[volgadon]

Originally Posted by Enlil-An

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.

Youonly consulted English translations. I consulted as many as I could.
As I said, I'm waiting for anyone knowledgeable in Koine Greek to correct me, if I am wrong.

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.

Out of curiosity, have you ready any who disagree?

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

If there was only the one dream, then he was already instructed to go to the Galilee when he was in Egypt.

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.

You keep using that as your fall back position.

The majority of the Jerusalem Talmud was collected no later than the mid 3rd century AD.
Most of the traditions (which are part of the aggadic material) can be traced back to the 2nd temple era. These were not written down until many, many years later, being part of the oral torah.

The tradition itself firmly places itself within a 2nd temple context.

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.

You haven't been willing to put any work into anything. You prefer to regurgitate the arguments of others.

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.

They are hardly wild. They are as straight forward and common-sensical as possible, without resorting to imbecility.
You are the one insisting that 'we' refers to Abraham's seed in general, rather than to the specific group speaking. YOU are the one presuming that they lack in arrogance, which is a major theme running through John's gospel.
YOU are the one being disingenious and overly-simplistic.

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.

I've hardly read any written by paid evangelists.

Let us play at your game, I want to see hard and fast evidence that she understood the original context Isaiah intended.

She is a higher critic, isn't she?

What is important is what colours the opinions.

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.

HOW did he know she was a virgin, you can't tell just by looking.

"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?

You are assuming that Isaiah wanted to use a precise word.

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.

Nice dodge. What is the meaning of Imanuel? God is with us. Imanuel was not a common Hebrew name, in fact, I'm not sure I've seen an earlier occurance than Imanuel the Roman. He was a 13th century Italian Jew. Where it does appear, apart from Luke, is in the next chapter of Isaiah, chapter 8. Try verses 8-10.

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?

If you want to play the eaxct wording game, it isn't sun child.

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.

Well, the only Jewish evidence available would be thrown out by you for the same reasons you throw out the Arbel thing.

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?

That chapter tells you nothing of how Isaiah prophecied?
2nd Nephi 11 doesn't either?

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

I suspected as much.

What the issue really is, is your lack of faith in God, prefering to put your trust in the opinion of man.

You do understand what higher criticism is all about, don't you?

You are willing to take an academic's word on the scripture's over that of president Monson's?

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

HAHAHAHA Nazareth isn't? 1 Nephi 11:13.
Alma does not name Bethlehem, but uses the phrase 'at Jerusalem, which is the land of our forefathers'. That obviously is not Nazareth.

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.

It does not say that clearly. In fact, no miracles occur in the chapter. Verse 40 says "Many of the people therefore, when they heard this saying, said, of a truth this is the Prophet."

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.

I did. Take another look.

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

You obviously don't.
Where did I haggle?