Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix
View Post
Compare to Psalm 2:
Verse 7 looks to be a parallel to Mark 1:11, but I quote verse 2 as well to highlight the word "anointed", which is elsewhere translated as messiah, and so strengthens the parallel.
Bear in mind that Mark explicitly states that the beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ was John the Baptist preparing the way, quickly followed by the baptism of Jesus. The gospel did not begin with Jesus' birth, according to Mark.
As mentioned earlier, the fact that Mark says his family thought him mad indicates no miraculous birth, or indeed anything miraculous at all until his baptism. Further, why would God incarnate even need to be baptised? Mark usually calls Jesus "rabbi" rather than "lord", because Mark was seeing Jesus as more human than divine.
By the way, there are hints of adoptionism in Paul's letters too (also written early of course):
Romans 1:3 concerning his Son, who was descended from David[b] according to the flesh 4 and was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord,
Who says she didn't? I take it to be that the message was of an immediate nature and Mary was not married and knew that was a way's off.
Why suppose Mary thought the pregnancy would be so soon? If the author of Matthew is right, then God's sign to the King of Jerusalem that this kingdom would be fine (Isaiah 7) did not arrive until about 400 years (by which time it was under Roman rule!). And yet you want us believe that Mary thought the pregnancy would necessarily start within days?
Old age is one thing. Well beyond child-bearing years is another.
But suppose she was ninety... What is your point exactly?
The problem with this is that there are no sources I know of that have Isaiah 7:14 as a Messianic prophecy.
Matthew's writing of it would in fact give charge to the idea that Jesus was illegitimate, something that he would want to avoid.
Jesus is the firstborn son of the family and as such, the responsibility of providing for the family falls next on Him. What is going on? Jesus is preaching so much that He and His disciples can't even eat. In fact, having disciples and providing for them would show that His family was not the first responsibility. The family would be thinking "How is He going to handle His obligations? Has He gone mad? He is bringing great shame on us." The consequences of His vocation were getting out of hand.
Unless angels appeared to both his step-father and his mother before he was born, stating that Jesus was God incarnate, followed by a miraculous conception. Then they would expect him to start preaching, healing, casting out demons...
See that is the problem here. What you describe only makes sense if you are wrong.
It would be, but exorcisms at least were also done by others outside the Jesus movement. As for healing, sure He was healing, but in the midst of this healing, He was not able to provide for Himself and those close to Him. This was getting out of hand. He needed someone to take more charge.
Okay, maybe there was an issue with him not providing for them, but that is not their objection. They objected to him acting like a lunatic, by preaching, healing and casting out demons.
More. The saints in Scripture are painted in very real terms.
James Crossley is one who did his dissertation on the Gospel of Mark and why he dates it to the 40's. Maurice Casey in his own writing such as his book on Jesus mythicism agrees with Crossley in large part but offers even other reasons for holding an earlier date.
But I still do not know how this impinges on my argument.
If you think they did, feel free to present the evidence. My evidence is that Jews had a view of children who were born out of wedlock and you would not want to give any credibility to a Messiah who was born illegitimately. The last thing you'd want to do is to blame that on God Himself, especially for people who might already be skeptical of your claim. Finally, while the parallels are not exact, this could make some people think of what pagan deities did.
He was working from a text that did not include it (i.e, the Gospel of Mark). He has a track record of editing Mark to present a better view of Jesus (eg removing the verse about Jesus' family thinking him mad). He made a conscious decision to include the virgin birth. Therefore it was the author's opinion that the virgin birth presented a better view of Jesus.
Comment