Freethought & Rationalism Archive

penumbra · 04-21-2005, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Scholar

I, for one, refuse to stay in a flock of mindless sheep.

Good for you! :thumbs:

Diogenes the Cynic · 04-21-2005, 02:20 PM

[Nitpick] The "Immaculate Conception" does not refer to the conception of Jesus but of Mary. Catholic doctrine is that Mary herself was conceived without original sin. The IC is not in the bible but then again, neither is original sin. [/nitpick]

Other than that, I enjoyed the OP. That sounds like a tough situation. I don't think I could do it.

Boomeister · 04-21-2005, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wallener

Trivia time! What great 80s dance hit managed to - successfully, no less - use the word "parthenogenesis" in a song?

I'm usually good with 80's music trivia, but you stumped me.
What is it?

Boomeister

Boomeister · 04-21-2005, 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Scholar

It is strange however, that this classroom full of seemingly intelligent people just swallow my lines without any critical thought whatsoever. Is this why the church is called a bunch of sheep?

....

I guess what I want to say more than anything is that since we have the capacity to think critically about these things we ought to do so. I understand how strong a hold religion has on the human mind, because I was once (and still am at times) gripped by its allure. 1 Thessalonians 5:21 says, “Challenge everything; keep what is good.�? That’s my own personal translation, of course, but the truth is there. I, for one, refuse to stay in a flock of mindless sheep.

Yes, that is why the church is called a bunch of sheep. According to scripture, Jesus referred to himself as a shepherd, if I'm not mistaken. I remember there is one verse about thinking like a child and it seems to condemn the critical thinking of adults.
Many people don't want to question their religion...either out of fear of the consequences (social consequences such as rejection or in your case, losing a job; or the fear of hell). A lot of people feel secure thinking there's something bigger out there thats mysterious and that they are the chosen ones. They have an invested interested in continuing to believe, for their own self-esteem.
It took a lot of courage for you to question the virgin birth in your class. It's possible you might lose your job for it, but as far as I can see it, keeping your job might be worse.

Boomeister

Fortuna · 04-21-2005, 02:53 PM

Quote:

One of the keys to Christ’s divinity is in his virgin birth. In order to be sinless, it makes sense that this man Jesus had to have been born of Spirit, not from human seed. Now, if that proposition isn’t already full of multiple problems, I don’t know what to say.

Notwithstanding the textual Isaiah/MT/LXX issue, and as another poster touched on in talking about insect reproduction, this type of thinking (as quoted above) is rooted in the ancient idea that men carried the "seed" of life while the woman was merely the "fertile bed'. Of course we know that for mammals this is not true, both male and female contribute genetic material to the offspring. So, this in some sense casts doubt the whole idea that Jesus didn't come from "human seed", as it were.

I have always wondered how the ancients could have believed this general idea (man has seed, woman=fertile bed) to be true. Casual observation of children and parents will often times show that visible traits (i.e. Eye color, hair color/type, skin tone, etc ) had to have come from the mother. Perhaps they believed that the fetus picked these traits up from lying in the "fertile bed" during gestation.

judge · 04-21-2005, 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Scholar

Friends, tonight I wanted to talk a little about the virgin birth of Jesus, but I think it is only fair that I give you all the facts, not just the position of this church.

Hi , :wave: the problem is you will not give "all the facts". you may give some facts your sheep were not aware of but these will not be all the facts.
You will give some facts you have chosen whilst ignoring or being unaware of other facts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Scholar

Matthew 1:22-23 goes on to say that the virgin birth is a specific fulfillment of a specific prophecy in Isaiah 7:14. The author of Matthew quotes the Septuagint, which is the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament..

The problem is Matthew does not quote the LXX. This is easily shown. So if you want to be honest you should give all the facts WRT to the case for Matthew quoting the LXX.

I am happy to show you why it is obvious and clear matthew does not quote the LXX, he either paraphrses or quotes something that sometimes agrees with the LXX and sometimes disagrees with it.

Peter Kirby · 04-21-2005, 03:35 PM

Does anyone here argue that a virginal conception is not part of Matthew's infancy narrative?*

That would explain why the people in this flock didn't question it.

best,
Peter Kirby

* I believe that it has been suggested, but I've never seen it worked out myself (and I'm not talking about interpolation).

judge · 04-21-2005, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Scholar

Matthew 1:22-23 goes on to say that the virgin birth is a specific fulfillment of a specific prophecy in Isaiah 7:14. The author of Matthew quotes the Septuagint, which is the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament. .

If M atthew quotes the LXX why doesn't he do so consistently?

*

There are many more examples. I'll grant that the image I potsed does have virgin wrongly in the Hebrew translation but the images are still helpful.

judge · 04-21-2005, 04:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Scholar

Have you ever wondered why Paul never mentions the virgin birth?

He does mention that God was the father of Jesus though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Scholar

You’d think that it would be a significant point to make, especially when trying to persuade people that Jesus is God.

Maybe a point ot be made maybe not. The fact that you might think he should of mentioned it is hardly a persuasive argument.

He was writing letters to those who already believed. It is not as if he thought he was setting down doctrine for centuries to come or thought what he wrote was the 'word of God" or anything.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Scholar

Or is it possible that the Immaculate Conception detail took shape gradually over time? The final nail in the coffin, at least for me, is the knowledge that Immaculate Conception is not a new idea inside of Christianity.

You still appear a liittle confused though you jump from wondering about this theory on the scantest of evidcne to suddenly having the final nail in the coffin.

If you are "testing everything" then how do you suddenly have the final nail, without testing your theory? :huh:

Chris Weimer · 04-21-2005, 04:18 PM

Judge - there is no "one" Septuagint. The LXX's were merely Greek translations of the Tanakh, and shows wide variation.

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

04-21-2005, 02:20 PM	#12
Diogenes the Cynic Moderator - Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 4,639	[Nitpick] The "Immaculate Conception" does not refer to the conception of Jesus but of Mary. Catholic doctrine is that Mary herself was conceived without original sin. The IC is not in the bible but then again, neither is original sin. [/nitpick] Other than that, I enjoyed the OP. That sounds like a tough situation. I don't think I could do it.

04-21-2005, 03:35 PM	#17
Peter Kirby Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor Posts: 4,035	Does anyone here argue that a virginal conception is not part of Matthew's infancy narrative?* That would explain why the people in this flock didn't question it. best, Peter Kirby * I believe that it has been suggested, but I've never seen it worked out myself (and I'm not talking about interpolation).

04-21-2005, 04:18 PM	#20
Chris Weimer Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: none Posts: 9,879	Judge - there is no "one" Septuagint. The LXX's were merely Greek translations of the Tanakh, and shows wide variation.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.