Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    My opinion is no, however, keep in mind that Isaiah 7:14 is a prophecy
    of how the Messiah would come into the world.  This is confirmed by
    Gabriel in the gospel of Luke where he states that the Holy Spirit
    shall overshadow thee.  This is in response to Mary's question, "How
    shall I conceive not yet having known a man?"  If one doesn't believe
    this, my question is one of how somebody could limit God to science and
    put finite constraints on Him.  Zaccharius disbelieved Gabriel
    regarding the birth of John.  This, as you may recall, was met with
    grief by the angel due to his unbelief. 
    
    If you honestly don't believe Jesus fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah,
    then perhaps you haven't found the one true Christ, since this is
    required for the entry of the savior.
    
    -Jack

    Oh, I forgot one important thing.  If you read the lineage of Joseph
    in the gospels, you will find one of his descendents, Jeconiah, was
    cursed by God.  Because of his sin, God told him that none of his
    descendents will succeed the throne.  Therefore, we do know from this
    that Jesus is NOT of Josephs seed.  Otherwise, he would not be the true
    savior.
    
    -Jack 

    
    Re.1
    
    >My opinion is no....
    
    Good heavens!  We actually agree on something!
    
    Cindy

    .1  Jack, uh, are you familiar with the Septuagint and how it
    varies a bit from the Masoretic texts?
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    No, I'm not Richard.  But I'm all ears and am happy to learn.  
    
    -Jack

    .5
    
    Okay, then.  Here's the rough idea.  The writers of the NT would
    probably have been most familiar with the Septuagint (LXX), a Greek
    translation of the ancient Masoretic texts.  The Septuagint uses
    a term which translates to "virgin" in Isaiah.  Whereas, the original
    Hebrew text of Isaiah translated becomes "young maiden" or "girl."

    Richard
    

The original Hebrew can mean "young maiden" or "girl".  It can
also mean "virgin".

There is an extensive discussion on this elsewhere in the notesfile
(from several years back).  The long and short of it is:

  - it is not much of a sign that a young maiden (a woman of
    childbearing age) would have a child.

  - many (including myself) believe that this prophecy had 2
    fulfillments - the one at the time of Isaiah (prophesy made
    in 735 B.C. and fully fulfilled by 725 B.C) and the other
    at the time of Jesus

  - the translators of the Hebrew independently chose to translate
    this word into the word "virgin" several hundred years before
    Jesus - certainly an indication that this is at the least an
    acceptable translation (if not the best translation)

  - the prophet Matthew fully clears up any ambiguouty as to whether
    or not this term should be translated as "virgin" and whether or
    not this was a prophesy in regards to Jesus

Collis

Note 831.7

>  - many (including myself) believe that this prophecy had 2
>    fulfillments - the one at the time of Isaiah (prophesy made
>    in 735 B.C. and fully fulfilled by 725 B.C) and the other
>    at the time of Jesus

Whoa!  You mean to tell me you believe there was not 1, but *2* virgin births?

This is something I've never encountered before, Collis.  Who was the other
one?

And how come you're quick to respond to .6, but haven't responded at all
to .0?

Richard

Note 831.7

>  - it is not much of a sign that a young maiden (a woman of
>    childbearing age) would have a child.

I guess, then, we'll have to pitch Micah 5.2-4, since it doesn't
indicate the woman is a virgin.

Too bad, Micah!  Not much of a sign!

Richard

Re: .7

>The original Hebrew can mean "young maiden" or "girl". It can
>also mean "virgin".

Although the word *can* mean virgin (I'm not certain that this is true, but,
I accept your word for it), it is the only case from the OT where it was
so translated in the Septaugint.

>the translators of the Hebrew independently chose to translate
>this word into the word "virgin" several hundred years before
>Jesus -

Surely you do not believe the myth of 70 monks in 70 days with 70 identical
translations, Collis?.

>the prophet Matthew fully clears up the ambiguity as to whether 
>or not this term should be translated as "virgin" and whether or
>not this was a prophesy in regards to Jesus

Matthew cleared up nothing: He *used* the Septaugint translation and (IMO)
shoehorned it into a prophesy in regards to Jesus. If anything, he
*created* the ambiguity. There is absolutely no indication in Isaiah that
he intended the prophecy to refer to Jesus.

I don't think I ever heard Matthew referred to as a prophet in Christian
circles. On what basis do you give him this attribute, Collis?

Greetings, Derek.

re Note 831.10 by VNABRW::BUTTON:

> I don't think I ever heard Matthew referred to as a prophet in Christian
> circles. On what basis do you give him this attribute, Collis?
  
        It's necessary to fit the model that every last word of
        Scripture is prophecy written by true prophets.

        Bob

	Re: .8 Richard.

	>Whoa! You mean to tell me you believe there were not 1 but *2*
	>virgin births. ..... Who was the other?

	Aphrodite!

	Re: .11 Bob.

	So we call him Matt Shoehorn, the backwards seer.   :-)

	Greetings, Derek.

    Derek
    
    I like it.  Matt Shoehorn!  That is right up there with "Gertrude"
    
    Patricia
    
    

    I believe Matthew is only giving account of what the angel told Mary. 
    He was a prophet in the sense that he forthtold us what had already
    happened. 
    
    Richard, I have heard the explanation before and agree that it can mean
    a young maiden.  However, since the account of Matthew shows how Joseph
    was displeased when he heard she was with child, it can safely be
    assumed that Jesus is not of his seed.  Mary of course confirms her
    virginity to the angel and the angel reveals that The Holy Spirit will
    overshadow thee.  
    
    In our finite minds, I call this a miracle as it totally goes against
    science.  I have been accused in this conference of putting God in a
    small box but I find it amazing how individuals refuse to believe God
    can do this!!
    
    -Jack

.14

Oh, I believe God is capable of doing such a thing.  I also believe God is
capable of a lot of things which God hasn't done.

I've never thought much about whether Mary's hymen was broken or not.  I do
realize Jesus' birth is more spectacular if Mary was a virgin, however.

If you believe in the virgin birth, I'm not going to try to change your
mind.  If you believe in the virgin birth, I won't tell you that you're
wrong to believe it.  I'm very willing to believe that Jesus' birth may
have been a virgin birth.  At the same time, having been present at my own
son's birth, I have concluded that this is an event God need not top.  It
is miracle enough for me by itself.

Shalom,
Richard

    Actually the myth of the Virgin birth is a myth that is very
    destructive to women.  It presents a no win paradox for a woman.
    
    
    It presents two conflicting assumptions.
    
    1.  It is better to not have sex than to have sex.
    2.  Being a mother is the most noble thing a women can do.
    
    Mary becomes the most divine model available to women.  No woman can be
    like Mary.  Both "Pure" and a mother at the same time.
    
    What do you suppose is behind the assumption a virgin birth is more
    pure than a non virgin birth.
    
    

    
    >    1.  It is better to not have sex than to have sex.

    Never in a million years would I have made this connection. I find it
    hard to understand where it comes from.

    >    2.  Being a mother is the most noble thing a women can do.

    I think this is a bit over the top as a conclusion as well. But I
    do believe that being a mother is one of the most noble things a 
    woman can do just as being a father is one of the most noble things
    a man can do.

    
    >Mary becomes the most divine model available to women.  No woman can be
    >like Mary.  Both "Pure" and a mother at the same time.

    I've never before heard the notion that Mary was pure because she was
    a virgin mother. Rather what I've always heard is that she was chosen
    because she was pure and not that she was just any old virgin.

    >What do you suppose is behind the assumption a virgin birth is more
    >pure than a non virgin birth.

    That God is the father? What else could be behind it?

    			Alfred

    John Spong does have a third? book on this subject Titled something
    like, The story of Mary, A bishop rethinks the Birth of Christ.

    Isn't there also another miracoulous birth story associated with Mary's
    own birth?  

RE:             <<< Note 831.16 by AKOCOA::FLANAGAN "honor the web" >>>
                               -< harmful myth. >-

       
   . What do you suppose is behind the assumption a virgin birth is more
   . pure than a non virgin birth.
    
    

    Perhaps the assumption that Mary would be carrying God in human form, thus
    he chose a woman who was pure to carry Him?  Virginity was commanded until
    marriage.  Not only did He choose a woman who was pure, he chose a woman
    who was obedient to the Law.


    And why is that harmful?



   Jim

    Yes Patricia, the birth of John the Baptist. 
    
    Patricia, I find it amazing (respectfully) how you allow feminist
    issues to be the forerunner on so many topics.  Interesting perspective
    though.
    
    The message of the virgin birth is this.  Jesus could not come from the
    seed of man because sin would have been passed to Jesus.  He would have
    inherited the penalty of physical and spiritual death because his blood
    would have descended from Adam.   If one doesn't believe in the virgin
    birth, I would be interested to know whom you think the seed of Jesus
    came from.  Either Mary had premarital relations with Joseph (death
    penalty under the Mosaic law), or Mary was raped.  Then again, we get
    into the original sin issue!!
    
    As a side note, I am a parent of two small children, a third due in
    about a month.  I personally have found being a father the most
    honorable and wonderful ministry and responsibility I have ever had. 
    My wife feels the same.  It is far more rewarding to us than any goals
    or wealth we can consume.  Wealth, status, and rewards burn in the end.
    Training a child has eternal consequences and lasts forever because
    each child makes a permanent mark on the world.  
    
    This is a personal feeling.  Others may feel differently and this is
    fine.  If you want to be president of the U.S., or president of a
    corporation or the greatest missionary since John the Baptist, then be
    the best!!  But to imply that the virgin birth gives a bad message
    about women and their roles in society is unfounded!!
    
    -Jack

>    Isn't there also another miracoulous birth story associated with Mary's
>    own birth?  

The miracle of the Immaculate Conception of Mary (which states that she was
conceived by normal intercourse between Joachim and Anna and born in the
normal manner, but was miraculously washed of the stain of original sin
from the first moment of her conception) is no different than the miracle
of which all of us are benefactors: that Christ's passion and death washed
away our sins.

The Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception simply states that because Mary
willingly, humbly, and obediently accepted God's calling to bring Christ
into the world, she was prepared for this role by an extraordinary outpouring
of God's grace, so that the benefits of Christ's redemption were applied
retroactively to her, essentially granting her the benefits of a baptism
of desire at the instant of her conception, keeping her a lifelong sinless
vessel for the gestation of Our Lord.

Should I ever become a Roman Catholic, I will have no problem giving the
assent of faith to this teaching.  Until then, I would really prefer to
say, together with St. Augustine, (approx) "as for any sin on the part
of Our Lord's Blessed Mother, let us not even consider it, out of respect
for her son."  (i.e., don't say "Yo' Mama!")

/john

    John:
    
    You realize of course this is a traditional teaching and is not based
    on scriptural doctrine of any sort.  Accept this as a respectful
    difference of opinion.  For Mary to be erased from Original Sin, her
    descendents would have to be in the same condition.  This, of course,
    has no basis of fact.  The fact that Mary refers to God as her savior
    and that she sacrificed two turtledoves in Luke two I believe, affirms
    her identity with the need for atonement and sacrifice.
    
    -Jack

Note 831.16

>    1.  It is better to not have sex than to have sex.

Well, there are certainly conditions under which I'm sure you'd agree that
this is really quite true.

>    2.  Being a mother is the most noble thing a women can do.

I'd say being a mother is one of the most noble things a women can do.  At
the same time, I'm not simply addressing the act of giving birth.  Non-birth
or adoptive parents are the ones who do the real mothering and fathering, for
example, rather than the ones who have experienced the mechanics of
reproduction.

I suspect Joseph was a very good father, especially if he believed he was not
the biological father to Jesus.

It's not an easy job -- much more demanding than the act that leads to
conception.

I suspect Mary and Joseph were very instrumental in helping to form the strength
of character to be found in Jesus.
    
>    Mary becomes the most divine model available to women.  No woman can be
>    like Mary.  Both "Pure" and a mother at the same time.

Mary has been viewed differently at different times thoughout the history of
the church.  At one time she embodied all that was merciful in the presence
of a vindictive, wrathful and judgmental God.

I might suggest feminist Christians taking a look at the Shekinah, God's
active spirit in the world, as a feminine model.

Shalom,
Richard

    Jack,
    
    I am going to respond to your first paragraph in  .21 before I even
    read the rest of your note.
    
    "I find it amazing how you allow feminist issues to be the forerunner
    of so many topics"
    
    I find it amazing that you could make such a statement.  It feels like
    you have not made any attempt to comprehend what it means to be a woman
    in a world where man has been defined as normative and woman as other.
    
    I accept that my image of God is the most important symbol in my life. 
    As an adult, I rationally know that every image of God is only an image
    and God transcends all images.  As I child I did not know that.  No
    child does.  The fact that Christianity is patriarchial and totally
    male oriented is the most significant problem with Christianity.  I
    embrace Christianity with its "human" fallibilities because I believe
    that there is also something there much more powerful than its
    fallibilities.  I believe that God did not ordain a world that is
    Patriarchal and Male focused.  That was the work of humans.  That is
    one of the great sins of humanity.  I am a Feminist.  I believe in the
    equality of all people.  I believe that God is a Feminist also.  All
    oppression is a great sin.  Every day of my life I am impacted by
    sexism.  That knowledge and my response to it helps me to understand
    sexism as well as other forms of oppression such as Rascism and
    Heterosexism.  My identity as a feminist defines who I am and how I
    relate to the world.  I am amazed that you do not understand that.
    
    Patricia

>   For Mary to be erased from Original Sin, her descendents would have to be
>   in the same condition.  This, of course, has no basis of fact.

Her only named descendent, Jesus, was certainly an unblemished sacrifice,
completely free of original and all other sin.

Leaving the doctrine affirmed at an early council that Mary had no other
children (the brothers and sisters referred to are claimed by this doctrine
to be cousins -- an alternate meaning of the Greek word -- or children of
Joseph from an earlier marriage) aside for the moment and assuming she did
have other children by Joseph, such children would not have been free of
original sin because they would have had Joseph as their human father.

>The fact that Mary refers to God as her savior and that she sacrificed two
>turtledoves in Luke two I believe, affirms her identity with the need for
>atonement and sacrifice.

The Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception does not say that Mary did not have
a need for atonement and sacrifice.  As I tried to make clear, it simply states
that because of her unique role, all the benefits of God's saving grace were
applied retroactively to her from the moment of her conception.  These benefits
were applied to her as a result of her faith, just as they are applied to us
as a benefit of our faith.

/john

 Heterosexism, eh?  Hadn't heard that one before.





Jim

    If anyone is really more interested in understand how the concept of
    Mary's virgin birth hurts women, I would suggest they read John Spong's
    book or other sources about the topic.
    
    I personally believe that Mary is a Christianized form of the Goddess
    and has been worshipped as such thruout Christian History.  I believe
    that images of God are just images of God and that God is the totally
    other reality hidden behind all the images.  I can accept Father, Son,
    and Male Spirit as images of God.  I can also accept Mother, Maiden,
    and Crone.  I can accept Shekkinah and Sophia.  I am inspired by the
    picture of the Madona and child.  It evokes great spiritual feelings
    for me.  It evoles a feeling of the relationship between the Divine and
    the human.

    .25
    
    Well said, Patricia.  I sense a need to re-think this matter a bit.
    
    Richard
    

    Patricia:
    
    If it was proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that the virgin birth is
    true, would you still refuse to believe it?  
    
    See, this is the new and dangerous PC way of thinking.  Ones denial 
    of the vigin birth is either based on fact or emotion.  I would
    challenge you to really think of why you reject this doctrine.  Is it
    unfounded or is it that it doesn't fit into your puzzle of how you
    believe life should be?
    
    -Jack

                
    Jack,
    
    You're doing it again.
    
    Asking a question, then presuming you know the answer, and continuing
    on to make a comment on an assumption that may be nowhere near the
    answer that Patricia may respond with.  Then you challenge her, and ask
    another question!
    
    Please - try to take just one step at a time.  Back up and ask the
    first question again, try listening to it, and THEN respond
    accordingly.
    
    Cindy

    Cindy:
    
    I assume nothing here.  It's called critical thinking.  
    
    So there will be no assumptions, let's start afresh.
    
    1. What did the angel mean when he said to Mary that the Holy Spirit
       shall overshadow thee to Mary?
    
    2. How can Jesus be born of man (from Abrahams seed) and not inherit
       original sin?
    
    Two simple questions without assumptions.  No strings, no accusations,
    just questions!!  
    
    Thanks for the help!!
    
    -Jack

    I know...the sentence structure is atrocious!!

Note 831.32

>    2. How can Jesus be born of man (from Abrahams seed) and not inherit
>       original sin?

Read Ezekiel, chapter 18.

Peace,
Richard

Ezekial Chapter 18 does not speak to original sin.  It speaks about the sins
of the fathers causing punishment to be meted out upon their sons.

Original sin is the doctrine that because we are descended from Adam we are
by our very humanity in rebellion to God, and that only by God's saving
grace can we overcome that rebellion.

Jesus is descended from Adam and has Adam's human nature _except_for_sin_.
The virgin birth (sorry Jack) does not prevent Jesus from having original sin
except in that it is part of the Christology of Our Lord and is that which
makes him fully divine (begotten as to his divine nature of God the Father)
as well as fully human (begotten as to his human nature of Mary the Virgin).

Jesus is prevented from having original sin in order that he may be the
unblemished Lamb of God, a perfect sacrifice for the sins of the whole
world.  It is not to prevent transmission of original sin that the Virgin
Birth is a necessary part of Christology; the Virgin Birth is a necessary
part of Christology because it deals with the very person of Christ, of
his being God the Son, the only-begotten Word, and not just another regular
old son of God as we all are by adoption.

Almost every person who has an objection to the Virgin Birth also has an
objection to the very person of who Christ is -- objects to the idea that
that little baby in the manger is none other than Almighty God himself,
the only-begotten Word made Flesh.

/john

  >And how come you're quick to respond to .6, but haven't responded at all
  >to .0?

I hate to see partial facts entered that only cloud the issue.

You didn't enter any partials facts in .0; only a question.  Now
you know how to get me to talk.  :-)

Re:  the question in .0

What does the Bible say is required for salvation?  There's
your answer...

Collis

Re:  .9

  >I guess, then, we'll have to pitch Micah 5.2-4, since it doesn't
  >indicate the woman is a virgin.

  >Too bad, Micah!  Not much of a sign!

Where does it say in Micah that this is a sign?

Oh, I forgot, you simply entered this to cloud the
issue.  Well, I responded.  :-)

Collis

Re:  10

  >Surely you do not believe the myth of 70 monks in 70 days with 70 identical
  >translations, Collis?.

Excuse me?  I said it was translated by people several hundred
years before Jesus' birth.  That's all I said.  Surely you aren't 
asking me to believe the myth that aliens from another world did the
translation, are you?

Collis

> I don't think I ever heard Matthew referred to as a prophet in Christian
> circles. On what basis do you give him this attribute, Collis?

A prophet is one who speaks for God.  Surely, someone that writes
as God breathes through him qualifies, don't you think?

Collis

Re:  .25

What I hear Patricia saying is that "normal" for her is
"feminism" for you (me, too, by the way).  

Collis

    Feminism... I like and dislike that word.  I believe that God is a
    feminist too. :-)  But not so much with the negativity that surrounds
    the word today... you see that word you think of militant hard core
    women with edges so rough they could skin a herd of buffalo... however,
    I believe that God created the most beautiful creature in all His
    kingdom... woman.  She has the power to move a man in ways he's never
    known before, emotionally, sensually and spiritually.  A woman's aura
    is so powerful that God also commanded her to be submissive to man,
    meek.  Meek means "power under control"... it does not mean *weak*.
    
    The submissive part is with what today's Christian woman or woman of the
    world has their most trouble.  Because submission to men without
    accountability of that man has caused for what seems a millenium of
    abuse towards this gender.  God's commandments have been perverted by
    men who are insecure next to the meekness [power under control] of a
    godly woman.  It has been a strange twist to see women come forth
    saying NO MORE ABUSE and watching the world's reaction to God's
    sweetest and most beautiful creation on this earth.
    
    However, if accountability to God's commandments are administered, then
    submission to man would be a cake walk for women.  If man only truly
    fully understood his role in leadership, women would blossom into
    tranquil, soft, secure and fulfilled individuals.
    
    I've often heard this comparison between the trinity and the home:
    
    God the Father = Headship = Husband
    God the Son = Children
    God the Holy Spirit = Wife
    
    A woman sets the mood in her home... she is the Comforter to the
    hurting in her  home, she spots the areas that need improvement in her
    home....  A woman becomes the Holy Spirit in her family when she
    submits her will to God.
    
    Sorry... didn't mean to go on for so long and I'm tarred.
    
    In His Love,
    Nancy

	What a flurry of replys!

	Re: .14 Jack.

	>...since the account of Matthew shows how Joseph was displeased when
	>he heard she was with child, it can safely be assumed that Jesus was
	>not of his seed.

	I don't see safety in this assumption. My sistr's husband was very
	displeased when she became pregnant (economic reasons). He at no
	time accused her of having been with another man.

	Re .19 Patricia.

	>Isn't there another miraculous birth story associated with Mary's
	>own birth.

	Yes; in (at least) of the Pseudopygraphic scriptures (Enoch, I
	think, but I can check that if you wish). I read that it was referred
	to when the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was formulated.

	Re: .21 Jack

	>Patricia, I find it amazing (respectfully) how you allow feminist
	>issues to be the forerunner in so many topics.

	Jim, I find it amazing that you bring this point up in a topic about
	the Virgin Birth.  Or is that not a "feminine issue"?

	I dislike the expression "feminine issue". I sounds like a man-made
	rubber stamp which, once it has been applied, a subject can freely
	be swept under the table. Women have many - also (frequently)
	man-made - problems which are worthy of discussion and resolution.
	One of the most serious of them is that their problems are rubber-
	stamped and filed under "trash": by men. Try listening to the female
	part of your being; maybe your amazement would fade.

	>The message of the Virgin Birth is this. Jesus could not come from
	>the seed of man because sin would have been passed to Jesus.
	>...because his blood would have descended from Adam.

	Mary, even if she was a virgin, provided half of the genetic code
	which passed to Jesus. Mary was, also descended from Adam. Maybe
	Matthew didn't know too much about genetics, but God surely did?
	I fail to grasp the message.

	On this - and not in reply to Jack - I have a problem with the
	doctrines of Virgin Birth and that of Jesus' being God incarnate.
	If Jesus was God incarnate, then Gods' impregnation of Mary, which
	was to bring forth Jesus (=God) is, for me, a dizzying roundabout
	of events. Can anyone help me on this?

	Re: .25 Patricia.  I like the way you said that, Patricia. Maybe
	we should form a mutual admiration society.  :-)

	re: .38 Collis.

	>Excuse me? I said it was translated by people several hundred
	>years before Jesus' birth. That's all I said.
	
	Actually you said "the translators of the Hebrew independantly
	chose..."  This led to my question about the 70/70/70 myth. It
	was not asking you to believe anything about aliens from another
	world.

	Re: .39 Collis (hello, again)

	>A prophet is one who speaks for God.

	Thanks, now I know. I never heard it applied to Matthew before.

	>Surely, someone that writes as God breaths through him qualifies,..
	
	Ok, we've been down that road: as you well know.

	>... don't you think? 

	Sure I think. Am I alone?

	Greetings, Derek.

    
    Nancy,
    
    >submissive to men
    
    Blech!  
    
    And that's what I think of that idea.
    
    Cindy

    
    Re.41
    
    Nancy,
    
    What would be wonderful is if men started submitting their will to God
    and focused on that, instead of continually trying to tell women what 
    they should and should not be doing.  
    
    I liked your model of God the Father - husband, God the Holy Spirit - 
    wife, and God the Son - Child.  That overall idea is also found in 
    Hinduism, only described a little differently.
    
    Cindy

    Jack
    
    re .32
    
    How can Jesus be born of "woman" and not inherit the condition of
    humankind.  The Virgin birth only makes sense if you hold the
    prescientific belief that all of human genetics and descent comes from
    the male sperm.  Of course the immaculate concept scheme was developed
    to explain that too.  Thus the questions regarding whether Mary still
    needed forgiveness and atonement.
    
    Patricia

    This is true, the genetic scheme is carried forward by both the father
    and the mother.  However, the blood of the child never comes in contact
    with the blood of the mother.  We were washed by the uncorrupted blood
    of Christ.  That's my take on it anyway!!
    
    Cindy, I have no idea what you have gone through in life but I really
    feel sorry for you.  You perception has been painted (no pun intended)
    by what the feminist movement has told you.  In a true spiritual
    relationship, my wife and I usually see it as wives be submissive to your
    husbands and husbands love your wives as Christ loved the church. 
    We know Christ for the church didn't he?
     
    Believe me, I get plenty of admonishment and exhortation from my wife
    but I look at this as her being a major part of the foundation of my
    spiritual growth.  She is helping me in many areas.  
    I see your "Blecsh" remark as one of competitiveness, distrust, and
    anger...thats why I feel sorry for you!  You could be cheating yourself
    of the full blessings God has for you in your relationship(s).
    
    -Jack

>    Blech!  And that's what I think of that idea.  Cindy
    
    :-)  Well fwiw I agree...to a man that is not following his role as
    defined by God.
    
>    What would be wonderful is if men started submitting their will to God
>    and focused on that, instead of continually trying to tell women what 
>    they should and should not be doing.  
    
    AMEN!  That was one of the points, perhaps I so poorly conveyed in my
    note.
    
    
>    I liked your model of God the Father - husband, God the Holy Spirit - 
>    wife, and God the Son - Child.  That overall idea is also found in 
>    Hinduism, only described a little differently.
    
    I'd love to take credit for it, but it is actually a model in a book
    written by Jack Hyles, Pastor of the largest fundamental independent
    Baptist Church in the U.S.
    
    Nancy

    <<Cindy, I have no idea what you have gone through in life but I really 
    feel sorry for you.  You perception has been painted by what the
    feminist movement has told you.>>
    
    
    double "bleah"
    
    

    
    What Patricia said.
    
    Jack, I think I'll just leave you in your assumptions about me 
    this time.  Enjoy.  But know they don't reflect reality.
    
    Cindy

    Thanks..I will!

    .46
    
    Jack,
    
    I can assure you from personal knowledge of the creature, Cindy is
    not one who embraces carte blanc the feminist model or agenda.
    
    Richard
    

    
    Re.52 - addon
    
    Or *any* model for that matter.  Christian, feminist...etc.
    
    Cindy

    I know that Richard and my, "Thanks...I will" reply was put in there
    as a cynicism.  
    
    Isn't there a verse in Corinthians someplace where is says, "For by one
    man sin entered the world and death comes through sin; then death
    passed upon all, for all have sinned".
    
    -Jack

    Romans, I believe.
    
    Kent

    So, do the men of this conference agree with my note .41 or .42 can't
    remember which one yet?
    
    Curious as a cat stuffed in cabbage,
    Nancy 

Note 831.35

>Ezekial Chapter 18 does not speak to original sin.  It speaks about the sins
>of the fathers causing punishment to be meted out upon their sons.

Funny, I was taught that the notion of original sin was an inherited thing
which went all the way back to Adam (or adamah).  Ezekiel says forget that
notion.  You are responsible for your own sins, not those of your ancestors.

>Original sin is the doctrine that because we are descended from Adam we are
>by our very humanity in rebellion to God, and that only by God's saving
>grace can we overcome that rebellion.

What a ridiculous notion!  And I don't buy it.  God was pleased with these
creatures called human beings.  Genesis indicates God saw a pervasive goodness
in all God created - including the humans.

Richard

    RE: .56
    
    Well, your reply has a lot of stuff to think about.....but.....my
    first impression is that I agree with the reply. (0.41).
    
    Marc H.

Note 831.41

Nancy,

>    God the Father = Husband
>    God the Son = Children
>    God the Holy Spirit = Wife
 
This is close to why I suggested pursuing the Shekinah, rather than Mary,
as the feminist model.

Mary is all to often portrayed as a passive recipient, while the Spirit
is anything but passive.

Unfortunately, a gender change takes place from Hebrew to Greek.

Richard

    Richard:
    
    Its not as ridiculous as you think.  The Bible states that we are born
    into sin.  It also says that we are seperated and, "...were once
    enemies of the most high."  It is true we aren't responsible for the
    sinS of our ancestors but we are born into sin(no S).  In 1st Jn 1:8-9,
    it says if we say we have no SIN we deceive ourselves and the truth is
    not in us...but if we confess our sinS...  There is a difference
    between sin and sins.  King David I believe stated we were born into
    iniquity.
    
    -Jack

    .60
    
    Jack,  I believe I am a sinner, but not because of anything that has
    to do with anything some way distant ancestor(s) may have done.
    
    Sorry,
    Richard
    

Note 831.36

>I hate to see partial facts entered that only cloud the issue.

So, you believe I provided only partial facts, thus clouding the issue.
Apparently, so do quite a number of translators.  Of course, they're
not here for you to accuse.

>You didn't enter any partials facts in .0; only a question.  Now
>you know how to get me to talk.  :-)

I'll keep that in mind.

>Re:  the question in .0

>What does the Bible say is required for salvation?  There's
>your answer...

Let's see.  Do the will of God.  Feed the hungry, visit the prisoner, etc..
Nope, Jesus never said, "You have to believe Mother was a virgin."

Richard

Note 831.37

>  >I guess, then, we'll have to pitch Micah 5.2-4, since it doesn't
>  >indicate the woman is a virgin.

>  >Too bad, Micah!  Not much of a sign!

>Where does it say in Micah that this is a sign?

>Oh, I forgot, you simply entered this to cloud the
>issue.  Well, I responded.  :-)

Here again, I resent the accusation that my motive is obfuscation.

If the Micah passage is not considered "a sign" (or whatever) why would
"the prophet Matthew" have bothered to include it as prophetic fulfillment?

Richard

.7

>The original Hebrew can mean "young maiden" or "girl".  It can
>also mean "virgin".

>  - the translators of the Hebrew independently chose to translate
>    this word into the word "virgin" several hundred years before
>    Jesus - certainly an indication that this is at the least an
>    acceptable translation (if not the best translation)

Fine.  Except that it's important to recognize that independent translators
of Hebrew today are most likely to agree on the Isaiah verse as "young girl"
or something similar, rather than "virgin."  Furthermore, this glitch in
translation is not something that was discovered last week.

The Septuagint may be the correct translation.  Then again, it may not.

Richard

	At the weekend, I dug out some notes which survived our fire a
	few years ago.
	One note related to the use of certain Hebrew words in the OT.
	Some of the more relevant are lised below (Note: I did not have
	the advantage of a computer then, so some of the higher numbers
	may be out by a few.  The numbers are from the AV

	Hebrew:    Means:			Comment

	'ishshah   female; wife; woman. 	255 times in OT plus
						35 (�)

	bethuwla   virgin.			31 times in OT (*). Also
						8 times as 'maid'

	almah	   young woman, of marriag-	as 'maid'  :2 times
		   able age, maid, newly	as 'virgin':1 time (Is7:14)
		   married.

	(�)   Used with other words to mean 'woman in travail'. Usually
	      bearing a child.

	(*)   Includes 4 Isaiah references; all correctly translated as
	      'virgin'

	The list also includes: m'arah (maid, young woman: 7); shiphshah
	(maid, handmaid, servant-girl: 23); amah (maid, bondwoman,
	concubine, female slave: 38 <never as concubine>); neqebah
	(female, woman, female child  3).

	This research led me to conclude:

		* Isaiah certainly knew the Hebrew word for 'virgin'
		  He used it at 23:12, 37:22, 47:1 and 62:5.

		* The Septaugint translators mistranslated 'almah' as
		  virgin. They translated it as 'maid' on both other
		  occurences: Ex 2:8 and Pr 30:19.

	I have heard the argument that 'almah' "can be translated as
	'virgin'"  The word *translated* is wrong. The translations
	are 'young woman..', '..of marriagable age'; 'maid' or 'newly
	married'.  These translations can, in turn, be *interpreted*
	to mean 'virgin'.

	Since there is a valid word which unambiguously means 'virgin'
	and, since this word was definately known to Isaiah, I can only
	conclude that the 'virgin' interpretaion is wrong.

	All of which has no bearing on the fact that Is 7:14 is not a
	prophecy of the birth of Jesus.  And, if it were: Why was Jesus
	not named Immanuel?  At the most generous, one could argue that
	the prophecy is not yet fulfilled.

	Greetings, Derek.

	Re: .41 Nancy

	If you leave out the theological component, I can agree with
	the essence of much of what you say.

	The negative 'taste' of the word 'feminism' is one of the most
	tragic linguistic sacrifices on the PC altar. The state of being
	feminine counts as one of the pinnacles of the human condition.
	To drag it through the valley of the shadow is diabolic.

	The doctrine of emancipation is fine, good, ok, but - due to the
	extreme positions taken by a few of its proponents - the doctrine
	has been devalued and has dragged feminism with it.

	The question of submissiveness is a very delicate one; as you
	indicated.  I believe that the difficulty in understanding this
	arises because a large proportion of males refuse to acknowledge
	that they also have a female - and feminine - component.  Many
	suffer torment, trying to prevent this knowledge surfacing into
	their consciousness and, thus avoiding the neet to supply an
	answer/response.

	Others, who have become conscious of their feminine component,
	develop complexes and attitudes with the objective of hiding the
	truth from others.

	These attitudes and complexes articulate themselves in a sort of
	'macho' personality.  The woman "has her place" and must "submit"
	to their wills.  In extreme cases, this ends in violence. It is,
	in reality, a male defence mechanism. (Note: this is not a blanket
	statement to cover *all* sexual violence). 

	It is this form of articulation which has driven many 'feminists'
	into a radical corner and, thus, damaged the image feminism.

	I wish I could get it across to my fellows that they have nothing
	to fear and everything to gain by accepting their gender duality
	and living it (Note: I did not say: living *with* it).

	On the other side of the coin, females have less difficulty in
	acknowledging their duality. Relatively few develop complexes
	about it; many are able to live it fully.  The few who develop
	complexes include, I suspect, those who do harm to feminism.

	Given my duality; it is easy for me to agree with the "meekness
	as 'power under control'" formula because - in the very first
	instance - I am thus agreeing to allow my male and female selves
	to live in harmony.  I would insist, however, that submission to
	the male does not - and must not - imply placing the female at
	second place.  This, in turn, leads to another point: being both
	at number one does not - and must not - imply equality.  The 
	male and female genders are different and we must acknowledge
	this. They are not equal (for which I am very grateful: my life
	is richer for it).

	Greetings, Derek.

  >Except that it's important to recognize that independent translators
  >of Hebrew today are most likely to agree on the Isaiah verse as "young girl"
  >or something similar, rather than "virgin." 

Of course, the Septuagint translaters were 2200 years closer to the
actual writing and culture.

Note again that this is a problem only for those who reject innerancy,
as Matthew makes it quite clear that this word can be properly
interpreted "virgin" in this context.

Collis

  >Since there is a valid word which unambiguously means 'virgin'
  >and, since this word was definately known to Isaiah, I can only
  >conclude that the 'virgin' interpretaion is wrong.

This is a nonsensical argument.  Are you telling me that it
is *impossible* for two words to mean the same thing?  If this
is indeed your premise, then your argument is sound.  (But
then I have a problem with your premise. :-) )

Let's assume for a moment that the Bible is correct.  Then,
we can see what inconsistencies develop.

First, Isaiah made a prophesy in 735 B.C. that was fulfilled when
a young women of marriagable age shortly thereafter had a child.
This woman was, presumably, not a virgin.  Isaiah talks about
what will happen before the child is 2 (732 B.C.) and what will
happen before the child is 12 or 13 (722 B.C.)  This prophecy
is fulfilled.

In addition, this prophecy *also* applies to the Messiah.  In
this case, a *virgin* would be with child.

Now, given that this prophecy was two distinct fulfillments and
meanings, what other word could *possibly* be used?  Actually,
any other word would simply have been wrong.

Of course, if you choose to start with the premise that the Bible
is all wrong anyway, you don't really need to try and convince
yourself that it is wrong in this specific area.  :-)

Collis

Re:  .63

  >Here again, I resent the accusation that my motive is obfuscation.

It's because I give you credit for intellect, Richard.  I find
it hard to believe that you really studied what Micah said and
then can make the comment you make without a strong desire to simply
bash the Bible, since your comments are assuming something that
the text does not say.

  >If the Micah passage is not considered "a sign" (or whatever) why would
  >"the prophet Matthew" have bothered to include it as prophetic fulfillment?

Richard,

  You *just* argued that this was NOT a sign (or, at least, not
much of a sign).  Now you argue that it IS a sign.  Is it any
wonder that I perceive an attempt to cloud the issue?

Collis

    Didn't the Micah prophecy base itself not on the who's or How's,
    but the where?
    
    Derek:
    
    Let's assume your correct.  Who is the father?
    
    -Jack

	Re .68: Collis

	Collis, I am so happy that we only meet several thousand miles
	apart: I fear that, at close quarters, I might just be moved
	enough to lose control long enough to bust your nose. :-)

	Note that my "smiley face" up there has as much value as does
	yours in your note.

	>This is a nonsensical arguement.

	ALL of my arguements make sense. Maybe that you do not, or cannot,
	understand them but that is no grounds for you to make such
	comments.

	In many of my replies to you, I gave *you* credit for intellect.
	(qv: .69).  There are times when you seem to go out of your
	way to demonstrate that, if you cannot prove my arguments wrong,
	you can *at least* show me to be a poor judge of people (especially
	in your case).

	I repeat here for the last time: I do NOT assume the Bible to
	be wrong. Not in part, not as a whole.  Those who wrote the
	texts included in the Bible wrote what they believed: Ie: they
	were truthful. That is my basic premise.

	That does not exclude the possibility that they were wrong in
	their beliefs or perceptions.

	Neither does it exclude the possibility that the interpreters
	of the Bible have been/are without error.

	Neither does it exclude the possibility that vested interests
	have later attempted to shoehorn the texts into dogmas.

	>Are you telling me that it is *impossible* for two words to
	>mean the same thing?

	No!

	Perhaps you would care to demonstrate to me and the rest of the
	CP participants just how you conclude that Is. 7:14 has anything
	to do with the birth of Jesus.

	Greetings, Derek.

re: .65

>And, if it were: Why was Jesus not named Immanuel? 

OT names were very important in that they described attributes of a person,
not just a label.  Immanuel means "God with us", and that is exactly what
Jesus came to be.  i.e. Immanuel is an attribute of Jesus, hence a sort of
name.

-Steve

    .69
    
    Collis,
    
    If that's the way you interpreted my intentions, I can understand why
    we may never reach a point of mutual respect with regards to this topic.
    
    I'm pretty good at knowing when it's futile to pursue.  I think this is
    one of those times.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

Re:  .71

The argument is nonsensical, regardless of who preaches it,
because the conclusion does not derive from the premises.
You can bust my nose, but you can't change the rules of
logic.  Now, it is quite likely that there were unstated
premises that you used which would bolster your argument.

But again, look at what you say:

  >Since there is a valid word which unambiguously means 'virgin'
  >and, since this word was definately known to Isaiah, I can only
  >conclude that the 'virgin' interpretaion is wrong.

In other words, Isaiah couldn't have meant for the word to 
every be interpreted virgin because there is another word
that means explicitly that.  Not only does this conclusion
not follow (people do this type of thing *all* the time),
but in fact I gave you a reasoned argument why Isaiah *MUST*
have used *EXACTLY* this word (assuming the integrity of
Scripture).

Sorry if I am brusque and lacking in diplomacy.  That is
certainly one of my weaker areas.  

Collis

    Richard:
    
    Why do you find the virgin birth implausable, or do you?!  We already
    have learned that some don't believe for political reasons.  Others
    believe the word is translated, youg maiden.  Would be interested to
    know what the mods point of view is!!
    
    -Jack

    .75  Uhh, Jack.  I'm not all the Mods.  Neither can I speak for them
    all, especially on matters of faith.
    
    For me, the virgin birth isn't an issue of plausibility.  It's more
    an issue of necessity.  For me, Jesus is Lord whether or not his mother
    was a virgin.
    
    Peace,
    Richard
    

Oh by the way, Richard, you are indeed correct that
nowhere does Scripture state that belief in the virgin
birth is a prerequisite for salvation.

Personally, I have no desire to attach strings to the
free gift that God offers to all.

    In a sense, you are correct.  Jesus could have made his entry into the
    world anyway he wishes, for he is in control of all things.
    
    Just a tidbit to spur more conversation on this subject and I realize I 
    have brought this about before.
    
    "...and Josias begat Jechonias and his bretheren, just about the time 
    they were carried away to Babylon.  And after they were brought to
    Babylon, Jechonias begat..." Matthew 1:12   
    
    This verse is about the mid point of the family lineage between Abraham
    and Joseph.   One more passage and then I will tie them together to
    make my point.
    
    "Thus said the Lord, write this man childless, a man that shall not
    prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon
    the throne of David, and ruling anymore in Judah."  Jeremiah 22:30.
    
    Apparently, this King made some sort of wicked covenant with his
    father, Jehoiachim, causing God to put a curse upon him.  vs. 24-27
    will also give more background.  
    
    We know from prophecy that Jesus must come from the line of David.  We
    see in Matt 1 and Luke 3 that both Mary and Joseph came from this line.
    However, they both came from different branches of the family tree. 
    Since Joseph is of the same branch as Jeconiah, the curse would apply
    to all his descendants, including Joseph.  It can be concluded
    therefore that Jesus was NOT from the branch of Joseph as far as the
    blood line is concerned,  Since it is
    apparent that Jesus did come from Mary, the curse would not be applied
    to him.  
    
    This leads us to a few possible conclusions.
    
    A. Mary was espoused to Joseph and held to the letter of the law,
    therefore, she was indeed a virgin in which case the virgin birth is
    crucial.
    
    B. She was a rape victim but the rapist MUST be of the lineage of David
    and MUST NOT be of the same branch Joseph was from.  
    
    C. She had premarital intercourse with Joseph, subject to the death
    penalty under the Mosaic law and cut off from her people.  Furthermore,
    the curse Joseph inherited would have to be stopped by the grace of
    God.
    
    Thanks and let's spur one another toward greater learning.
    
    -Jack
    
    Mind you, I am stating a premise and laying the foundation for it.  I
    don't claim to have the answers, just laying out the possibilities of
    other opinions.  I would be very interested in others perspectives
    here.  We all know there is a dispute regarding what the word, "virgin"
    means.  What I'm interested in hearing is other possibilities and how
    you came to believe them.  

re Note 831.78 by AIMHI::JMARTIN:

>     C. She had premarital intercourse with Joseph, subject to the death
>     penalty under the Mosaic law and cut off from her people.  Furthermore,
>     the curse Joseph inherited would have to be stopped by the grace of
>     God.
  
        This isn't such an implausible scenario, especially in the
        light of the traditional Christian view of salvation in which
        ALL sin is forgiven.

        Conversely, if one believes God wouldn't forgive Mary and
        Joseph in such a circumstance, and lift the curse on the
        lineage in which Joseph stood, why would anyone believe God
        would forgive far graver sins without number and lift a curse
        stretching all the way back to the first human beings?

        Bob

    No question Bob, God could and certainly would forgive this sin.  As we
    see later in his life, he forgave for many iniquities.
    
    I call to your attention some interesting verses.
    
    "Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a
    man?:  Luke 1:34.
    
    Under the scenario of premarital relations, this question would imply a
    lie on her part to the angel.  Not only that, a complete case of denial
    and lack of remorse and repentance.
    
    Matthew 1:19 - Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not
    willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away
    prively."  
    
    Unrepentant and intentional sin would not fit the description of a just
    man in the eyes of the Jews and of God.  Furthermore, both man and
    woman are subject to the same penalty under the law of adultery.  
    He therefore is not a just man, or she alone incurs the guilt of
    adultery and he is exhonorated.  Not supported by scripture.
    (Incidentally, this would be a groce violation of sexism in my mind.)
    
    Matthew 1:20 - But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel
    of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of 
    David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is
    conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost."
    
    Verse 22 and 23 confirms that this is a fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14.
    
    In light of the adultery argument being plausable, how would one fit
    into the scope of things the statement made by the angel in Matt 1:20?
    
    -Jack

re Note 831.80 by AIMHI::JMARTIN:

>     In light of the adultery argument being plausable, how would one fit
>     into the scope of things the statement made by the angel in Matt 1:20?
  
        You proposed it, I was just supporting you!

        Bob

    Oh no problem Bob, this is strictly for interesting thought and
    discussion.  I was carrying the argument further for anybody to answer.
    Thanks for the reply!
    
    -Jack

	re: .74 Collis.

	Hi! Sorry, I have no real intention of busting your nose.  But I
	would urge you to try to put your predjuces aside when reading
	or hearing arguments which lead to conclusions with which you
	do not agree.

	Neither do I intend to change the rules of logic. In the case in
	question, I did not *at any time* claim to be using logic. As you
	probably know, logic requires a bridge from one step to the next:
	"If a, then a1 but, if b, then b1 or b2..."  

	My argument does not claim to be linked by these bridges: it was
	simply a chain of human reasoning *with all that implies in terms
	of human error*.  That does NOT make it nonsensical.  It does
	expose the conclusion open reasoned counter-argument.  However,
	counter-argument to *my* conclusions should be based on *my*
	reasoning not on (false) assumptions of my agenda or premises or
	on distorted renderings of what I said.  (An example is in .74
	where you begin: In other words... - a complete distortion of
	what I said).
	
	These are strategies (forgive me if the word implies 'deliberate
	strategies': that is not intended) which you continuously employ
	and which, even when your error is pointed out to you, you persist
	in employing. Then, the patience of a saint would be severly tried.
	I am not a saint!  (Which you probably guessed).

	Again: my reasoning:

	The word "bethuwla" *translates* to 'virgin' and nothing else. (In
	8 of 39 uses in the OT it is translated to 'maid' but this is a
	mistranslation: and none of these cases would lead to serious
	dispute). Isiah uses the word 3 times and it is always translated
	as 'virgin' - correctly.

	The word "almah" cannot be *translated* to 'virgin' but to: 'young
	'woman', 'maid', 'of marriagable age', 'newly married'.  Some of
	these *translations* can be *interpreted* to mean 'virgin.  The
	word "almah" is used thrice in the OT (Ex. 2:8, Pr. 62:5 and
	Is. 7:14) Twice it is correctly translated as 'maid' and once
	it is *interpreted* as 'virgin (Isaiah).

	*I* conclude - not nonsensically - from this that the word 'virgin'
	is incorrectly used in IS. 7:14.  This conclusion does not require
	that it is "impossible for two word to mean the same thing"(qv .68)

	>in fact I gave you a reasoned argument why Isaiah *MUST*
	>have used *EXACTLY* this word (assuming the integrity of
	>Scripture.

	OK let's look at it (bearing in mind that the *EXACT* word used
	by Isaiah was "almah" not "virgin".) It was .68

	>Let's assume for a moment that the Bible is correct.

	OK, but only for a moment: we don't want to cause an epidemic. :-)

	>First, Isaiah made a prophecy in 735 B.C. that was fulfilled when
	>a young woman of marriagable age shortly thereafter had a child.
	>This woman was, presumably, not a virgin.

	But - on your assumptions - Isaiah *EXACTLY* intended "virgin"

	Either the prophecy was here fulfilled and she *was* a virgin,
	or it was not fulfilled and she was not a virgin (which you
	*assume* - sorry - presume).

	OR, Isaiah did not intend *EXACTLY* "virgin". (But we are assuming
	for the moment that the Bible is correct).

	So he *did* mean *EXACTLY* "virgin" and the prophecy was - in any
	case - fulfilled? Is this your reasoning, Collis?

	Well.. OK!

	>Isaiah talks about what will happen before the child is 2 ...
	> ...12 or 13. This prophecy is fulfilled.

	If the first part was fulfilled, so was this part. Right? OK!

	>In addition, this prophecy *also* applies to the Messiah. In
	>this case, a *virgin* would be with child.

	I missed the reasoning, Collis.  It certainly is not written in
	Isaiah.  I have searched and found no indication in any text
	written before Jesus' birth, that this should also apply to the
	Messiah.  Unless, of course, Isaiah, when he wrote "Immanuel" meant
	*EXACTLY* Jesus.

	Well: we were agreed (I think) that a word can have more than one
	interpretation.

	>Now, given that the prophecy has two distinct fulfillments...

	I understand the term "given that.." to mean "taking as a fact
	that.." Ok: Given that the sun is cold, I am immune from sunburn.
	No, Collis: You cannot throw "givens" into a discussion without
	agreement of your partner. If you wish to *assume* that the 
	prophecy has two distinct fulfillments, that's fine. But do not
	demand that I agree.  And, above all, do not make chains of
	assumptions and, when you have reached your conclusion, call it
	reason or logic. It is neither.

	It would be far more honest for you to say: for me the conlcusion
	is clear.  Therefore, the following assumptions or givens are 
	necessary to arrive at this conclusion.

	>Now, given that the prophecy has two distinct fulfillments and
	>meanings, what other word could *possibly* be used?
		
	"Maid", perhaps?  It would certainly have fitted *both* prophecies
	without *insisting* on virginity while, at the same time, not
	excluding it.

	>Actually any other word would simply have been wrong.

	Thus, I fail to understand your reasoning.

	Oddly enough, Isaiah did just that: "almah" is translated as 'maid'
	which, in turn can be, but must not be - *interpreted as 'virgin'.
	It was the Septaugint translators who  threw the dogmatists into a
	flat spin.

	I do not claim that your replies are nonsense, Collis. I would be
	grateful if, in the future, you would demonstrate a similar
	respect for mine.

	Greetings, Derek.

	PS 

	>Let's assume for a moment that the Bible is correct.

	The time has run out.	:-) 

    Derek, you may very well be correct on your account of the
    translations.  However, Mary affirms her virginity in Matthew 1,
    therefore, it would appear your argument is moot?!
    
    -Jack

	Re .84: Jack

	Thanks, Jack.  I was not discussing the virginity of Mary, however.

	I guess the underlying point is: For some, Jesus was not the Messiah
	unless he was born of a virgin. Therefore, salvation is dependent upon
	her virginal motherhood.

	Thos who believe this doctrine depend - as far as I understand it - on
	Isaiah's "prophecy".

	Since I have adequately demonstrated - at least to myself - that this
	"prophecy" rests on a mistranslation, I do not believe that it was one:
	notwithstanding Matthew's apparent reference to it.

	This in no way denies that Mary was a virgin. It leaves the question open.

	I do not think that I will ever come to believe that she was.

	Greetings, Derek.

Re:  .83

The distinction between "translated" and "interpreted" is
not quite so clear as you are trying to make it, in my
opinion.  To say that:

  >The word "almah" cannot be *translated* to 'virgin'

when word studies (which I have seen presented in my classes
at GCTS) clearly show that it is sometimes used as synonomous
with virgin is either

  1)  wrong
or
  2)  makes a distinction between translated and intepreted
      that goes beyond a reasonable line, in my opinion.

If either can mean virgin or it can't.  If it can mean virgin,
(and the context argues for that meaning), then what is
inappropriate about putting down that meaning for the word
(whether you call it translating or interpretation)?

You are simply wrong is you claim that almah never means
virgin.  I have seen the proof to the contrary.  It can and
does mean this in some contexts.

  >But - on your assumptions - Isaiah *EXACTLY* intended "virgin"

No, God intended *both* meanings in different contexts.  This
is not unusual for prophecy.  You'll find a number of prophecies
in the Old and New Testament that have *dual* fulfillments when
understand in different ways.  If we refuse to accept that this
is the way God writes, that is our problem.  And believe me, this
is one of the major obstacles in understanding and accepting the
Bible - insisting that it conform to our understanding of *what*
it should say and *how* it should say it.  Once we accept the Bible
for what it actually is and claims to be, the vast majority of 
problems that seemed so troublesome are no longer even issues
(although certainly there are still difficulties).

Collis

Derek,

Matthew's proclamation of Mary's virginity is not dependent
on Isaiah's prophecy.  This is a misunderstanding of the role
of a prophet of God.  Matthew did point to the prophesy as
well as to the fulfillment.  He also shared some of what Mary
went through who clearly announced to God that she was a virgin
and God equally clearly responded that He Himself would bring
forth a child from Mary.

So, in effect, there are 3 seperate witnesses:  Isaiah,
Matthew, and Mary (although Mary's witness is contained in
Matthew's writings).  

I think you are correct in saying that we could not be dogmatic
about Mary's virginity based on the prophecy in Isaiah alone;
without more to guide us, we could translate this in ways
other than virgin. 

Collis

    Derek:
    
    Just to carry the discussion further, (and thanks for clearing up my
    misunderstanding), you stated you don't think you could ever come to
    believe Mary was in fact a virgin.  If I heard this correctly, then who
    do you think was Jesus'natural dad?
    
    -Jack

    .78
    
    D. Mary had intercourse with someone else, someone not introduced
       in the story.  Mind you, I'm not saying this was the case, but
       this is a story that circulated in the early centuries.
    
    Richard
    

Or, the virgin birth story was fictional to begin with, inspired by the
misinterpretation of the prophesy, and Mary gave birth to Jesus after she
was married to Joseph.  (Assuming that there really was a person named
Jesus / Yeshua who was the son of Mary and Joseph.)

				-- Bob

 "for we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known
 unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses
 of His majesty"  2 Peter 1:16





 Jim

    I can't say for certain, but it seems like the author was speaking
    about docetism or gnosticism or some such thing.  I doubt the author
    was speaking about being an eyewitness to the virginity of Jesus' mother,
    don't you?
    
    Richard

    Bob:
    
    Jesus could not be a blood descendent of Joseph because of the curse
    I brought up some entries back.
    
    -Jack

>    I can't say for certain, but it seems like the author was speaking
>    about docetism or gnosticism or some such thing.  I doubt the author
>    was speaking about being an eyewitness to the virginity of Jesus' mother,
>    don't you?
    
 

 Yes, however we see so many allegations of fables, myths, etc I wished to
 point out that Peter (as well as John) pointed out on more than one occasion
 the fact that they were eyewitnesses to what had taken place, as well as
 the source of information presented in the Bible.


Jim

    re: Note 831.94 by CSLALL::HENDERSON 

    > Yes, however we see so many allegations of fables, myths, etc I wished
    > to point out that Peter (as well as John) pointed out on more than one
    > occasion the fact that they were eyewitnesses to what had taken place,
    > as well as the source of information presented in the Bible.

    So, in their own words, they are establishing the veracity of the
    testimony on their personal experiences rather than any supernaturally
    delivered message. :^) They, as good men, are recording their
    experiences to the best of their abilities, rather than passing on
    fables, myths and urban legends.

    Eric

    I'm sorry. I'm being a bit of a brat today :^) 

     I will simply say that its a matter of choice.
    Until you fully give your life over to Christ and move
    it out of your head into your heart, unbelief will feel the same as
    belief.
    
    Nancy

Re: .93 Jack

>    Jesus could not be a blood descendent of Joseph because of the curse
>    I brought up some entries back.
    
If Matthew invented a virgin birth he could also have invented the
genealogy that included Joseph's cursed ancestor.  I think it's clear that
Matthew and Luke said that Mary was a virgin, and that they thought that
Jesus had to be born of a virgin in order to fulfil the prophesy.  If in
fact Mary was not a virgin then Matthew and Luke were wrong, so everything
else they said about Jesus's birth is also suspect.

The curse that you mentioned is interesting, because in the Revised
Standard Version at least the names don't match up very well.  Jeremiah
22:24-30 says that the cursed applies to the offspring of "Coniah the son
of Jehoiakim, king of Judah".  According to 2 Kings the son of Jehoiakim
who became king after him was Jehoiachin.  Were Coniah and Jehoiachin the
same person, or was Coniah the brother of Jehoiachin?

Some of the details don't match between 2 Kings and 2 Chronicles, by the
way.  2 Kings says that Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he became
king (24:8), and that he was succeeded by his uncle Zedekiah (originally
named Mattaniah) (24:17), while 2 Chronicles says that Johoiachin was
eight years old when he became king (36:9) and was succeeded by his
brother Zedekiah (36:10).

According to Matthew, Joseph was descended from "Josiah the father of
Jechoniah and his brothers, at the time of the deportation to Babylon".
Is Jechoniah the same as the Coniah in Jeremiah and the Jehoiachin in 2
Kings?  But Jeremiah says that Coniah was the son of Jehoiakin, who was
the son of Josiah, so Coniah was the grandson, not the son, of Josiah.

Further confusion: Matthew says that Jacob was the father of Joseph (1:16)
while Luke says that Joseph was the son of Heli (3:23).  Yes, I know, the
inerrantists claim that Joseph was really the son-in-law of Heli and that
in the language of the day it was common to say "son" when you meant
"son-in-law".  That's a nice theory, but I'd like to see other examples of
when "son" really meant "son-in-law".

				-- Bob

Re: .97 (me)

>Were Coniah and Jehoiachin the
>same person, or was Coniah the brother of Jehoiachin?

According to 1 Chronicles 3:17 the sons of Jehoiakim were Jeconiah and
Zedekiah.  It seems reasonable that Jeconiah is the same as Coniah, and
since Jehoiachin was the first born son of Jehoiakim it follows that
Jehoiachin and (Je)Coniah were the same person.

				-- Bob

    What difference does it make who Joseph's father was... he wasn't
    Jesus' father. 
    
    Simple, doesn't take much exegesis to come to a conclusion.
    
    :-)
    Nancy, the simpleton

   knock off that exajeetin ;-)

    But if the two Gospels cannot get it right who Joseph's father was, why
    should we expect them to get it right who Jesus' father was?
    
    
    Patricia

    	re: .86 Collis.
    
    	Ok Collis, I guess we have both presented our opinions. Maybe we
    	should quit here and let the others come to word.
    
    	Greetings and good wishes, Derek.

  >The curse that you mentioned is interesting, because in the Revised
  >Standard Version at least the names don't match up very well.  Jeremiah
  >22:24-30 says that the cursed applies to the offspring of "Coniah the son
  >of Jehoiakim, king of Judah".  According to 2 Kings the son of Jehoiakim
  >who became king after him was Jehoiachin.  Were Coniah and Jehoiachin the
  >same person, or was Coniah the brother of Jehoiachin?

Names not matching up well happens all over the place.  However, it
rarely indicates a problem in the history; it much more frequently
indicates something else such as multiple names, multiple spellings,
etc.

  >Some of the details don't match between 2 Kings and 2 Chronicles, by the
  >way.  2 Kings says that Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he became
  >king (24:8), and that he was succeeded by his uncle Zedekiah (originally
  >named Mattaniah) (24:17), while 2 Chronicles says that Johoiachin was
  >eight years old when he became king (36:9) and was succeeded by his
  >brother Zedekiah (36:10).

If you want to post this in a different note, I'll try to take
a look at it for you to see if there is a reasonable explanation.

  >so Coniah was the grandson, not the son, of Josiah.

The Hebrew word translated "son" also means "descendent".
 
  >That's a nice theory, but I'd like to see other examples of
  >when "son" really meant "son-in-law".

So would I.  Any scholars around here?

Collis

  >But if the two Gospels cannot get it right who Joseph's father was, why
  >should we expect them to get it right who Jesus' father was?
   
The two Gospels do get it right.  The problem is with the reader
who assumes a writer is saying something that isn't being said
and applying 20th century English meanings to 1st century Greek
words.

Collis

    .104
    
    Thanks Collis! :-)

    Actually the problem is with readers who are so committed to their own
    assumptions about the Bible that they can normalize any and all
    conflicting data in a way that convinces them that there are no
    disagreements.

    .106
    
    Thanks Patricia! :-)

    Aren't we parroting. :-)
    
    Patricia... faith is not an educated response.  Yet it is faith that
    moves mountains and hearts into restoration.
    
    Faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things
    not seen...
    
    I don't have to prove the Bible, for the Bible reproves me.
    

I would like all interested parties to note the paradox between these two
replies.
-----------------------------------------
    
>>Note 831.106     Belief in Virgin Birth Required for Salvation?       106 of 108
>>AKOCOA::FLANAGAN "honor the web"                      4 lines   2-FEB-1994 15:08

>>    Actually the problem is with readers who are so committed to their own
>>    assumptions about the Bible that they can normalize any and all
>>    conflicting data in a way that convinces them that there are no
>>    disagreements.
-----------------------------
>>Note 831.16      Belief in Virgin Birth Required for Salvation?        16 of 108
>>AKOCOA::FLANAGAN "honor the web"                     16 lines  27-JAN-1994 13:14
                               -< harmful myth. >-

>>    Actually the myth of the Virgin birth is a myth that is very
>>    destructive to women.  It presents a no win paradox for a woman.
    
>>        It presents two conflicting assumptions.
    
>>    1.  It is better to not have sex than to have sex.
>>    2.  Being a mother is the most noble thing a women can do.

Patricia, I do respect you and enjoy our correspondence.  In all honesty
however, if this belief of yours isn't based on a personal agenda, then I 
don't know what is!!  

-Jack                                    
    
    

    Nancy,
    
    strange,
    
    I agree with the words you use to describe your faith.  Faith is not
    intellectual, it is a whole body experience.  Faith is not in what is
    seen but what is unseen.  My faith does not require me to believe in
    the Bible or to reconcile parts of the Bible which my intelligence
    tells me are irreconcilable.  Since my Faith does not depend on the
    Bible I do not have to prove that the Bible is consistent.  It has
    wonderful value with all of its inconsistencies and stuff of humankind.
    
    Perhaps you could also say Faith is not in what is read but in what is
    not read.
    
    Patricia

    My personal Agenda is to be a part of a Faith community which values
    the worth and dignity of every person.  That values Justice, equity,
    and love.  That honors the interconnected web in which we are all
    connected. That values Reason in our search for truth.
    
    My feminism is very much a part of my spiritual quest just as your need
    to preserve the status quo is part of your "Agenda".  Part of my Agenda
    is to move us as a community of people from the destructive forces of
    violence, oppression, hunger, abuse, neglect to a committed community
    in which the basis code of moral behavoir is "To love God with all
    one's heart, soul, and mind, and to love one's neighbor as themselves."
    
    So what is your "Agenda"   Is "Agenda" a PC word used by conservatives?

    Patricia:
    
    I value your agenda greatly.  I am for every single thing you
    mentioned.  Anything for the betterment of the human race.
    By the way, I am not anti feminist, I am anti feminazi.
    
    The point I was trying to make by appending your two replies together
    was this.  This is what I'm hearing from you so correct me if I'm
    wrong....
    
    "I reject the virgin birth of Jesus Christ, not because it didn't
    happen, but because the story of the virgin birth is a slap in the face
    of women and doesn't portray the proper image of how women should be
    treated in our society.  It is an unhealthy teaching."
    
    If I'm wrong, straighten me out.  If I am right, then you are putting
    forth your agenda at the cost of what could be a factual historical
    event.  Your premise is based on politics and not history, scripture,
    whatever measurement one wants to use.
    
    Something similar to this way of thinking happened at UMASS a few
    months ago.  It seems a group of students wanted the minuteman removed
    as their university symbol.  They claimed it was racist and sexist to 
    have a minuteman and it promoted violence.   What nonsensical
    hogwash!  First of all, war is violent, there is no way around this.
    Secondly, minutemen fought in the revolutionary war.  They had slavery
    back then and women didn't fight, period.  It is history, there is no
    changing the past!  
    
    Replacing reason with symbolism has never and will never work.  Denying an
    historical event is a crime when it is done to spare the feelings of a
    special interest group.  It does not promote the betterment of society
    and we are doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past if we continue on
    this course.
    
    If one doesn't believe the virgin birth, great, no problem.  But don't
    suggest that it wouldn't be PC for God to do it that way.  
    
    -Jack

  >Actually the problem is with readers who are so committed to their own
  >assumptions about the Bible...

In other words, acceptance of the Biblical claims...

Yes, I am committed to accepting the Biblical claims as true.
I believe it is foolishness to believe otherwise (the Bible
claims that it is foolishness to not believe what God has
said or truth).

It is also interesting to note that historians *start* with
the *assumption* that the document is accurate.  (We're talking
about any historical document).  There is a well-defined
process for researching and evaluating documents from a
historical perspective.  Personally, I've found that the
evidence in favor of continuing the assumption far outweighs
the evidence in favor of rejecting it.

Collis

    Jack,
    
    It never occured to me that the Virgin birth could be anything but a
    myth.  It is consistent with other myths of divine origin, It is
    consistent with a primitive understanding of genetics. It breaks all
    the scientific rules of the physical world. As a myth and a
    symbol it is harmful to women.
    
    Jack, myths and symbols and images are more powerful in influencing
    human behavoir than rational arguments.  Myths, symbols and images act
    on our unconscious and subconscious minds to produce continue
    acceptance and development of what is symbolized.  When the women at
    UMass object to a state symbol, they are not trying to change history,
    merely which aspects of history we choose to symbolize.
    
    My "Feminist" agenda is to point out how the myths and symbols that we
    hold on to serve to oppress.
    
    Patricia

    >My "Feminist" agenda is to point out how the myths and symbols that we
    >hold on to serve to oppress.

At the expense of truth?  I think that's the point that Jack is
making.  He sees you rejecting what is true because you are
unhappy with how people interpret it and then act because of
it.  The fact that you mentioned that it never occurred to you
that this was anything but a myth (which may mean that the truth
of this never occurred to you depending on what you mean by
myth in this context) suggests that the truth or non-truth of
this is not an issue.

I think that truth or non-truth is a very substantial issue.

Collis

If you want to see a society in which the patriarchy has been eliminated,
go to Dorchester and Roxbury.

/john

    Your point of view, I understand.  However, you are assuming it to be a
    myth when the majority of believers believe it to be fact.  
    
    Rgds.,
    
    -Jack

    John,
    
    I grew up in Roxbury and Jamaica Plain so I am intimately knowledgeable
    about the problems in that area and about the problems faced by single
    mothers trying to bring up families which I think you are aluding too.
    
    The problems there are a lot more complex then your alledged
    elimination of "Patriarchy".  If you were knowledgable about hierarchical
    structures and the oppression caused by them, you would know that
    women who are single mothers and poor have even less power than upper
    middle class married women.
    
    Patricia

    
    Actually, the Virgin Birth has its merits.
    
    Shows that we women don't need men for anything.  (;^)
    
    Cindy 

    Patricia:
    
    Again you are making an assumption.  You make hierarchy synonamous with
    oppression.  The inner city problems are of a very serious nature, no
    doubt.  I believe much of the problems of the family structure in South
    Boston have much to do with the lack of responsibility of fathers in
    the family.  
    
    I believe there is a verse in Proverbs that says something to the
    effect of..."He who does not provide for his own is an abomination in
    the sight of the Lord."    It's somewhere in the Bible but I am not 
    sure.  
    
    If a father is to set the spiritual tone in the family and be the
    provider, then one who is not providing is not fulfilling his role.
    Therefore, he is not acting as the head but as one who is abominable
    in the sight of God.   
    
    The fact that 4 out of 5 minority children in Boston will be born in
    fatherless homes this year is the epitomy of societies reliance on
    govenment and no focus on biblical principles.  There is no recognition
    of ones need for salvation and atonement.  This to me is the
    responsibility of the father although this knowledge can certainly be
    provided by the mother.   It is not an ability issue, it is a family
    role issue.
    
    -Jack

    Cindy:
    
    :-)  :-)  :-)  :-)  :-)
    
    -Jack

What is a "feminazi" and how is it related to its apparent linguistic 
relative of German National Socialism, a.k.a. Nazi?

Jim

re Note 831.120 by AIMHI::JMARTIN:

>     The fact that 4 out of 5 minority children in Boston will be born in
>     fatherless homes this year is the epitomy of societies reliance on
>     govenment and no focus on biblical principles.  

        I thought it had more to do with the father's abandoning
        their responsibilities than anybody relying upon government. 
        And at least part of that abandonment is due to the fathers'
        inability to contribute much to the family's well-being.

        If the welfare system itself were abolished tomorrow, do you
        believe that the fathers would show up the next day?

        Bob

    Actually, a feminazi in its purest definition is a woman who gets
    mad when an abortion doesn't happen.  There are actually very few of
    them in our society but I can see their influence within the ranks 
    of feminists from time to time.  Examples are:
    
    Bella Absook   	Molly Yard             
    Gloria Steinham     Betty Freedant (sp?)          	
    
    The jury is still out on Anita Hill, Judge Hirschner, and Hanoi Jane!
    
    -Jack

    Oh, I forgot...Patsy Schroeder is public enemy number 1!!!

    
    Then I take back my earlier comment...I object to the term altogether.
         
    Cindy

    I figured you would Cindy.  

    The term was coined by Rush L.
    
    Marc H.

    Yes, and the term, "Prochoice" was coined by a former abortionist who
    is now an avid prolifer.  But I suppose now he doesn't have anything
    valid to say...

    I concur with .128.  "FemiNazis" is a right-wing PC term designed to
    raise the hackles of feminists and liberals.
    
    Richard
    

    Richard,
    
    Ever hear of Population Zero?  Believe me, whatever you want to call
    them, FemiNAZIs exist.
    
    -Jack

re Note 831.131 by AIMHI::JMARTIN:

>     Ever hear of Population Zero?  Believe me, whatever you want to call
>     them, FemiNAZIs exist.
  
        No argument -- they exist.

        But when the term is used by commentators like Rush L., they
        intend, deliberately and with intent to mislead, a sweeping
        condemnation of almost the entire feminist movement, not just
        an insignificantly few extremists.

        (My mother, for example (a Rush L. fan), uses the terms
        "FemiNAZIs" and "feminists" as synonymous.  This would be
        like considering "Davidians" to be synonymous with
        "Christian" -- I'm sure that in some parts of the world you
        could convince a lot of people of this latter equation, but
        we know it ain't so.)

        Bob

    No arguments here.  If fact, I have heard feminists like Marjorie
    Claprood accuse Limbaugh of calling all feminists Feminazis.  I was
    merely replying to the question of, What is a feminazi.  
    
    I actually don't watch or hear Rush that much and I realize he is also
    an entertainer, not just a commentator.  I do know however that the few
    times I've heard him discuss this, he has always made it clear as to
    what a feminazi is.   In fact, just last week he mentioned that the
    feminist movement of the late 60's did alot of good.  It raised peoples 
    awareness of equal rights such as equal pay, etc.  It is what he calls
    the wackos of the 80's and 90's such as the NOW organizations and
    others promoting ideas such as making lesbians a status, comprable to
    race, etc.  Heck I even know activist lesbians who think this is
    ridiculous.  
    
    Like I said, I agree.  To term all feminists as feminazis is as
    brainless and stupid as calling all people against gay rights
    homophobes.  Totally unfounded, and stupid!
    
    -Jack 

    
    I thought you had just made up the term, Jack, which was the
    assumption behind my earlier reply.
    
    I had no idea it was used in other places, other ways...
    
    Cindy

    Cindy:
    
    I realize the term isn't dignified and I do believe that feminism holds
    alot of merit.  Believe me, I pay the bills in my house but my wife
    gets the funny money.  I get a $10.00 allowance every week, (I give it
    to myself).  I have full faith in her abilities and value her
    judgement.  I have worked at DEC for six years and have never reported
    to a male.  So you see, I value women and women's rights.  At the same
    time, I also hold the individual roles of a husband and wife in high
    regard.  If some choose to look at this as oppression, hey...whatever.
    
    -Jack

>        But when the term is used by commentators like Rush L., they
>        intend, deliberately and with intent to mislead, a sweeping
>        condemnation of almost the entire feminist movement, not just
>        an insignificantly few extremists.

	Gee, I didn't get that out of either one of Rush's books. I thought
	he was pretty clear about the small sub set of the feminist
	movement he was targeting with that word. Have you read his books
	or listened to his explaination of the word or just "heard from
	someone who heard somewhere?"

			Alfred

re Note 831.136 by CVG::THOMPSON:

> >        But when the term is used by commentators like Rush L., they
> >        intend, deliberately and with intent to mislead, a sweeping
> >        condemnation of almost the entire feminist movement, not just
> >        an insignificantly few extremists.
> 
> 	Gee, I didn't get that out of either one of Rush's books. I thought
> 	he was pretty clear about the small sub set of the feminist
> 	movement he was targeting with that word. Have you read his books
> 	or listened to his explaination of the word or just "heard from
> 	someone who heard somewhere?"
  
        If a talk show host in a Muslim country brought up the
        subject of Christianity and tried to make points by referring
        to the Davidians or Jim Jones' cult, would you think that was
        an attempt to be fair or would it be an attempt to
        characterize a large group by a fringe?

        No, I have not read Rush's books.  Yes, I have heard him and
        other otherwise quite respectable commentators (for example,
        Boston's local David Brudnoy) use the term as if they
        represented a horde just about to overthrow our society.  Are
        there any conservative fringe elements that Rush
        characterizes using terms derived from "Nazi"?

        I have no doubt that Rush intends to discredit feminism in
        the large by referring to feminism's fringe by that term.

        And, as my experience with my mother and others shows, that
        attempt at discrediting succeeds with many people.

        Bob

re Note 831.133 by AIMHI::JMARTIN:

>     In fact, just last week he mentioned that the
>     feminist movement of the late 60's did alot of good.  It raised peoples 
>     awareness of equal rights such as equal pay, etc.  It is what he calls
>     the wackos of the 80's and 90's such as the NOW organizations and
>     others promoting ideas such as making lesbians a status, comprable to

        Conservatives are always praising liberals of the past!

        During the past few US presidential elections, Republicans
        couldn't heap enough praise on Harry Truman and even John
        Kennedy!

        Bob

    Let's face it, Truman was used as a pawn to try and retrieve the Reagan
    democrates.  John Kennedy, hmmmmm, I don't remember too much praise for
    him.  He was praised for being a supply sider, unlike Clinton.  He was 
    praised for serving his country,  unlike...      
    
    That's about all the praise I recall about JFK.   
    
    I don't praise liberals in much of anything.  They're either well
    intentioned individuals who haven't learned from the blunders of the
    past, or they are disingenuous elitists with an agenda to perform
    social engineering, which by the way never work either.  
    
    -Jack

re: Note 831.131 by Jack

>    Ever hear of Population Zero?  

I've heard of ZPG: Zero Population Growth.  Never heard of any group that 
wanted earth's entire human population to equal zero.  Can you tell me more 
about this Population Zero group?

I find the term demeaning and belittling of the effect that Nazi Germany had
on gays, gypsies, Catholics, Jews, and others.  A term I would be very careful
bandying about in a conference such as this. 

Cheers,

Jim

    .110
    
>    strange,
    
>    I agree with the words you use to describe your faith.  Faith is not
>    intellectual, it is a whole body experience.  Faith is not in what is
>    seen but what is unseen.  My faith does not require me to believe in
>    the Bible or to reconcile parts of the Bible which my intelligence
>    tells me are irreconcilable.  Since my Faith does not depend on the
>    Bible I do not have to prove that the Bible is consistent.  It has
>    wonderful value with all of its inconsistencies and stuff of humankind.

It isn't my definition, Patricia.  Its Paul's :-).  Hebrews 11:1
    


>    Perhaps you could also say Faith is not in what is read but in what is
>    not read.

I would agree with this... but we must be careful in that contrary to 
what many believe, God is not whatever you *think* him to be.  He is the 
great I am.  This is an absolute not a variable.

In His Love,
Nancy
    
 
    

    Nancy,
    
    You and I seem to have a consistent definition of what faith is.  
    Faith is an unverifyable, absolute belief in the unseen, absolute God.
    
    Faith is not in what is seen but in what is unseen.
    
    So my question, if you believe in the inerrantcy of the Bible, is that
    really Faith in an unverifyable, absolute, unseen God or is it Faith in
    the accuracy of the Bible?
    
    Now if we assume that the Bible is the innerant word of God and that we
    can truly know God through our knowledge of the Bible, then does not
    this abililty to know God negate the concept of the unseen,
    unverifyable, absolute God.
    
    Is that not faith in the innerancy of the Bible and not faith in God?
    Is that not idolatry?
    
    And getting back to my previous question and to the specific of whether
    a boy child is more blessed than a girl child. And that is the
    fundemental question behind woman ministers and women teachers and
    woman speaking in churches.  Boy children are more blessed than girl
    children because boy children are created in the image of God.
    
    Nancy, can you as a woman really accept that.  Even if your pastor
    tells you it is true, your church tells you it is true and the Bible
    tells you it is true.  Is it not really a demonstration of faith in the
    unseen God to know it is not true in spite of all the piles of Human
    authority that would affirm to the greater worth of the boy child.
    
    Patricia
    

>    And getting back to my previous question and to the specific of whether
>    a boy child is more blessed than a girl child.

Does the bible say that a boy child is more blessed than a girl child?

When this was discussed in the other topic, I pointed out that what the
bible calls for is that the first male child shall be dedicated to the
Lord, in remembrance of God's deliverance of his people from slavery in
Egypt and because of his destruction of the first male child of the
Egyptians because of their stubbornness.

That's what the Bible says.  It does not say that a boy child is more
blessed than a girl child.  Besides, earlier you were trying to claim
something about a woman being more blessed because of a boy child than
a girl child.  It's rather difficult to address all these moving targets,
moving from child to mother and from topic to topic.

/john

    RE: .142
    I'll jump in.....Patrica.....why do you think that the image of God is
    male? I don't.
    
    Marc H.

Re:  Rush and language

I watch Rush very occasionally, but he always seems to be very
precise about his terms, constantly defining what he does and
does not mean.  I have no doubt that the term "feminazi" is intended
to discredit those he applies the label term; likewise I have no
doubt that he applies this label to a small subset of feminists
and is very clear about doing it.

Re:  .142

    >And getting back to my previous question and to the specific of whether
    >a boy child is more blessed than a girl child. And that is the
    >fundemental question behind woman ministers and women teachers and
    >woman speaking in churches.  Boy children are more blessed than girl
    >children because boy children are created in the image of God.

According to the Bible, we all have equal worth before God and we
all are created in the image of God.  Please don't pass off this
drivel (no offense to you intended, but that's what this message is)
as Biblical and/or what mainstream conservative teaches (anything
can be taught in a few corners of any movement).

Now, it is true that our society often judges worth based on
roles; it is equally true that God does not.  Attempting to push
women in roles reserved for men (or men in roles reserved for women)
does not increase their worth, rather it devalues all and is an
over-reaction to a legitimate human problem (of valueing *all* life).

Collis

    Very few people I know can read first Corinthians without interpreting
    the text as strongly suggesting that only men are created in the image
    of God.  It is not drivel.  I know you have stated your disagreement
    before that that is what I Cor says.
    
    Patricia

Patricia will constantly state the falsehood about the image of God.

Many times we have shown her that the bible states

	Male and female created he them,
	In his own image create he them.

Patricia has an agenda of claiming that the bible devalues women,
which she refuses to abandon.  It is the starting point for her
denial of the whole bible and also for God's plan of salvation.

Patricia, you are a member of the species called "man".  It is that species,
both its male and female members, who are created in God's image.

/john

    
    
    Thus speakest the authority on all things related to Christianity.
    
      Sheeeeeeessssssssssshhhhhhhhhhhhh.
    
      Can you say ego?
    
           GJD

    >Very few people I know can read first Corinthians without interpreting
    >the text as strongly suggesting that only men are created in the image
    >of God. 

Obviously we run in different circles.  I've been a member at 5
different churches, have family on both side that is very active
in churches, graduated from 4 years of seminary and listened to
countless Christian radio talk shows.  (Conclusion is I've had
a broad experience of various conservative Christian views.)

In all that time, I cannot remember even once anyone even suggesting
that men and women were not both created in the image of God.

The fact that you see this as practically a necessary interpretation
of I Cor speaks a whole lot more to your mind frame than to the
text, in my opinion.

Collis

>    Very few people I know can read first Corinthians without interpreting
>    the text as strongly suggesting that only men are created in the image
>    of God.

I know many people who interpret this differently.  Paul is referring to
external deportment at public worship because it is related to inner
disposition.  You must understand that Corinth was a rough community of
sailors and traders, and women who did not cover their heads (as was the
custom of the time for honorable women) were usually prostitutes.

You cannot read one verse in 1 Cor 11 without the context of the whole.

/john

    If someone has a bible can they enter 1 Cor 11?
    
    Patricia

From "The Navarre Bible"

In this section (11:1-14:40) St Paul deals with certain matters connected
with public worship: first, he teaches that women should wear a head covering
(vv 1-16); he goes on to indicate the respect, order, and decorum which should
mark the celebration of the Eucharist (vv. 17-34); and he ends with a long
passage about the gifts of the Holy Spirit and their use in liturgical
assemblies (chaps. 12-14).

When reading this section it is important to notice the specific instructions
the Apostle gives, especially his teaching on men and women, the Eucharist,
and the gifts of the Holy Spirit.

1-16. Christianity has much to say about the dignity of women and their
role in the family and society; women also have an important role in the
Church, but one distinct from that of men.  St Paul gives three reasons
why women, by keeping their heads covered, should be externally different
from men: man and woman should honour God but each in their own way (vv 2-6);
they have been created different but they are mutually oriented to each other
(vv 7-12); Christian practice and profane custom both show that women's mode
of dress is not unimportant (vv 13-16).

2-6. It may well be that the Apostle sensed that behind the matter of the veil
lay other questions that went deeper than that of women's attire.  In fact, he
refers rather formally to "traditions", that is, transmitted customs which are
expressions of a way of thinking.  One thing at least can be clarly deduced
from what he says here: external comportment at public worship is a matter of
some importance because it reflects people's inner depositions.

He begins in fact by establishing a theological principle which throws light
on this matter of the veil: "the head of every man is Christ, the head of
every woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God" (v 3).  He is not
in any way undervaluing the dignity of women; they have the same rights and
the same calling to holiness as men have, but they have a special mission
of their own.  It must be remembered that all mankind, woman and man, is
ordained to Christ, the head, and through him to God himself.

This teaching, which is repeated in v 11, runs right through everything the
Apostle has to say: "There is neither male nor female; for you are all one
in Christ Jesus" (Gal 3:28).  What matters is that there be a structured
solidarity in mankind which allows all to be built into an ordered unity
with Christ Jesus.

7-12. This alludes to the accounts of the creation of man contained in the
first two chapters of Genesis.  There it is revealed that man -- that is,
man and woman -- is the likeness of God not only individually but also in
their relationship to one another, for each was create for the other.

Angels are present in every human activity, especially in acts of worship
(v 10), in which the members of the Church on earth join with those in
heaven to render due worship to God.  The presence of the angels is an
added incentive to the maintenance of due decorum by women.

13-16. Lastly, St Paul appeals to custom.  Given that in both the Jewish
and the Greek worlds it was customary for women to appear in public in
special attire, with all the more reason should Christian women dress in
a special way at public worship.  The Apostle must have in mind the danger
-- more proximate in the case of women -- of acting with certain vanity
or frivolity.  He is arguing in favour of that good taste, even in matters
of external deportment, which so dignifies women.

[The remainder of the chapter discusses serious abuse of the Eucharist.]

1 Cor 11:2-16, NRSV

I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the
traditions just as I handed them on to you.  But I want you to understand
that Christ is the head of every man, and the husband is the head of his
wife, and God is the head of Christ.  Any man who prays or prophesies
with something on his head disgraces his head, but any woman who prays
or prophesies with her head unveiled disgraces her head -- it is one and
the same thing as having her head shaved.  For if a woman will not veil
herself, then she should cut off her hair; but if it is disgraceful for
a woman to have her hair cut off or to be shaved, she should wear a veil.

For a man ought not to have his head veiled, since he is the image and
reflection of god; but woman is the reflection of man.  Indeed, man was
not made from woman, but woman from man.  Neither was man created for
the sake of woman, but woman for the sake of man.  For this reason a
woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the
angels.  Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man or
man independent of woman.

For just as woman came from man, so man comes through woman; but all things
come from God.  Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God
with her head unveiled?  Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears
long hair, it is degrading to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her
glory?  For her hair is given to her for a covering.  But if anyone is disposed
to be contentious -- we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.

"For a man ought not to have his head veiled, since he is the image and
reflection of god; but woman is the reflection of man.  Indeed, man was
not made from woman, but woman from man.  Neither was man created for
the sake of woman, but woman for the sake of man.  For this reason a
woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the
angels.  Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man or
man independent of woman."
    
    
    I can't see how anyone can read this without interpreting that men are
    created in the image of God and therefore ought not to have their heads
    covered.  Women are created in the image of men and not of the image of
    God and therefore should have their heads covered.
    
    
    I don't believe this is true.  I believe it is an angry outburst of
    Paul whose authority is being questioned by the women who feel they are
    equal to men in Christ and therefore are breaking the social custom of
    the day and coming to church with their heads uncovered.  It is not
    consistent with much else that Paul has written.  I accept Paul as a
    fallible human and read this as anger just as some of us in this
    conference have written angry messages at time.
    
    I would have a real problem if I believed that this scripture was "God
    breathed"    It conflicts with other scripture that states that both
    women and men are created in the image of God.
    
    Nancy, how do you interpret that passage?  Do you wear a hat to church?
    
    Patricia
    
    
    This does not mean to me that scripture is false or that Paul is a liar
    or that any of us are lunatics.  It means that scripture has to be
    interpret as written by fallible human beings with a full range of
    emotions.  For me that is part of the beauty of scripture.

    John,
    
    Was there any "Agenda" why you choose to enter the commentary first and
    the scripture second.  
    
    By the way, I don't agree with the comentary. It skirts right over the
    major issue in the scripture.
    
    Patricia

From "The New Jerome Bible Commentary"

Dress at Liturgical Assemblies (11:2-16).

The way in which certain men, and possibly some women, dressed their hair
suggested homosexual tendencies.  Paul's response is to stress the importance
of the difference between the sexes.

3. "head": Greek "kephale" never connotes authority of superiority; "source"
is the only appropriate meaning here.  "the source of every person's new
being is Christ:" Paul evokes the role of Christ in the new creation (2 Cor
5:17).  The general context of Paul's thought demands that "aner" be understood
generically.  "the source of every woman's being is man." See comment on v 8.
"the source of Christ's being is God":  For Paul, Christ is the one who is
sent (Gal 4:4-5; Rom 8:3) in view of a saving mission (1 Thess 1:10; Gal
2:20; rom 8:29,32); it is a question of his being as Savior.

4. "Prays": aloud and in public, possibly with a leadership role.
"prophesies": A ministry of the word (14:3,22,31) deriving from a profound
knowledge of the mysteries of God (13:2) based on the Scriptures.  "with
something hanging down from the head": The reference is to long hair as in
v 14, which male homosexuals grew in order that it might be dressed
elaborately (see Philo, De spec. leg. 3.36).  "dishonors himself": "Kephale"
here means the whole person.

5. The parallel structure indicates that the common terms have the same meaning
as in v5 "with unbound head" Her hair is not properly dressed (see on v 15)
"as if her head were shaven" she looks mannish.  Paul has to go on to explain
himself.

6. "for if a woman is unbound, let her be shorn" disordered hair on a woman
was unfeminine only in a very generic sense.  It did not connote deviant
sexuality, as long hair on the male did, but Paul puts the two cases in
parallel.  If a woman will not tend her hair, she may as well go to the
other extreme and appear as a man, whose normally short hair was sometimes
shaved off for ceratin festivals (see Apuleius, Metamophoses 11.10).

7-10. Paul's first argument against the Corinthian practice is based on the
divine intention as reveled in Gen 2; the variation in the mode of creation
proves that God intended men and women to be different.

7. "a man ought not to bind up his head" This would be unmasculine.  The
parallel conclusion regarding the woman appears in v 10. "he is the image
and glory of God" Since humanity lost the glory of God through the Fall,
Paul is here invoking the pristine state of humanity.  "woman is the glory
of man": In Jewish tradition, with which Paul was perfectly familiar, woman
was also the image and glory of God.  But Paul could not say so here.  He
had to find a formula that underlined the difference between the sexes, and
the idea that woman gave glory to man was justified by Gen 2:18, to which he
refers in v 9.  According to Gen 2:21-23, woman was made from man's rib,
whereas man was made from the dust of the earth (Gen 2:7).  Paul wants to
insinuate that if God had intended men and women to be indistinguishable,
he would have created them in the same way.

10. "a woman ought to have authority on her head" Paul's formulation is so
condensed that the meaning can only be deduced from the context.  "Exousian
echein" can only mean authority to be exercised, and Paul takes it for granted
that women play a leadership role in the community (v 5 "any woman who prays or
prophesies").  She enjoys this authority precisely as a woman, and so must
stress her sex by her hairdo.  "on account of the angels": In order not to
scandalize envoys from other churches.  Same usage in Gal 4:14, Like 7:24,
9:52; contrast Gal 1:8.

11-12. The basis of Paul's argument in vv 7-10 was the creation account,
which Jews used to prove that woman was inferior to man (Josephus, Ag. Ap.
2.24 s 201).  Paul now flatly excludes such an interpretation.

11. "woman is not otherwise than man": In the Christian community woman is no
whit inferior to man.

12. "all things are from God": The fact that woman is the source of man
(contrast v 3b) is also a manifestation of the divine intention and nullifies
the Jewish interpretation of Gen 2:21-23 (see Philo, Quaest. Gen 1.16)

13-15.  Paul's second line of argument is based on the canonization of
current convention that often passes for natural law.

14. "long hair is degrading": It is a sign of homosexuality.

15. "Her long hair is given to her as a wrapper" 1st-century illustrations
show women with long hair wrapped around the head in plaits.

16. Paul's final argument is the practice of other churches.  He could be
sure that all would agree that men should look like men and women like women.

>    I can't see how anyone can read this without interpreting that men are
>    created in the image of God and therefore ought not to have their heads
>    covered.  Women are created in the image of men and not of the image of
>    God and therefore should have their heads covered.

1. Don't interpret it as an isolated verse.

2. See the second commentary.

3. If a is a reflection of b and c is a reflection of a, then c is obviously,
   by the transitive property of reflection, a reflexion of b as well.  You
   can set up a couple of mirrors to prove this.

/john

    re .156
    
    I rest my case.
    
    It is not that difficult to understand.
    
    These are the hoops that inerrantists have to go through to justify an
    angry outburst.
    
    

    
    All the pictures of Christ that I've ever seen, show Him with long
    hair.
    
    Cindy

                                          
    Jack,
    
    Oh c'mon...I never said anything about oppression and husband and wife
    roles.  You got that from somewhere else.  
    
    'Submission' is another thing entirely...though perhaps our definitions 
    on this vary.  I cannot and will not submit to another human being.
    
    If the model works for you and your wife in your marriage, then great.
    Doesn't sound like you abuse her or anything like that...unlike what
    Anita Bryant's husband did to her in the name of Christianity.  (Her 
    story is an interesting and sad story to read.)
    
    Such a model would not work for me, nor would it work for the primary
    men in my life that I'm closest to. 
    
    In the bird kingdom, there are several different methods of courtship.  
    In some the male courts the female while she is passive, in others the 
    female courts the male while he is passive.  In the case of swans though, 
    they court each other equally.  I prefer the swan model for relationships.
    
    Cindy

    RE: .158
    
    Good point. 
    
    Marc H.

        <<< LGP30::DKA300:[NOTES$LIBRARY]CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE.NOTE;1 >>>
                 -< Discussions from a Christian Perspective >-
================================================================================
Note 839.46                         Candlemas                           46 of 46
JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze"    24 lines   4-FEB-1994 11:50
                        -< It is not an issue of Worth >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Patricia,
    
    I have no issue with submission to the roles God has commanded from His
    people.  Do I like being submissive? NO!  Do I believe that we should
    be submissive?  YES!  But I also believe that submission towards an
    ungodly man is dangerous.  God's roles are not WRONG... but the sinful
    man has corrupted those roles as they have corrupted also the earth.
    
    When God puts into my life a man who is truly submissive to the Lord
    and knows what love expressed really is, I will have no problem being
    submissive towards him.  If this doesn't happen, I will be content to
    be a servant to those around me as a single woman.
    
    The widows had blessed lives in the church of old [imho], as the church
    cared for their physical/spiritual need [when no family was present to
    take up the care], they had the freedom to practice the art of Helps.
    
    I love being a woman and the fact that  males are blessed from the
    womb has no issue with me.  It's not a question of value, it's question
    of setting apart and establishing God's model for the family.
    
    
    In His Love, 
    Nancy
    

    Mark  
    
    re 144
    
    You ask me why I think the image of God is male.  I don't.  Not now as
    an adult.  However the image of God as potrayed in the bible is clearly
    a male.  During my period of religiousity as a youth I prayed every
    morning and evening using the Lords prayer.  Our father, etc.  The God
    of my childhood was clearly a Man.  Adults can  realize that God
    transcends the pictures of God that we learned as children.  Those
    pictures though are etched into our subconscious.

Well, Patricia, I must admit that I have certainly heard
non-conservative Christians rail about this passage in I Cor 11
saying the same things that you say.

However, I still haven't heard any conservative Christians
give it the meaning that you want to give it.  Why?  I think
the main reason is that Paul is committed to the Word of God
and knows *full well* that men and women are both created in
the image of God.  Therefore, to believe that he is claiming
that this is not the case doesn't make sense.  It certainly
doesn't make any sense from a conservative position.  Therefore,
we don't teach it, we don't preach it and we don't believe it.
(Even some of the more liberal persuasion reach the same
conclusion.  :-) )

Collis

    No Collis,
    
    I think what the passage says is pretty clear.  Men should not cover
    there heads because they are created in the image of God and it would
    be wrong for them to cover there heads.  The reason that it is wrong
    for men to cover there heads is because they are created in the image
    of God.  Woman should cover there heads because they are created in the
    image of Man.  How can you not interpret that passage to mean anything
    other than women are not created in the image of God.
    
    Yes all the other issues come out.  It is not consistent with Judaism
    and it is not consistent with other writings of Paul.  Paul's defense
    of the position is not consistent with his defense of other arguments.
    But it is clearly what the passage says.
    
    An innerantists faith in God is based on their faith in the Bible. 
    That paradigm sometimes makes it impossible to read and understand a
    simple quotation.  Paul's words about women and words attributed to
    Paul about woman have been used against women for centuries.  This
    passage clearly shows how even inerrantist pick and choose which
    scripture they choose to believe.
    
    Collis, does your wife and children wear hats to church?
    
    Patricia

Re:  image of God

Well, Patricia, it appears that you are reading the passage
outside of the context of Genesis, a context both Paul and
his readers assume.  It is true that the meaning you see is a
reasonable interpretation out of this context.  However, I don't
see that this has much relevance since the context does include
Genesis for all devout followers of Yahweh.

Re:  wearing head coverings

Discussed in the new topic.

  >This passage clearly shows how even inerrantist pick and choose which
  >scripture they choose to believe.

I believe all of it.  You have done nothing to show otherwise.  You
have, however, made it clear that our understanding of the passage
is quite different.  But in terms of truly believing it?  I sure
do.

Collis

    .147  What a whitewashing.  Historical reconstructionism at its
    best.
    
    Richard
    

Re:  .167

John's comment "you are a member of the species called 'man'"
is intended to be a statement of fact based on the Hebrew
words used in Genesis 1.  Perhaps you don't care for some
of the implications of this (which would present the Bible as
more favorable to women than some would like to see).

Collis

Note 831.164

>However, I still haven't heard any conservative Christians
>give it the meaning that you want to give it.

I have.  Not all conservatives try to water down or make more palatable
Paul's perspectives.

Richard

re Note 831.147 by COVERT::COVERT:

> Patricia, you are a member of the species called "man".  It is that species,
> both its male and female members, who are created in God's image.
  
        I don't know about you or Patricia, John, but my species is
        homo sapiens.

        Bob

    .168
    
    .167 was not about that comment, Collis.  It was about lifting the words
    of the Bible out of their historical context, implying that women in
    biblical times were never considered anything but equal to men.  A
    crock, to be sure.
    
    I can see why you and I can't agree on the Bible when just a few of
    my words are so handily misunderstood.
    
    Richard
    

    Jim:
    
    To reply to your question on population zero, this was an organization
    formed in the 70's, not sure exactly when.  There objective is to bring
    the increase of population in parity with the death rate.  So, for
    every death that takes place, one birth will also take place.  
    
    Population Zero used to be quite open about their feelings on abortion
    and euthanasia.  Having an abortion is like cutting a fingernail, they
    said.  What an unbased ignorant statement to make!!
    
    -Jack

    re Note 831.170 by LGP30::FLEISCHER
    
    > ...my species is homo sapiens.
    
    Actually, Bob, your species is sapien... Your genus, however, is Homo.
    
    Eric

re: Note 831.172 by Jack

Thanks Jack, that sounds more like ZPG rather than ZP, my guess is that they 
are the same.  Thanks.

>    Population Zero used to be quite open about their feelings on abortion
>    and euthanasia.  Having an abortion is like cutting a fingernail, they
>    said.  What an unbased ignorant statement to make!!

Hmmm.  I am not familiar with their politics.  I certainly could not agree 
with the fingernail statement.

Peace,

Jim

Note 831.7

>  - many (including myself) believe that this prophecy had 2
>    fulfillments - the one at the time of Isaiah (prophesy made
>    in 735 B.C. and fully fulfilled by 725 B.C) and the other
>    at the time of Jesus

Collis may be right!  This virgin birth thing is more common than
I realized:

Gautama Buddha, the ninth Avatar of India, was said to have been born
of the virgin Maya about 600 BC.  The Holy Ghost was also portrayed as
descending upon her.

Horus, a god of Egypt, was born of the virgin Isis, it was said,
around 1550 BC.  Horus also received gifts from three kings in infancy.

Attis was born of a virgin mother named Nama in Phrygia, before 200 BC.

Quirrnus, a Roman savior, was born of a virgin in the sixth century BC.
His death, it was said, was accompanied by universal darkness.

Indra was born of a virgin in Tibet in the eighth century BC.  He was
also said to have ascended into heaven.

Adonis, a Babylonian deity, was said to have been born of a virgin mother
named Ishtar, who was later to be hailed as queen of heaven.

Mithra, a Persian deity, was also said to have been born of a virgin
around 600 BC.

Zoroaster likewise made his earthly visit courtesy of a virgin mother.

Krishna, the eighth Avatar of the Hindu pantheon, was born of the virgin
Devaki around 1200 BC.

    -1
    
    Yep and my sister was born of a virgin too.  Seems to go around. :-)

    Richard,
    
    Thanks for enter that information.  I knew that virgin birth was a
    common theme in the mythical world view but never took the time to do
    the research. 
    
                                Patricia

    My source was "Born of a Woman: A Bishop Rethinks the Birth of Jesus,"
    by John Shelby Spong.
    
    [Gird yourself for the Spong discrediting remarks, which tends to follow
    his name in this file.]
    
    Peace,
    Richard
    

    don't know who Spoing is...
    
    I'm interested in knowing whether any of these avatars died for
    humanity... not for a *cause* but for the salvation of the world.
    
    Got any information?

    re Note 831.178 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE
    
    Well, isn't that *convenient*. And where did Bishop Spong get ALL these
    ideas about virgins, Hmm. Oh, I don't know... maybe...
    
    		SATAN!!
    
    (My appologies to the Church Lady)

    
    My deadline mercifully got pushed out by a week.  Yes, there IS a God. 
    (;^)  Still though, time is limited.
         
    Joseph Campbell has also given examples of the Virgin Birth recurring 
    theme in his book "The Hero With A Thousand Faces".  It isn't an 'idea' 
    that Spong came up with, but rather a recording of the various myths 
    and stories throughout history that were documented long before Spong 
    or Campbell arrived on the planet.  
    
    Many Christians, no doubt, would like to believe that this was an 
    exclusive event that happened only to Jesus, (witness the "SATAN"
    reference in .180, for example, when evidence is produced to
    potentially refute this notion) however according to the other 
    cultures and their histories, this isn't the case.
    
    I suspect that Richard could probably provide the references Spong used, 
    if they're footnoted in the book.  I doubt that SATAN is listed among
    them.
    
    Cindy

    FWIW, my .180 was an ill fated attempt at humor. I was trying to evoke
    the image of the "Church Lady" -- a character created by Dana Carvey
    of Saturday Night Live and Wayne's World fame.

    The character has a talk show (Church Chat) where she attributes any
    idea contrary to her's as being inspired by Satan. After thus rebuking
    her guests, she will rise from behind her desk and do her "superior
    dance".

    .....

    Personally, I have read some of the works of Bishop Spong. While I am
    not shouting "amen" to everything he says, I find his work thought
    provoking.

    Eric 

cheap shyster

    .184
    
    >cheap shyster
    
    My dictionary defines shyster as "one without professional honor,
    especially an unethical lawyer."
    
    I take it you're speaking of Bishop Spong.
    
    I think if Spong is guilty of anything, it is of embracing truth
    rather than doctrine.  To resent Spong for this is to return to
    the Middle Ages.
    
    Richard
    

Re: .185 Richard

>To resent Spong for this is to return to the Middle Ages.

Some people never left.

				-- Bob
    

    
    And then there was the Dark Ages...
    
    Cindy

From the book, "Born of a Woman: A Bishop Rethinks the Birth of Jesus," by
Episcopalian Bishop John Shelby Spong --

	"In 1952 when the Revised Standard Version of the Bible was released,
its translators rendered Isaiah 7:14 correctly from the Hebrew text to read,
'Behold a young woman shall conceive,' while they translated Matthew 1:23,
'Behold a virgin shall conceive.'  The translators were not being inconsistent,
they were translating accurately the text in front of them - Hebrew in the
original text of Isaiah, Greek in the original text of Matthew.  The Hebrew
word in Isaiah 7:14 is 'almah.  It means 'young woman'; she may or may not
be married.  The Hebrew word for for virgin is betulah.  It is a word used
more than fifty times in the Hebrew Scriptures and it is the only word used
in those Scriptures for virgin. 'Almah appears nine other times in the
Hebrew Scriptures and it never means virgin in any of those appearances.
The translators of the Septuagint, however, translated 'almah with the Greek
word parthenos which does mean 'virgin.'"