Enlil-An

Can you be more specific? What exactly is the valid, underlying gospel that underpins the Church, exactly? Or, to put it more plainly, what parts of the Church do you actually have a testimony of and think are true?You came after me for pointing out the discrepencies between the two birth narratives of Jesus saying that you were annoyed with people like me who come on these boards to "sound the alarm" as you put it. But you've started a number of threads on these boards doing what appears to me to be the same thing. Is there a difference I'm not seeing?

If you have two people telling the same story, they need to corrobarate eachother at least in some way. The problem isn't that the accounts of Matthew and Luke don't match exactly, the problem is that they don't match at all. They both purport to tell the story of how Jesus was born at Bethlehem and they both tell completely different tales about how it happened.Let me ask you a question. What is it about the accounts of Matthew and Luke that make you believe they're telling the same story?

volgadon, I believe we've covered all the ground that you and I can cover on this subject and it appears that I've unintentionally offended you, rameumptom, and Johnny Rudick (and possibly others) so I'm not really interested in continuing our conversion but a promise is a promise so here is the excerpt from Paula Fredriksen's From Jesus to Christ that I referenced earlier: 'Isaiah 7:14 is not a messianic prophecy. In its original context, it represents God through the prophet assuring King Ahaz that evil days are fast approaching for his enemies...Further, the Hebrew aalmah simply means "young girl." But it was translated in the LXX by the more ambiguous parthenos, which means either "young girl" or "virgin" (Heb. betulah). Thus this relatively unexceptional event - a young girl bearing a child - becomes a prediction of a miraculous birth. Similarily, "God with us" (emmanu-El) would mean one thing to its original Jewish audience, and something quite different to a Christian when applied to the figure of Jesus.' Do with it what you will.

The translations you've consulted aren't wrong, your interpretation of the passage itself is. You're assuming that Joseph was originally heading for Nazareth in Galilee even though Matthew makes no indication of any such thing. Yes, I have. And their arguements (like yours) don't hold up against the evidence. Very creative, but if we read the passage in sequence, there are two dreams. The second one was a warning, the first one wasn't. And, like I said, there is no indication in Matthew's gospel that Joseph was ever originally travelling to Galilee. And how do they translate and interpret Isaiah 7:14? It's very hypocritical of you to demand "hard and fast" evidence from me when you refuse to supply it yourself. And any evidence I present, you'll just twist it around anyway like you have been doing with the scriptures I've been quoting. Nevertheless, I will agree to humor you on one condition. I will post the exact words of Professor Fredriksen regarding Isaiah 7:14 typing it directly from her book if you will cut & paste (a much easier job) the parts of Josephus you believe vindicate your claims that Jews in Christ's time regularly feigned ignorance out of arrogance. Until then, take some of your own medicine: Paula Fredriksen From Jesus to Christ page 38. Who told Isaiah she was a virgin? Certainly you're aren't accusing a man of God of...looking, are you? Click here and type in Samson. See for yourself: Search Baby Names and Meanings, Name Meanings, Meaning of Names On the contrary, if Jewish people at anytime have interpreted the original Hebrew version (not the Greek Septuigent) of Isaiah 7:14 as a virgin giving birth to the God of the universe (a totally absurd idea for an ancient Israelite to believe), I would see that as powerful evidence that Matthew is right about that prophecy. The Mt Arbel thing is much more of a stretch. If you were Isaiah, and received a revelation that a virgin was going to have a child, would you record this revelation of such an unprecidented event in Israel using the word virgin or would you use the more ambiguous phrase young woman? Think about it. I have a strong feeling that you and I interpret scriptures very differently. So instead of asking me what I get out of it, why don't you just save us all some time tell us how you interpret it and how it relates to your current position? I don't take anybody's word at face value unless that person has proven their credibility to me by demonstrating the truthfulness of their words. I take certain academics' at their word when discussing the historical research behind the ideas and meanings of many things in the Bible and I take a prophet at their word when they discuss feelings of the spirit and how to have a better relationship with God. When these people start making claims outside of their area of expertise, I take what they say as accurate if I already know it to be true or if it's something that can be verified. My mistake. The bigger issue is your claim that 1 Ne. 11:13 shows that Jesus was born at Bethlehem which it doesn't. Two points: 1) That scripture isn't specific enough to exclude Nazareth because Alma was prophecying to people on another continant entirely. In that context, the "land of Jerusalem" could have easily meant "the land where all the Jews come from" which is the other side of the world. 2) It doesn't really matter to me whether Jesus was born at Bethlehem or not (judging by the gospel of John, I'm leaning toward the idea that Jesus was probably born at Nazareth). The point is that if he was born there, he didn't get there the way Matthew and Luke says he did because, not only do they contradict each other, but both accounts on their own are historically dubious. Straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel, volgadon. This is what I mean by haggling. See for example: haggle definition | Dictionary.com The crowd of Jews who thought Jesus was the predicted Messiah weren't basing their belief of him on any tradition that the Messiah would come out of Nazareth or Galilee according to John. THAT is the critical point.

It's not MY premise, it's Joseph Smith's. Now you've contradicted yourself. The AoF says that the Bible is the "word of God" insofar as it is "translated correctly" but before that you said that the gospels weren't written by prophets of God so if they were never the words of God to begin with, how can the AoF be correct in it's claim that the Bible was the word of God before it was corrupted through mistranslations? Joseph Smith said there was no error in the things he had taught. Joseph Smith said his revelations came from God. Are you saying that man can actually improve the words of God? Didn't Joseph Smith write the Joseph Smith History in the Pearl of Great Price? Didn't he write the Doctrine and Covenants? Didn't Nephi write the first and second book of Nephi?

Very possibly. It's also possible that Jesus was born at Bethlehem. He just didn't get there the way Matthew and Luke said he did.

Luke possibly. Matthew definately. John doesn't say anything about the virgin birth or Jesus being born at Bethlehem. I don't think he believes it. There's no disputing that Jesus was from Nazareth. The point is how he got there. Matthew and Luke are painting the target around the arrow with their birth narratives of Jesus because they're trying to demonstrate how Jesus was from Nazareth, but really born at Bethlehem where the prophecy of Micah says the Messiah is supposed to come from and they both come up with different stories of how Jesus got from A to B. No, the direction I'm leaning in is that Jesus was probably really born in Nazareth and that all oral traditions of him being born at Bethlehem were invented to conform to prophecy.

That's not what the 8th Article of Faith says. It says we believe the Bible to be the word of God. Do you really believe it's been that badly translated that whole entire stories are false? I don't think that's the Church's position and I've never heard a Sunday school teacher or general authority put the Bible into the prespective that you just did. He said there was no error in the things he had taught. Apparently that was wrong. It isn't just the stories in the Bible that have problems. The doctrines do as well. And if a prophet can be so fallible as to lie and give wrong information, what is the benefit of following a prophet over any other man? No, I'm saying that if Joseph Smith was wrong in his interpretation of scripture and prophecy, there might be something more complex about being a prophet that what the Church has traditionally taught. Don't you believe that the Church should teach the truth about this complexity? No, we claim that it's true. And obviously there are parts of it that are not true. I do when I'm talking to non-members on other threads.

The text says in the overwelming majority of translations that Joseph was afraid to go to Judea (not travel through) and that only when he was warned in a dream did he travel to Galilee. It's obvious to mea that he was originally going back to Judea and only went to Galilee to flee from Archelaus. I have no other arguements I can bring to the table than those I already have. If you don't want to interpret the scripture that way, that's fine. I'm not doing any such thing, volgadon. The historians who accept Matthew and Luke's nativity story as independent contradictory accounts have already provided enough evidence to show me that the two stories cannot be harmonized. And what difference does this make on anything we've been talking about? Spell it out for me. You are wrong if you are asserting that there are traditions of the Messiah coming from Galilee that go back to the time before Christ. I have no doubt that later traditions of Jesus invovling Mt Arbel have developed. Hogwash! You haven't given me any thing to research that has any meaningful support for your point of view and now you're trying to weasle out of posting quotes from your sources, we must assume, because you don't want to us to see how weak they are as a defense for your arguements.I read biblical historiography on my own and I can assure you, nothing I have read (and doubtful will ever read) has lead me to the wild conclusions you're making about the Jews in John's gospel and unless you provide quotes or a link to a precise statements from credible sources (quote Josephus if you want), there's no reason to think that you know what you're talking about and no reason for me to exert myself any further. I guess all of our beliefs are based on our opinion, aren't they? Her opinion is shared by many other historians (who aren't paid evangelists) who have also written scholarly works on this subject. It's the only real logical opinion that there is...in my opinion. Nephi knew Mary was a virgin because he had his own vision concerning her. Nothing in anything Nephi writes suggests that he got this idea from Isaiah."Almah" may not preclude virginity (just like the english phrase young woman deosn't) but the problem is that it doesn't insinuate virginity and there's no reason to assume that it would. It would be more presuptiuous to assume that Isaiah used such a vague word for virgin when there was a more precise word available. Don't you think that if Isaiah wanted his readers to know she was a virgin, he would have said "virgin" and not "young woman"? Afterall, a many babies do you think were born of a virgin in Isaiah's world? It's a Hebrew name like mine, Matthew which means "gift of God". Many Hebrew names incorporate divine status in their meanings. Immanual (which is not the Hebrew name for Jesus) is a very common Israelite name and when reading Isaiah 7:14 in context with the rest of the chapter and the correct Hebrew wording, it's obvious that it isn't referring to Jesus.The name Samson means sun child and his birth was also predicted in scripture. Does that mean we should believe that his mortal father was not his real father and that he was begotton by the sun? There is no evidence that Jews ever interpreted Isaiah 7:14 that way even before Christ was born. And the fact that the original Hebrew doesn't use the word virgin, is solid evidence that Matthew is the one using that verse for polemical reasons. Why don't you just explain the point, Sherlock, and post whatever quotes from that chapter (and the following ones if necessary) to demonstrate it exactly what your point (which you still haven't made clear) is and how Isaiah and Nephi support it? Because I've lost my faith in the abilities of general authorities to always correctly interpret the Bible. How on earth do 1 Nephi 11:13 and Alma 7:10 support that? Niether Nazareth nor Bethlehem are even mentioned in those scriptures. There were many Jews who appealed to scripture but others still believed in him because of the miracles. It says this quite clearly in John chapter 7. If the verses you want me to find are very precise, why don't you give me the precise number for those verses. I'm not scouring four whole chapters of Josephus just to find...what ever it is you want me to find. I know the difference and you definately like to haggle. But nevermind...

Nice try, but that's not what the scripture is saying. In every instance, when Joseph learns that Archelaus is the ruler of Judea, the scripture says he was afraid to "go there" (KJV "go thither"), not that he was afraid to "travel through" and when he received a warning from the angel, the scripture clearly indicates that he changed course in going to Galilee. Many english translations say, "he withdrew" into Galilee. The KJV says he "turned aside" (essentially the same as withdrew). The Messege translation of the Bible even says, "But then Joseph was directed in a dream to go to the hills of Galilee." Why would an angel need to direct Joseph to go to a place that he was going to already?All the indications from Matthew 2:21-23 is that Joseph was originally going back to the land of Judea (presumably home to Bethlehem) and that he only went to Galilee instead because Archelaus was the new ruler of Judea and the angel's warning. You can (and will no doubt) disagree with this assessment but this is how it sounds to me and this is how most historians interpret it as well. What difference does it make whether Joseph was warned or commanded? The point is that he wasn't originally going to Galilee. And if you are right that Joseph was "commanded" to go there, it is only more evidence that he wasn't originally heading there in the first place. Your scenarios don't contradict either other at all. But then they don't have a back story do they. I'm sure you could invent a back story and word it in such a way that it could support your position, but Matthew and Luke cannot be harmonized with one another the way they are told and worded. They are different, contradictory stories. In Matthew's gospel, the holy family travels from Bethelehem to Egypt to Nazareth. In Lukes' they travel from Nazareth to Bethlehem back to Nazareth and they journey under completely different circumstances than those laid out in Matthew. The birth stories of the two gospels can't be reconciled. Why must I repeat myself two and three times because you seem to skim over everything I write and only pick out portions of it to nit-pick? I gave you two options, valgadon. Either post a link to the source online or type the quote into your post. Until you do, I'm not going on anymore of your scavanger hunts just to find out what I know already - that you are wrong. If you can't provide them, then there's no point telling us you have them to begin with because you can't use them to back you up. You're the one making sweeping announcements about the Gospels. I'm just reading them as they stand and because they don't support what you want to believe you resort to all kinds of ludicrous tactics for refuting them from challenging the accuracy of their translations to stretching the text to mean something it doesn't and even refusing to take the passages at face value trying instead to invent some alternate meaning for them. "Oh, well it was customary for the Greeks to tell histories that contradict eachother. It's part of there culture." "Well, you see, when Jews claim they don't know something, they're only pretending to be ignorant toward an idea they find repulsive." What nonsense! Can you provide any real evidence for these absurd claims or not? Because she read them in the context in which they were written just like I did. Something Matthew DID NOT do. You are obviously having a hard time understanding what I've typed. You need to slow down and read my posts more carefully so I don't have to keep repeating myself. Let me say it again:I don't have a problem with Matthew saying that Jesus was born of a virgin. I have a problem with Matthew saying that Isaiah prophecied that the Messiah would be born of a virgin. Nephi never claims that Isaiah prophecies of the virgin birth. Nephi makes his own prophecy of the virgin birth. My problem with Matthew isn't that he says Mary was a virgin. My problem is his interpretation that Isaiah 7:14 is a prophecy of Jesus' birth. Got it now? "The original Hebrew text of Isaiah 7:14 reads as follows (translated):"Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign: behold, the young woman [ha-almah] shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanu-el".[1] Jewish scholars reason that [ha-almah] ("young woman") does not refer to a virgin and that had the Tanakh intended to refer to such, the specific Hebrew word for virgin [bethulah] would have been used. This view is often disputed by Christians (see below), and has been a point of contention between Jews and Christians since the formation of the modern Church. Jerome, in 383 CE, wrote in "Adversus Helvidium" that Helvidius misunderstood just this same point of confusion between the Greek and the Hebrew." Isaiah 7:14 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia There is absolutely NOTHING in that chapter that supports your claim that Nephi believed Isaiah prophecied of the virgin birth of Jesus. Another wild goose chase. No, it wouldn't. Sorry. Once again, neither of those verses support Matthew's claim that Isaiah 7:14 is a prophecy about Jesus or his virgin mother. And you accused me of needing everything explained? There was a division because many Jews thought he was the Messiah based on all the miracles he was performing (not from some non-existant tradition that the Messiah would come from Nazareth) but the other Jews refused to believe he was the Messiah because he wasn't from Bethlehem as Micah prophecied. No. No more wild goose chases. I read 2 Nephi 11 and the other scriptures you cited because you couldn't be bothered to cut and paste them into your post. Now it's your turn to show a gesture of good faith. If you want me to read that part of Josephus that you maintain supports your point of view, post it in the thread for all of us to read. I'm not doing anymore work to search out your sources when all of them so far have been nothing but dead ends.If you can't do this, we might need to just agree to disagree and spare ourselves any further haggling.

The position of the Church is that the Bible was originally written by prophets under the influence of the Holy Ghost. But if historians are able to show that books like Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were written by men who were not only under the direction of the Holy Spirit, but also embellished and invented stories of Christ to support theire particular agenda's, where does that leave the Church who believes the stories in these books to be authentic? There were many other claims Joseph Smith made about the Bilbe some of which seem to be getting debunked by modern research. Are you going to be forced to believe that Joseph Smith was inspired some of the time but not all of the time? And what if we find evidence of Joseph Smith embellishing some things himself? Except that the unscientific things in Genesis are also backed up by the Pearl of Great Price which is supposed to be revelation from God. Is God unscientific? And what about error's in the Doctrine & Covenants or the Joseph Smith Translations of the Bible?

You're right. My mistake. But that creates a problem for Matthew's account because going to Galilee doesn't keep the divine family from having to travel through Judea. So how is that a valid solution for keeping Jesus safe from Archelaus? New International Version"So he got up, took the child and his mother and went to the land of Israel. But when he heard that Archelaus was reigning in Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there. Having been warned in a dream, he withdrew to the district of Galilee, and he went and lived in a town called Nazareth." New American Standard Bible "So Joseph got up, took the Child and His mother, and came into the land of Israel. But when he heard that Archelaus was reigning over Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there. Then after being warned by God in a dream, he left for the regions of Galilee, and came and lived in a city called Nazareth..." The Message "Joseph obeyed. He got up, took the child and his mother, and reentered Israel. When he heard, though, that Archelaus had succeeded his father, Herod, as king in Judea, he was afraid to go there. But then Joseph was directed in a dream to go to the hills of Galilee. On arrival, he settled in the village of Nazareth." Amplifed Bible "Then he awoke and arose and [tenderly] took the Child and His mother and came into the land of Israel. But because he heard that Archelaus was ruling over Judea in the place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there. And being divinely warned in a dream, he withdrew to the region of Galilee. He went and dwelt in a town called Nazareth..." New Living Translation "So Joseph got up and returned to the land of Israel with Jesus and his mother. But when he learned that the new ruler of Judea was Herod’s son Archelaus, he was afraid to go there. Then, after being warned in a dream, he left for the region of Galilee. So the family went and lived in a town called Nazareth." For a list of more of the same, click here BibleGateway.com: A searchable online Bible in over 100 versions and 50 languages. and type Matthew 2:22 in the search. Do you believe that all these english translations of the original greek are wrong? What would be the odds? Because you are speaking in the present tense. Matthew and Luke are telling a history and are speaking in the past tense. Matthew says, "And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth..." but Luke says, "...they returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth." Those are two totally different accounts. In Luke they are returning to the beginning point of their journey. In Matthew, they're not. Or quote an english version of the source you're citing, absolutely. At least provide a link to the source on-line if you can't be bothered to post the wording. What good will that do if they're not even in english?Volgadon, no one is going to trudge through all the "scholarly works" that you've read just to find the one or two paragraphes that supposedly support your arguements. The only logical and decent thing for you to do is post those parts that support your position and the details of the source so we can look it up for ourselves if we want. That's how on-line debates of this kind are done. Here's one: "Matthew chooses innumerable passages and verses that in thier original context had nothing to do with a messiah, and by applying them to Jesus makes them seem so." From Jesus to Christ by Paula Fredriksen, page 38. No where does Nephi claim that Isaiah 7:14 is a prophecy about the Savior. Nephi makes his own prophecy of the virgin birth and doesn't claim to get this idea from the Old Testament, like Matthew. Corruption accounts for most of the contradictory statements found in texts of the same source. Matthew and Luke are two independent sources and the reason they disagree concerning the nativity of Jesus is because they're telling two different stories. What evidence is there for this? It wasn't only the arrogant Jewish leaders who claimed to have never heard of an oral tradition of the Messiah coming out of Nazareth. The Jewish masses never heard of any such prophecies either:John 7:40-43 "Many of the people therefore, when they heard this saying, said, Of a truth this is the Prophet. Others said, This is the Christ. But some said, Shall Christ come out of Galilee? Hath not the scripture said, That Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was? So there was a division among the people because of him." Great! You're half way there. Now all you need is to post the part of your source that you feel supports your claims or a link to the quote so we can read it on-line the way I've been doing for you this whole time. Every scripture I've referred to that help make my point, I've posted the actual words of the scripture and their location in the Bible. You're the one who brought outside sources into this discussion.

Anything's possible. But only some things are probable.

No one has yet addressed the original point I brought up. Everyone just wanted to agrue about the premise instead. Maybe once others accept the premise, my original question may get answered...but so far it looks like that's not going to happen.

The scripture doesn't say that. It says, " And he arose, and took the young child and his mother, and came into the land of Israel." His journey from Egypt to Israel would have been on the trade route from Pelusium to Gaza which would put him in the Idumea province which was governed by Herod the Great's sister, Salome I, not Herod Archelaus. The scripture then says, "But when he heard that Archelaus did reign in Judaea in the room of his father Herod, he was afraid to go thither..." The phrase "go thither" means he was afraid to go into the land of Judea which wouldn't make sense if he was in that land already as you claim. The scripture then says, "notwithstanding, being warned of God in a dream, he turned aside into the parts of Galilee..." To do this, all Joseph needed to do was travel up the Palestinian coast through the terrirtory Salome until he got to Samaria and then from Samaria to Galille thus avoiding the heart of Judea. Which are irrelevent to the wording in Matthew and Luke.Matthew "And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth..." Luke "...they returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth." [emphasis added] Since I don't have either of those Jewish scriptures on hand, why don't you be so kind as to provide the exact quotes that show the prophecies of the Messiah coming from Mt Arbel or Galilee? Why don't you be helpful and quote and explain the context as well as the "scholarly works" you're referring to so we can all compare them? Afterall, that's what I've been doing for you. You could at least return the courtesy to the rest of us. I didn't say Matthew was wrong about the virgin birth. I said he was wrong about everything else. Matthew just isn't a credible source for determining that Jesus was really born at Bethlehem. There's no evidence that it was corrupted right away either. All the evidence suggests that Matthew and Luke are two different contradictory accounts and that they were so even when they were first written. More accusations without evidence, volgadon? Do you really expect me to respond to this? Sorry, but Luke doesn't leave open the possibility that the divine family fled to Egypt for their lives. He says they immediately returned to Nazareth from Jerusalem. And Leviticus 12:4 says, "And she shall then continue in the blood of her purifying three and thirty days; she shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying be fulfilled." No, they are saying that "we" as the "seed of Abraham" have never been in bondage. But we all know that the seed of Abraham has been in bondage before. Read Josephus? You mean, like, the whole thing? In the next few days? Do you know how extensive the work of Josephus is?How long are you going to play these games, volgadon? Everytime I've used a source to back up one of my arguements, I've quoted the source and precisely where it's located so that everyone can see it in the context of my arguement and can prove it for themselves by finding it quickly. The more you neglect to do this also, the more shakey your arguements look. Why don't you provide us with the exact quotes for your claims? Are you hoping that by not doing so, we'll just take your word for it and be too discouraged or lazy to check it out ourselves - kind of like Matthew does when using the vague assertion "spoken by the prophets" in reference to Jesus being a Nazarene?