32 years old - Made in Britain - Exported to Singapore - Re-Exported to the Netherlands - and from thence back to Britain

Sunday, February 12, 2006

Lazy Christian Thinking - Biblical Refutation Part 1

Whenever I hear pastors and priests sharing their world view (as I did on TV today), based on biblical or scriptual literalism (a very new, nineteenth Century phenonoma), my blood boils. So, I am going to start an analysis of common Christian misconceptions, based on flawed and poor understanding of the Talmud, Torah and the new Testament.

The Virgin Birth: Matthew 1:18

"Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost"

This is Matthew starting to prepare a thesis that the Virgin Birth (not to be confused with the immaculate conception of Mary, which I will cover another day), is a prophetic fulfillment of Isiah 7:14:

"Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."

All well and good, or so it would appear. But, let's gather context to Isaiah 7:14 and try to understand whether Isaiah is making a prophecy concerning the Christ. Isaiah is actually responding to the King of Judah, Ahaz, who is ruling one of the two Jewish kingdoms of the time (Judah was ruled by the descendants of the Davidian line, and Israel (the other state) was ruled by the descendants of Saul) - King Pekah ruled Israel. Pekah had made an aliiance with Rezin, the Assyrian king, and was preparing to wage war against Ahaz, via a consolidated Israeli/Assyrian march on Jerusalem (the Judan capital). Ahaz, fearing defeat, was deeply concerned, and Isaiah reports of Ahaz and the Judan people that "their hearts were moved as the trees of the wood are moved with the wind." Isaiah 7:3.

To allay the fears of Ahaz, Isaiah assures him in the name of the Lord that these two kings will not succeed against him; and asks Ahaz to seek a sign of the Lord (Isaiah 7:11 "Ask thee a sign of the Lord thy God; ask it either in the depth, or in the height above"). Ahaz however, is not stupid, and is aware of the various prohibitions against testing the Lord, and declines Isaiah's offer (Isaiah 7:12 "I will not ask, neither will I tempt the Lord").

Isaiah, sensing the wisdom of Ahaz' position replies in verses 14-18:

"Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good. For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings. The Lord shall bring upon thee, and upon thy people, and upon thy father's house, days that have not come, from the day that Ephraim departed from Judah; the king of Assyria. And it shall come to pass in that day, the Lord shall hiss for the fly that is in the uttermost part of the rivers of Egypt, and for the bee that is in the land of Assyria"

It is clear from context then, that Isaiah is telling Ahaz that a sign will be given, of biblical and epic proportions (a virgin birth!!), and that the child resulting from this sign will be a son; and that this sign will be an omen of success to Ahaz, for before this child will know the difference between wrong and right, the Kings of Israel and Assyria would have failed and both would no longer be kings ("the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings").

So, in summary, Matthew 1:18 is based on a deeply flawed understanding of Isaiahian scripture, and is the first irrelevance within the Christian belief structure. What is singularly worrying about this, is that the Virgin birth is a central tenant of the forgiveness of sins (via the man born of woman, without original sin), and therefore part of the grand design of Christian redemtption - whilst being based on poor theology! Needless to say, I will tackle this later on.

I hope that this is interesting to at least some readers of this blog, and is not inflammatory or offensive. It is just that preachers of all faiths have such power to shape our thoughts and beliefs, that it seems critical to analyse the validitity of their arguments and, when they are clearly wrong, to expose them.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home