patcleaver

Mary had sex with the Holy Ghost and she was still a virgin. We do not know how big the Holy Ghost's wang is supposed to be, or how long they were doing the old in-out, but "overshadowed" sounds like plain old sex to me.

Lots of women, who supposedly had sex with gods, were referred to a virgins or their sons were claimed to be born of virgins. Virgin birth just means that the birth was the result of a virgin pregnancy, that they had not had sex with a man when they got pregnant.

The virgin berth of Jesus is no different then the virgin berth of lots of previous pagan saviours and/or son's of gods.

Amaleq13

You know what would raise this above the level of uninformed personal opinion? References to other uses of episkiazō with the meaning you want to attribute to it in Luke.

I don't suppose you have any?

patcleaver

Overshadow means to be above, like the cloud in the transfiguration, so the holy spirit was on top when he was doing Mary. We just don't know if he was doing her doggy style or missionary position.

If he was in the form of a dove, then it must have been doggy style.

Sex has always been described in code – you just don’t get it.

Amaleq13

In other words, no. You have nothing to raise this above the level of uninformed personal opinion.

Another opportunity to life an assertion beyond the level of uninformed personal opinion missed. Have any examples of episkiazō used as "code" for sex?

patcleaver

Didn't you notice the reference to overshadowed in the transfiguration scenes. Overshadow just means to be above.

Being told that the Holy Ghost will "overshadow you" is the same type of reference as the Holy Ghost will "get on top of you" or "lay on top of you" or "get above you". It obviously means having sex.

There is nothing in the Bible that indicates that Mary and the Holy Ghost did not have a night of wild exotic sex - like Lisa and Gary in Team America. Later when Joseph overshadowed her, it must have been a letdown.

In the KJV, Isaiah 7:14 says that a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, but that could be interpreted to only claim that she would be a virgin when she conceived.

Matthew 1:23 states that the virgin shall be with child and give birth. Again that only claims that Mary would be a virgin when she was with child - which again, just means a virgin when she conceives.

Genesis 6:1-2 the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

Genesis 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

Son's of God having sex with women was an issue in the OT. I guess that Jesus probably got it on with Mary Magdalene just like the other son's of god took their daughters of men. Unfortunately, Jesus did not have any children who were mighty men of renown as far as we know.

Amaleq13

I am aware of the meaning of episkiazō. What I would be interested in are examples of it being used as a reference to sex.

It obviously refers to power. You need more to establish your assertion.

No reason to suspect it. Is this very weak argument from silence all you have?

You exaggerate. It is a single story in Hebrew Scripture. But it does nothing to support your contention about episkiazō, regardless.

You've got nothing but an uniformed personal opinion. Get back to me when you've got something of substance. :wave:

Jeffrey Gibson

I can find no instance in ancient literature where the verb ἐπισκιάζω means what you say it means. But perhaps I am missing something. So I'd be grateful if you point me to an instance of the use of ἐπισκιάζω in Hellenistic Greek where the verb is employed with the meaning you claim it bore.

In the meantime, you may wish to note that in Luke the subject of the verb ἐπισκιάζω is not the Holy Spirit. Rather, it's the δύναμις ὑψίστου -- "the power of the most high". What Luke has Gabriel say the Holy Spirit will do vis a vis Mary is that it will ἐπελεύσεται ἐπὶ ("come upon") her - an action that, given both the fact that ἐπ�*ρχεσθαι ἐπί is a Septuagintal idiom meaning "will be poured out upon", and that in using it in conjunction with πνεῦμα ἅγιον Luke is alluding to Isa 32:15 (A א) and its declaration of the arrival of an end time in which God's salvation of Israel begins, has nothing to do with, and is certainly not code for, sexual intercourse.

So even if ἐπισκιάζω had the meaning you claim it does, Luke says nothing about the Holy Spirit "being above" Mary, let alone the HS screwing her.

So it looks like you are not only eisegeting the verb ἐπισκιάζω, but that you are also misconstruing/misreading the text of Lk 1:35 in order to get it to say not what it does say, but what you want it to say.

Jeffrey

Toob Socks

Care to list a few of them? I've seen this claim bandied about a number of times with little to no actual backing up of the statement.

Solitary Man

And this is ignoring the fact that the earliest Christian sources, Mark, Paul, Q, and Thomas, make no mention of any virgin birth at all!

patcleaver

Matthew 1:18-25 before they came together, she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit. ... an angel of the Lord appeared to him [Joseph] in a dream and said, Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. ... She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins. All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel - which means, God with us. When Joseph woke up, he...took Mary home as his wife. But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son.

Luke 1:26-35 In the sixth month, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendent of David. The virgin's name was Mary...The angel said to her..."you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name Him Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David;"...Mary said to the angel, "How can this be, since I am a virgin?" ...The angel answered, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God." (NIV)


It is interesting to note that the discussion of Mary having sex with God adds some titillating spice here near the beginning of Luke's narrative.

Your argument seems to be based on your belief that your translation of the Greek text is superior to the translation of the NIV which has no merit at all, because (1) I have no reason to think that you are a better translator than the translators of the NIV; (2) you have given no references that I could use to check that your claimed translation is accurate (and not just ad hock).

I think that ancients believed that sex involved planting the seeds of the male into the female much like a farmer plants seeds in a field. They thought the children were exclusively the male's and that the female was just a place where the male's seeds magically sprouted and grew.

Sex was usually discussed allegorically or by inference in ancient literature - just like it is usually discussed allegorically or by inference in modern literature. The fact that the intimate physical details of a sexual act are not discussed is no indication that they are unusual in any way - in fact its good evidence that they had normal sex.

In Luke, God is impregnating Mary, and the usual way that women are impregnated is by having physical sex with the male on top and the female on the bottom, the male having power and control and the female being submissive.

There is nothing in the narrative that indicates that God and Mary did not have physical sex in the usual way. The allegorical and inferential character of the narrative are evidence that this is just normal sex (except for the magical god part).

There is nothing in the gospels that indicate that Mary continued to be a virgin after she was impregnated by God. The fact that Matthew says that Josephus did not have union with her until after she gave birth, does not indicate that she was a virgin after she had sex with god, or that she was a virgin when she gave birth. In this case the belief in so-called "virgin birth" is either an inaccurate term that really means "virgin conception" or its a belief that is not based on the gospel accounts.