- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (gollamudi @ Oct. 14 2009,22:09) kerwin,Oct. wrote:Gollamudi wrote:
Quote
I have yet to see you present any real evidence that they were not. The best you can do is present evidence that Matthew did not use Hellenistic reasoning and that the virgin birth was not addressed by other of the New Testament writers. None of that is evidence it did not happen as Luke and Matthew testify.
Hi brother Kerwin,
I have given you lot of evidences in “Virgin Birth” thread but you seem to keep your eyes blind to the material and arguments that I have produced.Please answer me this one question;
Who was the first virgin born child at the time of Isaiah ?
Did any Jew accept such claims?
Many Yeshua-rejecting Jews say: The Christian idea of a virgin birth is derived from the verse in Isaiah 7:14 describing an “alma” as giving birth. The word “alma” has always meant a young woman, but Christian theologians came centuries later and translated it as “virgin.”Rebuttal:
The Scripture says, Is 7:14 “Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.”
Before Christian theologians who came centuries later translated alma as virgin, the Septuagint, the rabbis’ own translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek, two centuries before Jesus’ arrival on earth, translated Is 7:14 alma into Greek as parthenos, virgin. Why would the rabbis have done that?
The Hebrew word alma, from the root alm, does indeed mean a young woman. During the Old Testament days it meant a very young woman, often too young to bear children. An alma would not likely have been of sexual interest to an elem, a boy at that age, and so was always regarded as a virgin. The same root alm also gives us the Hebrew word alum, hidden, secret, unknown. Moreover, the Torah required that a young woman of marriageable age be a virgin. Deut 22:20 “But if … the tokens of virginity were not found in the young woman, then … the men of her city shall stone her to death.” An alma was apt to be a virgin at the time of her marriage!
Today in Israel moral standards have changed dramatically. In modern Hebrew, an alma means simply a young woman. But we are discussing Isaiah, who wrote during Biblical Hebrew’s “golden age,” 1200 BC to 500 BC, and so we must take the meaning that a word had then.
Moreover, Hebrew is a concise language in which much is taken from context. Since any young woman could conceive a child in the usual way and name him Immanuel, that would not be a sign from God. However, a virgin birth would be a supernatural event.
Isaiah could have written that a betula would conceive and bear a son. The Hebrew word betula definitely means a virgin. But a betula is a virgin of any age. Up to that time, the sign of a miraculous conception had been an old woman bearing a child. In the Old Testament we find, Gen 17:15 “And God said to Abraham, ‘As for Sarai your wife, you shall not call her name Sarai, but Sarah shall be her name. I will bless her, and moreover I will give you a son by her; I will bless her, and she shall be a mother of nations; kings of peoples shall come from her.” Then Abraham fell on his face and laughed, and said to himself, ‘Shall a child be born to a man who is a hundred years old? Shall Sarah, who is ninety years old, bear a child?’” And in the New Testament, Lk 1:7 “But they had no child, because Elizabeth was barren, and both were advanced in years … But the angel said to him, ‘Do not be afraid, Zechariah, for your prayer is heard, and your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you shall call his name John … And behold, your kinswoman Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived a son; and this is the sixth month with her who was called barren. For with God nothing will be impossible.’” But, God in His mighty providence willed that the mother of His Son fulfill His warning to Satan after the original sin, Gen 3:15 “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.” To visibly work at His side, to be associated with Him for all the generations to come, His blessed mother would have to be a very young woman, an alma. And so God, speaking through Isaiah, used the word alma to rule out a miraculous birth to an old woman and point instead to a miraculous birth by a young woman.
Some Jews say: The accounts of Jesus’ virgin birth come from the first century pagan ideas.
Rebuttal:
The various comments about pagan origins of the virgin birth, Christmas, etc., are examples of the fallacy of formal logic called post hoc, ergo propter hoc. “After which, hence by which.” The Christian event occurred after the pagan event, therefore it must have copied the pagan event.
By that standard, the Torah was copied and adapted from the Code of Hammurabi. Hammurabi wrote his Code in Babylon about 1780 BC. It addresses many of the same issues as the Torah, which was written about 1200 BC. The Code of Hammurabi, like the Torah’s 613 mitzvot, deals with theft, agriculture (or shepherding), property damage, women’s rights, marriage rights, children’s rights, slave rights, murder, death, and injury. The Code of Hammurabi was displayed for all to see, and Moses read the Law to all of the people Israel. Lev 24:3 “Moses came and told the people all the words of the Lord and all the ordinances; and all the people answered with one voice, and said, ‘All the words which the Lord has spoken we will do.’ And Moses wrote all the words of the Lord.”
The Code of Hammurabi was written in stone, so it would be unchangeable. The laws (numbered from 1 to 282, but numbers 13, and 66-99 are missing) are inscribed in Old Babylonian on an eight foot tall stela of black basalt currently on display at the Louvre Museum in Paris, France. The Ten Commandments, too, were written in stone. Ex 24:12 “The Lord said to Moses, ‘Come up to me on the mountain, and wait there; and I will give you the tables of stone, with the law and the commandment, which I have written for their instruction.’”
Some Jews use evidence no better than that to declare that some Christian event is of pagan origin. Yet both Jews and Catholics know that the Torah was not an adaptation of the Code of Hammurabi. If the God of Abraham did not exist, the whole history of the people Israel would be false. We have abundant evidence from the experience of our people that it is true.
In the same way, it has been widely observed that Jesus of Nazareth was born in an obscure village and grew up in another obscure village. He was a carpenter until He was thirty and then for three years an itinerant preacher. He never owned a home, raised a family, set foot in a big city, or traveled as much as two hundred miles from where He was born. He never held an office or wrote a book. His friends ran away. His enemies tried Him and had Him nailed to a cross between two thieves. After He died, He was taken down and placed in a borrowed tomb. If ever an ancient man was destined for obscurity, this was the man. Yet twenty centuries have passed since that time. One hundred generations. And nearly two billion people in every country on earth revere Him as the living Christ. From an airplane flying over North America, South America, Europe, Africa and Australia, we can see church steeples holding high the cross of Christ in every city and town and village. No one else’s name is on so many buildings. No one else’s birthday is so widely or joyfully celebrated. The power of Christ’s divinity split not only the Temple curtain but history itself: Every event in the world is dated so many years before His coming, or so many years after His coming.
So let us respect one another’s Scriptures as authentic history.
gollamudi quoted:
Quote Indeed, in Jewish thought, the Messianic idea is not the most crucial. However, in Christian thought, the Messiah is paramount- a difficulty in light of its conspicuous absence from scripture.
I read that an I about burst out laughing as I happen to know a bit about Jewish history and the Messiah.
We Have the Jewish Messianic claiment Shimon bar Kokhba who proved such a disappointment to the Jewis people that he was renamed Simon ben Kosiba. Some claim he even started building a third temple in the short lived Jewish state he secured.
You really should test your sources. Mine is the Wikipedia entry for Simon Bar Kokhba.
Quote (gollamudi @ Oct. 16 2009,17:44) 11) According to the Jewish Bible, the Messiah must be a descendent of King David. (Jeremiah 23:5, 33:17; Ezekiel 34:23-24) Although the Greek Testament traces the genealogy of Joseph (husband of Mary) back to David, it then claims that Jesus resulted from a virgin birth, and, that Joseph was not his father. (Mat. 1:18-23) In response, it is claimed that Joseph adopted Jesus, and passed on his genealogy via adoption. There are two problems with this claim:
a) there is no Biblical basis for the idea of a father passing on his tribal line by adoption. A priest who adopts a son from another tribe cannot make him a priest by adoption;
b) Joseph could never pass on by adoption that which he doesn’t have. Because Joseph descended from Jeconiah (Mat. 1:11) he fell under the curse of that king that none of his descendants could ever sit as king upon the throne of David. (Jeremiah 22:30; 36:30).
To answer this difficult problem, apologists claim that Jesus traces himself back to King David through his mother Mary, who allegedly descends from David, as shown in the third chapter of Luke. There are four basic problems with this claim:
a] There is no evidence that Mary descends from David. The third chapter of Luke traces Joseph’s genealogy, not Mary’s.
b] Even if Mary can trace herself back to David, that doesn’t help Jesus, since tribal affiliation goes only through the father, not mother. Cf. Num. 1:18; Ezra 2:59.
c] Even if family line could go through the mother, Mary was not from a legitimate Messianic family. According to the Bible, the Messiah must be a descendent of David through his son Solomon (II Sam. 7:14;
I Chron. 17:11-14, 22:9-10, 28:4-6) The third chapter of Luke is useless because it goes through David’s son Nathan, not Solomon. (Luke 3:31)
d] Luke 3:27 lists Shealtiel and Zerubbabel in his genealogy. These two also appear in Matthew 1:12 as descendants of the cursed Jeconiah. If Mary descends from them, it would also disqualify her from being a Messianic progenitor.
Source: http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/questio….-claims
I must admit that when I see someone use “G-d” I want to roll my eyes. It isn't that someone could be dumb enough to try to impose the Hebrew language on the English alphabet and grammar. It is that so many people perpetuate the practice. O well…As for your argument about the lineage of Yeshua:
Jews who try this one surely have not thought it through. If they argue that Jesus could not be descended on His father’s side from King David because His was a virgin birth, they are affirming that His birth was miraculous. But there is much more. The angel told Joseph, Mt 1:20 “Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.” The angel could have addressed Joseph in the traditional manner, “Joseph, son of Jacob,” Mt 1:16 but He specifically said, “Joseph, son of David” to present His Son as being in the line of David. Moreover, the angel showed that, despite the need for a divine Person to place a divine Person within Mary’s womb, our Father intended Joseph to be a real father. In Jewish law since the time of Adam the power to name someone or something expresses dominion over it. Only a father or mother has authority to name a child. The archangel Gabriel had told Mary before the Child was conceived, Lk 1:31 “You shall call his name Jesus.” The angel’s command to Joseph three months later, Mt 1:21 “You shall call his name Jesus,” meant that Joseph was to be a true father to Jesus.
Quote I am a bit dense…. Are you trying to say that the OT author's didn't know? That they were/are blinded?
Paul was writing about Israel in the present and future sense (“is happened”).Quote (Not3in1 @ Oct. 16 2009,19:10) Quote (Is 1:18 @ Oct. 16 2009,18:41) Romans 11:25
For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.
I am a bit dense….Are you trying to say that the OT author's didn't know? That they were/are blinded?
Excellent Question Sis.A man came to the earth and did many supernatural things that no man has ever done before or since. He made water into wine, healed every kind of sickness, opened blind eyes, paid his taxes from the mouth of a fish, transfigured himself, teleported himself, walked on water and came back to life after death! How ridiculus is it to wonder if he was the messiah of the Jews. I couldn't care less what label is put on him. I choose him a lord of my life. I follow the man of great power. Words and titles and mans thoughts and ideas mean nothing. Yeshua Ben Joseph is lord for me! TK
Quote (CatholicApologist @ Oct. 16 2009,19:18) Quote (gollamudi @ Oct. 16 2009,17:44) 11) According to the Jewish Bible, the Messiah must be a descendent of King David. (Jeremiah 23:5, 33:17; Ezekiel 34:23-24) Although the Greek Testament traces the genealogy of Joseph (husband of Mary) back to David, it then claims that Jesus resulted from a virgin birth, and, that Joseph was not his father. (Mat. 1:18-23) In response, it is claimed that Joseph adopted Jesus, and passed on his genealogy via adoption. There are two problems with this claim:
a) there is no Biblical basis for the idea of a father passing on his tribal line by adoption. A priest who adopts a son from another tribe cannot make him a priest by adoption;
b) Joseph could never pass on by adoption that which he doesn’t have. Because Joseph descended from Jeconiah (Mat. 1:11) he fell under the curse of that king that none of his descendants could ever sit as king upon the throne of David. (Jeremiah 22:30; 36:30).
To answer this difficult problem, apologists claim that Jesus traces himself back to King David through his mother Mary, who allegedly descends from David, as shown in the third chapter of Luke. There are four basic problems with this claim:
a] There is no evidence that Mary descends from David. The third chapter of Luke traces Joseph’s genealogy, not Mary’s.
b] Even if Mary can trace herself back to David, that doesn’t help Jesus, since tribal affiliation goes only through the father, not mother. Cf. Num. 1:18; Ezra 2:59.
c] Even if family line could go through the mother, Mary was not from a legitimate Messianic family. According to the Bible, the Messiah must be a descendent of David through his son Solomon (II Sam. 7:14;
I Chron. 17:11-14, 22:9-10, 28:4-6) The third chapter of Luke is useless because it goes through David’s son Nathan, not Solomon. (Luke 3:31)
d] Luke 3:27 lists Shealtiel and Zerubbabel in his genealogy. These two also appear in Matthew 1:12 as descendants of the cursed Jeconiah. If Mary descends from them, it would also disqualify her from being a Messianic progenitor.
Source: http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/questio….-claims
I must admit that when I see someone use “G-d” I want to roll my eyes. It isn't that someone could be dumb enough to try to impose the Hebrew language on the English alphabet and grammar. It is that so many people perpetuate the practice. O well…As for your argument about the lineage of Yeshua:
Jews who try this one surely have not thought it through. If they argue that Jesus could not be descended on His father’s side from King David because His was a virgin birth, they are affirming that His birth was miraculous. But there is much more. The angel told Joseph, Mt 1:20 “Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.” The angel could have addressed Joseph in the traditional manner, “Joseph, son of Jacob,” Mt 1:16 but He specifically said, “Joseph, son of David” to present His Son as being in the line of David. Moreover, the angel showed that, despite the need for a divine Person to place a divine Person within Mary’s womb, our Father intended Joseph to be a real father. In Jewish law since the time of Adam the power to name someone or something expresses dominion over it. Only a father or mother has authority to name a child. The archangel Gabriel had told Mary before the Child was conceived, Lk 1:31 “You shall call his name Jesus.” The angel’s command to Joseph three months later, Mt 1:21 “You shall call his name Jesus,” meant that Joseph was to be a true father to Jesus.
Hi CA,
Good points.
But do you think because Jesus was conceived in Mary of Mary and the Holy Spirit that made him different from other men?
Scripture calls him a man.We can follow a man.
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Oct. 17 2009,05:43) Hi CA,
Good points.
But do you think because Jesus was conceived in Mary of Mary and the Holy Spirit that made him different from other men?
Scripture calls him a man.We can follow a man.
O, but you are VERY clear in your posts to me that you cannot abide following a mere man. (Can someone say hypocrite?)Anyway, Mary was His mother…God was His Father.
Fully God
Fully Man
Hi CA,
No we can follow a man like Jesus but no man can follow God.
So his mother was Mary and he was conceived of her and yet somehow he was the God of whom he was conceived?Quote (CatholicApologist @ Oct. 17 2009,07:24) Anyway, Mary was His mother…God was His Father. Fully God
Fully Man
Hey CA,You say, “Anyway…..” so casually and then come up with a nonsense conclusion.
A divine father and a human mother would not produce a 100% divine AND 100% human man. No logic there.
Love,
MandyQuote (Not3in1 @ Oct. 17 2009,08:22) Quote (CatholicApologist @ Oct. 17 2009,07:24) Anyway, Mary was His mother…God was His Father. Fully God
Fully Man
Hey CA,You say, “Anyway…..” so casually and then come up with a nonsense conclusion.
A divine father and a human mother would not produce a 100% divine AND 100% human man. No logic there.
Love,
Mandy
Well, I guess since this only happened once we have no precedent upon which to logically conclude…do we?Maybe this supersedes logic since logic is based upon reason and reason upon precedent.
This isn't like a European person marrying a native Mexican and getting a Mestizo. The person doesn't get a 50% European soul and a 50% Mexican soul. They just get one soul from God.
So we could argue that Jesus was only one person. We then could depart as did the fathers on how many natures Jesus had. We could even go so far as to parse how many wills Jesus had…like the fathers did.
They came up with that Jesus had two natures: God and Man. But that these natures were united in one person. They also said that Jesus had two wills, one human and one divine.
Please help me see the lack of logic here.
Quote (CatholicApologist @ Oct. 17 2009,02:24) Quote (Nick Hassan @ Oct. 17 2009,05:43) Hi CA,
Good points.
But do you think because Jesus was conceived in Mary of Mary and the Holy Spirit that made him different from other men?
Scripture calls him a man.We can follow a man.
O, but you are VERY clear in your posts to me that you cannot abide following a mere man. (Can someone say hypocrite?)Anyway, Mary was His mother…God was His Father.
Fully God
Fully Man
Hera must of been angry since Zeus was fooling around on her again with some mortal woman. What is this one's name again?Callisto, Mary, or something like that. I can certainly cannot see how she was a virgin if God had sex with her. I guess it depends on how you define “sex”.
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Oct. 17 2009,05:19) Hi K,
That is funny to you?
My last comment is an American Political Joke dealing with a past President so you might not get it.As for ridiculing the position of certain parties, I believe that is a type of reasoning called “reduction to the absurd”.
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Oct. 17 2009,08:10) Hi CA,
No we can follow a man like Jesus but no man can follow God.
So his mother was Mary and he was conceived of her and yet somehow he was the God of whom he was conceived?
How about this verse in Eph 5:1 brother Nick?“Be imitators of God, therefore, as dearly loved children 2and live a life of love, just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God”
Do you think our N.T is compatible with your views?
That is the paradox of our N.T. But you don't agree with the descripencies that are in our N.T.
Quote (gollamudi @ Oct. 16 2009,22:23) Quote (Nick Hassan @ Oct. 17 2009,08:10) Hi CA,
No we can follow a man like Jesus but no man can follow God.
So his mother was Mary and he was conceived of her and yet somehow he was the God of whom he was conceived?
How about this verse in Eph 5:1 brother Nick?“Be imitators of God, therefore, as dearly loved children 2and live a life of love, just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God”
Do you think our N.T is compatible with your views?
That is the paradox of our N.T. But you don't agree with the descripencies that are in our N.T.
gollamudi,Who do you think the Messiah is?
Be'einei Hashem
Hi GM,
What discrepancies?God was in Christ and his fruit was that of the Spirit of the God of Love.
His answer to any request of his God was always yes.
We should follow him.Why let your carnal mind hinder you when you can be transformed in your mind feeding on God's Word.
Quote (gollamudi @ Oct. 17 2009,12:23) Quote (Nick Hassan @ Oct. 17 2009,08:10) Hi CA,
No we can follow a man like Jesus but no man can follow God.
So his mother was Mary and he was conceived of her and yet somehow he was the God of whom he was conceived?
How about this verse in Eph 5:1 brother Nick?“Be imitators of God, therefore, as dearly loved children 2and live a life of love, just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God”
Do you think our N.T is compatible with your views?
That is the paradox of our N.T. But you don't agree with the descripencies that are in our N.T.
What contradiction do you see in that verse?If you are speaking of this sentence of Nick's that goes
“No we can follow a man like Jesus but no man can follow God.” then I am going to just say he worded his thoughts poorly.
I believe he was trying to say the only way to follow God is through obeying the teachings of Jesus the Anointed One.
I believe he appreciates your correcting his error as I hope he does not want to lead anyone astray.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
