Something in Matthew and Luke has me puzzled

reply to post by XplanetX

I could copy and paste everything from that particular web page but I did not want to bore all of the other people in this forum. I will not waste my time articulating an argument that has already been succinctly made by others, read the link and get educated on the topic of the immacluate conception concerning Jesus.

Philosophy. Thanks, but no thanks, I can read what the Bible says and does not say.
I have not seen any argument that was not a fabrication or a misrepresentation of scripture.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by XplanetX

 

I could copy and paste everything from that particular web page but I did not want to bore all of the other people in this forum. I will not waste my time articulating an argument that has already been succinctly made by others, read the link and get educated on the topic of the immacluate conception concerning Jesus.

Philosophy. Thanks, but no thanks, I can read what the Bible says and does not say.
I have not seen any argument that was not a fabrication or a misrepresentation of scripture.

I know now that you will not admit it in this thread, but I hope for the sake of any future listeners that you change your erronous view on this matter.

reply to post by XplanetX
What thread I say something on does not matter to me.
You don't have anything to convince me that you are right and you don't even explain how you are right. I think the people who hold your view are brain dead because they can not come up with one original thought and just paste stuff off of their cult approved blogs.

some interesting posts here so thanks for that, I now have some questions/points to add


Why does Matthew bother to add the genealogy leading from Abraham to Joseph?


Luke also gives a genealogy leading from Abraham to Joseph but its different to that given in Matthew?

To my sceptics eye, it looks like the virgin birth story was added to cover the slur on Jesus’ origin
Also there that whole “betulah”, for a virgin, and, `”almah”, for a young woman thing


And it does raise other questions:

Luke 1:26-38
26And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth,
27To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.
28And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.

So after that son of god/nephilim/flood thing, we again have angels fluttering around making women pregnant

29And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be.
30And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God.
31And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.
32He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:
33And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.

And how come Mary wasn’t asked if she wanted to be pregnant isn’t this rape?

34Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?
35And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. 36And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.
37For with God nothing shall be impossible.

Who’s this Elisabeth?
This looks like it was added to prove god can get any girl pregnant if he feels like it

Raccasan started this thread about how could god be tempted by something god already owned, seeing how Jesus was God.
Apparently there is a cult who believe that it was not possible for Jesus to have been tempted, since it was impossible for him to have sinned, being God.
I believe that Jesus was a man and could be tempted and could have sinned, but did not.
Though Jesus, before he was Jesus the man, dwelt in heaven with God and was His Son, that being a son had nothing to do with things like DNA, since God is a spirit, and His son would have been, too.
Jesus becoming a man did not require him to be fathered by God a second time. Jesus had a biological father in order to fulfill prophecy concerning the seed of David and the proper designation of Messiah.
Also God has creative abilities such as speaking things into existance, such as how the entire universe coming into being. God could declare Jesus as being His son, and it would be so. This happened at the baptism of Jesus, that God said this is my son, so if there was any doubt, then that should have cleared it up.
Jesus was conceived in a miraculous way, where Mary, the mother of Jesus had not been with a man. The power of God through spiritual means allowed this to happen. Today we understand this well that there is an ovum in the woman's uterus that joins with a sperm from the man to create a zygote. We also know that this can be done without the two people ever being together. Mary could be pregnant with Joseph's son without having committed some sort of sin. The Book of Hebrews tells us that Jesus was born in a natural way, which to me would men that there was not a tiny god implanted in his mother or that he just sprang forth from somewhere without traveling through the birth canal.

I read some time back that it was odd that the book of Enoch wasn’t part of the bible, since it was probably the best reference to the nephilim/flood story available, especially since the whole nephilim thing is such an integral part of the bible

Warning idle speculation ahead:
But what if the book of Enoch was left out of the bible because it would raise too many questions about the angel and Mary and therefore Jesus?

OoooH
What if there really was a Jesus but he was a nephilim and he started a sinister world domination type blood line?

What if someone from this blood line started christianity and made a point of keeping the book of Enoch out of the bible to some how hide this question?

reply to post by jmdewey60

The person that Jesus was before becoming a man had always been around, as far as I am concerned.

If Jesus was not the Creator, He is a part of creation. John clearly says in the first chapter of his gospel that Jesus is the Word of God, and that He is God. In Revelation 1:8 Jesus says He is the Alpha and Omega, "the first and the last", the Almighty.

Then tucked right in there in Revelation 1:17-18 He again says He is the "First and the Last", then says 'Behold I was DEAD..."

When did God Almighty die?

A: At Calvary, 2,000 years ago on a wooden cross.

You can't make up rules for God. God does things that we can't understand.

Who is making up rules? It's the plain reading of the text. You claim modern translations deny Christ's divinity, THAT'S the point!! Modern versions rely on the Westcott and Hort text, these men rejected the divinity of Christ. They also rejected atonement purchased by His blood, and they rejected the virgin birth.

Saying Joseph can not be the genetic father of Jesus is putting your own restrictions on God.

Are you kidding me? The text doesn't say Joseph was the genetic father of Jesus, only modern versions based on Westcott and Hort say this because they reject the divinity of Christ.

reply to post by jmdewey60

I can read what the Bible says and does not say.

Apparently you can only read what Westcott and Hort believed as was written from Gnostic Alexandrian Codecies that the early church called "corrupted". It's completely out of the question for you to think God entered His creation as the man Jesus Christ. He was not only 100% human but was also 100% divine.

reply to post by racasan

To my sceptics eye, it looks like the virgin birth story was added to cover the slur on Jesus’ origin
Also there that whole “betulah”, for a virgin, and, `”almah”, for a young woman thing.

In 270 B.C. the 70 greatest Hebrew speaking rabbis completed the Hebrew bible into Greek, called the "Septuagint" (LXX). In the verse in Isaiah these Hebrew rabbis translated it as "virgin".

Were they wrong too?

reply to post by NOTurTypical


That would depend on what their motives where for doing the job, its my understanding that the Jews don’t recognise Jesus or at least his divinity

so what rabbis did the job?

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by racasan

 

To my sceptics eye, it looks like the virgin birth story was added to cover the slur on Jesus’ origin
Also there that whole “betulah”, for a virgin, and, `”almah”, for a young woman thing.

In 270 B.C. the 70 greatest Hebrew speaking rabbis completed the Hebrew bible into Greek, called the "Septuagint" (LXX). In the verse in Isaiah these Hebrew rabbis translated it as "virgin".

Were they wrong too?

Dear G-d. I always hate when Christians use Jews and rabbis as examples in promoting their faith.
Rabbi Tovia Singer answered this question from Christian regarding Isaiah 7:14 and discuses the issue surrounding the verse. I put the question in the quote and the answer in the 'Ex-text' boxes.
Source

Rav Singer, Why did you say Christians mistranslate the scripture by saying "almah" doesn't mean "virgin," when their translation of virgin comes from the Septuagint's "parthenos," not the Hebrew "almah"? "Parthenos" does mean "virgin." They didn't mistranslate but used a different text. This is pretty well known, did you not know? I don't think this is a very good thing to have on your page.

Your assertion that Matthew quoted from the Septuagint is the most repeated argument missionaries use in their attempt to explain away Matthew's stunning mistranslation of the Hebrew word alma. This well-worn response, however, raises far more problems than it answers. To begin with, your contention that "parthenos does mean virgin" is incorrect. The Greek word parthenos can mean either a young woman or a virgin; for this reason the Greek word parthenos can be found in the Septuagint referring to someone who is not a virgin. For example, in Genesis 34:2-4, Shechem raped Dinah, the daughter of the patriarch Jacob, yet the Septuagint refers to her as a parthenos after she had been defiled.

The Bible reports that after Shechem had violated her, "his heart desired Dinah, and he loved the damsel (LXX: parthenos) and he spoke tenderly to the damsel (LXX: parthenos)." Clearly, Dinah was not a virgin after having been raped, and yet she was referred to as a parthenos, the very same word the Septuagint used to translate the Hebrew word alma in Isaiah 7:14. Moreover, the Septuagint in our hands is not a Jewish document, but rather a Christian one.

The original Septuagint, created 2,200 years ago by 72 Jewish translators, was a Greek translation of the Five Books of Moses alone. It therefore did not contain prophetic Books of the Bible such as Isaiah, which you asserted that Matthew quoted from. The Septuagint as we have it today, which includes the Prophets and Writings as well, is a product of the church, not the Jewish people.

In fact, the Septuagint remains the official Old Testament of the Greek Orthodox Church, and the manuscripts that consist of our Septuagint today date to the third century C.E. The fact that additional books known as the Apocrypha, which are uniquely sacred to the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Church, are found in the Septuagint should raise a red flag to those inquiring into the Jewishness of the Septuagint. Christians such as Origin and Lucian (third and fourth century C.E.) had an enormous impact on creating and shaping the Septuagint that missionaries use to advance their untenable arguments against Judaism. In essence, the present Septuagint is largely a post-second century Christian translation of the Bible, used zealously by the church throughout the centuries as an indispensable apologetic instrument to defend and sustain Christological alterations of the Jewish scriptures.

The fact that the original Septuagint translated by rabbis more than 22 centuries ago was only of the Pentateuch and not of prophetic books of the Bible such as Isaiah is confirmed by countless sources including the ancient Letter of Aristeas, which is the earliest attestation to the existence of the Septuagint. The Talmud also states this explicitly in Tractate Megillah (9a), and Josephus as well affirms that the Septuagint was a translation only of the Law of Moses in his preface to Antiquities of the Jews.1 Moreover, Jerome, a church father and Bible translator who could hardly be construed as friendly to Judaism, affirms Josephus' statement regarding the authorship of the Septuagint in his preface to The Book of Hebrew Questions.2 Likewise, the Anchor Bible Dictionary reports precisely this point in the opening sentence of its article on the Septuagint which states, "The word 'Septuagint,' (from Lat septuaginta = 70; hence the abbreviation LXX) derives from a story that 72 elders translated the Pentateuch into Greek; the term therefore applied originally only to those five books."3

n fact, Dr. F.F. Bruce, the preeminent professor of Biblical exegesis, keenly points out that, strictly speaking, the Septuagint deals only with the Pentateuch and not the whole Old Testament. Bruce writes, "The Jews might have gone on at a later time to authorize a standard text of the rest of the Septuagint, but . . . lost interest in the Septuagint altogether. With but few exceptions, every manuscript of the Septuagint which has come down to our day was copied and preserved in Christian, not Jewish, circles."4

Regarding your assertion that Matthew was quoting from the Septuagint, nowhere in the Book of Matthew does the word Septuagint appear, or, for that matter, is there any reference to a Greek translation of the Bible ever mentioned in all of the New Testament; and there is good reason for this. The first century church was well aware that a Jewish audience would be thoroughly unimpressed by a claim that Jesus' virgin birth could only be supported by a Greek translation of the Bible.

They understood that if Jews were to find their Christian message convincing, they would need to assert that it was the actual words of the prophet Isaiah that clearly foretold Mary's virgin conception, not from the words of a Greek translation. Therefore, in Matthew 1:22-23, the author of the first Gospel insists that it was "spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, 'Behold, a virgin shall be with child . . . .' " Matthew loudly makes the point that it was specifically the prophet's own words that proclaimed the virgin birth, not the words of any translator. Isaiah, of course, did not preach or write in Greek, and therefore the word parthenos never left the lips of the prophet throughout his life. All 66 chapters of the Book of Isaiah were spoken and then recorded in the Hebrew language alone. Matthew, however, was attempting to place in the mind of his intended Jewish reader that it was the words of prophet Isaiah himself which declared that the messiah would be born of a virgin. Nothing of course could be further from the truth.

Furthermore, this contention becomes even more preposterous when we consider that the same missionaries who attempt to explain away Matthew's mistranslation of the Hebrew word alma by claiming that Matthew used a Septuagint when he quoted Isaiah 7:14 also steadfastly maintain that the entire first Gospel was divinely inspired. That is to say, these same Christian missionaries insist that every word of the New Testament, Matthew included, was authored through the Holy Spirit and is therefore the living word of God. Are these evangelical apologists therefore claiming that God needed a Greek translation of the Bible and therefore quoted from the Septuagint? Did the passing of 500 years since His last book cause God to forget how to read Hebrew that He would need to rely on a translation? Why would God need to quote from the Septuagint?

Matthew's mistranslation of the Hebrew word alma was deliberate, not the result of his unwitting decision to quote from a defective Greek translation of the Bible. This is evidenced by the fact that the context of Isaiah 7:14 is not speaking of the birth of a messiah at all.5 This fact remains obvious even to the most casual reader of the seventh chapter of Isaiah. For Matthew, the prophet's original intent regarding the young woman in Isaiah 7:14 was entirely superseded by his fervid desire to somehow prove to the Jewish people that the virgin birth was prophesied in the Hebrew scriptures. Bear in mind that the author of the first Gospel -- more than any other writer in the New Testament -- shaped and contoured his treatise with the deliberate purpose of promoting Christianity among the Jews. In essence, Matthew was writing with a Jewish audience in mind. He understood that in order to convince the Jewish people to embrace Jesus as the messiah, it was essential to demonstrate his claim of the virgin birth from the Jewish scriptures. Luke, in contrast, was writing for a non-Jewish, Greek audience and therefore makes no attempt to support his version of the virgin birth from the Hebrew Bible.

In his attempt to promote numerous Christian creeds among the Jews, Matthew was faced with a serious quandary. How would he prove that Jesus was the messiah from the Jewish scriptures when there is no relationship between the Jesus of Nazareth of the New Testament and the messianic prophecies of the Jewish scriptures? How was he going to merge newly inculcated pagan myths, such as the virgin birth, into Christianity with a Hebrew Bible in which a belief in a virgin birth was unknown? In order to accomplish this daunting task, verses in the Hebrew scriptures were altered, misquoted, taken out of context, and mistranslated by the author of the Book of Matthew in order to make Jesus' life fit traditional Jewish messianic parameters, and to make traditional Jewish messianic parameters fit the life of Jesus. In essence, he had to claim that it was the Hebrew prophets themselves who foretold that Jesus was the messiah. It is therefore no coincidence that no other writer in the New Testament misuses the Jewish scriptures with abandon to the extent that Matthew does throughout his Gospel.

The irony of all this Bible manipulation is that the first Gospel was written for the sole purpose of convincing a Jewish audience that Jesus was the promised messiah. Yet, if the Book of Matthew had never been written, the church would almost certainly have been more effective in its effort at evangelizing the Jews. In essence, had promoters of Christianity avoided the kind of scripture tampering that can be found in virtually every chapter in the Book of Matthew, the church might have enjoyed far more success among the Jews as did previous religions that targeted the Jewish people for conversion.

For example, the priests of Baal did not attempt to bolster the validity of their idol worship by misquoting the texts of the Hebrew Bible, as Matthew did. Yet, the Bible reports that Baal gained enormous popularity among the Jewish people. In contrast, once the nation of Israel was confronted with a corruption of their sacred scriptures by authors and apologists of the New Testament, their apostasy to Christianity for the most part became unpalatable and the Jewish people throughout history remained the most difficult nation for the church to convert. Consequently, whereas the Gospels of Mark, Luke, and John enjoyed overwhelming success among their targeted gentile audiences, the Gospel of Matthew played an enormous role in the ultimate failure of the church to effectively convert the Jews to Christianity, at least the knowledgeable ones.

reply to post by racasan


Thank you for studying and comparing different parts of the gospels.

I agree with you, if people would listen instead of having such zealous opinions on religion they might come to understand that Jesus was the Son of Man. He was a man, but in his mind he knew himself to be the Son of God. He knew because he was. It is this faith that keeps me tight, so why is the world arguing? Is it not because they love God but because they don't love man?

reply to post by NOTurTypical

In Revelation 1:8 Jesus says He is the Alpha and Omega, "the first and the last", the Almighty.

This is funny that you bring this up again, when I thoroughly refuted this argument, in another thread without you having any response.
So your modus operandi is to just ignore the evidence and wait to bring it up again. Almighty is the first and the last, and that is God. So your sole argument is, "If it says God, it means Jesus, since there is a Trinity." which is a circular argument.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Who is making up rules? It's the plain reading of the text. You claim modern translations deny Christ's divinity, THAT'S the point!!

"It is plain" is not an argument. Explain what is plain. If it is "plain" it should be easy to explain.

Are you kidding me? The text doesn't say Joseph was the genetic father of Jesus, only modern versions based on Westcott and Hort say this because they reject the divinity of Christ.

Mathew 1:1
This is the record of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.

You don't see the connection here, between the two words? genetic and genealogy. Genealogy is looking at the genetic makeup of a person. So Mathew one one is saying "Jesus is the genetic son of David, and let us examine the record."

Apparently you can only read what Westcott and Hort believed as was written from Gnostic Alexandrian Codecies that the early church called "corrupted". It's completely out of the question for you to think God entered His creation as the man Jesus Christ. He was not only 100% human but was also 100% divine.

This is just you and your "evil Bible" theory that you repeat and is the outward icon of your cult. A party slogan which you say for loyalty to that party, but not anything you could actually demonstrate to be true.

reply to post by ManOfGod267


Thanks ManOfGod267 it looks like you are right the Septuagint was only a translation of the Five Books of Moses, these Christians are sneaky monkeys

I did read somewhere that the Jews never did believe in the gospels – apparently there are some big factual errors in them concerning Jewish life/beliefs and so on.

But I’m curious, what do you make of the gospels?

For my self, reading Matthew 2 makes its clear that the Jesus myth is simply a re-telling of the old sun god story

I suspect that the Roman Catholic Church (catholic – meaning general) was just a Roman attempt at creating an all inclusive state religion made from the many different religions that where in the empire at that time, so Judaic beliefs and Greek/Roman sun worship for example

And this is why Christianity incorporates pagan holy days and why churches where built on older pagan sites and why Roman Catholic Church had to use terror tactics to get people to believe any of it.

reply to post by racasan


Well, I'm not an expert in the Christian faith. But other faiths then Judaism are irrelevant to Judaism and Jewish practices. Judaism has commandments and laws for Jews to be very faithful to G-d and His word. That is why you will come across a lot of articles advising Jews to keep 'kosher' (Jewish) and only respect followers of other faiths. When I was basically an Atheist I have read a lot on Jesus and the Christian faith being influenced from past faiths that worshiped or used the Sun one way or another. It's truly how you view it all in one.

reply to post by ManOfGod267

Dear G-d. I always hate when Christians use Jews and rabbis as examples in promoting their faith.
Rabbi Tovia Singer answered this question from Christian regarding Isaiah 7:14 and discuses the issue surrounding the verse. I put the question in the quote and the answer in the 'Ex-text' boxes.

Well that's brilliant! Please explain to all of us then how a young woman conceiving and bearing a child is a miraculous "sign" from God.

reply to post by racasan

Thanks ManOfGod267 it looks like you are right the Septuagint was only a translation of the Five Books of Moses, these Christians are sneaky monkeys.

No, he fails to tell you that the Septuagint was completed in stages. And that the same Josephus says that those making the translation were "inspired" by God. I don't know if I agree with that, but I do have faith that these Hebrew scholars knew Hebrew.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Who is making up rules? It's the plain reading of the text. You claim modern translations deny Christ's divinity, THAT'S the point!!

"It is plain" is not an argument. Explain what is plain. If it is "plain" it should be easy to explain.

Are you kidding me? The text doesn't say Joseph was the genetic father of Jesus, only modern versions based on Westcott and Hort say this because they reject the divinity of Christ.

Mathew 1:1
This is the record of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.

You don't see the connection here, between the two words? genetic and genealogy. Genealogy is looking at the genetic makeup of a person. So Mathew one one is saying "Jesus is the genetic son of David, and let us examine the record."

Apparently you can only read what Westcott and Hort believed as was written from Gnostic Alexandrian Codecies that the early church called "corrupted". It's completely out of the question for you to think God entered His creation as the man Jesus Christ. He was not only 100% human but was also 100% divine.

This is just you and your "evil Bible" theory that you repeat and is the outward icon of your cult. A party slogan which you say for loyalty to that party, but not anything you could actually demonstrate to be true.

Mary also is a descendant of David. Moot point JM. The Word declares that Christ is BOTH the root and offspring of David. How can Jesus be both the root and the offspring of David at the same time?

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Sure anything for you my friend. I don't hate you just view the bible differently. Everyone has their opinion on the bible. Either Isaiah's (Rashi) or Ahaz (Radak) young wife will bear a son and, through prophetic inspiration, will give him the name Immanuel, which means "G-d is with Us." thus in effect prophesying that Judah will be saved from the threat of Rezin and Pekah.