Virgin Birth/Temple virgin myth

[ravenssong]

I started this thread because we sorta hijacked the other one with this topic.

But what you quote has nothing to do with the temple , and there were no 'children' with the temple. .. so sorry, but you are talking about things that just didn't happen in the Jewish culture at that time.

was the "tabernacle of the meeting" not the temple? (I don't know, that's why I'm asking)

What do you mean there were no "children of the temple"? what about Samuel?, I thought it was common practice at that time to promise God your firstborn in exchange for answering a prayer? kinda like sending your kids to catholic boarding school now.

Now, if read what 1 Samuel is talking about in context , it is discussing how the son's of eli abused their power, and how they did not escape punishment for their misdeeds.

It provides a compelling precedent.

Now, I will point out that this particular passage did not occur in the Dead sea scrolls, but DID occur in the masoric text, which was several hunderd years younger

Does that mean it is or is not a valid resource on Judaism at that time?

The basic message of the passage is that those leaders who abuse their office and exploit their people will not have their deeds go unpunished.

Unless of course they can conceal them by say a divine vision and pregnancy.

Well, since it appears to have been added after the 2nd century c.e. , then no. it isn't a good source. "Temple Handmaidens" were kicked out of the temple around the writing of 2 Kings (the handmaidens of ashera)...

I'm not talking about handmadains (remnants of Asherah or not)I'm talking about CHILDREN, sworn to God's service, entrusted to the care of the temple by barren women who prayed for kids and gave them to the temple when the miracle baby turned three years old. Women like St, Ann (mother of Mary) and Hannah (mother of Samuel) If I am mistaken and these women did not give up their children to the temple, then I withdraw my argument. I'm not making any moral judgments here, I'm just saying this is a common belief.

That was also around 600 bce.. .. which is a whole different time frame than the temple period around the 2nd temple. In case you didn't notice, 600 years can bring a lot of changes. The dates covered by the sotry was 1100 bce to 1000 bce.

To use that as representative of what might or might not have happened in the early part of the 1st century is not too accurate.

The story of St. Ann comes from the "Protoevangelium of James " an apocryphal book written about 150 a.d.

[Goat]

I started this thread because we sorta hijacked the other one with this topic.

But what you quote has nothing to do with the temple , and there were no 'children' with the temple. .. so sorry, but you are talking about things that just didn't happen in the Jewish culture at that time.

was the "tabernacle of the meeting" not the temple? (I don't know, that's why I'm asking)

What do you mean there were no "children of the temple"? what about Samuel?, I thought it was common practice at that time to promise God your firstborn in exchange for answering a prayer? kinda like sending your kids to catholic boarding school now.

Now, if read what 1 Samuel is talking about in context , it is discussing how the son's of eli abused their power, and how they did not escape punishment for their misdeeds.

It provides a compelling precedent.

Now, I will point out that this particular passage did not occur in the Dead sea scrolls, but DID occur in the masoric text, which was several hunderd years younger

Does that mean it is or is not a valid resource on Judaism at that time?

The basic message of the passage is that those leaders who abuse their office and exploit their people will not have their deeds go unpunished.

Unless of course they can conceal them by say a divine vision and pregnancy.

Well, since it appears to have been added after the 2nd century c.e. , then no. it isn't a good source. "Temple Handmaidens" were kicked out of the temple around the writing of 2 Kings (the handmaidens of ashera)...

I'm not talking about handmadains (remnants of Asherah or not)I'm talking about CHILDREN, sworn to God's service, entrusted to the care of the temple by barren women who prayed for kids and gave them to the temple when the miracle baby turned three years old. Women like St, Ann (mother of Mary) and Hannah (mother of Samuel) If I am mistaken and these women did not give up their children to the temple, then I withdraw my argument. I'm not making any moral judgments here, I'm just saying this is a common belief.

That was also around 600 bce.. .. which is a whole different time frame than the temple period around the 2nd temple. In case you didn't notice, 600 years can bring a lot of changes. The dates covered by the sotry was 1100 bce to 1000 bce.

To use that as representative of what might or might not have happened in the early part of the 1st century is not too accurate.

The story of St. Ann comes from the "Protoevangelium of James " an apocryphal book written about 150 a.d.

Well, that isn't a Jewish source.. and it was written 75 years after the destruction of the temple. To jump from a pseudepigraphical work written
at the earliest in the mid 2nd century that is not of Jewish origin as an authority on what happened at the Jewish temple is not a good source.

The work was first mentioned by Orgien in the 3rd century and he said it was a 'recent work'. . it might have been as late as the early third century, and the author was not aware of contemporary Jewish customs. As such, it is a terrible source for your assumptions.

Do you have a JEWISH work discussing it. And I am not talking 'messanic Jewish' .

[ravenssong]

Do you have a JEWISH work discussing it. And I am not talking 'messanic Jewish' .

All the religious texts I have encountered are separated from thier author date and the events recounted therein by decades if not centuries. Are you familiar with any Jewish works discussing the temple practices of 1000 bce to 33 ad, that haven't been tainted by time. Maybe you could recommend some, as I am unaware of Jewish history outside of the conventional christian perspective.
I am actually willing to learn I'm not trying to dogmatically cling to this line of thought, what do you use for reference?
I have exposed my resources, on what do you base your argument?

[Goat]

Do you have a JEWISH work discussing it. And I am not talking 'messanic Jewish' .

All the religious texts I have encountered are separated from thier author date and the events recounted therein by decades if not centuries. Are you familiar with any Jewish works discussing the temple practices of 1000 bce to 33 ad, that haven't been tainted by time. Maybe you could recommend some, as I am unaware of Jewish history outside of the conventional christian perspective.
I am actually willing to learn I'm not trying to dogmatically cling to this line of thought, what do you use for reference?
I have exposed my resources, on what do you base your argument?

When it comes to works talking about temple practices, the Jerusalem Talmud specifically talks about the ritutals that were done. Josephus talked about the jewish temple a fair amount.

The second temple was built in 583 bce, and was expanded vastly at the time of Herod the king. I will accept the Talmud, which is oral tradition written by the Rabbi's about Jewish laws and customs... or any source that before the second century. Jospehus, Philo , Roman sources, Greek sources, or even the Jewish scripture that relates to Isaiah or later time frame.

The problem I have is that your viewpoint I see you have is taken from one christian religions text that is probably hear the 3rd century that is very ignorent about jewish customs. No other source mentions it before that.

[ravenssong]

The problem I have is that your viewpoint I see you have is taken from one christian religions text that is probably hear the 3rd century that is very ignorent about jewish customs. No other source mentions it before that.

Catholics tended to invent stories surrounding some of thier saints, as I continue to read up on some internet stories, I am finding more saint "myths" rebuffed.