Scotsguy44

No, I don't. Nor do I think that philosophical naturalism is true but those views are irrelevant to the point being made that in the account Mary is not inseminated as tanya claimed hence there is no analogy to draw between Mary and any other birth account with insemination.

Matt

tanya

So then, Matt, WHO, or WHAT is πνευμα αγιον ?

How could the "born holy one" (γεννωμενον αγιον) be called "son of God", i.e. "son of YHWH", unless the holy spirit, who employed his "power" to "overshadow" Mary, had impregnated her? Is it not crystal clear that Luke expects those listening to his version of how Jesus arrived on planet Earth, to appreciate that YHWH put a bit of his sperma into good old Mary? (Except she was not that old, was she Matt, she was just a child.)

In particular, how can we be sure that the writer of Luke, intended his audience to understand that πνευμα αγιον, and θεου both refer to YHWH or equivalent (elohim) here is And here is the Hebrew version:

Scotsguy44

No, it is not crystal clear at all that the author intended his words to be taken as some sort of crude suggestion that the spirit of God (or the Holy Spirit) inseminated Mary. For a maximally powerful God the impregnation of a woman aside from natural means is a trivial matter.

In the culture in which Mary lived she was a young woman of marriageable age hence there is no value in your innuendo remark about her being a child.

Thanks
Matt

tanya

Agreed.

I thought the idea was to demonstrate, convincingly, that the idea of Jesus as an historical person was absurd.

"...aside from natural means..." does that for me.

Myth = supernatural attribution. "...aside from natural means..." is another way of expressing "supernatural", with a bit less Latin, and a bit more anglo-saxon.

Scotsguy44

It does not logically follow that because the NT makes 'mythical' claims about Jesus (e.g. a supernatural birth) that there was no historical Jesus behind those claims. That being obviously true I'm not quite sure how logically you could be so easily satisfied.

Thanks
Matt

aa5874

Well it does NOT logically follow that Jesus was a figure of history because he was describe as a Myth.

People who want to argue that Jesus was a figure of history have NO description of Jesus as a figure of history in any credible source of antiquity and still PERSIST in their ILLOGICAL QUEST to find a Jesus who is UNKNOWN.

Now, It LOGICALLY follows that if Jesus was Mythological that he would be described as Myth.

And that is PRECISELY found in the EXISTING CODICES.

Jesus of the CODICES was DESCRIBED as a MYTH so it is reasonable and completely logically to argue that Jesus of the CODICES was Myth.

Gabriel was called an ANGEL hence it is completely LOGICAL and reasonable to argue that Gabriel of the CODICES was Mythological.

Satan was called the DEVIL likewise it is completely LOGICAL and reasonable that SATAN of the CODICES was Mythological.

Jesus was called the BEGOTTEN of God in the EXISTING CODICES so it it most LOGICAL and reasonable to argue that Jesus was a DIVINE character, a Non-historical character.

John 3
It is highly ILLOGICAL for people here to argue that Jesus was a FIGURE of history when VIRTUALLY ALL authors of the CODICES STATE Jesus was GOD, and NOT ONLY GOD but the CREATOR of heaven and earth.

People here have ZERO sources for THEIR unknown historical Jesus and have been looking for THEIR Jesus for 250 years and want to give us the impression that THEIR Jesus has been MAGICALLY found.

The QUEST is still on. No AMOUNT of ILLOGICAL FALLACIES can make the LOGOS a Figure of history.

In the EXISTING CODICES Jesus was the LOGOS.

The LOGOS is MYTH.

tanya

I acknowledge being easily satisfied....

Thank you, well expressed.

:notworthy:

I will repeat myself, Matt. In another thread, on this topic, from last week, I explained it this way, paraphrasing your text:

My point is this: If you wish to claim that Jesus lived, based on a Greek fairy tale, then, you ought to be consistent, and claim that Hercules, too, was historical.

How would you feel about Superman? There must have once been a kiddo who arrived here from another planet, because the supernatural component of the story, doesn't rule out an historical antecedent?

I think you have it twisted around, Matt.

If you wish to posit an historical Jesus, holding up the gospels as Atlas holding up the earth, then, all you have to do is explain to me why Philo of Alexandria, CE 40, who writes about Hercules, makes no mention of Jesus?

Scotsguy44

I agree with you that consistency is necessary on any standard being set and this one is no different. Hence what we get to in my thinking is this:

The mere mention of any character in any ancient document is prima facie evidence for the historical existence of that character unless that document itself clearly states it is intended as pure fiction or myth or poetry etc.

On that standard we start with both Jesus and Hercules with prima facie historical existence but then we look for stronger counter-evidence against that historicity. If it is present the prima facie case is defeated. If it is not then the prima facie case remains intact.

Before discussing specifics on those characters, or any other, what is your view of this approach applied consistently?

Thanks
Matt

aa5874

Please, please, please!!!! Don't you even remember that there is an ON-GOING QUEST for the historical Jesus??

Over 250 years ago the CODICES was considered PRIMA-FACIE evidence for a DIVINE, Non-historical Jesus hence a SEARCH was INITIATED to find a Jesus.

Have you NOT even seen the description of Jesus by those who MENTION the character Jesus????

There is ZERO need to look for any counter evidence outside the sources that MENTION Jesus.

The EVIDENCE is found in the very source that MENTIONED Jesus.

gMark MENTIONS Jesus.

The COUNTER-EVIDENCE AGAINST the historicity of gMark's Jesus is in gMark itself.

1. gMark's Jesus WALKED on water.

2. gMark's Jesus Transfigured.

3. gMark's Jesus RESURRECTED.

4. gMark's Jesus was IDENTIFIED as the Son of God.

gMatthew MENTIONS Jesus

The Counter-Evidence Against the historicity of Jesus is found in gMatthew itself.

1. gMatthew's Jesus WALKED on water.

2. gMatthew's Jesus Transfigured.

3. gMatthew's Jesus RESURRECTED.

4. gMatthew's Jesus was IDENTIFIED as the Son of God.

5. gMatthew's Jesus was FATHERED by a Holy Ghost of God.

gLuke MENTIONS Jesus
The Counter-Evidence Against the historicity of Jesus is found in gLuke itself.

1. gluke's Jesus was FATHERED by a Holy Ghost of God

2. gLuke's Jesus Transfigured.

3. gluke's Jesus RESURRECTED.

4. gLuke's Jesus was IDENTIFIED as the Son of God.

5. gLuke's Jesus ascended to heaven.


gJohn MENTIONS Jesus
The Counter-Evidence Against the historicity of Jesus is found in gJohn itself.

1. gJohn's Jesus was the LOGOS.

2. gJohn's Jesus was GOD.

3. gJohn's Jesus was the CREATOR of everything in heaven and earth.

4. gJohn's Jesus walked on water.

5. gluke's Jesus RESURRECTED.

The Pauline letters MENTION Jesus The COUNTER-EVIDENCE Against the historicity of Jesus is fond in the Pauline letters.

1. The Pauline Jesus was NOT human.

2. The Pauline Jesus was God's Son.

3. The Pauline Jesus was UNLIKE ADAM, NOT of earth, but from Heaven.

4. The Pauline Jesus resurrected.

We have LOTS MORE Counter-Evidence against the historicity of Jesus in the very CODICES that MENTION Jesus and perhaps FAR more than Hercules.

Only the illogical would accept that the EXISTING CODICES are PRIMA FACIE evidence of an historical Jesus.

The EXISTING CODICES are PRIMA FACIE evidence of a DIVINE character--a non-historical character and we have an ON-GOING QUEST by SCHOLARS to put all doubts to rest.

[ Please, please, please!!!!! It is HJ SCHOLARS who are LOOKING for a Jesus and they CAN'T FIND one because there is NO Prima Facie evidence.

No-one can or ever will find an UNKNOWN.

outhouse

of course we are limited to what light the church has shined. But adopted is a better word


I have my own flashlight and ignore the early church, and have absolutely no reason to look in their direction for the work on a Hjesus.

beyond Gmark and Paul L and M and Q and T and archeology were done besides a small handful of gnostis material not directly related.