It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Virgin Birth and Trinity Conspiracy

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 10:37 AM
link   
I am using the word conspiracy here in a loose sense, since I do not believe that many modern-day Christians recognize the translation cover-ups of the scriptures in question. However, I do believe there is a conspiracy of sorts on the part of educated conservative biblical translators on the issues of the virgin birth and the doctrine of the Trinity.

The scriptures in question are Isaiah 7:14 and Matthew 1:23 in relation to the virgin birth and I John 5:7-8 in relation to the Trinity.

The Virgin Birth

In the Masoretic Text (the Hebrew version of the Jewish Bible), the word translated as "virgin" in the Septuagint (the Greek version of the Jewish Bible) is commonly thought to simply mean "a young unmarried women" or "a young woman of marriageable age." However, Matthew 1:23 follows the Septuagint translation of parthenos, a subjective translation of the Hebrew, which means "virgin" as it is commonly used today. Hence, the entire doctrine of the virgin birth hangs on a possible mistranslation of the Hebrew word meaning "young unmarried woman." This is of import because most Christian theology depends on the literal virgin birth. This discrepancy is well-known amongst conservative Bible scholars, and is therefore, in my opinion, a conspiracy simply for the fact that they do not share this common knowledge with Christian laypeople.

The Trinity

The major proof text Christians use to defend the doctrine of the Trinity is the Comma Johanneum found in the 3rd edition of the Textus Receptus. This text was used to translate the King James Version. This portion of scripture did not find its way into the biblical texts until the 7th century. It was never mentioned by any early Church Fathers. I do give credit to modern Bible translators, as nearly all of them either footnote the problem with this portion of scripture, or omit it altogether. However, there are still strong bands of King James only proponents who, for some reason, insist the scripture in question should remain in the English translations. I assume this is because it is the only explicit reference to the Trinity in the entire Bible.

Now, if we accept that the virgin birth and the Trinity are in serious question, what is left of the remainder of traditional Christian theology? Is it even possible to build a Christian theology without these foundational doctrines. I believe the answer is a resounding "No."

Peace,
Daniel




posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 11:17 AM
link   
I remember reading that somewhere, although I'll be frank and say I'd forgotten the details. It's an interesting chain of facts.

The fact is that inconsistencies or flat out proof that the bible is not as factual as many would have it, will never sway anything more than a small minority of Christians. The reason is, in my opinion, that there are already so many "what ifs" and outdated beliefs that you'd almost have to take it on faith to begin with.

There's nothing rational about the Christian faith to begin with. I'm guessing some would argue that these hiccups are small obstacles to test one's faith with. To me, they are simply another argument in favor of keeping an open mind.

[edit on 7-8-2009 by Oscitate]



posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 11:38 AM
link   
This term is virgin still used.

en.wikipedia.org...

Elizabeth I (7 September 1533 – 24 March 1603) was Queen of England and Queen of Ireland from 17 November 1558 until her death. Sometimes called the Virgin Queen, Gloriana, or Good Queen Bess, Elizabeth was the fifth and last monarch of the Tudor dynasty.


Well people referred to the Queen Elizabeth as a Virgin Goddess. It is no wonder.



posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 12:16 PM
link   
I don't understand your point. Are you trying to disprove the virign birth and whether the doctrine of the Trinity is valid?

Just to argue a point. There is not the word Trinity in any translation that I know of. Certainly not in the original Hebrew or Greek. There is a lot of dispute about such a thing as the Trinity among some divisions of Christianity today. I personally believe the Son is subject to the Father so I'm not sure why the idea of the Trinity is an issue.

On the virgin birth. Several times in the old testament prophecies stated birth would be by a virgin. I could look up but not inclined to do so right now.



posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by dakota1s2
I don't understand your point. Are you trying to disprove the virign birth and whether the doctrine of the Trinity is valid?

Just to argue a point. There is not the word Trinity in any translation that I know of. Certainly not in the original Hebrew or Greek. There is a lot of dispute about such a thing as the Trinity among some divisions of Christianity today. I personally believe the Son is subject to the Father so I'm not sure why the idea of the Trinity is an issue.

On the virgin birth. Several times in the old testament prophecies stated birth would be by a virgin. I could look up but not inclined to do so right now.


My point is pretty clear - to present the fact that the virgin birth and Trinity are not necessarily taught in scripture (the original languages and earliest copies, that is). I know the word Trinity is not in any translation, but most Christians would agree that belief in the Trinity is a necessary dogma in order to classify oneself as Christian - see the historic creeds.

If you're not sure why the Trinity is an issue, I do not understand why you'd classify yourself as a Christian. A huge problem I have with many "Christians" is that they've defined the word to fit their belief system to the point that it really doesn't mean anything anymore.

I think my whole point on the differences between the Hebrew word for virgin and the Greek word used in the Septuagint went right over your head. If the OT prophesies stated that the Messiah would be born of a virgin, then the writers meant "a young woman," not "a woman who had never had sex."

Peace,
Daniel

[edit on 7-8-2009 by pdpayne0418]



posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 12:53 PM
link   
We will never be able to prove the virgin birth, it's simply a matter of faith.

It should mean something, however, that the early church professed both the virgin birth and the trinity as evidenced by the Apostles Creed and the Nicene Creed which are thought to originate in the second and fourth centuries respectively.


These sentiments were defended before the bible was even compiled as reflected in the various councils of the early church. To put it another way,
Christians believe these things because even very early Christians believed them. Don't get me wrong, the bible is a most revered source of Christian theology but it's definitely not the only one.



posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 12:56 PM
link   
No it didn't go right over my head. Without using the word in hebrew for virgin, the old testament says a woman that had never been touched by man... Whatever you want to call that.

I consider myself a Christian because I believe the Son(Jesus) is the only way to salvation. All the added,subtracted, mistranslated,misquoted verses in the various translations after Hebrew and Greek have nothing to do with that. I don't really care what others who would sit in judgement over my use of that term for me, think. Not all christians think in the terms for the Trinity that you use for us, as valid. Same way as death, or hell.
Some of us think death is really that. Knowing nothing until the resurrection.
Some of us think that there is no such place as Hell as described by many christians.
Sorry that I can't or won't take the time to verbalize explicitly enough why some of us think differently than most "Christians."



posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 12:58 PM
link   
reply to post by pdpayne0418
 


In the Hebrew world, women who were found to not be virgins on their wedding night were executed, or in later times, put away to hide the shame of the family and the Husband to be. So essentially, in their world, a young unmarried woman was "supposed" to be a virgin.

As far as the trinity goes, in Genesis, God uses a singular noun for Himself in the same sentence as a plural verb ascribing the actions to Himself. You also have Jesus in the New Testament speaking to the people telling them "Before Abraham was, I AM!" This is a reference to God's name in the old testament, Jesus was claiming Godhood when He said this. That is why the Jews cried out blasphemy and sought to kill Him for what would be blasphemy for a common man, but He slipped away. One of the best example of the Trinity at work are these verses from Matthew Chapter 3

"And when Jesus was baptized, he went up immediately from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and alighting on him; 17 and lo, a voice from heaven, saying, "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased."

This shows the Son, Father, and Spirit all in seperate places. These verses, combined with 1 John, not to mention other verses that show that Jesus was present at creation:
("9In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God; 3 all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made. 4 In him was life, and the life was the light of men" -excerpt from John) all lend support to each other, and strengthens the Trinity argument.

Taken seperately, they can mean different things. But taken all together, in context, they give you a better perspective on the whole picture. That He is one God in essence, with three different persons.



posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by pdpayne0418
 



The Virgin Birth


Instead of getting into the translations which is a lot of work and since it's been discussed before here many times, I'll just say this: In the Old Testament book of Isaiah, the prophecy gave a sign. The 'sign' would be that a virgin would give birth. Think about it: What kind of sign would it be for a regular young woman to give birth? That happens countless times a day.


The Trinity

It was never mentioned by any early Church Fathers.


That's not true: 1, 2, 3, etc.



posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 01:19 PM
link   
I pointed out the mistranslations. Instead of going on and on about faith and other implicit passages for these doctrines, why not deal with the mistranslations I put out there? And why trust a book that may be interpreted in so many different ways?

Although the argument bugs me to death, I think a poster a few posts ago was correct when he accented the importance of faith needed to be a Christian. There is no evidence. There is only a book, that were faith not an ingredient, would obviously be called just another piece of fiction.

As a sidenote to the Christians posting replies on this thread: why not believe in the many other stories of mythological virgin births? Why just the Christ story for you? When using faith as your evidence, it seems to me that could work just as well for so many other mythologies.

Peace,
Daniel



posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by AshleyD
reply to post by pdpayne0418
 



The Virgin Birth


Instead of getting into the translations which is a lot of work and since it's been discussed before here many times, I'll just say this: In the Old Testament book of Isaiah, the prophecy gave a sign. The 'sign' would be that a virgin would give birth. Think about it: What kind of sign would it be for a regular young woman to give birth? That happens countless times a day.


The Trinity

It was never mentioned by any early Church Fathers.


That's not true: 1, 2, 3, etc.


I am not sure if you are being purposefully deceitful by taking my words out of context, but it sure seems so since you snipped my entire Trinity post, and only wrote,"It was never mentioned by any early Church Fathers." Unless your reading comprehension skills are virtually nil, you would have realized I was referring to the absence of mention of the I John passage in the writings of the early Church Fathers - not the doctrine of the Trinity.

Peace,
Daniel



posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 01:50 PM
link   
The Bible states that Mary had a husband, Joesph. So there, your translation of virgin being a young unmarried woman, is obviously not the correct one. Sloved?

Trinity Vs. Oneness (which I believe)

Deuteronomy 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is ONE Lord.

Matthew 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost

They knew then the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost was Jesus.


1John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

=God

1John 5:8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

=man

Your spirit, water and blood do not make you three persons.

The Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are all one. So how can you therefore say they were at three different places. God is omnipresence.

Using John to "argue" your view of the Trinity proves you are blind. Those who believe on the name of Jesus Christ walk in the peace of the gospel. Plus, if you continue to read John, oneness is revealed.


John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.
8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.
9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.


It does not say the only child God had. It states the only time the Lord God produced Himself into flesh. That chapter states that those who believe on Jesus become the sons of God.

I am a son, a brother and an uncle. But, I am only one and one name.


Jesus was the Father throughout all time. When He came in flesh, He became a Son. And when He died on the cross, He left us the gift of the Holy Ghost.

How many of you have been filled with the Holy Spirit, with evidence of speaking in Tongues? It is Bible: 1Corinthians 12:3 Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.

If you wish to make it to Heaven, I charge you to pray to God that He bless you with the gift of the Holy Spirit and bless your mind with the knowledge of truth.

God bless you all.



posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by daysofnoe
The Bible states that Mary had a husband, Joesph. So there, your translation of virgin being a young unmarried woman, is obviously not the correct one. Sloved?


Um, no, not solved. She supposedly got pregnant (my opinion is by a Roman soldier) before she and Joseph were married. Hence, Joseph's dilemma.

And I do not want to waste my time talking about your Oneness Pentecostalist views, since my OP was on the I John passage, not about whether the Trinity is true or not.

Peace,
Daniel



posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 02:57 PM
link   
Mary did get pregnant without sexual intercourse but she wasn't a vigin...maybe you all do not relate to the Annunaki account...

What do you call getting pregnant without sexual intercourse in our modern time?

artificial insemination

and that is why they call Jesus/Christ the son of God..

God is a term used by the ancients to describe our creators..they were sent from above ( space) and came down to earth and displayed powers and miracles ( advanced technology)...therfore were considered 'gods'..

The Annunaki race from Nibiru ( as translated from the Dead Sea Scrolls) looked like "us"

Thus the Genesis account is one of cloning ( DNA mixing)...the bible states that the god(s) MADE mankind; that is not reproduction...

"Let US make mankind in OUR image according to OUR likings..." hmmm



posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 03:03 PM
link   
Joseph had no dilemma. He was visited by an angel of God to be informed of what happened. If that never happened Joseph would have stoned Mary.


My veiws are not religious views, they are truths God has opened my mind to.


Do not waste your time. One day your knee will bow and your tongue shall confess. And ignorance will not be an excuse.



posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by ButterCookie

"Let US make mankind in OUR image according to OUR likings..." hmmm



He is talking to the angels. If you read the next verse you would see that it says, "God created man in HIS own image."



posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by daysofnoe
 


Lets be logical....

So you mean to imply that the angels look like God? I mean, it didn't say mankind in our IMAGES...and why would he say 'us' unless angels are on the same level....

And give me a clear definition of angel....if it means the soul of a deceased person that reigns with God, then remember there were no people here at the part of Genesis...

And the reason it later says " And God made man in his image" is because it only took one of the Annunaki to clone a man....remember they were all referred to as 'gods'....

[edit on 7-8-2009 by ButterCookie]

[edit on 7-8-2009 by ButterCookie]



posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by pdpayne0418
 


Ah, sorry. I was rushed and reading too fast. lol The virgin/trinity debate has been had around here so many times I no longer read threads as closely as I probably should because they're just the same things over and over. But, yes. You are correct. That specific passage is not in the older texts. It is a famous interpolation that skeptics of Christianity often point out.

The way I feel about that is, yes, I do get angry that they had to squeeze in a passage based on doctrine instead of simply translating the passage as is. However, if that was the only passage we have that endorses the Trinitarian doctrine, we'd be in trouble. But there is SO MUCH more in the Bible and in the writings of the early church fathers that document the early belief of the trinity. I feel skeptics who use this and only this in an attempt to debunk the historical validity of the Trinitarian doctrine are being intellectually dishonest.

They point out this famously altered passage and say, 'Ah ha! The belief in the trinity is bogus and was only added in/believed later in Christianity!' when in reality, that passage is a problem- not the Trinitarian doctrine as a whole.

By you singling out that one verse, I'm thinking that means you acknowledge all the other historical documentary evidence that validates the belief in the Trinity. In that case, why do you think this one passage outweighs everything else?



posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 03:59 PM
link   
'Faith' is just a word for 'no evidence'.

When we are told to accept open faced lies, we are told to have faith.

Faith is the absence of logic, and wanting to believe so badly that you would become willing to dismiss evidence and facts.



posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by AshleyD
reply to post by pdpayne0418
 


Ah, sorry. I was rushed and reading too fast. lol The virgin/trinity debate has been had around here so many times I no longer read threads as closely as I probably should because they're just the same things over and over. But, yes. You are correct. That specific passage is not in the older texts. It is a famous interpolation that skeptics of Christianity often point out.

The way I feel about that is, yes, I do get angry that they had to squeeze in a passage based on doctrine instead of simply translating the passage as is. However, if that was the only passage we have that endorses the Trinitarian doctrine, we'd be in trouble. But there is SO MUCH more in the Bible and in the writings of the early church fathers that document the early belief of the trinity. I feel skeptics who use this and only this in an attempt to debunk the historical validity of the Trinitarian doctrine are being intellectually dishonest.

They point out this famously altered passage and say, 'Ah ha! The belief in the trinity is bogus and was only added in/believed later in Christianity!' when in reality, that passage is a problem- not the Trinitarian doctrine as a whole.

By you singling out that one verse, I'm thinking that means you acknowledge all the other historical documentary evidence that validates the belief in the Trinity. In that case, why do you think this one passage outweighs everything else?


There is not so much more in the Bible that relates to the Trinity. There are certainly verses that fundamentalist interpret as speaking of the Trinity, but most Bible commentators worth their salt (please realize here, I am not going to get into a discussion of Bible commentators beyond this) realize these verses are not speaking of the Trinity. And if you take the writings of Church Fathers as part of your evidence for the Trinity, I am left speechless - do you also consider their writing inspired and infallible?

Peace,
Daniel




top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join