jgibson000

It is a question of which Gospel deserves allegiance, the one that says Caesar is Lord, or the one says he isn't, since the God of Israel, as revealed in Jesus, is.

Have a look at the discussion of this idea by Tom Wright that is found at

http://www.ctinquiry.org/publications/wright.htm

and at

http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_P...sar_Romans.htm


Jeffrey

jgibson000

Perhaps, especially as a scientist, you should look at it from what in the first century was considered "reality". Otherwise you won't have a clue as to what "truth" is being noted or declared in the stories of Jesus' conception and birth.

JG

youngalexander

There is only one 'reality', and that is the one subject to scientific observation. On the other hand, there are many perceptions of reality, whether they be in the first century or today. Perhaps you are confusing these concepts?

However,
Which I take to be a statement concerning reality. Virgin births do not happen.
You replied to Roland:
Which may well be a correct description of the motivation for "stories of Jesus' conception and birth", but has no bearing upon their reality.

Solo

I agree it is a separate consideration but to me it does not appear much of an issue. The pagan mother of god's progeny (i.e. impregnated by god) was generally venerated as a virtuous woman but the act of conception was not really considered extramarital sex - the mythical and symbolic character of the conception as a divine provenance of genius was what mattered.

For what it's worth the dogma of Mary as perpetual virgin (originating from Jerome and contradicting scripture (Mt 1:25)) was declared only in 681 at the Council of Constantinople. By contrast she received officially the title of Mother of God two and half centuries earlier. Her cult in the Church related chiefly to the beliefs of her accessibility and efficacy as intercessor (a function she seems to have inherited from Isis and Cybele).

Jiri

jgibson000

??? can you give me some sources for this?

Tell that to Hera vis a vis Zeus and Semele.

Jeffrey

Toto

A digression by Chili and a response have been split off here

Solo

I mentioned Pythagoras’ “mother” already, also Virgil’s insistence that Lucina, the mother of future Roman messiah boy will be chaste.

Cybele, a raunchy type, castrated her own son , but was still venerated as Magna Mater in Rome:

http://www.forumancientcoins.com/Num...asp?key=Cybele

Kore, the mother of Aion, signifies “a virgin”, in the style of the hermetic ‘Kore Kosmou’ (virgin of the world), a nature origin myth. ( Stobaeus fragments )

The imprisoned Danae, mother of Perseus was a paragon of virginal (and later, maternal) virtue, Zeus impregnated her by means of ‘golden rain’ (unlike Semele whom he covered in cum).

Semele and Myrrha, the mother of Adonis would be the examples of human ‘innocence’ and vulnerability – their fate was to be used ‘sexually’ by gods and destroyed by them for gods' selfish purposes. Aphrodite made Myrrha seduce her father, king Theias, to “create” Adonis. Then Aphrodite turned her proxy into a myrrh tree to shield her from the wrath of Theias.
Hera, jealous of the lust Zeus had for Semele, made the latter sexually desire his “thunderbolt” which was a capital offence for a mortal woman. Semele was done for.

Even though both Myrrha and Semele were destroyed, it was by fate - by the will of gods, not by a lack of virtue.

(for the above see e.g. Edith Hamilton, Mythology, Mentor, 1969)

I think you are mistaken if you believe Hera (as the protector of marriage) was enforcing marital fidelity as such. She would have had to destroy scores of fair maidens. She did not.

Jiri

Chili

She is the strikingly beautiful Madeleine in Paris and mother of the living in Gen.3:20 who's voice is still like that of a lion in Rev.13:2 but here without its power and authority. It is she of whom Coriolanus said: "know thou first, I loved the maid I married" and was called Valeria there.

Wow, and you see something wrong with that?

Ben C Smith

I do not think the motive was to distinguish Christianity from the emperor cult, or from any other cult, for that matter. Christianity was sufficiently different to be distinguished from paganism on its own, and at some point became sufficiently different from Judaism, too.

Rather, the point of using these terms that were already being used of emperors and other sovereigns in the east was to, as you say, promote Christ. But to do that was to tacitly promote Christ over and against the emperor.

I think what we need to hear behind the expression Jesus is lord, for example, is the silent corollary and Caesar is not. That is certainly what many Romans heard, and, when it became politically expedient, they persecuted the Christians because of it.

It is similar to the Jewish rhetoric of monotheism. Behind there is one God stands only one God, not many pagan gods.

Not trying to provoke them. At least not all Christians wanted to do that (certainly not Luke and the apologists, right?). But certainly trying to place Jesus in a place usually occupied by Roman emperors. That is the anti-imperial part. The apologists often described Christian concepts in pagan terms by way of making the point easier to understand or making Jesus a little more palatable to a pagan audience. But I do not think that is what was going on with this particular kind of rhetoric attached to Jesus Christ; it was not conciliatory. It plainly dethroned Caesar and enthroned Jesus.

Christians tended, IMHO, to soften the parts that they could soften, but the Jesus is lord part they could not do much with. They were contractually bound to replace Caesar with Christ.

Ben.

gstafleu

Agreed. Of course the fact that the Augustus cult had added a miraculous conception may have been extra impetus for the Christ cult to do the same.

Perhaps the terms "based upon" and "derived from" create some needless contention. They seem to evoke an image of an industrious scribe licking his plume, while staring lecherously at an innocent document whose contents he is about to swipe. So maybe it is better to use the term "place in the tradition of" instead. So would it be fair to say the the miraculous conception in the Jesus story cannot easily be placed in the OT tradition, while it can easily be placed in the "pagan" tradition of such conceptions? And, to elaborate, that this pagan tradition is the same one to which the Atia story and similar god-impregnates-mortal-woman stories belong?


I wonder if the nit you picked doesn't occupy its time by splitting hairs . Monotheistically speaking you may--or may not, see the trinity--have a point that conception as a result from overshadowing by the holy spirit does not signal a divine father. But in my book--which would list angels as divinities as well--it is surely close enough.

No evidence but, as this is a forum for discussion, a suggestion. The Graeco-Roman gods were a very physical lot. In the Atia story she has to go clean herself up as if after normal intercourse. This suggests that, whatever one's idea of virginity may be, this is not it. The Jewish god however had by this time reached a level of perhaps unprecedented transcendence. In that light it makes more sense to see the woman as remaining virginal after godly impregnation. In fact, virginity may stress the divine, and thus transcendental and non-physical, origin of the impregnation. This would mean that while the concept of the miraculous conception stands in the pagan tradition, the virginity at birth is a transcendental Jewish twist.

Gerard Stafleu