Amaleq13

No, the fact that Luke asserts a virgin birth narrative in the late 1st century does not inform us that Paul also knew it nor, more relevant to your assertion, does it suggest that pre-Christian, messianic Jews believed it.

Does it surprise you that he might describe the birth of the incarnation of the Son of God in a different way than the birth of a mere human? I completely agree that Paul does not refer to the birth of his Lord in the same way he might describe the birth of a mere human but he says nothing that suggests he knew of or believed in the virginity of the mother. There simply is no basis for that interpretation.

Questions of priority ultimately aren't relevant to the fact that Mark's version of the story is clearly incompatible with either birth narrative.

Pointing out that you have no evidence to support your assertion does not shift the burden to me.

No, just the miraculous conceptions of godmen. That doesn't sound familiar at all. I never claimed a perfect parallel nor is such a notion necessary to suggest a possible source of inspiration. Regardless and as I've already pointed out, no alternative explanation is needed to observe that your assertion has no evidence to support it.

Another straw man?

Your preference to argue against straw men, make unsupported leaps, and avoid the burden of proof has become as tiresome as your refusal to acknowledge that there is no evidence to support your assertion. I will leave you to your firmly entrenched beliefs. Get back to me if and when you discover any evidence that pre-Christian, messianic Jews expected a virgin birth. I will be very interested in that. :wave:

Gamera

Colossians 4:14 - Luke the beloved physician and Demas greet you.

2 Timothy 4:11 - Luke alone is with me. Get Mark and bring him with you; for he is very useful in serving me.

Philemon 1:24 - and so do Mark, Aristar'chus, Demas, and Luke, my fellow workers.

Further nobody doubts the author of Luke's gospel wrote Acts.

So, seems like a redacteur was really at work, trying to prove Paul knew Luke, just to decieve me on this board, millennia later. Not very convincing.

Gamera

It does unless you posit the idea coming out of nowhere. We've already dealt with the flaw of your "pagan genesis" theory.

By the way, here's further evidence of Jewish messianic views of a virgin birth.


Ask and you shall receive.

The following cites goes into detail about 1st century Jewish epigraphia, pseudographia and other texts that evince Jewish messianic views of the time.

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/messiah.html

Most notable is the repeated reference to the messiah as the "Son of God." Now, if the messiah was considered the Son of God by some messianic Jews that strongly suggests they viewed his birth as somehow miraculous, since generally God doesn't sire children.

Note also that the rabbinical writings that attack the virgin-birth idea may in fact not be attacking the Christian view, but messianic Jewish views of the messiah. You have merely assumed that any anti-virgin birth references refer to Christian notions, whereas as the cite shows, reference upon reference in noncanonical Jewish works conceptualizes the messiah as having some kind of miraculous birth (at least enough to be called uniquely the Son of God).

Gamera

It doesn't surprise me in the slightest, though it does rebut your claim that Paul doesn't indicate any notion of a virgin birth. Paul in fact does apparently see Christ's birth as unique or unusual. That's compatible with the virgin birth narrative, and it rebuts the topic thread that somehow Paul was disinterested in the subject. Paul was interested enough to choose his vocabulary very carefully when refering to Jesus's birth.

Gamera

Explain its incompatibility. Go into detail.

Sure does if you posit a rebutal claim that purports to be evidence. I've given you about 10 chances to provide evidence that latter Christian apologists would know anything about 1st century Jewish messianic thought. You haven't provided one scrap. I conclude therefore that your claim that their writing illuminate this subject is rebutted.

What godman? Be specific. There are no godmen in classic pagan myth, just heros with various qualities, mortal all, even though sired by various god. Your simply out of your league on this. Be specific. Provide the text of a myth that in any way parallels the virgin birth a savior messiah who is the immortal son of God. Good luck.

Already provided it. But happy to do so again:



The following cite goes into detail about 1st century Jewish epigraphia, pseudographia and other texts that evince Jewish messianic views of the time.

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/messiah.html

Most notable is the repeated reference to the messiah as the "Son of God." Now, if the messiah was considered the Son of God by some messianic Jews that strongly suggests they viewed his birth as somehow miraculous, since generally God doesn't sire children.

Note also that the rabbinical writings that attack the virgin-birth idea may in fact not be attacking the Christian view, but messianic Jewish views of the messiah. You have merely assumed that any anti-virgin birth references refer to Christian notions, whereas as the cite shows, reference upon reference in noncanonical Jewish works conceptualizes the messiah as having some kind of miraculous birth (at least enough to be called uniquely the Son of God).

Toto

Julian meant that Paul did not know the Gospel of Luke. Paul refers to a Luke the Physician, so we assume that he knew a Luke, but almost everyone who has studied the matter rejects the idea that this Luke wrote the gospel of Luke; or, as Peter Kirby tries to show, Luke would have to have survived Paul and changed his ideas on a lot of things and reached a ripe old age before writing that gospel. In any case, Paul would not have known the gospel of Luke with its birth narrative.

Julian

I was talking about the Gospel of Luke, you were talking about the person. Slight misunderstanding there. That won't prevent me from commenting on your response. First you would have to establish that the Luke that Paul refers to is the same Luke that got his name attached to the Gospel in the 2nd century. A 2nd century claim won't do as evidence.
Well, one problem here is that Colossians is not considered an authentic Paulin epistle.
Once again, not considered an authentic Pauline epistle.
Okay, here is an authentic one. So, Paul knew somebody named Luke. What makes you think this is the guy that wrote the Gospel? Other than a 2nd century claim that simply pulls a name out of a hat.
Agreed.
I agree that you are not very convincing but we'll let that slide. Certainly, the pseudepigraphicals try to be convincing but that's to be expected. Too bad that the forgers knew more about their own theological views than they did about Paul's. But that, too, is to be expected.

To summarize, Paul knew somebody named Luke. Probably. No need to connect that person to the writings attributed to him.

Julian

Julian

I guess I should have read to the end of the thread before replying. You are correct, of course.

Julian

Amaleq13

Gamera,

Rather than continue a discussion that doesn't really belong in this thread, I'm taking it where it belongs (ie The Virgin Birth).

Gamera

Well, I thought we were discussing the issue of whether Luke and Paul were contempories, and hence part of the early Christian movement, and hence whether the virgin birth narrative was an early Christian trope. If so, the fact that Paul would reference Luke supports my point.

You mean his authorship is in dispute by some. Plenty of scholars consider it an authentic epistle.

See above.

Given that there was an association in the mind of the audience between Luke and Paul, rightly or wrongly, and given your premise that the association was so strong that redacteurs went out of their way to build it up in inauthenic Pauline letters, it seems odd that a Luke just appears in a letter you admit is authentic, without more. You would expect the "forgers" to add that this was the very Luke of the gospels. But they didn't, almost as if they didn't have to!

Ah, the vast conspiracy among early religious authorities who didn't even have cops, but somehow they hunted down every deviant mss in every dresser drawer over the entire mediterranean world. Now, who's not being convincing?

To summarize, Paul knew somebody named Luke, who appears to be the very Luke of Acts and the Gospel of Luke, unless the letters you claim are inauthentic aren't (which is in dispute) and only if there was a vast effective conspiracy to make a connection between Paul and Luke by a some 2nd century redacteurs just so I could prevail in my argument with you that Paul knew Luke, two thousand years later. I don't know, it seems, well, unlikely.