I'm not 100% if Heath and I are on totally the same page here, but my understanding is that idea of the virgin birth was introduced via the author of Mathew mistranslating Isaiah.  The author of Mathew really did mean a biological virgin (and the the author of Luke, who had read Mathew, repeated the story), but this was due to his attempt to show a link to his incorrect understanding of Isaiah.

So yes, I'd agree that the NT gospels that mention it really do mean virgin in the biological sense.  But that story was introduced due to a mistranslation of a verse in Isaiah that didn't mean virgin.


Heh!  Perhaps you're more liberal than I thought, if you don't think being a young woman (unmarried at that!) is a reason someone might have for lying about being sexually active! ;)

I think even if that were correct, then not only does Jesus still fit the bill as the only one it could have been to fulfill the propecies, then he goes over and beyond what is being asked.

Reading the bible, it still reads that Mary was a biological virgin.

I see it as a moot point to suggest that Isaiah only meant young lady when the greek Luke and Matthew state she was an actual virgin.

Post 487 has a quote from luke highlighted in green.



I'm referring to multiple verses from the bible that talk of a virgin birth.


Last time we talked about this three years ago, I left a link to this website which goes into a very detailed break down of the word, and how biological virgin is what Isaiah 7:14 did mean.

http://christianthinktank.com/fabprof2.html

This link does leave a lot to read.

That or it means that Mathew fudged the record to make sure that all the prophecies *as he understood them* were fullfilled.

That link is just addressing the meaning of the word from Isaiah and if it was meaning virgin as well as young lady. If the men were just lying, then it doesn't matter what the meaning was.

I was refering to


If Isaiah claimed it would be a young and/or unwed woman and Mathew put down that she was a biological virgin because he misread the prophecy then that implies he was writing his 'facts' based on the prophecy rather than what actually happened.

Actually the link I put down even goes over that as well. Basically Matthew wasn't focusing on the virgin nature, while Luke the physician did go over the virgin nature. From the different perspectives, and what mattered from each perspective was written down as they saw it. Matthew was focusing on the messianic prophecy and how it applied.

Not sure there's much room for agreement here (and it's probably not the thread for this anyway), but I'd just point out that neither the author of Mathew nor the author of Luke were putting things down as they "saw" them.  I'm pretty sure it's fairly widely accepted amongst biblical scholars that neither was written by eye-witnesses, and even if you rejected that, and believed that they were written by disciples, neither were present at the events described (ie, they weren't there when the angle came and said this or that, weren't there before Jesus was born, the author of Luke didn't know mary before Jesus was born, so couldn't 'inspect' her to see she was a virgin, etc.)

I will agree that the author of Mathew was focusing on the messianic prophecies, but the trouble is he didn't have a great grasp on just what the prophecy was.  He told a story that he thought matched the prophecy, but didn't.  To those of us who don't insist that the bible be 100% accurate to be of any value, that looks like evidence of deliberate fabrication.  To those who believe that the bible must 100% accurate for their religion to be true, it looks different.  Differences of initial assumptions leading to different interpretations of the evidence.

Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, Syriac, Latin, German, and ENGLISH



I think it's the action.  If I am suppost to provide for my family, but use theft as a means to provide, even though my intentions are good my actions are the sin.



I'm gonna have to see some sort of information on your claim.  Because according to the people here I can refute your millions with zero.



I believe germans tried to use this defense during the trials.  "I was forced to do it.  I only followed orders."  That doesn't fly.  With an Anti-Hitler father, why not leave?

Benedict is going to be at the head of the new world peace message.  You know who else preaches world peace??  The Anti-christ.  The Vatican is located on seven hills.. Revelations great prostitute rules from a land of seven hills.  Do I even need to post the quotes again from the vision of Mary at La Salette?



All he did was allows other religions to bring their idols in and place them on alters and bow to them.  That's desecration.



And the proof is where?   Let's see something.  I can post the 20 names if you'd like.



So you are agreeing with me that "the Pope did technically establish the Spanish Inquisition"  The Monarchs were given the authority to pick which ever inquisitor they liked.  And by whom was that authority given???  THE POPE!



I'm sorry, I was in a hurry and pasted the wrong thing.  That has nothing to do with anything.  Here's what I ment to post.

Catholic Monarch - The titles Catholic King and Catholic Queen are awarded by the Pope as head of the Catholic Church to monarchs who in the eyes of the papacy embody Catholic principles in their personal lives and state policies.

So if the Spanish Inquistion was being lead by the Spanish Monarchs.. and these Spanish Monarchs were the "embodiment of Catholic principles in their personal lives and state policies" it is then safe to say that the Spanish Inquistions answered to Catholicism.



Great Britain WAS Catholic.. Germany WAS Catholic at the time of the BC.  Do some research.



You are trying to make up an argument.  Please quote me where I condemn Catholics for slavery?

Very strange that one would consider themselves a good person when they view the coming of world peace and the end of all suffering from war as a horrible thing, and as an Anti-Christian thing to hope for.

Because Third Reich was a totalitarian country where dissidents were opressed, imprisoned and killed?

Have you ever heard of the Scholl siblings and what happened to them? They were Catholic, by the way...

Seriously - how can you condemn Ratzinger for not being willing to risk his and his family's well-being? He was not even an adult at that time.



Wait a minute. Benedict XVI preaches world peace, so he's suspicious? What should he be preaching - world wars?



I guess we'll have to disagree on that matter...



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W...Number_of_executions



You seem to overlook the fact, that by giving this authority, the Pope actually relinquished that very authority himself...



Why do you assume that Ferdinand and Isabella were named as 'Catholic Monarchs' solely due to them being in charge the Spanish Inquisition?



Yes, it was... until Henry VIII. Then, it was Protestant, with Catholics being discriminated against until 19th century.



No, it wasn't. Of course, there were both Catholics and Protestants living there, but at the time of Berlin Conference the Catholics weren't the dominant denomination. Ever heard of Bismarck's Kulturkampf?



Okay, sorry. You only did condemn them for colonialism. So, once again let me ask you: how does the British Empire fit into this?

Okay, I'm still a bit fuzzy.  Are you counting languages the books were translated into, languages that people in the books spoke, languages in which the gospel was preached?  What determines which languages get on the list, and the order in which they appear?

see witch trials death toll


and it is still going today:

This message was last edited by the player at 20:02, Mon 25 Oct 2010.

The Gospel of Jesus Christ maybe.  Please enlightment me of any of Jesus' teaching where world peace is the objective.  It's suspicious when The Rat XVI follows the pathway of the Anti-Christ.



Hmm.. Still not seeing anything saying protestants are the cause.  I did notice this though, "Initially, the Church had not considered witchcraft to be heresy, but this changed in 1320, when Pope John XXII authorised the Inquisition, an organisation designed to root out heresy, to persecute witchcraft as well."

It's the line before Early trials 1300-1500.. So, I'm gonna need you to tell me of those executed which were protestant and which catholic??



The only authority the monarchs had was who serves on their tribunal.  The tribunal was still a group of catholic inquisitors who were the actual inquistion.  Facts are facts.   The Catholic Pope gave the Catholic Monarchs permission to choose any Catholic inquisitors.  What do they have in common?? Catholic.



Hmm, Did you even read what I had said? The titles Catholic King and Catholic Queen are awarded by the Pope as head of the Catholic Church to monarchs who in the eyes of the papacy embody Catholic principles in their personal lives and state policies.



Hmmm.. So you're telling me that Queen "bloody" Mary was a Protestant?



Yes his limits on catholics.  But Catholics weren't a minority until the early 1900s.



I'm talking the translations used in the Books that lead to the KJV.  Hebrew and Aramaic lead to Greek and Syriac.. then came latin.. then german.. then was created the KJV.. in the perfect language of English.

Oh, come on. Wasn't Jesus Christ teaching people to love and respect each other? I'd say that world peace relates to that.



I didn't claim that the Protestants were the *cause* of witch hunts. I'm only refuting your claims that there's something about Catholicism that makes Catholics oppress people. You hold Catholicism accountable for colonialism, crusades etc. - so, I ask you: do you hold Protestantism accountable for witch hunts? Because Protestants did kill people for alleged witchcraft.

Or are you going to claim that of all the thousands of people killed across Europe during witchhunts, *none* were killed by Protestants?



I admit I'm not sure what you're getting at here.



Are you claimining that no Catholics were killed during witchhunts?



Still, you can't really blame the Pope for what the Spanish Inquisition did, as he didn't have any control over it! That why it's referred to as the *Spanish* Inquisition - because it was a separate entity that the original Inquisition controlled by the popes...



Yup, I read that. All I'm asking is: why do you believe that the specific reason for which Ferdinand and Isabella were considered to "embody Catholic principles", was the existance of Spanish Inquisition?



Mary I of England lived in 16th century. The Berlin Conference you keep mentioning took place in the late 19th century. That's *three centuries later*.

At that time, Great Britain was ruled by Queen Victoria. Do you claim that she was Catholic?




But they weren't in charge of the country!

Seriosly, how can you claim that Germany was Catholic at the time when it was *oppressing* Catholics?

BTW. I assume that your lack of reply to my arguments about Ratzinger and Hitler Jugend means that I managed to convinced you that your criticism of him on that matter was wrong?
This message was last edited by the player at 06:41, Tue 26 Oct 2010.

Perspective wise, peace is a good goal. I suspect that peace is desirable, but Jesus didn't have his ministry for peace exactly. Jesus said he didn't come to create peace.


Matthew 10:34,35
 34"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn
   " 'a man against his father,
      a daughter against her mother,
   a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law -

Which does make sense his mission wasn't about peace, but rather salvation. To turn away from the worldly things, and focus on Godly things. Some people may think of it in terms that nothing matters, but really, it means that christians should be thinking that our time on Earth is merely a temporary test, and the things we have aren't ours, they are just borrowed items that do not belong to us. Simply gifts meant to be shared.


But I do concur that peace isn't the process, merely a goal that will not happen here on Earth, only in heaven above.

from http://www.davidmacd.com/catho...uisition_witches.htm





and
http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/witchhunt.html

Interesting.  I didn't realize that the KJV was translated from German.  Do other, earlier english versions of the bible get the same "sevenness" as the KJV?

In reply to Tycho (msg #512):

I'm getting real tired of this.  Never have I met a group of people who add more words to my mouth than I do.  I didn't say german was used in the making of the KJV.  I said it was used leading up to the KJV.  The Luther Bible was in german.  The Luther Bible influences Tyndale's Bible which influences the KJV.

Some older english Bibles can claim the "sevenness" but if it has the word "New" in the title than No.  "New" bibles are corrupt and dead.  They may still preach of Jesus, but it is watered down to fit lazy, soft, and uneducated masses.

John 15:18-19, there's your world peace.  Jesus teaches us to love and respect follow Christians (1 John 3:11-16)



Where have I blamed catholicism for colonialism?  Besides, if I wanted to use an example of catholic colonialism I'd use Spain as an example.  I do not hold the witch hunts against anybody.  God wants you to kill witches/sorcerers/wizards.. whatever you want to call it God wants you to kill it.



While the inqisitions were all Catholicisms doing.  Both sides took part in witch hunting.



I don't see anywhere where he tried to stop it.  He granted them the ability to do what they did.  While the monarchs ran the show, I believe you said it best,




Actually I believe it's more along the lines of since they were the Catholic Monarchs, they were allowed the helm of the inquisition.  It was after all their country and they were embodiment of catholic principles.

Upon research I've found that 1/3 of the german population was Catholic, had they added Austria to the Empire than Catholics would have had the majority.  I stand corrected.



Do you mean do I not believe Ratzinger was exposed the the occult teachings, which he follows today, during his time in the Nazi Youth?  Nope, and I still believe he is an Antichrist.  If he looks like an antichrist, acts like an antichrist, and talks like an anitchrist.. than he's an antichrist.
This message was last edited by the GM at 18:18, Thu 28 Oct 2010.

Just a small point. Jesus says to love everyone, not just christians. As it says in the bible, anyone can love those who love us, but christians are called to love those who hate us, and and persecute us.

I know you know that American, but I wanted to make sure that anyone reading along was aware of the context of what is being asked of christians.

Matthew 5:43-47
 43"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor[h] and hate your enemy.' 44But I tell you: Love your enemies[i] and pray for those who persecute you, 45that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
This message was last edited by the player at 23:41, Tue 26 Oct 2010.

Moderator Post:

Calling another individual "The Rat" is a personal attack, and is in violation of the Forum Constitution. Please correct the post to remove the personal attack.

As a clarification, in this case, calling him 'an antichrist' is not, in my understanding, an unwarranted attack because of how you previously defined antichrist, and it being a part of your supported argument.

Please refer any complaints or disagreements via private message for moderator review. Thank you.

(And a non-mod post ... )

AN - sorry for not getting back to you. I know I said I would. My boss said I had as long as I wanted to finish up this programming project, then said it was due on Tuesday, then Thursday, and bugs keep on creeping up. I should be wrapping up with that time sink today, though (and onto the next!)

Under Catholic rules people could be executed for practicing *malicious* magic. Some secular authorities went overboard with this durring otherwise widespread inquisitions, but compared to more generic accusations like heresy they were of low signifigance.
Protestants however greatly lowered teh threshold of proof and accusation, killing thousands of *innocent* people durring teh witch hunts. Saying 'that's okay God wants you to kill witches': leaving definitions aside: would be like excusing McCarthyism because the societs were really our enemies- it completely ignores the cost in terms of innocent lives destroyed by zealotry.

Just wanted to say I fully agree with TitL on this point.  Jesus message was far more than just love other christians.  That's what was so radical about his message, and something that I wish more christians took to heart.  It's everyone, no matter how bad they are, that Jesus wanted people to love.

To put it in context, Jesus wants AmericanNightmare to love even the pope.

It's not easy to love your enemies, but it's still very much worth trying to do.

In reply to Tycho (msg #519):

And I do have a love for all life.  Should I be walking down the street and should see the Pope being beaten I'd stop it.  I'd do it for anyone.

Loving my enemy doesn't require me to agree with or go along with what they say.  It requires me to pray for the person and appeal to the good in him, forgive them when they wrong me, do good towards and rejoice when presecuted.

I can speak out against a person without hating them.  I can hate the sin while loving the sinner.