What is the immaculate conception?

[A Person]

Biblical scholars agree that the 'Virgin Birth' was simply a mistranslation of the word for young woman(almah) to 'virgin' (parthenos) in the Greek Septuagint.

The fisrt half of Matthew would be quite silly if Mary were a virgin, since it lists Joseph's lineage to prove that Jesus was descended from David in accordance with the prophecy. Mark makes no mention of it.

[BecauseHeLives]

Biblical scholars agree that the 'Virgin Birth' was simply a mistranslation of the word for young woman(almah) to 'virgin' (parthenos) in the Greek Septuagint.

That's just not true and downright misleading. SOME biblical scolars believe that. The VAST majority do not. You'll see that in some of the newer translations of the bible which I do not believe were translated correctly.

The fisrt half of Matthew would be quite silly if Mary were a virgin, since it lists Joseph's lineage to prove that Jesus was descended from David in accordance with the prophecy. Mark makes no mention of it.

Not silly at all. Read on...

http://www.gracethrufaith.com/ask-a-bib ... -incorrect

http://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-son-of-David.html

With as versed as you seem to be in the bible I'm really quite surprised that you have not come across this explanation before. Either your playing dumb to see what answer I give you or you are intentionally trying to distort the gospel.

[A Person]

Without a poll of 'Biblical Scholars' living and dead we'll never know whether a majority holds that view or not. But you agree that it's a commonly held view by many serious Bible Scholars - whether or not you agree with their translation (After studying the original Hebrew and Greek documents of course)

"Either your playing dumb to see what answer I give you or you are intentionally trying to distort the gospel." So many of these either-or statements are false dichotomies. Are you sure that the only options are that I'm either dumb or deceitful?

[SouthernFriedInfidel]

That's just not true and downright misleading. SOME biblical scolars believe that. The VAST majority do not. You'll see that in some of the newer translations of the bible which I do not believe were translated correctly.

I suggest you do a little research into the Hebrew language. You'll find that in Leviticus, a book that lists hundreds of laws, many of which concern virgin girls, such people are always referred to using the word "Livulah." The one verse in Isaiah that Matthew quotes uses the word "almah," which even the KJV usually translates as "maiden" in most other places it appears.

Any biblical scholar who supports translating "almah" as "virgin" is doing so only because he wants to support the idea of a "virgin birth," not because it is supportable through linguistics.

[BecauseHeLives]

almah: a young virgin girl of a marriageable age.

Livulah: an older virgin woman

I'm not sure which atheist hebrew bible you are using but maybe you should switch over to a new one.

Even Wiki has a decent definition:

Almah ("עלמה") or plural: alamot ("עלמות") is a Hebrew feminine noun, for a girl who has reached puberty but is still under the shielding protection of her family; she is a young, marriageable (i.e. unmarried) girl. In Bibles, almah is typically translated as virgin, maiden, young woman, damsel or girl. For theological reasons, the meaning and definition of this word (especially the definition of "virgin") can be controversial, particularly when applied to Isaiah 7:14.

You can take even from this defintion alone that Mary was a virgin when she conceived. In those times you were NOT considered marriageable if you were not a virgin.

[SouthernFriedInfidel]

I'm not sure which atheist hebrew bible you are using but maybe you should switch over to a new one.

I was using Strong's Concordance. Linked from the Blue Letter Bible. The definition I used here was on that site a couple of years ago. It has changed since then to add this "virgin" business to the display. I guess the holes in the theology are being plugged when they get found.

Another thing to notice about Is 7:14 is that the "prophecy" -- in context -- is meant for the immediate future of Isaiah's day, not some time far in the future.

[BecauseHeLives]

Another thing to notice about Is 7:14 is that the "prophecy" -- in context -- is meant for the immediate future of Isaiah's day, not some time far in the future.

I disagree. I think its a huge stretch to assume that. Taking the whole chapter in context you'll see that things have to take place before the Mesiah is to come.

[A Person]

Since you and GotQuestions.org place authority on scripture alone, perhaps you'd like to comment on GotQuestions assertion (which since you linked to it you presumably support) that:The genealogy in Luke chapter 3 gives Jesus' lineage through His mother, Mary.

While the contradiction between Mathew's and Luke's genealogies for Jesus are a problem for Biblical literalists, what possible Biblical justification is there for assuming that Luke is referring to Mary?

3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,

Please tell me how you can pretend that "the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli" actually means "the son of Mary which was the dughter of Heli" without 'intentionally distorting the Gospels'?

[SouthernFriedInfidel]

Another thing to notice about Is 7:14 is that the "prophecy" -- in context -- is meant for the immediate future of Isaiah's day, not some time far in the future.

I disagree. I think its a huge stretch to assume that. Taking the whole chapter in context you'll see that things have to take place before the Mesiah is to come.

I just read that chapter, to check that my memory is OK. The context of the chapter is that king Ahaz was in a tight spot with two nations attacking. Isaiah was sent to him to promise Godly aid in war. When Ahaz was offered a "sign" to seal the deal, he refused (in good Christian manner, saying "I won't tempt God") to ask for anything. So the response was that God would choose a sign for Ahaz, the birth of a special child. Please note that the word "messiah" never crops up here, so you're really stretching to add that word in here to start with.

Now please explain to everyone here how a "sign" for King Ahaz, in the middle of a siege several centuries before the Common Era, meant to convince him that God would help in the battle of that day, could possibly have anything to do with some girl in Rome-controlled Palestine.

[BecauseHeLives]

Since you and GotQuestions.org place authority on scripture alone, perhaps you'd like to comment on GotQuestions assertion (which since you linked to it you presumably support) that:The genealogy in Luke chapter 3 gives Jesus' lineage through His mother, Mary.

While the contradiction between Mathew's and Luke's genealogies for Jesus are a problem for Biblical literalists, what possible Biblical justification is there for assuming that Luke is referring to Mary?

3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,

Please tell me how you can pretend that "the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli" actually means "the son of Mary which was the dughter of Heli" without 'intentionally distorting the Gospels'?

There is no contradiction between Luke and Mathew. You're trying to light fires where they have been extinquished before. Its obvious that one lineage is through Mary's side of the family and the other is through Joseph's side of the Family. They interconnect after aways and that shows that Mary and Joseph were ditant cousins.

But. I know you knew that already.

I provided in my previous link the answer to your question as why go through Mary's lineage.

[A Person]

I have read that opinion piece in GotQuestions.org and since they can't answer, I'll ask you again: What Biblical justification is there for assuming that Luke is referring to Mary? Why is it 'obvious that one lineage is through Mary's side of the family'?

It would be 'obvious' if either Mathew or Luke gave both lineages and said that "The Father of Joseph was.." and "The Father of Mary was..."

What's 'obvious' is that both authors each give a single lineage and state that it is Joseph's.

While it's convenient for apologists to ascribe one to Mary, convenience is hardly authority. Where does it say in the Bible which lineage is Mary's?

[BecauseHeLives]

I suppose I didn't provide the link in this thread. It must have been another one. Here it is.

http://www.gracethrufaith.com/ask-a-bib ... -incorrect

[End Times Prophet]

Biblical scholars agree that the 'Virgin Birth' was simply a mistranslation of the word for young woman(almah) to 'virgin' (parthenos) in the Greek Septuagint.

The fisrt half of Matthew would be quite silly if Mary were a virgin, since it lists Joseph's lineage to prove that Jesus was descended from David in accordance with the prophecy. Mark makes no mention of it.

The problem is in the translation of that patacular chapter.The generations are from Mary not Joseph her Husband but rather her Father. The scripture should read Joseph the Father of Mary not the Husband.
Matthew 1:12-17 (KJV)
And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel; [13] And Zorobabel begat Abiud; and Abiud begat Eliakim; and Eliakim begat Azor; [14] And Azor begat Sadoc; and Sadoc begat Achim; and Achim begat Eliud; [15] And Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob; [16] And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. [17] So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations. Do the math they are only 13 Generations.Why? Because it has been mistranslated. The Original was written in Hebrew then Aramaic then Greek.It was a male thing They just didnt think that the Messiah could come from a woman.Lets look at Luke to find the Answer.Luke 3:23 (KJV) And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,
Jesus was supposed to be but wasnt the Son of Joseph. Josephs Father was Heli but when you go back to Mt. you see that that Joseph Father was Jacob.
Why because the generations of Jesus arent the same as the Generations of Joseph his supposed Father because they were from Mary not Joseph and the Joseph mentioned in Mt. is Marys Father.
Why Mary and not Joseph because sin is in the Blood and is transferred from the man not the woman so all have sinned because of Adam because sin is in the blood this is why Jesus Had to die to remove the sin with a transfusion of his blood.God Bless

[A Person]

So EBProphet tells us what the Bible SHOULD say! Don't you feel that's a teeny bit arrogant?

BHLives refers us to a site that says: "Your question has a simple answer, but one that's not apparent from Scripture."

In other words there is NO Biblical justification for the claim. To make it you have to acknowledge that the Bible is incorrect and make unsupported assumptions.

GraceThroughFaith claim that "According to Josephus, Heli was actually Mary's father making him Joseph's father-in-law" yet although Flavius Josephus documented Heli (as a Judge and High Priest) he never mentioned Mary. They made that bit up.

[SouthernFriedInfidel]

So ETProphet tells us what the Bible SHOULD say! Don't you feel that's a teeny bit arrogant?

BHLives refers us to a site that says: "Your question has a simple answer, but one that's not apparent from Scripture."

In other words there is NO Biblical justification for the claim. To make it you have to acknowledge that the Bible is incorrect and make unsupported assumptions.

Which supports my contention that all apologetics is a game aimed at convincing people that the Bible doesn't mean what it plainly says.

[BecauseHeLives]

This is the last I'll say on this thread. You guys really crack me up sometimes. You guys have so hardened your hearts AND minds that you believe every conspiracy points to the bible being incorrect. If it doesn't mold into your interpretation of the bible then the bible has contradictions.

I don't agree with you and many many other educated persons out there don't either.

[End Times Prophet]

So EBProphet tells us what the Bible SHOULD say! Don't you feel that's a teeny bit arrogant?

BHLives refers us to a site that says: "Your question has a simple answer, but one that's not apparent from Scripture."

In other words there is NO Biblical justification for the claim. To make it you have to acknowledge that the Bible is incorrect and make unsupported assumptions.

GraceThroughFaith claim that "According to Josephus, Heli was actually Mary's father making him Joseph's father-in-law" yet although Flavius Josephus documented Heli (as a Judge and High Priest) he never mentioned Mary. They made that bit up.

The problem is not with the orginal but with the translated.
God Bless

[A Person]

Conspiracy? Who said anything about a conspiracy?

BHL you live and die by Bible inerrancy. You use it to justify denial of science and attacks on the Catholic church and other religions. e.g. Is prayer to saints / Mary Biblical?

The assumption that Luke is providing Mary's genealogy is just that - an assumption, unsupported by the Bible (or Flavius Josephus). EBProphet thinks that Joseph is Mary's father

Mary was born in sin because her Father Joseph ...

All of the apologetic explanations for the discrepancy between Mathew and Luke desperately avoid the one obvious explanation. One of both are just wrong. Perhaps that's why the Bible warns you

1:4 Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.

3:9 But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.

That I can agree with

If I'm wrong, I'll acknowledge it, my mind is not hardened. Please show me where the Bible says Luke is providing Mary's genealogy. Please show me where Flavius Josephus says anything about Mary's genealogy. You do that and I'll tender my apology here in red, 28-point text that you can link to and taunt me. Or you could just bury your head in the Bible and mumble quietly to yourself until the voices go away.

[SouthernFriedInfidel]

The problem is not with the orginal but with the translated.
God Bless

A meaningless and unsupportable assertion. Congratulations: your view of the world is not even grounded on shifting sand.

[RebelSnake]

You won't find a geneology for any woman anywhere in the bible for the simple fact women were not seen as important enough to rate such a privilege.

[A Person]

The problem is not with the orginal but with the translated.
God Bless

Ah the last desparing cry of the Apologist as he goes under for the third time. But I agree translations can be misleading. Please show me an authoritative translation that explains:

Code: Select all

Matt. 1:1-17 .... Luke 3:23b-38
------------      -------------
David ........... David
? ............... Nathan
Solomon ......... Mattatha
Rehoboam ........ Menna
Abijah .......... Melea
Asa ............. Eliakim
Jehoshaphat ..... Jonam
Jehoram ......... Joseph
Uzziah .......... Judah
Jotham .......... Simeon
Ahaz ............ Levi
Hezekiah ........ Matthat
Manasseh ........ Jorim
Amon ............ Eliezer
Josiah .......... Joshua
Jeconiah ........ Er
? ............... Elmadam
? ............... Cosam
? ............... Addi
? ............... Melki
? ............... Neri
Shealtiel ....... Shealtiel
Zerubbabel ...... Zerubbabel
? ............... Rhesa
? ............... Joanan
? ............... Joda
? ............... Josech
Abiud ........... Semein
Eliakim ......... Mattathias
Azor ............ Maath
Zakok ........... Naggai
Akim ............ Esli
Eliud ........... Nahum
Eleazar ......... Amos
? ............... Mattathias
? ............... Joseph
? ............... Jannai
? ............... Melki
? ............... Levi
Matthan ......... Matthat
Jacob ........... Heli
Joseph .......... Joseph

[End Times Prophet]

You won't find a geneology for any woman anywhere in the bible for the simple fact women were not seen as important enough to rate such a privilege.

That is completly wrong the reason for it is because God planned it this way.
Man was the vessal that sin would remain in.It was because of Adams Sin not Eves THAT sin came upon everyone. Jesus couldnt come from the seed of Joseph Marys Husband because of the sin.
This is why the translators changed it just because they had the same understanding on the Matter you have.They thought the Messiah had to come from the seed of man not woman but it was the womans seed "Jesus" that would crush the head of the serpant not the Man.
God Bless

[RebelSnake]

So you do agree there are no geneologies for any woman in the bible, for whatever reason.

[End Times Prophet]

So you do agree there are no geneologies for any woman in the bible, for whatever reason.

Only the one that counts in Mt.

[A Person]

Mt?