Cemented Eye Glasses
Liberal scholars are a sorry bunch.
Professing to be wise they become fools.
Their lack of neutrality is so outstanding that they will choose a certain interpretation of a word even if it rapes the context of what is being said.
Why would they do this?
Because they are unbelieving...and the Bible just can't be saying what it is about Jesus.
They are naturalists and come to the Bible with their naturalist presuppositions...and then twist and cut and paste the Scriptures to try and fit their "already" shaped view of Jesus.
In Isaiah 7:14 we read "Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel."
Now, enters the liberal...with his "wise", scholarly interpretation.
He clears his throat to get attention.
Then he tells us that the Hebrew word that Christians are using for "virgin" really means "young maiden".
He so wants his naturalism to be true!
He wishes upon a star that Jesus was not supernaturally conceived in a virgins womb by the power of the Holy Spirit!
Oh, please, oh please, may Jesus not be God incarnate.
So in the end, has the Church founded one of its key beliefs [virgin birth] upon a false interpretation of this passage?
Not hardly!
Context is king...unless you are a liberal scholar.
Let's look at the passage with the liberal interpretation in place. And then see if it makes sense in the context of the passage.
Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the 'young maiden' shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel.
The Lord Himself is going to give a "sign"...something that really stands out, a marker, miracle, something out of the ordinary SO THAT people will know that this is of the Lord.
And...what is this "out of the ordinary", marker, miracle that the Lord Himself will do...so that it will really stand out?
ready for the climax...drum roll please...a young woman will have a baby...Wow
And there you have it folks...a young woman will have a child...this doesn't happen every day...oh...wait a minute...I guess it does happen every day...thousands of times.
What part of "sign" do the liberal scholars not understand.
And we also don't hear much about what this baby of normal conception and birth is going to be called...or why.
Here is the traditional interpretation...one that actually reads it in context.
God Himself is going to do something really out of the ordinary a "virgin" [the word can mean virgin or young maiden] is going to conceive via the power of the Holy Spirit [supernatural conception, one of a kind]...and that Son is going to be called "God with us".
Jesus Christ is the God/man.
posted by Dale Callahan at 5:12 AM
14 Comments:
Nice dramatic effect in your writing but the usual lack of logic.
The Septuagint translation of the Hebrew scriptures into Greek between the 3rd and 1st centuries BC has been very carefully studied because of the role it played in the early development of Christianity. The fact that the word virgin was mistranslated is a fact, not an interpretation.
As usual, your unrealistic view of the Bible is clouding your understanding of it. Had there been such a striking event as a birth by a young woman who had never had sexual intercourse, not to mention appearances by angels to shepherds, astronomical signs, etc., don't you think those would have been among the first things recounted about Jesus? Why then does the earliest canonical gospel, Mark, not mention them at all?
There's a simple answer. They didn't happen. Remember that the gospel writers were trying to connect Jesus to the Messiah being awaited by the Jews in order to convince people to believe. They picked passages that foretold a Messiah and invented stories about Jesus to fit the "prophecies". That's a much more logical, realistic and plausible explanation than yours.
Instead of spending so much energy defending biblical inerrancy and twisting passages to agree with one another, why not re-read the sayings of Jesus recounted in Matthew, Mark and Luke and try to understand what he was saying about God and the nature of man's relationship to God. You might find that the preponderance of those sayings differ greatly from the gospel you preach today.
So lets see where your logic is then. I am not agreeing with you but I will use your words. Since you use the gospel of Mark to deny the virgin birth because he didn't mention it...then you must believe in the feeding of the five thousand, Jesus healing people, delivering people from demons, and the bodily resurrection , and the ascension of Jesus Christ into heaven?
Oh...you don't believe those things?
So you are just using Mark's silence on certain points to make you case...nice try but no go.
An argument from silence is a very lame argument indeed.
I am sure you will always be able to find you scholarly support to deny the Bible...this doesn't surprize me, there has been unbelief since the Garden.
God, the Author of the Bible used different writers to get across the exact message He wanted to.
I see you are still talking about logic even though you have shown again and again you don't even have a world view that supports the use of logic or any immaterial, universal, law.
I have to laugh...my unrealistic view of the Bible...actually believing its supernatural claims...wow, how unrealistic, to believe the Almighty can bring forth conception without the means of sexual intercourse.
I am not going to follow your unbelieving advice on biblical interpretation, your twisting and re-reading of the passage.
I don't like where your conclusions end...you won't like it either...your shown turn around.
Your analysis is pretty much spot on there. If there actually were extraordinary supernatural miraculous events connected with Jesus' life, those would be the most important stories to tell about him. The fact that the early gospels did not tell these stories is a good indication of their mythological nature.
You have somehow confused a belief - that the bible is a magic book of supernatural origin without error in science or history - with Christianity. Instead of studying what Jesus said, you have developed a faith in a book and an "interpretation", rather than sit down, read what he said and think for yourself.
The earliest gospels have talked about all these things...Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.
Am I supposed to discount these gospels because you have unbelieving scholars that have found other writings.
And we can't forget that powerful argument of the "Q" scrolls that don't even exist.
Do you really believe yourself man?
Can you honestly read through the Gospels [Matthew, Mark, Luke and John] and hold a naturalistic worldview? Everyone reading this please note what the blindness of sin does to a man's thinking.
How can you read through the canonical gospels and still believe in history, the scientific method, and the framework of logic we inherited from the Greeks ages before the NT was written?
Easy. You don't make assumptions about the text based on theological ideas that developed hundreds of years after the books were written. You don't assume that these books were supernaturally created. You don't assume that they agree with one another. You don't assume that their belonging to the canon signifies anything about their authenticity or the validity of their message.
You study the texts critically, try to discern why the authors chose certain metaphors to explain Jesus, and how their contemporary audience would have responded. In other words, you use your brain instead of shutting it off before you start.
Of course the problem with this approach is that you may end up with an understanding of Jesus' message that does not lend itself to management by church hierarchies and exclusion of others. That's the real danger - not the boogieman who will burn you forever.
Yeah right...instead you assume your naturalism...and this you impose on the text.
And by this you decide what gospels came earlier...not because of evidence...but because of your assumptions.
You even invent evidence [scrollQ] to try to make your case.
But here is the real assumption.
You assume your naturalism is true but really know its not. Because every time you have been challenged to justify your naturalism you won't and can't.
You call names and ridicule, neither which are rational argument...but you haven't even tried to answer.
Why do you think they call it naturalism? Because it's naturally the way natural people explain the natural world. Maybe we should call your system unnaturalism because it's not real.
Yes I assume that things that are contrary to the physical laws of nature that man has proven over and over again since before Jesus was born are unlikely to be violated. I don't assume they cannot be violated, but if one asserts they have been violated, then some strong proof should be forthcoming.
In your arguments you provide no such proof. You don't even provide weak proofs. Your only provide assertions and assumptions that make little or no sense. I merely suggest that when there's a sensible normal explanation for something competing with a fantastic supernatural explanation of the same thing, I am not about to accept the supernatural explanation without solid proof. You assume the fantastic supernatural explanation even when it is contradicted by the facts.
If your supernatural system actually provided you some kind of benefit, then it would be understandable. But the only benefits it provides are promises that you will avoid other fantastic supernatural events. Once you exit the system, it is useless.
It the "ism" where the problem lies. People blinded by their sin from seeing that true reality is not "merely" the material world in front of them. The real world is both spiritual and physical, immaterial and material. By this I mean that the material world was created and continues to exist because of God, who is Himself Spirit [immaterial].
Because of their blindness they are very inconsistent. They profess "only" the natural, only the material and yet use universals, laws, and concepts, none of which are material.
They use them and cannot justify why they use them. Some of the most intelligent unbelievers at least have tried to do this but most skirt the issue like the plague.
I give you the best and strongest proofs. I am showing you that without the Christian faith you couldn't even have "proof".
When I talk about the uniformity of nature you show that you really don't understand the issues at hand. You mistake the uniformity of nature as meaning there is no divirsity...this is not what the uniformity of nature means.
You tell me that Jesus is just "pie in the sky" for me...only future benefits...no here and now benefits.
Well let me tell you my friend...that is almost the biggest farse that you have said so far.
The Lord has drastically changed my here and now. He has done this by first changing me from the inside and then when my heart and mind were renewed by His Spirit and my life began to follow His Word...everything changed.
I know what I was like before I met the Lord. I know what my mind was like, what my relationships were like, what my bondages in life were. And I now know that in Christ there is freedom, new life and hope.
You might say this is because I dropped too much acid...and this is only another example of your unbelief. I volunteer in the jails with men whose lives are ruined by drugs and alcohol...these substances just don't bring about lasting joy, beauty, and a ordered life with good relationships.
But Jesus does!
Dale,
I am glad to hear that your faith has made a real difference in your real life. Apparently the experience you had was life-changing and positive. Unfortunately there is no formula for inducing such an experience in others. As your own experience probably tells you, some people are receptive and others are not.
You attribute this to the work of God or Satan, of course, but it can just as easily and more logically be attributed to the emotional state of the individual being addressed and his or her life experience.
I don't doubt that you had a life-changing religious experience. Humans have reported such experiences in many cultures and through many religions for centuries. You however, seem to have latched on to the idea that your particular religious experience is the only valid one - an idea that simply doesn't hold water.
Do remember DL that merely saying something doesn't hold water doesn't make it so.
I am not the one who says that Jesus is the "only" way to the Father...
He said this.
Now Dale, you're using the circular logic again. If I said I was "one with the Father", would you take that as proof that I was? Hardly.
Frankly, is that the point of Jesus' teaching? How much time did he spend (in the synoptic gospels) claiming to be the only begotten Son of God and the only way to the Father, versus talking about how to relate to other people? Not bloody much. It may have been a part of his message, but even if it was, it was not an important part.
There is enough evidence out there for the veracity and accuracy of the canonical Gospel accounts that the only remaining reason for someone who has examined the evidence to not believe them would be for moral reasons.
Coming to Christ will involve a moral reorientation, and that can be too much to ask.
Chesterton wrote: The problem with Christianity is not that it has been tried and found wanting, but that it has been found difficult and left untried.
It's simply easier to believe that the Gospel writers lied than it is to believe they told the truth and have to change your life.
Thats right Scott. Jesus said that light has come into the world and men loved darkness rather then light because their deeds were evil.
I wonder...how many times would Jesus have to say that He was the Creator come in the flesh before we would take Him seriously...ten, twenty...how about if it was just once?
Scott,
There is very little, if any, solid evidence for the "veracity and accuracy of the canonical Gospel accounts". There is enough for a reasonable person to assume that some of the words ascribed to Jesus are fairly accurate, but not enough evidence to go beyond that point.
Of course, ascribing any lack of belief in the literal "veracity and accuracy" of the Bible to Satan, and claiming that the "Holy Spirit" is the only mechanism able to convince anyone of that claim is a handy device. It allows you to avoid dealing with the obvious irrationality of your theological position.
Post a Comment
<< Home