Birth of Jesus - Christmas

[Cypress]

Then Jesus is just a moral teacher.

He claimed to be acting with divine agency, so he either genuinely believed that, or he was lying, or he was a madman.

The Jesus of the NT doesn't seem insane or blatantly dishonest. The only conclusion I come to is either he was mistaken in his belief of actually having divine agency, or he wasn't mistaken.

 

[Daylight63]

You could cut the miraculous conception and virgin birth story out of Luke and Matthew, and it literally wouldn't have any effect on basic Christian concepts of salvation, grace, and ethics.

Sure, for rational people. But belief doesn't always follow rational thought. For many (and I've talked to many Christians at length about this) often the miraculous stuff is INTEGRAL to their belief.

I can't claim to understand why but they NEED, viscerally, for the prophecies to be fulfilled (it shows them that their faith is justified because prophecy is fulfilled).

So yeah, rational deists like Jefferson could easily pare out the miraculous stuff and get to the essence of the teaching. But, indeed, for many Christians, that salvation bit hinges on Jesus being of the same essence as God. Ie: a miraculous supernatural being.

Especially since Jesus' divine agency is established universally in other ways in the NT.

Not clearly though. Which is why Arius and other dualist philosophies and heresies were able to thrive in the early church. The early church has wildly different conceptions of Jesus divine agency. And it literally required centuries of enforced rules. Groups were OFTEN murdered for their heresies on this topic.

In fact one Crusade was focused on killing as many of the Albigensians as humanly possible.

So, if it was "clear" it wasn't clear to the Church for a very long time.

 

[Cypress]

Sure, for rational people. But belief doesn't always follow rational thought. For many (and I've talked to many Christians at length about this) often the miraculous stuff is INTEGRAL to their belief.

I can't claim to understand why but they NEED, viscerally, for the prophecies to be fulfilled (it shows them that their faith is justified because prophecy is fulfilled).

So yeah, rational deists like Jefferson could easily pare out the miraculous stuff and get to the essence of the teaching. But, indeed, for many Christians, that salvation bit hinges on Jesus being of the same essence as God. Ie: a miraculous supernatural being.



Not clearly though. Which is why Arius and other dualist philosophies and heresies were able to thrive in the early church. The early church has wildly different conceptions of Jesus divine agency. And it literally required centuries of enforced rules. Groups were OFTEN murdered for their heresies on this topic.

In fact one Crusade was focused on killing as many of the Albigensians as humanly possible.

So, if it was "clear" it wasn't clear to the Church for a very long time.

They all thought Jesus had divine agency, Nestorians, orthodox, Arianintes, Marcionites, Gnositcs.

The only question was the exact relationship between his humanity and his divine agency. .

 

[Daylight63]

They all thought Jesus had divine agency, Nestorians, orthodox, Arianintes, Marcionites, Gnositcs.

That really seems to downplay literally hundreds if not over a thousand years of people being murdered for failing to have the proper view of the nature of that agency. Almost as if merely saying "divine agency" carries almost no real world meaning.

Yes, they thought him "holy". But there's a BIG difference between someone being GOD and someone being a REPRESENTATIVE of God.

 

[Hume]

He claimed to be acting with divine agency, so he either genuinely believed that, or he was lying, or he was a madman.

The Jesus of the NT doesn't seem insane or blatantly dishonest. The only conclusion I come to is either he was mistaken in his belief of actually having divine agency, or he wasn't mistaken.

Or there are lots of religions in the world.

 

[Daylight63]

He claimed to be acting with divine agency, so he either genuinely believed that, or he was lying, or he was a madman.

Ah, the old CS Lewis gambit.

Given that we don't really have Jesus words themselves from him directly it is difficult to know. Even in the Gospels themselves it is clear that Jesus thought himself, depending on the verse, to be separate from God and only doing his will or as the only route to God.

As Ehrmann noted Jesus never really appears to say he is God in Matthew, Mark or Luke. And many in the early church thought Jesus was taken up into heaven and THEN became "divine".

Now if by "divine agency" you merely mean someone who is saying things about God I'm not entirely certain that is particularly limiting in any meaningful fashion. Since if the definition gets loose enough Ted Haggard had "divine agency".

But the CS Lewis gambit is not necessarily correct. It could be that Jesus was just a guy whose ministry turned a lot of people onto his ideas and they built a religion around him. Only later fighting over exactly how divine he was when he was still a man.

The Jesus of the NT doesn't seem insane or blatantly dishonest. The only conclusion I come to is either he was mistaken in his belief of actually having divine agency, or he wasn't mistaken.

I disagree with the premise that we have ANY idea of what Jesus actually thought about his position in relation to God. It certainly isn't clear enough from the Gospels for the early church to have a clear idea. And, in fact, it took centuries of constant theological discussion and councils to hammer it out. And suppression of heresies.

 

[Cypress]

Ah, the old CS Lewis gambit.

Given that we don't really have Jesus words themselves from him directly it is difficult to know. Even in the Gospels themselves it is clear that Jesus thought himself, depending on the verse, to be separate from God and only doing his will or as the only route to God.

As Ehrmann noted Jesus never really appears to say he is God in Matthew, Mark or Luke. And many in the early church thought Jesus was taken up into heaven and THEN became "divine".

Now if by "divine agency" you merely mean someone who is saying things about God I'm not entirely certain that is particularly limiting in any meaningful fashion. Since if the definition gets loose enough Ted Haggard had "divine agency".

But the CS Lewis gambit is not necessarily correct. It could be that Jesus was just a guy whose ministry turned a lot of people onto his ideas and they built a religion around him. Only later fighting over exactly how divine he was when he was still a man.



I disagree with the premise that we have ANY idea of what Jesus actually thought about his position in relation to God. It certainly isn't clear enough from the Gospels for the early church to have a clear idea. And, in fact, it took centuries of constant theological discussion and councils to hammer it out. And suppression of heresies.

I specifically and intentionally used the term 'divine agency'.

Acting with divine agency does not require one to be divine. Prophets, sages, and priests can act with the belief they have divine agency. A human can be understood to act with divine agency, and the ancient Hebrews understood this.

Jesus clearly states or suggests in Mark and Matthew he is the son of God, which in an ancient Hebrew context is understood to be some person acting with divine agency. Which is precisely what I wrote about.

The New testament corpus nowhere indicates that Jesus is just a normal person just listing a set of rules of ethical behavior.

 

[Daylight63]

I specifically and intentionally used the term 'divine agency'.

I saw that. Which is why I wrote extensively about what that phrase means.

Acting with divine agency does not require one to be divine.

So then Jimmy Swaggart, David Koresh, Ted Haggard and Joel Osteen could all be considered to have "divine agency".

A human can act with divine agency, and the ancient Hebrews understood this.

But then you have stripped Jesus of his DIVINITY which is crucial in the faith.

Clearly your use of "divine agency" without any definitional limits on the terms is correct, but it does not in any way point to a divinity of any sort. Just that he spoke about the divine.

Jesus clearly states or suggests in Mark and Matthew he is the son of God,

"As Ehrman now explicitly says, identifying “Jesus as messiah, as Lord, as Son of God, as Son of Man–[all] imply, in one sense or another, that Jesus is God.” And yet “in no sense” does that mean he was “understood to be God the Father” (p. 208)." (Carrier)

which in an ancient Hebrew context is understood to be someone acting with divine agency. Which is precisely what I wrote about.

The kings of Israel were often referred to as "Sons of the Lord". In 1 Sam God offers to make all David's descendents his "sons". As such the "son of God" doesn't seem to be overly limiting.

I will agree, many people in a theology can have "divine agency". But none of them are the lord and savior of all humanity.

 

[Daylight63]

To bring the whole "birth of Jesus" thing back to the OP. The entire POINT of pretty much every aspect of the Nativity Story is clearly crafted to be one of "proving" the divinity (DIVINITY, not "divine agency" but full-on divinity) of Jesus. That's why they had a virgin birth --to fulfill Isaiah 7:14. They had to travel to Bethlehem to fulfill Micah 5:2. Even the disparate genealogies (at least ONE of which BY DEFINITION has to be made up...maybe both?) is crafted to fulfill the idea that the Messiah would come from the House of David.

Let's assume that we all accept that Jesus was a real person as many scholars actually believe. There is zero reason to assume anyone would really know the details about his birth or anything like that until he was either gathering a following, but far more likely well after he was crucified and died. At that point Jesus very rapidly becomes "divine" within the group of early Christians, apparently. HENCE the need to create a nativity story that would tie up all the prophecy to ESTABLISH the divinity as a post hoc thing.

Obvioulsy, the NATURE of that divinity was CLEARLY not established until centuries later.

Did Jesus have "divine agency"? Well given that the best definition Cypress has provided would seem to include pretty much ANY preacher or self-styled prophet throughout history, none of whom are divine by any stretch of the imagination, I am uncertain why it would matter. Sure, yeah, Jesus had divine agency in the same way that any sect leader does. They all claim to speak on behalf of the truth and God. Even David Koresh.

 

[Cypress]

I saw that. Which is why I wrote extensively about what that phrase means.



So then Jimmy Swaggart, David Koresh, Ted Haggard and Joel Osteen could all be considered to have "divine agency".





But then you have stripped Jesus of his DIVINITY which is crucial in the faith.

Clearly your use of "divine agency" without any definitional limits on the terms is correct, but it does not in any way point to a divinity of any sort. Just that he spoke about the divine.



"As Ehrman now explicitly says, identifying “Jesus as messiah, as Lord, as Son of God, as Son of Man–[all] imply, in one sense or another, that Jesus is God.” And yet “in no sense” does that mean he was “understood to be God the Father” (p. 208)." (Carrier)



The kings of Israel were often referred to as "Sons of the Lord". In 1 Sam God offers to make all David's descendents his "sons". As such the "son of God" doesn't seem to be overly limiting.

I will agree, many people in a theology can have "divine agency". But none of them are the lord and savior of all humanity.

Right,
I never said that any person acting with what they believe is divine agency - prophet, sage, or messiah - has to be God the father. Muhammed and Moses were supposedly agents of divine authority, but they were human nonetheless. Some people like to think that about Jesus as well - Unitarian Universalists, for example.

 

[Daylight63]

Right,
I never said that any person acting with what they believe is divine agency - prophet, sage, or messiah - has to be God the father. Muhammed and Moses were supposedly agents of divine authority, but they were human nonetheless. Some people like to think that about Jesus as well - Unitarian Universalists, for example.

But in order to bring it back to the OP, my contention is that the birth narrative doesn't need to be in any way real, it serves FAR MORE effectively as a made-up narrative in order to justify the DIVINITY. Not the divine agency, but the DIVINITY of Jesus.

May I ask what version of Christian you are?

 

[Litmus]

My only requirements for God is that he be logical and worthy of worship.

A God that creates people knowing they are imperfect and then punishes them for their imperfection is unworthy of even respect let alone worship

in your "might makes right" neocon/lucifer ideology, you only worship mass murderers.

do you want to go on the record with this?

 

[Litmus]

Right,
I never said that any person acting with what they believe is divine agency - prophet, sage, or messiah - has to be God the father. Muhammed and Moses were supposedly agents of divine authority, but they were human nonetheless. Some people like to think that about Jesus as well - Unitarian Universalists, for example.

tons of people murdered by the Catholic church for the "Aryan Heresy"...... for example

why are you a Catholic?

 

[Litmus]

yes. murdered people meausred in tonnage is appropriate when dealing with the catholic church.

 

[Cypress]

, it serves FAR MORE effectively as a made-up narrative in order to justify the DIVINITY. Not the divine agency, but the DIVINITY of Jesus.

There are exaggerations, hyperbole, embellishments in the NT, but people doesn't risk their lives and die for things they know are complete fabrications.

There is no way for me to rationally conclude that the apostles and evangelists of the mid to late first century thought they were selling lies.
The most rational conclusion is that they genuinely believed Jesus was and agent of divine authority - the messiah. Whether or not they were mistaken in that belief.

 

[Daylight63]

There are exaggerations, hyperbole, embellishments in the NT, but people doesn't risk their lives and die for things they know are complete fabrications.

Sigh. I never said the entire books were made up. I am afraid I'm somehow stepping on your toes and your religious faith and I don't want to do that. It seems incredibly important to your faith that many of these stories at least have a major kernel of truth and this one is quite confusing to me as to why IT needs to be based on something real or true.

SURELY you must admit that there ARE parts of the nativity narrative that are CLEARLY made up. The genealogy for one! Christ has TWO different genealogies going up through Joseph to David. ONE of them must be made up.

But you keep blowing right past the clear indicators that the divinity of Jesus is being established by the authors who write about the virgin birth in Bethlehem. It HAS to follow prophecy. Do you believe the Isaiah and Micah both ACCURATELY PROPHESIED the birth of Jesus? If so then I understand your position.

But if one wishes to pare out the supernatural aspects then the OBVIOUS one is to pare out the need to have the virgin birth in Bethlehem.

There is no way for me to rationally conclude that the apostles and evangelists of the mid to late first century thought they were selling lies.

You keep driving the conversation over to LIES in a pejorative sense. As if I am on here saying all of it is a lie. LIARS all of them! When in fact I'm saying nothing of the sort.

This really feels like anger talking rather than discussion. And it's for that reason I fear I'm stepping on your "faith toes" and somehow calling into question those things which are important for your beliefs. That is not my goal.

If I have somehow insulted your faith I apologize. I was under the impression that your faith was one that was clearly more amenable to paring out some of the supernatural stuff. That was why I was willing to point out that maybe a few MORE things could also be chocked up to the "made up category".

The most rational conclusion is that they genuinely believed Jesus was and agent of divine authority - the messiah. Whether or not they were mistaken in that belief.

No, the most rational choice is to assume the birth narrative was ginned up (since there would be little reason for ANYONE to commit any part of it to memory except in retrospect given the times and the status of these characters in society). It is FAR more rational to assume that the narrative is put together PRECISELY to make a case for DIVINITY of Christ.

The authors KNEW the prophecies and made the story match the prophecy.

But I also understand that you may believe the prophecies and I certainly don't want to attack your faith if that is important.

 

[Cypress]

Sigh. I never said the entire books were made up. I am afraid I'm somehow stepping on your toes and your religious faith and I don't want to do that. It seems incredibly important to your faith that many of these stories at least have a major kernel of truth and this one is quite confusing to me as to why IT needs to be based on something real or true.

SURELY you must admit that there ARE parts of the nativity narrative that are CLEARLY made up. The genealogy for one! Christ has TWO different genealogies going up through Joseph to David. ONE of them must be made up.

But you keep blowing right past the clear indicators that the divinity of Jesus is being established by the authors who write about the virgin birth in Bethlehem. It HAS to follow prophecy. Do you believe the Isaiah and Micah both ACCURATELY PROPHESIED the birth of Jesus? If so then I understand your position.

But if one wishes to pare out the supernatural aspects then the OBVIOUS one is to pare out the need to have the virgin birth in Bethlehem.




You keep driving the conversation over to LIES in a pejorative sense. As if I am on here saying all of it is a lie. LIARS all of them! When in fact I'm saying nothing of the sort.

This really feels like anger talking rather than discussion. And it's for that reason I fear I'm stepping on your "faith toes" and somehow calling into question those things which are important for your beliefs. That is not my goal.

If I have somehow insulted your faith I apologize. I was under the impression that your faith was one that was clearly more amenable to paring out some of the supernatural stuff. That was why I was willing to point out that maybe a few MORE things could also be chocked up to the "made up category".



No, the most rational choice is to assume the birth narrative was ginned up (since there would be little reason for ANYONE to commit any part of it to memory except in retrospect given the times and the status of these characters in society). It is FAR more rational to assume that the narrative is put together PRECISELY to make a case for DIVINITY of Christ.

The authors KNEW the prophecies and made the story match the prophecy.

But I also understand that you may believe the prophecies and I certainly don't want to attack your faith if that is important.

You wanted to change the topic from divine agency to Jesus being fully divine.

The Hebrew prophecy in the Septuigent does not say or imply the Messiah will be fully divine and coequal and coeternal with God in heaven. The Hebrew tradition was that the Messiah would be a person acting as God's agent.

The idea that Jesus was coequal with God, and was in fact God in human form, wasn't settled doctrine and consensus until the fourth century - that is long after the first century traditions being discussed in the OP.

As such, Luke, Matthew, Mark, Paul, James did not need to create a birth narrative to prove Jesus wad God in human form. They just needed to convince themselves that Jesus was the Messiah- aka, a divine agent - as prophesied in the Hebrew Bible

 

[Daylight63]

The idea that Jesus was coequal with God, and was in fact God in human form, wasn't settled doctrine until the fourth century - that is long after the first century traditions being discussed in the OP.

But Christ was revered as divine almost IMMEDIATELY after his crucifixion. The concept you are alluding to of homoousiosness (of the same substance as God) was not until later, but DIVINITY was clearly established very early after his death. (https://www.catholic.com/tract/the-divinity-of-christ).

This is crucial to understanding Christianity. One has to understand the evolution of Christology. You are taking one FORM of Christology which was developed and enforced centuries later, but the DIVINITY of Jesus was believed long before that.

 

[Margot]

Mary always seemed a little slutty to me.

No, it's possible other people decades after Mary started an oral and written tradition that a pregnancy out of wedlock somehow became a virgin impr

It's plausible, and I am willing to entertain it as a plausible hypothesis.

If we take Luke and Matthew at their word, Mary was pregnant out of wedlock.

Matthew had a vested interest in a miraculous conception narrative. Matthew was primarily writing for a Hebrew audience, and he was probably interested in connecting Jesus to Hebrew prophecy in the Septuagint.

Paul, Mark, James, John, make no mention of a miraculous conception and virgin birth. An event so unprecedented and miraculous it's hard to understand why they would ignore it.

If Matthew and Luke are correct that Mary was pregnant out of wedlock, either it was a miraculous conception, or Mary got pregnant by Joseph prior to being wedded.

You can't go down this road ,without mentioning Isaiah 7:14 ,which theology experts point to as the prophecy of the Virgin Birth! That's square one ,before considering Paul ,Mark,James,John,Matthew ,and Luke!
This is a center part of Christianity! No virgin birth ,no divinity for Jesus! It's not just about Mary,but very much about her son Jesus!

 

[Margot]

It all comes down to "How important is the supernatural stuff" to the poster.

For instance there are tons of Christians who accept evolution because there's no impact on their understanding of God or a good life or salvation. But for others they REQUIRE the supernatural stuff from Genesis to be literally true even for them to understand Jesus. I once heard a devout Evangelical say that in order to accept Jesus you have to accept literal Genesis since Jesus was presumably a believer or <insert convoluted exegesis here>.

I love it when a more "banal" explanation is reasonably available (eg pregnant out of wedlock) because it kind of does to the whole story what Jefferson supposedly did to the Gospels: cutting out the supernatural stuff in order to focus on the MEANING of the story and the TEACHINGS. Not getting caught up in the stuff that beggars the imagination of more rational people. It allows the rational to enjoy the benefits of the teachings as well as the credulous.

"Imagination of more rational people'"
The hardest thought to comprehend for the "rational mind"!
Is that YHWH the God of the Jews creator of all things ,and each and every Spirit whether living in Flesh or not!
Had himself born to a young girl,grew up ,had a 3 ministry,and this God man,was murdered by the government ,with organized religion doing their fair share of the Murder!
For 2000 years the repercussions of this Murder has taken many different forms. The logical mind,(not Spirit) isn't equipped to comprehend that! It short circuits in many different ways!
Now lets take our friend Cypress,he's waiting for YHWH to explain logically, what's going on! YHWH is waiting for Cypress to take one step in Faith! A Mexican stand off!