Abstinence and the Virgin Birth (Which I do affirm)

[Esther]

.

Regardless of the ideas at the time concerning pregnancy and gestation and the role of men and women in that process, without a male partner to provide the necessary motile spermatozoon - there would be no offspring.

Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit and then born of the virgin Mary. This is part of the miracle of Jesus. From his birth, to his death to his resurrection.

The conception was spiritual. Not as you picture it below:

Furthermore, stories of gods descending and impregnating mortal women to produce demi-gods or heroes was not exactly unknown in the Hellenised world of the first century.The Bible says Mary did no have relations with Joseph until after Jesus was born.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit and then born of the virgin Mary. This is part of the miracle of Jesus. From his birth, to his death to his resurrection.

The conception was spiritual. Not as you picture it below:

Well that is your belief.

However, you need to remember the Hellenised world underpinned Christianity. Indeed it may be contended that without the conquest of that region by Alexander of Macedon and the introduction of Greek thought and its language, Christianity would never have existed.

[Esther]

Well that is your belief.

However, you need to remember the Hellenised world underpinned Christianity. Indeed it may be contended that without the conquest of that region by Alexander of Macedon and the introduction of Greek thought and its language, Christianity would never have existed.

This does not make sense. Without Christ Christianity would never exist. Surely.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

This does not make sense. Without Christ Christianity would never exist. Surely.

The Christian figure of Christ is a theological construct.

A first century Galilean Jewish charismatic is something entirely different.

[rogue06]

This does not make sense. Without Christ Christianity would never exist. Surely.

She's one of these that thinks Christianity "borrowed" virtually everything from pagan religions and philosophies.

While there was indeed some appropriation, which went both ways, much of what has been claimed was adopted actually had its roots in the OT and Jewish culture.

[Esther]

The Christian figure of Christ is a theological construct.

What do you mean? The identity of Jesus Christ is clearly revealed in the Bible as being the Son of God and God the Son. Is this what you refer to as a theological construct?

A first century Galilean Jewish charismatic is something entirely different.

Please give a Biblical example of such a one?

I am not one of the intellectuals on this forum but even I am battling to understand you!

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

What do you mean? The identity of Jesus Christ is clearly revealed in the Bible as being the Son of God and God the Son.

No it is not. Nowhere in any gospel does Jesus state unequivocally I am God.

In fact in Mark's gospel where, under the Christian gloss, we get brief glimpses of a Jewish charismatic holy man, exorcist, healer, and teacher, Jesus is quite emphatic "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone". If he was God why did he not take that opportunity to declare it?

Even Paul never equates the Lord of Glory and Christ Jesus with God the Father [although he comes quite close on occasion].

Is this what you refer to as a theological construct?

You do understand your religion developed over hundreds of years, don't you? What you believe now is the product of a developing theology that took place over centuries.

In those first two and a half centuries there was no "orthodox" Christianity and different Christian groups believed a lot of different things about this figure of the Christ.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

She's one of these that thinks Christianity "borrowed" virtually everything from pagan religions and philosophies.

Where do you think it came from?

While there was indeed some appropriation, which went both ways, much of what has been claimed was adopted actually had its roots in the OT and Jewish culture.

Which specific ancient non-Christian religion adopted anything from Christianity? Do tell.

[Apologiaphoenix]

Because after all, if Jesus went around Palestine saying "I am God!" that would not have led to any confusion whatsoever!

Also, the only way apparently to state who you are is to come right out and say it and if you don't do that, well then the case is sunk.

This might work well on Muslims, but not anyone else.

[Apologiaphoenix]

She's one of these that thinks Christianity "borrowed" virtually everything from pagan religions and philosophies.

While there was indeed some appropriation, which went both ways, much of what has been claimed was adopted actually had its roots in the OT and Jewish culture.

THe concept of borrowing from the pagans was actually borrowed from the pagans.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Perhaps some here ought to read a little more about the early history of Christianity.

The equating of the Son with the Father is a much later theological development and while the Christ was deemed divine he was not, in those the early centuries, co-equal with the Father. By the early fourth century subordinationism in its various forms, most notably the teachings of Arius, was the dominant view, particularly in the East, although a proto-orthodox group also existed.

Hence the decision by Constantine to convene the First Council of Nicaea in 325 CE to bring some cohesion and orthodoxy to this religion. Although it should be noted he was less than successful and until the late fourth century Christianity was still divided between the constructs of homoiousia and homoousia - and indeed remains so to this day with nontrinitarian Christian denominations such as the Unitarians.

Classical Greek philosophical schools of thought also played their part in the development of Christianity. The ECFs Basil [the Great] and Gregory of Nazianzus who were to have an important role concerning the nature of the Trinity were fully conversant with such schools having studied in Athens, and while there remains debate, Basil's inspiration in his terminology for that construct appears to have been derived from the Neoplatonist philosopher Plotinus.

[tabibito]

Perhaps some here ought to read a little more about the early history of Christianity.

The equating of the Son with the Father is a much later theological development and while the Christ was deemed divine he was not, in those the early centuries, co-equal with the Father. By the early fourth century subordinationism in its various forms, most notably the teachings of Arius, was the dominant view, particularly in the East, although a proto-orthodox group also existed.

Hence the decision by Constantine to convene the First Council of Nicaea in 325 CE to bring some cohesion and orthodoxy to this religion. Although it should be noted he was less than successful and until the late fourth century Christianity was still divided between the constructs of homoiousia and homoousia - and indeed remains so to this day with nontrinitarian Christian denominations such as the Unitarians.

Classical Greek philosophical schools of thought also played their part in the development of Christianity. The ECFs Basil [the Great] and Gregory of Nazianzus who were to have an important role concerning the nature of the Trinity were fully conversant with such schools having studied in Athens, and while there remains debate, Basil's inspiration in his terminology for that construct appears to have been derived from the Neoplatonist philosopher Plotinus.

Oh my ...

You actually got that lot right. Well, except that "by the fourth century" is actually "until the fourth century," given that the canonical works addressing the issue show Logos subordinate to the Father.

Even Paul never equates the Lord of Glory and Christ Jesus with God the Father [although he comes quite close on occasion].

Paul equates Logos with God (explicitly), not with the Father.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Oh my ...

You actually got that lot right. Well, except that "by the fourth century" is actually "until the fourth century," given that the canonical works addressing the issue show Logos subordinate to the Father.



Paul equates Logos with God (explicitly), not with the Father.

Sub text - you tend to agree with me!

As you have noted for many of the sub-ordinationist persuasion, that Jesus was sent by the Father suggested he must be a lesser being to the Father who did the sending. Why, for example, were there no scriptural passages where the Father is sent by Son [or even by the Holy Spirit]? That was a question Augustine found hard to answer when certain verses in John such as "The Father is greater than I" could be interpreted in no other way than as an expression of the subordinate nature of Jesus. I find it amusing that Augustine simply contended that when Jesus made that apparent statement he was speaking in his human capacity!

One can only imagine how those anonymous gospel writers would have viewed their texts becoming enmeshed in such [very much later] theological debates. And no doubt would have expressed some surprise that the words they attributed to Jesus could be divided into "human" and "divine" pronouncements.

By the way which text[s] of Paul's are you referencing where he employs the word "logos"?

[rogue06]

Where do you think it came from?



Which specific ancient non-Christian religion adopted anything from Christianity? Do tell.

Someone forgot about her last fiasco regarding this. When I linked to a previous post showing how Christmas being set on December 25 was based on Jewish traditions and that pagan holidays that atheist scholars say were coopted were never celebrated on that day until after Christians claimed it. You declared the post "arrant nonsense" among other things -- even though you never bothered to read it.

And how did I know you never even looked at it? Because I checked the number of views for the thread when I linked to the post and it remained unchanged after you posted that it was garbage. That the views remained unchanged revealed that you commented on a post you never bothered to read.

That's one of your pet peeves isn't it?

In any case, this was the post you declared was utterly wrong without ever bothering to look at it

In the 19th cent. everyone was sure that the Christians borrowed heavily from the pagans wrt to Christmas, even co-opting December 25th from pagan celebrations -- Saturnalia and Sol Invictus (Dies Natalis Solis Invicti). But as time went on and scholarship improved it became increasingly apparent that most of the "borrowing" was going the other way. It was, far more often than not, the pagans who were incorporating Christian ideas and practices.

The Saturnalia festival was traditionally celebrated sometime between December 17th and 23rd. Christmas is on December 25th. If you're going to co-opt a holiday you generally don't want them taking place on different days. It kind of destroys the whole purpose

The reason that December 25th was picked for Christ's birth was because the assumed date for His death (at least in the Western part of the Empire^[1]), since at least 200 AD, was March 25th^[2] -- which was calculated to have coincided with 14 Nisan. Back then it was assumed that truly great and righteous men lived a whole number of years, without fractions meaning that they died on the same day they were conceived on (see the Talmud for examples). In short, if He died on March 25th He therefore, or so it was thought, must have also been conceived on March 25th. Add 9 months to the date of conception and you arrive at December 25th as the date of birth.

Likewise, this demonstrates that Christians were celebrating Christ's birthday on December 25 before the festival for Sol Invictus (Dies Natalis Solis Invicti) on Dec. 25 was only established in the middle of the 3rd cent. by a Roman emperor who was not very friendly toward Christianity. Prior to that the traditional festival days varied throughout the Roman Empire and included August 8th and/or the 9th, possibly August 28th, and December 11th -- but never December 25th.

This clearly shows, that contrary to popular belief, that festival was actually later syncretized with Christmas rather than the other way around since Christians had figured that Christmas took place on that day several decades prior to the Romans appropriating the day.

The confusion arises over the fact that the earliest Christians weren't really into celebrating the birth of Christ (they were far more interested in His death)^[3] and Christmas celebrations really didn't get started in earnest until 379 or 380 at first in Constantinople and then started taking off in 386 after a sermon given by John Chrysostom.

IOW, December 25th as the date of Christ's birth doesn't owe anything whatsoever to pagan influences but it arose entirely from the efforts of early Latin Christians to determine the historical date of Christ's death.

Another fact to consider is that the first mention of a date for Christmas (c. 200) and the very earliest celebrations that we have records for (c. 250-300) come during a time when the persecuted Christian minority were not borrowing heavily from pagan traditions of such an obvious character but were taking great pains to distinguish themself from them. That practice didn't begin to change until after Constantine converted to Christianity.

IOW, December 25th as the date of Christ's birth doesn't owe anything whatsoever to pagan influences but it arose entirely from the efforts of early Latin Christians to determine the historical date of Christ's death.












1. In some parts of the East, especially in Asia Minor and in Egypt, they concluded that it was April 6th with the discrepancy being largely due to the difficulties of trying to translate an unfamiliar lunar calendar into a solar calendar.

2. See Irenaeus' (c.130 - c.202) Adversus Haereses for instance and Sextus Julius Africanus (c.160 c.240) both of whom listed March 25th as the day of the conception of Jesus.

3. Origen of Alexandria (c. 165264) actually mocked various Roman celebrations of birth anniversaries, dismissing them as a "pagan" practice.

[rogue06]

THe concept of borrowing from the pagans was actually borrowed from the pagans.

Some scholars have stretched this concept to the breaking point, like when they claim that the idea of virgin birth was borrowed from Mithras. While it is technically true that Mithras was "born of a virgin" that is only because a rock gave birth to him.

Not exactly the same thing.

Not even close.