A Long Standing Argument....

[One Bad Pig]

Teallaura,

I wonder if you address people face to face in the real world the same as you do on the Internet.

When people merit it, she'll say even worse things face to face. I tried to be a good little bad pig when I met her a few years ago.

You have invented the fiction that I give a literal interpretation to Gen 3:15.

The fact is that I have not given an interpretation of Gen 3:15. I have pointed out what Nathan Poe pointed out about what this verse doesn’t mention, and I have asked questions.

Keep dancing around your woodenly literal interpretation that, since it doesn't mention Mary explicitly, it must not have her in mind.

And, obviously, words in this verse are used figuratively.

Therefore it is interesting that in Gen 3:15, with its figurative language and no mention of Mary, that micah719 and company are able to find “the first mention of virgin birth,” something the NT writers forgot to mention.

Pardon me for forgetting that the NT writers were writing specifically for YOU. At any rate, check out Gal 4:4-5, where Paul DOES allude to this passage.

[Teallaura]

When people merit it, she'll say even worse things face to face. I tried to be a good little bad pig when I met her a few years ago.

Who, me?

Keep dancing around your woodenly literal interpretation that, since it doesn't mention Mary explicitly, it must not have her in mind.

Pardon me for forgetting that the NT writers were writing specifically for YOU. At any rate, check out Gal 4:4-5, where Paul DOES allude to this passage.

9652.gif

[Teallaura]

Teallaura,

I wonder if you address people face to face in the real world the same as you do on the Internet.

I'm usually less patient than I am online. It's much easier to tell when people are legitimately confused versus willfully stupid in real life. I gave you the benefit of the doubt - not my fault you lived down to expectations. I have little patience with willful ignorance in real life or online. If I thought you were legitimately confused I'd treat it differently but you clearly aren't. Either you're overly committed to a silly argument that isn't even key and therefore refuse to even see the possibility of a different interpretation or you're just into arguing for its own sake. Either way, you've proved long since that your unreasonable objections are willful ignorance and not legitimate confusion.

Now, answer the question in post #173 - you were the one that cited it in your C&P diatribe so you can't now claim that you don't know what I'm talking about.

You have invented the fiction that I give a literal interpretation to Gen 3:15.

The fact is that I have not given an interpretation of Gen 3:15. I have pointed out what Nathan Poe pointed out about what this verse doesn’t mention, and I have asked questions.

And, obviously, words in this verse are used figuratively.

Therefore it is interesting that in Gen 3:15, with its figurative language and no mention of Mary, that micah719 and company are able to find “the first mention of virgin birth,” something the NT writers forgot to mention.

OBP already nailed this but what the heck...

If it's figurative why bother mentioning Mary specifically? NT writers aren't writing to hyper-literal morons that see significance in an omission that probably resulted from writers crediting their readers with more intelligence than the average billy goat (with apologies to billy goats). The allusion is more than sufficient for anyone who passed second grade literature class.

NT writers (excepting Luke) expected their readers to be very familiar with Scripture since only ignorant people weren't. Luke writes to a Gentile audience and includes relevant facts where he reasonably doubts a Gentile not from Judea would know them. Otherwise, Scripture isn't written for first graders so why not come back when you can read at the second grade level? A basic understanding of literature, especially allusion, solves your non-existent 'problem'. (Hint: when a writer alludes to something they rarely specify it - that would be patronizing so it's not done unless writing for first graders...)

NT writers are very well versed in Scripture - they have no particular need to mention Mary by name in reference to the passage. They also don't bother to tell us that water is wet - they figure their readers actually can reason well enough to draw blatantly obvious conclusions. To require that Mary be mentioned by name when the passage is a clear allusion is hyper-literal nonsense. Hiding behind Poe doesn't help you avoid the fact that you are advocating that nonsense.

Now, answer the question in Post # 173 - or do you need me to restate it in smaller words?

[Antony]

I will not respond to the attacks of a few people on me that are personal in nature.

As a rule attacks personally denigrating someone are more informative about the character of those doing the attacking than that of the object of their attacks.

In recent posts a few contributors, individually or collectively, have stood behind the following propositions at various times:

1. Gen 3:15 is the first mention of virgin birth in the Bible.

2. Gen 3:15 contains an allusion to virgin birth. (Note the change from an unqualified “first mention of” to an “allusion” of virgin birth).

3. Paul in Gal 4:4-5 alludes to Gen 3:15.

In order that readers may see the picture as a whole, and not piecemeal, I have reproduced these two passages below in context. Thus the reader can make their own judgement on whether Gen 3:15 “mentions” or “alludes” to virgin birth, and whether Gal 4:14 “alludes” to Gen 3:15... Or do some just read into these verses what they want to see?

Gen 3:13-16

13 And the LORD God said to the woman, “What is this you have done?”
The woman said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.”

14 So the LORD God said to the serpent:
“Because you have done this, you are cursed more than all cattle, and more than every beast of the field;
On your belly you shall go, and you shall eat dust all the days of your life.

15 And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her Seed;
He shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.”

16 To the woman He said: “I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception;
In pain you shall bring forth children;
Your desire shall be for your husband, And he shall rule over you.”
And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed;
He shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.”


Gal 4:1-7

1Now I say that the heir, as long as he is a child, does not differ at all from a slave, though he is master of all,

2 but is under guardians and stewards until the time appointed by the father.

3 Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world.

4 But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth his son, born of a woman, born under the law,

5 to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons.

6 And because you are sons, God has sent forth the spirit of his son into your hearts, crying out, “Abba, Father!”

7 Therefore you are no longer a slave but a son, and if a son, then an heir of God through christ.

[Teallaura]

*yawn*

Translation: My position cannot be defended but I don't wanna concede on a minor point so I'll throw up enough dust that maybe no one notices that I haven't answered the question in Post # 173 or realizes that the reason I won't answer is because I can't without admitting that my hyper-literal interpretation is nonsense.

Don't remember the question? Oh, okay, let me help: where, exactly, in Scripture is the literal fulfillment of Genesis 3:15?

And because I'm feeling really helpful I'll point out that even if you concede on the point you haven't lost much - "Oh, yeah, I see how a reasonable person could come to that conclusion but I don't agree" is all you need to do to quit looking like you don't know what your doing. Gen 3:15 isn't the major support for the Virgin Birth so this bulldog attack of yours looks really silly.

And once more, say it with me, everybody: hyper-literalism is stoopid!

[infide]

Assuming this to be true (only for the sake of argument) your conclusion does not follow. The same pattern could be reasonably expected in revelation - revealing a small bit at a time, proving that portion true and repeating would be a good way to bring such incredible news (the Incarnation) to the foible-filled human mind.

Works well in mystery novels, too.

And in teaching physics (there's a reason we all start out learning Newton - and it ain't 'cause Newton was right!).

And virtually anything else that is particularly complex.

Well your examples are, frankly, silly. The reason we learn Newton first in physics has nothing to do with revelation - it has to do with simplicity. Equations in Newtonian Physics are relatively simply and are still fairly good approximations for the correct values in most real world scenarios.

The idea you are suggesting that somehow there was this progressive revelation of Jesus as history moved away from the events themselves, certainly seems like grasping for an explanation to this very real problem. That kind of explanation is a religious explanation, requiring faith, and is unlikely to convince anyone besides believers, imho.

I find it much more plausible that the contradictory changes to the same story demonstrate how the stories about Jesus were being retold over and over and being changed, according to the storytellers beliefs about Jesus.

To read the same story in each gospel is to really understand the point I am trying to make.

Peace,
JD

[One Bad Pig]

Well your examples are, frankly, silly. The reason we learn Newton first in physics has nothing to do with revelation - it has to do with simplicity. Equations in Newtonian Physics are relatively simply and are still fairly good approximations for the correct values in most real world scenarios.

This helps confirm her example.

The idea you are suggesting that somehow there was this progressive revelation of Jesus as history moved away from the events themselves, certainly seems like grasping for an explanation to this very real problem. That kind of explanation is a religious explanation, requiring faith, and is unlikely to convince anyone besides believers, imho.

That's not the idea she's suggesting.

I find it much more plausible that the contradictory changes to the same story demonstrate how the stories about Jesus were being retold over and over and being changed, according to the storytellers beliefs about Jesus.

To read the same story in each gospel is to really understand the point I am trying to make.

Peace,
JD

Just like Abraham Lincoln, eh?

[Teallaura]

This helps confirm her example.

That's not the idea she's suggesting.

Just like Abraham Lincoln, eh?

9652.gif

[infide]

This helps confirm her example.

Actually, no it doesn't. But thats okay, following a conversation is hard.

She suggested that the Gospels were different because God was progressively revealing more and more about Jesus.

That is not why we learn Newtonian Physics before the more accurate Relativity or QM, its because these latter topics are extremely complicated and require advanced mathematical concepts. Newtonian physics requires algebra or calculus. As far as the electron is concerned, Newtonian physics is completely and utterly wrong. Its not even close. It is not a stepping stone revelation. Its just wrong

Peace,
JD

[Teallaura]

Actually, no it doesn't. But thats okay, following a conversation is hard.

Yeah, kinda like reading comprehension - you flunked that one utterly, huh?

Newtonian physics is still used precisely because it is simpler to understand and therefore acts as a 'stepping stone' to the more complex - and accurate/true - physics. Teaching QM straight out of the starting gate would likely result in a dramatic reduction in the number of physicists - just as teaching swimming in quicksand would drastically reduce the number of swimmers - too few would be able to make any progress. The same exact thing that I proposed - that revelation might reasonably contain such 'stepping stones'. Since you cannot read you mistakenly compared Newtonian physics directly to Revelation - which wasn't at all what I proposed.

Now, go back to the original post and read it through. Grab a dictionary - evidently some of the words are too big for you.

Reading comprehension: It's not just for breakfast!

[One Bad Pig]

9652.gif

I have no idea what you mean by "Name: 9652.gif Views: 0 Size: 576 Bytes" - which is all I see in your post.

[Teallaura]

I attached a 'yeah that' smilie - to me the post appears blank but that happens sometimes so I didn't realize it was that messed up.

[One Bad Pig]