On Apr 8, 2005 10:16 AM, Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Raymond Brown, in the "Birth of The Messiah" argues that this is a > reasonable scenario. He discusses the theological reasons for including > virgin birth in the infancy narratives...and thinks that they are not very > convincing. There's other bits of evidence in scripture, like Jesus being > called "the son of Mary" instead of "the son of Joseph" in Nazareth. He > argues that there might have been some irregularities in the timing of the > birth of Jesus. The obvious way for this to be possible, still allowing > for Mary and Joseph to be honorable within their culture, is for Mary and > Joseph to be fooling around after their betrothal but before "he took her > into his home." According to Brown, this sort of activity for people who > are betrothed was probably within social norms. > > Before I end this, I should do justice to Brown...in that he argued that > Jesus' birth was probably somewhat irregular...with this as one possible > explanation. Given the presence of Jesus' family in the early Christian > church, it is reasonable to assume that some knowledge of the circumstances > of his birth existed as the oral infant narratives were developed. Since it > is probable that the Septuagint was the scripture used by the early church > (it is multiply quoted after all) it would be reasonable to think that this > passage would be related to Jesus by his followers. > > Dan M. And even more reasonable to think the collaters and writers and mythmakers of the Gospels merely drew on the long tradition of Middle Eastern 'virgin births' origins of various heroes and stong men, and used it for Jesus.
~Maru _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
