Raymond Brown: Anti-Catholic, ignorant or other?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Catholic_Dude
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Catholic Dude:

From what I have seen, the more and more a person goes towards the RadTrad crowd, the more they will villify Fr. Brown.

Yes, some of his writings are troublesome, but he was in good standing with the Church.

Personally, I have not read any of his works. I have the New Jerome Commentary of which he was the editor, but I prefer the formats of other commentary while doing research.

PF
 
dcdurel << Thus, in Brown’s little section on NT Christology He promotes severeal errors…These are only a few. In short, Raymond Brown was an excellent Protestant, and promoted exactly what “scripture alone” has always promoted: confusion and error. >>

Whoah, whoah, whoah, stop. 😃 I don’t need all that, what I wanted was some documentation on your previous claims. Let’s start with the first one in a previous post. You claimed:

“These are some of the other errors. He doubted: Jesus’ physical Resurrection…”

Now back that up. Give me a direct quote from Fr. Raymond Brown where he denies or doubts the physical, bodily resurrection of Jesus. Then we can move on…

If you can’t, no harm done. Simply say “I was wrong on Fr. Brown and the resurrection.” No big deal. 😃

I’m not near my books now, but I’ll try to dig up something on Brown affirming the bodily resurrection, would that help any?

Phil P
 
dcdurel << This is typical Brown to describe Church teachings as liberal or moderate when it comes to the Divinity of Christ. >>

BTW, I did not do that. I simply said there are such things as “liberal” and “moderate” and “conservative” biblical scholars. I said nothing about Church teachings or the Divinity of Christ in that statement. And I said: J.D. Crossan is liberal, Raymond Brown is moderate, and William Most (and Scott Hahn too, etc) is conservative, in my opinion.

Now how about that documentation on Fr. Brown denying the resurrection? 😛

Phil P
 
40.png
BibleReader:
At three places, two explicitly, and one implicitly. I’ll do one of the explicit ones first. Textual characteristics such as capitals, boldface and italics are for emphasis: I am not “yelling” at you.

EXPLICIT VERSE I: Christ was a “king,” was He not? See Matthew 21:4-5, where the text explicitly affirms that Jesus entering Jerusalem on the colt of an a ss fulfilled Zechariah 9:9, which predicts that our “king” would come to us on the colt of an a ss.

Now flip over to Wisdom 7:5: “NO KING HAS ANY DIFFERENT ORIGIN OR BIRTH; BUT ONE [WAY] IS THE ENTRY INTO LIFE FOR ALL” – traumatic and bloody – “AND IN ONE THE SAME WAY THEY LEAVE IT” – by repugnant death.

Because Christ was a “KING,” tautological Wisdom 7:5 applies to Him, too.

**THE IMPLICIT VERSE: **Luke 2:24 says that the Holy Family went to Jerusalem after Jesus’ birth “to offer the sacrifice of ‘a pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons,’ in accordance with the dictate of the law of the Lord.”

What law?

Leviticus 12:1-8, where the Torah prescribes that a woman who has given birth shall be unclean “AFTER HER FLOW OF BLOOD” and this uncleanliness may be cured by the sacrifice of “two turtledoves” or “two pigeons.” See Leviticus 12:7, 8.

In other words, Luke is implying – very, very, very clearly implying – that Jesus came out of Mary in the normal, bloody fashion.

Radical Marianists respond to this difficulty by “reading into” Luke, saying that Mary and Joseph were “putting on a show,” lying, by their actions, to deceive the world into believing that Jesus’ miraculous birth was non-miraculous.

I don’t see the teeniest, tiniest hint of this “out” in Luke’s text.

**EXPLICIT VERSE II: **Now, IN LIGHT OF Wisdom 7:5 and Luke 2:24, re-consider Revelation 12:2, about the woman who gave birth to a son destined to rule all the nations with an iron rod who was caught up to God and His throne – in other words, the woman who is the mother of Christ: “She was with child and WAILED ALOUD IN PAIN AS SHE LABOURED TO GIVE BIRTH.”

Remember who wrote Revelation: John, who took care of Mary after Christ’s death, and who therefore would have been able to learn the details of Jesus’ birth “from the horse’s mouth” – MARY!

I know, I know what radical Marianists say in response to this: Genesis 3:16.

I personally believe that Mary “wailed aloud in pain” as she gave birth to son destined to rule all the nations with an iron rod who was caught up to God and His throne, in spite of her Immaculate Conception. Behold: Revelation 12:2 is functionally corroborated by Wisdom 7:5 and Luke 2:24.

THREE TIMES Scripture teaches that JESUS’ birth was PERFECTLY NORMAL.

There are several other implicit statements that Jesus’ birth was perfectly typical and therefore non-miraculous. For example, Luke and Matthew use precisely the same Greek words, tikto and gennao, to describe MARY giving birth as they use to describe ELIZABETH giving birth.

There are OTHER difficulties, Scriptural and philosophical, with claiming that Jesus somehow “beamed down” out of Mary’s womb.

Scripture seems CLEAR, mkw: Jesus was born in the same bloody, traumatic fashion I was.
Click to expand...
Ummmm… to say that Jesus’ birth was non-miraculous, doesn’t that deny the churches’ dogma of the Immaculate Conception? Since labor pains are a result of original sin?
 
Psalm45:9:
Ummmm… to say that Jesus’ birth was non-miraculous, doesn’t that deny the churches’ dogma of the Immaculate Conception? Since labor pains are a result of original sin?
Click to expand...
No. Mary WAS immaculately conceived BUT Mary experienced the painful birth that was the result of Original Sin, anyway. Scripture says so. That is the clear plaintext level meaning of Revelation 12:2.

Again, read Revelation 12:2 IN LIGHT OF WISDOM 7:5 “NO KING HAS ANY…DIFFERENT BIRTH”].
 
From an EWTN article by Fr. William Saunders on the “virginity in birth” (i.e. miraculous birth) teaching –

=====

The perpetual virginity of Mary, as stated in the reader’s comments, has traditionally been defended and examined in three parts: Mary’s conception of Christ (virginitas ante partum); her giving birth to Christ (virginitas in partu); and her remaining a virgin after the birth of Christ (virginitas post partum). This formulation was used by many of the early Church Fathers – St. Augustine, St. Peter Chrysologus, Pope St. Leo the Great, St. Gregory Nazianzus and St. Gregory Nyssa.

Please note that the Church never has authoritatively ruled on the interpretation or specifics of virginitas in partu [in or during birth]. Moreover, on July 27, 1960, the Holy Office (now the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) warned against discussing this issue in a way “…clearly opposed to the traditional doctrine of the Church and the devotional sense of the faithful.”

=====

PhilVaz here: I think Scripture is clear about virginity before, while Scripture is either silent, or appears to contradict, virginity during and after. While the Fathers (at least the later ones) are fairly clear about virginity before, during, and after. I need to look this up in Ludwig Ott to be sure.

Wanted to add: An article by Mark Miravalle chapter 2 of his excellent book on Introduction to Mary

“The Fathers of the Church overwhelmingly taught the ‘miraculous birth’ of Jesus that resulted in no injury to Mary’s physical integrity.”

So I guess the Fathers were very clear on the issue, even if Scripture is silent or seems to contradict.

Phil P
 
40.png
PhilVaz:
From an EWTN article by Fr. William Saunders on the “virginity in birth” (i.e. miraculous birth) teaching –

=====

The perpetual virginity of Mary, as stated in the reader’s comments, has traditionally been defended and examined in three parts: Mary’s conception of Christ (virginitas ante partum); her giving birth to Christ (virginitas in partu); and her remaining a virgin after the birth of Christ (virginitas post partum). This formulation was used by many of the early Church Fathers – St. Augustine, St. Peter Chrysologus, Pope St. Leo the Great, St. Gregory Nazianzus and St. Gregory Nyssa.

Please note that the Church never has authoritatively ruled on the interpretation or specifics of virginitas in partu [in or during birth]. Moreover, on July 27, 1960, the Holy Office (now the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) warned against discussing this issue in a way “…clearly opposed to the traditional doctrine of the Church and the devotional sense of the faithful.”

=====

PhilVaz here: I think Scripture is clear about virginity before, while Scripture is either silent, or appears to contradict, virginity during and after. While the Fathers (at least the later ones) are fairly clear about virginity before, during, and after. I need to look this up in Ludwig Ott to be sure.

Wanted to add: An article by Mark Miravalle chapter 2 of his excellent book on Introduction to Mary

“The Fathers of the Church overwhelmingly taught the ‘miraculous birth’ of Jesus that resulted in no injury to Mary’s physical integrity.”

So I guess the Fathers were very clear on the issue, even if Scripture is silent or seems to contradict.

Phil P
Click to expand...
I confronted Fr. Saunders with the full analysis. He responded with silence.

Here’s another verse posing a problem for radical Marianists…

Why does Christ ride the colt of an a ss into Jerusalem at the time of His Messianic Entry?

Because of Exodus 13:13.

In Exodus 13, at Exodus 13:1 and 12, God imposes a requirement that every first-born male who “opens the womb” shall be “consecrated to” God, which means that IT MUST BE DESTROYED IF IT IS NOT REDEEMED. As an example of a first-born male who “opens the womb” which must be destroyed if it is not redeemed, Exodus 13:13 gives us the “colt of an a ss” which must have its neck broken.

Jesus rides “the colt of an a ss” into Jerusalem because He is the pre-eminent" unredeemed first-born male who opened the womb, who therefore must be killed.

That a ss foreshadows Jesus’ oncoming DEATH!

That really is THE FUNDAMENTAL PURPOSE OF EXODUS 13:13: To foreshadow the death of Jesus, the “Unredeemed First-Born Male Who Opened the Womb.”

Now, the problem with saying that Jesus was miraculously born – that He somehow “beamed-down” out of Mary without breaking her tissues – is that JESUS FAILS TO “OPEN THE WOMB” AS A RESULT – IT BEGINS TO SEPARATE JESUS FROM ONE OF THE FUNDAMENTAL FORESHADOWINGS OF JESUS IN THE OLD TESTAMENT.

I, personally, believe that maintaining that Jesus was miraculously born is anti-Catholic heresy.
 
Regarding the pain of birth and the Immaculate Conception.

I don’t undertand the curse in Genesis to mean that women were not meant to have undergone ANY pain during childbirth.
God told Eve her pain would be INCREASED.
This does not mean there was never any pain to begin with.
To suggest there would not have been ANY pain would be to imagine birth without any contractions at all…pretty impossible I say.

I understand it to mean what it says…that the sin led to an INCREASE in the pain.
The fact that Mary did have “pangs” of childbirth and did have Jesus in the normal way…does not, in my understanding, have any contradiction towards the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.
Isn’t it possible that Mary simply suffered the “original” amount of pain - and not the “increased” amount of pain?
 
40.png
DavidB:
I read some of his writings, and was particularly appreciative of “Priest and Bishop”. I really appreciated his honest scholarship. That book, in particular, angered many Catholics for revealing that the role of priest was not immediately implemented by Christ (based on all evidence available)
Click to expand...

I suppose that we could always ignore the evidence 😃​

and the Apostles, but rather evolved over those first few decades by inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The funny thing is, as a non-Catholic Christian, while that book angered Catholics for contradicting some of their traditional claims, it’s honest scholarship appealed to me and led me to understand and accept the priesthood as a valid role in the Church. I was previously from the school that only the ministry offices mentioned in scripture were acceptable, so bishop and deacon were fine as were Apostle, Prophet, Teacher, Pastor and Evangelist, but no priesthood.

Father Brown is considered both a major theological force for good and for evil depending on your particular viewpoint. Robert Sungenis villifies him ad nauseum on his website. The fact Sungenis rebukes him and I appreciate him is probably enough to put him in bad light for the majority of folks on this forum.

David
Click to expand...

Thanks for writing that 🙂 All true, of course - I wonder that Catholic Biblical scholars stay in the Church, with the the disgraceful and slanderous attacks that come their way.​

Fortunately, some of us do not feel any need to believe in heliocentrism or a six-thousand year-old earth. What next - Catholic Flat Earthers who deny the existence of Australia ? I’m holding my breath 🙂 I fully expect to hear the assertion of the existence of Australia denounced as an abominable Modernist blasphemy, very soon. After all, as the Flood was world-wide, the existence of Australia & of opossums, koalas, and kangaroos thousands of miles from the Near East (which is presumably where Noah built the Ark), is a serious objection to the universality of the Flood as described in Genesis. As there was a Flood, there can be no Australia. What other lands are to vanish from the map in order to feed the idol of inerrancy, I wonder ? For if history can be redesigned to fit inerrancy - so can geography, and every other science known to man. Then we can go, full steam ahead, forward to the year 600 AD. If the thesis that there is an Australia where Australia now exists is not attacked as a heresy & a blasphemy, I shall be most disappointed. 🙂

What is so absurd, is that one might have thought that a Church as keen on tradition as the CC would have no problem in accepting that the Biblical books are the result of a process of tradition, interpretation, editing, and firther interpretation: but no - Catholics seem to be no different from the most anti-traditional of Protestant Fundamentalists. Which is amazing.

Perhaps the reason for the rejection of any close attention to the humanity of the Bible is an unconscious Monophysitism - Jesus is nor really human - He is purely God. The Bible is not really human at all - it is purely Divine. This Monophysite temptation crops up elsewhere in Catholicism; so it’s unsurprising to see it surfacing here. However, if we believe in the Incarnation at all in the Catholic sense, how can it be unjustifiable to take the human and time-conditioned characteristics of the Bible with the seriousness they deserve ? That is the question one would put to those who reject a method with which they appear to be wholly unfamiliar.

Shunning such scholarship is very short-sighted - because critical scholarship such as Father Brown and most other scholars practice is usual in theology faculties: so anyone here who goes on to study theology is pretty likely to come into contact with it. If no one here does - their relations or friends might. And if all that those relations & friends, sons and daughters of university age, have come across, is the Fundamentalist reading of the Bible, they are going to be very ill-prepared for a world in which Fundamentalist approaches do not count for much. The difference between the Fundamentalist approach and the scholarly one can mean a very rude shock.

As for Christ instituting the priesthood at the last Supper - a more risible suggestion is hard to imagine: unless it be the suggestion that men wholly ignorant of Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic can be competent judges of the meaning of the sacred text. That is how qualified most of the Western Fathers were, and how qualified far too many of their successors have been. ##
 
BibleReader << I, personally, believe that maintaining that Jesus was miraculously born is anti-Catholic heresy. >>

Well I wouldn’t go that far calling it “heresy,” the doctrine has been classically called (even by Protestants) the “Virgin Birth” from Isaiah 7:14. Not just virginal conception, but virgin birth.

Mark Miravalle quotes some prominent Fathers and Doctors:

St. Augustine: “It is not right that He who came to heal corruption should by His advent violate integrity.” (Sermons 189, PL 38:1005)

Pope St. Leo the Great: “Mary brought Him forth, with her virginity untouched, as with her virginity untouched she conceived Him.” ( Enchiridion Patristicum 2182)

St. Thomas Aquinas, of Christ’s miraculous birth: “Painlessly, and without change in Mary’s virgin body, her Son emerged from the tabernacle of her spotless womb, as He was later to emerge from the tomb, without moving the stone or breaking the seal of Pilate.” (Summa Theologica, III, Q 28, a 2)

The Catechism states:
  1. The deepening of faith in the virginal motherhood led the Church to confess Mary’s real and perpetual virginity even in the act of giving birth to the Son of God made man. In fact, Christ’s birth “did not diminish his mother’s virginal integrity but sanctified it.” And so the liturgy of the Church celebrates Mary as Aeiparthenos, the “Ever-virgin”.
But Ludwig Ott comments: “It seems hardly possible to demonstrate that the dignity of the Son of God or the dignity of the Mother of God demands a miraculous birth.”

I don’t make a big deal of this…and we’re getting off the topic of Fr. Raymond Brown and his supposed heresies. :o

Phil P
 
Gottle Geer << After all, as the Flood was world-wide, the existence of Australia & of opossums, koalas, and kangaroos thousands of miles from the Near East (which is presumably where Noah built the Ark), is a serious objection to the universality of the Flood as described in Genesis. As there was a Flood, there can be no Australia. >>

Ah ha, that reminds me to post a link to my new article, from the book The Biblical Flood by Davis A. Young, need to edit a bit

Now we’re getting way off topic of Fr. Brown. 👍

Phil P
 
40.png
BibleReader:
I confronted Fr. Saunders with the full analysis. He responded with silence.

Here’s another verse posing a problem for radical Marianists…

Why does Christ ride the colt of an a ss into Jerusalem at the time of His Messianic Entry?

Because of Exodus 13:13.

In Exodus 13, at Exodus 13:1 and 12, God imposes a requirement that every first-born male who “opens the womb” shall be “consecrated to” God, which means that IT MUST BE DESTROYED IF IT IS NOT REDEEMED. As an example of a first-born male who “opens the womb” which must be destroyed if it is not redeemed, Exodus 13:13 gives us the “colt of an a ss” which must have its neck broken.

Jesus rides “the colt of an a ss” into Jerusalem because He is the pre-eminent" unredeemed first-born male who opened the womb, who therefore must be killed.

That a ss foreshadows Jesus’ oncoming DEATH!

That really is THE FUNDAMENTAL PURPOSE OF EXODUS 13:13: To foreshadow the death of Jesus, the “Unredeemed First-Born Male Who Opened the Womb.”

Now, the problem with saying that Jesus was miraculously born – that He somehow “beamed-down” out of Mary without breaking her tissues – is that JESUS FAILS TO “OPEN THE WOMB” AS A RESULT – IT BEGINS TO SEPARATE JESUS FROM ONE OF THE FUNDAMENTAL FORESHADOWINGS OF JESUS IN THE OLD TESTAMENT.

I, personally, believe that maintaining that Jesus was miraculously born is anti-Catholic heresy.
Click to expand...

It does look like a hang-over from the Gnostic idea that Jesus passed through Mary as through a conduit. If He had, He would not be truly human, & the Incarnation would not be a reality.​

To try to honour Mary by insisting on the continuance of her virginity while she gave birth to Jesus is not only unnecessary - it cuts her off from the common lot of women, as though she, a woman like them, were to be spared pains like theirs. Why should she be spared pain in this, when she was not to be spared so many other pains ? Christ was spared no suffering - so why should Mary be spared any ? Christ 's love for His own hurts his own: the Gospel is a “Gospel of Pain” - if Mary wants to belong to Christ, she has to suffer far more than any other disciple. If she isn’t prepared to carry the Cross, she has no place in the Kingdom. What was good enough for her Son, should be more than good enough for her. Therefore, she suffered as much as possible - childbirth included: because of being the second Eve - not despite being that. Christian faith is not a means of skipping suffering - it is an invitation to it, and a guarantee of it. Christianity offers nothing but the Cross, from beginning to end - people who want to be comfortable, had better join another religion.

BTW - about the ass 🙂 - why not type “donkey” ? ##
 
40.png
PhilVaz:
BibleReader << I, personally, believe that maintaining that Jesus was miraculously born is anti-Catholic heresy. >>

Well I wouldn’t go that far calling it “heresy,” the doctrine has been classically called (even by Protestants) the “Virgin Birth” from Isaiah 7:14. Not just virginal conception, but virgin birth.

Mark Miravalle quotes some prominent Fathers and Doctors:

St. Augustine: “It is not right that He who came to heal corruption should by His advent violate integrity.” (Sermons 189, PL 38:1005)

Pope St. Leo the Great: “Mary brought Him forth, with her virginity untouched, as with her virginity untouched she conceived Him.” ( Enchiridion Patristicum 2182)

St. Thomas Aquinas, of Christ’s miraculous birth: “Painlessly, and without change in Mary’s virgin body, her Son emerged from the tabernacle of her spotless womb, as He was later to emerge from the tomb, without moving the stone or breaking the seal of Pilate.” (Summa Theologica, III, Q 28, a 2)

The Catechism states:
  1. The deepening of faith in the virginal motherhood led the Church to confess Mary’s real and perpetual virginity even in the act of giving birth to the Son of God made man. In fact, Christ’s birth “did not diminish his mother’s virginal integrity but sanctified it.” And so the liturgy of the Church celebrates Mary as Aeiparthenos, the “Ever-virgin”.
But Ludwig Ott comments: “It seems hardly possible to demonstrate that the dignity of the Son of God or the dignity of the Mother of God demands a miraculous birth.”

I don’t make a big deal of this…and we’re getting off the topic of Fr. Raymond Brown and his supposed heresies. :o

Phil P
Click to expand...

To that closing sentence: LOL 😃 (& ROFL)​

 
40.png
PhilVaz:
Gottle Geer << After all, as the Flood was world-wide, the existence of Australia & of opossums, koalas, and kangaroos thousands of miles from the Near East (which is presumably where Noah built the Ark), is a serious objection to the universality of the Flood as described in Genesis. As there was a Flood, there can be no Australia. >>

Ah ha, that reminds me to post a link to my new article, from the book The Biblical Flood by Davis A. Young, need to edit a bit

Now we’re getting way off topic of Fr. Brown. 👍

Phil P
Click to expand...

What we need, is one of those smilies - for a double high-five 🙂​

Or a “YAYYYYYYYYY” emoticon ##
 
Gottle of Geer:
BTW - about the ass 🙂 - why not type “donkey” ? ##
Click to expand...
Hi, Gottle.

I try to restrict myself as much as possible to the actual words chosen by the Old and New Testament Committee translators.
 
Father Browns writings are basically “speculative theology” and he tended to pose various “what ifs” or hypotheses in his various commentaries. It appears that many times he attempted to base his work based upon the manuscripts or text fragrments that are available.
I find his writing to be ambiguoius enough that many Catholic “progressives” (dissenters from the magisterium) pick up and use Father Brown’s quotes to further their dissident agenda.

I don’t know what Fr Brown’s agenda really was, and instead treat his work as speculation or as an acedemic excercise, in other words “not as Church teachin”… If one realizes this then his writings can be sometimes or occasionally of use.

I do not recommend reading Father Brown, or at least if you are compelled to read Fr. Brown’s work then read the following authors first. That would be a much better use of your time!

If you want to read the Bible with the “mind of the Church” then you read Catholic “dogmatic theology” and “systematic theology” material. I highly recommend reading Father John Hardon, and Father William Most, and the Navarre Bible Text and Commentaries.

Hope this helps.
 
I don’t undertand the curse in Genesis to mean that women were not meant to have undergone ANY pain during childbirth.
God told Eve her pain would be INCREASED.
This does not mean there was never any pain to begin with.
To suggest there would not have been ANY pain would be to imagine birth without any contractions at all…pretty impossible I say.
Click to expand...
interesting.
But… if they had children before then why do we read this right after that?:
"Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain, saying, “I have gotten a man with the help of the LORD.”
Gen 4:1

By reading “Now Adam knew Eve” makes me understand that they did not know each other before that. Any thoughts?
 
Is there any official Church support for the claim that Fr. Brown’s teachings are contrary to the magisterium? With Pope John Paul II reappointing him to the Pontifical Biblical Commission in 1996 (after his first appointment by Pope Paul VI in 1972), and with his works having Nihil Obstats and Imprimaturs, I don’t understand how anyone can legitimately make such a claim. (Unless, of course, they are setting themselves up as “super-judges” of the quote-unquote “true” magisterium of the Church, above even the authority of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.)
 
40.png
BibleReader:
Again, read Revelation 12:2 IN LIGHT OF WISDOM 7:5 “NO KING HAS ANY…DIFFERENT BIRTH”].
Click to expand...
Here’s an article for Revelation 12, pay attention to the last paragraph.

catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9705chap.asp

As for the Wisdom of Solomon: “For none of the kings had any other beginning of birth. For all men have one enterance into life, and the like going out.” (Wisdom 7:5-6)

To me it says that all kings are the same, they are born of a woman and die. Christ was born of a woman and he did die. It does not imply that the women has to have labor pains.
 
My personal view of Fr. Brown is that I would recommend him over any liberal scholar. However, he did doubt the historicity of the virginal conception (He did NOT doubt the physical resurrection). Catholic scholars in my opinion should have a higher standard than non-Catholics. That’s why although I like some of what Brown says, I won’t recommend him unless a Catholic can sift through his works.

Now, as far as the virginal conception or birth is concerned, there is a good book by Fr. Rene Laurentin titled “Truth of Christmas” that was endorsed by the then Cardinal Ratzinger. I recommend it.

For me, it is very unlikely that a first century Jew or knows Judaism quite well would interpret Isaiah 7 in such a way that was never thought of before. There were no pre-Christian messianic interpretation of Isaiah 7. Why would someone interpret it that way unless Jesus was born of a virgin? If we are going to reconstruct history, it seems to me that the Christians interpreted Is. so that it would fit into the birth of Jesus. For a virgin birth story to pop up out of no where, and have two different stories of it, is very unlikely especially in a two generation period.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top