FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.

Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Biblical Criticism - 2001
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 05:55 AM


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 01-02-2001, 09:53 AM   #11
Posts: n/a

Metacrock, I'd like to begin on a positive note: thanks for your graciousness - I like it when these discussions stay civil.

Now, to the matter at hand - and please excuse liberal snipping.

Originally posted by Metacrock:
Meta => Is there a reason to think that that ["came over" = knew carnally] is even worthy of considering as a valid point? What possible reason would there be to assume that he was? The Greek terms translated "coming upon" is not indicative of Sexual intercourse. It is not a euphamism for sex.
I'm not qualified to say what's worthy of consideration. No, that's evasive; what I mean is why not consider everything in the interests of "proving all things" (1 Thess. 5:21). I don't seriously think the Hebrew Scriptures intend to imply sex between God and His prophets. But they weren't involved in this quite singular (for the Bible, that is) virgin birth, either. If no sex act was involved, do we need to assume Jesus did not reside in Mary's uterus for nine months, or that he came into this world through her vagina in the usual manner? Perhaps he just grew on her back or sprang from her mouth - both Matthew and Luke are somewhat vague when addressing this issue.

Meta => Well it's just that you are assuming barrowing on really flimsy evidence. I already said I'm not against the concept of some barrowing, but it just depends on how much and how far it went. To imply,as many do that that somehow invalidates the histoircal events of the NT there is no supporting evidence that confirms such a view.
There may be a couple of different things at work here from my perspective. What do you mean by historical events? Supporting evidence is shaky on both sides (as if there were only two) for most assertions about NT events. I would have to give you a bit of an advantage, though, because not only do you have God on your side, the Christian church has a poor track record when it comes to recording views opposed to theirs - and they ruled Europe for a thousand years give or take.

So, does any of this invalidate the events of the NT? Surely not. If natural law is not an obstacle to belief in walking on water or raising the dead, I don't see how a little research into pre-existing beliefs could pose a threat.

Meta => Yes, but you need to show that those were the same ones with those stories and that the stories existed beofore Chrsitianity. Most of the stories which Christ myther's say are paralell have no examples in pre Chrsitian times.
I think you have a more specific definition of borrowing and parallel than I. Romulus and Remus, Perseus, Mithras, Osiris, Attis, Tammuz, Adonis, Korybas, and Dionysus all held currency before Jesus. All have some version (or elements, if you prefer) of a virgin birth. Sargon and Moses both predate Jesus and both were said to have escaped a 'slaughter of the innocents' (strangely, they all ended up in Egypt, too). Osiris, Persephone, Tammuz, Hippolytus, Cailleach Beara, Aray, and Adonis came before Jesus and all have the markings of resurrection fables.

Now, not all of these were born -
[list=a][*] Jews,[*] Bethlehem,[*] a manger,[*]...or at all.[/list=a]

But let me try an analogy if I may. Are you familiar with the tale of Cyrano de Bergerac by Edmond Rostand? In the eighties a movie named Roxanne (with Steve Martin) was released that retold this famous story. What if I was to say to you, "obviously Roxanne isn't borrowing from Mssr. Rostand because Cyrano never has a duel using a tennis racket!" Just because the stories don't match precisely doesn't mean there isn't borrowing going on.

Meta => But that is speiculation and it cannot be supported, in fact it flys in the face of the primary text. You have yet to offer a reson why we should doubt the text. And as I said, the passion narrative can be traced to just 18 years after the events. Now don't you think that 18 years after with tons of eye witnesses still alive they start hearing this guy was crucified and riased form the dead in front of the whole city some one would say "I dont' remember that?" and the empty tomg is also part of that narrative. wouldn't the people who were there tend to say "what empty tomb? What guards? I dont' remmber that!"??
I haven't seen an authoritative study showing the veracity of a 'primary' gospel. I have read several secondary 'lay' texts which suggest that the authorship is very much in question amongst biblical scholars, but I can't really comment here because of this.

Meta => Espoused means engaged. She was already pregnant that's what it says.
A re-iteration of the point at hand: you claim that since Siddhartha's mother is said to be married she can't be a virgin, yes?

esˇpouse (-spouz)
v. tr. esˇpoused, esˇpousˇing, esˇpousˇes.
[list=a][*]To take in marriage; marry. [*]To give (a woman) in marriage. [/list=a]

enˇgage (n-gj)
v. enˇgaged, enˇgagˇing, enˇgagˇes.
v. tr.
[list=a][*]To pledge or promise, especially to marry.[/list=a]

And as if that weren't enough:

Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: (Matthew 1:24)

To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child. (Luke 2:5)
Meta => NO I disagree. IT is not the same kind of life. Most people don't lived wrapped up in bandages. It doesn't matter that the point was to preserve the body that in no way means that Osiris returned to real life.
Hmmm, but getting angels to move rocks, teleporting around the countryside to shove your nail wounds in the faces of your closest friends and relatives - that's a normal kind of life? Not to mention that Jesus doesn't stick around for long; he supposedly ascends to heaven. Not something I've ever been able to do (or will be able to, according to most who know me) in my normal life. Jesus obviously didn't come back to the same kind of life I'm used to, either. Many of the people who are said to have seen the resurrected Jesus had difficulty recognizing him - could it be because he, too, had reached a different sort of life?

MEta => Sorry that is just not true. There was a vital and thriving Jewish Chrsitian community throughout the first century. After the destruction of 70 they fled to Pela in norhtern trans jordon and stayed there until the 4th century. ST. Jerome even studied with them. This is documetned by an Israeli archaeologist, Gaalyaha Cornfled. In Archaeology of The Bible. And the Pauline circle being Gnetile is no proof that they had anything to do with the formation of the Gospels.
They were vital and thriving possibly, but small.

The Pauline circle being Gentile does have some bearing on the formation of the gospels: The Council of Nicea got to decide which gospel stories we would have today and which we would not; they were a very Pauline group.

IT was not the Pauline chruch that wrote the Gospels, other than Luke, Matthew, Mark, John were Jeiwsh. especially Matthew.
I don't get it - Matthew was more Jewish than the others? Is it that Matthew was most likely composed in Aramaic while the others were Greek? There is a bit of evidence that Luke was of Gentile origin, by the way. If he was, in fact, Paul's "beloved physician," as Irenaeus claimed, I would say that chances are strong that he was in this Pauline group, Jewish or not.

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:16 PM.


This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.