Jump to content

Talk:Virgin birth of Jesus: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Tags: Reverted Mobile edit Mobile web edit New topic
m Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Virgin birth of Jesus/Archive 6) (bot
 
(2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 19: Line 19:
}}
}}
{{Archives |bot=Lowercase sigmabot III |age=90}}
{{Archives |bot=Lowercase sigmabot III |age=90}}

== Source being misquoted ==

[41] claims that the Barker source is supportive of the fact that Jews in Palestine no longer spoke Hebrew around the turn of the millennium, and instead read scripture in Greek; this is a misquoting of the material. On page 490, Barker is discussing the fact that Jesus likely relied on an Aramaic targum, and not a Hebrew Isaiah scroll. Page 490, the page cited, has only one paragraph referring to Christian interpretation of Isaiah: it reads:

"One complete scroll of Isaiah and part of another were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, so it is reasonably certain what was in an Isaiah scroll in the first century ad . With some significant exceptions, which will be noted when the passages are discussed in detail, the Hebrew text is the one generally used today. But having the words is not the same as knowing how those words were understood, and for this we are dependent on the Targum, a translation of Isaiah into Aramaic. When Hebrew was no longer the everyday language of Palestine, readings in the synagogue were translated, not as a literal, word-for-word rendering but rather as a free translation incorporating a variety of other material, showing how Isaiah was understood at that time." (Barker 490).

I added a failed verification tag, and encourage others with a scholarly background in Biblical criticism to engage with this article.
:Please sign your contributions. As for the substance, I agree that that paragraph is a poor source for the statement that 1st century BC Jews didn't read/speak Hebrew. A better one is needed. But the sentence to which footnote 41 is attached says this: "Matthew presents the ministry of Jesus as largely the fulfilment of prophecies from the Book of Isaiah", which is nothing to do with the use of Hebrew; are you talking about something else? [[User:Achar Sva|Achar Sva]] ([[User talk:Achar Sva|talk]]) 01:31, 5 June 2023 (UTC)


== C R S ==
== C R S ==
Line 33: Line 24:
In five sentences,Narrate the value of virginity mary enjoyed <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/102.91.72.33|102.91.72.33]] ([[User talk:102.91.72.33#top|talk]]) 16:40, 3 October 2023 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
In five sentences,Narrate the value of virginity mary enjoyed <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/102.91.72.33|102.91.72.33]] ([[User talk:102.91.72.33#top|talk]]) 16:40, 3 October 2023 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


== Purpose of the Ben Witherington Quote? ==
== Everything here is wrong ==

So under historicity we see it says “Conservative scholars argue that despite the uncertainty of the details, the gospel birth narratives trace back to historical, or at least much earlier pre-gospel traditions.”


Which is then followed by an embedded quote that says “As such, this story is without precedent either in Jewish or pagan literature.”
The ancient world didn't possess a thoroughly modern understanding that male semen and female ovum were both needed to form an embryo; this cultural milieu was conducive to miraculous birth stories, and tales of virgin birth and the impregnation of mortal women by deities were well known in the 1st-century Greco-Roman world and Second Temple Jewish works.


Why is that there? This quote not only has absolutely nothing to do with the preceding paragraph it is also patently false considering ”virgin birth” mythology has been found in numerous non-Christian sources (including Alexander the Great). [[Special:Contributions/2601:603:5000:D80:F5F3:CCE7:F4F2:196E|2601:603:5000:D80:F5F3:CCE7:F4F2:196E]] ([[User talk:2601:603:5000:D80:F5F3:CCE7:F4F2:196E|talk]]) 05:14, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
everything here is wrong it assumes ancient people were stupid, which they were not they knew virgins don’t get pregnant you can see this in matthew were joseph has to be conviced by an angel that a miricle has occured instead of his to be wife cheating on him also the idea that the virgin birth narrative was copied from paganism and was not an original christian idea has been thouroughly discredited it is a bill mahre zeitgeist level argument also necrophilia rockbirths and lightining bolts and a god physically becoming incarnate and fucking some women don’t count as a virgin birth [[Special:Contributions/217.140.206.244|217.140.206.244]] ([[User talk:217.140.206.244|talk]]) 06:01, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 18:19, 28 August 2024

C R S

[edit]

In five sentences,Narrate the value of virginity mary enjoyed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 102.91.72.33 (talk) 16:40, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Purpose of the Ben Witherington Quote?

[edit]

So under historicity we see it says “Conservative scholars argue that despite the uncertainty of the details, the gospel birth narratives trace back to historical, or at least much earlier pre-gospel traditions.”

Which is then followed by an embedded quote that says “As such, this story is without precedent either in Jewish or pagan literature.”

Why is that there? This quote not only has absolutely nothing to do with the preceding paragraph it is also patently false considering ”virgin birth” mythology has been found in numerous non-Christian sources (including Alexander the Great). 2601:603:5000:D80:F5F3:CCE7:F4F2:196E (talk) 05:14, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]