Announcement

Collapse

Judaism Guidelines

Theists only.

Shalom!


This forum is a debate area to discuss issues pertaining to the world religion of Judaism in general and also its relationship to Christianity. This forum is generally for theists only. Non-theists (eg, atheistic Jews) may not post here without first obtaining permission from the moderator of this forum. Granting of such permission is subject to Moderator discretion - and may be revoked if the Moderator feels that the poster is not keeping with the spirit of the World Religions Department.

Non-theists are welcome to discuss and debate issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

"Virgin Birth" Questions

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

  • "Virgin Birth" Questions

    For as long as I can remember my friends, who are Christian, often ask "Can't G-d do all things?" and "Couldn't there be a Virgin Birth if G-d desired to create one?" These are very complex questions and deserve an answer but, I have never heard the answer to a few questions some of us on the Jewish side would ask of Christians. I am not a Counter Missionary so dont assume I am. I happen to think that their positions are fallacious.

    1. Why would G-d need to cause a "Virgin Birth?"
    2. What event/events/issue/issues caused a need for a "Virgin Birth?"
    3. Is there clear evidence or are there reasons within the Hebrew bible and the Oral Torah for the need of a Virgin Birth to bring the Messiah into the World?

    The reason I included the Oral tradition is because Judaism is not Sola Scriptura and should not be treated as such. I am curious as to what the answers are or will be.

    Shalom,

    Avraham Ibn Ezra
    אברהם אבן עזרא

    Avraham Ibn Ezra

  • #2
    1) Fulfillment of prophesy. Same reason God 'needed' (it's usually a bad idea to discuss God's actions as 'needs') to make barren women deliver babies - Sarah, Hannah and Elizabeth coming immediately to mind.

    2) Gen 3:13; Isa 7:14.

    3) Yes. See above.


    Sorry, I don't really have time to do an in depth answer - I'm sure someone will be along shortly to do that. This hits the highlights.

    "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot


    "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

    My Personal Blog

    My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
      1) Fulfillment of prophesy. Same reason God 'needed' (it's usually a bad idea to discuss God's actions as 'needs') to make barren women deliver babies - Sarah, Hannah and Elizabeth coming immediately to mind.
      Which prophecy are you referring to? Why would G-d need to cause a virgin birth to bring forth the Messiah?

      Did the women you cite have children via a virgin birth? If not why would they come to mind? Would you agree that there is a difference between causing a woman to give birth to a child the natural way by conception of the child when Mother and Father mate and causing a woman to give birth to a child supernaturally as in being impregnated by G-d directly via a supernatural occurance?

      2) Gen 3:13; Isa 7:14.
      I don't see what you are getting at precisely. Why would G-d need to cause a virgin birth given the circumstances in Genesis 3? Weren't Adam and Chavah punished in verses 16-19?

      Isaiah 7:14 is a discussion for later. I'm trying to focus on your reasoning that G-d would need to cause a virgin birth to take place.

      3) Yes. See above.
      I have more questions above


      Sorry, I don't really have time to do an in depth answer - I'm sure someone will be along shortly to do that. This hits the highlights.
      It's ok! Time is a commodity that not all of us have a lot of to spare nowadays. Especially me with school and work.if you have time later I would love to hear more on your reasonings.

      Shalom,

      Avraham Ibn Ezra
      אברהם אבן עזרא

      Avraham Ibn Ezra

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Avraham Ibn Ezra View Post
        For as long as I can remember my friends, who are Christian, often ask "Can't G-d do all things?" and "Couldn't there be a Virgin Birth if G-d desired to create one?" These are very complex questions and deserve an answer but, I have never heard the answer to a few questions some of us on the Jewish side would ask of Christians. I am not a Counter Missionary so dont assume I am. I happen to think that their positions are fallacious.

        1. Why would G-d need to cause a "Virgin Birth?"
        2. What event/events/issue/issues caused a need for a "Virgin Birth?"
        3. Is there clear evidence or are there reasons within the Hebrew bible and the Oral Torah for the need of a Virgin Birth to bring the Messiah into the World?

        The reason I included the Oral tradition is because Judaism is not Sola Scriptura and should not be treated as such. I am curious as to what the answers are or will be.

        Shalom,

        Avraham Ibn Ezra
        I do not think or believe that God needed there to be a virgin birth. As Laura alluded to above, it's generally poor theology to speak of God needing to do anything. I think the author of the gospel of Matthew, or perhaps an earlier tradition, created the story as a kind of pesher on Isaiah 7,14 LXX. Perhaps you are already familiar with pesher exegesis of prophetic texts applied to the Teacher of Righteousness from your reading of the Qumran texts.
        βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
        ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

        אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

        Comment


        • #5
          I'll get back to this, I promise.

          But the biggest problem is going to be the term 'need'. God doesn't 'need' to do anything - creation doesn't fulfill any necessity for God (wants or desires, maybe, needs, no).

          Back soon!

          "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot


          "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

          My Personal Blog

          My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by robrecht View Post
            I do not think or believe that God needed there to be a virgin birth. As Laura alluded to above, it's generally poor theology to speak of God needing to do anything.
            If G-d didn't need to cause a "virgin birth" why would it be claimed that he did cause a "virgin birth?" Couldn't the Messiah then come from a natural conception if there wasn't a need to cause such an event for the coming of the messiah?

            Asking if G-d needs to cause X and asking if G-d needs X are two different questions. Wouldn't you agree?


            I think the author of the gospel of Matthew, or perhaps an earlier tradition, created the story as a kind of pesher on Isaiah 7,14 LXX. Perhaps you are already familiar with pesher exegesis of prophetic texts applied to the Teacher of Righteousness from your reading of the Qumran texts.
            Getting into interpretive methods and how they are applied to translations is not high on my priority list at the moment. There are a host of theories on why the main version of the LXX read a certain way and why some ancient versions read another way.

            Shalom,

            Avraham Ibn Ezra
            אברהם אבן עזרא

            Avraham Ibn Ezra

            Comment


            • #7
              In general, there is an infinite set of possible universes, one of which God chose to create. Why this particular universe? We may never know. It seems to me to be like asking Picasso why he painted "Guernica" the way he did. What could he say so that everyone understands why?

              For some reason that I do not know God wants us to have evidence He exists and is the God of the Bible. Hence the virgin birth and births by long-barren women.
              The greater number of laws . . . , the more thieves . . . there will be. ---- Lao-Tzu

              [T]he truth I’m after and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance -— Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Avraham Ibn Ezra View Post
                If G-d didn't need to cause a "virgin birth" why would it be claimed that he did cause a "virgin birth?" Couldn't the Messiah then come from a natural conception if there wasn't a need to cause such an event for the coming of the messiah?

                Asking if G-d needs to cause X and asking if G-d needs X are two different questions. Wouldn't you agree?

                Getting into interpretive methods and how they are applied to translations is not high on my priority list at the moment. There are a host of theories on why the main version of the LXX read a certain way and why some ancient versions read another way.

                Shalom,

                Avraham Ibn Ezra
                There's a difference between the claim that God needed to cause a virgin birth and the claim that God did cause a virgin birth. The former seems to imply the latter, but the latter in no way implies the former. Of course the Messiah could come from a natural conception. I am not aware of any Jewish or Christians who would dispute this.

                Yes, they are somewhat different questions but both entail humans saying that God needs something or needs to do something and both are ridiculous claims from my perspective. What do we supposedly know about what God needs or needs to do?

                There's no need for you to place a higher priority on interpretive methods and translations, but if you really want to understand Christian scriptures in general or specific questions related to the virgin birth, this would surely help in my opinion.

                שלום

                robrecht
                βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Avraham Ibn Ezra View Post
                  Which prophecy are you referring to? Why would G-d need to cause a virgin birth to bring forth the Messiah?

                  Did the women you cite have children via a virgin birth? If not why would they come to mind?
                  I believe Teallaura is only mentioning these as an example of what G-d did not need to do.
                  Would you agree that there is a difference between causing a woman to give birth to a child the natural way by conception of the child when Mother and Father mate and causing a woman to give birth to a child supernaturally as in being impregnated by G-d directly via a supernatural occurance?
                  Of course there is a difference, though in my opinion causing a barren woman to become fertile is also a miracle.
                  I don't see what you are getting at precisely. Why would G-d need to cause a virgin birth given the circumstances in Genesis 3? Weren't Adam and Chavah punished in verses 16-19?
                  I think Teallaura meant to refer to 3:15, where the woman's seed is traditionally interpreted in Christian circles as the seed of only a woman.
                  Isaiah 7:14 is a discussion for later. I'm trying to focus on your reasoning that G-d would need to cause a virgin birth to take place.
                  As Teallaura said, I'm not sure G-d can be said to need to do anything. Was there a "need" for G-d to part the Jordan so the Israelites could cross over? They'd already been wandering about for 40 years. It's not like it would've taken that long to go around.
                  I have more questions above
                  In limiting yourself to the Hebrew Bible and Oral Torah, you're limiting yourself to the one strand of 1st-century Judaism which has survived past the first century and has been in conscious opposition to Christianity since then. Frankly, I'd be surprised if you found anything in the Oral Torah. The Gospels (which cannot be understood properly outside a Jewish context) show that there was an equation of "Messiah" with "the son of G-d"; it appears on the lips of hostile as well as sympathetic witnesses.

                  Personally, I think that the most reasonable explanation for a "virgin birth" story is that the authors of the gospels believed it actually happened; it's too easy for a skeptic to presume illegitimacy in its place.
                  Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                  Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                  sigpic
                  I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    ^ Yeah, that!

                    "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot


                    "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                    My Personal Blog

                    My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                      I believe Teallaura is only mentioning these as an example of what G-d did not need to do.
                      Why would you suppose that G-d would not need to cause these barren women to have children to continue a promise G-d made? Especially in the case of Avraham and Sarah?

                      Of course there is a difference, though in my opinion causing a barren woman to become fertile is also a miracle.
                      They are not just different. They are vastly different to the point of not being comparable miracle or not.

                      If I use this type of logic and simply state they are comparable because they are miracles. The Parting of the Yam Suf and the Destruction the Assyrian Army in 2 Kings 19 are comparable events simply because they are both miracles.

                      I think Teallaura meant to refer to 3:15, where the woman's seed is traditionally interpreted in Christian circles as the seed of only a woman.
                      You would be hard pressed to find the word יחיד (only) in the text of the Hebrew bible for Genesis 3:15 much less make the connotation that זרע (seedling(s)/Children) would refer to a single person in this particular passage given how it is used throughout the bible primarily referring to more than one person and or seedling(s) in the ground. The bible is replete with the usage of words that are compound singular words such as עם (people). While עם does have an etymological plural with עמים (ex. genesis 49:10) this plural would suggest more than one group of people being indicated in the text.
                      I don’t see why G-d would need to cause a virgin birth based on this verse. I t doesn’t make sense. If you can elaborate on your position on why and how this would facilitate this need I would greatly appreciate it.

                      As Teallaura said, I'm not sure G-d can be said to need to do anything. Was there a "need" for G-d to part the Jordan so the Israelites could cross over? They'd already been wandering about for 40 years. It's not like it would've taken that long to go around.
                      I don’t see what this has to do with my question. It is a red herring. I can have a position on the need to cause a dividing of the Jordan river and a position on the need for a “Virgin Birth” but the two are not the same.

                      In limiting yourself to the Hebrew Bible and Oral Torah, you're limiting yourself to the one strand of 1st-century Judaism which has survived past the first century
                      Can you break down the exact beliefs and customs, in detail, that were practiced by the Tzadukim (saducees), the Essenes, the Dead Sea Sect, and of the other smaller groups? If you cannot then why are you making this statement? The fact that Pharisaical Judaism, modern day rabbinic Judaism, is the Judaism that survived and what Jewish beliefs are based on by the majority is a valid argument. It is the type of Judaism adhered to by Jesus and his apostles.

                      and has been in conscious opposition to Christianity since then.
                      Any group that is not Christianity is in opposition to it. This is a default position because the religion that is not Christianity does not support the beliefs contained in Christianity. So all you are doing is stating the obvious as if it were a point to disparage any points I make. Nice try!
                      As for the reasons for opposition I don’t think you need a history lesson on the inquisition, Pogroms, and other persecutions done by the Church. Early opposition to the early Jewish followers is just like in your own history, a competition between competing sects for domination. In this case the Rabbi's won in Judaism and the early followers of Jesus died out and the institution became a gentile religion. Any further discussion on this would be mundane and not pertain to the questions I am asking about the virgin birth. if this is something you want to discuss start a new thread on it.

                      Frankly, I'd be surprised if you found anything in the Oral Torah.
                      So would I.

                      The Gospels (which cannot be understood properly outside a Jewish context) show that there was an equation of "Messiah" with "the son of G-d"; it appears on the lips of hostile as well as sympathetic witnesses.
                      Christians have understood the Gospels outside of a “Jewish context” for over two millennia. The “Jewish context’ is a modern phenomena seeking to re-insert the Jewish back into Jesus and Christianity. I don’t think this understanding is a bad thing. I think its good to explore what would be in the minds of the first century Jews who wrote portions of the NT.

                      Personally, I think that the most reasonable explanation for a "virgin birth" story is that the authors of the gospels believed it actually happened; it's too easy for a skeptic to presume illegitimacy in its place.
                      Interesting! I would love to hear more on why you think that they literally thought It happened as opposed to using an exegetical tool on the text of the bible to produce the virgin birth from the text itself.

                      Shalom,

                      Avraham Ibn Ezra
                      אברהם אבן עזרא

                      Avraham Ibn Ezra

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Avraham Ibn Ezra View Post
                        Which prophecy are you referring to? Why would G-d need to cause a virgin birth to bring forth the Messiah?

                        Did the women you cite have children via a virgin birth? If not why would they come to mind? Would you agree that there is a difference between causing a woman to give birth to a child the natural way by conception of the child when Mother and Father mate and causing a woman to give birth to a child supernaturally as in being impregnated by G-d directly via a supernatural occurance?
                        1) Cited below
                        2) God doesn't need to do anything - He chose to use Virgin Birth as a sign on the Messiah, hence giving the prophecies.
                        3) Read what I wrote. Only Mary gave birth as a virgin. However, God has fulfilled other prophecies regarding births that would not naturally occur (barren and elderly women) which demonstrates that God does fulfill the prophecies He ordains - despite not actually needing to. God creates the necessity with His own choice - it is not a 'need' of His.
                        3a) It is not natural for barren women to suddenly conceive or for women past the age of childbearing to suddenly conceive. To deny the concept of Virgin Birth on this basis is to deny that God caused Sarah or Hannah to conceive (also Elizabeth but that's NT instead of OT).



                        Originally posted by Avraham Ibn Ezra
                        I don't see what you are getting at precisely. Why would G-d need to cause a virgin birth given the circumstances in Genesis 3? Weren't Adam and Chavah punished in verses 16-19?
                        OBP is correct - it should have been 3:15.

                        God foretells of the Messiah here - and the use of a 'woman's seed' implies virgin birth. Once God has foretold something, it would be contrary to His nature if He did not permit/cause that something to occur (presuming no conditional as in the case of Nineveh). You can - but probably shouldn't - speak of God needing to use virgin birth once He had indicated it but the thing actually stems from God's sovereign choice and not a necessity imposed on Him (you can get away with it only because God creates the necessity - but it's still a bad plan because it adds confusion).

                        Originally posted by Avraham Ibn Ezra
                        Isaiah 7:14 is a discussion for later. I'm trying to focus on your reasoning that G-d would need to cause a virgin birth to take place.

                        ...
                        Then you need Isaiah - only in giving the prophecies does God create a necessity to fulfill them (God by His nature doesn't lie). Unless God creates it, there is no necessity for ANY miracle in Scripture. Moses need not bother tossing staves for God to turn them into snakes or waving his arms while God is parting the Red Sea - God does not NECESSARILY have to do ANYTHING. Hence, talking about need where God is concerned is only gonna create confusion





                        Originally posted by Avraham Ibn Ezra
                        It's ok! Time is a commodity that not all of us have a lot of to spare nowadays. Especially me with school and work.if you have time later I would love to hear more on your reasonings.

                        Shalom,

                        Avraham Ibn Ezra
                        'Ppreciate it. Hope this helps.

                        "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot


                        "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                        My Personal Blog

                        My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
                          I'll get back to this, I promise.

                          But the biggest problem is going to be the term 'need'. God doesn't 'need' to do anything - creation doesn't fulfill any necessity for God (wants or desires, maybe, needs, no).

                          Back soon!
                          Actually, the biggest problem is Virgin birth itself and awkward interpretation of prophecy?? in Genesis.
                          Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                          Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                          But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                          go with the flow the river knows . . .

                          Frank

                          I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Avraham Ibn Ezra View Post
                            Why would you suppose that G-d would not need to cause these barren women to have children to continue a promise G-d made? Especially in the case of Avraham and Sarah?
                            G-d did not need to make the promises in the first place, as far as I can tell.

                            They are not just different. They are vastly different to the point of not being comparable miracle or not.
                            How so? In a barren couple, either the man's seed or woman's seed is missing or not working (in ancient cultures, the problem would have been assumed to lie with the woman). In a virgin birth, the man's seed is missing. I'm fairly certain the G-d who made man out of the dust of the earth and woman from the rib of man would not have any problem doing the relatively minor tweaks necessary for giving a barren woman children or a virgin birth.
                            If I use this type of logic and simply state they are comparable because they are miracles. The Parting of the Yam Suf and the Destruction the Assyrian Army in 2 Kings 19 are comparable events simply because they are both miracles.
                            sure.
                            You would be hard pressed to find the word יחיד (only) in the text of the Hebrew bible for Genesis 3:15 much less make the connotation that זרע (seedling(s)/Children) would refer to a single person in this particular passage given how it is used throughout the bible primarily referring to more than one person and or seedling(s) in the ground. The bible is replete with the usage of words that are compound singular words such as עם (people). While עם does have an etymological plural with עמים (ex. genesis 49:10) this plural would suggest more than one group of people being indicated in the text.
                            I don’t see why G-d would need to cause a virgin birth based on this verse. I t doesn’t make sense. If you can elaborate on your position on why and how this would facilitate this need I would greatly appreciate it.
                            Christians, as far as I am aware, do not think that G-d would need to cause a virgin birth based on this verse; they believe that a virgin birth is a possible interpretation of the verse.
                            I don’t see what this has to do with my question. It is a red herring. I can have a position on the need to cause a dividing of the Jordan river and a position on the need for a “Virgin Birth” but the two are not the same.
                            With all due respect, you're not asking a question that has any meaning in our worldview. It's like asking someone who believes "the sky is green" the question "Why is the sky purple?"
                            Can you break down the exact beliefs and customs, in detail, that were practiced by the Tzadukim (saducees), the Essenes, the Dead Sea Sect, and of the other smaller groups? If you cannot then why are you making this statement?
                            We know enough to determine that there were differences between them and between them and the Pharisees (which you tacitly admit with your next sentence).
                            The fact that Pharisaical Judaism, modern day rabbinic Judaism, is the Judaism that survived and what Jewish beliefs are based on by the majority is a valid argument. It is the type of Judaism adhered to by Jesus and his apostles.
                            It is the type of Judaism, as far as we can tell, closest to that adhered to by Jesus, but there were certainly differences. He indubitably thought they were overly concerned with splitting hairs over laws and outward observance.
                            Any group that is not Christianity is in opposition to it. This is a default position because the religion that is not Christianity does not support the beliefs contained in Christianity. So all you are doing is stating the obvious as if it were a point to disparage any points I make. Nice try!
                            No, I was stating the obvious as the basis for making my point. I was not intending to disparage you or your points.
                            As for the reasons for opposition I don’t think you need a history lesson on the inquisition, Pogroms, and other persecutions done by the Church. Early opposition to the early Jewish followers is just like in your own history, a competition between competing sects for domination. In this case the Rabbi's won in Judaism and the early followers of Jesus died out and the institution became a gentile religion. Any further discussion on this would be mundane and not pertain to the questions I am asking about the virgin birth. if this is something you want to discuss start a new thread on it.
                            I disagree with your synopsis somewhat, but it's really beside the point I was trying to make. I would be surprised to find anything in the Oral Torah which supported Christianity because of the long history of opposition between the groups; it's the type of information least likely to be passed down (or, if passed down, disclosed to the opposing out-group).

                            Originally posted by OBP
                            The Gospels (which cannot be understood properly outside a Jewish context) show that there was an equation of "Messiah" with "the son of G-d"; it appears on the lips of hostile as well as sympathetic witnesses.
                            Christians have understood the Gospels outside of a “Jewish context” for over two millennia.
                            This is at least a slight exaggeration; the final parting happened about the time of the bar Kochba revolt about 135 CE. Even after that, the overarching goal in the development of doctrine in normative Christianity was fidelity to the tradition they had received. My weekly service is based on the synagogue service from which it developed (with the Eucharist established by Jesus added).

                            That said, I think you missed part of the argument I was making. The gospels (as written, not simply as understood) equate Jesus with "the son of G-d." It is my understanding that this is not a title for the messiah in Judaism, but the gospels presuppose that it is.
                            The “Jewish context’ is a modern phenomena seeking to re-insert the Jewish back into Jesus and Christianity. I don’t think this understanding is a bad thing. I think its good to explore what would be in the minds of the first century Jews who wrote portions of the NT.
                            I agree. It's especially needed within Protestantism, which largely abandoned its tradition 5 centuries ago.
                            Interesting! I would love to hear more on why you think that they literally thought It happened as opposed to using an exegetical tool on the text of the bible to produce the virgin birth from the text itself.
                            As far as I understand, prophecies in general tend to be understood only in hindsight, or tend to be fulfilled in ways that people do not expect. When people experience something unexpected, they tend to search the scriptures for clues as to why. Jesus' rejection and humiliating death were certainly not what the Jews of his day were looking for in a messiah, but it was argued to be shown in the Tanakh afterward (and predicted by Jesus beforehand). The NT texts are replete with references to the Tanakh, and the Tanakh seems to have been the primary text for evangelism well into the 2nd century CE (see Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho (c. 150) and On the Apostolic Preaching (c. 180) by Irenaeus); the NT was written for internal edification, not evangelism. The texts are generally not written written as exegetical tools; Paul's epistle to the Romans and the epistle to the Hebrews are exceptions to the general rule, and neither of those addresses the virgin birth.

                            I appreciate that you responded to me, by the way. I'm never sure how a Jew is going to respond to my user name (which was not chosen with interaction with Jews in mind).
                            Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                            Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                            sigpic
                            I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                              Actually, the biggest problem is Virgin birth itself and awkward interpretation of prophecy?? in Genesis.
                              You're being a jerk, Shuny. The guy has asked straightforward questions and your efforts to derail aren't cool at all. If you have a legit point to make, start your own thread in Apologetics.

                              "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot


                              "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                              My Personal Blog

                              My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                              Comment

                              widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                              Working...
                              X