gks@vax135.UUCP (Ken Swanson) (04/22/85)
In reply to Eliyahu Teitz's question regarding the virgin birth of Jesus Christ: The virgin birth of Jesus Christ is claimed by a long-standing tradition common to Catholicism, Protestantism and Ortodoxy; it is currently disputed (as it has been through the centuries) by SOME Christians(?) who obviously must not believe in the inspired and infallible written word of God, the Bible. Matt 1:18 (NAS) : Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows. When His mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit. Also, see Luke 1:26-38 (especially verse 35).
brower@fortune.UUCP (Richard Brower) (04/25/85)
In article <1005@vax135.UUCP> gks@vax135.UUCP (Ken Swanson) writes: >it is currently >disputed (as it has been through the centuries) by SOME Christians(?) >who obviously must not believe in the inspired and infallible >written word of God, the Bible. > >Matt 1:18 (NAS) : > Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows. When His mother > Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together > she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit. I don't see the word "virgin" in that passage anywhere. -- Richard A. Brower Fortune Systems {ihnp4,ucbvax!amd,hpda,sri-unix,harpo}!fortune!brower
garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) (04/26/85)
> In article <1005@vax135.UUCP> gks@vax135.UUCP (Ken Swanson) writes: > >it is currently > >disputed (as it has been through the centuries) by SOME Christians(?) > >who obviously must not believe in the inspired and infallible > >written word of God, the Bible. > > > >Matt 1:18 (NAS) : > > Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows. When His mother > > Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together > > she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit. > > I don't see the word "virgin" in that passage anywhere. > Richard A. Brower Fortune Systems Your point? Do you therefore think that there is no scriptural basis for belief in the virgin birth, or are you asking for more information? If the former, that's only one verse. Two sentences from a rather lengthy work. If the latter, I apologize for my hastiness, and offer the following: In the first place, what do you suppose, "before they came together" means? Or the statement that she was "with child by the Holy Spirit"? (Usually, a pregnant woman is with child by a man.) In the second place, read a few more verses. Same book, same chapter, verse 22-25 (NIV): All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: [23]"The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel" -- which means, "God with us." [24]When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. [25]But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus. The quote in v23 is Isaiah 7:14. Some argue that the word translated "virgin" in Isaiah (almah) doesn't necessarily mean "virgin," but would better be translated "young woman" (as in RSV). However, Matthew used the Greek word for "virgin" (parthenos), which (so I have been told; I'm not a linguist) does not have the ambiguity of the Hebrew "almah." Quibbles about translation aside, Matthew goes on to state that "he [Joseph] had no union with her until she gave birth to a son." Which, just as the earlier, "before they came together," supports the doctrine of the virgin birth. (And, incidentally, seems to do away with the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary. If I say, "I didn't do X until Y," that implies that I *did* do X after Y.) Gary Samuelson ittvax!bunker!garys
brian@digi-g.UUCP (Merlyn Leroy) (05/02/85)
In article <817@bunker.UUCP> garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) writes: >In the first place, what do you suppose, "before they came together" >means? Or the statement that she was "with child by the Holy >Spirit"? (Usually, a pregnant woman is with child by a man.) This still doesn't say Mary was a *virgin*. She could have lost her virginity before meeting Joseph. > ...will give birth to a son, and they will call him > Immanuel" -- which means, "God with us."... > ...And he gave him the name Jesus. > >Gary Samuelson So why didn't they name him Immanuel, like the prophecy said? Is this an oversite? Merlyn Leroy "...a dimension between shallow and substance, between science and superficial, a place we call...The Usenet Zone"
berger@aecom.UUCP (Mitchell Berger) (05/07/85)
> Matthew used the Greek word for "virgin" (parthenos), which (so I > have been told; I'm not a linguist) does not have the ambiguity > of the Hebrew "almah." There is no ambiguity, it very clearly doesn't mean virgin. Also, the verse is more properly translated: ...and behold the girl *is* pregnant and *is* birthing a son, and she will call him 'immunuel.[Yeshaiah 7:14] The prophet later says (v. 17) "Ephraim will remove from upon Yehudah (or Judea, read either way) the king of Ashur." Jesus lived well after the Ashur Empire, he was facing the Romans. Also, note it says that a member of the tribe of Ephraim, not Yehudah (Judah) will be doing this. And while we are under the subject of tribes... The king of Yisrael (Israel) is supposed to be from the tribe of Judah (Yehudah), a claim the begining of Matthew supports (1:1-6). After tracing his geniology to King Dovid (David) through Joseph, it then says that he was not a decendent of Joseph, but of Gd (sorry I can not quote, I don't own an NT). A decendant of Gd would have no male line to any of the tribes, nevr mind Yehudah. How can Jesus claim to be of the House of David? -- Micha Berger 2525 Amsterdam Ave. Suite M406 NY, NY 10033 (212) 781-0756 {philabs|cucard|pegasus|rocky2}!aecom!berger