Big Mistake should Dr. James Tabor ever responds to Bob's lack of understanding concerning Jesus Birth Narratives in Matthew and Luke. The problems with them as well as the motive and intent of them is not difficult to research.
Mark has no birth narrative of Jesus and Paul says Jesus was "Born of a Woman", so nothing unusual there.
Dr Tabor's point is that the Apostle Paul paved the way with his Cosmic Christ in the Heavens and certainly not the Jesus of the later written Gospels. Paul merely comments once that Jesus was "born of a woman". Nothing unusual there.
It's an easy study and Dr Bob Thiel had better hope Dr James Tabor does not challenge him on his rebuttal of the origins of and problems with the Virgin Birth stories of Jesus.
One fun one is that the Gospel of Mark portrays a Mary that forgot what she pondered in her heart in Luke when Angels had a chat with her concerning her pregnancy. Mark's Mary and Jesus' brothers showed up in Capernaum to take Jesus home, "because they thought he was insane" Mark 3:20-22
While Matthew and Luke copied Mark 90% and 80% respectively, this story was never again repeated, and they wrote to refute such an embarassing tale in Mark.
Dr. Tabor on whether the Apostle Paul ‘invented the virgin birth’
Dr. James Tabor, once part of the old Worldwide Church of God, does not believe many doctrines it once taught. He had an article published titled Did Paul Invent the Virgin Birth? Here is some of what it said:
Paul never explicitly refers to Jesus’ virgin birth nor does he ever name either Mary or Joseph. What he does affirm is that Jesus pre-existed before his human birth and subsequently gave up his divine glory through his birth as a human being. He writes that Jesus “though existing in the form of God” emptied himself and took on human form, “being made in the likeness of humankind” (Philippians 2:6-7). He says further “though he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor, so that you by his poverty might become rich” (2 Corinthians 8:9). He has to be referring here, metaphorically, to the “riches” of Jesus’ pre-existence with God, since all our sources have Jesus born of a poor peasant family. Paul also writes “In the fullness of time God sent forth his Son, made of a woman . . .” (Galatians 4:4). The implication of these texts is that Jesus’ mother was merely the human receptacle for bringing Jesus into the world. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-d-tabor/did-paul-invent-the-virgin-birth_b_2355278.html
While Dr. Tabor does mention the accounts in Matthew and Luke in his article, he also suggests that Roman mythology may have played a role in the “virgin birth” doctrine.
The Bible, and early writings, clearly support the fact that Jesus was born of a virgin (Mary). And the first suggestion of it precedes the Apostle Paul by centuries.
Was the Virgin Birth Prophesied?
Was Jesus’ birth from a virgin prophesied?
It was if you believe what was written by the prophet Isaiah:
Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel (Isaiah 7:14, NKJV throughout).
According to Matthew’s writings, Jesus fulfilled that prophecy:
9 comments:
TONTO CONFESSES- Disclaimer and Statement of Non Responsibility:
My mother was NOT a virgin when I was begotten or born.
let the mystery be
I have been waiting for Beto Bob to declare he was immaculately conceived in order to be the end time true church leader and witness to the world. He has taken on every imaginable title, and this is about the only one left.
In the Roman world, even famous people adopted adults to be their chosen heirs - even when they had a biological son.
WCG explained this away by saying adoption in Paul's letters really did not mean adoption.
Just like they explained away anything else they disagreed with - like the dead Samuel speaking to Saul.
Of course, as anyone who has checked Matthew's reference knows, Isaiah's Immanuel prophecy continues on in the following verses to mean something very different (and of course the Hebrew text doesn't contain the word for "virgin"). But we don't know "Matthew"'s motives for using that particular quote. Did he only know it in Greek? Did he think it was good enough to lift Isaiah's saying out of context in such a manner? Did he not have ready access to a copy of Isaiah and recited the quote from memory, not knowing the rest of the prophecy?
Thing is, if you pretend for a moment that the whole virgin-birth business never happened, what does it change? Not a lot that I can think of.
Dr Tabor's point is that the Apostle Paul paved the way with his Cosmic Christ in the Heavens and certainly not the Jesus of the later written Gospels.
----------------------------
Confusing. Are there two Jesus' referred to here? Another Jesus - 2Cor 11:4? Paving? Isn't that road construction?
"Dr Tabor's point is that the Apostle Paul paved the way with his Cosmic Christ in the Heavens and certainly not the Jesus of the later written Gospels."
There are those who believe that Mark did not state anywhere that Jesus is God. Dr. Tabor is among them. They do this by diminishing the meaning of the pharse: "The Son of God" which occurs in Mark. But more to the point, Mark invokes Isaiah in Mark 1:2-3. Verse 3 specifically equates Jesus to Yahweh. So Mark in the preface to anything else he writes foreshadows the Cosmic Jesus of Paul.
There's certainly nothing wrong with being a truth seeker. The problem for me comes into play when somebody believes that they have arrived at final destination, truth, claim to be its sole arbiter, and then spend all future research hours looking for quotes that will further drive their conclusion, as opposed to testing and retesting. I never met Dr. Tabor, but from his writings, I believe that he realizes that when he establishes one fact, it raises further questions, and moves forward searching for additional answers. Pseudodoc Thiel's research is simply a proof-texting operation in support of traditional Armstrongite beliefs and traditions. Testing and retesting become an exercise in repeating the proof texts for Bob. Considering new and inconvenient evidence is too much of a hassle for him.
In my previous comment I wrote, "So Mark in the preface to anything else he writes foreshadows the Cosmic Jesus of Paul."
"Foreshadows" is not an appropriate word for this. Paul's undisputed seven epistles were written before Mark. Mark seems to have been written just shortly after the Destruction of the Temple. So the author of Mark was already familiar with the writings of Paul. Mark's writing should then be seen to assume Paul or to build on the writing of Paul. Instead of the word "foreshadows" I should have used "recalls."
Post a Comment