Son of a God

[StuartJ]

Okay, the human Jesus is a possibility.

Is there independently verifiable evidence that Jesus was sired by the (for me mythological) Jewish deity Yahweh on a human virgin ...?

[Willum]

I really think you should answer the question.

I'm sure you do.

If God said it (and He did), I believe Him. Foolish speculation is for... fools.

I know you weren't speaking about me, so in general, so don't you mean foolish and unnecessary assumptions are for fools?

I mean there is no reason or need for a virgin birth, is there?
There are witnesses who claim a mundane birth, and just a claim afterwards saying divine...
You'd also have to assume God's genetics are the same as ours, which continues the foolishness doesn't it?
Or accept that God can do anything, and so could have used a kangaroo as his surrogate, which would also continue the foolishness, right? Which begs the question of a virgin Mary again right? That kind of makes God look foolish, doesn't it?

Is there any path through this maze Christians live in that doesn't result in an illogical, or as you put it, foolish, result?

[marco]

Okay, the human Jesus is a possibility.

Is there independently verifiable evidence that Jesus was sired by the (for me mythological) Jewish deity Yahweh on a human virgin ...?

We have some positive indicators of heaven's complicity in giving Mary her labour pains. There are four angelic messages:

a. The angelic announcement to Zechariah (proof in painting in Urbino, Italy)
b. The angelic announcement to Mary (Fra Angelico, Titian and others prove this)
c. The angelic announcement to Joseph (dream - not so reliable)
d. The angelic announcement to the shepherds (Bassano il Vecchio, Jacopo)

The paintings may be the later angelic inspiration in response to appeals for evidence. We don't have the names of the shepherds who perhaps rushed to the nearest (overcrowded) hotel to say they'd been told some news by angelic post. I think the painting suggests lots of angels were commissioned.

Joseph apparently didn't ask for a paternity test since they weren't available then but the usual formula is to accept all Biblical announcements on faith.

[StuartJ]

Okay, the human Jesus is a possibility.

Is there independently verifiable evidence that Jesus was sired by the (for me mythological) Jewish deity Yahweh on a human virgin ...?

We have some positive indicators of heaven's complicity in giving Mary her labour pains. There are four angelic messages:

... the usual formula is to accept all Biblical announcements on faith.

Angelic messages and faith are NOT independently verifiable evidence.

The politeness of this forum prevents me from expressing what they really are.

[StuartJ]

[Replying to post 33 by marco]

Hey Marco - just read some of your other posts on other topics.

Your post here is very clever.

I wasn't clever enough to pick it up straight away ....

Cheers

[marco]

Angelic messages and faith are NOT independently verifiable evidence.

The politeness of this forum prevents me from expressing what they really are.

I hope you are enjoying life on a polite forum, Stuart. I have visited some where the calling cards are curses. The problem with irony placed among piety is that it is so easily mistaken for the genuine article. But I like to see Mother Piety occasionally lash out with her umbrella and bruise my ignorance.

Though it may seem as if we're dealing in the coinage of absurdity when speaking of God's boy, all human life and belief is the stuff of examination. Khayyam, through the poetic lens of Fitzgerald, points the way to viewing our search:

" 'Tis all a Chequer-board of nights and days
Where Destiny with men for Pieces plays:
Hither and thither moves, and mates,and slays,
And one by one back in the closet lays.�


Did Destiny play games in Bethlehem? And did those feet in ancient time walk round the Sea of Galilee to court crucifixion? How odd of God if that was the only way he could think of to communicate, and redeem. The Pope-mobile is surely an improvement. But the real miracle is the avalanche of belief that followed. Does that reflect more on human need than on God's paternity?

[StuartJ]

[Replying to post 36 by marco]

Cheers

I'm going to hazard a guess that you're a Brit ...?

[marco]

[Replying to post 36 by marco]

Cheers

I'm going to hazard a guess that you're a Brit ...?

Well we are putting poor Marco in place of discussing God's son here, so let me escape, lest crucifixion follow.


A glance at location tells me you are Australian Stuart; without guessing. You can likewise see I am from bonnie Scotland, home of Mel Gibson's Braveheart - and other things.

And many of my countrymen firmly believe Jesus was / is the Son of God. One way of making sense of the words is to give them a figurative meaning. In fact the Bible sits nicely - in places - under the guise of poetry.

[StuartJ]

[Replying to post 37 by marco]

No one does irony and wordplay quite like a Brit.

Hence the guess.

Love the Jerusalem reference BTW

[Don McIntosh]

Angelic messages and faith are NOT independently verifiable evidence.

The politeness of this forum prevents me from expressing what they really are.

I hope you are enjoying life on a polite forum, Stuart. I have visited some where the calling cards are curses. The problem with irony placed among piety is that it is so easily mistaken for the genuine article. But I like to see Mother Piety occasionally lash out with her umbrella and bruise my ignorance.

Though it may seem as if we're dealing in the coinage of absurdity when speaking of God's boy, all human life and belief is the stuff of examination. Khayyam, through the poetic lens of Fitzgerald, points the way to viewing our search:

" 'Tis all a Chequer-board of nights and days
Where Destiny with men for Pieces plays:
Hither and thither moves, and mates,and slays,
And one by one back in the closet lays.�


Did Destiny play games in Bethlehem? And did those feet in ancient time walk round the Sea of Galilee to court crucifixion? How odd of God if that was the only way he could think of to communicate, and redeem. The Pope-mobile is surely an improvement. But the real miracle is the avalanche of belief that followed. Does that reflect more on human need than on God's paternity?

Marco, I hit the "Like this post" link by accident. But I do genuinely appreciate a lot of what you say (as you know), so please take it as a vote of confidence of my part that you will produce more material that is respectfully insightful and less that is politely condescending. I will agree with you on this much: it would be odd for an avalanche of belief to result from a failure of communication. Odder still if God had to consult with Marco before drawing up plans to redeem his own.

[marco]

I will agree with you on this much: it would be odd for an avalanche of belief to result from a failure of communication. Odder still if God had to consult with Marco before drawing up plans to redeem his own.

I was unaware there were pejorative compliments, Don.


An avalanche of belief followed Muhammad's leadership and oratory. It is always interesting to enquire whether millions can be wrong or does weight of numbers give a nudge to Truth?

I don't understand what the final sentence wishes to convey but I guess that my name in such uncomfortable proximity to God is not a good thing.

I don't believe in the concept of God having a son but I accept that in classical mythology gods do have sons, and plausibly so. The Christian annexation of this old custom shouldn't merit condemnation or surprise; nor should the attribution of deity to a popular figure. It happens today.