Toob Socks

So it's okay to do bad scholarship as long as other people do as well? :huh:

dog-on

Simply because these writings preceded the idea of an actual historical figure. Once the figure became "real", a history/bio was of course required to complete the transformation.

Thus we have Matthew.

Solitary Man

Sounds like you're trying to have it both ways. Either the birth is mythical in conception or it's historical in conception, but this was after the mythical phase. Ad hoc special pleading 100% grade A bullshit.

dog-on

There is no need to "have it both ways". What "mythical phase" are you talking about?

You are making an assumption based on your own fantasy, or do you believe that this really happened?

18This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit. 19Because Joseph her husband was a righteous man and did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly.
20But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, "Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. 21She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus,[c] because he will save his people from their sins."

22All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: 23"The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel"[d]—which means, "God with us."

24When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. 25But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.


How would you classify this specific bit of writing? How would the ancients have classified it?


Thanks, in advance.

Solitary Man

Ancients? Depends on which one. Me? It's an explanation/polemic against the imperial cult.

dog-on

To me it looks like someone crafting a story around the Isaiah verse, though if by imperial cult you are refering to the virgin birth of Augustus, I do not disagree that this, or something similar, was the part of the model since the idea was "in the air", as they say.

So, in the end, we agree that this is a fiction, if I understand you correctly.

Jeffrey Gibson

So there was no such person as Augustus? Thee claim that he was born of Attia and that he was -- in the eyes of Asclepius of Mendes, and the point of view of others in the Empire -- "divine" (i.e. special and destined to be a great a benefactor to humanity) that appears within the story of his conception by Apollo is fiction?

Jeffrey

dog-on

Augustus himself is irrelevant, Jeffrey, as I am sure you understand. His place in historicity has nothing to do with whether or not JC is an historical individual.

His "divine" parentage story, though, is relevant. So, yes. I consider the story of Augustus' conception by Apollo to be a fiction.

Don't you?

Jeffrey Gibson

I consider it a story which was intended to speak of the significance of Augustus. Therefore the evaluation of it in terms of "fiction"/"non fiction" not only is petitio principii and an engagement in the fallacy of bifurcation; it misunderstands what the story is intent to say and the function that it served.

Besides that, your criteria of what establishes the story as "fiction" (i.e., there are no gods, gods cannot have intercourse with human beings, etc.) are not ones that Asclepias of Mendes or Virgil or Suetonius or the citizens of Prienne would have accepted as valid, let alone as having any weight.

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson

Can you point me to any instance of a theists (let alone any non theists) demanding "primary evidence and proof for" the existence of pagan religions? Is there any theist (let alone non theist) anywhere who does not acknowledge that there were "pagan religions"?

Don't you mean that they demand primary evidence that backs up claims made by people like AS about what these religions asserted and what their adherents believed and shows that people like AS actually know what they are talking about and are not uttering garbage?

Moreover, is it really the case that "theists" (do you mean Christians?) never question "their own religion" by the same standards as "they" apply to the claims people like AS make about what "pagan religions" asserted and what the adherents of these religions believed?

What is the nature and extent of your contact with, and grounding in, the scholarly work done by "theists" on "their own religion" that informs the intimate and global knowledge about what "theists" do and do not do vis a vis "their own religion" that you claim to have?

Jeffrey