View PostWhich has nothing to do with the way it has been taught for CENTURIES, and what a modern christian today belives wrt to the belief. (I.E. Irrelevant, has no relevance on)
The Septuagint was not a muddy source of texts for early Christianity, from whence do you imagine the whole concept of the prophesied Messiah who was allegedly born of a "virgin" originates?
To dismiss that source in the manner in which you did displayed a profound ignorance."It ain't necessarily so
The things that you're liable
To read in the Bible
It ain't necessarily so."
Sportin' Life
Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin
Comment
-
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View PostYou clearly accept as 'Christian' those that wrt the line of descent from Christ through the apostles (esp Peter,James,John) and including Paul were in fact heretics in the faith. The Gnostics and others that simply developed a theology about the Christ that differed from what the disciples (and hence Jesus himself) taught.
This is where we don't have common ground HA and so I'm not sure there is a way to find any sort of common starting point to reason from. There were many different sects at first, we can agree there. But there was only one core set of teachings about the Christ whose origin is the disciples themselves - and that is what is recorded in the gospels and the letters. And that is how we can differentiate between the early heresies and the early church. WRT the idea that was later called 'the virgin birth' - that is well codified in the Gospels, which again, were written within the first century or so.
Your religion was also profoundly influenced by Hellenism and Hellenistic ideas. Those include stories of gods impregnating mortal women to produce demi-gods/heroes."It ain't necessarily so
The things that you're liable
To read in the Bible
It ain't necessarily so."
Sportin' Life
Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin
Comment
-
Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View PostThere was no church why do you keep making this erroneous assumption?My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1
If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26
This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19
Comment
-
Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View PostYou wrote "That "muddy" definition from older text is irrelevant to the way its been taught and understood for centuries ".
The Septuagint was not a muddy source of texts for early Christianity, from whence do you imagine the whole concept of the prophesied Messiah who was allegedly born of a "virgin" originates?
To dismiss that source in the manner in which you did displayed a profound ignorance.
It's like the phrase "Elementary, my dear Watson". Holmes never said that exact phrase. However, that phrase has become so ingrained in Holmes culture that the actual fact that the exact phrasing never appeared in the works of Doyle is entirely irrelevant to someone who uses the phrase and it's meaning.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View PostWhat you singularly fail to acknowledge is that much of what you now believe was defined by men and enforced by Imperial edict.
Your religion was also profoundly influenced by Hellenism and Hellenistic ideas. Those include stories of gods impregnating mortal women to produce demi-gods/heroes.
Have you ever read C.S. Lewis comments on 'true myth'? The issue here is that just because you find similarities in form doesn't mean there is necessarily a similarity in origin. A bat looks superficially like a bird. It has wings, two legs, and flies about. But a bat is not a bird, they have very different histories and origins.Last edited by oxmixmudd; 09-17-2020, 08:13 AM.My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1
If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26
This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by Juvenal, Today, 02:50 PM
|
0 responses
7 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Juvenal
Today, 02:50 PM
|
||
Started by RumTumTugger, Today, 02:30 PM
|
0 responses
9 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by RumTumTugger
Today, 02:30 PM
|
||
Started by CivilDiscourse, Today, 12:07 PM
|
2 responses
26 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by tabibito
Today, 12:57 PM
|
||
Started by Cow Poke, Yesterday, 03:46 PM
|
19 responses
209 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Sparko
Today, 12:33 PM
|
||
Started by Ronson, Yesterday, 01:52 PM
|
3 responses
43 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seanD
Today, 03:12 PM
|
Comment