Vynnie.. re 'spin' you're correct..and I apologise :) I was mixing Xena's post with yours.. sorry about that.

Now..to the issue of 'virgin birth'.

From Luke... but context and authors intent first

Luke 1
1Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us, ... since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning,

Now.. verse 34 "How will this be," Mary asked the angel, "since I am a virgin?" (Parthenos) In this context, the specific word is intended to have its plain meaning. It is not using Isaiah 7 for inspirtation, it is a conversation between Mary and the angel.

Matthew.

The use of 'parthenos' in quoting Isaiah came from the Septuagint (greek version of hebew bible) which indeed MIStranslated the hebrew word used in Isaiah. (almah=young woman, not virgin)

The context of Isaiah, was not intending to emphasise the 'clinical condition' of the young woman, but its safe to say it would be assuming she was not 'fooling around'. The point being the child was to be called 'Mighty God' among other names. Hardly fuel for illegitemate birth with a human father.

Matthew is also supporting the virgin birth in no uncertain terms

Ch 1
20 But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, "Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.

This is in CONTRAST to Josephs opinion that she has been humanly impregnated.

It would not matter if verse Matthew 1: 23 was translated 'young woman' or 'virgin' the cumulative evidence is clearly on the side of 'virgin'.

So, pretty much all of your case crumbles on the basis of context, content and common sense.

P.S. I appreciate your own passion in the debate... its all helpful

Sells,

Re our different approaches to the Bible - I guess your type of faith and my type of curiosity don't have much to say to each other. But you also seem to want to use the continuing existence of the Judeo-Christian tradition as some type of proof of its unique claim to truth. That tradition is part of (let's not forget the Greeks etc) the foundation of western 'civilisation'.

Indian and Chinese civilisations are also ancient and continuing. Take Jainism - it's also been going for 2,500 years and contributed it's ideas and traditions to Indian civilisation. There's must be dozens and dozens of similar instances. Looking for 'data' on which to base a faith sort of ties in with the need to say "I'm certain my beliefs are the only true way" - I prefer that kind of faith that is a gamble because nothing is certain.

"Encounter" on RN yesterday had a theologian who was asked why altruism doesn't need a religious foundation, and he said something like "People just know that they belong to each other - faith helps them to understand why that is so". Which takes me back to where I came in on this tired thread : in every type of society you find good people, with good values, who don't need religion to tell them what to do.

I enjoyed being reminded of Desiderata and John Lennon's great song "Imagine" so I'll offer another memory from those hopeful times: that fabulous photograph of the earth from space. The way most of us felt when we saw our little blue grey planet out there in the darkness is also a foundation for universalism - we're all one community, the barriers we set up between each other belong to the past.

Solomon,
Relativism is a fine way to dodge the issue. It is easy and cheap, when someone makes a stand for the truth of a particular tradition, to demur and point to all of the other traditions. It is like saying, “but that is just your opinion”. This is a distraction from the main business that we are involved in, a discussion about how God is present to us. I say He is present to us in an alternative history that appears strange to us but speaks to us of our true humanity. I have no interest in what the other religions think but I do have an interest in speech about God that is not just speech about ourselves. I think we can do this with all intellectual honesty. Sure, when we go along this path we close other paths. Our determination to hang lose and keep our options open looks enlightened but in the end where does it place us? When people bring up the old relativistic argument I wonder what they are afraid of. It is the perfect deflection.

Think again, Peter.

>>It is like saying, “but that is just your opinion”<<

No, it IS saying, that is just your opinion.

>>"Relativism is a fine way to dodge the issue."<<

No, relativism is addressing the issue, not dodging it. By rejecting this approach as "easy and cheap" you are insulting the intelligence of all those who choose to disagree with your belief system.

>>"I have no interest in what the other religions think"<<

Pretty much says it all, really. You cannot even be bothered to expose your mind to the ideas that you reject.

You try to label any form of comparison as "relativism". As a result, your arguments can only ever be uni-dimensional, in much the same way as a pet hamster sees its world only in terms of the contents of its cage.

Pericles
Under your rules of engagement we could not have a discussion about anything. Just try sitting in a university tute of any subject of your choosing and use the kind of arguments you have put up. You would have us wafting about generalities without coming to terms about any specific subject. I am specifically discussing Christian theology and nothing else. That does not mean that I am narrow minded just that I want to say a particular thing. This is the typical liberal rubbish that freezes all debate before it even gets off the ground.

To the contrary, Peter.

>>"Under your rules of engagement we could not have a discussion about anything"<<

Under 'my rules of engagement', we could have a discussion about Christian theology that doesn't involve rejecting a valid question.

In Terry Pratchett's Discworld series, the world is flat, and rides through space on the backs of four elephants, Berilia, Tubul, Great T'Phon, and Jerakeen, who are in turn carried by a giant turtle, the Great A'Tuin. Under 'my rules of engagement' it would be permissable to ask questions about the thesis itself, which – as you can imagine – has a few holes in it. It is a world that is, after all, only held together by magic.

Under yours, Peter, we would be permitted only to discuss matters such as the relationship between Brutha and Om, or the nature of the eighth colour, Octarine. A somewhat limited discourse, I am sure you will agree, and one that can only be useful, I would submit, to an audience already steeped in Discworld folklore.

How much more interesting those university tutorials might be if you opened a window occasionally to let in some light.