AshvinP wrote: ↑Mon May 22, 2023 3:51 pm Here is a simple example - that of the 'virgin birth'. The evangelicals dogmatically hold that the Bible teaches Mary was impregnated by the Holy Spirit and Joseph had nothing to do with conception of the Jesus child. Yet when we look at the actual content of the Gospels, particularly Luke and Matthew, we find geanologies traced out in great detail for the precise purpose of showing how the lineages of Jesus go through Jospeh (and another father, since there were in fact two Jesus children to begin with). What would be the point of all that if Joseph actually had nothing to do with the birth of Jesus? We don't need clairvoyant perception here, just simple and sound reasoning. Do the critical scholars fare any better? No, they hold to the exact same dogmatic interpretation and then use that as a reason for dismissing the content, because it is absurd that a human child could be physically born without a human father. So the evangelicals and critical scholars are arguing over their own dogmatic illusions and the actual content has fallen by the wayside. We will find the same thing applies to many other aspects of scripture as well.
FYI, I found a great passage from Robert Powell explicating the difference between the genealogies which supported Steiner's observation of two Jesus children. Just think of how 'heretical' such an assertion is for both evangelicals and the skeptical Biblical scholarship. But, as we can see below, all it takes in this case is ordinary reasoning which has suspended adherence to pre-conceived dogma and has developed a living interest in penetrating beneath the surface. Then we can continue following the threads of our own independent reasoning ever-deeper, free from the rigid traditions on both sides. And if that doesn't happen, then there will instead be endless rationalizations to hand-wave away what is otherwise staring us in the face.
Powell wrote:Now, in Rudolf Steiner’s description, he points to Jesus of Nazareth as descended from the line of Nathan, going back to King David. King David had many sons, and Nathan was the third son of David and Bathsheba. The genealogical line of Jesus of Nazareth is described in the Gospel of St. Luke, where Jesus of Nazareth can be traced back to Nathan.
Rudolf Steiner was one of the first to notice something in connection with this genealogy and he was the first to explain its significance in a deeper sense. It had been noticed by a others previously, but no one had been able to explain it adequately. The central point here is that in the Gospel of St. Matthew there is a different genealogy of Jesus, which, although also going back to King David, does so via his son Solomon, the most well-known son of David, who later became king of Israel. Solomon was the fourth son of David and Bathsheba—that is, he as the younger brother of Nathan.
Rudolf Steiner referred to this Jesus child, whose birh is described in the Gospel of St. Matthew, as the Solomon Jesus, whereas the Jesus child of the Gospel of St. Luke he referred to as the Nathan Jesus. The circumstances depicted in the Gospels surrounding the births of the two Jesus children are quite different. In the case of the Solomon Jesus child, he is born in his parental home—in a house in Bethlehem—and he is visited by the three magi. Whereas the parents of the Nathan Jesus come from their home in Nazareth to Bethlehem, where the child is born in a cave there and is visited by the shepherds. By way of analogy with the three magi—three because of the gifts: gold, frankincense, and myrrh—it is often assumed that there were three shepherds, although the number is not specified in the Gospel (Luke 2:8-20).
Thus, the genealogies and the circumstances of their births, described in the Gospels, are quite different. As Rudolf Steiner points out, these births took place at different points in time. In relation to the birth of the Solomon Jesus child we read in the Gospel of St. Matthew of the slaughter of the innocents in Bethlehem—all male children less than two years of age were murdered at the command of King Herod the Great, whose goal was to have the Solomon Jesus child slaughtered, the birth of whom he had learned of from the three magi.
Rudolf Steiner indicates that the birth of the Nathan Jesus child must have taken place some time after that horrific event, which, because of the time that had subsequently elapsed, had consequently become more or less forgotten. Otherwise, Joseph and Mary, who was at an advanced stage of her pregnancy, would certainly not have made the journey from Nazareth to Bethlehem, if the murderous event ordered by King Herod had taken place only a short time before.