(October 25, 2012 at 11:08 am)John V Wrote:In those times they were perfectly fine with their chosen saviour god to have resided in the lower heavens while still holding human attributes. E.g. Mithras didn't slay a bull on earth to redeem mankind but rather in the heavens. I'm sure the same goes for Hercules' 12 works in that they weren't earthly occurences but rather "cosmic". Therefore, I don't see any conflict here between what Paul says and Jesus being a spirit.(October 25, 2012 at 10:45 am)FallentoReason Wrote: Wrong. It has the same air to it as the OT i.e. "he will be born of a young woman".I.e., a flesh and blood human.
Quote:Quote:Paul fails to mention Mary's name and the fact that it fulfilled a "prophecy", namely, that it was a virgin birth.And?
It goes to show the events found in the Gospels never happened.
Quote:Quote:Clearly, to a Christian this would seem incoherent, but to me it makes perfect sense because it aligns with all the other evidence to show Jesus wasn't human but a spirit, or more to the point, the Sun of God, the Light of the world whose reflection against water makes it seem like he can walk on water.Er, you just said above that it has the same air as "he will be born of a young woman," which indicates a human, not a spirit.
This isn't incoherent to Christians specifically, it's just incoherent.
Refer to what I said before.
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it" ~ Aristotle