avi

Instead of attempting to ridicule aa5874, why not employ your legendary prowess with Greek, and explain how one should interpret πνεύματος
in the text below, i.e. if NOT as “ghost”, as in “holy ghost”:

Matthew 1:18
τοῦ δὲ [Ἰησοῦ] Χριστοῦ ἡ γένεσις οὕτως ἦν μνηστευθείσης τῆς μητρὸς αὐτοῦ Μαρίας τῷ Ἰωσήφ πρὶν ἢ συνελθεῖν αὐτοὺς εὑρέθη ἐν γαστρὶ ἔχουσα ἐκ πνεύματος ἁγίου.

In my opinion, “ghost holy” is a reasonable translation of pneumatos agiou: πνεύματος ἁγίου above. Matthew 1: 18 is clearly trying to explain that this insemination was accomplished by supernatural means, not by conventional sexual union. aa5874 simply uses “ghost”, rather than the more typical synonym,“spirit”, to illustrate how absurd this fundamental tenet of Christianity, “virgin birth of the son of god”, appears in the eyes of sane, rational persons. Why would any supernatural power find it necessary to wait 9 months for his “son” to appear? He could create the universe in a day, by snapping his fingers, but, had to wait 9 months for his son to be born?

Neither Mark's gospel, John's gospel, nor Paul's epistles reference this nonsense about insemination of Mary by πνεύματος. The authors of Paul's epistles recognized the absurdities found in Matthew and excised them, in generating, in late second century, this infamous supposed correspondence between a Jewish tax collector and the plethora of extant “Christian” churches, widespread throughout the Greek/Roman Empire, as confirmed by recent excavations of numerous cathedrals dating from the second century—dating secured not by palaeography, but by physical analysis: carbon 14 content of the rocks used to build the many churches receiving Paul's letters.
:huh:

Pharoh Hatshepsut, and "nonsense":

This rejoinder is "nonsense", for spin knows perfectly well the genuine, DNA confirmed genealogy of Hatshepsut, the Egyptian pharoh. In addition, spin knows very well about recent research analyzing potential explanations for the cause of her death, including malignancy. We know as well her many accomplishments, as explained in stone carvings, not papyrus. She is not in any respect, comparable to the mythical figure, iesous, described in Koine Greek papyrus, but notably, not in coin or marble. We cannot compare genuine humans, defined by DNA, whose accomplishments have been exaggerated, post mortem, with mythological beings, purportedly able to leap tall buildings, and save the world from sin, despite absence of any physical evidence in support of a claim for their existence as living humans.

This is incorrect. No, aa5874 interprets, not assumes, the gospels as fiction, rather than as documents recording history. Yes, spin, based on Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John, there is no possibility of iesous having actually been a living human. No, spin, iesous could not have existed, as a genuine, sentient, breathing human, anymore than could have superman. There is nothing apocryphal about a claim to be able to cure epilepsy by waving one's hands in the air. It is a false claim, not a claim of dubious authenticity (definition of apocryphal). There is nothing dubious about a dishonest claim that aims at deception. The texts falsify the existence of iesous, for no human can defy gravity, by walking on water, as they proclaim. Such fanciful assertions, found throughout Christian documents, are not apocryphal, but rather, utter falsifications, deserving of precisely the ridicule heaped upon them, by aa5874's use of "ghost".

avi

Thank you for that link, very interesting.

1. Mani's teachings entered Western China via the Silk route, about the 7th-8th century CE.

2. The most famous poet in Chinese literature, is Li Bai, who had lived at that same time, in Western China, SiChuan, (ChengDu city).

3. We know from numerous studies, that the language spoken in those days, has disappeared, replaced by the northern languages, in view of the northern military dominance in subsequent centuries. The linguistic groups fled south, and East, to escape the fighting. Today, closest relatives to the ancient language of ChengDu, are Hokkien, Fujianhua, Min, and Hakka. Maybe, in the 8th century, the sounds spoken to represent the characters found in Li Bai's famous poems, were completely different from the sounds of those several languages heard today, but the point is, what westerners call "Chinese", referring to the SOUND of the language, corresponds to NONE of those languages, but rather, to PuTongHua, the language of BeiJing and the north of China. Thus, one needs to be VERY cautious about writing, as the authors at the link provided by Stephan have done:
Very sorry, but I completely disagree with their opinion. We haven't the slightest idea, what the pronunciation of iesous was, in Western China, in the 8th century. But, if we were going to offer conjecture, or supposition, about what it MIGHT have sounded like, that phonemic representation certainly would not resemble, in any way, the sound made by speakers of PuTongHua, i.e. "YiShu" as they have written. One needs to understand, writing "Chinese", when describing one of the Sino-Tibetan family of languages is a bit like writing "football", to describe ice hockey. It is like comparing Ich Habe Genug, with hip hop. The spectrum of languages in that family is enormous. The differences between Portugese, Icelandic, and Armenian, all in the same language family, are not greater than the differences among members of the Sino Tibetan family.

If very similar languages like Arabic, Aramaic, Coptic, Hebrew, and Syriac can not agree on the pronunciation of iesous, imagine the problem for such completely different language families like Turkic and Sino-Tibetan.

I enjoy listening to a Czech radio station on the internet. I don't understand Czech, but I enjoy their programming, often Bach Cantatas. It is a useful experience, in terms of this notion of what "iesous" sounded like 15 centuries ago, when spoken by Chinese interpreters of Manichaeism, transported through Turkish terrain. Do forum members appreciate just how many different linguistic groups would have influenced the final presentation of this ancient philosophy? Try listening to Cesky Rozhlas, and test yourself how many composers names you recognize, by the announcer's speech, then look up the answer, on the web site. That represents a "deformation" of only one linguistic group, from the SAME language family. No, I seriously doubt that the Greek word "iesous" was pronounced "YiShu" in western China in the 8th century CE. Hey Zeus!!! note of thanks to Philosopher Jay.

aa5874

I merely repeat what is found written or attributed to writers of antiquity. I have nothing whatsoever to do with the translation of any ancient texts.

This is Justin Martyr telling us about the NAME of a character that was born of a Ghost.

Justin's First Apology XXXIII See http://earlychristianwritings.com/te...stapology.html

I do not make stuff up. It was the translators that specifically used the word GHOST.

Examine Ignatius' Epistle to the Ephesians It may be that JESUS had multiple names in different languages but he was conceived by a GHOST.

It is claimed that Tertullian wrote in LATIN and we will see the translators did use the word Ghost to describe the Conception of the one NAMED Jesus.

Tertullian's On the Flesh of Christ spin and stephan are arguing with the wrong guy--they should argue with translators because I can only repeat what is found written or attributed to writers of antiquity.

Please, I have nothing whatsoever to do with the translation of the NAME Jesus and his conception by a Ghost.