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.
See more
See less

Why do some Americans believe weird things?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
    Isaiah 7:14 is interpreted in light of Luke 1:34.
    You are putting the proverbial wagon before the proverbial horse.

    Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
    Luke 1:34 is the fulfillment of the prophecy in Isaiah 7:14.
    No that is much later Christian apologetics ransacking the Hebrew texts to find verses that could then be interpreted to support later Christian theology.

    Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
    And the meaning of like 1:34 is clear from the context. The specific Greek word used is irrelevant to understanding she is a virgin in the english sense of the word.
    The original Hebrew texts, the Septuagint, and the original gospels were not written in English. You are relying on a translation and translations by their very definition are interpretations.
    "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 Post
      I would suggest that a lot of the conspiracy theories and other weird things that some Europeans believe often have their genesis in the USA.
      That may well be true, but be that the case, it doesn't make Europeans any less gullible. The question then would be; why do these weird conspiracy theories and such, originate in the US? They seem to be mostly right wing and political in nature so that might be a hint to the answer.
      Last edited by JimL; 09-16-2020, 08:01 AM.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
        You are putting the proverbial wagon before the proverbial horse.

        No that is much later Christian apologetics ransacking the Hebrew texts to find verses that could then be interpreted to support later Christian theology.

        The original Hebrew texts, the Septuagint, and the original gospels were not written in English. You are relying on a translation and translations by their very definition are interpretations.
        No - I'm not simply relying on an english translation HA. As I outline in my previous post.
        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 Post
          The original Hebrew texts, the Septuagint, and the original gospels were not written in English.
          And the winner of this week's "Stating The Obvious" award goes to ...

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
            I will be happy for you to cite me the earliest Greek MS of Luke that uses the exact phrase "I do not know a man".
            The greek for the verse looks like this:

            Strong's Greek English Morphology
            3004 [e] Εἶπεν
            eipen Said V-AIA-3S
            1161 [e] δὲ
            de then Conj
            3137 [e] Μαριὰμ
            Mariam Mary N-NFS
            4314 [e] πρὸς
            pros to Prep
            3588 [e] τὸν
            ton the Art-AMS
            32 [e] ἄγγελον
            angelon angel, N-AMS
            4459 [e] Πῶς
            Pōs How Adv
            1510 [e] ἔσται
            estai will be V-FIM-3S
            3778 [e] τοῦτο,
            touto this, DPro-NNS
            1893 [e] ἐπεὶ
            epei since Conj
            435 [e] ἄνδρα
            andra a man N-AMS
            3756 [e] οὐ
            ou not Adv
            1097 [e] γινώσκω;
            ginōskō I know? V-PIA-1S

            Here are a variety of the renderings from several texts:

            ΚΑΤΑ ΛΟΥΚΑΝ 1:34 Greek NT: Nestle 1904
            εἶπεν δὲ Μαριὰμ πρὸς τὸν ἄγγελον Πῶς ἔσται τοῦτο, ἐπεὶ ἄνδρα οὐ γινώσκω;

            ΚΑΤΑ ΛΟΥΚΑΝ 1:34 Greek NT: Westcott and Hort 1881
            εἶπεν δὲ Μαριὰμ πρὸς τὸν ἄγγελον Πῶς ἔσται τοῦτο, ἐπεὶ ἄνδρα οὐ γινώσκω;

            ΚΑΤΑ ΛΟΥΚΑΝ 1:34 Greek NT: Westcott and Hort / [NA27 and UBS4 variants]
            εἶπεν δὲ Μαριὰμ πρὸς τὸν ἄγγελον Πῶς ἔσται τοῦτο, ἐπεὶ ἄνδρα οὐ γινώσκω;

            ΚΑΤΑ ΛΟΥΚΑΝ 1:34 Greek NT: RP Byzantine Majority Text 2005
            Εἴπεν δὲ Μαριὰμ πρὸς τὸν ἄγγελον, Πῶς ἔσται τοῦτο, ἐπεὶ ἄνδρα οὐ γινώσκω;

            ΚΑΤΑ ΛΟΥΚΑΝ 1:34 Greek NT: Greek Orthodox Church
            εἶπε δὲ Μαριὰμ πρὸς τὸν ἄγγελον· Πῶς ἔσται μοι τοῦτο, ἐπεὶ ἄνδρα οὐ γινώσκω;

            ΚΑΤΑ ΛΟΥΚΑΝ 1:34 Greek NT: Tischendorf 8th Edition
            εἶπεν δὲ Μαριὰμ πρὸς τὸν ἄγγελον· πῶς ἔσται τοῦτο, ἐπεὶ ἄνδρα οὐ γινώσκω;

            ΚΑΤΑ ΛΟΥΚΑΝ 1:34 Greek NT: Scrivener's Textus Receptus 1894
            εἶπε δὲ Μαριὰμ πρὸς τὸν ἄγγελον, Πῶς ἔσται τοῦτο, ἐπεὶ ἄνδρα οὐ γινώσκω;

            ΚΑΤΑ ΛΟΥΚΑΝ 1:34 Greek NT: Stephanus Textus Receptus 1550
            εἶπεν δὲ Μαριὰμ πρὸς τὸν ἄγγελον Πῶς ἔσται τοῦτο ἐπεὶ ἄνδρα οὐ γινώσκω



            As you can clearly see ἄνδρα οὐ γινώσκω ( a man not I know) is universal.
            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 Post
              ...

              No that is much later Christian apologetics ransacking the Hebrew texts to find verses that could then be interpreted to support later Christian theology.

              ...
              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.
              Last edited by oxmixmudd; 09-16-2020, 08:40 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 oxmixmudd View Post
                Isaiah 7:14 is interpreted in light of Luke 1:34. Luke 1:34 is the fulfillment of the prophecy in Isaiah 7:14. And the meaning of like 1:34 is clear from the context. The specific Greek word used is irrelevant to understanding she is a virgin in the english sense of the word. The NASV interprets the greek as "How can this be since I am a virgin", but the Greek there is saying she is not connected in any way to a man. Other translations use different english words. But the Angel is telling her she is about to become pregnant. And she is saying "How can I become pregnant because ....". It doesn't matter what phrase finishes that thought, because a woman in 4 or 5 BC has to have had sex with a man to become pregnant, and the only sure reason for her to ask 'how can this be since' were since has anything to do with and man or procreation is that the phrase that follows means she has never had sex. Because if she had had sex, then it would be possible. The ONLY possible caveat would be the timing of the sex. So you'd have to argue that she just hadn't had sex in the last month or two, but the Greek is so terse and focuses on the lack of any kind of relationship with a man, which means such a relaxation of the meaning stretches credulity to the breaking point given the culture and the proclamation she was a righteous young woman.

                Luke is saying she hasn't had sex, and that is why she wants to know how she is going to have this very special little boy.
                And beyond that, she was unmarried, which makes sexual relations even more unlikely given the culture.
                Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                Than a fool in the eyes of God


                From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                  And beyond that, she was unmarried, which makes sexual relations even more unlikely given the culture.
                  The whole narrative supports the notion that she was a virgin, and became pregnant.
                  The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                    And beyond that, she was unmarried, which makes sexual relations even more unlikely given the culture.
                    Just curious, by what method did god impregnate Mary with himself, or with one of the persons of himself? Can the son be separated thusly from the godhead?

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                      Just curious, by what method did god impregnate Mary with himself, or with one of the persons of himself? Can the son be separated thusly from the godhead?
                      We don't know the exact mechanism that God used, but if he can create the universe out of nothing simply with the power of his word, then surely impregnating a woman is hardly out of his reach.
                      Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                      But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                      Than a fool in the eyes of God


                      From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                        Just curious, by what method did god impregnate Mary with himself, or with one of the persons of himself? Can the son be separated thusly from the godhead?
                        Christian teaching is that God took on human form in Christ, so in a sense the 'Son' can be 'separated' from the godhead. Yet Christ says that "I and the Father are one", which means that even while 'separated' they were still 'one' - and thus not 'really' separated in the sense you imply. This is the mystery of the Trinity, the idea that God is Three, you fully just One.

                        I doubt very much there was any physical form used to cause the immaculate conception. A minimum set of conclusions assuming a normal gestation would be that the zygote would have simply been created and follow the natural process from there. To meet the scriptural criteria, the source DNA would be 1/2 from Mary, 1/2 something human but not from any human alive on earth at the time which was designed and made by God to be the Christ. But as MM said, there is no official speculation or teaching as to 'how' this came to be. It was simply a miracle.
                        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 oxmixmudd View Post
                          Christian teaching is that God took on human form in Christ, so in a sense the 'Son' can be 'separated' from the godhead. Yet Christ says that "I and the Father are one", which means that even while 'separated' they were still 'one' - and thus not 'really' separated in the sense you imply. This is the mystery of the Trinity, the idea that God is Three, you fully just One.

                          I doubt very much there was any physical form used to cause the immaculate conception. A minimum set of conclusions assuming a normal gestation would be that the zygote would have simply been created and follow the natural process from there. To meet the scriptural criteria, the source DNA would be 1/2 from Mary, 1/2 something human but not from any human alive on earth at the time which was designed and made by God to be the Christ. But as MM said, there is no official speculation or teaching as to 'how' this came to be. It was simply a miracle.
                          Do you mean to say that the father turned the son into a zygote and then it went through the natural process from there?

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                            Do you mean to say that the father turned the son into a zygote and then it went through the natural process from there?
                            God (through Jesus, God's agent of Creation) spoke the world into existence. Would it be difficult for him to create a new life within Mary?
                            The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                              Do you mean to say that the father turned the son into a zygote and then it went through the natural process from there?
                              Well, that or something like it is what I assume happened.

                              I do NOT believe or think that God took on human form and had actual sex with Mary, if that helps you understand what I'm trying to say.
                              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 oxmixmudd View Post
                                Well, that or something like it is what I assume happened.

                                I do NOT believe or think that God took on human form and had actual sex with Mary, if that helps you understand what I'm trying to say.
                                Scripture Verse: Luke 1:35

                                And the angel answered her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy—the Son of God.

                                © Copyright Original Source

                                The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, 03-27-2024, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                160 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                400 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                114 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                198 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                84 responses
                                379 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X