aa5874

This is your post #65

Your claim is erroneous.

Mt 1:18 - Mt 1:20 Once gMatthew is considered EARLIER than gLuke and gJohn then the teaching that Jesus was the offspring of Holy Ghost is likely to be EARLIER than any teaching about the origin of Jesus as found in gLuke or gJohn.

You seem not to understand that gMatthew, gLuke and gJohn were most likely NOT written simultaneously and that gMatthew's birth narrative is considered EARLIER than gLuke or gJohn.

Jonathon Wilder

Look, even if it is earlier (which I feel cannot be made to be certain), that don't not mean it is free of errors. You MUST look at the scriptures in the light of all other passages, and NOT just those two sentences. It it like the scripture that seems to say the God gave Saul an evil spirit, which is considered a mistranslation, as God can't give anyone an evil spirit.

aa5874

Well, if you are NOT certain about gMatthew 1.18 and 1.20 then how can you be sure about other passages?

You have made an erroneous claim that the Gospels did not teach that Jesus was the offspring of the Holy Ghost and have failed to admit your error even when confronted with the evidence itself.

Matt 1.18 .............. "she was found with child of the Holy Ghost".

Matt 1.20 ....."that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost".

Jonathon Wilder

Look, I am not mistaken. The scritures teach that Jesus if the offspring of God. You are picking only two scriptures and ignoring everything else. You MUST look at it as a whole.

Keith&Co.

How would that help?
What sort of scriptural verse could change the contents of THOSE verses to mean something other than what they say?
I mean, i love the apologist reflex of shouting 'context' and wanting us only to pay attention to the verses that say what the apologist thinks the reader should take away from the litany, but you're going nutsy fagin, here.
How do you deal with these two verses if you must accept the entire The Books as being useful material to understand God's Word? Other than reading conflicting verses, that is, and ignoring these?

driver8

Is god aware of this limitation you have imposed upon her?

aa5874

Well, it is simply that you cannot admit your mistakes.

I can only EXPOSE your mistakes.

Jonathon Wilder

Do you have any other scriptures that say such, as they are the only one I see? Yet how many OTHER scriptures say otherwise?

Failte

So, which verses are wrong? They contradict each other -- thus, one set of them cannot be right. Since 'god the father' and 'god as jesus' and 'god the holy spirit' are all spoken of as distinct entities (and I'm not even going to go into the whole trinity weirdness), the writers of the gospels should have been consistent, at the very least.

You were taught that jesus is the son of god, but the bible explicitly says otherwise, unless you start bending the meaning of holy spirit to mean something else (something apologists often do). Son of god, but -- like many other mythologies before -- the holy spirit did the actual impregnating. I wonder if he did it in a shower of gold, or perhaps a swan. Doesn't mormon doctrine say that god physically had sex with Mary to conceive jesus? it's not what the bible says, of course - so is the bible just wrong?

Jonathon Wilder

I can sense some Greek Mythology in their. :Cheeky: