How the Greek language tripped up two early movements

[_zeezrom]

Since Mormon doctrine doesn't say that we can safely ignore your hypothetical question.

“… I believe the Father came down from heaven, as the apostles said he did, and begat the Saviour of the world; for he is the ONLY-begotten of the Father, which could not be if the Father did not actually beget him in person…. I believe the Father came down in His tabernacle and begat Jesus Christ.”
(Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, volume 1, page 238)

“God, the Father of our spirits, became the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ according to the flesh…. The fleshy body of Jesus required a Mother as well as a Father. Therefore, the Father and Mother of Jesus, according to the flesh, must have been associated together in the capacity of Husband and Wife; hence the Virgin Mary must have, for the time being, the lawful wife of God the Father…. He had a lawful right to overshadow the Virgin Mary in the capacity of a husband, and beget a Son, although she was espoused to another; for the law which He gave to govern men and women, was not intended to govern Himself, or to prescribe rules for his own conduct.”
(Orson Pratt, The Seer, page 158)

“Now, we are told in scriptures that Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God in the flesh. Well, now for the benefit of the older ones, how are children begotten? I answer just as Jesus Christ was begotten of the flesh… Jesus is the only person who had our Heavenly Father as the father of his body.”
(Joseph Fielding Smith, Family Home Evening Manual, pages 125, 126, 1972)

“Christ was Begotten by an immortal Father in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers.”
(Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, page 547, 1966)

“The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints proclaims that Jesus Christ is the Son of God in the most literal sense. The body in which He performed His mission in the flesh was sired by that some Holy Being we worship as God, our Eternal Father. Jesus was not the son of Joseph, nor was He begotten by the Holy Ghost.”
(Ezra Taft Benson, The Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, page 7)

“[Jesus Christ] was willing to make payment because of his great love for mankind, and he was able to make payment because he lived a sinless life and because he was actually, literally, biologically the Son of God in the flesh.”
(Messages for Exaltation, For the Sunday Schools of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Gospel Doctrine Class, pages 378-379, 1967)

Orson Pratt
“God, the Father of our spirits, became the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ according to the flesh. Hence, the Father saith concerning him, ‘Thou are my Son, this day have I begotten thee.’ We are informed in the first chapter of Luke, that Mary was chosen by the Father as a choice virgin, through whom He begat Jesus. The angel said unto the Virgin Mary, ‘The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore, also, that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.’ After the power of the Highest had overshadowed Mary, and she had by that means conceived, she related the circumstance to her cousin Elizabeth in the following words: ‘He that is Mighty hath done to me great things; and holy is His name.’ It seems from this relation that the Holy Ghost accompanied ‘the Highest’ when He overshadowed the Virgin Mary and begat Jesus; and from this circumstance some have supposed that the body of Jesus was begotten of the Holy Ghost without the instrumentality of the immediate presence of the Father. There is no doubt that the Holy Ghost came upon Mary to sanctify her, and make her holy, and prepare her to endure the glorious presence of “the Highest’, that when ‘He’ should ‘overshadow’ her she might conceive, being filled with the Holy Ghost; hence the angel said, as recorded in Matthew, ‘That which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost;’ that is, the Holy Ghost gave her strength to abide in the presence of the Father without being consumed, but it was the personage of the Father who begat the body of Jesus; and for this reason Jesus is called ‘the Only Begotten of the Father;’ that is, the only one in this world whose fleshly body was begotten by the Father. There were millions of sons and daughters who he begat before the foundation of this world, but they were spirits, and not bodies of flesh and bones; whereas, both the spirit and body of Jesus were begotten by the Father—the spirit having been begotten in heaven many ages before the tabernacle was begotten upon the earth.
“The fleshly body of Jesus required a Mother as well as a Father. Therefore, the Father and Mother of Jesus, according to the flesh, must have been associated together in the capacity of Husband and Wife; hence the Virgin Mary must have been, for the time being, the lawful wife of God the Father; we use the term lawful Wife, because it would be blasphemous in the highest degree to say that He overshadowed her or begat the Savior unlawfully. It would have been unlawful for any man to have interfered with Mary, who was already espoused to Joseph; for such a heinous crime would have subjected both the guilty parties to death, according to the law of Moses. But God having created all men and women, had the most perfect right to do with His own creation, according to His holy will and pleasure: He had a lawful right to overshadow the Virgin Mary in the capacity of a husband, and beget a Son, although she was espoused to another; for the law which He gave to govern men and women was not intended to govern Himself, or to prescribe rules for His own conduct. It was also lawful in Him, after having thus dealt with Mary, to give her to Joseph her espoused husband. Whether God the Father gave Mary to Joseph for time only, or for time and eternity, we are not informed. Inasmuch as God was the first husband to her, it may be that He only gave her to be the wife of Joseph while in the mortal state, and that He intended after the resurrection to again take her as one of his own wives to raise up immortal spirits in eternity.
“As God the Father begat the fleshly body of Jesus, so He, before the world began, begat his spirit. As the body required an earthly Mother, so his spirit required a heavenly Mother. As God associated in the capacity of a husband with the earthly mother, so likewise he associated in the same capacity with the heavenly one; earthly things being in the likeness of heavenly things; and that which is temporal being in the likeness of that which is eternal; or, in other words, the laws of generation upon the earth are after the order of the laws of generation in heaven” (The Seer, pp. 158-9; cf. B. H. Roberts, Defense of the Faith and the Saints, vol 2, p. 270)

“We have now clearly shown that God the Father had a plurality of wives, one or more being in eternity, by whom He begat our spirits as well as the spirit of Jesus His First Born, and another being upon the earth by whom He begat the tabernacle of Jesus, as His Only Begotten in this world.” (The Seer, pp. 172-3)

[_zeezrom]

More on Mary-HF:

"The birth of our Savior was as natural as are the births of our children; it was the result of NATURAL ACTION. He partook of FLESH AND BLOOD--was begotten of his father, as we were of our fathers." (JoD, vol. 8, p. 115).

"Jesus Christ is the Son of Elohim both as spiritual and bodily OFFSPRING; that is to say, Elohim is LITERALLY the Father of the spirit of Jesus Christ and also of the BODY in which Jesus Christ performed his mission in the flesh..."
(as quoted from 'The Articles of Faith' by James E. Talmage, p. 466).

"We are told in the scriptures that Jesus Christ is the only begotten son of God in the flesh....how are children begotten? I answer, just as Jesus was begotten of his Father. The Christian denominations believe that Christ was begotten not of God, but of the spirit that overshadowed his mother. THIS IS NONSENSE. Why will they not believe the Father when He says that Jesus Christ is His Only Begotten Son? Why will they try to EXPLAIN THIS TRUTH AWAY and make mystery of it?" (as quoted from Joseph F. Smith, 'Box Elder Times,' Sep.
22, 1914).

OK, here are a whole bunch of quotes on some filthy, anti-Mormon website: http://www.exmormon.org/Mormon/mormon385.htm

[_zeezrom]

By the way, I will be sad if Mormonism drops the literal Christ conception. Religions that take all the human aspects out of it... bleah.

[_Hoops]

The early Christians' scripture was the Septuagint - the Greek translation of what we call the Old Testament. In that translation, Isaiah speaks of a virgin giving birth. The early Christians used that to construct a history of Jesus that they felt would make his birth seem like a foretold event. The only problem: "virgin" is a mistranslation, and should read "young woman." Opa!

Joseph Smith famously entertained many celestial visitors. Two of these visitors were Elijah and Elias, prophets of the Bible. The only problem is Elijah and Elias were the same person, Elias being the Greek version of Elijah. Opa!

Wouldn't a more accurate description of the argument be that while the word should read "young woman", that doesn't mean that virgin is incorrect. Wouldn't a second century Jew assume that a young, unmarried woman is a virgin?

[_moksha]

The only problem is Elijah and Elias were the same person, Elias being the Greek version of Elijah. Opa!

Sometimes even the most stalwart of men have a greek side. I am not talking about that swishy gay stuff. I am referring to manly robots with manly probes.

[_just me]

The early Christians' scripture was the Septuagint - the Greek translation of what we call the Old Testament. In that translation, Isaiah speaks of a virgin giving birth. The early Christians used that to construct a history of Jesus that they felt would make his birth seem like a foretold event. The only problem: "virgin" is a mistranslation, and should read "young woman." Opa!

Joseph Smith famously entertained many celestial visitors. Two of these visitors were Elijah and Elias, prophets of the Bible. The only problem is Elijah and Elias were the same person, Elias being the Greek version of Elijah. Opa!

Wouldn't a more accurate description of the argument be that while the word should read "young woman", that doesn't mean that virgin is incorrect. Wouldn't a second century Jew assume that a young, unmarried woman is a virgin?

Not if she got pregnant and had a baby. I don't think it is reasonable to think that a virgin pregnancy was on the radar. Especially when getting pregnant when you aren't married was a stone-worthy offense.

[_Hoops]

Not if she got pregnant and had a baby. I don't think it is reasonable to think that a virgin pregnancy was on the radar. Especially when getting pregnant when you aren't married was a stone-worthy offense.

I don't get your point. Isn't the point of the op that "almah" should be written as "young woman" and not "virgin"? And that the counter to that would be that a Jew would consider "almah" a young woman and a virgin?

[_just me]

Not if she got pregnant and had a baby. I don't think it is reasonable to think that a virgin pregnancy was on the radar. Especially when getting pregnant when you aren't married was a stone-worthy offense.

I don't get your point. Isn't the point of the op that "almah" should be written as "young woman" and not "virgin"? And that the counter to that would be that a Jew would consider "almah" a young woman and a virgin?

I think the point is that a Jew would not assume a "young woman" was also a "virgin" especially in a text that refers to her giving birth. Does the text say "unmarried?"

I thought Buffalo was pointing out that the Advent narrative was built around the Greek translation of "virgin" which wasn't even really correct.

I could be wrong about that.

[_moksha]

Sometimes even the most stalwart of men have a greek side.

Wait a minute, are you saying the vision was metaphorical? That is heresy in that we can't take joy from unbunching our underwear after each post!

[_Hoops]

I thought Buffalo was pointing out that the Advent narrative was built around the Greek translation of "virgin" which wasn't even really correct.

Okay. Could be. But I understood the point to be that the Isaiah reference was changed to virgin when the original did not warrant the change. I think CK above reasonably, and me to a much less degree, showed that the original cerainly could mean virgin and that it wasn't a mistranslation at all.