Separate names with a comma.
Wanting to join the rest of our members? Feel free to sign up today.
Discussion in 'The Philosopher' started by Uladyne, Apr 6, 2007.
But the meaning of the Gospel accounts isn't in question, so why are you debating it as if it were?
Well it sure is in the link listed by Seditious, who apparently did not hear you the first time. That guy is using this word study of Isaiah to argue against the virgin birth, to argue for "a completely human saviour", and in a very nasaly voice at that.
If the debate is just about Isaiah and doesn't concern Jesus at all, then what's the motivation for all this debate?
the question to me is, if the virgin birth prophecized of the Christ has nothing to do with Buddha's weird birth, or Jesus' weird conception, or the creation of the minotaur, or any other odd story of birth, what does Jesus have to do with anything at all?
My whole point is that the prophecy itself is not central to the story; the story of the virgin birth in Matthew could very well be true whether Isaiah refers to a woman or a virgin or little green man. It is simply not that central to the story, and this argument hinges on the fact that it is.
Besides, the whole argument is that the "virgin birth prophecized of the Christ" is a later misunderstanding of the term; so if it is indeed a misunderstanding, there was no prophecy of a virgin birth in Isaiah anyways! You can't have it both ways.
what d'you mean "there was no prophecy of a virgin birth in Isaiah anyways! You can't have it both ways."?
what 'prophecy' are you talking about?
what is it that is claimed of the mother of Jesus? that's what i consider the relevant issue. if there was no prophecy concerning that, is the virgin birth just an unforeseen means of the birth of the messiah or, what?
or, if the whole 'virgin birth' thing wasn't to do with/a prophecy previous to Jesus, what relevance has it? isn't that an unimportant to Christianity as the prophecies of Nostradamus and Edger Cayce?
and really, the point to me is about historical interpretation: people claiming there was such a thing as -in the modern sense of the word- a "Virgin birth", which of course is part of doctrine of not just fundamentalists. and if there wasn't, if it simply meant 'young woman' as another interpretation of the 'correct' translation from the original text which refered to it is supposed to have claimed/prophecies. and if that's all it is, it's a strike against what people claim today to have 'faith' in, is it not?--a proof that this 'divinely inspired' truth is a horridly interpreted 'truth', suggesting total untruths may constitute the "Doctrine" of today?-- in other words, how do we know the rest of there aren't other significant "translation" errors, or as Nietzsche suggests in the incredible book The Antichrist, aren't significant misunderstandings of symbols, or total historical ignorance
My point has been all along that the passage in Matthew does not stand or fall based on his quote from Isaiah. If you read the text, it's not central to the development of the idea of the virgin birth. And, of course, the passage is not even mentioned in Luke.
It is pointless to attempt to disprove the doctrine of the virgin birth in this way. The most you could possibly prove is that Matthew misunderstood a passage from Isaiah, but that does not mean he is not describing something that actually happened. Your argument simply does not accomplish what it intends.
"The most you could possibly prove is that Matthew misunderstood a passage from Isaiah, but that does not mean he is not describing something that actually happened."
so either he's talking about something nothing to do with prophecy, or he's talking about prophecy and totally misguided people...
Why is it not historically probable that:
(a)Matthew described something that happened.
(b)After this, he found a passage which he interpreted as a prophecy.
So, as you can see, (a) does not stand on (b). If you prove that (b) was a false interpretation, (a) can certainly still stand.
This is further evidenced by the fact that Luke has no (b).
As I said before, your argument simply does not prove what it intends to.
your argument simply does not prove anything to me.
Matthew said something which has nothing to do with the coming Christ. Matthew is as important to Christianity as Billy Myeir (that wacky UFO cult prophecy guy)
Do you think that everything that the Jewish Messiah did had to be prophesied or something?
I think that every immaculate conception that was ever prophecized was unimportant.
The Jewish Messiah... seems like he was a very dramatic person.
Constantine may not have, but it is a historical fact (if anything is a historical fact) that the bible was canonized by government officials: no-one that had any right what-so-ever to do so. It is also a fact that there were many other canons arbitrarily thrown out during this canonization, many of which are actually mentioned in the included texts. In Christianity, real Christianity (as it started), there are a bunch of random, often contradicting, texts, and no bible. Also, all of the new testament texts written were written long after the [reputed] death of Christ, in many cases life-times afterwards. All in all the bible we have now is 99.9% certain to be a load of entirely human-corrupted texts, nothing more.
Somewhat. It is pretty certain that the Jewish people were very influenced religion-wise during their enslavement in Egypt, as is easily seen by the numerous Egyptian mythological archetypes that litter the bible.
But it's far from just rehashed Egyptian religion. The story of Noah's ark and the flood, if I remember correctly, was taken from much earlier paganisms; I believe Sumerian. All-in-all Christianity is a 100% corrupt & twisted version of much earlier paganisms.
Where are you getting your information? Wherever it's from, you need to drop it. That was a popular view is serious historical research say....100-150 years ago. You say that "the bible was canonized by government officials". Where do you get that from? Irenaeus refers to the four gospels in the mid 2nd century, and there's plenty of other information to contradict that completely un-historical view.
You say that "It is also a fact that there were many other canons arbitrarily thrown out during this canonization". Oh really? Would you mind telling me what those books are? I'm assuming they are something like the Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Judas, etc. The reasons for rejecting those are far from arbitrary. Those books are the creation of gnostic subsections which are actually much later developments.
Okay, as for the dating issue. Paul's letters are indisputably the earliest Christian writing we possess today. It is difficult to find a scholar that does not date them between 50 and 70 a.d. As for the gospels, the majority of the scholars date them from 60-120 a.d. The reason why the gospels are later is simple: the most probable historical explanation for the gospels is that oral traditions contaning these stories were circling around before 70 a.d. Then, of course, Jerusalem was completely ransacked by the Romans in 70 a.d. and the diaspora resulted. Because of this dispersion, the oral traditions were written down (much the same as what happened with rabbinic teachings).
Let's face it: you read that somewhere from somebody who was not a C1 historian, and accepted it as fact. Be more critical.
Where are you getting your information from? This is the common accepted historical standpoint, interpreted a bit further. The bible was shaped into what it is through a series of Synods, or church gatherings, around 400 C.E. The church has always been nothing but a very powerful and thoroughly corrupt government body. Wherever you are getting your information from, you need to drop it.
Take your own advice.