- Joined
- Oct 11, 2006
- Messages
- 53,060
- Reaction score
- 84,709
Offline
Facts -- these days -- just don't mean what they're supposed to mean.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
LiterallyFacts -- these days -- just don't mean what they're supposed to mean.
Regarding Paul, in that passage he doesn't actually provide testimony on Jesus' genealogy, he's making a theologically based statement. Paul is explicit that everything he says about Jesus he learned either from scripture or direct revelation, "not from any man" (Galatians 1:12), and in this case he's pulling this knowledge of Jesus from 2 Samuel 7:12-16.I asked because it's kind of a litmus test about the trust we put in these molester-enablers discussed above in the thread.
Y'all believe it? What's the evidence?
Paul's letters (48-62) - the only Christian writings within Mary's lifetime. Never says she was a virgin. Says the opposite - Jesus was born of David's line (literally spermatoi in Greek). Romans 1:1-4.
Mark (c. 70) - the original surviving gospel. No virgin birth. God says "you are my son" after baptism.
Matthew (c. 80) - virgin birth after Wise Men visit Mary's house in Bethlehem and after Herod kills the babies (didn't happen). Why? Because "it was foretold." But was it? Isaiah 7 speaks of a woman (almah) not a virgin (betula) who was already pregant (no future tense). How could "Matthew" mess up so badly? Because he spoke Greek and was reading the Septuagent which says parthenoi (kind of like our "maiden").
Luke (c. 85) - virgin birth amidst a totally different nativity scene (manger in Bethlehem because originally from Nazareth; no wise men; no baby-killings; census that you had to go home for (didn't happen).
John (c. 90) - no nativity scene.
That's the evidence. My whole point is to say that you believe Mary was a virgin not because of evidence but because these molester-enablers say so. They and their enablers brainwashed you with this stuff.
So sorry for the lecture, but this is to follow-up on the post above that asked, quite cogently, why believe in the rest of the church while admitting that the latest branch that got caught is evil? They're all in cahoots.
LOL nobody thinks Paul had a birth certificate or DNA analysis. He's making stuff up right and left. He sees a light and thinks he knows Jesus better than Peter & Co.Regarding Paul, in that passage he doesn't actually provide testimony on Jesus' genealogy, he's making a theologically based statement. Paul is explicit that everything he says about Jesus he learned either from scripture or direct revelation, "not from any man" (Galatians 1:12), and in this case he's pulling this knowledge of Jesus from 2 Samuel 7:12-16.
In that passage, God tells David that after he dies God will take his sperm and create a Son who will build his throne and eternal kingdom, which early Christians later interpreted be secretly about Jesus. So Paul says Jesus was made from David's sperm not because they had any records stating such, but because scripture said it must be so.
A further interesting note about that is that, though the modern translation of Paul is that Jesus was born of David's line, what Paul literally says is Jesus was formed by God with David's sperm, using the same word he uses to discuss Adam being formed by God with clay (ginomai) instead of the word he uses elsewhere to describe one as naturally born (gennaô). So again, he's talking theologically, not historically.
Obviously there was no birth certificate or DNA analysis (smart arse! ), but there's also no evidence of any oral or written history either behind that, just repurposed scripture, which is what I was pointing out.LOL nobody thinks Paul had a birth certificate or DNA analysis.
Thanks for the ginomai/gennao distinction. Do you think that's referring to David's "line" or his actual sperm? and is it a point in favor of Paul thinking Mary was a virgin?
Pointing out the inconsistencies of particular belief systems (which I have done numerous times, I’m not removing myself from this observation) misses the point of the belief system and it’s potential impact
otoh people who hold their spiritual beliefs as factual information others should share also miss the point
We should be able to hold the inconsistencies simultaneously
TIL. Stuff like this is why I love the Bible. The more you read (really read) the more fascinating it is.repurposing Isaiah 7:14. ... clever little twist ... "I am with you.")
Well, it kind of is, but it kind of isn't. Whether and when Mary did it with Joseph is a superficial detail to the rest of the story. But some folks seem to be so certain that she didn't re: Jesus, so it is a useful topic going back up this thread re: the molester-enablers who have been brainwashing folks with this stuff for 2000 years.fundamental, core aspect of the Christian belief system
The Virgin Mary? Definitely a fundamental part of Christianity, and especially Catholicism.Well, it kind of is, but it kind of isn't. Whether and when Mary did it with Joseph is a superficial detail to the rest of the story. But some folks seem to be so certain that she didn't re: Jesus, so it is a useful topic going back up this thread re: the molester-enablers who have been brainwashing folks with this stuff for 2000 years.
The first Chapter of Luke makes it pretty clear, though, at least being a virgin through Jesus' conception. As far as her perpetual virginity, I agree that it seem tangential. Thomas Aquinas also didn't believe in it. It's one of the few things the Catholic Church rejects from Aquinas' work.Well, it kind of is, but it kind of isn't. Whether and when Mary did it with Joseph is a superficial detail to the rest of the story. But some folks seem to be so certain that she didn't re: Jesus, so it is a useful topic going back up this thread re: the molester-enablers who have been brainwashing folks with this stuff for 2000 years.
The Virgin Mary? Definitely a fundamental part of Christianity, and especially Catholicism.
Well it’s a contention of fact that numerous Catholics have killed and died for, so in that sense you’re right.The Virgin Mary? Definitely a fundamental part of Christianity, and especially Catholicism.