independent and unofficial
Prince fan community site
Mon 21st Oct 2019 8:51pm
Welcome! Sign up or enter username and password to remember me
Forum jump
Forums > Politics & Religion > The Essay that will mow down any atheist: MLK, at age 28!
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Page 8 of 10 <12345678910>
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
Reply #210 posted 10/14/18 2:59am

IanRG

toejam said:

(1) So you agree that ~80-120 years is more than enough time for fictitious legends about events in the lives of Jesus' entourage, complete with bogus links back to eyewitness oral tradition, to have begun circulating and been believed in some Christian communities. Sort of takes the "cruciality" out of your rhetoric that "the difference between 80 and 800 years is crucial" and of a "different order of magnitude", etc.

.

(2) You still haven't shown that when stories of Jesus' virgin birth first started circulating they didn't first come to people for whom the Historical Jesus and Mary were already significantly distant - geographically, temporally, personally. And NOW you've even admitting that the length of time between Jesus' birth and when we start hearing of the stories is enough time for legends about Jesus' entourage to have taken root. Couple that with the fact that ascribing fictitious miraculous conception/birth stories to cult heroes was a common propaganda tool, that you understand other early traditions about Mary (her being "inspected" by Salome's finger) to be bogus legend, and that a virgin birth pretty much defies what we know of how new humans are conceived and it should be a no-brainer.

.

(3) You're also wrong that the Gospel of Mark "does not discuss things outside of [the period of Jesus' ministry]". Mark opens with a significant introduction to Jesus before narrating the ministry period. In the opening chapter, John the Baptist is first introduced as the fulfillment of Malachi 3:1's messenger prophecy (clumsily attributed to Isaiah - we're not off to a great start!). Jesus comes to John and is baptized by him, at which point Jesus sees the heavens tear apart and the Spirit descend upon him like a dove, while a voice from heaven declares Jesus to be God's son. Jesus is then driven out into the wilderness by the Spirit and tempted by Satan for 40 days. Finally, John the Baptist is arrested. And only after all that does Jesus begin his ministry. Mark also mentions Mary on a few occasions, yet never takes the opportunity to relay that she had conceived Jesus without having had sexual intercourse with a male. Some textual variants of Mark 6:3 also have Jesus called by his town folk "the carpenter's son". Mark had plenty of opportunity to mention the virgin birth but didn't. We can never be sure why not. It's certainly not my view that it "must" not have been in circulation by then. But it is curious why he would fail to mention it if it were circulating by his time and when he mentioned several other seemingly important stories about pre-ministry Jesus and his mother Mary.

.

(1) Wrong - I agree that people can get things wrong in much less than 80 years and that this has nothing to when others get it right. This was in response to you imaging all things written by actual witnesses or those immediately taught by them should be treated the same as things written by people 800 years after the event! You position is plainly ridiculous - Your arguments are that 80 years might as well be 800 and if anyone finds an error in one thing that was rejected at the time by the people who knew what occurred, then the rejectors who knew what occured must also be wrong.

.

(2) Wrong - You are the one who raised the Virgin Mary and you have not answered my question. We have been here before far too many times. I ask you a question being "A simple question that I am sure you will not answer: If Jesus is the Son of God and Son of Man, then this means God exists as understood by mainstream Christians: Under these circumstances, how is Jesus' birth outside of God's capabilities?" You leave the question unanswered as always and pretend I have not answered a question you never asked me. The first time you "asked" me anything was the post after you refused or could not answer me.

.

(3) Wrong. Jesus ministry is generally considered as starting with His baptism by John the Baptist. Mark's Gospel states:

.

Mark 1:1 "The beginning of the Good News of Jesus Christ, the Son of God". This is the introduction to his Ministry of proclaiming the Good News

.

Mark 1:14 "Now after John was arrested, Jesus came to Galilee, proclaiming the Good New of God".

.

You are trying to be clever, but are only being annoyingly pedantic and you are missing the point. The justification for people to accept that Jesus' Good News is the Good News of God is that people were prepared by prophecy and directly by John the Baptist and God the Father in Jesus' Baptism. To correct myself in the face such pedantry: Nothing in Mark is about Jesus' life before the immediate processes just before he started his Ministry and these are just 12 verses. That you mention that Mary is mentioned in Mark is deliberate misdirection. Mary is mentioned fewer times in Mark's Gospel than in any of the other Gospels. Mary is mentioned as coming to see Jesus during His Ministry and Jesus is referred to as the "son of Mary". This is significant because if there was not something different about his birth, He would have been referred to as the "son of Joseph". Clearly Mark was pointing to what was known about Jesus' birth without explaining it - You don't need to explain everything to people that already know what is being spoken about in oral history. Again this shows you don't understand that it is documented how written texts were used in this place around the time to help with oral processes in the coming absense of immediate witnesses and people directly taught by the witnesses.

.

You think 80 years and 800 years are close enough to the same, but want to argue about less than 2 months!

[Edited 10/14/18 3:03am]

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #211 posted 10/14/18 9:40am

CherryMoon57

avatar

Many scholars actually respect Luke as a historian and praise the great accuracy of his writings. He was a well educated man and a physician. I do not think for a moment that he would embark on such a narrative and endorse such claims (i.e. the virgin birth) if he wasn't himself convinced of their veracity.

This provides one possible explanation as to why not all gospel writers have included what would have been of importance to a physician. Another explanation could simply be that it was such an obvious element of the story of Jesus that the others did not feel the need to repeat it. In the same way that you would not write in an article about Prince written for Prince fans, 'Prince is a singer from Minneapolis who wrote Purple Rain.'

Coming back to the difference between the recount of Rome's foundation and the gospels, is the fact that Livy only picked up an ancestral tale and tried to semi*-officialise it as history and thus participated in elevating Augustus to the level of Romulus, whom Augustus already identified with. This process is what made Livy's history of Rome a political tool. I see no such intent with the Bible. The overall purpose was and still is to free people from the curse of sin, so that they can be reunited with their loving creator.
*I say 'semi' because he said he was not sure about the actual truth himself, and also offered very different alternative versions of some events.

Moreoever, by trying to justify this story from an unbeliever's angle, we forget that after all (as Ian similarly pointed to in his question to toejam) for a God - who has also created life itself and given most beings on the planet the amazing capacity to produce other beings - how difficult the creation of another being from only a female womb would then be to Him? (Especially since virgin-birth occurrences amongst animals have already been reported, occurrences which would probaby be witnessed more regularly if one had the opportunity to observe all the animals everywhere at any given time).

When we consider the miracle that is life and conception itself (it is actually a bit of a lottery for the male sperm to reach its destination under the more usual scenario!) we have then no problem to accept an exceptional but not impossible virgin birth in a similar way.

----------------

There is another very likely biblical mention of the virgin birth (other than the usual prophecy of Isaiah 7:14).


Genesis 3:15 refers to the seed of a woman (not a man in sight!) as God adresses to the serpent right after the original sin. It alludes to a descendent of Eve who will destroy the curse of the serpent's deception:

And I will put enmity
between you and the woman,
and between your offspring[a] and hers;
he will crush[b] your head,
and you will strike his heel.”

a) or seed

b) or strike

[Edited 10/14/18 14:25pm]

Open your heart open your mind
A train is leaving all day
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #212 posted 10/14/18 10:45am

2freaky4church
1

avatar

What atheists don't get is that the Bible is not like a normal book. It is a bunch of different things all at once. Poetry, mystic writing, analogy, cryptic, cultural, moral, Wisdom.

All you others say Hell Yea!! woot!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #213 posted 10/14/18 1:54pm

toejam

avatar

CherryMoon57 said:

Many scholars actually respect Luke as a historian and praise the great accuracy of his writings. He was a well educated man and a physician. I do not think for a moment that he would embark on such a narration and endorse such claims (i.e. the virgin birth) if he wasn't himself convinced of their veracity.

.

We don't know who wrote Luke-Acts. The author never tells us who he is or what his occupation is. Traditions of who wrote it only begin showing up in a time in which all the competing sects were trying to attribute their traditions as having reliable links back to eyewitnesses. By ancient standards, Luke-Acts might not be too bad. It is debatable. We really can't know. But ancient standards are generally not that crash hot to begin with. Scholars tend to be suspicious of many of the stories told by Josephus, Plutarch, Livy, Tacitus, etc., despite these sometimes being our "best" or only sources. "Best" here is relative.

.

This provides one possible explanation as to why not all gospel writers have included what would have been of importance to a physician. Another explanation could simply be that it was such an obvious element of the story of Jesus that the others did not feel the need to repeat it. In the same way that you would not write in an article about Prince written for Prince fans, 'Prince is a singer from Minneapolis who wrote Purple Rain.'

.

I don't want to over-stress Mark's silence on the virgin birth too much as I accept that it is entirely plausible that he simply didn't think it worth mentioning. But I will say that I don't find this apologetic possibility all that convincing. Your and Ian's argument effectively goes that Mark didn't mention the virgin birth because it was already an obvious element that didn't need repeating to Christian communities. But if that's the case, why the need for any of the rest of the content of Mark? Shouldn't that have already been obvious also if something like the virgin birth was obvious? Mark writes an impressive-sounding introduction to Jesus before he begins his ministry proper - an introduction to John the Baptist as the fulfillment of a misattributed scriptural prophecy, Jesus' being baptized by John with heavenly signs, Jesus' 40-day temptation by Satan, and John's arrest. All this before Jesus begins preaching. But no mention of his having come from a virgin. Mary is mentioned occasionally yet her virginity is never stated. Wouldn't that be one of the most important things to say about her?

.

Coming back to the difference between the recount of Rome's foundation and the gospels, is the fact that Livy only picked up an ancestral tale and tried to semi*-officialise it as history and thus participated in elevating Augustus to the level of Romulus, whom Augustus already identified with. This process is what made Livy's history of Rome a political tool. I see no such intent with the Bible. The overall purpose was and still is to free people from the curse of sin, so that they can be reunited with their loving creator.
*I say 'semi' because he said he was not sure about the actual truth himself, and also offered very different alternative versions of some events.

.

Ian and I agree that ~80-120yrs (the length of time between Jesus' birth and the composition of Luke-Acts) is more than enough time for bogus "ancestral tales" (complete with falsely certified tradition links back to eyewitnesses) to have infiltrated some Christian communities and have been mistakenly believed by them. The gospels are religio-politico tools also. They are attempting to subvert competing cults (which obviously includes Emperor worship) by painting Jesus as equalling or one-upping them.

.

I'm still waiting for someone to show me that when stories of Jesus' virgin birth first started circulating they didn't first come to people for whom the Historical Jesus and Mary were already significantly distant - geographically, temporally, personally.

.

Moreoever, by trying to justify this story from an unbeliever's angle, we forget that after all (as Ian similarly pointed to in his question to toejam) for a God - who has also created life itself and given most beings on the planet the amazing capacity to produce other beings - how difficult the creation of another being from only a female womb would then be to Him? (Especially since virgin-birth occurrences amongst animals have already been reported, occurrences which would probaby be witnessed more regularly if one had the opportunity to observe all the animals everywhere at any given time).

When we consider the miracle that is life and conception itself (it is actually a bit of a lottery for the male sperm to reach its destination under the more usual scenario!) we have then no problem to accept an exceptional but not impossible virgin birth in a similar way.

.

The issue is not whether a hypothetical God does or does not have the ability to have a virgin conceive Jesus. The issue is whether this actually occurred. Of course if you load in to your definition of the hypothetical God in question the ability to have virgins conceive, then by definition he will have such abilities! There is nothing preventing you or any other Christian or theist from believing God has the ability to have virgins conceive yet still accepting the stories in Matthew and Luke as best understood as part of the mythologizing process - just as you no doubt believe that God would have the ability to have Mohammad fly to the moon on a winged horse (as believed by many Muslims) yet still understand that it probably didn't actually happen, that such a tale makes better sense as part of the mythologizing process.

.

There is another very likely biblical mention of the virgin birth (other than the usual prophecy of Isaiah 7:14).

.

Genesis 3:15 refers to the seed of a woman (not a man in sight!) as God adresses to the serpent right after the original sin. It alludes to a descendent of Eve who will destroy the curse of the serpent's deception:
.

And I will put enmity
between you and the woman,
and between your offspring[a] and hers;
he will crush[b] your head,
and you will strike his heel.”

.

a) or seed

.

b) or strike

.

Isaiah 7:14 is not a prophecy of a virgin birth. The Hebrew word used, "alma", means "young woman", whom may or may not be a virgin. There was a more specific word for "virgin" ("bthule") which the author opted not to use. Secondly, even if the young woman was a virgin, nothing in the prophecy specifically denies the intervention of a human male as the natural cause of her conception. It just says the young woman "is with child" (NRSV) or "will conceive" (NIV). Thirdly, the prophecy is not about Mary and Jesus hundreds of years later, it is about a woman at the time of King Ahaz, some ~700 years earlier. And the prophecy is that her child will be like a temporal marker - by the time this woman's child has reached maturity (i.e. within <15 years) the land of the two Kings threatening Ahaz will be deserted.

.

Genesis 3:15 is also not a prophecy of a virgin birth. "Seed" was common language for descent. E.g. "Seed of David" meant one who descended from the line of David. The reference to the seed of his and the seed of hers in Genesis 3:15 is about the future descending line of men from Adam and the future descending line of women from Eve - i.e. the rest of humanity! Nothing about virgins or Jesus.

.

[Edited 10/14/18 14:08pm]

Toejam @ Peach & Black Podcast: http://peachandblack.podbean.com
Toejam's band "Cheap Fakes": http://cheapfakes.com.au, http://www.facebook.com/cheapfakes
Toejam the solo artist: http://www.youtube.com/scottbignell
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #214 posted 10/14/18 1:54pm

toejam

avatar

2freaky4church1 said:

What atheists don't get is that the Bible is not like a normal book. It is a bunch of different things all at once. Poetry, mystic writing, analogy, cryptic, cultural, moral, Wisdom.

.

I already stated this a long time ago in this thread. So much for what "atheists don't get"...

Toejam @ Peach & Black Podcast: http://peachandblack.podbean.com
Toejam's band "Cheap Fakes": http://cheapfakes.com.au, http://www.facebook.com/cheapfakes
Toejam the solo artist: http://www.youtube.com/scottbignell
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #215 posted 10/14/18 2:36pm

IanRG

toejam said:

Ian and I agree that ~80-120yrs (the length of time between Jesus' birth and the composition of Luke-Acts) is more than enough time for bogus "ancestral tales" (complete with falsely certified tradition links back to eyewitnesses) to have infiltrated some Christian communities and have been mistakenly believed by them.

.

Please do not put words in my mouth. I already addressed your false claim by saying "I agree that people can get things wrong in much less than 80 years and that this has nothing to when others get it right. This was in response to you imaging all things written by actual witnesses or those immediately taught by them should be treated the same as things written by people 800 years after the event! You position is plainly ridiculous - Your arguments are that 80 years might as well be 800 and if anyone finds an error in one thing that was rejected at the time by the people who knew what occurred, then the rejectors who knew what occured must also be wrong.

.

This is why your facebook list is meaningless - Volume is never a substitute for actual knowledge and understanding. That people like Ehrman and Smith have been caught making things up for their communities does not mean everyone else shares their taint.

.

80 years is not the same as 800 years. Fox and your Herald Sun can get things wrong the very same minute. That this is possible is very poor argument for you wanting to reject anything that disagrees with your pre-determined conclusion. You will never learn if your obsession is to find reasons to argue against other people.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #216 posted 10/14/18 2:37pm

IanRG

toejam said:

2freaky4church1 said:

What atheists don't get is that the Bible is not like a normal book. It is a bunch of different things all at once. Poetry, mystic writing, analogy, cryptic, cultural, moral, Wisdom.

.

I already stated this a long time ago in this thread. So much for what "atheists don't get"...

.

Claiming to know and actually understanding the implications are two different things.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #217 posted 10/14/18 2:57pm

CherryMoon57

avatar

toejam said:

There is another very likely biblical mention of the virgin birth (other than the usual prophecy of Isaiah 7:14).

.

Genesis 3:15 refers to the seed of a woman (not a man in sight!) as God adresses to the serpent right after the original sin. It alludes to a descendent of Eve who will destroy the curse of the serpent's deception:
.

And I will put enmity
between you and the woman,
and between your offspring[a] and hers;
he will crush[b] your head,
and you will strike his heel.”

.

a) or seed

.

b) or strike

.

Isaiah 7:14 is not a prophecy of a virgin birth. The Hebrew word used, "alma", means "young woman", whom may or may not be a virgin. There was a more specific word for "virgin" ("bthule") which the author opted not to use. Secondly, even if the young woman was a virgin, nothing in the prophecy specifically denies the intervention of a human male as the natural cause of her conception. It just says the young woman "is with child" (NRSV) or "will conceive" (NIV). Thirdly, the prophecy is not about Mary and Jesus hundreds of years later, it is about a woman at the time of King Ahaz, some ~700 years earlier. And the prophecy is that her child will be like a temporal marker - by the time this woman's child has reached maturity (i.e. within <15 years) the land of the two Kings threatening Ahaz will be deserted.

.

Genesis 3:15 is also not a prophecy of a virgin birth. "Seed" was common language for descent. E.g. "Seed of David" meant one who descended from the line of David. The reference to the seed of his and the seed of hers in Genesis 3:15 is about the future descending line of men from Adam and the future descending line of women from Eve - i.e. the rest of humanity! Nothing about virgins or Jesus.

[Edited 10/14/18 14:08pm]


But that doesn't make sense, God is talking to the serpent remember? not Adam!

Enmity represents the conflict between Satan (your seed) and God's people, more than likely Jesus Christ (her seed). God here is promising to bring a redeemer from the seed of a woman (he's not mentioning the seed or offspring of a man).

[Edited 10/14/18 15:43pm]

Open your heart open your mind
A train is leaving all day
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #218 posted 10/14/18 3:02pm

IanRG

toejam said:

.

I don't want to over-stress Mark's silence on the virgin birth too much as I accept that it is entirely plausible that he simply didn't think it worth mentioning. But I will say that I don't find this apologetic possibility all that convincing. Your and Ian's argument effectively goes that Mark didn't mention the virgin birth because it was already an obvious element that didn't need repeating to Christian communities. But if that's the case, why the need for any of the rest of the content of Mark? Shouldn't that have already been obvious also if something like the virgin birth was obvious? Mark writes an impressive-sounding introduction to Jesus before he begins his ministry proper - an introduction to John the Baptist as the fulfillment of a misattributed scriptural prophecy, Jesus' being baptized by John with heavenly signs, Jesus' 40-day temptation by Satan, and John's arrest. All this before Jesus begins preaching. But no mention of his having come from a virgin. Mary is mentioned occasionally yet her virginity is never stated. Wouldn't that be one of the most important things to say about her?

.

You start out so well but then you do over-stress Marks silence.

.

Firstly, he is not silent, but you have failed to address commentary on his "son of Mary" rather than "son of Joseph" reference.

.

Why the need for the rest of Mark if he did not mention Jesus' birth! This a ridiculous question. A detailing of the Ministry (including the less than 2 months preparation immediately before is started for the pedants) of Jesus has no reason to be written if it does not include details on his conception. Wow, thanks for not over-stressing!!!

.

You comment on the alleged misattribution is because you do not have understanding of how Mark wrote. Mark has around 10 combined references that refer to the more than 1 OT verse that are all referenced only by the one considered most important. In the introduction he quotes more directly from Malachi but attributes this to Isaiah. Both refer to the same prophecies but whilst the particular Malachi is a better fit, Isaiah is more important. This allows Mark to do his sandwiching tehnique.

.

In regards to Mary's virginity: some advice for you. When you talk about a woman but your focus is exlusively on her child's work in the last 3 year's of her child's life, please refrain from thinking that one of most important things is mention whether she has had sex or not.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #219 posted 10/14/18 3:17pm

IanRG

toejam said:

Isaiah 7:14 is not a prophecy of a virgin birth. The Hebrew word used, "alma", means "young woman", whom may or may not be a virgin. There was a more specific word for "virgin" ("bthule") which the author opted not to use. Secondly, even if the young woman was a virgin, nothing in the prophecy specifically denies the intervention of a human male as the natural cause of her conception. It just says the young woman "is with child" (NRSV) or "will conceive" (NIV). Thirdly, the prophecy is not about Mary and Jesus hundreds of years later, it is about a woman at the time of King Ahaz, some ~700 years earlier. And the prophecy is that her child will be like a temporal marker - by the time this woman's child has reached maturity (i.e. within <15 years) the land of the two Kings threatening Ahaz will be deserted.

.

.

You have tried this before and failed. The Jewish people at the time this was written up to just after Jesus' time on Earth always understood that alma as reference to the a virgin. That there is more than one word that essentially means the same thing is not uncommon, rare, abnormal, bizarre, egegious, extraordinary, infrequent, noteworthy, odd, peculiar, remarkable, singular, startling, strange, aberrant, anolalous.

.

The timing is wrong for this to be King Ahaz's wife's child or for his wife to still be referred as a young woman:

.

From an old post to you:

To allude to the woman who is going to conceive and bear a son, the Hebrew Isaiah 7:14 does not refer to a virgin, or a “betulah” in Hebrew, but to an “almah”, that is to say, a “young woman”, a neutral term that does not necessarily connote virginity. For example, in the Song of Songs 6:8 the term “young woman” (“alamot”) appears in parallelism with “queens and concubines”, who are surely not virgins. What is more, the “almah” referred to in Isaiah 7, the young woman who in the near future will conceive and give birth to a son, is most unlikely to be a virgin. The context suggests that she is already married and is the wife of the reigning Jewish king, Ahaz, at the end of the 8th C BCE.

- Geza Vermes (Oxford), 'The Nativity: History and Legend'

To allude to the woman who is going to conceive and bear a son, the Hebrew Isaiah 7:14 does not refer to a queen, or a “malkah” in Hebrew, but to an “almah”, that is to say, a “young woman suitable to be married”, a term that was customarily taken to connote virginity as shown by the fact that prior to the rise of Christianity it was always translated as virgin. For example, in the Song of Solomon 6:8 the term “young woman suitable to be married” (“alamot”) appears in parallelism with “queens and concubines”, and the “alamot” are surely a separate group from those including the wife of the king. What is more, the “almah” referred to in Isaiah 7, the woman who in the near future will conceive and give birth to a son, is described as being an “almah” but King Ahaz’s wife had already had Hezekiah at least four years prior to this prophecy and is most unlikely to be have been described as an “almah”. The context and historical understanding prior to Christianity suggests that she was not already married, was a virgin and cannot have been the wife of the reigning Jewish king, Ahaz, at the end of the 8th C BCE.

- Ian Ross-Gowan (Also having studied Theology), ‘post in Prince.org’

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #220 posted 10/14/18 3:54pm

toejam

avatar

CherryMoon57 said:

But that doesn't make sense, God is talking to the serpent remember? not Adam!

Enmity represents the conflict between Satan (your seed) and God's people, more than likely Jesus Christ (her seed). God here is promising to bring a redeemer from the seed of a woman (he's not mentioning the seed or offspring of a man).

Yes, my mistake, Genesis 3:15 is Yahweh Elohim talking to the Serpent, not Adam. But the point remains. The reference to Eve's seed here just means her future descendents, i.e. all of humanity! There is nothing here about virgin births, Mary or Jesus.
Toejam @ Peach & Black Podcast: http://peachandblack.podbean.com
Toejam's band "Cheap Fakes": http://cheapfakes.com.au, http://www.facebook.com/cheapfakes
Toejam the solo artist: http://www.youtube.com/scottbignell
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #221 posted 10/14/18 4:19pm

IanRG

toejam said:

CherryMoon57 said:
But that doesn't make sense, God is talking to the serpent remember? not Adam!

Enmity represents the conflict between Satan (your seed) and God's people, more than likely Jesus Christ (her seed). God here is promising to bring a redeemer from the seed of a woman (he's not mentioning the seed or offspring of a man).
Yes, my mistake, Genesis 3:15 is Yahweh Elohim talking to the Serpent, not Adam. But the point remains. The reference to Eve's seed here just means her future descendents, i.e. all of humanity! There is nothing here about virgin births, Mary or Jesus.

.

Yeah, because it was such a matriachal society! So who will be this redeemer of a woman's line?

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #222 posted 10/14/18 4:22pm

CherryMoon57

avatar

toejam said:

CherryMoon57 said:
But that doesn't make sense, God is talking to the serpent remember? not Adam!

Enmity represents the conflict between Satan (your seed) and God's people, more than likely Jesus Christ (her seed). God here is promising to bring a redeemer from the seed of a woman (he's not mentioning the seed or offspring of a man).
Yes, my mistake, Genesis 3:15 is Yahweh Elohim talking to the Serpent, not Adam. But the point remains. The reference to Eve's seed here just means her future descendents, i.e. all of humanity! There is nothing here about virgin births, Mary or Jesus.


If so, why hers only and not Adam's?

Open your heart open your mind
A train is leaving all day
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #223 posted 10/14/18 4:22pm

CherryMoon57

avatar

Sorry Ian, just noticed your response! cool

Open your heart open your mind
A train is leaving all day
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #224 posted 10/14/18 4:34pm

IanRG

CherryMoon57 said:

Sorry Ian, just noticed your response! cool

.

That's OK, they are different questions and I jumped in on a response to you anyway.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #225 posted 10/14/18 6:15pm

toejam

avatar

CherryMoon57 said:

If so, why hers only and not Adam's?

Technically he doesn't say the woman's only. Yahweh Elohim has just been informed by Eve that she was tricked by the serpent. The rest of humanity are referenced from the view of "her" offspring/seed because she is the one who was first tricked. Just because I might refer to a person as my mother does not mean I did not have a father. There is NOTHING here about virgin births, Mary or Jesus. You're reading that into Genesis 3.

.
[Edited 10/14/18 18:35pm]
Toejam @ Peach & Black Podcast: http://peachandblack.podbean.com
Toejam's band "Cheap Fakes": http://cheapfakes.com.au, http://www.facebook.com/cheapfakes
Toejam the solo artist: http://www.youtube.com/scottbignell
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #226 posted 10/14/18 6:24pm

IanRG

toejam said:

CherryMoon57 said:
If so, why hers only and not Adam's?
Technically he doesn't say the woman's only. Yahweh Elohim has just been informed by Eve that she was tricked by the serpent. The rest of humanity are referenced from the view of "her" offspring/seed because she is the one who was first tricked. Just because I might refer to a person as my mother does not mean I did not have a father. There is NOTHING here about virgin births, Mary or Jesus. You're reading that into Genesis 3.

.

I note you have not answered my question. You are failing to read Genesis 3 in line with its culture and times. How many of the Houses of Israel or the children of Abraham are talked about as a line of women?

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #227 posted 10/14/18 8:19pm

purplethunder3
121

avatar

Good grief! The scriptures will always be open to an individual's interpretation of them (and what translation they choose to read). Reminds me of why I quit going to church... Let's just appreciate MLK's essay for what it has to say and the spirit in which it was said...

"Music gives a soul to the universe, wings to the mind, flight to the imagination and life to everything." --Plato
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #228 posted 10/14/18 8:28pm

IanRG

purplethunder3121 said:

Good grief! The scriptures will always be open to an individual's interpretation of them (and what translation they choose to read). Reminds me of why I quit going to church... Let's just appreciate MLK's essay for what it has to say and the spirit in which it was said...

.

That was what I was saying - His essay can be applied in a positive and greatly beneficial way by all, regardless of religion or non-religion, even though he does talk about it from the point of view of religious person.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #229 posted 10/14/18 10:03pm

purplethunder3
121

avatar

IanRG said:

purplethunder3121 said:

Good grief! The scriptures will always be open to an individual's interpretation of them (and what translation they choose to read). Reminds me of why I quit going to church... Let's just appreciate MLK's essay for what it has to say and the spirit in which it was said...

.

That was what I was saying - His essay can be applied in a positive and greatly beneficial way by all, regardless of religion or non-religion, even though he does talk about it from the point of view of religious person.

thumbs up! And I say that as someone who still has "faith" but not in organized religion...

"Music gives a soul to the universe, wings to the mind, flight to the imagination and life to everything." --Plato
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #230 posted 10/15/18 1:22am

toejam

avatar

CherryMoon57 said:

There is another very likely biblical mention of the virgin birth (other than the usual prophecy of Isaiah 7:14).


Genesis 3:15 refers to the seed of a woman (not a man in sight!)

.

Genesis 3:15 "very likely" a mention of Mary conceiving Jesus without having sex with a man? No it's not. You are totally reading that into this passage, Cherry.

.

The woman (Hebrew: "ishshah") in Genesis 3:15 is Eve. Contrary to your claim there is a man in sight - Adam. He's right there in the scene. Just a few verses earlier, after Yahweh Elohim created Eve, Adam declared about her: "This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh. This one shall be called 'woman' (ishshah), for out of 'man' (ish) this one was taken". Back to our verses, and Eve has just confessed to Yahweh Elohim that the serpent tricked her. The woman in Genesis 3:15 is clearly Eve, not the Virgin Mary.

.

The "enmity" put between Eve's offspring/seed and the serpent's is simply a cute Dreamtime-like etiological myth about humans and snakes being sworn enemies (with the cute irony that snakes attack humans' heals while humans attack snakes' heads) and the general plight of humanity.

.

There is nothing in this passage about Mary or Jesus. There is nothing about a virgin conception. You are totally reading that into the text.

.

IanRG said:

How many of the Houses of Israel or the children of Abraham are talked about as a line of women?

.

Genesis 3:15 isn't talking about a line of women in the sense of something like a royal bloodline, per se. It's talking about Eve's descendents which includes all of humanity. The future descendents of Hagar and Rebekah (Genesis 16:10 and 24:60), obviously both men and women, are also described as their "offspring/seed" without any connotation to them conceiving without having sex with a male. There is nothing in Genesis 3:15 to support CherryMoon57's claim that it is "very likely" to be a reference to Jesus having been born of a virgin some ~4,000yrs later. Like with Isaiah 7:14, both you two are reading that into the text.

.

[Edited 10/15/18 2:02am]

Toejam @ Peach & Black Podcast: http://peachandblack.podbean.com
Toejam's band "Cheap Fakes": http://cheapfakes.com.au, http://www.facebook.com/cheapfakes
Toejam the solo artist: http://www.youtube.com/scottbignell
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #231 posted 10/15/18 2:28am

IanRG

toejam said:

CherryMoon57 said:

There is another very likely biblical mention of the virgin birth (other than the usual prophecy of Isaiah 7:14).


Genesis 3:15 refers to the seed of a woman (not a man in sight!)

.

Genesis 3:15 "very likely" a mention of Mary conceiving Jesus without having sex with a man? No it's not. You are totally reading that into this passage, Cherry.

.

The woman (Hebrew: "ishshah") in Genesis 3:15 is Eve. Contrary to your claim there is a man in sight - Adam. He's right there in the scene. Just a few verses earlier, after Yahweh Elohim created Eve, Adam declared about her: "This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh. This one shall be called 'woman' (ishshah), for out of 'man' (ish) this one was taken". They are encouraged to go forth and multiply. Back to our verses, and Eve has just confessed to Yahweh Elohim that the serpent tricked her. The woman in Genesis 3:15 is clearly Eve, not the Virgin Mary.

.

The "enmity" put between Eve's offspring/seed and the serpent's is simply a cute Dreamtime-like etiological myth about humans and snakes being sworn enemies (with the cute irony that snakes attack humans' heals while humans attack snakes' heads) and the general plight of humanity.

.

There is nothing in this passage about Mary or Jesus. There is nothing about a virgin conception. You are totally reading that into the text.

.

IanRG said:

How many of the Houses of Israel or the children of Abraham are talked about as a line of women?

.

Genesis 3:15 isn't talking about a line of women. It's talking about Eve's descendents which includes all of humanity. The future descendents of Hagar and Rebekah (Genesis 16:10 and 24:60), obviously both men and women, are also described as their "offspring/seed" without any connotation to them conceiving without having sex with a male. There is nothing in Genesis 3:15 to support CherryMoon57's claim that it is "very likely" to be a reference to Jesus having been born of a virgin some ~4,000yrs later. Like with Isaiah 7:14, both you two are reading that into the text.

.

That is exactly right - I am reading into Isaiah just what the Jewish people read into this all the way up to when they changed to read something else into it. That something was to change from knowing that alma usually connoted virgin right up until this was used by the Christians after it was claimed that Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary. The Jewish people also often have read the "He will strike you" as a reference to the King Messiah - Messianic Jews still do today.

.

You are totally choosing to selectively read what you want the text to say just because of your need to find fabrication in or misinterpretation of the prophecies. Your motive is to use this claim to evangelise your beliefs by creating a false impression of uncertainty in other people's beliefs. This is the direct opposite of your normal argument because your normal argument fails to support your need to discredit Christianity. Normally you argue against more modern interpretations, like your current argument that because Mark does not mention the Virgin birth the later Gospels must have made this up. However, here you need to argue for a post Christianity Judaic interpretation against the older understanding. All this is just another indication that you facebook list is nothing but self promotion and a tool you think will convince people your understanding has some depth. It is simply not convincing because of its lack of depth.

.

Why do you think you can tell religious people what their beliefs should be?

[Edited 10/15/18 2:41am]

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #232 posted 10/15/18 6:30am

CherryMoon57

avatar

toejam said:

CherryMoon57 said:

There is another very likely biblical mention of the virgin birth (other than the usual prophecy of Isaiah 7:14).


Genesis 3:15 refers to the seed of a woman (not a man in sight!)

.

Genesis 3:15 "very likely" a mention of Mary conceiving Jesus without having sex with a man? No it's not. You are totally reading that into this passage, Cherry.

.

The woman (Hebrew: "ishshah") in Genesis 3:15 is Eve. Contrary to your claim there is a man in sight - Adam. He's right there in the scene. Just a few verses earlier, after Yahweh Elohim created Eve, Adam declared about her: "This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh. This one shall be called 'woman' (ishshah), for out of 'man' (ish) this one was taken". Back to our verses, and Eve has just confessed to Yahweh Elohim that the serpent tricked her. The woman in Genesis 3:15 is clearly Eve, not the Virgin Mary.

.

The "enmity" put between Eve's offspring/seed and the serpent's is simply a cute Dreamtime-like etiological myth about humans and snakes being sworn enemies (with the cute irony that snakes attack humans' heals while humans attack snakes' heads) and the general plight of humanity.

.

There is nothing in this passage about Mary or Jesus. There is nothing about a virgin conception. You are totally reading that into the text.

.

IanRG said:

How many of the Houses of Israel or the children of Abraham are talked about as a line of women?

.

Genesis 3:15 isn't talking about a line of women in the sense of something like a royal bloodline, per se. It's talking about Eve's descendents which includes all of humanity. The future descendents of Hagar and Rebekah (Genesis 16:10 and 24:60), obviously both men and women, are also described as their "offspring/seed" without any connotation to them conceiving without having sex with a male. There is nothing in Genesis 3:15 to support CherryMoon57's claim that it is "very likely" to be a reference to Jesus having been born of a virgin some ~4,000yrs later. Like with Isaiah 7:14, both you two are reading that into the text.

.

[Edited 10/15/18 2:02am]


eek Cute?

The lack of depth in your interpretation here goes beyond 'believing or not believing'. You are forgetting the fact that what God says to the cunning snake is in direct connection with the issue of the original sin that has just occurred and how humanity was cursed by it at that precise point. There is a deep relevance in understanding what God (who never talks lightly) has to say, in relation to the rest of the biblical message, and its undeniable prophetical aspect. If you exclude all these relevant connections, you are missing the whole point.

I am not sure how you read the Bible - and I initially wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt - but based on the hastiness in which you had assumed that God was talking to Adam (as opposed to the Serpent - a big difference) in your determination to prove me wrong, I wonder if Ian is, after all, correct to think that you are reading it with a prejudicial stance. For regardless of being an atheist or a theist, if you interpreted a biblical text with its broader contexts in mind, you would still be able to make those connections, in the same way that one would when analysing any other texts, ancient or not.

----------

As for the other examples you have provided in support of your argument, they are not the same: In neither Genesis 16:10 or 24:60 are the descendents referred to as 'her offspring' whilst the man is present. If you genuinely do not see any particular relevance in the fact that God says 'HER offspring / seed' when addressing to the snake whilst Adam is present in 'Genesis 3:15', then I am afraid that you are not going to see anything else.



[Edited 10/15/18 11:02am]

Open your heart open your mind
A train is leaving all day
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #233 posted 10/15/18 6:50am

CherryMoon57

avatar

toejam said:

CherryMoon57 said:
If so, why hers only and not Adam's?
Technically he doesn't say the woman's only. Yahweh Elohim has just been informed by Eve that she was tricked by the serpent. The rest of humanity are referenced from the view of "her" offspring/seed because she is the one who was first tricked. Just because I might refer to a person as my mother does not mean I did not have a father. There is NOTHING here about virgin births, Mary or Jesus. You're reading that into Genesis 3. . [Edited 10/14/18 18:35pm]


Yes but if someone mentioned you to another person in your parents' presence, I doubt they would say 'her' son. 'Their' son would be more likely.

Open your heart open your mind
A train is leaving all day
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #234 posted 10/15/18 8:15am

CherryMoon57

avatar

CherryMoon57 said:

There is another very likely biblical mention of the virgin birth (other than the usual prophecy of Isaiah 7:14).


Genesis 3:15 refers to the seed of a woman (not a man in sight!)

.

toejam said:

The woman (Hebrew: "ishshah") in Genesis 3:15 is Eve. Contrary to your claim there is a man in sight - Adam.


falloff

In case it still isn't clear to you by now, my 'not a man in sight' was in reference to the way 'offspring/seed' was pointed to by God (i.e. no acknowledgement of a father was made), not a claim that Adam wasn't there in the scene!

Just because you can't read good doesn't mean I can't either! lol

[Edited 10/15/18 15:39pm]

Open your heart open your mind
A train is leaving all day
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #235 posted 10/15/18 8:31am

2freaky4church
1

avatar

Even the violent parts of the Old Testement can be explained. The writers were just talking smack. When your tribe is under someone's thumb you write myths about killing the great evil.

All you others say Hell Yea!! woot!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #236 posted 10/15/18 8:37am

2freaky4church
1

avatar

Camille Paglia is not happy with atheism:

There would be no code of any conduct if religion did not exist. We would be killing, raping all the time.

All you others say Hell Yea!! woot!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #237 posted 10/15/18 11:09am

CherryMoon57

avatar

4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,

Galatians 4:4

Open your heart open your mind
A train is leaving all day
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #238 posted 10/15/18 1:34pm

toejam

avatar

CherryMoon57 said:

eek Cute?


The lack of depth in your interpretation here goes beyond 'believing or not believing'. You are forgetting the fact that what God says to the cunning snake is in direct connection with the issue of the original sin that has just occurred and how humanity was cursed by it at that precise point. There is a deep relevance in understanding what God (who never talks lightly) has to say, in relation to the rest of the biblical message, and its undeniable prophetical aspect. If you exclude all these relevant connections, you are missing the whole point.

.

Yes, as an etiological myth about how snakes and humans became enemies the story is cute. Does this show my lack of depth, or are you simply projecting more depth onto it than is actually there? I think the latter. The Pentateuch is FILLED with cute etiological myths. Regarding the "rest of the biblical message", you are assuming a uniform and singular "biblical message". The authors and editors of Genesis 3 were not trying to leave clues about Mary and her virginal conception of Jesus. We have no evidence of any interpreter before Christianity interpreting the passage as about a future virgin birth. That's because there is no reference to any virgin birth in 3:15.

.

I am not sure how you read the Bible - and I initially wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt - but based on the hastiness in which you had assumed that God was talking to Adam (as opposed to the Serpent - a big difference) in your determination to prove me wrong, I wonder if Ian is, after all, correct to think that you are reading it with a prejudicial stance. For regardless of being an atheist or a theist, if you interpreted a biblical text with its broader contexts in mind, you would still be able to make those connections, in the same way that one would when analysing any other texts, ancient or not.

.

There are plenty of Christians and theists who don't buy your and Ian's projective interpretation of Genesis 3:15 and get that it can be satisfactorily explained as an etiological myth. Whether Christian, theist or not, if you interpret the passage within its broader historical and generic context, you might also be able to see that the passage is primarily etiological, and is not talking about Virgin Mary.

.

As for the other examples you have provided in support of your argument, they are not the same: In neither Genesis 16:10 or 24:60 are the descendents referred to as 'her offspring' whilst the man is present. If you genuinely do not see any particular relevance in the fact that God says 'HER offspring / seed' when addressing to the snake whilst Adam is present in 'Genesis 3:15', then I am afraid that you are not going to see anything else.

.

It's good to see you acknowledge there is a man (Adam) in sight in the scene (despite earlier saying that there wasn't). There is nothing mysterious in Yahweh Elohim referring to "her" offspring. Remember, the serpent tricked Eve. And Yahweh Elohim is talking to the serpent right after Eve's confession that she was tricked. So there's no great mystery why Yahweh Elohim refers to Adam & Eve's offspring when speaking to the serpent as "her" offspring.

.

if someone mentioned you to another person in your parents' presence, I doubt they would say 'her' son. 'Their' son would be more likely.

.

It depends on the point of reference. If my parents and I were invited to a party hosted by my mother's best friend from school, the host might well introduce me to someone else whom went to school with my mother and the host as "Bette's son, Scott" even with my father present. The point of reference in Genesis 3:15 is regarding Eve. She was the one deceived, and Yahweh Elohim is talking to the serpent about his deception of her. And remember, the "her" here is Eve, not Virgin Mary!!

.

And let's face it. Sometimes people say/write clunky stuff. If the author wrote "her" when perhaps "their" might have been more grammatically correct, then so what? It would be a mistake to think clunky language bits are therefore some hidden clue about the Virgin Mary.

.

4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,

Galatians 4:4

.

Paul is stressing that Jesus was a human and a legitimate Jew. Elsewhere, Paul describes Jesus as "a descendent of David according to the flesh", as from the "root of (David's father) Jesse", as having come from the "Israelites [...] according to the flesh", etc., without qualifying that Jesus didn't have a human father. Paul had ample opportunity to reference Jesus' virgin birth. But he stops short each time. We really can't know why. It is plausible he thought Jesus was born of a virgin. It is plausible he did not and that such a tale was a later thing.

.

[Edited 10/15/18 13:44pm]

Toejam @ Peach & Black Podcast: http://peachandblack.podbean.com
Toejam's band "Cheap Fakes": http://cheapfakes.com.au, http://www.facebook.com/cheapfakes
Toejam the solo artist: http://www.youtube.com/scottbignell
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #239 posted 10/15/18 2:37pm

2freaky4church
1

avatar

How else is a baby made? To be human he had to have a mama. The only way he could understand the human condition and have more sympathy in our plight.

All you others say Hell Yea!! woot!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Page 8 of 10 <12345678910>
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Forums > Politics & Religion > The Essay that will mow down any atheist: MLK, at age 28!