|
Post by wdmundt on Sept 6, 2007 14:20:50 GMT -4
I haven't actually said that, but the evidence does seem to show exactly that.
It also hasn't actually been shown that Mary is in the house of David. That assumption seems to come from the idea that Luke's genealogy actually belongs to Mary -- which also has not been shown. But it hardly matters -- to insert a woman anywhere into the genealogy would be to break the lineage back to David; to insert her right at the beginning is no different. Jewish identity passes through the mother. Tribal lineage passes through the father.
That's quite a rush to judgment. Do you find nothing interesting about this?
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Sept 6, 2007 15:09:02 GMT -4
And let me state that I'm not an expert on Jewish traditions. I only know what I have read and what I have been told. If someone can offer more expertise in the arena of Jewish traditions of the time, I would welcome it.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Sept 6, 2007 15:47:19 GMT -4
It also hasn't actually been shown that Mary is in the house of David. That assumption seems to come from the idea that Luke's genealogy actually belongs to Mary -- which also has not been shown. There's the word "shown" again. Shown to absolutely refer to Mary - no. Shown to be a possible reading of the text that some scholars accept - yes. Descent from David is not the same as tribal lineage. The prophecies do not say that the Messiah will be from the tribe David belonged to, but descended from David. There are situations in Jewish law where a son's father is different from his biological father. Levirate marriages, for instance. Also, it might be worth investigating how tribal identity was assigned to the sons of a convert to Judaism who married a Jewish woman. I think there is some interest in the subject but that any discussion can't come to any more resolution than we already have - that the scholars are divided as to whether the genealogies refer to Mary or not, and that neither course provides evidence for or against the historicity of Jesus, which supposedly is the subject of this thread. To my mind, focusing on small points like "what do the genealogies mean" ignores the reason for studying the New Testament in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by Bill Thompson on Sept 6, 2007 19:26:45 GMT -4
Given that there appears to be no evidence of the existence of Jesus outside the Bible, what does the Bible offer in the way of evidence? Do you mean, "considering it a given that..." or do you mean "since it is given that..."? Whom were the Jews angry about in the Torrah?
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Sept 6, 2007 19:32:59 GMT -4
I think what points to Jesus being real from the genealogical discussion is: The interesting thing is that to avoid controversy, why wouldn't the author (s) have Mary pregnant after she married Joseph. She could still have had a supernatural pregnancy. Like Jason said, being pregnant before marriage in those times isn't exactly a good situation to be in. I think that by having to explain an illegitimate birth of Jesus gives evidence that he did indeed, exist. I mean, why complicate the story? Mark avoids altogether the virgin birth I think. And considering that his is the earliest gospel you have to wonder how later authors started added stuff that might not belong there. I need to double check but doing a quick online search of Mark shows that virgin is not mentioned in his Gospel. Can this be right?
Also the part in Isaiah about the Messiah being born of a virgin: Isaiah 7:14 TNIV • Therefore the Lord himself will give you [ The Hebrew is plural.] a sign: The virgin [ Or young woman] will conceive and give birth to a son, and [ Masoretic Text; Dead Sea Scrolls and he or and they] will call him Immanuel. [ Immanuel means God with us.] Apparantly the word for virgin, could also mean young woman.
I have a 'Analytical Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon' that could be used to check it but since I can't read Hebrew, I can't use it . I know hardly any Greek but am so unfamiliar with Hebrew letters that I'm useless.
BTW: I might have mentioned my father-in-law on past posts. He was a Mennonite bishop and died about four years ago. ANyways, he left me most of his reference books (nobody else wanted them). So, I have Lexicons, histories, commentaries galore. They are becoming very handy in this debate.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Sept 6, 2007 20:11:58 GMT -4
We covered a bunch of "extra-biblical" evidence on the "Jesus Myth" thread, and then it moved here. The title of the thread is just a continuation of an earlier discussion.
None of the stories that are claimed to feature Jesus in the Talmud seem to have any merit. We discussed a couple of them on the other thread. Are you thinking of one story in particular?
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Sept 6, 2007 20:13:45 GMT -4
Who else does this?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Sept 6, 2007 20:37:01 GMT -4
Matthew and Luke recount the virgin birth, Mark and John both begin at Jesus' baptism. The use in Isaiah can mean "young woman" instead of virgin, but when Matthew quotes the prophecy he obviously means "virgin" in the modern sense. Which means that the Jews of Matthew's day also accepted it as meaning "virgin" in the modern sense.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Sept 6, 2007 20:55:40 GMT -4
Who else does not mention the virgin birth?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Sept 6, 2007 21:14:10 GMT -4
None of the other NT books outside the gospels are accounts of Jesus' life and ministry. Paul does acknowledge the Virgin birth in Romans 1:3 and Galatians 4:4.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Sept 6, 2007 21:48:18 GMT -4
Romans 1:3 concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh,
Galatians 4:4 But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law, Note: 'gunaikoV' (woman) not 'parthenos' (virgin)
Where is the virgin part?
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Sept 6, 2007 21:49:02 GMT -4
I was just about to type that.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Sept 6, 2007 21:52:50 GMT -4
Yeah, I guess I'll have to check all the NT references from now on and not take anything for granted.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Sept 6, 2007 21:57:23 GMT -4
All 'virgin' references in the NT (KJV):
Matthew 1:23 "Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel," which is translated, "God with us." Matthew 25:1 "Then the kingdom of heaven shall be likened to ten virgins who took their lamps and went out to meet the bridegroom. Matthew 25:7 "Then all those virgins arose and trimmed their lamps. Matthew 25:11 "Afterward the other virgins came also, saying, 'Lord, Lord, open to us!' Luke 1:27 to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. The virgin's name [was] Mary. Luke 2:36 . Now there was one, Anna, a prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher. She was of a great age, and had lived with a husband seven years from her virginity; Acts 21:9 Now this man had four virgin daughters who prophesied. 1 Cor 7:25 . Now concerning virgins: I have no commandment from the Lord; yet I give judgment as one whom the Lord in His mercy [has made] trustworthy. 1 Cor 7:28 But even if you do marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. Nevertheless such will have trouble in the flesh, but I would spare you. 1 Cor 7:34 There is a difference between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman cares about the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit. But she who is married cares about the things of the world -- how she may please [her] husband. 1 Cor 7:36 But if any man thinks he is behaving improperly toward his virgin, if she is past the flower of youth, and thus it must be, let him do what he wishes. He does not sin; let them marry. 1 Cor 7:37 Nevertheless he who stands steadfast in his heart, having no necessity, but has power over his own will, and has so determined in his heart that he will keep his virgin, does well. 2 Cor 11:2 For I am jealous for you with godly jealousy. For I have betrothed you to one husband, that I may present [you as] a chaste virgin to Christ. Revelation 14:4 These are the ones who were not defiled with women, for they are virgins. These are the ones who follow the Lamb wherever He goes. These were redeemed from [among] men, [being] firstfruits to God and to the Lamb.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Sept 6, 2007 22:20:33 GMT -4
Neither refrence is as definite as you might wish, but Paul was speaking to those who already believed. He didn't have to spell it out. The Romans refrence is admittedly not too clear. If one assumes that Paul knew of the virgin birth and that Mary was of the House of David it becomes more so. In Galatians Paul doesn't say "virgin", but he does say "born of woman" only woman. A reflection of how God puts emnity between the serpent and the seed of the woman - only the woman - in Genesis, which Phantomwolf made refrence to earlier.
John refers to Christ often as the only begotten son. What does that mean if it is not a refrence to the virgin birth? Jesus is called the Son of God any number of times throughout the gospels and Pauls letters. In what sense is this meant if it is not literal?
|
|