[Enlil-An]

Originally posted by volgadon
And the Hebrew, Aramaic, Slavonic and Russian I consulted say went to. And where the KJV has thither, those languages I mentioned have in.

The text says in the overwelming majority of translations that Joseph was afraid to go to Judea (not travel through) and that only when he was warned in a dream did he travel to Galilee. It's obvious to mea that he was originally going back to Judea and only went to Galilee to flee from Archelaus. I have no other arguements I can bring to the table than those I already have. If you don't want to interpret the scripture that way, that's fine.

The indications of those English translations. Read some publications (any historical ones) where academics are reviewed by their peers and you will see why I don't much hold with the most historians bit.

I'm not doing any such thing, volgadon. The historians who accept Matthew and Luke's nativity story as independent contradictory accounts have already provided enough evidence to show me that the two stories cannot be harmonized.

The difference, as I've already laid out, is that there seems to have been only the one dream, the first one.

And what difference does this make on anything we've been talking about? Spell it out for me.

So is it your final opinion that I am wrong about there being a tradition of the Messiah in the Galilee, specifically at Arbel?

You are wrong if you are asserting that there are traditions of the Messiah coming from Galilee that go back to the time before Christ. I have no doubt that later traditions of Jesus invovling Mt Arbel have developed.

Wy I tell you to study historiography is because what sources we use for the ancient world were not written as modern day histories are. It is an extremely ignorant position to assume that they were. If your only interest is in being able to crow that all of us poor simpletons are decieved, then you probably won't want to waste your time doing meaningful research. You want me to do everything for you, whereas I want you to go out and learn for yourself.

Hogwash! You haven't given me any thing to research that has any meaningful support for your point of view and now you're trying to weasle out of posting quotes from your sources, we must assume, because you don't want to us to see how weak they are as a defense for your arguements.

I read biblical historiography on my own and I can assure you, nothing I have read (and doubtful will ever read) has lead me to the wild conclusions you're making about the Jews in John's gospel and unless you provide quotes or a link to a precise statements from credible sources (quote Josephus if you want), there's no reason to think that you know what you're talking about and no reason for me to exert myself any further.

It still her opinion. And it is your opinion that Matthew didn't, because you disagree with him.

I guess all of our beliefs are based on our opinion, aren't they? Her opinion is shared by many other historians (who aren't paid evangelists) who have also written scholarly works on this subject. It's the only real logical opinion that there is...in my opinion.

The word betulah could have been used. Would is a bit presumptious.

Almah does not preclude virginity, indeed, one could ask just how Nephi knew Mary was a virgin.

Nephi knew Mary was a virgin because he had his own vision concerning her. Nothing in anything Nephi writes suggests that he got this idea from Isaiah.

"Almah" may not preclude virginity (just like the english phrase young woman deosn't) but the problem is that it doesn't insinuate virginity and there's no reason to assume that it would. It would be more presuptiuous to assume that Isaiah used such a vague word for virgin when there was a more precise word available. Don't you think that if Isaiah wanted his readers to know she was a virgin, he would have said "virgin" and not "young woman"? Afterall, a many babies do you think were born of a virgin in Isaiah's world?

What is the significance of the name Immanuel?

It's a Hebrew name like mine, Matthew which means "gift of God". Many Hebrew names incorporate divine status in their meanings. Immanual (which is not the Hebrew name for Jesus) is a very common Israelite name and when reading Isaiah 7:14 in context with the rest of the chapter and the correct Hebrew wording, it's obvious that it isn't referring to Jesus.

The name Samson means sun child and his birth was also predicted in scripture. Does that mean we should believe that his mortal father was not his real father and that he was begotton by the sun?

You need to understand that the reason Israeli and Jewish scholars are so adamant about it not being a virgin is that this verse was one used quite frequently by the Catholics when Bible-bashing the Jews and forcing them to convert.

There is no evidence that Jews ever interpreted Isaiah 7:14 that way even before Christ was born. And the fact that the original Hebrew doesn't use the word virgin, is solid evidence that Matthew is the one using that verse for polemical reasons.

Or, quite conceivably, you missed the point. What does that chapter tell us about Isaiah and his methods of prophecy? What chapters follow this one?

Why don't you just explain the point, Sherlock, and post whatever quotes from that chapter (and the following ones if necessary) to demonstrate it exactly what your point (which you still haven't made clear) is and how Isaiah and Nephi support it?

Why wouldn't it?

Because I've lost my faith in the abilities of general authorities to always correctly interpret the Bible.

Never said they did, but guess what they do support. Jesus being concieved in Nazareth, yet being born in Bethlehem.

How on earth do 1 Nephi 11:13 and Alma 7:10 support that? Niether Nazareth nor Bethlehem are even mentioned in those scriptures.

So a simple appeal to scripture showing that the Messiah had to be born in Bethlehem, would have settled that.

There were many Jews who appealed to scripture but others still believed in him because of the miracles. It says this quite clearly in John chapter 7.

I did not c&p the chapter because it is a bit large for a single post.
Why don't you show a goodwill gesture, that you really are open to discussion and learning, and read those very precise verses from Josephus.

If the verses you want me to find are very precise, why don't you give me the precise number for those verses. I'm not scouring four whole chapters of Josephus just to find...what ever it is you want me to find.

Debating, not haggling. I suggest a dictionary to learn the difference.

I know the difference and you definately like to haggle. But nevermind...