The Fallacy of Literal Interpretation

[Bhaktajan II]

In a metaphor, Grace is alluded to you [if you can read it]
In a sign, Grace is pointed out to you [if you can follow it]
In a symbol, Grace is revealed to you [if you can fathom it]
In a Sacrament, Grace is transmitted to you [whether you know it or not]

Superb.

Frame it!

 

[Bhaktajan II]

I would add that the idea of
"shabda-brahma" [transcendental sound vibration]
refers to the birth of the universe.

 

[Thomas]

I would add that the idea of
"shabda-brahma" [transcendental sound vibration]
refers to the birth of the universe.

Oh absolutely! It seems to me you have put your finger on a fundamental underlying point with insight and precision. May I reply to your complement by saying if I do as you suggest, I shall frame yours alongside it!

In my Tradition, the principle of shabda-brahma lies at the very heart of Genesis: "And God said, "Let there be light ..." (Genesis 1:3). John, in his Prologue, locates it as a fundamental tenet of the Christian Revelation: "In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God."

Both, I think, use different metaphors to describe the same thing. In Genesis the image is of light, in John it is sound, although light occurs in the same breathe, as it were: "In him was life, and the life was the light of men" (John 1:4).

Light ... sound ... they are both vibrations.

"In the beginning was shabda-brahma, and shabda-brahma was with Brahman, and shabda-brahma was Brahman."

If I may continue with the idea of vibration...

As I see it (physical science may tell me I have it wrong), a vibration passes through its medium. It is not the medium itself. When a vibration begins, the atoms are excited and excite their neighbour, and so on, but if we take a wave in the ocean, this does not mean that atom 'A', or the water itself at the beginning of the wave, jumps up and shoulders it's way passed atoms/waters 'B', 'C' and so on until it barges passed atom 'Z'. Rather, the energy of the wave is passed from on to the next. The water rises and falls as the wave passes, but it remains where it is in terms of location on the horizontal plane.

(I know when the wave breaks this all changes and the water itself moves in the direction of the wave, but this is the effect of associated contingent causes).

So waxing lyrical I would say that fundamental vibration resonates at the very core of our being, and now here's a delicate point, which may seem sleight of hand, but really it is not.

The delicacy lies in distinguishing between the divine, the universal and the particular.

Take man. Each and every one of us, man and woman both, are each, wholly and entirely, human. Even though there might be defect in the elements, every one of us is 100% human.

But no particular human, although 100% human in himself, can ever present the totality of its universal nature. At the very least, one aspect of human nature is its diversity.

And not just one. The entire human collective, gathered together across time and space, would still fail to exhaust a universal nature's infinite possibility. Get every person who ever lived, is living or will live, and it would still be possible for yet one more child to be born, without repetition.

So, if I was to paraphrase the Prologue, "In him was shabda-brahma, and shabda-brahma was the shabda-brahma of men" (1:4), is that acceptable?

Now I would say that shabda-brahma subsists entirely in Itself, transcending any degree of determination. (I'm treading carefully here, in my ignorance. I assume shabda-brahma is a determination of Brahman?). Transcending all manifest (and unmanifest) forms, indeed transcending the formal and the formless, it is not so much a vibration, but the principle of vibration.

Again, if I may, both Testaments Old and New point to this. The 'in the beginning' of Genesis is beresith, the 'in the beginning' of the Prologue is en arche, both terms imply the idea of a metaphysical principle, not a temporal beginning.

The Greek has entered the lexicon of the Tradition as a Divine Name. The Son is 'arche' — Principle. The Father is arche anarchos — principle without (that is who transcends) Principle.

I would apply the same understanding to shabda-brahma as I would arche. It is the Primary Principle of He who transcends principle. It is not a subsequent nor a subsidiary vibration of a Higher Vibration. It is the Name of the Divine Act, who suffers no principle other than Himself.

That which possesses life displays animation. That which does not, does not. What is animation but movement? But the Deity does not move. How can it, where can it move from, if it is Infinite? Where can it move to, where It is not already? The absolute is One, not a composite. I think you would agree that Brahman is not a composite of this-brahma and that, but simply Brahman, in Whom rests all possible manifestations of Brahman?

So what actually vibrates? We do. Creation does. We call it Theophany. And why is it so diverse, in all its vibrations? Because 'vibration' belongs to the particular, and no particular can ever exhaust the universal. And if God can create one vibration, then why not a choir? What would space be if there was but one 'thing', hanging in an empty void? Why not a song, through time? Because no one thing, nor any infinite number of things, can contain that Grace that willed being in the first place.

Sound is a wave passing through a medium. Change the medium, and the sound changes. But the principle remains the same. And the medium can return to its resting state. We can hear sound, in infinite variety, but we cannot hear the principle of sound as such. Universals are revealed in their particulars, not in themselves. (A thunderstorm has just this moment started! See, the gods are obviously telling us we're right ... or maybe I've got it all wrong. Let's see where the lightning strikes. Fingers crossed ... )

Anyway ...

Although the Principle of Sound its not itself a sound, all sounds reside within the Principle. There is no sound it does not know beforehand. (You'll never hear shabda-brahma say "what's that noise?") So whilst the sound of this particular cricket ball striking that particular bat, at precisely two minutes and thirty eight seconds passed three, on the fifteenth of June 1765, in a field somewhere outside Norwich, is and will always be a unique, one-time event in the life of this particular Cosmos, Shabda-brahma knew it long before, and indeed knows it eternally, beyond our 'befores' and 'afters'.

But the sound that shabda-brahma 'knows' is the principle of the sound of this particular cricket ball ... not the sound as such. The sound as such is finite, and lasts but a moment. Its principle always was, and lasts forever.

The Absolute, the Infinite, cannot be contained. Nor can it be parcelled up and diffused piecemeal throughout creation. It cannot be added to, or subtracted from.

So the actual physical sound made by our cricket ball hitting the bat does not in any way modify, change, add to or diminish its principle in shabda-brahma. If it did so, then shabda-brahma must be uncertain of Itself ...

There is a qualitative difference then, between the principle of a thing, and the thing itself.

And the thing itself, for as long as it exists in a medium governed by the laws of finitude, will never realise its principle perfectly. It cannot, without transcending the bounds of contingent nature. It's principle is timeless and eternal. It is but a fleeting moment ...

Back to my argument. Can I now shift into my own lexicon? Can I say we can agree a substantial association between the words vibration - word - verbum - logos? In Greek, 'logos' infers much more than simply 'word', it implies the principle of communication, in all its forms. I assume the same of shabda-brahma, that it implies something more than just a ripple across the top of a pond.

Christ as Logos, the Principle, contains within Himself all the possibilities of His realisation. These possibilities have no substantial form. They are the eternal ideas in the Mind of God. They are God, for they are His ideas. When they are actualised, they are, for that which is actualised according to its own unique individuality, its model. Its exemplar. We call them logoi.

But the actuality is not the exemplar. An idea is perfect in itself as an idea, especially in the Mind of God. What can the material object bring to 'complete' an idea, when ideas are not material objects and do not require materiality? Even when realised, when actualised, there is still the idea. The actuality requires its idea, but the idea has no requirement of actuality to be an idea.

So the actual is realised according to its idea, but it is not, itself, the idea. The idea of itself will always remain, even to itself, other than itself. Many assume that 'realisation' is in becoming one with one's exemplar. It is not, for it cannot be so. The idea stays the same, regardless of whether it is actualised or not. My existence hasn't altered the logoi of me one jot. Nor can I ever be my logoi. If I could, I would have been from the start, because the logoi exists in its most perfect form, which must include me if I am to be it.

The distinction will always remain.

God bless,

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

Actually, it's your semantics that are all to cock, old chum. Let me illustrate:

Thomas pretends ...

No, I have never claimed to be expert.

he suddenly has the RIGHT OF TRADITION on his side.

No, I hope to have put myself on the right side of the Tradition. Big difference.

Belief in a thing DOES NOT necessarily make it so.

Semantic error of implication: Nor does it make it not so. This is sophistry at its worst.

Fundamental semantic error: In fact belief in what is known is in a sense superfluous. I believe (and hope) our car is somewhere on the North Circular Road. But I know we have a car. We bought it. Whether I believe that or not is immaterial. My bank account is considerably lighter as a result. In fact, I have purchased something and said, in the very next breath, "I don't believe I just did that!" Too late mate, the money's changed hands.

When it comes to belief as faith though, that's a different matter. In the Tradition, "we walk by faith, and not by sight" (2 Corinthians 5:7). We believe that "we are now the sons of God; and it hath not yet appeared what we shall be. We know, that, when he shall appear, we shall be like to him: because we shall see him as he is" (1 John 3:2). The eschaton remains a veiled mystery. Don't let anyone kid you otherwise. You would be hostage in your own skin if that were true.

Pushing on (for why do we walk in faith other than to follow Him) towards the apophatic then, 'not by sight' means beyond the limit of the human intellect, and into the Divine Darkness: Fundamental semantic error: "Now faith is the substance of things to be hoped for, the evidence of things that appear not" (Hebrews 11:1). Eriugena's exegesis on the Race to the Empty Tomb as recorded by John (20:3-10) is luminous on this point. John knows, and he knows by what he illuminates by the power (light) of the intellect. He knows the tomb is empty, but he cannot enter into the Mystery of its emptiness. There is nothing to illuminate, there is nothing there to know, but its emptiness. Christ is gone. Peter is the will, and it is the will that takes the leap into the dark, into the Mystery. He knows, without seeing, and unlike John, in that moment, that Christ lives.

At the last, the order of faith about which the Tradition speaks is "faith then cometh by hearing; and hearing by the word of Christ" (Romans 10:17). The essence of fiath is the Living Word, the substance of faith is Grace, "and indeed faith is itself and according as God hath divided to every one the measure of faith" (Romans 12:3).

You really don't understand faith as the Tradition does.

Now there are criteria for understanding ... propulsion technologies.

OK. People start off knowing little, and over time, if they apply themselves, they learn a lot. So what's your point?

Now you see, Thomas here has put enough effort into understanding Xianity and the history of the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH, along with its teachings...

And more besides, I might add. Philosophy. Hermeticism. Metaphysics. But what's your point?

... that he has a very vested interested, an agenda, and most certainly - as has been pointed out - a decided BIAS when it comes to approaching something like say, the 'Virgin Birth.'

Semantic error of imputation and a fundamental semantic error of assumption. How can a man, who claims to believe in something, do it service if he does not have a 'vested interested' in what he believes? if he does not endorse its 'agenda'? Does not show a 'bias' towards it?

His belief counts for very little, if that is the case. is that how you think about what you believe?

Indeed, I welcome your interest, it's your agenda and your bias I am obliged to refuse.

It becomes pointless to suggest, either to him or within earshot/eyesight, that another point of view exists which supersedes his ~ shedding LIGHT on what for him, is darkness.

Yes, it rather does, because the non-argument above is nothing but a justification of your own prejudices.

His own feeling, naturally enough, as that of most Catholics and many Xians, is that ample light already exists and that the Gospels (and other texts) tell us precisely what we need to grasp about this mystery or miracle, as he puts it.

Semantic error re Revelation: No sacra doctrina is inadequate in itself with regard to the realisation of that which it promises.

A Christian has no need of the Buddhist sutras to understand Christianity; The Q'ran does not complete the Gita ... As the Dalai Lama said, if you can't find it in your own tradition, you'll not find it in any other. The fault lies with you, not the tradition.

Semantic error of assumption and imputation: The overwhelming evidence suggests ample light does indeed exist with which to grasp the Mystery, the text and the commentaries suffice. The fact that you don't know it is no fault of the Tradition's. Indeed, there is the evidence of those who have entered into it, in no matter how small a way. A mystery is not quantitative (another failure to discern between levels).

Equally, the implication is that your knowledge encompasses everything that can be known, else you wouldn't be in a position to make that claim. I suggest you're over-reaching yourself, somewhat.

He has failed, utterly, to recognize that Jesus is not meant to be understood as literally being born of a woman without the latter having had sex, any more than I would rationally or reasonably expect all of you to believe that I am Abraham Lincoln, sitting her 147 years after my own faked assassination, spinning off yarns about Mahatmas and magical planes of existence and reincarnation.

Fundamental semantic error: The birth of Christ and you being Abraham Lincoln are two separate things.

Someone may believe that Christ is not the Son of God, but they cannot know it, because the material proof is not there, any more than it is there to prove it to be true. All the evidence they have speaks of its impossibility — but even then, it's not possible to know everything. I am sure men have thought things impossible, which have then come to be the case.

But we know you are not Abraham Lincoln. Even if you believe you are.

Dear Friends, I am not Abraham Lincoln ... but if you wish to call me Honest Andy, that part will stick well enough.

Honest then, but misguided.

You see, I have never intentionally uttered one false statement about the topics I just mentioned.

Oh, i rather think you have, where Christianity is concerned at least, but I'll not drag that up.

And, besides that, I can shed a little light on the subject of virgin births ...

I have no doubt you can. But my point is you assume the same light illuminates every instance. You assume the general must apply in a particular way in every particular instance. It's the failure to discern between the general and the particular again ...

Because your knowledge of virgin birth is in the context of a given teaching, you assume the same context applies in every given teaching. That is not necessarily the case, and you have failed to examine the data sufficiently to see the distinctions. I will demonstrate that in my answer to Nick, who makes the same mistake as you.

I did say AS tiny electrical sparks, and this is both literal as well as a quasi-anthropomorphic metaphor. Most importantly, it is *scientific fact* as can and has been demonstrated six ways from Sunday. Just ask your local HEALTH EXPERT before they give you an EEG or EKG; just consult a good quantum physicist, enquiring specifically about Dark Matter, string theory and GUFT/Higgs-Bosons; or speak to someone who has seen and perhaps been involved with Kirlian photography.

Semantic error of discernment: You fail to see that the metaphorical spark is not the electrical spark, nor vice versa. Science can demonstrate the latter, but has nothing to say about the former, as you assume. Here in the UK a soccer player collapsed on the field, and was clinically dead for over 90 minutes — no sign of that electrical spark that speaks of animate life at all — but we all know that we cannot, like Baron Frankenstein, pump a shedload of electricity through a dead body and reanimate it. Where was the soccer player's metaphorical spark of life those long, 90 minutes? (And no, as far as we know, he doesn't remember a thing.) No-one knows, nor knows how to know.

So again and again, you confuse yourself with your own analogies.

Thomas is a man of dry, booklike learning, but if you challenge his faith, he can only repeat line after line of droll, boring church history and TRADITION.

Actually I said quite some time ago that I would give you my body, but not my blood. I speak here only in defence of the Doctrine. If that is dry, then it's because I try to stick to the point, and not get carried away and give vent to my passions.

But between you, me and the rest of us, I would say I like to think I have my moments ...

And, by the way, droll and boring as you might find it, you cannot disprove it, and the sour-grapes spats to which you are accustomed are, it seems to me, just smokescreens to conceal that fact.

Thomas, I am not a man after your dead and buried Christ. I have long ago accepted Christ as LIVING and BREATHING *now* ...

Oh, stop playing to the gallery, and please take your ignorant gabble out of my mouth. Your lies are distasteful to me. My Saviour (and yours) lives! He is risen!

and if you knew where to find Him, you'd be as capable of doing so in the physical body, while still alive, as any of us.

Semantic error of just about everything:
I know where to find Him — read Scripture.
I do not have to wait until I am dead to find Him.

Thomas, there are TRADITIONS with Him Who you call Lord, going back many, many thousands of years ...

Semantic error: Yes there are, there are traditions that go back to the Day of Creation and point beyond.

But there are new ones:
"A new commandment I give unto you" (John 13:34); "A new and living way which he hath dedicated for us through the veil, that is to say, his flesh" (Hebrews 10:20); "For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins" (Matthew 26:28) ... I could go on.

The point is, you assume 'the same old, same old', whereas I am saying there's something quite unique.

But STOP. Stop there. And don't presume to tell ME that thus and such is how it is, say with Holy Virgin Mother.

When it comes to the Christian Tradition, I must and I will, because you've got it all wrong, and it would be remiss of my to not point out your error.

If you want to know the Tradition, do the Tradition. Don't assume you know it because you've heard something like it somewhere else ...

It's like trying to get the rest of us, who so desperately need to understand our Geocentric Universe, to abandon & recant of this foolish, swollen-headed notion that ours is a planet like many, orbiting a S*N like many, while these by the billions orbit Greater Stars, themselves LIKE MANY revolving around yet other Cosmic Centers.

Semantic error: That's nonsense. By analogy what you're saying is I'm trying to get someone, who desperately wants to understand Christianity, to abandon the Articles of the Creed. It's utter nonsense.

I accept the corrections, the ruler to the knuckles, and will get right on my paternosters ... right after I square away this matter.

You're compounding your errors, so far ...

God bless,

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

The Virgin Birth refers as much to the Soul to whom or which it pertains as to the Earthly Mother who brings that Soul into physical expression, where this occurs.

Not in the Tradition, it doesn't.

And this is my point. You totally fail to see what the Tradition says, you simply assume it says, with greater or lesser accurately, what you've picked up elsewhere. And with the same lack of actual justification.

Geddes made the same error — in his case a conscious effort to foist a lie on the unsuspecting (the actress Shirley Maclaine being one, more's the pity) public — when he said Origen preached a doctrine of reincarnation. When pressed for his evidence, he was obliged to admit that there is none, other than Origen must have preached it, because he (Geddes) happens to believe it.

A known fabrication which, it seems to my, the Theosophical Society is happy to associate itself with.

As for the rest of this post, the above says it all.

God bless,

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

I would add that the idea of the virgin birth refers to the idea of the birth of the universe from a 'virgin' material called Mulprakriti. (This is the idea that Mulaprakriti is immutable -- virgin -- and is not effected or changed during this process.)

Actually Nick, not according to the Tradition.

In that, you are wrong in every respect.

What is dogmatically declared is the Doctrine of creatio ex nihilo, creation out of nothing (that is no-thing, not even a thing without form), not creation out of some pre-existing formless substrate, nor brought forth from a virgin material which must necessarily preceed it.

That a substrate might exist within creation is open to discussion. With regard to the matter of the source or origin of creation, as dogmatically defined in the creatio, it's of no consequence either way. We talk about the 'Divine Substance' but not to say that the Divine is composed of stuff.

And I think Quantum Physics has enough to say about the nature of 'substance' to render the term very malleable, unless qualified!

Having said that, the idea as analogous can be retro-argued upwards according to the doctrine, but the doctrine itself remains inviolate as its over-arching principle.

With regard to the Immaculata, the Tradition asserts absolutely, and from the very first, without shadow of a doubt, that Our Lady was numbered among the human race. She was the child of her parents, Joachim and Anna, and she was graced by the Indwelling of God, and brought forth her child by the power of the Holy Spirit. Indeed, the lineage of both her mother and her father are traced back to Adam in the text.

So she is not the manifestation of the idea of Mulprakriti; were that so she would be accorded some order of divine status. She is most definitely not. (Many people make that simple mistake.) And nowhere, neither in Scripture nor Tradition, is such ever claimed. She was baptised by Grace when the Lord saw fit to bring her forth as the Theotokos, the Mother of God, but she is not herself a God, she is 'the first among equals' in the Church, because her womb was the First Church.

I have no idea how you or anyone else could come to the conclusion that you have.

In fact the Doctrine goes so far as to offer a different idea than a dualist parusha/prakriti distinction. The ideas are covered in the Tradition; the Scholars for example discuss essence/substance and idea/form; they discuss the idea of a primordial substrate, a primodial substance without form, in their various concepts of the materia prima (the alchemists also followed this pursuit). But these ideas are not Doctrine.

As with taijasi, I am not arguing with what you believe, nor do I assume any need or obligation to accept my beliefs. What I argue against is the misrepresentation of what I believe; what I believe the doctrine to say.

And when you do, please understand why I must, if I am to call myself Christian, correct that misrepresentation.

God bless,

Thomas

 

[Ben Masada]

In your dreams, you mean. A questionable fantasia, too. I certainly wouldn't brag about it.

Thomas

Why? Do you prefer to be responsible for the idea than to brag about it? I mean, if you are a Christian. If you are not, I apologize for the question. I believe that Christians are responsible for the idea that Mary was raped by a Roman soldier. That is, every time they deny that Joseph was Jesus' biological father. Since Jesus was a Jewish man, and in Judaism, which was his Faith, there is no such a thing as the Greek myth of the demigod, which is the son of a god with an earthly woman, it is only obvious that either Jesus was Greek or son of Panthera. What other option could be?

Ben

 

[Thomas]

Why?

Because there is no mention of any such happening, nor anything like it, in Scripture or the Tradition, nor in any other source ... so it can only come from your own head.

I believe that Christians are responsible for the idea that Mary was raped by a Roman soldier.

No, I think you'll find you are responsible for your own conclusions. Don't try and blame others for your ideas ...

That is, every time they deny that Joseph was Jesus' biological father.

Really? That's your mind again ... That's no argument at all.

Since Jesus was a Jewish man, and in Judaism, which was his Faith, there is no such a thing as the Greek myth of the demigod, which is the son of a god with an earthly woman, it is only obvious that either Jesus was Greek or son of Panthera. What other option could be?

That's no argument either.

But is is a repetition of the same old mistakes.

On the one (theological) hand, the Doctrine of the Incarnation is not the same as the Greek myth of the demigod, so you've got that wrong anyway. D'you think the Prophets of Israel are simply a Jewish version of the Greek Oracle?

I might point out that Moslem Tradition has its own story of the Nativity, which is akin to Christianity's. No Romans in sight ... no rapes.

If a woman tells you she's pregnant, but refuses to tell you who the father is, I would not jump to rape as the obvious conclusion.

On the other (philosophical) hand, you've made a classic error of deduction:
A is a myth.
B reads like A.
Therefore B is a myth...
(The Bultmann argument.)

It's wrong. It's like saying:
A is a man,
A is a thief,
Therefore all men are thieves.

So in short, it's an outlandish idea without a shred of supporting evidence.

God bless,

Thomas

 

[radarmark]

Teaching elementary logic now, Thomas?

 

[Thomas]

We could do with that round here, at times

God bless,

Thomas

 

[Ben Masada]

Because there is no mention of any such happening, nor anything like it, in Scripture or the Tradition, nor in any other source ... so it can only come from your own head.

No, I think you'll find you are responsible for your own conclusions. Don't try and blame others for your ideas ...

Really? That's your mind again ... That's no argument at all.

That's no argument either.

But is is a repetition of the same old mistakes.

On the one (theological) hand, the Doctrine of the Incarnation is not the same as the Greek myth of the demigod, so you've got that wrong anyway. D'you think the Prophets of Israel are simply a Jewish version of the Greek Oracle?

I might point out that Moslem Tradition has its own story of the Nativity, which is akin to Christianity's. No Romans in sight ... no rapes.

If a woman tells you she's pregnant, but refuses to tell you who the father is, I would not jump to rape as the obvious conclusion.

On the other (philosophical) hand, you've made a classic error of deduction:
A is a myth.
B reads like A.
Therefore B is a myth...
(The Bultmann argument.)

It's wrong. It's like saying:
A is a man,
A is a thief,
Therefore all men are thieves.

So in short, it's an outlandish idea without a shred of supporting evidence.

God bless,

Thomas

Thomas, please don't take this as an offense, but you are being ridiculous, really making a fool of yourself. You have, all of a sudden, lost your sense to rationalize. That's not a nice way to discard other people's ideas whithout presenting one of your own as an option.

For example, if Christians deny that Joseph was Jesus' biological father, what do you want the reader to conclude? That Jesus' father was someone else. Who was he, God? Well, at least tell me that Jesus was a Greek and not a Jewish man. The son of God with an earthly woman in Judaism is anathema. You cannot bake the cake and eat it too. You have got to share it with others for at least a taste of it.

The idea of a Roman rape is not mine. You can google "Jesus and Panthera" to see what I am talking about. And talking about virgin birth, yes, we too have our idea of what Isaiah was talking about in 7:14. Ask me if you want to know and I'll let you have a share of that cake.

In the meantime, God be with you too.

Ben

 

[Thomas]

Thomas, please don't take this as an offense, but you are being ridiculous, really making a fool of yourself. You have, all of a sudden, lost your sense to rationalize. That's not a nice way to discard other people's ideas whithout presenting one of your own as an option.

What actually prompted my post is your ridiculous notion that "Christians are responsible for the idea that Mary was raped by a Roman soldier". Where has any Christian source put forward that idea?

For example, if Christians deny that Joseph was Jesus' biological father, what do you want the reader to conclude? That Jesus' father was someone else. Who was he, God?

That's what the doctrine says.

Well, at least tell me that Jesus was a Greek and not a Jewish man.

No. How can I? I'm trying to clear matters up, not add to the confusion.

The son of God with an earthly woman in Judaism is anathema.

I understand that for you, it might well be. Others think it a myth, others think it nonsense, an impossibility ... but they do not assume that it must have been a case of rape.

The idea of a Roman rape is not mine. You can google "Jesus and Panthera" to see what I am talking about.

OK: Here's what I got from wiki:
An inscription found at the site of nine Roman soldiers' graves, in Germany:

Tib(erius) Iul(ius) Abdes Pantera
Sidonia ann(orum) LXII
stipen(diorum) XXXX miles exs(ignifer?)
coh(orte) I sagittariorum
h(ic) s(itus) e(st) ​

The name Pantera was perhaps his last name, and means panther. The names Tiberius Iulius are acquired names and were probably given to him as a former slave when in recognition of serving in the Roman army he obtained Roman citizenship. The name Abdes means "servant of God" and suggests that Pantera had a semitic or even Jewish background. He was from Sidonia, which is identified with Sidon in Phoenicia, and joined the Cohors I Sagittariorum, the First Cohort of Archers.

The idea that a Pantera was the father of Our Lord was first put forward by Celsus in the 2nd century. Celsus was a Greek philosopher with a strong anti-Christian bias — he regarded it all as ignorance and superstition. Origen (a Christian philosopher and his contemporary) considered it a fabricated story and, much like myself, challenged this and many other false and fanciful notions that Celsus assumed of Christian doctrine.

Scholars note that given the antagonism of Celsus towards Christianity, his use of the not-uncommon Panthera could have arisen from a satirical connection between "Panther" and the Greek word "Parthenos" meaning virgin.

The book Toledot Yeshu, which dates to the Middle Ages and appeared in Aramaic as well as Hebrew, is an anti-Christian satirical chronicle which also refers to the name Pantera, or Pandera.

Christian and Jewish scholars have generally only paid minor attention to it. Robert E. Van Voorst states that origins of Toledot Yeshu cannot be traced with any certainty before the 4th century, which is far too late to include authentic remembrances of Our Lord. From the material itself, the Toledot Yeshu would seem to be a parody of the Christian Gospels.

So we have an hypothesis with no supporting evidence, presented by an avowed anti-Christian, and then again by a satirical document.

Nor does any scholarship regard the thesis as a serious counter-proposition to Christian doctrine.

And talking about virgin birth, yes, we too have our idea of what Isaiah was talking about in 7:14. Ask me if you want to know and I'll let you have a share of that cake.

I'm sure. But our dogma is not founded on Isaiah.

The rape hypothesis was, and in some places still is, put about by anti-Christians, not by Christians, as you suppose..

'nuff said.

God bless,

Thomas

 

[radarmark]

Gee, why does remind me of another thread with someone trying to proove a negative? As Thomas said, the Panthera myth is from a highly ANTI-Christian source. As for the circumstances of J!SUS' birth, one can never really "know" objectively. But is Mary's case really so far out of line with Sarah, Rebecca, Rachel and Leah and the miracles given them? Is the Virgin Birth any more preposterous than the sun standing still or crows feeding Elijah or Manna or the parting of the Red Sea or Sabbateans starving to death waiting for Giant Eagles?

At the least it is not a topic for real scientific-empirical research.

 

[wil]

Isn't the miracle of the virgin birth simply a miracle that folks mistranslated the text?

 

[radarmark]

Of course, one is free to believe that. But, I believe it stands for something "beyond".

 

[Nephilim48]

The idea that Jesus was the result of a rape of Mary by a Roman soldier is not fanciful thinking . It is far more likely than the virgin birth,the idea of which even the church is back tracking on.
Historical accounts written at the time describe a raid on her village by the romans in retaliation for guerilla attacks by her villagers on roman soldiers. Soldiers being soldiers they would have raped and pillaged their way through her village by way of revenge
If you must persist in the fable of the so called virgin birth then it is more likely that she was impregnated by aliens and was to embarresed to tell of an alien abduction.

 

[Thomas]

Hi Wil —

Isn't the miracle of the virgin birth simply a miracle that folks mistranslated the text?

The Virgin Birth is not founded on Isaiah 7:14, but Matthew uses it to argue the event was prophesied (Matthew 1:23).

In Hebrew the word for virgin is bethulah, whereas in Isaiah the text says alma, which means 'a young girl'.

St Jerome (4thc) discusses this at some length. Origen would be aware of it, because he read the OT in Hebrew. My favourite argument is much later though, from Richard of St Victor (12thc), when responding to a brother who had learnt a bit of Hebrew, and thought he had discovered a flaw in Christian doctrine.

One has to ask why Jewish scholars translating the text into Greek chose to specify 'virgin' (Gk parthenos) rather than young girl.

Why the rabbis favoured 'virgin' over 'young girl' we cannot say, but Richard argued that one has to look at the text in context:
"Listen now, O House of David, is it little for you to weary men, that you weary my God as well? Therefore the Lord, of His own, shall give you a sign.”

Richard argued that for a young woman of marital age to conceive a child can hardly be classified as a 'sign' — it's a commonplace. If the woman is married, then the idea of a sign becomes increasingly improbable.

There is also the point, it seems, that in ancient Jewish law, an alma is presumed to be a virgin unless proven otherwise.

There is also the sense that alma is akin to the English expression of 'maiden', a young woman of marital age but who is not married and assumed to be still a 'virgin'.

Lastly, there is the text tradition. Matthew and Luke offer genealogies of Our Lord (through the male and female line, respectively), although both make it explicit that Joseph is not the biological father.

Luke's testimony of the events surrounding the Nativity are full and rich and could only have come from the Blessed Virgin herself. It's highly likely (the Orthodox Tradition insists on it) that he received her testimony at first hand. His gospel starts: "According as they have delivered them unto us, who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word: It seemed good to me also, having diligently attained to all things from the beginning" (v2-3)

The Orthodox insist the first icon, of Our Lady, was painted by him.

Luke was a physician, so one might reasonably assume he would raise an eyebrow at the idea of Virgin Birth ...

... but the point is the dogma comes not from readings of the OT, but from some other source, and logically the only person who would know the truth of that is Our Lady herself.

God bless,

Thomas

 

[radarmark]

Isaiah was used ex post facto to the events (kinda like Revelations get all re-interpreted today). It has little or no history in the doctines of any pre-Reformation Christianity.

 

[Ben Masada]

What actually prompted my post is your ridiculous notion that "Christians are responsible for the idea that Mary was raped by a Roman soldier". Where has any Christian source put forward that idea?

"Ridiculous notion" right? Every time a Christian denies that Jesus was a biological son of Joseph's, he is putting forward the idea that Mary was raped by a Roman soldier. Read Josephus. It was common for Roman soldiers to rape local young women in the conquered lands.

No. How can I? I'm trying to clear matters up, not add to the confusion.

To add confusion is exactly what Christians do when they pick up a Jew and claim that he was born without a human father, as there can be no such a thing in Judaism.

I understand that for you, it might well be. Others think it a myth, others think it nonsense, an impossibility ... but they do not assume that it must have been a case of rape.

Can you show evidence of what could have been if Jesus did not have a human father? No, you can't. So, let assumption have the benefit of the doubt.

OK: Here's what I got from wiki:
An inscription found at the site of nine Roman soldiers' graves, in Germany:

Tib(erius) Iul(ius) Abdes Pantera
Sidonia ann(orum) LXII
stipen(diorum) XXXX miles exs(ignifer?)
coh(orte) I sagittariorum
h(ic) s(itus) e(st)
​

The name Pantera was perhaps his last name, and means panther. The names Tiberius Iulius are acquired names and were probably given to him as a former slave when in recognition of serving in the Roman army he obtained Roman citizenship. The name Abdes means "servant of God" and suggests that Pantera had a semitic or even Jewish background. He was from Sidonia, which is identified with Sidon in Phoenicia, and joined the Cohors I Sagittariorum, the First Cohort of Archers.

The idea that a Pantera was the father of Our Lord was first put forward by Celsus in the 2nd century. Celsus was a Greek philosopher with a strong anti-Christian bias — he regarded it all as ignorance and superstition. Origen (a Christian philosopher and his contemporary) considered it a fabricated story and, much like myself, challenged this and many other false and fanciful notions that Celsus assumed of Christian doctrine.

Scholars note that given the antagonism of Celsus towards Christianity, his use of the not-uncommon Panthera could have arisen from a satirical connection between "Panther" and the Greek word "Parthenos" meaning virgin.

The book Toledot Yeshu, which dates to the Middle Ages and appeared in Aramaic as well as Hebrew, is an anti-Christian satirical chronicle which also refers to the name Pantera, or Pandera.

Christian and Jewish scholars have generally only paid minor attention to it. Robert E. Van Voorst states that origins of Toledot Yeshu cannot be traced with any certainty before the 4th century, which is far too late to include authentic remembrances of Our Lord. From the material itself, the Toledot Yeshu would seem to be a parody of the Christian Gospels.

So we have an hypothesis with no supporting evidence, presented by an avowed anti-Christian, and then again by a satirical document.

Nor does any scholarship regard the thesis as a serious counter-proposition to Christian doctrine.

After such an article, I wonder how you can stop the rain with a sieve.

I'm sure. But our dogma is not founded on Isaiah.

Really! You must be a different kind of Christian. All the others take me to Isaiah 7:14 to defend the virgin birth. How do you do?

The rape hypothesis was, and in some places still is, put about by anti-Christians, not by Christians, as you suppose..

Christians are the ones who imply the rape of Mary by denying that Jesus was a biological son of Joseph's.

Ben

 

[Ben Masada]

Gee, why does remind me of another thread with someone trying to proove a negative? As Thomas said, the Panthera myth is from a highly ANTI-Christian source. As for the circumstances of J!SUS' birth, one can never really "know" objectively. But is Mary's case really so far out of line with Sarah, Rebecca, Rachel and Leah and the miracles given them? Is the Virgin Birth any more preposterous than the sun standing still or crows feeding Elijah or Manna or the parting of the Red Sea or Sabbateans starving to death waiting for Giant Eagles?

At the least it is not a topic for real scientific-empirical research.

All the options above can be explained metaphorically. The only possibility of looking at the Christian doctrine of the virgin birth is through the myth of the Greek demigod, which is the son of a god with an earthly woman. It just happens that Jesus was not Greek but Jewish. The intent was Replacement Theology.

Ben