JoeWallack

JW:
I was just starting to like you but I think you've been arguing too much with Steven. What the hell is wrong with you Jeffrey?



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

jgibson000

Didn't you once accuse me of never taking on "Christians"?

Sheesh. There's no pleasing some people.

So who should I be arguing too much with?

And have you stopped beating your wife yet?

And why are you posting this in a thread where I'm arguing with the a-what's'-'is-name?

JG

aa5874

Your reasoning is warped. I have consistently and repeatedly quoted Matthew 1:18 and Luke 1:34-35 to show that the son of a ghost was conceived by an unknown Mary and an unknown Ghost.

You have now claimed, without even a reference to scripture, that the author of Mark wrote that it was through sexual union of Mary and Joseph.

Please show me where in the book called Mark that a sexual union of Mary and Joseph is described that caused the conception of Jesus the Christ.

jgibson000

So you keep saying -- though without ever pointing out how, or demonstrating that, this is so.

Yes, you have. But you have also claimed that all of the NT -- including Mark -- professes this idea when it comes to the question of Jesus' conception.. So it's either there in Mark and in Paul and in John and in Revelations, etc. or you claim about all of the NT proclaiming this idea is false.

So where in Mark does it appear?.

Re-read what I wrote. You are putting words in my mouth.

But only after you claimed -- notably, without even a reference to scripture -- that Mark describes or proclaims a union between an unknown Mary and an unknown "ghost" when he accounts for the conception of Jesus.

Please first show me where in GMark Mark specifically states that "that the son of a ghost was conceived by an unknown Mary and an unknown Ghost", let alone where he "describes" this purported.ghostly union.

Your claim. Your obligation to provide proof of it.

JH

JoeWallack

JW:
I can understand why you won't directly explain what you wrote above. You now realize that "Mark" never mentions a Joseph, the father of Jesus. It would than be reMarkable according to Mark for Jesus to be "through the sexual union of Mary and Joseph". Why not just admit your mistake and move on. It's not like you are a Professor of the Greek Bible who specializes in "Mark".

Since you won't explain your error I can figure out what you meant as opposed to what you wrote. The nonsense about "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." is from Miller. Since you are making Miller sound like a complete idiot here, rather than my reading Miller's essay let alone trying to find the link here, would you please be so kind as to simply summarize how exactly Miller argues that Joseph is the father in "Mark"? As a professional courtesy though I give you the option of first warming up with a summary from Miller of how "According to Matthew, through a man other than Joseph."

You may wonder Jeffrey, why, considering the substance of this Thread, Am I picking on you instead of aa? It's because you are the Professional so I am much more interested in your opinion but also hold you to a much higher standard.

JW:
Thanks for asking about my wife (again) Jeffrey. She just got tenure! Oh, let me explain what that is. Tenure is where you are basically a retired Professor but the Institution keeps sending you your monthly paycheck.



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

Solo

....πριν η συνελθειν αυτους ευρεθη εν γαστρι εχουσα εκ πνευματος αγιου

...which male would that be, Jeffrey ?

Oh Lord ! Whatever you are smoking, Jeffrey, don't inhale it !

Jiri

aa5874

Please quote the passage from Mark, chapter and verse.


Please, quote the passage from Matthew, chapter and verse.

Please, refer me to the Epistle, chapter and verse.
And Paul, there is a little problem, I dont know which one you refer to. Is it the one who claimed to be Paul in Timothy or Galations? There are forgeries or mistaken identities in the NT, so I hear.

With respect to the birth of Jesus the Christ, this is the kind information that I have been looking for to support the historicity of Jesus the Christ, however, I understand it may be bogus.

JoeWallack

JW:
And while you're playing dodgebaal Jeffrey please tell us why you think Paul never mentions who the hell Jesus' father was. Do you think he knew but just didn't say because he didn't think it was important and/or his audience wouldn't be interested in this information? If Paul didn't know or even just didn't care who Jesus' father was, is that evidence for MJ?



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

aa5874

I think Jeffrey has the right to inhale whatever he smokes, but when he exhales I have a problem.
Second-hand smoke may be hazardous.

aa5874

With respect to historical and mythological figures, what criteria was used to declare, for example, the Greek gods as mythological? And when were these gods declared to be so.

If Zeus, upon investigation, is found to have carried out acts that are thought to be humanly possible, can his mythological status be reversed even though Zeus is said to have carried supernatural or superhuman acts at the same time?

What I find perplexing is that all entities, that I have read about, who are the result of some type supernatural birth, and live a 'life' of supernatural exploits are universally recognised as myths, except Jesus the Christ. Now, there are literally thousands of mythical figures from every region on earth, every continent is littered with these mythical figures.

What really is the difference between son of a ghost and son of sea goddess? Why is one inherently mythological, today, when both are from the unknown world.

I hope an HJer can shed some light.