Apikorus

You are overwrought. The "Son of God trope" and pluriform expressions of Jewish messianism are certainly relevant to early Christianity. Alas, this is not the issue. Suggest you read Collins.

I'm sure you'd like to think so, but the fact that you feel the urge to proclaim this suggests you're a bit insecure over your lack of evidence.

Gamera

I'm not regurgitating it. I'm quoting it.

The contemporary Jewish writings are cited. Please rebut. If you can. If you can't, just say so.

Gamera

Ah more personal invective. The sound of somebody losing another argument.


Ah more personal invective. The sound of somebody losing another argument. It appears the evidence is getting to you. Get back on topic and try to actually rebut it with facts, not personal attacks.

Apikorus

I think you are conflating the expression "Son of God" with a miraculous/unusual birth. I don't see how the former implies the latter. Not a single one of the excerpts you quoted refers to the birth of the messianic figure.

Important: I found your post 151 where you had linked to Miller's article. I apologize for accusing you of copying without attribution. You had earlier provided the proper citation, and had I been following your posts more closely I should have noticed. (NB: I also edited out the sharpness in an earlier version of this post, since I really have no interest in sniping.)

Can you now try to address my question? To reiterate: The nonbiblical Jewish literature of the late Second Temple period is replete with diverse messianic expectations. I'm unaware, however, of any writings outside Christian ones which refer to a miraculous or even unusual birth of the messianic figure. He clearly has a special relationship with God, enjoys the title of son, and might even be divinely imbued with special powers. Obviously all of that is relevant to Christianity. But you specifically claimed that there were Jewish writings which hinted at an unusual or miraculous birth. What is the best example?

Incidentally I'm not trying to set a trap here. (I think we got off on the wrong foot with my aforementioned ill-considered accusation, and obviously I'm trying to patch things up.) There may be such an example, but I'd be surprised if I failed to remember it. If anyone has access to the books by Collins or Oegema (I'm traveling at the moment), you could try to check the index under "messiah" for anything to do with his birth.

Going to bed now...I'll check back in the morning.

Phlox Pyros

Thank you for your request to stay, Apikorus, but I will likely leave soon because I just do not see the atmosphere here as conducive to cordial discussion. Contra kais, the thread obviously began to devolve with Joe's initial post and Chris' overreaction. If Chris had stayed and attempted to debate cordially when I mentioned that I still believed the argument to have some validity, things would have been fine. If he really thought it was so moronic then why should he even have bothered to respond? I rather think it annoyed him when he realized that I was right with respect to the recent analysis of Josephus, but that is just speculation too. I mean, common', the guy wouldn't even respond to PMs asking him why in the world he overreacted...talk about puerile.

Yes, my "devil" symbol indicated that I knew it was a controversial topic, but I suppose I thought it could still be discussed without the irrational assumptions and "anti-apologetic" tactics of Joe, Chris, spin, and others (which are utterly worthless and unnecessary). No matter and no biggie, I just don't want to waste much more time in a place where someone can't even contemplate the possibility of an idea without being slandered (again, the extreme rhetoric on my part came later in the thread, first in response to Joe, and was "reverse rhetoric" to show how utterly stupid it sounds ).

Anyways, Apikorus, one thing I'd like to point out again is the rarity of almah. That I have found, it is translated parthenos only once in Genesis. I am being quite sincere when I ask what other texts we have in which to truly understand the word almah? I could not find it in the DSS (though my seach might have missed it). I'd really like to know what all evidence we have for determining what the word meant and why it was used so rarely.

Also, bethulah occurs in Isaiah 62:5 in a context which is not metaphorical. I don't really understand why metaphorical cases necessarily mean that the uses of bethulah in Isaiah are irrelevant. There are several cases, all translated as parthenos. The word almah is rare and is a hapax legomenon in Isaiah. Since the author of Isaiah consistently used bethulah, why should the text in 7:14 necessarily have read almah?

You have some good points, and I am planning to do some more research on this because I just find it interesting. If I was taking the opposing side (which some could never do), I would bring up a rule of textual criticism that says the reading which explains all the others is the best one. So, if I accept the reading of bethulah, how did the reading of almah arise? No need to answer this, of course, if you don't believe it is a possibility. However, this could very well be one of the strongest arguments if there is no good justification for why the text might have been changed (ie. confusion of letters, parallel texts using different terms, etc.).

So, anyways, I'll stick around long enough to read whatever replies come to this and perhaps a smidge longer, but I don't see this forum improving for the type of discussions I'd prefer to have (ie. ones where people can postulate things without being labeled apologists or anti-apologists...duh...that kind of labeling is usually done by those who have, for whatever reason, emotional problems in attempting to deal with religion).

Amaleq13

The notion of Mary completely disregarding an angelic messenger informing her that she would give birth to the Messiah in addition to the undeniable, astounding, personal experience of becoming pregnant by God goes well beyond her "thinking contradictory thoughts" or having an imperfect memory.

gregor

Gamera

I was surprised to read the basis of your argument:

"I don't know. Common sense woud suggest yes, so I guess the burden is on those that suggest otherwise."

That's not how I was taught the burden of proof in law school. I think a directed verdict is in order.

Chili

In case it helps any, the visitation by Gabriel took place in the subconscious mind of Joseph that he perceived as a dream in his conscious mind.

Toto

If King David was known as a Son of God and there is no indication of anything miraculous about his birth, why should references to the Son of God in 1st c. Messianic Judaism indicate that there was anything usual about the Messiah's birth?

It is rather poor form to keep claiming victory when you don't actually have a case.

Chili

The Gospel of John doesn't show an infancy either. There it is just as man found under the fig tree with no guile in him.

The birth is a rebirth and that must be from an immaculate conception and therefore a virgin in perpetuity. Nice imagery, that's all.