Freethought & Rationalism Archive

countjulian · 12-02-2005, 08:02 AM

Quote:

No, it doesn't. That was a misquote. The actual quote showed quite the contrary.

Well, than I guess that means that you lied since the quotation from Origin that I used,

Quote:

And since Celsus has introduced the Jew disputing with Jesus, and tearing in pieces, as he imagines, the fiction of His birth from a virgin, comparing the Greek fables about Danae, and Melanippe, and Auge, and Antiope, our answer is, that such language becomes a buffoon, land not one who is writing in a serious tone.

, I got from you. You, in turn, got it from here http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-04/...#P7817_1858276 . If you have a problem with a "misquote", then you have it with the Fathers collection, not me.

Quote:

And, again, we looked at Matthew's use of Isaiah. Matthew, quite clearly, intended to convey this. Every ancient author who read it saw the same thing. And remember, what Isaiah meant to convey is irrelevant, the question is what Matthew meant to convey.

Apparently, according to Origin, above, Celsus did not see things this way. Justin Martyr compared the two, so he didn't see it it hat way either. Guess it wasn't "every ancient author" that read "the same thing."

Quote:

Not in the traditional sense, no. He got there miraculously--by the power of the spirit.

Okay, care to back that up with the actual text of Matthew or Luke? What evidence is there from the text that it didn't happen in the "traditional sense"? Remember, since Celsus and Justin Martyr didn't see things as you do, so you have to defend your position with the text itself, not what some other hundreds of years later thought about it.

Quote:

That translation is still wrong. It doesn't say a word about a golden shower. It says golden Jupiter. "Shower" isn't in it at all. It's a question of what is being conveyed. It is not "Jupiter's golden shower," Jupiter was the golden shower--he changed forms, becoming "golden Jupiter."

I've never denied this. Just as Yahweh impregnated Mary as a spirirt, so Zeus impregnated Danae as a golden shower. For the sake of translation, try this acount:

Quote:

Danae was the daughter of Acrisius and Aganippe. A rophecy about her said that the child she bore would kill Acrisius, and Acrisius, fearing this, shut her in a stone-walled prison. But Jove [Zeus], changing into a shower of gold Hyginus –Fabulae 63

But remember, in the virgin Mary account, it was also God who impregnated Mary. It is up to you to show that (a) danae's virginity was compromised by a "golden shower", and (b) Matthew's and Luke's ideas about god impregnating a virgin were antithetical to that of Greek stories such as that of Perseus that saw gods coupling, in miraculous ways, with virgin women. As the quote from Origin shows above, pagans thought of the story of Mellenipe, who most definitely had regular sex with a god, to be anlogous to that of the birth of Jesus, even though in Mellanippe's case the only thing she and Mary had in common is that before the gods got randy, they were both virgins.

Quote:

You're also far too keen to point to Luke as somehow vindicating you because he was writing for pagans. Luke's source is Matthew, not pagan myth.

Even if this is true, it doesn't change the fact that Mark and Matthew both used pagan myth

.

Steven Avery · 12-02-2005, 08:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clarice O'C

I can't find in Luke 1 where this actually happened.-------------------

Hi Clarice, I enjoyed my sojourn on Jesus Mysteries some before you folks bumped me off. Had some good discussions defending the New Testament claims, such as apostlic authorship, although such defences do not seem to be much appreciated there :-)

As to your question.. Gabriel was foretelling an event that occurred between verse 38 and 39, in Matthew before verse 18. The expression of the actual happenstance is the Gabriel 'annunciation'.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
Queens, NY
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Steven Avery · 12-02-2005, 08:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by countjulian

Even if this is true, it doesn't change the fact that Mark and Matthew both used pagan myth.

When folks make this claim, I wonder what are their specifics views ...

There really are two alternatives,

1) They consider the Tanach and NT as both imitations of paganism.

2) They consider the NT as missing the boat vis a vis theunderstanding, proper exegesis of the Tanach.

These are actually very different positions, and it is hard to discuss the issues properly without knowing which position the person is taking. And if a person moves in and out of the two, it can be corn-fusing.

Most of my personal focus is on #2, most of the folks I dialog with have no problem with the Tanach account being Hebraic and not pagan (granted on this forum it would be different).

When we discuss #2, it seems that the depth of understanding of ancient Hebraic exegesis and sources is not very high, including the issues about the word almah. Folks tend to just repeat what they hear from modern Jewish 'circle the horses' commentary as being the ancient understanding.

So I would suggest "God, the Rabbis and the Virgin Birth" by Daniel Gruber as a good starting point for those who want to get a fuller picture, although it is not on the web, it is inexpensive at www.elijahnet.org .

Also I would suggest a study that connects two points --
a) The child in Isaiah 7 being the same as the child in Isaiah 9
b) Hebraic exegesis (e.g. Targum and Talmud) showing a clear ancient Hebraic view of Isaiah 9 being the Messiah.

There are two such studies of 7 and 9 that I have seen on the Net, one is by William Most and another is by Harold Holmyard.

Just as an aside, I understand that technically parthenos does not have to mean virgin, however in context it is clear that Matthew was using parthenos in the sense of virgin, and viewed almah at least as implying virgin, and that the prophecy would have been understood by many in his Hebraic audience as being applied directly to Messiah (without going into all the theories of typology and dual prophecy and such). In other words, both the application of Isaiah 7 to Messiah, and the concept of the virgin birth (remember that the Hebrew readers were already very familiar with an angelic birth annuncation as well as with the supernatural..albeit not virgin..birth of Sarah) would be harmonious with first century Judaism, despite the current vociferious protestations.

There are even corollary issues to consider, such as the view that the yetzar hara was passed through the man, and the issues of how David's throne could be passed without a virgin birth due to the curse on Jeconiah and his children.

As to Isaiah 9 and Messiah, again the Targum comes to play, as it gives an fairly authoritative (the Talmud discusses the authority of Talmud Yonathan) Hebraic exegesis that is uncolored by the later Jewish-Christian disputation acrimony. And in the Targum Isaiah 9 is directly ascribed to Messiah. If common Hebraic exegesis of the first century links the child of Isaiah 7 and the son of Isaiah 9, then of course that places Matthew's application of prophecy in a clearer Hebraic light, and not as a spiritually foreign application.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
Queens, NY
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Clarice O'C · 12-02-2005, 09:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by praxeus

Hi Clarice, I enjoyed my sojourn on Jesus Mysteries some before you folks bumped me off. Had some good discussions defending the New Testament claims, such as apostlic authorship, although such defences do not seem to be much appreciated there :-)

As to your question.. Gabriel was foretelling an event that occurred between verse 38 and 39, in Matthew before verse 18. The expression of the actual happenstance is the Gabriel 'annunciation'.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
Queens, NY
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Well, I still don't see it. The angel Gabriel is still there telling her what's going to happen to her through verse 38. If it happens between 38 and 39, anything could have happened such as an affair with someone or she could have been a victim of unconsentual sex. As for Matthew before verse 18, again, anything could have happened. Can this angel Gabriel really be trusted? Seems like something as important as a holy impregnation would have been included, like, "Behold, I am the holy spirit and I'm here to impregnate you. Lo! Now you are with child and his name shall be 'Jesus.'" We don't need details, just some mention that the HS was really there.

Best,
Clarice

--------------
http://www.samharris.org/

P.S. We like debating with HJers at JM; anyone can see that. We even have a Christian moderator. We just don't allow apologetics and ad hominem attacks against our members which is why you're no longer posting there. You were advised of this but continue to believe differently.

Steven Avery · 12-02-2005, 10:58 AM

Hi Folks,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clarice O'C

Well, I still don't see it....anything could have happened ... Can this angel Gabriel really be trusted?

Sure, from a hermenutic of suspicion, anything could have happenned.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clarice O'C

Seems like something as important as a holy impregnation would have been included, like, "Behold, I am the holy spirit and I'm here to impregnate you.

The anunciation is a beautiful verse, and makes the reality simple, profound, beautiful and clear.

And what you are doing one of those conjectural straw-grasping critiques. I'm sure if the Clarice verse was in, then other mythicists would critique it "redundant, why isn't there more biological detail, why use the word impregnate, look its too physical .. yada yada"

Plus, Clarice, you are the one assuming any such conversation. If it the actual reality of the child's beginning was simply done by 'overshadowing' and without any voices or additional announcements or overt physical manifestations (which is the implication of the scripture .. to the chagrin of the mythicists who would like it to be otherwise, a more direct physicality that they could attack, as on they do on this very thread, or as in the islamist account), then it would be simply wrong of Luke to report what did not occur.

... they will always get you coming and get you going.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clarice O'C

Lo! Now you are with child and his name shall be 'Jesus.'" We don't need details, just some mention that the HS was really there.

And the lack of that mention is why you don't accept the virgin birth of Jesus Christ ? Otherwise you would believe the angel Gabriel, the author Luke, and the declaration of 2 Timothy 3:16 ?
Just for that little missing hoped-for scripture-thread, you lack acceptance of the virgin birth of Messiah ?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clarice O'C

... We just don't allow apologetics

Yet of course any true defense of the historical NT Jesus is essentially inseprarable from apologetics. So you only really want one side of the historical Jesus discussion, you will welcome other sides as long as they won't take the position that the New Testament is actually true !

And while I was on I was offerring a vigorous defence that Paul wrote the pastoral epistles, the virgin birth of Messiah issues like here, and more, including lots of interesting scholaship discussions. like the DSS and midrash issues.

However, I can understand that a truly positive NT view of the historical Jesus discussion is discomforting to your now-sanitized forum, since it can go into the realm of the verboten 'apologetics'.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clarice O'C

.and ad hominem attacks against our members which is why you're no longer posting there. You were advised of this but continue to believe differently.

Now, now, lets be honest here. I posted for almost three years on JM on all sorts of stuff, including the virgin birth. At one (or maybe two) points your moderators went a bit haywire. Gumption and backbone on the forum was lacking, and your forum was able to stifle any real historical Jesus and NT defence, and it appeared you wanted the forum sanitized for Doherty.

And when I asked you for the specific 'attacks' that you felt were over the edge, you simply did not respond. btw, you didn't at time accuse me of ad homs, so it is tacky to throw that in now, especially since it isn't true.

Integrity first.

And ironically, it was the vigorous defence of the NT against the rather silly 'there was no Nazareth' mythicist contention (one accusation of geographical ignorance and fabrication by Luke and the NT authors) that put you over the edge.

In a sense I can understand that, as it was making some of the mythicists look a bit ill-informed and illogical.

Many on this forum seem to be better informed, so they tend to avoid making big issues out of non-issues. Not always, though :-)

Shalom,
Steven Avery
Queens, NY
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Clarice O'C · 12-02-2005, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by praxeus

Hi Folks,

Sure, from a hermenutic of suspicion, anything could have happenned.

The anunciation is a beautiful verse, and makes the reality simple, profound, beautiful and clear.

And what you are doing one of those conjectural straw-grasping critiques. I'm sure if the Clarice verse was in, then other mythicists would critique it "redundant, why isn't there more biological detail, why use the word impregnate, look its too physical .. yada yada"

Plus, Clarice, you are the one assuming any such conversation. If it the actual reality of the child's beginning was simply done by 'overshadowing' and without any voices or additional announcements or overt physical manifestations (which is the implication of the scripture .. to the chagrin of the mythicists who would like it to be otherwise, a more direct physicality that they could attack, as on they do on this very thread, or as in the islamist account), then it would be simply wrong of Luke to report what did not occur.

... they will always get you coming and get you going.

And the lack of that mention is why you don't accept the virgin birth of Jesus Christ ? Otherwise you would believe the angel Gabriel, the author Luke, and the declaration of 2 Timothy 3:16 ?
Just for that little missing hoped-for scripture-thread, you lack acceptance of the virgin birth of Messiah ?

No, even if a HS verse was there, of course I wouldn't believe it or any of the rest of it. It's fantasy.

Quote:

Yet of course any true defense of the historical NT Jesus is essentially inseprarable from apologetics. So you only really want one side of the historical Jesus discussion, you will welcome other sides as long as they won't take the position that the New Testament is actually true !

This is the issue. People whose minds are fogged by religion/fantasy cannot separate faith from history.

-----------------
http://www.samharris.org/

The JM moderators went over and over the rest of your message with you off-list when it was happening. I'm still burned out from it. It was a mistake for me to reply to you here and it won't happen again.

Roger Pearse · 12-02-2005, 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clarice O'C

People whose minds are fogged by religion/fantasy cannot separate faith from history.

That may be true of people who hold your own religious position, if you say so; to ascribe it to others while claiming such for yourself would almost certainly be rather unwise.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

GakuseiDon · 12-02-2005, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by countjulian

Quote:

Originally Posted by GDon

Many of the OT stories are arguably older than the Greek myths, so how do you rule out that the Greeks were copying from the OT?

Well, for one thing, the vast majority of Greeks could not read Hebrew (while the same was not true of many Jews), and the myths mentioned above were in circulation way before the Septuagint was translated. For another, most Greeks before the time of Alexander had never heard of the Jews; Herodotus in his sweeping survey of the different ehtnicities and religions of the ancient Mediterranean never once makes mention of them, in fact when he mentions the many races (such as the Ehtiopians, Arabs, egyptians etc.) who practiced circumcision, he mentions the Jews not once, in fact he says that if any other races practice circumcision they got it from the Egyptians. Greek culture was expansive, succesful, and well known; Hebrew culture was xenophobic, unsuccessful, and not well known. If their was burrowing, again it had to have been from the Greeks to the Hebrews, not vice versa.

Then how can you identify which ones in your list are (1) result of Christianity being influenced from Judaism (which had incorporated Hellenistic ideas), (2) Greek thinking directly and (3) coincidence?

In fact, what do you think your list actually shows?

countjulian · 12-02-2005, 02:49 PM

Quote:

I understand that technically parthenos does not have to mean virgin

Really? That's quite interesting. I've never heard of this, do you care to tell us where �*α�?θενος is ever used to mean anything other than virgin?

Also, could you tell us where the Hebrew word "almah" is ever used for the word "bethulah" in the Tanach?

Amaleq13 · 12-02-2005, 02:51 PM

Prior events from another internet forum are irrelevant to this discussion and inappropriate for this forum. Please stick to the subject of the OP.

Amaleq13, BC&H moderator

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

12-02-2005, 02:51 PM	#60
Amaleq13 Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Eagle River, Alaska Posts: 7,816	Prior events from another internet forum are irrelevant to this discussion and inappropriate for this forum. Please stick to the subject of the OP. Amaleq13, BC&H moderator

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.