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

Early Evangelism

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    himnextdoor wrote: »
    Mary was known for her piety, wasn't she? Elizabeth became pregnant at the same time too, didn't she?

    Elizabeth became pregnant 6 months earlier - but I don't see why you think that has any relevance.
    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.
    No, any talk of a Messiah threatened everything that the religious leadership valued. It tended to forment rebellion and call the wrath of Rome down upon them.
    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.
    I see no evidence for that. Not probable at all.
    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.
    There's no reason to think that Herod thought he had succeeded to kill the Messiah either. Either way is nothing but supposition.
    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.
    She wasn't protected. That's why they became asylum seekers in Egypt.

    Physicians representing the Priesthood.
    You seem to be trying to imagine the most unlikely scenario you can.

    A modest young Jewish virgin would not willingly subject herself to having people poking around her vagina.

    Nor was the virgin birth the most important element of the Messiah to the priests. It is far from clear that they viewed Isaiah's prophecy as referring to the Messiah.
    The story of Jesus is the story of the fulfilment of Jewish prophecy. Of course there is a record of it.
    Where, other than the New Testament, is this record?
    What enemies of Christianity? As far as the Jews were concerned, Christianity was a fait accompli.
    Not at all. The Jews viewed Christianity as a heretical movement and did their very best to crush it.


  • Options
    #33
    himnextdoor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,042 ✭✭✭himnextdoor


    PDN wrote: »
    Elizabeth became pregnant 6 months earlier - but I don't see why you think that has any relevance.

    Luke 1 seems to suggest that Zechariah was quite vocal about it. He prophecied to the people with regard to what was to come to pass. And yes, I daresay that exposed them to great danger.
    PDN wrote: »
    No, any talk of a Messiah threatened everything that the religious leadership valued. It tended to forment rebellion and call the wrath of Rome down upon them.

    And the outrage performed by Herod removed that particular danger.
    PDN wrote: »
    There's no reason to think that Herod thought he had succeeded to kill the Messiah either. Either way is nothing but supposition.

    Are you sure?
    PDN wrote: »
    She wasn't protected. That's why they became asylum seekers in Egypt.

    And when she came back, she and her family were 'in the clear'.
    PDN wrote: »
    Where, other than the New Testament, is this record?

    Good question.
    PDN wrote: »
    Not at all. The Jews viewed Christianity as a heretical movement and did their very best to crush it.

    But they didn't; by not interrogating Mary, the authorities demonstrate a lack of real intent to 'stamp out' Christianity. They could have captured all the disciples if they really wanted to but they didn't.

    No, I do not think it is plausible at all that the Jews tried to prevent Christianity from becoming popular in any meaningful way.


  • Options
    #34
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    himnextdoor wrote: »
    No, I do not think it is plausible at all that the Jews tried to prevent Christianity from becoming popular in any meaningful way.

    Then we obviously aren't discussing the same New Testament.


  • Options
    #35
    himnextdoor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,042 ✭✭✭himnextdoor


    PDN wrote: »
    Then we obviously aren't discussing the same New Testament.

    Yes we are. Zechariah's proclamations provided the first chance for Christianity to be circumvented; why weren't Mary, Joseph, Elisabeth and Zechariah all arrested for blasphemy?

    The regious leadership were informed enough to react very early on to what was 'threatening' to unfold but according to the Bible, it is Herod who is the first to react. The Jews had no alliegances to Herod so it is not surprising that it was three foreigners who alerted him to the existence of Jesus but even here, he does something uncharacteristic; instead of having the Magi followed and thereby putting himself in the best position to either 'pay homage' or 'deal with what might become a problem later on', Herod 'patiently' awaits news from them.

    Doesn't that strike you as just a little bit odd?


  • Options
    #36
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    himnextdoor wrote: »
    Yes we are. Zechariah's proclamations provided the first chance for Christianity to be circumvented; why weren't Mary, Joseph, Elisabeth and Zechariah all arrested for blasphemy?

    Because people claiming to be the Messiah were two a penny. A priest made a prophecy which. like most prophecies, could be interpreted in different ways.

    The Jewish religious leadership didn't respond to Jesus until he was attracting large crowds. Because they knew that popular Messianic movements were liable to provoke unrest and a subsequent crackdown by the Romans. That would disturb the cosy set up they had going.
    The regious leadership were informed enough to react very early on to what was 'threatening' to unfold but according to the Bible, it is Herod who is the first to react.
    No they weren't informed enough at all. A few prophecies were hardly anything to act on.
    The Jews had no alliegances to Herod so it is not surprising that it was three foreigners who alerted him to the existence of Jesus but even here, he does something uncharacteristic; instead of having the Magi followed and thereby putting himself in the best position to either 'pay homage' or 'deal with what might become a problem later on', Herod 'patiently' awaits news from them.

    It wasn't uncharacteristic at all. Herod was threatened by anyone or anything that challenged his dynastic ambitions. He wanted to gather as much info as possible before deciding how to act.
    Doesn't that strike you as just a little bit odd?
    No. Certainly not half as odd as some of the theories you are advancing about the Son of God enrolling for courses in pain management techniques.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    himnextdoor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,042 ✭✭✭himnextdoor


    PDN wrote: »
    No. Certainly not half as odd as some of the theories you are advancing about the Son of God enrolling for courses in pain management techniques.

    Perhaps I was a little glib there but Jesus the human would have had to be trained and prepared for His role as Messiah wouldn't He? To achieve what Jesus did, a man would need a great deal of courage and a will of iron; he would have to live in the knowledge that he was to suffer beyond imagination before his quest would be complete. He would need some kind of training.


  • Options
    #38
    hinault
    Registered Users Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    PDN wrote: »
    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).

    And a belief throughout Islam also.
    The Koran states that Mary (Miriam) was a virgin and that she conceived Jesus by Immaculate Conception.

    "And mention in the Book, Maryam [i.e. mention, O Mohammed, in the Quran the story of Mary], when she withdrew from her family to a place facing east. She placed a screen from them; then We sent to her our angel (Jibrael, or Gabriel), and he appeared before her in the form of a man in full human form. She said:

    'I seek refuge with The Most Beneficent [God] from you, if you do fear Him.' (The angel) said:

    'I am only a Messenger from your Lord, (to announce) to you the gift of a righteous son.' She said:

    'How can I have a son, when no man has touched me, nor am I unchaste?' He (the angel) said:

    'So (it will be), your Lord said: 'That is easy for Me: And to appoint him as a sign to mankind and a mercy from Us (from God)', and it is a matter (already) decreed (by God).' " (Quran 19:16-21)


  • Options
    #39
    himnextdoor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,042 ✭✭✭himnextdoor


    hinault wrote: »
    And a belief throughout Islam also.
    The Koran states that Mary (Miriam) was a virgin and that she conceived Jesus by Immaculate Conception.

    "And mention in the Book, Maryam [i.e. mention, O Mohammed, in the Quran the story of Mary], when she withdrew from her family to a place facing east. She placed a screen from them; then We sent to her our angel (Jibrael, or Gabriel), and he appeared before her in the form of a man in full human form. She said:

    'I seek refuge with The Most Beneficent [God] from you, if you do fear Him.' (The angel) said:

    'I am only a Messenger from your Lord, (to announce) to you the gift of a righteous son.' She said:

    'How can I have a son, when no man has touched me, nor am I unchaste?' He (the angel) said:

    'So (it will be), your Lord said: 'That is easy for Me: And to appoint him as a sign to mankind and a mercy from Us (from God)', and it is a matter (already) decreed (by God).' " (Quran 19:16-21)

    And who but Mary could have reported that? She would have had to be the one that announced that she was pregnant, but not to her husband, that she was still a virgin and that God had caused her to conceive.

    Who would believe her and why should they?

    Wouldn't Mary be courting death by making such a claim; she could have been stoned to death before the wedding ceremony had even taken place?

    Is the virgin birth supoosed to make some kind of sense, particularly in a historical context? To me it doesn't and I wonder why that is. The story only works if you don't question it too closely.


  • Options
    #40
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    hinault wrote: »
    And a belief throughout Islam also.
    The Koran states that Mary (Miriam) was a virgin and that she conceived Jesus by Immaculate Conception.

    Again, I've pointed this out once already. The 'Immaculate Conception' does not refer to the conception of Jesus in Mary, but to the conception of Mary in her mother.

    Muddling the virginal conception of Jesus (as taught in the Bible) with the Immaculate Conception of Mary (a Roman Catholic doctrine) is only going to end up confusing everyone.


Advertisement