Reflectorites
On Fri, 24 Nov 2000 05:52:23 EST, AutismUK@aol.com wrote:
>SJ>I have had to split this post into two posts because of its size. I will
>answer all Paul's (and anyone else's) posts in sequential order, so I will not
>respond to subsequent replies until I deal with his original posts.
>
>Due to the format of Paul's posts, I had difficulty working out which of his
>points were new ones, so apologies if I answer the same point twice.
>PR>I will do it like this to assist you. If you have a better idea (I can't
>abide >>>>>>>>) I'll use that.
Thanks to Paul. But I like ">>>>>>>>" because it is a good way of
knowing how many times a paragraph has been repeated and therefore
when it should be deleted.
>SJ>Also, I would like to explain that when I use the word "Jews" I do not
>mean anything anti-Semitic by it. ...
>I apologise for the delay, which, because of a number of reasons at my end,
>is unavoidable.
>PR>No problem.
>SJ>>That is almost self-evidently true! If one was a non-Christian and then came
>>to believe that: 1) the Old Testament predicted 700 years before that
>>someone would be born in Bethlehem "who will be ruler over Israel, whose
>>origins are from of old, from ancient times" and 2) that Jesus was in fact
>>born in Bethlehem, who claimed to be the King of the Jews and that he
>>was God, then one would almost certainly become a Christian!
>>PR>This is self evidently not the point. Your original claim is that these
>>prophecies are obviously true to non-Christians and that people are
>>deliberately ignoring them.
>SJ>Where did I claim that "these prophecies are obviously true to non-
>Christians"? I actually said that "Such prophecy is, of course, not absolute
>proof, and those who deny outright the very possibility of the supernatural
>no doubt have some ingenious ways of getting around it...":
>PR>Your original post, and indeed this ones suggest at best that they are
>strongly indicative of the truth of Christianity. By "obviously true" I
>meant that someone would look at them neutrally and conclude that
>your prophecies are sufficient to become a Christian.
I don't claim this is prophecies generally. But I do claim it of some
prophecies, like Mic 5:2 and Dn 9:24-27.
>SJ>>Although this has generally been off-topic, since Chris has raised it, I
>>will post some of the clearest evidence of the existence of the supernatural
in
>>the Bible involving predictive prophecy. Such prophecy is, of course, not
>>absolute proof, and those who deny outright the very possibility of the
>>supernatural no doubt have some ingenious ways of getting around it
>>(apart from outright `head-in-the-sand' denial). [...]
>PR>Your post was a claim that these are clear fulfilled prophecies. They
>are nothing of the sort.
SJ>My claim indeed is that "these" (i.e. Micah 5:2 and to a lesser extent,
>Daniel 9:25-27 "are clear fulfilled prophecies" to an unbiased truth-seeker,
>and that those who deny them do so because of a prior philosophical
>commitment to naturalism and anti-theism.
>
>But I do not claim that all prophecy in general (and Messianic prophecy in
>particular) is as clear. There are several good reasons for this, one being
>that prophecy is primarily intended for the people of God.
>PR>I don't think these are clear. They certainly become less so when one
>looks at the construction of the Gospels and the complete story of
>the 70 weeks.
Disagree. This so called "construction of the Gospels" in the hands of
an anti-supernaturalist becomes a *re*-"construction of the Gospels"
or rather a *de*-"construction of the Gospels"!
And the "complete story of the 70 weeks" would be OK, except a
philosophical naturalist would invent his/her own naturalistic "story" to
account for it.
>>SJ>But historically it is untrue. the Apostle Matthew who wrote this
>PR>You see, this isn't "historically true" either, as you really should know.
>The authors of the gospels aren't "known" and we certainly don't know it is
>the "Apostle Matthew".
See what I mean about *de*-"construction of the Gospels"!
>SJ>It is true that none of the four gospel writers appended their name to the
>gospels that bear their name. But there is good evidence that the gospels
>were written by the authors whose names they bear. If all four gospels
>were named after apostles, it could be argued that this was an attempt to
>give them credibility. But two out of the four gospels (Mark and Luke) are
>not named after an apostle. It the case the first gospel no other author has
>ever been suggested except that of Matthew:
>
> "Patristic tradition is unanimous that the author was Matthew and
> no other 'Matthew' is suggested than the disciple of that name
> whose call is described in 9:9." (France R.T., "Matthew: An
> Introduction and Commentary," 1985, p.30).
>PR>Precisely. It is tradition. That is all.
There is nothing inherently wrong with "tradition". One of the first
phases of liberal *de*-"construction of the Gospels" is for the critic to
try cast doubt on the reliability of tradition in order to substitute his
own tradition on how the gospels were constructed.
PR>The idea that it is true because
>no other name has been suggested is a bit of a nonsense because
>any other name would just be made up.
Note the unquestioned assumption that it just can't have been
Matthew!
The internal evidence of the gospel of Matthew fits the description of
Matthew the Jewish tax collector.
If he wasn't its author, there is no reason why the gospel should have
Matthew's name attached to it, since he was not a prominent apostle.
Indeed the only prominent apostle whose name is attached to a gospel
is John. Two of the names attached to gospels were not even apostles:
Mark and Luke.
PR>There is, however, a lot of
>scholarship pointing out that the Gospel authors are unknown.
One doesn't need "a lot of scholarship" to point that out. It is conceded
by *everyone* that "the Gospel authors are unknown" in the sense that
they don't bear the authors' names. However, the early Church ascribed
them to the authors whose names they bear and the internal evidence of
each of them fits those ascriptions.
>SJ>was a Jew to his fellow Jews and he was reflecting their common Jewish
>expectation at the time that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem.
>PR>And this isn't true either.
>SJ>What's the "either" relate to? Paul seems to have converted a "we ... don't
>know" into a "it isn't true"!
>PR>No, what I meant was that Jews were not expecting a Messiah in
>Bethlehem.
>SJ>But again, the evidence is that it was. It was prophesied in the Old
>Testament (Micah 5:2) for starters, and it appears there is reference to
>this in Jewish writings, as the Jewish Christian Edersheim states:
>
> "To Bethlehem as the birthplace of Messiah, not only Old
> Testament prediction (Micah v.2), but the testimony of Rabbinic
> teaching, unhesitatingly pointed." (Edersheim A., "The Life and
> Times of Jesus the Messiah," 1886, p.181).
>PR>It is highly debatable whether Micah 5:2 is a prophecy of the birthplace
>of the Messiah.
It is not "debatable" *at all*. There is no other place in the Scripture
where the birthplace of the Messiah is predicted. And the *uniform
testimony of both the NT and Jewish tradition is that Micah 5:2 is a
prophecy of the birthplace of the Messiah, in Bethlehem.
PR>There are other alternatives.
I note that Paul does not say what these "alternatives" are.
PR>It is also very easy to say
>that such evidence exists without stating what it is.
I *have* produced evidence and Paul just presents unsubstantiated
assertions. Three gospel writers Matthew, Luke and John say that the
Messiah will be born in Bethlehem:
Mt 2:1 "After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the
time of King Herod, Magi from the east came to Jerusalem"
Lk 2:4-7 "So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in
Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he
belonged to the house and line of David. He went there to register
with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him and was
expecting a child. While they were there, the time came for the baby
to be born, and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son. She wrapped
him in cloths and placed him in a manger, because there was no
room for them in the inn.
Jn 7:42 "Does not the Scripture say that the Christ will come from
David's family and from Bethlehem, the town where David lived?"
Edersheim was a Hebrew speaking Jewish Christian who was familiar
with the Jewish Talmudic writings. I cited his testimony as an expert
witness as itself evidence that "the testimony of Rabbinic teaching,
unhesitatingly pointed."
In addition, I have found a place where Edersheim gives a reference
from the Jewish Talmud to the Messiah being born in Bethlehem:
"As shown by the rendering of the Targum Jonathan, the prediction
in Micah v. 2 was at the time universally understood as pointing to
Bethlehem, as the birthplace of the Messiah. That such was the
general expectation, appears from the Talmud, (Jer. Ber. ii.4, p.5a)
where, in an imaginary conversation between an Arab and a Jew,
Bethlehem is authoritatively named as Messiah's birthplace."
(Edersheim A., "The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah," 1886,
Vol. I, p.206).
>PR>Only Christians think Isiah predicts a Virgin
>Birth. It is very simple to do.
>SJ>Same as above. Of *course* only Christians think Isaiah predicts a Virgin
>Birth. If one believed it, one would almost certainly become a Christian,
>if one wasn't already.
>PR>But it isn't actually convincing to anyone who is neutral, let alone an
>atheist is it ?
Note how Paul slips in the word "convincing", with all its connotations
of absolute proof. All I claimed is that it was "evidence" to someone
who is *genuinely* neutral.
It is certainly not *evidence* to an atheist who would rule out in
advance that there even *could* be evidence of predictive prophecy.
PR>And Isiah doesn't predict a Virgin Birth.
Here is what Isaiah 7:14 says:
Isa 7:14 (AV) "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign;
Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his
name Immanuel."
It's even better in the Septuagint:
Isa 7:14 (LXX) "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign;
behold a virgin shall conceive IN THE WOMB, and shall bring
forth a son and thou shalt call his name Emmanuel." (my emphasis)
Since the "in the womb" is redundant, and not in the original Hebrew,
the LXX translators presumably added it to emphasise that a virginal
conception was intended.
>SJ>Actually I might be wrong on this. According to Zacharias, Moslems also
>accept the Virgin Birth of Christ:
>
> "But even beyond the Hebrew disposition and the family's claim,
> possibly the most astounding affirmation of the virgin birth comes
> from one religion that for centuries has attempted to stand against
> the Christian gospel, Islam. Even the Koran, written six hundred
> years after Jesus, affirmed His virgin birth (see Surah 19.19-21).."
> (Zacharias R.K., "Jesus Among Other Gods, 2000, p.39)
>PR>I would be very wary of accepting what Zacharias says as factual,
>especially as (typically of an apologist)
Note Paul's "shoot the messenger" way of dealing with contrary
evidence, especially his words "typically of an apologist". Since
Christian apologists are automatically regarded by Paul (and his ilk) as
not "factual" they are *guaranteed* to always arrive at a conclusion
which just confirms their anti-supernaturalistic prejudice.
>PR>the actual supporting >statement is not produced.
But Paul needs to read his opponents words more carefully. Zacharias
states above the part of the Koran where it is: "Surah 19.19-21".
Here is the Koran's version of the virgin birth of Jesus:
"And you shall recount in the Book the story of Mary: now she left
her people and betook herself to a solitary place to the east. We
sent to her Our spirit in the semblance of a full-grown man. And
when she saw him she said: 'May the Merciful defend me from you!
If you fear the Lord, [leave me and go your way].' 'I am but your
Lord's emissary,' he replied, 'and have come to give you a holy son.'
'How shall I bear a child,' she answered, 'when I have neither been
touched by any man nor ever been unchaste?' 'Thus did your Lord
speak,' he replied. '"That is easy enough for Me. He shall be a sign
to mankind and a blessing from Ourself. Our decree shall come to
pass." 'Thereupon she conceived him, and retired to a far-off place
... Such was Jesus son of Mary." ("The Koran," Dawood N.J.,
transl., Penguin, 1999, pp.215,216)
PR>The Qu'ran has Jesus as a major prophet, but not the Son of God.
Neither Zecharias or I said anything above about the Koran having
Jesus as "the Son of God'. Christian theology does not regard Jesus
being born of a virgin as synonymous with Him being the Son of God.
The Son of God existed before His incarnation via the virgin birth as
Jesus of Nazareth.
>SJ>But Matthew was a Jew writing to Jews and he knew what Isaiah
>7:14 "The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will
>call him Immanuel" meant to Jews. The Heb. word "virgin" here is the Heb.
>'almah which, according to my Parsons online Hebrew-English dictionary
>means "a lass ... damsel, maid, virgin." The Greek translation of the Old
>Testament, the Septuagint, ~ 200 BC, translated it Gk parthenos, which
>means "a maiden; by impl. an unmarried daughter:--virgin". This is the same
>Gk word Matthew uses in Mt 1:23 "The virgin will be with child and will
>give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel" --which means, "God
>with us."
>PR>This isn't true either. Almah does *not* imply virginity though it doesn't
>discount it. The word bethulah (sic) means virgin.
>
>Almah means "young woman" (who may or may not be a virgin). The
>only reason the Gospel author used it was because it is mistranslated
>as virgin (parthenos) in the Septuagint,
>SJ>It is Paul's unsubstantiated *claim* that the third century BC Greek-
>speaking Jewish scholars who translated the Old Testament into Greek did
>not know the meaning of the Hebrew word 'almah and "mistranslated" it!
>PR>Sorry, are you really questioning this one.
What I am questioning is Paul's unsubstantiated claim that the third
century BC Greek-speaking Jewish scholars who translated the
Septuagint did not know the meaning of the Hebrew word 'almah and
"mistranslated" it!
PR>The word "almah" does not
>mean virgin. It means young girl. Virgin is a different word.
Paul contradicts himself. He said earlier that "Almah means "`young
woman' (who may or may not be a virgin)". Now he is saying "`almah'
does not mean virgin."
The fact is that there are two Hebrew words: 1. bethulah - which
definitely does mean "virgin" (but could mean an old spinster); and 2.
almah - which means a young woman of marriageable age (and in that
culture was synonymous with virgin, because once a young woman
was married she was called issa - married woman. Almah only appears
seven times in the Bible and it is never used of a married woman:
"I. Heb. bethulah (separately) properly denotes a virgin, maiden
(Gen. 24:16; Lev. 21:13; Deut. 22:14, 23, 28; Judg. 11:37; I Kings
1:2); the passage Joel 1:8 is not an exception, as it refers to the loss
of one betrothed, not married. 2. Heb. 'almah (veiled), a young
woman of marriageable age (Gen. 24:43; Exod. 2:8; Psa. 68:25,
A. V. 'damsel"; Prov. 30:19; Cant. 1:3; 6:8); a virgin, Isa. 7:14.
Although the primary idea of this word is not unspotted virginity,
for which the Hebrews had a special word, bethulah, "virgin" is
nevertheless, the proper rendering in Isa. 7:14 of 'almah ... Isaiah
did not use bethulah, because both the ideas of virginity and
marriageable age had to be combined in one word to meet the
immediate historical situation and the prophetic aspect centering in
a virgin-born Messiah." (Unger M.F.. "Unger's Bible Dictionary",
1966, p.1159)
and
"There is a difficulty with the claim that 'alma refers to someone
who is married. Not once does the Old Testament use 'alma to refer
to a married person. Bethulah, on the other hand, is used for a
married women (see Joel 1:8). Among texts using 'alma to refer to
a virgin are Genesis 24:43, Exodus 2:8, Psalms 68:25, Proverbs
30:19, and Song of Solomon 1:3; 6:8." (Geisler N.L., "Baker
Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics," 1999, p.760)
So the Heb. word "almah" is *exactly* the right word for Isaiah to use
because he is meaning a young woman of marriageable age who was a
virgin and then having a child as a sign:
"The word 'almah...is never used of a married woman, either in the
Bible or elsewhere. ...Isaiah [in Isa. 7:14] used the one word in
the Hebrew language ['almah ] which is never employed of a
married woman. " Further, "In English the word 'almah is
perhaps the most closely approximated by maid or damsel. The
word virgin, however stresses the supernatural character of the
birth, and hence is to be preferred. In no case should the word in
this passage be translated by the vague and weak term young
woman. " (Young E.J.; "The Virgin Birth" in The Banner, April 15,
1955, in Hendriksen W., "New Testament Commentary: The
Gospel of Matthew," 1982, p.137)
PR>What happens
>is that parthenos is an enlargement in translation.
Again Paul contradicts himself. Previously he claimed it was a
"mistranslation", now he is claiming it "an enlargement in translation"!
Paul got it right the first time when he said: "Almah means "`young
woman' (who may or may not be a virgin)". The Greek speaking 3rd
Century BC Jews who translated the Hebrew OT into Greek knew
from the Isaiah's choice of the less usual word almah, and from the
context, that the right word to translate almah into Greek was the word
parthenos - "virgin".
And that is the word that Matthew uses in Mt 1:23 and applies to
Jesus.
PR>Matthew saw this,
>assumed that it meant virgin in the original which he couldn't read,
This is one of the most amazing things I have ever read. How does
Paul, (who claimed in a previous post that the author of Matthew is
unknown), know that that author couldn't read the "original"?
PR>then invented the virgin birth myth.
This is just the anti-supernaturalist liberal critics' "myth"! The NT
clearly documents the virgin birth in two gospels (Matthew and Luke).
Other Biblical writers (e.g. Paul allude to it Gal 4:4) and none
contradict it - there is no hint of Jesus having a human father, for
example.
SJ>And moreover that first century Greek-speaking Jewish Christians like
>Matthew continued the mistranslation!
>PR>No, he didn't KNOW it was a mistranslation.
Apart from Paul contradicting himself, how does Paul "KNOW" that?
The answer is that Paul's anti-supernaturalistic *philosophy* provides
him with all the `evidence' that he needs!
PR>Look at some of the
>rather inaccurate Bible translations that are about. People who use
>those don't know that they are inaccurate.
That modern day translations contain inaccuracies in trying to translate
1st century or earlier concepts into 20th century English is one thing.
To claim that Greek speaking Jews of the 3rd century BC and 1st
century AD got it wrong on translating *one word* is another.
Especially so considering it was a key word in a major Messianic
prophecy and that Matthew was citing it to Jews of his day as a key
item of evidence for Jesus being the Messiah.
>SJ>I think it is far more likely that radical liberal critics
>and unbelievers have been lead astray by their
>anti-supernaturalistic bias.
>PR>No. Almah doesn't mean virgin. It just doesn't exclude it.
Paul continues his self-contradictions. If "Almah doesn't mean virgin"
then it *would* "exclude it"! Or to put it another way, if "almah"
doesn't exclude "virgin" then it *may* mean "virgin".
The fact is that in Isaiah's day, bethulah meant virgin of any age and
almah normally meant a virgin of young marriageable age. There was
virtually no such thing in Isaiah's day of as a young woman of
marriageable age who was not a virgin.
PR>It is exactly
>the same as saying "young girl" in English. It *might* be a virgin.
See above on Paul's contradictions. He says: "Almah doesn't mean
virgin" and then "It *might* be a virgin"!
It is *not* "exactly the same as saying `young girl' in English." In
English today most young girls of marriageable age are not virgins. In
Isaiah's day almost no young girls of marriageable age were not virgins.
>PR>aand he thought it would
>>make a good prophecy, so he wrote it in.
>SJ>He didn't just think it-it *is* "a good prophecy"!
>PR>Not really. Notwithstanding the questionable virginity,
There is no "questionable virginity"!
PR>it refers to something around that time.
The "time" element is not provided by this prophecy. That is covered in
Dan 9:24-27. The Messianic prophecies are a mosaic that when fitted
together show an unmistakable picture of Jesus.
Note as I said in a previous post it is possible that this prophecy had an
proximate partial fulfilment in Isaiah's day and an ultimate fulfilment in
Jesus.
[continued]
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Contemporary religious thinkers often approach the Argument from
Design with a grim determination that their churches shall not again be
made to look foolish. Recalling what happened when churchmen opposed
first Galileo and then Darwin, they insist that religion must be based not on
science but on faith. Philosophy, they announce, has demonstrated that
Design Arguments lack all force. I hope to have shown that philosophy has
demonstrated no such thing. Our universe, which these religious thinkers
believe to be created by God, does look, greatly though this may dismay
them, very much as if created by God." (Leslie J., "Universes", [1989],
Routledge: London, 1996, reprint, p.22)
Stephen E. Jones | Ph. +61 8 9448 7439 | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Dec 03 2000 - 16:59:50 EST