Virgin Birth questioned: the research

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

That got my attention. I've never heard this before. I feel ignorant. If you don't mind me asking, from where do you come by it?

Probably from reading the Bible. Try it. You'll feel a little smarter.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Probably from reading the Bible. Try it. You'll feel a little smarter.

rotflmao ... I've read it prolly all total hundreds of times but have never come across where mother Mary informed Matthew and Luke. Maybe I'm not reading the same Bible as you. Is it in the RcV? Did Witness Lee cook it up? Nee?

If so see the "passing gas" thread.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Me

How did he [Matthew] do that if he wasn't chosen until 30 yrs after Jesus was born?

Was the gospel of Matthew even written by Matthew? The gospel doesn't say.

But Mary seems confused. She gave birth as a virgin (supposedly) yet she was shocked when at 12 yrs old Jesus was teaching in the temple, and she thought at one point that he was out of his mind. Did she forget that she was a virgin visited by the Spirit?

No wonder, then, that Matthew and Luke don't agree on Jesus' genealogy. And if she was a virgin inseminated by God why does the genealogy come down to Joseph. He made no contribution to Jesus, so no biological linage at all to king David.

Maybe I should stop reading the Bible. It's confusing.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

But Mary seems confused. She gave birth as a virgin (supposedly) yet she was shocked when at 12 yrs old Jesus was teaching in the temple, and she thought at one point that he was out of his mind. Did she forget that she was a virgin visited by the Spirit?

No wonder, then, that Matthew and Luke don't agree on Jesus' genealogy. And if she was a virgin inseminated by God why does the genealogy come down to Joseph. He made no contribution to Jesus, so no biological linage at all to king David.

Maybe I should stop reading the Bible. It's confusing.

My mother was "shocked" by many things I did, yet she was there when I was born. Does that mean she don't know who my Dad was?

Take note that this event in the temple was 12 plus years later, with 6 other "normal" siblings coming along in the interim, and other than complete obedience to His earthly parents in Nazareth, Jesus had done absolutely nothing to draw attention to His real identity.

Perhaps you should stop reading the Bible with the "assistance" of the likes of Bart Ehrman. That will surely confuse you alright.

Matthew and Luke don't have to "agree" on genealogy. Jesus grew up for 30 years as the the son of Joseph, the "Son of Man." That's how He referred to Himself. As such, He also took on his father's lineage. In this matter, I would highly recommend Lee's footnotes in the Recovery Version about the genealogy. I know you got problems with Lee, but you can overlook them this one time.

During the gospels, Mary was the only person on earth that knew of the virgin birth, and she kept it secret for obvious reasons. The Lord in His ministry, especially in the book of John, made it very clear who His Father was, yet did so without drawing attention to Mary. It was not until much later in life that she divulged this matter to Luke and Matthew, and the rest of civilization, for that matter.

[awareness]

Okay ... ya asked fer it. Before I get started I have to admit that I have never understood this problem of the father of Jesus, not growing up in the Baptist church, while in the local church, or since. There's been no answer that's been satisfactory. To me the Bible is just unclear about it.

Originally Posted by Ohio

My mother was "shocked" by many things I did, yet she was there when I was born. Does that mean she don't know who my Dad was?

lol ...

Originally Posted by bro Ohio

Take note that this event in the temple was 12 plus years later, with 6 other "normal" siblings coming along in the interim, and other than complete obedience to His earthly parents in Nazareth, Jesus had done absolutely nothing to draw attention to His real identity.

That we know of. Why do you think people had to invent all the Infancy Gospels, in order to fill in the glaring blanks that are missing? We don't even know what made Jesus laugh.

Originally Posted by bro Ohio

Perhaps you should stop reading the Bible with the "assistance" of the likes of Bart Ehrman. That will surely confuse you alright.

Been reading the Bible longer than Ehrman has been on the earth. And been confused that long too. Therefore, there's no causal link there.

Originally Posted by bro Ohio

Matthew and Luke don't have to "agree" on genealogy. Jesus grew up for 30 years as the the son of Joseph, the "Son of Man." That's how He referred to Himself.

So Son of Man refers to Jesus' humanity, that of being born "of man?" As opposed to "Son of Woman?" (If not of Joseph then wouldn't it be Son of Woman?) And it's not referring to "Son of Man" for seeking to reference/link the prophets and Daniel? The meaning of the term Son of Man has never been clear to me. The meaning seems to be a moving target.

Originally Posted by bro Ohio

As such, He also took on his father's lineage.

But not the biological lineage? Why the genealogy of Joseph then? No link to king David there. No Messiah there? What's Lee got to say about it?

Originally Posted by bro Ohio

In this matter, I would highly recommend Lee's footnotes in the Recovery Version about the genealogy. I know you got problems with Lee, but you can overlook them this one time.

Well you could have done the work. Then I'd know for certain what footnotes on genealogy by Lee you are thinking of.

But I'll give it a try. I'll give Witness Lee a break, and a chance. I needed help tho. So I called Bart Ehrman. I figured he's such an expert on all things Christianity that he's got to be the world expert on Lee too.

But seriously, I called bro Zeek. He has the RcV on Kindle. We guessed at what footnotes you meant. Here's what we found:


Matthew:
Mt 1: 162a Joseph - Luke 1: 27; 2: 4; Matt. 1: 18; cf. Luke 3: 23 At this point the record of this genealogy does not say, “Joseph begot Jesus,” which is similar to what is said of all the foregoing persons; it says, “Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus.” Jesus was born of Mary, and not of Joseph, since it was prophesied that Christ would be the seed of the woman and would be born of a virgin (Gen. 3: 15; Isa. 7: 14). Christ could not have been born of Joseph because Joseph was a man and a descendant of Jeconiah, none of whose descendants could inherit the throne of David (Jer. 22: 28-30). However, Mary was a virgin and a descendant of David (Luke 1: 27, 31-32); as such, she was the right person of whom Christ should be born. The marriage of Joseph and Mary brought Joseph into relationship with Christ and united into one the two lines of Christ’s genealogy for the bringing in of Christ, as shown in the chart on p. 9 in the printed edition. This chart shows that the generation of Jesus Christ begins from God and continues until it reaches Jesus. It proceeds from God to Adam, from Adam to Abraham, from Abraham through Isaac and Jacob, and on to David. After David it divides into two lines, the first running from Nathan to Mary and the second from Solomon to Joseph. Eventually, these two lines are brought together by the marriage of Mary and Joseph, to bring in Jesus Christ. In this way Christ was apparently a descendant of Jeconiah, who seemed to be in the line of the royal family; actually, He was not a descendant of Jeconiah, Joseph’s forefather, but a descendant of David, Mary’s forefather, so that He could qualify to inherit the throne of David.

Living Stream Ministry (2012-09-18). Holy Bible Recovery Version (contains footnotes) (Kindle Locations 139343-139357). Living Stream Ministry. Kindle Edition.

Luke:
Lk 3: 382 son This does not mean that Adam was born of God and possessed the life of God, just as son of Joseph does not mean that Jesus was born of Joseph; rather, He was thought to be the son of Joseph (v. 23). Adam was created by God (Gen. 5: 1-2), and God was his origin. Based on this he was considered the son of God, even as the heathen poets considered all mankind to be the offspring of God (Acts 17: 28). Mankind was only created by God, not regenerated of Him. This is absolutely and intrinsically different from the believers in Christ being the sons of God. They have been born, regenerated, of God and possess God’s life and nature (John 1: 12-13; 3: 16; 2 Pet. 1: 4).

Living Stream Ministry (2012-09-18). Holy Bible Recovery Version (contains footnotes) (Kindle Locations 148807-148813). Living Stream Ministry. Kindle Edition.

Bro Ohio you must have a much better brain than I. I still don't get it, even after reading Lee. In fact after reading Lee on the genealogy I'm inclined to refer to the Passing Gas thread. Maybe it's not your brain, maybe the Holy Spirit is speaking to you thru Lee ... but no Spirit is speaking to me ... it must be that I'm a heathen.

You'll have to explain it to me. Maybe that will help.

Until then some thoughts for you to ponder:

In the Matthew section Lee starts out with:

Originally Posted by Lee

At this point the record of this genealogy does not say, “Joseph begot Jesus,” which is similar to what is said of all the foregoing persons; it says, “Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus.” Jesus was born of Mary, and not of Joseph, since it was prophesied that Christ would be the seed of the woman and would be born of a virgin (Gen. 3: 15; Isa. 7: 14).

Here's some problems: “Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus.” is not the same in all the mss. The Sinaitic Syriac ms says: “Joseph, to whom was betrothed Mary the virgin, fathered Jesus who is called the Christ.” Your favorite Bible scholar, Dr. Bart Ehrman, explains this in more detail in his Book "Orthodox Corruption of Scripture." The church you grew up in modified the NT. And now even Protestants, believe it, and Lee believed it.

If Joseph makes no genetic contribution to Jesus then why this genealogy? It doesn't prove a virgin birth, quite the opposite. I get the feeling that the author is reaching out to an audience that considers the expected messiah would come down from king David. Being occupied they sure had to be longing for a king David type savior/leader/messiah to reappear ... to save the day. By the time Matthew was written this didn't happen. So Matthew was really selling it hard, to his targeted audience.

Back to Lee. He strays from scripture here (quoted) all over the place, and embellishes it beyond the clear word, adding opinions willy-nilly (that only those looked up to as the MOTA could pull off -- let's call that the MOTA sleight of hand - or mind - trick). He doesn't address the different grandfathers of Jesus ; in Luke, "[Jesus] being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli, in Matthew, "Jacob the father of Joseph

In the end Lee adds nothing to the problems of the two genealogies. I know no more after reading it, than I did before.

But maybe I'm not dealing with the footnotes of Lee that you were thinking of.

The ball is in your court.

Originally Posted by bro Ohio

During the gospels, Mary was the only person on earth that knew of the virgin birth, and she kept it secret for obvious reasons.

What reasons were those? And Joseph didn't know? Maybe he wasn't alive when the gospels were written but wouldn't he have been part of the oral tradition? Did he and Mary conspire to keep the virgin birth secret, as well as the birth date of Jesus too?

Originally Posted by bro Ohio

The Lord in His ministry, especially in the book of John, made it very clear who His Father was, yet did so without drawing attention to Mary. It was not until much later in life that she divulged this matter to Luke and Matthew, and the rest of civilization, for that matter.

Why tell Matthew and Luke, but not Mark, John, and even Paul? Why wouldn't something as phenomenal as the virgin birth (and the birthday) be told to everyone closely involved?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by awareness

Okay ... ya asked fer it. Before I get started I have to admit that I have never understood this problem of the father of Jesus . . . . There's been no answer that's been satisfactory. To me the Bible is just unclear about it.

And for me, that is the indicator of how important it is to "figure out." If it was important that we know all the details so that we could understand how it played into there being a man that was both human and divine, then it would have been provided. But if it is only important that there be such a man, and that accepting that is by faith, then going to lengths to discover how it happened seems like a fool's errand. It is to major on something that isn't even a minor. It holds all that is said and taught captive to what is not.

And we need to have some set of rules dictated to us about how one or two or three variations, slight though they be, can establish or scuttle the whole thing. When the outcome of such rules is to have a way to discard portions of the Bible as irrelevant or wrong, then we have really gone a little mad with our claims of superior intellect. That sounds too much like Lee II, or Lee Lite. Second verse, same as the first.

And one of the reasons that "me and my bible" has primarily resulted in division rather than unity. We just can't get over our private interpretations. We know we are smarter, so the past revelation must be ignorant.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Okay ... ya asked fer it. Before I get started I have to admit that I have never understood this problem of the father of Jesus, not growing up in the Baptist church, while in the local church, or since. There's been no answer that's been satisfactory. To me the Bible is just unclear about it.

There's a million things about God that I am not "clear" about. But being "clear" about everything is not a requirement for salvation, nor is it needed to love God or serve God. The Bible provides the story of the birth of Jesus from two angles, Matthew and Luke. Obviously you are not satisfied with what we have received in scripture. There are probably not enough answers in the world that would satisfy you, so my efforts are frustrating to say the least. What I write, you don't like, and then you go off on a dozen more questions, some of which we have discussed in great length in the past.

Like the comment that Peter and John were illiterate. The Bible presents this positively, noting that they were so impressive having "been with Jesus;" yet you use this negatively. The words used indicate that the disciples were unlettered and untrained. They never went to Hebrew school and never received formal religious training. How in the world could the Sanhedrin know whether they could read or write?

Yet you latch on to this interpretation and run wild with it, as if it undermines the writing of the scriptures. The Sanhedrin never gave them a literacy test. We have no idea what their literary skills were outside of the books we have been given. We do know that the disciples knew Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek, which is quite impressive in itself. We have no idea how much study the disciples invested during their life time, and we know that they wrote many years after the events in the Gospels, which gave them lots of time to accomplish many things.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Quote:

What reasons were those? And Joseph didn't know? Maybe he wasn't alive when the gospels were written but wouldn't he have been part of the oral tradition? Did he and Mary conspire to keep the virgin birth secret, as well as the birth date of Jesus too?

Of course Joseph knew.

Why do you assume that they "conspired?" To conspire is to "to plan together secretly to commit an illegal or wrongful act." Joseph's actions during this time were according to Roman law, Jewish law, and the instructions of the angel of God.

OBVIOUS REASONS? Think about it. The bible already records the implications of Mary, though a chaste virgin, being pregnant outside of marriage -- she was about to be "put away privately" by Joseph her fiance, who was a righteous man. Their society was very much different from our own. Think about how many CNN reporters and paparazzi would have hounded the couple from Bethlehem to Egypt to Nazareth to Jerusalem back in those days.. God desired that His Son grow up in a normal Jewish household as a normal child with parents and siblings. That is how He accomplished it. Obviously you don't approve. Get over it bro!

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Of course Joseph knew.

Why do you assume that they "conspired?" To conspire is to "to plan together secretly to commit an illegal or wrongful act." Joseph's actions during this time were according to Roman law, Jewish law, and the instructions of the angel of God.

OBVIOUS REASONS? Think about it. The bible already records the implications of Mary, though a chaste virgin, being pregnant outside of marriage -- she was about to be "put away privately" by Joseph her fiance, who was a righteous man. Their society was very much different from our own. Think about how many CNN reporters and paparazzi would have hounded the couple from Bethlehem to Egypt to Nazareth to Jerusalem back in those days.. God desired that His Son grow up in a normal Jewish household as a normal child with parents and siblings. That is how He accomplished it. Obviously you don't approve. Get over it bro!

I think "conspired" came to mind when you said something like, "Only Mary knew, and she kept it secret for obvious reasons." Maybe, since you say to conspire is to do something illegal, it's the wrong word.

Hey I can think up all kinds of scenarios from the scraps of info in the only sources we have right now ... of course the 4 gospels.

Here's one, just for fun:

Both Mary & Joseph kept the virgin birth a secret. And carried on and let on like Joseph did it ... and that their child was just a normal child like everyone else. They didn't let on or betray to others that their son Jesus, was God. Yet according to the record -- I'm still playing here -- by divine revelation, visitation, and intervention, they knew He was. Maybe that's why Jesus never out right says he's God. Quite the contrary "Call no man good but God."

That's really quite a good scenario I just drew up. It states clearly that Jesus was God. But it's of my own making. As are the stories coming down to us from tradition. They really are brainwashing, like bro Timotheist stated.

And that Mary inform the apostles about the virgin birth is just one of them. We have no evidence of such ... in any of the records. It can't even be found on the web. And the web is full of wild ideas and claims.

But I really enjoyed your scenario of CNN, reporters, and paparazzi following them around. Maybe then we'd have it all on youtube.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Why tell Matthew and Luke, but not Mark, John, and even Paul? Why wouldn't something as phenomenal as the virgin birth (and the birthday) be told to everyone closely involved?

Why do you so love rhetorical questions?

We don't know who Mary told. Perhaps Elizabeth knew. Had Mary told her local NBC affiliate, she might have been turned into a pile of stones. Not a good idea. Try to picture yourself back in those days.

When the shepherds worshiped the Newborn in the manger, Mary "kept all these things, pondering them in her heart." (Luke 2.19)

When the 12 year old Jesus was found in the temple being about His Father's business, "His mother carefully kept all these matters in her heart." (Luke 2.51)

Apparently Mary kept a carefully guarded secret until long after He had ascended into heaven. According to John, the Spirit would later remind them of that which the Lord had said and done among them. In this regard, Mary kept secret all that happened until much later when the Spirit of God inspired her to reveal certain specifics about Jesus' birth and childhood to others.

The Lord's birthday was never secret. Have you read the Gospels? It seems that the Lord might have been born on the side of the road because there was no vacancy at the Bethlehem Bed and Breakfast. Then the Lord Jesus was laid in an animal feeding trough. Do you get the impression that these were trying times for the new mom after spending 3 weeks on that old Mule Betsy.


Since Shutterfly was not yet up and running, Joseph could not post the baby pictures from his iPhone. Obviously there was no hometown celebrations since Augustus had ordered them to be in Bethlehem. Who are those "closely involved" who were not told? Elizabeth knew shortly after Mary had conceived. Had Herod not tried to hunt them down and kill them, perhaps there might have been a party to your liking.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

rotflmao ... I've read it prolly all total hundreds of times but have never come across where mother Mary informed Matthew and Luke. Maybe I'm not reading the same Bible as you. Is it in the RcV? Did Witness Lee cook it up?

Got nothing to do with Lee.

When someone writes his account of events, must the writer preface the account by providing the time, date, and place where they interviewed people, or could he just record them?

Peter, John, and James saw His glory on the mount. Matthew, Mark, and Luke recorded it. (Matt 17.1-9; Mark 9.2-8; Luke 9:28-36)

"I've read it prolly all total hundreds of times but have never come across where" Peter, John, and James "informed" Matthew, Mark, and Luke about meeting Moses and Elijah. Why is that?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Got nothing to do with Lee.

When someone writes his account of events, must the writer preface the account by providing the time, date, and place where they interviewed people, or could he just record them?

Peter, John, and James saw His glory on the mount. Matthew, Mark, and Luke recorded it. (Matt 17.1-9; Mark 9.2-8; Luke 9:28-36)

"I've read it prolly all total hundreds of times but have never come across where" Peter, John, and James "informed" Matthew, Mark, and Luke about meeting Moses and Elijah. Why is that?

Good points all. But should we fill in the blanks, of our own making?

The glaring blanks of the gospels is that they weren't signed. They ARE anonymous. Maybe accounts of insignificant matters could skip the "time, date, and place," but aren't we talking of something of great import?

Still, at least we should know, without a doubt, just who is providing the accounts of Jesus? Shouldn't the accounts be signed, and the authors be clearly identified? Why should we be left guessing? And why should we depend on some of the 2nd c. church fathers? Were they inspired of God too? They seemed to be part and parcel of the ignorance of that day, of which they couldn't help. But some of them don't even look Christian to me ... even if the Catholic church sainted them.

After all, they -- the account givers/leavers, whoever they are -- are talking about something of colossal divine import, for all humankind ... right? Yet Matthew and Luke can provided an account of a virgin birth but, no date of the birth. Why not? Didn't Mary, if she's their source as you claim, remember that little bit of info? Apparently not.

And take this account, supposedly (assumed) to be by Matthew:

Mat 9:9 As Jesus passed on from there, he saw a man called Matthew sitting at the tax booth, and he said to him, "Follow me." And he rose and followed him.

Why would Matthew write this account in the third person? If Matthew was writing the account, why didn't he say, "As Jesus passed on from there, he saw [me] sitting at the tax booth, and he said to [me], "Follow me." And [I] rose and followed him."?

And Luke, if it is Luke, does admit right off that he's drawing from available sources at the time that he's writing ... but doesn't mention Mary.

If Mary dictated to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, she certainly didn't get any credit for it.

The truth is there's lots that we just don't know. What's wrong with not knowing?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

The glaring blanks of the gospels is that they weren't signed. They ARE anonymous. Maybe accounts of insignificant matters could skip the "time, date, and place," but aren't we talking of something of great import?

Still, at least we should know, without a doubt, just who is providing the accounts of Jesus? Shouldn't the accounts be signed, and the authors be clearly identified? Why should we be left guessing? And why should we depend on some of the 2nd c. church fathers? Were they inspired of God too? They seemed to be part and parcel of the ignorance of that day, of which they couldn't help. But some of them don't even look Christian to me ... even if the Catholic church sainted them.

The great church historian Philip Schaff has these relevant comments about the Gospels ...

The style is natural, unadorned, straightforward, and objective. Their artless and naive simplicity resembles the earliest historic records in the Old Testament, and has its peculiar and abiding charm for all classes of people and all degrees of culture. The authors, in noble modesty and self-forgetfulness, suppress their personal views and feelings, retire in worshipful silence before their great subject, and strive to set it forth in all its unaided power.

The first and the fourth gospels were written by apostles and eye-witnesses, Matthew and John; the second and third, under the influence of Peter and Paul, and by their disciples Mark and Luke, so as to be indirectly likewise of apostolic origin and canonical authority. Hence Mark is called the Gospel of Peter, and Luke the Gospel of Paul.

The common practical aim of the Evangelists is to lead the reader to a saving faith in Jesus of Nazareth as the promised Messiah and Redeemer of the world.

-- History of the Christian Church, Volume 1, page 580

The Gospels make upon every unsophisticated reader the impression of absolute honesty. They tell the story without rhetorical embellishment, without any exclamation of surprise or admiration, without note and comment. They frankly record the weaknesses and failings of the disciples, including themselves, the rebukes which their Master administered to them for their carnal misunderstandings and want of faith, their cowardice and desertion in the most trying hour, their utter desponency after the crucifixion, the ambitious request of John and James, the denial of Peter, the treason of Judas.

They dwell even with circumstantial minuteness upon the great sin of the leader of the Twelve, especially the Gospel of Mark, who derived his details no doubt from Peter's own lips. They conceal nothing, they apologize for nothing, they exaggerate nothing. Their authors are utterly unconcerned about their own fame, and withhold their own name; their sole object is to tell the story of Jesus, which carries its own irresistible force and charm to the heart of every truth-loving reader.

The very discrepancies in minor details increase confidence and exclude the suspicion of collusion; for it is a generally acknowledged principle in legal evidence that circumstantial variation in the testimony of witnesses confirms their substantial agreement. There is no historical work of ancient times which carries on its very face such a seal of truthfulness as these Gospels.

The credibility of the canonical Gospels receives also negative confirmation from the numerous apocryphal Gospels which by their immeasurable inferiority and childishness prove the utter inability of the human imagination, whether orthodox or heterodox, to produce such a character as the historical Jesus of Nazareth. No post-apostolic writers could have composed the canonical Gospels, and the apostles themselves could not have composed them without the inspiration of the spirit of Christ.

-- History of the Christian Church, Volume 1, pages 584-5

[Timotheist]

Interesting, but the associations of the names of Matthew, Mark, and Luke with these gospels were made by those who had no "apostolic authority".

I am willing to accept that Mark (the original short version) may indeed have been authored by Peter's protege. But there are more than one manuscript of Mark, and the one we have today is not the original. The other two gospels used a version of Mark as a template (it is impossible for me to believe otherwise), thus making the name associations questionable (but not impossible).

Not to be nit-picky, but I would not use the word "great" to describe any Christian leader. People today consider WL "great", for example. If there is one theme that prevails across almost every book of the Bible, it is that man is fallible.

I want no one to call me "great" except my wife, but not for my blogging skills.

Peter cut off someone's ear, put two people to death for holding back money, would not sit with the Gentiles until called out on it, and used the Greek mythological word "Tartarus" in one of his epistles. This is a person with "apostolic authority"?

The text is flawed because man is flawed. Makes Biblical sense to me.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Timotheist

Interesting, but the associations of the names of Matthew, Mark, and Luke with these gospels were made by those who had no "apostolic authority".

I am willing to accept that Mark (the original short version) may indeed have been authored by Peter's protege. But there are more than one manuscript of Mark, and the one we have today is not the original. The other two gospels used a version of Mark as a template (it is impossible for me to believe otherwise), thus making the name associations questionable (but not impossible).

Not to be nit-picky, but I would not use the word "great" to describe any Christian leader. People today consider WL "great", for example. If there is one theme that prevails across almost every book of the Bible, it is that man is fallible.

I want no one to call me "great" except my wife, but not for my blogging skills.

Peter cut off someone's ear, put two people to death for holding back money, would not sit with the Gentiles until called out on it, and used the Greek mythological word "Tartarus" in one of his epistles. This is a person with "apostolic authority"?

The text is flawed because man is flawed. Makes Biblical sense to me.

You yourself must then be "great" because you endeavor to undermine the credibility of the record of Scripture.

If you were also "brave," you would invest some of your time to discredit the mooslim kuron.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Timotheist

Peter cut off someone's ear, put two people to death for holding back money, would not sit with the Gentiles until called out on it, and used the Greek mythological word "Tartarus" in one of his epistles. This is a person with "apostolic authority"?

The short answer is a simple "YES!"

Is this an example of the twisted interpretation of scripture which you call "research" based on your own words:

In fact, the research on the Virgin Birth question is something that I have only done in the last two years. I settled in and let the chips fall where they may, using the approach for research as described in my blog. My method is to try to wipe my mind clean, ignore the commentary of ALL modern authors, and do the research myself. It is hard to do, but the method is important for me. No longer will I take some MOTA's word as fact, Lee's or anyone else's.

Sorry Timotheist, this sounds like a hyper-extreme reaction to Lee-ism. A little disingenuous wouldn't you say? Especially since the Acts clearly records that the two died because they lied to God.

Methinks that you don't have a problem with the Bible record or the apostles, but with God Himself. Be careful!

[awareness]

Post #9 revisited:
Isaiah 7:14

Two of you have already cited Isa 7:14 as a prophecy of the virgin birth. And if I follow my own rules, step 4 comes into play here:
4) Suspect material must be analyzed using both the Old Testament and Paul’s epistles to look for evidence that either confirms the passage or serves to help disprove it.

And Isa 7:14 surely is a verse to be reckoned with:

"Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel.” (Isa 7:14 NAU)

Case closed? Drop this thought from your head and move onto some other twisted idea? I may have done so, if not were for something I remembered from research I did 15 years ago.

Justin Martyr and Trypho

Justin Martyr was a second century apologist (dying around the year 165) and many of his manuscripts have been retained. By this time, all four gospels were being used as references, and Justin Martyr was a firm believer in the Virgin Birth, having inherited that teaching from his predecessor Ignatius (and of course from the texts he revered as gospels). The miraculous birth of Jesus was very much a part of the Christian dogma by that time.

“Dialogue with Trypho” was an interesting read to me. Trypho was a Jew and he and Justin had quite a debate going on in written form. (It was like a slow motion version of this forum.)

At the time I was reading this material, I had no reason to question the virgin birth: I was doing my research that resulted in my “Heaven and Hellenism” material (posted on this forum). But this passage caught my attention nonetheless:

Trypho: "The Scripture has not, ‘Behold, the virgin shall conceive, and bear a son,' but, ‘Behold, the young woman shall conceive, and bear a son,' and so on, as you quoted. But the whole prophecy refers to Hezekiah, and it is proved that it was fulfilled in him, according to the terms of this prophecy. Moreover, in the fables of those who are called Greeks, it is written that Perseus was begotten of Danae, who was a virgin; he who was called among them Zeus having descended on her in the form of a golden shower. And you ought to feel ashamed when you make assertions similar to theirs, and rather [should] say that this Jesus was born man of men. And if you prove from the Scriptures that He is the Christ, and that on account of having led a life conformed to the law, and perfect, He deserved the honour of being elected to be Christ, [it is well]; but do not venture to tell monstrous phenomena, lest you be convicted of talking foolishly like the Greeks."

Trypho suggested that the Septuagint was to blame for the introduction of this doctrine, for the Septuagint was a Greek translation of the original Hebrew texts, and he blamed the Greeks for introducing their own mythology into the text (a process we call “Hellenism”).

My recent research confirms that what Trypho stated in this case was correct. Go to any reliable source (I now use BibleWorks) and his assertion holds up: the word translated as “virgin” is an inaccurate translation.

Unfortunately, the author of the gospel we call Matthew quoted from the Septuagint in 1:23, in an attempt to show that Jesus fulfilled this prophecy.
Here I see both the origin of the Virgin Birth assertion and the reason for its rapid acceptance. It all boiled down to a bad translation being used at a time when the Christians were busy poring over the texts looking for any and all prophecies supporting Jesus as the promised Messiah.

And if we take Trypho at his word, he may have been convinced that Jesus was the Messiah if not for this crucial point.
__________________
Timotheist[/quote]

Shame on me, I admit to being lazy and failing to pay attention. I even missed the golden showers. Ask Zeek, he'll tell you that's not like me ... and Ohio too, prolly. They're Christian prudish ... .

Anyway, I saw the opening line, Isaiah 7:14 and skipped the rest, cuz I've harped on Isa 7:14 before ... to deaf ears. I was thinking to perchance catch it on the blowback responses, if any, on up the line.

For those reasons I don't seem to have much gumption for all this stuff. But I'll take up my cross and press on.

For brevity I'll pick on just one point:

That would be Trypho and his remarks.

Trypho is right about Isa 7:14. It does not mention "virgin." What he can't tell us is why Matthew made such a mistake, if it was one. Surely Matthew could have worked from the Masoretic Text, instead of the LXX. But he didn't. At any rate, if he knew about the difference he decided to quote from the LXX.

Was he so gong-ho to reach his fellow Hebrews, and convince them that Jesus was the Messiah they were looking for, that, he had a blind spot?

Or was he so Hellenized that he didn't even refer to the Masoretic Text, to find the error in the LXX? I realize the Jews of his day were Hellenized. But surely those he was trying to reach with his message of the Messiah would have caught it, at least some of the more devote Jews, still using the Masoretic Text, would have caught it. Maybe that's why the Ebionites rejected the virgin birth, those the early church fathers castigated as the heretical Judaizers, and why the Jewish Nazarenes, and Ebionites, rejected the canonical gospels for the Aramaic Gospel of the Hebrews. Who knows? There's skimpy documentation on both ... most from the post-apostolic church fathers ... who were behind Paul and the gentiles, who unquestionably were Hellenized; pagans actually.

Trypho's remark about "talking foolishly like the Greeks" is revealing. It reveals the common currency of the Greek myths in his day, that contain many miraculous births like the virgin birth. If Matthew was trying to reach them his virgin birth story would have resonated with them.

The bottom line is that if Matthew was trying to convince the Jews with a link to prophecy in the O.T., that Jesus was the Messiah, he failed big time to convince them.

Paul, who didn't mention a virgin birth, the antinomian, won the day. He prolly, and this is just my conjecture, didn't want to soil Jesus with pagan myths.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

"I've read it prolly all total hundreds of times but have never come across where" Peter, John, and James "informed" Matthew, Mark, and Luke about meeting Moses and Elijah. Why is that?

Because they were not thorough reporters. Why's that? Was their subject matter not important enough?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Because they were not thorough reporters. Why's that? Was their subject matter not important enough?

My quotes of Phillip Schaff in post #19 answer all of your concerns.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

My quotes of Phillip Schaff in post #19 answer all of your concerns.

Schaff's opinion statements are largely irrelevant to the issue at hand because they say nothing specific to explain the origins of the ostensibly conflicting virgin birth narratives of Matthew and Luke. He does say "The very discrepancies in minor details increase confidence and exclude the suspicion of collusion; for it is a generally acknowledged principle in legal evidence that circumstantial variation in the testimony of witnesses confirms their substantial agreement." In the case of the infancy narratives, the circumstantial variation goes beyond "minor details."

I know of no available confirmable explanation of how the narratives can be reconciled. The most obvious explanation for both of the stories is that they are designed to explain how it is that Jesus of Nazareth was actually Jesus of Bethlehem and thus fulfilled OT prophesy concerning the messiah. Does Schaff present a winning argument that refutes the possibility that the stories were designed expressly for that purpose? In other words, do you have another quote from Schaff where he addresses the subject at hand?

[Ohio]

I'll take Matthew's account in his gospel over Trypho's mythology every day of the week.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Because they were not thorough reporters. Why's that? Was their subject matter not important enough?

Now you're on to something!

The next time some apostle decides to write the Bible, we should demand double spaced, Times New Roman, 12 pt, with one inch margins. The kind of stuff they teach in grade school.

Had they followed these basic rules, we would have been saved lots of trouble.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Now you're on to something!

The next time some apostle decides to write the Bible, we should demand double spaced, Times New Roman, 12 pt, with one inch margins. The kind of stuff they teach in grade school.

Had they followed these basic rules, we would have been saved lots of trouble.

I know. What was wrong with them? Didn't they know we'd be translating ther work 2000 yrs later. They didn't bother to write in chapter and verses, that was added 1200 years later. They didn't even use spaces between the words, they wrote it run-on altogether. Acts even says Peter and John were illiterate.

But we can't expect much. After all over 90% of them were illiterate. Acts even says Peter and John were illiterate.