A historical precedent is the fulfilment of Daniel's "Abomination of Desolation" prophecy by Antiochus Epiphanes, recorded in 1Macc.1:54, where it is plainly identified as the "AoD". The corresponding Scriptural precedent is in Mt.24:15 & Mk.13:14, where Yahshua says "when you see the 'AoD' spoken of by Daniel ... let them in Judea flee...". It seems clear to me that the "AoD" referred to by Yahshua was still future. Hence the "duality".eriqbenel wrote:My contention regarding the "dual prophetic" notion of Yeshayahu and Matthew is:
1. There is no Scriptural precedent
2. There is no historical precedent
One might wish for that, but then how many times does the Holy Spirit need to inspire a writing to make it true. YHWH doesn't need 2-3 witnesses, only 1, but in this case He was most gracious and gave us 2.eriqbenel wrote:I will list my contentions in short burst to avoid a long post.
1. With such a outstandingly miraculous event that marked the entrance of the long awaited Messiah into the world, SURELY gospels and other epistles written 40 to 50 years PRIOR to Mattiyahu and Luke would have incorporated this event.
I can't address this, because i don't know who "Q" was. Or wasn't he that immortal dude that gave Captain Picard such a hard time?2. The writer(s) of the Gospel of Q, circa 50 CE, seem to have been unaware of the virgin birth.
No, Paul actually did mention it at least once:3. Paul (who was executed about 64 CE) was similarly unaware.
Ga 4:4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law.
Note the unusual word "made" as opposed to just "born" - IOW, no man involved. Cp. Gen.3:15.
Are you a mind-reader? What makes you think Mark hadn't heard of it? See endnote.4. The writer of the Gospel of Mark, circa 70 CE hadn't heard of it either.
The prophecy of a virgin birth was written in the stars (Gen.1:14-16) before Adam was created. The counterfeits were developed by pagans who understood this but perverted it to fit their own brand of religion.5. Sometime between 70 and 90 CE, a myth of the virgin birth was invented, probably to strengthen the authority of Messiah's teachings by claiming that his birth was miraculous. This was a time of great change, as the Roman Army had demolished Jerusalem and its temples and scattered many of the Jews throughout the Roman empire. There, they would come into contact with many stories of virgin births of various politicians and deities from Pagan religions. In fact, it would have been unusual if the developing story of Messiah's birth did NOT include many of the features found in mythical figures of other religions.
Of course they did, because the HS inspired them to include it.6. By the 90's, the belief was widespread. The authors of Luke and Matthew incorporated it into their Gospels.
More speculation. How do you know this? Are you a mind-reader? Never mind, i already asked that. What makes you think John rejected it? See endnote.7. The writer(s) of the Gospel of Yochanon likely knew of the story, but rejected it as being a false teaching that was not believed by their faith group.
See Gen.3:15, and my reply to #9.8. There is no Scriptural precedent
Yahshua is referred to 6 times as YHWH's uniquely begotten (Grk. monogenes) Son. If there had been a historical precedent, it wouldn't have been "unique". There's no "precedent" for Gen.1:1 either - another "unique" event.9. There is no historical precedent, prior to it being written in Matthew and Luke.
ENDNOTE: You seem to make a big deal out of the fact that Mark & John didn't mention the "virgin birth", therefore it didn't happen. Well, they don't mention His birth at all, therefore He wasn't born, according to your logic. The answer is quite simple. Why are there 4 Gospels? Because each Gospel emphasized a particular aspect of Yahshua's life & character & purpose.
Matt. presents Him as King of Israel, and a king's genealogy & birth is very important, going back through David (the unending Throne), Judah (the Sceptre shall not depart), and Abraham (kings from his loins).
Mark presents Him as YHWH's Servant, and a servant's genealogy & birth are irrelevant.
Luke presents Him as Human - Son of Adam - hence His Genealogy goes all the way back to Adam.
John presents Him as Son of YHWH, and as such the details of His human birth aren't that important, summaraized simply by "the Word became flesh and dwelt among us".
Obviously Mark & John didn't think He just "appeared" suddenly as a 30-year-old man. They knew that He was born, and no doubt they knew the details (now i'm the mind-reader
); but the details just weren't paramount to their specific purpose. To be honest, i think i would have included it in John, but the HS deemed otherwise.