Reply to If Jesus wasn’t a real historical figure, where did Christian theology come from?

Forum Index » Religion

Reply to "If Jesus wasn’t a real historical figure, where did Christian theology come from? "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]I haven’t read the whole thread, but what I have heard makes sense. His geographic location was in the crossroads of east and west. He most likely was exposed to eastern philosophy, think India at the time.
If he had lived in a different time perhaps he would have become a philosopher like Karl Marx or Kiergegaard.
He certainly upset the status quo by becoming a reformist like Martin Luther. 
His death was not that unusual, plenty of people were crucified and continued to be for a long time [/quote]

Jesus was also exposed to Greco-Roman philosophy because they ruled the Middle East in his time. [/quote]

No, only the most wealthy Jews were exposed to Greco Roman scholarship. It’s possible that Paul and Matthew had been exposed to such teaching, but Jesus would have received only traditional Jewish teaching. Exposure to Greco Roman mythology would explain why Matthew, and only Matthew, described a Virgin Birth. The idea of God impregnating a human woman was common in Greco Roman mythology. Such an idea would be repulsive to Jews. [/quote]

Isaiah 7:14 (Jewish) prophesied a virgin birth.  “Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.”  If she was a virgin, the impregnation must have been supernatural. No need to fall back in Greco-Roman mythology. [/quote]

Wrong. Isaiah never said that. That’s a Christian mistranslation. The Hebrew word is “alma.”  “Alma” means young woman,” not “virgin.”[/quote]

It's actually a Jewish translation (mis or otherwise), the Greek of the Septuagint was produced by Jews, before there were Christians.[/quote]

Wrong. The Septuagint translates “alma” into “neanis” which means “ young woman,” not “virgin.”  Jews have never said that the yet to come Messiah will be born of a virgin. [/quote]

Young, unmarried women were generally virgins. Also, Matthew was writing for an audience in Antioch that was still part of the Jewish community, even if the relationship was deteriorating—yet the “virgin” language was apparently accepted.

In any case, whether or not the translation works is irrelevant. Matthew’s text relies on the fact that Isaiah was talking about a virgin, not on a Greek god that was popular in the 2nd and 3rd centuries CE, i.e well after the gospel of Matthew was put together towards the end of the first century. [/quote]

Wrong. Isaiah merely said that the child would be born of a young woman. Isaiah never said the woman would be impregnated before she was married. Jews have never said that the Messiah’s mother would be a virgin. Jews who believe in an individual Messiah have always said that in every generation, there is one Jew is is sufficiently righteous to become the Messiah. But the Messiah is a man, not God. He will not be born of a virgin. [/quote]

You’re still arguing this backwards. A young, unmarried women may or may not be a virgin, but she would be assumed to be a virgin.

Check out this link if you don’t want to take my word for it.  https://www.gotquestions.org/virgin-or-young-woman.html

None of these instances demands the meaning “virgin,” but neither do they deny the possible meaning of “virgin.” There is no conclusive argument for “almah” in Isaiah 7:14 being either “young woman” or “virgin.” However, it is interesting to note, that in the 3rd century B.C., when a panel of Hebrew scholars and Jewish rabbis began the process of translating the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek, they used the specific Greek word for virgin, “parthenos,” not the more generic Greek word for “young woman.” The Septuagint translators, 200+ years before the birth of Christ, and with no inherent belief in a “virgin birth,” translated “almah” in Isaiah 7:14 as “virgin,” not “young woman.” This gives evidence that “virgin” is a possible, even likely, meaning of the term.

[/quote]

So if there was a mistranslation, it’s on the heads of Jewish translators 200 years BC, not on early Christians, many of whom spoke Greek and were probably taking the Jewish Septuagint at face value?[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics