[volgadon]

Originally Posted by Enlil-An

The translations you've consulted aren't wrong, your interpretation of the passage itself is. You're assuming that Joseph was originally heading for Nazareth in Galilee even though Matthew makes no indication of any such thing.

The point is that he does. You refuse to even consider that, because it seriously dents your position.

Yes, I have. And their arguements (like yours) don't hold up against the evidence.

Which ones?

Very creative, but if we read the passage in sequence, there are two dreams. The second one was a warning, the first one wasn't. And, like I said, there is no indication in Matthew's gospel that Joseph was ever originally travelling to Galilee.

As I have pointed out, there is indication that he was going to the Galilee and not Judaea.
If we read the passage in sequence, Joseph remembered his dream and thus overcame his fears.

And how do they translate and interpret Isaiah 7:14?

Nice dodge.

Anyway, Isaiah isn't mentioned that frequently in rabbinic circles, and most of the citations are from chapter 30 and on.

It's very hypocritical of you to demand "hard and fast" evidence from me when you refuse to supply it yourself. And any evidence I present, you'll just twist it around anyway like you have been doing with the scriptures I've been quoting. Nevertheless, I will agree to humor you on one condition. I will post the exact words of Professor Fredriksen regarding Isaiah 7:14 typing it directly from her book if you will cut & paste (a much easier job) the parts of Josephus you believe vindicate your claims that Jews in Christ's time regularly feigned ignorance out of arrogance. Until then, take some of your own medicine: Paula Fredriksen From Jesus to Christ page 38.

No, it just shows that you won't play at your own games. How does Fredriksen know what the original context of Isaiah was? She can only guess. Academics are constantly reevaluating opinions.

I'll post those Josephus quotes in a separate post, but you are exceptionally obtuse. It really shows you have no desire to learn, but only to lecture.

Who told Isaiah she was a virgin? Certainly you're aren't accusing a man of God of...looking, are you?

The Lord, probably. Nephi, OTOH, was not told a thing, so how did he know?

Click here and type in Samson. See for yourself: Search Baby Names and Meanings, Name Meanings, Meaning of Names

Baby names? Are you kidding?

On the contrary, if Jewish people at anytime have interpreted the original Hebrew version (not the Greek Septuigent) of Isaiah 7:14 as a virgin giving birth to the God of the universe (a totally absurd idea for an ancient Israelite to believe), I would see that as powerful evidence that Matthew is right about that prophecy. The Mt Arbel thing is much more of a stretch.

Arbel has nothing to do with Isaiah 7:14, I don't know why you keep mixing the two.

Matthew was Jewish, so you have supplied your own evidence.

As for it being an absurd idea for an ancient Israelite, why?

If you were Isaiah, and received a revelation that a virgin was going to have a child, would you record this revelation of such an unprecidented event in Israel using the word virgin or would you use the more ambiguous phrase young woman? Think about it.

2 Nephi 25:1, 4-5.

I have a strong feeling that you and I interpret scriptures very differently. So instead of asking me what I get out of it, why don't you just save us all some time tell us how you interpret it and how it relates to your current position?

You realise you can stop speaking on behalf of everyone, because you don't.

Nephi tells us that the things of Isaiah are difficult to understand at face value.

I don't take anybody's word at face value unless that person has proven their credibility to me by demonstrating the truthfulness of their words. I take certain academics' at their word when discussing the historical research behind the ideas and meanings of many things in the Bible and I take a prophet at their word when they discuss feelings of the spirit and how to have a better relationship with God. When these people start making claims outside of their area of expertise, I take what they say as accurate if I already know it to be true or if it's something that can be verified.

Interpreting the scriptures is outside the area of expertise for the president of the church?

My mistake. The bigger issue is your claim that 1 Ne. 11:13 shows that Jesus was born at Bethlehem which it doesn't.

I never claimed it did, Alma is the one I turn to for Bethlehem.

Two points: 1) That scripture isn't specific enough to exclude Nazareth because Alma was prophecying to people on another continant entirely. In that context, the "land of Jerusalem" could have easily meant "the land where all the Jews come from" which is the other side of the world. 2) It doesn't really matter to me whether Jesus was born at Bethlehem or not (judging by the gospel of John, I'm leaning toward the idea that Jesus was probably born at Nazareth). The point is that if he was born there, he didn't get there the way Matthew and Luke says he did because, not only do they contradict each other, but both accounts on their own are historically dubious.

That is where you are wrong. At can mean in the area of, and what is more, Alma says the land of our forefathers. They were from the Jerusalem area.
The land of Jerusalem means the environs of Jerusalem. There is a letter written to Amenhotep IV using the term.

You are ignoring Alma when you read Nephi, and ignorig Nephi when reading Alma.

Straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel, volgadon. This is what I mean by haggling. See for example: haggle definition | Dictionary.com

Haggling refers to business transactions, anything else is a very improper use.

The crowd of Jews who thought Jesus was the predicted Messiah weren't basing their belief of him on any tradition that the Messiah would come out of Nazareth or Galilee according to John. THAT is the critical point.

Which you have failed to show.