Birth of Jesus - Christmas

Cypress said:
I base what I wrote on the conventional methods of literary criticism, and on expert opinion I have read.
Click to expand...

I'd really like to see some of that. Like I said, I've never heard one way or the other.



Cypress said:
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.
Click to expand...

Interesting. As I said, my understanding of the "out of wedlock" thing was that it was required to match up the Isaiahan prophecies.

And the whole reason Mary and Joseph had to wind up in Bethlehem was primarily to fulfill Micah 5:2

Apparently, at least according to Ehrmann, while Caesar Augustus had requested a census, Quirinius who was governor over Syria in about that time did NOT take a census. (https://www.bartehrman.com/mary-and-joseph/).

It still feels far more reasonable to assume that the nativity narrative is simply made up for religious reasons than to try to figure out why anyone would have known or remembered the comings and goings of two impoverished nobodies in a far flung corner of a colony of Rome. Because Mary and Joseph would NOT have been "known" to anyone until Jesus was revealed as the messiah.
 
Diogenes said:
I saw that in the headlines, I think. I try to keep ahead of the news.
Click to expand...
The Christmas Truce of 1914 was a series of unofficial ceasefires that took place on Christmas Eve and Christmas Day along parts of the Western and Eastern fronts in WWI.
 
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...
Isaiah 7:14 contradicts your assumption!
 
Mason 22 said:
Isaiah 7:14 contradicts your assumption!
Click to expand...

This is the prophecy I was talking about. The whole "virgin birth" narrative seems to be required in order to fulfill this. The concept that Mary was REALLY just pregnant out of wedlock is a great "just so story" to explain why a woman, without benefit of marriage, would have become pregnant by someone not her husband.

But it's also a stretch. It has the feeling more of a justification of what appears for all other intents to be a made-up story.

I don't DOUBT that it could be true, what I doubt is that it IS true. That there's even a need to "justify" the existence of the narrative in documents which already clearly contain made-up things.
 
Daylight63 said:
This is the prophecy I was talking about. The whole "virgin birth" narrative seems to be required in order to fulfill this. The concept that Mary was REALLY just pregnant out of wedlock is a great "just so story" to explain why a woman, without benefit of marriage, would have become pregnant by someone not her husband.

But it's also a stretch. It has the feeling more of a justification of what appears for all other intents to be a made-up story.

I don't DOUBT that it could be true, what I doubt is that it IS true. That there's even a need to "justify" the existence of the narrative in documents which already clearly contain made-up things.
Click to expand...
No virgin ,birth,no Jesus being divine!
 
Cypress said:
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.
Click to expand...
You do know your pov,is offensive to every real Christian, and only proves ,you're completely uneducated about Jesus Christ! Not to mention you forgot about Isaiah 7:14 ,or have no old testament knowledge!
 
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...
:eyeroll:

dumbass-dumb.gif
 
Mason 22 said:
You do know your pov,is offensive to every real Christian, and only proves ,you're completely uneducated about Jesus Christ! Not to mention you forgot about Isaiah 7:14 ,or have no old testament knowledge!
Click to expand...
cypress is actually being quite accepting of the story, just paring out the supernatural stuff.

Obviously MY position is far more offensive in that I don’t even see the need for any variation of the story to be true.

Either way it is a fascinating aspect of Christianity that Jesus’ teachings seem relatively unimportant. They are nice and all but The IMPORTANT thing is Jesus be miraculous.

I always get the feeling that it kind of cheapens the value of Christianity if it is possible to live the teachings but all is rendered meaningless if one doesn’t believe in the magical backstory
 
Daylight63 said:
cypress is actually being quite accepting of the story, just paring out the supernatural stuff.

Obviously MY position is far more offensive in that I don’t even see the need for any variation of the story to be true.

Either way it is a fascinating aspect of Christianity that Jesus’ teachings seem relatively unimportant. They are nice and all but The IMPORTANT thing is Jesus be miraculous.

I always get the feeling that it kind of cheapens the value of Christianity if it is possible to live the teachings but all is rendered meaningless if one doesn’t believe in the magical backstory
Click to expand...
Cypress has logic and Zero Faith! Faith is square one to a personal relationship with YHWH!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top