Reply to If Jesus wasn’t a real historical figure, where did Christian theology come from?

Forum Index » Religion

Reply to "If Jesus wasn’t a real historical figure, where did Christian theology come from? "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]I haven’t read the whole thread, but what I have heard makes sense. His geographic location was in the crossroads of east and west. He most likely was exposed to eastern philosophy, think India at the time.
If he had lived in a different time perhaps he would have become a philosopher like Karl Marx or Kiergegaard.
He certainly upset the status quo by becoming a reformist like Martin Luther. 
His death was not that unusual, plenty of people were crucified and continued to be for a long time [/quote]

Jesus was also exposed to Greco-Roman philosophy because they ruled the Middle East in his time. [/quote]

No, only the most wealthy Jews were exposed to Greco Roman scholarship. It’s possible that Paul and Matthew had been exposed to such teaching, but Jesus would have received only traditional Jewish teaching. Exposure to Greco Roman mythology would explain why Matthew, and only Matthew, described a Virgin Birth. The idea of God impregnating a human woman was common in Greco Roman mythology. Such an idea would be repulsive to Jews. [/quote]

Isaiah 7:14 (Jewish) prophesied a virgin birth.  “Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.”  If she was a virgin, the impregnation must have been supernatural. No need to fall back in Greco-Roman mythology. [/quote]

Wrong. Isaiah never said that. That’s a Christian mistranslation. The Hebrew word is “alma.”  “Alma” means young woman,” not “virgin.”[/quote]

It's actually a Jewish translation (mis or otherwise), the Greek of the Septuagint was produced by Jews, before there were Christians.[/quote]

Wrong. The Septuagint translates “alma” into “neanis” which means “ young woman,” not “virgin.”  Jews have never said that the yet to come Messiah will be born of a virgin. [/quote]

Young, unmarried women were generally virgins. Also, Matthew was writing for an audience in Antioch that was still part of the Jewish community, even if the relationship was deteriorating—yet the “virgin” language was apparently accepted.

In any case, whether or not the translation works is irrelevant. Matthew’s text relies on the fact that Isaiah was talking about a virgin, not on a Greek god that was popular in the 2nd and 3rd centuries CE, i.e well after the gospel of Matthew was put together towards the end of the first century. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics