Freethought & Rationalism Archive

schilling.klaus · 02-29-2008, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Half-Life

Another thing I don't get is, if you believe in Virgin birth, why did God do that?

Put a child in a 14 year old girl for no reason when God could have just shown up, placed the baby next to Mary and that's that.

O what if he shot Jesus through the sky like a shooting star and he landed right next to them?

That would've made for a lot of historical writings from people.

the stories are to be understood as idealist-metaphysacal allegories , based on common ancient mythology and dogmatism, not literally as Holding's henchmen do.

Klaus Schilling

Splarnst · 02-29-2008, 01:08 PM

The virgin birth is right in the text of the gospels. How do any Christians dismiss it without dismissing every other miracle contained therein?

Half-Life · 02-29-2008, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Equinox

Nearly all churches with a stated doctrine on it claim the virgin birth. The difference between Cathy-licks and protestants on the issue of Mary’s virginity is AFTER the birth of Jesus. Both say Mary was virgin before the birth (no sex during the pregnancy either - see Mt 1:25). C & orthodox say Mary is ever-virgin, protestants say she had kids later (see Mk 3:31, for instance). But all agree Mary was virgin until after Jesus’ birth.

Some very liberal churches like the Episcopal church tolerate people saying the virgin birth isn’t true, but it’s not doctrine. I’d be interested if you can point us to ANY stated doctrine from ANY church that says the Jesus was not born of a virgin.

Equinox

So was Jesus born of a virgin? or was he born of a non-virgin?

because that verse you showed says he was born of a virgin.

However, if there was no prophecy, how could he be born of a virgin?

Half-Life · 02-29-2008, 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Revolutionary

The virgin birth is right in the text of the gospels. How do any Christians dismiss it without dismissing every other miracle contained therein?

Well the PROPHECY can be dismissed, but then why was he born of a Virgin?

how does anyone know?

GenesisNemesis · 02-29-2008, 01:13 PM

Why do I doubt the entire Bible?

mg01 · 02-29-2008, 01:13 PM

Matthew is the only gospel that references that bit in Issiah. We know he was using the Greek version of the scriptures because the Greek has "virgin" and the Hebrew has "young girl". The author of Matthew is appears to be Jewish (Luke Greek, Mark on the fence) and goes out of his way to indicate "this happened because it was written..." and goes on to quote some place in scripture. Most of these "Matthewisms" are not found in Mark and Luke. Mark makes scriptual references as allegory or metaphor, Matthew goes out of his way to explain the reference.

If you look at the bits of the synoptics that are common to all three, you'll see that this is the majority of the "historical/biographical" material. The bits in Matthew and Luke that aren't in Mark provide almost no extra material, (save the virgin birth stories which, as you have seen, were added based on a mistranslation). All of this common material has roots in scriptural references, be it the adventures of Elijah and Elisha, the prophets, or Psalms. Psalm 22 is basically the passion narrative told in reverse order. So you have to ask, did it fortell events or was the narrative based of it? (Right back to the prophecy topic again.)

Whether you which to agree with his conclusions or not, take a look at this analysis, The Gospel of Mark as Reaction and Allegory, that does an excellent job of pointing out the OT references from the synoptics.

copernicus · 02-29-2008, 01:20 PM

Whether or not the original wording from Isaiah referred to a 'young woman' or a 'virgin' strikes me as irrelevant. People in those times often saw god-men as born of a union between a god and a woman. Caesar Augustus himself was said to have arrived on earth by that method. Since one could verify virginity as a physical fact, then a birth would be evidence of a true miracle. Hence, it made the story that Jesus was the son of God a bit more credible. Nowadays, when stories of virgin births don't carry quite the weight that they used to in establishing divine credentials, the story only remains as a legacy. More liberal Christians can more easily pick that "cherry" out of the story and discard it. To be a successful believer, you have to be able to select which aspects of doctrine to promote and which to deprecate.

Sheshbazzar · 02-29-2008, 01:24 PM

The "Feel Good" club has little concern for such abstractions as Bible accuracy, as they are too busy sucking up the fruits, to examine the roots.

Half-Life · 02-29-2008, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mg01

Matthew is the only gospel that references that bit in Issiah. We know he was using the Greek version of the scriptures because the Greek has "virgin" and the Hebrew has "young girl". The author of Matthew is appears to be Jewish (Luke Greek, Mark on the fence) and goes out of his way to indicate "this happened because it was written..." and goes on to quote some place in scripture. Most of these "Matthewisms" are not found in Mark and Luke. Mark makes scriptual references as allegory or metaphor, Matthew goes out of his way to explain the reference.

If you look at the bits of the synoptics that are common to all three, you'll see that this is the majority of the "historical/biographical" material. The bits in Matthew and Luke that aren't in Mark provide almost no extra material, (save the virgin birth stories which, as you have seen, were added based on a mistranslation). All of this common material has roots in scriptural references, be it the adventures of Elijah and Elisha, the prophets, or Psalms. Psalm 22 is basically the passion narrative told in reverse order. So you have to ask, did it fortell events or was the narrative based of it? (Right back to the prophecy topic again.)

Whether you which to agree with his conclusions or not, take a look at this analysis, The Gospel of Mark as Reaction and Allegory, that does an excellent job of pointing out the OT references from the synoptics.

I have just read Psalm 22.

This doesn't seem like any prophecies either.

It just seems to be a poem written by King David singing it to God.

it seems David is talking about himself in a metaphorical way. How do we know he was alluding to Jesus?

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm+22

This is getting stranger and stranger for me.

Splarnst · 02-29-2008, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Half-Life

Well the PROPHECY can be dismissed, but then why was he born of a Virgin?

how does anyone know?

Because just about every other god-man in the ancient world was?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-29-2008, 01:08 PM	#12
Splarnst Contributor Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Jacksonville, Florida Posts: 13,161	The virgin birth is right in the text of the gospels. How do any Christians dismiss it without dismissing every other miracle contained therein?

02-29-2008, 01:13 PM	#15
GenesisNemesis Contributor Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: A pale blue oblate spheroid. Posts: 20,351	Why do I doubt the entire Bible?

02-29-2008, 01:13 PM	#16
mg01 Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: USA Posts: 197	Matthew is the only gospel that references that bit in Issiah. We know he was using the Greek version of the scriptures because the Greek has "virgin" and the Hebrew has "young girl". The author of Matthew is appears to be Jewish (Luke Greek, Mark on the fence) and goes out of his way to indicate "this happened because it was written..." and goes on to quote some place in scripture. Most of these "Matthewisms" are not found in Mark and Luke. Mark makes scriptual references as allegory or metaphor, Matthew goes out of his way to explain the reference. If you look at the bits of the synoptics that are common to all three, you'll see that this is the majority of the "historical/biographical" material. The bits in Matthew and Luke that aren't in Mark provide almost no extra material, (save the virgin birth stories which, as you have seen, were added based on a mistranslation). All of this common material has roots in scriptural references, be it the adventures of Elijah and Elisha, the prophets, or Psalms. Psalm 22 is basically the passion narrative told in reverse order. So you have to ask, did it fortell events or was the narrative based of it? (Right back to the prophecy topic again.) Whether you which to agree with his conclusions or not, take a look at this analysis, The Gospel of Mark as Reaction and Allegory, that does an excellent job of pointing out the OT references from the synoptics.

02-29-2008, 01:20 PM	#17
copernicus Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Bellevue, WA Posts: 1,531	Whether or not the original wording from Isaiah referred to a 'young woman' or a 'virgin' strikes me as irrelevant. People in those times often saw god-men as born of a union between a god and a woman. Caesar Augustus himself was said to have arrived on earth by that method. Since one could verify virginity as a physical fact, then a birth would be evidence of a true miracle. Hence, it made the story that Jesus was the son of God a bit more credible. Nowadays, when stories of virgin births don't carry quite the weight that they used to in establishing divine credentials, the story only remains as a legacy. More liberal Christians can more easily pick that "cherry" out of the story and discard it. To be a successful believer, you have to be able to select which aspects of doctrine to promote and which to deprecate.

02-29-2008, 01:24 PM	#18
Sheshbazzar Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: On the path of knowledge Posts: 8,889	The "Feel Good" club has little concern for such abstractions as Bible accuracy, as they are too busy sucking up the fruits, to examine the roots.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.