Freethought & Rationalism Archive

cass256 · 10-19-2005, 04:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ichabod crane

You've quoted the King James; the problem is that this renders the phrase ki 'im- as a conjunction, "but", cutting a phrase in half. ki 'im is better translated "without" or "until", hence "and do not return there without watering the earth ..." or "until they have watered the earth" (see the NASB, NRSV, etc). The KJV is problematic for other reasons; this phrase is followed by a string of vav-conjoined phrases in the Hebrew, which modern translations simply connect with "and" or commas, but the mistranslation of ki 'im in the KJV forces them to turn one of these into "that it may" in order to make sense, which is a bit of a dodge.

This was also the way the phrase ki 'im was understood by the translators of the LXX. They have translated it as the Greek heos an, which means "until". This gives us an important clue as to how Hellenized Jews might have understood it.

ah! i'll check that out. i'm still working mostly from books. I need a good computer program to make comparisons easier, and languages more accessable. I really should have checked that closer. Thanks for your time on that one.. cass :wave:

yeah, my hundred pound interlinear has it as "except", same difference. I should not have made an argument from a lazy position.

NOGO · 10-19-2005, 07:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Paul explains at length about this promise because the Galatians did not understand this.
But let's look at your original point.

Paul does not mention it because there is no evidence the Galatians had a problem with it.
The Galatians did have a problem with the promise, so Paul explains.

ANd how would you know this?

Quote:

You can if you wish but I'm not sure it will help your assertion that Paul would have mentioned it.

It would show that you are wrong in asserting that Paul explains nothing.
But you have already backtracked on that one.

My point is that Paul would not have mentioned it because to him Jesus became son of God after his resurrection as I have shown quite clearly.

Quote:

But you have cut this section off. If you had continued you would have seen.

IOW it's not as clear as you suggest.

I have cut nothing.
But you certainly have. Here is the complete sentence.

And when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says,
"AND LET ALL THE ANGELS OF GOD WORSHIP HIM."

You cut sentences midway and then accuse others of cutting things off.
You see it is clear as crystal.

Quote:

Maybe maybe not.

But are you sure that is what it says?

Actually IMHO the whole issue is slightly complicated, but I found that to understand it I first had to understand what happened at the resurrection. But that is just me.
Doesn't mean i am right , but perhpas there is more to this than might first meet the eye.

Maybe maybe not.
There is more to this only because you are trying to avoid the obvious conclusion.

judge · 10-19-2005, 09:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NOGO

I have cut nothing.
But you certainly have. Here is the complete sentence.

And when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says,
"AND LET ALL THE ANGELS OF GOD WORSHIP HIM."

.

And when did the angels worship him?

when Jesus was born.

hinduwoman · 10-20-2005, 07:29 AM

Quote:

However, if the spiritual-superstitious environment encouraged ideas of virgin goddesses and virgin births, it would make the idea easier to incorporate into one’s method of interpretation. Therefore, when the early Christians came across a verse that made a prediction of a child being born as a sign, the popular idea of a virgin birth allowed the Christians to be less critical of what they read. Pagan virgin births may not have been the source of the doctrine, but Pagan ideas were the alcohol that removed their inhibitions.

slight derail here, but surrounding religious traditions do influence new religions.
Muhammad and Krishna has nothing in common, but in India some songs and stories describing Muhammad are lifted straight from the Krishna cult, including images and events about Krishna’s childhood.

Back to OP: Do Jewish traditions say that the Messiah will be born of a virgin mother?

hinduwoman · 10-20-2005, 07:31 AM

Quote:

Now this is a pretty amazing message.
But notice that nowhere did the angel say that she would have a virgin birth.
If a woman is ENGAGED, as was Mary, and someone says "I predict you will give birth to a great kid" the obvious assumption is that the engaged woman will marry, have sex, and have a great kid.
But look at Mary's response to Gabriel.
34Mary said to the angel, "How can this be, since I am a virgin?"

GABRIEL NEVER MENTIONED A VIRGIN BIRTH BUT MARY ASSUMES A VIRGIN BIRTH.

Doesn't this whole conversation seem a contrived fabrication?

Hallandale that is a great point!!. When astrologers predict that this (as yet) virgin shall have so many sons, the Hindus do not assume it means that the girls will give virgin birth or even give birth while unmarried. It is taken for granted she will marry and have the predicted kids.

Aspirin99 · 10-20-2005, 08:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hinduwoman

slight derail here, but surrounding religious traditions do influence new religions.
Muhammad and Krishna has nothing in common, but in India some songs and stories describing Muhammad are lifted straight from the Krishna cult, including images and events about Krishna’s childhood.

Back to OP: Do Jewish traditions say that the Messiah will be born of a virgin mother?

I don't think we disagree on the first point. I did cover my opinion on the second point in the original article. The answer is "No, they did not."

Here is a link to the article that might be easier to read:

http://www.TalkingTimeline.com/pdf/P...igin Birth.pdf

Here is the first article if anyone is interested:

http://www.TalkingTimeline.com/pdf/P...Historical.pdf

Kenny

Hallandale · 10-20-2005, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hinduwoman

Hallandale that is a great point!!. When astrologers predict that this (as yet) virgin shall have so many sons, the Hindus do not assume it means that the girls will give virgin birth or even give birth while unmarried. It is taken for granted she will marry and have the predicted kids.

Dear Hinduwoman,
Thank you.
Did you read my post on this thread about Luke 2:1,3 ?

HALLANDALE

NOGO · 10-20-2005, 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

And when did the angels worship him?

when Jesus was born.

You mean to say that angels can only worship him while on earth?
I am assuming that Jesus was a pre-existing entity.

But there is another point here.
Worship does not equal Son of God.

When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become as much better than the angels, as He has inherited a more excellent name than they.

Would you agree that "purification of sins" means after his death.
"He sat down at the right hand" means after his death.
After that he has inherited a much better name than the angels.

What is that name ...

For to which of the angels did He ever say,
"YOU ARE MY SON,
TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU"?
And again,
"I WILL BE A FATHER TO HIM
AND HE SHALL BE A SON TO ME"?

SON OF GOD.
Q: What is TODAY
A: The day he sat on the right hand of the most high.

And when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says,
"AND LET ALL THE ANGELS OF GOD WORSHIP HIM."

This is a future event.
Otherwise what does the previous event refer to?
What does "purification of sins" refer to, if not his death?
The fact that he sat at the right hand of the most high is mentiion elsewhere in the NT and it again refers to events after his resurrection.

This future event refers to what the author mentions at the very start of this Epistle. The idea that God has spoken to us through his Son.
Every time God speak to people, like Paul, through Jesus He is bringing the Son into the world, Jesus being the word of God.

There is more evidence that Paul believed that Jesus became Son of God after his death. I will post it in the near future.

NOGO · 10-20-2005, 08:07 PM

Romans 8:23
And not only this, but also we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body.

Paul equates "adaoption as sons" to the "redemption of our body".
Note also the "waiting eagerly" which shows that the adoption as sons is a future event for humans. Jesus being the first fruit as Paul puts it.

This is not actually what I was looking for. There is another place where Paul links the two.

Eph 1-20
which He brought about in Christ, when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places,

This is another place where it is clearly stated that Jesus sat at the right hand of God after his resurrection. Confirming the order of things in Hebrews 1.

judge · 10-20-2005, 10:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NOGO

You mean to say that angels can only worship him while on earth?

Not necessarily . But it seems to refer to Jesus earthly birth.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NOGO

I am assuming that Jesus was a pre-existing entity.

But there is another point here.
Worship does not equal Son of God.

When he brings his firstborn into the world.

All I am saying is it may not be as clear as it seems.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NOGO

When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become as much better than the angels, as He has inherited a more excellent name than they.

Would you agree that "purification of sins" means after his death.
"He sat down at the right hand" means after his death.
After that he has inherited a much better name than the angels.

What is that name ...

For to which of the angels did He ever say,
"YOU ARE MY SON,
TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU"?
And again,
"I WILL BE A FATHER TO HIM
AND HE SHALL BE A SON TO ME"?

SON OF GOD.
Q: What is TODAY
A: The day he sat on the right hand of the most high.

And when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says,
"AND LET ALL THE ANGELS OF GOD WORSHIP HIM."

This is a future event.
Otherwise what does the previous event refer to?
What does "purification of sins" refer to, if not his death?
The fact that he sat at the right hand of the most high is mentiion elsewhere in the NT and it again refers to events after his resurrection.

This future event refers to what the author mentions at the very start of this Epistle. The idea that God has spoken to us through his Son.
Every time God speak to people, like Paul, through Jesus He is bringing the Son into the world, Jesus being the word of God.

There is more evidence that Paul believed that Jesus became Son of God after his death. I will post it in the near future.

I basically agree. But the whole context of the book of Hebrews is the contrast between the earthly and the heavenly.

The resurrection means big changes, but these things do not preclude the virgin birth.

Jesus is now a "son of god" immortal, unable to die. Forever enthroned. This is the point being made IMHO.

Previuously he was still the "firstborn" worshipped by the angels. But he was a man, capable of undergoing earthly death.

This message is mentioned one way or another all throughout the book of hebrews.

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

10-20-2005, 08:07 PM	#39
NOGO Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Canada Posts: 1,562	Romans 8:23 And not only this, but also we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body. Paul equates "adaoption as sons" to the "redemption of our body". Note also the "waiting eagerly" which shows that the adoption as sons is a future event for humans. Jesus being the first fruit as Paul puts it. This is not actually what I was looking for. There is another place where Paul links the two. Eph 1-20 which He brought about in Christ, when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, This is another place where it is clearly stated that Jesus sat at the right hand of God after his resurrection. Confirming the order of things in Hebrews 1.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.