Why do some Americans believe weird things?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

What did I say was actually wrong?

"That "muddy" definition from older text is irrelevant "

[CivilDiscourse]

"That "muddy" definition from older text is irrelevant "

Oh, 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"

[rogue06]

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

Your ignorance of the origins of Christianity is duly noted.

[CivilDiscourse]

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

And supported that with a quotemine that changed what I actually said.

[oxmixmudd]

The Septuagint uses the Greek word parthenos - virgin in Isaiah 7.14 διὰ τοῦτο δώσει Κύριος αὐτὸς ὑμῖν σημεῖον• ἰδοὺ ἡ παρθένος 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.

I would classify you cutting my post content as manipulating your response HA. I was making a point from the context which itself constrains the potential influence on interpretation derived from a study of the potential meanings of individual words. You OTOH are arguing based on speculation about a what a word might mean independent of (in fact ignoring) context. Again what I actually wrote:

No, 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.

The context of my bolded text is in fact what the greek of Luke 1:34 say as I expounded it previously, where she (Mary) is asking the angel HOW she can be pregnant since "man not I know" (word for word literal translation of why she doesn't understand HOW she can get pregnant). I mean, her words as they are presented in Luke do not rely at all on the meaning of the word virgin, it doesn't even use that word or its equivalent to make the point.

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.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Oh, 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"

It is not irrelevant. For early Christians their only Scripture was the Septuagint.

As for the virgin birth, it was a tenet of “orthodox” Christianity but orthodox Christianity was not established until the late fourth century.

In the first two and a half centuries [or thereabouts] Christianity was completely fluid. It comprised a number of competing Christian groups that advocated a variety of theologies. Hence we find Christians who alleged there were two deities [or even more]. Some Christians believed that the Christ was somehow both a man and 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.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

I 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:

And I am pointing out that your christian gospel author got his information from the Septuagint in which the Hebrew word almah is mistranslated into the Greek parthenos.

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.

Clearly since Matthew correlates HER pregnancy without having known a man with Isaiah 7:14

If you are going to introduce Matthew's account then we have a gestation period that lasted at least ten years.

, the early church (which means early, Jewish, Christians)

There was no early church. There were disparate groups of Christians who had their own ideas about the Nature of their deity. [see my reply to CivilDiscourse on the variety of beliefs that were extant in those first two and half centuries].

[CivilDiscourse]

It is not irrelevant. For early Christians their only Scripture was the Septuagint.

As for the virgin birth, it was a tenet of “orthodox” Christianity but orthodox Christianity was not established until the late fourth century.

In the first two and a half centuries [or thereabouts] Christianity was completely fluid. It comprised a number of competing Christian groups that advocated a variety of theologies. Hence we find Christians who alleged there were two deities [or even more]. Some Christians believed that the Christ was somehow both a man and 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.

Which 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)

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.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

No - 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.

There was no church why do you keep making this erroneous assumption?

[oxmixmudd]

It is not irrelevant. For early Christians their only Scripture was the Septuagint.

As for the virgin birth, it was a tenet of “orthodox” Christianity but orthodox Christianity was not established until the late fourth century.

In the first two and a half centuries [or thereabouts] Christianity was completely fluid. It comprised a number of competing Christian groups that advocated a variety of theologies. Hence we find Christians who alleged there were two deities [or even more]. Some Christians believed that the Christ was somehow both a man and 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.

You 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.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Which 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)

You 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.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

You 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.

What 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.

[oxmixmudd]

There was no church why do you keep making this erroneous assumption?

There most certainly was 'the church' HA. It is spoken of clearly in the epistles and Revelation and Acts. In the epistles we see clearly the appointing of elders, we see offices like pastor, elder, deacon, and teacher. The church is the gathering of believers wherever they are. The NT writers spoke of the church 'in jerusalem (where Peter, James, and John were) 'in corinth' or 'in ephesus'. Which just meant the believers in Christ in those cities. They gathered together in homes or public meeting places. They were led at first by the Disciples - specifically Peter, James, and John, but Paul and his works had a lot to do with the expansion of the church outside Jerusalem and Judea. What you seem to not understand is that 'the church' is not the RCC, or the Southern Baptists, or the Episcopaleans. "The Church" is the gathering of believers in Christ all over the world.

[CivilDiscourse]

You 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.

Lol. You still don't get it, which is funny. The source is irrelevant to the modern beliefs. The original meaning really is irrelevant to the current teachings and beliefs of modern followers. Take a look at the numerous protestant sects. They ALL have different takes on the teachings. So, the original meaning "muddy" or not is entirely irrelevant to the fact that they teach something NOW and people believe that teaching, NOW.

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.

[oxmixmudd]

What 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.

That is your opinion HA - and you are entitled to it - but it is not my own.

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.