Mike S wrote:

Stein wrote:
Josephus never gives two different descriptors to one and the same person. To suppose that James Damneides is the same person as the James summarily stoned by Ananus is to believe in the tooth fairy. We have testimony from before Constantine, before Christianity was ever "mainstreamed", that Josephus already gave to brother James the descriptor "brother of the so-called Christ" in his original ms. (http://www.secularcafe.org/showpost.php ... tcount=225) So James Damneides is someone totally different from the James who was a sibling of Jesus the so-called Christ and who was stoned by Ananus. That latter James is the one we are discussing here, and Josephus was a contemporary and a compatriot of the latter. That's why the evidence in the link that the Josephan reference was original to Josephus after all helps clinch Jesus's historicity. It confirms a contemporary reference by a compatriot to a sibling of Jesus the rabbi. This makes neither the woo believers in Mary's perpetual virginity nor the Kool-aid drinkers in the a-historicist cult happy. GOOD! Stein

Please Stein, have mercy, not Tim O'Neill! - Your fellow traveler in the endless quest for a humbler Jesus, one non-supernatural, one ‘wholly unnoticed by any literate person in Judaea’!

I’m sorry Stein, but I simply can’t buy your arguments – simply too thin, iffy, too airy-fairy.

I’m sure you already know all the many arguments against. For only some of them:

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/james.html

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/josephus-etal.html


Then, as exhaustively pointed out by so many, the words don’t mean much without the Testimonium, whereas others suggest a fraternal sense for the word ‘brother’.

“Yet Josephus's second reference falls both because it is dependent upon the earlier (false) reference for explanation – and because it actually refers to "Jesus, the son of Damneus" who was made high priest by king Agrippa!”

Oh, for crying out loud, if we're to suppose that somehow all the references in the paragraph reference the same guy(!), then explain just how come this would make it the sole example of Josephus applying two different descriptors to one and the same person?!

Stein

Let's not forget that Josephus wrote a Jewish history starting with Adam & Eve. His credibility is rat shit before he even starts!

Mike S wrote:

Stein wrote:
Josephus never gives two different descriptors to one and the same person. To suppose that James Damneides is the same person as the James summarily stoned by Ananus is to believe in the tooth fairy. We have testimony from before Constantine, before Christianity was ever "mainstreamed", that Josephus already gave to brother James the descriptor "brother of the so-called Christ" in his original ms. (http://www.secularcafe.org/showpost.php ... tcount=225) So James Damneides is someone totally different from the James who was a sibling of Jesus the so-called Christ and who was stoned by Ananus. That latter James is the one we are discussing here, and Josephus was a contemporary and a compatriot of the latter. That's why the evidence in the link that the Josephan reference was original to Josephus after all helps clinch Jesus's historicity. It confirms a contemporary reference by a compatriot to a sibling of Jesus the rabbi. This makes neither the woo believers in Mary's perpetual virginity nor the Kool-aid drinkers in the a-historicist cult happy. GOOD! Stein

Please Stein, have mercy, not Tim O'Neill! - Your fellow traveler in the endless quest for a humbler Jesus, one non-supernatural, one ‘wholly unnoticed by any literate person in Judaea’!

I’m sorry Stein, but I simply can’t buy your arguments – simply too thin, iffy, too airy-fairy.

I’m sure you already know all the many arguments against. For only some of them:

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/james.html

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/josephus-etal.html


Then, as exhaustively pointed out by so many, the words don’t mean much without the Testimonium, whereas others suggest a fraternal sense for the word ‘brother’.

“Yet Josephus's second reference falls both because it is dependent upon the earlier (false) reference for explanation – and because it actually refers to "Jesus, the son of Damneus" who was made high priest by king Agrippa!”

Well, we're only discussing a conditional statement, anyway: IF Josephus wrote the passage as we have it now.

And of course, you are correct that Josephus wouldn't write anything about 'Jesus, called Christ' without explaining who that was, and what Christ meant, to his audience.

So there are plenty of reasons to suspect that this passage, along with the Testimonium, is spurious.

Stein already knows this, as it has been explained to him over and over again over the course of many years by many posters.

Josephus' writings about Jewish History is extremely important because the writer shows that Hebrew Scripture was regarded as a credible historical source for Jews.

In addition, the fact the Josephus used Hebrew Scripture for the history of the Jews the writer has helped to corroborate what was found in Hebrew Scripture up to the end of the 1 st century.

In effect, parts of Hebrew Scripture can be re-constructed because of the writings the Antiquities of the Jews by Josephus.

In any event, even if it is assumed Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews is 'rat shit' it must be noted that NOT even Christians of antiquity used Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 to argue that James the apostle had a human brother called Jesus.

Christians writers who made reference to Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 ADMITTED James the Apostle was NOT a brother of THEIR Jesus.

How in the world could Jesus called the Anointed [Christ] who was ALIVE in the time of Nero in Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 be the same Jesus was supposedly dead in the time of Tiberius??

It is just void of reason that Jesus called the Anointed [Christ] who was ALIVE in the time of Nero could be HJ the rabbi/rebel/Savior/criminal/prophet/ preacher who was killed AFTER he supposedly caused a Fracas at the Jewish Temple in the time of Tiberius.

dejuror wrote:

Christians writers who made reference to Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 ADMITTED James the Apostle was NOT a brother of THEIR Jesus.

LOL!! "Admitted" is hardly the right word: Rather, they _insisted_ feverishly that James couldn't be a brother of good ol' rabbi Yeshua, because of their idiocy about Mary's "perpetual virginity". They found the idea of Jesus's having any siblings to be sheer anathema _because_ of all their Christian WOO, Dejuror. This is another reason why it's so hysterically funny for mythers to think that the brother James reference in Antiqs. XX is any kind of Christian interpolation. In fact, Christians in the post-Pauline period, once the miracle birth had been made up and foisted on everyone, would be the _last_ possible ones who'd want to remind _anyone_ that Jesus had a brother! Antiqs. XX is acutely _embarrassing_ to Christians for that reason. That's why it has credibility.



Stein

dejuror wrote:

Christians writers who made reference to Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 ADMITTED James the Apostle was NOT a brother of THEIR Jesus.

Stein wrote:
LOL!! "Admitted" is hardly the right word: Rather, they _insisted_ feverishly that James couldn't be a brother of good ol' rabbi Yeshua, because of their idiocy about Mary's "perpetual virginity". They found the idea of Jesus's having any siblings to be sheer anathema _because_ of all their Christian WOO, Dejuror. This is another reason why it's so hysterically funny for mythers to think that the brother James reference in Antiqs. XX is any kind of Christian interpolation. In fact, Christians in the post-Pauline period, once the miracle birth had been made up and foisted on everyone, would be the _last_ possible ones who'd want to remind _anyone_ that Jesus had a brother! Antiqs. XX is acutely _embarrassing_ to Christians for that reason. That's why it has credibility.

Your argument is void of logic. You use THE SAME WOO WOO gMatthew and WOO WOO Galatians to argue that Jesus of Nazareth was YOUR HJ.

It is virtually impossible that Jesus called the Anointed [Christ] in Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 was the supposed character called Jesus of Nazareth in the MYTH/FICTION fables of Christian Bible.

In Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 Jesus called the Anointed [Christ] was ALIVE in the time of Nero.

There is no claim anywhere in ALL the writings of Josephus that Jesus called the Anointed was dead before James his brother.

Even the Lord Jesus, in the myth/fiction fables of Christians, admitted to James that he was NOT his brother.

http://earlychristianwritings.com/text/apocalypsejames1st.html

The Apocalypse of James

...It is the Lord who spoke with me: "See now the completion of my redemption. I have given you a sign of these things, James, my brother. For not without reason have I called you my brother, although you are not my brother materially....

The argument that Jesus called Anointed [Christ] who was ALIVE c 62 CE was HJ is probably the very worst un-evidenced argument known to mankind.

In AJ 20.9.1, Jesus called Anointed [Christ] was ALIVE when Albinus was governor of Judea in the time of Nero.

Of course, there were many kinds of christian cults, and what might be 'embarrassing' to one of them might not be embarrassing to another, so it would be foolish to base any defense of credibility on such flights of fancy.

You'll notice Origen writing in the 3rd century AD doesn't seem embarrassed to say 'James, the brother of Jesus'...

http://www.textexcavation.com/anaorigjos.html

Oops!

Origen was fond of the Gospel of the Hebrews, which describes a particular meeting between James ('the Just') and Jesus, subsequent to the latter’s resurrection (an appearance not related in the canonical gospels, indicating this gospel contained the oldest traditions), and attributes the following words to Jesus: -

“My brother eat thy bread; for the Son of man is risen from the dead.”

Mike S wrote:Origen was fond of the Gospel of the Hebrews, which describes a particular meeting between James ('the Just') and Jesus, subsequent to the latter’s resurrection (an appearance not related in the canonical gospels, indicating this gospel contained the oldest traditions), and attributes the following words to Jesus: -

“My brother eat thy bread; for the Son of man is risen from the dead.”

"brothers" in Christ.

Stein wrote:...... In fact, Christians in the post-Pauline period, once the miracle birth had been made up and foisted on everyone, would be the _last_ possible ones who'd want to remind _anyone_ that Jesus had a brother! Antiqs. XX is acutely _embarrassing_ to Christians for that reason. That's why it has credibility.



Stein

I must expose Stein's absurdities.

Stein has put forward the ridiculous notion that Christians were embarrassed that THEIR Jesus had siblings.

How hopelessly illogical!!!

The very fiction/myth fable which states Jesus was born of a Ghost also implied Jesus had siblings.

Examine the Ghost story of Jesus called gMatthew.

Matthew 1:18

Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

Matthew 13:55

Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?


56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?

It is clear that Christian writers even implied that Jesus had many brothers and sisters.

The problem for Stein is that Christians writers SINGLED out James the Apostle.

James the Apostle in the myth/fiction fables called the NT was NOT the brother of Jesus.

In Galatians 1.19, there is NO claim at all that James the apostle was the brother of Jesus.

In Galatians 1.19, it is stated that "James the brother of the LORD [KU].

Galatians 1.19 actually contains the NOMINA SACRA for the LORD GOD of the Jews [KU].

There is NO manuscript of the Galatians 1.19 that states James is the brother of Jesus.

All manuscripts with Galatians 1.19 states James the brother of the LORD [KU]

KU is one of the NOMINA SACRA for the LORD GOD of the Jews in GREEK BIBLES.


http://earlybible.com/manuscripts/p46-Gal-2.html

Examine a picture of Galatians from Paypri 46.

James is the brother of the LORD [KU].

Examine the Codex Sinaiticus.

http://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx?=Submit%20Query&book=40&chapter=1&lid=en&side=r&verse=19&zoomSlider=0

James the brother of the LORD [KU]

1. Jesus called the Anointed [Christ] in AJ 20.9.1 was ALIVE in the time of Nero.

2. Galatians 1.19 does not state any where that James was the brother of Jesus.

3. Christians of antiquity did not claim James was the actual brother of Jesus.

4. Christian writers claim THEIR James was ALIVE c 68-69 CE or was ALIVE years AFTER James in AJ 20.9.1 was dead.

5. In the myth/fiction fables of Christians, Jesus admitted he was NOT the brother of James.

6. Jesus, the Rabbi is a fiction/myth character in the NT and Apologetic sources.

7. In gJohn, Jesus the Rabbi is the Logos, God Creator.

8. In the 1st Apocalypse of James, Jesus the Rabbi is UNNAMEABLE.


The HJ argument is just hopelessly absurd and void of any evidence.

Jesus the Anointed [Christ] in AJ 20.9.1 was ALIVE in the time of Albinus when Nero was Emperor.

"brothers", RealityRules? - come again, please.

An appearance to James is also mentioned in 1Corinthians 15. 7, dejuror.

The writings attributed to Origen exposes that James in Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 was not considered the actual brother of Jesus.

The writings attributed to Origen acknowledge the writings of Josephus.

Origen claimed that the BOOK of JAMES stated that James was NOT the brother of Jesus.

Commentary on Matthew X

They thought, then, that He was the son of Joseph and Mary. But some say, basing it on a tradition in the Gospel according to Peter, as it is entitled, or “The Book of James,” that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary

At this point, HJers will NEED a birth certificate [not fake] for THEIR Jesus because he is UNKNOWN in and out the Bible.

Mike S wrote:"brothers", RealityRules? - come again, please.

brethren

Brethren, RealityRules?

Jerome, in the Life of James, writing about the gospel “according to the Hebrews” (which he says he translated into Greek and Latin), relates that after our Savior’s resurrection, when our Lord had given the linen cloth to the priest’s servant, he went to James, and appeared to him; for James had sworn that he would not eat bread, from that hour in which he drank the cup of the Lord, till he should see the Lord risen from the dead. And a little after, the Lord said, ‘Bring the table and the bread;’ and then it is added, he took the bread and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to James the Just, and said to him, ‘My brother eat thy bread; for the Son of man is risen from the dead.’


Whether to do with Jesus’ genealogy, birth and infancy, his ministry, crucifixion, resurrection, and much else, there are so many contradictions in the canonical gospels that it’s hardly worth worrying about, or of referring to them at all, dejuror.

Take the question of Jesus’ genealogy. As already mentioned here, if immaculately conceived, he had no human genealogy except on the mothers’ side, something recognized in some of the earlier gospels, as well as by the earlier fathers, content that Mary was of the race of David.

Yet, the composers of Luke and Matthew, apparently not satisfied that the genealogy should be traced through a woman, promptly decided to demonstrate, strangely enough, that Joseph was descended from David. Both authors then proceed to supply a long line of ancestry (with most of the names entirely fictitious), but Matthew sees Christ descended from Solomon, the son of David, whereas Luke goes for Nathan, Solomon’s brother, ending up with different fathers for poor Joseph himself.

All delightfully nonsensical – who’d waste their time trying to reconcile or understand this kind of guff! You’d go nuts!

Mike S wrote:

Leucius Charinus wrote:
The political expediency sought by Constantine was not limited to the laws and creeds and "Canonical Books" binding Christian orthodoxy together. Constantine wanted total control of the civil legal system, and he used his appointed bishops to obtain this goal. By the year 333 CE Constantine decreed that the bishops had acquired the right to dispense justice in civil disputes.

Appearances can be deceiving

http://www.fourthcentury.com/index.php/ ... aws-notes/

“Life of Constantine:

The authenticity of many of Constantine’s laws in found in the Life of Constantine is questionable, especially the laws supposedly passed against paganism. The Life of Constantine was not a purely historical work, but a work praising and admiring the emperor from a Christian perspective. All records of anti-pagan legislation by Constantine are found in the Life of Constantine, leading many to question the veracity of such reports. Scott Bradbury (see below) argues that anti-pagan laws were passed, but not expected to be enforced. Rather, they served as an ideal or ethical law. He gives examples of this type of law, and shows that anti-pagan legislation was only cautiously and partly enforced as late as 398. He shows how references in Theodosian code 16.10.2 and Libanius’ autobiography suggest that such laws were passed but not enforced.
Others (such as Curran below) have argued that anti-pagan legislation was never passed, and such records by Eusebius only reflect the emperor’s personal inclinations. Unfrequented temples may have been torn down to build churches, and such incidences were reinterpreted by Eusebius in light of Constantine’s personal detest for pagan sacrifices.”

Firstly the law I cited was from the Theodosian Code and not Eusebius' "Life of the Thrice Blessed Constantine".

The page you referenced above cites the opinion of Scott Bradbury who presents just one side of the argument. It fails to cite T.D Barnes who presents the other side of the argument. The relevant articles are these:

Constantine and the Problem of Anti-Pagan Legislation in the Fourth Century
Scott Bradbury, Classical Philology, Vol. 89, No. 2 (Apr., 1994), pp. 120-139

Scholars have been unduly hesitant to accept the idea of a Constantinian ban on sacrifice for two reasons. First, the debate has focused too much on the evidence of Eusebius' Vita Constantini and has become a referendum on Eusebius' reliability. In the process other important evidence has not been given the prominence it deserves. Second, many skeptics have doubted the general ban on sacrifices because it would have been, in their view, provocative and politically unfeasible.

◦ Constantine's Prohibition of Pagan Sacrifice
T. D. Barnes, The American Journal of Philology, Vol. 105, No. 1 (Spring, 1984), pp. 69-72

On the assumption that Eusebius' report is reliable and accurate, it may be argued that in 324 Constantine established Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire, and that he carried through a systematic and coherent reformation, at least in the eastern provinces which he conquered in 324 as a professed Christian in a Christian crusade against the last of the persecutor.

Simply stated there is a clearly an appearance of a spectrum of scholarly opinion on the issue of Constantine's anti-pagan legislation. So we don't want to be deceived into thinking there is any consensus on this most important matter. Have a look at this opinion:

https://books.google.com.au/books?id=ZD ... 22&f=false

In a separate article related to Palladas, Kevin Wilkinson summarises the arguments presented by TD Barnes as follows:

"In more recent years, T. D. Barnes has argued very forcefully that Eusebius was a scholar, not a courtier, and that he provides a reliable account (with some exaggerations and omissions, of course) of Constantine's attempts after A.D. 324 to install Christianity as the religion of the Empire. Though Barnes's work on the topic met initially with some incredulity and is still viewed with suspicion in certain quarters, the last three decades have seen a gradual shift away from radical scepticism of the Eusebian account.

Mike S wrote:Brethren, RealityRules?

Jerome, in the Life of James, writing about the gospel “according to the Hebrews” (which he says he translated into Greek and Latin) ....

///

All delightfully nonsensical – who’d waste their time trying to reconcile or understand this kind of guff! You’d go nuts!

I have always found it helpful to draw a distinction between Christian authors before and after the Nicene Council. Jerome is writing from the end of the 4th century, and he is tenured to Damasus the Bishop and Pontifex Maximus of Rome, bring the Latin Bible to the world and many other important political activities. Whatever he or any post Nicene Christian author has to say about the events of the 1st century need to be segregated and evaluated slightly differently, don't you think?

Secondly, I think there must be also be a slightly different evaluation process of the literary evidence involved with "Gospels" for which we have an extant text (such as for example the Gospel of Judas", and those assertions of the existence of Gospels and other Christian literature which is only cited by the "Christian Church Organisation of Antiquity" - the "Fathers in Eusebius". Last time I counted I found that there is no extant text for nine texts, including the Gospel of the Hebrews, The Gospel of the Ebionites, The Gospel of the Egyptians (not the Gnostic NHL version), The Gospel of the Lord [by Marcion], The Gospel of the Nazarenes etc.

We have over 100 primary texts of Gospels to match up to some theory of authorship covering some chronological span in antiquity. We then have a category of nine or more texts, for which we have no extant independent manuscript evidence, but for which we do have extracts from these "church fathers" - the heresiologists. How useful are the texts in each of these categories?

dejuror wrote:At this point, HJers will NEED a birth certificate [not fake] for THEIR Jesus because he is UNKNOWN in and out the Bible.

Isn't that precisely the reason that Eusebius discovered the Jesus-Abgar letter exchange in his Syriac archives?

How do the HJ proponents view this blatant forgery by Big E? Shouldn't some points be lost by the HJ'ers, or do they rely on the defence of making apologies for Eusebius?

Leucius Charinus wrote:
Firstly the law I cited was from the Theodosian Code and not Eusebius' "Life of the Thrice Blessed Constantine".

I’m well aware that the cited law comes from the Theodosian Code. Commencing with the decrees as from 312, it includes those of the Constantine era, which happened to be the focus of our discussion.

You cite T. D. Barnes, “who presents the other side of the argument”, but as I noted previously, you’ve throughout relentlessly denigrated Eusebius’ worth (in fact, we must all “learn to put down our ‘Eusebius’”), and yet here again you’re falling back on T. D. Barnes’: “On the assumption that Eusebius' report is reliable and accurate…”

Barnes, as for your own assertions, seem to represent an “older historical view … an inheritance from the Church fathers of the fifth century, who wished to present the century from Constantine to Theodosius in just such terms” (see below).

And it’s just as easy for me to quote a smidgen from a review of H. A. Drake’s In Praise of Constantine:

“Constantine’s actions as emperor had to be tempered to take account of the continued existence of paganism, and of influential pagans. By presenting his conduct in terms acceptable to Christians, yet not demonstrably offensive to paganism, Constantine walked the political tightrope of being simultaneously emperor of the Roman world and a Christian.”

Or some words from Bryn Mawr review of John Curran’s Pagan City and Christian Capital.

Most scholars have tended to describe the Christianization of Rome as a kind of inexorable process. They paint a picture of Christian 'triumph' over paganism, as if the city had been besieged and conquered by an invading army. Curran's central thesis is that the transformation of Rome from a pagan to a Christian city was neither steady nor inevitable. In place of a picture of linear development, Curran gives us a nuanced account of an unfolding phenomenon with stops and starts closely tied to the personalities of the successive fourth-century emperors. His "catalogue of compromise, inconsistency, and contradiction" (p. viii) is, I am convinced, a much more accurate portrayal of the changing nature of Roman society and Roman topography than the notion of Christian victory over paganism. That older historical view is an inheritance from the Church fathers of the fifth century, who wished to present the century from Constantine to Theodosius in just such terms.

The opening chapter treats the laws regulating religious practices enacted during the fourth century, beginning with the Edict of Milan, which, as Curran properly emphasizes, guaranteed freedom of religion not only to Christians but to adherents of all religions, including the traditional state religion. The Christianization of Roman society, like that of Rome itself, was slow and unsteady. Constantine's sons, for example, banned pagan sacrifices in 341, but did not simultaneously close the pagan temples. Although all temples in all cities were ordered shut in 356, there is evidence that traditional sacrifices continued. Under Julian, the temples were reopened and sacrifices legalized. Gratian rejected the position and title of pontifex maximus and effectively brought an end to the state religion, but did not ban pagan worship by individuals. The temples remained open until Theodosius made the ancient cults illegal, bringing the era of toleration firmly to an end.

http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2001/2001-07-17.html

Mike S wrote:Brethren, RealityRules?

Jerome, in the Life of James, writing about the gospel “according to the Hebrews” (which he says he translated into Greek and Latin), relates that after our Savior’s resurrection, when our Lord had given the linen cloth to the priest’s servant, he went to James, and appeared to him; for James had sworn that he would not eat bread, from that hour in which he drank the cup of the Lord, till he should see the Lord risen from the dead. And a little after, the Lord said, ‘Bring the table and the bread;’ and then it is added, he took the bread and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to James the Just, and said to him, ‘My brother eat thy bread; for the Son of man is risen from the dead.’

.....

All delightfully nonsensical – who’d waste their time trying to reconcile or understand this kind of guff! You’d go nuts!

Exactly. The notions are very likely to be literary constructions.

Mike S wrote:....All delightfully nonsensical – who’d waste their time trying to reconcile or understand this kind of guff! You’d go nuts!

The myth/fiction fables of Jesus and James are blatant implausible nonsense so who'd go nuts and attempt to use them as credible history?

It is evident that no attempt was made to historicise Jesus in the NT.

The very same gMatthew which gave a genealogy for Joseph claimed Jesus was born of a Ghost.

Examine gMatthew 1.1-18.

The author states Abraham begat Isaac and Isaac begat Jacob....................15 And Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob, And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

Instead of simply writing that Joseph BEGAT Jesus the author openly states Jesus was born AFTER his mother was found with child of a Ghost.

The author of gMatthew has made his own genealogy historically useless.

There can be no clearer evidence that the Jesus character was NEVER INTENDED to be a figure of history.

The use of obvious myth/fiction fables called the New Testament as credible historical sources for Jesus and James must mean some may have gone nuts.

The author of gMatthew PUBLICLY declared his Jesus was BORN of a Ghost yet people here are claiming Jesus in gMatthew was a real human being because he made a Sermon on the Mount.

Who'd go nuts and use Ghost stories as history??

Matthew 1

18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

Christians themselves OPENLY ARGUED that THEIR Jesus was born of a Ghost.

Jesus of Nazareth was a Ghost story UNTIL HJers can present historical evidence for THEIR Jesus.