independent and unofficial
Prince fan community site
Sun 20th Oct 2019 2:44am
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 9 of 10 <12345678910>
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
Reply #240 posted 10/15/18 2:37pm

IanRG

toejam said:

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.

.

.

(1) 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.

.

(2) 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.

.

(3) 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.

.

(4) 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

.

(5) 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.

.

.

(1) Hogwash. This is not just a post Jesus interpretation. It is an interpretation of the Messianic Jews that verse is referring to the Messiah King. You really need to do some actual research and not just collect disjointed counter-arguments.

.

(2) This is nothing but an appeal to authority logic error with no depth. Stating there are other Christians and theists who hold a different view is an ineffectual and shallow argument.

.

(3) Time and place, time and place. Everytime you imagine a specific reference to a woman's line as if this is merely a reference to all humanity you are not considering the time and place. It shows a lack of depth in your understanding of history.

.

(4) And remember the "He" is documented elsewhere in Jewish literature as being a reference to the King Messiah. It is only since the Virgin Mary that non-Messianic Jews have tried to argue a different understanding of the "He will strike" as being "they" or symbolic etc. I even read one that said the reason the oldest texts don't explicitly show plural marks to make it a "they' is because the reader would know "they" was meant in this particular circumstance - a toejam argument if ever there was.

.

(5) Ahh, the old "perhaps yes, perhaps no" because you know your argument is so very, very shallow. "God gave forth his Son, made of a woman". Paul is not merely stressing Jesus was a human. He is stressing that Jesus is the Son of God and Son of Man. You are not putting the text in context (been here so many, many times). The reference "made under the law" is because Galatian's main focus is on how the law applies to Gentiles - Why on earth would gentiles be impressed that Jesus was not one of them? Obviously, this text places a mention of Jesus' unusual female only focused birth much closer and pre-dates Mark similar female only focused mention. It is also written by a known person who was taught by God (or for the non-Christians, at the very least Paul learned from a large number of direct witnesses, both as Saul and as Paul) and it links the symbology of being the saviour from a woman's line to Genesis and Isaiah. (P.S. I know that the Jewish expectations of the Messiah are different to those of Christians - so no need for you to take this thread even further off topic).

[Edited 10/15/18 14:44pm]

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #241 posted 10/15/18 3:47pm

toejam

avatar

There is no pre-Christian source that interprets Genesis 3:15 as a prophecy of a virgin birth.

.
[Edited 10/15/18 15:48pm]
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 #242 posted 10/15/18 4:15pm

CherryMoon57

avatar

toejam said:

There is no pre-Christian source that interprets Genesis 3:15 as a prophecy of a virgin birth. . [Edited 10/15/18 15:48pm]


Who needs a 'pre-christian source'?

Open your heart open your mind
A train is leaving all day
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #243 posted 10/15/18 4:29pm

toejam

avatar

And Messianic Jews (pre- or -post Christianity) poorly interpreting non-Messianic verses messianically is no surprise. 2nd Temple Judaism and early Christianity is full of similar misprojection. It wouldn't mean that Genesis 3:15 is a Messianic prophecy - let alone one expecting a virgin birth which I am told it is "very likely" to be. And even if it is Messianic it doesn't follow that the author had Jesus in mind. You guys are reading way too much into Genesis 3.

.
[Edited 10/15/18 16:30pm]
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 #244 posted 10/15/18 4:30pm

CherryMoon57

avatar

'Question: "What is the protoevangelium?"

Answer:
Genesis 3:15 says, “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel.” This is known as the protoevangelium—the first gospel. The verse introduces two elements previously unknown in the Garden of Eden, elements that are the basis of Christianity—the curse on mankind because of Adam’s sin and God’s provision for a Savior from sin who would take the curse upon Himself.

Verse 14 makes it clear that God is speaking to the serpent whom He curses to crawl on his belly and “eat dust” all his days. In verse 15, God switches from condemning the serpent to the one who inhabited it, Satan. He curses Satan to be forever at war against mankind, depicted as the seed or offspring of the woman. The woman in question is in a general sense Eve herself, all of whose offspring would forever be harassed by Satan and his minions. Sin enters the human race at this point, and the ravages of sin and its consequences reverberate down to us today. We inherit sin and the sin nature from Adam, and we suffer for it continually. The enmity—the hostility and hatred—of men and demons, between whom the warfare still continues, begins here. Evil angels and also wicked men are called serpents, and even a brood of vipers (Matthew 3:7), and they war against the people of God, the seed of the church, who are hated and persecuted by them, and so it has been ever since this affair in the Garden.

More specifically, the offspring of the woman refers to Jesus Christ, who was born of a woman. The “enmity” or hostility and hatred spoken of here is between Satan and Christ. The seed of the serpent, evil men and demonic forces, struck at the heel of the Savior when Judas, the Pharisees, the rabble, and the Romans, conspired to condemn Jesus to be crucified. But His wound was not the final act. He rose the third day, having paid the price for the sin of all who would ever believe in Him. The ultimate victory was His, and He crushed the head of Satan, removing forever his rule over man. The power of Christ would destroy Satan and all his principalities and powers, confound all his schemes, and ruin all his works. The power of the cross would crush Satan’s whole empire, strip him of his authority (particularly his power over death), and his tyranny over the bodies and souls of men. All this was done by the incarnate Christ when He suffered and died for the souls of men (Hebrews 2:14–15). Because of what Jesus did on the cross, he “crushed” the devil’s head, defeating him forever. The protoevangelium shows us that God always had the plan of salvation in mind, and informed us of His plan as soon as sin entered the world. “The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil’s work” (1 John 3:8).'

https://www.gotquestions....elium.html

Open your heart open your mind
A train is leaving all day
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #245 posted 10/15/18 4:53pm

CherryMoon57

avatar

toejam said:
It's good to see you acknowledge there is a man (Adam) in sight in the scene (despite earlier saying that there wasn't).

______________________________________________________________________________

(see post #234) Did you really think a christian would not already know that Adam was in the garden of Eden? confuse

Open your heart open your mind
A train is leaving all day
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #246 posted 10/15/18 5:20pm

toejam

avatar

gotquestions.com wrote:
More specifically, the offspring of the woman refers to Jesus Christ

Despite the reassurance of a known fundamentalist apologetics website, there is no reason to infer a reference to Jesus in Genesis 3:15. Your source is merely offering a projected Christian interpretation - one that many more reasonable Christians see as going over the top. There's no reason to think the author of Genesis 3 had a virgin-born Jesus on his mind when writing. It's not what the passage is about.
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 #247 posted 10/15/18 6:26pm

IanRG

toejam said:

There is no pre-Christian source that interprets Genesis 3:15 as a prophecy of a virgin birth.

.
[Edited 10/15/18 15:48pm]

.
Other than the Pre Christian Jewish ones you seek to discredit in your next post.
.
Getting more frantic and making assertions based on faith to defend factual errors is no defense at all. It is documented that Jews did translate alma as virgin prior to Christianity and they did not think He was just all humans. You may get comfort by pretending this is just some fundamentalist view but it is not.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #248 posted 10/15/18 6:38pm

IanRG

The problem with prophecy is that it is not like the accuracy in some horror movie. That Jews expected the Messiah to not be like Jesus does not mean they did expect the Messiah to be born of an Alma, ie a young woman suitable for marriage or as they used to translate, a virgin.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #249 posted 10/16/18 4:04am

CherryMoon57

avatar

toejam said:

gotquestions.com wrote: More specifically, the offspring of the woman refers to Jesus Christ
Despite the reassurance of a known fundamentalist apologetics website, there is no reason to infer a reference to Jesus in Genesis 3:15. Your source is merely offering a projected Christian interpretation - one that many more reasonable Christians see as going over the top. There's no reason to think the author of Genesis 3 had a virgin-born Jesus on his mind when writing. It's not what the passage is about.

Despite the reassurance of the known fundamentalist theists books you have read, there is no reason to infer a reference to a cute aetiological story about how snakes and humans became enemies. Your sources are merely offering a projected atheist interpretation - one that many more reasonable atheists see as shallow. There is no reason to think the author of Genesis 3 had a nothing but a cute aetiological myth about how snakes and humans became enemies on their mind when writing. It's not what the passage is about.

Open your heart open your mind
A train is leaving all day
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #250 posted 10/16/18 5:17am

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!)

.

Some scholars on Genesis 3:15 (and relevent surrounding passages) and whether or not it is supposed to be about Mary conceiving Jesus without having had sex with a male. Emphases added.

.

"In the enmity and subsequent conflict between you and the woman, between your brood and hers (lit. your seed and her seed) certain early Jewish interpreters saw a reference to the victory of the Jewish community over evil in the days of the Messiah. Christian interpreters saw in the woman a reference to the Virgin Mary, and in ‘her seed’ a reference to Christ, an interpretation which was strengthened by the Vulgate reading ‘she’ instead of They in the second half of verse 15. This outruns the evidence. The verse speaks not of victory, but of continuing conflict, with characteristic blows being inflicted. People strike at or bruise the serpent’s head, the serpent strikes at their heel. The harmony and peace of the garden has been irrevocably shattered; perpetual conflict, a deadly struggle with evil now begins."

- Robert Davidson, “The Cambridge Bible Commentary on the New English Bible”, p.43-44

.

"The old Christian commentators called [Genesis 3:15] Protevangelium, that is, the first proclamation of the gospel of redemption. God promises that the seed of the woman shall crush the serpent’s head, i.e., obtain victory over temptation and evil. They regarded this promise as the first recorded prophecy of the redemption to be wrought by Christ: the Son of Mary would deliver from the power of sin the fallen sons of Eve. The J writer [i.e. the author of the passage], of course, had no such clear-cut prophecy in mind, but perhaps he is hinting in this parable at the ultimate redemption of the human race."

- Alan Richardson, “Genesis 1-11”, p.75

.

"[Regarding 3:15’s use of the term] offspring. The Hebrew literally means “seed”, used normally in the collective sense of progeny. The passage does not justify eschatological connotations. As [other commentators have stressed], we must not read into the words more than they contain."

- E. A. Speiser, “Genesis: New Anchor Bible Commentary”, p.24

.

"These penalties are all to be understood aetiologically; in them the narrator gives a reason for disturbing enigmas and necessities, he answers elementary questions about life. These are the real goal and climax toward which the narrative is directed in its present form. The serpent. Whence its marvellous constitution? In distinction from the other larger beasts it tortures itself by crawling along the ground on its belly? Whence this conduct? It appears to live from the dust in which it hisses (Isa. 65:25; Micah 7.17). Whence comes its special place among the beasts (it is cursed “above all wild animals”)? Whence, above all, that bitter hostility between it and man, a hostility that is different from and deeper than that which otherwise may exist man and beast, which is inherited, species against species, from generation to generation? That is not according to creation, but in this the serpent bears the curse of God, and this struggle with man is decreed by God because of its evil deed. One must, under all circumstances, proceed from the fact that the passage reflects quite realistically man’s struggle with the real snake.

.

But one must not stop there, for the things with which this passage deals are basic, and in illustrating them, the narrator uses not only the commonplace language of every day, but a language that also figuratively depicts the most intellectual matters. Thus by serpent he understands not only the zoological species [...], but at the same time, in a kind of spiritual clearheadedness, he sees in it an evil being that has assumed form, that is inexplicably present within our created world, and that has singled out man, lies in wait for him, and everywhere fights a battle with him for life and death. The serpent is an animal which, more than any other, embodies uncanny qualities that make it superior to man. The same thing applies to the forbidden fruit; one must guard against understanding it simply as symbolical, and yet no reader thinks of stopping with the realistic understanding. So too the serpent; a real serpent is meant; but at th same time, in it and its enigmatic relation to man, man’s relation to the evil with which he has become involved becomes vivid. […]

.

So far as the struggle itself is concerned, it is completely hopeless. Wherever man and serpent meet, the meeting always involves life and death. The verb šūp̄ in v. 15 has a primary meaning of “grind” and a secondary meaning (as by-form of šā'ap) of “snap.” But the passage does not mean that the same man who has trampled the serpent is always attacked by that very serpent. It is a struggle of the species (“between your seed and her seed”), and as such there is no foreseeable hope that a victory can be won by any kind of heroism. Just that is real doom! For the ancients, the curse was much more than an evil wish. By virtue of the effective power it was believed to possess, it brought about disastrous, irreparable situations (for instance, exclusion from communal relationships). The terrible point of this curse is hopelessness of this struggle in which both will ruin each other. The exegesis of the early church which found a messianic prophecy here, a reference to a final victory of the woman’s seed (Protoevangelium), does not agree with the sense of the passage, quite apart from the fact that the word “seed” may not be constructed personally but only quite generally with the meaning “posterity”."

- Gerhard von Rad, “Genesis”, p.92-93

.

"Christian commentators, beginning with Justin (ca. A.D. 160) and Irenaeus (ca. 180), have often regarded 3:15 as the Protoevangelium, the first messianic prophecy in the OT. While a messianic interpretation may be justified in the light of subsequent revelation, a sensus plenior, it would perhaps be wrong to suggest that this was the narrator’s own understanding. Probably he just looked for mankind eventually to defeat the serpent’s seed, the powers of evil."

- Gordon J. Wenham, “World Biblical Commentary: Genesis 1:15”

.

"From the time of Irenaeus, Christian tradition has understood the passage as a prophecy about Christ (and Mary). The “seed of the woman” was referred to one individual descendant who crushed the head of the serpent, whose seed was also an individual in the person of the devil (Satan), who is locked in deadly struggle with “the seed of the woman,” and who eventually succumbs to it. This explanation runs from Irenaeus right through the history of exegesis in both Catholic and evangelical tradition. […]

.

There are two main reasons that do not allow such an interpretation: First, it is beyond doubt that זַרְעֲ ["seed"] is to be understood collectively. The text is speaking on the line of descendants of the woman as well as of the serpent. The second reason is form-critical. The word occurs in the context of a pronouncement of the punishment (or of a curse). It is not possible that such a form has either promise or prophecy as its primary or even as its secondary meaning. The explanation of 3:15 as a promise has been abandoned almost without exception."

- Claus Westermann, “Genesis 1-11: A Commentary”, p.260

.

"Real snakes are obviously the subject of v. 14, and an etiology is provided for two of their peculiarities, that they can move very well indeed without legs and that they eat dust (as people of antiquity thought). A curse is put upon the snake […]. The preposition following this curse, translated “more than” (RSV “above all”), was taken by Jewish interpreters to mean that even in the last days snakes would not be blessed as would other animals. This may account for the odd statement in Isa. 65:25, which asserts that even in the ideal world of the future, when God makes everything right, there will apparently be one exception: “dust shall be the serpent’s food.” But the preposition may mean “apart from,” rather than “more than”; if taken that way it puts a kind of ban on serpents, separating them from the rest of living creatures.

.

Although Gen. 3:14 can only refer to real snakes, Christian interpreters have regularly insisted that v. 15 changes the subject and refers to the devil, promising his defeat by the Messiah. This protevangelium (literally, “first messianic promise”) appears first in the writings of Irenaeus (ca. A.D. 130-200), and it has been defended by many writers to this day; but it also has been rejected by such early authorities as Chrysostom, Augustine, and Jerome, as well as most modern scholars. This interpretation is actually a classic example of poor exegesis since it insists on a change of subject between vv. 14 and 15 that is not supported by the text, and it introduces a promise in the midst of vv. 14-19, which otherwise deal entirely with punishment. It tries to find a decisive difference in the two, very similar actions that are described (bruise your head, bruise his heel) and tries to force the collective noun, “seed,” to bear a singular meaning, so as to refer to only one of Eve’s offspring, the Messiah."

- Donald E. Gowan, “Genesis 1-11: From Eden to Babel”, p.57-58

.

"The punishments are etiologies that explain such human questions as "Why are women and men attracted to each other?" "Why do some people try to dominate others?" "Why do we wear clothes?" "Why is childbirth painful?" "Why is work difficult?" "Why do snakes crawl on the ground?" "Why do we die?"

- Joan E. Cook, "New Collegeville Bible Commentary: Genesis", p.20

.

"If theology really wants to free itself from the charge of distorting the meaning of Gen 3:15 […] then it will be forced to leave aside the allegorical-typologial interpretation of this passage and not to attribute any absolute theological meaning to the time-conditioned patristic and medieval tradition. It would be advisable not to use the concept of a Protoevangelium in the context of Gen 3:15."

- O. Loretz, "Genesis", excursus

.

.

[Edited 10/16/18 5:18am]

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 #251 posted 10/16/18 6:58am

CherryMoon57

avatar

^ Thanks toejam. I have had a quick scan and will have a more detailed read later. What strikes me at first glance, is not only the frequent acknowledgement of the messianic stance on the passage, but also, the hypotheticality in some of the opposing views (along with all the perhapses and maybe's) somehow contrasting with the very confident tone with which the concluding assertion is expressed.

A few exemples of this:

'The J writer [i.e. the author of the passage], of course, had no such clear-cut prophecy in mind*, but perhaps he is hinting in this parable at the ultimate redemption of the human race."- Alan Richardson, “Genesis 1-11”, p.75


"Christian commentators, beginning with Justin (ca. A.D. 160) and Irenaeus (ca. 180), have often regarded 3:15 as the Protoevangelium, the first messianic prophecy in the OT. While a messianic interpretation may be justified in the light of subsequent revelation, a sensus plenior, it would perhaps be wrong to suggest that this was the narrator’s own understanding. Probably he just looked for mankind eventually to defeat the serpent’s seed, the powers of evil."

- Gordon J. Wenham, “World Biblical Commentary: Genesis 1:15”

'Although Gen. 3:14 can only* refer to real snakes, Christian interpreters have regularly insisted that v. 15 changes the subject and refers to the devil, promising his defeat by the Messiah. This protevangelium (literally, first messianic promise”) appears first in the writings of Irenaeus (ca. A.D. 130-200), and it has been defended by many writers to this day; but it also has been rejected by such early authorities as Chrysostom, Augustine, and Jerome, as well as most modern scholars. This interpretation is actually a classic example of poor exegesis since it insists on a change of subject between vv. 14 and 15 that is not supported by the text, and it introduces a promise in the midst of vv. 14-19, which otherwise deal entirely with punishment. It tries to find a decisive difference in the two, very similar actions that are described (bruise your head, bruise his heel) and tries to force the collective noun, “seed,” to bear a singular meaning, so as to refer to only one of Eve’s offspring, the Messiah."

- Donald E. Gowan, “Genesis 1-11: From Eden to Babel”, p.57-58'

etc.

*How do they know for sure what someone had in mind or not?

Open your heart open your mind
A train is leaving all day
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #252 posted 10/16/18 7:39am

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!)

.

Some scholars on Genesis 3:15 (and relevent surrounding passages) and whether or not it is supposed to be about Mary conceiving Jesus without having had sex with a male. Emphases added.

.

"In the enmity and subsequent conflict between you and the woman, between your brood and hers (lit. your seed and her seed) certain early Jewish interpreters saw a reference to the victory of the Jewish community over evil in the days of the Messiah. Christian interpreters saw in the woman a reference to the Virgin Mary, and in ‘her seed’ a reference to Christ, an interpretation which was strengthened by the Vulgate reading ‘she’ instead of They in the second half of verse 15. This outruns the evidence. The verse speaks not of victory, but of continuing conflict, with characteristic blows being inflicted. People strike at or bruise the serpent’s head, the serpent strikes at their heel. The harmony and peace of the garden has been irrevocably shattered; perpetual conflict, a deadly struggle with evil now begins."

- Robert Davidson, “The Cambridge Bible Commentary on the New English Bible”, p.43-44

.

"The old Christian commentators called [Genesis 3:15] Protevangelium, that is, the first proclamation of the gospel of redemption. God promises that the seed of the woman shall crush the serpent’s head, i.e., obtain victory over temptation and evil. They regarded this promise as the first recorded prophecy of the redemption to be wrought by Christ: the Son of Mary would deliver from the power of sin the fallen sons of Eve. The J writer [i.e. the author of the passage], of course, had no such clear-cut prophecy in mind, but perhaps he is hinting in this parable at the ultimate redemption of the human race."

- Alan Richardson, “Genesis 1-11”, p.75

.

"[Regarding 3:15’s use of the term] offspring. The Hebrew literally means “seed”, used normally in the collective sense of progeny. The passage does not justify eschatological connotations. As [other commentators have stressed], we must not read into the words more than they contain."

- E. A. Speiser, “Genesis: New Anchor Bible Commentary”, p.24

.

"These penalties are all to be understood aetiologically; in them the narrator gives a reason for disturbing enigmas and necessities, he answers elementary questions about life. These are the real goal and climax toward which the narrative is directed in its present form. The serpent. Whence its marvellous constitution? In distinction from the other larger beasts it tortures itself by crawling along the ground on its belly? Whence this conduct? It appears to live from the dust in which it hisses (Isa. 65:25; Micah 7.17). Whence comes its special place among the beasts (it is cursed “above all wild animals”)? Whence, above all, that bitter hostility between it and man, a hostility that is different from and deeper than that which otherwise may exist man and beast, which is inherited, species against species, from generation to generation? That is not according to creation, but in this the serpent bears the curse of God, and this struggle with man is decreed by God because of its evil deed. One must, under all circumstances, proceed from the fact that the passage reflects quite realistically man’s struggle with the real snake.

.

But one must not stop there, for the things with which this passage deals are basic, and in illustrating them, the narrator uses not only the commonplace language of every day, but a language that also figuratively depicts the most intellectual matters. Thus by serpent he understands not only the zoological species [...], but at the same time, in a kind of spiritual clearheadedness, he sees in it an evil being that has assumed form, that is inexplicably present within our created world, and that has singled out man, lies in wait for him, and everywhere fights a battle with him for life and death. The serpent is an animal which, more than any other, embodies uncanny qualities that make it superior to man. The same thing applies to the forbidden fruit; one must guard against understanding it simply as symbolical, and yet no reader thinks of stopping with the realistic understanding. So too the serpent; a real serpent is meant; but at th same time, in it and its enigmatic relation to man, man’s relation to the evil with which he has become involved becomes vivid. […]

.

So far as the struggle itself is concerned, it is completely hopeless. Wherever man and serpent meet, the meeting always involves life and death. The verb šūp̄ in v. 15 has a primary meaning of “grind” and a secondary meaning (as by-form of šā'ap) of “snap.” But the passage does not mean that the same man who has trampled the serpent is always attacked by that very serpent. It is a struggle of the species (“between your seed and her seed”), and as such there is no foreseeable hope that a victory can be won by any kind of heroism. Just that is real doom! For the ancients, the curse was much more than an evil wish. By virtue of the effective power it was believed to possess, it brought about disastrous, irreparable situations (for instance, exclusion from communal relationships). The terrible point of this curse is hopelessness of this struggle in which both will ruin each other. The exegesis of the early church which found a messianic prophecy here, a reference to a final victory of the woman’s seed (Protoevangelium), does not agree with the sense of the passage, quite apart from the fact that the word “seed” may not be constructed personally but only quite generally with the meaning “posterity”."

- Gerhard von Rad, “Genesis”, p.92-93

.

"Christian commentators, beginning with Justin (ca. A.D. 160) and Irenaeus (ca. 180), have often regarded 3:15 as the Protoevangelium, the first messianic prophecy in the OT. While a messianic interpretation may be justified in the light of subsequent revelation, a sensus plenior, it would perhaps be wrong to suggest that this was the narrator’s own understanding. Probably he just looked for mankind eventually to defeat the serpent’s seed, the powers of evil."

- Gordon J. Wenham, “World Biblical Commentary: Genesis 1:15”

.

"From the time of Irenaeus, Christian tradition has understood the passage as a prophecy about Christ (and Mary). The “seed of the woman” was referred to one individual descendant who crushed the head of the serpent, whose seed was also an individual in the person of the devil (Satan), who is locked in deadly struggle with “the seed of the woman,” and who eventually succumbs to it. This explanation runs from Irenaeus right through the history of exegesis in both Catholic and evangelical tradition. […]

.

There are two main reasons that do not allow such an interpretation: First, it is beyond doubt that זַרְעֲ ["seed"] is to be understood collectively. The text is speaking on the line of descendants of the woman as well as of the serpent. The second reason is form-critical. The word occurs in the context of a pronouncement of the punishment (or of a curse). It is not possible that such a form has either promise or prophecy as its primary or even as its secondary meaning. The explanation of 3:15 as a promise has been abandoned almost without exception."

- Claus Westermann, “Genesis 1-11: A Commentary”, p.260

.

"Real snakes are obviously the subject of v. 14, and an etiology is provided for two of their peculiarities, that they can move very well indeed without legs and that they eat dust (as people of antiquity thought). A curse is put upon the snake […]. The preposition following this curse, translated “more than” (RSV “above all”), was taken by Jewish interpreters to mean that even in the last days snakes would not be blessed as would other animals. This may account for the odd statement in Isa. 65:25, which asserts that even in the ideal world of the future, when God makes everything right, there will apparently be one exception: “dust shall be the serpent’s food.” But the preposition may mean “apart from,” rather than “more than”; if taken that way it puts a kind of ban on serpents, separating them from the rest of living creatures.

.

Although Gen. 3:14 can only refer to real snakes, Christian interpreters have regularly insisted that v. 15 changes the subject and refers to the devil, promising his defeat by the Messiah. This protevangelium (literally, “first messianic promise”) appears first in the writings of Irenaeus (ca. A.D. 130-200), and it has been defended by many writers to this day; but it also has been rejected by such early authorities as Chrysostom, Augustine, and Jerome, as well as most modern scholars. This interpretation is actually a classic example of poor exegesis since it insists on a change of subject between vv. 14 and 15 that is not supported by the text, and it introduces a promise in the midst of vv. 14-19, which otherwise deal entirely with punishment. It tries to find a decisive difference in the two, very similar actions that are described (bruise your head, bruise his heel) and tries to force the collective noun, “seed,” to bear a singular meaning, so as to refer to only one of Eve’s offspring, the Messiah."

- Donald E. Gowan, “Genesis 1-11: From Eden to Babel”, p.57-58

.

"The punishments are etiologies that explain such human questions as "Why are women and men attracted to each other?" "Why do some people try to dominate others?" "Why do we wear clothes?" "Why is childbirth painful?" "Why is work difficult?" "Why do snakes crawl on the ground?" "Why do we die?"

- Joan E. Cook, "New Collegeville Bible Commentary: Genesis", p.20

.

"If theology really wants to free itself from the charge of distorting the meaning of Gen 3:15 […] then it will be forced to leave aside the allegorical-typologial interpretation of this passage and not to attribute any absolute theological meaning to the time-conditioned patristic and medieval tradition. It would be advisable not to use the concept of a Protoevangelium in the context of Gen 3:15."

- O. Loretz, "Genesis", excursus

.

Do you know why you could find these discussion points? If there was no dispute, then this would not be an issue, but there is dispute. Nobody would spend time arguing against a non-existant understanding.

.

Did you see how some of your quotes make it clear that this is not a just a post Jesus interpretation? The first one you quoted says "certain early Jewish interpreters saw a reference to the victory of the Jewish community over evil in the days of the Messiah". Others try to argue it is a Christian creation, even giving a date - that date is after some of the Jewish literature that see reference to the Messiah in this verse.

.

So what we have is:

.

Davidson confirms the Messianic understanding comes from early Jewish interpreters.

.

Richardson states it may be a reference to the ultimate human redemption contradicting Davidson who wants it to be about ongoing conflict. However, his Christian focus means he missed the King Messiah interpretation before this.

.

Speiser promotes a standard Post Jesus Judaic position, so disagrees with Richardson.

.

von Rad understands that the snake is meant both as the real animal but also symbolically with the struggle against evil. He agrees with Davidson on this being an ongoing struggle, so disagrees with Richardson - also in common with Richardson, he missed the pre Jesus Jewish understanding of this including a reference to the King Messiah.

.

Wenham mistakenly considers this as starting with Justin and Irenaeus but accepts that the Messianic prophecy could be a sensus plenior - a fuller meaning intended by God and the the writer may have only understood this as a reference to humans defeating evil - In other words none of this supports your view but you missed this because of your shallow research.

.

Westermann mistakenly considers this as starting after the Jewish Messianic interpretation and Justin to commenve with Irenaeus but states it is ongoing interpretation not restricted to Fundamentalism. Unlike Richardson and Wenhem he wants to interpret this as ongoing struggle like Davidson.

.

Gowan starts well understanding that the snake is being punished but wants this restricted to just the animal with no symbology to evil. He ultimately does link this to when evil is ultimately defeated but leaves it as the animal being excluded from this. But he gets disjointed: despite linking this to when evil is defeated (benefiting everyone but the snake) he wants it to be about an ongoing struggle and imagines a strike to the head being only the equal as a strike to the heal.

.

Cook? Your cut and paste does not discuss any of the points one way or the other and just looks at the punishments and equates them why things are the way they are.

.

Loretz is just recognising the existing disagreement on the theological interpretation and is saying just move on from any allegorical, typolgial, early Christian or medieval interpretations. This is avoidance rather than understanding.

.

All of which means what? Your selective list is inconsistent and a number (but not all) support the understanding of a specific or oblique Messianic / end to evil reference is being made despite you saying there is none. A number of them (but not all) don't miss that the Messianic understanding is not just a Post Jesus Christian understanding retrofitted later despite you saying this is all post Jesus. A number understand that the Messianic references are part of current understanding by many Christians, albeit that there has always been disagreement.

.

This is what you should do - analyse what you read, not just add things to a "look at me, look at me" list. Seek understanding. Determine what you believe and not just try to find out of context quotes to use in arguments to evangelise your beliefs by attacking the beliefs of other's.

[Edited 10/16/18 7:43am]

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #253 posted 10/16/18 7:53am

poppys

There are entire Christian religions that do not believe in the concept of original sin. They also do not believe in Saints or half-diety/half-human beings in the first place. There is a huge scope of what different Christians focus on regarding what is written in the bible, any bible. No absolutes there at all.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #254 posted 10/16/18 1:16pm

IanRG

poppys said:

There are entire Christian religions that do not believe in the concept of original sin. They also do not believe in Saints or half-diety/half-human beings in the first place. There is a huge scope of what different Christians focus on regarding what is written in the bible, any bible. No absolutes there at all.

.

Exactly. Christianity is the largest religion in the world with 1,000s of denominations crossing virtually every race, culture, country and active language. We have a wide range of views. But it all does not matter because, ultimately it about a personal relationship between each individual and God.

.

One thing that pretty much all of us would agree on is that the last person we would believe is an atheist hell bent on telling us what our beliefs should be so he can evangelise his belief that we are all wrong.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #255 posted 10/16/18 1:31pm

toejam

avatar

CherryMoon57 said:

^ Thanks toejam. I have had a quick scan and will have a more detailed read later. What strikes me at first glance, is not only the frequent acknowledgement of the messianic stance on the passage,

.

No problem. Remember, you told me that Genesis 3:15 is "very likely" a "mention of the virgin birth". Whether or not this passage has intended messianic overtones isn't really the issue. I can't help but feel you and Ian are trying to widen the goal posts as much as possible to take focus away from your claim that it is "very likely" a "mention of the virgin birth". To do this, both of you now want to focus on messianism rather than what I initially pulled you up on regarding this passage. As you can see, some of the scholars above think there are messianic overtones, others do not. Similarly, there is some disagreement over the degree to which it is exclusively or partially etiological, etc. But all these scholars understand that the human author was not writing prophecy about the supposed virgin birth of Jesus of Nazareth.

.

but also, the hypotheticality in some of the opposing views (along with all the perhapses and maybe's) somehow contrasting with the very confident tone with which the concluding assertion is expressed. [...]

.

These scholars are expressing their views and levels of confidence. It's only expected that there will be some variation in confidence on any given point.

.

*How do they know for sure what someone had in mind or not?

.

How sure are YOU that the passage is a "mention of the virgin birth"? You've told me you think it is "very likely". I don't know how you're drawing "very likely" from a passage that doesn't mention anything about virginity, whose attending female character is Eve (not Mary of ~4,000yrs later), whose "seed" is generally understood to be collective for the rest of humanity, and when the seed's personification is only said to be in some perpetual battle with the serpent's seed. You are reading Jesus, Mary and the virgin birth into this passage. It's not what it's about.

.

Personally, I'm very sure it's not about the virgin birth. Whether or not it has messianic overtones I am less sure. I don't think such an interpretation is necessary - etiology seems to cut it just fine. Cook, for example, simply acknowledges it as etiology with no mention of messianism or the Protoevangelium. But I can live with the possibility that it has messianic roots. But potential messianic roots ≠ virgin birth.

.

[Edited 10/16/18 13:48pm]

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 #256 posted 10/16/18 2:25pm

IanRG

toejam said:

CherryMoon57 said:

^ Thanks toejam. I have had a quick scan and will have a more detailed read later. What strikes me at first glance, is not only the frequent acknowledgement of the messianic stance on the passage,

.

No problem. Remember, you told me that Genesis 3:15 is "very likely" a "mention of the virgin birth". Whether or not this passage has intended messianic overtones isn't really the issue. I can't help but feel you and Ian are trying to widen the goal posts as much as possible to take focus away from your claim that it is "very likely" a "mention of the virgin birth". To do this, both of you now want to focus on messianism rather than what I initially pulled you up on regarding this passage. As you can see, some of the scholars above think there are messianic overtones, others do not. Similarly, there is some disagreement over the degree to which it is exclusively or partially etiological, etc. But all these scholars understand that the human author was not writing prophecy about the supposed virgin birth of Jesus of Nazareth.

.

.

These scholars are expressing their views and levels of confidence. It's only expected that there will be some variation in confidence on any given point.

.

*How do they know for sure what someone had in mind or not?

.

How sure are YOU that the passage is a "mention of the virgin birth"? You've told me you think it is "very likely". I don't know how you're drawing "very likely" from a passage that doesn't mention anything about virginity, whose attending female character is Eve (not Mary of ~4,000yrs later), whose "seed" is generally understood to be collective for the rest of humanity, and when the seed's personification is only said to be in some perpetual battle with the serpent's seed. You are reading Jesus, Mary and the virgin birth into this passage. It's not what it's about.

.

Personally, I'm very sure it's not about the virgin birth. Whether or not it has messianic overtones I am less sure. I don't think such an interpretation is necessary - etiology seems to cut it just fine. Cook, for example, simply acknowledges it as etiology with no mention of messianism or the Protoevangelium. But I can live with the possibility that it has messianic roots. But potential messianic roots ≠ virgin birth.

.

As ever, in your rush to evangelise your beliefs by dismissing others, you miss the point - Every time your quotes talk about a Christian view of the Messiah, they are talking about Jesus born of the Virgin Mary. From a Messianic Jewish point of view, it is not Mary, but it is an alma as they understood this before they had to remove the virgin connotation from this word. The "He that will strike" is referred to as a descendent of a woman's line in a very patriachial society that does not recognise woman's lines (you agreed with this above). Your quotes confirm that this quote can be read by Jews and Christians alike as a reference to the virgin born Messiah. One even directly states that this could be a sensus plenior. And, remember, these are just the quotes you selected because you thought they supported your view. There are all the other quotes that you dismiss and ignore because they don't support your beliefs. Your quotes are just one side of the coin, they would not have been written at all if there was not another side of the coin. Whilst expressing an often different opinion from your's they confirm your errors in your assertions.

.

You need to learn to study not just the assumed literal meaning of selective phrases taken out of context (even out of the context of your quotes) to understand a religion or philosophy. It is the shallowness of your study because it is only ever to find reasons to evangelise your beliefs that is your undoing each and everytime.

[Edited 10/16/18 14:44pm]

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #257 posted 10/16/18 3:24pm

IanRG

^^ PS. I note that in this you now accept the possibility of this being seen as a proto-messianic prophecy but couch this behind the veil of accusing other people of changing their position. My position is unchanged.

[Edited 10/16/18 15:25pm]

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #258 posted 10/16/18 3:33pm

CherryMoon57

avatar

All I can say is that Poppy is right in that people will see different things in the Bible. The Holy Book is very rich in meanings and has a multitude of layers. The same passage at different times can unveil new meanings, depending on what God is telling us at a particular moment of our life. That is part of the personal relationship God has with each and everyone of us.

But just like life has several dimensions, all these very personal messages are encompassed by a much wider message. And for most, it is impossible to grasp it all at once. Many will try, a few will success, others will instantly fail by thinking they have nothing to learn.

If someone genuinely understands Genesis 3:15 as a prophetical messianic verse that alludes to the virgin birth of Jesus, then why would another feel the need to then come along and try to take that understanding away from them? We are not the absolute - humans are by nature very changing and unreliable - and our understandings may differ, fluctuate or evolve, but God's immutability will always stand, no matter what we think, say or do.

Open your heart open your mind
A train is leaving all day
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #259 posted 10/16/18 3:40pm

2freaky4church
1

avatar

Name an atheist more moral than MLK? One!

All you others say Hell Yea!! woot!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #260 posted 10/16/18 4:31pm

IanRG

2freaky4church1 said:

Name an atheist more moral than MLK? One!

.

What? You want to discuss your topic, not toejam's beliefs about Christian beliefs!

.

I do believe that there are many non-believers who are at least as moral as me. In this I define a non-believer as a person who respects the beliefs of others without feeling the need to change their beliefs to being in line with their belief that there is no God.

.

Conversely an atheist is a person who seeks to change other people's beliefs to theirs often by mocking, ridicule and deceptive game play. Straight away this is no different from the manipulative conversions Christians and others have done - right up to Jim Jones and the Khmer Rouge. There simply is not a culture among atheists to demonstrate their beliefs by their morals and love for all of nobody's creation. This puts them behind the 8-ball. But we are all behind that ball one way or the other.

[Edited 10/16/18 16:46pm]

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #261 posted 10/16/18 5:19pm

2freaky4church
1

avatar

I have one: Noam Chomsky,

All you others say Hell Yea!! woot!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #262 posted 10/16/18 6:04pm

toejam

avatar

To conclude on Genesis 3:15: Not all messianic verses are necessarily ones about virgin births. To conflate a verse that a) does not even necessitate a messianic interpretation to begin with (indeed can be satisfactorily understood as simply etiological), b) does not mention virginity, c) was not interpreted to be a prophecy of a virgin birth until post-Christianity, and d) does not mention Mary, Jesus or something that more concretely links to them in a way distinguishable from other potential messianic claimants, as "very likely a mention of [Jesus's] virgin birth" is surely a case of reading Jesus's virgin birth fiction into the passage.

.
[Edited 10/16/18 18:13pm]
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 #263 posted 10/16/18 7:26pm

IanRG

toejam said:

To conclude on Genesis 3:15: Not all messianic verses are necessarily ones about virgin births. To conflate a verse that a) does not even necessitate a messianic interpretation to begin with (indeed can be satisfactorily understood as simply etiological), b) does not mention virginity, c) was not interpreted to be a prophecy of a virgin birth until post-Christianity, and d) does not mention Mary, Jesus or something that more concretely links to them in a way distinguishable from other potential messianic claimants, as "very likely a mention of [Jesus's] virgin birth" is surely a case of reading Jesus's virgin birth (e) fiction into the passage. .

.

If your assumptions are right then you could reach this conclusion.

.

However:

(a) That some but not all of your own inconclusive quotes do not believe this verse has Messianic prophecy connections is an empty argument because a number do recognise this connection, both quoted and elsewhere. You have failed to prove your point here.

.

(b) As a proto-prophecy it is unrealistic to assume this would contain all the objective details when the fuller prophecies also are highly reliant on symbology and links to the current situations. Your failing to understand that both the Christian and pre-Christian Judaic understanding of the Messianic prophecies are based on the Messiah being born of a virgin is not a failing of the author or an undue assumption by the Jewish and Christian readers. That the Jews have provable changed their interpretation of alma post-Jesus is not a good argument. You have failed to prove your point here.

.

(c) You have posted commentary in your quotes that directly contradicts this. The Messianic Jewish beliefs predating Jesus were also based on the King Messiah being born of an alma where this is subsequently translated as virgin prior to Christianity - centuries before the New Testament. You not only have not proven this point, it is easily demonstrated as straight out wrong.

.

(d) This is a non-point. There is no need for a separation between the Jewish understanding the unfulfilled promise of a messiah and Christian understanding that Jesus is the fulfilment of that promise. It is the same promise. No one has ever suggested that the Jews are reliant a completley different set of verses than the Christians

.

(e) This is an empty assertion with no proof. We know from you failure to ever answer questions or prove your assertions here before that you have no proof that this is a fiction. You whole argument is based on the "Historical Jesus" hypothetical that what if Jesus was not the Son of God and Son of Man, then what can we say about him. The problem is you use the hypothetical assumption as both the opening premise and the conclusion in a circular argument: Jesus is not God, therefore he was born of two parents, therefore not of a virgin, therefore this proves he is not God.

.

Your argument is not a valid conclusion.

[Edited 10/16/18 19:35pm]

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #264 posted 10/16/18 11:42pm

BombSquad

avatar

2freaky4church1 said:

I have one: Noam Chomsky,

utter rubbish. he can't have ANY morals cause he won't accept gods word.
you contradict yourself, geeeez




now name a Christian more moral than Chomsky? One!

Ideally speaking, the President of the United States and the dumbest person in the country would be two different people. Oh well.... money can't fix stupid
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #265 posted 10/17/18 12:05am

toejam

avatar

IanRG said:

.

toejam said:
[Genesis 3:15] does not even necessitate a messianic interpretation to begin with (indeed can be satisfactorily understood as simply etiological)

.

That some but not all of your own inconclusive quotes do not believe this verse has Messianic prophecy connections is an empty argument because a number do recognise this connection, both quoted and elsewhere. You have failed to prove your point here.

.

Nothing in your response adds anything new in showing that Genesis 3:15 necessitates a messianic interpretation. Several scholars above, along with many others, are satisfied with an etiological understanding. I do not require the verse to be non-messianic in order for my objection to CherryMoon57's claim that it is a "mention of the virgin birth" to be valid. But it remains a valid point that Genesis 3:15 does not necessitate a messianic interpretation (indeed it can be satisfactorily understood as simply etiological). My point remains.

.

IanRG said:

.

toejam said:

[Genesis 3:15] does not mention virginity

.

As a proto-prophecy it is unrealistic to assume this would contain all the objective details when the fuller prophecies also are highly reliant on symbology and links to the current situations. Your failing to understand that both the Christian and pre-Christian Judaic understanding of the Messianic prophecies are based on the Messiah being born of a virgin is not a failing of the author or an undue assumption by the Jewish and Christian readers. That the Jews have provable changed their interpretation of alma post-Jesus is not a good argument. You have failed to prove your point here.

.

You have not shown that Genesis 3:15 mentions virginity. There is no "alma", "bthule", "parthenos" or what-have-you in Genesis 3:15. You are trying desperately to shift away from the verse in question to another. One would think that a prophecy about a virgin birth might actually mention something about virginity. But Genesis 3:15 does not mention virginity. My point remains.

.

IanRG said:

.

toejam said:

[Genesis 3:15] was not interpreted to be a prophecy of a virgin birth until post-Christianity

.

You have posted commentary in your quotes that directly contradicts this. The Messianic Jewish beliefs predating Jesus were also based on the King Messiah being born of an alma where this is subsequently translated as virgin prior to Christianity - centuries before the New Testament. You not only have not proven this point, it is easily demonstrated as straight out wrong.

.

None of the commentary in the quotes contradicts my claim that it was not interpreted to be a prophecy of a virgin birth until post-Christianity. You have not provided a source of a pre-Christian whom interprets this verse as a prophecy for a virgin birth. Pre-Christian sources that understand the verse as Messianic are not the same as pre-Christian sources that understand it as a prophecy of a virgin-birth. There is no "alma" in Genesis 3:15, so again this is just more misdirection from you. Genesis 3:15 was not interpreted to be a prophecy of a virgin birth until post-Christianity. My point remains.

.

IanRG said:

.

toejam said:

does not mention Mary, Jesus or something that more concretely links to them in a way distinguishable from other potential messianic claimants, as "very likely a mention of[Jesus's] virgin birth" is surely a case of reading Jesus's virgin birth fiction into thepassage

.

This is a non-point. There is no need for a separation between the Jewish understanding the unfulfilled promise of a messiah and Christian understanding that Jesus is the fulfilment of that promise. It is the same promise. No one has ever suggested that the Jews are reliant a completley different set of verses than the Christians

.

The point is entirely valid. If the verse is not only messianic but also pointing to a virgin-born Jesus as that Messiah, then one should expect something more than just a generic messianic expectation. There should be something to distinguish its predicted Messiah as specifically virgin-born Jesus from some other potential ideal Messiah the author may have had in mind. You have admitted elsewhere that Jesus did not fulfill the general Jewish expectation of "Messiah". If there was an expectation that the Messiah would "crush the head of the serpent's seed", and it is assumed that the serpent's seed here is symbolic for Satan and/or the forces of evil, then Jesus certainly has not accomplished this, as unnecessary suffering, death, etc., remain to this day. Jesus has not accomplished what he was supposed to if this is supposed to be a prophecy about him. Genesis 3:15 does not mention Mary, Jesus or something that more concretely links to them in a way distinguishable from other potential messianic claimants. My point remains.

.

IanRG said:

.

toejam said:

Jesus's virgin birth fiction

.

This is an empty assertion with no proof. We know from you failure to ever answer questions or prove your assertions here before that you have no proof that this is a fiction. You whole argument is based on the "Historical Jesus" hypothetical that what if Jesus was not the Son of God and Son of Man, then what can we say about him. The problem is you use the hypothetical assumption as both the opening premise and the conclusion in a circular argument: Jesus is not God, therefore he was born of two parents, therefore not of a virgin, therefore this proves he is not God.

.
You have offered no attempt to show how the claims of Jesus' virgin birth are not fiction. You're merely asserting a strawman of my reasoning. Fiction makes best sense of the virgin birth. Ascribing fictitious miraculous shenanigan stories to cult heroes was too common a phenomena for this not to be the best explanation of an event that practically defies physics/biology and does not show up definitively in the tradition until ~80-120yrs after Jesus' birth in hearsay accounts. Again, Christian scholar Andrew T. Lincoln says it better than I...
.
“If you compare Matthew and Luke, as ancient biographies, with other ancient biographies, you will see that the sorts of things that Matthew and Luke placed in their birth narratives were precisely what anyone would have expected to hear in a 'beginning of the life' of a great figure. Typically what happened was that the authors of ancient biographies didn’t have a lot of information about their subject's birth because the subject came to greatness later in life. And so in these biographies, you will find “reports” and created anecdotes, signs and omens, portents and dreams etc., further stories that place the figure in precocious discussions with major state figures of the ancient world - at the age of 11 or 12 or something like that. Events that bring out his later greatness. All of those things, plus the notion that this great philosopher or statesman must have also been related to the gods in some way. And so, you will also find in these biographies accounts of how the conception and birth involved a god somehow. You will find virginal and non-virginal conceptions. But the main thing being stressed is there was no human male - it was instead a god who was involved. So all of those things are there in this literary genre.”
.
So I don't see that anything is invalid in my previous post:
.
To conclude on Genesis 3:15: Not all messianic verses are necessarily ones about virgin births. To conflate a verse that a) does not even necessitate a messianic interpretation to begin with (indeed can be satisfactorily understood as simply etiological), b) does not mention virginity, c) was not interpreted to be a prophecy of a virgin birth until post-Christianity, and d) does not mention Mary, Jesus or something that more concretely links to them in a way distinguishable from other potential messianic claimants, as "very likely a mention of [Jesus's] virgin birth" is surely a case of reading Jesus's virgin birth fiction into the passage.
.

.

[Edited 10/17/18 0:24am]

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 #266 posted 10/17/18 2:57am

IanRG

toejam said:

.

<Nothing new from what he has been saying for many years>

.

The only thing worth responding to is that I am shocked that:

- You cannot understand your own quotes,

- You pretend to not know that the Jewish texts were translated before Christ,

- You would deny Jewish understanding of King Messiah from before Christ.

.

I am not surprised that:

- You cannot answer my question,

- You once again pretend I asserted anything about the Virgin Mary when it was you who made the assertion and, true to form, you cannot defend your assertion with anytihng but hypothetical "Historical Jesus" assumptions.

- You fall back making false strawman accusations when "Historical Jesus" is mentioned 34 times before this post, mostly by you. Your same old ineffective shenanigan argument is based on the assumption that Jesus is not the Son of God and Son of Man. From this you argue that fiction makes the best sense because humans who are not the Son of God and Son of Man have two parents so you conclude Jesus is not the Son of God and Son of Man - This is a circular argument, not a strawman. If not - prove it, answer my question - show how the Son of God and Son of Man being born of the Virgin Mary is beyond God's capabilities.

.

Your conclusion is invalid. It is self serving in your need to evangelise your beliefs by seeking discredit the beliefs of others.

.

You are off-topic and have said nothing new in regards to this for years. No matter how much "research" you claim to have done, there is still no depth, no understanding. How much could you achieved over these years if you devoted even a small portion of all this time, effort and money to actually seeking to understand something?

[Edited 10/17/18 3:03am]

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #267 posted 10/17/18 9:29am

2freaky4church
1

avatar

Bombsquad feels guilty. lol

All you others say Hell Yea!! woot!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #268 posted 10/18/18 1:35am

BombSquad

avatar

2freaky feels unable to answer LOL

so let's pin down that you can't name any Christian more moral than Chomsky?

no surprise there.


now we can conclude that atheists are more moral and generally better humans than Christians. there's that.




also note that Chomsky is not only atheist but also male, white and a scientist.

so therfore we can conclude even more: men are better than women, Whites are better than Blacks or Latinos, and scientists are better than priests

it's all soooo easy in the freaky world LMFAO






[Edited 10/18/18 3:51am]

Ideally speaking, the President of the United States and the dumbest person in the country would be two different people. Oh well.... money can't fix stupid
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #269 posted 10/18/18 6:27am

poppys

There is also the premise implied that a very narrow interpretation of Christianity is the victor over atheism. All forms of religion, including branches of Christianity, do not believe in recruitment either.

From my experience, people who have rejected (any) organized religion have thought a lot more about it than people who haven't questioned religion (or religious dogma) and feel comfortable with it easily. Not always of course, such as some orgers I read here who have explored the reasons for their faith, but it's worth pointing out.


[Edited 10/18/18 8:50am]

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Page 9 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!