Best they still attend and ask ones pastor why Mark the first Gospel does not mention something as amazing as a virgin birth... John and Paul also make no mention.
RABBI puts it that the virgin birth script was added as christianity spiraled away from its Torah compliant roots into the Greco-Roman world,..Where pagans believed in virgin births.
He cites pre-christianity examples Romulus & Remus, Augustus, Pythagoras, etc. who are recorded as being born of a virgin.
Be much easier to sell a suitably altered Christianity to pagans if they can familiarize with A Jesus also being of a virgin would it not?
-Bulletproof and Waterproof don't mean Idiotproof.
Best they still attend and ask ones pastor why Mark the first Gospel does not mention something as amazing as a virgin birth... John and Paul also make no mention.
RABBI puts it that the virgin birth script was added as christianity spiraled away from its Torah compliant roots into the Greco-Roman world,..Where pagans believed in virgin births.
He cites pre-christianity examples Romulus & Remus, Augustus, Pythagoras, etc. who are recorded as being born of a virgin.
Be much easier to sell a suitably altered Christianity to pagans if they can familiarize with A Jesus also being of a virgin would it not?
Next you're gonna tell us that Christmas was moved to Dec 25 to coincide with the Winter Solstice.
"Live like you'll die tomorrow, but manage your grass like you'll live forever." -S. M. Stirling
Best they still attend and ask ones pastor why Mark the first Gospel does not mention something as amazing as a virgin birth... John and Paul also make no mention.
And yet they still believed He was the Son of God, why do suppose that is?
"...if the gentlemen of Virginia shall send us a dozen of their sons, we would take great care in their education, instruct them in all we know, and make men of them." Canasatego 1744
I read this somewhere long ago. From what I read, early on in the formation of the bible that " young girl" was changed to virgin. Supposedly to give it more weight. Also Noah's father was gone for a long period of time and questioned being the father of Noah. He went to His father (I think Methuselah) and the Grandfather told Noah's father that the real father of Noah was not from this world. I don't remember the source as I used to read a lot when I was younger. miles
First, a general observation. I don’t speak Hebrew. If I were to study it obsessively, I could at this point in life, probably only attain very rudimentary proficiency in it. As such, I would ALWAYS be reliant upon someone to help me understand it. Therefore, I find the Rabbi’s admonishment to “read it for myself” unconvincing and somewhat disingenuous. He is really telling me to rely upon him.
Secondly, he dismisses the King James Bible as being translated by 16th Century English Anglicans and relying upon the Septuagint in their translations. From the start I am inclined the discount the ill informed or purposely deceitful assertions of someone who claims that the Anglicans are the “most Catholic” of the Protestant churches without discussing what was going on in the 16th century with the Puritans, the emerging High church verses Low church solution and struggle within the Anglican Church at that time. But then he really tells a doozy when he lies and says that they relied upon the Greek Septuagint in their translations. They didn’t. They are speaking of the Old Testament and the Old Testament was translated from the original Hebrew by the most renowned scholars in England fluent in it. The Rabbi is speaking of Isiah and we know the names of the entire committee that translated that book from Hebrew. They were John Harding, John Reynolds, Thomas Holland, Richard Kilby, Miles Smith, Richard Brett, Daniel Fairclough, and William Thorne. All of these men were so prominent and renowned in their scholarship that 400 years later they have Wikipedia entries that contain more information than merely reciting that they worked on the King James Bible. Some were Puritan. Some were more orthodox Anglican. Some had fled to Geneva when Mary had reinstated Catholicism and burned Protestants.
Finally, he seems to assert that since God first revealed himself in the Hebrew language that that language is the language of God and the only way to understand his words are to read them in Hebrew and that indeed, it cannot even be effectively translated into English. Well, that sounds just like Muslims who hold that Arabic is the language of God and that every Muslim must recite the Koran in Arabic even if it is merely by rote. On the other hand Christians freely promote and actively encourage the translation and printing of the Bible into every language, tongue, and dialect on earth.
So what...? Whether one believes it or not, it’s not critical to the story of the coming of the Messiah. And the son that was born to Joseph and Mary ‘was’ special, regardless. People rallied around Jesus because of the Resurrection, ‘not’ because of the virgin birth. People can become Christians without even knowing the narratives around Jesus' birth.
We are born in sin. It passes from generation to generation through the fathers blood. Look up about how the sperm is responsible for the blood not the egg. This is why it's important that people understand the concept of virgin birth. God's spirit overshadowed Mary & she was impregnated. This is how Jesus could live in a flesh body & not have a sin nature as we do. The person who started this thread wants you to believe they are an atheist. It's obvious he hates God. How can you hate someone that you don't believe exists? He believes in Jesus, but he denies him. They'll be weeping & gnashing of teeth. I shake the dust from my feet. I'll not reply to you again foolish man.
