Holly

I do believe that Jesus existed as a real historical person. However, there definitely is not a complete set of data or a biography about him. There are many things about him that we do not know. Even one of the Gospels admits this:

(NIV) John 21:25 Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.

aChristian

I have read the text many times, in context. You don't appear to be reading the text. God told the king to ask for a sign in the heavens above or in the earth below (ie., a big sign) and when he wouldn't ask for it, God said (paraphasing), "Okay, then I'll give you one." It is supposed to be a big sign, and that is why I (and probably the rabbis who translated it) understand that it is a virgin birth."

I didn't mean it as a threat. I am just excited about it.

I can provide the name of the pastor and you can call him up and ask him about it.

Maybe we can go into this some more when I have more time.

Gleason Archer refutes the late date attempt in his Intro to the OT. I am sure there are plenty of other conservative works on the subject.

Laughing at someone does not make him wrong.

Diogenes the Cynic

This is all wrong but i'm tired of arguing about it. If you had really read the story in context you would know that it's only about events within that specific story.
A voice on a phone is not evidence either. A proper evauation of this claim would require physical observations before during and after the event.
This is really not even debatable. The text contains words, ideas, language and historical anachronisms which date it rather decisively. This is not a subject of serious historical debate.
Who says it does? The page I linked to refutes McDowell's book in detail. He is not a peer reviewed scholar. He is a populist Christian evangelist.

Are you a fan of Hovind's too? (Just a hunch)

spin

You show none of the signs. Diogenes the Cynic's advice to "Read it in context" is highly important. In order to understand a text you must read it in its context. You can't take a reference out of its context and expect to make sense of it. How does the information about the young pregnant woman in Isa 7:14 work with its prophecy to Ahaz?

While this is true, this...

...in no way follows. It does not account for the numerous problems in the Greek text as we have it when compared to the Hebrew text.

You are in no position to have the latitude to make such liberal assumptions. The Hebrew text is perfectly clear: (LMH HRH means a "young woman with child", ie she is already pregnant. One has to be patently blind to miss this in the original text, so she is certainly not a virgin any more.

There was no problem in using the word parQenos when translating (LMH into Greek, because there was no necessity for parQenos to mean "virgin", see Liddell & Scott, A.2. But because parQenos also meant "virgin" and, when the text is taken totally out of context, it would imply "virgin", though this is hard if even taken with the following words parQenos en gastri "young woman with child", but then by reconstructing Greek syntax one takes the following word exei as a verb "will have", though Greek tends to put verbs before the subject and the word as an adverb would mean "state, practice, use".

The NRSV a modern scholarly edition, which attempts to be as literal as possible, gives "the young woman is with child".


"soon" is an exceptionally flexible term, at least in the hands of people who don't want to read it as it usually means. 1900 years doesn't usually imply "soon" unless you were talking in geological terms.


spin

Chili

That's a red herring Holly and the Holy Bible is full of them. I was well done and the truth is nicely tucked away so all will be looking and nobody can find it.

aChristian

If you are unwilling to investigate a historical event where the people are still alive to confirm it, (including the boy whose finger tip was amputated) I question whether you are willing to believe anything farther back in history that contradicts your presuppositions.

Mr. Aardvark

What is needed are written statements by the preacher, boy, parents, doctor, medical records, independent physicians who examined the boy & case, corroborating photographs, etc.

Diogenes the Cynic

I'm perfectly willing to investigate it. I'm saying that in the case of your anecdote, there isn't any way to investigate it scientifically.

And a presupposition that the impossible is impossible is nothing but a truism. I am not required to prove that the impossible is impossible. It goes without saying.

Amaleq13

Only if the reader assumes by faith that the stories record history.

This is just one of many indications that the reader should be skeptical about the historicity of the stories. It makes no sense for these men to doubt when they had witnessed so many miracles and heard Jesus repeatedly promise that he would rise from the dead. Only your faith makes this seem like a reasonable story.

Could you identify the specific verse, please?

How could you possibly know this given that you have never considered the evidence except through faith?

"Probably"? You were not certain in your faith Jesus prior to considering the evidence? That is an odd sort of faith. My understanding of "faith" suggests the word "probably" is inappropriate in your sentence and that is why you cannot know whether your consideration of the evidence has any basis beyond your faith.

Unless you will be willing to provide specific evidence and arguments to support your assertions, I suspect you will be wasting both your time and ours. So far, your entire argument has been based on faith. Whether it is faith in Jesus or faith in the efforts of believing scholars, you've provided no actual arguments but have simply repeated their conclusions and insisted on your honesty. This forum is intended for discussion of the Bible and evidence relevant to the claims made therein not personal testimonies.

aChristian

Maybe you missed my original comment. The prophecy has a double fulfillment. The use of the word almah allows the prophecy to apply both to the young woman of Ahaz's day and the 'sign in the height above', the virgin birth, of the future. The woman in Ahaz's day does not qualify as a tremendous sign, a virgin birth does. Parthenos almost always means virgin, that is why scholars have said it is the wrong translation for almah. If the rabbis had wanted to translate it as young woman, they could have used a different word.