Did God really shout to his son?

[marco]

Matthew tells us:

" And suddenly a voice came from heaven, saying, “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.�


Billions of babies get baptized but the Voice doesn't express delight. I've checked to see if this Voice was heard by any Roman writer of the time but apparently it was a local phenomenon for Christ's pointless ceremony. Sadly nothing concrete was dropped from what is called heaven but I suppose that could have ended in tragedy, for it's one thing for a pigeon to descend on the jubilant Jesus, quite another for a ton of gold to hit him. So all we have is the testimony of unstable Matthew to let us know about this fantastic piece of history.


Can we take the tale as a symbolic tribute to Christ, rather than fact?
Does the Bible lose credibility through Matthew's indulgence in such stories?

[marco]

[Replying to post 1 by marco]


The story of God screaming salutations from the upper air where he sits invisibly is of course embarrassing unless we accord Matthew poetic licence. But one suspects that Matthew meant us to take the tale seriously - and thus it seriously damages Christ's credentials.

It is such a shame that at the moment of Christ's crucifixion the Voice did not holler "What have I done?" Perhaps a figurative interpretation redeems the Redeemer.

[JehovahsWitness]

Matthew tells us:

" And suddenly a voice came from heaven, saying, “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.�


Does the Bible lose credibility through Matthew's indulgence in such stories?

No. Why should it?

[William]

Did God really shout to his son?

I see no evidence in the story which indicates any shouting, or "screaming salutations" happened.
There is nothing to be gained (apart from perhaps venting pent up - unnecessary - frustration) by taking an already fanciful sounding story and adding inflections which are not actually the way the story-line goes...

[marco]

Matthew tells us:

" And suddenly a voice came from heaven, saying, “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.�


Does the Bible lose credibility through Matthew's indulgence in such stories?

No. Why should it?

I think when someone reports fictions as fact then we must assess the whole. Matthew gets carried away with religious fervour and writes imaginatively, even if what he says is entertaining. Of course if we think miracles were two a shekel in that part of the world in that superstitious time then all is well.

[Mithrae]

[Replying to post 4 by William]

On the contrary, our friend once devoted an entire thread to explaining why mockery is sometimes the best form of discourse available. In this case, where there is little to suggest the truth of the story and nothing to indicate its falsehood, it probably is the best that can be offered

[marco]

Did God really shout to his son?

I see no evidence in the story which indicates any shouting, or "screaming salutations" happened.
There is nothing to be gained (apart from perhaps venting pent up - unnecessary - frustration) by taking an already fanciful sounding story and adding inflections which are not actually the way the story-line goes...

Depends where you looked. The King James version will tell you this:

"“And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.�


Transmissions from the sky presumably require a LOUD voice given the absence of mechanical assistance. Ergo shout or scream. Salutation, from the Latin first conjugation verb salutare, to greet, is just a way of saying God greeted people to that announcement. I hope that helps with your appreciation. I think couching a tale in alternative, but similar format, adds to the enjoyment. Don't you? Let me reassure you, lest you worry unduly, that Marco has no "pent up frustrations" in biblical areas. I can't imagine why I would. I can also read about Shylock without tearing my hair out - odd isn't it?

[JehovahsWitness]

I think when someone reports fictions as fact then we must assess the whole.

So do I. Are you suggesting you can prove anything in the account is fiction?



JW

[marco]

On the contrary, our friend once devoted an entire thread to explaining why mockery is sometimes the best form of discourse available. In this case, where there is little to suggest the truth of the story and nothing to indicate its falsehood, it probably is the best that can be offered

A Daniel come to judgment as the much-maligned Shylock said. The money for that stout defence of poor Marco is in the post, my friend. When our eyes and ears are closed to belief, laughter is perhaps all we have left. If God can survive giggles, then he is worthy of his mansions.

[marco]

I think when someone reports fictions as fact then we must assess the whole.

So do I. Are you suggesting you can prove anything in the account is fiction?

Can I prove David really did kill Goliath? That the little boy from whom the fish and bread were taken saw his contribution multiply a thousand fold? That on a clear Middle Eastern day a voice came from the sky speaking in the local dialect in praise of a preacher? What is there to prove? There's a lovely poem by Hodgson about a bull, deposed as herd leader, where the bull is given a dream sequence. He is great again "only in his daft old brain." and only in the equally daft brain of Matthew do voices call from the sky. We need no proof of its fictionality; common sense suffices.