Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
04-10-2007, 12:46 PM | #11 |
Contributor
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Lebanon, OR, USA
Posts: 16,829
|
My own theory is that it was a bit of excessive literalism and pagan influence.
In the Old Testament, "child", "son", and "daughter" were metaphorically extended in various ways; thus, kings would be called "sons of God". This was not meant literally, but more in an adoptive or metaphorical sense; there is no incident of divine impregnation anywhere in the OT. But the writers of Matthew and Luke were a bit literal-minded about "son of God", and we can ask ourselves why that might be. There is a lot of pagan influence in the New Testament, like mystery-religion influence and Cynic influence and the Gospel of John starting with "In the beginning was the Word" (Logos). And Judeo-pagan syncretism was common in the first century CE, meaning that mixing Jewish and pagan themes was completely possible for the NT's writers. That they wrote in Greek further supports this, because Greek was the shared language of the eastern Mediterranean basin at the time. In constrast with the OT, however, pagans had believed in numerous divine impregnations; even such gentlemen as Pythagoras, Plato, Alexander the Great, and Augustus Caesar were considered by some to have gods as their biological fathers. And that may have inspired the authors of Matthew and Luke to be literal-minded about "son of God", thus their believing that Jesus Chrust's biological father had been the Xian God. As to the Isaiah virgin prophecy, the authors of the Gospels, wanted to make Jesus Christ seem like the fulfillment of OT prophecies, even if that meant quoting them out of context or misunderstanding them or using mistranslations -- they used the Greek Septuagint rather than any Hebrew version of the OT. And lo and behold, in the Septuagint, Isaiah tells us that "a virgin will conceive...", even though the original Hebrew was more like "a young woman will conceive...", without any implication of virginity. So the authors of Matthew and Luke seized upon that as a virgin-birth prophecy. |
04-10-2007, 12:57 PM | #12 | |
Junior Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Scotland
Posts: 37
|
Quote:
Also, Isaiah 7:14 is not even a messianic prophecy. |
|
04-10-2007, 01:09 PM | #13 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 8,674
|
Quote:
It seems that my take on them it in line with Christian tradition. I'm not sure what your take is, since you haven't done anything but say that me saying that these were straight forward stories to be taken at face value is wrong. |
|
04-10-2007, 01:31 PM | #14 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: none
Posts: 9,879
|
Quote:
Part of the text is what Matthew thinks happened, and part of the text is what Matthew is trying to convey to the reader. |
|
04-10-2007, 01:43 PM | #15 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 8,674
|
Quote:
That GMatthew is not a deep philosophical work is consensus opinion as far as I know, at least everything I have seen is of this opinion. |
|
04-10-2007, 01:57 PM | #16 | ||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: none
Posts: 9,879
|
I don't even understand the OP, how can I agree with it?
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
04-10-2007, 03:12 PM | #17 | |
Contributor
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Falls Creek, Oz.
Posts: 11,192
|
Quote:
birth of Apollonius of Tyana (c.4 BCE) with effect from the fourth century, by the mechanism of two actions: 1) A DELETION of the writings of "the tribe of (neo)pythagoreans" from Apollonius of Tyana (1st CE) to Porphyry (4th CE). 2) An ADDITION of the writings of "the tribe of christians" cited to be fabrication of the Galilaeans, and a fiction of men composed by wickedness. However this is to be considered in a literal and historical sense, not in terms of any philosophical idealism. |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|