The Palestinian Jewish canon does not call Mary virgin

[rien]

The septuagint or greek canon does. A disagreement among jews themselves which is huge.

Orthodox jews today accept the palestinian canon. Not septuagint. IMO they are the closest source we have today to the Jews at the time of Jesus.

But my question is how do evangelicals explain this? They go by the Palestinian canon and reject the septuagint as false - hence 7 fewer OT books.

The Palestinian canon does nor refer to Mary as being a virgin.

 

[EphelDuath]

The Septuagint was translated by several Rabbis. The fact that Isaiah 7:14 reads “virgin” in the LXX means that they were expecting a Virgin Birth, and that it’s not revisionism on Christianity’s part.

 

[rien]

The Septuagint was translated by several Rabbis. The fact that Isaiah 7:14 reads “virgin” in the LXX means that they were expecting a Virgin Birth, and that it’s not revisionism on Christianity’s part.

But that is not what the Palestinian canon reads. In use by non-diaspora Jews at the time of Jesus.

I think this is a real problem and especialyy for protestants who reject the septuagint but accept the Palestinian canon.

Bottom line, the virgin birth was not a universal part of ancient Jewish teaching.

 

[YADA]

It seems fairly clear that Jesus and the apostles used the Septuagint … I am not sure that there actually existd a pure “palestinian canon” during Jesus’ time. Some scholars had speculated that the duetero canonicals were unknown in palestine [being a work of the diaspora] and that those writings were never in hebrew or aramaic. However the presence of at least some of the works among the dead sea scrolls in all three languages shows that the greek texts were used and available in palestine and that the same works also were available in the jew languages used in palestine during a time contemporary to Jesus and the apostles.

So I am not sure that the existence of a palestinian canon promoted as such around 100 AD [per most scolars] really has much impact upon Christian belief or use. Jerome [after spending time in the palestinian area and conferring with Rabbi’s indicated a preference for the palestinian cannon but submitted to the Church and used the Septuagint collection … which has been the cllection used by the church from 395 AD +/- to the present …

As for evangelicals affirming the “virginity” per the Septuagint and yet preferring a protestant canon that favors the palestinian … well some do, some don’t … Protestant belifs about Mary are all over the board … Virgin / Not Virgin, conceived by the Holy Spirit, not concieved by the Holy Spirit [Rape by a Roman Soldier], perpetually Virgin, Mother or other children …

There is no one thought so any discussion about a particular point will be nearly impossible to acertain … too many varibles …

 

[EphelDuath]

But that is not what the Palestinian canon reads. In use by non-diaspora Jews at the time of Jesus.

One, the oldest manuscripts we have of the Palestinian canon are from the 7th century. The Septuagint is 900 years older.

Two, the word used in the Masoretic is ambiguous. The word could mean either “virgin” or “young woman.” It’s universally translated to mean virgin in Genesis 16:11 and 38:24.

Three, all “young women” were to be virgins under Mosaic law, and it’s silly to think that the Messiah would be born of a woman who should be stoned to death.

 

[mark_a]

The septuagint or greek canon does. A disagreement among jews themselves which is huge.

Orthodox jews today accept the palestinian canon. Not septuagint. IMO they are the closest source we have today to the Jews at the time of Jesus.

But my question is how do evangelicals explain this? They go by the Palestinian canon and reject the septuagint as false - hence 7 fewer OT books.

The Palestinian canon does nor refer to Mary as being a virgin.

Were Alexandrian Jews inferior to Palestinian Jews?

Why did the Palestinian Jews finally reject once and for all the Septuagint?

 

[rien]

It seems fairly clear that Jesus and the apostles used the Septuagint … I am not sure that there actually existd a pure “palestinian canon” during Jesus’ time. Some scholars had speculated that the duetero canonicals were unknown in palestine [being a work of the diaspora] and that those writings were never in hebrew or aramaic. However the presence of at least some of the works among the dead sea scrolls in all three languages shows that the greek texts were used and available in palestine and that the same works also were available in the jew languages used in palestine during a time contemporary to Jesus and the apostles.

So I am not sure that the existence of a palestinian canon promoted as such around 100 AD [per most scolars] really has much impact upon Christian belief or use. Jerome [after spending time in the palestinian area and conferring with Rabbi’s indicated a preference for the palestinian cannon but submitted to the Church and used the Septuagint collection … which has been the cllection used by the church from 395 AD +/- to the present …

As for evangelicals affirming the “virginity” per the Septuagint and yet preferring a protestant canon that favors the palestinian … well some do, some don’t … Protestant belifs about Mary are all over the board … Virgin / Not Virgin, conceived by the Holy Spirit, not concieved by the Holy Spirit [Rape by a Roman Soldier], perpetually Virgin, Mother or other children …

There is no one thought so any discussion about a particular point will be nearly impossible to acertain … too many varibles …

I am refering to fundamentalist or pentecostal Christians. Virtually all I know see the virgin birth as a dogma belief demanded of all Christians.

 

[YADA]

Well many non-denominational types are hard to pin down … while much of Christianity acknowledges the Virgin Birth, there ar many new versions and the beliefs are becoming less and less main stream … at least among some I meet …

I see this as an out growth of the Jesus Seminar folks … this group [which does not seem to identify themselves as a theological groupas much as they did in the 90’s] radicalized Christian thought … they basically re-wrote the bible [Jesus said this, probably did not say that and absolutely did not say this] … the resurrection did not happen [mass hysteria], etc … this group had some mainline christian theologians [by denominationalafflitiation if not beliefs] along with non denomination types …

While I agree that most fundamentalist take a fairly strict literal take on scripture … they Virgin birth is one that is beginning to fwwl the strain … at least among some I come in cantact with … of course they could be less ‘churched’ and more free thinkers getting much of their theology from PBS, Discovery Channel and TLC … [all of these channels love to featur prominant Jesus Seminar theologians]

 

[rien]

Well many non-denominational types are hard to pin down … while much of Christianity acknowledges the Virgin Birth, there ar many new versions and the beliefs are becoming less and less main stream … at least among some I meet …

I see this as an out growth of the Jesus Seminar folks … this group [which does not seem to identify themselves as a theological groupas much as they did in the 90’s] radicalized Christian thought … they basically re-wrote the bible [Jesus said this, probably did not say that and absolutely did not say this] … the resurrection did not happen [mass hysteria], etc … this group had some mainline christian theologians [by denominationalafflitiation if not beliefs] along with non denomination types …

While I agree that most fundamentalist take a fairly strict literal take on scripture … they Virgin birth is one that is beginning to fwwl the strain … at least among some I come in cantact with … of course they could be less ‘churched’ and more free thinkers getting much of their theology from PBS, Discovery Channel and TLC … [all of these channels love to featur prominant Jesus Seminar theologians]

Guess we travel in different circles. Which is OK.

Among fundamentalists and evangelicals I see no issue on the Virgin birth.

The issue I see set to split fundamentalism, and pentecostalism especially, is the Trinity.

Oneness Pentecostalism is growing quickly. They do not accept the Trinity as dogma.

Not a little thing. Pentecostalism is the second largest Christian faith after Catholocism.

If half break off and reject the Trinity, its like a reformation is coming in Pentecostalism.

It not like the Christian Scientitsis or Unitarians or even JW’s, you could have the second largest Christian group not accepting the early church dogmas on the Trinity.

I think this is why Islam and LDS are growing so much more quickly. Their unity of belief while Christinaity is dis-integrating into so many subsetss.

I actually find the LDS teaching the church apostasized early on not without basis. If Pentecostalism comes to reject the Trinity I think that will be a confirmation of LDS teaching. JMHO.

Even among Catholics things are in motion. Will the Pope at some point define supercessionism as heresy?

Chritianity is a mess IMO and quite hard to believe - no matter what Chritian “tradition” one comes from.

The unity of Islam and LDS is appealing for a reason.

 

[YADA]

Not to hyjack the thread but in response to your assertion of unity and where it is found:

There is no real unity in Mormonism orin Islam …

Islam: has many differences Suuni, Shii just to name two [and they are so contentious that they are willing to blow each other up!] … and the Ahmahdi who frequent here is another … there is no unity in the 600 year [or so] history of Islam THey are not unified within themselves nor woth others [Christians, Jews, etc] around them…

Mormons: this is a very young religion and it has no unity either … even if you discount the origins [splinter of a splinter] as a sign of dis-unity, they have experienced divisions and breaks … hence those that practicec plural marriage and those who do not for example …

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

The septuagint or greek canon does. A disagreement among jews themselves which is huge.

Orthodox jews today accept the palestinian canon. Not septuagint. IMO they are the closest source we have today to the Jews at the time of Jesus.

But my question is how do evangelicals explain this? They go by the Palestinian canon and reject the septuagint as false - hence 7 fewer OT books.

The Palestinian canon does nor refer to Mary as being a virgin.

That’s no surprise - it doesn’t mention her or refer to her. For the same reason as Jeremiah 7 & 44, when referring to the Queen of Heaven, are not referring to devotion to her under that title. The Vestal Virgins were the Roman keepers of the eternal flame of the goddess Vesta - not all virgins are Vestals. ​

Identity of words does not prove identity of the things that have the identical names. When liturgical documents talks about “the president of the Eucharistic assembly”, they are not implying the US President is ordained; “president” can be used of a lot of different positions & responsibilities.

The only Mary in the OT is Miriam, the sister of Aaron.

 

[inthecloud]

It seems fairly clear that Jesus and the apostles used the Septuagint … I am not sure that there actually existd a pure “palestinian canon” during Jesus’ time. Some scholars had speculated that the duetero canonicals were unknown in palestine [being a work of the diaspora] and that those writings were never in hebrew or aramaic. However the presence of at least some of the works among the dead sea scrolls in all three languages shows that the greek texts were used and available in palestine and that the same works also were available in the jew languages used in palestine during a time contemporary to Jesus and the apostles.

Ben Sirach, 1 Maccabees were written in Hebrew origianaly.
But were written outside of Palestine. Alexandria and Damascus.

The issue I see set to split fundamentalism, and pentecostalism especially, is the Trinity.

Oneness Pentecostalism is growing quickly. They do not accept the Trinity as dogma.

Not a little thing. Pentecostalism is the second largest Christian faith after Catholocism.

If half break off and reject the Trinity, its like a reformation is coming in Pentecostalism.

My exgirfriend belonged to a large pentecostal denomination that is trinitarian and she had serius trouble with the Trinity. The heresy is spreading fast. And yes, after CC and with EOC they are the third largest christian group. And probably the largest if you count the actual churchgoers.
That is serious trouble for the future of Christianity.

 

[rien]

Ben Sirach, 1 Maccabees were written in Hebrew origianaly.
But were written outside of Palestine. Alexandria and Damascus.

My exgirfriend belonged to a large pentecostal denomination that is trinitarian and she had serius trouble with the Trinity. The heresy is spreading fast. And yes, after CC and with EOC they are the third largest christian group. And probably the largest if you count the actual churchgoers.
That is serious trouble for the future of Christianity.

I think if Pentecostalism comes to reject the trinity in the future it reinforces, as I siad, the LDS position.

If the trinity is wrong then the Mormons are right it could be argued. That the early church apostasized.

I think if a majority of Chritians (not to say will necessarily happen) come to reject the Trinity. And especially the vibrant Chritian churches - the face of Christianity in the futre does not look to be RC or EO - it will give added vigor to the LDS.

Just for truth in advertising, I once considered the Catholic church and went initially to RCIA. After reading Keating years ago. In the end I just could not come to embrace the Trinitarian doctrine. I think it was something imposed by committes os bishops on Chritians. Not anything that you can come to from reading Scripture on its face - IMO.

 

[Debra_C]

I think this is why Islam and LDS are growing so much more quickly. Their unity of belief while Christinaity is dis-integrating into so many subsetss.

I actually find the LDS teaching the church apostasized early on not without basis. If Pentecostalism comes to reject the Trinity I think that will be a confirmation of LDS teaching. JMHO.

I fail to see how the disobedience of a splinter group of a splinter off a splinter off a splinter ad nauseum has anything to do with whether the Catholic Church still is the church founded by Jesus Christ or not. The entire Protestant movement is a rejection of the authority of Peter. You are talking about a group that has developed extremely recently in the scheme of things. Once you throw out the unifying force (the authority of the Holy See and the teaching of the Magisterium) how can you help but fracture endlessly at every break in personal opinion among peers? That is the Protestant Reformation in a nut shell.

 

[Debra_C]

On the point of the original question–

It is basically irrelevant whether they used a word that specifically means virgin or not.

Faithful Jews would have expected a young unmarried woman to be a virgin, and one found in such a state of sin as to violate this law would never be recognized as the mother of the Messiah. Thus, for the Jews of Jesus’ times and before, to call her a young unmarried woman who would be so favored by God is to call her a virgin.

 

[rpp]

I think this is why Islam and LDS are growing so much more quickly. Their unity of belief while Christinaity is dis-integrating into so many subsetss.

There is no unity within Islam. Islam began to fracture even before Mohammed’s death. Islam grows because it has a simplistic (and logically contradictory) theology, is easily twiested to fit the desires of a person, and is often spread by violence and coercion. Currently, there are thousands of Islamic sects. Islam has never had a unity and is as structured and chaotic as the many “non-denominational” Christian churches.

Even among Catholics things are in motion. Will the Pope at some point define supercessionism as heresy?

As you are already aware, (see this thread which you started ) supercession is Marcionism and Marcionism is a heresy. See here.

Chritianity is a mess IMO and quite hard to believe - no matter what Chritian “tradition” one comes from.

The unity of Islam and LDS is appealing for a reason.

Christianity is a mess, because men are prideful and fallible.

LDS is also less unified than you might realize. There is mainstream LDS, Reformed LDS (Community of Christ), Restored LDS, Church of Christ Temple Lot, and so on. According to this website, there are around 100 different and distinct offshoots of the religion founded by Joseph Smith.

While there is disunity in Christianity, the Catholic Church is not only the largest but also the most unified religion, both today and in all of history.

Now back to the topic of this thread.

 

[tm30]

If you recall, Isaiah told Ahaz that God wanted him to request a sign with the following characteristics:

Isaiah 7:11

"Ask thee a sign of the Lord thy God either unto the depth of hell, or unto the height above"

i.e., the more magnificent, the better.

Isaiah 7:14

"Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign. Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel.

The magnificent sign is “a virgin shall conceive”. If the wording was, “a young girl shall conceive,” that’s not a sign, but a statement of fact occuring every single day since time immemorial.

 

[porthos11]

If you recall, Isaiah told Ahaz that God wanted him to request a sign with the following characteristics:

Isaiah 7:11

"Ask thee a sign of the Lord thy God either unto the depth of hell, or unto the height above"

i.e., the more magnificent, the better.

Isaiah 7:14

"Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign. Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel.

The magnificent sign is “a virgin shall conceive”. If the wording was, “a young girl shall conceive,” that’s not a sign, but a statement of fact occuring every single day since time immemorial.

Yeah, except the sign for Ahaz was NOT a virgin birth, but a normal one, and the young woman was NOT Mary and the child NOT Jesus.

 

[YADA]

Yeah, except the sign for Ahaz was NOT a virgin birth, but a normal one, and the young woman was NOT Mary and the child NOT Jesus.

So you are arguing about whether Isaiah’s word choice means “virgin” or “young woman” while at the same time taking the position that Isaiah is not even referring to Jesus at all …

If the reference in Isaiah does not have any bearing upon Jesus or Mary and a Vigin Birth then are we not left with the testimony of the Gospel writers [and the first Christians] who certainly did believe that the miraculous sign was a “Virgin Birth” …

 

[Yerusalyim]

Here’s the deal on word usage. The word technically translated comes out Young Girl. Great, no problem because her virginity is PRESUMED. Just as in German the word Jung Frau translates technically as Young Woman, but is used to indicate a a virgin. The same is true for the word “maiden” in english. Virginity is presumed.

As to whether Isaiah was refering to Mary or not…yes and no. As with most prophesy there were two fulfillments…the first was the immediate fulfillment, the sign of the young woman giving birth…it’s fuller meaning was found in the Virgin birth.