Virgin Birth questioned: the research

[Timotheist]

Introduction

I left the LC in '84. At that time I had little issue with the beliefs of WL and the LC, but I had several issues with the practices. As I evolved in my faith post Lee, one of the first doctrines that went out the window for me was the question of Bible inerrancy. But instead of shaking my faith, it was a relief to me.

The first Bible I purchased after shelving my RV New Testament booklets (this was before the complete New Testament RV came out), was a study Bible using the NASB translation with footnotes and commentary compiled by Charles Ryrie. It was refreshing to read somebody else's commentary, but many of his footnotes included apologetic explanations designed to counter questions about inerrancy.

As I said, it was a relief to me to admit Bible flaws. I realized that belief in ALL scripture as "inspired" or "holy" was not necessary to be a Christian. The only faith required was that there existed a means of salvation and eternal life made possible by the Christ.

I did some concentrated research in the years 2000-2001, but during that time the Virgin Birth question never surfaced. I am sure the thought crossed my mind back then, but I never let it boil to the surface. I was not ready to let my mostly-LC-taught doctrine of the God-Man go at that point in my life.

In fact, the research on the Virgin Birth question is something that I have only done in the last two years. I settled in and let the chips fall where they may, using the approach for research as described in my blog. My method is to try to wipe my mind clean, ignore the commentary of ALL modern authors, and do the research myself. It is hard to do, but the method is important for me. No longer will I take some MOTA's word as fact, Lee's or anyone else's.

So I will begin to lay out my research here in bite-sized chunks, following the method I used in my blog. This time I invite comments, even though I know that will result in a thread that will become long and intricate, and derailment is a risk.

That is why I am opening another thread designed for discussion of the Virgin Birth question from the standpoint of its impact to doctrine and faith. For many the research will be 'boring', and they will want to jump ahead and discuss the implications of this research on the Christian faith.

Yours in Christ Jesus

[Timotheist]

My Method for Researching the Four Gospels

At the risk of repeating myself, here is the way that I approach the gospels when I am in research mode:

1) When Mark and John agree on something, then that is as close to the truth as one can get.
2) When Mark and John differ on something, I tend to take John over Mark (the date of the crucifixion being a prime example.)
3) When it comes to Matthew and Luke, the additional material must be considered on a case-by-case basis. If contradictions are found between the additional material and the original material, then the new material is suspect.
4) Suspect material must be analyzed using both the Old Testament and Paul’s epistles to look for evidence that either confirms the passage or serves to help disprove it.

The Events before the Baptism

Using this approach, the opening chapters of both Matthew and Luke are all subject to question, for the elder manuscripts of John and Mark start their narratives with John the Baptist and the baptism of Jesus, and neither author concerned himself with any events preceding that event.

In perusing the posts on the AltVws thread, I noted that there are some of you who have already questioned the Virgin Birth, and have pointed out that Paul never mentioned it in his epistles. I welcome your collective inputs. This is important because it is pretty clear that Paul’s epistles predate the gospels, especially those of Matthew and Luke.

Did Paul simply fail to mention Christ’s birth in his gospels, albeit aware of Mary’s virginity? I find that incredible, especially given the epistle to the Romans, in which Paul’s theology is thoroughly covered. The book of Acts, which is another very old document, also makes no mention of a miraculous birth. Are we to take these facts alone as evidence that the Virgin Birth did not happen?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Timotheist

Did Paul simply fail to mention Christ’s birth in his gospels, albeit aware of Mary’s virginity? I find that incredible, especially given the epistle to the Romans, in which Paul’s theology is thoroughly covered. The book of Acts, which is another very old document, also makes no mention of a miraculous birth. Are we to take these facts alone as evidence that the Virgin Birth did not happen?

The virgin birth of Jesus was prophesied in Isaiah 7.14 and fulfilled in the accounts in Matthew 1.18, 23 and Luke 1. 26-35.

Good enough for me. I don't need it repeated in every book of the Bible.

Obviously the "Acts of the Apostles" has little need to reference the events prior to His death and resurrection. Paul and the record in Acts have no need to restate the virgin birth. They emphasized the works of Jesus which proved who He was.

[Timotheist]

Ohio, I respect your position.

I will be posting more about Isa 7:14 here in the near future. I want to make sure I word the post succinctly and carefully, for this is crucial to this discussion.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Timotheist

Ohio, I respect your position.

I will be posting more about Isa 7:14 here in the near future. I want to make sure I word the post succinctly and carefully, for this is crucial to this discussion.

Remember that Matthew was chosen as one of the Twelve, and he absolutely believed in the Virgin Birth and recorded it. He even provided explanations on how this practically could have transpired in ancient Israel. The Physician Luke likewise records it, knowing full well that it must have been the greatest of miracles.

Since we have no record of Joseph after Jesus was 12 years old, both Matthew and Luke had first hand accounts given to them from Mary, the mother of Jesus.

It is probable that the Lord never mentioned this fact while He was on earth, protecting Mary from the shame of needless questioning, and explaining why this topic was never mentioned. How could Mary prove it since she was widowed by that time? Without the angel appearing to Joseph in a dream, Mary could not even prove the virgin birth to her future husband.

[Timotheist]

Ohio,

I have read some of your posts on similar threads. I, like others on this forum, do not accept that the disciple Matthew is the author of the gospel. The association of the name with the work was made many years later. This is historical fact as well. I obviously no longer accept that the Holy Spirit guided everything these authors did, and I especially do not trust the church's decisions made after the first century.

If you take comfort in the belief that the Scriptures are inerrant, then I will not argue with you. These posts are for other Christians, those who may have been exposed to material like this by those with the intent of drawing them away from the faith.

That is not my motive. I want to show that the Faith can still be had in spite of this data.

Peace to you

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Timotheist

Ohio,

I have read some of your posts on similar threads. I, like others on this forum, do not accept that the disciple Matthew is the author of the gospel. The association of the name with the work was made many years later. This is historical fact as well. I obviously no longer accept that the Holy Spirit guided everything these authors did, and I especially do not trust the church's decisions made after the first century.

If you take comfort in the belief that the Scriptures are inerrant, then I will not argue with you. These posts are for other Christians, those who may have been exposed to material like this by those with the intent of drawing them away from the faith.

That is not my motive. I want to show that the Faith can still be had in spite of this data.

Peace to you

I will assume that you no longer wish to read my input.

Peace to you.

[Timotheist]

On the contrary. I know better than to lean on my own understanding, and I welcome sanity checks. I am always evolving in my faith, and this forum helps to provide an atmosphere where the evolution may be accelerated. As I said, this topic has only been on my mind for two years. That is not enough time for me to declare myself an expert on these matters.

Post away, just don't get angry with me please.

[Timotheist]

Isaiah 7:14

Two of you have already cited Isa 7:14 as a prophecy of the virgin birth. And if I follow my own rules, step 4 comes into play here:

4) Suspect material must be analyzed using both the Old Testament and Paul’s epistles to look for evidence that either confirms the passage or serves to help disprove it.

And Isa 7:14 surely is a verse to be reckoned with:

"Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel.” (Isa 7:14 NAU)

Case closed? Drop this thought from your head and move onto some other twisted idea? I may have done so, if not were for something I remembered from research I did 15 years ago.

Justin Martyr and Trypho

Justin Martyr was a second century apologist (dying around the year 165) and many of his manuscripts have been retained. By this time, all four gospels were being used as references, and Justin Martyr was a firm believer in the Virgin Birth, having inherited that teaching from his predecessor Ignatius (and of course from the texts he revered as gospels). The miraculous birth of Jesus was very much a part of the Christian dogma by that time.

“Dialogue with Trypho” was an interesting read to me. Trypho was a Jew and he and Justin had quite a debate going on in written form. (It was like a slow motion version of this forum.)

At the time I was reading this material, I had no reason to question the virgin birth: I was doing my research that resulted in my “Heaven and Hellenism” material (posted on this forum). But this passage caught my attention nonetheless:

Trypho: "The Scripture has not, ‘Behold, the virgin shall conceive, and bear a son,' but, ‘Behold, the young woman shall conceive, and bear a son,' and so on, as you quoted. But the whole prophecy refers to Hezekiah, and it is proved that it was fulfilled in him, according to the terms of this prophecy. Moreover, in the fables of those who are called Greeks, it is written that Perseus was begotten of Danae, who was a virgin; he who was called among them Zeus having descended on her in the form of a golden shower. And you ought to feel ashamed when you make assertions similar to theirs, and rather [should] say that this Jesus was born man of men. And if you prove from the Scriptures that He is the Christ, and that on account of having led a life conformed to the law, and perfect, He deserved the honour of being elected to be Christ, [it is well]; but do not venture to tell monstrous phenomena, lest you be convicted of talking foolishly like the Greeks."

Trypho suggested that the Septuagint was to blame for the introduction of this doctrine, for the Septuagint was a Greek translation of the original Hebrew texts, and he blamed the Greeks for introducing their own mythology into the text (a process we call “Hellenism”).

My recent research confirms that what Trypho stated in this case was correct. Go to any reliable source (I now use BibleWorks) and his assertion holds up: the word translated as “virgin” is an inaccurate translation.

Unfortunately, the author of the gospel we call Matthew quoted from the Septuagint in 1:23, in an attempt to show that Jesus fulfilled this prophecy.
Here I see both the origin of the Virgin Birth assertion and the reason for its rapid acceptance. It all boiled down to a bad translation being used at a time when the Christians were busy poring over the texts looking for any and all prophecies supporting Jesus as the promised Messiah.

And if we take Trypho at his word, he may have been convinced that Jesus was the Messiah if not for this crucial point.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Since we have no record of Joseph after Jesus was 12 years old, both Matthew and Luke had first hand accounts given to them from Mary, the mother of Jesus.

That got my attention. I've never heard this before. I feel ignorant. If you don't mind me asking, from where do you come by it?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Remember that Matthew was chosen as one of the Twelve, and he absolutely believed in the Virgin Birth and recorded it.

How did he do that if he wasn't chosen until 30 yrs after Jesus was born?

Was the gospel of Matthew even written by Matthew? The gospel doesn't say.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

How did he do that if he wasn't chosen until 30 yrs after Jesus was born?

Was the gospel of Matthew even written by Matthew? The gospel doesn't say.

He believed Mary's account. She had proved herself the most credible of witnesses, remaining with the Lord even at the cross.

For 2,000 years the church has recognized Matthew the tax collector as the author of the first gospel, but now we have some Bart Ehrman type "scholar" proving we were all wrong.

"The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, 'Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners.' But wisdom is justified of her children." Matt. 11.19

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

That got my attention. I've never heard this before. I feel ignorant. If you don't mind me asking, from where do you come by it?

Probably from reading the Bible. Try it. You'll feel a little smarter.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Probably from reading the Bible. Try it. You'll feel a little smarter.

rotflmao ... I've read it prolly all total hundreds of times but have never come across where mother Mary informed Matthew and Luke. Maybe I'm not reading the same Bible as you. Is it in the RcV? Did Witness Lee cook it up? Nee?

If so see the "passing gas" thread.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Me

How did he [Matthew] do that if he wasn't chosen until 30 yrs after Jesus was born?

Was the gospel of Matthew even written by Matthew? The gospel doesn't say.

But Mary seems confused. She gave birth as a virgin (supposedly) yet she was shocked when at 12 yrs old Jesus was teaching in the temple, and she thought at one point that he was out of his mind. Did she forget that she was a virgin visited by the Spirit?

No wonder, then, that Matthew and Luke don't agree on Jesus' genealogy. And if she was a virgin inseminated by God why does the genealogy come down to Joseph. He made no contribution to Jesus, so no biological linage at all to king David.

Maybe I should stop reading the Bible. It's confusing.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

rotflmao ... I've read it prolly all total hundreds of times but have never come across where mother Mary informed Matthew and Luke. Maybe I'm not reading the same Bible as you. Is it in the RcV? Did Witness Lee cook it up?

Got nothing to do with Lee.

When someone writes his account of events, must the writer preface the account by providing the time, date, and place where they interviewed people, or could he just record them?

Peter, John, and James saw His glory on the mount. Matthew, Mark, and Luke recorded it. (Matt 17.1-9; Mark 9.2-8; Luke 9:28-36)

"I've read it prolly all total hundreds of times but have never come across where" Peter, John, and James "informed" Matthew, Mark, and Luke about meeting Moses and Elijah. Why is that?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

But Mary seems confused. She gave birth as a virgin (supposedly) yet she was shocked when at 12 yrs old Jesus was teaching in the temple, and she thought at one point that he was out of his mind. Did she forget that she was a virgin visited by the Spirit?

No wonder, then, that Matthew and Luke don't agree on Jesus' genealogy. And if she was a virgin inseminated by God why does the genealogy come down to Joseph. He made no contribution to Jesus, so no biological linage at all to king David.

Maybe I should stop reading the Bible. It's confusing.

My mother was "shocked" by many things I did, yet she was there when I was born. Does that mean she don't know who my Dad was?

Take note that this event in the temple was 12 plus years later, with 6 other "normal" siblings coming along in the interim, and other than complete obedience to His earthly parents in Nazareth, Jesus had done absolutely nothing to draw attention to His real identity.

Perhaps you should stop reading the Bible with the "assistance" of the likes of Bart Ehrman. That will surely confuse you alright.

Matthew and Luke don't have to "agree" on genealogy. Jesus grew up for 30 years as the the son of Joseph, the "Son of Man." That's how He referred to Himself. As such, He also took on his father's lineage. In this matter, I would highly recommend Lee's footnotes in the Recovery Version about the genealogy. I know you got problems with Lee, but you can overlook them this one time.

During the gospels, Mary was the only person on earth that knew of the virgin birth, and she kept it secret for obvious reasons. The Lord in His ministry, especially in the book of John, made it very clear who His Father was, yet did so without drawing attention to Mary. It was not until much later in life that she divulged this matter to Luke and Matthew, and the rest of civilization, for that matter.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Got nothing to do with Lee.

When someone writes his account of events, must the writer preface the account by providing the time, date, and place where they interviewed people, or could he just record them?

Peter, John, and James saw His glory on the mount. Matthew, Mark, and Luke recorded it. (Matt 17.1-9; Mark 9.2-8; Luke 9:28-36)

"I've read it prolly all total hundreds of times but have never come across where" Peter, John, and James "informed" Matthew, Mark, and Luke about meeting Moses and Elijah. Why is that?

Good points all. But should we fill in the blanks, of our own making?

The glaring blanks of the gospels is that they weren't signed. They ARE anonymous. Maybe accounts of insignificant matters could skip the "time, date, and place," but aren't we talking of something of great import?

Still, at least we should know, without a doubt, just who is providing the accounts of Jesus? Shouldn't the accounts be signed, and the authors be clearly identified? Why should we be left guessing? And why should we depend on some of the 2nd c. church fathers? Were they inspired of God too? They seemed to be part and parcel of the ignorance of that day, of which they couldn't help. But some of them don't even look Christian to me ... even if the Catholic church sainted them.

After all, they -- the account givers/leavers, whoever they are -- are talking about something of colossal divine import, for all humankind ... right? Yet Matthew and Luke can provided an account of a virgin birth but, no date of the birth. Why not? Didn't Mary, if she's their source as you claim, remember that little bit of info? Apparently not.

And take this account, supposedly (assumed) to be by Matthew:

Mat 9:9 As Jesus passed on from there, he saw a man called Matthew sitting at the tax booth, and he said to him, "Follow me." And he rose and followed him.

Why would Matthew write this account in the third person? If Matthew was writing the account, why didn't he say, "As Jesus passed on from there, he saw [me] sitting at the tax booth, and he said to [me], "Follow me." And [I] rose and followed him."?

And Luke, if it is Luke, does admit right off that he's drawing from available sources at the time that he's writing ... but doesn't mention Mary.

If Mary dictated to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, she certainly didn't get any credit for it.

The truth is there's lots that we just don't know. What's wrong with not knowing?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

The glaring blanks of the gospels is that they weren't signed. They ARE anonymous. Maybe accounts of insignificant matters could skip the "time, date, and place," but aren't we talking of something of great import?

Still, at least we should know, without a doubt, just who is providing the accounts of Jesus? Shouldn't the accounts be signed, and the authors be clearly identified? Why should we be left guessing? And why should we depend on some of the 2nd c. church fathers? Were they inspired of God too? They seemed to be part and parcel of the ignorance of that day, of which they couldn't help. But some of them don't even look Christian to me ... even if the Catholic church sainted them.

The great church historian Philip Schaff has these relevant comments about the Gospels ...

The style is natural, unadorned, straightforward, and objective. Their artless and naive simplicity resembles the earliest historic records in the Old Testament, and has its peculiar and abiding charm for all classes of people and all degrees of culture. The authors, in noble modesty and self-forgetfulness, suppress their personal views and feelings, retire in worshipful silence before their great subject, and strive to set it forth in all its unaided power.

The first and the fourth gospels were written by apostles and eye-witnesses, Matthew and John; the second and third, under the influence of Peter and Paul, and by their disciples Mark and Luke, so as to be indirectly likewise of apostolic origin and canonical authority. Hence Mark is called the Gospel of Peter, and Luke the Gospel of Paul.

The common practical aim of the Evangelists is to lead the reader to a saving faith in Jesus of Nazareth as the promised Messiah and Redeemer of the world.

-- History of the Christian Church, Volume 1, page 580

The Gospels make upon every unsophisticated reader the impression of absolute honesty. They tell the story without rhetorical embellishment, without any exclamation of surprise or admiration, without note and comment. They frankly record the weaknesses and failings of the disciples, including themselves, the rebukes which their Master administered to them for their carnal misunderstandings and want of faith, their cowardice and desertion in the most trying hour, their utter desponency after the crucifixion, the ambitious request of John and James, the denial of Peter, the treason of Judas.

They dwell even with circumstantial minuteness upon the great sin of the leader of the Twelve, especially the Gospel of Mark, who derived his details no doubt from Peter's own lips. They conceal nothing, they apologize for nothing, they exaggerate nothing. Their authors are utterly unconcerned about their own fame, and withhold their own name; their sole object is to tell the story of Jesus, which carries its own irresistible force and charm to the heart of every truth-loving reader.

The very discrepancies in minor details increase confidence and exclude the suspicion of collusion; for it is a generally acknowledged principle in legal evidence that circumstantial variation in the testimony of witnesses confirms their substantial agreement. There is no historical work of ancient times which carries on its very face such a seal of truthfulness as these Gospels.

The credibility of the canonical Gospels receives also negative confirmation from the numerous apocryphal Gospels which by their immeasurable inferiority and childishness prove the utter inability of the human imagination, whether orthodox or heterodox, to produce such a character as the historical Jesus of Nazareth. No post-apostolic writers could have composed the canonical Gospels, and the apostles themselves could not have composed them without the inspiration of the spirit of Christ.

-- History of the Christian Church, Volume 1, pages 584-5

[Timotheist]

Interesting, but the associations of the names of Matthew, Mark, and Luke with these gospels were made by those who had no "apostolic authority".

I am willing to accept that Mark (the original short version) may indeed have been authored by Peter's protege. But there are more than one manuscript of Mark, and the one we have today is not the original. The other two gospels used a version of Mark as a template (it is impossible for me to believe otherwise), thus making the name associations questionable (but not impossible).

Not to be nit-picky, but I would not use the word "great" to describe any Christian leader. People today consider WL "great", for example. If there is one theme that prevails across almost every book of the Bible, it is that man is fallible.

I want no one to call me "great" except my wife, but not for my blogging skills.

Peter cut off someone's ear, put two people to death for holding back money, would not sit with the Gentiles until called out on it, and used the Greek mythological word "Tartarus" in one of his epistles. This is a person with "apostolic authority"?

The text is flawed because man is flawed. Makes Biblical sense to me.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Timotheist

Interesting, but the associations of the names of Matthew, Mark, and Luke with these gospels were made by those who had no "apostolic authority".

I am willing to accept that Mark (the original short version) may indeed have been authored by Peter's protege. But there are more than one manuscript of Mark, and the one we have today is not the original. The other two gospels used a version of Mark as a template (it is impossible for me to believe otherwise), thus making the name associations questionable (but not impossible).

Not to be nit-picky, but I would not use the word "great" to describe any Christian leader. People today consider WL "great", for example. If there is one theme that prevails across almost every book of the Bible, it is that man is fallible.

I want no one to call me "great" except my wife, but not for my blogging skills.

Peter cut off someone's ear, put two people to death for holding back money, would not sit with the Gentiles until called out on it, and used the Greek mythological word "Tartarus" in one of his epistles. This is a person with "apostolic authority"?

The text is flawed because man is flawed. Makes Biblical sense to me.

You yourself must then be "great" because you endeavor to undermine the credibility of the record of Scripture.

If you were also "brave," you would invest some of your time to discredit the mooslim kuron.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Timotheist

My Method for Researching the Four Gospels

At the risk of repeating myself, here is the way that I approach the gospels when I am in research mode:

1) When Mark and John agree on something, then that is as close to the truth as one can get.
2) When Mark and John differ on something, I tend to take John over Mark (the date of the crucifixion being a prime example.)
3) When it comes to Matthew and Luke, the additional material must be considered on a case-by-case basis. If contradictions are found between the additional material and the original material, then the new material is suspect.
4) Suspect material must be analyzed using both the Old Testament and Paul’s epistles to look for evidence that either confirms the passage or serves to help disprove it.

The Events before the Baptism

Using this approach, the opening chapters of both Matthew and Luke are all subject to question, for the elder manuscripts of John and Mark start their narratives with John the Baptist and the baptism of Jesus, and neither author concerned himself with any events preceding that event.

In perusing the posts on the AltVws thread, I noted that there are some of you who have already questioned the Virgin Birth, and have pointed out that Paul never mentioned it in his epistles. I welcome your collective inputs. This is important because it is pretty clear that Paul’s epistles predate the gospels, especially those of Matthew and Luke.

Did Paul simply fail to mention Christ’s birth in his gospels, albeit aware of Mary’s virginity? I find that incredible, especially given the epistle to the Romans, in which Paul’s theology is thoroughly covered. The book of Acts, which is another very old document, also makes no mention of a miraculous birth. Are we to take these facts alone as evidence that the Virgin Birth did not happen?

Hello Timotheist, welcome to the Alt View forum. I think you have made a good start on your quest for the truth of this issue. It's commendable that in approaching this subject you have laid out your method. In that regard you are ahead of those that merely expound their opinions. This way, we can examine your presuppositions which is what I have done.

1)When Mark and John agree on something, then that is as close to the truth as one can get.

At first glance that seems like a worthwhile principle. But, what premises are behind it? Do you consider Matthew and Luke to be largely derivative of Mark? When John and Mark agree, how do you know that the agreement is on an historical rather than some other basis? In other words, must the "truth" be historical or factual and if so, in what sense? If it seems obvious to you that agreement must be factual then consider the possible experience of the writers who were members of congregations and believed they were somehow communing with a post-resurrection Jesus. The stories they wrote might have been influenced by that experience as much if not more than they were by anything that happened to the historical Jesus during his life time. And that is just one possible alternative to your method. There are as many other possibilities as one's imagination can conjure in addition to the one you have come up with.

2) When Mark and John differ on something, I tend to take John over Mark (the date of the crucifixion being a prime example.)

Why do you do this? It seems totally arbitrarily unless you share your reasoning? I didn't know that John gave us a "date". I didn't think that even the year of the crucifixion was known with precision let alone the month and the day. Please share this information.

3) When it comes to Matthew and Luke, the additional material must be considered on a case-by-case basis. If contradictions are found between the additional material and the original material, then the new material is suspect.

This seems like a sound principle. However, why wouldn't it be true of all the material in all of the gospels? Unless the alleged facts can be corroborated by independent sources isn't it all suspect as far as being historically accurate?

4) Suspect material must be analyzed using both the Old Testament and Paul’s epistles to look for evidence that either confirms the passage or serves to help disprove it.

This principle seems to assume that Old Testament propositions are true. What's the basis for that conclusion? Aren't many of the statements in the OT even harder to verify historically then those in the NT? And why couldn't the NT writers merely construct their Gospel narrative in order to make it seem that OT prophesies were fulfilled by Jesus? In the case of the birth narratives of Jesus, Matthew and Luke have constructed two seemly conflicting stories to explain how Jesus of Nazareth was actually born in Bethlehem. The simplest explanation for these stories is that they were trying to show how Jesus fulfilled the prophesies that the messiah would be born in Bethlehem. Why not just accept that that is the case?

I don't raise these points to discourage you in your quest for the truth. Rather, these are questions which you have raised in my own mind that I would like to pursue further for my own sake.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Timotheist

Peter cut off someone's ear, put two people to death for holding back money, would not sit with the Gentiles until called out on it, and used the Greek mythological word "Tartarus" in one of his epistles. This is a person with "apostolic authority"?

The short answer is a simple "YES!"

Is this an example of the twisted interpretation of scripture which you call "research" based on your own words:

In fact, the research on the Virgin Birth question is something that I have only done in the last two years. I settled in and let the chips fall where they may, using the approach for research as described in my blog. My method is to try to wipe my mind clean, ignore the commentary of ALL modern authors, and do the research myself. It is hard to do, but the method is important for me. No longer will I take some MOTA's word as fact, Lee's or anyone else's.

Sorry Timotheist, this sounds like a hyper-extreme reaction to Lee-ism. A little disingenuous wouldn't you say? Especially since the Acts clearly records that the two died because they lied to God.

Methinks that you don't have a problem with the Bible record or the apostles, but with God Himself. Be careful!

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

"I've read it prolly all total hundreds of times but have never come across where" Peter, John, and James "informed" Matthew, Mark, and Luke about meeting Moses and Elijah. Why is that?

Because they were not thorough reporters. Why's that? Was their subject matter not important enough?

[awareness]

Post #9 revisited:
Isaiah 7:14

Two of you have already cited Isa 7:14 as a prophecy of the virgin birth. And if I follow my own rules, step 4 comes into play here:
4) Suspect material must be analyzed using both the Old Testament and Paul’s epistles to look for evidence that either confirms the passage or serves to help disprove it.

And Isa 7:14 surely is a verse to be reckoned with:

"Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel.” (Isa 7:14 NAU)

Case closed? Drop this thought from your head and move onto some other twisted idea? I may have done so, if not were for something I remembered from research I did 15 years ago.

Justin Martyr and Trypho

Justin Martyr was a second century apologist (dying around the year 165) and many of his manuscripts have been retained. By this time, all four gospels were being used as references, and Justin Martyr was a firm believer in the Virgin Birth, having inherited that teaching from his predecessor Ignatius (and of course from the texts he revered as gospels). The miraculous birth of Jesus was very much a part of the Christian dogma by that time.

“Dialogue with Trypho” was an interesting read to me. Trypho was a Jew and he and Justin had quite a debate going on in written form. (It was like a slow motion version of this forum.)

At the time I was reading this material, I had no reason to question the virgin birth: I was doing my research that resulted in my “Heaven and Hellenism” material (posted on this forum). But this passage caught my attention nonetheless:

Trypho: "The Scripture has not, ‘Behold, the virgin shall conceive, and bear a son,' but, ‘Behold, the young woman shall conceive, and bear a son,' and so on, as you quoted. But the whole prophecy refers to Hezekiah, and it is proved that it was fulfilled in him, according to the terms of this prophecy. Moreover, in the fables of those who are called Greeks, it is written that Perseus was begotten of Danae, who was a virgin; he who was called among them Zeus having descended on her in the form of a golden shower. And you ought to feel ashamed when you make assertions similar to theirs, and rather [should] say that this Jesus was born man of men. And if you prove from the Scriptures that He is the Christ, and that on account of having led a life conformed to the law, and perfect, He deserved the honour of being elected to be Christ, [it is well]; but do not venture to tell monstrous phenomena, lest you be convicted of talking foolishly like the Greeks."

Trypho suggested that the Septuagint was to blame for the introduction of this doctrine, for the Septuagint was a Greek translation of the original Hebrew texts, and he blamed the Greeks for introducing their own mythology into the text (a process we call “Hellenism”).

My recent research confirms that what Trypho stated in this case was correct. Go to any reliable source (I now use BibleWorks) and his assertion holds up: the word translated as “virgin” is an inaccurate translation.

Unfortunately, the author of the gospel we call Matthew quoted from the Septuagint in 1:23, in an attempt to show that Jesus fulfilled this prophecy.
Here I see both the origin of the Virgin Birth assertion and the reason for its rapid acceptance. It all boiled down to a bad translation being used at a time when the Christians were busy poring over the texts looking for any and all prophecies supporting Jesus as the promised Messiah.

And if we take Trypho at his word, he may have been convinced that Jesus was the Messiah if not for this crucial point.
__________________
Timotheist[/quote]

Shame on me, I admit to being lazy and failing to pay attention. I even missed the golden showers. Ask Zeek, he'll tell you that's not like me ... and Ohio too, prolly. They're Christian prudish ... .

Anyway, I saw the opening line, Isaiah 7:14 and skipped the rest, cuz I've harped on Isa 7:14 before ... to deaf ears. I was thinking to perchance catch it on the blowback responses, if any, on up the line.

For those reasons I don't seem to have much gumption for all this stuff. But I'll take up my cross and press on.

For brevity I'll pick on just one point:

That would be Trypho and his remarks.

Trypho is right about Isa 7:14. It does not mention "virgin." What he can't tell us is why Matthew made such a mistake, if it was one. Surely Matthew could have worked from the Masoretic Text, instead of the LXX. But he didn't. At any rate, if he knew about the difference he decided to quote from the LXX.

Was he so gong-ho to reach his fellow Hebrews, and convince them that Jesus was the Messiah they were looking for, that, he had a blind spot?

Or was he so Hellenized that he didn't even refer to the Masoretic Text, to find the error in the LXX? I realize the Jews of his day were Hellenized. But surely those he was trying to reach with his message of the Messiah would have caught it, at least some of the more devote Jews, still using the Masoretic Text, would have caught it. Maybe that's why the Ebionites rejected the virgin birth, those the early church fathers castigated as the heretical Judaizers, and why the Jewish Nazarenes, and Ebionites, rejected the canonical gospels for the Aramaic Gospel of the Hebrews. Who knows? There's skimpy documentation on both ... most from the post-apostolic church fathers ... who were behind Paul and the gentiles, who unquestionably were Hellenized; pagans actually.

Trypho's remark about "talking foolishly like the Greeks" is revealing. It reveals the common currency of the Greek myths in his day, that contain many miraculous births like the virgin birth. If Matthew was trying to reach them his virgin birth story would have resonated with them.

The bottom line is that if Matthew was trying to convince the Jews with a link to prophecy in the O.T., that Jesus was the Messiah, he failed big time to convince them.

Paul, who didn't mention a virgin birth, the antinomian, won the day. He prolly, and this is just my conjecture, didn't want to soil Jesus with pagan myths.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Because they were not thorough reporters. Why's that? Was their subject matter not important enough?

My quotes of Phillip Schaff in post #19 answer all of your concerns.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

My quotes of Phillip Schaff in post #19 answer all of your concerns.

Schaff's opinion statements are largely irrelevant to the issue at hand because they say nothing specific to explain the origins of the ostensibly conflicting virgin birth narratives of Matthew and Luke. He does say "The very discrepancies in minor details increase confidence and exclude the suspicion of collusion; for it is a generally acknowledged principle in legal evidence that circumstantial variation in the testimony of witnesses confirms their substantial agreement." In the case of the infancy narratives, the circumstantial variation goes beyond "minor details."

I know of no available confirmable explanation of how the narratives can be reconciled. The most obvious explanation for both of the stories is that they are designed to explain how it is that Jesus of Nazareth was actually Jesus of Bethlehem and thus fulfilled OT prophesy concerning the messiah. Does Schaff present a winning argument that refutes the possibility that the stories were designed expressly for that purpose? In other words, do you have another quote from Schaff where he addresses the subject at hand?

[Ohio]

I'll take Matthew's account in his gospel over Trypho's mythology every day of the week.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Because they were not thorough reporters. Why's that? Was their subject matter not important enough?

Now you're on to something!

The next time some apostle decides to write the Bible, we should demand double spaced, Times New Roman, 12 pt, with one inch margins. The kind of stuff they teach in grade school.

Had they followed these basic rules, we would have been saved lots of trouble.

[awareness]

Okay ... ya asked fer it. Before I get started I have to admit that I have never understood this problem of the father of Jesus, not growing up in the Baptist church, while in the local church, or since. There's been no answer that's been satisfactory. To me the Bible is just unclear about it.

Originally Posted by Ohio

My mother was "shocked" by many things I did, yet she was there when I was born. Does that mean she don't know who my Dad was?

lol ...

Originally Posted by bro Ohio

Take note that this event in the temple was 12 plus years later, with 6 other "normal" siblings coming along in the interim, and other than complete obedience to His earthly parents in Nazareth, Jesus had done absolutely nothing to draw attention to His real identity.

That we know of. Why do you think people had to invent all the Infancy Gospels, in order to fill in the glaring blanks that are missing? We don't even know what made Jesus laugh.

Originally Posted by bro Ohio

Perhaps you should stop reading the Bible with the "assistance" of the likes of Bart Ehrman. That will surely confuse you alright.

Been reading the Bible longer than Ehrman has been on the earth. And been confused that long too. Therefore, there's no causal link there.

Originally Posted by bro Ohio

Matthew and Luke don't have to "agree" on genealogy. Jesus grew up for 30 years as the the son of Joseph, the "Son of Man." That's how He referred to Himself.

So Son of Man refers to Jesus' humanity, that of being born "of man?" As opposed to "Son of Woman?" (If not of Joseph then wouldn't it be Son of Woman?) And it's not referring to "Son of Man" for seeking to reference/link the prophets and Daniel? The meaning of the term Son of Man has never been clear to me. The meaning seems to be a moving target.

Originally Posted by bro Ohio

As such, He also took on his father's lineage.

But not the biological lineage? Why the genealogy of Joseph then? No link to king David there. No Messiah there? What's Lee got to say about it?

Originally Posted by bro Ohio

In this matter, I would highly recommend Lee's footnotes in the Recovery Version about the genealogy. I know you got problems with Lee, but you can overlook them this one time.

Well you could have done the work. Then I'd know for certain what footnotes on genealogy by Lee you are thinking of.

But I'll give it a try. I'll give Witness Lee a break, and a chance. I needed help tho. So I called Bart Ehrman. I figured he's such an expert on all things Christianity that he's got to be the world expert on Lee too.

But seriously, I called bro Zeek. He has the RcV on Kindle. We guessed at what footnotes you meant. Here's what we found:


Matthew:
Mt 1: 162a Joseph - Luke 1: 27; 2: 4; Matt. 1: 18; cf. Luke 3: 23 At this point the record of this genealogy does not say, “Joseph begot Jesus,” which is similar to what is said of all the foregoing persons; it says, “Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus.” Jesus was born of Mary, and not of Joseph, since it was prophesied that Christ would be the seed of the woman and would be born of a virgin (Gen. 3: 15; Isa. 7: 14). Christ could not have been born of Joseph because Joseph was a man and a descendant of Jeconiah, none of whose descendants could inherit the throne of David (Jer. 22: 28-30). However, Mary was a virgin and a descendant of David (Luke 1: 27, 31-32); as such, she was the right person of whom Christ should be born. The marriage of Joseph and Mary brought Joseph into relationship with Christ and united into one the two lines of Christ’s genealogy for the bringing in of Christ, as shown in the chart on p. 9 in the printed edition. This chart shows that the generation of Jesus Christ begins from God and continues until it reaches Jesus. It proceeds from God to Adam, from Adam to Abraham, from Abraham through Isaac and Jacob, and on to David. After David it divides into two lines, the first running from Nathan to Mary and the second from Solomon to Joseph. Eventually, these two lines are brought together by the marriage of Mary and Joseph, to bring in Jesus Christ. In this way Christ was apparently a descendant of Jeconiah, who seemed to be in the line of the royal family; actually, He was not a descendant of Jeconiah, Joseph’s forefather, but a descendant of David, Mary’s forefather, so that He could qualify to inherit the throne of David.

Living Stream Ministry (2012-09-18). Holy Bible Recovery Version (contains footnotes) (Kindle Locations 139343-139357). Living Stream Ministry. Kindle Edition.

Luke:
Lk 3: 382 son This does not mean that Adam was born of God and possessed the life of God, just as son of Joseph does not mean that Jesus was born of Joseph; rather, He was thought to be the son of Joseph (v. 23). Adam was created by God (Gen. 5: 1-2), and God was his origin. Based on this he was considered the son of God, even as the heathen poets considered all mankind to be the offspring of God (Acts 17: 28). Mankind was only created by God, not regenerated of Him. This is absolutely and intrinsically different from the believers in Christ being the sons of God. They have been born, regenerated, of God and possess God’s life and nature (John 1: 12-13; 3: 16; 2 Pet. 1: 4).

Living Stream Ministry (2012-09-18). Holy Bible Recovery Version (contains footnotes) (Kindle Locations 148807-148813). Living Stream Ministry. Kindle Edition.

Bro Ohio you must have a much better brain than I. I still don't get it, even after reading Lee. In fact after reading Lee on the genealogy I'm inclined to refer to the Passing Gas thread. Maybe it's not your brain, maybe the Holy Spirit is speaking to you thru Lee ... but no Spirit is speaking to me ... it must be that I'm a heathen.

You'll have to explain it to me. Maybe that will help.

Until then some thoughts for you to ponder:

In the Matthew section Lee starts out with:

Originally Posted by Lee

At this point the record of this genealogy does not say, “Joseph begot Jesus,” which is similar to what is said of all the foregoing persons; it says, “Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus.” Jesus was born of Mary, and not of Joseph, since it was prophesied that Christ would be the seed of the woman and would be born of a virgin (Gen. 3: 15; Isa. 7: 14).

Here's some problems: “Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus.” is not the same in all the mss. The Sinaitic Syriac ms says: “Joseph, to whom was betrothed Mary the virgin, fathered Jesus who is called the Christ.” Your favorite Bible scholar, Dr. Bart Ehrman, explains this in more detail in his Book "Orthodox Corruption of Scripture." The church you grew up in modified the NT. And now even Protestants, believe it, and Lee believed it.

If Joseph makes no genetic contribution to Jesus then why this genealogy? It doesn't prove a virgin birth, quite the opposite. I get the feeling that the author is reaching out to an audience that considers the expected messiah would come down from king David. Being occupied they sure had to be longing for a king David type savior/leader/messiah to reappear ... to save the day. By the time Matthew was written this didn't happen. So Matthew was really selling it hard, to his targeted audience.

Back to Lee. He strays from scripture here (quoted) all over the place, and embellishes it beyond the clear word, adding opinions willy-nilly (that only those looked up to as the MOTA could pull off -- let's call that the MOTA sleight of hand - or mind - trick). He doesn't address the different grandfathers of Jesus ; in Luke, "[Jesus] being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli, in Matthew, "Jacob the father of Joseph

In the end Lee adds nothing to the problems of the two genealogies. I know no more after reading it, than I did before.

But maybe I'm not dealing with the footnotes of Lee that you were thinking of.

The ball is in your court.

Originally Posted by bro Ohio

During the gospels, Mary was the only person on earth that knew of the virgin birth, and she kept it secret for obvious reasons.

What reasons were those? And Joseph didn't know? Maybe he wasn't alive when the gospels were written but wouldn't he have been part of the oral tradition? Did he and Mary conspire to keep the virgin birth secret, as well as the birth date of Jesus too?

Originally Posted by bro Ohio

The Lord in His ministry, especially in the book of John, made it very clear who His Father was, yet did so without drawing attention to Mary. It was not until much later in life that she divulged this matter to Luke and Matthew, and the rest of civilization, for that matter.

Why tell Matthew and Luke, but not Mark, John, and even Paul? Why wouldn't something as phenomenal as the virgin birth (and the birthday) be told to everyone closely involved?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Now you're on to something!

The next time some apostle decides to write the Bible, we should demand double spaced, Times New Roman, 12 pt, with one inch margins. The kind of stuff they teach in grade school.

Had they followed these basic rules, we would have been saved lots of trouble.

I know. What was wrong with them? Didn't they know we'd be translating ther work 2000 yrs later. They didn't bother to write in chapter and verses, that was added 1200 years later. They didn't even use spaces between the words, they wrote it run-on altogether. Acts even says Peter and John were illiterate.

But we can't expect much. After all over 90% of them were illiterate. Acts even says Peter and John were illiterate.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by awareness

Okay ... ya asked fer it. Before I get started I have to admit that I have never understood this problem of the father of Jesus . . . . There's been no answer that's been satisfactory. To me the Bible is just unclear about it.

And for me, that is the indicator of how important it is to "figure out." If it was important that we know all the details so that we could understand how it played into there being a man that was both human and divine, then it would have been provided. But if it is only important that there be such a man, and that accepting that is by faith, then going to lengths to discover how it happened seems like a fool's errand. It is to major on something that isn't even a minor. It holds all that is said and taught captive to what is not.

And we need to have some set of rules dictated to us about how one or two or three variations, slight though they be, can establish or scuttle the whole thing. When the outcome of such rules is to have a way to discard portions of the Bible as irrelevant or wrong, then we have really gone a little mad with our claims of superior intellect. That sounds too much like Lee II, or Lee Lite. Second verse, same as the first.

And one of the reasons that "me and my bible" has primarily resulted in division rather than unity. We just can't get over our private interpretations. We know we are smarter, so the past revelation must be ignorant.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Okay ... ya asked fer it. Before I get started I have to admit that I have never understood this problem of the father of Jesus, not growing up in the Baptist church, while in the local church, or since. There's been no answer that's been satisfactory. To me the Bible is just unclear about it.

There's a million things about God that I am not "clear" about. But being "clear" about everything is not a requirement for salvation, nor is it needed to love God or serve God. The Bible provides the story of the birth of Jesus from two angles, Matthew and Luke. Obviously you are not satisfied with what we have received in scripture. There are probably not enough answers in the world that would satisfy you, so my efforts are frustrating to say the least. What I write, you don't like, and then you go off on a dozen more questions, some of which we have discussed in great length in the past.

Like the comment that Peter and John were illiterate. The Bible presents this positively, noting that they were so impressive having "been with Jesus;" yet you use this negatively. The words used indicate that the disciples were unlettered and untrained. They never went to Hebrew school and never received formal religious training. How in the world could the Sanhedrin know whether they could read or write?

Yet you latch on to this interpretation and run wild with it, as if it undermines the writing of the scriptures. The Sanhedrin never gave them a literacy test. We have no idea what their literary skills were outside of the books we have been given. We do know that the disciples knew Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek, which is quite impressive in itself. We have no idea how much study the disciples invested during their life time, and we know that they wrote many years after the events in the Gospels, which gave them lots of time to accomplish many things.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Quote:

What reasons were those? And Joseph didn't know? Maybe he wasn't alive when the gospels were written but wouldn't he have been part of the oral tradition? Did he and Mary conspire to keep the virgin birth secret, as well as the birth date of Jesus too?

Of course Joseph knew.

Why do you assume that they "conspired?" To conspire is to "to plan together secretly to commit an illegal or wrongful act." Joseph's actions during this time were according to Roman law, Jewish law, and the instructions of the angel of God.

OBVIOUS REASONS? Think about it. The bible already records the implications of Mary, though a chaste virgin, being pregnant outside of marriage -- she was about to be "put away privately" by Joseph her fiance, who was a righteous man. Their society was very much different from our own. Think about how many CNN reporters and paparazzi would have hounded the couple from Bethlehem to Egypt to Nazareth to Jerusalem back in those days.. God desired that His Son grow up in a normal Jewish household as a normal child with parents and siblings. That is how He accomplished it. Obviously you don't approve. Get over it bro!

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Why tell Matthew and Luke, but not Mark, John, and even Paul? Why wouldn't something as phenomenal as the virgin birth (and the birthday) be told to everyone closely involved?

Why do you so love rhetorical questions?

We don't know who Mary told. Perhaps Elizabeth knew. Had Mary told her local NBC affiliate, she might have been turned into a pile of stones. Not a good idea. Try to picture yourself back in those days.

When the shepherds worshiped the Newborn in the manger, Mary "kept all these things, pondering them in her heart." (Luke 2.19)

When the 12 year old Jesus was found in the temple being about His Father's business, "His mother carefully kept all these matters in her heart." (Luke 2.51)

Apparently Mary kept a carefully guarded secret until long after He had ascended into heaven. According to John, the Spirit would later remind them of that which the Lord had said and done among them. In this regard, Mary kept secret all that happened until much later when the Spirit of God inspired her to reveal certain specifics about Jesus' birth and childhood to others.

The Lord's birthday was never secret. Have you read the Gospels? It seems that the Lord might have been born on the side of the road because there was no vacancy at the Bethlehem Bed and Breakfast. Then the Lord Jesus was laid in an animal feeding trough. Do you get the impression that these were trying times for the new mom after spending 3 weeks on that old Mule Betsy.


Since Shutterfly was not yet up and running, Joseph could not post the baby pictures from his iPhone. Obviously there was no hometown celebrations since Augustus had ordered them to be in Bethlehem. Who are those "closely involved" who were not told? Elizabeth knew shortly after Mary had conceived. Had Herod not tried to hunt them down and kill them, perhaps there might have been a party to your liking.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Of course Joseph knew.

Why do you assume that they "conspired?" To conspire is to "to plan together secretly to commit an illegal or wrongful act." Joseph's actions during this time were according to Roman law, Jewish law, and the instructions of the angel of God.

OBVIOUS REASONS? Think about it. The bible already records the implications of Mary, though a chaste virgin, being pregnant outside of marriage -- she was about to be "put away privately" by Joseph her fiance, who was a righteous man. Their society was very much different from our own. Think about how many CNN reporters and paparazzi would have hounded the couple from Bethlehem to Egypt to Nazareth to Jerusalem back in those days.. God desired that His Son grow up in a normal Jewish household as a normal child with parents and siblings. That is how He accomplished it. Obviously you don't approve. Get over it bro!

I think "conspired" came to mind when you said something like, "Only Mary knew, and she kept it secret for obvious reasons." Maybe, since you say to conspire is to do something illegal, it's the wrong word.

Hey I can think up all kinds of scenarios from the scraps of info in the only sources we have right now ... of course the 4 gospels.

Here's one, just for fun:

Both Mary & Joseph kept the virgin birth a secret. And carried on and let on like Joseph did it ... and that their child was just a normal child like everyone else. They didn't let on or betray to others that their son Jesus, was God. Yet according to the record -- I'm still playing here -- by divine revelation, visitation, and intervention, they knew He was. Maybe that's why Jesus never out right says he's God. Quite the contrary "Call no man good but God."

That's really quite a good scenario I just drew up. It states clearly that Jesus was God. But it's of my own making. As are the stories coming down to us from tradition. They really are brainwashing, like bro Timotheist stated.

And that Mary inform the apostles about the virgin birth is just one of them. We have no evidence of such ... in any of the records. It can't even be found on the web. And the web is full of wild ideas and claims.

But I really enjoyed your scenario of CNN, reporters, and paparazzi following them around. Maybe then we'd have it all on youtube.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

I think "conspired" came to mind when you said something like, "Only Mary knew, and she kept it secret for obvious reasons." Maybe, since you say to conspire is to do something illegal, it's the wrong word.

Hey I can think up all kinds of scenarios from the scraps of info in the only sources we have right now ... of course the 4 gospels.

Here's one, just for fun:

Both Mary & Joseph kept the virgin birth a secret. And carried on and let on like Joseph did it ... and that their child was just a normal child like everyone else. They didn't let on or betray to others that their son Jesus, was God. Yet according to the record -- I'm still playing here -- by divine revelation, visitation, and intervention, they knew He was. Maybe that's why Jesus never out right says he's God. Quite the contrary "Call no man good but God."

That's really quite a good scenario I just drew up. It states clearly that Jesus was God. But it's of my own making. As are the stories coming down to us from tradition. They really are brainwashing, like bro Timotheist stated.

And that Mary inform the apostles about the virgin birth is just one of them. We have no evidence of such ... in any of the records. It can't even be found on the web. And the web is full of wild ideas and claims.

But I really enjoyed your scenario of CNN, reporters, and paparazzi following them around. Maybe then we'd have it all on youtube.

Nearly every news blurb claims anonymous sources. I suppose you don't believe any of them either. Just what do you believe?

[zeek]

So, it seems that we all agree, albeit for different reasons, that the Gospel records on the matter of the virgin birth and Jesus' birth in Bethlehem are incomplete and lack the supporting evidence. The more unusual the claim made the more evidence required to merit its acceptance. Divine conception is rare to non-existent in the recorded history of human experience. Therefore, the evidence sufficient to warrant belief is extremely high. There are far simpler explanations for putative divine birth beginning with the fact that the New Testament writers sought fulfillment of prophesy in the life of Jesus. Because of a mistranslation of the Septuagint, they believed the messiah would be "born of a virgin". No doubt they believed it was THE SPIRIT that inspired them with the notion that Jesus was BORN OF A VIRGIN. Likewise they looked into the Hebrew scriptures and THE SPIRIT gave them all kinds of "reasons" to believe that Jesus had been BORN IN BETHLEHEM because, after all, it was required by prophesy.

On this point our experience in the "Local Churches" and "The Lord's Recovery" is invaluable. Because, you will remember, THE SPIRIT showed us all kinds of reasons to believe we were in the LOCAL CHURCHES and THE LORD's RECOVERY. So we have some insight into what it like to be led by the SPIRIT into improbable beliefs. Because, I think, we all also agree that, despite what we thought was the SPIRIT'S leading, the Local Churches are not likely actual Local Churches and that the Lord's Recovery is not likely the actual Lord's Recovery, right? If anyone thinks I'm wrong about this, they need to get themselves back into The Local Churches and The Lord's Recovery immediately. Because if they are what they claim to be then that's the place that EVERYONE needs to be.

But, still, apart the whisperings of THE SPIRIT we don't have enough evidence to warrant belief that a divine birth or even a birth in Bethlehem occurred as opposed to what I just suggested. Sooooo, if we hadn't already bought into these beliefs as children indoctrinated into them or as adults with some other compelling motivation to convert to them, there is no way that any of [us] would be discussing these propositions as in any way tenable.

[Timotheist]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Just what do you believe?

Awareness, I am with Ohio on this one... Been trying to peg you, and perhaps you make clear statements of what you do or do not believe elsewhere on this site, but help a brother out here. There's too much to dig thru.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Timotheist

Awareness, I am with Ohio on this one... Been trying to peg you, and perhaps you make clear statements of what you do or do not believe elsewhere on this site, but help a brother out here. There's too much to dig thru.

Oh darn you guys. This thread is not about me. I'll will say this: I "believe" -- I can't be certain -- I weren't born of a virgin. Simply cuz it's not documented anywhere on my birth certificate. And there's no mss disagreements.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Oh darn you guys. This thread is not about me. I'll will say this: I "believe" -- I can't be certain -- I weren't born of a virgin. Simply cuz it's not documented anywhere on my birth certificate. And there's no mss disagreements.

And some document would clear this up? Birth certs can be forged, just ask our prez.

[Timotheist]

hmmm, vague as usual. Send me a PM then, so I don't have to wade thru 2480 posts.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Timotheist

hmmm, vague as usual. Send me a PM then, so I don't have to wade thru 2480 posts.

Talking about vague, who is this to?

[UntoHim]

The post was to you and probably referring to awareness since he's the only one with exactly 2480 posts.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

The post was to you and probably referring to awareness since he's the only one with exactly 2480 posts.

Yeah, ol' Tim wants to know about me -- I'm hard to pin down. Maybe I missed it but I/we don't know anything about Tim being in the local church.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

The post was to you and probably referring to awareness since he's the only one with exactly 2480 posts.

Thanks for the clarification, but now I'm more confused -- he writes to me, but wonders about awareness. Are we that much alike?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Thanks for the clarification, but now I'm more confused -- he writes to me, but wonders about awareness. Are we that much alike?

... eek! ...

[zeek]

Originally Posted by zeek

So, it seems that we all agree, albeit for different reasons, that the Gospel records on the matter of the virgin birth and Jesus' birth in Bethlehem are incomplete and lack the supporting evidence. The more unusual the claim made the more evidence required to merit its acceptance. Divine conception is rare to non-existent in the recorded history of human experience. Therefore, the evidence sufficient to warrant belief is extremely high. There are far simpler explanations for putative divine birth beginning with the fact that the New Testament writers sought fulfillment of prophesy in the life of Jesus. Because of a mistranslation of the Septuagint, they believed the messiah would be "born of a virgin". No doubt they believed it was THE SPIRIT that inspired them with the notion that Jesus was BORN OF A VIRGIN. Likewise they looked into the Hebrew scriptures and THE SPIRIT gave them all kinds of "reasons" to believe that Jesus had been BORN IN BETHLEHEM because, after all, it was required by prophesy.

On this point our experience in the "Local Churches" and "The Lord's Recovery" is invaluable. Because, you will remember, THE SPIRIT showed us all kinds of reasons to believe we were in the LOCAL CHURCHES and THE LORD's RECOVERY. So we have some insight into what it like to be led by the SPIRIT into improbable beliefs. Because, I think, we all also agree that, despite what we thought was the SPIRIT'S leading, the Local Churches are not likely actual Local Churches and that the Lord's Recovery is not likely the actual Lord's Recovery, right? If anyone thinks I'm wrong about this, they need to get themselves back into The Local Churches and The Lord's Recovery immediately. Because if they are what they claim to be then that's the place that EVERYONE needs to be.

But, still, apart the whisperings of THE SPIRIT we don't have enough evidence to warrant belief that a divine birth or even a birth in Bethlehem occurred as opposed to what I just suggested. Sooooo, if we hadn't already bought into these beliefs as children indoctrinated into them or as adults with some other compelling motivation to convert to them, there is no way that any of [us] would be discussing these propositions as in any way tenable.

Again no response. It is difficult for me to resist the conclusion that no one replies because my hypothesis is irrefutable. I have supplied a plausible explanation for the existence of these stories that requires no supernatural fantastical intervention by God into the history of the universe. The authors already beleived Jesus was the messiah so they wove stories that confirmed their interpretation of OT prophesies. In their religious fervor, their stories seemed true to them and were huge hits with congregations to which they were read. Remember the days of "O Lord Amen Hallelujah!"? We swallowed anything that supported our spiritual high. What more explanation is required? What have I left out?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

The authors already beleived Jesus was the messiah so they wove stories that confirmed their interpretation of OT prophesies.

Did they weave stories to match the OT prophesies, or were they led by the Holy Spirit?

I've been expecting this answer for some time now. Waiting for it actually.

If the authors of the gospels are writing by inspiration from God Himself that, would explain how they knew everything; not just the virgin birth, but also what happened to Jesus, and what he said, when he was off by himself.

And if they got it straight from God, that Mary was a virgin, if we want God then, we better embrace it.

Why do you think it's one of the five fundamentals of the fundamentalist creed?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

Did they weave stories to match the OT prophesies, or were they led by the Holy Spirit?

I've been expecting this answer for some time now. Waiting for it actually.

If the authors of the gospels are writing by inspiration from God Himself that, would explain how they knew everything; not just the virgin birth, but also what happened to Jesus, and what he said, when he was off by himself.

And if they got it straight from God, that Mary was a virgin, if we want God then, we better embrace it.

Why do you think it's one of the five fundamentals of the fundamentalist creed?

I suspect that no one here actually believes in the virgin birth. They're just afraid to express their unbelief for fear of divine retribution. They don't want to slide into the mindset of those "atheists" and "agnostics" that they have been taught were evil since they were children. That's why when we express these ideas here it causes adverse emotional reactions. But, appeals to fear and threats of negative labeling are not logical bases for believing anything.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by awareness

Oh darn you guys. This thread is not about me. I'll will say this: I "believe" -- I can't be certain -- I weren't born of a virgin. Simply cuz it's not documented anywhere on my birth certificate. And there's no mss disagreements.

Wow, and all this time you have been telling me you thought you were born of a virgin. Of course, does that make you divine or have anything to do with you being divine? There are all kinds of ways of being born of a virgin.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Dave

There are all kinds of ways of being born of a virgin.

Yes, in the mythologies, yes, yes.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

But, appeals to fear and threats of negative labeling are not logical bases for believing anything.

What's logic got to do with it? It sure worked for Jonathan Edwards, who kicked off The First Great Awakening, with his famous sermon, "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God.":

The Bow of God’s Wrath is bent, and the Arrow
made ready on the String, and Justice bends the
Arrow at your Heart, and strains the Bow, and it is
nothing but the meer Pleasure of God, and that of
an angry God, without any Promise or Obligation
at all, that keeps the Arrow one Moment from being
made drunk with your Blood.

http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/vi...3&context=etas

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

What's logic got to do with it?

Logical arguments based on evidence evoke justifiable belief. If Jonathan Edwards' colorful, scary rhetoric was widely believed maybe it was because he was working in a field rife with ignorant and superstitious minds.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

I suspect that no one here actually believes in the virgin birth. They're just afraid to express their unbelief for fear of divine retribution. They don't want to slide into the mindset of those "atheists" and "agnostics" that they have been taught were evil since they were children. That's why when we express these ideas here it causes adverse emotional reactions. But, appeals to fear and threats of negative labeling are not logical bases for believing anything.

Hello, my name is no one. I actually believe the virgin birth.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by no one

Hello, my name is no one. I actually believe the virgin birth.

That's fair. But even you, Mr. no one, know more about conception and the birthing process than they knew back then.

They didn't have anything close to the medical/biological understanding of today. You bro no one, even tho not likely a medical doctor, know way more than they did.

They were, the few literate ones, educated and running on what was in common currency of their day: mythology ; and all those fantastical stories in the mostly Greek mythologies.

In other words, virgin births wasn't hard to believe in back then.

But bro no one, you're an atheist ... of all the gods of those mythologies. You don't believe in all that fantastical, silly, stuff.

So bro no one, I have to ask. Just how do you manage to believe the biologically unbelievable today?

Please tell me ... pretty please ... what myths are you using. Cuz to believe in the virgin birth I'm gonna need 'em.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

That's fair. But even you, Mr. no one, know more about conception and the birthing process than they knew back then.

They didn't have anything close to the medical/biological understanding of today. You bro no one, even tho not likely a medical doctor, know way more than they did.

They were, the few literate ones, educated and running on what was in common currency of their day: mythology ; and all those fantastical stories in the mostly Greek mythologies.

In other words, virgin births wasn't hard to believe in back then.

But bro no one, you're an theist ... of all the gods of those mythologies. You don't believe in all that fantastical, silly, stuff.

So bro no one, I have to ask. Just how do you manage to believe the biologically unbelievable today?

Please tell me ... pretty please ... what myths are you using. Cuz to believe in the virgin birth I'm gonna need 'em.

I am one of those who happen to think that people "back then" were just as smart or smarter than people today with all our medical/biological knowledge.

What is so unbelievable? Cannot the God who created the heavens and the earth be born in a virgin? I am skeptical about all mythology (perhaps loosely contrived from actual events), but concerning the birth of Jesus, I do "believe the unbelievable." Unbelievable by human means, but not by God. Do you also discard all the other miracles performed by Jesus in the Gospels? What do you believe? Anything beyond what you can see?

I laugh when some imply that we need to apply scientific criteria to the events recorded in scripture, as if we need to part the Red Sea in a laboratory before we cannot accept that it happened. And btw I think we have more people believing those sci-fi mythologies today than they did "back then."

[awareness]

Good response bro Ohio. That's the "Holy Spirit-from God" answer I've been looking for.

Originally Posted by Ohio

And btw I think we have more people believing those sci-fi mythologies today than they did "back then."

You've got me there. Just look at the middle east if you want to see people following ancient mythologies today.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Hello, my name is no one. I actually believe the virgin birth.

Weren't you indoctrinated in that belief as a child before you had reached the age when you could reason for yourself? If so, it isn't as if you reasoned your way to the belief. I doubt that as a child you were presented a balanced list of the facts for and against the proposition of virgin birth and a suggestion that you think about it and make up your own mind.

So far, you haven't presented a valid argument to support the virgin birth claim. Your responses on the subject seem to be emotional and personal rather than logical or evidence-based. Your indoctrinators did their job well.

But, in an adult conversation where your viewpoint is not supported by the ecclesiastical authority to silence, punish, excommunicate or send people to hell, all you have done is repeat the traditional claims as if stating them over and over makes them true. That's what we did in the Local Church.

If, unlike in church, we base our belief on whatever argument is most likely to be true based on the evidence, what do you have to present?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

Weren't you indoctrinated in that belief as a child before you had reached the age when you could reason for yourself? If so, it isn't as if you reasoned your way to the belief. I doubt that as a child you were presented a balanced list of the facts for and against the proposition of virgin birth and a suggestion that you think about it and make up your own mind.

So far, you haven't presented a valid argument to support the virgin birth claim. Your responses on the subject seem to be emotional and personal rather than logical or evidence-based. Your indoctrinators did their job well.

But, in an adult conversation where your viewpoint is not supported by the ecclesiastical authority to silence, punish, excommunicate or send people to hell, all you have done is repeat the traditional claims as if stating them over and over makes them true. That's what we did in the Local Church.

If, unlike in church, we base our belief on whatever argument is most likely to be true based on the evidence, what do you have to present?

The real issue here is not my upbringing, the LC, or indoctrination, but that you don't agree with my views or my faith, so you make rude derogatory comments like "your indoctrinators did their job well" yada, yada.

Contrary to what you have been indoctrinated into believing, there is no scientific evidence for anything which has happened in the Bible. Get over your need for it. We can't duplicate creation in the laboratory, we can't duplicate the Passover in the laboratory, we can't duplicate the virgin birth in the laboratory, nor can we duplicate His death, resurrection, or ascension in the laboratory. God's recorded activities with mankind are not science, they are history. Your demands for scientific evidence are just a cheap excuse for you not to believe. Plain and simple. Your choice. Live with it. Die with it.

Since you claim that my answers are emotional, and not scriptural reasonings, which are based on trustworthy eye-witnesses records, I decided to get a little "emotional" just for you.

Moderator, can't this new software give me an "ignore" feature for certain posters?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The real issue here is not my upbringing, the LC, or indoctrination, but that you don't agree with my views or my faith, so you make rude derogatory comments like "your indoctrinators did their job well" yada, yada.

If you had an argument to refute my statement you could have simply presented it. Your emotional reaction is evidence supports my contention that your position is based emotion not reason.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Contrary to what you have been indoctrinated into believing, there is no scientific evidence for anything which has happened in the Bible.

I agree. It seems you are arguing for my position.

God's recorded activities with mankind are not science, they are history[/B].

The human record of history is always a more or less probable. There are no historical absolutes. Human history can be explained quite well naturalistically without resorting to the God hypothesis. Homer's Illiad probably has some historical elements, but that doesn't mean that Zeus' actions are historical. The same could be said of the Bible's God.

Since you claim that my answers are emotional, and not scriptural reasonings, which are based on trustworthy eye-witnesses records, I decided to get a little "emotional" just for you.

That confirms my suspicion that you don't have good arguments to support your position.

Moderator, can't this new software give me an "ignore" feature for certain posters?

Is that your usual method of dealing with truths you don't like?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Cannot the God who created the heavens and the earth be born in a virgin?

An omnipotent God can, by definition, do anything which is not self-contradictory or absurd. But, from ability, whether God's or man's, particular actions do not follow. Therefore, virgin birth does not follow from the possibility that God created the universe.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

An omnipotent God can, by definition, do anything which is not self-contradictory or absurd. But, from ability, whether God's or man's, particular actions do not follow. Therefore, virgin birth does not follow from the possibility that God created the universe.

The only thing that is self-contradictory or absurd is your post. You have just put God into some little box, defining what He will or will not do. Please read the Bible again and find out that His ways are not our ways.

In his letter to the Corinthians, Paul makes it very clear that the Greeks thought the cross of Christ was sheer nonsense. What kind of mighty God would send His Only Begotten Son to innocently die on a cross at the hands of Roman soldiers??? Even the notion of such a thing was utter stupidity to them.

You sound just like them. From now on you are zeek the Greek, the guy who can alone tell us what God will and will not do.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The only thing that is self-contradictory or absurd is your post. You have just put God into some little box, defining what He will or will not do. Please read the Bible again and find out that His ways are not our ways.

In his letter to the Corinthians, Paul makes it very clear that the Greeks thought the cross of Christ was sheer nonsense. What kind of mighty God would send His Only Begotten Son to innocently die on a cross at the hands of Roman soldiers??? Even the notion of such a thing was utter stupidity to them.

You sound just like them. From now on you are zeek the Greek, the guy who can alone tell us what God will and will not do.

You misunderstood my argument which is simply that particular actions do not necessarily follow from ability. An omnipotent God who can do anything does not necessarily father a human by means of a virgin. As far as your name-calling, it's no substitute for a good argument. Is that the best you can do?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The only thing that is self-contradictory or absurd is your post. You have just put God into some little box, defining what He will or will not do. Please read the Bible again and find out that His ways are not our ways.

In his letter to the Corinthians, Paul makes it very clear that the Greeks thought the cross of Christ was sheer nonsense. What kind of mighty God would send His Only Begotten Son to innocently die on a cross at the hands of Roman soldiers??? Even the notion of such a thing was utter stupidity to them.

You sound just like them. From now on you are zeek the Greek, the guy who can alone tell us what God will and will not do.

You apparently misunderstood my argument which that specific actions don't necessarily follow from abilities. It doesn't follow from the fact that you know how to play Scrabble that you did today. Likewise, the fact that an omnipotent god could do anything including father a child by means of a virgin, it doesn't follow that such god did.

Now, instead of a good argument, you have resorted to name-calling again. Is that the best you can do?

[Timotheist]

Dropping bits and pieces of research on these threads is not working well, so I try a new approach for a single post. Kinda lengthy. I apologize in advance.

The Jesus that I have come to know as the result of this research is a much more interesting person than the one born as both God and man. And this person is also one that seems more real to me, someone that I can relate to, someone whose life has more impact on mine.

For his life established a pattern for us to follow.

John’s gospel explained this man in better words than I can. I strongly suggest re-reading John without the preconceptions established by Matthew and Luke, which I assert are alone in promoting an alternative gospel.

The Jesus portrayed in John was a man who was indwelt by the pre-existing Word at the same point in his life as you or I. At his baptism, the Word became flesh. At that point, he had to submit his will to the Son and become one with the Son, and thus the Father. He was the first person to be indwelt by the Spirit in this manner: a Spirit that gave him the gift of eternal life as one of the many wondrous consequences.

Using the language of Paul, at this point in his life he was still Jesus the human as well, the ‘old man’. Surely his old man was like ours, desiring to resist the new man that became alive in him. Yet the Father had foreknown him to be worthy of his role as the firstborn of a new creation. For he alone had the unique ability to ultimately overcome the old man and become the first true ‘partaker of the Divine nature’ and complete the process we call sanctification. He not only got to the point where he did not sin, he got to the point where he could not sin, having the law written into his heart.

At the time of his death, he had become truly blameless, without spot or wrinkle, worthy to sit at the right hand of the Father, yet still retaining his body which did not see decay.

Did he commit sin in his youth, in violation of the Mosaic law? Odds are tremendously in favor that he committed some sins as the old man. But his belief was reckoned to him as righteousness, and he became righteous in fact over time, thanks to the new life that was birthed within him.

This narrative appeals to me, is scriptural according to Mark, John, and the apostles, and what I take from this is that is indeed possible for anyone to overcome. Paul believed this, for his hope for Timothy was that he be sanctified to the point of being blameless in body, soul, and spirit.

Revelation foretells of a gathering of 144,000 people who also are blameless that will exist in the last days. Paul’s hope was that Timothy would be one of these at the ‘coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.’ This level of sanctification is made possible because the Christ accomplished it first.

The fact that I did not or cannot overcome sin to this point indicates to me that the time is not ready. I will die for my sin if the Lord tarries. I do have the promise of eternal life, but I do not have the promise of being married to the Lamb. And I will be judged and rewarded or punished according to my level of sanctification.

OK, back to the real world. I await the inevitable line-by-line comments on this post, challenging what I believe by quoting ‘scriptures’ that I now feel are the real heresy, perpetuating the perversion and confusion of the gospel that has plagued us for almost two millennia, making it unbelievable to many a Jew and Gentile.

I will continue to post items of research as long as you let me. It has been an incredible and wonderful journey for me, and I hope that it makes a positive impact on some of you.

Peace to you

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Timotheist

Dropping bits and pieces of research on these threads is not working well, so I try a new approach for a single post.

I've been waiting for a new one from you.

Originally Posted by Tim

The Jesus that I have come to know as the result of this research is a much more interesting person than the one born as both God and man. And this person is also one that seems more real to me, someone that I can relate to, someone whose life has more impact on mine.

I spent a long time getting into Henry David Thoreau. Why? Because Jesus, with all the supernatural power behind him, is impossible to emulate, and Thoreau was/is reachable ... cuz he's truly human.

Originally Posted by Tim

At his baptism, the Word became flesh.

Where does the Bible say that?

Originally Posted by Tim

Using the language of Paul, at this point in his life he was still Jesus the human as well, the ‘old man’.

Interesting that you take from Paul's ministry, that was after Jesus, and apply Paul's "old man/new man" to Jesus. I suppose then that you'll use Acts 2:38 to show that before Jesus was Baptized he was of sin:

Act 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins ...


There ... I think I've broken down enough of yer post. And this is enough to chew on for now. I'll let others break down the rest, if so inclined. And might revisit it myself again.

[Timotheist]

Originally Posted by awareness

Interesting that you take from Paul's ministry, that was after Jesus, and apply Paul's "old man/new man" to Jesus. I suppose then that you'll use Acts 2:38 to show that before Jesus was Baptized he was of sin:

Act 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins ...


There ... I think I've broken down enough of yer post. And this is enough to chew on for now. I'll let others break down the rest, if so inclined. And might revisit it myself again.

I cautiously agree with your extrapolation. It occurred to me once that Paul's ministry in part was BASED upon his contemplation of who Jesus was, a person he never met (in the flesh). But instead of considering Jesus from the standpoint of a virgin birth, he considered how in the heck did Jesus the man pull it off? Thus the old man/new man theology was born.

I will address your "Word became flesh" question in a later post.

[Timotheist]

Originally Posted by Timotheist

I will address your "Word became flesh" question in a later post.

Never mind... Later is now here

When did the Word become flesh?

I have been asked more than once to explain my assertion that the Word became flesh at Jesus' baptism.

Context is everything. Let’s look at the verse in its context:

12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name,
13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

The concept of the “second birth” is introduced here and developed throughout the gospel. The author starts off by first delineating the second birth from the first. God is the Father of the second birth, not man. It is through the second birth that the believer becomes a child of God.

This sets the stage for verse 14:

14 And the Word became flesh… the only begotten from the Father.

I now feel pretty stupid that it took me most of my life to see the obvious. Verses 12-13 flow right into 14. The Greek word “ginomai”, translated as “become” in verse 12, is repeated in verse 14, thus linking the thoughts together. (Now I am starting to sound like Witness Lee, explaining simple language principles. Just picture this as a footnote.)

We become children of God not by the first birth, but by the second. The first is by man, the second is by God. Likewise, the man Jesus became the Son of God via an act of the Father.

Going on from this point to read the rest of John’s gospel, it does not take much of an extrapolation at all to assert that this act of “conception” occurred at the baptism (as it does for us).

I could continue with the justification, but frankly, this explanation should suffice. The Spirit at the end of the chapter brought the Logos to the flesh, just as the Spirit initiates a new life in us.

The context is not Matthew and Luke. I no longer connect the dots in that way.

But I do connect the dots to the version of Mark that Justin Martyr used:

"This is My beloved Son. Today I have begotten You"

[Timotheist]

Following up on the previous post...

Staying within the context of John’s gospel, we have this statement:

13 "No one has ascended into heaven, but He who descended from heaven: the Son of Man. (Joh 3:13 NAU)

When did he descend from heaven? Staying strictly within the context of John, the answer is that the Son descended at Jesus’ baptism.

Only if one goes outside of John’s gospel can one try to make an argument for the virgin birth as the point of descent.

Context is important.

[Timotheist]

It being Saturday, I went back over some of the earlier posts on these threads. Ran across something I missed. Awareness cited this from Ehrman (where he was suggesting where I got my material):

But the manuscripts of Luke’s Gospel are divided concerning what exactly the voice said. According to most of our manuscripts, it spoke the same words one finds in Mark’s account: “You are my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased” (Mark 1: 11; Luke 3: 23). In one early Greek manuscript and several Latin ones, however, the voice says something strikingly different: “You are my Son, today I have begotten you.”

I read this, but was not paying attention to the details. I learned about a manuscript of Mark that had the "Today I have begotten you" variant, but here Ehrman is mentioning that some copies of Luke had this variant, and he did not mention the Mark variant.

(Update to post) I went back over my research and Ehrman is correct. It was a variant of Luke, not Mark, that I had run across in my research. The way the webpage was organized left me with the wrong conclusion.

This of course makes some of my previous claims incorrect. We have no version of Mark 1:11 that reads the way I described.

This misstep alone does not dissuade me from my general conclusion about the virgin birth. It just means that Mark 1:11 cannot be used to support John's gospel, but neither does it challenge it, and it was a copy of Luke that had the alteration. According to the evidence this variant occurred after the original Luke was written.

Score one point for Ohio's team

Also to correct my previous posts: Justin Martyr had this copy of Luke, not Mark.

It remains to me a mystery then why Mark would quote Psalm 2:7 incorrectly. Maybe more research will one day lead to an answer to that question.

Surely the author of the Luke variant had Psalm 2 in mind when the "correction" was made.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Tim

"This is My beloved Son. Today I have begotten You"

We don't know if Mark, our earliest gospel, intended adoptionism or not, but it can be seen to be there, and was in the earliest days of Christianity. There's evidence of adoptionist Christology very early on in the Christian movement.

But it was rejected ... and still is today ... except for by a few, like the Unitarians.

[Timotheist]

Originally Posted by Timotheist

It remains to me a mystery then why Mark would quote Psalm 2:7 incorrectly. Maybe more research will one day lead to an answer to that question.

Surely the author of the Luke variant had Psalm 2 in mind when the "correction" was made.

OK, here is part of the answer. Paul in Acts 13:33 quotes Psalm 2:7 (correctly) and links it to to Jesus' resurrection. For Paul to make this link is OK, for the second birth is like the first. There are two parts to being "begotten", the impregnation and the delivery. We call ourselves "born again", but the actual birth of the new creation will occur at our resurrection.

Today, we are pregnant, in an in-between state.

Since Paul (and similarly the author of Hebrews 5:5) both link Psalm 2:7 to the resurrection, then Mark perhaps felt obligated to cite only the first half of the verse. The second half could have come from Isaiah:

Isaiah 42:1 "Behold, My Servant, whom I uphold; My chosen one in whom My soul delights. I have put My Spirit upon Him; He will bring forth justice to the nations. (Isa 42:1 NAU)

linking "putting My Spirit upon Him" with his baptism.

(source for this half-and-half explanation for Mark 1:11: "The Praxis of New Testament Criticism")

[Ohio]

Score one point for Ohio's team

Also to correct my previous posts: Justin Martyr had this copy of Luke, not Mark.

It remains to me a mystery then why Mark would quote Psalm 2:7 incorrectly. Maybe more research will one day lead to an answer to that question.

Surely the author of the Luke variant had Psalm 2 in mind when the "correction" was made.

Having read most of your convictions, I'm still thinking that Psalm 2.7 was accurately quoted by Paul in Acts 13.33, where he identifies this prophecy as the day of resurrection. Most assuredly it was also Paul himself who relayed his message to Luke, since he did not join Paul until his 2nd missionary journey.

Apparently Paul used this verse thematically in his messages, since it shows up twice more in Hebrews where nothing is added to cause us to conclude that it is referring to the baptism of Jesus. (Note that I am under the strong conviction that Hebrews was authored by Paul, but penned by Luke, while Paul was under house arrest during the final chapters of Acts.) The constant message of the book of Acts to the Jews is simple -- the Man Jesus, whom you crucified, God raised from the dead. (Acts 2.22-24, 31-36; 3.15; 4.10; 5.30; 10.39-40)

Since it has been often repeated concerning the absence of the "virgin birth" in Paul's writings, except for occasional references (Gal 4.4), I would think that Paul would have taken it upon himself to clear up such a "misconception."

[Timotheist]

bro Ohio, perhaps my last reply snuck in while you were composing yours. I agree with what you are saying about Paul's usage.

Now you have 2 points to my 50

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Timotheist

(source for this half-and-half explanation for Mark 1:11: "The Praxis of New Testament Criticism")

Link or author please .....

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Timotheist

bro Ohio, perhaps my last reply snuck in while you were composing yours. I agree with what you are saying about Paul's usage.

Now you have 2 points to my 50

Have you paid off the refs? I thought I blocked all your shots.

[Timotheist]

Originally Posted by awareness

Link or author please .....

My apologies. "The Praxis..." is a chapter within the book "Encountering the Manuscript" by Philip Wesley Comfort. I was looking at a PDF image from the book.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Timotheist

My apologies. "The Praxis..." is a chapter within the book "Encountering the Manuscript" by Philip Wesley Comfort. I was looking at a PDF image from the book.

Here is the link

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Here is the link

Not to discount Comfort in the least, but what's the difference between Comfort and Ehrman? Except that Ehrman is clearly better gifted at explaining textual criticism, and variations in the mss, to the lay masses. Comfort brings meat, clearly, and is as interesting as Ehrman maybe, but his delivery it's much harder to chew on than Ehrman's.

[Timotheist]

Originally Posted by awareness

Not to discount Comfort in the least, but what's the difference between Comfort and Ehrman?

If that question is directed at me, then the difference is that Comfort came up first in my Google search. I was doing a quick research to see what someone said about the Luke variant. In this case I kinda liked what I saw. Had no idea who he was before today, but I thought it appropriate to cite him as my resource. I have no earthly idea if the credit is due him as the originator of the thought about the variant.

But he was obviously educated on the subject.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Not to discount Comfort in the least, but what's the difference between Comfort and Ehrman? Except that Ehrman is clearly better gifted at explaining textual criticism, and variations in the mss, to the lay masses. Comfort brings meat, clearly, and is as interesting as Ehrman maybe, but his delivery it's much harder to chew on than Ehrman's.

Comfort brings faith and a strong moral and academic conviction that the Bible is the God inspired word of God.

Of course, if you don't want to hear that, Ehrman will be preferred.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Timotheist

If that question is directed at me, then the difference is that Comfort came up first in my Google search. I was doing a quick research to see what someone said about the Luke variant. In this case I kinda liked what I saw. Had no idea who he was before today, but I thought it appropriate to cite him as my resource. I have no earthly idea if the credit is due him as the originator of the thought about the variant.

But he was obviously educated on the subject.

Philip Comfort was the primary minister in the church in Columbus while I was there during the late 70's. His tenure in the LCM lasted from ~1971 to ~1981, from Akron to Willoughby to Columbus.

After being badly beaten up by Titus Chu in Cleveland, he returned to Columbus in 1982, getting his Masters at OSU in English. From there he obtained his PHD in Greek Studies at Wheaton College in IL.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Philip Comfort was the primary minister in the church in Columbus while I was there during the late 70's. His tenure in the LCM lasted from ~1971 to ~1981, from Akron to Willoughby to Columbus.

After being badly beaten up by Titus Chu in Cleveland, he returned to Columbus in 1982, getting his Masters at OSU in English. From there he obtained his PHD in Greek Studies at Wheaton College in IL.

Now I get it. Comfort is a brother.

But we shouldn't discount Ehrman just because he wasn't in the local church.

Ehrman graduated from Wheaton too, after Moody Bible college, but went on for his PHD, studying under leading scholar Bruce Metzger, at Princeton, where Kangas graduated (no PHD).

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Comfort brings faith and a strong moral and academic conviction that the Bible is the God inspired word of God.

Of course, if you don't want to hear that, Ehrman will be preferred.

Regardless of what the Bible scholar believes textual criticism reveals that the mss differs and so has been meddled with, either by accident or on purpose, either way it disproves inerrancy.

Once Comfort was in the LC. He moved on. Once Ehrman was a Baptist preacher -- not that long ago -- and he moved on. Same difference. Their studies changed them.

Study changes everyone and we should respect that.

[Timotheist]

Had no idea Comfort was in the LC. Ohio, you should get him on this forum. I would like to challenge and be challenged by him.

The only way I have to contrast Comfort and Ehrman at this point (having read neither beyond the scope of the Luke variant) is this: On the matter of the Luke variant, Ehrman jumped to a conclusion that he likes, whereas Comfort detailed the two sides of the discussion fairly.

I learned more from the Comfort reading than I did from Awareness' citation of Ehrman. Perhaps there was more 'meat' in Ehrman before pronouncing his conclusion?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Timotheist

It being Saturday, I went back over some of the earlier posts on these threads. Ran across something I missed. Awareness cited this from Ehrman (where he was suggesting where I got my material):

But the manuscripts of Luke’s Gospel are divided concerning what exactly the voice said. According to most of our manuscripts, it spoke the same words one finds in Mark’s account: “You are my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased” (Mark 1: 11; Luke 3: 23). In one early Greek manuscript and several Latin ones, however, the voice says something strikingly different: “You are my Son, today I have begotten you.”

I read this, but was not paying attention to the details. I learned about a manuscript of Mark that had the "Today I have begotten you" variant, but here Ehrman is mentioning that some copies of Luke had this variant, and he did not mention the Mark variant.

(Update to post) I went back over my research and Ehrman is correct. It was a variant of Luke, not Mark, that I had run across in my research. The way the webpage was organized left me with the wrong conclusion.

This of course makes some of my previous claims incorrect. We have no version of Mark 1:11 that reads the way I described.

This misstep alone does not dissuade me from my general conclusion about the virgin birth. It just means that Mark 1:11 cannot be used to support John's gospel, but neither does it challenge it, and it was a copy of Luke that had the alteration. According to the evidence this variant occurred after the original Luke was written.

Score one point for Ohio's team

Also to correct my previous posts: Justin Martyr had this copy of Luke, not Mark.

It remains to me a mystery then why Mark would quote Psalm 2:7 incorrectly. Maybe more research will one day lead to an answer to that question.

Surely the author of the Luke variant had Psalm 2 in mind when the "correction" was made.

Kudos. You accept correction well. We all make mistakes.

Concerning Mark 1:11:
And like professor Metzger told Ehrman, when Ehrman was doing his best to defend that the NT is inerrant (trying to explain the wrong attestment in Mar 2:26 to Abiathar), he simply said : "maybe Mark was wrong."

Well maybe the author of Mark just wasn't trying to quote Psalm 2:7 precisely. That's no big deal unless you are trying to prove Jesus was adopted by God, as His Son, as The Christ, when he was baptized by John the Baptist. Gnostics had a hay day with it back in the primitive days of Christianity. It is said that 1 & 2 John were written against the heresy of adoptionism ... against those kinds of Gnostics.

Does this mean that our brother Timotheist is a Gnostic?

[Timotheist]

Originally Posted by awareness

Does this mean that our brother Timotheist is a Gnostic?

As long as that means the opposite of 'Agnostic'

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Timotheist

As long as that means the opposite of 'Agnostic'

It don't ....

[Timotheist]

And everyone quit calling what I believe "adoptionism". The resurrected Jesus was begotten of the Father. You cannot adopt a son that you fathered. (Although I am not up on California law).

And I know that I am now inviting the question: "Then what did Paul mean by the term 'adoption'?" So let me beat you to it.

but you have received a spirit of [adoption as sons] by which we cry out, "Abba! Father!" (Rom 8:15 NAU)

even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our [adoption as sons], the redemption of our body. (Rom 8:23 NAU)

who are Israelites, to whom belongs the [adoption as sons], (Rom 9:4 NAU)

so that He might redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive the [adoption as sons]. (Gal 4:5 NAU)

He predestined us to [adoption as sons] through Jesus Christ to Himself, (Eph 1:5 NAU)

"adoption as sons" is only one Greek word: 'huiothesia', and this is an exhaustive list of its usage in the NT.

Don't know why translators use the phrase 'adoption as sons' for this word. In no instance does the context infer anything other than "sonship"

[Timotheist]

Originally Posted by awareness

Does this mean that our brother Timotheist is a Gnostic?

You mean do I believe that the Serpent in the Adam and Eve story is the true hero, who convinced them to eat from the tree of knowledge so that they may escape from the evil, third-tier god, Jehovah, who created this planet for his own vainglory?

This is how they evolved in their beliefs. They also dug the Virgin Birth, too. So how am I a Gnostic?

[Timotheist]

The significance of the baptism of Jesus as recorded in the Acts

The utterances of Peter, Paul, and the other preachers of the gospel in the Acts make no mention that Jesus was born by the Holy Spirit, much less than that of a virgin.

On the contrary, there are several places that link Jesus Christ's beginning with his baptism.

"Therefore it is necessary that of the men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us--
beginning with the baptism of John until the day that He was taken up from us-- one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection."
(Act 1:21-22 NAU)

you yourselves know the thing which took place throughout all Judea, starting from Galilee, after the baptism which John proclaimed.
You know of Jesus of Nazareth, how God anointed Him with the Holy Spirit and with power, and how He went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with Him. (Act 10:37-38 NAU)

"From the descendants of this man, according to promise, God has brought to Israel a Savior, Jesus,
after John had proclaimed before His coming a baptism of repentance to all the people of Israel.
"And while John was completing his course, he kept saying, 'What do you suppose that I am? I am not He. But behold, one is coming after me the sandals of whose feet I am not worthy to untie.'
(Act 13:23-25 NAU)

Paul said, "John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in Him who was coming after him, that is, in Jesus." (Act 19:4 NAU)

In reading over these passages, not only do I find circumstantial evidence of the truth behind what I am saying about the virgin birth, I see opportunities that the apostles missed for revealing that Jesus was born the Son of God, if indeed they believed that.

They called Jesus the "Son of God" in the Acts, but never implied that he was the Son by birth.

NOT ONCE did they indicate anything of significance occurring before Jesus' baptism. Instead, they indicated repeatedly that Jesus Christ came after the baptism, and in one place linking the anointing of the Spirit with his baptism.

Despite the criticisms by some of John's gospel (I accept that some of them are valid), at least it, along with Mark, does not attribute any significance to Jesus' life before his baptism.

[awareness]

Bro Timotheist, by making these claims about Jesus becoming the Christ at baptism, thus debunking the Virgin birth, are you thinking or claiming that removing the "fantastical unbelievable virgin birth" from Jesus will make the gospel more believable in the 21st c., and thus easier to spread the gospel?

Is that what you are hoping for? Are you saying Jesus was adopted by God at his baptism so we too can be adopted by God? And this is easier for us 21st c. people to buy than the virgin birth?

To note:
Maybe you are right. There's Latter Day Saints (Mormons) that believe in adoptionism. They seem to be growing ... even tho they believe in the planet Kolob, that's certainly more fantastical than the virgin birth.

And if so, that you are right, that the virgin birth is a myth, haven't you called the word of God into question, or at least half of the gospels?

[Timotheist]

Originally Posted by awareness

Are you saying Jesus was adopted by God at his baptism so we too can be adopted by God?

No again... I still believe that the Jesus is the Son of God. He may have not been before the baptism, but he was after. An adopted son would not have the Father's nature, therefore would not be called God.

So once again I am asking that you do not use that term as a label for me.

As far as the acceptance of the gospel goes: Yes, most assuredly. The simpler the message, the easier the sell.

Despite what Igsy claims in his vent, the early days of the LC were different than the latter. The message was simple. The movement grew. I mark the decline as beginning with the publication "The Beliefs and Practices of the Local Churches" as a response to the cult claims that were coming out.

Now all of a sudden we were expected to be experts in the correct doctrinal thinking.

Keep it simple. And if that means taking an axe to Matthew and Luke, so be it. The original Mark is sufficient (even with its flaws)

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Timotheist

No again... I still believe that the Jesus is the Son of God. He may have not been before the baptism, but he was after. An adopted son would not have the Father's nature, therefore would not be called God.

So once again I am asking that you do not use that term as a label for me.

Sorry if it appears I'm trying to label you. What shall we label your "at baptism" proposition?

[zeek]

Although I have seen good arguments for rejecting the notion of virgin conception, I have not seen good arguments for accepting some kind of metaphysical event at baptism or resurrection. I don't even see that the NT provides a definitive resolution of what Paul beleived about the matter. The NT presents different possibilities by different authors and in the case of Paul, different possibilities by the same author in different writngs. Any resolution of the issue seems to require extra-biblical reasoning.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Timotheist

No again... I still believe that the Jesus is the Son of God. He may have not been before the baptism, but he was after. An adopted son would not have the Father's nature, therefore would not be called God.

If Jesus was "adopted" by God at his baptism, then He was a sinner like the rest of us, and there is no way that John the Baptist could have identified Him as the Lamb of God.

Having heard your best arguments, I would need to basically discard half of my Bible to accept your adoptionist theories.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

If Jesus was "adopted" by God at his baptism, then He was a sinner like the rest of us, and there is no way that John the Baptist could have identified Him as the Lamb of God.

I was wondering the same thing. What John the Baptist said about Jesus before the baptism seems to indicate that what was said at the baptism by God was just an acknowledgement of what Jesus already was before the baptism.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

I was wondering the same thing. What John the Baptist said about Jesus before the baptism seems to indicate that what was said at the baptism by God was just an acknowledgement of what Jesus already was before the baptism.

As I have said before, Acts 13.33 blows that theory out of the water.

Jesus was the Only Begotten Son of the Father, born as the son of David into a virgin named Mary, and born again on the day of resurrection.

I can't explain it, don't completely understand it, but the Bible says it, and I believe it, and worship Him for it.

What a wonderful "it."

[Timotheist]

Originally Posted by awareness

I was wondering the same thing. What John the Baptist said about Jesus before the baptism seems to indicate that what was said at the baptism by God was just an acknowledgement of what Jesus already was before the baptism.

Read your John again. The Baptist made the "Lamb of God" proclamation AFTER the baptism. Before the baptism he did not know the man. A symptom of 'virgignosis' is not being able to read correctly

And Ohio,

I am not asking you to throw out half your Bible, just the opening verses of Matthew and Luke. Everything else stands consistent except for that.

A little leaven leavens the whole lump.

[Timotheist]

Originally Posted by awareness

Sorry if it appears I'm trying to label you. What shall we label your "at baptism" proposition?

Let's stick with the label Timotheist for now. Perhaps I am the next MOTA, and history will decide what to call me:

“And Timothy, knowing the hearts of men, foretold of the coming of labels seven years beforehand. See ‘Moving here too’, post #1, point 3 (2008).”

Source: 'I wish I listened to HIM' by Harold.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Timotheist

Read your John again. The Baptist made the "Lamb of God" proclamation AFTER the baptism. Before the baptism he did not know the man. A symptom of 'virgignosis' is not being able to read correctly

And Ohio,

I am not asking you to throw out half your Bible, just the opening verses of Matthew and Luke. Everything else stands consistent except for that.

A little leaven leavens the whole lump.

But what about John leaping in the womb when pregnant Elizabeth met pregnant Mary? Why would pre-born John do that for just a fallen pre-born man child?

Oh that's right, I forgot, you've taken an ax to Matthew and Luke ... and that story was just a product of Jesus mythmakers ... or later scribes.

[Timotheist]

Originally Posted by awareness

But what about John leaping in the womb when pregnant Elizabeth met pregnant Mary? Why would pre-born John do that for just a fallen pre-born man child?

Oh that's right, I forgot, you've taken an ax to Matthew and Luke ... and that story was just a product of Jesus mythmakers ... or later scribes.

You are finally getting it

John: he did not know Jesus before the baptism, but afterward it was a completely different story.

Mark: no comment one way or the other. Wanted to quote Psalm 2:7 but Peter and Paul had already used it for proof of resurrection.

Matthew: We need to fix Mark: let's throw in evidence of foreknowledge: "I have need to be baptized by you." Because the baptism was just for show.

Luke: No wait. Let's have him leap in the womb.

Matthew and Luke, the original "virgignostics", causing disharmony in the gospels.

(traditional names used for convenience)

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Timotheist

Read your John again. The Baptist made the "Lamb of God" proclamation AFTER the baptism. Before the baptism he did not know the man.

Actually John did not say this after the baptism. Read these verses again ...

29 The next day he saw Jesus coming to him and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!
30 “This is He on behalf of whom I said, ‘After me comes a Man who has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me.’
31 “I did not recognize Him, but so that He might be manifested to Israel, I came baptizing in water.”
32 John testified saying, “I have seen the Spirit descending as a dove out of heaven, and He remained upon Him.
33 “I did not recognize Him, but He who sent me to baptize in water said to me, ‘He upon whom you see the Spirit descending and remaining upon Him, this is the One who baptizes in the Holy Spirit.’
34 “I myself have seen, and have testified that this is the Son of God.”

If we look at the chronology of these verses in the context of John chapter 1, we have God sending John (1.6) to baptize in water (1.33). At that time God told John, since he could not recognize the coming One, that when he sees the Spirit descend on a man, that will be the One who baptizes in the Holy Spirit. (1.33)

One day as John was baptizing in Bethany, priests and Levites were sent from Jerusalem to interrogate him. (1.19-28) John makes it clear to them that he was only a "voice crying out in the wilderness" to prepare the way of the Lord, and informed them plainly that the promised Messiah was in their midst, yet they did not recognize Him! That must have shocked them.

The very next day (1.29) as he was baptizing, John saw Jesus coming to him. At this point, prior to Jesus' baptism, John must have seen the Spirit descend upon Him, as God had foretold to him. Then suddenly John proclaimed with a loud voice for all to hear, "Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. This is the One I told you about. This is the One the Spirit abode upon. This is the One who baptizes in the Holy Spirit. This is the Son of God."

The writer here does not mention John actually baptizing Jesus, nor the voice that came out of heaven. The writer focuses on John's testimony, which is consistent with the rest of the book. (chapter 5) The next day John repeated his proclamation a second time concerning the Lamb of God to two of his own disciples, who left him to follow Jesus.

In conclusion, the writer of John's Gospel never records the actual baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist. Neither are the words of God from heaven recorded. From the record of John we have no way to even know that Jesus was baptized. Hence, your claims as to the timing of His baptism in John's Gospel are mute.

Brother Timotheist, if your adoptionist theory of Jesus becoming the Son of God at His baptism is based on solely on John's Gospel, and you have discarded the early parts of Matthew and Luke, then you are in trouble. How do you know that Jesus was ever baptized?

Originally Posted by Timotheist

A symptom of 'virgignosis' is not being able to read correctly
And Ohio,

I am not asking you to throw out half your Bible, just the opening verses of Matthew and Luke. Everything else stands consistent except for that.

A little leaven leavens the whole lump.

I hope you were referring to your own reading of the Bible, and not mine.

[OBW]

Ohio,

Actually, the narrative in John does not specify when the baptism took place relative to the vision that identified him to John. But in Matthew, it is clear that John knew who he was before the baptism because he tried to have Jesus baptize him instead. Seems to eliminate the "after the baptism revelation" idea being put forward.

[zeek]

Well, you see John was a prophet, therefore, God revealed to him what Jesus would become even before it happened at his Baptism. Or, make up some other explanation that you like.

[Timotheist]

Originally Posted by Ohio

In conclusion, the writer of John's Gospel never records the actual baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist. Neither are the words of God from heaven recorded. From the record of John we have no way to even know that Jesus was baptized. Hence, your claims as to the timing of His baptism in John's Gospel are mute.

This is a twisted point to make, but the text here could be used to challenge the baptism occurred at all, I guess. Not sure that was the intent.

So I will modify my statement to say: John did not proclaim Jesus to be the "Lamb of God" until after he saw the Spirit descend on him.

I admit to relying on Mark to give the proper order for the baptism (as do you).

No point for that one.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by zeek

Well, you see John was a prophet, therefore, God revealed to him what Jesus would become even before it happened at his Baptism. Or, make up some other explanation that you like.

Yeah. A variation on the "mind the gap" warnings at the train stations in London.

In this case, it is "fill in the gaps" with whatever fits your view. If you don't like where the text goes, add to it, or claim it is flawed and ignore it. Then you can make it mean something else.

Seems familiar. Oh yeah. That is what Lee did.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Timotheist

This is a twisted point to make, but the text here could be used to challenge the baptism occurred at all, I guess. Not sure that was the intent.

So I will modify my statement to say: John did not proclaim Jesus to be the "Lamb of God" until after he saw the Spirit descend on him.

I admit to relying on Mark to give the proper order for the baptism (as do you).

No point for that one.

Wait a minute. You used John as your entire premise vis-a-vis -- that the man Jesus was made the Son of God at His baptism by the descending Spirit according to John's declaration -- are you now backing away from your adoptionist claim?

It is not some "twisted point" which I make that John does not even mention the actual baptism. Do I sense a little apprehension that your theories are beginning to crash like a house of cards? Are you really following your research to its reasonable conclusion?

[Timotheist]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Wait a minute. You used John as your entire premise vis-a-vis -- that the man Jesus was made the Son of God at His baptism by the descending Spirit according to John's declaration -- are you now backing away from your adoptionist claim?

It is not some "twisted point" which I make that John does not even mention the actual baptism. Do I sense a little apprehension that your theories are beginning to crash like a house of cards? Are you really following your research to its reasonable conclusion?

Not at all. The descent of the Spirit is the critical part of my thesis: not the water baptism itself.

I admit that I have perhaps placed on over-emphasis on John's gospel in making my points. But even if I throw out John and use only Mark, I can still make the same points. The Acts and Mark both support each other. Paul does not challenge my thesis. John just helps with other supporting evidence.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Tim

An aside: I find it disheartening that you have now started using "adoptionist" as a label when I have clearly stated I dispute and resent the comparison.

And we should accommodate your wishes. So, if not adoptionism, and to facilitate discussion, what would you like to term it?

Be careful. For example, if you say, at the baptism God did not adopt but "acknowledged" the Sonship, you'll defeat your own argument by admitting sonship prior to the baptism.

But I think, by your wishes, you're now compelled to give us a substitute word. Something that doesn't offend you but properly labels this event.

I'm very curious to learn your term. Please don't leave us hanging ... and holding our breath in anticipation.

[Timotheist]

Originally Posted by awareness

And we should accommodate your wishes. So, if not adoptionism, and to facilitate discussion, what would you like to term it?

Be careful. For example, if you say, at the baptism God did not adopt but "acknowledged" the Sonship, you'll defeat your own argument by admitting sonship prior to the baptism.

But I think, by your wishes, you're now compelled to give us a substitute word. Something that doesn't offend you but properly labels this event.

I'm very curious to learn your term. Please don't leave us hanging ... and holding our breath in anticipation.

How about "conceptionism"? Sounds better, until one of you states it implies something I do not believe

conceptionism -- a belief that the pre-existing Word was conceived within the man Jesus at his baptism.

(Now why do I get the feeling I am being set up?)

Tim the conceptionist

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Timotheist

Not at all. The descent of the Spirit is the critical part of my thesis: not the water baptism itself.

I admit that I have perhaps placed on over-emphasis on John's gospel in making my points. But even if I throw out John and use only Mark, I can still make the same points. The Acts and Mark both support each other. Paul does not challenge my thesis. John just helps with other supporting evidence.

So you are willing to throw out Matthew, Luke, and now John in order to support your theory. Doesn't that concern you in the least?

I think Acts has to be discarded also, along with the writings of Paul, in order to support your theory, since he has definitively interpreted Psalm 2.7 in his discourse in chapter 13. There he mentioned John the Baptist at the end of his ministry introducing Jesus, and while he had the opportunity to mention the Spirit descending upon Him to make Him God by conceptionism, Paul did not. Why was that? Paul was preaching the Gospel in Gentile lands, so why did he not insert this most important fact?

Then Paul surprised us saying, at least according to your theory, that Jesus became God when He was resurrected from the dead.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Timotheist

How about "conceptionism"? Sounds better, until one of you states it implies something I do not believe

conceptionism -- a belief that the pre-existing Word was conceived within the man Jesus at his baptism.

(Now why do I get the feeling I am being set up?)

Tim the conceptionist

Well that might work here, in questioning the Virgin birth threads, but outsiders might confuse us with The Order of the Immaculate Conception.

Timotheist the Immaculate Conceptionist.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Well that might work here, in questioning the Virgin birth threads, but outsiders might confuse us with The Order of the Immaculate Conception.

Timotheist the Immaculate Conceptionist.

I should add that I am against the notion of the Immaculate Conception, i.e. Mary was born without original sin, nor was she sinless. She was a chaste virgin when the Angel Gabriel visited her.

[Timotheist]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I should add that I am against the notion of the Immaculate Conception, i.e. Mary was born without original sin, nor was she sinless. She was a chaste virgin when the Angel Gabriel visited her.

I did run across a variant where Mary said "I'll do it", and started throwing stones.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Timotheist

I did run across a variant where Mary said "I'll do it", and started throwing stones.

Yes. But the woman was not identified until Jesus said "mother, will you quit being such a show-off" or something like that.

[Timotheist]

And [Elizabeth] cried out with a loud voice and said, "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! (Luk 1:42 NAU)
(dot dot dot)
"For He has had regard for the humble state of His bondslave; For behold, from this time on all generations will count me blessed. (Luk 1:48 NAU)

While Jesus was saying these things, one of the women in the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, "Blessed is the womb that bore You and the breasts at which You nursed."
But He said, "On the contrary, blessed are those who hear the word of God and observe it."
As the crowds were increasing, He began to say, "This generation is a wicked generation; it seeks for a sign, and yet no sign will be given to it but the sign of Jonah. (Luk 11:27-29 NAU)

But Luke had already given us another sign. Ironic that the praise of Mary by this bystander evoked this comment.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Timotheist

And [Elizabeth] cried out with a loud voice and said, "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! (Luk 1:42 NAU)

Notice that Elizabeth also knew that Mary's baby was the Lord Himself, yet seemed to already know about the virgin birth.

39 Now at this time Mary arose and went in a hurry to the hill country, to a city of Judah,
40 and entered the house of Zacharias and greeted Elizabeth.41 When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit.
42 And she cried out with a loud voice and said, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb!
43 “And how has it happened to me, that the mother of my Lord would come to me?
44 “For behold, when the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby leaped in my womb for joy.
45 “And blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfillment of what had been spoken to her by the Lord.”[/URL]

[Timotheist]

Now on to the most difficult part of the research. Just how did the virgin birth stories get invented? Even I myself need more evidence than the LXX's mistranslation of Isa 7:14. How did the star get into the narrative? Where did that come from? Since the epistles, the Acts, Mark and John do not mention it, how did it get into the mainstream belief so quickly?

I have been going over extra-biblical material from the first century. A story is starting to form, but the "smoking gun" has not been found (I figured this would be the case, because people a lot smarter than me have gone over this material). Instead, I have found evidence of cover-up. Documents that are "lost" to us were not accidentally lost, they were destroyed. What is left is a thin paper trail that only provides some hints.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Timotheist

Now on to the most difficult part of the research. Just how did the virgin birth stories get invented?

Maybe I should bring post #189 from "implications." Sorry if I placed it in the wrong 'virgin birth' thread.

And by the way, "if" the virgin birth stories were invented? There's always the God factor bro Tim. We can't get around that. And of course with God all things are possible. If we're talking God that's got to be a truism.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Timotheist

Now on to the most difficult part of the research. Just how did the virgin birth stories get invented? Even I myself need more evidence than the LXX's mistranslation of Isa 7:14. How did the star get into the narrative? Where did that come from? Since the epistles, the Acts, Mark and John do not mention it, how did it get into the mainstream belief so quickly?

I have been going over extra-biblical material from the first century. A story is starting to form, but the "smoking gun" has not been found (I figured this would be the case, because people a lot smarter than me have gone over this material). Instead, I have found evidence of cover-up. Documents that are "lost" to us were not accidentally lost, they were destroyed. What is left is a thin paper trail that only provides some hints.

You started out telling us that you washed the slate clean, and then went researching to see where the evidence led you.

By now it has become clear that you have an agenda, and are shoehorning all appropriate data to fit it.

[Timotheist]

And what is my agenda?

If I find evidence of your theory that Mary passed on a secret that she held most of her life, do you think I will hide it from you?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Timotheist

And what is my agenda?

If I find evidence of your theory that Mary passed on a secret that she held most of her life, do you think I will hide it from you?

People with an agenda tend to lose objectivity. You found one obscure version of Mark 1.11, and developed a whole theory around it, at the expense of the rest of scripture.

The "evidence" was recorded by Matthew and Luke which you now have in your Bible. Obviously Mary was the source, and she kept these things in her heart for years. (Luke 1.66, 2.19, 51)

Skeptics love to discard Matthew because of the star which the Magi saw. Did you watch that documentary explaining the star in vivid detail?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Obviously Mary was the source, and she kept these things in her heart for years. (Matt 1.66, 2.19, 51)

That would be Luke, not Matt.

[Timotheist]

Originally Posted by Ohio

People with an agenda tend to lose objectivity. You found one obscure version of Mark 1.11, and developed a whole theory around it, at the expense of the rest of scripture.

Nope. I did not learn of the Luke variant (it was not Mark, and I corrected that in these posts) until recently. My earlier research is what led me to my conclusions.

I assure you that I remain objective. Methinks the one with the closed mind is in your shaving mirror.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Timotheist

Methinks the one with the closed mind is in your (Ohio) shaving mirror.

Let's not confuse a mind that's made up with a closed mind. A mind that's made up, tho can be stubborn, can change. Not so a closed mind. I think to varying degrees we're all learning here, or trying to.

[Timotheist]

Originally Posted by awareness

Let's not confuse a mind that's made up with a closed mind. A mind that's made up, tho can be stubborn, can change. Not so a closed mind. I think to varying degrees we're all learning here, or trying to.

OK, I will only take it and not dish it out. Although in the insulting contest, I lag behind 2 - 48

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Timotheist

OK, I will only take it and not dish it out. Although in the insulting contest, I lag behind 2 - 48

Because I mentioned an agenda?

But while we are at it, what did you think about the Star of Bethlehem?

[Timotheist]

Originally Posted by Ohio

But while we are at it, what did you think about the Star of Bethlehem?

Still working on that one. Going over 1st century material. May have to go further back than that into the hellenistic period, which is a daunting task.

You can help me out if you know of an OT prophecy that foretells of a star signalling the birth of the Messiah. The wise men figured it out. I should be able to do it as well.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Ohio

But while we are at it, what did you think about the Star of Bethlehem?

Originally Posted by Timotheist

Still working on that one. Going over 1st century material. May have to go further back than that into the hellenistic period, which is a daunting task.

You can help me out if you know of an OT prophecy that foretells of a star signalling the birth of the Messiah. The wise men figured it out. I should be able to do it as well.

So ... what did you think of the documentary of the reenactment of the "star" which the wise men saw?

Apparently the wise men from the east did not have the Hebrew scriptures to guide them, rather God's creation in the heavens guided them to Judah. They needed the scribes in Jerusalem to point them more specifically to the little town of Bethlehem using Micah 5.2

[Timotheist]

Originally Posted by Ohio

So ... what did you think of the documentary of the reenactment of the "star" which the wise men saw?

Apparently the wise men from the east did not have the Hebrew scriptures to guide them, rather God's creation in the heavens guided them to Judah. They needed the scribes in Jerusalem to point them more specifically to the little town of Bethlehem using Micah 5.2

I did not watch it. I personally would not be interested unless they provided the data that they drew their conclusions from and I found it credible.

I am a 'doubting Thomas' to the max. That is my lot in life.

Once, while I was a child in the LC, one of the brothers shared with me this "scientific study" where a solar system model crashed until they accounted for the sun standing still as recorded in Joshua 10. As I recall, this was told to me in a "children's meeting". I believed this story and repeated it excitedly to others. Now that I know enough about how models like this work, I know that no model would behave in that manner.

Fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Timotheist

Fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again.

Okay Dubya ....

[Timotheist]

Actually, I have been fooled a lot. I watched "White Wilderness" in science classes for several years. I still have those images of lemmings committing suicide, believing it for years because my teachers and Walt Disney said so.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Timotheist

I did not watch it. I personally would not be interested unless they provided the data that they drew their conclusions from and I found it credible.

I am a 'doubting Thomas' to the max. That is my lot in life.

We all pick and choose what we want to believe, and then convince ourselves it is the truth. Even 'doubting Thomas' was persuaded in his own beliefs. As has been said, "a man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest."

When I left the Catholic church after I was born anew, I consciously took with me only two things: the Bible was God's word, and Jesus was His Son. Concerning Mary, I kept only what the Bible gave me, even though I was surrounded by idolatry, since the only people I knew were all Catholics.

Being a doubter to me is an easy cop out. I've known so many people who are pure Bible skeptics, yet they will swallow any garbage that comes their way. They know just enough facts to discount the scripture, yet never take the time to research important decisions in their lives.

Thomas, however, stuck around and put his finger in the Lord's hands, and he believed.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Timotheist

Actually, I have been fooled a lot. I watched "White Wilderness" in science classes for several years. I still have those images of lemmings committing suicide, believing it for years because my teachers and Walt Disney said so.

I can't say I was fooled by cartoons and comic books. They were honest about being make believe.

I was fooled by the indoctrination I got growing up in the SBC. After them and the local church I don't fool very easily anymore. If humans have a hand in it it can't be trusted.

[Timotheist]

Originally Posted by awareness

I can't say I was fooled by cartoons and comic books. They were honest about being make believe.

I was fooled by the indoctrination I got growing up in the SBC. After them and the local church I don't fool very easily anymore. If humans have a hand in it it can't be trusted.

White Wilderness was a nature documentary showed in science classes. The staff on assignment thought it would be funny if they shoved a bunch of lemmings over a cliff and made up this story about it being "nature's way" of dealing with over-population. They fooled a whole generation of us, and forever tarnished the reputation of lemmings.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Timotheist

White Wilderness was a nature documentary showed in science classes. The staff on assignment thought it would be funny if they shoved a bunch of lemmings over a cliff and made up this story about it being "nature's way" of dealing with over-population. They fooled a whole generation of us, and forever tarnished the reputation of lemmings.

Yes, but it provided us with the metaphor of blindly following.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by awareness

Yes, but it provided us with the metaphor of blindly following.

So would you suggest that the true metaphor should be of elementary school children believing all the alleged science that they are taught?

Like that the sun is actually a couple of degrees further to the west than it looks because of the time it takes for the light to reach the earth. (false)

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Timotheist

White Wilderness was a nature documentary showed in science classes. The staff on assignment thought it would be funny if they shoved a bunch of lemmings over a cliff and made up this story about it being "nature's way" of dealing with over-population. They fooled a whole generation of us, and forever tarnished the reputation of lemmings.

According to snopes, it was a hoax cruel to the innocent animals that were victimized to produce it and the children who were traumatized by watching it. The real lesson is not to believe everything you see on TV even when it comes from a brand you love like Disney.

http://www.snopes.com/disney/films/lemmings.asp

[Timotheist]

Originally Posted by zeek

According to snopes, it was a hoax cruel to the innocent animals that were victimized to produce it and the children who were traumatized by watching it. The real lesson is not to believe everything you see on TV even when it comes from a brand you love like Disney.

http://www.snopes.com/disney/films/lemmings.asp

For the record I was not traumatized: I thought it was pretty cool.

I was bringing up examples that are very likely similar to the Star thing. Especially the first one, trying to use science to prove that the sun stood still.

I look at it this way: even if the planets lined up just so on that particular night, the trace it made across the sky would have been a predictable path, moving from east to west on a prescribed arc. So:

a) They would have been able to predict the alignment and path based on previous observations (the term 'wise men' literally means 'astrologers')
b) They did not have to follow it know where it was going.
c) There is only a narrow path along an eastward starting point that would have landed them in Jerusalem.

So trying to explain the miracle as a naturally orchestrated event seems more incredible to me than the star being an angel. An angel does not have to follow the laws of motion and timing.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Timotheist

So trying to explain the miracle as a naturally orchestrated event seems more incredible to me than the star being an angel.

You are hilarious bro Tim. So to you the star as an angel is more credible than the star as a natural occurring event? Very funny.

That would explain the star's irregular behavior. But why would an angel pretend to be a star? Why not just come down like in Genesis 18 and guide the wise men by walking along with them?

Actually, if we're going to wax so supernatural as to introduce the star as an angel (which gospel says that?), and believe God would do such a supernatural thing, then why didn't God come down and personally guide the wise men to baby God? If God is going to do the supernatural that would be as supernatural as it comes.

So in the story, God could do the virgin birth miracle, but could only do a little miracle to guide the wise men.

Why not see these as oral stories going around and told to and by whoever the authors were?

And anyone that's played "Telephone" knows how stories develop as they are passed on.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

You are hilarious bro Tim. So to you the star as an angel is more credible than the star as a natural occurring event? Very funny.

When a moderator makes an ad hominem argument against a member, it's not funny.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

When a moderator makes an ad hominem argument against a member, it's not funny.

Yeah, if I keep it up I'll have to kick myself off. And that's funny.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Yeah, if I keep it up I'll have to kick myself off. And that's funny.

ad hominem: anything that zeek does not agree with

[Cal]

It always amazes me when people question the virgin birth. Is their point that God does not perform miracles, or that he cannot? God can do anything and if he wants a virgin to have a baby who's going to tell him that can't happen?

Also, whether there is a supernatural reason for some phenomenon or a natural reason, as far a God is concerned it doesn't matter, because he created and controls both.

I guess some people just believe in a feckless God. Though I can't imagine why.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Igzy

It always amazes me when people question the virgin birth. Is their point that God does not perform miracles, or that he cannot? God can do anything and if he wants a virgin to have a baby who's going to tell him that can't happen?

Also, whether there is a supernatural reason for some phenomenon or a natural reason, as far a God is concerned it doesn't matter, because he created and controls both.

I guess some people just believe in a feckless God. Though I can't imagine why.

Thanks for bringing it bro Igzy. Truth is I have a major complaint against God. I think He's lost interest or something. I read in the Bible that God was very active back in the Bible days, doing all kinds of wonders upon wonders. My complaint is, why did He stop? We don't see Him working those kinds of wonders today.

No wonder us moderns are having a problem believing all those ancient divine wonders and activities. We wouldn't have that problem if God was just as active today as He was back in the Bible days.

Of course He's God, and can do, or not do, as He pleases. I'm just going on record as lodging a complaint about God's lack of involvement with us humans today, just as He was back in the Bible days.

I guess I'm telling God to ... BRING IT ON!!!

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

ad hominem: anything that zeek does not agree with

Good one bro! Actually I agree with Awareness that Timotheist needs to answer the question why the star stories must represent an astronomical event when they may have originated in the mind of the author in order to symbolize cosmic recognition of the birth of the divine savior.

I merely objected to Awareness' ridicule of Timotheist for explaining one supernatural event: the guiding Star of Bethlehem by means of another supernatural event: the intervention of bona fide angel. To a metaphysical skeptic explaining one miracle with another doesn't bring us any closer to knowledge.

The believer in the supernatural, on the other hand, doesn't need an explanation in the first place. The supernatural entails the inexplicable by definition.

Now empirical evidence of an unexplained astronomical event on the date of Jesus birth [if only we knew exactly when that was] would be interesting. But, then there were numerous unexplained astronomical events over the centuries, so it would be a matter of estimating the relative probability of such an event on the exact date of his birth etc. Nothing final about all that.

Besides, Jesus himself was ambivalent about signs, in some accounts performing them but in Mark 8 asking “Why does this generation seek a sign? Assuredly, I say to you, no sign shall be given to this generation.”

Do you have an explanation for how it is Jesus could say no sign would be given when Matthew shows that a sign was given to the wise men so they could find and worship the savior?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Igzy

It always amazes me when people question the virgin birth. Is their point that God does not perform miracles, or that he cannot? God can do anything and if he wants a virgin to have a baby who's going to tell him that can't happen?

Also, whether there is a supernatural reason for some phenomenon or a natural reason, as far a God is concerned it doesn't matter, because he created and controls both.

I guess some people just believe in a feckless God. Though I can't imagine why.

If you don't know the point by now, then apparently you haven't read the thread because first Timotheist explained why he questioned it and then Harold and then me. Do you expect us to restate our positions and arguments all over again for your benefit? Suffice it to say that from the proposition of an omnipotent god for whom all things are possible it does not follow that such being has done any particular thing that is claimed of him. Knowledge of the existence of such a being and what the being has done requires evidence. The evidence for the virgin birth of Jesus consists entirely of the stories in Matthew and Luke which are based on a spurious interpretation of Isaiah 7:14, have no external support and contain conflicting details. The evidence is weak and equivocal at best and there are more plausible, simpler less fantastical explanations for the story some of which we discussed below. Check it out.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

It always amazes me when people question the virgin birth. Is their point that God does not perform miracles, or that he cannot? God can do anything and if he wants a virgin to have a baby who's going to tell him that can't happen?

Also, whether there is a supernatural reason for some phenomenon or a natural reason, as far a God is concerned it doesn't matter, because he created and controls both.

I guess some people just believe in a feckless God. Though I can't imagine why.

Exactly. It is my belief that normal conceptions do not happen in a Godless vacuum. They too are a wonderful miracle. New life needs the blessing of the Author of life.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

Besides, Jesus himself was ambivalent about signs, in some accounts performing them but in Mark 8 asking “Why does this generation seek a sign? Assuredly, I say to you, no sign shall be given to this generation.”

Do you have an explanation for how it is Jesus could say no sign would be given when Matthew shows that a sign was given to the wise men so they could find and worship the savior?

Read the context from each of the Gospels.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Thanks for bringing it bro Igzy. Truth is I have a major complaint against God. I think He's lost interest or something. I read in the Bible that God was very active back in the Bible days, doing all kinds of wonders upon wonders. My complaint is, why did He stop? We don't see Him working those kinds of wonders today.

No wonder us moderns are having a problem believing all those ancient divine wonders and activities. We wouldn't have that problem if God was just as active today as He was back in the Bible days.

Of course He's God, and can do, or not do, as He pleases. I'm just going on record as lodging a complaint about God's lack of involvement with us humans today, just as He was back in the Bible days.

I guess I'm telling God to ... BRING IT ON!!!

God never stopped, but those without faith just cant see any miracles or wonders.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

God never stopped, but those without faith just cant see any miracles or wonders.

You must be talking about different kinds of miracles than found in the Bible.

Anywho, faith or no faith in Matthew Mary "was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit." And in Luke she's visited by Gabriel. Mary was scared so the angel told her "Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus.

My point is, faith or no faith there was no one there to witness the virgin conception, except Mary and Gabriel. And faith or no faith we can't talk to either of them.

Moreover, neither of the writers of those gospels were there to witness it, and neither of them could talk to Gabriel either.

Faith or not they couldn't see it and neither can we, even with all the faith in the world or heaven.

Our faith today can't enable seeing the miracle of the virgin birth. Our faith today is based solely upon accepting that it happened.

And that's the subject of Tim's two threads.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

The evidence for the virgin birth of Jesus consists entirely of the stories in Matthew and Luke which are based on a spurious interpretation of Isaiah 7:14, have no external support . . .

I think I know what you are saying, that, we have no other evidence for the VB accept that found in Matthew and Luke.

However, there was external support back then for virgin births. The idea of virgin births were in common currency in the milieu of the day. So Jesus, to compete, had to be at least as great as all the others born of a virgin.

Plus, by the time Matthew and Luke were written, a virgin birth would make Jesus more acceptable to the pagans, that were, because of Paul, coming in in droves.

I'm just saying that this could be one possible explanation, that motivated including the VB in the two Jesus stories.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Read the context from each of the Gospels.

You're right, Jesus changes his message depending on which book you're reading. In Mark he says no sign will be given, but in Matthew he says, “An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign, and no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah." So which is it, no sign or one sign?

I suppose you have some rationalization for the apparent contradiction. Scofield and Witness Lee made a living for themselves by rationalizing such discrepancies. But, unless the rationalizations come from the Bible itself they are extra-biblical speculations. Now the modern NT historians are also speculating based on a different set of assumptions. Theirs are probabilistic, whereas the Bible harmonizers are based on faith in the fundamentals. Either way, there is no absolute certainty that the rationalizations are correct.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

You're right, Jesus changes his message depending on which book you're reading. In Mark he says no sign will be given, but in Matthew he says, “An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign, and no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah." So which is it, no sign or one sign?

For being such a smart guy, you sure ask a lot of stupid questions.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

I think I know what you are saying, that, we have no other evidence for the VB accept that found in Matthew and Luke.

However, there was external support back then for virgin births. The idea of virgin births were in common currency in the milieu of the day. So Jesus, to compete, had to be at least as great as all the others born of a virgin.

Plus, by the time Matthew and Luke were written, a virgin birth would make Jesus more acceptable to the pagans, that were, because of Paul, coming in in droves.

I'm just saying that this could be one possible explanation, that motivated including the VB in the two Jesus stories.

Without Matthew and Luke genealogies, we have no evidence that jesus fulfilled
Any of the OT prophecies, like Gen 3.15 and being the son of Abraham and the son of David.

I need no "external evidence" to prove the virgin birth, the changing of water into wine, the parting of the Red sea, the birth of Isaac, the healing of the blind man, the casting out of demons, the raising of Lazarus, and so on.

There is no external evidence that pagans came into the church in droves.

Yes, the one possible explanation of the virgin birth is that it really happened and was recorded by Matthew and Luke from the eye-witness account of Mary, the mother of Jesus.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

For being such a smart guy, you sure ask a lot of stupid questions.

It's easier for you to call my questions stupid then to produce plausible answers which would take some thought and perhaps research. You could just admit that you don't know the answers. That would be refreshingly honest.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

You're right, Jesus changes his message depending on which book you're reading. In Mark he says no sign will be given, but in Matthew he says, “An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign, and no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah." So which is it, no sign or one sign?

The answer was both. Now was that too hard to figure out?

It would really help if you would use your smarts to study the scripture instead of looking for so-called "problems."

When the unbelieving "evil and adulterous generation" wanted Jesus to perform some circus wonder sign, He said NO! none for you, I have not come for that. But He did come to lay down His life for our sins, dying on the cross, lying in the tomb, and rising from the dead. And that my friend was the "sign of Jonah" which Jesus gave to them.

If Jesus was not who He said He was, how could He predict that He would resurrect from the dead on the third day?

Every sign on earth could be faked by gimmicks, sleight of hand, or computer generated images but not one's own death and resurrection three days later. And you still like to play with words in the face of that sign?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by zeek

If you don't know the point by now, then apparently you haven't read the thread because first Timotheist explained why he questioned it and then Harold and then me. Do you expect us to restate our positions and arguments all over again for your benefit? Suffice it to say that from the proposition of an omnipotent god for whom all things are possible it does not follow that such being has done any particular thing that is claimed of him. Knowledge of the existence of such a being and what the being has done requires evidence. The evidence for the virgin birth of Jesus consists entirely of the stories in Matthew and Luke which are based on a spurious interpretation of Isaiah 7:14, have no external support and contain conflicting details. The evidence is weak and equivocal at best and there are more plausible, simpler less fantastical explanations for the story some of which we discussed below. Check it out.

zeek,

If you are going to doubt the validity of the Bible then all bets are off, because the Bible says a lot of things for which the only evidence is the Bible.

Here's how I look at it.

No one has been able to prove that anything the Bible claims is false. That's pretty amazing for a book written over a period of 1500 years by over 35 writers from all walks of life.

This Bible prophesizes of and then witnesses to the appearance and life of Jesus. Here's the linchpin with me. No one could have made up this character. The way he lived, the way his spoke, the things he said. He had to be a real person. This person, as recorded, witnessed to the validity of the OT scriptures, which prophesized that he would be born of a virgin.

In other words, there is internal consistency in the history coupled with the fact that the existence of this person Jesus cannot be explained without bringing a world beyond ours into the picture. You cannot explain Jesus without eventually considering that he must have been the Son of God. You cannot explain his existence even as a historical figure as simply a fabrication.

You cannot even explain his existence as a fictional character. Fiction is full of fantastical characters: Gods, spirits, faeries, gnomes, wizards, demons, aliens, and people from other dimensions. You can take all the concocted dialogue from all the characters ever imagined and edit them down to the most profound sayings their creators and writers dreamed up for them and they would not hold a flickering candle to the blazing light of what Jesus said. Now, explain why that is so; and how a motley group of disciples concocted them while running for their lives. You can't even explain how a bunch of monks modifying the Bible could have done it. You cannot make a case that Jesus and the things he said were concoctions. Jesus could not have been invented by the mind of man. He is real and from some other place beyond our world. That must be conceded.

Now this person witnessed to himself and validated the book that foretold his coming as the child of a virgin. Good enough for me.

Your skepticism makes sense if you are dealing with things of men. But you aren't. You are dealing with something beyond your intelligence. That was my original point. If you could come up with some solid evidence that the virgin birth did not happen, that should be considered. But that's not what this is about. There is no such evidence. There is just skepticism and an insistence on looking at everything through a natural lens, even if it is plain it cannot be viewed that way. You are stubbornly insisting on analyzing Jesus (aka God) through the same lens you would analyze the guy down the street. Big mistake.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The answer was both. Now was that too hard to figure out?

It would really help if you would use your smarts to study the scripture instead of looking for so-called "problems."

When the unbelieving "evil and adulterous generation" wanted Jesus to perform some circus wonder sign, He said NO! none for you, I have not come for that. But He did come to lay down His life for our sins, dying on the cross, lying in the tomb, and rising from the dead. And that my friend was the "sign of Jonah" which Jesus gave to them.

If Jesus was not who He said He was, how could He predict that He would resurrect from the dead on the third day?

Every sign on earth could be faked by gimmicks, sleight of hand, or computer generated images but not one's own death and resurrection three days later. And you still like to play with words in the face of that sign?

So Jesus gives no sign according to Mark, and only one sign according to Matthew and you have found your own way of reconciling the two apparently contradicting statements. Luke also limits Jesus to giving the sign of Jonah. But, what about John 2:11: "This beginning of signs Jesus did in Cana of Galilee, and manifested His glory; and His disciples believed in Him."? The changing of water to wine was the first sign.

When Jesus heals a nobleman's son John says, "This again is the second sign Jesus did when He had come out of Judea into Galilee."[4:54]. Mark says no sign, Matthew says only one--the sign of Jonah. But, in John we have two signs. And that's just the beginning.

John says Jesus doesn't give no sign or one sign but multiple signs! John 2:23 says "Now when He was in Jerusalem at the Passover, during the feast, many believed in His name when they saw the signs which He did." In John, Jesus does many signs and John tells us "And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book." [20:30].

So, we have gone from Jesus giving no signs in Mark, to one sign in Matthew, to many signs in John. How do you reconcile the three? You have accused me of looking problems. My question to you is: how can I avoid seeing them?

[awareness]

Bro Igzy, you overload me. (post left at bottom)

If I get you right you are saying something like, Jesus made such an impact on the world, and it's history, that, Jesus must have come from supernatural sources, and has to have been, and is, God's special son.

In other words, I guess, or to put words in your mouth, Jesus wasn't born of Joseph and Mary, and Jesus wasn't even born of a woman. Jesus IS the SON of God, so Jesus HAD to be BORN of God.

I think I've read about some early Christians that made such claims. I think they came to be called Docetists. They thought Jesus was really really God, so much that he only appeared to be human.

You talk about fiction. Apparently, Jesus made such an impact on the world that people feel extremely compelled to make up fiction about him. There's lots of early evidence of wild stories made up about Jesus. Lot's of fiction. And we're still doing it today.

That's what we're trying to sort out: which is fiction and which is not fiction about Jesus.

For example. You brought up the Old Testament prophecy about Jesus being born of a virgin. Is that fiction or not?

You may have missed it, but we've gone around and around about how that was a mistranslation of the Septuagint. And it's also clear that when Is. 7:14 is taken in context that it's speaking of the times in which it was speaking in, not something 800 yrs from then.

So have we even today bought into a fiction?

That, I think, is what Timotheist is driving at.

==========================

Originally Posted by Igzy

zeek,

If you are going to doubt the validity of the Bible then all bets are off, because the Bible says a lot of things for which the only evidence is the Bible.

Here's how I look at it.

No one has been able to prove that anything the Bible claims is false. That's pretty amazing for a book written over a period of 1500 years by over 35 writers from all walks of life.

This Bible prophesizes of and then witnesses to the appearance and life of Jesus. Here's the linchpin with me. No one could have made up this character. The way he lived, the way his spoke, the things he said. He had to be a real person. This person, as recorded, witnessed to the validity of the OT scriptures, which prophesized that he would be born of a virgin.

In other words, there is internal consistency in the history coupled with the fact that the existence of this person Jesus cannot be explained without bringing a world beyond ours into the picture. You cannot explain Jesus without eventually considering that he must have been the Son of God. You cannot explain his existence even as a historical figure as simply a fabrication.

You cannot even explain his existence as a fictional character. Fiction is full of fantastical characters: Gods, spirits, faeries, gnomes, wizards, demons, aliens, and people from other dimensions. You can take all the concocted dialogue from all the characters ever imagined and edit them down to the most profound sayings their creators and writers dreamed up for them and they would not hold a flickering candle to the blazing light of what Jesus said. Now, explain why that is so; and how a motley group of disciples concocted them while running for their lives. You can't even explain how a bunch of monks modifying the Bible could have done it. You cannot make a case that Jesus and the things he said were concoctions. Jesus could not have been invented by the mind of man. He is real and from some other place beyond our world. That must be conceded.

Now this person witnessed to himself and validated the book that foretold his coming as the child of a virgin. Good enough for me.

Your skepticism makes sense if you are dealing with things of men. But you aren't. You are dealing with something beyond your intelligence. That was my original point. If you could come up with some solid evidence that the virgin birth did not happen, that should be considered. But that's not what this is about. There is no such evidence. There is just skepticism and an insistence on looking at everything through a natural lens, even if it is plain it cannot be viewed that way. You are stubbornly insisting on analyzing Jesus (aka God) through the same lens you would analyze the guy down the street. Big mistake.

[zeek]

If you are going to doubt the validity of the Bible then all bets are off, because the Bible says a lot of things for which the only evidence is the Bible.

That's true. You're making my case.

No one has been able to prove that anything the Bible claims is false. That's pretty amazing for a book written over a period of 1500 years by over 35 writers from all walks of life.

Your argument attempts to reverse the burden of proof to the one who is questioning the claims. Instead, it's incumbent on the one making the claim to present evidence for it. If the claim is neither verifiable nor falsifiable, then it is inaccessible to knowledge. Many Biblical claims are improbable, but are ultimately inaccessible to knowledge one way or the other. They are purely matters of faith or they are nothing.

This Bible prophesizes of and then witnesses to the appearance and life of Jesus. Here's the linchpin with me. No one could have made up this character. The way he lived, the way his spoke, the things he said. He had to be a real person. This person, as recorded, witnessed to the validity of the OT scriptures, which prophesized that he would be born of a virgin. In other words, there is internal consistency in the history coupled with the fact that the existence of this person Jesus cannot be explained without bringing a world beyond ours into the picture. You cannot explain Jesus without eventually considering that he must have been the Son of God. You cannot explain his existence even as a historical figure as simply a fabrication. You cannot even explain his existence as a fictional character. Fiction is full of fantastical characters: Gods, spirits, faeries, gnomes, wizards, demons, aliens, and people from other dimensions. You can take all the concocted dialogue from all the characters ever imagined and edit them down to the most profound sayings their creators and writers dreamed up for them and they would not hold a flickering candle to the blazing light of what Jesus said. Now, explain why that is so; and how a motley group of disciples concocted them while running for their lives. You can't even explain how a bunch of monks modifying the Bible could have done it. You cannot make a case that Jesus and the things he said were concoctions. Jesus could not have been invented by the mind of man. He is real and from some other place beyond our world. That must be conceded. Now this person witnessed to himself and validated the book that foretold his coming as the child of a virgin. Good enough for me.

I couldn't have thought of Hamlet either, Shakespeare surpassed my imagination. That doesn't make Hamlet a real person. [I'm not claiming that Jesus wasn't a real person by the way.]

Your skepticism makes sense if you are dealing with things of men. But you aren't. You are dealing with something beyond your intelligence. That was my original point. If you could come up with some solid evidence that the virgin birth did not happen, that should be considered.

Again you attempt to shift the burden of proof.

But that's not what this is about. There is no such evidence. There is just skepticism and an insistence on looking at everything through a natural lens, even if it is plain it cannot be viewed that way. You are stubbornly insisting on analyzing Jesus (aka God) through the same lens you would analyze the guy down the street. Big mistake.

Yes, God, if He exists, is beyond analysis. The "big mistake" of the Nicene fathers and the subsequent church counsels was to try and then make their analysis church dogma which the church then persecuted people for not accepting.

From the standpoint of knowledge, orthodox christology is unsupportable. Obviously we can't analyze Jesus like the guy down the street because we can't talk to Jesus like we can the guy down the street. Which just means that our access to certainty is less about Jesus. We can't fully understand the guy down the street either. Such is the state of human knowledge, like it or not.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

So Jesus gives no sign according to Mark, and only one sign according to Matthew and you have found your own way of reconciling the two apparently contradicting statements. Luke also limits Jesus to giving the sign of Jonah. But, what about John 2:11: "This beginning of signs Jesus did in Cana of Galilee, and manifested His glory; and His disciples believed in Him."? The changing of water to wine was the first sign.

When Jesus heals a nobleman's son John says, "This again is the second sign Jesus did when He had come out of Judea into Galilee."[4:54]. Mark says no sign, Matthew says only one--the sign of Jonah. But, in John we have two signs. And that's just the beginning.

John says Jesus doesn't give no sign or one sign but multiple signs! John 2:23 says "Now when He was in Jerusalem at the Passover, during the feast, many believed in His name when they saw the signs which He did." In John, Jesus does many signs and John tells us "And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book." [20:30].

So, we have gone from Jesus giving no signs in Mark, to one sign in Matthew, to many signs in John. How do you reconcile the three? You have accused me of looking problems. My question to you is: how can I avoid seeing them?

There is no problem here in the scripture.

Jesus never said there would be no signs.

When certain ones came to Him looking for a circus performance, then He said, "no sign would be given to this unbelieving and evil generation, except the sign of Jonah." But when Jesus found faith, then He performed many signs and wonders. The same is true today. Thru His death and resurrection, Jesus accomplished His greatest sign, the sign of Jonah.

Nothing personal, friend, but your unbelief has made you blind to the most basic of things. Or perhaps it is as aron said, "Zeek can't understand and so won't believe." Either way, this conversation has concluded.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

That's what we're trying to sort out: which is fiction and which is not fiction about Jesus.

For example. You brought up the Old Testament prophecy about Jesus being born of a virgin. Is that fiction or not?

The bible is not fiction, in fact it is the truth.

Yes, Jesus was born of a virgin, as prophesied by Isaiah, and recorded via Mary's account by Matthew and Luke.

Truth does not need every author in the Bible, every book in the Bible, and every author and every book in the past 2,000 years to be truth.

But this is America and you are still permitted your opinions.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The bible is not fiction, in fact it is the truth.

Yes, Jesus was born of a virgin, as prophesied by Isaiah, and recorded via Mary's account by Matthew and Luke.

Truth does not need every author in the Bible, every book in the Bible, and every author and every book in the past 2,000 years to be truth.

But this is America and you are still permitted your opinions.

I don't think I expressed an opinion, except maybe about the Septuagint (it's not my opinion ... it's a fact).

It's clear what you are saying: The Bible says it. We accept it. That settles it.

But that doesn't settle it. We still have to determine what the Bible says. And since evidence proves the words in the Bible have been meddled with --Acts, for example, was still being modified and edited well into the second century ... not to mention all the differences in the manuscripts -- we have our job cut out for us. If we even care.

Most Christians don't care. They get their Christianity from their preacher, and other believers, or their MOTA, and ... and ... THAT settles it.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Jesus never said there would be no signs.

Mark 8:12 : "Assuredly, I say to you, no sign shall be given to this generation.”

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

Mark 8:11 : "Assuredly, I say to you, no sign shall be given to this generation.”

Mark 8:11 -- "And the Pharisees came out and began arguing with Jesus; they tempted Him by demanding a sign from heaven."

[Dave]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The bible is not fiction, in fact it is the truth.
But this is America and you are still permitted your opinions.

Ohio, according to you it seems that everything you say is truth. According to Ohio we are killing 1 million babies through abortion a year, the virgin birth really happened, the Bible is truth etc. Yes, we are permitted our opinions but from what I see everything you say according to you is "truth". In other words, you can't be wrong or maybe wrong whether it is from the Bible or otherwise...whatever you say is dogmatic and it is absolute truth. Doesn't matter what anyone else says....your words are golden...they are truth. Unfortunately I don't see everything as black or white. I believe that it is important to be pragmatic and try and understand the other person's point of view. However, you make that impossible because everything you say is written in stone. Do you have any give in anything you say, at all?

[Timotheist]

Wisdom as a female deity

During the Hellenistic period between Nehemiah and the NT, reams of documents were written that both the Jews and the Christians eventually rejected from their canons. The material was a confused mish-mash of Judaism mixed with Greek religion. A prominent figure in the Hellenistic period was "Wisdom" ("Sophia" as transliterated from the Greek).

Sophia was a female deity introduced to the Jews during the Hellenistic period. It was through Her that the world was created. It was through Her that mankind was created. Sophia was the Mother of us all.

There was a lot of "Wisdom literature" that accompanied the OT scripture in those days. Many of the documents falsely claimed authorship by historic OT figures. Solomon, in particular, was an OT figure that the Greeks loved, due to his reputation for being wise.

Most of the references to Sophia have been stripped from the canon, but there are a few exceptions. The book of Proverbs, which claims to be a work of Solomon, has sections in it that mention Sophia. If one reads Proverbs with a critical eye, one can see that the book is a compilation from several authors with different literary styles. Someone other than Solomon must have inserted this passage right up there in chapter one:

Wisdom shouts in the street, She lifts her voice in the square;
At the head of the noisy streets she cries out; At the entrance of the gates in the city she utters her sayings:
"How long, O naive ones, will you love being simple-minded? And scoffers delight themselves in scoffing And fools hate knowledge?
"Turn to my reproof, Behold, I will pour out my spirit on you; I will make my words known to you.
"Because I called and you refused, I stretched out my hand and no one paid attention;
And you neglected all my counsel And did not want my reproof;
I will also laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your dread comes,
When your dread comes like a storm And your calamity comes like a whirlwind, When distress and anguish come upon you.
"Then they will call on me, but I will not answer; They will seek me diligently but they will not find me,
Because they hated knowledge And did not choose the fear of the LORD. (Pro 1:20-29 NAU)

This and other passages in Proverbs have been called out by many over the years to be removed from the book. But the stubborn insist that God was there when the canon was established. Since I do not believe in inerrancy, I can accept this insertion as coming during the Hellenistic period.

For here you can clearly see the influences of Greek thought. The Greeks believed that salvation was to be obtained through gaining knowledge. (Gnosticism is what happens when you mix Greek faith with Judaeo-Christian faith. "Knowledge" is the means of salvation.)

My insertion of this post sets the background for my analysis of the first century authors. But here is a teaser: note that Sophia in this passage is the One who pours out Her Spirit on mankind.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Dave

Ohio, according to you it seems that everything you say is truth.

Everything? Puuuleeeease! We are discussing only two topics here, the virgin birth and abortions.

And ... yes ... God's word is truth.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Jesus never said there would be no signs.

Thanks. Mark 8:12: Assuredly, I say to you, no sign shall be given to this generation.”

[awareness]

John 1:18 - 12:50 is called The Book of Signs. It's packed with 7 signs:

1. Changing water into wine in John 2:1-11
2. Healing the royal official's son in Capernaum in John 4:46-54
3. Healing the paralytic at Bethesda in John 5:1-18
4. Feeding the 5000 in John 6:5-14
5. Jesus' walk on water in John 6:16-24
6. Healing the man born blind in John 9:1-7
7. Raising of Lazarus in John 11:1-45

And of course they are for: "these have been written so that you may believe" -John 20:30

I wonder, why such a hard sell? Lots had happen by the time this book we call John was written. Jerusalem had been sacked, the Jews killed and scattered. The Romans hadn't been routed from the promise land. The eruption of Mt Vesuvius in a. d. 79, rained down fire from heaven.

Was this gospel a doubling down? Is that why its Christology shoots up thru the stratosphere?

Is it an attempt to amp up the Christ, after the predictions -- "this generation shall not pas away" -- of Jesus failed?

Just wondering ....

[Dave]

Originally Posted by awareness

John 1:18 - 12:50 is called The Book of Signs. It's packed with 7 signs:

1. Changing water into wine in John 2:1-11
2. Healing the royal official's son in Capernaum in John 4:46-54
3. Healing the paralytic at Bethesda in John 5:1-18
4. Feeding the 5000 in John 6:5-14
5. Jesus' walk on water in John 6:16-24
6. Healing the man born blind in John 9:1-7
7. Raising of Lazarus in John 11:1-45

And of course they are for: "these have been written so that you may believe" -John 20:30

I wonder, why such a hard sell? Lots had happen by the time this book we call John was written. Jerusalem had been sacked, the Jews killed and scattered. The Romans hadn't been routed from the promise land. The eruption of Mt Vesuvius in a. d. 79, rained down fire from heaven.

Was this gospel a doubling down? Is that why its Christology shoots up thru the stratosphere?

Is it an attempt to amp up the Christ, after the predictions -- "this generation shall not pas away" -- of Jesus failed?

Just wondering ....

Surprisingly John doesn't talk about the virgin birth...quite honestly who cares...if Jesus is God who cares whether he had a virgin birth or not....he is God...let it be... sure Matthew and Luke were concerned because of Zeus and other "gods" of the pagans... They wanted to show that Jesus was also born of a virgin... but not John....No...He is God from the beginning... Thus, I don't understand all this craziness about proving the virgin birth... John wasn't worried about it.

[Timotheist]

Originally Posted by Dave

Surprisingly John doesn't talk about the virgin birth...quite honestly who cares...if Jesus is God who cares whether he had a virgin birth or not....he is God...let it be... sure Matthew and Luke were concerned because of Zeus and other "gods" of the pagans... They wanted to show that Jesus was also born of a virgin... but not John....No...He is God from the beginning... Thus, I don't understand all this craziness about proving the virgin birth... John wasn't worried about it.

I am trying to prove that the VB did NOT happen. Ultimately a fool's errand, I suppose. But the evidence against far outweighs the evidence for, even if you stay within the canon. Go outside the canon and the evidence mounts.

Regarding the authenticity of miracles, I don't know what to think. Surely he did something to catch their attention and devotion? Was it just words? Perhaps. I would have found it incredible to believe what Jim Jones was able to accomplish with just words. But he did it.

Given the one-ups-manship going on between the Jews, Greeks, and the Christians at that time (and the Romans were just getting started), it is not surprising to see these embellishments evolve. I used to not care so much about this stuff, once I had given up on inerrancy. Big deal, who cares. But once I saw that the VB was part of the embellishment, and saw the negative impact it had on the path Christianity took, I became more aware and cared.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Timotheist

Wisdom as a female deity

Well traditionally heaven is very male. In that case, poor poor lonely God, He doesn't have a she (maybe she is too annoying - Ha).

Anywho, over the years off and on I have really enjoyed reading "The Wisdom of Solomon." Long ago I bought a copy of The Jerusalem Bible. It has in it what Protestants call The Apocrypha. One of the gems in it is a book called Wisdom.

In a Sunday School class the pastor brought up the Septuagint. I remarked that the Septuagint is considered to be a very poor translation. He shot back: "If it was good enough for Jesus and the apostles it's good enough for me." Yet the Bible he used didn't have all the books in it that are in the LXX. Proving, he didn't really hold true to his claim.

One of the books included in the Septuagint is The Wisdom of Solomon. This book prolly personifies Wisdom more than any other book, as a female (Sophia):

Wisdom 1:6 For wisdom is a spirit who loves man, and she will not hold a blasphemer guiltless for his lips; because God bears witness of his reins, and is a true overseer of his heart, and a hearer of his tongue:

Wisdom 6:12 Wisdom is radiant and doesn’t fade away; and is easily seen by those who love her, and found by those who seek her.

Wisdom 6:22 But what wisdom is, and how she came into being, I will declare. I won’t hide mysteries from you; but I will explore from her first beginning, bring the knowledge of her into clear light, and I will not pass by the truth.

Wisdom 9:4 Give me wisdom, her that sits by you on your throne ...

God does too have a she ... she's on the throne with Him. Ha again.

Wisdom 7:28 For nothing does God love save him that dwells with wisdom.

[Timotheist]

Originally Posted by awareness

Well traditionally heaven is very male. In that case, poor poor lonely God, He doesn't have a she (maybe she is too annoying - Ha).

God wants a She, and she is we (or a select few of we).

You see this as a running theme in the scriptures. How many times in the OT did the Israelites get slammed for worshiping female deities? And where is it that God likens Jerusalem to a woman ready for love? Not to mention the NT references to the church and the Bride.

The Hellenists jumped the gun. They wanted a Mother to go with the Father and the Son. So they introduced Sophia.

The Spirit and Sophia became linked in Hellenized Judaism. No doubt one of the reasons for this is found in the second verse of Genesis, where the Spirit is brooding over the soon-to-be creation. The Spirit is the Mother of us all.

The Bible we have today represents the Spirit as a male figure. We think of Mary, a female, being "impregnated" by a male Spirit.

But not everybody looked at it that way in the first and second centuries:

Even so did my mother, the Holy Spirit, take me [Jesus] by one of my hairs and carry me away on to the great mountain Tabor [to be tempted].

And it came to pass when the Lord was come up out of the water, the whole fount of the Holy Spirit descended upon him and rested on him and said to him: My Son, in all the prophets was I waiting for thee that thou shouldest come and I might rest in thee. For thou art my rest; thou art my first-begotten Son that reignest for ever.

When Christ wished to come upon the earth to men, the good Father summoned a mighty power in heaven, which was called Michael, and entrusted Christ to the care thereof. And the power came into the world and was called Mary, and Christ was in her womb seven months

These are fragments from the "Gospel to the Hebrews", a work that was declared heresy and destroyed, but these fragments are found in Ante-Nicene fathers letters, where they quoted them as scripture.

I sure wish I had a copy of the whole thing... fascinating how quickly the Christians twisted even the stories of Matthew and Luke into something completely different.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Dave

Surprisingly John doesn't talk about the virgin birth...quite honestly who cares...if Jesus is God who cares whether he had a virgin birth or not....he is God...let it be... sure Matthew and Luke were concerned because of Zeus and other "gods" of the pagans... They wanted to show that Jesus was also born of a virgin... but not John....No...He is God from the beginning... Thus, I don't understand all this craziness about proving the virgin birth... John wasn't worried about it.

Nor was Mark worried about it. The different gospel authors each took different approaches to their subject matter. Harmonizing the gospels and Paul strains logic. Although there is a broad commonality between them, e.g. Judaic-based monotheism, there are significant differences between them especially between the synoptics and John. A theory of inerrant verbal inspiration which seeks to unite them on every detail of historic claim and theology is highly improbable. I don't see why such a theory is necessary even for a evangelical Christian.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Timotheist

I am trying to prove that the VB did NOT happen. Ultimately a fool's errand, I suppose. But the evidence against far outweighs the evidence for, even if you stay within the canon. Go outside the canon and the evidence mounts.

Trying to prove a negative is definitely foolish. Issues like this must be judged on the basis of historic probability not ultimate truth.

Regarding the authenticity of miracles, I don't know what to think. Surely he did something to catch their attention and devotion? Was it just words? Perhaps. I would have found it incredible to believe what Jim Jones was able to accomplish with just words. But he did it.

Jesus astounded people. He demonstrated a level of acceptance and compassion that healed people! He broke the moral ethical mold of the society into which he was born. The standard he set by his life and teaching is still a challenge for anyone to follow today. That's where we should be focusing our attention instead of on miracles that were in the cast in the mythos of first century pre-scientific world-views.

Given the one-ups-manship going on between the Jews, Greeks, and the Christians at that time (and the Romans were just getting started), it is not surprising to see these embellishments evolve. I used to not care so much about this stuff, once I had given up on inerrancy. Big deal, who cares. But once I saw that the VB was part of the embellishment, and saw the negative impact it had on the path Christianity took, I became more aware and cared.

I appreciate that. The New Testament was written almost entirely from the standpoint of the gentile mission. Most of the Jewish Jesus followers of Palestine united with the other Jews to form rabbinical Judaism after the destruction of the temple in 70 AD. The few that remained like the Ebionites and the Nazarenes were considered heretics by the proto-orthodox Christians. The "negative impact" as I see it, is that the church got away from the values that Jesus lived and taught thus becoming dogmatic and violent. I suppose the up-side is that by adopting the dominant Roman ethos and government of the time, the church survived and thrived to pass on the Christian tradition albeit in an adulterated way. If it hadn't, Jesus might have been forgotten or relegated to a footnote of history as a dead or marginal religion.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by zeek

A theory of inerrant verbal inspiration which seeks to unite them on every detail of historic claim and theology is highly improbable. I don't see why such a theory is necessary even for a evangelical Christian.

You seem to be fairly well read, zeek. Can you point us to some widely known, largely accepted and contemporaneous evangelical Christian scholar/theologian who teaches such a theory. I am more than fairly well read (especially in such scholar/theologians of the past 20 years) and I don't know of ONE, NOT ONE, that proposes such a theory, and really anything even close. This strawman here is even more of lightweight than the ones you usually present us.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

You seem to be fairly well read, zeek. Can you point us to some widely known, largely accepted and contemporaneous evangelical Christian scholar/theologian who teaches such a theory. I am more than fairly well read (especially in such scholar/theologians of the past 20 years) and I don't know of ONE, NOT ONE, that proposes such a theory, and really anything even close. This strawman here is even more of lightweight than the ones you usually present us.

I don't think it's a strawman UntoHim. A strawman argument distorts the position of an opponent and then refutes the distortion. I wasn't even addressing anyone's argument there. It was just my observation that "I don't see the need" for a theory of inerrant verbal inspiration which seeks to unite every NT author on every detail of every historical and theological claim. I hesitate to recommend anyone because in the past when I endorsed some thinkers they seemed to get rejected out of hand on LCD simply because I recommended them. What would be more to the point, would be to explain to me what the need is.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

You seem to be fairly well read, zeek. Can you point us to some widely known, largely accepted and contemporaneous evangelical Christian scholar/theologian who teaches such a theory. I am more than fairly well read (especially in such scholar/theologians of the past 20 years) and I don't know of ONE, NOT ONE, that proposes such a theory, and really anything even close. This strawman here is even more of lightweight than the ones you usually present us.

Would Witness Lee and/or Nee qualify?

[UntoHim]

In order to present an "alternative view", one must at least give a fair representation of the the view(s) they seek to give an alternative to. I think Timotheist has done this, for the most part. Although I totally disagree with his conclusions, at least he has made a reasonable attempt to represent the "views" of most orthodox, evangelical Christians. (in the West, at least)

As far as I have observed over many years, no orthodox, evangelical church, church group, denomination or association has made belief in the virgin birth a significant, much less major, "item of the faith". Maybe Timotheist can point me to any such church group or denomination. This is not to say that the virgin birth of Jesus Christ is of no significant theological importance. In my opinion, it bears greatly upon the very person and work of Christ himself, but this is probably a subject to explore over on the "implications" thread.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Timotheist

God wants a She, and she is we

Speak for yourself. I'm no Caitlyn Jenner.

Originally Posted by Tim

You see this as a running theme in the scriptures. How many times in the OT did the Israelites get slammed for worshiping female deities? And where is it that God likens Jerusalem to a woman ready for love?

There are abundant metaphors in the Bible. The woman metaphor goes both ways. God goes so far as to speak of Himself as a women, or mother [in need of love].

Isa 66:13 I will comfort you there like a mother comforting her child."

Isa 42:14 For a long time, I, the LORD, have held my temper; now I will scream and groan like a woman giving birth.

And even as a child weaned from its mother:
Psa 131:2 Surely I have behaved and quieted myself, as a child that is weaned of his mother: my soul is even as a weaned child.

Originally Posted by Tim

Not to mention the NT references to the church and the Bride.

Another metaphor. That Lee claimed to be crystallizing (and cornering), into the bride (female) waiting for the bridegroom (male) ... again I'm not Caitlyn..

Originally Posted by Tim

The Hellenists jumped the gun. They wanted a Mother to go with the Father and the Son. So they introduced Sophia.

Yes, the Wisdom book I quoted was a Hellenized writing.

Originally Posted by Tim

The Spirit and Sophia became linked in Hellenized Judaism. No doubt one of the reasons for this is found in the second verse of Genesis, where the Spirit is brooding over the soon-to-be creation. The Spirit is the Mother of us all.

Unless you can prove Genesis was or had eventually been Hellenized I'll consider this a weak argument.

Originally Posted by Tim

The Bible we have today represents the Spirit as a male figure. We think of Mary, a female, being "impregnated" by a male Spirit.

But not everybody looked at it that way in the first and second centuries:

Even so did my mother, the Holy Spirit, take me [Jesus] by one of my hairs and carry me away on to the great mountain Tabor [to be tempted].

And it came to pass when the Lord was come up out of the water, the whole fount of the Holy Spirit descended upon him and rested on him and said to him: My Son, in all the prophets was I waiting for thee that thou shouldest come and I might rest in thee. For thou art my rest; thou art my first-begotten Son that reignest for ever.

When Christ wished to come upon the earth to men, the good Father summoned a mighty power in heaven, which was called Michael, and entrusted Christ to the care thereof. And the power came into the world and was called Mary, and Christ was in her womb seven months

These are fragments from the "Gospel to the Hebrews", a work that was declared heresy and destroyed, but these fragments are found in Ante-Nicene fathers letters, where they quoted them as scripture.

I sure wish I had a copy of the whole thing... fascinating how quickly the Christians twisted even the stories of Matthew and Luke into something completely different.

Thanks for reminding me of the Gospel of the Hebrews. Yes, the Ante-Nicene Fathers, proto-orthodox and Nicene orthodox church fathers, squashed the Christianity of James, the brother of Jesus.

But as to if Matthew and Luke twisted the story remains to be proven. Maybe the Gospel of the Hebrews twisted it.

[Timotheist]

Originally Posted by awareness

Speak for yourself. I'm no Caitlyn Jenner.


There are abundant metaphors in the Bible. The woman metaphor goes both ways. God goes so far as to speak of Himself as a women, or mother [in need of love].

We all need to get in touch with our inner Caitlyn at times.

Speaking of God or the Spirit in feminine metaphors is fine. But should we embrace the idea that the Spirit is more female than male? It is an interesting question. Did the Nicene council err by favoring the male metaphors over the female?

I was not indicating that Genesis 1:2 is a product of Hellenism. I was only suggesting that the verse may have been one of the reasons why Sophia was so readily accepted by the Jews. That the Spirit is shown to give life can be seen as a female attribute.

The Gospel to the Hebrews was the twister of the synoptics. The stories get even more fanciful, taking on the characteristics of mythology. (Mary entering the world two months pregnant?)

Mark and John represent the first step in this progression.

Matthew and Luke the second.

The rest of the stuff was so out there that even the Nicene council threw them out.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Timotheist

We all need to get in touch with our inner Caitlyn at times.

I have a dear close friend of decades. She grew up in a very devote and given Christian home, and was in the local church for more than a decade.

From reading many books on how women are treated around the world she came to conclude the world is in desperate need of feminine spiritual energy.

But she couldn't find it in her cradle religion. To find it she had to turn to Hinduism. Which she has done.

Could Christianity use feminine spiritual energy, other than the hokum Mary with the resurrecting hymen? Yes!

Will it ever happen? Even with Wisdom, Sophia, female Holy Spirit, not likely.

If you've got to have it Hinduism has the best offer.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

In order to present an "alternative view", one must at least give a fair representation of the the view(s) they seek to give an alternative to. I think Timotheist has done this, for the most part. Although I totally disagree with his conclusions, at least he has made a reasonable attempt to represent the "views" of most orthodox, evangelical Christians. (in the West, at least)

As far as I have observed over many years, no orthodox, evangelical church, church group, denomination or association has made belief in the virgin birth a significant, much less major, "item of the faith". Maybe Timotheist can point me to any such church group or denomination. This is not to say that the virgin birth of Jesus Christ is of no significant theological importance. In my opinion, it bears greatly upon the very person and work of Christ himself, but this is probably a subject to explore over on the "implications" thread.

Are you forgetting that the third article of faith in the Catechism of the Catholic Church [The Apostle's Creed] is "He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary."? and that the first formulation of American fundamentalist beliefs can be traced to the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church, the second article of which is the " Virgin birth of Jesus"? The problem is that the Biblical and historical evidence is weak and it makes Jesus into a being who cannot be understood as a human being. Thus, it tends toward the heresy of Docetism wherein Jesus appeared to be human but really wasn't. Thus, Christians who lean this way put Jesus on a pedestal to be worshiped. But, they don't feel obliged to follow his teachings because, after all, he wasn't really like us being divine and all, and we can't do what he did because we are merely humans as he wasn't. Those are some of the implications. We can discuss them anywhere you like.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Are you forgetting that the third article of faith in the Catechism of the Catholic Church [The Apostle's Creed] is "He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary."? and that the first formulation of American fundamentalist beliefs can be traced to the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church, the second article of which is the " Virgin birth of Jesus"?

Plus the First Council of Constantinople (381), a modification of the Nicene creed, documents belief in the virgin birth in its creed.

But as to Christian groups who deny the virgin birth, they were stamped out by the orthodox virgin birth believers. The Ebionites, for example, didn't believe in the virgin birth. But they were stamped out, along with the Jewish Christianity of James, the brother of Jesus.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by awareness

Bro Igzy, you overload me. (post left at bottom)

If I get you right you are saying something like, Jesus made such an impact on the world, and it's history, that, Jesus must have come from supernatural sources, and has to have been, and is, God's special son.

In other words, I guess, or to put words in your mouth, Jesus wasn't born of Joseph and Mary, and Jesus wasn't even born of a woman. Jesus IS the SON of God, so Jesus HAD to be BORN of God.

I think I've read about some early Christians that made such claims. I think they came to be called Docetists. They thought Jesus was really really God, so much that he only appeared to be human.

You talk about fiction. Apparently, Jesus made such an impact on the world that people feel extremely compelled to make up fiction about him. There's lots of early evidence of wild stories made up about Jesus. Lot's of fiction. And we're still doing it today.

That's what we're trying to sort out: which is fiction and which is not fiction about Jesus.

For example. You brought up the Old Testament prophecy about Jesus being born of a virgin. Is that fiction or not?

That, I think, is what Timotheist is driving at.

No, that wasn't what I was saying. Jesus could have come here any way he wanted, but the Bible says he came born of a virgin. My question is, why question that? What part of the Bible is fiction? People have been trying to find falsehoods in the Bible for centuries. None have been identified. None. Doesn't that tell you something? All I know is that Jesus could not have been invented. And the Bible, overall, could not have been faked. There has to be a divine hand guiding the thing. Given that evidence, do you think that divine hand would give us a book that no one can show a falsehood in and then still expect us to doubt it? That makes no sense. That's like teasing a dog. I don't think God operates that way.

See, the problem with your approach is you are looking for unquestionable proof. You aren't going to get it. You'll go to your grave looking for it if that's what you devote your life to. The best you are going to get is strong evidence. God doesn't give the kind of proof you are looking for. I'm not saying it's wrong to question. But looking for proof that Jesus was born of a virgin is like looking for proof that God exists. God clearly did not set things up to give us such proof. Why should he? Proof requires no faith.

Faith is not blind. Faith is just believing what the evidence clearly shows. Don't look for proof. You won't get it. But you will find a trail of breadcrumbs that lead your heart somewhere. That place, for the genuine of heart, is faith.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Igzy

No, that wasn't what I was saying. Jesus could have come here any way he wanted, but the Bible says he came born of a virgin. My question is, why question that? What part of the Bible is fiction? People have been trying to find falsehoods in the Bible for centuries. None have been identified. None. Doesn't that tell you something? All I know is that Jesus could not have been invented. And the Bible, overall, could not have been faked. There has to be a divine hand guiding the thing. Given that evidence, do you think that divine hand would give us a book that no one can show a falsehood in and then still expect us to doubt it? That makes no sense. That's like teasing a dog. I don't think God operates that way.

See, the problem with your approach is you are looking for unquestionable proof. You aren't going to get it. You'll go to your grave looking for it if that's what you devote your life to. The best you are going to get is strong evidence. God doesn't give the kind of proof you are looking for. I'm not saying it's wrong to question. But looking for proof that Jesus was born of a virgin is like looking for proof that God exists. God clearly did not set things up to give us such proof. Why should he? Proof requires no faith.

Faith is not blind. Faith is just believing what the evidence clearly shows. Don't look for proof. You won't get it. But you will find a trail of breadcrumbs that lead your heart somewhere. That place, for the genuine of heart, is faith.

People claim to see all kinds of things that cannot be verified or falsified. If I claim there is an invisible dragon in my garage who can prove me wrong?
For all we know, faith sees what it wishes to see. Your intuitive sense that no one could invent Jesus may be false. To you it seems like an incontrovertible fact. But, the next man sees nothing special about Jesus whatsoever.

It is not the a priori truth you seem to think you see. Where are your arguments or evidence to support the proposition? Who are you comparing Jesus to? Where's our experience with people or things that couldn't be invented? It seems to me that the proposition may represent your value judgment of Jesus rather than based on evidence that he must necessarily have existed or have been the produced by a virgin and such.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by zeek

People claim to see all kinds of things that cannot be verified or falsified. If I claim there is an invisible dragon in my garage who can prove me wrong?
For all we know, faith sees what it wishes to see. Your intuitive sense that no one could invent Jesus may be false. To you it seems like an incontrovertible fact. But, the next man sees nothing special about Jesus whatsoever.

It is not the a priori truth you seem to think you see. Where are your arguments or evidence to support the proposition? Who are you comparing Jesus to? Where's our experience with people or things that couldn't be invented? It seems to me that the proposition may represent your value judgment of Jesus rather than based on evidence that he must necessarily have existed or have been the produced by a virgin and such.

zeek,

Theoretically your thesis is unassailable. But we don't live in theory. The fact is there are probably very few people who would say that Jesus was nothing special whatsoever and most of those people probably haven't studied him very carefully.

The truth is the a priori truth you are looking for is unattainable. You will get no proof. You will just get evidence. Proof requires no character. Evidence does, because there is a risk in taking a position that requires faith.

But here's the thing. All knowledge is based on faith in some way, if only the faith that you are able to perceive reality accurately. How do you know you can? And what is the point of these discussion if you can't? So you've already taken some things on faith. For example, that we can gain knowledge, because if you didn't believe we could you would not be bothering with this discussion. You also seem to believe that gaining knowledge would be beneficial in some way. But how do you know? You don't. You just believe it.

So my point is everyone takes all kinds of things on faith. So I'm always a bit bemused by people seeking "proof." Because proof is harder to come by than people think. And the irony is all proof is based on faith anyway. All real proof requires the acceptance of axioms or first principles, things which cannot be proved but are considered "self-evident." Well, considering something as self-evident is the same as taking it on faith. If God exists, then he would be a first principle, an axiom. That is why he cannot be proved, because there is no more fundamental truth upon which to base a proof of him.

Much of what we call knowledge is the same thing. We observe what we perceive as reality and we make judgements. We don't operate in the realm of proof, but in the realm of evidence and common sense. Yes, that opens the door to all kinds of opinions, But what is reasonable, or should I say wise, is not infinitely malleable. Someone who thinks Jesus was nothing special is not a sober person. I'd take that to my grave. I can't prove it, but I still think it's a wise judgement. And like I said, proof is hard to come by, so we'd best get on with it make the best decisions we can.

Demanding proof, in other words, is not wise. Unless by proof you simply mean strong evidence. But you won't get proof in the absolute sense for much. And by the time you do decision time will have probably already passed.

If you want to sit back and say "you can't prove it," well, I think that's a pretty hypocritical position, given all the things you live now by that you can't prove either.

So let's talk about evidence, not proof. Name a fictional character whose wisdom, stature and words approach those of Jesus. Now name one who, if he was concocted, was concocted by a motley group of mostly uneducated disciples running for their lives. If you want to add into that group monks altering the Bible then be my guest. But basically what you are describing is the greatest group of fiction writers in the history of the world. Now, is it likely that's what they were?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

See, the problem with your approach is you are looking for unquestionable proof. You aren't going to get it. You'll go to your grave looking for it if that's what you devote your life to. The best you are going to get is strong evidence. God doesn't give the kind of proof you are looking for. I'm not saying it's wrong to question. But looking for proof that Jesus was born of a virgin is like looking for proof that God exists. God clearly did not set things up to give us such proof. Why should he? Proof requires no faith.

Faith is not blind. Faith is just believing what the evidence clearly shows. Don't look for proof. You won't get it. But you will find a trail of breadcrumbs that lead your heart somewhere. That place, for the genuine of heart, is faith.

Consider all the "proof" that the Jewish leaders had. The sun went dark, the earth shook, the veil in their temple was rent top to bottom, the tomb was empty, the Roman soldiers were struck with fear ... yet they refused to believe. They had their reasons. Perhaps they needed more "proof." The quaternion guard which Pilate assigned faced immediate death for dereliction of duty.

God has required that man believe in His Son based on all the evidence provided by eye witnesses. Most, however, have refused to believe. Their pride dictates that they reason away the the facts, claiming that there are just too many doubts. "Proof," they cry, "we need demonstrable scientific proof."

[zeek]

Igzy

Theoretically your thesis is unassailable. But we don't live in theory. The fact is there are probably very few people who would say that Jesus was nothing special whatsoever and most of those people probably haven't studied him very carefully.

What you are arguing here is a false dilemma. The choice is not between Jesus is God and Jesus is "nothing special whatever". There are infinite degrees of value between those "all or nothing" extremes. Remember that they way we got to this point was that YOU couldn't imagine how the Jesus of the Gospels could be invented. But then you probably couldn't imagine the Hamlet of Shakespear either. So, exceeding your imagination hardly warrants the conclusion that every NT claim regarding Jesus is literally the case beginning with the putative virgin birth.

The truth is the a priori truth you are looking for is unattainable. You will get no proof. You will just get evidence. Proof requires no character. Evidence does, because there is a risk in taking a position that requires faith.

You were the one that raised the issue of "proof" not me. The idea that I am looking for it is yours not mine.

But here's the thing. All knowledge is based on faith in some way, if only the faith that you are able to perceive reality accurately.

This proposition, I take to be a mistake. But, perhaps it depends on how you are defining the significant terms. Faith and knowledge may just as earily construed as mutually exclusive. That is, the greater the knowledge one has, the less faith is necessary. If I am going to undergo major surgery and reliable statistics show that the surgery is successful 99.9% of the time, and relative confidence in a successful surgery is warrented. If the surgery is successful .1% of the time little confidence is warranted. But in neither case should confidence be confused with faith. One should not suppose that one knows the outcome even in the former instance where a favorable outcome was probable. Rather, confidence is based on correctly understanding the facts of the situation. We should recognize that whatever the odds, surgery is a gamble not a certainty. That calculation doesn't necessarily involve faith. Now faith may enter in to fill the gap of uncertainty. But, such faith is called faith precisely because it IS unwarranted. Thus, in this illustration, knowledge and faith are antithetical and mutually exclusive.

How do you know you can? And what is the point of these discussion if you can't?

You don't. It is a matter of greater or lesser probability. Why the need to suppose it otherwise?

So you've already taken some things on faith.

No. I have admitted that I don't know and limited myself to examination the evidence for a fallible estimate of the probability. Faith doesn't have to enter into the calculation at all. Do I know that my calculation is correct? No. It's a judgment based on how the matter appears in light of the evidence. If the issue is irrelevant to my existence, I can hold it in reserve for the rest of my life without deciding one way or the other. If my existence depends upon it, I must decide, but I have no need to claim certainty about it that is unwarranted unless I want to make myself feel better about it than is justified by knowledge.

For example, that we can gain knowledge, because if you didn't believe we could you would not be bothering with this discussion. You also seem to believe that gaining knowledge would be beneficial in some way. But how do you know? You don't. You just believe it.

If I think I know certainly one way or the other on these matters I am deluding myself. If I fill up the gap of uncertainty about these matters with faith, it doesn't make certainty any more justifiable. According to your way of thinking, faith seems to be self-delusion. I don't see it that way. For me, faith is my connection with what I suppose must be. I suppose to be, because I am unable to imagine it otherwise even though I have no way of proving it.

So my point is everyone takes all kinds of things on faith. So I'm always a bit bemused by people seeking "proof." Because proof is harder to come by than people think. And the irony is all proof is based on faith anyway. All real proof requires the acceptance of axioms or first principles, things which cannot be proved but are considered "self-evident." Well, considering something as self-evident is the same as taking it on faith.

This is exactly what I was describing above. These are a priori or analytic proofs. They are unavoidable because they are categorically necessary for thought. They may be doubted, but they cannot be avoided.

If God exists, then he would be a first principle, an axiom. That is why he cannot be proved, because there is no more fundamental truth upon which to base a proof of him.

God does not have to exist to be a first principle or axiom. To suppose that the proposition entails God's existence is the basis for the Ontological Argument which is controversial. Whether God is fundamental or not is the question, not necessarily the answer.

Much of what we call knowledge is the same thing. We observe what we perceive as reality and we make judgements. We don't operate in the realm of proof, but in the realm of evidence and common sense. Yes, that opens the door to all kinds of opinions, But what is reasonable, or should I say wise, is not infinitely malleable. Someone who thinks Jesus was nothing special is not a sober person. I'd take that to my grave. I can't prove it, but I still think it's a wise judgement. And like I said, proof is hard to come by, so we'd best get on with it make the best decisions we can.

Again this is a false dilemma or forced choice. I addressed the issue above. You seem to be thinking in terms of all or nothing or zero-sum. That presents it's own set of logical problems even for a Christian absolutist because of the logical absurdities that result from the problem of the Trinity as a concept.

Demanding proof, in other words, is not wise. Unless by proof you simply mean strong evidence. But you won't get proof in the absolute sense for much. And by the time you do decision time will have probably already passed.

I have addressed this above.

If you want to sit back and say "you can't prove it," well, I think that's a pretty hypocritical position, given all the things you live now by that you can't prove either.

I haven't done that. The burden of proof is on the one making the proposition.

So let's talk about evidence, not proof. Name a fictional character whose wisdom, stature and words approach those of Jesus. Now name one who, if he was concocted, was concocted by a motley group of mostly uneducated disciples running for their lives. If you want to add into that group monks altering the Bible then be my guest. But basically what you are describing is the greatest group of fiction writers in the history of the world. Now, is it likely that's what they were?

How about Nietzsche's Zarathustra? Anyway, the NT books were not necessarily written by the disciples to whom they were attributed by tradition. The evidence that they were is weak. It is improbable that the authors were uneducated because the texts reflect varying degrees of classical education. Either you misunderstand my position profoundly or you are making a strawman argument when you make the issue about a "group of fiction writers". I never asserted that the New Testament was a work of fiction or that Jesus is not an historical person.

[awareness]

Bro Igzy,

Thanks for your thoughtful reply.

Your post #189 rings like a statement of faith. Seems you are saying what's closer to your heart than to your mind. And you say some far-reaching things. Like:

"Bible is fiction? People have been trying to find falsehoods in the Bible for centuries. None have been identified. None."

You seem very intelligent, but maybe not widely read. Just read "The Five Gospels," by Robert Funk, a conclusion of over 100 Bible scholars, that by consensus identify what Jesus really said, and didn't say, in the gospels. The gospel of John gets just one saying in red.

Originally Posted by Igzy

So let's talk about evidence, not proof. Name a fictional character whose wisdom, stature and words approach those of Jesus.

Fictional is not the same for everyone. That's why we have Jesus believers and Jesus mythicists.

Here's an example of differences of opinions of what, or who, is fictional:

BEFORE HE WAS BORN, his mother had a visitor from heaven who told her that her son would not be a mere mortal but in fact would be divine. His birth was accompanied by unusual divine signs in the heavens. As an adult he left his home to engage on an itinerant preaching ministry. He went from village to town, telling all who would listen that they should not be concerned about their earthly lives and their material goods; they should live for what was spiritual and eternal. He gathered a number of followers around him who became convinced that he was no ordinary human, but that he was the Son of God. And he did miracles to confirm them in their beliefs: he could heal the sick, cast out demons, and raise the dead. At the end of his life he aroused opposition among the ruling authorities of Rome and was put on trial. But they could not kill his soul. He ascended to heaven and continues to live there till this day. To prove that he lived on after leaving this earthly orb, he appeared again to at least one of his doubting followers, who became convinced that in fact he remains with us even now. Later, some of his followers wrote books about him, and we can still read about him today. But very few of you will have ever seen these books. And I imagine most of you do not even know who this great miracle-working Son of God was. I have been referring to a man named Apollonius, who came from the town of Tyana. He was a pagan— that is, a polytheistic worshiper of the many Roman gods— and a renowned philosopher of his day. His followers thought he was immortal. We have a book written about him by his later devotee Philostratus. Philostratus’s book was written in eight volumes in the early third century, possibly around 220 or 230 CE. He had done considerable research for his book, and his stories, he tells us, were largely based on the accounts recorded by an eyewitness and companion of Apollonius himself. Apollonius lived some years after a similar miracle-working Son of God in a different remote part of the empire, Jesus of Nazareth. Later followers of these two divine men saw them as being in competition with one another. This competition was part of a bigger struggle at the time between paganism— the forms of religion supported by the vast majority of everyone who lived in antiquity, who embraced a variety of polytheistic religions— and Christianity, a newcomer on the religious scene, which insisted that there was only one God and that Jesus was his Son. Christian followers of Jesus who knew about Apollonius maintained that he was a charlatan and a fraud; in response, the pagan followers of Apollonius asserted that Jesus was the charlatan and fraud. Both groups could point to the authoritative written accounts of their leader’s life to score their debating points.

Ehrman, Bart D. (2014-03-25). How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee (p. 13). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.

[Cal]

zeek,

In some places you are thinking I am disagreeing with you when I'm actually in agreement. In other places, you miss my point altogether.

It was exactly my point that we have to go with the probable, what would make you think I was saying the opposite?

I never said anything that would suggest faith was self-delusion. My point was that faith in some form is an absolute necessity in all aspects of our lives. "Faith" is not just something reserved for religious or spiritual attitudes. It is a necessary convention given the nature of knowledge. To start off with, we need faith just to get going with our thinking, because as I said all supposed knowledge is based on assumptions we make that we may not even realize we are making. For example, we assume our brains function well enough to take on the task of thinking. We assume what we call "reason" in some way corresponds with reality. We have no real proof of these things, but we believe them to be true, more or less. We don't just assume because we have no other real choice, we have a real faith that something approaching truth can be found. Why would we even entertain such a hope? The answer is that there is a kind of faith in us that it is possible.

So to me the term "faith" is very broad and general. I might have faith in President Obama, for example. The interesting question is: Why would I? When it comes to God and Jesus and the Bible the interesting question is not that people believe or don't believe, the interesting question is why or why not. We all take things by faith, so the question becomes not whether we have faith in things, because we all do, but why in those particular things.

Given the fact that there is a certain amount of subjectivity in how we discern reality, our character is called front and center in the decision. If whether or not God exists was something that was absolutely beyond question, then faith would not be needed and character wouldn't matter. It would just be a matter of sanity or insanity. If a group of people on the beach look up and see a tsunami coming, only the insane would continue to say they don't believe it's there. But if before it appeared at all a helicopter with "US Weather Service" painted on the side flew up and someone inside with a megaphone told everyone to clear the beach because a tsunami is coming, then the tsunami becomes a matter of faith. Do you believe the US Weather Service or not? If so, why; and if not, why not.

When it comes Christianity, the real question is whether there is something so compelling about the message that tells you that you are fool not to believe it. I can understand and appreciate the desire to know facts that might inform you about the issue. But to me people who have the motive to reject Christianity always seem to be squinting at trees to prove a forest is not there.

I said I could not imagine the character of Jesus being invented by fiction writers. You countered by saying I couldn’t imagine Hamlet either. But that missed my point. After reading about Hamlet I can easily imagine him being invented, as I can with all other fictional characters I’ve encounter in books and shows. But Jesus is a character that I cannot imagine being invented. I cannot imagine anyone creating the things he is purported to say. To me I would be a fool not to think that is significant. Because if Jesus is who Christianity says he is, how else would we know but by examining his character and his words? You tend to come back with some theoretical person who might disagree with me. But I have yet to hear such a person mount a convincing argument that Jesus was just another Joe. Nor have I heard a convincing argument that his dialogue was just invented.

I’m not presenting false dilemmas. I’ve just stated what I believe based on the evidence I’ve seen. If I say something strongly then your job is to counter with evidence that causes me to question, not simply say there are a myriad of possibilities besides mine. I realize there are other options, I just think the one I’ve chosen is what is most probable. Please tell me why it isn't, not just that someone might disagree with me. As you’ve said yourself, let’s deal with what is probable and not throw around unlikely possibilities. Let’s start again with a reasonable explanation for how the character of Jesus could have been invented. Who wrote his dialogue? A motley group of disciples who were threatened with death? Monks with too much time on their hands? Again, those seem very unlikely.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by awareness

Bro Igzy,

Thanks for your thoughtful reply.

Your post #189 rings like a statement of faith. Seems you are saying what's closer to your heart than to your mind. And you say some far-reaching things. Like:

"Bible is fiction? People have been trying to find falsehoods in the Bible for centuries. None have been identified. None."

You seem very intelligent, but maybe not widely read.

Harold,

I like to think my mind and heart are in sync. Anyway I would hope so. And what is wrong with a statement of faith? Faith is a good thing. Besides, all cynics are closet romantics, (especially you.) It isn't that they don't think there is something out there, it's that they've been disappointed so much that the only comfort and security they trust in is cynicism. I understand feeling that way, but not succumbing to it; certainly not crusading it.

And I have read a lot. I just am not impressed with the arguments such as the one you cite because they all avoid the elephant in the living room--that being that no one can explain where the character of Jesus came from.

See, here's the gist of my faith: No one can explain the existence of this character Jesus as a work of fiction. You can come up with all kinds of theories that he didn't exist or that he is partially or completely concocted. What you can't explain is who concocted him or how. Who thought him up? Who came up with the things he said? Who was his speech writer? Please don't compare him to Hamlet or Balder the Brave or Gandalf or Yoda or Mohammed or whomever. That would simply insult everyone's intelligence. But if you do, be prepared to lose, because no one compares to Jesus. He's in a class by himself.

My conclusion is either Jesus was from another place or his inventors were. But someone involved was not of this world. If he and they were of this world then we would have stories about all kinds of people like Jesus from all periods and cultures. Because if one group of people could invent him then another could too. But we don't see anyone else in history or fiction even approaching his wisdom, living and character. No one even close. That tells me he was someone very, very special. Note zeek, I'm not claiming at this juncture he must be the Son of God, so don't accuse me of false dilemmas.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Let’s start again with a reasonable explanation for how the character of Jesus could have been invented. Who wrote his dialogue? A motley group of disciples who were threatened with death? Monks with too much time on their hands? Again, those seem very unlikely.

Did you even read anything I said? I REPEAT I never claimed that Jesus was invented. I think you have me confused with someone else. Your questions seem to be misdirected. I state again I believe that it is probable Jesus was a historical person. The gospels do not appear to be the writings of eye-witnesses. More likely they reflect oral history and reference to earlier written texts. "Luke" alludes to this in the opening of his gospel. Your quip about the monks is broadly humorous. No. The gospels apparently came from writers who were actively engaged in the ministry to the churches.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Harold,

Please don't compare him to Hamlet or Balder the Brave or Gandalf or Yoda or Mohammed or whomever. That would simply insult everyone's intelligence. But if you do, be prepared to lose, because no one compares to Jesus. He's in a class by himself.

No one wants to insult everyone’s intelligence but the man and the myth of Jesus was a development from Paul to the early church historians. Even then it had to be sorted out beginning at the Council of Nicaea. Jesus wasn’t a slam dunk savior during his time. He was a development in progress by people over time. If not for Constantine in the 4^th century Christianity would most likely not have developed much more than it had already. What we see taught today as Christianity are not the result of the teachings of Jesus and that goes double for the WL/WN teachings? Of course, Christians today have their own peculiar take on what Jesus and Paul taught whether it is the Greek Orthodox Church, RCC, Anglican, American fundamentalism or Chinese fundamentalism. Each has their own spin.

Jewish history made up Jesus. There are times in history when everything is right for a savior and the Old Testament is full of them whether it is Noah, Abraham, Solomon, David etc. At the time of Jesus Israel was under the dominion of the Romans and their illustrious history seemed in peril. Amidst the oppression the Jewish nation had suffered Jesus promised the return of the Jewish kingdom and gave hope to the downtrodden appointing the 12 disciples the leaders of the 12 tribes of Israel in the coming kingdom. These were a couple of the perfect ingredients for an emerging savior at the time in Israel. It appears that there was a person named Jesus but whether he actually said what is stated is certainly questionable.

What was written was believed or hoped for through the oral history that was developed. I think we all agree that what was written down or handed down was at a minimum a couple decades after the death of Jesus. In any case, it is my opinion that according to the earliest Biblical writers Jesus is portrayed as believing that the kingdom was coming in his generation and so did Paul for that matter who was the “savior” of Christianity to the gentiles.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Note zeek, I'm not claiming at this juncture he must be the Son of God, so don't accuse me of false dilemmas.

Noted. You're saying Jesus was "special" in the way a world savior like Krishna, or Buddha or Mohammed was. I would contend, that these more or less historical figures were so special, that their followers embedded their biographies in the mythology of their religious traditions. In the case of the persons I listed, the older the story, the more mythology. Thus, Krishna's story is more mythological and less historical then Buddha and Mohammed. Mohammed's story in turn contains less mythological elements then Buddha's.

What I called false dilemmas were specific arguments that you made. In each case I demonstrated why your arguments were fallacious. To refute the charges you would have to show how my arguments were wrong. You haven't done that.

Your proposition "But someone involved was not of this world." can be taken as a case in point. For instance, Krishna is likewise "not of this world" according to Hindu mythology. Krishna is recognized as the eighth incarnation of the supreme God in that religious system. So, Jesus is not categorically unique as you supposed. He is one of the historical figures for whom the role of world savior is claimed.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by zeek

Noted. You're saying Jesus was "special" in the way a world savior like Krishna, or Buddha or Mohammed was. I would contend, that these more or less historical figures were so special, that their followers embedded their biographies in the mythology of their religious traditions. In the case of the persons I listed, the older the story, the more mythology. Thus, Krishna's story is more mythological and less historical then Buddha and Mohammed. Mohammed's story in turn contains less mythological elements then Buddha's.

What I called false dilemmas were specific arguments that you made. In each case I demonstrated why your arguments were fallacious. To refute the charges you would have to show how my arguments were wrong. You haven't done that.

Your proposition "But someone involved was not of this world." can be taken as a case in point. For instance, Krishna is likewise "not of this world" according to Hindu mythology. Krishna is recognized as the eighth incarnation of the supreme God in that religious system. So, Jesus is not categorically unique as you supposed. He is one of the historical figures for whom the role of world savior is claimed.

What I am saying is to my registration none of these characters compare with Jesus, either in life, words or anything else. The fact that a lot of people believe they do is really irrelevant. You haven't demonstrated that they do. Quantity doesn't equal quality. The whole story of Jesus is so many levels above the stories of the people that you cite that I'm really surprised you even attempt to make the comparison.

Let's be real. Give me the most impressive quote from any of these guys that you can find, or from anyone else. Go out and find the best example of their lofty wisdom. I guarantee you I will find a quote from Jesus that will top it. And I guarantee you I can show you why it tops it.

[Cal]

Perhaps I've taken this thread off-topic. If a moderator would like move these recent posts to a new thread, like "Examining the Person of Jesus" that would be great. Thanks.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Igzy

What I am saying is to my registration none of these characters compare with Jesus, either in life, words or anything else.

Of course. Basically you are supporting your contention that Jesus is incomparably higher than any figure in history with your evaluation that Jesus is incomparably higher than any figure in history. There's a vicious circularity to your argument that should be obvious to any objective person if not to you. Your "registration" is informed by your opinion. Not surprisingly, they agree.

The fact that a lot of people believe they do is really irrelevant. You haven't demonstrated that they do. Quantity doesn't equal quality. The whole story of Jesus is so many levels above the stories of the people that you cite that I'm really surprised you even attempt to make the comparison.

Your opinion of quality is not necessarily quality either. What's it based on?

Let's be real. Give me the most impressive quote from any of these guys that you can find, or from anyone else. Go out and find the best example of their lofty wisdom. I guarantee you I will find a quote from Jesus that will top it. And I guarantee you I can show you why it tops it.

What an exercise in futility that would be. Are we supposed to believe that you could be an unbiased judge in this matter? You would simply reply, as you have already, that there is no comparison. But, just to humor you, I'll play along. Here is a comparison of some sayings of Jesus and Buddha for you to evaluate:

Jesus: "Do to others as you would have them do to you." Luke 6:31
Buddha: "Consider others as yourself." Dhammapada 10:1

Jesus: "If anyone strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also." Luke 6:29
Buddha: "If anyone should give you a blow with his hand, with a stick, or with a knife, you should abandon any desires and utter no evil words." Majjhima Nikaya 21:6

Jesus: "Truly I tell you, just as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me." Matthew 25:45
Buddha: "If you do not tend to one another, then who is there to tend you? Whoever would tend me, he should tend the sick." Vinaya, Mahavagga 8:26.3

Jesus: "Put your sword back into its place; for all those who take the sword will perish by the sword." Matthew 26:52
Buddha: "Abandoning the taking of life, the ascetic Gautama dwells refraining from taking life, without stick or sword." Digha Nikaya 1:1.8

Jesus: "Those who want to save their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake will save it." Mark 8:35
Buddha: "With the relinquishing of all thought and egotism, the enlightened one is liberated through not clinging." Majjhima Nikaya 72:15

In each case, tell us why Jesus' saying is incomparably better.

[awareness]

Igzy,

Another great response -- left below. Thanks.

Yes, faith is a good thing, and there's nothing wrong with a statement of faith. As I think you pointed out, we can't live without faith of some kind.

But systems of faith is a different matter. I left the system of faith I grew up with. Then I joined the local church system of faith.

I've given up both.

This thread is about the miracle of the virgin birth of Jesus.

1Co 13:11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

Once long ago I believed in Santa Claus and the tooth fairy. But I put away those childish things.

I remember back in the local church, all the way back to my c. in Detroit days, it came to me that the power of God wasn't with me like it was with those in the NT. It really bothered me. I felt like I was falling short of Jesus, and believed my heart wasn't given enough. So I prayed my guts out, literally, in that I developed a ball in my stomach over it. But I never developed the kind of miraculous powers I saw displayed by the actors in the NT.

And that's the problem with believing in the virgin birth. First, of course, like zeek has pointed out, is the biological improbability of it, but second is: where are those kinds of extraordinary miracles happening today?

It seems in the Bible that God was very busy back 2 and 3 thousand yrs ago. But since Jesus has gone on vacation -- seems -- those extraordinary miracles have ceased to be. God isn't moving like that any more. (I did once believe, in the LC, that the LC was God moving on the earth -- I gave up that "childish thing" too.)

Now if my prayers had been answered, and the same power of God that I see in scripture had been given to me, I would, of course, have a different approach and reception to fantastical stories in the Bible.

It's kind of like all the claims of UFOs. Okay, there's lots of reports, and even pictures, but as the cynic I am I won't believe in them until those proctologist's from outer space come and probe MY orifices, or if I actually see one with my own eyes, maybe.

I guess we modern's today tend to have given up "childish things" and have metaphorically given up on believing in Santa Claus, so to speak.

And that makes the virgin birth of Jesus a very hard pill to swallow.

Harold

Originally Posted by Igzy

Harold,

I like to think my mind and heart are in sync. Anyway I would hope so. And what is wrong with a statement of faith? Faith is a good thing. Besides, all cynics are closet romantics, (especially you.) It isn't that they don't think there is something out there, it's that they've been disappointed so much that the only comfort and security they trust in is cynicism. I understand feeling that way, but not succumbing to it; certainly not crusading it.

And I have read a lot. I just am not impressed with the arguments such as the one you cite because they all avoid the elephant in the living room--that being that no one can explain where the character of Jesus came from.

See, here's the gist of my faith: No one can explain the existence of this character Jesus as a work of fiction. You can come up with all kinds of theories that he didn't exist or that he is partially or completely concocted. What you can't explain is who concocted him or how. Who thought him up? Who came up with the things he said? Who was his speech writer? Please don't compare him to Hamlet or Balder the Brave or Gandalf or Yoda or Mohammed or whomever. That would simply insult everyone's intelligence. But if you do, be prepared to lose, because no one compares to Jesus. He's in a class by himself.

My conclusion is either Jesus was from another place or his inventors were. But someone involved was not of this world. If he and they were of this world then we would have stories about all kinds of people like Jesus from all periods and cultures. Because if one group of people could invent him then another could too. But we don't see anyone else in history or fiction even approaching his wisdom, living and character. No one even close. That tells me he was someone very, very special. Note zeek, I'm not claiming at this juncture he must be the Son of God, so don't accuse me of false dilemmas.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by zeek

Of course. Basically you are supporting your contention that Jesus is incomparably higher than any figure in history with your evaluation that Jesus is incomparably higher than any figure in history. There's a vicious circularity to your argument that should be obvious to any objective person if not to you. Your "registration" is informed by your opinion. Not surprisingly, they agree.

Not at all. I'm waiting for an indication that you are even open to the argument. I can tell you why I think Jesus is superior. But the fact is you should know already yourself. You were in the LCM right? Or am I mistaken? Don't you know how Christianity is different?

Your opinion of quality is not necessarily quality either. What's it based on?

It's based on the overall impression I get from observing the persons and their stories. What else am I supposed to go by? What do you go by? For example, no other of these people claimed to love humanity so much that he was willing to come and suffer and die to redeem them back to a loving, but righteous God. These others don't even touch the idea that God is so righteous that a perfect substitute for us in judgment was necessary. That's totally off their radar. They didn't think of it. All other religions are about working your way to God or nirvana or whatever. Only Christianity is about God coming to us because we are unable to get to him.

But like I said, you should already know that. I shouldn't have to tell you.

What an exercise in futility that would be.

Well, if it's futile then why are you even here? I mean if we can't come to some conclusions about these guys other than to, as you do, say there's no real difference then what is the point? Are you really here to argue that they are all basically the same. Is that your purpose here?

In each case, tell us why Jesus' saying is incomparably better.

They are better because of the overall context shown the Bible, that is in the light of other things Jesus said. Jesus presents himself not only as a teacher of truth, but as the unique enabler of living it out. Sure, there are some parallels between human morality in religions and philosophies, but that just shows that these basic truths resonate with our consciences. But all the other teachers are basically saying "go out and do this with your own willpower." Only Jesus presented himself as the very power to produce what he taught. Buddha knew some of the rules because he was a thoughtful, seeking human being with a conscience, as we all should be. But Buddha could offer no real hope of living up to the precepts he taught. Jesus not only offered hope to achieve a proper living, he said that he himself was that hope. No one else did that. That alone puts him in another league. Add to it that millions of his followers have truly experienced that power in their lives and you have something special.

So when Jesus speaks a basic human truth that is seen in other philosophies, he is doing it in an entirely different way than others are. That's why the Jews marveled at him. Because he taught with confidence and assurance, as someone having authority, and not as the scribes and Pharisees or, one can assume, Buddha did.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Not at all. I'm waiting for an indication that you are even open to the argument. I can tell you why I think Jesus is superior. But the fact is you should know already yourself. You were in the LCM right? Or am I mistaken? Don't you know how Christianity is different

You're waiting for me to do something before you present your argument? How does that make sense? You have claimed that Jesus is uniquely superior to every putative world savior but now you're withholding your best arguments to support the claim? What are we playing, Texas Holdem? You're evading the issue.

It's based on the overall impression I get from observing the persons and their stories.

So, in the end, it's your subjective judgement. Ya know, really I have no problem with that as long as you acknowledge that's what you are doing and you admit that other people are making different subjective judgments based on their different experiences and leave it at that. It's when people claim that their subjective judgment is better and should overrule the judgment of others that the problems start.

What else am I supposed to go by? What do you go by? For example, no other of these people claimed to love humanity so much that he was willing to come and suffer and die to redeem them back to a loving, but righteous God. These others don't even touch the idea that God is so righteous that a perfect substitute for us in judgment was necessary. That's totally off their radar. They didn't think of it. All other religions are about working your way to God or nirvana or whatever. Only Christianity is about God coming to us because we are unable to get to him.

Have you ever practiced another religion than Christianity? According to Wikipedia "Hindu devotional or bhakti literature available throughout India and Nepal is replete with references to grace (kripa) as the ultimate key required for spiritual self-realization. Some, such as the ancient sage Vasistha, in his classical work Yoga Vasistha, considered it to be the only way to transcend the bondage of lifetimes of karma." Dr. Umar Al-Ashqar, dean of the Faculty of Islamic Law at Zarqa Private University in Zarqa, Jordan, wrote that "Paradise is something of immense value; a person cannot earn it by virtue of his deeds alone, but by the Grace and Mercy of Allah." Do you know that these claims are untrue?

Well, if it's futile then why are you even here? I mean if we can't come to some conclusions about these guys other than to, as you do, say there's no real difference then what is the point? Are you really here to argue that they are all basically the same. Is that your purpose here?

How did this become about me? You claimed that Jesus is incomparably superior to everyone in history. I noted that his followers claim that he is a world savior which puts him in the category of world savior with others for whom that claim is made. According to what is claimed, he is an incarnation of God like others. His teachings are similar to others. Resurrections are claimed by others. Grace is claimed by others. It is incumbent upon you who make the claim to present evidence to support the claim. Don't try to change the subject. I'm not taking the bait.

They are better because of the overall context shown the Bible, that is in the light of other things Jesus said. Jesus presents himself not only as a teacher of truth, but as the unique enabler of living it out. Sure, there are some parallels between human morality in religions and philosophies, but that just shows that these basic truths resonate with our consciences. But all the other teachers are basically saying "go out and do this with your own willpower." Only Jesus presented himself as the very power to produce what he taught. Buddha knew some of the rules because he was a thoughtful, seeking human being with a conscience, as we all should be. But Buddha could offer no real hope of living up to the precepts he taught. Jesus not only offered hope to achieve a proper living, he said that he himself was that hope. No one else did that. That alone puts him in another league.

That Jesus taught many of the same things that the other sages of history is significant evidence that he was not unique. There have been other martyrs, other saviors, other wisdom teachers, other miracle workers, other purveyors of grace, other objects of faith. So, again, tell me why you think he is better then everyone else.

Add to it that millions of his followers have truly experienced that power in their lives and you have something special.

Here you contradict your previous statement that:

The fact that a lot of people believe they do is really irrelevant. You haven't demonstrated that they do. Quantity doesn't equal quality.

So when Jesus speaks a basic human truth that is seen in other philosophies, he is doing it in an entirely different way than others are. That's why the Jews marveled at him. Because he taught with confidence and assurance, as someone having authority, and not as the scribes and Pharisees or, one can assume, Buddha did.

Buddha spoke with authority and was marveled at too as were other putative world saviors. Stephen Hawking speaks with authority and gets marveled at for that matter. These are not traits unique to Jesus or even world saviors

[Cal]

zeek,

Thanks for the discussion. I appreciate your thoughts but it's pretty clear we are not having a meeting of minds.

Take care and have a great summer.

Best,
Igzy

[Cal]

Originally Posted by awareness

Igzy,

Another great response -- left below. Thanks.

And that's the problem with believing in the virgin birth. First, of course, like zeek has pointed out, is the biological improbability of it, but second is: where are those kinds of extraordinary miracles happening today?

It seems in the Bible that God was very busy back 2 and 3 thousand yrs ago. But since Jesus has gone on vacation -- seems -- those extraordinary miracles have ceased to be. God isn't moving like that any more. (I did once believe, in the LC, that the LC was God moving on the earth -- I gave up that "childish thing" too.)

Now if my prayers had been answered, and the same power of God that I see in scripture had been given to me, I would, of course, have a different approach and reception to fantastical stories in the Bible.

It's kind of like all the claims of UFOs. Okay, there's lots of reports, and even pictures, but as the cynic I am I won't believe in them until those proctologist's from outer space come and probe MY orifices, or if I actually see one with my own eyes, maybe.

I guess we modern's today tend to have given up "childish things" and have metaphorically given up on believing in Santa Claus, so to speak.

And that makes the virgin birth of Jesus a very hard pill to swallow.

Harold

Harold,

No, thank you. I always enjoy talking to you, even when I disagree with you.

I guess what you are saying is that you cannot imagine a God who would supersede nature. I have no problem believing in one. If God created nature then certainly he ought to be able to override it whenever he wants to. You haven't seen anything miraculous lately? The Jews were probably thinking that around 0 BC because no prophets or miracles had occurred for 400 years. Then Jesus came.

I can see why Jesus would want to be born of a virgin. At the same time, if he wasn't, and there was no mention of it, I probably wouldn't miss it. But as it is, the OT predicts it, and the Jesus I see in history confirmed the OT. 1 + 1 = 2. I'm not smart enough to discern which parts of the Bible are true and which are not, and I don't think anyone else is either. So I think we have to either believe all of it or none of it.

My faith is simple:

1. Something had to cause the universe. That's God.
   
2. I cannot dismiss Jesus. He was special. No other person I've observed compares to him.
3. I cannot dismiss the Bible. It is special. No other book or collection of writings I've seen compares to it.

All my other, more specific beliefs, flow from those three basic beliefs. Through my believing I've come to know an invisible but quite real Person, who has changed me and my life. I can see his work in me, and it's more than just me learning a new philosophy. It's a power I have not seen or experienced from any other source. That power is God, and Jesus. That's my experience and testimony. You or zeek or others might scoff and laugh and say I'm logically unsound or whatever. I probably am. But I know what I know. That's my hope, and I'm glad I have it. And I'm not smart enough to imagine how it could be better.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Igzy

zeek,

Thanks for the discussion. I appreciate your thoughts but it's pretty clear we are not having a meeting of minds.

Take care and have a great summer.

Best,
Igzy

You're welcome, Igzy. If by "meeting of minds" you mean complete agreement, that wasn't likely to happen. I think I may have achieved a better understanding of your position. And we were civil toward each other. That's something. Apparently you're taking a vacation. Enjoy. Perhaps we'll talk again sometime.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Igzy

My faith is simple:

1. Something had to cause the universe. That's God.
   
2. I cannot dismiss Jesus. He was special. No other person I've observed compares to him.
3. I cannot dismiss the Bible. It is special. No other book or collection of writings I've seen compares to it.

Oddly, it may seem, but I feel very similar about all three.

Originally Posted by Igzy

All my other, more specific beliefs, flow from those three basic beliefs. Through my believing I've come to know an invisible but quite real Person, who has changed me and my life.

You've prolly caught me spouting how I love and can't live without my invisible friend.

Originally Posted by Igzy

You or zeek or others might scoff and laugh and say I'm logically unsound or whatever.

LoL ... you logically unsound? Now that's funny indeed.

Originally Posted by Igzy

And I'm not smart enough to imagine how it could be better.

And I consider you smarter than me. So I'm definitely not smart enough. That's why I'm always reading and learning. It's because I'm so stupid.

You speak of how Jesus is the fulfillment of OT prophecies. Well I'm certainly not smart enough to figure out how Mary wasn't impregnated by Joseph, yet Jesus is of the lineage of David.

Of course if God created nature He can certainly intervene into it ... and into history, by the way.

I guess I just wish God would be as involved in today's world, with humans, like I see in the Bible.

I think I've expressed that I'm a fan of mythology. I spot the same in them. And you prolly do to.

For example, concerning the virgin birth, you prolly don't embrace the myth, or Catholic doctrine, of the perpetual virginity of Mary. The truth is we humans just love to create myths.

And it looks to me that, since our earliest writers of the NT, Paul and Mark, don't mention something as important as the virgin birth, that is exactly what happened. The myth of the virgin birth was created by later writers ... or so it seems.

And where is our brother Timotheist? I certainly hope he's not like Andrew Kelly (concerning Lily Hsu's book) who came out here making highfalutin claims -- that he'd totally discredit her book -- and then dropped out before accomplishing his claims.

We need Tim to keep his two threads on track.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

zeek,

Thanks for the discussion. I appreciate your thoughts but it's pretty clear we are not having a meeting of minds.

Take care and have a great summer.

Best,
Igzy

That's what i have been saying ...

Impossible to have a discussion with the guy.

Better to just part ways amicably.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Impossible to have a discussion with the guy.

Is that what you were doing--trying to have a discussion with me? That's a hoot. I thought you were just trolling.

[Timotheist]

Originally Posted by awareness

And where is our brother Timotheist? I certainly hope he's not like Andrew Kelly (concerning Lily Hsu's book) who came out here making highfalutin claims -- that he'd totally discredit her book -- and then dropped out before accomplishing his claims.

We need Tim to keep his two threads on track.

I have been checking in, but I have a 6-yr-old grandson in the house for the time being, and he demands non-stop attention.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by zeek

You're welcome, Igzy. If by "meeting of minds" you mean complete agreement, that wasn't likely to happen. I think I may have achieved a better understanding of your position. And we were civil toward each other. That's something. Apparently you're taking a vacation. Enjoy. Perhaps we'll talk again sometime.

No, I have a new job where I get to work from home. It's great. The kids come by my desk and give me hugs and then go to the neighborhood pool. What could be better? Of course, working from home make it even easier to post on LCD, so I must be disciplined. Life is good, praise God!

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Igzy

No, I have a new job where I get to work from home. It's great. The kids come by my desk and give me hugs and then go to the neighborhood pool. What could be better? Of course, working from home make it even easier to post on LCD, so I must be disciplined. Life is good, praise God!

Congrats on the new job. Sounds like a pretty sweet gig. Lots of distractions though.

[zeek]

The fundamentalists were right in recognizing that the integrity of the Christian Bible depended upon acceptance of the virgin birth. But, the doctrine poses a serious challenge to reasonable hermeneutic practice.

Isaiah 7:14 was ripped from its context to be appropriated as the prophetic basis for the virgin birth in a manner that violates the principle that time and again members here admonish us to avoid. "You're taking that verse out of context" we tell each other.

Well, in this case, the scriptural context shows that the prophesy is about the state of political affairs a few years later when the child has reached the age of moral reasoning. Thus, the text declares: “Curd and honey shall he eat, when he knows to refuse the evil, and choose the good. Yea, before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land whose two kings you have a horror of shall be forsaken” (Isaiah 7: 15-16). That would be expected to occur within the lifetime of Ahaz to whom the sign of the child was given.

Thus, the author of Matthew apparently violates the principle of interpreting verses according to their context which we all have acknowledged as a sound and reasonable thing to do. How do you justify that?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by awareness

You speak of how Jesus is the fulfillment of OT prophecies. Well I'm certainly not smart enough to figure out how Mary wasn't impregnated by Joseph, yet Jesus is of the lineage of David.

That's why I think it's best to either believe all the Bible, or none of it. Trying to discern which parts of are true opens a can of worms none of us are smart enough to sort out. I just don't think God would expect us to do that.

I guess I just wish God would be as involved in today's world, with humans, like I see in the Bible.

People find ways to dismiss outward miracles. Jesus miraculously fed thousands of people on several occasions. How many of those became real followers? God could write "Jesus is Lord" in 500-mile high letters on the moon and some people would say aliens did it. It's a heart issue.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Igzy

God could write "Jesus is Lord" in 500-mile high letters on the moon and some people would say aliens did it.

LoL ... Yer a funny guy bro Igzy. If I saw God write it I'd certainly believe it. But otherwise, cynic you say I am, I might think it could have been written by those corp circle fakers, or a - private rocket builder to the moon - fanatical Christian confetti artist.

Originally Posted by Igzy

It's a heart issue.

Yes it is bro Igzy. And that's the bottom line. It is said that David had a heart for God. And look at him ... God stilled loved him after all that he did.

And so it prolly is with believing in the virgin birth or not. Disbelief in it certainly isn't as bad as the things David did. For that matter, neither is disbelief in the inerrancy of scripture; the first of the five fundamentals, coming before the virgin birth fundamental.

It's a heart issue.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

The fundamentalists were right in recognizing that the integrity of the Christian Bible depended upon acceptance of the virgin birth. But, the doctrine poses a serious challenge to reasonable hermeneutic practice.

Isaiah 7:14 was ripped from its context to be appropriated as the prophetic basis for the virgin birth in a manner that violates the principle that time and again members here admonish us to avoid. "You're taking that verse out of context" we tell each other.

Well, in this case, the scriptural context shows that the prophesy is about the state of political affairs a few years later when the child has reached the age of moral reasoning. Thus, the text declares: “Curd and honey shall he eat, when he knows to refuse the evil, and choose the good. Yea, before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land whose two kings you have a horror of shall be forsaken” (Isaiah 7: 15-16). That would be expected to occur within the lifetime of Ahaz to whom the sign of the child was given.

Thus, the author of Matthew apparently violates the principle of interpreting verses according to their context which we all have acknowledged as a sound and reasonable thing to do. How do you justify that?

But how do we know if the author of Matthew was even thinking of Isaiah 7:14, or if he was even reading the LXX?

The context in Matthew only identifies that he's quoting "the prophet."

The author may have been referencing information, or a writing perhaps, that's been lost to us, but was familiar to 'Matthew' and his audience.

Aren't we imposing a NT overlay on the OT ... with a good guess ... that the author of Matthew was thinking of Isiah 7:14 in the LXX?

And what if the author of Matthew was getting from the Holy Spirit?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

But how do we know if the author of Matthew was even thinking of Isaiah 7:14, or if he was even reading the LXX?

The context in Matthew only identifies that he's quoting "the prophet."

The author may have been referencing information, or a writing perhaps, that's been lost to us, but was familiar to 'Matthew' and his audience.

Aren't we imposing a NT overlay on the OT ... with a good guess ... that the author of Matthew was thinking of Isiah 7:14 in the LXX?

And what if the author of Matthew was getting from the Holy Spirit?

Your hypothesis seems improbable since the verse in the Matthew 1:23 is word for word identical Isaiah 7:14 except for the substitution of the word they for the word you which I emboldened in the quotes below.

[ is.7.14 ] ιδου [BEHOLD] η [THE] παρθενος [VIRGIN] εν [IN] γαστρι [THE WOMB] εξει [WILL HAVE] και [AND] τεξεται [BEAR] υιον [A SON] και [AND] καλεσεις [YOU SHALL CALL] το [THE] ονομα [THE NAME] αυτου [HIS] εμμανουηλ [EMMANOUEHL]

[mt.1.23] ιδου [BEHOLD,] η [THE] παρθενος [VIRGIN] εν [WITH] γαστρι εξει [CHILD SHALL BE,] και [AND] τεξεται [SHALL BRING FORTH] υιον [A SON,] και [AND] καλεσουσιν το [THEY SHALL CALL] ονομα αυτου [HIS NAME] εμμανουηλ [EMMANUEL,]

That word substitution is remarkable, however. For, the word you in Isaiah 7:14 is addressed to Ahaz in the imperative grammatical mood. The verse is a command to name the child who is to be a sign Emmanuel. Whereas, in Matthew the word they reflects the indicative mood. God was not commanding Joseph and Mary to actually name the child Emmanuel. Rather, Emmanuel would reflect the child's true nature and thus, those who would call a Jesus Emmanuel would be speaking an essential truth.

That the author felt free to make a word substitution that changes the verse's meaning is significant in itself. The author seems to be exercising creative license in a way that indeed might be associated with the ecstatic inspiration of the Spirit, at least to eyes of Christian faith.

[Timotheist]

Originally Posted by zeek

Your hypothesis seems improbable since the verse in the Matthew 1:23 is word for word identical Isaiah 7:14 except for the substitution of the word they for the word you which I emboldened in the quotes below.

[ is.7.14 ] ιδου [BEHOLD] η [THE] παρθενος [VIRGIN] εν [IN] γαστρι [THE WOMB] εξει [WILL HAVE] και [AND] τεξεται [BEAR] υιον [A SON] και [AND] καλεσεις [YOU SHALL CALL] το [THE] ονομα [THE NAME] αυτου [HIS] εμμανουηλ [EMMANOUEHL]

[mt.1.23] ιδου [BEHOLD,] η [THE] παρθενος [VIRGIN] εν [WITH] γαστρι εξει [CHILD SHALL BE,] και [AND] τεξεται [SHALL BRING FORTH] υιον [A SON,] και [AND] καλεσουσιν το [THEY SHALL CALL] ονομα αυτου [HIS NAME] εμμανουηλ [EMMANUEL,]

That word substitution is remarkable.

Indeed, and thanks for pointing that out to me. Although it does not surprise me that the author would edit scripture as he pleased. We do the same thing today.

Every English translation of the Bible that I have ever bothered to study has areas of concern for me. They are either trying to cover up inconsistencies, cater to tradition (e.g. Isa 7:14), or bias the translation to promote a particular view.

BYW, what source for Greek text are you using for Isa 7:14?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Timotheist

BYW, what source for Greek text are you using for Isa 7:14?

That would be the Greek LXX. Which means the author likely had the LXX handy while writing his book. And that's how "virgin" entered his writing, as the LXX mistranslated the Masoretic text, which didn't use the Hebrew word for virgin.

But, and this is a big but, Matthew says "spoken by the Lord through the prophet."

It tells us how Hellenized the author was, that, he considered the LXX the word of the Lord. What? A mistranslation is the word of the Lord? Did God write it wrong in the Masoretic text?

Moreover, to the Hellenized of that day, miraculous births was nothing new. I think it's a hint of who the author of Matthew was trying to reach; Hellenized Jews.

In the Masoretic text the word for virgin is בְּתוּלָה (bethûlâh). It's used 50 times in the OT, for 'virgin.' However, the word considered 'virgin' in Is. 7:14 is, עַלְמָה (‛almâh), used just 4 times as 'virgin' in the OT.

Did the author of Matthew know this? Did he know the original Masoretic text, and the Septuagint version?

Why would he select the sloppy version?

So then, if zeek is right, that 'Matthew' was referencing Is 7:14, I posit that he believed Jesus was "God with us." And, what 'Matthew' was really after when using Is. 7:14 was not 'virgin' but Immanuel.

And "virgin," in the Septuagint version, was just the cherry on the top, so to speak, cuz it speaks the message that Jesus MUST have been "God with us."

And that, I posit, is what the author, or authors, of Matthew were trying to say: that Jesus was God.

And then there's the possibility that this reference to Is. 7:14 is an add in to the original early gospel of Matthew, by those believing and selling that, Jesus was God.

[Timotheist]

The Ebionites

were an early Jewish-Christian sect. They had their own gospel which was apparently modeled after the synoptic gospels, but we have no surviving copy of it. Most of what we know about it is derived from a criticism by Epiphanius.

Here is one thing he had to say about it:

"The Gospel which is found among them ... is not complete, but falsified and distorted ...". In particular, it lacked some or all of the first two chapters of Matthew, which contain the infancy narrative of the virgin birth of Jesus and the Davidic genealogy via Solomon, "They have removed the genealogies of Matthew ..." (cited from the Wikipedia article on the "Gospel of the Ebionites")

And here is some text that has been reconstructed from this gospel based upon other comments by Epiphanius:

It came to pass in the days of Herod, King of Judaea under the high priest Caiaphas, that John came and baptized with the baptism of repentance in the river Jordan; he is said to be from the tribe of Aaron and a son of Zacharias the priest and of Elizabeth and all went out to him. And it came to pass when John baptized, that the Pharisees came to him and were baptized, and all Jerusalem also. He had a garment of camels' hair, and a leather girdle about his loins. And his meat was wild honey, which tasted like manna, formed like cakes of oil. The people having been baptized, Jesus came also, and was baptized by John. And as he came out of the water the heavens opened, and he saw the Holy Spirit descending under the form of a dove, and entering into him. And a voice was heard from heaven: 'Thou art my beloved Son, and in thee am I well pleased'. And again: 'This day have I begotten thee'. And suddenly shone a great light in that place. And John seeing him, said, 'Who art thou, Lord'? Then a voice was heard from heaven: 'This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased'. Thereat John fell at his feet and said: 'I pray thee, Lord, baptize me'. But he would not, saying 'Suffer it, for so it behoveth that all should be accomplished'.

From this we can safely infer that this sect did not believe in the VB, but rather modified the texts of Mark and Matthew to state that Jesus became the Christ at his baptism.

I report, you decide.

The Ebionites, along with other sects classified as Adoptionists, were declared heretics by the roman church.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Timotheist

The Ebionites

were an early Jewish-Christian sect. They had their own gospel which was apparently modeled after the synoptic gospels, but we have no surviving copy of it. Most of what we know about it is derived from a criticism by Epiphanius.

Here is one thing he had to say about it:

"The Gospel which is found among them ... is not complete, but falsified and distorted ...". In particular, it lacked some or all of the first two chapters of Matthew, which contain the infancy narrative of the virgin birth of Jesus and the Davidic genealogy via Solomon, "They have removed the genealogies of Matthew ..." (cited from the Wikipedia article on the "Gospel of the Ebionites")

And here is some text that has been reconstructed from this gospel based upon other comments by Epiphanius:

It came to pass in the days of Herod, King of Judaea under the high priest Caiaphas, that John came and baptized with the baptism of repentance in the river Jordan; he is said to be from the tribe of Aaron and a son of Zacharias the priest and of Elizabeth and all went out to him. And it came to pass when John baptized, that the Pharisees came to him and were baptized, and all Jerusalem also. He had a garment of camels' hair, and a leather girdle about his loins. And his meat was wild honey, which tasted like manna, formed like cakes of oil. The people having been baptized, Jesus came also, and was baptized by John. And as he came out of the water the heavens opened, and he saw the Holy Spirit descending under the form of a dove, and entering into him. And a voice was heard from heaven: 'Thou art my beloved Son, and in thee am I well pleased'. And again: 'This day have I begotten thee'. And suddenly shone a great light in that place. And John seeing him, said, 'Who art thou, Lord'? Then a voice was heard from heaven: 'This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased'. Thereat John fell at his feet and said: 'I pray thee, Lord, baptize me'. But he would not, saying 'Suffer it, for so it behoveth that all should be accomplished'.

From this we can safely infer that this sect did not believe in the VB, but rather modified the texts of Mark and Matthew to state that Jesus became the Christ at his baptism.

I report, you decide.

The Ebionites, along with other sects classified as Adoptionists, were declared heretics by the roman church.

Even the earliest Christians, Jewish Christians, like Jews are known for, didn't agree with each other.

Epiphanius also mentioned the Nazarenes of the 1st century, a early Jewish Christian sect. They didn't buy the gospels, but they bought the Virgin Birth.

So from where did they get that notion? We don't know about Matthew(we'll call him that -- we don't Matthew), from where he got the info for his gospel, but we know Luke was gathering his from what was around in his day, because he says so.

I guess we can gather then that the virgin birth was going around in the oral tradition, that developed after Jesus was gone, and before anything was written down (that we know of).

I do find it odd, however, that our earliest records, those from Paul, don't mention the VB. If it was going around in the early oral tradition wouldn't Paul have heard of it? And if he heard of it wouldn't it be something so phenomenal that he would have at least remarked about it? Maybe Paul was too resurrection obsessed (resurrection adoptionist) to care about how Jesus was born.

But it is said that The Gospel of Thomas was probably based on the oral tradition, and it doesn't mention the VB either.

Bro Ohio has mentioned that the VB story comes from Mary, the mother of Jesus. But we have no evidence that Mary was ever consulted.

Conclusion: The VB story came straight out of heaven, animating the hands of Matthew and Luke. That's the way I was brought up to believe. So it must be true.

[Timotheist]

Originally Posted by awareness

I guess we can gather then that the virgin birth was going around in the oral tradition, that developed after Jesus was gone, and before anything was written down (that we know of).

The 'Gospel of the Hebrews' brings Sophia into the Mary story. The Greeks had introduced Sophia to the Jews long before Jesus came along, and the author is trying to sell the idea of Mary to these Jews.

So the Sophia/Mother of God business was already there, in both mythology and Judaism.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Timotheist

The 'Gospel of the Hebrews' brings Sophia into the Mary story. The Greeks had introduced Sophia to the Jews long before Jesus came along, and the author is trying to sell the idea of Mary to these Jews.

So the Sophia/Mother of God business was already there, in both mythology and Judaism.

But what does Sophia have to do with the VB?

[Timotheist]

Contained within Matthew’s highly unlikely nativity narrative is this little gem:

14 So Joseph got up and took the Child and His mother while it was still night, and left for Egypt.
15 He remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet: "OUT OF EGYPT I CALLED MY SON."
(Mat 2:14-15 NAU)

The prophet cited here is undoubtedly Hosea:

Hosea 11:1 When Israel was a youth I loved him, And out of Egypt I called My son.

The “son” is obviously Israel. Is it a dual passage including a prophecy about the coming Messiah? Not likely, for the following verse contains this about the “son” in verse 1:

2 …They kept sacrificing to the Baals And burning incense to idols.
(Hos 11:2 NAU)

Was Hosea unique in calling Israel “My son”? Absolutely not. In fact, Hosea was in turn citing Exodus:

22 "Then you shall say to Pharaoh, 'Thus says the LORD, "Israel is My son, My firstborn.
23 "So I said to you, 'Let My son go that he may serve Me'; but you have refused to let him go. Behold, I will kill your son, your firstborn."'"
(Exo 4:22-23 NAU)

This passage in Matthew is an example among many others, where various phrases in the OT are taken to be Messianic prophecies. It seems obvious to me that the contributing authors to the Matthew narrative had developed a oral tradition over time, where history was invented in order to help “fulfill prophecies”. They were likely Gentiles uneducated in Hebrew, used a faulty Greek translation, did not listen to Jews who tried to correct their narratives, were influenced by Greek religions, and did not or were not capable of proper OT research.

And asserted Spiritual inspiration when questioned.

They saw the phrase “My Son” and went with it. Thus the escape to Egypt as part of the nativity story became their truth. As living in Egypt is not confirmed in any other part of the NT, I deem it false.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Timotheist

Contained within Matthew’s highly unlikely nativity narrative is this little gem:

14 So Joseph got up and took the Child and His mother while it was still night, and left for Egypt.
15 He remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet: "OUT OF EGYPT I CALLED MY SON."
(Mat 2:14-15 NAU)

The prophet cited here is undoubtedly Hosea:

Hosea 11:1 When Israel was a youth I loved him, And out of Egypt I called My son.

The “son” is obviously Israel. Is it a dual passage including a prophecy about the coming Messiah? Not likely, for the following verse contains this about the “son” in verse 1:

2 …They kept sacrificing to the Baals And burning incense to idols.
(Hos 11:2 NAU)

Was Hosea unique in calling Israel “My son”? Absolutely not. In fact, Hosea was in turn citing Exodus:

22 "Then you shall say to Pharaoh, 'Thus says the LORD, "Israel is My son, My firstborn.
23 "So I said to you, 'Let My son go that he may serve Me'; but you have refused to let him go. Behold, I will kill your son, your firstborn."'"
(Exo 4:22-23 NAU)

This passage in Matthew is an example among many others, where various phrases in the OT are taken to be Messianic prophecies. It seems obvious to me that the contributing authors to the Matthew narrative had developed a oral tradition over time, where history was invented in order to help “fulfill prophecies”. They were likely Gentiles uneducated in Hebrew, used a faulty Greek translation, did not listen to Jews who tried to correct their narratives, were influenced by Greek religions, and did not or were not capable of proper OT research.

And asserted Spiritual inspiration when questioned.

They saw the phrase “My Son” and went with it. Thus the escape to Egypt as part of the nativity story became their truth. As living in Egypt is not confirmed in any other part of the NT, I deem it false.

Just Jewish story tellers, trying to link OT Jewish stories to the desired Jewish audience, to win them over. The real problem is, we don't know who wrote any of the gospel stories.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Timotheist

Contained within Matthew’s highly unlikely nativity narrative is this little gem:

14 So Joseph got up and took the Child and His mother while it was still night, and left for Egypt.
15 He remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet: "OUT OF EGYPT I CALLED MY SON."
(Mat 2:14-15 NAU)

The prophet cited here is undoubtedly Hosea:

Hosea 11:1 When Israel was a youth I loved him, And out of Egypt I called My son.

The “son” is obviously Israel. Is it a dual passage including a prophecy about the coming Messiah? Not likely, for the following verse contains this about the “son” in verse 1:

2 …They kept sacrificing to the Baals And burning incense to idols.
(Hos 11:2 NAU)

Was Hosea unique in calling Israel “My son”? Absolutely not. In fact, Hosea was in turn citing Exodus:

22 "Then you shall say to Pharaoh, 'Thus says the LORD, "Israel is My son, My firstborn.
23 "So I said to you, 'Let My son go that he may serve Me'; but you have refused to let him go. Behold, I will kill your son, your firstborn."'"
(Exo 4:22-23 NAU)

This passage in Matthew is an example among many others, where various phrases in the OT are taken to be Messianic prophecies. It seems obvious to me that the contributing authors to the Matthew narrative had developed a oral tradition over time, where history was invented in order to help “fulfill prophecies”. They were likely Gentiles uneducated in Hebrew, used a faulty Greek translation, did not listen to Jews who tried to correct their narratives, were influenced by Greek religions, and did not or were not capable of proper OT research.

And asserted Spiritual inspiration when questioned.

They saw the phrase “My Son” and went with it. Thus the escape to Egypt as part of the nativity story became their truth. As living in Egypt is not confirmed in any other part of the NT, I deem it false.

This kind of stuff reminds me of the Holocaust deniers.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

This kind of stuff reminds me of the Holocaust deniers.

Except we have much more data on the Holocaust.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Except we have much more data on the Holocaust.

Data, facts, truth, witnesses, historical records, etc. mean nothing to these fine folks.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Data, facts, truth, witnesses, historical records, etc. mean nothing to these fine folks.

So are you saying that these fine folks don't care about data, facts, truth, witnesses, and historical records, plus etc..

I think I've lost track of this thread. Sorry. Remind me : who are these fine folks?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

So are you saying that these fine folks don't care about data, facts, truth, witnesses, and historical records, plus etc..

I think I've lost track of this thread. Sorry. Remind me : who are these fine folks?

Those fine folks who reject the Bible, the deity of Christ, the Creator of heaven and earth, the virgin birth, the authority of scriptures, etc.

You know ... those fine folks.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Those fine folks who reject the Bible, the deity of Christ, the Creator of heaven and earth, the virgin birth, the authority of scriptures, etc.

You know ... those fine folks.

But there's nothing wrong with critical readings of the Bible.

For example -- and you know this one -- examining the virgin birth, one finds how it became 'virgin' because of a mistranslation in the Septuagint, while in the Masoretic text of Isaiah 7:14 the word actually means almah or "young woman," not virgin.

Add to that that only two of the gospels mention this very hard to believe virgin birth, that is so phenomenal you'd think that all the gospel witnesses would cover it.

Moreover, there's no mention of it in our earliest NT writings, by Paul. Must be because the virgin birth wasn't being orally passed around during Paul's times, or he would have remarked about it. The virgin birth came along later, in the much later written gospel witnesses, but only two.

The virgin birth would be such a phenomenal event that surely all witnesses would have remarked about it.

Then again, virgin births were common to the gentiles back then. So virgin births would not be too far fetched to the Hellenized early first century Christians, who were competing with the occurring of virgin births in Greek mythologies. So must be that two witnesses we have are telling what their target audience would like to hear, to win them over. I suppose we could consider the virgin birth as a syncretism of Greek mythologies and later first century Hellenized Christians.

In the end, there's a pretty good chance that bro Timotheist is correct.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

But there's nothing wrong with critical readings of the Bible.

For example -- and you know this one -- examining the virgin birth, one finds how it became 'virgin' because of a mistranslation in the Septuagint, while in the Masoretic text of Isaiah 7:14 the word actually means almah or "young woman," not virgin.

Add to that that only two of the gospels mention this very hard to believe virgin birth, that is so phenomenal you'd think that all the gospel witnesses would cover it.

Moreover, there's no mention of it in our earliest NT writings, by Paul. Must be because the virgin birth wasn't being orally passed around during Paul's times, or he would have remarked about it. The virgin birth came along later, in the much later written gospel witnesses, but only two.

The virgin birth would be such a phenomenal event that surely all witnesses would have remarked about it.

Then again, virgin births were common to the gentiles back then. So virgin births would not be too far fetched to the Hellenized early first century Christians, who were competing with the occurring of virgin births in Greek mythologies. So must be that two witnesses we have are telling what their target audience would like to hear, to win them over. I suppose we could consider the virgin birth as a syncretism of Greek mythologies and later first century Hellenized Christians.

In the end, there's a pretty good chance that bro Timotheist is correct.

Sure. About the same chance that I'll become the next President of the US.

We've discussed all this. Too many times. Explain to me how I can be Prez, and I'll start to accept your crazy speculations.

[Timotheist]

Originally Posted by awareness

But there's nothing wrong with critical readings of the Bible.

For example -- and you know this one -- examining the virgin birth, one finds how it became 'virgin' because of a mistranslation in the Septuagint, while in the Masoretic text of Isaiah 7:14 the word actually means almah or "young woman," not virgin.

Add to that that only two of the gospels mention this very hard to believe virgin birth, that is so phenomenal you'd think that all the gospel witnesses would cover it.

Moreover, there's no mention of it in our earliest NT writings, by Paul. Must be because the virgin birth wasn't being orally passed around during Paul's times, or he would have remarked about it. The virgin birth came along later, in the much later written gospel witnesses, but only two.

The virgin birth would be such a phenomenal event that surely all witnesses would have remarked about it.

Then again, virgin births were common to the gentiles back then. So virgin births would not be too far fetched to the Hellenized early first century Christians, who were competing with the occurring of virgin births in Greek mythologies. So must be that two witnesses we have are telling what their target audience would like to hear, to win them over. I suppose we could consider the virgin birth as a syncretism of Greek mythologies and later first century Hellenized Christians.

In the end, there's a pretty good chance that bro Timotheist is correct.

Nice summary, and I tend to agree with the last statement.

[Timotheist]

Once, many years ago, I spent some time debating a Jew who challenged the gospel we call Matthew. Back then I shared Ohio's point of view regarding the sanctity of NT scripture.

Regarding this passage about Mary and Joseph escaping to Egypt, my friend stated that going back to Egypt, especially to seek comfort, was strictly forbidden in Jewish law.

I have recently reviewed passages in Deut. and Isaiah that would uphold his point of view.

His question to me was: "Why would the Messiah start his life with the sin of returning to Egypt?"

My response then was pretty weak. My response today would be: "He did not go to Egypt."

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Timotheist

Once, many years ago, I spent some time debating a Jew who challenged the gospel we call Matthew. Back then I shared Ohio's point of view regarding the sanctity of NT scripture.

Regarding this passage about Mary and Joseph escaping to Egypt, my friend stated that going back to Egypt, especially to seek comfort, was strictly forbidden in Jewish law.

I have recently reviewed passages in Deut. and Isaiah that would uphold his point of view.

His question to me was: "Why would the Messiah start his life with the sin of returning to Egypt?"

My response then was pretty weak. My response today would be: "He did not go to Egypt."

For Jesus to hang from a tree was strictly forbidden by Jewish Law, in fact, Moses clearly told us that such a man would be cursed. (Deut. 21.21)

I have recently reviewed passages in Deut. and Isaiah that would uphold this point of view.

My question to him is: Why would the Messiah end His life hanging from a tree ... cursed by God?

[Timotheist]

Originally Posted by Ohio

For Jesus to hang from a tree was strictly forbidden by Jewish Law, in fact, Moses clearly told us that such a man would be cursed. (Deut. 21.21)

I have recently reviewed passages in Deut. and Isaiah that would uphold this point of view.

My question to him is: Why would the Messiah end His life hanging from a tree ... cursed by God?

duplicate response. I got bad internet

[Timotheist]

Originally Posted by Ohio

For Jesus to hang from a tree was strictly forbidden by Jewish Law, in fact, Moses clearly told us that such a man would be cursed. (Deut. 21.21)

I have recently reviewed passages in Deut. and Isaiah that would uphold this point of view.

My question to him is: Why would the Messiah end His life hanging from a tree ... cursed by God?

??? where is it stated that it is a sin to hang oneself on a tree? Not that that is what Jesus did.

To be crucified was indeed considered the worst kind of punishment. I thought that was the point.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Timotheist

??? where is it stated that it is a sin to hang oneself on a tree? Not that that is what Jesus did.

To be crucified was indeed considered the worst kind of punishment. I thought that was the point.

It could be said that Jesus committed suicide by Roman authorities, by "king of the Jews," and tossing the money changers in the temple.

When the Jews condemned blasphemy they killed by stoning. That might have been a more humane way to go than the cross.

The Jews lost their claim of being God's chosen race, by being so heartless and hateful.

But anyway, Jesus went willingly to his death on a cross. Today that's called suicide by cops.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Timotheist

??? where is it stated that it is a sin to hang oneself on a tree? Not that that is what Jesus did.

To be crucified was indeed considered the worst kind of punishment. I thought that was the point.

Hanging on a tree was a curse far worse than merely going to Egypt until Herod died. I already provided the verse.

Why do you distort what I said? I never said He hung Himself.

Going back to the virgin birth, your bible study is seriously flawed. I'm sure I could find a Jew to saw most anything about Jesus.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

It could be said that Jesus committed suicide by Roman authorities, by "king of the Jews," and tossing the money changers in the temple.

When the Jews condemned blasphemy they killed by stoning. That might have been a more humane way to go than the cross.

The Jews lost their claim of being God's chosen race, by being so heartless and hateful.

But anyway, Jesus went willingly to his death on a cross. Today that's called suicide by cops.

Dying in your sins, is that called suicide by unbelief, or suicide by angels?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Dying in your sins, is that called suicide by unbelief, or suicide by angels?

But those aren't a real thing, like the cross was.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

But those aren't a real thing, like the cross was.

Not a real thing? People die every day in their sins, refusing to believe in the Lamb of God.

[Timotheist]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Hanging on a tree was a curse far worse than merely going to Egypt until Herod died. I already provided the verse.

Why do you distort what I said? I never said He hung Himself.

Going back to the virgin birth, your bible study is seriously flawed. I'm sure I could find a Jew to saw most anything about Jesus.

I was merely making a distinction between a "curse" and a "sin". You said "hanging from a tree was forbidden by Jewish law".

It was a "sin" to go to Egypt. A "curse" is not of your own making.

Your argument is very flawed, but I realize you did not put much thought or research into it.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Timotheist

I was merely making a distinction between a "curse" and a "sin". You said "hanging from a tree was forbidden by Jewish law".

It was a "sin" to go to Egypt. A "curse" is not of your own making.

Your argument is very flawed, but I realize you did not put much thought or research into it.

My argument is flawed?

Israel was called out of Egypt. (Exodus)

Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob all went to Egypt. A&I were called out. Jacob and Joseph had their bones removed and buried in the good land.

All God's children are called out of "Egypt."

And my argument is "flawed?"

And Jesus "sinned" because an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream instructing him to take the newborn to Egypt for safety until Herod died? (Matt 2.13-23)

I base my beliefs on the eye witness accounts in scripture, yours are based on what? The opinions of a Jewish friend?

Timothist, have a great day. You might want to reconsider what you believe.

[Timotheist]

Originally Posted by Ohio

My argument is flawed?

Israel was called out of Egypt. (Exodus)

Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob all went to Egypt. A&I were called out. Jacob and Joseph had their bones removed and buried in the good land.

All God's children are called out of "Egypt."

And my argument is "flawed?"

And Jesus "sinned" because an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream instructing him to take the newborn to Egypt for safety until Herod died? (Matt 2.13-23)

I base my beliefs on the eye witness accounts in scripture, yours are based on what? The opinions of a Jewish friend?

Timothist, have a great day. You might want to reconsider what you believe.

I have considered what I believe, and the path that I have taken has preserved my faith. If all I had was your point of view, I would have become an atheist. To insist on a belief in the Bible as written to be a part of being saved is something I reject.

And Jews have a lot to offer. You should try listening to one.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I base my beliefs on the eye witness accounts in scripture,

Hear! Hear! I'd like to do that. How is that done? Eye witnesses? Where? Who? Help !!!!!!!

[Timotheist]

Jeremiah was a reformer, challenging the scripture of his day:

7:22 "For I did not speak to your fathers, or command them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices.
23 "But this is what I commanded them, saying, 'Obey My voice, and I will be your God, and you will be My people; and you will walk in all the way which I command you, that it may be well with you.'

The Ohio types would have had Jeremiah hung on a tree:

24 "Yet they did not obey or incline their ear, but walked in their own counsels and in the stubbornness of their evil heart, and went backward and not forward.
25 "Since the day that your fathers came out of the land of Egypt until this day, I have sent you all My servants the prophets, daily rising early and sending them.
26 "Yet they did not listen to Me or incline their ear, but stiffened their neck; they did more evil than their fathers. (Jer 7:24-26 NAU)

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Not a real thing? People die every day in their sins, refusing to believe in the Lamb of God.

So when Jesus died on the cross was he dying in his sins? Or did he believe in the lamb of God?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Timotheist

Jeremiah was a reformer, challenging the scripture of his day:

7:22 "For I did not speak to your fathers, or command them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices.
23 "But this is what I commanded them, saying, 'Obey My voice, and I will be your God, and you will be My people; and you will walk in all the way which I command you, that it may be well with you.'

The Ohio types would have had Jeremiah hung on a tree:

24 "Yet they did not obey or incline their ear, but walked in their own counsels and in the stubbornness of their evil heart, and went backward and not forward.
25 "Since the day that your fathers came out of the land of Egypt until this day, I have sent you all My servants the prophets, daily rising early and sending them.
26 "Yet they did not listen to Me or incline their ear, but stiffened their neck; they did more evil than their fathers. (Jer 7:24-26 NAU)

The Ohio types?

Sounds horribly bigoted to me.

If I disagree with your failed theories, then I am a murderer, part of a lynch mob?

I just finished reading Jeremiah, perhaps you should do the same.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The Ohio types?

He must mean the Native Americans. Ohio originates with them .... plus, darn it, the Ohio river is Kentucky's northern border. Don't pick on my river.