FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 09-12-2008, 09:44 AM   #1
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: On the path of knowledge
Posts: 8,889
Default Jesus son of a ghost? split from Debunking Hitzig

Quote:
"nonsense... about....Jesus as "off spring of a ghost"
?
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.
Sheshbazzar is offline  
Old 09-12-2008, 09:55 AM   #2
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 3,058
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar View Post
Quote:
"nonsense... about....Jesus as "off spring of a ghost"
?
The only account of his origins that we have, clearly states that was the manner of his conception.
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
Jeffrey Gibson is offline  
Old 09-12-2008, 10:42 AM   #3
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: On the path of knowledge
Posts: 8,889
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar View Post
?
The only account of his origins that we have, clearly states that was the manner of his conception.
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
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.
Sheshbazzar is offline  
Old 09-12-2008, 01:49 PM   #4
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 3,058
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson View Post

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
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.
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.

Quote:
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.
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.

Quote:
(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)
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.

Quote:
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.
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"?

Quote:
Certainly "liars" exist, and there are those who have quite willingly and knowingly "lied" to "win" an argument for Jezus and religion.
But that's not the issue, is it.

Jeffrey
Jeffrey Gibson is offline  
Old 09-14-2008, 08:02 PM   #5
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Falls Creek, Oz.
Posts: 11,192
Default references to fourth century ghosts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar View Post
?
The only account of his origins that we have, clearly states that was the manner of his conception.
It does no such thing, as you should know, even if Luke and Matthew speak (as they most certainly do not) of a ghost.

What about these other speakings?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marutha of Maiperqat
The following Confession of Faith was agreed upon by the 318 holy fathers, who assembled in Nice a city of Bithynia in the time of the Emperor Constantine, on account of the blasphemous doctrines of the accursed Arius.

We believe [13] in one God, Father Almighty, maker of things visible and invisible; and in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, only Begotten and first born of all creatures; who was born of the Father before all worlds and was not created; true God, of the true God, of the nature of the Father, and by whom the worlds were made and all things created, and who for our sakes and for our salvation descended from Heaven, took a bodily form by the power of the Holy Ghost, and became man; was conceived and born of the Virgin Mary, suffered and was crucified in the days of Pontius Pilate, was buried and rose again the third day as it is written, ascended to Heaven and sat down at the right hand of the Father, and will come again to judge the dead and the living; and in the Holy Ghost, the Spirit of truth that proceedeth from the Father, a life giving [12] Spirit and in one holy Apostolic Catholic church; and in one Baptism for the remission of sins; and in the resurrection of the body, and in life everlasting.

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hilary of Poitiers

18: Saying that the Father and the Son
and the Holy Ghost are one Person.

19: When speaking of the Holy Ghost the Paraclete
says that He is the Unborn God.

20: Denying that, as the Lord has taught us,
the Paraclete is different from the Son.

21: Saying that the Holy Spirit is a part of
the Father or of the Son.

22: Saying that the Father and the Son
and the Holy Spirit are three Gods.

How inventive!

Even Ammianus gets into the action:

Quote:
Ammianus Marcellinus
BOOK XXI
14. Omens of the death of Constantius Augustus.


1. In this welter of adverse event Constantius'
fortune, already wavering and at a standstill,
showed clearly the signs almost as plain as words,
that a crisis in his life was at hand. For at night he
was alarmed by apparitions, and when he was not
yet wholly sunk into sleep, the ghost of his father
seemed to hold out to him a fair child, and when he
took it and set it in his lap, it shook from him the
ball which he had held in his right hand and threw it
to a great distance.

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

Best wishes,



Pete
mountainman is offline  
Old 09-14-2008, 08:39 PM   #6
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainman View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson View Post

It does no such thing, as you should know, even if Luke and Matthew speak (as they most certainly do not) of a ghost.

What about these other speakings?


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?
aa5874 is offline  
Old 09-14-2008, 09:25 PM   #7
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: MidWest
Posts: 1,894
Default

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.
Quote:
Philo, Allegorical Interpretation III XXXI (96) (p. 61)
... But the shadow of God is his word [logos], which he used like an instrument when he was making the world. And this shadow, and, as it were, model, is the archetype of other things.
Here is a more modern take by Spinoza.
Quote:
I do not think it necessary for salvation to know Christ according to the flesh: but with regard to the Eternal Son of God, that is the Eternal Wisdom of God, which has manifested itself in all things and especially in the human mind, and above all in Christ Jesus, the case is far otherwise.
Jesus is meant to be understood as personifying spiritual wisdom but from an idealists point of view. IMO
Elijah is offline  
Old 09-14-2008, 10:15 PM   #8
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: On the path of knowledge
Posts: 8,889
Default

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.
Sheshbazzar is offline  
Old 09-14-2008, 10:33 PM   #9
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Alberta
Posts: 11,885
Default

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.
Chili is offline  
Old 09-15-2008, 06:33 AM   #10
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 3,058
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post

Any one who knows Greek knows the Greek word for "spirit and ghost" is the same word.
Really? And you know this how?

Jeffrey
Jeffrey Gibson is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:56 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.