Boro Nut

But wouldn't that imply someone came up with the virgin birth concept at some later date based on a faulty interpretation of a prophecy that never was, so had to change what god himself said? It makes a lot more sense that the laws of physics were interrupted. These are men of the cloth after all.

Isn't it more likely that god got caught up in the emotion of the day and simply misspoke? After all, Jesus didn't decide to join the family firm until he was 33, instead of being dipped at the more normal age of 6 months or so. That must have been quite a blow for god all those years, and a huge relief. Especially after a mere carpenter stole the girl, remember. I know how women's brains work. You'd have to be seriously ugly to have that much power and wealth and still lose out to a peasant.

Boro Nut

Ben C Smith

Yes, I think it would imply roughly this scenario. The first half of what you wrote (that the virgin birth concept came later) is my own view, at any rate, regardless of whether or not the second half (that the original words were today I have begotten you) is true.

Is there a than missing here? More sense than that the laws of physics were interrupted?

This part, I fear, I do not understand much of.

Ben.

Toto

Ben - Boro Nut is the house satirist. Something of an acquired taste.

WoundedEgo

The origin of Jesus is the subject of several myths.

* he existed eternally - trinitarianism
* he was miraculously conceived - possibly by Yehovah fucking Miriam - Matthew, Romans 1
* he was a sinner, but later, he became a son - Luke

Etc

Hard to pin down

Http://bibleshockers.com

Amaleq13

I'll PM a translation but, as is true of most jokes, some humor may be lost in the process.

I specifically requested ranch.

dog-on

So maybe this is why Paul doesn't seem too interested in the human part of the story. The Christ merely possessed the body of some poor Jewish guy, kinda like demons do... :devil1:

Ben C Smith

Honey mustard for me.

Thanks for the PM. All is clear now.

Ben.

Ben C Smith

Look very closely at when Paul (in the extant text) thinks Jesus was declared to be the son of God; see Romans 1.4.

If the messiah was not crowned until his anointing (that is, his baptism), as in Mark, then his life before the baptism is rather unimportant; and behold, we get little or no information about his life before the baptism in Mark.

If the messiah was not crowned until his death and resurrection, as apparently in Paul, then his life before his death and resurrection is rather unimportant; and behold, we get little or no information about his life before his death in Paul.

If, however, the messiah was seen to be such since birth or even before that, as in Matthew and Luke, then even his infancy would seem to be of some importance; and behold, we get more information along those lines in Matthew and Luke.

John is sort of a wild card, inasmuch as a messianic preexistence comes into much fuller view, but indeed that gospel does start with his preexistence, though skipping his infancy.

Ben.

dog-on

"Paul (in the extant text)", cool...

Of course, one could argue, that we go from no flesh to a whole lotta...

I have started looking at John, myself. Removing the (interpolated :angel: ) layers, one could argue for a fairly gnostic reading of this rather anti-Jewish gospel. Could a proto-John have actually been at odds with Mark, later answered by Mat (and of course the new and improved Luke), yet later given the once (or thrice) over by the Judaizers?

Ben C Smith

Anything is possible, and speculations are cheap and common. What is usually in short supply is evidence.

Ben.