Ancient dieties

[JehovahsWitness]

According to records no less reliable than the Bible, these people were born of virgins too: Romulus, Perseus, Danae, Melanippe, Auge, Antiope, Plato, Mithras, Isis, Hercules, Attis, Osiris, Glycon, Apis, Herodotus, Alexander the great, Augustus, Publis Cornelius Scipio Africanus and Dionysus to name a few.

The above came up in another thread and I got no joy in my request to actually see the records the poster is refering to.

#QUESTION Which records are the above statements based on ?

• NOTE: This is not a thread requestiing comments on the credibility of said records only WHAT these records are and when they originated.
  
  NOTE: This is not a thread requesting comments and conclusions of experts on the relevance of said records, only WHAT those records ARE and when they originated.
  
  NOTE: This is a request for first source: (not Author X or Professor Y or internet movie Z said).
  
  NOTE: This is a note a request for a wiki link.

This is, I believe, a reasonable request to see the first source evidence upon which the above claim is based.

Example of what I'm requesting:

According to the ancient document entitle "XYZ" dating from the 4th century BCE "--- here you may quote the actual words in the document regarding say (example #1): Romulus - saying he was born of a virgin" {end quote}

Regards
JW

[james.hoggatt]

According to records no less reliable than the Bible, these people were born of virgins too: Romulus, Perseus, Danae, Melanippe, Auge, Antiope, Plato, Mithras, Isis, Hercules, Attis, Osiris, Glycon, Apis, Herodotus, Alexander the great, Augustus, Publis Cornelius Scipio Africanus and Dionysus to name a few.

Having looked up a few of these (and reported three above), here my thoughts.

On the one hand, this seems disingenuous. The modus operandi here is basically to mine ancient mythology for any mention of a miraculous birth, call that a "Virgin Birth," and then in that way draw a parallel to the Christian tradition.

Never mind the fact that, in some cases, like Mithras, the figure is not even born of a woman, let alone a virgin. While others, like Isis, Attis, and Osiris, are gods and goddesses, and cannot in that way be called "people." Isis and Osiris in the above list, at any rate, is probably a mistake. Horus (their son) is the one usually cited as "virgin born," although that is stretching the myth beyond all credibility.

On the other hand, there is, as I mentioned in a previous post, a common tradition in Greek and Roman religion of a god (often Zeus) impregnating a mortal woman (often a virgin) in order to create a semi-divine hero.

The closest parallel to this in the Bible is not Jesus' conception, however, but rather the tradition of the Nephilim, now captured in Genesis 6:4:

"The Nephilim were on the earth in those days--and also afterward--when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown."

Later Greek and Roman authors would attribute this same "divine birth" to great figures like Alexander the Great (sorta), Plato, and others, apparently as a kind of honorific tale. These may bear the closest resemblance to the Virgin Birth narratives, but even then it's inexact.

The virgin birth myth is created in error due to a mistranslation. In the Hebrew Issiah text the term used in prophesy is Almah which is used about a dozen times in scripture and always means "young woman" and not virgin. The term for virgin that is used throughout the bible is betulah, and is not associated with the christ prophesy at all. When translating to Greek from Hebrew the error was made and the 'virgin' story carried over.

The mentions of the virgin birth in the New Testament are directly lifted from the Old Testament nearly word for word, and are provided as proof of prophecy. Removing the virgin attribute from the story correctly brings the mythology back in line with the other mythologies of the time, removing the dishonest nature you criticize the criticism of being.

In fact many modern translations have correctly switched back to "Young Woman" as opposed to virgin, including the US Council of Bishops.

Out of respect for the factual documentation that historia contributed I didn't point out that I really was not looking for a thread dedicated to interpretation of those facts only what those FACTS are.

While you are welcome to continue to discuss personal interpretation I would point out my top post in this regard. The reason I'm pointing this out is that I've seen the claims in the top post on numerous occassions and they are very rarely linked to their source, most threads on the subject (as this one is probably destined to be) decend into a smoke screen of opinion were noone actually points out that the intial premise has not been established.

While hijack from the topic to discuss the credibility of the biblical narrative is probably inevitable, I'll remind you that the information being sought is evidence for the claim below.

According to records no less reliable than the Bible, these people were born of virgins too: Romulus, Perseus, Danae, Melanippe, Auge, Antiope, Plato, Mithras, Isis, Hercules, Attis, Osiris, Glycon, Apis, Herodotus, Alexander the great, Augustus, Publis Cornelius Scipio Africanus and Dionysus to name a few.

Sincerely
JW

Facts left to themselves tell stories through inference that are neither factual nor complete. Facts never stand for themselves. There was a subjective air put on the linkage by the previous poster looking to divorce the legitimacy of the link. Its fair game that is in line with the OP.


But to throw you a bone,

Buddha, born of the virgin Maya:

The Digha Nikaya, specificially the Mahapadana Sutta portion of it, describes the virgin birth of Buddha. Written 3rd century BCE.

"Now Vipassi, brethren, when, as Bodhisat, he ceased to belong to the hosts of the heaven of Delight, descended into his mothers womb mindful and self-possessed."

[historia]

Both of the gospel accounts talk of the virgin birth as being prophecies

I assume you mean fulfilling prophecies.

The fact that they use the mistranslation of prophecy as a core part of the storytelling

If Isaiah 7:14 is a "core part of the storytelling" then why does Luke never mention it? In fact, where does Luke say that Jesus' birth fulfills any prophecies?

There is nothing confirming the virginity without the person writing with the assumption that the christ child fulfilled a mistranslated prophecy.

Again, read Luke's account. There is no such assumption there at all.

But, for the sake of argument, if nothing else, let's say that the early Christians invented Mary's virginity solely to fulfill Isaiah 7:14. And, as it turns out, they based that on the Greek translation (the Septuagint) which had the term "virgin," when the Hebrew text of Isaiah really meant "young woman."

So what? Regardless of how the story came about, the accounts we have in Matthew and Luke now say that Mary was a virgin. And so the story as it stands now is about the virgin conception of Jesus.

You seem to be arguing that because the Hebrew of Isaiah meant "young woman" we should somehow retrospectively now see the myths of Jesus birth in the New Testament as not really being "virgin." Are you really making that argument?

[james.hoggatt]

Both of the gospel accounts talk of the virgin birth as being prophecies

I assume you mean fulfilling prophecies.

The fact that they use the mistranslation of prophecy as a core part of the storytelling

If Isaiah 7:14 is a "core part of the storytelling" then why does Luke never mention it? In fact, where does Luke say that Jesus' birth fulfills any prophecies?

There is nothing confirming the virginity without the person writing with the assumption that the christ child fulfilled a mistranslated prophecy.

Again, read Luke's account. There is no such assumption there at all.

But, for the sake of argument, if nothing else, let's say that the early Christians invented Mary's virginity solely to fulfill Isaiah 7:14. And, as it turns out, they based that on the Greek translation (the Septuagint) which had the term "virgin," when the Hebrew text of Isaiah really meant "young woman."

So what? Regardless of how the story came about, the accounts we have in Matthew and Luke now say that Mary was a virgin. And so the story as it stands now is about the virgin conception of Jesus.

You seem to be arguing that because the Hebrew of Isaiah meant "young woman" we should somehow retrospectively now see the myths of Jesus birth in the New Testament as not really being "virgin." Are you really making that argument?

No the argument is that Matthew and Luke use Isaiah as the framework for the story. The framework in the mistranslated version they had access to posited a virgin birth, so the christ framework that was created by the disciples also posits the virgin birth, when in reality the prophecy had absolutely nothing to do with virginity. Luke uses the same source text as Matthew. I can look at look again as well, but I'm pretty sure there is a prophecy notation but I am away from my bibles.

Your version of Jesus sure, however; the community is divorcing the importance of the virgin birth from the text in order to solidify the prophecy. On the other side, most other people are thinking the prophecy has nothing to do with it.

Yes. We should reject the attachment of virgin to the story.

[historia]

No the argument is that Matthew and Luke use Isaiah as the framework for the story.

You seem to be operating under the assumption that there is some kind of full-blown account of how the messiah is to be born in Isaiah, and that Matthew and Luke "directly lifted" "nearly word for word" from this account to make their own stories.

Is that what you believe? Have you actually read Isaiah?

Now, it is obviously the case that Matthew sees Mary's virginity as the fulfillment of one verse in Isaiah. He also makes references to Micah, Jeremiah, and other Old Testament texts in his birth narrative. None of these books are "frameworks" for the story, however.

The framework in the mistranslated version they had access to posited a virgin birth, so the christ framework that was created by the disciples also posits the virgin birth, when in reality the prophecy had absolutely nothing to do with virginity.

Again, even if we accept this as true, so what? You realize, regardless of how the story of Jesus' birth came about, the actual birth stories we have now in Matthew and Luke say that Mary was a virgin. Period.

Are you honestly saying that they don't say that?

"'How will this be,' Mary asked the angel, 'since I am a virgin?' (Luke 1:34). The Greek here is literally "know not a man." All translations say this. It is not a mistranslation of anything.

Luke uses the same source text as Matthew.

Here as elsewhere I believe you are simply confused. But, by all means, tell us what this "source text" is.

I can look at look again as well, but I'm pretty sure there is a prophecy notation but I am away from my bibles.

I assume you've had time to read Luke's account and now realize there is no reference to Isaiah.

the community is divorcing the importance of the virgin birth from the text in order to solidify the prophecy. On the other side, most other people are thinking the prophecy has nothing to do with it.

What "community" is "divorcing the importance of the virgin birth from the text in order to solidify the prophecy"? That is absurd. Where in the world do you get this idea?

There are certainly (liberal) scholars who believe that the accounts we have of Jesus' birth in Matthew and Luke are legendary. But they all agree that the text says that Mary was a virgin. How could they not? This is why it is called the Virgin Birth!

And that is ultimately what I am talking about. What the text actually says now. Not how it came about, not what anyone today thinks about it. What the story actually says. This whole tangent about Isaiah is irrelevant to what the Christian text says today, or anything else in this thread.

[historia]

Out of respect for the factual documentation that historia contributed I didn't point out that I really was not looking for a thread dedicated to interpretation of those facts only what those FACTS are.

Allow me to do some penance to make-up for this.

Romulus

From Livy, History of Rome, about 25 BC:

The Vestal [who was sworn to remain a virgin] was forcibly violated and gave birth to twins [Romulus and Remas]. She named Mars as their father, either because she really believed it, or because the fault might appear less heinous if a deity were the cause of it. But neither gods nor men sheltered her or her babes from the king's cruelty; the priestess was thrown into prison, the boys were ordered to be thrown into the river.

http://perseus.uchicago.edu/perseus-cgi ... Liv.%201.4

[historia]

Augustus

From Suetonius, The Twelve Caesars, 121 AD.

I have read the following story in the books of Asclepias of Mendes entitled Theologamena. When Atia had come in the middle of the night to the solemn service of Apollo, she had her litter set down in the temple and fell asleep, while the rest of the matrons also slept. On a sudden a serpent glided up to her and shortly went away. When she awoke, she purified herself, as if after the embraces of her husband, and at once there appeared on her body a mark in colours like a serpent, and she could never get rid of it; so that presently she ceased ever to go to the public baths.

In the tenth month after that Augustus was born and was therefore regarded as the son of Apollo.

http://www.third-millennium-library.com ... us/18.html

(Sorry, the best link I could find for this, I assume it is accurate.)

[james.hoggatt]

No the argument is that Matthew and Luke use Isaiah as the framework for the story.

You seem to be operating under the assumption that there is some kind of full-blown account of how the messiah is to be born in Isaiah, and that Matthew and Luke "directly lifted" "nearly word for word" from this account to make their own stories.

Is that what you believe? Have you actually read Isaiah?

Now, it is obviously the case that Matthew sees Mary's virginity as the fulfillment of one verse in Isaiah. He also makes references to Micah, Jeremiah, and other Old Testament texts in his birth narrative. None of these books are "frameworks" for the story, however.

The framework in the mistranslated version they had access to posited a virgin birth, so the christ framework that was created by the disciples also posits the virgin birth, when in reality the prophecy had absolutely nothing to do with virginity.

Again, even if we accept this as true, so what? You realize, regardless of how the story of Jesus' birth came about, the actual birth stories we have now in Matthew and Luke say that Mary was a virgin. Period.

Are you honestly saying that they don't say that?

"'How will this be,' Mary asked the angel, 'since I am a virgin?' (Luke 1:34). The Greek here is literally "know not a man." All translations say this. It is not a mistranslation of anything.

Luke uses the same source text as Matthew.

Here as elsewhere I believe you are simply confused. But, by all means, tell us what this "source text" is.

I can look at look again as well, but I'm pretty sure there is a prophecy notation but I am away from my bibles.

I assume you've had time to read Luke's account and now realize there is no reference to Isaiah.

the community is divorcing the importance of the virgin birth from the text in order to solidify the prophecy. On the other side, most other people are thinking the prophecy has nothing to do with it.

What "community" is "divorcing the importance of the virgin birth from the text in order to solidify the prophecy"? That is absurd. Where in the world do you get this idea?

There are certainly (liberal) scholars who believe that the accounts we have of Jesus' birth in Matthew and Luke are legendary. But they all agree that the text says that Mary was a virgin. How could they not? This is why it is called the Virgin Birth!

And that is ultimately what I am talking about. What the text actually says now. Not how it came about, not what anyone today thinks about it. What the story actually says. This whole tangent about Isaiah is irrelevant to what the Christian text says today, or anything else in this thread.

From the top,

I have certainly read Isaiah, and the majority of prophecy comes from that particular book. The quote from Matthew affirms the mistranslation being put into the text, as the only reference to a virgin in prophecy is the incorrectly translated line in Isaiah. For the virgin portion to fulfill prophecy, the lift must have occurred. Plus you have the fact that Matthew switches to a different linguistic style for those two lines, reinforcing the lift. You've done nothing to prove this isn't true. The mere fact that they are using a mistranslated portion of text to prove the divinity brings the story into suspect in its entirety.

Sure, Luke uses the greek term for virgin, however; the reason he uses it is to bring it into line with prophecy, especially since Luke and Matthew use the same source text for the story.

Matthew and Luke both use Mark to write their texts, and then use another common source commonly referred to as Q. This is the overwhelming consensus amount biblical scholars. This is basic biblical history stuff.

Council of Bishops, several new prints of the bible remove the link between virgin etc. You apparently aren't very in tune with the community at large.

If there is evidence the gospel writers used prophecy as their guide for the narrative, then we have to call it into question as history and instead view it as storytelling, as a lot hinges on Mary being a virgin in prophecy for christians.

[historia]

I have certainly read Isaiah, and the majority of prophecy comes from that particular book.

Indeed, the New Testament authors quote Isaiah quite a bit. But merely quoting from Isaiah is not the same thing as Luke and Matthew using Isaiah as the "framework for their stories." Where is the evidence for that?

the only reference to a virgin in prophecy is the incorrectly translated line in Isaiah.

If by this you mean the Greek translation of Isaiah uses the term "virgin" when the original Hebrew version merely says "young women," then we agree.

For the virgin portion to fulfill prophecy, the lift must have occurred.

If by this you mean that, for Matthew to use Isaiah 7:14 as a prophecy of Mary's virginity, he has to use the Greek translation that says "virgin" instead of the Hebrew text that says "young woman," then, yes, we agree.

You've done nothing to prove this isn't true.

Why would I? We agree on the above points.

The mere fact that they are using a mistranslated portion of text to prove the divinity brings the story into suspect in its entirety.

Matthew doesn't quote Isaiah to "prove" anything. He says that Mary being a virgin fulfills his (Greek translation of) Isaiah 7:14.

Sure, Luke uses the greek term for virgin, however; the reason he uses it is to bring it into line with prophecy,

How could you possibly know Luke's reason for saying Mary was a virgin?

The fact Luke doesn't make an explicit reference to Isaiah here is probably good reason to believe he is unfamiliar with Matthew's reference to Isaiah. In fact, it's entirely possible that Luke wrote his gospel before Matthew.

especially since Luke and Matthew use the same source text for the story.

What is this "same source text for the story"?

Matthew and Luke both use Mark to write their texts, and then use another common source commonly referred to as Q. This is the overwhelming consensus amount biblical scholars. This is basic biblical history stuff.

Yup. But here is where you are confused:

Neither Mark nor Q contain any material about Jesus' birth. Matthew and Luke use Mark and Q as sources for other parts of their gospels. But not for their birth narratives.

Rather, it is the "overwhelming consensus amount biblical scholars" that Luke and Matthew use different sources for their accounts of Jesus' birth (scholars call these L and M, respectively), which are completely independent of each other.

But you don't have to take my word (or those of scholars) for it. Simply read Luke and Matthew's birth narratives. They are completely different in almost every respect. It is obvious to even the casual reader that they are not based on the same source.

Council of Bishops, several new prints of the bible remove the link between virgin etc. You apparently aren't very in tune with the community at large.

Virtually all modern bibles translate Isaiah 7:14 as "young woman."

But how does that in any way now mean that Christians are "divorcing the importance of the virgin birth from the text in order to solidify the prophecy"?

What Christians are saying this? If you can't name sources for this claim, I have to conclude, again, that you are you simply confused.

If there is evidence the gospel writers used prophecy as their guide for the narrative, then we have to call it into question as history and instead view it as storytelling

Okay. But what does this, or any of your comments above, have to do with the topic of this thread or my comments in it?

No one here -- least of all me -- is trying to prove the historicity of the gospel accounts.