Building a mythic hero

[combatmedic]

Taken from Tim Staples' article:

The Affirmative Argument

Now let’s look at some reasons to believe in Mary’s perpetual virginity. Among the many we could examine, we will briefly consider three:

1. In Luke 1:34, when Mary was told by the angel Gabriel that she was chosen to be the Mother of the Messiah, she asked the question, literally translated from the Greek, "How shall this be since I know not man?" This question makes no sense unless Mary had a vow of virginity.

When we consider that Mary and Joseph were already "espoused," according to verse 27 of this same chapter, we understand Mary and Joseph already have what would be akin to a ratified marriage in the New Covenant. They were married. That would mean Joseph would have had the right to the marriage bed. Normally, after the espousal the husband would go off and prepare a home for his new bride and then come and receive her into his home where the union would be consummated. This is precisely why Joseph intended to "divorce her quietly" (Mt 1:19) when he later discovered she was pregnant.

This background is significant because a newly married woman would not ask the question "How shall this be?" She would know—unless, of course, that woman had taken a vow of virginity. Mary believed the message, but wanted to know how this was going to be accomplished. This indicates she was not planning on the normal course of events for her future with Joseph.

2. In John 19:26, Jesus gave his Mother to the care of John even though by law the next eldest sibling would have the responsibility to care for her. It is unthinkable that Jesus would take his Mother away from his family in disobedience to the law.

Some claim Jesus did this because his brothers and sisters were not there. They had left him. Thus, Jesus committed his Mother to John, who was faithful and present at the foot of the cross. This claim betrays a very low and unbiblical Christology. As John tells us, Jesus "knew all men" (cf. Jn 2:25). If James were his uterine brother, Jesus would have known he would be faithful along with his "brother" Jude. The fact is Jesus had no brothers and sisters, so he had the responsibility, on a human level, to take care of his Mother.

3. Mary is depicted as the spouse of the Holy Spirit in Scripture. In Luke 1:34, when Mary asks the angel how she will conceive a child, the angel responds: "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God."

This is nuptial language hearkening back to Ruth 3:8, where Ruth said to Boaz "spread your skirt over me" when she revealed to him his duty to marry her according to the law of Deuteronomy 25. When Mary became pregnant, Joseph would have been required to divorce her because she would then belong to another (see Dt 24:1-4; Jer 3:1). But when Joseph found out that "the other" was the Holy Spirit, the idea of his having conjugal relations with Mary was not a consideration

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by jason taylor

Evangelicals don't necessarily. That is unfortunately because they play down the scholarship. They are admirable at clothing the naked, visiting the sick, and coming unto the imprisoned, etc but less so at meditating on the Word of God. Few of them know much about the early history of the Church etc.

As a very thoroughly lapsed Southern Baptist (haven't been to worship since I was 7 but I retain some fundamentals) I can tell you that the reason these things are not studied is because of the belief that they are irrelevant if not fallacious.

It's all about that phrase "Have you accepted Jesus as your personal Savior?" which probably sounds odd to many of you. It's the "personal" that's important. It cuts out the whole "Church" (like there was only one and they were it) thing.

Salvation and proper guidance flows directly from the Savior and is not filtered through umpty-ump generations of "Church Fathers" or any current hierarchy claiming investment of special powers and/or authority .

If we were formulating truly rigorous classification schemes many Evangelicals would not just be "Protestants" (opposed to the key leadership and some of the practices of the RCC) but probably something more like "Rejectionists" (rejecting the basic concept including sacred priesthood and Apostolic Succession).

Please note that I am not personally invested in any of this. It does not come close to any of my own personal beliefs. It just seemed to me that some of the people involved in this discussion did not quite grasp the full range of contemporary religious opinions

[combatmedic]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

As a very thoroughly lapsed Southern Baptist (haven't been to worship since I was 7 but I retain some fundamentals) I can tell you that the reason these things are not studied is because of the belief that they are irrelevant if not fallacious.

It's all about that phrase "Have you accepted Jesus as your personal Savior?" which probably sounds odd to many of you. It's the "personal" that's important. It cuts out the whole "Church" (like there was only one and they were it) thing.

Salvation and proper guidance flows directly from the Savior and is not filtered through umpty-ump generations of "Church Fathers" or any current hierarchy claiming investment of special powers and/or authority .

If we were formulating truly rigorous classification schemes many Evangelicals would not just be "Protestants" (opposed to the key leadership and some of the practices of the RCC) but probably something more like "Rejectionists" (rejecting the basic concept including sacred priesthood and Apostolic Succession).

Please note that I am not personally invested in any of this. It does not come close to any of my own personal beliefs. It just seemed to me that some of the people involved in this discussion did not quite grasp the full range of contemporary religious opinions

My mother was raised as a Southern Baptist. My father's family included a mix of denominations, but some were SB (at one point booted out of their local church for continuing in their heathenish ways of making whisky, playing cards, and dancing).


I may not agree with you on the proper answer to the tangential question, but I think your contributions to the discussion are valid and useful.

[combatmedic]

All that being said, I'm afraid I have helped to drive the thread off topic. Please accept my apologies, guys. It's all been quite civil. That's good. But I doubt anyone is likely to alter his opinions based on this tangential discussion, and we are certainly gone off the topic of 'building a mythic hero.' If anyone has further comments or questions about the tangent, I suggest we switch to PM mode.

-Ewan

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by combatmedic

All that being said, I'm afraid I have helped to drive the thread off topic. Please accept my apologies, guys. It's all been quite civil. That's good. But I doubt anyone is likely to alter his opinions based on this tangential discussion, and we are certainly gone off the topic of 'building a mythic hero.' If anyone has further comments or questions about the tangent, I suggest we switch to PM mode.

-Ewan

Your apologies are unnecessary; it was great fun.

[jason taylor]

It is interesting how common "united the tribes" is. Obviously it took place in many real life conquerors, but those are often mythologized anyway.

That would apply to:

Cyrus the Great

Solon the Lawgiver

Temporarily to Attilla(he just died and the huns kind of faded).

Mohammad, most definitely.

Ghenghis Khan.

Bonnie Prince Charlie(subverted)

T.E. Lawrence.

Theodore Herzl(played with)

George Washington

Paul Atreides

Gandalf

[David Johnston2]

The mythic pattern of a hero is that he marries his sister or niece? I don't wanna.

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

The mythic pattern of a hero is that he marries his sister or niece? I don't wanna.

Sometimes he marries a fey. Actually that sounds kind of cool though it doesn't usually seem to work out.

[ak_aramis]

Originally Posted by Hans Rancke-Madsen

Not ignoring. Submitting the opinion that tradition and the writing of the Church Fathers seem to be made up of whole cloth without any support from the Bible.

The bible is not a primary source. The bible we know today is an artifact of Egypt in the 3rd Century. Church tradition, and the writings of the Early Church Fathers, determined which books got accepted. For the most part, it was the Athanasian Canon.

Many of the ECFs were writing before the canon was established.

[Anders]

Right. If we should stick to the first NT canon that would be Marcion, right?