Malice Unlimited
Luke's Testimony : Part 3

Luke's Testimony : Part 2

...Continued from Part 1

Elizabeth, the wife of Zacharias, had been regarded as barren but had conceived a child and was six months pregnant when the angel appeared to Mary.

"Now in (Elizabeth's) sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee named Nazareth.

To a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David, and the virgin's name was Mary.

And he came in unto her, and said, Hail thou art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee.
But she was greatly troubled at the saying and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this might be, and the angel said unto her,

Fear not Mary for thou hast found favour with God: And behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb and bring forth a son and shall call his name Jesus.

He shall be great and shall be called the Son of the Most High. And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever, and of his kingdom there shall be no end." (1:32-33)"

At first, we are told that Mary could not understand the angel's greeting for, unlike Zacharias, she had made no supplication to God. She was nevertheless informed that she had found favour. Luke testifies that, at this time, Mary was still a virgin. However, it is of critical importance to realise that there had, as yet, been no conception.

That Jesus was not conceived until some indeterminate time AFTER the angel's departure is confirmed in 2:21.

"When eight days were fulfulled for circumcising him, his name was called Jesus, which was so called by the angel BEFORE he was conceived in the womb."

Luke, writing these words to Theophilus, having no personal knowledge but having traced the course of all things accurately from the first (1:3) nevertheless was able to specify a time in which the conception took place. Had it been a virgin conception, he could not have been so specific.

There was an occasion when, at the age of 12, Jesus strayed from his parents and was found three days later talking to the teachers in the Jerusalem Temple.

"And when they saw him they were astonished; and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? Behold, thy father and I sought thee sorrowing.

And he said unto them. Knew ye not that I must be in my father's house? AND THEY UNDERSTOOD NOT THE SAYING WHICH HE SPOKE UNTO THEM." (Luke 2:48-50)

Thus, Mary, who supposedly had undergone a virgin conception, did not know what Jesus was talking about when he called YHWH his father. Perhaps because the early church was male-dominated, it seems to have completely escaped attention that Mary was the ONLY person who could possibly know the truth!

to be continued...

Comments

Christopher Culver

"When Gabriel told Mary of the future greatness of her offspring, he did not tell her, as is commonly supposed, that the child would be the 'Son of God', but promised that he would be called the 'Son of God'."

Do you know no Greek at all? Kaleo means not only "to call" or "to give a name to", but also "to address as". That the Church has always interpreted this in the sense that Christians are acknowledging Jesus' divinity, not just claiming him to be divine, is perfectly reasonable.

If all of your arguments are going to be based on English translations of the Bible, no one will take you seriously.

vynette

Christopher,

Thank you for your comment.

It does not, however, address the thrust of my argument. The semantic range of 'kaleo' is not the issue here. The issue is that others besides Jesus are 'called', 'addressed', or 'named' as 'sons of God'.

The term 'son of God' is NOT EXCLUSIVE to Jesus and, regardless of the churches' interpretation of it, cannot be used to acknowledge, claim, or ascribe 'divinity' to Jesus of Nazareth.

Another point I am making is that, in contrast to Gabriel's statement that Jesus would 'kaleo' the son of God, Jesus said others would 'esomai' the sons of God - a more intimate relationship.

Finally, it matters not one whit to me whether 'scholars' take me seriously or not. My responsibility is to 'prove all things'. What others choose to do with the information is their responsibility.

Christopher Culver

"The term 'son of God' is NOT EXCLUSIVE to Jesus and, regardless of the churches' interpretation of it, cannot be used to acknowledge, claim, or ascribe 'divinity' to Jesus of Nazareth."

Of course the term can be used in such a way. Regardless of whether Jesus is actually divine, it is still semantically possible to claim he is divine. You seem to know little of linguistics either.

"Finally, it matters not one whit to me whether 'scholars' take me seriously or not. My responsibility is to 'prove all things'. What others choose to do with the information is their responsibility."

If you are out to make an impression on people, and that's why one runs a blog, the best way is to NOT make nonsensical arguments.

vynette

Christopher

Jesus of Nazareth was despised by the religious establishment in Jerusalem because he did not belong to their 'select' community of scholars. I therefore feel myself to be in good company. Jesus also did not indulge in theological quibbling, he did not 'strain at a gnat and swallow a camel'.

I have stated elsewhere on this blog that I won't descend into theological minutiae but will concentrate on the big issues, the larger perspectives. Issues that can be readily understood by ordinary Christian folk.

Also, again, it is not my aim to convince or attract. It merely my responsibility to place these matters on PUBLIC RECORD.

JohnO

"When Gabriel told Mary of the future greatness of her offspring, he did not tell her, as is commonly supposed, that the child would be the 'Son of God', but promised that he would be called the 'Son of God'." -
This paragraph is absolutely meaningless and destroys any meaning of the text in Luke.

To be "called the son of God" means that you are the son of God. Otherwise he is wrongly being called the son of God. Do you wish to make that claim?

Of course "son of God" is not exclusive to Jesus - but that doesn't help any of your lines of logic here.

vynette

John,

I am merely pointing out that THIS PARTICULAR VERSE does not justify any claims about virgin-birth as others were also CALLED the sons of God.

Note when Jesus was declared to be the Son of God thus confirming the claims made during his lifetime.

"God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee."(Acts 13:33)

"concerning his Son, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh, who was declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead..." (Rom 1:3-4)

The comments to this entry are closed.