Moderator: Watchman555
I'm not Joey, but i appreciate the compliment, when i was actually expecting an insult.eriqbenel wrote:This is from the same guy who insist that Messiah was arrested on the 10th because of Exodus 12.
chuckbaldwin wrote:I'm not Joey, but i appreciate the compliment, when i was actually expecting an insult.eriqbenel wrote:This is from the same guy who insist that Messiah was arrested on the 10th because of Exodus 12.
Since you are so confused about so many other things, i can understand your getting me and Joey mixed up.
eriqbenel wrote:
It would be easier for me to concentrate on the comments without the distractions of a public discussion.
Thanks
principessa-yisraeliana wrote:eriqbenel wrote:
It would be easier for me to concentrate on the comments without the distractions of a public discussion.
Thanks
Will you guys please continue here? We are all going to stay out of it - to let you discuss productively. I, for one, would like to see the progression of this. Especially since you both are very civil with one another. Thanks!
I reply (about Immanuel): Your contention is that since Matthew 1:22-23 states the virgin's child would be named Immanuel, and Miriam's son was instead named Yeshua, then Matthew 1:22-23 must be spurious.
However, consider the immediate fulfillment of the prophecy in Isaiah 7-8. There was a child born at that time during the first fulfillment in the days of Ahaz; this child was the fulfillment of the prophecy in Isaiah 7:14. Was this child's name Immanuel? No, it was rather Mahershalalhashbaz [Isaiah 8:1-4 - say that 3 times real fast Smile]. The reason for this is that in Isaiah 8:8-10 we find that Immanuel was to be understood in a prophetic sense as a secondary name, rather than the primary name for the child. This holds true in both fulfillments. Immanuel is the secondary, prophetic name for both Mahershalalhashbaz and Yeshua. With the birth of both children the people of Israel would have "Elohim with them" in a very mighty way.
Your good buddy,
Matthew
Hi Matthew,
Thank you for that simple explanation of the "name" Immanuel. It makes perfect sense to me. Good point about Maher... (whatever) not literally being named Immanuel...
One thing that opponents of "duality" don't understand, is that not all details of the prophecy necessarily apply to both situations.
I think you may have misunderstood me Bro.
When David wrote Psalm 69 and Psalm 109, he was writing about events current in his (David's) life. If YHWH meant for his (David's) life to be a prophetic link to Messianic events I can certainly acquiesce to that. But as I pointed out earlier, we have a multitude of precedents toward David's link to Messiah and we have no such precedent toward a virgin birth linkage.
Again, long prior to Deut 18:15-19, we have ample Scriptural precedent that the life and events of Moshe and the Yiraelites were manipulated by YHWH to be a Prophetic link to Messiah.
In addition, we have historical record that the connection to David and Messiah was ALWAYS believed. The connection to "that prophet" and Messiah was ALWAYS believed. The "virgin birth" connection was never a belief until AFTER the fact, when the "spurious" stories were added.
I will list my contentions in short burst to avoid a long post.
1. With such a outstandingly miraculous event that marked the entrance of the long awaited Messiah into the world, SURELY gospels and other epistles written 40 to 50 years PRIOR to Mattiyahu and Luke would have incorporated this event.
2. The writer(s) of the Gospel of Q, circa 50 CE, seem to have been unaware of the virgin birth.
3. Paul (who was executed about 64 CE) was similarly unaware.
4. The writer of the Gospel of Mark, circa 70 CE hadn't heard of it either.
5. Sometime between 70 and 90 CE, a myth of the virgin birth was invented, probably to strengthen the authority of Messiah's teachings by claiming that his birth was miraculous. This was a time of great change, as the Roman Army had demolished Jerusalem and its temples and scattered many of the Jews throughout the Roman empire. There, they would come into contact with many stories of virgin births of various politicians and deities from Pagan religions. In fact, it would have been unusual if the developing story of Messiah's birth did NOT include many of the features found in mythical figures of other religions.
6. By the 90's, the belief was widespread. The authors of Luke and Matthew incorporated it into their Gospels.
7. The writer(s) of the Gospel of Yochanon likely knew of the story, but rejected it as being a false teaching that was not believed by their faith group.
8. There is no Scriptural precedent
9. There is no historical precedent, prior to it being written in Matthew and Luke.
I understood you, but I do not agree with what you're saying. David wrote Psalm 69 and Psalm 109 about his personal life and thus about his personal enemies. Judas Iscariot wasn't even alive at this time. Yet Luke shows that these passage find a dual meaning in Judas. This is not about the Messiah, but about Judas.
Also, I believe we do have a virgin birth link to the Messiah from prophecy, per examining Isaiah 7:14 and Mt. 1:22-23 and just accepting what the Bible says. There's no need to try and throw anything away unless you can absolutely prove and interpolation like with 1 John 5:7.
I do not believe that the Israelites standing around Moses back in Deuteronomy were thinking about a prophet that would show up over a thousand years later. They would immediately think about a prophet that would show up for them personally as Deut. 18:15-19 reads. I agree that there are Messianic links from Moses and others to the Messiah, but the reason we see these links is because we read about them in the Messianic Scriptures which apply many OT statements to Yeshua.
You continue to call the virgin birth stories "spurious" without giving anything to back up the claim. It was the Holy Spirit that made the connection in Mt. 1:22-23, not just the author making it up. When the Holy Spirit moved upon Isaiah to write 7:14 He definitely also knew there would be a future fulfillment in Yeshua and that's why He moved upon Matthew to write 1:22-23.
This is speculation friend. Even if only one gospel had recorded it that would be plenty. This reminds me of those who contend that we have to have two Scriptures to prove a doctrine. Yahweh only has to say and thus record something one time for it to be true. Even many commandments in the Torah are only recorded one time but they are just as true as those commanded twice or a dozen times.
Do you really believe Gospel Q is authentic? Furthermore, can you please give me the manuscript information from this gospel that omits the virgin birth story from either Matthew or Luke's gospel? In other words, does Q record both Matthew and Luke's gospel but leave out the virgin birth doctrine?
Just because Paul didn't mention the virgin birth does not prove that he was unaware of it. Matthew's gospel doesn't mention the link between the Messiah and the bronze serpent in the wilderness (John 3:14-15). Does this mean Matthew was unaware of this link or OT occurence? Not at all. Each individual writer/author doesn't have to list everything he is aware of.
Once again this is speculation. Sure, Mark does not mention the story, but Matthew and Luke do. There are other things Matthew may mention that Mark does not mention.
For example, the account of the wise men in Mt. 2:1-18 is only found in that book. I am not aware of any prophecies pointing to that visit nor of any parallel accounts in the other evangels. Does that mean the account is bogus and should be cut out of our Bibles?
What about the account of the two blind men that is only found in Mt. 9:27-31? This is not the same account as in Mt 20:29-34; Mk. 10:46-52; or Luke 18:35-43. Should we consider this an "alleged" account and trash it?
In Mt. 13:44-50, Yeshua gave three parables that are only found in Matthew's evangel; The Buried Treasure, The Pearl of Great Price, and The Parable of the Net.
In Mt. 17:24-27, Yeshua tells Peter to go find some money in the mouth of a fish to pay his tribute (taxes). Again, there is only one witness to this account.
Yeshua gave the Parable of the Laborers in Mt. 20:1-16 and the Parable of Two Sons in Mt. 21:28-32. Only one witness, Matthew. Yet, who would reject these as authentic truth?
The Parable of the Ten Virgins is the last example I will give. Again, only Matthew gives this parable.
There are far more examples in the other evangels including where only two evangels witness an account as in Matthew and Luke witnessing about the virgin birth. We might as well totally discard all four evangels if we are going to discard the virgin birth accounts in Matthew and Luke.
This too is speculation. For some reason or another Eric, my good friend, you do not want to accept the clear teaching of the gospels of Matthew and Luke. This would be like you quoting me any other NT Scripture and me just saying, "Well that was invented between 70 and 90 AD." I once discussed the Messiah's lineage with a person who believe the Messiah was from the tribe of Ephraim. When I quoted Hebrews 7:14 to them they would reply, "Oh, that was added in by the translators who wanted you to think that he descended from the tribe of Judah." There is no way to reason with this sort of thinking other than praying that Yahweh will allow such people to be able to receive His word for what it says and teaches.
Concerning pagan virgin birth stories, there are many pagan stories that contain a number of similarities with the Messiah. For instance, pagan myths/stories include saviors that:
Were male
Lived in pre-Christian times
Had a god for a father
Human virgin for a mother
Had their birth announced by a heavenly display
Had an attempt on their life by a tyrant while they were still an infant
Met with a violent death. rose again from the dead
According to the logic of this argument, since all these figures were believed to have a virgin mother, we should reject a belief in Yeshua's virgin birth. To carry that logic one step further, we should reject all the other points as related to Yeshua. We should reject the belief that he was a male, that Herod tried to kill him, that he rose from the dead, etc.
I've already written way too much, but I had to address everything. All that being said I can only repeat here that you are speculating. You have absolutely no manuscript evidence from textual criticism that would dismiss either Matthew or Luke's account of the virgin birth. I hope and pray that you will one day believe what these authors wrote instead of rejecting what they wrote.
ErichMatthewJanzen wrote:Shalom, Brother Eric,
I had written a lengthy post responding to you point by point, but I've just erased it because I feel we are getting off track and I want to stay with the issue without getting personal.
Here's what I'm seeing thus far in our discussion:
1.) I believe the account of the virgin birth in Matthew 1 is authentic.
2.) You do not.
3.) In order for me to dismiss the account I will HAVE to see some manuscript evidence from Matthew that backs up your claim.
4.) To just dismiss Matthew's account without manuscript evidence from Matthew itself does not add up to me. I know of no Greek, Aramaic, or Hebrew manuscript of Matthew that doesn't contain the virgin birth story.
5.) It is because I accept Matthew 1 as genuine that I see the link with Isaiah 7:14. Obviously, if I did not accept Matthew's account I would not see the link.
Okay, I think that pretty much sums up my stance thus far. Brother, I apologize if I wrote anything to upset you, such was not my intent. It just gets a bit frustrating when I quote a Scripture to prove my belief, but the Scripture I quote is said to be spurious. This would be okay if you could show manuscript evidence of interpolation (like with 1 John 5:7) but when you can't I do not see why you would want to believe something to be spurious.
Hopefully, this will get us back on track.
Your good pal,
Matthew
I think that what you are looking for is some type of manuscript evidence that dates prior to the earliest known manuscripts (Greek or Hebrew) that might omit the virgin birth story, or at least tell a different story.
There are credible historical references who say this is so, but I have not personally been exposed to it. I agree that I may need to re-confirm that information as fact on a personal level. But let's just say for a moment, you're right, and there isn't any. There are two other elements that we need to seriously look at:
1. If Matthew and Luke gospels were ORIGINALLY written to include the virgin birth aspect, we would still need to take note of the historical, political and religious environment and circumstances that surround the original composition.
There were many, many writings that were written about the Messiah that are "original", but do not qualify as truth. But what about earlier manuscripts (decades earlier) of OTHER authors who autobiography the Messiah's life? Manuscripts we accept as truth, like Yochanon and Mark? You do believe other manuscripts to be a clue? Does it have to be earlier manuscripts of "Matthew's" and "Luke's" gospels in particular?
The gospels of Yochanon and Mark are also examples of manuscripts that were written 3 to 5 DECADES BEFORE Matthew and Luke that do NOT include this tale... Why not? I still say that is a valid question, which sparks justifiable skepticism given the spectacular nature of the alleged event.
2. In the absence of the type of manuscript proof you require, and by stipulating momentarily to the gospels of Matthew and Luke "as written", I believe we also need to explore the traditional interpretations. The original language of verbs and phrases in this text can be illumined and shown to paint a very different picture of the birth circumstances than what is traditionally taught.
As an astute student of Scripture, I don't have to tell you that the English words can sometimes "blur" the true meaning of the text. The "virgin" birth Scriptures are certainly candidates for such scrutiny.
Your claim that Yeshayahu "knew" that there would be "dual fulfillment" is unsupported. He knew nothing of the kind.
The high priest, Ciaphas, spoke prophetically under inspiration of the Holy Spirit concerning Messiah's sacrifice, but he had no idea what he was prophesying. So even if Yeshayahu 7:14 were a Messianic prophecy (which it isn't), that doesn't mean Yeshayahu "knew" of it's significance for 800 years in the future.
Here are my responses to the above 2 point:
1.) Yes, it would have to be manuscripts of Matthew and Luke to persuade me. By this, I do not mean that the gospels of Mark and John are irrelavent; I believe them wholeheartedly, but as we both know neither of them contain the virgin birth story as do Matthew and Luke. For us to produce manuscript "evidence" from Mark and John would be futile at this point for I agree that the story is not told in these gospels.
What we need to see is earlier manuscripts of Matthew and/or Luke that do not contain the story, and later manuscripts that do. That would definitely get me to looking. Yet, this is what I haven't seen. The virgin birth stories are in the Bible, and there is no evidence known to me that they are interpolations.
Concerning the dating of Matthew's gospel, I do not believe it was written 30 to 50 years after Mark or John. I believe all the gospels were written prior to A.D. 70. I realize this is a side issue, but we may have to delve into it.
2.) I agree completely on examining the translations and current interpretations. This is what should be done, especially in light of the fact that there is no evidence of interpolations in Matthew 1 and Luke 1 concerning the virgin birth accounts.
BTW, I do want to just briefly comment on one thing you wrote previously, so as to clarify myself:
I had written, "When the Holy Spirit moved upon Isaiah to write 7:14 He definitely also knew there would be a future fulfillment in Yeshua and that why He moved upon Matthew to write 1:22-23."
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest