Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Hand wave it away if you like, but you should do yourself a favor and read the link.Yeah, we can just all rely on this simplistic "go to" of an explanation (excuse); that way, no one has to cull through hundreds of pages of ancient Jewish literary mush to find bits and pieces of inter-textual allusions, overlapping contexts, and mystical expressions to consider.
Having little or no work to do when considering religious faith, even that of Christian faith, is just too intuitively compelling of a principle to pass up, isn't it?
Which makes this whole thread seem kind of pointless, at least to me.And by that notion, it isn't a fact that just because something isn't unique means that it isn't true or useful, either.
Hand wave it away if you like, but you should do yourself a favor and read the link.
Which makes this whole thread seem kind of pointless, at least to me.
How so?
...this all depends on whether Scripture writers are attempting to express truth through 1) LINEAR FULFILLMENTS that have an exactly matching one to one ratio, or 2) through GENERALIZED PATTERNS of spiritual significance. Guess which one I think it is, NV? (In fact, I think we've already discussed this before, and since I'm not a fundamentalist in the most expansive sense, I don't feel beholden to have to defend the former approach. But, I'll still read through the debate you had with this other guy.)
"Generalized patterns of spiritual significance." In other words, he pulled it out of thin air. Right? If it's not something that actually happened, and if he has no source for it other than incorrect or out-of-context interpretations of the OT, then what we have here is a liar writing down a gospel.
Somehow, NV, I think you and I have different sources by which we assess all of these things. So, forgive me if I find your jumping to conclusions to be a bit hasty, or I disagree that the phrase "pulling it out of thin air" is a fair representation of what I was trying to convey to you by my reference to the concept of "generalized patterns."
I'm mean, this is JEWISH material we're handling here, even ancient Jewish material, and I don't think the prophets of Israel had anything in mind like 20th century Communications Theory when they were writing or interpreting the Scriptures, but somehow you atheists, along with your counterparts--the typical, run-of-the-mill fundamentalist Christians--seem to reduce it down to such.
It could just be that there is a third option ... i.e. the one I'm referring to.
And I don't know what it is that you're referring to. I don't know what third option there is.
A) They wrote the truth
B) They made stuff up
C) ???
I'm just baffled on this "there could be a third option."
OJ Simpson committed those murders? Or he didn't? Neither! There's a third option!
Of course you don't know what it is I'm referring to. I haven't explicated anything on it yet.
Here it is in a nutshell: The Old Testament prophecies are enigmatically and esoterically articulated, expressing patterns of relations between various concepts. Some prophecies pertain to the immediate historical context of the times in which they were written. Some prophecies to vaguely insinuate a future fulfillment. And some other prophecies express patterns of meaning that, while not expressly pointing to the future, provide precedents by which God can act AGAIN in the future and by which we will recognize [if we're paying attention] that event X (such as the birth of Christ) is a fulfillment of previous patterns. However, by fulfillment in this case, I DON'T mean that a previous prophecy was alluding to a future event, but rather that the later event exuded a pattern that reflects the previous pattern(s) and thereby signifies that God is again doing something of the kind of thing for which He has been known for in the past and by which we should recognize His activity in the world again at a later time.
This is the same kind of patterning dynamic we see where Jesus warns the Jewish people again and again against "the flames and the worms that do not die." Here, Jesus wasn't saying that those old prophecies at the end of Isaiah were talking specifically about the Jews of Jesus' day, but rather that the Jews of Jesus' day had better watch out, OR GOD WILL DO AGAIN WHAT HE DID TO JEWS BEFORE, IN THE SAME WAY AS BEFORE.
Do you see the difference in what I'm saying in all of this, NV? Yes, this would make prophecy very complex and enigmatic. But so what? It would be typical of the Jewish interpretive traditions. Surely you know this since you've studied biblical hermeneutics, right?
Did the virgin birth actually happen or did Matthew make it up?
According to Matthew and Luke, and by inference through Paul, I'd say it actually happened. But not because some O.T. passage in Isaiah said in some kind of exact, precise, unmistakable way that it would.
Rather, Matthew has his Midrash of what happened, Luke has his interpretation of what happened, and Paul has some tidbits of inference.
I was unaware that Luke and Paul attest to a virgin birth. Do you have the passages?
Hephaestus was born of Zeus and Hera, although Hesiod records an alternate legend that Hera bore him alone in revenge for Zeus having Athena jump fully formed from his forehead. This is in contradiction with most other legends that Hephaestus was the one that struck Zeus with an axe to free Athena in the first place.
Horus was born of Isis and Osiris. Isis collected Osiris' remains but couldn't find his penis, so fashioned a golden one for him. She then proceeded to have sex with Osiris' corpse, so hardly a 'virgin birth' for Horus.
Krishna was born of Devaki and Vasudeva in a tale very similar to that of Zeus, in that children are prophesied to replace their parents and are disposed of, except for the one that escapes.
There are a lot of strange birth narratives, it is true, but I see these more as foreshadowing. Some that are called virgin births, like Athena from Zeus' forehead, or Mithras being born from a rock, eschew normal gestation and genitals entirely, so hardly warrant the term I think. Your examples aren't really virgin births though.
Regardless, Jesus' birth is different in that it is a normal human pregnancy that just happens to be parthenogenic, instead of all kinds of other weird and wonderful mythology.
Luke 1:26-38.
Galatians 4:4-5 (i.e. by inference, along with various imputations by Paul in various letters about Jesus being THE Son of God; and if you don't get a 'virgin birth' out of Galatians 4:4-5, surely you can admit by logic that Paul contextually infers that it was at least a miraculous, divinely appointed circumstance).
I'd actually love for there to be deities, magic, a happy afterlife for everyone, crypto animals, and all that. I just don't have good reasons to accept any of that as true. At least not yet.
Actually, if we look at the contexts provided by Paul, we see that in verse 4:4, he first affirms that God "sent forth" an agent, language which reflects that used by other N.T. writers to express an office of a special messenger. We see this kind of thing applied to John the Baptist and to Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels, as well as to Jesus' commissioning of His apostles as "those who are sent."I worry that this involves reading more back into Paul's phrasing than is actually intended. It reminds me of the wording of Job 14:1. "A mortal, born of woman, few of days and full of trouble."
So all I really read there is that Paul is affirming that he was born human and not some sort of disembodied angel, Richard Carrier style.
Luke 1:26-38.
Galatians 4:4-5 (i.e. by inference, along with various imputations by Paul in various letters about Jesus being THE Son of God; and if you don't get a 'virgin birth' out of Galatians 4:4-5, surely you can admit by logic that Paul contextually infers that it was at least a miraculous, divinely appointed circumstance).
You're welcome. No problem, NV.Thanks. Luke is unmistakable there. But I have no idea what you are trying to read into what Paul said.
Also, I see no source for Luke's claim other than Matthew, who is a known liar.
I worry that this involves reading more back into Paul's phrasing than is actually intended. It reminds me of the wording of Job 14:1. "A mortal, born of woman, few of days and full of trouble."
So all I really read there is that Paul is affirming that he was born human and not some sort of disembodied angel, Richard Carrier style.
Crypto animals? What's this?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?