Amaleq13

Repeating your beliefs over and over does not constitute participating in a discussion.

Refusing to support your assertions does not constitute participating in a discussion.

For example, can you explain how you eliminated possibility 3 as you reached your conclusion?

aa5874

The entire NT is a fairy tale, it is based on the son of a ghost. That eliminates possibility 3.

Amaleq13

I didn't think you had anything to substantive offer.

Simplistic and repetitive is apparently all you've got. :wave:

aa5874

I simply offer what is in the NT repeatedly. I will give you one of the most fantastic ghost story, in Matthew 1:18, again, "Now the birth of Jesus Christ is on this wise: When Mary as his mother was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

Then said Mary unto the Angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?

The question to all HJers, how can Jesus be, according to the NT?

A very simple question indeed, but repeatedly unanswered.

Zeichman

What's your point? You keep quoting the same passage but have yet to offer anything of substance. What does this mean? Perhaps the rest of us are too dull to infer what you have. If this is inherently contradictory to a historical Jesus, you'll have to let us know how.

jgibson000

Repeatedly? It appears only twice -- in Matt and in Luke -- and if you'd do a little reading, you'd see that neither of these references to Jesus' conception EK PNEUMATOS/PNEUMA hAGION EPELEUSETAI EPI SE rule out insemination by a male.


Did you not read the essay by Robert Miller that I posted?

According to Mark -- who knows neither Matthew not Luke -- it is through the sexual union of Mary and Joseph. Why do you keep ignoring that?

Can you tell me if you believe that Apollonius of Tyanna existed? Augustus Caesar?

JG

Ben C Smith

I think what happened is simple. When Mark wrote about Jesus, the historical Jesus existed; Mark has no virgin birth. As soon as Matthew wrote about the virgin birth, however, the historical Jesus ceased to exist; he promptly vanished in a puff of illogic.



Ben.

jgibson000

Repeatedly? Please show me where it appears in Acts or in John. Please show me where it appears in Revelation or in the epistolary literature or in Mark.

The truth is, as you've been told so often, that the idea of the Holy Spirit (which is not a ghost but, in biblical thought, God's empowering presence) having something to do with Jesus' conception appears only twice -- in Matt and in Luke . And if you'd do what you apparently never do -- i.e., a little reading in some critical commentaries on Matthew and Luke or in the literature on the "infancy narratives" -- you'd see that neither of these references to Jesus' conception EK PNEUMATOS/PNEUMA hAGION EPELEUSETAI EPI SE rule out insemination by a male.

Did you not read the essay by Robert Miller that I posted?

According to Mark -- who knows neither Matthew not Luke -- it is through the sexual union of Mary and Joseph. According to Matthew, through a man other than Joseph. According to Paul, through human generation. Why do you keep ignoring this data?

Can you tell me if you believe that Apollonius of Tyanna existed? Augustus Caesar?

JG

aa5874

Can you back up your claim with the relevant passage in Mark? I am very much interested in seeing that passage of scripture.

jgibson000

I can. But since the issue here is the validity of your assertion that all of the NT claims that Jesus was conceived by "a ghost", you'll need first to point to where this claim is expressly stated in Mark.

JG