Amaleq13

You appear to be reading this into the text. Repeating your apparently unique interpretation does not constitute support for it.

What are you talking about? The NIV has "overshadowed" just like the others and, just like the others, there is nothing to suggest this should be understood to indicate physical sex.

They offer nothing contrary to Jeffrey's comments and he certainly has a better grasp of Greek than you do. What you really have is no reason to doubt him.

More hypocrisy? You've given no references to support your apparently unique interpretation and you have the gall to ask it of others!! (and, for future reference, it is "ad hoc" )

Here is where you need to provide your references specific to the word about which you are making claims.

Except that a spirit is said to be the power that results in her pregnancy.

Your ability to read an "allegorical and inferential character" into the text certainly does not constitute evidence for your claim that it does. You don't recognize that as circular reasoning? Your claim cannot be evidence for your claim.

Is the only support for your apparently unique interpretation circular reasoning and a weak argument from silence? No references from any scholars who actually might have a clue?

patcleaver

Amaleq13, are you Jeffery? do you know who you are? My post was for Jeffrey - he can speak for himself.

<edit>

If you have any facts or positive arguments then present them otherwise your just wasting your time.

Amaleq13

You don't want the public to respond to your posts, send a Private Message.

The fact is I am positive you have nothing to support your interpretation except circular reasoning and a weak argument from silence. And nothing has made that so clear as this tirade.

patcleaver

If you want to make a comment then go ahead and make a comment, but don't respond as though you are Jeffery.

I was responding to Jeffery's comment, and I wanted Jeffery to respond to my answer. Your response reduced the likelyhood that he would respond. Please wait a couple of days before responding for someone else unless you think they need help.

It may be that the most certain fact in the Universe is that:

EVERYTHING YOU KNOW IS WRONG.

The angel answered "The Holy Spirit will come upon you the power of the Most High will overshadow you"

"come upon you" and "overshadow you" means the same thing as: marital relations, getting it on, get laid, horizontal tango, playing hide the sausage, hooking up, putting you know what in you know where, private gymnastics, hanky panky, afternoon delight, taking a ride, fooling around, make whoopee, do something adult, enjoy each other, pumping, get a room, roll in the hay, play in the bed, that thing, screwing, the old in out, humping, porking, doing it, do him/her, drilling for joy, nookie, shagging, knocking boots, making babies, riding the pony, plugging in for a recharge, banging, hiding the salami, getting off, polishing the banana, makin' bacon, night dancing, getting lucky, backseat mambo, pounding, bumping, doing the bump, grinding, night swimming

You can turn any statement of action into a sexual euphemism simply by adding the phrase "if you know what I mean":

I am frustrated that you can not recognize an obvious euphemism for having sex with a God. I think you are wasting my time demanding evidence of the obvious. You need to familiarize yourself with the use of euphemism and metaphor before you further embarrass yourself. You should probably start with something basic like this article before you read the following. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euphemism

Now for evidence that "come upon you" and "overshadow you" means having physical sex

Amaleq13

I didn't. In fact, I referred to him in my post.

Utter nonsense but, if you are truly concerned, I will remind you again of the Private Message function.

No and, again, I was not posting for anyone but myself and nothing in the post suggests otherwise.

That is always a possibility but nothing you had written even suggested that to be case here. You clearly needed something much better than circular reasoning or weak arguments from silence or simply repeating yourself. It is troubling that you still don't seem to understand that even after producing exactly what was requested.

Yes you can but what was needed was evidence that this is what the author had in mind. You provided none but, instead, became angry and abusive. Since that is the typical behavior of someone who has nothing of substance to support their claims, that is the conclusion I reached.

That is because it is not obvious and you had offered nothing of substance to suggest otherwise. I'm supposed to just take your word for it? Not hardly.

Nothing I've posted suggests I am unfamiliar with the terms. What I contested was your assertion that this word was being used as a euphemism for physical intercourse in this instance. You don't see the rather significant difference between the two?

There is no good reason for it to have taken you this long or with this much complaint to provide what is only a rational requirement of any claimant.

And, of the three passages you provided, only Opisso appears to actually constitute support for your claim. The opinions of Kersey and Magee lack the specific linguistic connection you needed.

I'll defer to the opinion of others more knowledgeable of the language to judge whether Opisso's view is legitimate but it seems so to me.

Jeffrey Gibson

Methodologically, it is highly questionable, not to mention linguistically dubious, to make 6th and 9th century C.E. post Talmudic Hebrew texts the basis of apodictic claims about, not to mention the determinative evidence for understanding, the meaning of a Greek verb (whose subject is not a human being, but "the power of the most high") that appears in a first century Greek text.

Moreover, if "to have sex with" was indeed a, not to mention the regular, meaning of ἐπισκιάζω, we'd expect to see plenty of instances of it being used with this sense.

But so far as I can see, it is not so used anywhere in any of the more than 300 instances of the use of the present and future forms of the verb that appear in extant Greek literature written between the 8th cent BCE and the 4th cent CE, or by any of the authors and/or scholiasts listed below.

Heck, even Luke doesn't employ it with this meaning when he uses it elsewhere in his writings.

(And, BTW, so far as I can see, Philostratus does NOT employ the verb anywhere in his writings, let alone in his account of the conception/birth of Apollodorus).

But perhaps Pat will point me to which of these authors does use the verb with the sense he [Pat] claims the verb bears and where specifically within their works -- including the book and line in Philostratus' Life of Apollodorus -- they use it with this meaning.

He certainly should be able to do so given the absolute certainty with which tells us that "to have sex" is what the verb was used by ancient authors to mean.

Jeffrey

*****

Herodotus Hist. Historiae: 2
Hippocrates Med. et Corp Epistulae: 1
Democritus Phil. Testimonia: 4
Aristoteles Phil. et Cor De generatione animalium: 1
Theophrastus Phil. De sensu et sensibilibus : 4
Theophrastus Phil. De causis plantarum : 1
Theopompus Hist. Fragmenta: 1
[Lysis] Phil. Epistula ad Hipparchum: 1
Philo Judaeus Phil. De opificio mundi: 2
Philo Judaeus Phil. Legum allegoriarum libri i-iii: 1
Philo Judaeus Phil. Quod deus sit immutabilis: 2
Philo Judaeus Phil. De confusione linguarum: 1
Philo Judaeus Phil. De migratione Abrahami: 1
Philo Judaeus Phil. De mutatione nominum: 1
Philo Judaeus Phil. De somniis : 3
Philo Judaeus Phil. De Abrahamo: 1
Philo Judaeus Phil. De Josepho: 2
Philo Judaeus Phil. De vita Mosis : 4
Philo Judaeus Phil. De decalogo: 1
Philo Judaeus Phil. De specialibus legibus : 6
Philo Judaeus Phil. Quod omnis probus liber sit: 1
Philo Judaeus Phil. Legatio ad Gaium: 1
Philo Judaeus Phil. De providentia: 1
Plutarchus Biogr. et Phil. De vitioso pudore : 1
Novum Testamentum Evangelium secundum Marcum: 1
Novum Testamentum Evangelium secundum Lucam: 1
Novum Testamentum Acta apostolorum: 1
Flavius Arrianus Hist. et Cynegeticus: 1
Heron Mech. Pneumatica: 1
[Longinus] Rhet. De sublimitate: 1
Dio Chrysostomus Soph. Orationes: 1
Teucer Astrol. De duodecim signis: 3
Galenus Med. De locis affectis libri vi: 1
Galenus Med. De melancholia : 1
Lucianus Soph. Verae historiae: 1
Lucianus Soph. Timon: 1
Lucianus Soph. Quomodo historia conscribenda sit: 1
Aelius Herodianus et Pseud Periì kli¿sewj o)noma/twn: 1
Claudius Ptolemaeus Math. Apotelesmatica : 1
Claudius Aelianus Soph. Varia historia: 1
Clemens Alexandrinus Theol Paedagogus: 2
Clemens Alexandrinus Theol Stromata: 1
Clemens Alexandrinus Theol Excerpta ex Theodoto: 1
Justinus Martyr Apol. Apologia: 1
Justinus Martyr Apol. Dialogus cum Tryphone: 1
Alexander Phil. In Aristotelis meteorologicorum libros commentaria: 2
Alexander Phil. De anima libri mantissa : 1
Athenagoras Apol. Legatio : 1
Aelius Dionysius Attic. ¹Attika\ o)no/mata: 2
Moeris Attic. Lexicon Atticum: 1
Vettius Valens Astrol. Anthologiarum libri ix: 7
Origenes Theol. Commentarii in evangelium Joannis : 1
Origenes Theol. In Jeremiam : 1
Origenes Theol. Fragmenta in Lucam : 1
Origenes Theol. Commentarium in evangelium Matthaei : 1
Origenes Theol. Commentarium in evangelium Matthaei : 2
Origenes Theol. Selecta in Psalmos : 3
Origenes Theol. Scholia in Matthaeum: 1
Origenes Theol. Scholia in Lucam : 1
Pseudo-Justinus Martyr Quaestiones et responsiones ad orthodoxos: 1
Heliodorus Scr. Erot. Aethiopica: 4
Iamblichus Phil. De vita Pythagorica: 2
Gregorius Thaumaturgus Scr In annuntiationem sanctae virginis Mariae : 4
Hippolytus Scr. Eccl. De theophania : 1
Hippolytus Scr. Eccl. Refutatio omnium haeresium : 3
Achilles Tatius Astron. Isagoga excerpta: 1
Publius Herennius Dexippus Fragmenta: 1


&` Septuaginta Psalmi: 1
&` Septuaginta Proverbia: 1
&` Historia Alexandri Magni Recensio $`g: 1
&` Physiologus Physiologus : 1
&` Commentaria In Dionysii Thr Scholia Vaticana: 1
&` Lexica Segueriana Glossae rhetoricae : 1
&` Lexica Segueriana Collectio verborum utilium e differentibus rhetoribus et sap: 2
&` Concilia Oecumenica (ACO) Concilium universale Ephesenum anno 431: 13
&` Concilia Oecumenica (ACO) Concilium universale Chalcedonense anno 451: 2
&` Scholia In Aratum Scholia in Aratum : 3
&` Scholia In Euripidem Scholia in Euripidem : 1
&` Scholia In Homerum Scholia in Iliadem : 2
&` Scholia In Lucianum Scholia in Lucianum : 1
&` Scholia In Platonem Scholia in Platonem : 1
&` Scholia In Theocritum Scholia in Theocritum : 1
&` Scholia In Thucydidem Scholia in Thucydidem : 1
&` Scholia In Clementem Alexan Scholia in protrepticum et paedagogum : 1

Jeffrey Gibson

As "evidence" that "come upon you" and "overshadow you" means having physical sex, Pat Cleaver pointed us to following from Kersey Graves' The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors"


I think it should be pointed out , however, not only that Graves is hardly using up to date scholarship (Malcolm's work was published in 1815), but that Graves prevaricates and engages in wholesale misrepresentation of what Malcolm asserts when he says that on p. 494 of Volume 1 of his History of Persia, Malcolm tells us that "Zoroaster was born of an immaculate conception by a ray from the Divine Reason." As can be seen here (or via: amazon.co.uk), Malcolm says no such thing.

Moreover, his claim about the origin of Mars ibeing a parallel to, let alone a source of, the story of Jesus's conception in Luke, s highly suspect, and this not only because Juno is not a Greek name (there is no J in Greek), but that the source he cites (apparently Ovid, Fasti 5.229-260) to document the asexual conception by "Juno of Greece" says nothing of Juno -- who is not a mortal and is certainly not a virgin when she conceives Mars! -- being "over shadowed" or "come upon" in any way by any divine power (see the text below). Nor, so far as I am presently able to determine, is it based on/in anything we have about the conception of Ares/Mars from Greco-Roman mythographers -- who, when they speak of Ares'/Mars' origin, attest that Ares was conceived quite "naturally" (But I'm happy to admit I'm wrong on this last point, if I can be shown primary evidence that falsifies it).

It would seem then that we have further prime examples not only of execrable scholarship, use of eisegesis, and the misrepresentation of "facts" and sources on the part of a "Christianity is nothing but paganism warmed up/Jesus was a myth" writer, but of a poster who does not take the time to check the reliability or accuracy of his sources and who has no idea of just how bad the "evidence" he cites in support of his claims is, and who in citing what he cites as "proof" of his views and thinking that it is good evidence, shows himself to be not only as gullible as he is credulous as well claiming to possess a grasp of primary sources that he does not have, but committed not to discovering the truth (even if he had the capacity and the skills to do so), but to affirming an apriori.

Jeffrey

*****
Mars quoque, si nescis, per nostras editus artes:
Iuppiter hoc, ut adhuc, nesciat usque, precor. 230
sancta Iovem Iuno nata sine matre Minerva
officio doluit non eguisse suo.
ibat ut Oceano quereretur facta mariti;
restitit ad nostras fessa labore fores.
quam simul aspexi, "quid te, Saturnia", dixi 235
"attulit?" exponit, quem petat, illa, locum;
addidit et causam. verbis solabar amicis.
"non" inquit "verbis cura levanda mea est.
si pater est factus neglecto coniugis usu
Iuppiter, et solus nomen utrumque tenet, 240
cur ego desperem fieri sine coniuge mater,
et parere intacto, dummodo casta, viro?
omnia temptabo latis medicamina terris,
et freta Tartareos excutiamque sinus."
vox erat in cursu: voltum dubitantis habebam. 245
"nescioquid, nymphe, posse videris" ait.
ter volui promittere opem, ter lingua retenta est:
ira Iovis magni causa timoris erat.
"fer, precor, auxilium" dixit, "celabitur auctor",
et Stygiae numen testificatur aquae. 250
"quod petis, Oleniis" inquam "mihi missus ab arvis
flos dabit: est hortis unicus ille meis.
qui dabat, 'hoc' dixit 'sterilem quoque tange iuvencam,
mater erit': tetigi, nec mora, mater erat."
protinus haerentem decerpsi pollice florem; 255
tangitur, et tacto concipit illa sinu.
iamque gravis Thracen et laeva Propontidos intrat,
fitque potens voti, Marsque creatus erat.
qui memor accepti per me natalis "habeto
tu quoque Romulea" dixit "in urbe locum."

aa5874

So, Jeffrey, what does "OVERSHADOW" mean in the context of Luke 1 and Luke 1.30-35 in particular?

Luke 1.30-31 And the angel said unto her, Fear not Mary.......behold thou shall conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son and shall call his name Jesus.........

Luke 1.34, Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?

Mary was expecting to have sexual intercourse with a MAN to have the child to be called Jesus but the angel made it clear that this HOLY GHOST has some kind of reproductive capabilities, too. Mary did not need a Man, a GHOST from God will do.

Luke 1.35 And the angel answered, and said unto her,[list] 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.

Mary expected to have sex with a real man, the angel sent a Ghost from God.

What happened Jeffrey? How did the Ghost and Mary make the baby?

Jeffrey Gibson

Can you show me not only where the verb translated as "overshadow" is said by Luke to have "the holy ghost" as its subject, but more importantly that Luke actually uses the word "ghost" anywhere in his annunciation story or intends the word that is translated as ghost to mean what the English word denotes and/or calls to mind?

Can you also show me on the basis of the grammar and the syntax of the Greek of Lk 1:31-35 (1) how the question Mary asks the angel there shows indubitably that she was expecting anything, let alone, as you claim, to have sex with a man, and (2) that what Luke says in this passage absolutely precludes human participation in the (yet to happen) conception of the child that Mary is told she will bear?

If not, then there is absolutely no reason to think that you know what you are talking about here, that your questions are well thought out, let alone pertinent, that your claims have any merit, and most importantly, that anyone should think that your questions deserve an answer.

And what does any of what you ask above have to do with the validity of the claims of Graves (and Pat Cleaver) that the texts he notes in the quote from his book that I gave say what he claims they say and/or are parallels to and form the background of Luke's annunciation story, which is the point under discussion?

Jeffrey

aa5874

Jeffrey, Jeffrey, how did the Ghost and Mary make the baby?

You disagreed with Pat Cleaver's interpretation, all I need to know is your interpretation of "OVERSHADOW" in context with Luke 1.

According to Luke 2.21, the baby Jesus was actually born, cicumcised and called Jesus.

Luke 2.21 And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called Jesus, which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb.

What did the Ghost do to Mary to make her conceive in the womb?

Tell me about the "OVERSHADOW", Jeffrey, your posts fascinate me.

Please post in English, I do not understand Greek.

Perhaps the Ghost can say, pointing his ghost-like finger, I NEVER HAD SEX WITH THAT WOMAN.