The Historical Jesus III

[Craig B]

Sorry Stone, but even Biblical scholar I. Howard Marshall acknowledges "the Gospels tell us the story of Jesus exactly as it happened" as part of 'The description of Jesus in the Gospels corresponds to what he was actually like' section of the historical Jesus spectrum.

@ Stone. This is the new mythicist trick. I wonder if they really believe it, but anyway it is this.

- The Bible-thumping Fundie literalists believe the Bible to be inerrant.
- Therefore they believe every element of the NT accounts of Jesus' life to be entirely true.
- That means, that these accounts are historically accurate.
- But HJ proponents believe that there was a historical real Jesus.
- Therefore they believe that these accounts are historically accurate.
- Therefore HJ proponents are Bible-thumping literalists.

QED.

 

[dejudge]

@ Stone. This is the new mythicist trick. I wonder if they really believe it, but anyway it is this.

- The Bible-thumping Fundie literalists believe the Bible to be inerrant.
- Therefore they believe every element of the NT accounts of Jesus' life to be entirely true.
- That means, that these accounts are historically accurate.
- But HJ proponents believe that there was a historical real Jesus.
- Therefore they believe that these accounts are historically accurate.
- Therefore HJ proponents are Bible-thumping literalists.

QED.

No, No, No!!! You made up that "trick"!!

You believe Jesus in the NT LITERALLY existed and you BELIEVE gMark, gMatthew and the Pauline Corpus contains LITERAL historical accounts of Jesus and you do so WITHOUT any corroborative credible evidence from antiquity.

What mythicist trick are you talking about??

You use the same Christian Bible as the Bible Thumping Fundamentalists.

But your position is FAR WORSE than the Fundies.

Fundies BELIEVE the WHOLE BIBLE and do not discredit their sources.

You openly admit the Christian Bible is riddled with Fiction and Hallucinations but still use it as an historical source WITHOUT external corroboration.

You admit the Holy Ghost birth narrative were LATER additions but fail to point out that Joseph is ALSO a late addition in the very same LATER Gospels.

Isn't it true that it is claimed that Jesus was born of a Holy Ghost and a Virgin in gLuke ?

Isn't it true that it is claimed Jesus was born after his mother was FOUND with child by a Holy Ghost in gMatthew?

If you use the Christian Bible to argue that the Father of Jesus was Joseph then you will ONLY expose that the Christian Bible is NOT credible.

It is completely unacceptable to use admitted discredited sources WITHOUT corroboration.

 

[Mcreal]

"...the Greek word for 'carpenter' in the gospels actually stands for an underlying Aramaic term that is used metaphorically in the Talmud to denote a scholar." (Porter, 2004, p. 81)

"In the Gospels, Jesus is called a tekton, a Greek word that meant not merely a carpenter skilled in making cabinets or furniture but a designer, construction engineer, or architect. A tekton could build a house, construct a bridge, or design a temple." (Starbird, 2003, p. 53)

"It is highly unlikely that Jesus was a carpenter. If we examine the 48 parables that occur in the Gospels, not a single one draws upon the experiences of a carpenter. Three of them refer to buildings (e.g., house divided, foolish builder, unfinished tower), and these may offer support for the idea that Jesus’ father was a builder, not a carpenter" - Jesus was a Carpenter "Error"

Cheers; that's was what I was getting at.

"The Jesus most people know is a mishmash of the Gospel account" ... which, in turn, is midrash of the Septuangint; and a syncretism of it and other religions of the time.

 

[Craig B]

Cheers; that's was what I was getting at.

"The Jesus most people know is a mishmash of the Gospel account" ... which, in turn, is midrash of the Septuangint; and a syncretism of it and other religions of the time.

I don't accept that the gospels are a midrash of the Septuagint, and I don't know if Jesus was a carpenter or not. What I stated was that at least one of the sources that comprise the Gospel material says he was. My point is that not all parts of all Gospels make him a virgin born son of the Holy Ghost.

 

[dejudge]

I don't accept that the gospels are a midrash of the Septuagint, and I don't know if Jesus was a carpenter or not. What I stated was that at least one of the sources that comprise the Gospel material says he was. My point is that not all parts of all Gospels make him a virgin born son of the Holy Ghost.

Again, your statement is an established fallacy.

A QUESTION was ASKED about Jesus the Transfigurer being a carpenter.

Mark 6:3

Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us?

In NONE of the Gospels is Jesus the Transfiguring Water Walker described as a carpenter.

A QUESTION is NOT a description.

It is corroborated by ORIGEN in "Against Celsus" 6 attributed to Origen that Jesus was NOT described as a carpenter in the Gospels of the Church.

Origen's Against Celsus 6 "

in none of the Gospels current in the Churches is Jesus Himself ever described as being a carpenter.

In "Against Celsus" it is also corroborated that Christians did ARGUE AGAINST an historical Jesus.

Origen ARGUED AGAINST Celsus and stated that Jesus was BORN of a Ghost.

"Against Celsus" 1

.... let us see whether those who have blindly concocted these fables about the adultery of the Virgin with Panthera, and her rejection by the carpenter, did not invent these stories to overturn His miraculous conception by the Holy Ghost........ It was to be expected, indeed, that those who would not believe the miraculous birth of Jesus would invent some falsehood."

Based on Origen, the historical Jesus was an EXPECTED Falsehood invented by those who did NOT believe that Jesus was born of a Ghost.

There was NEVER any historical data for Jesus of Nazareth.

The historical Jesus is an INVENTED falsehood.

Jesus of Nazareth was an established figure of mythology.

 

[maximara]

@ Stone. This is the new mythicist trick. I wonder if they really believe it, but anyway it is this.

- The Bible-thumping Fundie literalists believe the Bible to be inerrant.
- Therefore they believe every element of the NT accounts of Jesus' life to be entirely true.
- That means, that these accounts are historically accurate.
- But HJ proponents believe that there was a historical real Jesus.
- Therefore they believe that these accounts are historically accurate.
- Therefore HJ proponents are Bible-thumping literalists.

QED.

The Christ Myth Strawman rides again. As I have shown the Christ myth is far more then just Jesus didn't exist:

The term "Jesus myth theory" or "Christ Myth theory" has been used to describe the following ideas (going from totally imaginary to partly historical):



* The Christ Myth may be a form of modern Docetism. - Grant, Michael. Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels. Scribner, 1995; first published 1977, p. 199

* Jesus Agnosticism: The Gospel story is so filled with myth and legend that nothing about it including the very existence of the Jesus described can be shown to be historical. Eddy, Paul R. and Boyd, Gregory A. The Jesus Legend Baker Academic, 2007. pg 24-25

* Jesus is an entirely fictional or mythological character created by the Early Christian community.

* Jesus began as a myth with historical trappings possibly including "reports of an obscure Jewish Holy man bearing this name" being added later. - Walsh, George (1998) The Role of Religion in History Transaction Publishers pg 58; Dodd, C.H. (1938) History and the Gospel under the heading Christ Myth Theory Manchester University Press pg 17


* The Gospel Jesus is in essence a composite character (that is, an amalgamation of several actual individuals whose stories have been melded into one character, such as is the case with Robin Hood), and therefore non-historical by definition. - Price, Robert M. (2000) Deconstructing Jesus Prometheus Books, pg 85

*Jesus was historical but lived around 100 BCE. - Mead, G. R. S. The Talmum 100 Years B.C. Story of Jesus", "Did Jesus Live 100 B.C.?", 1903.

Price, Robert M. "Jesus at the Vanishing Point" in James K. Beilby & Paul Rhodes Eddy (eds.) The Historical Jesus: Five Views. InterVarsity, 2009, p. 65


*The Gospel Jesus didn't exist and GA Wells' Jesus Myth (1999) is an example of this. Note that from Jesus Legend (1996) on Wells has accepted there was a historical Jesus behind the hypothetical Q Gospel and that both Jesus Legend and Jesus Myth have been presented as examples of the Christ Myth theory by Robert Price, Graham Stanton, and Eddy-Boyd

* Christianity cannot "be traced to a personal founder as reported in the Gospels and was put to death in the circumstances there recorded." - John Robertson 1900 A Jesus who died of old age or only preached 'End of the World is nigh' speeches to small groups would qualify.


* (The Christ myth is) "the theory that no historical Jesus worthy of the name existed, that Christianity began with a belief in a spiritual, mythical figure, that the Gospels are essentially allegory and fiction, and that no single identifiable person lay at the root of the Galilean preaching tradition. "In simpler terms, the historical Jesus did not exist. Or if he did, he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity"

* "This view (Christ Myth theory) states that the story of Jesus is a piece of mythology, possessing no more substantial claims to historical fact than the old Greek or Norse stories of gods and heroes..." There are modern examples of stories of known historical people "possessing no more substantial claims to historical fact than the old Greek or Norse stories of gods and heroes"--George Washington and the Cherry Tree; Davy Crockett and the Frozen Dawn; Jesse James and the Widow to mention a few. King Arthur and Robin Hood are two more examples of suspected historical people whose stories are most likely fictional in nature.

* Christ-myth theories are part of the "theories that regard Jesus as an historical but insignificant figure."


Craig B and his ilk like to keep ignoring these other definitions of the Christ Myth theory even when they are accepted (or even presented) by their fellow historical Jesus supporters. THEY created, maintained, or accepted these overly broad definitions and then they cry when the definitions blow up in their faces.

 

[maximara]

I don't accept that the gospels are a midrash of the Septuagint, and I don't know if Jesus was a carpenter or not. What I stated was that at least one of the sources that comprise the Gospel material says he was. My point is that not all parts of all Gospels make him a virgin born son of the Holy Ghost.

Well only Luke and Matthew do this and there are indications that the stuff before Luke 3:1 was a kludge added to try make Luke agree with Matthew.

Given the whole born of virgin and son of a "god" shows up for people KNOWN to have existed the idea that it was a figure of speech signifying the "extraordinary personal qualities exhibited by an individual" seems to be a Occam Razor.

It is like the story that Temujin was born with a clot of blood in his hand signifying that he would one day conquer China. It was an after the fact "prophecy" "foretelling" the person's eventual importance. Jesus being born of a virgin fits this regardless of him being real like Plato or imaginary like Zeus.

Taking born with a virgin literally is as nonsensical as asking if the silver spoon George W. Bush had in his mouth when he was born was sterling or plate.

 

[dejudge]

Well only Luke and Matthew do this and there are indications that the stuff before Luke 3:1 was a kludge added to try make Luke agree with Matthew.

Given the whole born of virgin and son of a "god" shows up for people KNOWN to have existed the idea that it was a figure of speech signifying the "extraordinary personal qualities exhibited by an individual" seems to be a Occam Razor.

Your claim is most bizarre.

You seem to have very little understanding of the teachings of the Church which Canonised the stories of the birth of their Jesus.

Christians ARGUED that their Jesus was TRULY BORN OF a Ghost and a Virgin and was God Creator from the beginning.

Anyone at any level who examines the Canonised NT should quickly see that Jesus of Nazareth was a TRANSFIGURING Water Walker or God Creator in the Gospels without Holy Ghost birth narratives.

The internal evidence from writings of antiquity show that Christians writers who used the NT did ARGUE AGAINST ah historical Jesus.

Examine "On the Flesh of Christ" attributed to Tertullian.

Now, that we may give a simpler answer, it was not fit that the Son of God should be born of a human father's seed............ He only wanted to assume flesh, of the flesh of man without the seed of a man; for the seed of a man was unnecessary for One who had the seed of God.

As, then, before His birth of the virgin, He was able to have God for His Father without a human mother, so likewise, after He was born of the virgin, He was able to have a woman for His mother without a human father...

Examine the Ignatian Epistle to the Ephesians.

For our God, Jesus Christ, was, according to the appointment of God, conceived in the womb by Mary, of the seed of David, but by the Holy Ghost. He was born and baptized, that by His passion He might purify the water.

Occam's Razor---Jesus of Nazareth was an absolute Myth/Fiction character from the beginning.

 

[IanS]

We know that supernatural aspects were attached to known historical people with Apollonius of Tyana being the poster child. About anything that can be said about the story of Jesus can be said about Apollonius of Tyana and yet the material that shows Apollonius of Tyana was an actual living breathing person is far better then Jesus. Just pointing to the supernatural nonsense in the Jesus story isn't enough.

I don't know about the case of Apollonius of Tyana, but in the case of Jesus I think the "supernatural nonsense" most definitely is enough to dismiss those sources as evidence of a real human messiah.

Jesus is really only known from the biblical writing. The non-biblical writing from people such as Josephus and Tacitus cannot be shown to have any independent source except for the biblical writing ... and when I say "biblical writing" I include whatever Jesus beliefs were being spoken about verbally at that time.

But what was written about Jesus in the bible, is the description of a figure who was entirely and completely supernatural. He was overwhelmingly supernatural in almost every mention of his name in any part of the bible. The few occasions when he was described doing or saying apparently non-supernatural things, are almost always (if not literally always) either the first part of a story leading up to a miracle, or else Jesus delivering some special prophetic insight or some seemingly exceptional or superhuman knowledge which apparently dumbfounded & amazed those around him.

Unlike any real figure in ancient history (or even a "likely real" figure), such as Pythagoras, Caesar, Alexander the Great (to take the three examples most often cited by the HJ side in this line of argument), Jesus was really famous only for his constantly miraculous and superhuman divine god-like nature.

If Apollonius of Tyana is known only in those same terms, i.e. zero evidence of any sort of real existence at all, and where virtually every mention of him is actually a claim of something extraordinary or miraculous, and where it is now known that his stories had been invented from what had been written as holy prophecy many centuries before (i.e. the OT in the case of Jesus), then there certainly would not be any good reason to believe that Apollonius of Tyana was a real person either.

 

[Craig B]

Again, your statement is an established fallacy.

A QUESTION was ASKED about Jesus the Transfigurer being a carpenter.

Mark 6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.

dejudge. They weren't asking, is this man a carpenter? To anyone who knows the English language these questions are quite evidently rhetorical. They are asked not to obtain information, but for effect. Who does this guy think he is?

dejudge, I entreat you to believe me on this one, or you will simply appear foolish. The people in this passage are calling Jesus a carpenter, and they are saying he's got these named brothers, and unnamed sisters. Just believe me; that's what this passage means. To prove that, look at the question "are not his sisters here with us?" Now they must have known already if they were there or not dejudge; so that couldn't have been a simple question designed to find something out. They're saying, how can a person whose family lives here possibly be preaching all this fancy stuff to us?

That's what the passage means. Nothing else. And you've been told this already. But you've forgotten all about that, haven't you?

And where in the question is there any mention of Jesus being a Transfigurer? Is that Septuagint midrash, dejudge?

 

[tsig]

I don't accept that the gospels are a midrash of the Septuagint, and I don't know if Jesus was a carpenter or not. What I stated was that at least one of the sources that comprise the Gospel material says he was. My point is that not all parts of all Gospels make him a virgin born son of the Holy Ghost.

Which parts are true?

 

[tsig]

@ Stone. This is the new mythicist trick. I wonder if they really believe it, but anyway it is this.

- The Bible-thumping Fundie literalists believe the Bible to be inerrant.
- Therefore they believe every element of the NT accounts of Jesus' life to be entirely true.
- That means, that these accounts are historically accurate.
- But HJ proponents believe that there was a historical real Jesus.
- Therefore they believe that these accounts are historically accurate.
- Therefore HJ proponents are Bible-thumping literalists.

QED.

If you meet up with some of those Mythicists I'm sure you'll give 'em hell.

If there was iron clad irrefutable evidence that Jesus didn't exist it wouldn't bother most Christians in the least since they have never based their faith on an HJ. They believe in the Jesus that comforts and helps them, the one they have a personal relationship with, the very idea that Jesus was a real live human who had human needs seems vaguely disrespectful to them.

 

[Stone]

If you meet up with some of those Mythicists I'm sure you'll give 'em hell.

If there was iron clad irrefutable evidence that Jesus didn't exist it wouldn't bother most Christians in the least since they have never based their faith on an HJ. They believe in the Jesus that comforts and helps them, the one they have a personal relationship with, the very idea that Jesus was a real live human who had human needs seems vaguely disrespectful to them.

And this is why I've sometimes thought that mythers are sometimes crypto-Christian fundies out to stick it to secular scholars by any means possible, because responsible professional academe is what the Christian fundies REALLY detest. So congratulations, mythers, for carrying the Christian fundies' water for them.

Stone

 

[Stone]

@ Stone. This is the new mythicist trick. I wonder if they really believe it, but anyway it is this.

- The Bible-thumping Fundie literalists believe the Bible to be inerrant.
- Therefore they believe every element of the NT accounts of Jesus' life to be entirely true.
- That means, that these accounts are historically accurate.
- But HJ proponents believe that there was a historical real Jesus.
- Therefore they believe that these accounts are historically accurate.
- Therefore HJ proponents are Bible-thumping literalists.

QED.

You got that exactly right, Craig. And that's why it's such a disgrace that boards like RatSkep have the mods protecting such flagrant tricks of the mythers from being properly challenged. Mythers do indulge in this kind of trickery, as well as deliberately evading even the kinds of challenges that a fellow myther like Ian brought unsuccessfully to the evasive DeJudge a couple of days back.

Now watch the mods put even your own spot-on description here, which could not be more relevant here, into the AAH bin. (I don't so much care about this rejoinder of mine, although I hope it won't effectively tar and feather your excellent analysis here.)

Stone

 

[dejudge]

Mark 6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.

dejudge. They weren't asking, is this man a carpenter? To anyone who knows the English language these questions are quite evidently rhetorical. They are asked not to obtain information, but for effect. Who does this guy think he is?

You seem to have no ability to understand the EVIDENCE from antiquity.

Your inventions are baseless and unevidenced.

Can't you understand ENGLISH??

They ASKED A QUESTION.

In "Against Celsus" 1 attributed to Origen supposedly written at least 1600 years ago the question is ASWERED --it is admitted that in NONE of the GOSPELS of the Church is Jesus EVER described as a carpenter.


Origen's Against Celsus 6 "

....in none of the Gospels current in the Churches is Jesus Himself ever described as being a carpenter.

In Against Celsus 1 Origen also described the birth of Jesus and stated Jesus was born of a Ghost.

In "De Principiis" Origen described the birth of Jesus and stated he was born of a Ghost.

De Principiis

That Jesus Christ Himself, who came (into the world), was born of the Father before all creatures; that, after He had been the servant of the Father in the creation of all things— For by Him were all things made — He in the last times, divesting Himself (of His glory), became a man, and was incarnate although God, and while made a man remained the God which He was; that He assumed a body like to our own, differing in this respect only, that it was born of a virgin and of the Holy Spirit...

Jesus of Nazareth had no history as a man with a human father.

Jesus of Nazareth was a Myth God of a Christian cult.

And where in the question is there any mention of Jesus being a Transfigurer? Is that Septuagint midrash, dejudge?

There is NO QUESTION that gMark states Jesus TRANSFIGURED and WALKED on the Sea.

In the very same chapter [gMark 6] that ASKED a question about Jesus as a carpenter STATED Jesus was SEEN by the disciples WALKING on the sea.

Carpenters do NOT walk on the sea.

Mark 6

....about the fourth watch of the night he cometh unto them, walking upon the sea, and would have passed by them.

49 But when they saw him walking upon the sea, they supposed it had been a spirit, and cried out:

50 For they all saw him, and were troubled. And immediately he talked with them, and saith unto them, Be of good cheer: it is I; be not afraid.

WITHOUT QUESTION in the MYTH/FICTION fables of gMark 6 the myth Jesus character ADMITTED he was the SEA WATER WALKER -NOT a carpenter.

Now, he will TRANSFIGURE a little Later.

Mark 9

2 And after six days Jesus taketh with him Peter, and James, and John, and leadeth them up into an high mountain apart by themselves: and he was transfigured before them.

3 And his raiment became shining, exceeding white as snow; so as no fuller on earth can white them.

4 And there appeared unto them Elias with Moses: and they were talking with Jesus.

WITHOUT QUESTION it is stated Jesus TRANSFIGURED in the presence of the Peter, James and John and that supposed DEAD people conversed with Jesus.

Jesus of Nazareth is a figure of Myth/Fiction in gMark.

Jesus of Nazareth was DESCRIBED as a SEA water walker and a TRANSFIGURER.

 

[tsig]

If you meet up with some of those Mythicists I'm sure you'll give 'em hell.

If there was iron clad irrefutable evidence that Jesus didn't exist it wouldn't bother most Christians in the least since they have never based their faith on an HJ. They believe in the Jesus that comforts and helps them, the one they have a personal relationship with, the very idea that Jesus was a real live human who had human needs seems vaguely disrespectful to them.

And this is why I've sometimes thought that mythers are sometimes crypto-Christian fundies out to stick it to secular scholars by any means possible, because responsible professional academe is what the Christian fundies REALLY detest. So congratulations, mythers, for carrying the Christian fundies' water for them.

Stone

Your post doesn't have much relationship to my post.

 

[maximara]

I don't know about the case of Apollonius of Tyana, but in the case of Jesus I think the "supernatural nonsense" most definitely is enough to dismiss those sources as evidence of a real human messiah.

Apollonius of Tyana is often called the "Pagan Christ" because he "also lived during the first century, and performed a similar ministry of miracle-working, preaching his own brand of ascetic Pythagoreanism--he was also viewed as the son of a god, resurrected the dead, ascended to heaven, performed various miracles, and criticized the authorities with pithy wisdom much like Jesus did." (Carrier)

The key difference here is unlike Jesus we have what are supposedly Apollonius of Tyana's own writings. In addition we know that actual contemporary sources did exist regarding him and some were used for what is now the oldest surviving work regarding him: Life of Apollonius of Tyana (c220 CE).

But Apollonius of Tyana supposedly lived c15 to c100 CE. Assuming that he started teaching in his late 20s that is about 50 years for people to record his teachings and roughly a century for his life story to become as much a miracle working demigod as that for Jesus. Apollonius is said to have appeared in visions to Caracalla and Aurelian.

Contrast that with what odds are (if he actually existed) was a teacher with a relatively small group who lasted about three years (if that long).

As I have said before John Frum as he now exists now is in part based on a real person: Tom Beatty of Mississippi. But that is due to elements of what was originally a separate person (Tom Navy) being woven into John Frum in the 1950s.

Even Dupuis was willing to accept the possibility of some obscure preacher being woven into the myth and we see exactly that to some degree with Tom Beatty and John Frum.

 

[maximara]

You got that exactly right, Craig. And that's why it's such a disgrace that boards like RatSkep have the mods protecting such flagrant tricks of the mythers from being properly challenged.

From what I have seen the mods only step in when posts get overly personal or have more cuss words then a drunk sailor.

Mythers do indulge in this kind of trickery

As opposed to the trickery the Historical Jesus crowd engages by misrepresenting not only the quality of the evidence (it is on par with that of the Holocaust or Moon landing?!? You have GOT to be kidding!) but what the Christ Myth even is?

as well as deliberately evading even the kinds of challenges that a fellow myther like Ian brought unsuccessfully to the evasive DeJudge a couple of days back.

As I have said before DeJudge has effectively become the Sheff of this board - repeating the same points over and over again even when the illogical of those points keeps being pointed out.

 

[dejudge]

...As I have said before DeJudge has effectively become the Sheff of this board - repeating the same points over and over again even when the illogical of those points keeps being pointed out.

You have been repeating the same thing about John Frum, or that the Holy Ghost means born with a silverspoon [which is quite absurd] and cannot present a shred of historical data for the Pauline writers and the writing of the Pauline Corpus.

The evidence for the existence or non-existence of John Frum ["nowhere"] is irrelevant and completely useless to argue for or against an historical Jesus.

But it is even more absurd and void of logic when you declared that the Holy Ghost birth means "born with a silver spoon in one's mouth".

Please tell us the size of the SILVERSPOON that overshadowed the Virgin in gLuke.

Luke 1:35

And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God..

Your "silverspoon" analogy deserves an award since it is most bizarre and because you repeat it.

 

[maximara]

You have been repeating the same thing about John Frum, or that the Holy Ghost means born with a silverspoon [which is quite absurd] and cannot present a shred of historical data for the Pauline writers and the writing of the Pauline Corpus.

There is nothing "absurd" about using John Frum as a comparison to Jesus especially given the anthropological records of the movement.

Also as explained before we have KNOWN people who were said to be born of virgins: Caesar Augustus, Alexander the Great, and Plato.

The virgin birth was a variant of the "attempt to explain an individual's superiority to other mortals. Generally Mediterranean peoples looked at one's birth or parent-age to explain one's character and behavior".

As I have mentioned before there is the idea that the Luke we have was in response to Marcion of Sinope's c140 CE Evangelikon which if true would put our Luke somewhere between c150 and c170 in terms of composition.

Also "Holy Ghost (Spirit)" as it was understood by Jews of antiquity is conceptually closer to Numen then to Deus ie "divine presence" or "divine will" rather then the deity itself. - Alan Unterman and Rivka Horowitz,Ruah ha-Kodesh, Encyclopedia Judaica (CD-ROM Edition, Jerusalem: Judaica Multimedia/Keter, 1997).