No matter, the message is done. Now argue your comments seriously and have respect for the person who takes his time to discuss with you.I think this post is entirely symbolic.
Upvote
0
No matter, the message is done. Now argue your comments seriously and have respect for the person who takes his time to discuss with you.I think this post is entirely symbolic.
The Gospels contradict each other on more than one aspect, and often it is significant.
He is not the son of Joseph and is not born of their union, if Joseph is the Father at the Temple, then we have a problem.
A midrash can be as much a comment as a fictional allegory, for your information.
The thesis is not from me… How many time I said it?
This is not a serious refutation, we speak of exegesis here no theology.
What are you laughing about? In Hellenistic Judaism, wisdom is the wife of God. in a symbolic way.
Perhaps that may just be the problem.The Gospels are not historical texts, I personally believe that they are midrashim. But this is another topic.
You are arguing from the position of silence along with ignoring all the texts Whereas the Gospels are not silent on Jesus’s brothers and sisters.There is no evidences of the opposite.
Luke starts his gospel as a historical documentIt is a method where we try to understand the meaning of symbols. It is therefore much more reliable than a method where the existence of symbols is deliberately ignored.
Some people think this. Many do not. It does not help you when you state as fact something that is only a theory.Matthew, Mark and Luke are actually three translations of the same document, not three independant works.
Are you wiser than the God bearing Father's of the Church?The people who condemned Origen made a terrible mistake.
Not even a theory. It's a retread and repurpose of the Weisse Hypothesis from the 19th century which seems to find new life every 50 years or so. When you mix Origenism with 19th century protestant liberalism this is what you get.Are you wiser than the God bearing Father's of the Church?
I'm not saying Matthew did not write Matthew. Read me correctly. I say it is a translation. I do not question the paternity of the works, only the fact that they would be independent works."Matthew didn't write Matthew, Luke didn't write Luke, Mark didn't write Mark and that they are all Synoptic Gospels because they include many of the same stories, often in a similar sequence and in similar or sometimes identical wording."
Surely more than those who burned his books, and certainly more than those who consider it was good thing.Are you wiser than the God bearing Father's of the Church?
I extol Origen's exegetical qualities, not his theological qualities. Users of this forum do not even seem to know how to differentiate between these two notions.I don't understand how you define exegesis since you claimed in your thread that Origen is the best exegete. I just can not see how you can make that claim. Please explain.
No, originally it comes from Hellenistic Judaism, the gnosis later recovered.You mean Sophia. I thought that it came from Gnostic writings.
Do you honestly believe that Sophia is the wife of God as claimed by Gnostic writers? The Queen of Heaven who gave life to all of humanity.
You say symbolic, but how is Mary symbolic if she needed a savior just like you and me.
The evil one prefers the subtle approach to introducing error, mixing truth with small, seemingly innocuous falseties, since full blown heresy is much easier to identify and reject. Origen's works were likely more dangerous than the stuff that was clearly heretical.Surely more than those who burned his books, and certainly more than those who consider it was good thing.
The wise man knows how to make the difference between a work of exegesis and a theological development.The evil one prefers the subtle approach to introducing error, mixing truth with small, seemingly innocuous falseties, since full blown heresy is much easier to identify and reject.
Contextually different as I already pointed out. Dead women do not conceive and give birth to children. Married couples do have conjugal relations. It's been done many times in the past....There's proof of this!It is grammatically identical to Matthew 1:25, yet you insist that the Matthew passage is concrete evidence that Joseph "knew" Mary after she gave birth to Jesus, whereas 2 Samuel demonstrates the opposite.
I also explained that as well. Matthew is ensuring his audience fully understands the prophecy of Isaiah that it regards Mary and she was a Virgin when she conceived and gave birth to Jesus Christ.You also fail to demonstrate why Matthew would make such an explicit statement about their sex life (by your interpretation) when it has absolutely no bearing on the Gospel.
That was my favorite as well. Brings back memories of Sister Mary Elizabeth Margaret in Catholic school algebra. I can still feel the sting of the ruler on my knuckles.Nuns and marriage under the Mosaic Law?
Wow that's quite a stretch to read that into the text.So when a woman vows to remain celibate, when her husband hears it and does not annul it, her vow shall stand.
Just curious...what non-denominational group holds your views? Your profile says "non-denom" but didn't you start the thread as Oriental Orthodox?It's serious friends, a little maturity please. The Synoptic Gospels are not independent works. This is obvious to anyone who is not blinded by any ideology. I ask you a little serious in your answers.
When someone brings arguments the least thing is to try to understand them. You have no respect, all you are trying to do is give your opinion and make a blind refutation when you do not even understand the arguments put forward.
There have been serious studies done on the gospels and all you find is to pretend that they are old studies of the 19th century. But no! These are not "old studies" these are observations that anyone with a brain is able to make.
Do you think it's impossible for the Gospels to be Midrashim? Why? It is a literary genre typical of Hebrew culture and all your attempts to rebut the subject are weak. The Gospels contradict each other on more than one aspect, and often it is significant.
You seem unable to accept that the Gospels were written for particular communities and each author made additions to convey a message. This is the kind of thing that was repeatedly demonstrated by several exegetes, be they atheists or Christians.
Once again, I ask you for respect in your answers. If you do not want to talk and all that interests you is to shut me up, then tell me openly! Tell me to shut up, because I disturb you in your certainty. A little maturity please.
No, but seriously it's not even serious your behavior. Honestly, I did not expect such an attitude from Christians.