~M~

Has it ever been considered that the birth of JC (god) from a human virgin is a veneer of a sort that actually symbolizes the birth God's meaning that emanated from the existence of human beings?

That is to say that the meaning of God would have been vacuous if it were not for the otherness of human beings to denote and actually connote meaning to God? Thus, God is born from the womb of man just as we had been born from his. After all, what would God be if it were not for our existence?

I recently wrote a paper on it and I was wondering if it had already been pondered.

-the best

Malachi151

I doubt it. Matthew is not that sophisticated, and Luke seems to have been written without any symbolic intentions at all.

I think that the writers intended the birth stories to be taken exactly as they are, as literal events that fulfilled scriptures.

The Gospels of Mark and John are much more symbolic, so if they had written such accounts that could have been the case, but they didn't.

Toto

As far as Biblical criticism, this seems unlikely. The virgin birth was probably added to the gospel narrative to elevate Jesus to the same or higher status as the Roman emperors or Alexander, who was also said to be born of a God-mortal union.

As far as post-modern theology, anything goes.

~M~

unlikely for the same reasons as mentioned from the poster above you? An appeal to inconsistency?

Chris Weimer

What? Care to back this up?

Care to back this up as well?

And again, evidence?

Toto

I don't follow what Malachi said here, especially "literal events that fulfilled scriptures." I suspect that both Matt and Luke were writing theology, not history, so calling the birth narratives "literal" is stretching it. But I'll let Malachi try to explain.

Malachi151

I'm not sure how such claims are backed up. GLuke is written as a historical account, at lest so it seems, and so it is regarded by Christian scholars generally. This is also what my Study Bible says.

I don't see GLuke as containing much intentional symbolism, other than the symbolism that was a part of its underlying sources. My reading of GLuke, which may well be wrong, is that it was written as straight forward history, meant to be taken as literally true.

The same with GMatthew really. GMatthew does clearly craft elements to parallel OT themes, such as the birth story being similar to themes from Exodus, but I don't get the impression from it that the author didn't intent the story to be taken as simply literally true.

I don't view either virgin birth story as symbolic or metaphorical or allegorical. Matthews makes allusions, but it still seems to simply be just a straight forward story, with no underlying meaning.

That's my reading of it, that's all. It's just an attempt to "fulfill scripture" and confer "godly" status to a supposed man, that's what it is.

Boro Nut

Sorry to break this to you but you've probably come to the worst possible place. Have you tried shifting it on EBay?

Boro Nut

BrianJ

Hi,

But what scripture(s) was it fulfilling exactly?

Chris Weimer

Malachi,

One day you'll learn that scholarship isn't based on what you feel but evidence formulated into theories. Please, by all means, if you can't back up your theories, keep them to yourself.