Quote:
Originally Posted by teamonger
Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874
No way. The birth narrartives are not independent at all. The conception and birth were written with the express purpose of proving or showing that Jesus was indeed the son of the God of the Jews conceived through his Holy Ghost.
The birth narratives according to the NT and Church writers are fundamental to the origins of Jesus. The authors used Isaiah 7.14 as prophecy which is claimed to have been fulfilled.
The birth narratives are used to eliminate any thoughts or belief that Jesus was just human.
Jesus was a God, his mother was the witness.
|
The birth narratives are quite independent, and two gospel writers know nothing about them. The are especially independent of each other, having almost no features in common except what they set out to "prove" about Jesus' origins. They are clearly the products of two different communities, each coping with questions from potential converts, "who was this Jesus? A Galilean Messiah? hahahaha!" We evidence of such questions in the gospels.
The birth narratives provided "answers", and yes, attempted to "prove" Jesus to be superhuman, and descended of David at the same time. But notice, nothing at all in the birth narratives gets referred to later in the story. They were mythologizing add-ons.
t
|
Whether one or two authors wrote the birth stories, they are fundamental to the Jesus story and are certainly
NOT independent. Without the birth stories the assumed history of Jesus would be incomplete.
And even though the author of Mark did not write a birth narrative, the author still referred to Jesus as a God, the son of God. The very first verse of gMark, Jesus is introduced as a God.
Mark 1.1
Quote:
The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the son of God.
|