Sheshbazzar

Perhaps you need to attend some remedial reading classes.
I clearly stated that this was MY skeptical atheist position.

Read this real slow, and perhaps by some miracle, what I wrote might make it past your bugging eyeballs.

"MY position" Get that?
I'm NOT fucking saying that it is anyone else's position.

If I 'assert'. I am asserting what I think is the best explanation.
I AM NOT asserting that anyone else agrees or thinks it is the best explanation. Got that ?

As obviously neither were you, and neither do you. Whatever your views or 'position' you hold, it is yours.

You don't accept MY position, and I sure as hell am not under any obligation to accept yours.

<snip> the usual pile of nasty spin drivel.

spin

Yes, I was trying to reach you.

Pure assertion.

Pure non sequitur.

Obviously not for you.

OK

Ah-huh.

Allowing the possibility of something doesn't justify it.

This is really quite contentless.

This is not a response to anything I said.

ApostateAbe

I am happy to hear the argument for that. It should not be claimed just to keep a hypothesis unfalsified. Any unlikely hypothesis can work that way.

Sheshbazzar

Anything that disagrees with a predetermined hypothesis must be an interpolation.

Amazing how some people can revise the texts through elimination to make the texts fit their hypothesis.

It's the Ron Wyatt sooper-dooper School of Textual Criticism, a 'theory' in one hand and shovel in the other to dig up only what agrees with the theory, and to bury whatever doesn't.

Chili

Very simple. Paul said: Born of woman, and born under the law.

To note here is that "woman" proper as taken from man in Gen.2 is not female. So now "born of woman" is not the same as "born of a woman" who would be female and so also human.

So Paul is telling us here that 'woman' is theotokos proper and is not some pure Jewish female with a shame complex as human. So it is a/the rebirth of Joseph,, or at least he was called Joseph as he was more than just Joseph the Jew, and is why he was called an 'upright Jew' to say no more than he was also true to himself as animal man.

Or you don't really think that woman is made out of a rib do you? And if you do, you have some more thinking to do.

Born under the law, just means that he stood convicted as sinner, that in the end is also the purpose of the law.

Of course this would be why these dumb Catholics call Mary sinless as 100% woman and not human, and so was not even Jewish without an identity to be Jewish and that is why She appears to Catholics all over the world but never in hell.

And notice the Annunciation via Gabriel-of-God was special but normal to identify 'first cause' from God instead of some evangelist yanking away, pertaining only to the animal man that so is prior to religion as well (which flies directly in the face of Mohammud's conversation with Gabriel, but that is not the argument here).

aa5874

Again, no substance to your posts.

Chili

Opposite to this Matthew had a dream that was not prior by nature to him (that spells faith-in the heart, btw), but likely was based on desire to get saved, and for Hitler it likely was fear after the jail-house conversion he had, while Mark skips the infancy stage all together and would never know that getting saved is just the beginning of a new journey in life (i.e. that a race was to be run), nor could he as a stranger to Judaism himself, and hence out of Egypt was called where Isis would be the one.

Of course the pope would never argue over this one, nor would the Jews for whom also faith is far greater than our faculty of reason could ever be, that was a blank slate to us when we first opened our eyes so we could see for ourself.

And here we are gathering data to see if Jesus was real or was not, while we do not even know what is real and what is not and are looking for dust to see if he was? My point here is that the real Jesus is never the one that history can produce as second Adam in us, which then is the same difference between 'woman' and 'a woman' again.

aa5874

The Pauline writer did not say when he received the story of the Last Supper from the resurrected Jesus.

In Acts, we have a completely different story. Paul and Jesus were arguing about "Kicking Pricks"--nothing about the Last Supper.

Acts 26:14 KJV

jgreen44

Then you are convinced the authors of the epistles intended to back up the gospel writers, even though the authors of the epistles rarely allude to events and teachings written in those gospels.

Chili

Nothing has changed and those are the Christians who will pack a gun to spread the good news today.