Atheism's Twentieth Century Death Toll

[McCulloch]

You really want to play that numbers game, with atheism's 100,000,000 death toll last century?

Are there 100,000,000 deaths in the twentieth century attributable to atheism? Please list.

[East of Eden]

Matthew and Luke were not written in 30 CE. They are evidence that the virgin birth was believed at the time they were written, some 40 to 50 years after the time period you are making claims about.

Do you have evidence for your claim that the virgin birth was known from the start of Jesus' ministry (~ 30 CE)? If not, please withdraw your claim.

So the fact that Matthew and Luke were written years after does make the accounts incredible?

No. The accounts might be credible. They might not be credible. Without evidence to confirm one way or the other, we don't know.

When some of their story makes claims that in our experience are impossible, that makes them much less credible. The bar of evidence needed for extraordinary claims is raised.

What does your experience have to do with the experience of others who lived 2,000 years ago? You are saying we know all miraculous accounts are false, but only if we discard testimony to the contrary. That is circular reasoning.

[East of Eden]

Ok, I'm glad we cleared that up.

Now can you please provide evidence for your claim that the virgin birth was known from the start of Jesus' ministry (~ 30 CE)? If not, please withdraw your claim.

Already been done, see Matthew and Luke.

Matthew and Luke were not written in 30 CE. They are evidence that the virgin birth was believed at the time they were written, some 40 to 50 years after the time period you are making claims about.

Matthew and Luke were writing about events of 30 AD, just as Caesar wrote of events prior to him writing them down. Do you believe them? Maybe you think the Virgin Birth was only revealed to the Gospel writers at the time they wrote them?

Do you have evidence for your claim that the virgin birth was known from the start of Jesus' ministry (~ 30 CE)? If not, please withdraw your claim.

Evidence has already been provided.

I believe Caesar's history to the extent that we can independently confirm the claims that it makes. Same with the gospels. No double standard at all.

And if Mary really did conceive miraculously 2,000 years ago, how would you confirm that other than the testimony of the Gospel writers?

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

Matthew and Luke were not written in 30 CE. They are evidence that the virgin birth was believed at the time they were written, some 40 to 50 years after the time period you are making claims about.

Matthew and Luke were writing about events of 30 AD, just as Caesar wrote of events prior to him writing them down. Do you believe them?

This was already answered in the very post you're replying to. The claims Caesar makes can considered historical to the extent that we can independently confirm them with evidence. We wouldn't believe the claims of Caesar without supporting evidence. Why should we believe the claims of the gospel writers without supporting evidence?

Maybe you think the Virgin Birth was only revealed to the Gospel writers at the time they wrote them?

This is certainly one of countless possibilities that you have not ruled out, sure. Other possibilities include the virgin birth doctrine being invented at some point after the death of Jesus and before the composition of the gospels. Given all these possibilities, to claim that the doctrine was believed from the start of Jesus' ministry is not defensible.

Do you have evidence for your claim that the virgin birth was known from the start of Jesus' ministry (~ 30 CE)? If not, please withdraw your claim.

Evidence has already been provided.

Evidence has been provided that the doctrine was believed at the time the gospels were written. Evidence has not been provided that the doctrine was believed at the start of Jesus' ministry. If you cannot provide evidence for your claim, please withdraw it.

I believe Caesar's history to the extent that we can independently confirm the claims that it makes. Same with the gospels. No double standard at all.

And if Mary really did conceive miraculously 2,000 years ago, how would you confirm that other than the testimony of the Gospel writers?

I'm not sure, you're the one who believes it. You tell me. All I know is that it would be irrational to hold such a belief based on the claims of anonymous gospels writes 70 to 80 years after the supposed event. There isn't even enough evidence to confidently state that the doctrine of the virgin birth was taught at the start of Jesus' ministry, let alone to support that the virgin birth itself was a historical event.

[East of Eden]

Matthew and Luke were not written in 30 CE. They are evidence that the virgin birth was believed at the time they were written, some 40 to 50 years after the time period you are making claims about.

Matthew and Luke were writing about events of 30 AD, just as Caesar wrote of events prior to him writing them down. Do you believe them?

This was already answered in the very post you're replying to. The claims Caesar makes can considered historical to the extent that we can independently confirm them with evidence. We wouldn't believe the claims of Caesar without supporting evidence. Why should we believe the claims of the gospel writers without supporting evidence?

Numerous confirmations of the Virgin Birth from the early church (which is what this thread hijack is about) have already been provided. And please tell me what is 'independent' evidence.

This is certainly one of countless possibilities that you have not ruled out, sure. Other possibilities include the virgin birth doctrine being invented at some point after the death of Jesus and before the composition of the gospels.

OK, if you want to make up countless possibilities, where is your evidence for those alternate ideas?

Given all these possibilities, to claim that the doctrine was believed from the start of Jesus' ministry is not defensible.

You have failed to provide evidence it was not believed from the start.

Evidence has been provided that the doctrine was believed at the time the gospels were written. Evidence has not been provided that the doctrine was believed at the start of Jesus' ministry. If you cannot provide evidence for your claim, please withdraw it.

That is my opinion, and you certainly haven't provided any evidence to support your irrational claim that it was not believed since 30 AD, contrary to the Gospel accounts. This whole rabbit whole is a straw man as I originally said the Virgin Birth was believed from the time of the early church, i.e. up to 325 AD. Do you dispute that?

I'm not sure, you're the one who believes it. You tell me. All I know is that it would be irrational to hold such a belief based on the claims of anonymous gospels writes 70 to 80 years after the supposed event.

Factually wrong, they aren't anonomous, and were written much closer to the events than you state. Even if they were anonymous, so were lots of other writings:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_an ... shed_works

Do you disbelieve these also, or is another double standard?

Really, since you can't tell me what would constitute acceptable evidence for you for the Virgin Birth and that you think it irrational, this thread hijack is a waste of time. It is clear nothing would convince you. I'm done here, maybe you can find someone else to play with.

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

Matthew and Luke were not written in 30 CE. They are evidence that the virgin birth was believed at the time they were written, some 40 to 50 years after the time period you are making claims about.

Matthew and Luke were writing about events of 30 AD, just as Caesar wrote of events prior to him writing them down. Do you believe them?

This was already answered in the very post you're replying to. The claims Caesar makes can considered historical to the extent that we can independently confirm them with evidence. We wouldn't believe the claims of Caesar without supporting evidence. Why should we believe the claims of the gospel writers without supporting evidence?

Numerous confirmations of the Virgin Birth from the early church (which is what this thread hijack is about) have already been provided. And please tell me what is 'independent' evidence.

The "confirmations" you're talking about come after the gospels. They do not count as independent confirmation because they come from people who read the gospels and could very well have first heard about the virgin birth from them.

This is certainly one of countless possibilities that you have not ruled out, sure. Other possibilities include the virgin birth doctrine being invented at some point after the death of Jesus and before the composition of the gospels.

OK, if you want to make up countless possibilities, where is your evidence for those alternate ideas?

I am not claiming that they happened, I am claiming they are possibilities that you haven't ruled out. It is entirely possible that the virgin birth was invented some time after the death of Jesus, and you have been unable to present evidence ruling this out.

Given all these possibilities, to claim that the doctrine was believed from the start of Jesus' ministry is not defensible.

You have failed to provide evidence it was not believed from the start.

Which is irrelevant because I have not claimed that the doctrine was not believed from the start. I have claimed that we do not know whether or not the doctrine was believed from the start. You are committing the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof.

Evidence has been provided that the doctrine was believed at the time the gospels were written. Evidence has not been provided that the doctrine was believed at the start of Jesus' ministry. If you cannot provide evidence for your claim, please withdraw it.

That is my opinion, and you certainly haven't provided any evidence to support your irrational claim that it was not believed since 30 AD, contrary to the Gospel accounts. This whole rabbit whole is a straw man as I originally said the Virgin Birth was believed from the time of the early church, i.e. up to 325 AD. Do you dispute that?

No. We've been over this in detail. I do not dispute that at some point before 325 Christians started to believe in the doctrine of the virgin birth, as the gospels provide ample evidence for such a claim. I dispute that the doctrine of the virgin birth was taught from the start of Jesus' ministry. If you wish to claim that the doctrine was around at the start of Jesus' ministry, you have to either provide evidence or withdraw the claim.

Also your accusation of 'straw man' seems to indicate you have forgotten the statements you have made:

Ok. So when you claim that the doctrine of the virgin birth was believed "from the earliest days of the church", what you are claiming is that at the start of Jesus' ministry (~ 30 CE) the doctrine of the virgin birth was known. Is that accurate?

That's what two of the Gospels tell us.

I've made quite an effort to determine what it was you are in fact claiming. If you do not wish to claim that the doctrine was believed at the start of Jesus' ministry (~30 CE) then please plainly state this and we can drop the issue.

I'm not sure, you're the one who believes it. You tell me. All I know is that it would be irrational to hold such a belief based on the claims of anonymous gospels writes 70 to 80 years after the supposed event.

Factually wrong, they aren't anonomous,

Please provide evidence for this claim or retract it. The gospels are anonymous: they are not signed, and no internal claims to authorship are made. You might think you know who wrote them based on church tradition or "hints" in the writings, but this does not change the fact of their anonymity.

and were written much closer to the events than you state.

Please provide evidence for this claim or retract it. Most scholars believe that Matthew and Luke were written some time in the 70s or 80s, which would place them 70 to 80 years after the supposed virgin birth.

Even if they were anonymous, so were lots of other writings:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_an ... shed_works

Do you disbelieve these also, or is another double standard?

"Another" double standard? I have disproved your first accusation of "double standard" and I would thank you not to repeat it if you can't defend it. I have made no argument that the gospels should be "disbelieved" because they are anonymous. I only mean to emphasis that to base belief in the virgin birth on nothing more than anonymous claims 70-80 years after the event is irrational.

Really, since you can't tell me what would constitute acceptable evidence for you for the Virgin Birth and that you think it irrational, this thread hijack is a waste of time. It is clear nothing would convince you. I'm done here, maybe you can find someone else to play with.

You're clearly trying to change the subject. This was never about evidence for the virgin birth itself. This was about evidence for the claim that the virgin birth was taught at the start of Jesus' ministry. For this claim, the evidence needed is easy enough to imagine: some writings from the time period mentioning the virgin birth would surely be sufficient. But such evidence does not exist, thus for you to make claims about belief in the virgin birth during Jesus' ministry is indefensible.

[The Tongue]

Matthew and Luke were not written in 30 CE. They are evidence that the virgin birth was believed at the time they were written, some 40 to 50 years after the time period you are making claims about.

Matthew and Luke were writing about events of 30 AD, just as Caesar wrote of events prior to him writing them down. Do you believe them?

This was already answered in the very post you're replying to. The claims Caesar makes can considered historical to the extent that we can independently confirm them with evidence. We wouldn't believe the claims of Caesar without supporting evidence. Why should we believe the claims of the gospel writers without supporting evidence?

Numerous confirmations of the Virgin Birth from the early church (which is what this thread hijack is about) have already been provided. And please tell me what is 'independent' evidence.

The "confirmations" you're talking about come after the gospels. They do not count as independent confirmation because they come from people who read the gospels and could very well have first heard about the virgin birth from them.

This is certainly one of countless possibilities that you have not ruled out, sure. Other possibilities include the virgin birth doctrine being invented at some point after the death of Jesus and before the composition of the gospels.

OK, if you want to make up countless possibilities, where is your evidence for those alternate ideas?

I am not claiming that they happened, I am claiming they are possibilities that you haven't ruled out. It is entirely possible that the virgin birth was invented some time after the death of Jesus, and you have been unable to present evidence ruling this out.

Given all these possibilities, to claim that the doctrine was believed from the start of Jesus' ministry is not defensible.

You have failed to provide evidence it was not believed from the start.

Which is irrelevant because I have not claimed that the doctrine was not believed from the start. I have claimed that we do not know whether or not the doctrine was believed from the start. You are committing the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof.

Evidence has been provided that the doctrine was believed at the time the gospels were written. Evidence has not been provided that the doctrine was believed at the start of Jesus' ministry. If you cannot provide evidence for your claim, please withdraw it.

That is my opinion, and you certainly haven't provided any evidence to support your irrational claim that it was not believed since 30 AD, contrary to the Gospel accounts. This whole rabbit whole is a straw man as I originally said the Virgin Birth was believed from the time of the early church, i.e. up to 325 AD. Do you dispute that?

No. We've been over this in detail. I do not dispute that at some point before 325 Christians started to believe in the doctrine of the virgin birth, as the gospels provide ample evidence for such a claim. I dispute that the doctrine of the virgin birth was taught from the start of Jesus' ministry. If you wish to claim that the doctrine was around at the start of Jesus' ministry, you have to either provide evidence or withdraw the claim.

Also your accusation of 'straw man' seems to indicate you have forgotten the statements you have made:

Ok. So when you claim that the doctrine of the virgin birth was believed "from the earliest days of the church", what you are claiming is that at the start of Jesus' ministry (~ 30 CE) the doctrine of the virgin birth was known. Is that accurate?

That's what two of the Gospels tell us.

I've made quite an effort to determine what it was you are in fact claiming. If you do not wish to claim that the doctrine was believed at the start of Jesus' ministry (~30 CE) then please plainly state this and we can drop the issue.

I'm not sure, you're the one who believes it. You tell me. All I know is that it would be irrational to hold such a belief based on the claims of anonymous gospels writes 70 to 80 years after the supposed event.

Factually wrong, they aren't anonomous,

Please provide evidence for this claim or retract it. The gospels are anonymous: they are not signed, and no internal claims to authorship are made. You might think you know who wrote them based on church tradition or "hints" in the writings, but this does not change the fact of their anonymity.

and were written much closer to the events than you state.

Please provide evidence for this claim or retract it. Most scholars believe that Matthew and Luke were written some time in the 70s or 80s, which would place them 70 to 80 years after the supposed virgin birth.

Even if they were anonymous, so were lots of other writings:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_an ... shed_works

Do you disbelieve these also, or is another double standard?

"Another" double standard? I have disproved your first accusation of "double standard" and I would thank you not to repeat it if you can't defend it. I have made no argument that the gospels should be "disbelieved" because they are anonymous. I only mean to emphasis that to base belief in the virgin birth on nothing more than anonymous claims 70-80 years after the event is irrational.

Really, since you can't tell me what would constitute acceptable evidence for you for the Virgin Birth and that you think it irrational, this thread hijack is a waste of time. It is clear nothing would convince you. I'm done here, maybe you can find someone else to play with.

You're clearly trying to change the subject. This was never about evidence for the virgin birth itself. This was about evidence for the claim that the virgin birth was taught at the start of Jesus' ministry. For this claim, the evidence needed is easy enough to imagine: some writings from the time period mentioning the virgin birth would surely be sufficient. But such evidence does not exist, thus for you to make claims about belief in the virgin birth during Jesus' ministry is indefensible.

There is no biblical evidence whatsoever to support the lie of the supposed virgin birth that has been perpetrated by the universal church of Constantine and her daughter denominational bodies that were spawned of her false spirit=words=teachings.

[The Tongue]

[Replying to post 294 by East of Eden]

[East of Eden wrote]…………..That is my opinion, and you certainly haven't provided any evidence to support your irrational claim that it was not believed since 30 AD, contrary to the Gospel accounts. This whole rabbit whole is a straw man as I originally said the Virgin Birth was believed from the time of the early church, i.e. up to 325 AD. Do you dispute that?

First of all, you must understand how the universal church of 325 AD, was founded and from what it was founded and upon what foundation it was built: because you are not referring here to teachings of the Apostolic Church of Jesus Christ, but rather, to the false teachings of the universal church of Constantine.

Not only did the apostles not teach the Jesus of the universal church, neither did they teach the false doctrine of the trinity, nor the non-biblical immaculate conceptions, of Jesus and his mother Mary.

We know that the universal church of King Constantine was formed from a rag-tag group of quarrelling and insult hurling religious bodies that called themselves Christians. King Constantine, finally sick to the stomach with their constant bickering, called together all the heads of those quarrelling bodies to the first ever “World Council of Churches� where, under the dominating presence of the non-christian and almost certainly theologically illiterate King Constantine, the universal church was established in 325 AD, some 300 years after the Apostolic Church of Jesus Christ had been established in Jerusalem.

In the days of the Apostle Paul who in 1st Timothy 1: 1; says: “From Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by order of “GOD OUR SAVIOUR’ and Christ Jesus ‘OUR HOPE.’� The people were already beginning to fall away from the truth, and following another gospel that was not taught by the word of God or the apostles.

In his 2nd letter to the Corinthians 11: 4; Paul says, “You gladly tolerate anyone who comes to you and preaches a different Jesus, not the one we preached; and you accept a spirit (The Lie) and a gospel completely different from the spirit (Of Truth) and the gospel you received from us.�

Then in Galatians 1: 6; Paul says again, “I am surprised at you! In no time at all you are deserting the truth and are accepting another gospel.

So, What was that other gospel, Way back in the days of Paul, that was leading the people away from the truth and away from the Jesus as preached by the Apostles, to another false Jesus?

That gospel was the word of the anti-christ that refused to acknowledge that Jesus had come as a human being, and instead, they believed that he was a spirit, who, like some Hologram, would appear and disappear at will.

Even in the days of John, the false teaching that Jesus was not of the seed of Adam from which every human being who has, or ever will walk this earth, has descended, and had not come as a human being, but as a spiritual being, was already beginning to be spread throughout the world, and concerning that evolving falsehood, John had this to say.

1st letter of John 4:1-3; “My dear friends, do not believe all who claim to have the spirit, (My words are spirit) but test them to find out if the spirit they have comes from God. For many false prophets have gone out everywhere. This is how you will be able to know if it is Gods spirit/word: anyone who acknowledges that Jesus came as a human being has the spirit who comes from God. But anyone who denies this about Jesus does not have the spirit from God. The spirit that he has is from the enemy of the anointed one, the Anti-christ etc.�

2nd letter of John verses 7-10;.“Many deceivers have gone out all over the world, people who do not acknowledge that Jesus came as a human being. Such a person is a deceiver and an enemy of Christ.�

If you would care to open your eyes, I"m sure that you will have little difficulty in finding the teaching of the anti-christ, which does not deny that Jesus had come, but which refused to acknowledge that Jesus was a true human being, which has been spread throughout the entire WORLD.

Over the centuries the false teaching of the anti-christ continued to evolve, as the followers of the anti-christ became more enlightened and harder to deceive. In Alexandria, by the second century, Docetism, the concept that Jesus had existed as a spirit rather than a human being, had all but theoretically been stamped out.

But still, there persisted the belief that their false Jesus, although seen as a sort of human being, did not have our normal bodily needs, such as eating, drinking and having to go to the toilet, and Clement the bishop of Alexandria, wrote: “It would be ridiculous to imagine that the redeemer, in order to exist, had the usual needs of man. He only took food and ate it in order that we should not teach about him in a Docetic fashion.� Satan must have been some sort of an idiot believing that this false Jesus of theirs, who had no need of food such as we human beings do, was starving hungry after a mere 40 days without food, who then tried to tempt him into turning stones into bread.

Their Jesus was not the Jesus as taught by the apostles, but that other Jesus, taught by the Anti-Christ, who unlike we mere HUMAN BEINGS, did not need to eat, drink, or go to the toilet, as was taught by one of the great teachers that the members of the universal church, love to use as one of their authorities when trying to defend one of their false doctrines.

Saint Clement of Alexandria, who was a saint in the Martyrology of the Roman universal church, in support of the great lie, speaks of the time that some imaginary midwife, who was supposed to be at the birth of Jesus, (Non-biblical) told some woman by the name Salome, that the mother was still a virgin after the birth and that her hymen was still intact, and that this supposed Salome, stuck her finger into the mother’s vagina to check, and her hand immediately withered up, but the baby Jesus reached out and touched her hand and healed it.

Down to the 17th century Clement was venerated as a saint. His name was to be found in the Martyrologies, and his feast fell on December 4. But when the Roman Martyrology was revised by Clement VIII (Pope from 1592 to 1605), his name was dropped from the calendar on the advice of his confessor, Cardinal Baronius. Pope Benedict XIV in 1748 maintained his predecessor's decision on the grounds that Clement's life was little-known; that he had never obtained public cultus in the Church; and that some of his doctrines were, if not erroneous, at least highly suspect.

Clement, who was not born until after the death of John the beloved disciple, who had warned of the false teaching that was raising its ugly head even in his day, lived between 150—211 AD was expressing a belief that was already firmly established by those who had abandoned the Jesus as taught by the apostles.

[East of Eden]

Matthew and Luke were not written in 30 CE. They are evidence that the virgin birth was believed at the time they were written, some 40 to 50 years after the time period you are making claims about.

Matthew and Luke were writing about events of 30 AD, just as Caesar wrote of events prior to him writing them down. Do you believe them?

This was already answered in the very post you're replying to. The claims Caesar makes can considered historical to the extent that we can independently confirm them with evidence. We wouldn't believe the claims of Caesar without supporting evidence. Why should we believe the claims of the gospel writers without supporting evidence?

Numerous confirmations of the Virgin Birth from the early church (which is what this thread hijack is about) have already been provided. And please tell me what is 'independent' evidence.

The "confirmations" you're talking about come after the gospels. They do not count as independent confirmation because they come from people who read the gospels and could very well have first heard about the virgin birth from them.

This is certainly one of countless possibilities that you have not ruled out, sure. Other possibilities include the virgin birth doctrine being invented at some point after the death of Jesus and before the composition of the gospels.

OK, if you want to make up countless possibilities, where is your evidence for those alternate ideas?

I am not claiming that they happened, I am claiming they are possibilities that you haven't ruled out. It is entirely possible that the virgin birth was invented some time after the death of Jesus, and you have been unable to present evidence ruling this out.

Given all these possibilities, to claim that the doctrine was believed from the start of Jesus' ministry is not defensible.

You have failed to provide evidence it was not believed from the start.

Which is irrelevant because I have not claimed that the doctrine was not believed from the start. I have claimed that we do not know whether or not the doctrine was believed from the start. You are committing the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof.

Evidence has been provided that the doctrine was believed at the time the gospels were written. Evidence has not been provided that the doctrine was believed at the start of Jesus' ministry. If you cannot provide evidence for your claim, please withdraw it.

That is my opinion, and you certainly haven't provided any evidence to support your irrational claim that it was not believed since 30 AD, contrary to the Gospel accounts. This whole rabbit whole is a straw man as I originally said the Virgin Birth was believed from the time of the early church, i.e. up to 325 AD. Do you dispute that?

No. We've been over this in detail. I do not dispute that at some point before 325 Christians started to believe in the doctrine of the virgin birth, as the gospels provide ample evidence for such a claim. I dispute that the doctrine of the virgin birth was taught from the start of Jesus' ministry. If you wish to claim that the doctrine was around at the start of Jesus' ministry, you have to either provide evidence or withdraw the claim.

Also your accusation of 'straw man' seems to indicate you have forgotten the statements you have made:

Ok. So when you claim that the doctrine of the virgin birth was believed "from the earliest days of the church", what you are claiming is that at the start of Jesus' ministry (~ 30 CE) the doctrine of the virgin birth was known. Is that accurate?

That's what two of the Gospels tell us.

I've made quite an effort to determine what it was you are in fact claiming. If you do not wish to claim that the doctrine was believed at the start of Jesus' ministry (~30 CE) then please plainly state this and we can drop the issue.

I'm not sure, you're the one who believes it. You tell me. All I know is that it would be irrational to hold such a belief based on the claims of anonymous gospels writes 70 to 80 years after the supposed event.

Factually wrong, they aren't anonomous,

Please provide evidence for this claim or retract it. The gospels are anonymous: they are not signed, and no internal claims to authorship are made. You might think you know who wrote them based on church tradition or "hints" in the writings, but this does not change the fact of their anonymity.

and were written much closer to the events than you state.

Please provide evidence for this claim or retract it. Most scholars believe that Matthew and Luke were written some time in the 70s or 80s, which would place them 70 to 80 years after the supposed virgin birth.

Even if they were anonymous, so were lots of other writings:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_an ... shed_works

Do you disbelieve these also, or is another double standard?

"Another" double standard? I have disproved your first accusation of "double standard" and I would thank you not to repeat it if you can't defend it. I have made no argument that the gospels should be "disbelieved" because they are anonymous. I only mean to emphasis that to base belief in the virgin birth on nothing more than anonymous claims 70-80 years after the event is irrational.

Really, since you can't tell me what would constitute acceptable evidence for you for the Virgin Birth and that you think it irrational, this thread hijack is a waste of time. It is clear nothing would convince you. I'm done here, maybe you can find someone else to play with.

You're clearly trying to change the subject. This was never about evidence for the virgin birth itself. This was about evidence for the claim that the virgin birth was taught at the start of Jesus' ministry. For this claim, the evidence needed is easy enough to imagine: some writings from the time period mentioning the virgin birth would surely be sufficient. But such evidence does not exist, thus for you to make claims about belief in the virgin birth during Jesus' ministry is indefensible.

There is no biblical evidence whatsoever to support the lie of the supposed virgin birth that has been perpetrated by the universal church of Constantine and her daughter denominational bodies that were spawned of her false spirit=words=teachings.

Baloney, the Virgin Birth was predicted in the OT and fulfilled in the NT.

http://www.albertmohler.com/2010/12/22/ ... n-birth-4/

[JohnPaul]

East of Eden wrote:

Baloney, the Virgin Birth was predicted in the OT and fulfilled in the NT.

http://www.albertmohler.com/2010/12/22/ ... n-birth-4/
_________________

I read your fundamentalist propaganda and was not impressed. Why don't you save us all some time here and simply say that you believe in the Virgin Birth because your own narrow little version of primitive Christianity teaches that if you don't believe it, you are not a "real Christian" and won't be allowed in heaven?

You may not agree with the liberal views of Hans Kung and Bishop Spong, but that does not mean they are any less Christian than you are, and it certainly doesn't mean they are any less experts. Christianity desperately needs to be dragged kicking and screaming out of the Dark Ages, and away from its reputation as the religion of vengeful primitive ignorance.

[East of Eden]

East of Eden wrote:

Baloney, the Virgin Birth was predicted in the OT and fulfilled in the NT.

http://www.albertmohler.com/2010/12/22/ ... n-birth-4/
_________________

I read your fundamentalist propaganda and was not impressed.

I prefer the term Bible believer, Jesus was one of those. The Virgin Birth is believed by the vast majority of Christians, what exactly do you think Catholic, Orthodox, and the majority of Anglicans believe? You have a strange definition of 'narrow'.

The point of the link was to show the Bible does teach the Virgin Birth, contrary to some here.

Why don't you save us all some time here and simply say that you believe in the Virgin Birth because your own narrow little version of primitive Christianity teaches that if you don't believe it, you are not a "real Christian" and won't be allowed in heaven?

Why don't you save us some time and admit you reject it because you a priori reject any supernatural event?

You may not agree with the liberal views of Hans Kung and Bishop Spong, but that does not mean they are any less Christian than you are, and it certainly doesn't mean they are any less experts.

Since when do non-believers like you get to decide who is a Christian? Spong is a fringe kook and is no Christian. I didn't decide this, the Council of Nicea did. If he were honest he would leave and start his own religion, maybe the Church of Spong? The funny thing is this guy thinks he can save Christianity (I didn't know it needed it) while his own diocese of Newark while he was bishop lost something like half its members.

Christianity desperately needs to be dragged kicking and screaming out of the Dark Ages, and away from its reputation as the religion of vengeful primitive ignorance.

Maybe that's the reputation among hateful militant secularists.