Birth of Jesus - Christmas

C

Cypress

Well-known member
A premarital pregnancy would have been a scandal in first century Jewish Galilee, bringing dishonor to the family of the woman.

Most scholars are predisposed to accept a historical reality of Mary becoming pregnant outside of wedlock. When such a damaging story appears in the gospels the underlying oral or written tradition was too persistent to ignore by first century authors. The Babylonian Torah seems to claim Mary was impregnated by a Roman soldier.

Luke and Matthew get around this problem by using the Hebrew Bible to frame the birth of Jesus in a theological context. The question is whether the birth narratives in Luke and Matthew are only based on prophecy, or based on an authentic and long standing oral tradition.

The miraculous virgin birth narrative is only briefly mentioned in Luke and Matthew, composed around 80 to 85 AD.

Authors writing much earlier, Paul and Mark, make no mention of a virgin birth. Paul seems to allude that Jesus did not become divine until after he was crucified.

John and the author of Peter I and II make no mention of a virgin birth.

The gnostic gospel of Thomas and the other recognized Gnostic writings do not mention a virgin birth.

It is remarkable that an event so momentous and unprecedented as a virgin birth fulfilling Hebrew prophecy is not mentioned by these other authors.

Conclusion: the miraculous Virgin birth narrative is a later legendary account composed and framed by Luke and Matthew for theological reasons.
 
Cypress said:
A premarital pregnancy would have been a scandal in first century Jewish Galilee, bringing dishonor to the family of the woman.

Most scholars are predisposed to accept a historical reality of Mary becoming pregnant outside of wedlock.
Click to expand...

Are they? I honestly have never heard a scholar weigh in on the birth of Jesus. I mean it's abundantly clear from the Gospels themselves that the birth narrative seems to be one that is cobbled together in order to make the story of Jesus' life line up with prophecy. Whether it's the possible mistranslation of almah for virgin or the peripatetic travels they had to go through to get to Bethelehem or even the jarringly different genealogies that Jesus has in the gospels (both of which go through JOSEPH, so it's kinda confusing there).

I would be very interested to see the scholarship on this point.

Cypress said:
Conclusion: the miraculous Virgin birth narrative is a later legendary account composed and framed by Luke and Matthew for theological reasons.
Click to expand...

Agreed.
 
Cypress said:
A premarital pregnancy would have been a scandal in first century Jewish Galilee, bringing dishonor to the family of the woman.

Most scholars are predisposed to accept a historical reality of Mary becoming pregnant outside of wedlock. When such a damaging story appears in the gospels the underlying oral or written tradition was too persistent to ignore by first century authors. The Babylonian Torah seems to claim Mary was impregnated by a Roman soldier.

Luke and Matthew get around this problem by using the Hebrew Bible to frame the birth of Jesus in a theological context. The question is whether the birth narratives in Luke and Matthew are only based on prophecy, or based on an authentic and long standing oral tradition.

The miraculous virgin birth narrative is only briefly mentioned in Luke and Matthew, composed around 80 to 85 AD.

Authors writing much earlier, Paul and Mark, make no mention of a virgin birth. Paul seems to allude that Jesus did not become divine until after he was crucified.

John and the author of Peter I and II make no mention of a virgin birth.

The gnostic gospel of Thomas and the other recognized Gnostic writings do not mention a virgin birth.

It is remarkable that an event so momentous and unprecedented as a virgin birth fulfilling Hebrew prophecy is not mentioned by these other authors.

Conclusion: the miraculous Virgin birth narrative is a later legendary account composed and framed by Luke and Matthew for theological reasons.
Click to expand...
Cackling Kamala was the dem version of immaculate conception. She was rejected by voters in the primary so Hillary trying to force her on the people resulted in the DNC autocopulation.
 
Daylight63 said:
Please, I'm begging you and the other trolls who want to turn everything into a "Cackling Kamala WHine Fest" to find someplace where that is....

wait....I forgot. You aren't on here to discuss. You are on here to....for lack of a better word: troll.
Click to expand...

I don't recall wanting to "turn everything into a "Cackling Kamala WHine (sic) Fest".

I do look forward to seeing your righteous rebukes of lefties when they troll in my threads.
 
Daylight63 said:
Are they? I honestly have never heard a scholar weigh in on the birth of Jesus. I mean it's abundantly clear from the Gospels themselves that the birth narrative seems to be one that is cobbled together in order to make the story of Jesus' life line up with prophecy. Whether it's the possible mistranslation of almah for virgin or the peripatetic travels they had to go through to get to Bethelehem or even the jarringly different genealogies that Jesus has in the gospels (both of which go through JOSEPH, so it's kinda confusing there).

I would be very interested to see the scholarship on this point.



Agreed.
Click to expand...
scholarship from whom?

point of view is so crucial.

smart people know that.
 
Daylight63 said:
Are they? I honestly have never heard a scholar weigh in on the birth of Jesus. I mean it's abundantly clear from the Gospels themselves that the birth narrative seems to be one that is cobbled together in order to make the story of Jesus' life line up with prophecy. Whether it's the possible mistranslation of almah for virgin or the peripatetic travels they had to go through to get to Bethelehem or even the jarringly different genealogies that Jesus has in the gospels (both of which go through JOSEPH, so it's kinda confusing there).

I would be very interested to see the scholarship on this point.
Click to expand...
I base what I wrote on the conventional methods of literary criticism, and on expert opinion I have read.

The pregnancy out of wedlock narratives pass the criterion of dissimilarity because Christian authors would not be predisposed to revealing scandalous or embarrassing information, unless it was already too persistent in the earlier oral tradition to ignore.

The narratives seem to pass the criterion of multiple attestation because Luke, Matthew, and the Babylonian Talmud all report that Mary was pregnant out of wedlock. That's three sources.

The historian and archeologist Jean Pierre Isbouts wrote that most New Testament scholars believe it's more probable than not that there was an authentic first century oral tradition about Mary being pregnant out of wedlock. I take his word for it, absent any incentive to do further research.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top