Sheshbazzar

?
The only account of his origins that we have, clearly states that was the manner of his conception.
While the story itself might be nonsense, there is no nonsense involved in pointing out that that IS the record regarding the manner of his conception and birth.
So, is that record a true account of his origin?
Certainly one would be justified in the holding to a belief that the text tells us that he was the off spring of "The Holy Ghost"?
Who is doing the lying? the texts? those ones who simply point out what the texts indicate? or is it not those believers who pretend, pose and posit that the text is a true account, and that their witness of its inane statements is the actual truth?
I for one have no doubts at all as to whom the liars are in this case.

Jeffrey Gibson

It does no such thing, as you should know, even if Luke and Matthew speak (as they most certainly do not) of a ghost. I take it you are not directly acquainted with R.J. Miller's Born Divine: The Births of Jesus & Other Sons of God?

In any case, you have entirely missed my point about what the consequences of Pat's premise are.

Jeffrey

Sheshbazzar

My, my, Jeffrey you can reinterpret the contents of the texts 'till the Second Coming, but the Christian consensus for the last two millennia has consistently rejected the blasphemous idea that Jesus was really the illegitimate son of a unknown human father.
No, I am not directly acquainted with blah-de-blah-blah's book, nor with the all of other of the millions of books that have been composed to present "explanations" for the ridiculous claims that are made in the Bible.
(and, if the Bible's statements and promises were TRUE there would be no need that anyone should be required to resort to such a multitude of contrived compositions to understand or receive the good promises)
Perhaps I did miss your point, but the gestalt of your post certainly appears as nothing more than a thinly disguised insult towards all who would resist the machinations of apologetics.
Certainly "liars" exist, and there are those who have quite willingly and knowingly "lied" to "win" an argument for Jezus and religion.

Jeffrey Gibson

There has also been a longstanding "Christian consensus" as to what the evangelists meant by "Son of God" that is demonstrably untrue. But the issue is not what the consensus has been. It's what the evangelists actually said.

Since you don't know what the claim actually is, it is petitio principii to call it ridiculous. What's more, since you admit not only that you haven't attempted to see whether your understanding of what the claim is, is correct by testing it against scholarly discussion of the text, but that you are speaking out of wholesay ignorance when you assume, as you have done, that what Miller is doing in his book is "to present "explanations" for the ridiculous claims that are made in the Bible", you are hardly one to say without committing the same sin of making uncritical assertion and holding on to uninformed beliefs that you seem to believe is the exclusive property of apologists and believers.

And here I thought the the issue was the factual one of whether Matthew and Luke actually say that a ghost was the father of Jesus, not whether such a statement, if they made it, is true.

Wow! Is that what the "gestalt" of my post was? I thought that all I was doing was to raise a question about the implications of Pat's claim. And is it really the case that many of those here those who make it their aim to "resist" what they see are the machinations of "apologists" have never done what Pat accuses fundies of doing, that is, make claims that are not based not in actual evidence but in things that they have simply accepted as true because it fits with what they want to believe, when, if they were really interested in the truth, "they should know that they have no reasonable evidence that they are true"?

But that's not the issue, is it.

Jeffrey

mountainman

What about these other speakings?


and an extract from a public opinion register of mid-fourth century ....


How inventive!

Even Ammianus gets into the action:


the ghost of his father? That would be ghost of Constantine I'd expect.

Best wishes,



Pete

aa5874

Look at John 4.24, "God is a Spirit....."

God is just assumed to be some kind of Ghost. Any one who knows Greek knows the Greek word for "spirit and ghost" is the same word.

Anybody on this board knows Greek?

Elijah

I think it’s meant to be understood more like a earthly personification of Logos which is reified Reason or Wisdom, which were considered spiritual but not in an anthropomorphic ghost supernatural way. It’s usually meant to be “part of” or “the whole” universal constant behind the changing universe.
Here is a more modern take by Spinoza. Jesus is meant to be understood as personifying spiritual wisdom but from an idealists point of view. IMO

Sheshbazzar

According to "Matthew"

Matthew 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.


19. Then Joseph her husband, being a just [man], and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.


20. But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David,
Fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.

21. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.


22. Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,


23. Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.


24. Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:


25. And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.



According to "Luke"

Luke 1:26. And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth,


27. To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name [was] Mary.


28. And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, [thou that art] highly favoured, the Lord [is] with thee: blessed [art] thou among women.


29. And when she saw [him], she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be.


30. And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God.

31. And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.


32. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:


33. And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.


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


35. And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

Chili

In Gen.1 it is made very clear that Essence Precedes Existence and so the will of God must find existence through a spirit (not a wind) and that is called a ghost and Holy since it comes from the father. The son is not yet but is in becoming via the Holy Ghost and all the father begets is sons that sooner or later will become fathers . . . wherefore the H Ghost cannot come via the son except from purgatory where it is called the sin against the HS but common nonetheless.

If I remember correctly the iota argument is about this.

Jeffrey Gibson

Really? And you know this how?

Jeffrey