Adrian,

Thanks for the second Henke link... I had not read that one before.  Henke brings up some good points to consider, though the question of whether the RATE results are accurate is obviously not finally settled yet.

One of Henke's main points is that Humphreys has not considered "what could have happened in the past history of the Fenton Hill rocks" in his analysis - i.e. if the rocks might have been wet, etc.   The form of his argument is attacking the uniformitarian assumptions.   This is interesting.  Most radioactive decay dating methods have similar weaknesses, which creationists have likewise attacked in the past (assumed original parent/daughter element ratios, assumed constant decay rate, etc).  That is why dating methods are always somewhat questionable, whether they point to an old or a young earth.     I'll keep following the news (pro and contra) the RATE project to see what the outcome is.  Two of the three articles Henke referred to as indicating a wet history are available online- http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/7080705-RC49Rd/native/7080705.pdf and http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/6351947-Q6LgwU/native/6351947.pdf .   Even if there was water in the past, the question is (1) how much that would affect the diffusion, and (2) when did the water leave (because when the rocks were found they were "hot and dry").   And with pressure, the question is how much it would affect the diffusion.

BTW, you may also be interested in reading some of the other young-earth indicators to balance out your old-earth reading, such as this article http://www.icr.org/article/1842/ .   Each of the 'dating methods' mentioned could be discussed in great detail, and evolutionists have 'rebuttals' to many of them.  The evidences and rebuttals need to be compared, as always, to see which is the stronger case.  Interestingly, the evolutionists tend to argue against the uniformitarian assumptions (while making their own identical uniformitarian assumptions), as Henke did above.  (i.e. the magnetic field - reversal theory, the organic-molecule "molecular fossilization" theories, Kuiper belt (unobserved) comet origins, etc).

Spoonwood,

If you would rather read the Greek text instead of the English text I cited, it is widely available - e.g. http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/~fisher/gnt/chapters.html

You wrote:
"Yet, I suspect your closed-mind state of not remaining open to alternative points of view will remain. Since you most likely already think my ideas rubbish, I dare you NOT to prove me wrong."

You dare me not to prove you wrong, eh?...   So if I accept your dare then I agree not to prove you wrong, and if I instead present reasons for my belief then you imply that I am a coward or I am unable to approach the question in a reasonable and openminded manner. 

Rather amusing.

On the contrary, my friend, if your argument against Christianity has sunk to these depths ("I dare you not to prove me wrong"), then it is your own position that is intellectually weak.

I am personally quite "open to alternate points of view", i.e. that Jesus was not born of a virgin or that God does not exist.  But I must see EVIDENCE for any view that I might consider believing, not just cheap rhetorical tricks like "I dare you not to prove me wrong."

You wrote:
"We have a different author from Matthew. Consequently, we don't necessarily have one context here. We have two different authors who talk about (slightly) different supposed events, and consequently have two different contexts."

On what basis do you insist that the events described by Matthew and Luke must be "different" and hence the words used by both authors to describe the events cannot mean the same thing (i.e. "virgin", understood to normal linguistic precision and in context of Matthew 1 and Luke 1)? 

If you want to quibble with that, then on what basis do you think that you even are talking about the same documents that I'm talking about, or the same event that I was referring to?

You wrote:
"Authors often do NOT even attempt to rigorously adhere to a one-word one-meaning idea throughout their texts. ...Consequently, even if we have a single context between TWO books (which you can assume), we don't have evidence that the word (declined form of) 'parthenos' has the same meaning in any two given instances."

We're discussing two specific authors, in two specific contexts, not arbitrary authors in arbitrary contexts.  Two authors from similar cultures used the same word in describing the same story about the same person.  To interpret "parthenos" as meaning "virgin" in one account and "maiden" in the other account thus needs specific justification. I.e. you have the burden of proof here.  If you think the two words are being used differently, where is your proof?

If you disagree on the burden of proof standard, then I could easily apply your statement ("Authors often do NOT even attempt to rigorously adhere to a one-word one-meaning idea throughout their texts") to deconstruct your own posts and comments, and interpret them however I like.

You wrote:
I already mentioned the Matthew passage and pointed out that the Greek the language the text actually got written in comes as ambiguous.

All you showed was that the word "parthenos" CAN mean "maiden" as well as "virgin".  But you did NOT show that the CONTEXT of Matthew 1 supported this rendering.

In fact the meaning "virgin" is much more consistent with the context.  (v. 25 is quite explicit)  If you have further questions about this, let me know and we can reexamine the context of Matthew 1 in more detail.

You wrote:
"The Luke passage doesn't mention a "virgin birth". It just talks about how young Mary doesn't understand how she can bear a child, since she is a virgin."

Heh... yes, precisely.  She was a virgin, so quite naturally she didn't understand how she could bear a child.  What does the text say was the answer to her question?

When you compare 1:34 with the answer to her question in 1:35-36, the meaning "maiden" doesn't make nearly as much sense contextually as the meaning "virgin".

So both passages really do claim that Jesus was born of a virgin.  Again, I realize you don't believe that the Biblical accounts are true because of your anti-supernaturalistic bias, but I at least expect you to show proper awareness of contexts in the reading and interpretation of texts.

By the way, I'm curious as to how you became so bitter against the idea of God and the supernatural and Christianity and Christians and all.   Did you grow up in an atheistic environment?  Or did you grow up in a hypocritical religious environment?  Or perhaps you experienced some event that greatly shaped your thinking in this area?  If it's too personal and you'd rather not talk about it, I understand.

Tim

Sean,

Thanks for your thoughts... I look forward to discussing your thoughts and claims as well.

You wrote:  >You posted earlier on another xangan's site something to the effect that you think you have evidence for the existence of a deity that's strong enough to make you a rational believer. I am very curious about your evidence and hence would like you to go into some detail about the evidence paying particular attention to whether the evidence concerns itself with the existence of a supernatural force in general (e.g. something like the metaphysics of Buddhism or the concept of Gaia), or an anthropomorphic god (e.g. Jehovah or Jesus).

Great question.

First, your reference to the Biblical Jehovah as an "anthropomorphic god" seems seems a bit questionable - it seems to imply that the God of the Bible was 'conjured up' by ancient theologians as some sort of larger version of man (like the Greek or Roman gods, for example).  Whether you meant this or not, I'll be discussing the evidence not for an "anthropomorphic" god, but rather a "personal" God - the God of the Bible, who does "get involved" immanently in His creation but is also transcendent above it.

Ok, so then why do I believe in this God described in the Bible?  There are many types of "proofs" and reasons, as I'm sure you're well aware.  I'll share the two most powerful ones to me.

1. Origins / where did everything come from?  Where did the matter/energy in the universe come from (cf. Second Law of Thermodynamics), where did life come from (abiogenesis/evolution versus intelligent design, or in the case of Christianity, direct creation by God), where did species come from, etc.  

Now at first you might claim that Buddhist/Hindu or Gaia 'eternal universe' with 'life force' might also account for the origin of the universe, per your question posed above.  I'm definitely open to learning more about your hypothesis.  But I have not found any exclusive evidence for such theories.  In fact normal life experience and scientific exploration seems to fit the Biblical origins account better than the strictly naturalistic (quantum randomly exploding universes, life arising from nonlife, etc) or mind-only/emergent/pantheistic/panentheistic (invisible and unobservable life-force permeating everything, 'eternal universe' contradicting observable thermodynamics principles, etc) theories.

What we see around us (generally predictable physical world that is running down thermodynamically from some initial starting point, with tantalizing hints of a spiritual realm like the persistant "illusions" of morality, consciousness, and free will) seems to be not only amenable to, but in my experience even superlatively congruent with, the Biblical origins account of one supreme/eternal/omnipotent and personal God creating the universe/time/space from nothing and then only occasionally intervening visibly since that time.

So the evidence from science and the physical world around me points me to a (personal) Creator.  But there are still many such religious versions of such a God - Judaistic, Islamic, Mormon, some versions of Hinduism, etc.   Why believe in the God of the Bible specifically?  I'll share my reasons in a moment.

You wrote:
By 'existence' I mean the term we use to denote that a particular thing is; i.e., the existence I'm looking for of an anthropomorphic deity is the same type of existence I use when I denote the keyboard I'm typing on as having existence.

Thanks for the definitions...  one quick question here - I assume you don't mean that you're assuming that God must have a PHYSICAL existence like your keyboard does?  Rather I assume you're talking about "existence" in terms of "reality" and "non-fuzziness" and non-contradictoriness and correspondence-theory-of-truth, etc.  I likewise am discussing the fact that God "exists", He is real, though He is a spiritual being, He can AFFECT the physical world though He is not BOUND inside it like you and I are.

You wrote:
 By 'irrational' I mean that which does not logically follow from the evidence. By 'irresponsible' I mean that by which is not gained by exposing one's beliefs to enough criticism.

Excellent.  One thing I would add to rationality and responsible intellectual behavior is the possibility of falsification - i.e. if I believe some belief such that no possible evidence would change my opinion, I am being intellectually irresponsible, irrational, etc. 

The classic example is the story of the man who was sure that he was dead.  His friends tried to persuade him that he was actually alive.  Finally one friend told him, "we know that dead men don't bleed, so try poking your finger to see if you bleed or not."  When he poked his finger and started bleeding, the man exclaimed, "Wow, dead men do bleed after all!"  This is an example of non-falsifiability/closed-mindedness - believing in something despite the evidence.

You wrote:
>I consider myself a philosopher in that I love wisdom and seek for truth. I currently believe - at times I think I know - that it is both irrational and irresponsible to believe the god of the Hebrew Bible or New Testament exists just as it is both irrational and irresponsible to believe Zeus exists in the sky throwing down lightning with his troop of care bears floating around.

Ok.  The question immediately arises whether you think that believing in both YHWH and Zeus is irrational on some PHILOSOPHICAL basis (i.e. "it is impossible for non-physical beings to exist" or something along those lines) or because you believe that the EVIDENCE for the existence of both YHWH and Zeus is lacking.

I'll assume the latter is your objection, but feel free to correct me if I'm mistaken.

So quite simply, here is my other strong reason to believe in the God of the Bible - He has provided some very remarkable and convincing miracles to demonstrate His existence (and not only to demonstrate His existence, but to validate the self-revelation He provided in the Bible and to woo the world back to the joyful communion with Him for which we were made).

The resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth from the dead is the most prominent miracle supporting my belief in God, but Jesus' resurrection did not come in a vacuum.  The whole Bible points toward Jesus' coming, and the ransom that He would accomplish...  there were other surrounding miracles, in the Old Testament (OT) and in the New Testament (NT), there were prophecies, history, ethical/legal teachings, etc.

But the resurrection is quite pivotal.  (It is also the main 'falsifiability-point' of my Christian belief - if I came to realize that Jesus actually didn't rise from the dead, I would probably become an atheist... it's the most morally convenient worldview)

If Jesus really physically rose from the dead three days after being crucified (as He predicted He would), then at the very least He knows more than I do about the nature of the universe.  And at the fullest implications... as I study Jesus' teachings (and the teachings of the entire Bible which Jesus explicitly validated), I come to believe in YHWH the God of the Bible, the God whom Jesus believed in...  ...and I come to believe Jesus' testimony that He Himself was the Son of God.

Therefore I find the common objection "If you believe in God, then you'll have to believe in fairies and leprechauns and Zeus too" to be a trivially hasty overgeneralization.  It is simply not the case that Zeus (or many other religions, for example) has the same evidential support as the God of the Bible.   In fact, very few religions besides Christianity base their validity primarily on historical / verifiable facts/events.

And when I say "evidential", I'm referring to even the very strongest forms - scientific, historical, eyewitness-testimony, etc.... besides the weaker evidences like philosophical understanding of the argument from morality and consciousness and the sense of fulfillment and joy that knowing God provides to me.  (And I can tell you that it's awesome.)

Two final questions - First, have you ever pondered the fact that naturalism leads directly to a defeater for confidence in rational thought?  Simply put, there is no obvious way in which the naturalistic mechanisms underlying the theory of evolution would necessarily produce a brain which is likely to come to correct conclusions about metaphysical questions.  Physical survival value - sure, there's mechanisms for that (natural selection + random mutation).  But a randomly-evolved brain that just happens to reliably come to "correct" conclusions about God and questions of morality/metaphysics... that's a huge (and blind) leap of faith.  It is, in fact, a "defeater."  Plantinga describes this problem in more detail (http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/plantinga/Dennett.html).  Interestingly, I as a Christian do not have this particular epistemological problem because I believe that God has designed my brain in such a way that it has the capability to reliably handle metaphysical questions.  So Christianity is self-referentially coherent in this area wheras naturalism is self-referentially incoherent.

Secondly, have you ever studied the historical accounts about Jesus life/teachings/death/resurrection for yourself?  I'm referring primarily to the four gospel accounts, plus the little bit of historical information available from other extrabiblical sources.   I'm sure you've studied it to some degree....  what are your thoughts?  What is your explanation for the empty tomb and the resurrection appearances and the emergent Christian church in Jerusalem immediately following Jesus' execution?

With esteem,

Tim

Spoonwood,

You wrote:
[Again, I realize you don't believe that the Biblical accounts are true because of your anti-supernaturalistic bias, but I at least expect you to show proper awareness of contexts in the reading and interpretation of texts.]
There doesn't exist bias against something until we have knowledge of something or think we do. Racists know white people. Speciesists have knowledge of species. I don't have knowledge of anything supernatural, and neither do "naturalists", and consequently there cannot exist bias here. That doesn't make me unbiased, as I can and probably do have biases in many other ways.

Well, you're right that racists and speciesists are "biased", but not all types of bias are related to "admitted" knowledge of the thing in question.  For example, there are plenty of people in Iran who claim that the "Holocaust" is a myth, denying its existence.  Their bias tends to be obvious.  Old Testament critics used to disbelieve in the Hittite civilization despite its being mentioned in the Bible, evidencing their bias against the Bible.  Contrary to what you implied, "non-existence claims" can indeed show "bias".  Bias is simply a preference to believe in a certain way before certain evidence is revealed.  Bias may be based on previous evidence, but with reference to new incoming evidence it tends to dismiss some and believe other uncritically because of the predilection in a certain direction.

Thus people can be biased in favor of or against God's existence.

You wrote:
There doesn't exist an "atheistic" environment, as "atheism" doesn't consists of making a positive truth claim. It claims the statement "God exists" is false.

Atheism goes at least as far as you mentioned.  But in my experience there is indeed an atheistic environment, because atheism is usually connected with philosophical materialism / naturalism.  Atheism typically holds in practice to the belief that "God does not exist", even if that belief is not formally stated or discussed.   I'm not saying that you personally necessarily believe that God does not exist.  But almost all atheists I know do believe this, demonstrably/in-practice even if they shy away from saying that in discussion.

You wrote about the text of Matthew and Luke:
>It does, however, mean that saying "the new testament of Christians says Jesus was born of a virgin" qualifies as incorrect statement. We don't know what it says exactly. The passage can work as ambiguous. Until you can demonstrate that one interpretation must be favored over another, then the possibility of more than one interpretation remains, because when working with ambiguity there exists no default position which favors one interpretation over another.

and you also responded to my comment about your OWN writing:
[If you disagree on the burden of proof standard, then I could easily apply your statement ("Authors often do NOT even attempt to rigorously adhere to a one-word one-meaning idea throughout their texts") to deconstruct your own posts and comments, and interpret them however I like.]
If so, then you need to show how you can REALLY interpret my posts in another light. You have to provide the interpretations of my posts as something other than I think, and DEMONSTRATE that they can work that way.

Unfortunately you are evincing a double standard here.  When referring to the Bible you insist that I must "demonstrate" why the Greek word "parthenos" should mean "virgin" in that context.  But when discussing your own work, you claim that your posts cannot be construed as ambiguous unless I "demonstrate that they can work that way".

Of course, the real question is not whether a word could have a different meaning in an arbitrary context, but whether the specific context in question supports one meaning of the word over other meanings.  So in this sense I agree with your latter sentiment - we ought to take the contextual meaning of texts, unless someone comes along and shows that the meaning we're using does not make as much CONTEXTUAL sense as another meaning. 

Next you attempted to demonstrate that "maiden" would work in the context of Matthew 1.

First, you wrote:
Behold, a MAIDEN shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

As explained in the link I provided earlier (http://www.christian-thinktank.com/fabprof2.html), I actually have no problem with the interpretation that "parthenos" in Matthew 1:23 was emphasizing more the typological concept of the Messiah's birth and the specific sign foretold by Isaiah than specifically emphasizing the virginity of the Messiah's mother.  The meaning of "maiden" would thus be 'ok' contextually in 1:23, though I think "virgin" much more correctly represents the meaning.  

However, the whole passage in context strongly supports the virgin birth, such as verse 25.

You wrote:
24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS."
It doesn't say how he "knew her not". I also found a translation that says "But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son," at the end http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=1&version=31 From these three different translations alone it becomes rather apparent that the ORIGINAL Greek uses a phrase here that doesn't have an exact unique translation in English. Consequently, the 'maiden' interpretation still works as ONE possibility.

No language ever has an "exact unique translation" into another language.  But phrases can be approximately translated with varying (and often quite close) degrees of congruence.  The Greek word "ginosko" was used in Jewish Greek literature as a euphemism for marital sex (see Thayer's lexicon I.3 and Strong's #3 under "ginosko", http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/words.pl?book=Mat&chapter=1&verse=25&strongs=1097&page=1&flag_full=1).  Of the four basic meanings of "ginosko" listed by Strong, #3 best fits the context (the others wouldn't make sense in 1:25). 

Consequently, this passage does indeed work as claiming that Mary was a virgin when Christ was born.  The child was specifically said to be conceived of the Holy Spirit and Joseph was specifically recorded as waiting until Jesus was born before consummating his marriage.

On Luke 1:30-38, you wrote:

[When you compare 1:34 with the answer to her question in 1:35-36, the meaning "maiden" doesn't make nearly as much sense contextually as the meaning "virgin".]
For that passage, sure. But that does NOT speak about a "virgin birth ". Since we don't have one-word one-meaning preserved throughout even the same authors writings, it stands as reasonable to think that in other contexts the word means 'maiden'.

I'm glad to hear that you now agree with me that "parthenos" in Luke 1:34 refers specifically to a virgin.   I agree with you that words must be evaluated separately in each new context they're used (although the broader context of the whole author's works must be consulted).

For clarity, here's the passage again:
 30The angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary; for you have found favor with God.
 31"And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name Him Jesus.
 32"He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David; 33and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and His kingdom will have no end."

 34Mary said to the angel, "How can this be, since I am a virgin?"

 35The angel answered and said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God.  36"And behold, even your relative Elizabeth has also conceived a son in her old age; and she who was called barren is now in her sixth month.  37"For nothing will be impossible with God."

 38And Mary said, "Behold, the bondslave of the Lord; may it be done to me according to your word."
 

The context before 1:34 is the fact that Mary will conceive.  The obvious question in the virgin's mind was "how"... as in, "what must I do to facilitate this?"   (notice that "how can this be, since I am a maiden" would make very little sense..).   The answer was that it would be accomplished through the power of the Holy Spirit, so that ("for this reason") this child would be the "Son of God" in a very special way.  Finally the angel describes the unusual conception of Mary's cousin, demonstrating to her that God's power is not limited.   The God who had formed the first man from dust and the first woman from a rib would have no problem bringing about the virgin birth of Jesus.

Thus the passage (along with the Matthew 1 passage) clearly teach the virgin birth of Jesus Christ.

Hi Spoonwood,

Thanks for your thoughts.

I think we may have to put our bias discussion on hold for a while, since we both still disagree on the definition.  It's defined by dictionary.com as "a particular tendency or inclination, esp. one that prevents unprejudiced consideration of a question; prejudice."  The part you added about needing to have prior experience with existence of similar things is linguistically incorrect.  If you have a "particular tendency or inclination" to disbelieve in God, regardless of your prior evidence or your prior experience or lack thereof, then you are biased in this area.  And same with me - if I have a "particular tendency or inclination" to believe in God (regardless of whether I have previous experience of God or not), then I am biased in this area. 

Also by the way, in my opinion, atheists such as yourself do indeed have "relevant experience".  You have never had sensory experience of me (Tim), but you infer that I exist simply through your written interaction with me.  You have personal subjective experiences of your own soul/consciousness/self-awareness, conscience, ability to choose (rather than determinism), etc (though I assume you probably deny the existence or non-naturalism of these things too).

Romans 1 and Psalm 19 claim that some information is available to everyone about God, through the facts of creation.  Romans 1 says that some (actually all of us) deny and "suppress" that knowledge, because we do not wish to know God better (we all hate him by nature... because we're all sinners).  But He works quietly in some of our hearts to allow us to see the truth.  And the offer for Him to do so is available to everyone.

> But, that "God", according to "Christianity", literally IS Jesus. Consequently, "God creates himself."

No, this is not a correct understanding of Christian doctrine.  God, Father Son and Holy Spirit, has always existed, "from everlasting to everlasting" (Psalm 90).  When Jesus was born to Mary, He merely "took on flesh" (John 1, Philippians 2), He did not "begin to exist" at that point.

Let's summarize the discussion on the two passages about the virgin birth.   Your original challenge to me was that the New Testament did not definitely teach that Jesus was born of a virgin.  Your primary argument was that the word "parthenos" can mean "maiden" in some contexts - it does not always mean "virgin".

I responded by agreeing with you that "parthenos" can mean "maiden" in SOME contexts, but that in the context of Luke 1:34 (and thus 1:27) it definitely means "virgin", and in Matthew 1:23 no matter which meaning is used, the passage in context (1:25 etc) teaches the virgin birth.

You responded with several rhetorical arguments (I'm "closedminded", "virgin birth might be naturalistic", I didn't speak with the authors so I can't confidently interpret the passage, "I dare you not to prove me wrong", etc), and only one argument that actually dealt with the text.

I'll now examine your one textual argument.  I'm not really trying to "prove the virgin birth to you", because you obviously don't currently believe the Bible records as accurate.  (I presume you think that the virgin birth story was made up after the fact by Jesus' disciples to legendize Jesus, due to your belief that miracles are impossible). 
Of course from my perspective, not only are miracles possible, but some miracles have indeed occurred, such as Jesus' resurrection.  And if Jesus really did rise from the dead and if the records about Him are accurate in general, then there is no reason for me not to take the virgin birth account as accurate also... and in fact there is excellent reason for me to accept them, because they are witnessed by at least two non-colluding eyewitness-based historical sources.

Your textual argument was based not on the context, but on the semantic range of the word "ginosko", which as you said CAN POSSIBLY mean (depending on the context):  (from Strong's lexicon)
1) to learn to know, come to know, get a knowledge of perceive, feel
  a) to become known
2) to know, understand, perceive, have knowledge of
  a) to understand
  b) to know
3) Jewish idiom for sexual intercourse between a man and a woman
4) to become acquainted with, to know

As I was looking at Thayer's (the BLB link above) and Gingrich's lexicons (and subsequently looked more closely at the Greek of Luke 1:34), I realized that the word in 1:34 is not "parthenos" at all, but the same root "ginosko" as in Matthew 1:25.  I apologize for not noticing this sooner.  So a literal word-for-word translation of Luke 1:34 would be: "Said and Mary to the angel, 'How shall be this, since a man not I do know?'" or "And Mary said to the angel, "How can this be, since I do not know a man?""

Let's look in more detail into the word "ginosko" in these contexts.  This question we're discussing is a simple Greek language question: which one of the possible meanings is the most correct one for these two verses?  Is it that: Mary "didn't know" any man?  Or is it that she "had never had sex with" any man?  And in Matthew 1:25, is it that Joseph "didn't know" his wife for a few months after marriage (or "didn't spend time with her" as you suggested), or "didn't have sex with" his wife during that time?

First, notice that Thayer specifically lists both verses (Matt. 1:25, Luke 1:34) under the meaning of "ginosko" associated with marital sexual intercourse (along with Gen. 4:1, 4:17, 19:8, 1 Sam. 1:19, etc).  Since Thayer is presumably more knowledgable in the Greek language than either you or I, that should settle the language question (i.e. both passages are talking about sexual "knowing", not generic "knowing").

But if we look at the contexts, the meaning Thayer cites is quite clear and appropriate; and contrary to your claims of "ambiguity", the other meanings do not fit nearly as well.

In Luke 1:
30The angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary; for you have found favor with God.
 31"And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name Him Jesus.
 32"He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David; 33and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and His kingdom will have no end."

 34Mary said to the angel, "How can this be, since I [do not know a man]?"

 35The angel answered and said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God.  36"And behold, even your relative Elizabeth has also conceived a son in her old age; and she who was called barren is now in her sixth month.  37"For nothing will be impossible with God."

 38And Mary said, "Behold, the bondslave of the Lord; may it be done to me according to your word."

The context is of having a baby (1:31), and Mary asks how this can be, because (1) she is a virgin, or (2) she has not 'learned', 'perceived', or has no 'knowledge of' any men.  Meaning (2) is not directly relevant to the context of how to have a baby (besides its being rather improbable that she has no knowledge of ANY men, including Joseph, her father, townspeople, etc), wheras Meaning (1) is perfectly and completely relevant.  Therefore Thayer's identification of this Jewish idiom here makes perfect sense.

How about the context of Matthew 1?

18Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: when His mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit. 19And Joseph her husband, being a righteous man and not wanting to disgrace her, planned to send her away secretly.

 20But when he had considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, "Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife; for the Child who has been conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.  21"She will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins."

 22Now all this took place to fulfill what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet:
 23"BEHOLD, THE VIRGIN SHALL BE WITH CHILD AND SHALL BEAR A SON, AND THEY SHALL CALL HIS NAME IMMANUEL," which translated means, "GOD WITH US."

 24And Joseph awoke from his sleep and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took Mary as his wife, 25but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus.

Here the text says that Mary was pregnant before she was married to Joseph... and Joseph was quite obviously troubled about it (especially in that culture, where the firstborn son would get the inheritance... if he wasn't Joseph's son, then Joseph would basically be giving away his family's heritage to another man.. or so he thought).

The text says that an angel told him that the child was "of the Holy Spirit", rather than of some other man.  So Joseph (very graciously) took her as his wife and accepted the shame in everyone else's eyes of marrying "a harlot" (cf. John 8:41 where the Pharisees specifically insulted Jesus about his mother... and in later Jewish rabbinical literature Jesus is sometimes referred to as "the son of the harlot" - http://www.christian-thinktank.com/trin03d.html ).

In this context of marriage, betrothal, virginity or lack thereof, divorce, etc, Thayer's recognition that 1:25 is referring to sexual "knowing" rather than "knowing" in general (or "spending time with", which is not even part of the semantic range of "ginosko") seems extremely reasonable. 

Even IF the text did not require in 1:25 that Joseph abstained from sex with Mary until Jesus was born, the passage STILL teaches that Jesus was (1) not Joseph's son, and (2) was specifically conceived in Mary "of the Holy Spirit" - i.e., that Jesus was born of the virgin Mary.

So your argument does not hold up.  Both passages, in context, still teach that Jesus was born of a virgin.

A more important topic for us to discuss, though, is probably this - why would one believe (or disbelieve) this account?  On what basis might one reasonably believe that the gospel accounts are accurate or not?  Is it rational to philosophically rule out the possibility of a virgin birth accomplished by God?  (I'm not sure if you're doing this or not, but I'd be interested to hear your thoughts)

And I'd still be interested to hear your thoughts on how you came to the beliefs you have today about God.  As you say, there are many many small events that shape one's worldview.  But were any of the events in your life more significant than others?   I know that in my life some events were definitely more significant than others in shaping my beliefs...

Sean,

Thanks for your thoughtful reply.  I know what you mean about school time-pressures.

My last post presented what are in my opinion the two most compelling evidences for the God of the Bible (Creation/Origins and the Life/Teachings/Death/Resurrection of Jesus).  Based on those positive evidences (and others, like the fact that objective morality seems to exist), I'll be going through your post from the perspective that God does exist, and examining the objections you have against those two evidences and against God in general.

(by the way, please do look up the Bible verses I'm citing, as time permits, at e.g. http://www.biblegateway.com )

> if I understand you correctly, your argument seems not to purport Intelligent Design, but rather a biblical account of Creationism.

Yes.  Although some modern Christians take Genesis to be metaphorical/myth rather than history, the rest of the Bible and Jesus himself always seem to view Genesis as history and never as myth.  Since I believe that Jesus is the Son of God and thus knows what He's talking about, I imitate Him in this view of Genesis.

By the way, this gets to the heart of why some evolutionists say that "creationism is unfalsifiable."  Creationism actually IS falsifiable, but not directly through forensic/origins science.  Rather, if Jesus is discredited (e.g. if He did not rise from the dead), then creationism has no foundation and it falls apart.

One more thought - when I mentioned "Creation/Origins" above as a strong indicator of God's existence, I wasn't just referring to Genesis (that would be almost circular reasoning), but to the actual physical need for a Cause of all we see.  This is in three areas - the origin of the universe/matter/energy, the origin of life from non-life, and the origin of all the various biological species with all the information encoded in their genes.  As I have investigated these three areas, all three of them point to a Creator.  The naturalistic explanations of all three seem pretty weak (both conceptually/philosophically and empirically/evidentially).

> I mean no disrespect, but I find the accounts in the Hebrew Bible for how life began to be mythical. That is, I think the authors of books like Genesis, like creation myths of other ancient religions, meant for their works to be taken metaphorically, not literally.

Ok, thanks for sharing your view on Genesis.  Do you have any (non-circular) textual evidence that it was meant to be taken metaphorically?   I'm open to being shown that I'm wrong, but when I look at Genesis 1-11, there doesn't seem to be any sudden change in style when it starts talking in chapter 12 about Abraham (whom most people consider to be historical). 

Also, Exodus 20:8-11 seems to indicate that Moses did not consider the Creation account to be mythical (and now that the JEDP hypothesis is falling into disrepute, Moses was very likely the compiler of Genesis itself from earlier records.. Jesus agrees- Mark 7:10, etc). 

And Jesus and the apostles repeatedly referred to Genesis as real history rather than myth: Mark 10:1-12, Matthew 12:39-41, 24:37-38, Luke 11:51, 17:26-32, John 8:56-58, Romans 5:12, 2 Peter 2:5, 3:4, etc.

Obviously if one accepts that Jesus is who he claims to be, then his opinion on Genesis settles the question.  But even if you simply consider Jesus to be a first-century Jewish rabbi, his opinion seems worth considering.  Whatever else Jesus may have been, he does not seem to have been a stupid man, yet apparently he did not believe that the authors of Genesis meant for their work to be taken metaphorically.  Presumably he would have understood their intent even better than we, since his culture and language was closer to theirs.

> If taken literally, I find the 7 day creation hypothesis to be inconsistent and perhaps contradictory.

I'd be interested to hear more about this.  Are you saying it's internally contradictory, or merely contradictory to the modern evolutionary theory?  I'd agree with the latter but not the former.

> It also seems to me, correct me if I'm wrong, that you're saying an examination of the human condition leads you to believe in some sort of personal and caring deity (e.g. the moral sense within us can only have been put in us by a deity because it's universal to all humans). If this is your view, I could not disagree more. I see much suffering in this world; some of it is due to natural causes, but most seems to be due to human activity. I see many unjust persons prospering and many just persons suffering. In fact, I see so much suffering that I'm pretty sure that no loving and omnipotent deity exist. If such a being did exist, there would not be this much suffering. Perhaps a deity exists, however, who is either omnipotent or loving, but not both.

The argument you raised about the Problem of Evil is a hefty one.  There are three replies I'll suggest - the first a simple logical explanation without much emotional "oomph", the second a "turn-the-tables" argument, and the third a very compelling emotional argument from the Christian perspective (i.e. this last point is what satisfies me on this issue, although you may not appreciate it because of your current worldview).

1. In the Christian worldview, sin/evil and suffering and death entered the world through one man, Adam (Genesis 1, Romans 5).  God gave man the ability to choose, either to choose righteousness and life or sin and death.  Man chose sin/death/suffering.  Since that time, the world has been suffering (Romans 8:19-23).  However, God is not passive or indifferent - He is waiting until the moment comes when He will put an end to evil forever.  He will judge the world at the end, and everything will finally be 'made right' - full justice will be served.  In answer to the charge that "an omnipotent God would have the power to stop all evil, and a perfectly good God would stop all evil that He could", the short answer is: "Yes, He will... very soon."   Why the delay?  Because somehow it will be "better" and more wonderful in the end, looking back, than if He had stopped it sooner.

2. I'm sure you're aware that for you to even raise the question requires you to have some transcendent standard for what is "Good" and what is "Evil".  As you said, "I see many unjust persons prospering and many just persons suffering."  And it is precisely this notion of "just" and "unjust" which does not make sense from a naturalistic perspective.
If the physical world were all there is, there would be no "just" or "unjust", there would only be "is"... only "groups of particles" moving around the universe.  There would be no purpose, no moral questioning, no "why".  The very fact that we keep raising the question of "evil" implies that there is a spiritual/non-physical soul within us that can apprehend such questions.  Thus the "problem of evil" argues for the existence of God just as much (or more) as it argues against Him.

3. So far, we just have words flying around... arguments, arguments, arguments.  But there is something much deeper and more visceral.  If I look at the claims of the Bible, the God described in the Bible isn't just "waiting" for the evil to end, nor is He just getting ready to "judge" heartlessly in the end.  He has ACTED at ENORMOUS personal cost, to put an end the evil.  That is, He voluntarily came to earth to die (and take Hell's eternal punishment) for me.  I'm sure you've heard this so many times that it's lost its astonishing-ness for you.  Likewise for me.  But if we really ponder that...  that the Creator would love His Creation so much that He would die for it...  
So when I face the "problem of evil" in my personal life... when someone close to me dies or struggles with cancer, or when I go through tough stuff myself, the fact that God Himself was (voluntarily) terribly scarred by the evil in this world puts my question to rest.  I do not personally know 'why' such and such bad thing happened.  But I know that God has a good purpose for it... that the end result looking back will be far greater than if the bad thing had not happened.  And as proof, I see that God Himself suffered/suffers.  He is not a detached observer.
Of course, one could still say that God is stupid... that he "ought to have known better" before creating Adam and Eve with the ability to sin.  But this seems to demonstrate an incredible arrogance, in that the person saying that is saying that he or she knows all the possible future outcomes and can confidently say that God chose the wrong path.  Whatever else the relationship between God and me may be, it doesn't seem to make sense to say that I know more than God does.

["So quite simply, here is my other strong reason to believe in the God of the Bible - He has provided some very remarkable and convincing miracles to demonstrate His existence (and not only to demonstrate His existence, but to validate the self-revelation He provided in the Bible and to woo the world back to the joyful communion with Him for which we were made). The resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth from the dead is the most prominent miracle supporting my belief in God, but Jesus' resurrection did not come in a vacuum. The whole Bible points toward Jesus' coming, and the ransom that He would accomplish... there were other surrounding miracles, in the Old Testament (OT) and in the New Testament (NT), there were prophecies, history, ethical/legal teachings, etc."]
> I argue that the whole Bible does not indeed point to Jesus's coming and the ransom he would pay. Rather, I think the Hebrew Bible is quite sufficient on its own.

How familiar are you with the Tanakh?  Would you agree that it predicts the comming of a Messiah?  (regardless of the book-ordering).  And in fact, Jesus referred to the book ordering in the interesting passage of Matt. 23:33-39 and Luke 11:42-54 when he said "...so that the blood of all the prophets, shed since the foundation of the world, may be charged against this generation, from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who was killed between the altar and the house of God; yes, I tell you, it shall be charged against this generation.'"

Abel was the first recorded righteous "prophet" (offering sacrifices etc, in Genesis - another indication that Jesus took Genesis as history), and Zechariah was the last prophet recorded in 2 Chronicles 24:21, the last book of the Hebrew scriptures.  Jesus was saying "from beginning to the end".

Moreover, have you ever read the prophecies of Zechariah, the last prophet recorded in the Tanakh?!  They are as Messianic as everything else in the Tanakh if not more so.  Zech. 3:8-9 about the Branch and "removing the iniquity of that land in one day", the typological prophecy in 6:11-15 about the Branch (Messiah) who will be both King AND Priest (no one else ever fit this category in the OT), Zech 12:1-14, v. 10 "I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Spirit of grace and of supplication, so that they will look on Me whom they have pierced; and they will mourn for Him, as one mourns for an only son, and they will weep bitterly over Him like the bitter weeping over a firstborn."  I.e. national repentance over killing Jesus.. soon to happen.   And at the end of the book in chapter 14, the astonishing prophecy about the sacking of Jerusalem by "all the nations" which will be suddenly interrupted halfway, by the personal coming of the Divine Messiah, whose "feet will stand on the Mount of Olives", etc.

> ...when I look at the prophecies the Gospel authors report Jesus to have fulfilled, I find many of them are not actually prophecies but rather misinterpretations. I think the Gospel authors did not have much knowledge of the Hebrew Bible because of these misinterpretations.

I'd absolutely love to discuss with you further what the Tanakh says about the Messiah (and investigate with you whether Jesus fits those predictions or not)...

> Also from what I've studied, according to the vast majority of both secular and Christian scholars, the names that appear on the canonical Gospels are not the actual authors.

I recommend reading http://www.christian-thinktank.com/stil23.html on the alleged pseudoepigraphica... although perhaps you have additional evidence on this that I'd be very willing to examine.

> We have evidence to believe the Gospels were written anonymously with what we call Mark being the first written around 70.

I'll be interested to see your evidence for this.  Please do share it.

> If the above dating is correct, then none of the canonical Gospels were written by eyewitnesses.

As you correctly imply, the date of the gospels is an important point.  As I examine the evidence I've seen, Luke (and probably Matthew and Mark) were all written before 66ad.  Paul quotes Luke 10:7 and Deut 25:4 in I Tim 5:18 as being 'scripture'.  Paul died under Nero in 66ad...hence Luke had been written and accepted by the church much earlier than this.  Luke seems to use Mark/Matthew (according to most scholars today), which pushes them back even farther.  Also, Luke 1:1-3 supports the idea that Matthew and Mark had written their gospels already (cf. the links below... much of what I'm summarizing here can be found there in more detail).

If we consider that 1 Timothy was written during 57-59 AD while Paul was detained at Caesarea (Acts 23:23-26:32 esp. 24:27, Acts 20, 1 Tim. 1:3), then Luke was probably finished a few years before, around 55 AD.

On Matthew and Mark (both anonymous, as are also Luke and John), we have fragments from Papias from 130AD describing their origin. Papias was the bishop of Hierapolis in Phrygia. As Miller explains, "he was a disciple of the Apostle John and quotes from/comments on First John and Revelation. He collected traditions and stories and recorded them for posterity in five volumes, which survived up to the 13th century.... We only have fragments of this work, preserved in Eusebius and Irenaeus, but some of the few pieces we have are very instructive."

Here are two Papias quotes:
"Mark became Peter's interpreter and wrote down accurately all that he remembered, whether the sayings or the doings of the Lord, but not in order--for he had neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but followed Peter later on, as I said. Peter was accustomed to teach as occasion required, but not as though he were making a compilation of the dominical oracles. So Mark made no mistake in writing down certain things as he called them to mind; for he paid attention to one thing: to omit none of the things he had heard and to make no false statement in any of them." (Eccl. Hist., 3.39.15)

"Matthew compiled the oracles in the Hebrew speech, and each one interpreted them as best he could." (Eccl. Hist., 3.39.16).

So there is written evidence from contemporaries less than about 80 years removed that the synoptic gospels (themselves written within 10-20 years after Jesus) were written by the traditional authors: Matthew, Mark taking notes from Peter, and Luke (2 Cor. 8:18?).

In addition, in 1 Corinthians 15:1-7, Paul seems to be quoting an early church creed, from the phrase "received," the Aramaic-type word-order, the Aramaic "Cephas," the mentioning only of male witnesses, etc.  Since his visit to the Corinthians was around 51 AD, this teaching that he had given them was (at max) only 20 years after Jesus' death and resurrection. 

Paul had "received" it before his visit to the Corinthians, perhaps as early as his visit to Jerusalem in 33-35AD (Galatians 1:11-24).  Whether this particular creed was from that Jerusalem visit or not, he certainly would have gotten a full update on the situation as he stayed with Peter for two weeks.  Five or ten years (between Jesus' resurrection in 27-29 AD and the first hard-dateable record tracing back to 33-35AD) is not enough time for major legendizing to occur, as many eyewitnesses would still be alive.

Not to mention that the Main Event, the Resurrection, was simultaneously so weird a "legend" for the disciples to invent and so dangerous a legend to profess belief in (garnering death and/or imprisonment in Judea), that out of all "legends" to invent within ten years of a Jewish rabbi's death, that would be a very historically unlikely one in that culture.  Besides Paul's teachings, Peter and Stephen and James and others (Acts 1-9) were preaching this message IN Jerusalem, right where the highest percentage of people lived who could controvert these things if they were false. 

In fact Jesus' disciples were preaching these things in Jerusalem less than two months after the Resurrection.  And instead of the Jerusalem crowds ignoring them or considering them insane, there were somewhere around twenty thousand converts within a few days (Acts 1-5, 4:4).  And many of these converts had probably come for the Jewish Passover (when Jesus was killed) and stayed until Pentecost (when the disciples began publically proclaiming the gospel of the resurrected Messiah - Acts 2), so they had seen all the events involved.

For investigating these things, you may wish to examine these links as you have time:
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/stil13.html (dating the gospels)
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/stil1720.html (the alleged "telephone game")
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/stil09.html (the likelihood that written records as well as oral traditions were involved, prior to the writing of the gospels)
http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles/J_Study_Historical_Jesus_3.2_2005/J_Study_Historical_Jesus_3.2_2005.htm (a summary of scholarship on 1 Cor 15 and other passages)

I'll be very interested to read your reply when you have time.

With esteem,

Tim

Good question... it has to do with the fact that we are no longer "under law"... Romans 1-8, Galatians 1-5... i.e. we are not required to follow the Law of Moses any more.  However, many of its moral commands (as opposed to civil-structure) are still good guidelines... even for civil laws of our day... for example the pervasive concern for justice and for helping the poor and oppressed.  Also, nine out of the ten commandments are repeated again in the New Testament for Christians to obey.

The basic idea is in Galatians 4 - the Law of Moses was like a strict schoolmaster for a young person... when the person grows up, it's not that the person completely changes and decides to go contrary to the spirit of everything he's learned, but rather we will go even farther in purity and righteousness, as mature adults, yet without being "required" to do so, but out of love.

You may notice that Jesus consistently "raised the bar" of moral righteousness... e.g. Matthew 5-7...

Hi Spoonwood,

Thanks for your thoughts.

You wrote:
[Your textual argument was based not on the context...]
Actually, it was since one can substitute "maiden" in the context and it still works.

No, you did not show that it works.  You changed the word in the text and pretended that that proved your point, but you never showed that it fits the context.  Thus the other meanings of "ginosko" do not work (as I demonstrated above).  Only the meaning of "sexual knowing" fits the context.

Also, the Wikipedia article you quoted about the "controversy" is only describing the question of whether Matthew correctly quoted Isaiah and whether his choice of the word "parthenos" should be translated as "virgin" or "maiden" in English...  but there is no controversy (other than from you) over whether the whole passage teaches the virgin birth or not, because of the clarity of the other verses in the context. 

I have explained this before (see my paragraph above that starts "As explained in the link I provided earlier (http://www.christian-thinktank.com/fabprof2.html),").   Did you read the article I linked to?

Since you did not provide any new textual or contextual evidence relating to my previous post, the conclusion still stands that these passages clearly and unambiguously teach that Jesus was born of a virgin (regardless of whether "parthenos" means "virgin" or "maiden" in Matthew 1:23).

You wrote:
Honestly, calling someone who denies the divinity of Jesus a "Christian" distorts the meaning of "Christianity" perhaps like how people distort your books in your original post.

I think I see what you're saying here.  Of course, sometimes the word "Christian" is used as a cultural delineation rather than a religious label.  And the word "Christian" itself originated as an outsiders' epithet for the followers of Jesus Christ (Acts 11:26).

But I agree with you that it doesn't make sense to claim to follow Jesus while disbelieving what He claimed about Himself.  According to Jesus Himself, many people who consider themselves 'followers of Christ' and 'going to heaven', etc, actually are not true disciples, and will not be saved.    Luke 13:22-35, Matt. 7:13-29

Hi Spoonwood,

Thanks for your thoughts.  I agree with you that the Matthew passage teaches that Jesus was already conceived before Joseph's dream.

However, it seems that you are claiming that the passage allows that Joseph could have had sex with Mary before his dream, so  that Jesus would be Joseph's child.

This is incorrect; the passage does not allow this at all.  The whole reason why Joseph is troubled and is considering breaking off his betrothal is because Mary is pregnant.  If he had had sex with her before their marriage, there would have been no reason for his confusion and the subsequent vision.  Besides, Joseph and Mary are portrayed in the passages as very moral and righteous people (Matt. 1:19, Luke, not the type who would break the laws of God (and customs of their people) regarding marital sex.  In addition, the cultural mindset of protecting the heir's lineage makes it quite clear that Joseph was troubled (partly) because he did NOT know where the child came from.

Not only does the Matthew passage not allow for a "Joseph's child" hypothesis, but the Luke passage specifically states that Mary was a virgin before she got the announcement that she would conceive Jesus by the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:34).

Thus both passages still unambiguously teach that Jesus was born of a virgin.

You wrote:
[Did you read the article I linked to?]
Stick to the text and ONLY cite RELEVANT information. The article has TOO MUCH irrelevant information that ends up misleading you instead of focusing on the matter at hand.

The article I cited was perfectly relevant to the Wikipedia article that you quoted (which as you correctly imply was addressing a slightly different question).

I presume that you have not read the article I cited in depth, but perhaps just skimmed briefly over it?

Hi Spoonwood,

Thanks for your thoughts.   You claimed in your last post that my analysis was going beyond the text, into unwarranted psychological and cultural analysis.

However, as I read the texts in their contexts, the facets I mentioned WERE directly implicated in the text.  So I do not see your latest criticism as relevant.  Let's look at this in more detail.

First, a clarification of our discussion.  The questions we have been discussing are:
Q1. Do either (or both) of these passages teach 'unambiguously' that Jesus was born of a virgin?  I.e., is there no contextual support for non-virgin-birth views ("born of a maiden", born of Joseph and Mary having sex before marriage, etc)?  I have been arguing that both passages DO teach 'unambiguously' the virgin birth.
Q2. What does "parthenos" mean in Matt. 1:23?  Is it restricted to mean "virgin" in this verse?  Both of us agree that it is not necessarily restricted to this meaning in this verse.  However, as I said earlier, I think it is the most contextually accurate meaning, since the rest of the passage clearly teaches the virgin birth.
Q3. What does "ginosko" mean in Matt. 1:25 and Luke 1:34?  Does the context restrict it to the idiomatic meaning of marital sex, or might the context allow "spending time with" or other broader meanings?  I have argued the former.

Next, you had suggested that Jesus was Joseph's child.  I replied that the context does not allow this, because of Joseph's consternation.  You replied that (S1) I was psychoanalyzing Joseph without textual warrant and (S2) Joseph could have had sex with Mary in such a way that he was not expecting to have a child, hence his surprise and decision to divorce Mary when he found out that she was pregnant.

In reply, I suggest two things.

(T1) The passage specifically states certain things about Joseph's character and motives, so it is not "going beyond" the passage to infer that Joseph was a righteous man and that he did not want to disgrace Mary (and that he was concerned/surprised/etc - "considering" divorce, "afraid", etc).  Further, the fact that the text states that Joseph was "a righteous man" indicates that the 4 scenarios you postulated (and all other related scenarios) in which Joseph committed fornication with Mary and then later acted surprised and prepared to divorce her are completely inconsistent with the context.

(T2) BOTH passages specifically state by WHOM Jesus was conceived in Mary... and it was not by Joseph.  Rather, it was "by the Holy Spirit" (Matt. 1:18, 1:20).  Likewise Luke records: "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God....For nothing will be impossible with God."

There is no room in the passage, taken in context, for Joseph or any other man to be the father of Jesus.   God Himself, according to both passages, was Jesus' Father.

Here are the passages again for reference:

Matthew 1
18Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: when His mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit.
 19And Joseph her husband, being a righteous man and not wanting to disgrace her, planned to send her away secretly.
 20But when he had considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, "Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife; for the Child who has been conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.
 21"She will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins."
 22Now all this took place to fulfill what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet:
 23"BEHOLD, THE VIRGIN SHALL BE WITH CHILD AND SHALL BEAR A SON, AND THEY SHALL CALL HIS NAME IMMANUEL," which translated means, "GOD WITH US."
 24And Joseph awoke from his sleep and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took Mary as his wife,
 25but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus.

Luke 1
26Now in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city in Galilee called Nazareth,
 27to a virgin engaged to a man whose name was Joseph, of the descendants of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.
 28And coming in, he said to her, "Greetings, favored one! The Lord is with you."
 29But she was very perplexed at this statement, and kept pondering what kind of salutation this was.
 30The angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary; for you have found favor with God.
 31"And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name Him Jesus.
 32"He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David;
 33and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and His kingdom will have no end."
 34Mary said to the angel, "How can this be, since I am a virgin?"
 35The angel answered and said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God.
 36"And behold, even your relative Elizabeth has also conceived a son in her old age; and she who was called barren is now in her sixth month.
 37"For nothing will be impossible with God."
 38And Mary said, "Behold, the bondslave of the Lord; may it be done to me according to your word." And the angel departed from her.

Sean,

Sorry, I made a mistake about Zechariah... for some reason I thought that the Zechariah that Jesus was talking about (of 2 Chronicles) was the same Zechariah that wrote the book included in the Tanakh.  I was reading it again today, and since their fathers are different, I think they're different people.

Tim