Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
03-17-2007, 03:55 PM | #81 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: London, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,719
|
Quote:
The correspondences are as you have stated: God helps a woman conceive, this is announced by an angel and the boy will be a nazarite. But there are two important differences. First, there is no indication that God in any way impregnates the woman. This indication is present in the Jesus story, and allows Christian mythology to develop the concept that God sent his son to earth. Second, the woman (nameless, as opposed to Manoah, feminists of the world unite, perhaps we'll call her Manoette) is obviously not a virgin. In the Jesus story Maria's virginity allows the Church to later develop the doctrine of immaculate conception and all that goes with it, substituting the archetype of the Madonna for that of the Mother (and the implied Seductress) for their main goddess. So we have a situation much like the passion: the form is there from the OT, the essence is not. The essence came, qua divine impregnation, from pagan tradition. Whence the essence came qua virginity is less clear, perhaps as I suggested from the Jewish god's transcendence. But no doubt the form found in Judges 13 helped the syncretism along. So, a side-track question from an ignoramus: what's up with this nazarite? The usual interpretation in the NT is either from Nazareth, or from some cult/organization. It is unlikely Nazareth is meant--we are 7C BCE here, I think--so were there nazarites similar to 1C CE at that time? Gerard Stafleu |
|
03-17-2007, 07:04 PM | #82 | |
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Alberta
Posts: 11,885
|
Quote:
|
|
03-17-2007, 08:06 PM | #83 | |
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Queens, NY
Posts: 2,293
|
Quote:
What do we have as the date for when the Augustus cult added a 'miraculous' conception ? Beyond the 2nd century Suetonius writing, referencing an earlier writing, do we have any other evidence of this aspect of the Augustus cult ? Shalom, Steven Avery |
|
03-17-2007, 09:32 PM | #84 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 2,579
|
Quote:
Why should it be denied ? To my mind it is one thing to claim that Jesus originated as a synthetic myth and another thing to admit that syncretic mythical elements are very much in evidence in the forming of religion that centered around him. I don't understand the fear of admitting the latter. We are all human, aren't we ? Wasn't that the novel idea of Christianity ? So, what is so unpalatable about other cultures participating in the creation of religious symbols for all humans ? Tell me. Jiri |
|
03-17-2007, 10:44 PM | #85 | |||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 2,579
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
03-17-2007, 11:19 PM | #86 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: none
Posts: 9,879
|
Jiri,
That same article you linked said that the corpus dated from the second to third centuries CE. Early Christian really equates to early Orthodox, not anywhere near the origins of the gospels. Chris |
03-18-2007, 01:15 AM | #87 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Bli Bli
Posts: 3,135
|
|
03-18-2007, 02:06 AM | #88 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Mornington Peninsula
Posts: 1,306
|
|
03-18-2007, 07:34 AM | #89 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 2,579
|
|
03-18-2007, 08:09 AM | #90 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: London, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,719
|
Quote:
Gerard Stafleu |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|