Freethought & Rationalism Archive

JoeWallack · 04-19-2008, 09:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Kesler

Actually, only Mathew appeals to Isaiah 7:14 (Matthew 1:22-23).

Luke may have based his story, at least in part, on the Hannah-Samuel pericope (1 Samuel 1-2; cf 1 Samuel 2:1-10 to Luke 1:46-55). Both stories also involve the motif of a miraculous birth. Yahweh had closed Hannah's womb (1 Samuel 1:6) before opening it (1 Samuel 1:19-20).

And neither story -- notably, especially Matthew's, where the emphasis is on Emmanuel, not virgin -- absolutely excludes human participation in the conception of Jesus. On this, see Robert J. Miller's Born Divine:The Births of Jesus and Other Sons of God.

JW:
Nonsense (I'm not going to be diplomatic like Spin). Instead of reading (or maybe just referring to) Miller you should have read "Matthew" instead:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Matthew_1

Quote:

Matthew 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found with child of the Holy Spirit.

Matthew 1:19 And Joseph her husband, being a righteous man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily.

Matthew 1:20 But when he thought on these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.

Matthew 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son; and thou shalt call his name JESUS; for it is he that shall save his people from their sins.

Matthew 1:22 Now all this is come to pass, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying,

Matthew 1:23 Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, And they shall call his name Immanuel; which is, being interpreted, God with us.

Matthew 1:24 And Joseph arose from his sleep, and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took unto him his wife;

Matthew 1:25 and knew her not till she had brought forth a son: and he called his name JESUS.

JW:
This "absolutely excludes human participation in the conception of Jesus". Why don't you just admit you were wrong instead of wasting time. Are you ever going to learn/confess that primary source is better evidence than authority?

Joseph

BIRTH, n.
The first and direst of all disasters. As to the nature of it there appears to be no uniformity. Castor and Pollux were born from the egg. Pallas came out of a skull. Galatea was once a block of stone. Peresilis, who wrote in the tenth century, avers that he grew up out of the ground where a priest had spilled holy water. It is known that Arimaxus was derived from a hole in the earth, made by a stroke of lightning. Leucomedon was the son of a cavern in Mount Aetna, and I have myself seen a man come out of a wine cellar.

Luke vs. Matthew on the Year of Christ's Birth by Richard Carrier

xaxxat · 04-19-2008, 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

All that means is that the event is divinely directed and, as with the other illegitimacies and irregularities in the genealogy, is being used by God to fulfill his purposes.

Define "divinely directed"...

Jeffrey Gibson · 04-19-2008, 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

And neither story -- notably, especially Matthew's, where the emphasis is on Emmanuel, not virgin -- absolutely excludes human participation in the conception of Jesus. On this, see Robert J. Miller's Born Divine:The Births of Jesus and Other Sons of God.

JW:
Nonsense (I'm not going to be diplomatic like Spin). Instead of reading (or maybe just referring to) Miller you should have read "Matthew" instead:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Matthew_1

Quote:

Matthew 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found with child of the Holy Spirit.

Matthew 1:19 And Joseph her husband, being a righteous man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily.

Matthew 1:20 But when he thought on these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.

Matthew 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son; and thou shalt call his name JESUS; for it is he that shall save his people from their sins.

Matthew 1:22 Now all this is come to pass, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying,

Matthew 1:23 Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, And they shall call his name Immanuel; which is, being interpreted, God with us.

Matthew 1:24 And Joseph arose from his sleep, and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took unto him his wife;

Matthew 1:25 and knew her not till she had brought forth a son: and he called his name JESUS.

JW:
This "absolutely excludes human participation in the conception of Jesus".

It does, does it? Perhaps you'll tell me how in the light of say the assertions in John 1: 12-13; 1 John 2:29, 3:9, 4:7, 5:1, 5:18 that Christians are "begotten by (ek) the spirit" or "begotten by (ek) God" or the OT references in Gen 4:1, 29:31-32, 30:22-23; Ruth 4:13 to God as the direct cause of the specific human originated pregnancies of Eve, Leah, Rachel, and Ruth, that Matthew's assertion that Mary was pregnant by (ek) the holy spirit absolutely excludes human participation in a person's conception?

Quote:

Why don't you just admit you were wrong instead of wasting time.

Umm, because in this instance I'm not wrong.

Quote:

Are you ever going to learn/confess that primary source is better evidence than authority?

The primary source is better evidence, and I've never said otherwise. But it has to be read in the original language and with reference to the meaning and connotations given to it in cultural context in which it arose -- something that you are unable and/or absolutely and demonstrably unequipped to do.

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson · 04-19-2008, 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xaxxat

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

All that means is that the event is divinely directed and, as with the other illegitimacies and irregularities in the genealogy, is being used by God to fulfill his purposes.

Define "divinely directed"...

I'll be happy to -- but only after you define what you mean by "divinely inspired". Fair is fair.

Jeffrey

Toto · 04-19-2008, 10:08 AM

Jeffrey - if you are correct, when and why did Christians start to misread their gospels? The earliest Christian commentators that I checked - Justin Martyr and Irenaeus - seem to say that Mary was a Virgin.

And does it make sense to use John to interpret Matthew and Luke?

Jeffrey Gibson · 04-19-2008, 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Jeffrey - if you are correct, when and why did Christians start to misread their gospels?

Probably from the beginning. Hence Mark's waring in Chp. 13 not to misunderstand what he is saying about the Abomination of Desolation, and Luke's explanation of why he is writing to Theophilus.

Quote:

The earliest Christian commentators that I checked - Justin Martyr and Irenaeus - seem to say that Mary was a Virgin.

Do they? And even if they do, so what? Corinthians misread Paul. But that doesn't mean that the misreading is the correct reading.

Quote:

And does it make sense to use John to interpret Matthew and Luke?

This isn't a matter of using John to interpret Matthew. It's a matter of adducing Greek texts that are gramatically and syntacitcally parallel to what we find in Matt 1:18 and 1:20 to see how ek with reference to a "divine being" was used and what it was thought to convey (or not) about conception.

Jeffrey

xaxxat · 04-19-2008, 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Quote:

Originally Posted by xaxxat

Define "divinely directed"...

I'll be happy to -- but only after you define what you mean by "divinely inspired". Fair is fair.

Jeffrey

You had no problem understanding it here: http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthr...65#post5268965

:wave:

Jeffrey Gibson · 04-19-2008, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xaxxat

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

I'll be happy to -- but only after you define what you mean by "divinely inspired". Fair is fair.

Jeffrey

You had no problem understanding it here: http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthr...65#post5268965

Actually, I did. And I still have no idea what you meant by the expression. So until you tell me what you meant by it ...

Jeffrey

spin · 04-19-2008, 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Obviously Joseph has been excluded in any participation in Mt, hasn't he? He has been detached from a genealogical link in 1:16, excluded from participation as they hadn't cohabited (1:18), and he simply didn't know though he didn't want to expose her. And monkey business would seem to have been excluded by the angel giving the source of the engendering as the holy spirit (1:20).

All that means is that the event is divinely directed and, as with the other illegitimacies and irregularities in the genealogy, is being used by God to fulfill his purposes.

That's eisegesis. The text doesn't support your claim. It doesn't allude to illegitimacies or irregularities in the genealogy.

And I note also that you weren't drawn on the fact that the text makes clear that Joseph is not the father, yet does not supply or suggest a father other than a divine conceiver.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Is it the shock of the news of the conception or that she has been slevcetd to be the mother of the Son of the Most High, that she out of all women will be a handmaiden of the Lord as he brings his promises to Israel to fulfillment?

The text says "how shall this be since I don't know man?" The not knowing man is the text's specified reason of her perplexity.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Quote:

when she says that she hadn't known a man followed by the declaration that the power of the most high will overshadow her, explaining why that which is to be born will be called son of god (1:34f)?

In Luke, the conception has not yet taken place and is predicted for the future.

Granted, but it's irrelevant to her concern and the angel's words. Your recourse to metaphorical uses of "begotten by (ek) the spirit" et al. in your response to JoeWallack is not relevant to an allegedly real birth. Your attempts at parallels with Hebrew bible mothers don't provide sufficient similarities, ie there is no active removal of father candidate, and no language parallels. God simply facilitates the work of the male, so unless I've missed something in the examples, they aren't relevant. We are left with the only candidate being some reference to god.

spin

Jeffrey Gibson · 04-19-2008, 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

All that means is that the event is divinely directed and, as with the other illegitimacies and irregularities in the genealogy, is being used by God to fulfill his purposes.

That's eisegesis. The text doesn't support your claim. It doesn't allude to illegitimacies or irregularities in the genealogy.

It doesn't?

Jeffrey

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-19-2008, 10:08 AM	#35
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Jeffrey - if you are correct, when and why did Christians start to misread their gospels? The earliest Christian commentators that I checked - Justin Martyr and Irenaeus - seem to say that Mary was a Virgin. And does it make sense to use John to interpret Matthew and Luke?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.