"The point is that the earliest sources - Mark and also Paul make no mention of this magnificent event which seems to be central to the claims of Jesus's alleged divinity."

I wouldn't say it's central to those claims. Anyway, Paul does make clear references to Christ's divinity, so I still don't think your point is clear.

If you read, even the first paragraphs of what the rabbi wrote above, you would have learned that the book of Isaiah was NOT translated by the 72 scholars you lean so heavily on. Only the the Torah was. Go fish semck...

...And that the Greek word has two meanings as well, which is why it described a girl who was not a virgin in genisis.

"Anyway, Paul does make clear references to Christ's divinity, so I still don't think your point is clear."

Maybe because you're conflating two things?

I did not say Paul made no claims about Jesus's divinity, I said he made no mention of the virgin birth, which seems like an important aspect of the divinity story. If Jesus was born like any other man, then claims to divinity become harder to make.

Obviously the Church understood this which is why so much emphasis is placed on the virgin birth. Otherwise, why make such a fuss over it?

I believe a recent study suggests that one in 200 american mothers claim that they had a virgin birth... Someone should make sure The mistranslated prophecy isn't talking about them...

@SC,

Your rabbi is very sloppy with his history, I'm afraid, conflating a text with a manuscript of that text. Yes, I casually used LXX to refer to the entire Greek OT, and yes, only the Torah was initially translated; but the entire OT was translated well before Christ. It's true we don't have any manuscript of some of it dates to before Christ (though parts of the minor prophets have BC manuscripts), but that does not mean that you can simply assume that the church made specific changes that you would like for it to have made. Indeed, there is circumstantial evidence that the Greek OT did in fact read as St. Matthew quoted it -- the fact that he quoted it that way. (Not conclusive evidence, mind you, but even if it was an illegitimate rhetorical move as you believe, it would be a much weaker one than it was if he was changing the scriptures he quoted from their recognized translation[s]).

@Putin,

"Obviously the Church understood this which is why so much emphasis is placed on the virgin birth. Otherwise, why make such a fuss over it? "

I actually don't think of it as something that much of a fuss IS made over, until somebody brings it up attacking it (although I'm a Protestant, and things may be different in the RCC). Certainly nothing like the resurrection, for example. It's presented as an important part of the story simply because it's in Scripture, and an obvious miracle that relates to Christ's origin and nature.

Moreover, you're changing your story now. Before, you claimed that the virgin birth story was "central" to claims of Christ's divinity, which really would make it bizarre that Paul referred to Christ's divinity without being aware of it (as you were claiming).

So... After saying my rabbi was sloppy with history, you admit... Well... That you were sloppy with history and the rabbi is right. Funny.

Perhaps we cannot assume, but we can also not assume that they did not make those very beneficial changes that validate the divinity of Jesus.

At the same time your appeal to the 72 rabbis is false as you now concede. You were sloppy not the rabbi who knows this much better than you and cites everything.

As the rabbi says there is no evidence that matthew is quoting anything, let alone a copy that existed long before Jesus.

You are grasping at straws.

And he quotes historians etc who say that only the five books of the Torah were translated... Why do you keep making stands on quicksand?

Please cite where the whole Old Testament was translated please? And please give a real discussion of why the Greek word was used in the case of Joseph's sister if she was not a virgin.

Your last argument of "I'm ignorant of this topic so therefor there must be a gray area" was not quite convincing

Hi Numbat,

Your last post is perfectly logical. There is all kinds of legal/historical (documentary) evidence that show that we have texts that were very close to the originals, but deciding if it's true, if the message of salvation through accepting God's gift of a Messiah who paid the price for our sins/redeemed us as a kinsman has a right to do/was the Peace Child--deciding if that is true is up to each person. I do accept that gift, with thanks, and now owe God my love and obedience.

"Mujus, I've heard several rabbis claim that you are wrong …."

Wow! Looks like I've made the big time. :-)

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/biblianazar/esp_biblianazar_7.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiberius_Iulius_Abdes_Pantera
http://www.google.com/#q=jesus+father+was+roman+soldier&safe=off

Jesus was the illegitimate son of Mary and a Roman soldier.

" So... After saying my rabbi was sloppy with history, you admit... Well... That you were sloppy with history and the rabbi is right. Funny."

I admitted no such thing. I used the term "LXX" which is used extremely broadly to refer to the entire Greek Old Testament -- including by those who consider the story of the 72 apocryphal. To admit to using *casual* (but universal) nomenclature is a very different thing from using sloppy and incorrect reasoning, as your rabbi has done.

And no, I didn't admit that he was right. He committed a basic error, which I pointed out, and which you haven't attempted to defend.

"At the same time your appeal to the 72 rabbis is false as you now concede. You were sloppy not the rabbi who knows this much better than you and cites everything."

Again, I concede no such thing, and the rabbi in question was not only sloppy, but betrays profound ignorance of the whole subject of historical textual analysis.

"Perhaps we cannot assume, but we can also not assume that they did not make those very beneficial changes that validate the divinity of Jesus."

Well, maybe, but there is at least some evidence (internal and otherwise) that that word was used in the LXX; there is no evidence at all that any other word was used.

Moreover, even if your summary were correct, that position would suffice to refute your attempted assault on St. Matthew. Choosing one of two alternate unsupported assumptions is hardly strong ground from which to launch an attack on a historical source.

"You are grasping at straws. "

One of us is grasping at straws. My own case is, with your help, becoming quite strong.

"Please cite where the whole Old Testament was translated please?"

I usually try not to cite wikipedia, but in this case it gives no fewer than four scholarly references, so I'll direct you there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lxx#History

An example of a primary source along these lines would be the translator's tnote to the wisdom of Sirach, which refers to already-extant greek versions of the law, the prophets, and the other books. This work itself dates from the first or second century BC. As translated in the RSV:

"You are urged therefore to read with good will and attention, and to be indulgent in cases where, despite out diligent labor in translating, we may seem to have rendered some phrases imperfectly. For what was originally expressed in Hebrew does not have exactly the same sense when translated into another language. Not only this work, but even the law itself, the prophecies, and the rest of the books differ not a little as originally expressed."

The content of this claim, of course, is one we would both want to take note of in the present discussion; but it would in any case serve as a strong indication that the bulk of the OT was already translated into Greek at that time. Other lines of evidence of course exist, such as very early Jewish attitudes toward the greek OT. I'll link the middle of a lengthy discussion of these issues, which points out again the quoted introduction to the Wisdom of Sirach, and which also points out that that book was quoting the Greek version of Isaiah.

"And please give a real discussion of why the Greek word was used in the case of Joseph's sister if she was not a virgin."

Well, I don't know. Perhaps the Greek word, too, can admit of more than one meaning? That, obviously, would be overwhelmingly favorable to the Christian case. I make no pretense to be any kind of expert in any kind of Greek, though.

@Mujus: I agree that logic can't necessarily trump belief to believers. However, I will add two things to our discussion:
1. Just because a translation is somewhat accurate doesn't make the original claims true. Even if the translation could be perfect, those original texts are very challengable in their own right.
2. As a lady I was just having dinner with has printed on a batch of bumper stickers she doesn't know what to do with :) : "Just because you believe it, doesn't make it true.". BTW: if anyone wants a bunch of these bumper stickers, let me know!

Sorry, I forgot the link I promised toward the end. Here it is.

http://books.google.com/books?id=8MbvEZ4bgdwC&lpg=PA264&ots=_a74lPcIah&dq=Philo%20quotes%20septuagint&pg=PA262#v=onepage&q=Philo%20quotes%20septuagint&f=false

(As you can see from the search terms, I was looking for an analysis of quotations of the LXX by Philo. This is rather more expansive, so I'm sending it instead).

I thought virgin births were somewhat common before Christ. Could the claim of virgin births be a way to lessen the "shame" of unweded girls pregnancy? Or an aspiring story for a child who doesn't know his father? (The mother might have been raped)

Numbat, you agree with something I didn't state, in a rather more positive use of the "Straw man" logical fallacy than we usually see. And yes, you are quite correct that "just because a translation is translation is somewhat accurate doesn't make the original claims true." That was my point. To sum up: The evidence is there, but many people don't want to see it, don't want to admit its validity, or… in some cases… don't want to see the truth of it.

The third and final Christmas story Bible reading is Matthew 2:1-12, New Living Translation (NLT). I am including Luke 2:25-40, the related story of two elderly persons who saw Jesus with their own eyes at the time of his purification, and the great joy that brought them. And I wish all those reading this post true peace and happiness both now and as you live your lives.

Visitors from the East

2:1 Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the reign of King Herod. About that time some wise men[a] from eastern lands arrived in Jerusalem, asking, 2 “Where is the newborn king of the Jews? We saw his star as it rose,[b] and we have come to worship him.”

3 King Herod was deeply disturbed when he heard this, as was everyone in Jerusalem. 4 He called a meeting of the leading priests and teachers of religious law and asked, “Where is the Messiah supposed to be born?”

5 “In Bethlehem in Judea,” they said, “for this is what the prophet wrote:

6 ‘And you, O Bethlehem in the land of Judah,
are not least among the ruling cities[c] of Judah,
for a ruler will come from you
who will be the shepherd for my people Israel.’[d]”
7 Then Herod called for a private meeting with the wise men, and he learned from them the time when the star first appeared. 8 Then he told them, “Go to Bethlehem and search carefully for the child. And when you find him, come back and tell me so that I can go and worship him, too!”

9 After this interview the wise men went their way. And the star they had seen in the east guided them to Bethlehem. It went ahead of them and stopped over the place where the child was. 10 When they saw the star, they were filled with joy! 11 They entered the house and saw the child with his mother, Mary, and they bowed down and worshiped him. Then they opened their treasure chests and gave him gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh.

12 When it was time to leave, they returned to their own country by another route, for God had warned them in a dream not to return to Herod.

Footnotes:
a. 2:1 Or royal astrologers; Greek reads magi; also in 2:7, 16.
b. 2:2 Or star in the east.
c. 2:6a Greek the rulers.
d. 2:6b Mic 5:2; 2 Sam 5:2.

Luke 2:25-40
New Living Translation (NLT)

The Prophecy of Simeon

2:25 At that time there was a man in Jerusalem named Simeon. He was righteous and devout and was eagerly waiting for the Messiah to come and rescue Israel. The Holy Spirit was upon him 26 and had revealed to him that he would not die until he had seen the Lord’s Messiah. 27 That day the Spirit led him to the Temple. So when Mary and Joseph came to present the baby Jesus to the Lord as the law required, 28 Simeon was there. He took the child in his arms and praised God, saying,

29 “Sovereign Lord, now let your servant die in peace,
as you have promised.
30 I have seen your salvation,
31 which you have prepared for all people.
32 He is a light to reveal God to the nations,
and he is the glory of your people Israel!”
33 Jesus’ parents were amazed at what was being said about him. 34 Then Simeon blessed them, and he said to Mary, the baby’s mother, “This child is destined to cause many in Israel to fall, but he will be a joy to many others. He has been sent as a sign from God, but many will oppose him. 35 As a result, the deepest thoughts of many hearts will be revealed. And a sword will pierce your very soul.”

The Prophecy of Anna

36 Anna, a prophet, was also there in the Temple. She was the daughter of Phanuel from the tribe of Asher, and she was very old. Her husband died when they had been married only seven years. 37 Then she lived as a widow to the age of eighty-four.[a] She never left the Temple but stayed there day and night, worshiping God with fasting and prayer. 38 She came along just as Simeon was talking with Mary and Joseph, and she began praising God. She talked about the child to everyone who had been waiting expectantly for God to rescue Jerusalem.

39 When Jesus’ parents had fulfilled all the requirements of the law of the Lord, they returned home to Nazareth in Galilee. 40 There the child grew up healthy and strong. He was filled with wisdom, and God’s favor was on him.

Footnotes:
a. 2:37 Or She had been a widow for eighty-four years.

Numbat and all, my post about not wanting to believe certainly does not apply to everyone. Many do not know/have not seen the evidence. But anyone can come to God by confessing their sins and accepting God's gift of the Messiah, Jesus, who came to Earth, was born, lived among us, and died for the sins of the world. How can you know this is true? Test it. Go find a quiet place and talk to God for about 20 minutes. Ask him to show you the truth.

Mujus: One can't be logical about a god *and* believe in a god. Its an either-or proposition. Hence, my previous statement about logic not being able to trump belief.

"Spending 20 minutes talking to God" is much like a kid spending 20 minutes talking to her doll. She imagines a two-way conversation and wants to believe it. For a while, it may seem true but she will realize sooner or later that the doll is not really talking back to her. Belief in gods are more complicated because of the social support for those beliefs. Our brains want to believe stuff like that. Our brains also like to believe in wacky conspiracy theories, ghosts, alien abductions, etc. They seem so real, but they're not.

Numbat, that's a totally unsupported statement. God is the author of logic. It's just that if you don't have all the data, or if you reject some valid data, your logical brain won't be able to accept the existence of God.

" God is the author of logic."

Citation needed.

Unsupported? Instead of spending 20 minutes exchanging thoughts with your god, perhaps you should wonder why other people doing exactly the same thing as you come up with different views of the god they believe in. There are so many conflicts between your beliefs and those of similarly convinced believers that there is a very high likelihood that you're all just imagining stuff during those little duscussions.

Besides, why are you arguing pedantics about historical texts when all it really takes is to spend 20 minutes talking to your god?

Numbat, your statement "there is a very high likelihood that you're all just imagining stuff during those little discussions" is evidence of your own prejudice. In fact, I propose that yours is a belief that is no more based on fact than the multitude of religions out there.

Numbat, these are not pedantics, which at least implies that we are talking about unimportant details. I don't think anyone can argue the importance of knowing if the God of the universe exists, and if so, if he has a plan for your life that starts with you getting to know him. If that's true, Numbat, then even you have to admit that it's the most amazing thing that will happen to you in your entire life.

The fact that your way of knowing your god is different from the way many others know their god strongly suggests that you're all just imagining it. You can't all be correct. It is highly likely, however, that you're all incorrect.

My position doesn't require any belief. Its based solely on verifiable observations.

Numbat, really? You have verifiable observations that strongly suggest that everyone who believes in God, or a god, is just imagining it? Maybe you could share those verifiable observations with the rest of us on the Webdiplomacy forum?

http://youtu.be/JKGtcVoBhBQ?

i know, mujus, you probably think what he says is rubbish, since he's an outspoken atheist, and even i myself don't agree with him on every aspect, but he raises an important point: if you would been born anywhere else, say india, you would say the same things about the gods they believe in there.
and how come you know that your belief is right, as opposed to other beliefs? i never got that whole "respect for other religions" thing that christianity and other religions claim to have. how can you still respect someone who is, from your point of view, an outright liar?

Mujus and Numbat: The fact that claims about gods, supernatural phenomena, etc. are designed to be unfalsifiable is as good a reason as any to reject their existence on logical grounds. The problem with religions and the like is how useless 'verifiable observations' are. The impossibility of observable phenomena is itself the evidence.