Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Can you explain why, in Christianity, the Virgin Birth is not just a "weird idea" without looking it up?
I'm pretty sure it wasn't a new concept. Every father of a pregnant teen has heard that explanation since the beginning of time.
Of course, no kidding. It was foretold all the way back to Isaiah that a Virgin would conceive and bear a son. I'm sure there were plenty of wayward maidens along the way who might have claimed it was her to get out of difficult circumstances. And it would seem to me the Jews simply would not put up with it. The truth will out.
Can you explain why, in Christianity, the Virgin Birth is not just a "weird idea" without looking it up?
I'm pretty sure it wasn't a new concept. Every father of a pregnant teen has heard that explanation since the beginning of time.
Of course, no kidding. It was foretold all the way back to Isaiah that a Virgin would conceive and bear a son. I'm sure there were plenty of wayward maidens along the way who might have claimed it was her to get out of difficult circumstances. And it would seem to me the Jews simply would not put up with it. The truth will out.
One of the problems with using translations of Torah and other Hebrew Scripture for xtian prophecy is the inevitable mistranslations that occur. In the Neviʾim (Prophets) scripture, in the book ofYeshayahu, the Hebrew word Almah , translated in the xtian bible as 'virgin' actually means 'young woman'. It doesn't imply maiden status. In fact, in Hebrew, the word can apply to any young woman of child-bearing age, married or unmarried.
When Hebrew scholars translated the Hebrew into Greek, they used the Greek word for virgin, however: parthenos. Again, this is 200 years before Christ was born, give or take.
When Hebrew scholars translated the Hebrew into Greek, they used the Greek word for virgin, however: parthenos. Again, this is 200 years before Christ was born, give or take.
Although it's a often repeated concept that early xtians were Jews. In fact, the original xtian scriptures were written in Greek. The modern canon of xtian scripture wasn't established until the 4th Century and the authors wrote in Greek and Latin.
Hebrew scholars weren't involved in their creation.
When Hebrew scholars translated the Hebrew into Greek, they used the Greek word for virgin, however: parthenos. Again, this is 200 years before Christ was born, give or take.
Although it's a often repeated concept that early xtians were Jews. In fact, the original xtian scriptures were written in Greek. The modern canon of xtian scripture wasn't established until the 4th Century and the authors wrote in Greek and Latin.
Hebrew scholars weren't involved in their creation.
What are you talking about.
I'm not talking about "early Christian documents"--Hebrews translated ISAIAH into Greek 200 years before Christ was even born. !!! Obviously, these were not Christians and you have to be crazy to claim they were--Christ was not even born yet. Did you even read what I wrote?
When Hebrew scholars translated the Hebrew into Greek, they used the Greek word for virgin, however: parthenos. Again, this is 200 years before Christ was born, give or take.
Although it's a often repeated concept that early xtians were Jews. In fact, the original xtian scriptures were written in Greek. The modern canon of xtian scripture wasn't established until the 4th Century and the authors wrote in Greek and Latin.
Hebrew scholars weren't involved in their creation.
What are you talking about.
I'm not talking about "early Christian documents"--Hebrews translated ISAIAH into Greek 200 years before Christ was even born. !!! Obviously, these were not Christians and you have to be crazy to claim they were--Christ was not even born yet. Did you even read what I wrote?
If you're talking about the Alexandrian Scriptures, AKA Septuagint. They weren't part of Hebrew canon since well before the xtian era. The canon Hebrew scriptures in the xtian era were Hebrew and Aramaic, not Greek.
When Hebrew scholars translated the Hebrew into Greek, they used the Greek word for virgin, however: parthenos. Again, this is 200 years before Christ was born, give or take.
Although it's a often repeated concept that early xtians were Jews. In fact, the original xtian scriptures were written in Greek. The modern canon of xtian scripture wasn't established until the 4th Century and the authors wrote in Greek and Latin.
Hebrew scholars weren't involved in their creation.
What are you talking about.
I'm not talking about "early Christian documents"--Hebrews translated ISAIAH into Greek 200 years before Christ was even born. !!! Obviously, these were not Christians and you have to be crazy to claim they were--Christ was not even born yet. Did you even read what I wrote?
If you're talking about the Alexandrian Scriptures, AKA Septuagint. They weren't part of Hebrew canon since well before the xtian era. The canon Hebrew scriptures in the xtian era were Hebrew and Aramaic, not Greek.
When Hebrew scholars translated the Hebrew into Greek, they used the Greek word for virgin, however: parthenos. Again, this is 200 years before Christ was born, give or take.
Although it's a often repeated concept that early xtians were Jews. In fact, the original xtian scriptures were written in Greek. The modern canon of xtian scripture wasn't established until the 4th Century and the authors wrote in Greek and Latin.
Hebrew scholars weren't involved in their creation.
What are you talking about.
I'm not talking about "early Christian documents"--Hebrews translated ISAIAH into Greek 200 years before Christ was even born. !!! Obviously, these were not Christians and you have to be crazy to claim they were--Christ was not even born yet. Did you even read what I wrote?
If you're talking about the Alexandrian Scriptures, AKA Septuagint. They weren't part of Hebrew canon since well before the xtian era. The canon Hebrew scriptures in the xtian era were Hebrew and Aramaic, not Greek.
Whether they were canon or not, whatever technicality you want to lay on them, 70 Hebrew scholars got together 200 years before Jesus was born and decided that Isaiah intended that almah meant "virgin". SEVENTY. Before Jesus was born. Again: that word CAN mean "young woman" or "virgin", and they decided the word was virgin.
When Hebrew scholars translated the Hebrew into Greek, they used the Greek word for virgin, however: parthenos. Again, this is 200 years before Christ was born, give or take.
Although it's a often repeated concept that early xtians were Jews. In fact, the original xtian scriptures were written in Greek. The modern canon of xtian scripture wasn't established until the 4th Century and the authors wrote in Greek and Latin.
Hebrew scholars weren't involved in their creation.
What are you talking about.
I'm not talking about "early Christian documents"--Hebrews translated ISAIAH into Greek 200 years before Christ was even born. !!! Obviously, these were not Christians and you have to be crazy to claim they were--Christ was not even born yet. Did you even read what I wrote?
If you're talking about the Alexandrian Scriptures, AKA Septuagint. They weren't part of Hebrew canon since well before the xtian era. The canon Hebrew scriptures in the xtian era were Hebrew and Aramaic, not Greek.
Moreover, your unwillingness to type out Christian--repeatedly--tells me you have no small amount of bias in this game, no matter what you might claim or state. I do too, as anyone can see. But don't YOU pretend to be unbiased either.
When Hebrew scholars translated the Hebrew into Greek, they used the Greek word for virgin, however: parthenos. Again, this is 200 years before Christ was born, give or take.
Although it's a often repeated concept that early xtians were Jews. In fact, the original xtian scriptures were written in Greek. The modern canon of xtian scripture wasn't established until the 4th Century and the authors wrote in Greek and Latin.
Hebrew scholars weren't involved in their creation.
What are you talking about.
I'm not talking about "early Christian documents"--Hebrews translated ISAIAH into Greek 200 years before Christ was even born. !!! Obviously, these were not Christians and you have to be crazy to claim they were--Christ was not even born yet. Did you even read what I wrote?
If you're talking about the Alexandrian Scriptures, AKA Septuagint. They weren't part of Hebrew canon since well before the xtian era. The canon Hebrew scriptures in the xtian era were Hebrew and Aramaic, not Greek.
Whether they were canon or not, whatever technicality you want to lay on them, 70 Hebrew scholars got together 200 years before Jesus was born and decided that Isaiah intended that almah meant "virgin". SEVENTY. Before Jesus was born. Again: that word CAN mean "young woman" or "virgin", and they decided the word was virgin.
Given that the translation of Hebrew scriptures in to Greek took place over 100 years between the 2nd and 3rd Centuries BCE, I'm guessing those "70" Hebrew scholars you're talking about were pretty old by the time they finished.
Although it's a often repeated concept that early xtians were Jews. In fact, the original xtian scriptures were written in Greek. The modern canon of xtian scripture wasn't established until the 4th Century and the authors wrote in Greek and Latin.
Hebrew scholars weren't involved in their creation.
What are you talking about.
I'm not talking about "early Christian documents"--Hebrews translated ISAIAH into Greek 200 years before Christ was even born. !!! Obviously, these were not Christians and you have to be crazy to claim they were--Christ was not even born yet. Did you even read what I wrote?
If you're talking about the Alexandrian Scriptures, AKA Septuagint. They weren't part of Hebrew canon since well before the xtian era. The canon Hebrew scriptures in the xtian era were Hebrew and Aramaic, not Greek.
Whether they were canon or not, whatever technicality you want to lay on them, 70 Hebrew scholars got together 200 years before Jesus was born and decided that Isaiah intended that almah meant "virgin". SEVENTY. Before Jesus was born. Again: that word CAN mean "young woman" or "virgin", and they decided the word was virgin.
Given that the translation of Hebrew scriptures in to Greek took place over 100 years between the 2nd and 3rd Centuries BCE, I'm guessing those "70" Hebrew scholars you're talking about were pretty old by the time they finished.
What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? Everything I said stands.
When Hebrew scholars translated the Hebrew into Greek, they used the Greek word for virgin, however: parthenos. Again, this is 200 years before Christ was born, give or take.
Although it's a often repeated concept that early xtians were Jews. In fact, the original xtian scriptures were written in Greek. The modern canon of xtian scripture wasn't established until the 4th Century and the authors wrote in Greek and Latin.
Hebrew scholars weren't involved in their creation.
What are you talking about.
I'm not talking about "early Christian documents"--Hebrews translated ISAIAH into Greek 200 years before Christ was even born. !!! Obviously, these were not Christians and you have to be crazy to claim they were--Christ was not even born yet. Did you even read what I wrote?
If you're talking about the Alexandrian Scriptures, AKA Septuagint. They weren't part of Hebrew canon since well before the xtian era. The canon Hebrew scriptures in the xtian era were Hebrew and Aramaic, not Greek.
Moreover, your unwillingness to type out Christian--repeatedly--tells me you have no small amount of bias in this game, no matter what you might claim or state. I do too, as anyone can see. But don't YOU pretend to be unbiased either.
Believe what you want ... it doesn't matter. All I ask is that you don't blame your religion on my people. We have our own problems.
Although it's a often repeated concept that early xtians were Jews. In fact, the original xtian scriptures were written in Greek. The modern canon of xtian scripture wasn't established until the 4th Century and the authors wrote in Greek and Latin.
Hebrew scholars weren't involved in their creation.
What are you talking about.
I'm not talking about "early Christian documents"--Hebrews translated ISAIAH into Greek 200 years before Christ was even born. !!! Obviously, these were not Christians and you have to be crazy to claim they were--Christ was not even born yet. Did you even read what I wrote?
If you're talking about the Alexandrian Scriptures, AKA Septuagint. They weren't part of Hebrew canon since well before the xtian era. The canon Hebrew scriptures in the xtian era were Hebrew and Aramaic, not Greek.
Whether they were canon or not, whatever technicality you want to lay on them, 70 Hebrew scholars got together 200 years before Jesus was born and decided that Isaiah intended that almah meant "virgin". SEVENTY. Before Jesus was born. Again: that word CAN mean "young woman" or "virgin", and they decided the word was virgin.
Given that the translation of Hebrew scriptures in to Greek took place over 100 years between the 2nd and 3rd Centuries BCE, I'm guessing those "70" Hebrew scholars you're talking about were pretty old by the time they finished.
What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? Everything I said stands.
And here I thought the single feature of all religions was to talk smack about rival religions.So, the central feature being religious is to be evangelical?
For certain religions, it's their single feature.
Funny that all religions splinter though. They must not be doing a very good job.A superstition is something in which you believe that you can't fully explain ... a religion is when you believe in something and have to make damn sure everyone else believes it also.
Like, for example, atheism.
How about charity?We still have no argument able to distinguish between superstition and the foundations of organised religion other than greater numbers swallow the gobbledegook and there’s a more organised group of believers. When, for instance, does a pracitce such as voodoo and it’s followers become accepted as a religion and not mere superstition?
As to statements made here such as "Oh look another unbeliever who's really, REALLY impressed with himself.” I simply can’t be bothered drawing attention to why such assertions have no value in any discussion.
Maybe we should take a side step and ask followers of verious religious streams such as, say, the Jehovah’s Witnesses and Calvanists and ask them which parts of each other’s belief systems are mistaken, and if so which should we describe as mere superstition?
The central distinction is what it produces.No, you're supposed to explain the central distinction between superstition and religious belief, an accomplishment I’ve yet to encounter here.Sssshhhhhh, Internets Unbeliever Warrior at work!!! You're just supposed to stand back and marvel at his genius.
This is going to be fun to watch you flop around, dingbat.The central distinction is what it produces.No, you're supposed to explain the central distinction between superstition and religious belief, an accomplishment I’ve yet to encounter here.Sssshhhhhh, Internets Unbeliever Warrior at work!!! You're just supposed to stand back and marvel at his genius.
When we define superstion as an irrational belief and religion as a reverence for God/Gods how do we know the difference - if there is any?
