The virgin birth

[Pytine]

After the resurrection, the virgin birth is probably the biggest miracle associated with Jesus. It is even included in the Nicene creed. The virgin birth is reported twice in the New Testament. Are these reports reliable? Is there good corroborative evidence outside of these reports? Or is it more likely to be a legend that developed later?

This brings us to the main question of this debate:

Based on all the evidence available, should we consider the virgin birth of Jesus to be a historical event?

[bjs1]

[Replying to Pytine in post #1]

The virgin birth is funadmenatlly an issue of faith. In the Creed it was placed as an outflow of Jesus' divinity. That is, it only matters that Mary was a virgin because that fact is connected to Jesus being God, "eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light."

If a person believes that Jesus is God, then the virgin birth makes sense in that framework. If a person beleives that Jesus is not God then the virgin birth is unprovable and absurd.

Taking the virgin birth out of its larger context within Christianity (taking virtually any Christian doctrine out of its larger context) is never going to make sense and never be something that can be proven.

[TRANSPONDER]

Good posts all round, and so many flag up particular problems. And one almost puts their finger right on it. If one believes it, it makes sense. If they don't, it is absurd. Almost fingernails it but not quite, because that makes it look like 'believe - or not'. It is not, but is 'should we credit the story as true in the first place?' never mind what it might have been.

We had a nice apologetic or two trying to make a very dubious situation looks perfectly ok and not a problem because God had knocked Mary over and not the milkman. I'll leave the hooting over Mary acting like God's droit de signeuer was some kind of favor rather than a skipping of any matter of consent and consider the often overlooked basic - is there any reason to believe the stories?

The red flag (similar to many other, overlooked by past experts who haven't bothered to look) is that it appears in Matthew and Luke, and the pairing of their material where Mark and John know or record nothing of it looks like a lot of shared material bussed in from elsewhere. Specifically 'Q' document, long overlooked; but now (it seems) others are becoming aware of this material used by only Matthew and Luke but in different ways (sermon on the mount), showing they were not working from a common gospel, and that some of it appears in the same place indicates a context. e.g birth of Jesus means Luke can't transport it to Holy Week as he does with sermon material ).

So that might account for the story popping up, though John shows that Jesus NOT being born in Bethlehem was a Problem (that hadn't raised its' wedge -shaped head when Mark was adapting his copy of the 'M' edition gospel). But let me have a look... well, they don't look at all alike in material, but just Idea, so I'm sticking to the hypothesis of two totally different treatments of this response to Jesus needing to be born in Bethlehem, even though he wasn't, and that Jesus, becoming god, thanks to the adaptation of the Jewish messianism by the Gentile Greeks, had to be sinless (which clearly from the gospels, he wasn't though like the sins of The Father, these are brushed off) means that his father had to be God and not Mary's husband.

"Now hold on there - he wasn't Mary's husband at that time."

"So that makes it ok?"

"Shore does - cause God came to Joseph in a dream and said it was."

Which is why Luke's genealogy ends up with Jesus being son of God - though everyone though Joseph was the father.
,
But there's this idea of Virginity. It's inherent in both stories but only Matthew (obsessed with the OT as a prophecy quotemine) makes a big deal of it. What does Luke say? Well he does what I call the 'detective story slip'. That is, the character says what they do not know, but the writer does. When Gabriel tells her the good news, she says she doesn't know how it will happen as she has no husband. Of course, she will reason that Joseph will be the father. Luke knows that he will not be, but Mary doesn't.

If any doubt was needed that these stories were a real record and not made up to explain a later bit of doctrine, that should be a clue. That is. that Matthew and Luke invented this material in response to a doctrinal need, and is not a record of a real event.

I'll leave aside the whole business of the OT not actually predicting a virgin birth, as that's well known, but just stick with 'these are invented stories'.

[bjs1]

Good posts all round, and so many flag up particular problems. And one almost puts their finger right on it. If one believes it, it makes sense. If they don't, it is absurd. Almost fingernails it but not quite, because that makes it look like 'believe - or not'. It is not, but is 'should we credit the story as true in the first place?' never mind what it might have been.

Neither, “believe – or not,” nor, “should we credit the story as true in the first place?” are accurate, since both approach the virgin birth backwards.

The questions are, “Do you believe in God?” And “Do you believe Christianity correctly expresses who God is?” And “Do you believe that Jesus is the embodiment of God, both symbolically and literally.”

To say “believe – or not,” (I think that this was a reference to my post, but if so it misrepresents what I wrote), or to say “should we credit the story as true in the first place?” is putting the cart before the horse, so to speak. I would compare both approaches to someone who attempts to do calculous before he learns arithmetic.

Someone who does not know arithmetic could ask, “should we credit calculous as correct in the first place?” I imagine, if that person will not credit what others have said the topic, he will outright reject calculous as absurd or something akin to invited stories.

This says nothing about the accuracy of inaccuracy of calculous. It just means that the hypothetical individual has rejected the foundation that calculous is built on.

[TRANSPONDER]

Good posts all round, and so many flag up particular problems. And one almost puts their finger right on it. If one believes it, it makes sense. If they don't, it is absurd. Almost fingernails it but not quite, because that makes it look like 'believe - or not'. It is not, but is 'should we credit the story as true in the first place?' never mind what it might have been.

Neither, “believe – or not,” nor, “should we credit the story as true in the first place?” are accurate, since both approach the virgin birth backwards.

The questions are, “Do you believe in God?” And “Do you believe Christianity correctly expresses who God is?” And “Do you believe that Jesus is the embodiment of God, both symbolically and literally.”

To say “believe – or not,” (I think that this was a reference to my post, but if so it misrepresents what I wrote), or to say “should we credit the story as true in the first place?” is putting the cart before the horse, so to speak. I would compare both approaches to someone who attempts to do calculous before he learns arithmetic.

Someone who does not know arithmetic could ask, “should we credit calculous as correct in the first place?” I imagine, if that person will not credit what others have said the topic, he will outright reject calculous as absurd or something akin to invited stories.

This says nothing about the accuracy of inaccuracy of calculous. It just means that the hypothetical individual has rejected the foundation that calculous is built on.

I stand by what I say, and I think it is you who have it backwards. The thing is that we do not question the validity of calculus before we ask whether the problem is worked out right; That is, we do not dismiss the science basics as invalid before we discuss the religious claims.

But religious claims are not validated and faithbased belief rather than assessing the case with evidence and logic is the place we end up, with evidence, science, logic and the best explanation dismissed in favor of Faith in the Bible, Jesus and the claims of religion.

Believe - or not. You know this happens, if you have followed discussions here.

[Revelations won]

To the OP and all respondents,

It is interesting to see the many and varied suppositions, guesses, speculations, calculations and deductive conclusions that so many arrive at when the clear fact is that all of these are based on fragmentary evidence or the private interpretation of others.

Is it not clearly time for all to put away all these supported conception theories? God does not always give us a complete account of things, but does give us understanding based on our spiritual preparedness. (The last time I checked it appears that God usually gives us the answers needed line upon line and precept upon precept.) They vast majority have placed their own self determination,ined "gag order" upon themselves and have by their own choice refused to receive further revelation from God. With this man made approach, man has therefore closed the window of knowledge which could otherwise be obtained only by recvelation from God.

Therefore man is left to his own deductive "private" interpretation and reasoning by this approach which results in the "blind leading the blind" quagmire.

The Jewish leaders of the day falsely accused Christ of being a "bastard child " born out of wedlock. Many today also hold to this same self imposed blind conclusion.

My position is clearly that "Jesus Christ is the only legitimate son of God born of the Father in the flesh." Having said that, it is obvious that "Mary is first and foremost the wife of God the father." For anyone to argue otherwise one would also place themselves in the same "private interpretation" which the the Jewish leaders placed themselves.

Kind regards,
RW

[Revelations won]

To the OP and all respondents,

It is interesting to see the many and varied suppositions, guesses, speculations, calculations and deductive conclusions that so many arrive at when the clear fact is that all of these are based on fragmentary evidence or the private interpretation of others.

Is it not clearly time for all to put away all these supported conception theories? God does not always give us a complete account of things, but does give us understanding based on our spiritual preparedness. (The last time I checked it appears that God usually gives us the answers needed line upon line and precept upon precept.) They vast majority have placed their own self determination,ined "gag order" upon themselves and have by their own choice refused to receive further revelation from God. With this man made approach, man has therefore closed the window of knowledge which could otherwise be obtained only by recvelation from God.

Therefore man is left to his own deductive "private" interpretation and reasoning by this approach which results in the "blind leading the blind" quagmire.

The Jewish leaders of the day falsely accused Christ of being a "bastard child " born out of wedlock. Many today also hold to this same self imposed blind conclusion.

My position is clearly that "Jesus Christ is the only legitimate son of God born of the Father in the flesh." Having said that, it is obvious that "Mary is first and foremost the wife of God the father." For anyone to argue otherwise one would also place themselves in the same "private interpretation" which the the Jewish leaders placed themselves.

Kind regards,
RW

[TRANSPONDER]

To the OP and all respondents,

It is interesting to see the many and varied suppositions, guesses, speculations, calculations and deductive conclusions that so many arrive at when the clear fact is that all of these are based on fragmentary evidence or the private interpretation of others.

Is it not clearly time for all to put away all these supported conception theories? God does not always give us a complete account of things, but does give us understanding based on our spiritual preparedness. (The last time I checked it appears that God usually gives us the answers needed line upon line and precept upon precept.) They vast majority have placed their own self determination,ined "gag order" upon themselves and have by their own choice refused to receive further revelation from God. With this man made approach, man has therefore closed the window of knowledge which could otherwise be obtained only by revelation from God.

Therefore man is left to his own deductive "private" interpretation and reasoning by this approach which results in the "blind leading the blind" quagmire.

The Jewish leaders of the day falsely accused Christ of being a "bastard child " born out of wedlock. Many today also hold to this same self imposed blind conclusion.

My position is clearly that "Jesus Christ is the only legitimate son of God born of the Father in the flesh." Having said that, it is obvious that "Mary is first and foremost the wife of God the father." For anyone to argue otherwise one would also place themselves in the same "private interpretation" which the the Jewish leaders placed themselves.

Kind regards,
RW

What are we to say of this magical thinking, faith -claims and 'it is a mystery' excuses? Fragmentary evidence in (for example) archaeology is sometime suggestive, sometimes convincing. The same method is done with the evidence of the gospels. The nativities contradict. Luke goes into excessive details of which Mark (as is often the case) says nothing and John denies it in a roundabout way as when Jesus needing to be born in Bethlehem comes up neither Jesus nor John say 'He was born in Bethlehem, so there'.

The evidence is, it is not true, but invented to put right a scriptural omission. This is compelling evidence and only those determined to believe it and mislead others about it, with Christmas card scenes of wise men and shepherds turning up as a cowshed at two in the morning with the star hovering three feet overhead, will dismiss and ignore it. It is, to be brutally honest, lying about what's actually in the Bible, to people too lazy to look.

So why would we believe the virgin birth? I already point to Matthew's liking for the OT as a quarry for quotemines and misinterpreted OT text. He misread the two donkeys, and misrepresented the prophecy of the massacre of innocents, so why not the Almah/Bethulah misreading, especially if Matthew only read the OT in mistranslated Greek? (1) I suspect this is why Jesus' "Babes and sucklings" is not what is in the OT but is what is in the Septuagint

Luke, on the other hand, uses history records. We can see indications that he uses Josephus, but doesn't understand him. Which is why we get the Roman tax applying to Antipas' client state, which it probably really didn't, and Joseph having to go back to an ancestral city when people (as that often wagged Egyptian tax document shows) were registered entire by head of family, not needing the wife to sign, in the place they lived and worked. It is a fiddle to get Jesus born in Bethlehem by whatever excuse necessary, and it makes no sense, as well as utterly contradicting Matthew's account. As indeed do the Genealogies. cut and pasted (if not invented) by Matthew and Luke, put in different places (not copied from Mark as apologists often claim, and there's proof right there that they invented it) and lied about by apologists that one is the line of Mary when both are clearly ending up at Joseph.

The relevance being, why should we believe this crazy story about a virgin birth? It makes no sense, shows a wretched disregard for any human dignity and (as I argue) shows many signs of being independently invented by Matthew and Luke to sort out a spiritual problem that God omitted when dictating his Book.

Your post (aside from what you claim about what the 'Jewish leaders' thought, which appeased guesswork and based on your prejudices, too), seems just brushing away any objections and appealing to Faith.

This 'believe - or not - approach is clearly the nub of the problem. Apologists either dismiss evidence or fiddle it and trust that the believers or the deluded crowd will so heavily outnumber the doubters that the latter can be safely ignored and a few online voices put down by apologetics, either dismissive of evidence or lying about it.

We goddless, however, have to have Faith that people do care about the truth, are willing to hear the evidence, and do not care to be lied to and bamboozled by those who try to fool them into accepting miracle claims like the virgin birth.

(1) I have sometime to do a comparison of Isaiah, Qumran Isaiah and Septuagint Isaiah to see whether the differences in Qumran (oh yes) match the Septuagint, which would suggest the Mazoretic text is wrong and the Septuagint was the version used even by strict Jewish sects, which would be frankly astonishing.

[Revelations won]

Dear Transponder,

Thank you for your response. you did not respond by agreeing or disagreeing with my statement quoted below.

"My position is clearly that "Jesus Christ is the only legitimate son of God born of the Father in the flesh." Having said that, it is obvious that "Mary is first and foremost the wife of God the father." For anyone to argue otherwise one would also place themselves in the same "private interpretation" which the the Jewish leaders placed themselves."

For that matter no one else has challenged my statement either.

Kind regards,
RW

[TRANSPONDER]

I Think I did. I do not believe it and I said why the story is not credible. Faithclaims prove nothing, and the bottom line is, if the account in the Gospels is not to be trusted, we can make no claioms about what the Jewish leaders thought or did, because the story is written by Christian writers with an agenda to push.

I think there is good reason to think so, some of which i set out. A response being little more than a declaration of faith in Block caps is hardly a persuasive rebuttal.