The virgin birth story.

[reve]

Nothing helpful here for the assignment. The story is a repetition of the Ancient Egyptian Isis/Horus tale. Virgin is misleading as the two gospels use the word meaning 'young woman', or single woman as we woukld say now and no different then for some classes especially in Roman times. It is clearly an 'angel' that gets her pregnant but consider the censorship of the ages. It is written politely but 'obvious' to anyone who is aware of the facts of life. But Mary always dressed in blue is actually Mer (La Mere) the blue Earth Planet, also called Mary. The lamb (Agnus dei), her baby that follows her around with fleece as white as snow is the Moon, born through the San Andreas Fault and causing havoc for the earth's inhabitants then. I have heard it said that Venus is the twin of the moon but was sturdier at birth, or knocked away by a comet with a long streaming tail. Jupiter has a red spot and moons regularly (every few 000?? years) appear from there. It is the way life and atoms work. Our earth is pregnant again and the date due for the birth was known long ago The Mayans say next Christmas). It is obvious - she is expanding. We need to help her out and each other. Few of us will survive but we must save what good culture we have for the future. Virgin birth this is not. They will probably read this and terminate the birth with a massive explosion to 'save' us.

 

[dmgdnooc]

Thief, you are right, it is a matter of faith.
　
The best an intellectual enquiry can achieve is to ascertain, with only a reasonable degree of accuracy, what the participants of the time accepted in regards the question.
　
I, for one, agree with Paul; all is proven by the resurrection from the dead.
That too, of course, is a matter governed by faith.
　
However, I do affirm Mary's virtue.
That gracious Lady, from all I know of her, was of the finest spiritual sensitivity and suffered very much through no fault of her own.
And she had no reason to lie, or embellish, when passing on the secret and intimate inner thoughts and emotions of her experiences.
She could have retired into peaceful obscurity surrounded by and cared for by the love of her grandchildren.
Quite the opposite, it seems, were her actions for she joined the household of John and was subject, with him, to further trials and persecutions for the Gospel's sake.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

The problem with the above quote is that it relies on the idea of the creation of man, when really, there is no reason to assume such happened. In fact, we know that evolution is a fact, and that humans evolved.

You are assuming that evolution and creation contradict each other.

The creation of a world, a daisy or a human body is not “making something out of nothing”; it is rather a bringing together of elements which before were scattered, a making visible of something which before was hidden.

The evolution theory does not deny creative power.

Bahá'í Reference Library - Bahá’u’lláh and the New Era, Pages 204-206

 

[ellenjanuary]

evolution doesnt make snap changes

these changes happen slowly

no child has ever not had a parent

Aphids don't have parents. They are all female, and they are all clones.

 

[outhouse]

creation is a myth, there is no debate about this.

The bible states allot of things that did not not nor could not ever happen. this is one of those.

since the bible has no real historicity and these virgin birth storys are all written by unknown authors after decades of oral tradition by not one eye witness!

its very safe to say this was added later to create the jesus as a divine charactor so that he had the same type mythical power as all the other man made pagan gods ALL the previous and current religions had.

they could not create a god type figure that had less divinity then the other religions at that time if they wanted the movement to progress

 

[outhouse]

Aphids don't have parents. They are all female, and they are all clones.

I never called a aphid a child

My mistake I should have said human child as that is what I ment

 

[ellenjanuary]

Yeah, I'm kinda on the same page as reve. "Virgin birth" is a literary tradition.

 

[Thief]

Thief, you are right, it is a matter of faith.
　
The best an intellectual enquiry can achieve is to ascertain, with only a reasonable degree of accuracy, what the participants of the time accepted in regards the question.
　
I, for one, agree with Paul; all is proven by the resurrection from the dead.
That too, of course, is a matter governed by faith.
　
However, I do affirm Mary's virtue.
That gracious Lady, from all I know of her, was of the finest spiritual sensitivity and suffered very much through no fault of her own.
And she had no reason to lie, or embellish, when passing on the secret and intimate inner thoughts and emotions of her experiences.
She could have retired into peaceful obscurity surrounded by and cared for by the love of her grandchildren.
Quite the opposite, it seems, were her actions for she joined the household of John and was subject, with him, to further trials and persecutions for the Gospel's sake.

Should I get the opportunity to do so....I will probably refrain the asking.
It would be....inappropriate... to question the Lady to her face.

And I'm hoping that head nodding to dogma is not required for
position in the kingdom.

I'm not good at it.

 

[dmgdnooc]

Well, for my part, the Lady has already given her answer.
I, by reading Luke, have overheard her (I did not eavesdrop on a private conversation).
I accept her answer and enquire no further, that would be, to say the least, most inappropriate.

 

[outhouse]

Well, for my part, the Lady has already given her answer.
I, by reading Luke, have overheard her (I did not eavesdrop on a private conversation).
I accept her answer and enquire no further, that would be, to say the least, most inappropriate.

except luke wasnt written by luke as far as i know

there were no eyewitnesses to jesus let alone his mother

 

[outhouse]

Gospel of Luke - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


According to the majority view, the author is unknown

The Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles were both written by the same author

Most critical scholars place the date c 80-90

the below chart is one view, I go more for the Q hypothesis

 

[Ilisrum]

except luke wasnt written by luke as far as i know

Somewhat irrelevant to the conversation, but British New Testament scholar Maurice Casey accepts Lukan authorship of the Gospel of Luke and Acts, and he's not even a Christian. I don't agree with him, but it's worthy to note.

As for the virgin birth story, I think it was invented for one of two reasons. One, to cover up an illicit affair between Mary and an unknown man, possibly a soldier in the Roman army. Or the more likely answer, to link Jesus to the pagan gods in the Roman world.

 

[outhouse]

Or the more likely answer, to link Jesus to the pagan gods in the Roman world.

im on that side

they could not create a deity with less a background then other previous deitys

oh and understood that some still think a little luke is luke

 

[dmgdnooc]

except luke wasnt written by luke as far as i know

there were no eyewitnesses to jesus let alone his mother

Whether or not the Gospel of Luke was written by Luke or someone else it is universally acceptable to refer to that Gospel by its traditional name.
　
And, in the Gospel of Luke the writer asserts that he was privy to the reports of eyewitnesses of the events and has recorded that witness as he received it.
The early part of Luke, if read with sensitivity, will suggest that Mary was the eyewitness for the events recorded there.
　
My opinion, my belief.
Thanks for the information.
　
Oh, and John the Apostle is generally accepted, on the basis of sound scholarship, to be the eyewitness writer of John's Gospel.
Background to the Study of John | Bible.org - Worlds Largest Bible Study Site
See - Internal Evidence Concerning Authorship

 

[dmgdnooc]

outhouse,
I, pretty much, accept the Q hypothesis also.
But I have a problem, or 2, with your preferred dating.
　
You will see in the link that I just posted that John, on the 'very best' scholarship, was dated to around 175ad.
And then the Rylands fragment turned up and sent the world of established scholarship into a tailspin and caused the date to be revised by about 80 years.
There is a valid cautionary tale in there concerning the limits and prejudices of scholarship, if you can see it.
　
nooc

 

[Quagmire]

(I did not eavesdrop on a private conversation).
.

Someone must have if it showed up in print.

 

[fallingblood]

im on that side

they could not create a deity with less a background then other previous deitys

oh and understood that some still think a little luke is luke

There was no need for this though. From what we can tell, the Pagans would have accepted anyway. In fact, they had. There is no suggestion that Paul preached of a virgin birth, but his message still spread. Even Mark and John were in communities that we don't necessarily see the virgin birth there either. So it wasn't necessarily that important.

 

[fallingblood]

Jesus' lineage through Mary does not mean 'absolutely nothing'.
Jesus' lineage through Mary means a great deal; he was also formed of the clay, as we are, that he might be a mediator touched with the feeling of our infirmities, in all points tempted like us.
You are dodging the meaning of the couplet that counts Jesus generation to be first of God 'concerning his Son' and then of the seed of David 'according to the flesh' and declared, or proven to be, 'according to the spirit of holiness' by the resurrection from the dead.

But we don't have the lineage of Mary. None of the New Testament authors ever mention it, and there is no reason to. It meant nothing during that time. It didn't show a link to David, because that was traced through the male.

And I'm not dodging any couplet, primarily because there is nothing to dodge. You are adding information to the verse that simply is not there. You are reading something that simply is not there. You can't add stuff to the verse and pretend that it was there to start with.
　

You say that I am 'reading the Gospels into the works of Paul'.
To which I must reply that there is no reason to assume that Paul was unaware of Jesus' parentage as described by the Gospels.
Traditionally; 2, at least, of the Gospel writers are closely associated with Paul; Mark and Luke.
And I must add that you appear to be treating Paul in isolation, as well as fragmenting his reasoning, as though he had no discourse with Mark, Luke or the other Apostles.
For when you say that 'he (Jesus) was conceived according to the flesh' you are adding your own interpretation and subtracting Paul's first clause 'concerning his Son'.
And Paul never assumes Jesus to be of anything other than divine origin, of being generated by the will of God and through His direct agency.

We can't rely on tradition here. There is no evidence that either Mark or Luke wrote either one of the Gospels. Luke apparently has no clue that Paul even wrote any letters, which would be strange for someone who actually met with Paul. The authorship of these Gospels were added later, and thus can not be used as it is accepted that they are not correct.

So yes, I assume the authors of Mark and Luke never dealt with Paul. There is no reason to.

Also, Paul never says Jesus is of divine origin. He says that he was born of the flesh, which give the assumption that it was a natural birth. It is after the crucifixion and resurrection that Jesus becomes divine for Paul.
　

You will have to provide quotes to support your assertion that 'the' son of God is a widely used descriptor.
My understanding is that a righteous man might be termed 'a' son of God.
Perhaps you are confusing 'divi filius' (son of a god) with the scriptural usage.
You are certainly fudging the NT usage of 'the' son of God, which is exclusively used to denote Jesus.

Yes, in the New Testament, only Jesus is called the son of God. But in the Old Testament, David is described as the son of God:

Psalms 2:7"I will tell of the decree:The LORD said to me,(David) "You are my Son; today I have begotten you."

A couple of other examples: Jeremiah 8:31, talking about the Tribe of Ephraim being the first born
2 Samuel 7:14, describing one as the son of God.
Hosea 11:1 describing Israel as the son of God

Yes, the verses do not explicitly use the term, Son of God, but the same meaning is there. An understanding of the term is a must. A history of the term is a must. You simply can't take it out of a historical context, and then claim that Jesus is the only one who is said to be the son of God. It doesn't work.

　

You are right, the half of the couplet that you quote says nothing about Jesus paternal link with God; its opening clause and the other half of the couplet does.
The verses are contiguous, they use similar phrasing and describe the dual nature that was unique to Jesus; and that Paul expands on later in the epistle.
There is no good reason to take one half of the couplet out of its context and display it as though it was a complete statement.

There is nothing about the paternal link with God. It never states anything like that. You are reading something that simply is not there. Mary is never mentioned for one.
　

Yeah, well, again how about some references to passages where 'the' son of God is generally applied.
Where someone is said to be the 'begotten' son of God.

Did so above. Also, the book of Enoch also used the term.
　

I am reading what is in the scriptures, without regard to pagan or Jewish traditional usage.
And stories of Augustus' descent from Apollo (or Venus) or Alexander's descent from Zeus (or Ammon) have no bearing on the descent described in Genesis or Proverbs or Luke.
What the stories of Augustus etc show is that the concept would not need to be hammered home to Paul's audience; it was an idea that had familiar currency throughout the Empire.
And the details of Jesus' birth were of secondary, or even tertiary, importance to Paul's principle theme of the resurrection.
There was no value to the thrust of his argument in introducing unnecessary complications that might serve to distract from his main theme; the birth, the ministry, the politics, all have minor significance in his writings; the resurrection proved all to Paul.
Yet even so, Paul is always careful to discriminate between Jesus' natural and spiritual natures.

Paul never hammered anything home. You've never shown this. In fact, Paul hardly even mentions the idea of the birth of Jesus.

As for Jesus's spiritual nature, Paul does not talk about it unless it has to do with post-resurrection. Pre-resurrection, Jesus is a normal being according to Jesus. You can't mix the two.
　

So, what is the scriptural context of the word 'begot'?
John uses it repeatedly to describe God's relationship to Jesus; what does it mean?
My understanding is that it denotes the direct agency of generation, procreation, Fathership, paternal parentage, of an offspring.
If my understanding is correct then John, most certainly, states that Jesus is the procreated 'physical son of God' the one-of-a-kind son of God, the 'mono-genos' son of God.
I'm not surprised that the 'best' translations would seek to obscure that Jesus and David, although similar, are also radically different.

John never uses the word begot. It was a bad translation that is not used for the most part anymore. And it isn't found in the best translations anymore.

Why isn't it in the best translations? Because it is not found in out best manuscripts.
　

You keep saying that David was 'the' son of God, on a par with the 'only begotten son of God'.
I'm interested in your scriptural references to this.

Showed it above.
　

And the fact is that a 'seed of the woman' makes no sense without a virgin birth.
For, surely you understand that, a woman cannot generate 'seed'.
However, when you understand the paradox of a woman generating seed then you will also understand Jesus' descent from David through Mary.
And how it is that, being David's son, David calls him Lord.

Seed of the woman? I don't see that in Paul. I see instead that Paul says that Jesus was born of a woman, under the law. There is a difference there.

No one describes a descent from David through Mary in the NT. It simply isn't seen.
　

From this conversation, so far, I assume that you also do not believe the resurrection.
Is this assumption correct?

I believe it is a possibility. I don't think it is the most probable answer, but that it is a possibility. One that history can not prove.

 

[fallingblood]

Nothing helpful here for the assignment. The story is a repetition of the Ancient Egyptian Isis/Horus tale.

Actually the two stories are quite different. In fact, the only similarities one will usually find are on the internet, by people who are using faulty research, such as Kersey Graves horrible book.

Now, considering that both of the birth stories are different, it makes it even harder for it to be seen similar with another birth story, especially since most of the time, in order to find all of these similarities, one has to combine the two birth narratives into something they never were.

Considering just Matthew, it is more likely that much of the story was based on the story of Moses.

Virgin is misleading as the two gospels use the word meaning 'young woman', or single woman as we woukld say now and no different then for some classes especially in Roman times.

Yes, the word used could signify young woman. However, the context makes it clear that she is suppose to be seen as a virgin.

It is clearly an 'angel' that gets her pregnant but consider the censorship of the ages. It is written politely but 'obvious' to anyone who is aware of the facts of life.

There is no suggestion of such, so no, it isn't obvious. God himself is suppose to be the one who impregnates her, but she is still suppose to be a virgin afterwards as no sexual contact is seen. The reason being that very nature of God, or how it was seen during that time. Simply, what you're doing here is rewriting the Gospel story.

But Mary always dressed in blue is actually Mer (La Mere) the blue Earth Planet, also called Mary. The lamb (Agnus dei), her baby that follows her around with fleece as white as snow is the Moon, born through the San Andreas Fault and causing havoc for the earth's inhabitants then. I have heard it said that Venus is the twin of the moon but was sturdier at birth, or knocked away by a comet with a long streaming tail. Jupiter has a red spot and moons regularly (every few 000?? years) appear from there. It is the way life and atoms work. Our earth is pregnant again and the date due for the birth was known long ago The Mayans say next Christmas). It is obvious - she is expanding. We need to help her out and each other. Few of us will survive but we must save what good culture we have for the future. Virgin birth this is not. They will probably read this and terminate the birth with a massive explosion to 'save' us.

This makes absolutely no sense at all. First, Mary is never said to be wearing blue. Here baby is never said to be wearing fleece as white as snow. All you're doing is spinning a web of ignorance that is only based on poorly researched conspiracy theories.

It really has no place in a scholarly piece of work.

 

[fallingblood]

You are assuming that evolution and creation contradict each other.

The creation of a world, a daisy or a human body is not “making something out of nothing”; it is rather a bringing together of elements which before were scattered, a making visible of something which before was hidden.

The evolution theory does not deny creative power.

Bahá'í Reference Library - Bahá’u’lláh and the New Era, Pages 204-206

No, I'm not. I believe in both evolution and creation. So obviously I can't see them to contradict each other. In fact, many people believe just that.

However, when man evolved, he still would have had parents. It is as simple as that. If you want to take the creation myth as portrayed in the Bible, that is fine. However, that has to be done on faith, and I won't debate such.