No Marian cunt I won't. The words in the gospel were INVENTED to make it appear that a "pesher" had been "fulfilled". In fact Mary was not a "virgin" and Jebus did NOTHING to fulfill the predictions of what a "messiah" was to do. The Kingdom of David was NEVER re-established. IN fact the Romans utterly destroyed the temple, and it has NEVER been rebuilt. No reasonable person can claim Jebus did ANYTHING a messiah was to do. Jebus never existed.

The so-called "virgin birth" is one of the PRIME examples where there is development of an off-the-wall notion, based on a translation, of a MIS-translation, of a translation, which is then taken out of context, and solidified as doctrine, and driven over the cliff.
To wit :
a. Background :
Isaiah 7 talks about the history of King Ahaz, son of Jotham, the son of Uzziah, who was king of Judah. At the time, King Rezin of Aram and Pekah, son of Remaliah, King of Israel, marched up to fight against Jerusalem, and the campaign was long and protracted. See the Syro-Ephraimite War, (Wikipedia : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syro-Ephraimite_War ), and it happened in the 8th Century (734) BC. When Ahaz was loosing faith, Isaiah went to visit him, and told him to "buck up", keep the faith, and continue the war, and told him that the SIGN from god, that they were favored, was that one of his wives, (a "woman of marriageable age") would be found to be with child. The SIGN was the CHILD, (and NOT the manner of the birth). ...."And they shall name him Emmanuel" which means "god is with us". The CHILD was the SIGN.

Any devout Jew in the time of the Roman occupation, (around 60 AD), would know that story, from Isaiah, and when they heard the words "a woman, (of marriageable age) will be found to be with child" they would connect the stories in their brains, and recognize that the gospel text's intention was to remind them of the Isaiah story, and would "harken" back to it, and realize the intent of the author was to claim that THIS child also was a sign. The general intent of the Gospel of Matthew was to claim the fulfillment of the various prophesies regarding the messiah, and this one was another one of those claims/stories of fulfillment.

b. The word "virgin" is a mistranslation, of a translation. So WE have a translation, of a mis-translation, of a translation. Matthew, writing in Greek about the "virgin birth" of Jesus, quotes the Septuagint text of Isaiah 7:14-16, which uses the Greek word "παρθένος" (parthenos,), (we still use the term "parthenogenesis") while the original Hebrew text has "עלמה" (almah), which has the slightly wider meaning of an unmarried, betrothed，or newly wed woman such as in the case of Ahaz' betrothed Abijah, daughter of Zechariah. He NEVER meant to imply that he was asserting "gynecological" claims, and THAT whole business was "off-the-wall", a mistranslation, taken to ridiculous extremes, by interpreters who missed the point. THE CHILD was the sign.

Also interesting that Matthew (1:25) only says that Joseph "knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn son". It does NOT say she REMAINED a virgin.

See also : Mother Goddess, ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_goddess ) and Joseph Campbell, ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goddess ) and Courtly Love, ( http://cla.calpoly.edu/~dschwart/engl513...ourtly.htm ). The business of Mary, and her idealized state, was extremely important in the civilization/culture of the West, and in some circles remains very important today, (Lourdes & claims of "Marian" apparitions" etc., etc.

Take your theist bullshit somewhere else.

(March 25, 2014 at 12:01 am)Bucky Ball Wrote: No Marian cunt I won't.

Take your theist bullshit somewhere else.

Wow, you really care for some reason that it is the case that this person has views that are theist and simultaneously bullshit.

Maybe at some point I also cared as much as you do about that.

Glad I don't now.

I have accepted that in general, that is that is the case for probably about 90% of the world's population, and that I must accept as a fact of the world.

(March 25, 2014 at 12:07 am)futilethewinds Wrote:

(March 25, 2014 at 12:01 am)Bucky Ball Wrote: No Marian cunt I won't.

Take your theist bullshit somewhere else.

Wow, you really care for some reason that it is the case that this person has views that are theist and simultaneously bullshit.

Maybe at some point I also cared as much as you do about that.

Glad I don't now.

I have accepted that in general, that is that is the case for probably about 90% of the world's population, and that I must accept as a fact of the world.

Was that incoherent crap supposed to actually mean something ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
Neither of you cunts have actually addressed the POINT.

This sort of objection demonstrates a lack of realization that there is NO relevance for the virgin birth in the places where it is lacking mention. Remember, the NT materials were written to people who ALREADY believed the Gospel. By the time the were reading this stuff, they had already accepted all of the basic tenets, and already had all the basic information.

Furthermore, Paul was writing "problem-oriented" letters - so that there was really no need to go out of the way to mention anything that he did not have pertinence for.

The virgin birth was not seen in a christological perspective when Matthew and Luke reported it; hence, there is no reason for it to appear in Paul's letters or elsewhere in the NT. There is not even any reason for it to be in Mark and John (note that in the missionary preaching of Acts, the kerygma begins not with Jesus' birth, but with his baptism by John) - but there is a reason for Matthew and Luke to use it: The former wished to link it to the fulfillment of prophecy (Is. 7:14); the latter showed especial interest in the life of Mary.

The argument that there were pagan stories of Virginal birth and the Virginal birth was not mentioned by Paul, do not prove anything, because what is true Doctrine is not proven false because of what Paul didn't say or what Doctrines may also resemble what was taught by pagans. Even Pagans had some of the truth. THey still do.

(March 25, 2014 at 12:10 am)Bucky Ball Wrote: Was that incoherent crap supposed to actually mean something ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
Neither of you cunts have actually addressed the POINT.

That was incoherent to you? You poor thing, because you might have gained something from what I said.

And what I said was in no way ad populum.
That is saying that there is a reason to believe something because it is popular. Definitely not what I was saying.

Don't care what you think the point is or whether or not I have addressed it.

Aye, Bucky, chill out bro.

You always provide awesome information, but you're being a bit too abrasive right now.

(March 25, 2014 at 12:22 am)Thunder Cunt Wrote: This sort of objection demonstrates a lack of realization that there is NO relevance for the virgin birth in the places where it is lacking mention. Remember, the NT materials were written to people who ALREADY believed the Gospel. By the time the were reading this stuff, they had already accepted all of the basic tenets, and already had all the basic information.

"They" were never "reading" it. The literacy rate was about 5%. The gospels were not written to be "read". They were written to be "proclaimed" in liturgies. Nothing in them is "reported". The Hebrews had no word for "history" in the sense we understand it today. The content was ALREADY believed, thus is just a list of what was already believed. They are absolutely NOT "historical". Your "true doctrine" bullshit is the DEFINITION of "circular logic". No scholar talks about "pagans" in 2014. I see you must have been home-schooled.

---

(March 25, 2014 at 12:26 am)futilethewinds Wrote: That was incoherent to you? You poor thing, because you might have gained something from what I said.

And what I said was in no way ad populum.
That is saying that there is a reason to believe something because it is popular. Definitely not what I was saying.

Don't care what you think the point is or whether or not I have addressed it.

Then STFU. If I need any advice from the likes of you, I'll be sure and ask.

(March 25, 2014 at 12:32 am)Bucky Ball Wrote: Then STFU. If I need any advice from the likes of you, I'll be sure and ask.

YEP, not "shutting the fuck up". Don't care if you need or even if you want it. Just putting it out there on the off chance it would benefit you.

Objections against the validity of the virgin birth are based mostly on preconceived notions - in the main, that the miraculous is impossible. There is no reason, other than pre-conceived notions, to reject it as historical; and to be fair, no reason other than ones own perceptions to accept it as such.

No point in arguing what you can't prove, and no, the early Church Father's and no significant communion of early Christians believed the Virgin Birth as is clearly defined in the Bible, was a mistranslation.

Mistranslation... Lie.

Po-Tay-Toe ...Po-Tah-Toe