Nomad

I have no idea what this statement has to do with what I said. Matthew redacted Mark heavily. This is a fact easily discerned by reading both Gospels. Further, Q does not have a birth narrative in it, and this is also accepted as a fact.

There is no evidence that Luke used Matt in composing his birth narrative, nor that he derived his report of the virgin conception from Matthew. I have told you this several times, and asked if you dispute it. If you do dispute it, then please offer your arguments.

Perhaps I should have been clearer on this point:

a) Which theory of Matthean priority are you talking about?

b) Do you believe that Luke used Matthew as his source for the birth narrative?

Please offer reasons and supports for your answers.

No. The point was that in the birth narrative, and specifically in the case of the virgin conception, Matthew and Luke are independent. When you brought up Q this suggested that you thought Q also reports a virgin conception, or at least a BN. I reject this idea, but am willing to discuss it.

Right. And this proves what about Luke's belief in the virgin conception? It certainly doesn't appear that Jerome thought he got it from Matthew. Since that was my point, I am unsure what your argument is here.

Nomad

Apikorus

Nomad:

(1) Of course Jesus himself may have "acted deliberately in such a way as to be seen as fulfilling some part of Biblical prophecy." The same might be said of Shabbetai Tzvi or David Koresh for that matter. Q: What do all three have in common? A: That none is actually referenced in the plain sense of any passage in the Hebrew Bible.

(2) Religious Jews view the Hebrew Bible through a rabbinic lens, just as you view it through a Christian interpretive lens. Of course there exist passages which have been exegeted messianically by Jews. Some such exegesis is untraceably old. My claim is that my understanding of the historical sociopolitical forces which prompted such exegetical gyrations leads to a natural and satisfactory explanation of the extant data.

(3) I have never denied that Jesus may have been seen by others as a "miracle worker". Indeed he's presented as one in early rabbinic sources (the Talmud), although one can't quite be sure whether such material is authentic or simply reactive. At any rate, miracle workers (and indeed messianic figures, as I've explained to you elsewhere) were not uncommon during Jesus' time. What I am referring to, however, are claims of specific miracles, clearly patterned after the Greek Old Testament narrative. As Randal Helms has argued, the gospel authors borrowed terms and even lifted entire phrases from the Elijah/Elisha cycles in the LXX of King(dom)s in fabricating their miracle stories of Jesus.

(4) I'm aware that there are radical skeptics such as the infamous Earl Doherty who deny that Jesus ever existed. I think they're outrageously extreme in their conclusions. Poisoning the well, Nomad?

(5) "History tells us this" (that there was no child named Immanuel who lived at the time of proto-Isaiah). Oh really?! Exactly how do you know this, Nomad? Not a single child named Immanuel born during the Syro-Ephraimite war? Well, perhaps you somehow have access to Iron Age birth registries from Jerusalem. You then ask, "Do you have a candidate in mind that you personally think fits the bill?" Do I have to?

(6) I find it quite plausible that haalmah (the young woman of Isa 7:14) could be Isaiah's wife, and Immanuel his second son. Or perhaps haalmah was a wife or concubine of Ahaz. Lots of possibilities!

(7) In criticizing the modern evangelical dogma that Jesus appears in every verse of the Old Testament, I was not attempting to associate this bizarre hermeneutic with you, Nomad. But it is a view which is not uncommon, and it is patently absurd.

(8) Certainly the rabbis know more about rabbinic messianism than Christian apologists do. Or do you doubt that? Remember, Jewish messianism sprouted during the Hellenistic period, and produced different flowers (of the Christian and rabbinic Jewish variety) in the early centuries CE.

(9) Nomad, your requests that I identify whether or not this is a "serious discussion" are ridiculous. If you don't find anything worthwhile in these exchanges, then buzz off. If you do, then by all means stay. It's really up to you!

Nomad

This gets more and more curious. Jesus probably thought He fulfilled some of the prophecies. The evangelists and Paul certainly did. You, on the other hand, do not think that He did, yet your continued insistence that Christian claims are no better than those of David Koresh or Eddie Murphy detracts from the discussion, and makes your argument look far less serious.

Fine. The problem I had was with your argument that the prophecies could not possibly refer to Jesus simply because they were written centuries before Jesus lived. While this is a legitimate argument, and one worth discussing even, your extreme presentation leaves the impression that you consider this entire excercise to be a bit absurd. Personally, I think that there is more than one way to read Scripture, and I have no problem discussing various views. When the entire Christian hermeneutic is treated as no more serious than the ravings of a lunatic like Koresh, however, then I am left to wonder if you are interested in serious debate.

I recall the discussion, though I hope you are not surprised that I found my own, and Raymond Brown's arguments to be more convincing than your own. We have yet to establish the identity of even one clear Messiah claimant between 100 BC and 100 AD with the sole exception of Jesus of Nazareth.

For those interested, the thread was called <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=6&t=000800&p=" target="_blank">You Can't Tell Your Messiahs Without A Program!</a>. I found it to be an interesting exchange.

Thank you for clarifying your point, as your argument appeared to be much broader than this in your original post. In my opinion I think you are correct that the evangelists use the OT as a template for some of Jesus' miracles, as well as some of the narrative. On the other hand, going from that to claiming that they simply fabricated the entire story is more than can be said with certainty.

Nope Apikorus. But when you said that Jesus did not fulfill any Messianic prophecies this struck me as a radical claim, and given that Jesus is the only Jewish Messianic claimant in all of history that has produced a lasting following, I find this assertion to be testimony to something quite astonishing. After all, not even one fulfilled prophecy, yet many Jews and Gentiles continue to believe He is the Messiah... quite extraordinary don't you think?

LOL! Is that what it would take to convince you? Iron age birth registries. Cute.

You do not have to do anything you do not wish to Apikorus. I have found it to be an effective response to Jewish anti-missionaries to ask them this question however.

I agree. And perhaps Jesus is one of them!

Well, as this appeared in a post directed primarily at me, perhaps you did not intend some sort of "guilt by association", but it could certainly be read that way. I recall a similar response from you when I innocently referred to the hypersceptic that thinks because Adam and Eve didn't die the same day they ate the fruit produced a rather angry response from you. I suppose we both now know how the other felt.

Of course I doubt it. Otherwise I would become a Jew.

I guess we just have to agree to disagree. As I and other exegetes (including Jewish ones) believe that Isaiah 7 was talking about a future Messiah, and first Isaiah was written long before the Hellenistic period, Messianic beliefs do appear to go a long ways back for the Jews and their Scriptures.

I will stay. At the same time, I would hope that you could refrain from your more ludicrous and extreme statements, analogies and claims. It will make the debate more serious, and more interesting.

Obviously you may do as you wish, but I believe in stating my opinions clearly.

Be well.

Nomad

Jayhawker Soule

Simply? If you insist on miracles (and such a prophecy would clearly be miraculous) then please acknowledge and accept the burden of proof.

Metacrock

That question leads to a ready inversion. Isn't it also possible that the Rabbis who came to place their faith in Jesus were right and he was the Messiah?

Metacrock

Meta =&gt;Yea it is proof of something; some Rabbis think he was a neat guy. Now the original argument to which I responded was that certain Rabbis think he was this big proto-typical deciever. But they are the extremists! More main stream Rabbis don't lunch off on tirades about Jesus being a deciever because they have leanred the value of dialouge with other faiths and they are not extremists. This is an important lesson to learn, and until people like Apokrius (and his "ilk") learn to stop poisoning the well, no rational dialouge can ever take place.

I have also mentioned Rabbis I know who believe Jesus was the Messiah. In fact International Messianich organization (I forget the official name) published a list in an advertizement in Israel two years ago of 70 Rabbis who singed a statement to the effect that Jesus is Messiah. Of course as always the anti-missionaries just dismiss it by their ciruclar reasoning, if a Rabbi believes in Jesus he is not a real Rabbi.

Metacrock

Meta =&gt;That's a really dishonest way to argue. Whatever anyone says that agrees with you is just coming from duress and they don't really mean it. It's only when they agree with me that they speak their true minds. That doesn't change the fact that Rabbis in the middle ages put curses on people because they denied that the SS was the Messiah in Is 53. That was not duress from the American people. yea they didn't believe in Jesus per se, but that is not the point! the point is hermeneutics. Apokrius has tried to say that Christian hermeneutics is totally arbitrary and stupid. But I have showen that it was based upon the hermeneutics of Rabbis who pre-existed Christianity. That must mean that Apokrius is wrong in his estimation. They weren't just arbitrarily looking for anything that supported them they were following an already accepted set of expectations. The only dispute then is about who each group thought fufilled the criteria.

Meta =&gt; You don't know beans about scholarship. I've spent 20 years working to get this Ph.D. and I've published more than you have in Schoalrly journals. Now Biblical and ancient world stuff is not my field. I study late 17th century British thought. but I do know how historians think and how to think like a hermeneut. I've known some of the top Biblical scholars and textual critics in the world. And I know that they don't sit around going "O he's a christisain that's stupid christians are stupid." They certainly don't make the assumption of argument by parody, trying to construct a false hermeneutic and then argue by analogy that their enemeies must have done the same thing because they themselves can do it.

Metacrock

MEta =&gt;I'm not a professional Biblical scholar either. I'm an historian but I study 17th and 18th century British thought (I'm in history of ideas). I'm a Ph.D. Candidate,(which means all I have left to do is complete the writting of my dissertation). I'm just beginig my career, but I've taught as a teaching assitant, published in academic journals, read papers at conferences, and pbulish my own academic journal (however, it's a journal about Marcuse and the Frankfort school).


So I make a lot of mistakes about details and facts of the ancient world because its not my field. But I've been studying Biblical scholarhsip for over 20 years as an amature and as an academic sideline, and I did Greek in Seminary and as undergraduate lanague so that I would be able to read the NT in the original lanague. Unfortuantely I never got around to doing Hebrew. Wish I had. But I have read many passages in the LXX.

I do have a Masters degree in Theology from a super liberal seminary (Perkins). But while I didn't concentrate on a degree in textual ciriticism I've studied it intensely, have known major textual critics and taken classes with them. I don't claim to be an expert in that field but I do calim to know how to think like an historian. I will put my historian's skills up against anyone any time. Most of my theological training is in history of Chrisitian doctrine and I mostly concentrate on people like Schleiermacher and Tillich.


Meta =&gt;I said in the other post I don't do Hebrew. I may have given the wrong impression by blurting out that I'm a historian, but I wasn't trying to claim expert knowledge of hebrew, far from it. I do, however, know how to think like an historian and that is important.



Meta =&gt;Ok now will you please try to understand what I'm saying about this? Just listen and try to understand what I'm saying about this issue! The guy says "Christians are stupid and just read in what they want to be their arbitrarily and this can't be a prophesy of the Messiah because it applied to Isiaha's time." Now I see that as an attack on the hermeneutical process used by the early chruch, such that the argument is that they made up their evidence for Jesus' Messiahship having no connection to previously established Jewish expectation. Then to prove that they did this he contstucts his own false hermeneutic, which is arguing from parogy (I can parody their use of this passage so therefore their use of it is wrong--which is just arguing from analogy).

My point is that the expectations about Messiah were already fixed, they were extended by the chruch, they weren't made up originally by the chruch. The expectations were barrowed from the community of Jews out of which the early chruch came. So they took things Rabbis already said about these passages and applied them to Jesus. Now maybe they were wrong, maybe their assumptions can't be proven, but they did not make them up! The Jews already expected that Messiah would have a connection of some kind to Is 7:14! The early chruch did not invient that connection. That's all I'm saying!


Apokrius is engaging in a "Hermeneutics of suspiciion." That is a dangerous game because it means that his own ideological assumptions are just being impossed upon anything that his opponent says. It means that he will not listen, he will read anything I say in the worst possible light and that he had already poisoned the well (anything a Christian says must be wrong a priori). So that is not scholarhsip that is not fair and it is not reason and it cannot lead to a reasoned dialouge.

The point I'm making is not that the Christians have to be right in all of their hermeneutical dealings, but that they did not invent them, they got them from the community of Jews out of which they came!Rabbis expected that 7:14 would be about the Messiah. So it doesnt' do any good to say "that's about Isiah's time" because the issue here is not "were the christians right?" The issue is, how stupid were they in deciding that this was a proof. And I'm saying they were no sutpider than their Rabbinical mentors!

Regarding Apikorus v Metacrock:


Meta =&gt;What is not true is that sorrounding passages show that the hermeneutic is wrong. This is becaus the method and the conclusions are barrowed form the Rabbis, so they didn't invent them orignally. The only difference is in the speicific application to an historical person and that is just a matter of opinion.

Meta =&gt;I believe that Rabbis understood both passages to pertian to the Messiah. I further hold that Matthew was not claiming that Jesus' birth was a fulfillment of Iasiah 7 as a prophesy but that it was merely linked as a litterary allusion ala midrash. He's just saying "here is a time when God made a promise concerning a brith,and made good on it. Jesus was the proimise of a birth and God made good on it. But he's not saying "this is the exactly same passage being fullfilled." It's just a litterary allusion. Genesis 3 offers a possilbe promise of a divine birth.


Meta =&gt;I'm saying because both terms can connote a young woman, both can also indicate a vrigin. That is just a matter of the context. The anti-missionaries what to set up this dichotomy, one word is for virigin, one is for young woman, christians have the wrong word. But that is only true in dennotation, in a technical sense. The real connotative aspect has to be settaled by the context, either word can be used either way. Why the LXX guys said Parthonos I dont' know, but we have to assume they new what they were doing at least more so than we do.

Meta =&gt;[b]Westminster Dictionary of Christian Theology[/d] The volume on Doctrine, the article on "Viriginity" (under V). This is the 1995 edition I believe.


Meta =&gt;Even Apokrius himself admitts that Alamah could be used of a virigin and that would be a matter of context. It could be used of a brunette but is it very likely that we would be expected to understand a brunette with no allusion to hair color? It is more likely that it would be an allusion to something about the woman's age or sexual condition since having the kid was the sign.

Metacrock

Meta =&gt;you started the insultign tone! I don't know why you guys have such short memoroies, it's just a matter of looking back at the preivious posts. This happens all the time. you start the insults, I respond, you claim I started them.

Meta =&gt;I think it's a shame that you have no interest in a serious discussion. You seem to think that scholarship is just a matter of knowning detials and facts. you seem to have no concept that it is as much an attitude toward other people and other's people's ideas, and your own ideas. It is not an attitude that argues "I am always right, whatever you say has to be wrong because you are the enemy." that is an anti-scholarly attitude.

They don't link being a scholar with being a gentleman for nothing.

Muad'Dib

Such comments are not appropriate in this forum.