Originally Posted by Scotsguy44

Can you provide the specifics of where Jesus' mother was inseminated by YHWH?

1. To introduce or inject semen into the reproductive tract of (a female).

Matt

Originally Posted by stephan huller

When, therefore, Marcion or some one of his hounds barks against the Demiurge, and adduces reasons from a comparison of what is good and bad, we ought to say to them, that neither Paul the apostle nor Mark, he of the maimed finger, announced such (tenets). For none of these (doctrines) has been written in the Gospel according to Mark. But (the real author of the system) is Empedocles, son of Meto, a native of Agrigentum. And (Marcion) despoiled this (philosopher), and imagined that up to the present would pass undetected his transference, under the same expressions, of the arrangement of his entire heresy from Sicily into the evangelical narratives. For bear with me, O Marcion: as you have instituted a comparison of what is good and evil, I also to-day will institute a comparison following up your own tenets, as you suppose them to be. You affirm that the Demiurge of the world is evil--why not hide your countenance in shame, (as thus) teaching to the Church the doctrines of Empedocles? You say that there is a good Deity who destroys the works of the Demiurge: then do not you plainly preach to your pupils, as the good Deity, the Friendship (philia) of Empedocles. You forbid marriage, the procreation of children, (and) the abstaining from meats which God has created for participation by the faithful, and those that know the truth. (Thinkest thou, then,) that thou canst escape detection, (while thus) enjoining the purificatory rites of Empedocles? For in point of fact you follow in every respect this (philosopher of paganism), while you instruct your own disciples to refuse meats, in order not to eat any body (that might be) a remnant of a soul which has been punished by the Demiurge. You dissolve marriages that have been cemented by the Deity. And here again you conform to the tenets of Empedocles, in order that for you the work of Friendship may be perpetuated as one (and) indivisible. For, according to Empedocles, matrimony separates unity, and makes (out of it) plurality, as we have proved.

CHAP. XIX.--THE HERESY OF PREPON; FOLLOWS EMPEDOCLES; MARCION REJECTS THE GENERATION OF THE SAVIOUR.

The principal heresy of Marcion, and (the one of his) which is most free from admixture (with other heresies), is that which has its system formed out of the theory concerning the good and bad (God). Now this, it has been manifested by us, belongs to Empedocles. But since at present, in our times, a certain follower of Marcion, (namely) Prepon, an Assyrian, has endeavoured to introduce something more novel, and has given an account of his heresy in a work inscribed to Bardesanes, an Armenian, neither of this will I be silent. In alleging that what is just constitutes a third principle, and that it is placed intermediate between what is good and bad, Prepon of course is not able to avoid (the imputation of inculcating) the opinion of Empedocles. For Empedocles asserts that the world is managed by wicked Discord, and that the other

(world) which (is managed) by Friendship, is cognisable by intellect. And (he asserts) that these are the two different principles of good and evil, and that intermediate between these diverse principles is impartial reason, in accordance with which are united the things that have been separated by Discord, (and which,) in accordance with the influence of Friendship, are accommodated to unity. The impartial reason itself, that which is an auxiliary to Friendship, Empedocles denominates "Musa." And he himself likewise entreats her to assist him, and expresses himself somehow thus:- "For if on fleeting mortals, deathless Muse, Thy care it be that thoughts our mind engross, Calliope, again befriend my present prayer, As I disclose a pure account of happy gods."

Marcion, adopting these sentiments, rejected altogether the generation of our Saviour. He considered it to be absurd that tinder the (category of a) creature fashioned by destructive Discord should have been the Logos that was an auxiliary to Friendship--that is, the Good Deity. (His doctrine,) however, was that, independent of birth, (the Logos) Himself descended from above in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, and that, as being intermediate between the good and bad Deity, He proceeded to give instruction in the synagogues. For if He is a Mediator, He has been, he says, liberated from the entire nature of the Evil Deity. Now, as he affirms, the Demiurge is evil, and his works. For this reason, he affirms, Jesus came down unbegotten, in order that He might be liberated from all (admixture of) evil. And He has, he says, been liberated from the nature of the Good One likewise, in order that He may be a Mediator, as Paul states, and as Himself acknowledges: "Why call ye me good? there is one good," These, then, are the opinions of Marcion, by means of which he made many his dupes, employing the conclusions of Empedocles. And he transferred the philosophy invented by that (ancient speculator) into his own system of thought, and (out of Empedocles) constructed his (own) impious heresy. But I consider that this has been sufficiently refuted by us, and that I have not omitted any opinion of those who purloin their opinions from the Greeks, and act despitefully towards the disciples of Christ, as if they had become teachers to them of these (tenets). But since it seems that we have sufficiently explained the doctrines of this (heretic), let us see what Carpocrates says. [Phil 7:18, 19]

Originally Posted by tanya

I should change my name to "tanya the cynic".

Can you provide even ONE example of a Jewish King, at any point in history, whose mother was inseminated by YHWH?

Originally Posted by outhouse

its myth, that all.


the unknown gentile authors didnt have a clue about jesus pre 30, unless they stumbled on it by luck.

your talking about Bj only

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

It's not a modern invention. Ehrman was certainly wrong (or at least disingenuous about that).

In the full context of his book, he's mostly talking about mythicism as a serious scholarly theory, but I can't believe he had never heard the Dutch Radicals.

Originally Posted by Scotsguy44

Can you provide the specifics of where Jesus' mother was inseminated by YHWH?

1. To introduce or inject semen into the reproductive tract of (a female).

Matt

Originally Posted by outhouse

its myth, that all.

the unknown gentile authors didnt have a clue about jesus pre 30, unless they stumbled on it by luck. your talking about Bj only

Originally Posted by Scotsguy44

I'm not a mythicists hence your first assertion can have no persuasive power with me. The point I was making was in the account Mary is not inseminated as tanya seems to be stating.

Matt

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

It's not a modern invention. Ehrman was certainly wrong (or at least disingenuous about that).

In the full context of his book, he's mostly talking about mythicism as a serious scholarly theory, but I can't believe he had never heard the Dutch Radicals.