Was Jesus born of a virgin?

I say Mary was fooling around on the side, told a whopper of a lie, and voila`! Of course, she ruined it for all future “naughty” girls, that’s a lie that only goes over a few times. ;)

By the way Adamus, would love to get a hold of some links/documentation to back up the statements you made. I wholly agree with it, I just love finding more ammo.

I’ll raise you one and say Jesus never even existed! There’s no reliable evidence of that, either.

My attempt at bad humour didn’t work so well then? :(

While jebus may never have existed, do not dare doubt Brian! Do you follow the shoe or the gourd?

:P

@Confused: For the NT, Ehrman’s Misquoting Jesus is a good intro. For the OT, I’ve heard good things about Friedman’s Who Wrote the Bible but haven’t gotten to reading it yet.

I’m sure there are many great resources on the history of the Bible online, but I don’t have any saved. Readers, any recommendations?

@Confused -

Unfortunately, the OT receives far less online attention than the NT. I can point to Peter Kirby’s “Early Jewish Writings,” a companion to his “Early Christian Writings,” as a good source for scholarly writings on the Bible. Naturally, it’s down, but give thanks for the miracle of the Wayback Machine: http://web.archive.org/web/20041012051040/www.earlyjewishwritings.com/
http://web.archive.org/web/20041027073637/www.earlychristianwritings.com/

Yes, but those 5 reasons are just common sense. And as we all know, common sense is something you must abandon in the first place to take the bible serious, so this reasoning will not really convince any Christian.

Maybe some of the things listed here are what a Christian would or should bother about:

http://www.onyxbits.de/biblebookmark

Scott:

Actually, there’s solid evidence Jesus existed, and that the basic facts of his life as presented in the Gospels are true (i.e., where he was born and lived, his reputation as a teacher and miracle worker, and his execution by the Romans). He’s mentioned in at least one reliable contemporary history, by a Roman named Flavius Josephus.

The controversy is not whether Jesus existed, but rather whether we can believe the outlandish claims made by the writers of the Bible: that he was born of a virgin, that he performed bona-fide miracles, and that he rose from the dead.

It is proven to have happened in nature, and it shouldn’t matter if it is scientifically proven. God has the powers that noone or nothing else has. He can do remarkable things.

Now I sometimes wonder about the virgin birth thing too, but that is because it isn’t proven to have happened in any other time of the world, however I am sure if we delved deep enough, we can find evidence.

I was taught that Jesus was born of Mary, who had never felt a man’s touch before she gave birth to Jesus, and that is what I believe.

@Debra

Now I sometimes wonder about the virgin birth thing too, but that is because it isn’t proven to have happened in any other time of the world…

Are you implying that there is proof that Mary was a virgin? Where is this proof? Is your proof the fact that it was written in the bible?

I was at the grocery store the other day and a magazine at the checkout told me Brittany Spears is having Osama Bid Laden’s love child. Is that proof?

GOD save you because at the moment you are going to go to hell.

I believe in Jesus born of a virgin coz its evidence is in Quran…

Read Bishop Spong’s book “Jesus for Non Christains.” In there he devotes an entire chapter to exploring the parts of the gospels which show that Mary’s contemporaries thought her a slut for being an unwed mother. IIRC, Spong believes that the virgin birth nonsense was added long after by revisionists in an attempt to improve her reputation.

@Wagar -

Um, ok, do you also believe that Jesus was removed from the cross and escaped alive?

Hi Daniel,
In your earlier, longer article I found this single comment pointing out the glaring argument which is above all missing among your given five.

http://unreasonablefaith.com/2008/06/20/why-i-deny-the-virgin-birth-of-jesus/#comment-2168

Mark:
“Plus, if Jesus WERE the result of an immaculate conception, he would only have had Mary’s genes.
…and Mary’s sex chromosomes are XX.
So, IF Jesus WERE somehow an immuculate conception.
…then he was a woman!
Mary had no Y chromosome to give!”

Now, I would not phrase it quite like that, because Mark does confuse the issues a bit. But he is absolutely right that boy-people do need a father to donate that little Y-thing which turns them into men, in time… with luck…

And that daddydonor had better be human and in possession of the correct kind of genes…

But then again, faith is faith and it kind of really needs the inexplicable, incomprehensible miracle of utter crazy to exist at all, right? There are more examples of this…

After that brilliant comment of Mark’s, the rest of them quickly became too long and boring to read.

Sure, but then why go to all the trouble of … uh … blessing Mary? I mean, with all the Lego bits of the whole universe at one’s disposal, it seems a tiny bit silly actually to go about it in such a roundabout fashion. Still, as mentioned just above, the crazier the merrier. Necessary hocus pocus.

I once found a funny argument to put to evolution deniers and literal believers*:
1. So, nothing alive has evolved since creation, every critter was created as is, all at almost the same time?
2. So, all critters we now know went on Noah’s Ark, right?
3. There are at least 40 STDs in thriving existance right now. Did they all come from one particular person on board the Ark (a SuperSkank) or did the whole happy family of eight share them?

* believers in one particular translation of one particular selection of a particular set of bronze age goat herds’ oral tradition, transcribed and translated innumerable times before, each time with new slippage but still exactly god’s word; just as much as the different version used by the church next door…

Wanna be crazy? Go ahead, go crazy. Just do it more discreetly, please. And stop proselytizing. Please.

Number 1 is good enough for me!

to believe in the virgin birth is to subscribe to the rest of the stories of christianity.

so no.

although im sure there are plenty of people who would love to claim a virgin birth instead of claiming the father they woke up next to.

happy holidays!

wooo!

I believe in the those days an unmarried woman was known as a ‘virgin’. Just different interpretations of the word perhaps?

First off yes the bible does have errors all over it. It was edited by a group of people to suit their needs forever taking valuable meaning away from the texts. One of the valuable things that was taken away was the true nature of God and what he is really like. How can you worship someone / something that you don’t know anything about?

I am a religious person and looking from the outside in, yes some of the things may seem outlandish and impossible / improbable but if you actually know the type of being God is then it would all make a lot more sense. Acts 3:19-21 talks about a restoration of all things in the future (after the death Jesus and the Apostles). This restoration would not only shed light on the nature of God but also the doctrines that many people argue about.

Without this restoration I would probably have found myself in a simiar postition as most of you, not believing in God, or in the conception of Jesus.

When naming the best woman who ever lived, Mohammed named Mary (Maryam in Arabic), the mother of Jesus, as the best woman to ever live.

Her Birth.
“When the wife of Imran said:

‘O my Lord! I have vowed to You what is in my womb [my child] to be dedicated to Your services, so accept this [my vow] from me. Verily, All-Hearer, the All-Knowing.’ Then we she delivered her she said:

‘O my Lord! I have delivered a female child’ – and Allah knew better what she delivered – ‘And the male is not like the female, and I have named her Maryam and I seek refuge with You for her and for her offspring from Satan, the outcast.’ ” (Quran 3:35-36)

The wife of Imran, and mother of Mary, out of her devotion to God vowed to dedicate the child in her womb to the sacred service of God and asked God to accept her vow. Her hopes were in a male child who will be brought up to service the places of worship and be dedicated to serve God. Delivering a female child, she realized that things did not go according to her plan, but decided to fulfill her vow, and Maryam was the name of the child. And she made a prayer for her newly born asking God to protect her and her offspring from Satan. The verses following described the response of God to the vow and to the prayer of the mother:

“So her Lord accepted her [Maryam] with good acceptance.” (Quran 3:37).

Her Upbringing.
Quran verses 3:37 continue ..

“So her Lord accepted her with good acceptance. He made her grow in a good manner and put her under the care of Zachariya. Every time he entered Al-Mihrab (the praying place) to visit her, he found her supplied with sustenance [food]. He said:

‘O Maryam! From where have you got this?’ She said:
‘This is from Allah. Verily, Allah provides sustenance who He wills, without limit.’ ”

So Mary was accepted by God, and was brought up in a good manner after she was put under the care of Zachary. Through her devotion and righteous upbringing and the prayer from her mother, Mary became the best woman to ever live as depicted in the Quran in the verses 3:42:

“And (remember) when the angels said: ‘O Maryam (Mary)! Verily, Allah (God) has chosen you, purified you (from polytheism and disbelief), and chosen you above the women of the world (of her lifetime).’ ”

In the19th chapter of the Quran (which is called Maryam) Mary receives a visitor from God:

“And mention in the Book, Maryam [i.e. mention, O Mohammed, in the Quran the story of Mary], when she withdrew from her family to a place facing east. She placed a screen from them; then We sent to her our angel (Jibrael, or Gabriel), and he appeared before her in the form of a man in full human form. She said:

‘I seek refuge with The Most Beneficent [God] from you, if you do fear Him.’ (The angel) said:

‘I am only a Messenger from your Lord, (to announce) to you the gift of a righteous son.’ She said:

‘How can I have a son, when no man has touched me, nor am I unchaste?’ He (the angel) said:

‘So (it will be), your Lord said: ‘That is easy for Me: And to appoint him as a sign to mankind and a mercy from Us (from God)’, and it is a matter (already) decreed (by God).’ ” (Quran 19:16-21)

In these verses, it is described how the pious virgin Mary is visited by angel Gabriel, who appears before her in a form of a man. Not knowing who he is, she fears for herself, but he asserts to her that he is an angel, a Messenger from her Lord, and announces to her news of her miraculous conception of a son. In shock, she questions, affirming her chastity. The angel answers that such a conception, though miraculous, is easy for The Lord, all He needs to say is “Be.” and it is. And that these are matters decreed by Him, for greater purposes and to the benefit of mankind.

And then, miraculously, Mary becomes pregnant. The emotional story of her pregnancy follows:

“So she conceived him, and she withdrew with him to a far place . And the pains of childbirth drove her to the trunk of a date-palm. She said:

‘Would that I had died before this, and had been forgotten and out of sight!’ Then a call unto her from bellow, said:

‘Grieve not! Your Lord has provided a water stream under you; And shake the trunk of the date-palm towards you, it will let fall fresh ripe dates upon you. So eat and drink and be glad, and if you see any human being, say:

‘Verily! I have vowed a fast unto the Most Beneficent so I shall not speak to any human being this day.’ ” (Quran 19:22-26)

From these versus one mentally pictures Mary, driven out of town, out of sight to Bethlehem valley 4-6 miles from Jerusalem, in the pain of labor, and in fear of what is going to happen to her. It is her first child, she has no husband. What will her people, the Jews, say? What will they do? How will she react? With all that, she wishes that she was dead, but the God who gave her the miracle, the God to Whom she worshipped, to Whom she devoted her life, did not forsake her. A voice came from beneath her, soothing and comforting her, and guiding her. And when she gave birth, the voice instructed her not to speak or explain, but make a vow of silence and everything will workout.

“Then she brought him (the baby) to her people, carrying him. They said:

‘O Maryam! Indeed you have brought a thing which is greatly evil! O sister of Haron (i.e. O you who we consider the like of Haron, who was a pious man at the time of Mary)! Your father was not a bad man (adulterous), nor was your mother an unchaste woman.’ Then she pointed to him (to the baby). They said:

‘How can we talk to one who is a child, in the cradle?’ ” (Quran 19:27-29)

Mary gives birth to the child, and takes him back to her village. And there Mary meets the Jews. Upon seeing her with her baby, they are struck. In their eyes, she has done a heinous crime. Their argument was: ‘How could you do something so evil! We always considered you a model person of piety, and you come from a pious family — known and respected!’. But Mary obeys the commands of her Lord. She is quiet and points to the baby.

Former Christian? You never were a christian. If you had been you would have had that same unreasonable faith that would lead you to believe the bible. I was what you are, but you have not been what I am. Check with some true historians and see whether they believe that the bible is historically accurate. Check in the field of anthropology. It makes for a great study. Hope you will do so and I know you will enjoy it if you will try.

To the haters — there is no “proof” your great, great, great, great, great grandfather existed. Do you have his birth certificate? Do you know of any contemporaneous reference to him in late 18th century sources? Skeptics who start going down the “positivist” road looking for scientific evidence will be sorely disappointed when they realize it’s hard to know reliably what happened yesterday, much less two thousand years ago. How do you know Josephus existed? Because someone of that name wrote a book. How do you know Jesus existed? Because a third of the planet says so? Or not. Maybe the dinosaurs never existed either. For the lit lovers in the audience, the only record of Catullus’s life is a single book of poems he left behind and a reference in Cicero (to use an example close to the life of Jesus). The question of the virgin birth is of a different order of skepticism. Here we take the natural world to be a system that works on rationally comprehensible laws that cannot be broken even by God himself, and conclude that something that is impossible empirically according to those rules must be a lie. But don’t go patting yourselves on the back yet. plenty of ink has been spilled about the power of God to do anything, even contradict laws he himself set down. Newton, the almost/co- inventor of calculus and member of the Royal Society was an occultist Christian and held this view. But the sad irony of this post, which is shared by most of the commentors, is that your skepticism and science are probably just good old-fashioned faith renamed. Yes, science can do a lot by way of explaining the natural universe, but misplaced faith in its power — especially in the realm of the human (or divine) — is just as dangerous as religious fanaticism. Witness the world wide financial crisis brought on by “free market fundamentalism”. You think that you’re so much more advanced and well informed than people who lived two hundred years ago, much less two thousand years ago, but irony of ironies, that is exactly how those scientists of the early 19th century felt. (Hence Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein.) That’s how your great grandfather felt when he got his first telegraph — “the end of the world is here because we have achieved the height of human wisdom!” — and that was two days before the first World War started.

Not a good time to make these kind of comments…

Daniel, there is no proof that will compel you to believe in the virgin birth but there is no proof that it isn’t so either. It’s really not the issue you need to deal with. The Creator of you and all creatures could persuade a virgin to get involved in His miraculous plan to incarnate Himself. If the trinitarian God is there He’s your BIG problem. Push is going to come to shove sooner or later. No later than the day you die. You might not like His ‘might is right’ posture but you’d be advised to get used to it early. That might be a wiser eternal move for you than that of the significant other person who takes your position; old hairylegs. Woooo. Mary was smarter than you are. She said, “Let it be to me as You have said”.

I don;t know about you lot, but I’ve bene having a kick-ass Feast of Sol Invictus!

Daniel, there is no proof that will compel you to believe in the virgin birth but there is no proof that it isn’t so either. It’s really not the issue you need to deal with. The Creator of you and all creatures could persuade a virgin to get involved in His miraculous plan to incarnate Himself. If the trinitarian God is there He’s your BIG problem. Push is going to come to shove sooner or later. No later than the day you die. You might not like His ‘might is right’ posture but you’d be advised to get used to it early. That might be a wiser eternal move for you than that of the significant other person who takes your position; old hairylegs. Woooo. Mary was smarter than you are. She said, “Let it be to me as You have said”.

There is no proof that the virgin birth didn’t happen because that would be proof of a negative proposition. There can never be empirical proof of a negative proposition. In other words, supplying proof that the virgin birth didn’t occur is IMPOSSIBLE. It is similarly impossible to supply proof that unicorns don’t exist or that rocks never fly through the air of their own accord. And yet I don’t feel compelled to believe in either of those.

But let’s play your little game. Shunta Ha’Roreth (praise!) has revealed to me that HE is the only true god and that your little Yahweh/Jesus fellow is a trickster demon who has fooled half the world into believing falsehoods. Shunta has told me that he is angered that his creations could be so easily fooled and that he plans to punish all of them for eternity after they die. You may not like Shunta’s emphasis on skepticism and self-reliance, but you’d be advised to get used to it early.

Prove me wrong. Prove to me that I have not received divine revelation from a deity named Shunta Ha’Roreth. If you can’t, at least prove to me that the revelation is false. If you can’t do that, explain to me why I should believe what you tell me about Jesus when you don’t believe what I tell you about Shunta Ha’Roreth.

It’s about FAITH. Faith is believing. If some of us don’t believe, then it is alright. If most of the people believe, then it’s up to them.

Man, there is no proof for your speculations as to why the virgin birth of Jesus (peace be on him) was “fabricated” (fabricated according to you).

It is simply silly to ask Christianity or Islam for a DNA proof of the virgin birth. Nobody is dying for convincing anybody of such things. If God so wished, nobody would be able to disbelieve after all. The virgin birth is only understood as part of the larger question of the existence and power of God and His caring for and relationship with humankind.

You (we) are the ones who were given all that you have and enjoy for free and it is your responsibility to actively search for the source of these favours. The giver of the favours does not have to desperately hanker after you and provide you with lots of evidences like a true servant to convince you of Himself. Come on, you can think better.

Wow. Folks must not have much to do on Christmas Eve.

I’m seeing a lot of arguments for the historicity of the Virgin Birth, but they’re coming across as confessions of faith rather than actual arguments.

Were I a Christian, I might find it easier to believe that this Yeshua was the child of YHWH. Were I a Hindu, I would likely feel that Jesus was another avatar of Vishnu. Had I been a Marcionite or a gnostic, I would probably makes sense that Jesus had appeared fully formed and adult in Capernaeum. Were I a Jew, I might believe that Jesus was a very important prophet in the line of David and Solomon (both of whom were referred to as a ’son of God’). Perhaps YHWH had aided in his conception in the same manner as He had in with so many other Jewish heroes: Isaac, Samuel, Samson, etc.

Where we start often determines where we end up. Our presuppositions help shape our sense-making abilities. What seems sensible to you (virgin birth through God’s power) may seem less sensible to another believer (God just doesn’t work like that!) and non-sensible to a non-believer.

What argument can you offer me that is non-sectarian? Can anyone offer me an argument that a Buddhist, a Hindu, a Zoroastrian, and a Marxist would all agree is rational – even if not convincing?

Or do we just accept that “truth” is completely relative, depending entirely on our presuppositions?

> if such a Being does exist who can form life and design a universe like this to support it, how big of a problem would virgin birth <

Natecrew, the universe hardly seems designed to support life, at least life as we know it, the kind that walks or crawls or flies and/or has self-awareness.

Most of the universe is impossibly hostile to life. Therefore I think it’s more likely your god, if it existed, designed the universe to support non-life. Surely your god loves non-living things more than living things, since it created so many more non-living things.

If we could stick you, natecrew, in the vacuum of space, you’d die instantly. Stick a boulder your size into the same conditions and it would survive unchanged an eternity. I think your god achieved perfection with non-living things, don’t you?

If you think about it, natecrew, life is actually not different than non-life, no matter how much you wish it so. Life is, after all, an accident arising out of a random collection of materials found on earth – and so far, no where else – just as earth itself is an accident arising out of a random collection of materials found in our universe.

“You know, thinking good thoughts about peace on earth, gift giving, decorating a pine tree”

Heretic! Anatema! Everybody knows it absolutely must be a spruce tree.

Or whatever rocks your cradle, I guess… ;-)

Hope you all had a good Winter Solstice holiday.

@Dan L –

The great grandfather argument is irony. Something positivists and douche bags lack altogether. Let me spell it out for you S L O W L Y — just because you CAN’T prove something doesn’t mean it DOESN’T exist. That’s why positivism failed. As for my lack of credentials in the fields of economics and science (or philosophy and religion for that matter), let me assure you I know as much as you. Maybe more.

“Science” as you understand it is merely, ONLY a process. A tool. It’s amazingly easy to grasp. The details of what science has worked out as truth in various fields are complex — no doubt. I will admit I don’t know the math physicists use to support string theory. But I don’t have to in order to know other things. And those things just might be more important than knowing which molecule will make a new and more profitable Prozac. You, Dan, confuse knowledge (science) with technology — or else you wouldn’t make the laughable claim that we “know” more than people 100 years ago. Yes, we know how to communicate instantly and anonymously with each other, but we don’t know how to not control our (that is your) sadistic, sociopathic impulse to insult people because they don’t think like us (and accept our completely undeserved authority as a “scientist”). Your actions and your arrogance show you to be emotionally a child. You have it all figured out, and you’re happy to tell everyone through this online, anonymous forum. But if your science is so powerful, why are you still just a pushy jerk? Please, ask it to conjure up a rational miracle and give you wisdom to match your science.

@wistle:
“But if your science is so powerful, why are you still just a pushy jerk? Please, ask it to conjure up a rational miracle and give you wisdom to match your science.”

Are we to take it, then, that you wistle have indeed conjured up such a miracle and therefor possess the wisdom to NOT be a pushy jerk? Can you in any way substantiate that position? Can you even tell the difference?

Or maybe it is enough for you to feel empowered by teh inspiration from G$d in order to be right, whatever nonsense you might happen to spout?

Enlighten us.

Greater fiction is hard to come by.
Mammals are not Reptiles.
Therefore, while reptilian virgin births have been known to occur, the same does not follow for mammals. The law of Identity can’t be broken or dismissed by somebody’s whim or somebody’s faith or somebodies ignorance.
A is A.

Rats! I’m always the last to know and way down the list on commentators. Anyway…why are you even asking this question? With no God, this is, how you say…a moot point?

Hmmm… I may say, things like this does not matter. As long as I have faith to Someone beyond me (In my religion, we call Him God. Other religions have other name too for Him.), this is all that matters. After all I am just human. Things that happened to which my understanding or scientific mind cannot fathom, I call it a miracle. For me it is only my God who can initiate such act. Things that cannot be explained by science, I call them miracle too!

@natecrew

I’m not ruling out the supernatural here. I’d be perfectly happy accepting a miracle. But here’s the problem: there are thousands of miracle claims from the ancient world. For example, the roman historians record that Augustus was fathered by the god Apollo in the form of a giant white snake, which mated with his mother as she dozed in front of the temple.

That kind of thing doesn’t happen much these days. I, as a historian, have to look back on the past and compare it to what I experience today. This is called the principle of analogy. Since I don’t see too many giant white snakes impregnating sleeping women – though I haven’t tried Google – I have to assign a very low probability to the historicity of this story. I’m afraid I also don’t see too many virgin births. Do you see the problem?

That’s why saying, “there is a creator, and anything can happen,” doesn’t help your cause. Just because anything can happen, doesn’t mean anything specific did happen. I need more than just a statement that “miracles happen”. What evidence can you provide to convince me that this miracle claim, out of the thousands that we have, out of the millions that probably existed in the ancient world, is actually history? Or do we just throw out the principle of analogy and accept every miracle claim at face value? Are you prepared to sacrifice to Apollo?

@The Nomadic Chosha

Um, I think you’ve got the theology only half right. The usual statement is that God became man in order to partake in our nature, so that he could remove our sins from within. What good would it do for God to sacrifice himself to himself? How could humans even enter the equation in that case? God had to pour himself into human form and suffer on the cross. As Hebrews says, Jesus is both the perfect sacrifice and the perfect sacrificing priest.

Honestly, it seems like a silly word game to me, but it’s important in church history. Your view, that Jesus was wholly God and not man, would have gotten you branded a heretic in the early church. There have been a dozen or so different soteriologies in the church, but all of them revolve around Christ’s dual nature and God and man.

@VorJack

Since I don’t see too many giant white snakes impregnating sleeping women – though I haven’t tried Google

AHHHHHHHH!!!! That was awesome.

Ugh… It pains me to read comments like yours that make so much sense to me because I can’t keep from tapping the part of my brain that can come up with irrational and illogical responses to them, because I know that somehow the faithful will always be able to come up with them, and in their mind it will always make sense. It’s fascinating!

The great grandfather argument is irony. Something positivists and douche bags lack altogether. Let me spell it out for you S L O W L Y — just because you CAN’T prove something doesn’t mean it DOESN’T exist. That’s why positivism failed.

You seem to have a surpassingly poor grasp of irony. Yes, being unable to prove something doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Again, why is that a problem? I don’t have to be able to identify my great (etc.) grandfather to verify his existence — in fact, my grandfather was an orphan, and I can’t identify any of his ancestors. But I still know they existed.

As for my lack of credentials in the fields of economics and science (or philosophy and religion for that matter), let me assure you I know as much as you. Maybe more.

Religion I’ll give you. You may have read more philosophy than I have, but I’m not going to take your positions seriously unless you can back them up with some pretty good argumentation. I don’t really know your qualifications regarding economics, but if you think regulation would have prevented the so-called financial crisis, then you’re pretty deluded on that account. So far, you’ve demonstrated a dumbfounding misapprehension of science, though, as below.

“Science” as you understand it is merely, ONLY a process. A tool. It’s amazingly easy to grasp. The details of what science has worked out as truth in various fields are complex — no doubt. I will admit I don’t know the math physicists use to support string theory. But I don’t have to in order to know other things. And those things just might be more important than knowing which molecule will make a new and more profitable Prozac. You, Dan, confuse knowledge (science) with technology — or else you wouldn’t make the laughable claim that we “know” more than people 100 years ago.

You’re not making sense. First, you say science is just a process. Then you say it is knowledge. You claim I confuse knowledge/science with technology, and then claim that it’s laughable to say that we know more than people 100 years ago.

First of all, it’s not clear what it is you’re claiming science to be: the process of discovery, or the knowledge discovered? Or is it both? Secondly, science and technology have always advanced hand in hand. If I gave an integrated circuit to someone who had been frozen since 1908, even if he was the greatest engineer of the time, he would not be able to make heads or tails of it — he would not have been exposed to the necessary science. Actually, there’s only a tiny chance that the person would even know what an electron was, and a 0% chance that he would understand the principles behind, for example, lasers or scanning tunneling microscopes. He would not know that the universe was expanding, and he could only speculate as to the scale (he would almost certainly be way off). We clearly know more about the universe than folks 100 years ago. Likewise, folks 100 years ago were largely aware of the germ theory of disease and of the molecular theory of matter (at least roughly). They knew more than folks 100 years before THEM.

Yes, we know how to communicate instantly and anonymously with each other, but we don’t know how to not control our (that is your) sadistic, sociopathic impulse to insult people because they don’t think like us (and accept our completely undeserved authority as a “scientist”).

Please find me one sentence in any of my posts above where I insulted someone. And I never claimed to be a scientist. In fact, I am emphatically NOT a scientist. Though I have taken a few classes and know a little bit of that math that physicists use to explain…well, not string theory, but some of the math for QM, EM, optics, mechanics, etc.

Your actions and your arrogance show you to be emotionally a child. You have it all figured out, and you’re happy to tell everyone through this online, anonymous forum. But if your science is so powerful, why are you still just a pushy jerk? Please, ask it to conjure up a rational miracle and give you wisdom to match your science.

You’re the one throwing a temper tantrum because I disagreed with you. If you check above, you’ll see that I wrote nothing insulting in any of my posts. I called one of your arguments against positivism (which was apparently a joke) what I thought it was — a stupid argument. If my best friend tried to tell me that I couldn’t prove my great (etc.) grandfather existed, I would tell him the same thing. I called into doubt your knowledge of economics because you said something on the subject that I believe to be wrong (this is somewhat off-topic; if you’d like to argue about this, then I can give you an email address I usually use for spam to continue there). Finally, I asked you if you actually had san argument as to why science is just another faith. That’s certainly as close as I came to insulting you; I came a little closer to insulting “someone,” but pointedly abstained as I mention in the post itself. My argument against “arnoldthepotter” might have seemed disrespectful, but all I actually did wa mirror his claim; that I have a friend whose existence can’t be verified but who will torment him for the rest of eternity if he thinks and behaves differently from me.

You accuse me of being sociopathic, but ultimately YOU’RE the one that thinks that everyone who doesn’t act and think like you is going to burn in a fiery pit for all eternity. That sounds pretty sociopathic to me.

@VorJack

Jesus spoke in Aramaic, knew very little Hebrew, and the “original” books of what is commonly considered the New Testament were written in Greek. Hebrew wasn’t a factor in the mistranslation to which I referred.

@Rrr from 12-24@3:58pm
The primary flaw in your suggested rebuttal is that Jesus was not the immaculate conception. That’s a common mistake amongst those who are “Christmas Catholics” or otherwise not as well-versed in the scriptures. The Immaculate Conception was Mary herself, as she was conceived without sin.

@VorJack again
People were definitely more prone to believing lies and making up fanciful tales of things they had no understanding of, but do you really think Mary would have been the first young girl to say “It must be a miracle, because I’m a virgin!” Um, no. That’s gullibility.

@diestheswan:
You don’t have to believe or agree with the entirety of something to be considered part of it. So you’re saying anyone who has ever lived by the ten commandments is a Christian? Your reasoning is specious.

@Kahve
Read my response to Rrr, and stick to watching Kevin Smith movies.

As an addendum:

I have encountered someone who gave birth with an intact hymen. It is, in fact, possible to conceive and give birth without having had penetrative sex.

Giving birth with an intact hymen? The person you encountered was a liar, and you are a fool for believing them.

Some thoughts on the Virgin Birth from around the web:

Must a Christian believe in the virgin birth? Acording to a recent column by Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Babptist Theological Seminary, yes. He calls out those modernists who disbelieve and gives them a stern talking-to: http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=3041

John Shuck, over at “Shuck and Jive,” calls him out for it. “Mohler, like a true fundamentalist, engages in intellectual bullying.” He calls for all naughty Christians to come out of the closet and profess their disbelief. Unfortunately, we naughty atheists are probably redundant. http://www.shuckandjive.org/2008/12/naughty-christians-should-come-out-this.html

Dr. James McGrath makes a similar point to one I made above: there are multiple traditions in the NT. Insisting on the historicity of the virgin birth means selecting one of those traditions and placing it above the others. http://exploringourmatrix.blogspot.com/2008/12/naughty-christians-of-bible.html

Haven’t heard much about film director Paul Verhoeven’s Life of Jesus project recently. Verhoeven was the director of such immortal classics as “Basic Instinct.” He wrote a book, based on decades of his own research, that was published back in September. However, it was published in his native Dutch and doesn’t seem to be translated yet. Apparently, the most shocking part of his work is the claim that Mary was raped by a Roman soldier, resulting in Jesus.
http://biblefilms.blogspot.com/2008/04/verhoevens-jezus-due-for-publication.html

And only God would have been able to know that if Abraham had not waited eight days to circumcise his son Isaac, the child would have bled to death, because blood will not clot until the eighth day of life. God knew this, and had his word written down with men never knowing why until my own life time.

Having seen scabs appear on my daughter’s heel when blood was drawn from her mere hours after she was born, I can categorically state that blood will clot in children under the age of eight days.

But, even if this was actually right, are you seriously claiming that the Jews could never possibly have seen a baby get cut? Was Abraham the first person to ever circumcise his child? Were there no sharp rocks in the Middle East?

While I’m doing this I may as well continue:

Only God could have known, thousands of years before man made the discovery, that the world was round, it says so in His book.

The Hebrew word the Bible uses is “Chuwg”, which refers to a flat circle. It never describes the Earth as being “Duwr”, meaning spherical. So, God apparently didn’t know the shape of the Earth. God also apparently thought that the sky was a solid layer, and rain was when windows opened in it, to let the water of heaven in.

Only God knew that every star was different, is was written in His book before the astronomers ever figured it out.

Go out into the wilderness, far away from city lights, and look up at the stars. You’ll notice that they’re all different brightnesses and colours. You won’t need God to tell you they’re all different. The Chinese and Egyptians both knew this before the Bible was ever set to paper, which means either that their gods know as much about astronomy as yours, or that you don’t need gods to notice the obvious.

Only God could have known thousands of years ago that there were “paths” or currents in the seas.

The Hebrews weren’t a sea-faring nation, so they’re unlikely to have figured out that the sea has currents from first-hand experience, I’ll grant you (the Polynesians and Greeks, on the other hand, both had very accurate maps of them), but I’m not sure that the Bible makes any reference to ocean currents. The only reference I can see is Psalms 8:8, which seems to be treating the paths of the sea as being exactly like the paths on land, which clearly does not describe currents.

Do you have any other sciency facts that the Bible knew before its time? Because this is fun.

Hi wintermute, the whole blood clotting thing. You seem to have a hard time with dried and coagulation. And by your arguments you simply admit that what I stated is in the bible. The fact that the Hebrews were not sea-faring people makes it even more fascinating that they had it written down. But there is always an argument. As to the stars may I say that I was unclear in my statement, the bible says that they the differ one from another in glory. Just like our fingerprints, they are all different. Thank you for being what you are.

Later

“There was a time that she was.”

Treaty of Tripoli says otherwise.

“That simply means that most of her population was Christian. ”

Oh, make up your own definition then, while we’re re-defining words how about “marriage”?

“Today that is not the case. We have a generation that is religious but not saved. They have a form of Godliness yet they deny the power thereof”

It takes a while for superstitous nonsense to fade, give it time.

“America has become an anti-christian nation.”

Ah, here we go the everpresent persecution complex where the majority cries, “help we are oppressed!”

“The only religions that are being restricted in their public performance of their rites or practices are those that are built upon a faith in the Holy Bible as the Word of God.”

Tell us the names of those other religions that are practiced in public and I’ll be right there beside you to help spread the secularism.

“If you will look at our national holidays, you can see the obvious answer to this question.”

Yes, the courts have ruled that they are secular holidays. I don’t remeber Yule Logs, Trees, Decorations, Santa, and reindeers mentioned in the Bible do you?

“Christmas is a day set aside to celebrate the birth of the Precious Son of God. ”

Its also the birthdate of several other Dieties that preceeded him.

“Easter is a day set aside to celebrate the death the burial and the resurrection of the Son of God. ”

Also known as Eostre, she was the Great Mother Goddess of the Saxon people in Northern Europe. (thats where the little chicks and eggs and baskets come from)

“Thanksgiving was set aside to fast and pray and give thanks to the God of Heaven”

So the American Indians that taught them what crops would grow had nothing to do with it.

“There was once a law in most of our country that businesses shut down on Sunday. Once upon a time, Wed. night prayer service was a time that school activities and sports were prohibited so that people could be in church. ”

There was once a law saying it was ok to own slaves and beat your wife. Good thing we’ve progressed since then.

“Not even the fact that there IS a God and He is real.”

Evidence please.

[debunked crappo deleted]

“I will say that America was once a Christian nation.”

Isn’t free speech grand, why do you want to deny other freedoms to people?”

“we should be allowed to continue with our worship. ”

Not stopping you. You just dont get a gov’t provided forum.

“I do not believe in violent action to carry the word of God.”

Good, because people like that get locked up.

“But what God called sin thousands of years ago, is still sin today.”

Like wearing clothes made from 2 different kinds of cloth?

“What was abomination to God thousands of years ago, is still abomination today. ”

Just like eating Shrimp.

“Prayer is “commanded” by God, not simply allowed.”

Again, no need to stop wacky people from practicing wacky beliefs.

“Homesexuality is condemned by God, not simply disapproved of. ”

Tell us more, wich other parts of Leviticus should we follow.

“And I personally don’t believe in atheism.”

It’s ok, we believe in you.

“I All men know that there is a God, there are simply many who choose to deny Him in rebellion to the very soul that lives within them.”

I’m so glad you were given the power to see into the hearts of men. Is that a power given to you by god, or there a mail order catalog somewhere?

“I do not feel that we as Christians should continually be required by the world of unbelievers to state and explain our beliefs.”

Yet here you are.

“It is the oldest story known to man.”

Wow those guys that found the story of Gilgamesh will be so disappointed.

“Jesus Christ, the Second Person of the Godhead, created all things.”

I thought God came first, then a few thousand years later he got the itch and then knocked up Mary.

“I think we all owe it to Him to read His book and find out how He feels about some things. I am a Christian, I will live by the book.”

I want to buy your Daughter, how much do you want? Don’t have one? I’d like to buy one of the Daughters of your flock.

Everyone else has to make their own choice. To be otherwise would make me a hypocrite. Read the book, cover to cover; and then again; then again; and perhaps you will begin to understand why Christians feel the way they do.”

Then if you sniff glue to kill off enough brain cells, you will actually BE a Christian.

“If I must continue to study secular history, and philosophy, poetry, the sciences, and other religions in order to preach.”

You don’t need to study them, but actually knowing what you are talking about prevents you from looking like a fool.

@jameshknight -
“Only God could have known …”

Of all of your claims, this part seems the most dubious. The others are pointing out that you interpretations of the Tanakh are problematic, but I’d like to ask why you think that only God could have known these facts?

1) As near as we can tell, the Greeks decided that the earth was a sphere independently. The came to this conclusion based on simple observations, like the shape of the earth’s shadow cast on the moon. Why would they need God to explain it to them?

2) The Greeks and Phoenicians had extensive trade routes around the Mediterranean. They necessitated a practical understanding of currents, which they could have worked out on their own through exploration. Why would they need God to explain it to them?

3) The Jews were not to first to use circumcision. Many middle eastern cultures used it as a sacred rite. Surely one of them would have discovered any pitfalls attached to circumcising young infants, if such existed. Why would they need God to explain it to them?

The ancient people were not all drooling idiots who needed God to step in and explain things to them. While they may have been weak on theory, they got along pretty well with the tools they had. Frankly, I think it’s a little insulting to them to suggest that they could never have figured these things out on their own.

Thanks for the encouragement to research again what I wrote. I have been, and am even more certain of it than before.

You’re not even going to try and rebut? Just announce that you’re right, and that’s the end of it? Are you not even going to tell us if you think the Bible says the Earth is round like a ball or round like a plate? Or why you think “paths of the seas” should be interpreted as “currents” rather than “crab migratory paths”?

Can you even tell us what research you did? What sources you consulted?

Nothing better than being more sure.

Well, I’d say being right is better, but clearly you disagree.

“I have been, and am even more certain of it than before.”

GOOD JOB guys… jeez. :o)

“Well, I’d say being right is better, but clearly you disagree.”

…no kidding.