Phlox Pyros

What are we so up-in-arms over, Chris?

People don't like to be called on their biases.

I am also surprised at a moderator telling me what I believe...

Phlox Pyros

Either way, the case that has been presented here is stronger than others want to admit. I wonder why they don't want to admit it?

Chris Weimer

Still waiting for that thread of yours, Phlox, or are you scared that it too will get ripped to shreds like this one here.

Waiting...

Waiting...

Waiting...

Phlox Pyros

How could it get ripped into threads if this one did not? There is no reason to start another thread on Josephus, because the evidence is what it is. Of course, a speculative case could be made that called Christ did not originally exist, but it is speculation.

If it is quite valid to make such a case with speculative evidence for Josephus, then the case I have presented here is still very strong.

Oh well, I've had my fun. I'll let the lessons soak in, if indeed they will.

Chris Weimer

Are you joking me? If you still think that bethulah was original, then you either do not understand the arguments, or your blinded by apologetics. Take your pick.

Oh wait, you don't. You only set this thread up to try to prove a point - a point that you couldn't even make on your own term, equivocating this debate with Josephus', and now expect us to take you seriously?

This is moronic.

Since by your own admission you don't want to engage in serious discussion, you can count me out of any further debate with you.

Beth Phillips

First, prophecies are very easy to fulfill: All you have to do is write of their fulfillment centuries later and pass it off as such to an unsuspecting, and in the case of the NT, a largely illiterate audience.

Second, as to the whole virgin birth thing in the New Testament, the entire usage problem of parthenos and/or almah can be set aside: There was no virgin birth in Bethlehem to argue over, it was what I call a GrecoSemitic Proper Name Wordplay.

This literary tool is where character's names have certain lexical meanings that are expounded upon to create narrative details about the characters. In the case of the bible, both Greek and, what we now know as Hebrew were intentionally used. Many of these wordplays are invisible on the surface of the Greek texts, but if readers of the day knew both vocabularies, then they would have readily recognized them as such. Readers today that are familiar with both vocabularies can do the same:

The proper name Bethlehem is spelled in Greek as bethleem which
is in tacit wordplay with the Semitic ‘virginity’ בתולים/bethuleem.

Additionally, by isolating the use of the literary tool in this pericope, it also explains Mary's giving birth the "Son of the Most High" in Luke 1:30-32:

But the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mariam, for you have found favor with God. Behold you shall conceive in the womb and shall give birth to a son and you shall call his name Jesus. This one will be great and will be called ‘Son of the Most High’.

With the m/מ acting as a preposition to ram/רום which means ‘on high’, we are shown that one of the lexical meanings for ‘Mariam’ is “of/from on high.”

“Son of Mary” now corresponds in proper name wordplay with the “Son of the Most High.”

Moreover, with the above phrase, “This one will be great…” there is a another wordplay present that puts a very surprising character on the scene: “This one will be great…” is in wordplay with the proper noun “Magdalene,” which stems from the Semitic verb גדל/gadol and means, “to grow up,” “to become great.”



The entire bible was written with countless GrecoSemitic wordplays such as this: a fundamental literary device used by Greek writers that made use of other known vocabularies through both translation and transliteration.

The Greeks were very creative when it came to the use of language(s) in their narrative fictions. Both canons of the bible are huge literary puzzles created through proper name wordplay and other clever uses of language.

When it really sinks in as to the prolific use of this literary tool in the bible, it becomes amazingly clear that the biblical writings were never written to be taken as historical accounts at all: unfortunately, the joke will forever be on us unless we decide to accept this fact and do all that we can to expound upon the texts accordingly.

~Beth

Chris Weimer

*sigh* I go from one end to the other.

Hrm, how about a little work on Beth Phillips. Interesting enough, folks, that Beth Phillips is not her real name. No, you see, it's a bit of "GrecoSemitic" word play. You see, in Hebrew, Beth means "house" and in Greek phillip means "lover of horses." So as you can see, Beth Phillips really just an equestrian. Here in Tennessee, we have lots of horses, don't we horse rider?

Hopfeully you see how ludicrous that argument pans out. Now it's time for bed. Eheu.

Amaleq13

Because the claim is false. Unsupported speculation is just that and pointing to a different textual situation and claiming a double standard does not make your case any stronger.

In addition, as Carrier has observed:

However, it is important to point out first that the debate might be moot anyway. For the two options presented by Callahan and Mikulski do not exhaust all the possibilities, since Isaiah can be interpreted non-supernaturally even if he did mean virgin. After all, is it really unusual for a virgin to conceive? Say, on her wedding night? True, then she isn't a virgin anymore. But she was until she conceived (literally, not at that very moment, but the Bible is rarely so precise: compare Isa. 26:19, 29:18, 35:6, 65:20)). Since conception does not always occur the first time it would still be significant to say that a virgin conceived, meaning only that she conceived the first time she was with a man. In fact, this is the very conclusion reached by the renowned Catholic scholar and nativity expert Raymond Brown (whose own analysis of this question I will discuss further below).

So, your speculative possibility notwithstanding, we really have no reason to suspect that the original text read anything other than 'almah' and, even if it was intended to specifically identify the young woman as a virgin, there is no reason to suspect this was intended to be understood as a miraculous occurrence.

Beth Phillips

Chris, you have finally convinced me of the truth of the NT message when it says:

"…do not throw your pearls before swine. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces.”

<edit>
I hope you live a very long life Chris. Because one day you will really wish you had paid more attention to what I am pointing out...(Wish I could be there to see your face at the moment of your realization...)

~Beth

Phlox Pyros

Apparently, you do not understand the information presented. It is a strong but speculative case.

I have no idea what you mean by "a point that you couldn't even make on your own term". The only arguments that spin could make was that Christ was a hapax legomen, and that Ben and I were expanding the semantic range of called. The first is true but is similar to the case in this thread. The second I happen to believe is totally false and can been seen so if anyone actually takes the time to look through the text.

You really should not be a moderator...

I never said that I did not want to engage in serious discussion. How can you act like this as a moderator? Because you can get away with it?

My information has been quite serious and more strong than you will admit. That's why it bothers you so much.