darstec

The Magdalene Papyrus is not a manuscript. It refers to three small fragments with parts of about 10 non consecutive verses from the gospel of Matthew and dated as late as 200 CE [because the format is a double columned codex style and a uncial script both known not to exist before 200 CE]. Note that these are not even complete verses, just parts of them. You can see copies of them here:
http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/Tyndale...Head/NTP64.htm

What ever makes you think approximately two dozen words from the end of the third century CE authenticates an entire original autograph?

What in your estimation points to anything about eyewitnesses in those two dozen words? Please use the photograph and be specific.

andrewcriddle

IMO the idea that the conception of Jesus was miraculous runs through the first chapter of Luke. It's not just verse 1:34.

The whole chapter sets up a parallelism between John the Baptist and Jesus, with Jesus compared to John but definitely superior to John.

John is conceived by Elizabeth when naturally speaking she and her husband are too old. Then Jesus is conceived by Mary without a human father at all.

If in the original form of Luke 1 Jesus was conceived without a special miracle then the whole structure of the chapter would involve anti-climax.

Andrew Criddle

Diogenes the Cynic

One could argue that, for Joseph, it would be the miraculous conception that was "anti-climactic."

Kosh

No red herring, they fish for Bass in the south!


I Am My Own Grandpa

Just follow the link and sing along to that tune that starts playing:

Diogenes the Cynic

David didn't prophcize anything. he wasn't the psalmist and it wasn't a prophecy.

Diogenes the Cynic

Mark's christology was adoptionist. He has Jesus being adopted as God's "son" only after his baptism by John. Mark makes no claim about a virgin birth. Neither did Paul.

Javaman

Why not? Is there some preclusion or a passage that decrees that he must be conceived in the traditional Christian interpretation? Even according to your own theology, god can go against his own decrees. Do you not think Ezekiel was a prophet and his (probable¹) description of The Messiah is valid? The Messiah need not be anything but mortal yet you somehow made him into a part of God. You have him coming and going and (maybe) coming again but his Revelational role doesn't jive well with:

Ezekiel 34

23And have raised up over them one shepherd, And he hath fed them -- my servant David, He doth feed them, and he is their shepherd,

24And I, Jehovah, I am their God, And My servant David prince in their midst, I, Jehovah, have spoken.

25And I have made for them a covenant of peace, And caused evil beasts to cease out of the land, And they have dwelt in a wilderness confidently, And they have slept in forests.

26And I have given them, and the suburbs of my hill, a blessing, And caused the shower to come down in its season, Showers of blessing they are.

27And given hath the tree of the field its fruit, And the land doth give her increase, And they have been on their land confident, And they have known that I [am] Jehovah, In My breaking the bands of their yoke, And I have delivered them from the hand of those laying service on them.

28And they are no more a prey to nations, And the beast of the earth devoureth them not, And they have dwelt confidently, And there is none troubling.

29And I have raised for them a plant for renown, And they are no more consumed by hunger in the land, And they bear no more the shame of the nations.

30And they have known that I, Jehovah, their God, [am] with them, And they -- the house of Israel -- My people, An affirmation of the Lord Jehovah.

31And ye, My flock, the flock of My pasture, Men ye [are] -- I [am] your God, An affirmation of the Lord Jehovah!'

____________________
¹ Recall that there is no HaMashiach in the OT.

gregor

ISV

Thanks for catching my typo. It's not Matt with the error, its his source. Matt utilized the LXX (well, actually the later greek translation of Isaiah which was after the original LXX) which misreads the Hebrew term and inserts "virgin" instead of "young woman."

For a fuller discussion see

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...prophecy.shtml

And Jesus was born in Bethlehem from what proof again?

Julian

I will go back and check my sources. I think I read this in some Robert Price book but I am not sure. He had some additional reasons but I forget now, although I do seem to remember that it was more speculation on his part. I have no personal opinion on this as my knowledge is insufficient, hence my terse initial post.

Julian

Julian

For general info: The Magdalen pypri, also known as P64, and P67 as well if memory serves. It is another of those goofy Thiede datings. Here is a better overview by Peter Head of dating that puts them around 200: http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/Tyndale...Head/P64TB.htm

Julian