Ron

I am going to assume that since you gave up your original incarnation as "penatis" you have forgotten everything you and I discussed in the past. Therefore, I will refresh your memory, and invite you to reread our threads on this exact subject again.

I'm certainly not interested in getting into yet another tail chase in which I am the one offering evidence, and you continue to dodge and weave.

Quite frankly the post I am most interested in from you right now, is on the dating of P46. I am still waiting for your evidence, but I will be patient. What I have noticed, however, is that old habits die hard for you, and your willingness to actually back up your assertions, if anything, is getting worse.

So, here are the threads where Ron/rodahi/penatis and I discussed why I believe the virgin birth stories about Jesus:

Refutation of Nomad Especially pages 4 and 5.

Theological Contradiction

The Mark’s Brothers

As for THIS thread, I am going to assume that you have no evidence to support the assertions in the Talmud regarding Jesus parentage. Otherwise you would have posted it by now right? As it stands, I am content to hear you say that you do not know who Jesus' father is.

Nomad

P.S. Why did you forget to include the possibility that Joseph was Jesus' father in your original list of possibe fathers of Jesus? You never did tell me.

[This message has been edited by Nomad (edited May 06, 2001).]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nomad:
Ron

I am going to assume that since you gave up your original incarnation as "penatis" you have forgotten everything you and I discussed in the past. Therefore, I will refresh your memory, and invite you to reread our threads on this exact subject again.

I'm certainly not interested in getting into yet another tail chase in which I am the one offering evidence, and you continue to dodge and weave.

Quite frankly the post I am most interested in from you right now, is on the dating of P46. I am still waiting for your evidence, but I will be patient. What I have noticed, however, is that old habits die hard for you, and your willingness to actually back up your assertions, if anything, is getting worse.

So, here are the threads where Ron/rodahi/penatis and I discussed why I believe the virgin birth stories about Jesus:

Refutation of Nomad Especially pages 4 and 5.

Theological Contradiction

The Mark’s Brothers

As for THIS thread, I am going to assume that you have no evidence to support the assertions in the Talmud regarding Jesus parentage. Otherwise you would have posted it by now right? As it stands, I am content to hear you say that you do not know who Jesus' father is.

Nomad

P.S. Why did you forget to include the possibility that Joseph was Jesus' father in your original list of possibe fathers of Jesus? You never did tell me.

Once again, Nomad. I challenge you to quote the source you are using to support your belief that Jesus was conceived and born in any way but the natural way. I am not interested in looking at links. Just produce the quote for all to see right here.

rodahi

Sorry for the delay... I've been extremely busy this last week and may also be busy for a couple more weeks - so don't anyone be surprised if I don't reply promptly.
Josh McDowell's trilemma? Does he use it, does he? -I'm never read any of his books. The trilemma certainly predates Josh McDowell by a fair margin.
As far as it goes I think it is an extremely useful argument under certain circumstances. If you want to be logically rigourous about it, it is actually a hexlemma:
Jesus never existed, Jesus never claimed to be [the Son of] God, Jesus was lying when he did, Jesus was mistaken when he did, Jesus was correct when he did, or Jesus was a New Age or equivalent and taught that "we all are God".
If you accept that Jesus did claim to be God or the son of God and are prepared to discount the New Age possibility without serious consideration then you end up with the traditional Trilemma.

Oh yes, with regard to Mohammed, I simply don't know enough about him to make a judgement.

[This message has been edited by Tercel (edited May 07, 2001).]

Of course. Jesus having never said it is a viable option not included in the Trilemma - see my above post. I find that this option is the usual choice of an educated atheist. -Which I personally find very interesting since in my opinion this is one of the more unbelievable options given the huge weight of attestation of Jesus' claims to divinity - Celsus included .

Of course it's occured to me. But please consider this: If Jesus was conceived illegitimately what would have happened? If there were public rumours of his illegitimacy circulating then it seems more likely to me that the Christians would outrightly deny such claims and assert that Joseph was his father, than that they would compose a story where in fact Joseph was not the father but Jesus was supposedly impregnated by God. After all if the Church realised such a story it would be instantly obvious to the world that the birth was illegitimate and that the Church was just covering itself.
But also the Gospels give no hint of the illegitimacy of Jesus being public knowledge - Joseph decides to keep the whole thing as quite as possible.
I find it far more palatable to completely ignore the idea of Jesus being illegitimate and compare the idea of Joseph being Jesus' father with the possibility of a Virgin Birth. I think the Virgin Birth if false is more likely to have come from immitation of ancient stories of Gods impregnating morals and Jesus claiming to be the 'Son of God' than from a cheap cover story for a rumoured illegitimacy.

If you really want a rebuttal of the theory of illegitimacy then I suggest you consult pg 222-229 of the book by your favourite unbiased Catholic scholar who athiests can all trust. Am I wrong to think that the entire reason for this thread was you reading that section of A Marginal Jew in the first place? Or is it coming from your favourite "Jesus was actually a Jewish Magician" book?

Layman seems to think he does, and I think Layman's point is reasonable. If you want to disagree and dispute it with him I'm sure he'll be more than happy to tell you why you're wrong when he has time. Paul and the Birth of Jesus

I would agree that the writer of Revelation understands that King of Kings and Lord of Lords refers to God as does the writer of Timothy and Enoch. But I think you're talking rubbish when you say these words are magical.
This would seem to me to be the obvious, and indeed the only sensible interpretation of this passage of Revelation: When the writer sees "King of Kings and Lord of Lords" on Jesus' robe he understands that it is an assertion of the deity of Jesus - Jesus is the King of Kings and Lord of Lords, ie God.

Oh look I can quote a back up of my opinion too:
Tyndale New Testament Commentries: The Epistle of Paul to the Galations. At the end of an over two page discussion on this one verse it concludes that :
"... he [Paul] is deliberately classifying Jewish circumcision with these other gashes and marks [what you've just described above as the meaning of stigma]. It is daring, but verse 12 (taken with Philippians iii:2) shows that Paul was perfectly capable of such an identification. We could then paraphrase: 'You want me to bear ritual cuts and gashes, do you? I bear such scars already, but they are those that mark me out as Christ's man.'"
You need to understand the context properly: Paul's letter to the Galations is mostly a large rant against circumcision - so it's hardly suprising when he ends his letter by telling the agitators of the Church of Galatia not to make anymore trouble for him and then likens circumcision to a brand in a derrogatory fashion and claims he also has such bodily marks which show him to be a servant of Jesus.
The scars and other marks Paul had received by being stoned, flogged or tortured for preaching the gospel must surely remain the most likely candidate for these marks which show his servitude to Jesus.

Also earlier in his letter to the Galations, Paul condemns witchcraft/sorcery/magic or however you want to translate it in 5:20. This is perfectly in line with Jewish tradition which regarded magic in an extremely bad light. Apart from the obvious question of why Paul who was a great apostle of someone who according to you did magic would condemn it as a sin, there also question of why Paul who believes magic to be a sin and has said so would later in the same letter! claim protection because of magical markings.

-Tercel

Also earlier in his letter to the Galations, Paul condemns witchcraft/sorcery/magic or however you want to translate it in 5:20. This is perfectly in line with Jewish tradition which regarded magic in an extremely bad light.
-Tercel

There have been a couple of threads recently on the extensive use of magic in jewish antiquity.

=One of those "other" jewish miracle workers was started by Layman, who was obviously unaware of the extensive magic traditions of the Jews.

The other is Twice Cured in Mark.

Here is a cite from a site on it from that thread:

"Convincing recent scholarship, however, contends that even in biblical times, healing practices involving magical spells, incantations, and exorcisms had found considerable expression. This was especially true in those Jewish communities influenced by Egyptian, Midianite or Roman culture, as Numbers, Isaiah, 2 Chronicles, Ezekiel, and 2 Kings attest.7 The book of Numbers documents Moses fashioning an image (later destroyed by King Hezekiah) known to magically heal serpent bites.8 I Kings, as well as Josephus, depict Solomon as a magician who could repel demons with his incantations, although the Mishnah records Hezekiah's suppression of this "Book of Cures," given its use as a substitute for prayer.9 The Apocrypha also documented folk medicine practices featuring the angel Raphael, who brought health and healing in the name of God.10 According to Philo and Josephus, the Essenes were particularly interested in physical and spiritual healing. The community at Qumran embellished the story of Abraham's healing of Abimelech, while the Dead Sea Scrolls record Abraham healing on behalf of the pharaoh by expelling a plague caused by a demon.11"

Obviously the jews did not regard magic in a bad light.

In both threads I put up links to interesting sites on magic in antiquity. Jewish magic combined practices from other cultures, and the healing magic that Jesus practiced seems to be closely related to it.

Michael