Jonathon Wilder

Who was that to? :constern02:

Steven Carr

Why cannot you 'dialogue' by telling us all the facts about Jesus in the Gospels that have been shown to be historical?

You can start with his birth in Bethlehem, and end with his being killed by the Romans, contradicting the repeated claims in Acts that the Jews killed Jesus.

Zaphod

Juststeve.

Jonathon Wilder

I see.

Failte

Unless corroborated by sources external to the gospels and religious documents (which are the creations of writers with specific agendas and biases to make them true), the gospels are not in any way evidence of a historical Jesus.

Not all sects of christianity agree with this, and scripture is interpreted differently by the 33 thousand different groups, some of whom believe jesus was human, some believe he was divine, some believe both. It was even decided by committee at one point, although later splits and schisms changed that belief.

There is no ONE story that every christian agrees with, regarding Jesus, his nature, and the nature of his death. You just picked the one you want to be true, and taht makes the rest of your opinion more palatable.

aa5874

It is you who may have misconceived the difference between what gMatthew says and what gLuke, and gJohn say.

Once gMatthew was written BEFORE gLuke, and gJohn then the claims in gMatthew that Jesus was the offspring of the Holy Ghost predates the VERSIONS of JESUS found in gLuke and gJohn.

gLuke and gJohn presented LATER versions of Jesus. .

Now, look at scriptures that say he is the offspring of the Holy Ghost.

Matthew 1.18, 1.20.



Your claim is just blatantly and obviously false that "nothing says he is the offspring of the Holy Ghost".

Matthew 1.18 say Jesus was the offspring of the Holy Ghost.

Mt 1:18 -
Something in the Gospels does say that Jesus was the offspring of the Holy Ghost.

Again, look at Matthew 1.20, in this passage it says Jesus was conceived of the Holy Ghost.

Mt 1:20
Again, something in the Gospels does say that Jesus was the offspring of the Holy Ghost.

And, gMatthew's birth narrative appears to be EARLIER than gLuke or the information in gJohn about the origin of Jesus.

Jonathon Wilder

she was found with child (. power) of the Holy Ghost.

That is what it means. Far more scriptures say Jesus is the Son of God. Also, who says that the scripture are in the correct order?

show_no_mercy

Oh? And what about the (anti-Marcionite) first line of John? It says that Jesus was Philo's pre-existent Logos through whom god created the world. Sure sounds like an omnipotent deity to me.

Why restrict yourself to the NT when that wasn't one "canon" until -- at the earliest -- 180 CE. Do you have any idea how many variant Jesus stories and Christologies there were before the Catholics decided to... well, "catholicize" (Greek for "whole" or "universal")?

Some Christians thought Jesus and the Christ were two separate beings, since they only used Mark.

Some thought that he was the son of a different god than the god of the Jews and had no physical form.

Some thought that he was 100% human and only came to light the inner flame of knowledge; that knowledge is what really saves us.

Some thought that Jesus switched places with Simon of Cyrene and it was actually that Simon -- who looked like Jesus -- that died on the cross (this is a variant on what Muslims believe).

The only reason that you stick with the NT is because that was the variant of Christianity that had the best organizational structure and won the popularity contest. Probably the only reason that Paul's letters make up half of the NT was because the Catholics stole him from the Marcionites during their catholicizing.

aa5874

Why did you BLATANTLY insert the word "power"?

Matthew 1.18 does NOT say "power".

You want to re-write gMatthew? Why can't you admit that gMatthew 1.18 and 1.20 SAY that Jesus was the offspring of the Holy Ghost?

Do you NOT understand that gMatthew may have been written BEFORE the author of gLuke used the word "power" in his version of the conception?

This is a most BLATANT re-write of Matthew 1.20. You have inserted a word used by a LATER writer just in order to alter the meaning of the passage.

Why can't you admit that the word "power" is NOT in Matt. 1.20?

And, if you can insert the word "power" in Matt.1.18 & 20, then some-one can REMOVE the word "power" from gLuke to alter its meaning.

Jonathon Wilder

I was making that point as that is what is meant, and clarifying. :huh: Other scritpure clearly show that that is what is meant. Jesus in the NT is show to be the Son of God, not the Son of the Holy Ghost. It is as clear as day.