The Immaculate Conception?

arctic lemur

The Roman Catholic Church—by papal fiat—proclaimed the dogma of the Immaculate Conception only in 1854. How can anyone say there was an Imaculate Conception? That Mary was conceived without sin as she was human in nature? There is no scriptural foundation for this.

Talliesin

Arguments for the doctrine are given here. Make of them what you will.

Akrasia

basically, the Immaculate conception is simply the worst excuse for being pregnant EVER, that happened to work.

Zombrex

Akrasia wrote:

basically, the Immaculate conception is simply the worst excuse for being pregnant EVER, that happened to work.

Talliesin

Akrasia wrote:

basically, the Immaculate conception is simply the worst excuse for being pregnant EVER, that happened to work.

The immaculate conception is not the parthenogenesis of Christ, but the doctrine that when Mary herself was born she did not have original sin. The immaculate conception came about in the traditional manner, so to speak, but the doctrine holds that when the soul of the child produced was without sin.

lowdenclear

Talliesin wrote:

The immaculate conception is not the parthenogenesis of Christ, but the doctrine that when Mary herself was born she did not have original sin. The immaculate conception came about in the traditional manner, so to speak, but the doctrine holds that when the soul of the child produced was without sin.

What do you mean by "came about in the traditional manner"? The immaculate conception is the teaching that Mary was conceived without sin. Like, the one and only human to have been done so. What is traditional about that?

The virgin birth, however, is the teaching that Jesus was conceived while Mary was a virgin. This is often mixed up with the immaculate conception. And there's nothing traditional about that either.

Raiser

Might I just say that theres been manys the morning after that I have not remembered either until I saw the condom stuck to the curtains.

The Church has always had huge problems with the concept of womanhood - they've agonised for centuries and tried to sideline them and shun them from their pompous, stunted little club. In my opinion the only way that they could rationalise the fact that the "First Lady" of Club JC was up the pole was to have her arrive in such a state in a mystical, marvellous manner - not via wicked, dirty, sinfull sex [!] - Christ no :eek:

All of the raving meanderings of the Bible are remarkably wonderous in their ideological propoganda but under scrutiny hold water like a Sunday morning begging basket.

Excelsior

There is no basis in Scripture for the Immaculate Conception. It forms for me, the Holy Trinity of Roman Catholic problematic teaching- the others being celibate and exclusively male clergy and the position on inter-Communion. I would love to see a 3rd Vatican Council to address these issues.

Raiser wrote:

The Church has always had huge problems with the concept of womanhood - they've agonised for centuries and tried to sideline them and shun them from their pompous, stunted little club.

I don't know what church you are talking about. If you are discussing historical Christianity in its full depth, then I think you are wildly off base. There are lots of very large pockets where you are totally on the money though.

Crucially, the basis of all chruchs' belief is the Bible which is powerfully and universally in favour of equality between men and women from the first page to the last.

Raiser wrote:

In my opinion the only way that they could rationalise the fact that the "First Lady" of Club JC was up the pole was to have her arrive in such a state in a mystical, marvellous manner - not via wicked, dirty, sinfull sex

Can you lay out an argument for this (in a thread about the virgin birth of Jesus since this thread is about something else)? While you're at it you could explain why the Bible is so flawed instead of just simply saying "I think the Bible is flawed".

Zombrex

Excelsior wrote:

the Bible which is powerfully and universally in favour of equality between men and women from the first page to the last.

Er, which Bible were you reading. :rolleyes:

Women are constantly refered to in derogatory fashion throughout the entire Old Testment (and parts of the New Testment). They are basically the property of the men, and anything they do beyond serving their husbands or producing children for him is sinful or wrong. Hell having a period is sinful.

Now thankfully this is mostly ignored in modern times by Jews and Christians, but still if you are looking for a shinning light of equality between men and women that Bible ain't it.

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/women/long.html

Excelsior

Quoting verses of Scripture without context is a game that fundamentalist Christians and "skeptics" engage in.

If you'd like to take issue with any aspect of Biblical teaching on womanhood, I'm all up for giving that some time. (I meant first and last pages literally- I think you'll find they set the scene nicely by the way- just don't tell the folks on the Creationism thread )

Zombrex

Excelsior wrote:

Quoting verses of Scripture without context is a game that fundamentalist Christians and "skeptics" engage in.

All 297 times listed on that website where women are referred to as male property, whores, unclean, sinful etc are just "without context"?

Exactly what context is missing?

Excelsior wrote:

If you'd like to take issue with any aspect of Biblical teaching on womanhood, I'm all up for giving that some time

Oh the top of my head, the constant issue of a woman being owned by either her father or her husband. Not exactly "equal" is it?

Or another one is the idea that a woman with her period is unclean. I get the real world purpose behind that (she is bleeding after all, and this is before sanitary towels, though I'm sure they managed to keep themselves relatively clean), but the idea that she is sinful for having a period, and has to be purified at the temple afterwards is pushing it a bit, don't you think? Why is a completely natural process like a period considered bad, and must be atoned for in front of God?

The priest shall offer up one of them as a sin offering and the other as a holocaust. Thus shall the priest make atonement before the LORD for her unclean flow.

Or the idea that a woman after giving birth to a boy is unclean for 7 days, but if she gives birth to a girl she is unclean for 14 days? The logic behind that example of equality is what exactly?

The LORD said to Moses,
2
1 "Tell the Israelites: When a woman has conceived and gives birth to a boy, she shall be unclean for seven days, with the same uncleanness as at her menstrual period.
3
On the eighth day, the flesh of the boy's foreskin shall be circumcised,
4
and then she shall spend thirty-three days more in becoming purified of her blood; she shall not touch anything sacred nor enter the sanctuary till the days of her purification are fulfilled.
5
If she gives birth to a girl, for fourteen days she shall be as unclean as at her menstruation, after which she shall spend sixty-six days in becoming purified of her blood.
6
"When the days of her purification for a son or for a daughter are fulfilled, she shall bring to the priest at the entrance of the meeting tent a yearling lamb for a holocaust and a pigeon or a turtledove for a sin offering.
7
The priest shall offer them up before the LORD to make atonement for her, and thus she will be clean again after her flow of blood. Such is the law for the woman who gives birth to a boy or a girl child.

Talliesin

lowdenclear wrote:

What do you mean by "came about in the traditional manner"? The immaculate conception is the teaching that Mary was conceived without sin. Like, the one and only human to have been done so. What is traditional about that?

The teaching does not argue that her parents did anything different to any other parents. The generation of her body was in the traditional manner, the creation of the soul and infusion of it into her body was held to differ from that of everyone else.

lowdenclear

Talliesin wrote:

The teaching does not argue that her parents did anything different to any other parents. The generation of her body was in the traditional manner, the creation of the soul and infusion of it into her body was held to differ from that of everyone else.

OK, fair enough!

arctic lemur

Talliesin wrote:

The teaching does not argue that her parents did anything different to any other parents. The generation of her body was in the traditional manner, the creation of the soul and infusion of it into her body was held to differ from that of everyone else.

How could the creation of her soul be different? I know the Catholic Church holds Mary in high esteem but I dont get this. I'd be of the same point of view as Excelsior on this.

Karl Barth, in his "Church Dogmatics," had many positive things to say about Mary, but he rejected Mariological dogmas on the basis that he considered them to be arbitrary innovations not justified by Scripture and also that, for him, seemed to contradict the principle of sola gratia ("grace alone").

All this has led to the suggestion in some quarters that some Christian doctrines, including those of a Mariological nature, be regarded as inessential, thus allowing for a variety of interpretations of belief. Ludwig Ott's work, "Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma," admits that the Immaculate Conception is not explicitly taught in Scripture, and he freely acknowledges that neither the Greek nor Latin Fathers teach this doctrine. But he claims it is implicit in their teachings about the holiness and purity of Mary, and in the contrast which the Fathers developed between the figures of Mary and of Eve.

But if the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is to be recognized as a legitimate item in Christian theology, this will be accomplished by showing that it is implicative of all other Christian truths. It must be shown that Mariological dogma is not merely a superfluous embellishment, but that it is integral to our understanding of anthropology, Christology and soteriology.

The words of the dogma read:

"We declare . . . that the most Blessed Virgin Mary in the first moment of her conception was, by the unique grace and privilege of God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ the Saviour of the human race, preserved intact from all stain of original sin."

What is important for understanding the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is that we move away from any merely biological understanding of conception. The doctrine is not focused on the biological event and is not tied to any particular theory of conception. There is no implication that Mary was conceived without intercourse between her parents, Joachim and Anne - that is, there is no indication of a teaching of a virginal birth or conception of Mary. The conception of a child is not only a physiological happening, but the personal commitment in love of the parents. Such a perception throws an entirely different light on the meaning of conception.

BrianCalgary

Akrasia wrote:

basically, the Immaculate conception is simply the worst excuse for being pregnant EVER, that happened to work.

I'm curious as to where you and Wicknight get the idea that Christ was not 'born of a virgin'?

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote:

I'm curious as to where you and Wicknight get the idea that Christ was not 'born of a virgin'?

It is a well established historical theory that early Christians did not believe Mary was a virgin when she had Jesus.

The "Quelle Gospel" (possibly the earliest gospel, though no copies survive and is is reconstructed from Matthew and Luke, which many believe were copied from it) and the Gospel of Thomas never mentions a virgin birth. Neither does Paul in his writings.

It appears in the Gospel of Matthew, but this is generally regarded to be a mis-translation of the Hebrew word "almah", which actually means young woman. "Betulah" means virgin.

The Gospel of John, written 10-15 years after Matthew also does not mention the virgin birth, and refers to Jesus as being born to Jospeh

So with the virgin birth ruled out as most likely an idea added well after the life of Jesus, the question is if Joseph actually is the father.

Paul links Jesus to David, through Joseph, which would imply he believes that Jesus was Joseph's direct decendent. The Gosspel of John also refers to Jesus as being the son of Joseph.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/virgin_b1.htm

Excelsior

The Quelle Gospel doesn't exist Wicknight. It is a speculation by Biblical scholars to account for the shared sources common in the Synoptics.

The context you are missing is that in almost all the cases cited in your SAB link, the passages refer not to Biblical principles but to guidelines laid out for the Israelites in the Law. You are aware of the idea of the New Covenant that distinguishes Christianity from Judaism?

Context is crucial. Understanding the context of Q in relation to actual documents is vital before you can argue that early Christians didn't believe the virgin birth. Understanding that there is a context to the Torah that is fulfilled and so different in the New Testament is is vital before you can interpret any passage of the Torah from a Christian perspective.

Its not complex, it just requires a more open-minded approach to the text.

Zombrex

Excelsior wrote:

The Quelle Gospel doesn't exist Wicknight. It is a speculation by Biblical scholars to account for the shared sources common in the Synoptics.

I'm aware of that, in fact I stated that in my post

Excelsior wrote:

Context is crucial. Understanding the context of Q in relation to actual documents is vital before you can argue that early Christians didn't believe the virgin birth.

The Quelle Gospel is not the only reason to believe early Christians did not believe in the vigin birth.

Also the term "context" seems to be used quite a lot on this forum to work around uncomfortable facts. I agree that context of a Bible passage is important, since these are stories not single line statements. But context is also highly subjective.

But no "context" can escape the fact that early gosspels don't mention the virign birth and even seem to contradict it.

Zombrex

Excelsior wrote:

The context you are missing is that in almost all the cases cited in your SAB link, the passages refer not to Biblical principles but to guidelines laid out for the Israelites in the Law. You are aware of the idea of the New Covenant that distinguishes Christianity from Judaism?

They refer to God's principles for living, often quoted directly from God, which formed the basis of local law. Or at least what the Israelites believe were Gods principles for living

The New Covenant that replaced the original Mount Sinai convenat is rather irrelivant to this, unless you are saying the Old Testement descriptions of what pleases and displeases God, and therefore what is moral or sinful, becomes irrelivant after the death of Jesus and the formation of the New Covenant. Doesn't that contradict what Jesus himself said about the law of God in the Old Testement?

I wish it were the case, that Jesus said the old Jewish laws were out of date and not to be followed, since it would cut out any Biblical justification used by Christian extermists for bigotry towards women, blacks, homosexuals etc. But it doesn't seem to be the case, unfortunately.

Excelsior

It doesn't contradict Jesus' teachings at all. The New Covenant fulfills the Law. In the same way that adulthood fulfills puberty, much of what marks childhood is left behind.

We do not need to celebrate Sabbath. We do not need to follow any cleanliness code (majority of the referred passages are such). We do not need to follow any ritualistic sacrifice law. Almost all that you have linked to is the Law. Christians are dead to the law and alive in Christ.

Jesus deals head on and explicitly with racial prejudice on numerous occassions in his ministry. That doesn't stop evil people from appropriating the Bible for racial prejudice. The text cannot be held responsible for its misuse. It is preposterous to say that since a book has been abused, it is therefore discredited.

Zombrex

Excelsior wrote:

It doesn't contradict Jesus' teachings at all. The New Covenant fulfills the Law. In the same way that adulthood fulfills puberty, much of what marks childhood is left behind.

We do not need to celebrate Sabbath. We do not need to follow any cleanliness code (majority of the referred passages are such). We do not need to follow any ritualistic sacrifice law. Almost all that you have linked to is the Law. Christians are dead to the law and alive in Christ.

Jesus confirmed (for Christians) that the Old Testament was the word of God. He mentions that a few times. Even if you believe you don't need to follow the laws now, Jesus didn't say the laws were wrong. In fact he confirmed them as being what God wanted.

If God says a woman's period is sinful, why does that change when Jesus appears and says follow the word of God in the Old Testament. If God says men should not "lie" together and that is a sin, does that change when Jesus appears

The argument could be made by Christians that the Old Testament is completely wrong, but that would contradict what Jesus himself is reported to have said.

Or the argument could be made that God considered certain actions sinful acts (women's periods for example, or homosexuality) 3000 years ago but is no long the case. But that would imply God changes his mind with regard to what is sin and what isn't sin.

Jesus might have fulfiled the purpose of certain acts in the Bible, such as sacrafice, but that doesn't mean the sinful actions that caused these in the first place are no longer sinful. By the logic of the Bible a womans period is still sinful, but you no longer need to give sacrafice for it since Jesus died for all sin.

Not that this really matters, since I'm not really interested in arguing if Christians should follow the laws of the old testament.

The (rather ridiculous) argument was made that the Bible (and therefore I assume God) threats men and women as equals.

That is blatantly obviously not the case.

Excelsior wrote:

That doesn't stop evil people from appropriating the Bible for racial prejudice. The text cannot be held responsible for its misuse. It is preposterous to say that since a book has been abused, it is therefore discredited.

But thats the thing, it isn't being "abused" it is being read literally. It is being read the way it was supposed to be read, as a description of what God does and does not find sinful behaviour.

When Christian fundamentalist walk around with cards saying "God HATES Fags" technically they are correct. The OT states that, pretty clearly. You can argue that the laws around the acts of homosexuality, or women, changed when Jesus arrived, but the message behind these laws didn't. Jesus even says he is not here to change the message of the laws.

The Old Testament states quite clearly that homosexuality is a sinful act. It states quite clearly that slavery is normal. It states quite clearly that a woman's period is sinful etc etc

You have to interpreate Jesus's teaching in a certain specific fashion to get to the argument that Christians can abandon the descriptions of sin in the Old Testament. And an awful lot of Christians choose to interpret Jesus's teaching literally when he says that the Old Testament is the word of God. He might have changed certain laws, but the sin behind those law doesn't change much, or at all.

hairyheretic

Wicknight wrote:

I wish it were the case, that Jesus said the old Jewish laws were out of date and not to be followed, since it would cut out any Biblical justification used by Christian extermists for bigotry towards women, blacks, homosexuals etc. But it doesn't seem to be the case, unfortunately.

People, being people, will always find a way to justify their hatred.

Zombrex

hairyheretic wrote:

People, being people, will always find a way to justify their hatred.

True, but it is generally better to limit the external justifictions they can find. Unfortuantly religious texts, like the Bible, often do the opposite of this, to supply more "justification" than they could ever need.

Excelsior

Wicknight wrote:

Jesus confirmed (for Christians) that the Old Testament was the word of God. He mentions that a few times. Even if you believe you don't need to follow the laws now, Jesus didn't say the laws were wrong. In fact he confirmed them as being what God wanted.

I agree entirely that Jesus felt the Old Testament is the authoritative word of God. I agree entirely that he confirms that the Hebrew Scriptures describe what God wanted. Primarily though, Jesus says that the Old Testament is all about him. (Emmaus Road is the clearest and most explicit teaching) Now that the promise has been fulfilled, the terms of the promise no longer apply.

Wicknight wrote:

If God says a woman's period is sinful, why does that change when Jesus appears and says follow the word of God in the Old Testament. If God says men should not "lie" together and that is a sin, does that change when Jesus appears

The first thing changes because all cleanliness codes pass away with the sacrifice of Christ on the cross, once and for all. If ever we were in doubt, in Acts 10 we see the God-proclaimed end of such regulations.

Men lying together (both meanings of the word) doesn't change because Jesus specifies that sex is for marriage in the Sermon on the Mount and because marriage is a primary institution specified by God in Genesis 2 and 3. There is a clear distinction made there, not an arbitrary choice of different moral systems.

Wicknight wrote:

The argument could be made by Christians that the Old Testament is completely wrong, but that would contradict what Jesus himself is reported to have said.

And that heresy has been tried. Marcionism tried to implement an OT-less Christianity. But where Jesus stands on the Old Testament is that it was all good in its day but its real purpose was:
a) Through the Law, show people they couldn't make it on their own and needed Jesus
b) Prepare people for Jesus.

Liberal and Conservative alike, all Christians will agree on this. It is completely uncontroversial that the authority that Jesus places in the Old Testament is not a "flat one", where all parts are equally applicable to us.

Wicknight wrote:

Or the argument could be made that God considered certain actions sinful acts (women's periods for example, or homosexuality) 3000 years ago but is no long the case. But that would imply God changes his mind with regard to what is sin and what isn't sin.

This is the part where you and I have lots to chew on. I think that the way that God breathed the Scriptures was through a culture in a specific time and place and that there needs to be localisation within the Pre-Jesus Israelites. How that works out is a complex interplay between at least 4 sources in the Hebrew Scriptures. But it is certain that no Christian is living on the basis that menstruation is unholy.

Wicknight wrote:

Jesus might have fulfiled the purpose of certain acts in the Bible, such as sacrafice, but that doesn't mean the sinful actions that caused these in the first place are no longer sinful. By the logic of the Bible a womans period is still sinful, but you no longer need to give sacrafice for it since Jesus died for all sin.

I think that the technical term is not cleanliness code but a holiness code. The purpose of the Law, from a Christian perspective (no offence to the Jews who may be reading ) is to drive people to the realisation that we all fail to meet the standards of God. It isn't so much the single sins but the existence of sin at all.

Wicknight wrote:

Not that this really matters, since I'm not really interested in arguing if Christians should follow the laws of the old testament.

Over lunch I was thinking the same thing. Why is Wicknight, a clever guy, telling Christians how they ought to be interpreting their Scriptures? ;D

Wicknight wrote:

The (rather ridiculous) argument was made that the Bible (and therefore I assume God) threats men and women as equals.

It is in no way ridiculous. But completely true.

Wicknight wrote:

That is blatantly obviously not the case.

Why are all these Christians unable to see the case?

Wicknight wrote:

But thats the thing, it isn't being "abused" it is being read literally. It is being read the way it was supposed to be read, as a description of what God does and does not find sinful behaviour.

Oh and so we reach the centre. The warped, broken centre. Nowhere in the Bible are we told to read the Bible literally. No denomination in Ireland reads the Bible literally. But you are telling us how we should interpret the Bible, even when it says differently. It is preposterous to read the Bible literally and your insistence that we should read it flat and verse-parsed like the shambolic SAB does, is an insistence any sincere thoughtful Christian will ignore.

Wicknight wrote:

The Old Testament states quite clearly that homosexuality is a sinful act. It states quite clearly that slavery is normal.

Exactly right. Homosexual acts are sinful. Slavery was quite normal.

Wicknight wrote:

It states quite clearly that a woman's period is sinful etc etc

It actually says it isn't holy, but let us not care with such details. They may be too profitable.

Wicknight wrote:

You have to interpreate Jesus's teaching in a certain specific fashion to get to the argument that Christians can abandon the descriptions of sin in the Old Testament. And an awful lot of Christians choose to interpret Jesus's teaching literally when he says that the Old Testament is the word of God. He might have changed certain laws, but the sin behind those law doesn't change much, or at all.

I think Jesus can be pretty much interpreted literally. He intends for us to read his words plainly. Other parts of the Bible are not that way. Even Jesus speaks in parables and metaphor which by definition can't be read literally.

Christians read the Bible using a few handy heuristics. If the doctrine is in the New Testament fully in bloom then it exists as a bulb in the Old Testament. That there are certain meta-themes that run throughout all of Scripture that must be acknowledged. That there are different genres to be recognised. That the words are not the transcribed utterances of God but the God-inspired text of men.

Jesus is the fulfillment of the law. That is why he cleanses the Temple. He is now the tabernacle. He is God dwelling with us. All practices related to the ministry of the Jewish Priests that waited for the Messiah-culmination have been concluded with the coming of the Messiah.

Zombrex

Excelsior wrote:

Now that the promise has been fulfilled, the terms of the promise no longer apply.

With regard to sacrafice yes. But the justifications behind the laws have nothing to do with sacrafice.

Sacracife was what you did in response to sin. Now you don't have to give sacrafice because of Jesus doesn't change the sin part.

Excelsior wrote:

If ever we were in doubt, in Acts 10 we see the God-proclaimed end of such regulations.

Well technically he proclaimed an end to the regulations, but not because they were no longer sinful.

God presented Peter with animals that were, under Jewish law, considered unclean but Peter is told to eat them because God cannot produce something unclean. You will have to work the logic of that out yourself. But the point of it was a metephor for saying that all of humanity is produced by God and can be saved through Jesus. Next Peter proclaims, when he gets to the hosue of Cornelius that Gentiles (and therefore all humans) are to follow the message of Jesus, not just Jews.

Jesus will forgive all sins, but that doesn't say anything about these sin no longer applying.

A womans period is still sinful, but the woman can find forgiveness for this sin, and all sins, through Jesus.

Excelsior wrote:

But where Jesus stands on the Old Testament is that it was all good in its day but its real purpose was:
a) Through the Law, show people they couldn't make it on their own and needed Jesus
b) Prepare people for Jesus.

As I said, Jesus changed the nature of the laws themselves, not the purpose behind them.

The sin contained in the Old Testament is not washed away, just how to deal with this sin is changed. Instead of a load of rituals and sacrafices, you are now supposed to deal with this sin through belief in Jesus. But the sin remains the same.

Excelsior wrote:

But it is certain that no Christian is living on the basis that menstruation is unholy.

Menstruation is sinful, and always will be sinful (unless God changes his mind). But, technically Christian women, through Jesus, can be saved from this sin and all sin.

Excelsior wrote:

The purpose of the Law, from a Christian perspective (no offence to the Jews who may be reading ) is to drive people to the realisation that we all fail to meet the standards of God. It isn't so much the single sins but the existence of sin at all.

Well I would kinda agree with that. There is certainly a significant move in Christianity away from the idea of individual acts of sin, such as a womans period, and individual acts to count act this sin, such as break a birds neck in temple.

Christianity seems represent a move towards the idea that life is just one long sinful act unless you commit to Jesus.

Excelsior wrote:

Over lunch I was thinking the same thing. Why is Wicknight, a clever guy, telling Christians how they ought to be interpreting their Scriptures? ;D

Ah its been a low week in work

Hey don't get me wrong. I haven't studied this stuff nearly as much as you, and as I'm sure you know I don't believe in any of this stuff, nore do I really care that much what Christians believe or don't believe.

So all of above can just be dismissed as the rantings of an ill-informed atheists It's just my take of what I know of the Bible.

Excelsior wrote:

It is in no way ridiculous. But completely true.

Its not true though. The Old Testament does not treat women as equals to men. You can argue this changes when Jesus arrives, but it doesn't change the stories in the Old Testament.

The Christian churchs have used the Bible as a justification for the oppression of women for hundreds of years.

Excelsior wrote:

Oh and so we reach the centre. The warped, broken centre. Nowhere in the Bible are we told to read the Bible literally.

Are you told not to?

Because I would love to see that passage, it would make arguing with Young Earth Creationists on the evolution thead a hell of a lot easier!

Excelsior wrote:

But you are telling us how we should interpret the Bible, even when it says differently. It is preposterous to read the Bible literally and your insistence that we should read it flat and verse-parsed like the shambolic SAB does, is an insistence any sincere thoughtful Christian will ignore.

Neither myself or the SAB are telling you you should read the Bible literally. I don't think you should read the Bible at all, and I imagine the authors of the SAB feel the same.

The SAB isn't here to try and get people to read the Bible literally. It's here because millions already read the Bible literally. It is inresponse to this, not the other way around.

The fact is the Bible is read literally by millions of Christians all over the world. They are, and are telling you and everyone else, that you should read the Bible literally and derived literal meaning from it.

Excelsior wrote:

I think Jesus can be pretty much interpreted literally. He intends for us to read his words plainly. Other parts of the Bible are not that way. Even Jesus speaks in parables and metaphor which by definition can't be read literally.

So is it any wonder that even with in similar Christian churches there can be wildly different interpritations of meanings from the Bible.

You reading of the Bible is in line with a lot of other Christians I know. But it is certainly not unique or necessarily "correct". I imagine that all who read the Bible believe their interpretation is correct.

Excelsior wrote:

All practices related to the ministry of the Jewish Priests that waited for the Messiah-culmination have been concluded with the coming of the Messiah.

Agreed, but the reasons for these practices (the sin) hasn't. These things are still sinful, just how you deal with that sin has changed. Or at least that is the way millions of Christians interprate the Bible.

BrianCalgary

Wicknight wrote:

It is a well established historical theory that early Christians did not believe Mary was a virgin when she had Jesus.

Actually no they didn't. There are approximately 61 different prophecies in the OT regarding the Messiah. All of them come true in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. That is why people were able to recognize the Messiah. One of the prophecies was:

14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel. (Isaiah 7:14)

In John 8:19
19Then they asked him, "Where is your father?"
"You do not know me or my Father," Jesus replied. "If you knew me, you would know my Father also."

Jesus spoke of His Father as being in Heaven many times throughout the gospels.

The reason Joseph's geneaology was used was for legal reasons within the culture to show the descent from David on both sides of Mother and Father.

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote:

Actually no they didn't. There are approximately 61 different prophecies in the OT regarding the Messiah. All of them come true in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. That is why people were able to recognize the Messiah.

Thats getting a bit cyclical though isn't it.

Jesus was born to a virgin because Jesus has to fufill all the OT prophecies.

Jesus fufills all the OT prophecies because he was born to a virgin.

It is quite obvious how that line of thought could have emerge later in the Christian dogma.

BrianCalgary wrote:

In John 8:19
19Then they asked him, "Where is your father?"
"You do not know me or my Father," Jesus replied. "If you knew me, you would know my Father also."

It is always established that Jesus is the son of God. But that doesn't mean he had to be created, come to earth, through a virgin immaculate conception.

BrianCalgary

Wicknight wrote:

Thats getting a bit cyclical though isn't it.

Jesus was born to a virgin because Jesus has to fufill all the OT prophecies.

Jesus fufills all the OT prophecies because he was born to a virgin.

It is quite obvious how that line of thought could have emerge later in the Christian dogma.

What I am stating here is that the first Christians would have known of the virgin birth and therefor ebeen able to accept Jesus as the Messiah and as God. The virgin birth being a later addition to the dogma of Christianity is just an incorrect statement. If Jesus was not born of a virgin He could not have been the Messiah and not worth bothering about. The fact that so many people gave their lives through the persecutions of Nero and Domitian are a testimony to the beliefs of the first Christians.

It is not circular since the prophecy written in Isaiah was around 700BC and occured about 4BC means that for 700 years people were looking for the Messiah. He came and his life got reported in the NT which was written in the second half of the 1st century 700 years after Isaiah.

Wicknight wrote:

It is always established that Jesus is the son of God. But that doesn't mean he had to be created, come to earth, through a virgin immaculate conception.

Yes it does, in order to establish the prophecy concerning the Messiah. The virgin birth is necessary. As are the other 60 prophecies. Including the Triumphal Entry on a donkey, the not breaking of legs, His heart being pierced, the soldiers casting lots for His cloak, etc.

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote:

He could not have been the Messiah and not worth bothering about. The fact that so many people gave their lives through the persecutions of Nero and Domitian are a testimony to the beliefs of the first Christians.

That is an assumption that is not backed up by the early Christian texts. If he was of virgin birth, and fufiled all the hebrew prophecies do you not think they would be shouting it from the roof tops, instead of it first appearing due to a mistranslation in Matthew years after the life of Jesus?

BrianCalgary

Wicknight wrote:

That is an assumption that is not backed up by the early Christian texts. If he was of virgin birth, and fufiled all the hebrew prophecies do you not think they would be shouting it from the roof tops, instead of it first appearing due to a mistranslation in Matthew years after the life of Jesus?

They did shout about the messiah from the rooftops and were soundly persecuted for it.

Where do you get the idea about the mistranslation bit?

Parthenos: a virgin
Female-a marriageable maiden
-a woman who has never had sexual intercourse with a man
-one's marriageable daughter
Male-a man who has abstained from all uncleanness and whoredom attendant on idolatry, and so has kept his chastity
-one who has never had intercourse with women

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote:

They did shout about the messiah from the rooftops and were soundly persecuted for it.

How do you know that? Are the early Christians described in the Bible as proclaiming a virgin birth?

Maybe I should have put it another way. If it was what the early Christians believed you would imagine they woudl be all writting it down.

Instead it doesn't appear till the later gosspels, like Matthew.

"almah" was the word Matthew translated to mean "virgin", when in fact it means young woman. "bethulah" means virgin

Some Christians were a bit unhappy about this, the claim that Mary might not actually have been a virgin, so they reasoned that technically all unmarried women in the holy land were virgins, since a unmarried non-virgin was stoned to death outside her fathers house, and therefore would be dead. So they argue that "almah" means young woman but implies young woman who is a virgin since a young woman who isn't a virgin couldn't exist.

Thats stretching it a bit in my view, but then again people seem quite happy to bend over backwards to fit Biblical passaged around what they want to believe. Just look at the arguments over Jesus's "brothers" and if Mary had sex after Jesus.

BrianCalgary

Wicknight wrote:

How do you know that? Are the early Christians described in the Bible as proclaiming a virgin birth?.

Yep, in the book of Matthew. It only has to be recorded once, and prophecied once.

Wicknight wrote:

"almah" was the word Matthew translated to mean "virgin", when in fact it means young woman. "bethulah" means virgin

The word used was parthenos which I have given the translation above.

Wicknight wrote:

Thats stretching it a bit in my view, but then again people seem quite happy to bend over backwards to fit Biblical passaged around what they want to believe. Just look at the arguments over Jesus's "brothers" and if Mary had sex after Jesus.

BTW, I have never questioned Mary's ever virginity. This was an invention of I think, St Francis of Assissi. He went off sex completely and felt that evryone else should as well.

Asiaprod

BrianCalgary wrote:

He went off sex completely and felt that evryone else should as well.

Huh! Did he by any chance tell us how he expected humanity to continue on or were we to just become extinct. I think you have that one wrong Brian.

BrianCalgary

Asiaprod wrote:

Huh! Did he by any chance tell us how he expected humanity to continue on or were we to just become extinct. I think you have that one wrong Brian.

I have wondered about St. Francis from time to time. I read about him years ago and could be wrong. I'm sure he did come up with Mary's ever virginity though.

(We wouldn't become extinct we would just evolve into a self replicating being:) )

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote:

Yep, in the book of Matthew. It only has to be recorded once, and prophecied once.

Matthew was written between 60 and 100 years after the death of Jesus. That isn't "early Christians"

BrianCalgary wrote:

The word used was parthenos which I have given the translation above.

No, that is the Greek word (which does mean virgin) which caused the confusion.

When Isaiah 7:14 was translated from Hebrew to Greek the Hebrew word "Almah" (young woman) was incorrectly translated to the Greek word "parthenos" (virgin)

This mistranslation was repeated down the line, particularly by Matthew 1.23.

The Isaiah prophecy does not describe a virgin birth.

The requirement that Jesus be born of a virgin only came about later on in early Christianity due to a miss-understanding of the Isaiah 7:14 prophecy (based on the incorrectly translated Greek text)

There is no evidence that the early (as in early early) Christians believed Jesus was born of a virgin, nor any evidence they believed he had to be born of a virgin to fufill the prophecies of the Old Testament. They were probably working off the original Hebrew Old Testament that simply says God will send a child to be born of a young woman. Which, if you believe this stuff, he did.

http://www.messiahtruth.com/is714a.html
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/is/7.html

BrianCalgary

Almah:

virgin, young woman
of marriageable age
maid or newly married

++++ There is no instance where it can be proved that this word designates a young woman who is not a virgin. (TWOT)

Note the last sentence. This is the word in Isaiah 7:14.

BrianCalgary

Wicknight wrote:

When Isaiah 7:14 was translated from Hebrew to Greek the Hebrew word "Almah" (young woman) was incorrectly translated to the Greek word "parthenos" (virgin)

This mistranslation was repeated down the line, particularly by Matthew 1.23.

The Isaiah prophecy does not describe a virgin birth.

The requirement that Jesus be born of a virgin only came about later on in early Christianity due to a miss-understanding of the Isaiah 7:14 prophecy (based on the incorrectly translated Greek text)

There is no evidence that the early (as in early early) Christians believed Jesus was born of a virgin, nor any evidence they believed he had to be born of a virgin to fufill the prophecies of the Old Testament. They were probably working off the original Hebrew Old Testament that simply says God will send a child to be born of a young woman. Which, if you believe this stuff, he did.

The Jews of Jesus' time would have used the Hebrew scriptures knowing what Almah meant. Being bilingual they certainly knew what they were writing. They lived with an oral tradition, so it was shouted from the rooftops that Jesus is messiah. Anyone who wished to counter the idea would only have to pull out one untrue prophecy. No one could. Matthew then wrote it down, while witnesses to th elife of Jesus were still alive. The evidence is there.

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote:

Almah:

virgin, young woman
of marriageable age
maid or newly married

++++ There is no instance where it can be proved that this word designates a young woman who is not a virgin. (TWOT)

Note the last sentence. This is the word in Isaiah 7:14.

The Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament is wrong (if thats what it says, I haven't read it).

The word "almah" doesn't imply virgin. In Hebrew the word implies an age group, the male version is "elem" which means young man.

The word "almah" is used in other passages of the Bible (Genesis 24:43) which, unlike the King James, modern bibles translate (correctly) as "young woman", or madian, since the sexual status or marriage status of the woman is unknown at the time and "virgin" would make no sense in that context.

It also makes no sense in the other places it is found, such as Exodus 2:8. It would be like us, in normal conversation saying "virgin" every time we talked about a young girl. "There was a nice virgin (young girl) serving me in the shop today" "I got my hair cut by a new virgin (young girl) in the hair dressers" It doesn't make sense in that context at all.

If you want you can assume that any woman of young age who is not married must be a virgin, and the is what the prophecy means, go ahead but there is nothing in the word itself to justify that assumption.

BrianCalgary wrote:

The Jews of Jesus' time would have used the Hebrew scriptures knowing what Almah meant. Being bilingual they certainly knew what they were writing. They lived with an oral tradition, so it was shouted from the rooftops that Jesus is messiah.

Exactly. They knew "almah" didn't imply virginity, so for them Mary didn't have to be a vigin at all for Jesus to be the Messiah. Which is why you don't get any mention of a virgin birth at all until 60 years later when Matthew continued the mistranslation of the Greek text, and even then it is not mentioned in John, which appeared 15-20 years after Matthew.

Put simply, there is no reason to believe Mary was, or had to be, a virgin. She might have been, but that fact is irrelivent

MeditationMom

BrianCalvary wrote:

We wouldn't become extinct we would just evolve into a self replicating being

You are a genius!!!

And it would be a woman,
as Mary has proven! :eek:

Asiaprod

MeditationMom wrote:

You are a genius!!!

And it would be a woman,
as Mary has proven! :eek:

Ah, the penny dropped, or should I say the veil has lifted. Now where have I heard that before:rolleyes: