Who is faithful to tradition: Catholicism or Orthodoxy?

BrainGlutton · August 16, 2004, 6:04pm

NB: I did not intentionally insert a winking smiley into the above excerpt from the Wikipedia; somehow it just came out that way.

BrainGlutton · August 16, 2004, 11:42pm

And on the subject of the virgin birth – from Asimov’s Guide to the Bible: Volume 2, the New Testament (Doubleday, 1969), pp. 119-120, chapter on Matthew:

And yet virgin birth is completely outside the Jewish tradition and is not demanded by any of the Old Testament prophecies concerning the Messiah. How, then, does Matthew come upon it? Being Matthew, he is bound to support the virgin birth by citing an Old Testament prophecy and can find only one:

Matthew 1:22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,
Matthew 1:23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son . . .

This refers to a passage in Isaiah:

Isaiah 7:14 . . . Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son . . .

but it is not a very useful passage in this connection. Matthew’s use of the word “virgin” in this context is mistaken, though it has led early translations of the Bible, including the King James Version, to make use of the word “virgin” in the Isaiah passage as well. In fact, the Hebrew word used by Isaiah means “young woman” and can apply equally well to one who is not a virgin. And, in any case, whether “virgin” or “young woman,” the passage from Isaiah is unlikely to have Messianic significance . . . and, but for these verses in Matthew quoting it, would never have been taken to have it.

But then, why the tale of the virgin birth, told with such urgency, that a marginal Old Testament verse has to be searched for and found by Matthew to account for it?

Perhaps we can indulge in a little speculation here. That which was known about Jesus must have been the tale of his ministry when disciples flocked about him. Presumably he was an obscure Galilean, until his preaching made him famous, and the details of his birth and childhood were not known. Mark, the oldest of the Gospels, has nothing to say about his birth and childhood. Rather, Mark starts his tale of Jesus with Jesus as an adult, beginning his ministry.

<snip>

But the Jews were, in those days, surrounded by a vast world of Gentiles who had traditions of their own. It was quite customary and usual in Gentile legend (almost necessary, in fact) that any great hero, any wonder-worker be the son of a god. A virgin could be impregnated by a god in magical fashion – this would not be impossible in the Greek tradition.

And, as it happened, there were Jews not only in Judea, where Jewish thought was provincial and conservative, but in Alexandria and other places where the Greek influence was strong. Greek versions of the Bible used the Greek word for “virgin” in the Isaiah quotation, and it is quite possible that Matthew followed the Greek version rather than the Hebrew version in supporting the virgin birth, and that he did not deliberately misquote.

<snip>

One might wonder, then, if Matthew might not have been faced with two traditions concerning Jesus’ birth, the strictly Jewish genealogy of Davidic descent, and the Greek-Jewish story of the virgin birth. And, although mutually exclusive, Matthew accepted both.

It is interesting that the tradition of the virgin birth is firmly and clearly stated only in this first chapter of Matthew. There are verses in Luke that can be made to support it, but not indisputably, and there are no other references to it at all anywhere else in the New Testament.

raindog · August 17, 2004, 4:37am

I almost just left this alone. I figured the sheer lunacy of these exchanges speak for themselves. Alas, I am the impestuous type…

I’m not picking on spectrum. (at least I don’t mean to…) But his (her?) post was intellectually vacant (jet lagged or not) and belied the knowledge that reading the NT 8 times would have afforded him by way of a post. By the time we got to “What-ever” I was convinced that the post was originating from a dorm room somewhere. I took no offense at being called a religious fanatic. But when he stated his credentials I simply pointed out that it would have been more of a substantaive post had he offered something more.

But your examples are more almost unreal. I guessed at the number of words in the bible. So it’s 783,000. The bible isn’t People Magazine. You are suggesting that a serious student of the bible could read, for either enjoyment or study, something as weighty as the bible at a rate that’s** 170%** of what an adult would read at-----not only read at that rate—but with comprehension and retention—and we’re not done yet----for 13 hours a day; straight?

Are you interested in buying some land I have for sale?

But back to the point at hand-----spectrum alleged I was a “religious fanatic” for insisting that BrainGlutton actually biblically cite his allegations. That seems fair enough to me. Nonetheless the irony that spectrum has read the NT 8 times and yet takes exception to me advocating bible reading (I quote: “…they think that if you just read the damn book their faith pushes…”) isn’t lost on me for a moment.

So I’m left entirely unconvinced that he’s read it at all, let alone 8 times.

I appreciate** BrainGlutton** stepping up with some cut and paste material. I’m left uninspired however. The second part of my request; “nor why those cites would have more credibiity that the direct testimony of the people in question, the apostles, found in the bible” remained unanswered. For example, wasn’t Asimov a science fiction author, and a humanist non-Christian? Why should we accept **BrainGlutton’**s take, on Asimov’s take, on the bible?

I apologize for the hijack and won’t repost to this thread off-point.

In parting I will say this though (Until I’m blue in my religious fanatic face) that it is incumbent upon someone wanting to learn about [the Christian] God to read the bible themselves. Googling up Asimov is a poor surrogate for the direct source from which Asimov opines, the bible.

BrainGlutton · August 17, 2004, 5:00am

the raindog:

I appreciate** BrainGlutton** stepping up with some cut and paste material. I’m left uninspired however. The second part of my request; “nor why those cites would have more credibiity that the direct testimony of the people in question, the apostles, found in the bible” remained unanswered. For example, wasn’t Asimov a science fiction author, and a humanist non-Christian? Why should we accept **BrainGlutton’**s take, on Asimov’s take, on the bible?

I apologize for the hijack and won’t repost to this thread off-point.

In parting I will say this though (Until I’m blue in my religious fanatic face) that it is incumbent upon someone wanting to learn about [the Christian] God to read the bible themselves. Googling up Asimov is a poor surrogate for the direct source from which Asimov opines, the bible.

Dr. A’s thoughts on this are valuable precisely because he was a non-Christian humanist, therefore had no doctrinal agenda and could look at the whole question from a dispassionate, scholarly perspective. Also, because he knew a lot about practically everything, including history and Biblical scholarship. There is not a single verse in it, I think that he did not read and study in the course of writing his book. And I didn’t Google up his words and paste them, I took the trouble to check Asimov’s Guide to the Bible out of my local library (I have my own copy but it’s in storage), look up the relevant passages on the virgin birth (which I rembered reading, long ago), and type them up. You should at least appreciate the effort.

The Wikipedia’s comments on the Jewish perspective on the Messiah, with the quotations from Maimonides – which I did cut and paste – are, at least, much more reliable on that question than anything you will find in the New Testament. Which is precisely the point. I repeat my thesis: Jesus was a Jew and would have been utterly horrified and disgusted at the way Christians have turned him into a god. Blasphemy! Sacrilege! Apostasy! Idolatry! And if you need NT scriptural authority, there’s Matthew 19:17: “Wherefore callest thou me good? One there is who is good.” In other words, that One is not Jesus himself.

raindog · August 17, 2004, 5:11am

BrainGlutton:

Dr. A’s thoughts on this are valuable precisely because he was a non-Christian humanist, therefore had no doctrinal agenda and could look at the whole question from a dispassionate, scholarly perspective. Also, because he knew a lot about practically everything, including history and Biblical scholarship. There is not a single verse in it, I think that he did not read and study in the course of writing his book. And I didn’t Google up his words and paste them, I took the trouble to check Asimov’s Guide to the Bible out of my local library (I have my own copy but it’s in storage), look up the relevant passages on the virgin birth (which I rembered reading, long ago), and type them up. You should at least appreciate the effort.

The Wikipedia’s comments on the Jewish perspective on the Messiah, with the quotations from Maimonides – which I did cut and paste – are, at least, much more reliable on that question than anything you will find in the New Testament. Which is precisely the point. I repeat my thesis: Jesus was a Jew and would have been utterly horrified and disgusted at the way Christians have turned him into a god. Blasphemy! Sacrilege! Apostasy! Idolatry! And if you need NT scriptural authority, there’s Matthew 19:17: “Wherefore callest thou me good? One there is who is good.” In other words, that One is not Jesus himself.

I do appreciate the effort. And after re-reading my posts I apologize. (to spectrum as well) I’ve been a little snarky lately. Ironically, I agree very much of your last paragraph–I think Jesus would indeed horrified at the state of Christianity. Mark Twain said that “Religion had given God a bad name.”

I agree that Jesus would be angry for made to be a God, and your cite at Matt 19 is apropos.

Still the little of Asimov that I have read, IMHO, is deeply flawed and highly speculative in nature. If I recall, even in your post he speaks of just speculating. But I am not interested in debating Asimov when the bible is available.

I would be glad to discuss the bible’s texts on the issues we touched on. (vs Asimov’s opinion)

But that’s another thread for another day, right?

Saintly_Loser · August 17, 2004, 1:55pm

This thread has gotten a bit acrimonious, and it’s moved pretty far from the questions posed by the OP, so I’m not going to jump in, except to say that the Reformers would have strongly contested this statement. Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, Wesley, et al., would have said that they were returning to the chain of traditional transmission that the Catholic Church had abandoned.

Let me recommend Diarmaid Mac Cullough’s excellent history of the Reformation, titled, I believe, The Reformation. It’s fascinating and eminently readable.

FriarTed · August 17, 2004, 3:45pm

OK, this is in one sense a theoretical aspect of LDS teaching for which there is not a lot of detail. However, it is a tenet of the LDS faith that Father God and His wife, our Mother, were created children of their Father God became Divine through obedience to Him, and that in the same way, we can become Divine through obedience to our Father God. The details of Father’s mortal life are not discussed nor any details as to the prior generations of Gods. It is quite possible for an LDS member to have never heard this taught on to much extent, as the Church has sought to downplay this. BUT it is part of LDS doctrine.