Why NOT Christ Lineage through Joesph's boodline, Instead of Judah's

The thing is, almah has been used in situations where someone is definatley not a virgin. FOr example, if you look at the song of solomon, Almsh is being used a woman in a very erotic situation (the way of a man with a woman).

I don't know if you are aware of it, but the New Testament was first written in Greek. So whatever is included in the Greek version, it is exactly what the writer meant to say. In the first chapter, verses 22-23 Matthew writes: "All this took place for the word of the Lord to be fullfilled through the prophet who said: behold the virgin who will conceive in her womb and bear a son and he will be called Emmanouel, which means God is with us". Since Matthew wrote in Greek, he certainly knew how to translate words from one language to another. So he obviously used the word virgin because that is what the prophet wanted to say.

We still haven't found that elusive bloodline that links Jesus to David.Brian.

The issue is whether or not Jesus is related to the line of David?

Excuse me? How does that follow? Even if Matthew knew everything there was to know about Greek, his translation from the Hebrew could still be utterly inaccurate.(I'm also curious as to how you think quoting Matthew - in English - supports your point. The English translation from the Greek could also be utterly inaccurate.)

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

What exactly don't you understand? Should I unclude the Greek text too? I would be happy to but I don see the point unless someone can actually read it. I understand that you do not have to consider my translation accurate but your argument concerning Matthew's knowledge of Greek does not stand. Who can assure me that those who have translated the New Testimony in your language have done such a great job? Maybe Matthew didn't have the ability to express himself in his own language either, maybe no evangelist could, so why should we believe in the accuracy of anything written! That does not make any sense. If we do not take it for granted that the writer knew what he wanted to write and how to write it, there is no point in participating in this conversation. By the way, I would find it interesting to know the religion of the participants, provided they do not have a problem with that. I'm only asking because it might give us all another aspect of what everyone thinks.

That's exactly what I'm asking you. Why should we "take it for granted" that Matthew's Hebrew-to-Greek translation was accurate? Why should we "take it for granted" that the Greek-to-English translations are accurate?I replied to your Message 152, in which you replied to Message 151. That message points out that the English word "virgin" is not an accurate translation of the Hebrew word "almah". Somewhere along the line, Hebrew-to-Greek or Greek-to-English, an error did occur. Around here, you'll find that the conversation more often hinges on what we don't agree on. If we took such things for granted, there wouldn't be any basis for conversation.(By the way, this is getting rather far away from the topic of Jesus' lineage.)

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Do you at least believe that the original text included exactly what the prophet meant to say?

Well, first off we don't have any of the originals so that is impossible to answer. Second, if we are refering to Isaiah 7, then it's pretty obvious that the New Testament author was quote mining and taking it out of context.Finally, what does this have to do with Jesus lineage?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

What "original text" would that be? Do we have the "original text" in the prophet's own handwriting? Or do we have just copies of copies of copies? Every time it was copied there was another chance of error creeping in.Where do you suppose the almah/virgin error arose? Hebrew-to-Hebrew copying? Hebrew-to-Greek translation? Greek-to-Greek copying? Greek-to-English translation?

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

How do I know that there was actually a mistake there or anywhere else, due to translation? I am refering to random mistakes. Because I am certain that every time there was a rupture in the Christian Church, those who created a new church would change some things on purpose, in order to facilitate their cause. If you believe that there is no way these texts can tell us anything why are we having this conversation?

I didn't say the texts can't tell us anything. I said we can't assume a priori that Matthew knew what he was talking about. We have to compare what Matthew said with everything else we know to make an informed decision. To correct your misconceptions. Now, can we get to Jesus' lineage?

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

I suppose that you do not have to be eristic in your answers nor should you cut my phrases the way it suits you in order to say something clever. In case you haven't noticed I am not the one who brought up the subject of the virginity of Christ's Mother, so do not blame me for not focusing on the original subject. If you regret having been involved in this conversation, simply stop doing that. I feel that I should also point out that there is no reason for me to believe that you are participating in this conversation in order for me to profit and find answers. Please keep in mind that a faith is a deep truth beyond knowledge. Therefore, the combination of facts and experience (through tradition and personal life) is what makes us understand - to the extent that is necessary or to the extent that we can - things that concern God and approch the truth. As far as I am concerned, the fact that the four evangelists do not describe the exact same facts consists of hard evidence that this entire thing was not at all set up. Because if it were, they would have sut down and would have found a way to make everything add up just perfectly. But that was not the case. They simply gave us the facts the way they had percepted the truth and it is human nature to describe the same thing a little bit differently, in a way that emphasizes what seemed more important to each one of them. And believe me, my misconceptions are many, but the reason why I chose to participate is because I want to know how people think, people who do not live next door and who do not have the same opportunities as me to study and approach the subject. We probably do not share the same religion, regerdless of the fact that we are discussing facts that concern Jesus Christ and that we might say that we believe in him. The differences between Christians all over the world are vast. So, in order to correct our misconceptions we should address priests and theologians. Do not worry, the burden of my misconception is not on your shoulders.

that's a spurious argument. has ramoss pointed out, it's used to describe women who are in or have been in sexual situations. dinah, post-rape, is a common example.besides, they DID have prostitutes back then.

---

I'm not blaming you. I'm just trying to remind you that the topic of this thread is Jesus' lineage, not His mother's supposed virginity or the general accuracy of the gospels. If you want to talk about a different topic, find an existing one or start your own. Ah, but it is. I can leave no misconception un-shot-at.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC