Why I Affirm The Virgin Birth

[Bill the Cat]

Another Christian belief based on assumptions.

Here is the problem with the Christian claim of a Virgin Birth: Christians start with the assumption that it happened, and then search for evidence to confirm that assumption. Let's do something different. Let's start with the evidence and see where it leads to:

1. The first Christian writings were by Paul of Tarsus. Does Paul ever mention that Jesus was born of a virgin?

Why would someone writing to predominantly Gentile churches need to mention a Jewish prophecy?

No. Simply looking at Paul's writings, we are left with the belief that Jesus was God's Son, Jesus was the promised Messiah, and that belief in Jesus forgives sins and merits eternal life. There is no assertion that Jesus is Yahweh himself, nor that Yahweh took on the form of a human by being born of a union between a virgin female human and the Holy Ghost.

Because those things were not under any dispute in those churches. Paul's letters were typically to handle disputes.

2. The next Christian writing is the Gospel of Mark. Any mention of a virgin birth? No.

It was unnecessary.

Any indication that the family of Jesus, including Mary, knew that he was Yahweh, or even the Son of Yahweh? No.

Again, unnecessary.

They thought he was mad. How is it possible that the mother of Jesus assumed he was mad if she had truly received an appearance by the angel Gabriel telling her that she would bare the Son of God??

Please cite where they thought He was mad...

3. We have no mention by any Christian, Jew, Roman, or pagan of the alleged virgin birth of Jesus of Nazareth until the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, written in the 80's or 90's, according to the scholarly consensus!

Bald assertion.

Wow! God himself mates with a human female, and no one in all of Judaism bothers to record this outrageous, never-heard-of-before claim!!

MATES? This alone shows you have no real interest in anything that is contrary to your presuppositions.

So, 40-60 years after Jesus death,

Bald assertion

two anonymous authors,

bald assertion

writing in far away lands,

Bald assertion.

produce two completely different birth narratives of a virgin birth.

Wrong. They are not different.

The two stories are not compatible except by the most bizarre of harmonizations that only someone who believes that the two stories MUST be compatible would believe.

Unfounded opinion.

Why would Matthew, who is known for telling "whoppers"

Circular argument

(zombies roaming the streets and three hour eclipses) write a story about Jesus being born of a virgin: Just as the other skeptic on this thread has said: To make Jesus' birth fit with an OT prophecy, even if he has to completely invent the prophecy by twisting the original Hebrew of the OT text.

Opinion.

Also, Christians were dealing with accusations from Jews that Jesus was illegitimate.

Because that would bring shame to Him. Standard honor/shame practices.

The virgin birth involving a Holy Ghost as the father, was the best rebuttal Christians could come up with and still be able to claim that Jesus was God Incarnate. Without the virgin birth, Jesus was just a man who had been "adopted" as God's Son, either at his birth, at his baptism, or even at his resurrection.

Baseless claims.

The Virgin Birth was an invention of the early Church to plug a gigantic hole in its evolving "christology" of turning a son of God (small "s") into God Himself.

Unfounded opinion.

[Gary]

Here is more evidence AGAINST the idea that anyone in Christianity had heard of a "virgin birth" until Matthew made it up out of whole cloth:

Philo of Alexandria, a Jewish philosopher, was a contemporary of Jesus and died in 50 AD. Even if we are to believe that for some bizarre reason, Jesus kept his virgin-birth origin a secret during his lifetime, if Jewish Christians, beginning on Pentecost, circa 33 AD, were claiming that the Messiah had come AND that the Messiah was Yahweh himself, come in the form of a man/god, the product of the mating of the ghost of Yahweh with a virgin human female; a demi-god who caused the entire region of Palestine to practically explode in revolt...yet Philo says not one word of this man claiming to be Yahweh in the flesh!

To me, this is absolute proof that the Virgin Birth story was a late first century invention, of a panicked Church, trying to create evidence for their higher, new and improved, Christology.

[Gary]

Why would someone writing to predominantly Gentile churches need to mention a Jewish prophecy?



Because those things were not under any dispute in those churches. Paul's letters were typically to handle disputes.



It was unnecessary.



Again, unnecessary.



Please cite where they thought He was mad...



Bald assertion.



MATES? This alone shows you have no real interest in anything that is contrary to your presuppositions.



Bald assertion



bald assertion



Bald assertion.



Wrong. They are not different.



Unfounded opinion.



Circular argument



Opinion.



Because that would bring shame to Him. Standard honor/shame practices.



Baseless claims.




Unfounded opinion.

Here's the thing: If one decides you want to believe something, you can always find one or two verses in the Bible to support your belief.

So if you are writing a story about Jesus in circa 90 AD, and you want Jesus to be born of a virgin, you just get out the Hebrew Bible and scour it for anything talking about a woman having a baby, twist the passage to infer a prophecy about Jesus being born of a virgin, and "voila": a Virgin Birth is born. (bad pun)

Don't believe me? It happens ALL the time in Christianity. That's why Christianity has hundreds (at least) of denominations, sects, and cults.

1. Want to believe that during Communion you are eating and drinking the actual flesh and blood of a 2,000 year old dead man? There are verses to back it up.
2. Want to believe that being dunked in a tub of water saves your miserable soul and gives you eternal life? There are verses to back it up.
3. Want to believe that simply by praying a heartfelt, sincere prayer to an invisible deity as you are walking to the electric chair, your spiritual culpability for murder, rape, and incest is completely wiped clean? There are verses to back it up.
4. Want to believe that you can pick up poisonous snakes and not be harmed? There are verses to back it up.
5. Want to believe that you can drink poison and not be harmed? There are verses to back it up.
6. Want to believe that if you have an addiction to stealing you should cut your hand off or if you have an addiction of lusting with your eyes you should pluck your eye out? There are verses to back it up?
7. Want to believe that women who practice "witchcraft" should be executed? There are verses to back it up.

And the list goes on and on and on.

[One Bad Pig]

Here is more evidence AGAINST the idea that anyone in Christianity had heard of a "virgin birth" until Matthew made it up out of whole cloth:

Philo of Alexandria, a Jewish philosopher, was a contemporary of Jesus and died in 50 AD. Even if we are to believe that for some bizarre reason, Jesus kept his virgin-birth origin a secret during his lifetime, if Jewish Christians, beginning on Pentecost, circa 33 AD, were claiming that the Messiah had come AND that the Messiah was Yahweh himself, come in the form of a man/god, the product of the mating of the ghost of Yahweh with a virgin human female; a demi-god who caused the entire region of Palestine to practically explode in revolt...yet Philo says not one word of this man claiming to be Yahweh in the flesh!

To me, this is absolute proof that the Virgin Birth story was a late first century invention, of a panicked Church, trying to create evidence for their higher, new and improved, Christology.

1) You're confusing "silence" with "evidence."
2) Where, in his writings, do you think Philo should have mentioned Jesus?

[Bill the Cat]

So if you are writing a story about Jesus in circa 90 AD, and you want Jesus to be born of a virgin, you just get out the Hebrew Bible and scour it for anything talking about a woman having a baby, twist the passage to infer a prophecy about Jesus being born of a virgin, and "voila": a Virgin Birth is born. (bad pun)

And every single person who was a Christian before this supposed myth creation would simply say "no it wasn't", and voila. Squashed myth.

[Gary]

1) You're confusing "silence" with "evidence."
2) Where, in his writings, do you think Philo should have mentioned Jesus?

Philo was a contemporary of Jesus, and was a Jewish philosopher who compared Jewish philosophy with Roman philosophy. If there was a Jewish messiah-pretender right next door in Palestine, causing the turmoil that the Bible states he did, claiming to be a demi-god (a very Greco-Roman concept) conceived of the union of Yahweh Himself and a human virgin, the fact that Philo does NOT mention one word of any of this, in any of his writings, speaks volumes as to its historicity. Does the absence of evidence prove the evidence of absence? No. But it does defy common sense and reason. Only someone who believes it MUST have happened would ignore Philo's deafening silence (and that of Josephus).

[Gary]

And every single person who was a Christian before this supposed myth creation would simply say "no it wasn't", and voila. Squashed myth.

Not if most of the Jewish followers of this new religion were dead (70 AD) and all the new converts were Gentiles who didn't know any better.

[One Bad Pig]

Philo was a contemporary of Jesus, and was a Jewish philosopher who compared Jewish philosophy with Roman philosophy.

Sort of.

If there was a Jewish messiah-pretender right next door in Palestine,

Alexandria was not "right next door" to Palestine. Egypt was far enough away that Jews built their own temple there.

causing the turmoil that the Bible states he did,

There were at least several messianic claimants in the relevant time period, including at least one from Egypt, who arguably caused more turmoil than Jesus did. Did Philo mention any of them?

claiming to be a demi-god (a very Greco-Roman concept) conceived of the union of Yahweh Himself and a human virgin,

The least you could do is get Jesus' claims correct. You'd present a better case if you could bring yourself to being intellectually honest.

the fact that Philo does NOT mention one word of any of this, in any of his writings, speaks volumes as to its historicity. Does the absence of evidence prove the evidence of absence? No. But it does defy common sense and reason. Only someone who believes it MUST have happened would ignore Philo's deafening silence (and that of Josephus).

Again, where in Philo's writings do you think he should have mentioned Jesus?

Josephus was not silent regarding Jesus.

[Apologiaphoenix]

For other Messianic claimants, Roman soldiers had to come out en masse to deal with the threat.

The army did not have to be called out for Jesus and He was crucified.

Why would this man be worth mentioning?

[Gary]

Sort of.

Alexandria was not "right next door" to Palestine. Egypt was far enough away that Jews built their own temple there.

There were at least several messianic claimants in the relevant time period, including at least one from Egypt, who arguably caused more turmoil than Jesus did. Did Philo mention any of them?

The least you could do is get Jesus' claims correct. You'd present a better case if you could bring yourself to being intellectually honest.

Again, where in Philo's writings do you think he should have mentioned Jesus?

Josephus was not silent regarding Jesus.

The scholarly consensus is that Josephus never mentioned Jesus, or if he did, made a very brief one or two line statement. If Jesus caused the commotion that the Bible says he did, there should be something of significance said in both Philo and Josephus' writings. The only way to get around this stupefying silence in the copious writings of these two first century Jews is to reinterpret the Bible, which I believe is Nick's position:

The "commotion" insinuated in the Gospels is an embellishment. Jesus was barely noticed. Only after his death did he become known.

Spin, spin, spin.

[Apologiaphoenix]

The scholarly consensus is that Josephus never mentioned Jesus, or if he did, made a very brief one or two line statement..

No. It is not. The scholarly consensus is that the testimonium is largely accurate with some interpolations thrown in. There is also an arabic version we have that could be the uninterpolated version. Very very very few scholars would doubt that Josephus actually spoke of Jesus and in fact, spoke of Him twice.

btw, you're the one speaking about a commotion. We're not. Jesus was a flash in the pan.

[Gary]

For other Messianic claimants, Roman soldiers had to come out en masse to deal with the threat.

The army did not have to be called out for Jesus and He was crucified.

Why would this man be worth mentioning?

The problem for Christians is that not only did the Romans and Jews not mention these details, but neither did Paul in even ONE of his epistles. Once again, let's look at the evidence first, and then draw our conclusions:

1. Does Paul mention that Jesus was the product of conception between the Holy Ghost and a virgin human female? No.
2. Does Paul mention the virgin birth in Bethlehem? No.
3. Does Paul say anything about the wise men, the massacre of the innocents, the flight into Egypt? No.
4. Does Paul, a Pharisee, mention Jesus schooling the rabbis at the age of 12? No.
5. Does Paul mention the father and mother of Jesus by name? No.
6. Does Paul mention any of Jesus' parables?
7. Does Paul mention any of Jesus' miracles?
8. Does Paul mention any of the miraculous events of the crucifixion: earthquakes, three hour eclipses, an empty tomb, zombies walking the streets? No.

Christians will hand-wave away these discrepancies with their boiler plate answer: "These details were already known by Paul's readers in the churches to whom he was writing. These topics were not relevant to the purpose of Paul's epistles: to deal with specific issues in the churches."

Is this a possible explanation for the lack of any mention of these central details about Jesus in all thirteen (or seven) of Paul's epistles? Answer: Yes. However, it strains credulity. Reason and common sense would indicate that Paul knew nothing of these details. Good ol' common sense tells you that the "Christ" that Paul had "seen" on the Damascus Road, was NOT the same Jesus of Nazareth, as portrayed in the Gospels.

Someone concocted a fabrication, or someone was delusional. The Jesus of Paul and the Jesus of the Gospels are two different men

[Apologiaphoenix]

The problem for Christians is that not only did the Romans and Jews not mention these details, but neither did Paul in even ONE of his epistles. Once again, let's look at the evidence first, and then draw our conclusions:

1. Does Paul mention that Jesus was the product of conception between the Holy Ghost and a virgin human female? No.

Why should he?

2. Does Paul mention the virgin birth in Bethlehem? No.
3. Does Paul say anything about the wise men, the massacre of the innocents, the flight into Egypt? No.
4. Does Paul, a Pharisee, mention Jesus schooling the rabbis at the age of 12? No.
5. Does Paul mention the father and mother of Jesus by name? No.
6. Does Paul mention any of Jesus' parables?
7. Does Paul mention any of Jesus' miracles?
8. Does Paul mention any of the miraculous events of the crucifixion: earthquakes, three hour eclipses, an empty tomb, zombies walking the streets? No.

Again, why should he?

Christians will hand-wave away these discrepancies with their boiler plate answer: "These details were already known by Paul's readers in the churches to whom he was writing. These topics were not relevant to the purpose of Paul's epistles: to deal with specific issues in the churches."

That's part of a high-context society. We can see places where Paul does speak about something of Jesus, and it's still doubted. So if Paul mentions it, we can't trust it. If he doesn't, it's proof we can't trust it.

Is this a possible explanation for the lack of any mention of these central details about Jesus in all thirteen (or seven) of Paul's epistles? Answer: Yes. However, it strains credulity. Reason and common sense would indicate that Paul knew nothing of these details. Good ol' common sense tells you that the "Christ" that Paul had "seen" on the Damascus Road, was NOT the same Jesus of Nazareth, as portrayed in the Gospels.

No it doesn't. Consider reading the Federalist Papers. They speak about ancient Greek battles and events in Rome without telling you what they were. The writer assumes you know them already.

Someone concocted a fabrication, or someone was delusional. The Jesus of Paul and the Jesus of the Gospels are two different men.

Well yes. I agree. Someone is delusional here. Someone actually thinks they speak seriously on the topic and that people are paying attention to them.

The idea that you're propounding about Paul radically changing Christianity was killed by E.P. Sanders years ago.

Do yourself a favor and go to a library and read some books there.

[Gary]

No. It is not. The scholarly consensus is that the testimonium is largely accurate with some interpolations thrown in. There is also an arabic version we have that could be the uninterpolated version. Very very very few scholars would doubt that Josephus actually spoke of Jesus and in fact, spoke of Him twice.

btw, you're the one speaking about a commotion. We're not. Jesus was a flash in the pan.

Jesus was a flash in the pan only if you are a moderate Christian who reinterprets the literal interpretation of every Bible passage, if need be, to fit your argument.

[Apologiaphoenix]

Jesus was a flash in the pan only if you are a moderate Christian who reinterprets the literal interpretation of every Bible passage, if need be, to fit your argument.

No. Jesus was a flash in the pan if you know how to do history.

You don't, so.....