Discrepancies In the Nativity Story

[volgadon]

So is this just over the verse in Isaiah?

Or are you saying that Matthew, Luke and John are dishonest?

"Cause Joseph might well have been going to go through Bethlehem

but decided to go home a different way.

And I do not see the problem with the wording as this type of wording is

found in many places I have read.

Weather they returned to Nazareth or journeyed to Nazareth,

they still ended up in Nazareth.

This reminds me of a conversation I had with some about there being two Bethlehems.

One in Judea and one in Galilee just outside of Nazareth.

Are you heading in that direction?

Just wonderin'

Bro. Rudick

Bro Rudick, the problem is that Enlil-An doesn't seem to believe any of the prophets.

[volgadon]

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.

Youonly consulted English translations. I consulted as many as I could.

As I said, I'm waiting for anyone knowledgeable in Koine Greek to correct me, if I am wrong.

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.

Out of curiosity, have you ready any who disagree?

And what difference does this make on anything we've been talking about? Spell it out for me.

If there was only the one dream, then he was already instructed to go to the Galilee when he was in Egypt.

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.

You keep using that as your fall back position.

The majority of the Jerusalem Talmud was collected no later than the mid 3rd century AD.

Most of the traditions (which are part of the aggadic material) can be traced back to the 2nd temple era. These were not written down until many, many years later, being part of the oral torah.

The tradition itself firmly places itself within a 2nd temple context.

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.

You haven't been willing to put any work into anything. You prefer to regurgitate the arguments of others.

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.

They are hardly wild. They are as straight forward and common-sensical as possible, without resorting to imbecility.

You are the one insisting that 'we' refers to Abraham's seed in general, rather than to the specific group speaking. YOU are the one presuming that they lack in arrogance, which is a major theme running through John's gospel.

YOU are the one being disingenious and overly-simplistic.

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.

I've hardly read any written by paid evangelists.

Let us play at your game, I want to see hard and fast evidence that she understood the original context Isaiah intended.

She is a higher critic, isn't she?

What is important is what colours the opinions.

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.

HOW did he know she was a virgin, you can't tell just by looking.

"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?

You are assuming that Isaiah wanted to use a precise word.

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.

Nice dodge. What is the meaning of Imanuel? God is with us. Imanuel was not a common Hebrew name, in fact, I'm not sure I've seen an earlier occurance than Imanuel the Roman. He was a 13th century Italian Jew. Where it does appear, apart from Luke, is in the next chapter of Isaiah, chapter 8. Try verses 8-10.

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?

If you want to play the eaxct wording game, it isn't sun child.

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.

Well, the only Jewish evidence available would be thrown out by you for the same reasons you throw out the Arbel thing.

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?

That chapter tells you nothing of how Isaiah prophecied?

2nd Nephi 11 doesn't either?

Because I've lost my faith in the abilities of general authorities to always correctly interpret the Bible.

I suspected as much.

What the issue really is, is your lack of faith in God, prefering to put your trust in the opinion of man.

You do understand what higher criticism is all about, don't you?

You are willing to take an academic's word on the scripture's over that of president Monson's?

How on earth do 1 Nephi 11:13 and Alma 7:10 support that? Niether Nazareth nor Bethlehem are even mentioned in those scriptures.

HAHAHAHA Nazareth isn't? 1 Nephi 11:13.

Alma does not name Bethlehem, but uses the phrase 'at Jerusalem, which is the land of our forefathers'. That obviously is not Nazareth.

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.

It does not say that clearly. In fact, no miracles occur in the chapter. Verse 40 says "Many of the people therefore, when they heard this saying, said, of a truth this is the Prophet."

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 did. Take another look.

I know the difference and you definately like to haggle. But nevermind...

You obviously don't.

Where did I haggle?

[Enlil-An]

Your premise that the Gospels were written by the "original prophets" is wrong.

It's not MY premise, it's Joseph Smith's.

And AoF DOES state, "insofar as it (the Bible) is translated correctly."

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 never claimed to be perfect in his revelations.

Joseph Smith said there was no error in the things he had taught.

In fact, he had no problem with going back and improving upon them or correcting them later. Several D&C sections today were actually compiled together from more than one revelation, or were later corrected with new information.

Joseph Smith said his revelations came from God. Are you saying that man can actually improve the words of God?

So, let's take your straw man and give him a rest. You can discuss issues, but let's not make liars out of "prophets" who may not have even written the books.

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?

[JohnnyRudick]

. . .She is a higher critic, isn't she?

What is important is what colours the opinions. . .

You are willing to take an academic's word on the scripture's over that of president Monson's?

. . .

Exactly.

Taking the side of the Scripture Correctors Union of Philosophers.

Oh, a question?

No:huh:

and

Yes:p

Bro. Rudick

[Enlil-An]

Youonly consulted English translations. I consulted as many as I could.

As I said, I'm waiting for anyone knowledgeable in Koine Greek to correct me, if I am wrong.

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.

Out of curiosity, have you ready any who disagree?

Yes, I have. And their arguements (like yours) don't hold up against the evidence.

If there was only the one dream, then he was already instructed to go to the Galilee when he was in Egypt.

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.

The majority of the Jerusalem Talmud was collected no later than the mid 3rd century AD.

Most of the traditions (which are part of the aggadic material) can be traced back to the 2nd temple era.

And how do they translate and interpret Isaiah 7:14?

Let us play at your game, I want to see hard and fast evidence that she understood the original context Isaiah intended.

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.

HOW did he know she was a virgin, you can't tell just by looking.

Who told Isaiah she was a virgin? Certainly you're aren't accusing a man of God of...looking, are you?

If you want to play the eaxct wording game, it isn't sun child.

Click here and type in Samson. See for yourself: Search Baby Names and Meanings, Name Meanings, Meaning of Names

Well, the only Jewish evidence available would be thrown out by you for the same reasons you throw out the Arbel thing.

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.

You are assuming that Isaiah wanted to use a precise word.

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.

That chapter tells you nothing of how Isaiah prophecied?

2nd Nephi 11 doesn't either?

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?

What the issue really is, is your lack of faith in God, prefering to put your trust in the opinion of man.

You do understand what higher criticism is all about, don't you?

You are willing to take an academic's word on the scripture's over that of president Monson's?

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.

HAHAHAHA Nazareth isn't? 1 Nephi 11:13.

My mistake. The bigger issue is your claim that 1 Ne. 11:13 shows that Jesus was born at Bethlehem which it doesn't.

Alma does not name Bethlehem, but uses the phrase 'at Jerusalem, which is the land of our forefathers'. That obviously is not Nazareth.

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.

It does not say that clearly. In fact, no miracles occur in the chapter. Verse 40 says "Many of the people therefore, when they heard this saying, said, of a truth this is the Prophet."

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. Edited July 3, 2009 by Enlil-An

[JohnnyRudick]

. . .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. . .

I worry often if I have it worded well enough for to be understood.

I to believe there are two dreams and maybe even three.

But the point is according to the verses

Matthew 2:21 And he arose, and took the young child and his

mother, and came into the land of Israel.

Matthew 2:22 But when he heard that Archelaus did reign in

Judaea in the room of his father Herod, he was afraid to go

thither:

Thither.

Now where is thither?

Where does the verse say he was going?

In the Greek that survives as the most trustworthy it says

"He was afraid there to go, having been divinely instructed."

Matthew 2:21 And he arose, and took the young child and his

mother, and came into the land of Israel.

He was going into the land of Israel proper which would have brought him through

or near Bethlehem.

Being warned in a dream he no longer wanted to go thither so he turned aside ("withdrew" in the greek) to

go only through Galilee.

Was he still in Israel?

Yes, tecknically, but he was in the "Land of the Gentiles" as the saying goes because of the many

"gentile converts" being made in the land.

But he did not go "thither" the way he was wanting to go.

It is all in your frame of mind and how you see the land.

This is Matthews view.

Not from one who is a critic of the Scriptures in the first place.

. . . notwithstanding, being warned of God in a dream, he

turned aside into the parts of Galilee:

Matthew 2:23 And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth:

that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He

shall be called a Nazarene.

Bro. Rudick

Edited July 4, 2009 by JohnnyRudick
afterthought;)

[volgadon]

I don't have time to post anything lengthy, I'm off to church, but I hope you realised what higher criticism is, Enlil-An.

Higher criticism is an attempt to interpret the Bible by leaving out God.

[JohnnyRudick]

I don't have time to post anything lengthy, I'm off to church, but I hope you realised what higher criticism is, Enlil-An.

Higher criticism is an attempt to interpret the Bible by leaving out God.

Acts 17:18 Then certain philosophers of the Epicureans, and of

the Stoicks, encountered him. And some said, What will this

babbler say? other some, He seemeth to be a setter forth of

strange gods: because he preached unto them Jesus, and the

resurrection.

Colossians 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy

and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments

of the world, and not after Christ.

1 Timothy 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy

trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of

science falsely so called:

3 Nephi 4:29 May the Lord preserve his people in righteousness

and in holiness of heart, that they may cause to be felled to the

earth all who shall seek to slay them because of power and secret

combinations, even as this man hath been felled to the earth.

Jacob 7:10 And I said unto him: Believest thou the scriptures?

And he said, Yea.

Bro. Rudick

[volgadon]

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.

The point is that he does. You refuse to even consider that, because it seriously dents your position.

Yes, I have. And their arguements (like yours) don't hold up against the evidence.

Which ones?

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.

As I have pointed out, there is indication that he was going to the Galilee and not Judaea.

If we read the passage in sequence, Joseph remembered his dream and thus overcame his fears.

And how do they translate and interpret Isaiah 7:14?

Nice dodge.

Anyway, Isaiah isn't mentioned that frequently in rabbinic circles, and most of the citations are from chapter 30 and on.

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.

No, it just shows that you won't play at your own games. How does Fredriksen know what the original context of Isaiah was? She can only guess. Academics are constantly reevaluating opinions.

I'll post those Josephus quotes in a separate post, but you are exceptionally obtuse. It really shows you have no desire to learn, but only to lecture.

Who told Isaiah she was a virgin? Certainly you're aren't accusing a man of God of...looking, are you?

The Lord, probably. Nephi, OTOH, was not told a thing, so how did he know?

Click here and type in Samson. See for yourself: Search Baby Names and Meanings, Name Meanings, Meaning of Names

Baby names? Are you kidding?

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.

Arbel has nothing to do with Isaiah 7:14, I don't know why you keep mixing the two.

Matthew was Jewish, so you have supplied your own evidence.

As for it being an absurd idea for an ancient Israelite, why?

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.

2 Nephi 25:1, 4-5.

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?

You realise you can stop speaking on behalf of everyone, because you don't.

Nephi tells us that the things of Isaiah are difficult to understand at face value.

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.

Interpreting the scriptures is outside the area of expertise for the president of the church?

My mistake. The bigger issue is your claim that 1 Ne. 11:13 shows that Jesus was born at Bethlehem which it doesn't.

I never claimed it did, Alma is the one I turn to for Bethlehem.

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.

That is where you are wrong. At can mean in the area of, and what is more, Alma says the land of our forefathers. They were from the Jerusalem area.

The land of Jerusalem means the environs of Jerusalem. There is a letter written to Amenhotep IV using the term.

You are ignoring Alma when you read Nephi, and ignorig Nephi when reading Alma.

Straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel, volgadon. This is what I mean by haggling. See for example: haggle definition | Dictionary.com

Haggling refers to business transactions, anything else is a very improper use.

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.

Which you have failed to show.

[volgadon]

From Josephus.

Antiquities of the Jews, book XVIII, chp I, 6.

But of the fourth sect of Jewish philosophy, Judas the Galilean was the author. These men agree in all other things with the Pharisaic notions; but they have an inviolable attachment to liberty, and say that God is to be their only Ruler and Lord. They also do not value dying any kinds of death, nor indeed do they heed the deaths of their relations and friends, nor can any such fear make them call any man lord. And since this immovable resolution of theirs is well known to a great many, I shall speak no further about that matter; nor am I afraid that any thing I have said of them should be disbelieved, but rather fear, that what I have said is beneath the resolution they show when they undergo pain. And it was in Gessius Florus's time that the nation began to grow mad with this distemper, who was our procurator, and who occasioned the Jews to go wild with it by the abuse of his authority, and to make them revolt from the Romans. And these are the sects of Jewish philosophy.

Wars of the Jews, book II, chp VIII, 1.

AND now Archelaus's part of Judea was reduced into a province, and Coponius, one of the equestrian order among the Romans, was sent as a procurator, having the power of [life and] death put into his hands by Caesar. Under his administration it was that a certain Galilean, whose name was Judas, prevailed with his countrymen to revolt, and said they were cowards if they would endure to pay a tax to the Romans and would after God submit to mortal men as their lords. This man was a teacher of a peculiar sect of his own, and was not at all like the rest of those their leaders.

Wars of the Jews, book II, chp XVII, 8.

In the meantime, one Manahem, the son of Judas, that was called the Galilean, (who was a very cunning sophister, and had formerly reproached the Jews under Cyrenius, that after God they were subject to the Romans,)

[JohnnyRudick]

The point is that he does. You refuse to even consider that, because it seriously dents your position.

. . .

You are ignoring Alma when you read Nephi, and ignorig Nephi when reading Alma.

. . .

Now does that not just tell the whole story?

Bro. Rudick

[volgadon]

Here is a bit on Arbel from the Book of Zerubabel, the only English source I could find.

He said to me: ‘Menahem b. ‘Amiel will suddenly come on the fourteenth day of the first month; i.e., of the month Nisan. He will wait by the Valley of ’Arb’el (at a tract) which belonged to Joshua b. Jehosadaq the priest, and all the surviving sages of Israel—only a few will remain due to the attack and pillage of Gog and Armilos and the plunderers who despoiled them—will come out to him. Menahem b. ‘Amiel will say to the elders and the sages: “I am the Lord’s Messiah: the Lord has sent me to encourage you and to deliver you from the power of these adversaries!” The elders will scrutinize him and will despise him, for they will see that despicable man garbed in rags, and they will despise him just as you previously did. But then his anger will burn within him, “and he will don garments of vengeance (as his) clothing and will put on a cloak of zealousness” (Isa 59:17b), and he will journey to the gates of Jerusalem. Hephêibah, the mother of the Messiah, will come and give him the rod by which the signs were performed. All the elders and children of Israel will come and see that Nehemiah (b. Hushiel) is alive and standing unassisted, (and) immediately they will believe in the Messiah.’ Thus did Metatron, the leader of the host of the Lord, swear to me: ‘This matter will truly come to pass, for there will be full cooperation between them in accordance with the prophecy of Isaiah, “Ephraim will not envy Judah, nor will Judah antagonize Ephraim” (Isa 11:13

[Enlil-An]

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.

[JohnnyRudick]

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.

I cannot speak for others but as for myself, I am not offended and am more then happy to discuss this or any other subject with someone who really wishes o discuss and not play a game of "Bait and Switch" or what ever:o

There are a few things in the Bible which at the time of writing is not intended as a prophecy.

Even recorded events end up as figures or pictures of future events.

In this case what we have is one of the above.

The prophet does not say, "Hay, I am a prophet and I am now going to sit down and write a piece of prophecy in Scripture."

In most cases he has no idea that will be the outcome.

God is in control and He uses the hands of time and events to sift out the writings of the men He puts forward to record for His purposes.

Abraham sends his servant to find a bride for Isaac.

This Narrative lays out a prophecy showing a picture of the Holy Ghost going out and gather ing a bride for God's Son Jesus and bringing the bride to Jesus.

Yet it is not that story.

It is the servant getting a bride for Abraham's son Issac and ringing the bride to him.

But this happens over and over in Scripture and we regard it as prophecy.

Much has been fulfilled and some is yet to be fulfilled.

There is Ezekiel 37:16-25 which has duel application as well as many other events.

But no, I have not been offended.

Thanks for bringing up the mental exercises:)

Bro. Rudick

[volgadon]

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.

Higher criticsm can't accept the idea of prophecy, so this is a pretty pedestrian understanding. Internal evidence (chapter 8, I've already provided the references) shows that there is more to Imanuel.

Gedalia Alon, in his The Jews in Their Land in the Talmudic Age is of the opinion that the LXX reflected a different collection of scriptures, which was not the one used by the pharisees. To combat its influence they commisioned Aquilas, a proselyte, to translate the OT slavishly into Greek.

[JohnnyRudick]

Higher criticsm can't accept the idea of prophecy, so this is a pretty pedestrian understanding. Internal evidence (chapter 8, I've already provided the references) shows that there is more to Imanuel.

Gedalia Alon, in his The Jews in Their Land in the Talmudic Age is of the opinion that the LXX reflected a different collection of scriptures, which was not the one used by the pharisees. To combat its influence they commisioned Aquilas, a proselyte, to translate the OT slavishly into Greek.

The LXX was a creation of the Alexandrian School of the first school of higher criticism around 150AD on,

and cannot be even seriously be considered as Scripture.

Just an added thought.:)

Bro. Rudick

Edited July 22, 2009 by JohnnyRudick
After thought;)

[volgadon]

The LXX was translated before Christ's birth. It is the Bible used in the NT. Has utterly nothing to do with higher criticism, which is a modern academic school of thought.

[volgadon]

Another thought struck me. Whether or not Isaiah meant a virgin birth (which I think he did) it is irelevant. Jews needed at least some basis in the scripture before accepting something new. Matthew chose something that would make it easier for his audience to open their hearts to the message of the gospel.

[JohnnyRudick]

The LXX was translated before Christ's birth. It is the Bible used in the NT. Has utterly nothing to do with higher criticism, which is a modern academic school of thought.

Not so modern.

The academic school of thought which we call "higher criticism" started in Alexandra Egypt around 150ad with people like Origen, Pamphilus, Eusebius and others.

There is no trace of the LXX before this outside of tradition.

The LXX was concocted to change, add to and take away from what the early Apostles had written.

This "school of thought" continued through Jerome's Latin Vulgate (405 A.D.) down to the Reams bible out of France (1582 A.D.)

Westcott and Hort in the mid 1800s up to this day.

Bro. Rudick

[mnn727]

Herod's decree, the wisemen, the star, the flight to Egypt; are all from Matthew's gospel. These elements of the story do not appear in Luke's. Likewise, the census, the trip to Bethlehem, the manger story, the shepards; these all appear in Luke but not Matthew. The only things that both accounts agree on is the virgin birth and that Jesus was born at Bethlehem. Other than that, they are completely different stories.

No offence here - but so what?

If you have 2 different people telling the same story, does it have to match exactly or be declared false? Especially since both were written about a half century after the fact from people who were not there and who got the accounts from unknown sources and also who were writing to 2 different groups of people.

IMHO your 'discrepancies in the 2 accounts' don't exist and/or don't matter

[Enlil-An]

Originally posted by mnn727

If you have 2 different people telling the same story, does it have to match exactly or be declared false?

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]

Not so modern.

The academic school of thought which we call "higher criticism" started in Alexandra Egypt around 150ad with people like Origen, Pamphilus, Eusebius and others.

There is no trace of the LXX before this outside of tradition.

The LXX was concocted to change, add to and take away from what the early Apostles had written.

This "school of thought" continued through Jerome's Latin Vulgate (405 A.D.) down to the Reams bible out of France (1582 A.D.)

Westcott and Hort in the mid 1800s up to this day.

Bro. Rudick

I fear you are quite wrong on this. The LXX (the Septuagint) predates the apostles.

Origen was the foremost Christian scholar and apologetic of his day. he most certainly was not a higher critic. He was a Christian apologetic. Perhaps you were thinking of the Hexapla, which consisted of the OT in Hebrew, a greek transliteration and the four Greek translations of the text, including the Septuagint. This work was invaluable for textual criticsm, as it gave one the original as well as four rather different translations.

Origen, though, was born in 185 AD.

Most of his views are quite close to the restored gospel.

Pamphilus was devoted to collecting the earliest copies of the Bible. He was not a higher critic either.

Eusebius was an historian and apologist, not a higher critic.

These all concerned themselves with textual (or lower), not higher criticsm.

The Septuagint was a Greek translation of the OT for the hellenised Jews of Alexandria, so they would be able to read the scriptures in their own tongue, which was Greek. The Pentateuch (5 books of Moses) was translated in the 3rd century BC and the rest was translated at various times, until the 1st c BC. Fragments have been found which predate the birth of Christ.

Aristobulus and Philo, Jewish philosophers and historians who lived before the birth of Christ both mention the Septuagint, and there is another document, the letter of Aristeas, which is just as ancient.

This was the OT used by the Jewish diaspora and the early Christians.

[JohnnyRudick]

I fear you are quite wrong on this. The LXX (the Septuagint) predates the apostles.

Origen was the foremost Christian scholar and apologetic of his day. he most certainly was not a higher critic. He was a Christian apologetic. Perhaps you were thinking of the Hexapla, which consisted of the OT in Hebrew, a greek transliteration and the four Greek translations of the text, including the Septuagint. This work was invaluable for textual criticsm, as it gave one the original as well as four rather different translations.

Origen, though, was born in 185 AD.

Most of his views are quite close to the restored gospel.

Pamphilus was devoted to collecting the earliest copies of the Bible. He was not a higher critic either.

Eusebius was an historian and apologist, not a higher critic.

These all concerned themselves with textual (or lower), not higher criticsm.

The Septuagint was a Greek translation of the OT for the hellenised Jews of Alexandria, so they would be able to read the scriptures in their own tongue, which was Greek. The Pentateuch (5 books of Moses) was translated in the 3rd century BC and the rest was translated at various times, until the 1st c BC. Fragments have been found which predate the birth of Christ.

Aristobulus and Philo, Jewish philosophers and historians who lived before the birth of Christ both mention the Septuagint, and there is another document, the letter of Aristeas, which is just as ancient.

This was the OT used by the Jewish diaspora and the early Christians.

Yes, this is what the Roman Church teaches us, but how can you call those Gnostic philosophers

champions of Christianity?

The Septuagint was mostly Origen's creation and edited by Eusebius and when they got through

with the writings of the apostles they could hardly teach the same doctrine.

We have been adding more and more of their poison to the text of the Bible from the mid 1800s up

to this day in one form or another by using, "older and better manuscripts say". . . .

I am sorry that you have been taught otherwise.

Wish I could find my notes on the subject but that I have been convinced of the truth of which I speak.

The Book of Mormon reveals to us;

1 Nephi 13:26 And after they go forth by the hand of the twelve

apostles of the Lamb, from the Jews unto the Gentiles, thou seest

the formation of a great and abominable church, which is most

abominable above all other churches; for behold, they have taken

away from the gospel of the Lamb many parts which are plain and

most precious; and also many covenants of the Lord have they

taken away.

1 Nephi 13:27 And all this have they done that they might pervert

the right ways of the Lord, that they might blind the eyes and

harden the hearts of the children of men.

Isaiah was given a revelation that he wrote down for us;

Isaiah 29:10 For the LORD hath poured out upon you the spirit

of deep sleep, and hath closed your eyes: the prophets and your

rulers, the seers hath he covered.

God told us through Amos the prophet;

Amos 8:11 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I

will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a

thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD:

Amos 8:12 And they shall wander from sea to sea, and from the

north even to the east, they shall run to and fro to seek the

word of the LORD, and shall not find it.

This was done by many who believed in keeping men in the dark concerning the words of God.

The church through the centuries had to hide in the hills and mountains of Turkey, Greece and

Italy and even France from those who would burn their churches, Scriptures and even the Christians themselves.

They preserved the writings of the apostles as well as they could with Gods help for the day when

God would raise up men who would bring to light enough of Gods word to prepare the world for the

restoration of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

But til that day the world was kept in darkness.

Yes Erasmus had access to much of the LXX and Jerome's Latin Vulgate but chose not to use any

of the texts coming from that side of the stream and chose mainly those coming up out of the east.

We see in history two streams of bibles.

Thoise coming out of the Catholic Church from Alexandra through Jerome through Reams France

on to Wescott and Hort who mixed the text in with the TR with the unholy mix becoming bolder

and bolder up to this day.

The rascals were at it earlier then you think.

Bro. Rudick

Edited July 24, 2009 by JohnnyRudick
After thought blocking text

[volgadon]

Bro Rudick, you are way off on that one. The LXX was translated before the birth of Christ. This is an indisputable historical fact, easily verified by Jewish (not Catholic) sources, as well as surviving manuscripts.

Far from changing the words of the apostles (an impossibility, as it is an OT translated before they were born) the text is very messianic in nature.

This was very displeasing to the pharisees and sages, who commisioned another translation, around 130 AD, which was very literal and tended to follow rabbinical interpretation.

Mind you, what any of this has to do with higher criticsm is beyond me.

Erasmus most certainly did use the vulgate for his New Testament, a new Latin translation. He included the Greek text alongside, but when he couldn't find several verses in Revelation, he used a vulgate manuscript to render them back into Greek!

This 'poison' is what the NT uses for its quotes from the OT.

[volgadon]

BTW, the ones hiding in France were the most gnostic of the bunch, if it is the Cathars you are refering to.