Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Early Evangelism
-
09-04-2011 5:42pm#1Did Mary and Joseph have to keep the fact that Mary was carrying a child who was not Joseph's a secret?0
Comments
-
-
himnextdoor wrote: »Did Mary and Joseph have to keep the fact that Mary was carrying a child who was not Joseph's a secret?
This is actually an ambiguous question. One way of reading it is: Did God require Mary and Joseph to keep the fact that Mary was carrying a child who was not Joseph's a secret?
Looking at the scriptural birth narratives, in particular Matthew 1:18-25 and Luke 1:26-38, there does not appear to be any explicit command from the angel either to Joseph or to Mary to keep this fact secret. However, such a command can perhaps be read into the angel's message to Joseph in Matthew, particularly 1:20-21: "Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife, for the child conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. She will bear a son, and you are to name him Jesus." I do not think that, in the society of the time, it would have been considered appropriate for a man to claim naming rights over a child and at the same time to deny that he was the child's father. So by implication the angel is telling Joseph to accept paternity. This is supported by Luke 4:22, in the episode when Jesus preached in the synagogue in Nazareth: "All spoke well of him and were amazed at the gracious words that came from his mouth. They said, 'Is not this Joseph's son?' "
The other reading of the question is: irrespective of any command from God, did Mary and Joseph have to keep the fact that Mary was carrying a child who was not Joseph's a secret because otherwise either or both of them would have suffered social problems (ranging from shame to ostracism)?
The clue is, I think, in Matthew 1:19: "Her husband Joseph, being a righteous man, and unwilling to expose her to public disgrace, planned to dismiss her quietly." This implies that, if the fact that Mary's child was not Joseph's had become public knowledge, Mary would have faced severe social sanctions. The implication is that Joseph, probably in collusion with Mary's parents, was planning to have her sent away so that his neighbours would not become aware of Mary's "shame".
So, overall, the answer to the question is, I believe, "yes".0 -
-
As I understand it, the law was quite strict with regard to things like adultery and it seems reasonable to suppose that Joseph must have suspected adultery when he found out that Mary was pregnant.
At that point, her life was physically in danger as was that of her unborn child.
Joseph relented however and appears to have acted as if he was the father of Jesus.
So, when Mary and Joseph arrived in Bethlehem, it seems likely that they would have had to say that they had been married for longer than they had been, in order to avoid the social problems alluded to by hivizman.
Obviously there were no Christians at that time to understand the idea of a 'virgin birth' and I would imagine that to claim to have been inseminated by God Himself and carrying God's child would have been very dangerous for Mary as she would risk being accused of blasphemy. Is that right?
What I'm wondering is, when would it have been safe for the idea of The Immaculate Conception to be put forward and how did it first come to be known that Mary became pregnant before she was married?0 -
You are confusing the doctrine of the virgin birth (that Mary miraculously conceived Christ while remaining a virgin - a belief common to all major strands of Christianity) and the Immaculate Conception (a specifically Roman Catholic doctrine that Mary was herself conceived without original sin, albeit by normal sexual intercourse between her parents).himnextdoor wrote: »What I'm wondering is, when would it have been safe for the idea of The Immaculate Conception to be put forward and how did it first come to be known that Mary became pregnant before she was married?
That aside, the reason for the secrecy could well have been for her own protection. If it was thought that Joseph and Mary had 'jumped the gun' while engaged, then that would attract some social disapproval. But if it was thought that she had been impregnated by somebody else other than her fiance then she could easily have been stoned to death.
So, while it was obvious to all that Mary's pregnancy preceded her marriage, most people assumed Joseph to be the father.0 -
Advertisement
-
You are confusing the doctrine of the virgin birth (that Mary miraculously conceived Christ while remaining a virgin - a belief common to all major strands of Christianity) and the Immaculate Conception (a specifically Roman Catholic doctrine that Mary was herself conceived without original sin, albeit by normal sexual intercourse between her parents).
I get the difference between the two; it seems that both the 'Immaculate Conception' and the claim to have been inseminated by God would have been treated as blasphemy though.
What I can't understand is how did Matthew and Luke (of the Gospels) find out about these things. I mean, if Jesus was being accused of blasphemy by speaking of God as His 'father' then Mary could have been implicated too had she made the same claim. In fact, Mary might have been considered more culpable in that it may have been thought that it was she who had put the idea into Jesus' head in the first place.
I'm speaking from the point of view of the authorities of that time.
Surely any inquiry into Jesus' 'blasphemy' would have had to investigate Mary too; How could Mary support the claim of her son and not be put to death?
I just get the impression that the Immaculate Conception and the Virgin Birth were concepts that were 'bolted on' to the story of Jesus, probably in order to increase its credibility but somehow, it seems to do the opposite.0 -
himnextdoor wrote: »I get the difference between the two; it seems that both the 'Immaculate Conception' and the claim to have been inseminated by God would have been treated as blasphemy though.
Where are you getting the insemination bit from? Certainly not from the Gospel accounts. It seems to me that insemination would preclude any talk of virgin birth.himnextdoor wrote: »What I can't understand is how did Matthew and Luke (of the Gospels) find out about these things.
Because they either knew the people involved personally (Jesus, James, Mary, Joseph(?)) or had secondary-source knowledge of them.himnextdoor wrote: »I mean, if Jesus was being accused of blasphemy by speaking of God as His 'father' then Mary could have been implicated too had she made the same claim. In fact, Mary might have been considered more culpable in that it may have been thought that it was she who had put the idea into Jesus' head in the first place.
I'm speaking from the point of view of the authorities of that time.
Surely any inquiry into Jesus' 'blasphemy' would have had to investigate Mary too; How could Mary support the claim of her son and not be put to death?
I don't know what you are getting at. Are you implying that there is doubt about the veracity of the accounts because the Sanhedrin didn't follow your logic and stone Mary to death?
If the Sanhedrin was conducting a fair trial one would have to conclude that Jesus would not have been found guilty, at least not under Roman law. If the Sanhedrin was interested in a wider campaign against Jesus' followers then the obvious starting point would have been with Peter and the rest of the apostles. But it was neither of these.
If one is to believe the accounts - and I'm sure you don't - it wasn't an exhaustive trial and it didn't follow due process. It was a rather rushed affair that had only one goal: to get rid of Jesus. I'm guessing that the Sanhedrin thought that by killing the head of the movement (as had been done to other messianic movements in the past) the followers would simply disappear and things would go back to normal.himnextdoor wrote: »I just get the impression that the Immaculate Conception and the Virgin Birth were concepts that were 'bolted on' to the story of Jesus, probably in order to increase its credibility but somehow, it seems to do the opposite.
Well, you would think that, wouldn't you?0 -
himnextdoor wrote: »I get the difference between the two; it seems that both the 'Immaculate Conception' and the claim to have been inseminated by God would have been treated as blasphemy though.
What I can't understand is how did Matthew and Luke (of the Gospels) find out about these things. I mean, if Jesus was being accused of blasphemy by speaking of God as His 'father' then Mary could have been implicated too had she made the same claim. In fact, Mary might have been considered more culpable in that it may have been thought that it was she who had put the idea into Jesus' head in the first place.
I'm speaking from the point of view of the authorities of that time.
Surely any inquiry into Jesus' 'blasphemy' would have had to investigate Mary too; How could Mary support the claim of her son and not be put to death?
I just get the impression that the Immaculate Conception and the Virgin Birth were concepts that were 'bolted on' to the story of Jesus, probably in order to increase its credibility but somehow, it seems to do the opposite.
In fact, of the four gospels, it's only John that places Mary the mother of Jesus at the crucifixion. The other gospels identify a "Mary the mother of James and Joseph" (Matthew 27:56), "Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses" (Mark 15:37), or "Mary the mother of James" (Luke 24:10). It may be tempting to identify this as Mary the mother of Jesus, especially as Matthew (13:55) names "James and Joseph and Simon and Judas" as the brothers of Jesus, and Mark (6:3) names them as "James and Joses and Judas and Simon". But (a) it seems strange for Matthew, Mark and Luke to have referred to Mary in this indirect way if this Mary was indeed the mother of Jesus, and (b) this Mary is named after Mary Magdalene, whereas I would have expected the mother of Jesus to have the place of honour and to have been named first. Luke mentions "Mary the mother of Jesus" in Acts 1:14 as present in Jerusalem after the Ascension, but I don't know of any biblical evidence that Mary went around claiming that Jesus was literally the Son of God. Hence it is quite likely that the Jewish authorities simply didn't think of questioning Mary.
However, if she was still part of the early Christian community after the crucifixion, she could have been the source of the birth narratives subsequently presented by Matthew and Luke. It is fair to say, however, that the two birth narratives are significantly different, and hence provide a big challenge to theologians seeking to harmonise them. The traditional "Christmas story" puts together the two narratives quite convincingly, but it's a compilation rather than a single story. Some theologians reject the story of the virgin birth altogether as an attempt by Matthew in particular (and Luke to a lesser extent) to show the fulfilment of the prophecy in Isaiah 7:14.0 -
Fanny Cradock wrote: »Where are you getting the insemination bit from? Certainly not from the Gospel accounts. It seems to me that insemination would preclude any talk of virgin birth.
Jesus was a man, right? With an X- and Y-chromosome, right? Mary could only provide the X-chromosome so the Y-chromosome must have been 'introduced' by some means, right?
Mary was 'seeded' somehow and whether that be through sex or genetic engineering, it can be said that she was 'inseminated'.0 -
himnextdoor wrote: »Jesus was a man, right? With an X- and Y-chromosome, right? Mary could only provide the X-chromosome so the Y-chromosome must have been 'introduced' by some means, right?
Mary was 'seeded' somehow and whether that be through sex or genetic engineering, it can be said that she was 'inseminated'.
Yeah, coz God is necessarily limited to the same reproduction methods as us.0 -
Advertisement
-
Fanny Cradock wrote: »Yeah, coz God is necessarily limited to the same reproduction methods as us.
I thought that the whole point was that Jesus was an actual human, to suffer as a human and to die as a human. i.e. that Mary bore a human-child.
Anyway, my point is that there were unnecessary risks taken; wouldn't it have been better that Mary had conceived after her marriage? That way the time of the birth wouldn't have raised any eyebrows and there would be no suggestion of pre-marital sex.
In other words, since Jesus doesn't seem to have focussed on the Immaculate Conception at all, the Gospel taught by Jesus must necessarily be different from the one espoused by the Catholic church.0 -
So what is the point of this thread? Are you disapproving of an omniscient being's timing?himnextdoor wrote: »In other words, since Jesus doesn't seem to have focussed on the Immaculate Conception at all, the Gospel taught by Jesus must necessarily be different from the one espoused by the Catholic church.
You would have to ask a RC about that. I see no Biblical support for the Immaculate Conception so I don't bother with it.
Your corollary is false, though. There was no Gospel to be taught by Jesus - at least not a formal written document. What we have are the various accounts (the "good news") of Jesus' life, death and resurrection. You can read these accounts and decide yourself at what points (if any) they differ from "the one espoused by the Catholic church" (whatever that refers to).0 -
I'd like to add a few remarks to Fanny's comments.Fanny Cradock wrote: »So what is the point of this thread? Are you disapproving of an omniscient being's timing?
The Greek philosopher Celsus, who was heavily criticised by the Church Father Origen, claimed that Jesus was the son of Mary by a Roman soldier called Pantera (or Panthera). If opponents of Christianity could make such a claim in respect of Mary on the basis that Jesus was conceived before she was fully married to Joseph, they would have had a much easier argument to make if Jesus had been conceived after she was fully married to Joseph - they could have simply said that Joseph was Jesus's biological father. The timing actually makes it more plausible that Mary was a virgin when Jesus was conceived.Fanny Cradock wrote: »You would have to ask a RC about that. I see no Biblical support for the Immaculate Conception so I don't bother with it.
I also don't see the necessity of the Immaculate Conception, nor any biblical authority for it, but for those who want to see the RC arguments in favour of the doctrine, here's a handy summary.Fanny Cradock wrote: »Your corollary is false, though. There was no Gospel to be taught by Jesus - at least not a formal written document. What we have are the various accounts (the "good news") of Jesus' life, death and resurrection. You can read these accounts and decide yourself at what points (if any) they differ from "the one espoused by the Catholic church" (whatever that refers to).
The "Gospel of Jesus" is partly a Muslim construct (see current thread on the corruption of sacred texts on the Islam forum) but also a scholarly attempt to discern the "actual teachings of Jesus" by analysing the Gospels (mainly Matthew, Mark and Luke but also looking at John and some of the apocryphal gospels, in particular the Gospel of Thomas). This analysis aims to strip away the alleged tendency of the evangelists to theologise (a nastier term would be "spin") the words and deeds of Jesus to reflect their particular viewpoints. One of the main outputs of this project is the book by Geza Vermes The Authentic Gospel of Jesus (Penguin, 2004).
This sort of study usually involves having some "master criteria" for deciding whether a particular passage is or is not authentic. Vermes makes three core assumptions: that the mission of Jesus was to the Jews rather than to all the world; that he expected to inaugurate the Kingdom of God within his own lifetime rather than the Kingdom coming only in the distant future; and that the arrest and death of Jesus were unexpected rather than known to the disciples in advance. Clearly, all three of these assumptions are highly contestable. Vermes completely ignores the birth narratives, including the idea of the virgin birth implying that he has written them off as either entirely inauthentic, or at best irrelevant in identifying the "authentic gospel of Jesus".0 -
This sort of study usually involves having some "master criteria" for deciding whether a particular passage is or is not authentic. Vermes makes three core assumptions: that the mission of Jesus was to the Jews rather than to all the world; that he expected to inaugurate the Kingdom of God within his own lifetime rather than the Kingdom coming only in the distant future; and that the arrest and death of Jesus were unexpected rather than known to the disciples in advance. Clearly, all three of these assumptions are highly contestable. Vermes completely ignores the birth narratives, including the idea of the virgin birth implying that he has written them off as either entirely inauthentic, or at best irrelevant in identifying the "authentic gospel of Jesus".
I think these type of claims are contestable purely on the selective use of documents. On one hand, the accounts aren't considered reliable enough to be trusted (so out goes Matthew 20:17-19, Mark 10:32-34 and so on). On the other, they are reliable enough to construct some very definite, yet very contrary, "history" of thoughts and events than are otherwise presented in the Gospel accounts. I think there is a huge amount of unjustified redaction that goes into these type of "real Jesus" books.
I really think it involves far less work to take the historical Jesus (with or with the claims to divinity etc) at face value.0 -
Fanny Cradock wrote: »I don't know what you are getting at. Are you implying that there is doubt about the veracity of the accounts because the Sanhedrin didn't follow your logic and stone Mary to death?
If the Sanhedrin was conducting a fair trial one would have to conclude that Jesus would not have been found guilty, at least not under Roman law. If the Sanhedrin was interested in a wider campaign against Jesus' followers then the obvious starting point would have been with Peter and the rest of the apostles. But it was neither of these.
That kind of is what I'm getting at.
What I have considered is this: The Virgin Birth was prophecied and the authorities would have been aware of that, as they would have been aware that Jesus must also die in order to fulfil prophecy. So Jesus' birth, His death and even His betrayal were all necessary for the fulfilment of the prophecies.
It seems to me that the Jewish authorities could have scuppered Christianity by not having Him tried for blasphemy.
But Mary, and Joseph would not be free to share that information. For years they would have been under a shadow of secrecy, especially when you consider who was on the throne; if word got out then Jesus' life could be lost prematurely, before scripture could be fulfilled.
It must have been something like that, mustn't it?
So, apart from what Mary told confidants with regard to the Virgin Birth there is no record and no way of verifying that Mary actually was a virgin. How then was the Virgin Birth allowed to figure in the Gospel. Jesus was recognised as the Messiah in His life-time but He seems not to give being born of a virgin any importance to 'The Good News'.
Besides, since Mary and Joseph were both descended from David, couldn't their child simply have been 'blessed'; wouldn't His Holy and Royal pedigree have made Him perfectly placed to take on the role of Messiah?0 -
The other reading of the question is: irrespective of any command from God, did Mary and Joseph have to keep the fact that Mary was carrying a child who was not Joseph's a secret because otherwise either or both of them would have suffered social problems (ranging from shame to ostracism)?
The clue is, I think, in Matthew 1:19: "Her husband Joseph, being a righteous man, and unwilling to expose her to public disgrace, planned to dismiss her quietly." This implies that, if the fact that Mary's child was not Joseph's had become public knowledge, Mary would have faced severe social sanctions. The implication is that Joseph, probably in collusion with Mary's parents, was planning to have her sent away so that his neighbours would not become aware of Mary's "shame".
So, overall, the answer to the question is, I believe, "yes".
Leading on from there, suppose there were others outside the family who knew of Mary's condition and its significance; Neither Mary nor Joseph may have been aware of these 'others' until Jesus was about twelve.
Is it feasible that Jesus could have been secretly residing with the priests of His parent's hometown until He emerged again at thirty or so?0 -
himnextdoor wrote: »Leading on from there, suppose there were others outside the family who knew of Mary's condition and its significance; Neither Mary nor Joseph may have been aware of these 'others' until Jesus was about twelve.
Is it feasible that Jesus could have been secretly residing with the priests of His parent's hometown until He emerged again at thirty or so?
Given the testimony of Matthew 13:55 ("Is this not the carpenter's son? Is his mother not called Mary?"), Jesus was surely well known to the inhabitants of Nazareth, so the idea that he was secretly residing with the priests of his parents' hometown until he was around 30 years old does not make much sense.
This isn't to rule out the possibility that Jesus spent some time travelling during this period, for example, the legendary journey with Joseph of Arimathea to Britain (Jesus's "gap year"?).0 -
himnextdoor wrote: »That kind of is what I'm getting at.
What I have considered is this: The Virgin Birth was prophecied and the authorities would have been aware of that, as they would have been aware that Jesus must also die in order to fulfil prophecy. So Jesus' birth, His death and even His betrayal were all necessary for the fulfilment of the prophecies.
It seems to me that the Jewish authorities could have scuppered Christianity by not having Him tried for blasphemy.
There was no Christianity to be scuppered. It didn't exist.
From the perspective of the ruling powers, when Jesus wasn't making outrageous claims about himself, he was causing trouble at the temples, denouncing the Pharisees and Sadducees in public and was generally undermining the religious order at every opportunity. "Cut the head off and the body dies" would seem like perfectly reasonable axiom to work off when dealing with a rabble rouser and his followers.himnextdoor wrote: »But Mary, and Joseph would not be free to share that information. For years they would have been under a shadow of secrecy, especially when you consider who was on the throne; if word got out then Jesus' life could be lost prematurely, before scripture could be fulfilled. It must have been something like that, mustn't it?
It might have been something like that.himnextdoor wrote: »So, apart from what Mary told confidants with regard to the Virgin Birth there is no record and no way of verifying that Mary actually was a virgin. How then was the Virgin Birth allowed to figure in the Gospel. Jesus was recognised as the Messiah in His life-time but He seems not to give being born of a virgin any importance to 'The Good News'.
How do you propose that anyone would verify that Mary was a virgin? The Gospels aren't an exhaustive record of everything Jesus said and did. Ultimately you either accept the accounts of the virgin birth or you don't. Again, I fail to see the point of this thread.0 -
Given the testimony of Matthew 13:55 ("Is this not the carpenter's son? Is his mother not called Mary?"), Jesus was surely well known to the inhabitants of Nazareth, so the idea that he was secretly residing with the priests of his parents' hometown until he was around 30 years old does not make much sense.
This isn't to rule out the possibility that Jesus spent some time travelling during this period, for example, the legendary journey with Joseph of Arimathea to Britain (Jesus's "gap year"?).
I thought it was well known that there is almost nothing know about Jesus' life between the ages of twelve and thirty. What is interesting is that the last reference to Jesus the Boy, at twelve, is the story where He lost His parents and they eventually found Him with the teachers in the temple. What I'm wondering is, was there someone keeping track of Jesus; is it possible that there were others beside Mary and Joseph who 'knew' Mary's 'story' and its significance?0 -
Fanny Cradock wrote: »There was no Christianity to be scuppered. It didn't exist.
Well, Jesusism then, whatever label you would like to apply to the 'club' that was forming around Jesus.Fanny Cradock wrote: »From the perspective of the ruling powers, when Jesus wasn't making outrageous claims about himself, he was causing trouble at the temples, denouncing the Pharisees and Sadducees in public and was generally undermining the religious order at every opportunity. "Cut the head off and the body dies" would seem like perfectly reasonable axiom to work off when dealing with a rabble rouser and his followers.
Yes and Jesus was crucified as a criminal in the eyes of the law. But who 'knew' that it was the Messiah that they called to be crucified; who knew that the crucifixion was the penultimate step in fulfilling prophecy?
Don't you wonder? From what I can tell of the trial of Jesus, He doesn't seem to be exactly submitting to execution even though He had spoken of His ressurrection. He is quite careful about what He says and makes it very difficult to make a case against Him; what if Jesus had won the case?
Well, all bets would be off, wouldn't they?
Now, this is interesting; who stood to lose most, Jesus or the Sanhedrin?
Jesus would fail to fulfil prophecy and could be denounced for doing so, which would have been a satisfactory outcome for the Sanhedrin if they were looking to discredit Him and who believed that Jesus is not the Messiah of the prophecy.
If Jesus was simply a charismatic upstart who claimed to be the Messiah, the Sanhedrin agenda would have been better served either by letting Him live or by insuring against the possibility of ressurection!
So, getting back to the OP, not only did they have to keep the circumstances of Jesus' conception under wraps, Mary and Joseph may not have even been aware of the details of the prophecy and I don't think that there is any suggestion that Jesus' religious knowledge came from His parents.
I was considering the idea that between the ages of twelve to thirty, Jesus was 'learning' to be a Messiah; he may have travelled to other countries and acquired knowledge of say, pain-management techniques for example and perhaps the ones who assisted Him through those times, Joseph of Arimathea being such a man perhaps, were more closely connected to the Sanhedrin than to the Christian (or whatever 'club' we can call it) cause.
Therefore, it is possible to conclude that the crucifixion of Christ and His subsequent ressurection served two purposes; it laid the foundation for the beginnig of Christianity and it fulfilled a prophecy that served the agenda of the Sanhedrin.
How is that possible; did the Sanhedrin expect to kick off a new religion that would have 'one-third of the world's population' signed up to it?Fanny Cradock wrote: »How do you propose that anyone would verify that Mary was a virgin? The Gospels aren't an exhaustive record of everything Jesus said and did. Ultimately you either accept the accounts of the virgin birth or you don't.
That's my point, you can't. Once Mary had given birth there would be no possibility of her passing a 'virgin test' and since it was kept secret by Mary and Joseph up to that point there is no evidence whatsoever one way or the other. However, maybe someone else did know and maybe that someone was part of the Sanhedrin.
This is plausable; remember Elizabeth? Mary shared her Joy with her; they were close and I reckon that she could attest to the question of Mary's virginity. Maybe Elizabeth told someone?Fanny Cradock wrote: »Again, I fail to see the point of this thread.
And now?
All I'm trying to do is make sense of the reasoning behind the Bible and in order to do that, one has to deal with the things that don't make sense.0 -
Advertisement
-
himnextdoor wrote: »I thought it was well known that there is almost nothing know about Jesus' life between the ages of twelve and thirty. What is interesting is that the last reference to Jesus the Boy, at twelve, is the story where He lost His parents and they eventually found Him with the teachers in the temple. What I'm wondering is, was there someone keeping track of Jesus; is it possible that there were others beside Mary and Joseph who 'knew' Mary's 'story' and its significance?
I think that an application of Occam's razor is called for here. Of course, it is possible that there were others keeping track of Jesus, people of whom we have no record and who do not appear to have intervened in any event, but there is no need to hypothesise such trackers to explain anything, so it's more rational not to hypothesise them.0 -
himnextdoor wrote: »If Jesus was simply a charismatic upstart who claimed to be the Messiah, the Sanhedrin agenda would have been better served either by letting Him live or by insuring against the possibility of ressurection!
His own followers didn't understand him when he talked of things that were to pass. And they were without hope after his crucifixion. There is no suggestion that the members of the Sanhedrin knew of Jesus' resurrection claims. When Jesus predicts his arrest, trial, death and resurrection he does so to a select few.
Besides all this, even if the authorities did know of his claims - and there is nothing to suggest that they did - they obviously didn't believe him. Indeed, if Jews believed in resurrection at all (and the Sadducees didn't) then they were expecting a one-time resurrection for all, not for one man.himnextdoor wrote: »All I'm trying to do is make sense of the reasoning behind the Bible and in order to do that, one has to deal with the things that don't make sense.
There are plenty of reasons for the materialist to reject the Gospels - "there is no God and miracles don't happen" are two axioms that utterly deny the truth claims of the Bible.
It would be far easier for you to reject the accounts then to twist and torture them with these "ifs and buts" you are artificially imposing upon them.0 -
Interesting ideas.
Joseph could have been the father, you do not need to have sex, there are plenty of young girls who were still virgins but pregnant.
Thanks PDN for the clarification of the IC and VB, most catholics would confuse these, especially when it could come down to a translation error.
The IC is only about original sin, I thought that Mary was born of a virgin, but she had 2 parents and was concieved normally.
I find it ironic that if Mary got pregnant in Ireland up to the 1980's, the church would have taken the child off her and put her in a home.0 -
I think that an application of Occam's razor is called for here. Of course, it is possible that there were others keeping track of Jesus, people of whom we have no record and who do not appear to have intervened in any event, but there is no need to hypothesise such trackers to explain anything, so it's more rational not to hypothesise them.
Normally I would agree but the application of Occam's razor cannot lead us to a conclusion that requires some kind of magic. If one thing is attributable to magic then so can other things.
For instance, if someone writes the phrase, "I pray for death." and leaves it at the scene of a murder, Occam's razor would indicate that God had answered the murder victim's prayers. That would be the simplest explanation but an investigation will follow and as far as I know, God has never been accepted, except in the Bible, to have caused death by either answering the prayer of a victim or by compelling a person to kill another.
It seems to me that not only is it possible that unknown actors played a part in the fulfilment of prophecy, it is likely; and that this is evidenced by Jesus' trial.0 -
But nobody is talking about magic. We are talking about a supernatural intervention from God. If you don't accept that the latter is possible then there is no need for the detective games that lead you to start second guessing the motives of a people far removed from you in terms of culture, time and just about ever other conceivable way. What I believe Hivisman was getting at (it's certainly what I'm getting at) is that it would be more parsimonious for you to simply rejected the accounts as pure fiction and move on with your life and whatever it is you believe in.
Attempting to tease out motives that aren't apparent in the text is rather futile. Similarly, imposing an "ought" upon the participants in the story ("they ought to have behaved in this way") tells us nothing about the people involved and everything about what makes you tick. The hard truth is that if all you are presenting is speculation - and it is my contention that you are - then your opinions on what the decisions people ought to have made is largely irrelevant.0 -
Fanny Cradock wrote: »Attempting to tease out motives that aren't apparent in the text is rather futile. Similarly, imposing an "ought" upon the participants in the story ("they ought to have behaved in this way") tells us nothing about the people involved and everything about what makes you tick.
I could not disagree more.
These 'motives' as you put them can be teased out of the text. There are two distinct narratives that can be drawn from the Bible, a Christian one and a Jewish one. Christianity came about through the fulfilment of Jewish prophecy; did the Jews not expect this?
Revelations 15 And the four angels were loosed, which were prepared for an hour, and a day, and a month, and a year, for to slay the third part of men.
One third of the population of the world is Christian; there is an alarm-bell ringing in my head; am I one of that third and is my baby son?Fanny Cradock wrote: »The hard truth is that if all you are presenting is speculation - and it is my contention that you are - then your opinions on what the decisions people ought to have made is largely irrelevant.
I'd love to see an example of an opinion that is relevant; could you link me to one?
Why was Herod's baby massacre necessary, it was contrived?
The three 'wise' men could have told Herod that Jesus posed no danger to him, that He was nothing more than a normal child. But they didn't and the information given by them to Herod led to the massacre of all the babies of Bethlehem. Except one:
Couldn't Gabriel have saves other children as well as Jesus?
Now, the presence of that story in the Bible may be cut and dry to you but to me it looks like 'the scene is being set'.0 -
himnextdoor wrote: »I could not disagree more.
These 'motives' as you put them can be teased out of the text.
Or imagined into the text, as appears more likely in this case.0 -
Or imagined into the text, as appears more likely in this case.
Imagined?
What is so difficult about this?
When Mary became pregnant with Jesus why didn't she shout it from the roof-tops? She had received word that her son was to be the Messiah and this is supported by Elizabeth's reaction; 'Mother of my Lord!'
If her status as a virgin had been verified at that point then the whole story would have had wider support; it would have become common knowledge that Mary was the Blessed Virgin.
It's quite an important detail; Immanuel is to be born of a virgin.
So, why the need for secrecy and why is there no support of this narrative outside of the Christian interpretation of the Bible?0 -
himnextdoor wrote: »Imagined?
What is so difficult about this?
What is difficult is that it is inserting unwarranted suppositions and anachronisms into a straight forward account.
Any number of reasons suggest themselves. Humility? The fear that people wouldn't believe her and would stone her to death? Well-founded fear of what a homicidal King Hereod would do.When Mary became pregnant with Jesus why didn't she shout it from the roof-tops?
.She had received word that her son was to be the Messiah and this is supported by Elizabeth's reaction; 'Mother of my Lord!'
If her status as a virgin had been verified at that point then the whole story would have had wider support; it would have become common knowledge that Mary was the Blessed Virgin
And how do you suppose a modest Jewish vitgin would go about getting her virginity 'verified'?It's quite an important detail; Immanuel is to be born of a virgin.
So, why the need for secrecy and why is there no support of this narrative outside of the Christian interpretation of the Bible?
Like where? You think the enemies of Christianity would leave us a document saying, "Oh, by the way, there was this guy born of a virgin but we killed him"?0 -
Advertisement
-
Any number of reasons suggest themselves. Humility? The fear that people wouldn't believe her and would stone her to death? Well-founded fear of what a homicidal King Hereod would do.
Mary was known for her piety, wasn't she? Elizabeth became pregnant at the same time too, didn't she?
Within her own community Mary would have been safe and protected and because she was an integral part of the fulfilment of prophecy, she would have been venerated by the religious leadership to whom she was quite close.
Yes, Herod was a lunatic, 'It would be better to be Herod's pig than his son', and he was probably manipulated into ordering the massacre of the children of Bethlehem.
But why? Herod's reaction to the news of Jesus' birth was predictable. Especially to three wise men. So, there is an 'announcement' that Jesus is born and that He is to be the Messiah and the hopes of all are raised, then Herod has all the children put to death. Is there any reason to think that Herod thought he had failed to kill the Messiah? I don't think so, not until much later.
And the belief that the Messiah had been murdered by Herod would have taken the pressure off Mary and Joseph. The right people knew of Jesus' importance and everyone else thought He was dead. Thusly, albeit at a high price in young lives, Mary was protected.And how do you suppose a modest Jewish vitgin would go about getting her virginity 'verified'?
Physicians representing the Priesthood.Like where? You think the enemies of Christianity would leave us a document saying, "Oh, by the way, there was this guy born of a virgin but we killed him"?
The story of Jesus is the story of the fulfilment of Jewish prophecy. Of course there is a record of it.
What enemies of Christianity? As far as the Jews were concerned, Christianity was a fait accompli.0
Advertisement