"Christian Martial Arts"

[SFC JeffJ]

Yes, I have read about this as well. According to this, the "Turn the other cheek" bit has gotten completely misinterpreted, if you understand the social context of the time.

Can you remember your source on that? I've been tearing up my library and the public one as well looking for it. No luck so far

Jeff

 

[Flying Crane]

Can you remember your source on that? I've been tearing up my library and the public one as well looking for it. No luck so far

Jeff

I don't, and to be honest I can't remember if I read it, or if I was listening to a religious scholar interviewed on talk radio or something. It's a very interesting point, and if I come up with it, I will let you know.

 

[Andrew Green]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turn_the_other_cheek

Historical, figurative interpretation

Those interpreting this passage figuratively have cited historical and other factors in support. They note that at the time of Jesus, striking someone deemed to be of a lower class with the back of the hand was used to assert authority and dominance. If the persecuted person "turned the other cheek," the dicipliner was faced with a dilemma. The left hand was used for unclean purposes, so a back-hand strike on the opposite cheek would not be performed. The other alternative would be to punch the person, but this was seen as a statement of equality. Thus, they argue, by turning the other cheek the persecuted was in effect demanding equality. Further, it is argued, by handing over one's cloak in addition to one's tunic, the debtor has essentially given the shirt off their back, a situation directly forbidden by Jewish Law as stated in Deuteronomy 24: 10-13:

"When you make your neighbor a loan of any sort, you shall not enter his house to take his pledge. You shall remain outside, and the man to whom you make the loan shall bring the pledge out to you. If he is a poor man, you shall not sleep with his pledge. When the sun goes down you shall surely return the pledge to him, that he may sleep in his cloak and bless you; and it will be righteousness for you before the LORD your God."

By giving the lender the cloak as well the debtor was reduced to nakedness. Public nudity was viewed as bringing shame on the viewer, not the naked, as evidenced in Genesis 9: 20-27:

"Noah was the first tiller of the soil. He planted a vineyard; and he drank of the wine, and became drunk, and lay uncovered in his tent. And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brothers outside. Then Shem and Japheth took a garment, laid it upon both their shoulders, and walked backward and covered the nakedness of their father; their faces were turned away, and they did not see their father's nakedness."

Promoters of this nonviolent interpretation further argue that the succeeding verse from the Sermon on the Mount can similarly be seen as a method for making the oppressor break the law: commonly invoked Roman law allowed a Roman soldier to demand that citizens of occupied territories carry the soldier's military gear for one mile, but prohibited the soldier from forcing an individual to go further than one mile, at the risk of suffering disciplinary actions. In this example, the nonviolent interpretation sees Jesus as placing criticism on an unjust and hated Roman law as well as clarifying the teaching to extend beyond Jewish law.

Don't see any citations there on this though.

 

[Kacey]

Your hypothesis does not hold water, this is the correct way of doing that "experiment". Go to your local synagouge and ask about Elohim, Ruach Ha kodesh (Holy Spirit) and The Messiah. This is the true test, I have many Jewish "friends" and they all agree that the so-called trinity of Christianity is the same as the three mentioned above.

Being Jewish myself, I find this unbelievable. I have never heard it before (and I'm nearly 40), nor do I agree with it personally. For myself, I have little difficulty with the concept of multiple incarnations of a single god - but the key difference between Judaism and Christianity is that in Judaism, the Messiah has not come yet - nor are the conditions for the coming of the Messiah yet fulfilled... thus the schism between Judaic and Christian beliefs.

Originally posted by heretic888
What unites all "fundamentalists" --- whether Jewish, Christian, Muslim, or what have you --- is the defining belief that they are the "right" or "chosen" or "saved" people, that all others (while they may be "nice" or "good" people) are "wrong", and that all those "others" are going to be punished by "their" god (whether in afterlife or at the End of Days).

Actually, this is a very common misconception, at least as far as Judaism is concerned. The only significance attached to being "chosen" from a Jewish perspective is that Jews, having recognized a single God first, will be the first to be judged when Judgement Day arrives... ask yourself if this is good or bad... it could go either way. Think about Olympic judging - the first person/group to go may be judged higher (no comparison) or lower (keeping a high score for later, just in case) than those that follow. Other peoples of the world who recognize and accept a single God will be judged likewise - but again, is it good or bad to be judged after someone else?

 

[heretic888]

Actually, this is a very common misconception, at least as far as Judaism is concerned.

Please note that I was specifically addressing Jewish fundamentalism, not Judaism as a whole.

Laterz.

 

[kamishinkan]

Kacey,

Let me clear my point, What I was explaining is that in Judaism the concept of Elohim as God is clear as quoted in the 1st verse of the Torah (re'shiyth Elohim bara' shamayim 'eth 'erets). The concept of Elohim is the same as in comparison to the "Father God", Creator as usually found in the so called trinity.
The Holy Spirit is the concept of the Ruach Ha Elohim as cited in Gen 1:2 "erets hayah tohuw bohuw choshek 'al paniym tehom Ruach Elohim rachaph 'al paniym mayim".
The concept of the Messiah is all over the Torah. Messianic followers believe that Yeshua (Jesus) is the Messiah, this is different, but my point is the concept of the Messiah, not necessarily who the Messiah is.
Again, this is the three that are typically classified as a tri-unity.
Hope this helps explain what I was saying.

 

[Kacey]

Kamishinkan -

As I said, I have never heard this interpretation... and after reading it earlier I discussed it with a friend of mine who is Orthodox (as opposed to Reform, which is what I am)... her response was, to put it mildly, shock and disgust, after which she began a diatribe on misinterpretation which I stopped only with difficulty. I then emailed my father (who had, at one point, studied to enter the rabbinate) and he had heard of it but did not agree with it, and sent me to several reference sources which discussed, but disputed, this concept. In his opinion, this concept is believed only by Messianic Jews, who are, strictly speaking, not Jewish, but are, instead, a Christian sect that claims to be Jewish, while still believing that Jesus was the Messiah.

"Hear O Israel, YHVH is G-d, YHVH is ONE." (Deut 6:4) I do not subscribe to trinitarian/tri-unitarian doctrines which attempt to define G-d as three Persons in One. YHVH is One.
I am convinced one reason why a trinitarian doctrine was incorporated into Christianity was to explain the 'person' of Yeshua; to explain how he could be G-d. That G-d could take on human form as an earthly Messiah isn't difficult to accept -- afterall -- He'd previously supped with Abraham (Gen 18) and He had wrestled with Jacob (Gen 32) *while also in human form*. Our powerful G-d can manifest Himself in many forms; there is no need for these weak doctrines that attempt to sub-divide the godhead in attempts to explain "how" He does it. Trinitarians start dividing up the godhead so that the Father is one person, the Son/Yeshua is a second person, and then the Ruach (spirit) is a third person. Scripture never says G-d is divided up into three persons! The word 'trinity' isn't even Scriptural. Trinity is a manmade doctrine that borrows heavily from pagan sources. Scripture tells us G-d is One *not* three. Ultimately the trinity doctrine seeks to limit our heavenly Father to merely one-third of the godhead. Isn't it easier to just accept Scripture at Its Word? We have One G-d, and He can manifest Himself in any form He chooses without needing to be subdivided to fit the manmade doctrines.
excerpted from http://www.lightofmashiach.org/one.html

Much confusion over the Trinity has developed from the Hebrew word "elohim." The term elohim is in the oldest Hebrew Old Testament manuscripts and is therefore a legitimate title for the Heavenly Majesty.
There is a total lack of evidence in the Bible to say that the term "elohim" represents the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, however. The word is a collective noun, masculine in gender, denoting more than one mighty one — yet indicating no particular or precise number. One concordance gives the meaning of elohim this way: "Elohim, G-d (plural of majesty; plural in form but singular in meaning, with a focus on great power); g-ds (true grammatical plural); and person characterized by greatness of power, mighty one, great one, judge" (Zondervan NIV Exhaustive Concordance).

excerpted from http://www.yrm.org/trinity-fact-fiction.htm

One of the reasons you do not see practicing Jews flock to the Christian churches is that they know better than to accept doctrines such as the 'Holy Trinity.' Jews know all too well from the Tanach (Old Testament) that it was accepting aspects of pagan doctrine into their worship with Yahweh that cause them to be separated from Yahweh in the past. It is these pagan doctrines that actually keep Jews from accepting the Messiah because any Torah-observant Jew will never accept these strange doctrines.
One thing that Christians do not realize is that practicing Jews pray the Shema three times a day. If you are a Christian you may be wondering, "what is the Shema?" I rest my case. The Shema is a traditional Hebrew prayer, taken from Scripture as all Hebrew prayers are, that simply states that God is one person. In other words they have been taught for thousands of years that God is one, not three (persons).

Excerpted from http://www.nazarite.net/holy-trinity.html

Rabbi Stanley Greenberg of Temple Sinai in Philadelphia wrote:
"Christians are, of course, entitled to believe in a Trinitarian conception of God. but their effort to base this conception on the Hebrew Bible must fly in the face of the overwhelming testimony of that Bible. Hebrew Scriptures are clear and unequivocal on the oneness of God The Hebrew Bible affirms the one God with unmistakable clarity Monotheism, an uncompromising belief in one God, is the hallmark of the Hebrew Bible, the unwavering affirmation of Judaism and the unshakable faith of the Jew."
Whether Christians are accused of being polytheists or tritheists and whether or not it is admitted that the Christian concept of the Tri-unity is a form of monotheism, one element always appears: one cannot believe in the Trinity and be Jewish. Even if what Christians believe is monotheistic, it still does not seem to be monotheistic enough to qualify as true Jewishness. Rabbi Greenberg's article tends to reflect that thinking.
He went on to say, "... under no circumstances can a concept of a plurality of the Godhead or a trinity of the Godhead ever be based upon the Hebrew Bible." It is perhaps best to begin with the very source of Jewish theology and the only means of testing it: Hebrew Scriptures. Since so much relies on Hebrew Scripture usage, then to the Hebrew we should turn.
excerpted from http://www.messiahnj.org/af-tri-unity.htm

It's an interesting interpretation, but for myself, I find it to be an attempt to fit the monotheistic God of Judaism into the tripartite God of Christianity after the fact - to justify creating a god with three facets from a god with only one, not necessarily by modern clerics, but by ancient ones who were trying to fit teachings of multiple religions into one religion - something Christianity has long been known to do; many so-called Christian traditions come from other, older, and most decidedly pagan religions (the Yule log, Easter Eggs, Christmas trees, etc.). All of the sources I could find that support this are from Messianic Jews - who, as I said, are not truly Jewish from a theological standpoint, no matter what they may think or say they are.

That doesn't mean you haven't heard it from others who consider themselves to be Jewish (and I find it interesting that you put the word "friends" in quotes when referring to these people) - just, as I said, that I have never heard it before, don't agree with it, and don't personally know anyone Jewish who does either.

After all, the biggest problem with religion, and religious intrepretation is that is is based on a peculiar type of opinion - that is, one based entirely on faith - and faith, by definition, cannot be proven - only believed.

 

[kamishinkan]

Kacey,

Great thanks for the dialouge. I am not sure, since the thread started is about CMA, if it is the right place to continue though.
I read your post and found what I have found in the past to be true. Many of the Jewish people when asked about "Christian" concepts usually will not dialouge long enough to see that Messianic belief must be based in the Hebrew scriptures. In saying that, many times other "Christians" lacking in knowledge of the Hebrew scriptures mis-understand their own core beliefs. This can cause a further division. The belief of the "tri-unity" of God does NOT emply polytheism. Believers in Yeshua do not believe in three Gods. We believe in the Shema, "Hear Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one". Suffice it to say that this concept (tri-unity of one) is "manifistations" of the one God, Elohim.
As far as my Jewish "friend", the family is orthodox who's children are in Yasheva (sp?) in NY. I do have Messianic friends as well, and to say that a blood Jewish person is no longer Jewish because they believe in Yeshua is silly. I say this since, no one said the followers of the self proclaimed Messiah, Bar Kochba in the revolt against Rome of the first century that they were not "Jewish". My Jewish friend sat down with me long enough to find out that what we believe (correctly understood) is based in Hebrew scriptures.
Again, my point is Jewish people believe in Elohim, Ruach Elohim and the Messiah (although still patiently waiting ). This was my point.
I would love to dialogue with you further, If you would, maybe on e-mail? I am Torah observant and love to better understand the Hebrew scriptures, so for me to speak with others about the scriptures is a great blessing.
As far as the Pagan "stuff" of Christianity, I have repented of that stuff long ago, I observe the Biblical holidays as commanded by God.
And in all of this I practice Martial arts, so there is my CMA spot. :asian:

 

[heretic888]

many so-called Christian traditions come from other, older, and most decidedly pagan religions (the Yule log, Easter Eggs, Christmas trees, etc.).

True enough, but many elements within traditional Jewish religion also come from other, older, and most decidedly "pagan" sources (the Garden of Paradise, the Great Flood, the symbolism of the Twelve, the End of Days, and so on). The late mythologist Joseph Campbell wrote extensively on just this very subject.

As far as the Pagan "stuff" of Christianity, I have repented of that stuff long ago

So, then, you have "repented" of the Virgin Birth, the Transfiguration on the Mount, the Word, the Eucharist, the Resurrection, the Ascension, and the Second Coming???

Because every single one of those mythos, without exception, have their origins in pre-existing "pagan" Mystery cults of the Hellenistic period.

Laterz.

 

[donald]

To Any Interested,

I am a Christian, and I enjoy the martial arts. I don't see where the Bible speaks against sports, or involvement in them. Someone on this site quoted scripture, i.e. Matthew 5:39, and I believe Matthew 5:43-44. It is not necessary to hate someone. To defend yourself/others against them. If you did hate them you would be sinning against GOD. I believe that there are times GOD demands that we turn the other cheek. That can be both in a physical sense, and an emotional one, but I also believe that we are permitted as believers to defend our loved ones, ourselves, and others in need of our help. I have been one who has prayed long, and hard about this subject. As well as sought the counsel of elder Christians. The martial arts are a contact sport, and yes you can go about it in a way that would be displeasing to The Lord Jesus. I don't believe every Christian will agree on martial arts training. Pray, read your Bible, and see what GOD says to your heart. Bottom line is to make sure if you want to try training. Make very sure that what you're getting into does'nt promote anti-Christ teachings. I hope Iwas helpful to someone.
By GOD's Grace (1st John 1:9)

 

[kamishinkan]

Donald,

God never intended for a person to be "defenseless" against an attacker.
I love the apostles with the Messiah with swords and staffs. (Mark 14:47, Luke 22:36, Mark 6:8)

heretic,

I almost don't want to comment on your repentance comment....BUT If you look at the "virgin birth" as a new testament concept and not found in the book of the prophet Isaiah (Isa 7:14) (Isaiah written approx 770-710 BC), then I guess the pagan birth teachings would predate it. Since the Hellenistic period began with the defeat of Persia by Alexander the great (334-323 BC), I think Isaiah has it beat. It seems that pagan teachings are usually taken from the TRUTH. Most deceptions are usually based in some form of the truth, that is what makes it so deceptive! The same goes with the other concepts as well. The New Testament is only a narrative of Old(er) Testament concepts coming to pass.

 

[heretic888]

heretic,

I almost don't want to comment on your repentance comment....BUT If you look at the "virgin birth" as a new testament concept and not found in the book of the prophet Isaiah (Isa 7:14) (Isaiah written approx 770-710 BC), then I guess the pagan birth teachings would predate it. Since the Hellenistic period began with the defeat of Persia by Alexander the great (334-323 BC), I think Isaiah has it beat. It seems that pagan teachings are usually taken from the TRUTH. Most deceptions are usually based in some form of the truth, that is what makes it so deceptive! The same goes with the other concepts as well. The New Testament is only a narrative of Old(er) Testament concepts coming to pass.

From a recent post on the JesusMysteries discussion group:

I don't think this matter can be resolved by means of resorting to Jewish history. Virgin birth was not a concept there, but it was certainly a common literary structure among the Greeks and Romans to designate a heroic person, whether Alexander or Octavian. The authors of Matthew and Luke were obviously reaching out to a wider audience than the Jewish community, and they were willing to adopt the method that had been used by Greek writers. To the Greeks, virgin birth was only a literary metaphor, and to reintroduce this metaphor back into Jewish culture as historical fact and then argue the pro and cons within this foreign context only leads to confusion and a debate that has no real significance.

The Jewish Yahoshua sects did not advocate a virgin birth, but rather vehemently denied it. This fact, in itself, is reason enough to suppose that virgin birth was an innovation and not part of the earliest teachings. Literary historical fiction does not require that all aspects of the setting be entirely correct, for what is important is the message that the author hopes to support, I.e., his own agenda. If he chooses to use metaphorical language to advance this agenda, as was common in literature of his time, then we should not read it as though it has to fit the assumptions of later Christian writers of Catholic and Protestant traditions. Such a parochial view creates the argument where none was necessary.

The idea that Joseph and Mary were real people may or may not be true. We have no way of knowing that. However, the Joseph and Mary that we meet in the gospels are literary constructs, and the story of virgin birth should not be given any more credence than the fable of Olympias conceiving the baby Alexander via a thunder bolt shooting down from Zeus on Mount Olympus. Obviously, this Olympia, the mother of Alexander, is a fictional character, even though there was indeed a real mother of Alexander. The story itself is mythic, even though it is told against a historical backdrop. If we take the fable as historical fact, then we cease to be rational people. This is also true of the gospel narrative. Places and people mentioned may be factual, but the writing itself should not be confused with history, and if there is a conflict with history, then chalk it up to the ignorance of the writer or perhaps his need to incorporate bogus material to support his position. After all, that is often the case with literature used as propaganda. The emphasis is on message, not particulars. This fact is demonstrated by the many contradictions we find in the New Testament and the willingness of the Church to incorporate them into one volume considered holy writ.

Common sense tells us that no one was born of a virgin in late antiquity - not Alexander, nor Octavian, and certainly not someone called Jesus Christ. I have not been able to find any reliable historical reference to any such person, and it seems that he is much the same sort of "mystery cult" figure as Hiram Abif and Christian Rosencrans.

If I read the masonic rituals, I find a lot of information about Hiram that is historically impossible, but the message of masonry remains. I also notice that Hiram and Jesus share a lot of the same mythic tales, and therefore I have to assume that they are much the same kind of characters. Few masons with any understanding of the ceremonies would claim historicity for the events portrayed in the lodges, and although Hiram is placed in a very historical setting, the words he speaks and the deeds he performs are part of a mystery play, and not to be confused with history. If I find a flaw in the history of the life of Hiram, it would be needless to argue the point, because Hiram's historical presence is a metaphor whose meaning is revealed in initiation and not in any analysis of the past. This is also true of Jesus. The gospels, as the masonic rituals, tell of the "path" that one travels in spiritual ascent, and the Jesus character is a metaphor that reveals various steps on the way. Just as there are many contradictions in the masonic rituals concerning Hiram and history, there are the same kinds of contradictions in the New Testament. In both cases, history is obviously of little importance to the writers.

So, whatever "betrothal" meant to Jews, or whenever marriages were consummated by Jewish couples, or whether Jesus had 7 brothers and sisters or none, all such considerations is based on an understanding of these stories that has been filtered through Orthodox Christianity over 1,600 years and makes a supposition concerning history that was never inherent in the original intent of the Nazorean community that created Yahoshua, as masons created Hiram Abif.

I think that sums up my own views on the subject quite well.

Furthermore, I find your invocation of explanations like 'Diabolical Mimicry' or 'Divine Prefigurement' (depending on whether you want to give a negative or a postive slant on the situation) to be both quite absurd as well as very telling. I am approaching the subject from the point of view of a social scientist, postmodern philosopher, and religious scholar. My views are open to change or revision, given the appropriate evidence. You, on the other hand, are approaching the subject from the point of view of a faithful "true believer" and, as such, no amount of evidence or reasoning could possibly sway your positions on the subject. This is clearly evidenced in the fact that you regard your religious traditions as "the truth", while denigrating so-called pagan traditions as "deceptions". I would point you once again to psychologist James Fowler's Faith-Development Theory, but as you'd likely just dismiss it as more "deceptions", I really don't see the point.

Good day.

Laterz.

 

[kamishinkan]

This is correct I am approaching this from the standpoint of a "true believer" but that does not mean that I am not open to investigation. I will not use the ramblings of so called "experts" that do not use factual information to base their "beliefs". I quoted Isaiah 7:14 (written between 770-710 BC) "Therefore Adonai Himself will give you a miraculous sign; Behold a young virgin will be pregnant and bear a son and will call his name God with us." As I said this FAR predates the Hellenistic period and lends credence to the BASIC concept as taught by followers of the Messiah. I just used written documentation to PROVE that the concept predates the Hellenistic period (by some 400 years) but you still "believe" what you believe contrary to the evidence. I guess, as I have said before, we will all see sooner or later (one way or another).

 

[heretic888]

This is correct I am approaching this from the standpoint of a "true believer" but that does not mean that I am not open to investigation. I will not use the ramblings of so called "experts" that do not use factual information to base their "beliefs". I quoted Isaiah 7:14 (written between 770-710 BC) "Therefore Adonai Himself will give you a miraculous sign; Behold a young virgin will be pregnant and bear a son and will call his name God with us." As I said this FAR predates the Hellenistic period and lends credence to the BASIC concept as taught by followers of the Messiah. I just used written documentation to PROVE that the concept predates the Hellenistic period (by some 400 years) but you still "believe" what you believe contrary to the evidence. I guess, as I have said before, we will all see sooner or later (one way or another).

No, kamishinkan, you are a "true believer" and, as such, no matter what evidence or logic is presented, you quite literally cannot be persuaded to adopt another position. You can claim that you are "open to investigation" all you wish, but we both know you would never accept the possibility that the Virgin Birth is a myth.

Now, as to your inquiry, I would be exceedingly skeptical of any conventional dating of the Old Testament. However, it matters very little in this case, as the original Hebrew almah does not translate into "virgin" anyway (a more accurate translation, one that Jewish scholars would actually agree with, is "young woman"). The form from the Greek Septugaint, parthenos translates into "virgin", of course, but this is a common literary device of Greek culture at the time. The Septugaint translations took place between the 3rd and 1st centuries BCE, and it is this text that all the New Testamental authors (both "Paul" and the Synoptic authors) rely upon.

Furthermore, "virgin births" predate the rise of Alexander by several centuries. There is a "virgin birth" that is virtually identical to the impregnation of Mary in Euripides' Bacchae, which dates to the mid-400's BCE. Euripides didn't just pull this construct out of thin air in his play about Dionysus-Bacchus. Osiris-Horus could also be said to be born of a sort of "virgin birth".

All in all, though, even if a referenced "virgin birth" does exist in a single line in the Old Testament, it is nothing short of ethnocentric arrogance to assume that all other "virgin births" are approximated from this source. This is very much in alignment with the "my way is the truth, all others are deceptions" reasoning you appealed to in an earlier post, a characteristic feature of all mythic-sociocentric worldviews.

Laterz.

 

[kamishinkan]

Interesting.....All of the sources I have looked at agree "roughly" on the dating of Isaiah (700's BCE). This still "predates" these other "virgin births". As far as the word "virgin"...the Hebrew word 'almah does mean young girl as you said, BUT that would not be a "miraculous sign" as stated in the verse (Hebrew word 'owth which means miraculous sign or signal) The miraculous sign as stated is that the YOUNG GIRL gave birth. It IMPLIES that she was "young" as in not yet sexually active. Modern Jewish scholars would, OF COURSE, render that without the miraculous sign statement, to not give credence to the beliefs of the followers of the Messiah. We also forget that students of biblical history age pregnant Miriam (Mary) to 13-14 years old, I guess she fits the bill in both interpretations! Yeshua would still fit the prophetic picture as painted by the prophets without this "miraculous birth".

 

[heretic888]

kamishinkan,

The rendering of the Hebrew almah ("young girl") into the Greek parthenos ("virgin") was done so deliberately so as to harmonize traditional Judaism with Greek literary mythos. In much the same way, the Hebrew YHVH ("I am that I am" or "I am who I am") is rendered into the Greek Ego eimi ho on ("I am the Being") in order to harmonize Jewish thought with Platonic/Orphic philosophy. One modern commentator said something to the effect that this "Platonizes the Lord himself".

You have to understand that there was a strong push at the time for Jewish philosophers to come up with ex post facto rationalizations for the Jews to take up Hellenistic philosophy and rites. A lot of historical absurdities were suggested, such as Pythagoras having been a student of Moses in Egypt and so forth. These were presented in order to convince their Jewish audiences that all this pagan philosophy was really "their stuff". Philo of Alexandria was a perfect example of this trend.

The Septugaint, which is the 'Old Testament' that the Christian authors were using, was just a part of this movement.

Laterz.

 

[kamishinkan]

I have heard this before, won't argue this point at all. As far as the Septuagent, I don't use it to "check" modern Christian beliefs. I go back to the Tanakh and read it in Hebrew, I have several Hebrew to English translation books and programs. Again, as I said in the previous posts, I did not get the "virgin" concept from the Septuagent. I got the concept by reading the whole verse in Isaiah in Hebrew to see if the concept held water. Re-read the Miraculous sign post. I also studied Messianic concepts through Dr. Michael Brown, who is a Jew, and holds a doctorate of near Eastern languages. Fluently reads, writes and speaks Hebrew and Greek. According to his rendering of Isaiah 7:14, explains that the miraculous sign ('owth) explains the concept. Not only that but Rabbi Monte Judah teaches the Kabballistic rendering of Isaiah 9:6 (also considered a "Messianic scripture" states that the Hebrew letter mem in that verse is "closed" the word picture of the mem is "chaotic waters" or more commonly rendered "BIRTH WATERS". He makes the point that the mem being closed represents the "birth chamber" of the Messiah would be CLOSED. This is interesting but not very scientific. Just a thought. Re-read the previous point but I think at this point it is becoming a "tennis match".

 

[heretic888]

I have heard this before, won't argue this point at all. As far as the Septuagent, I don't use it to "check" modern Christian beliefs. I go back to the Tanakh and read it in Hebrew, I have several Hebrew to English translation books and programs. Again, as I said in the previous posts, I did not get the "virgin" concept from the Septuagent. I got the concept by reading the whole verse in Isaiah in Hebrew to see if the concept held water. Re-read the Miraculous sign post. I also studied Messianic concepts through Dr. Michael Brown, who is a Jew, and holds a doctorate of near Eastern languages. Fluently reads, writes and speaks Hebrew and Greek. According to his rendering of Isaiah 7:14, explains that the miraculous sign ('owth) explains the concept. Not only that but Rabbi Monte Judah teaches the Kabballistic rendering of Isaiah 9:6 (also considered a "Messianic scripture" states that the Hebrew letter mem in that verse is "closed" the word picture of the mem is "chaotic waters" or more commonly rendered "BIRTH WATERS". He makes the point that the mem being closed represents the "birth chamber" of the Messiah would be CLOSED. This is interesting but not very scientific. Just a thought. Re-read the previous point but I think at this point it is becoming a "tennis match".

kamishinkan,

Unfortunately, the problem with your reasoning is that it has a decidedly "selective" value to it. In essence, you are using an allegorical reading of Isaiah (and, to a lesser extent, Genesis) to "prove" a literal reading of Matthew and Luke.

This is not only logically and linguistically inconsistent, but it is also betrays Occam's Razor (do not multiply hypotheses needlessly). As "virgin births" --- or, rather, miraculous or supernatural births in general --- were a common motif of the popular literature of the time (i.e., Euripides' Bacchae), it stands to reason that the Gospel authors used the device of a "virgin birth" (in the earliest forms of extant Christology, such as the Pauline or Johannine strands, he is not "born" but instead "descends" to earth) in order to compare Jesus Christ to legendary heroes such as Orpheus, Apollonius, Heracles, or Bacchus.

Furthermore, even establishing an allegorical reading of a "virgin birth" in the Old Testament, one cannot logically conclude that Jesus Christ therefore was literally born of a virgin. It is just as likely that this was a late construction (Justin Martyr, writing around 160 CE, is seemingly unaware of either the virgin birth story, nor does he mention Mary or Joseph by name) of the evolving Christian communities, using the Greek Seputagaint as a proof text for their allegorizing.

Laterz.