Freethought & Rationalism Archive

badger3k · 01-17-2007, 06:26 PM

I know this is a pretty common view, but I recently heard an idea that offered some conjecture on this. The argument (short as he said - it was in a podcast as an aside) seems to be that the virgin birth narrative was more for the consumption of gentiles - the followers of mystery religions. The other narratives - the Jesus-as-descendent-of-David one was for a more Jewish audience. I haven't really looked into it, but since I took the day off from work due to weather and came back here since it's been a while, I figured I might pluck the brains of the assembled group.

Has anyone heard of anything along these lines? Any links or books that might give some insight/information in this direction (pro and con)?

Aric2000 · 01-17-2007, 07:41 PM

Yes, the virgin birth did not come about until Christians came across the Roman religion Mithras, they needed to compete, so they added it.

Jesus as the descendant of David is probably one of the few factual things in the bible. According to some geneaologies, Jesus is a direct descendant of King David and therefore the true king of the Jews, but he screwed up, by being born 300 years early.

He could have been the Messiah, but he failed to remove the Romans from Jerusalem and Israel proper, so, he did not become the Messiah, as he wished to.

lpetrich · 01-19-2007, 12:17 AM

I don't know where Aric2000 got those two ideas from, but virgin births and divine impregnations were MUCH more widespread than Mithraism in pagandom. Not only numerous deities and legendary heroes had divine biological parentage, but supposedly also some historical people -- Pythagoras, Plato, Alexander the Great, and Augustus Caesar.

By contrast, being a "son of God" in the Old Testament was an adoptive or metaphorical sort of relationship, and that was reinterpreted by some of the Gospels' authors as literal biological parentage.

And as to the different Gospels being aimed at different audiences, that does seem to be correct. But I wonder if anyone has any good references on that subject.

Matthew has a Jewish slant
Luke has a Gentile slant
Mark is somewhere in between
John was likely composed to rebut the Gnostics

01-17-2007, 06:26 PM	#1
badger3k Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Killeen, TX Posts: 1,388	DIffering audiences for the Gospels? I know this is a pretty common view, but I recently heard an idea that offered some conjecture on this. The argument (short as he said - it was in a podcast as an aside) seems to be that the virgin birth narrative was more for the consumption of gentiles - the followers of mystery religions. The other narratives - the Jesus-as-descendent-of-David one was for a more Jewish audience. I haven't really looked into it, but since I took the day off from work due to weather and came back here since it's been a while, I figured I might pluck the brains of the assembled group. Has anyone heard of anything along these lines? Any links or books that might give some insight/information in this direction (pro and con)?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-17-2007, 07:41 PM	#2
Aric2000 Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Washington Posts: 904	Yes, the virgin birth did not come about until Christians came across the Roman religion Mithras, they needed to compete, so they added it. Jesus as the descendant of David is probably one of the few factual things in the bible. According to some geneaologies, Jesus is a direct descendant of King David and therefore the true king of the Jews, but he screwed up, by being born 300 years early. He could have been the Messiah, but he failed to remove the Romans from Jerusalem and Israel proper, so, he did not become the Messiah, as he wished to.

01-19-2007, 12:17 AM	#3
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	I don't know where Aric2000 got those two ideas from, but virgin births and divine impregnations were MUCH more widespread than Mithraism in pagandom. Not only numerous deities and legendary heroes had divine biological parentage, but supposedly also some historical people -- Pythagoras, Plato, Alexander the Great, and Augustus Caesar. By contrast, being a "son of God" in the Old Testament was an adoptive or metaphorical sort of relationship, and that was reinterpreted by some of the Gospels' authors as literal biological parentage. And as to the different Gospels being aimed at different audiences, that does seem to be correct. But I wonder if anyone has any good references on that subject. Matthew has a Jewish slant Luke has a Gentile slant Mark is somewhere in between John was likely composed to rebut the Gnostics

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.