Why I Affirm The Virgin Birth

[37818]

1 Corinthians 15:22 - ωσπερ γαρ εν τω αδαμ παντες αποθνησκουσιν ουτως και εν τω χριστω παντες ζωοποιηθησονται.

in _the Adam - in _the Christ.
Just as - so too
they are dying
- "they will be made alive" ... Will all be made alive at the resurrection, or will only those who are in Christ be made alive? John 5:29, Romans 5:18.

So

Just as
In Adam
`they` all are dying,
so too,
In Christ
`they` all will be raised to life.

The "all" of the first clause aren't in the same place as the "all" of the second clause. (so to speak)

The "all" shall be made alive refers to the resurrection of everyone saved and lost.

1 Corinthians 15:23,
. . . But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming. . . .

That speaks of the resurrection of the saved.

1 Corinthians 15:24,
. . . Then [cometh] the end, . . .

The Judgement follows. Where the lost are resurrected.

Revelation 20:14,
. . . And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. . . .

1 Corinthians 15:26,
. . . The last enemy [that] shall be destroyed [is] death. . . .

Then v27-28.

[tabibito]

The "all" shall be made alive refers to the resurrection of everyone saved and lost.

What is written?

Where are these "all"? (Where referring to position, whether spatially or ideologically or other)
All will be made alive?
All in Christ shall be made alive?

εν is a dative preposition - τω, a dative article - χριστω, the noun, "Christ", declined to the dative case.
The dative "in the Christ" is not in expected position for an ordinary statement. Coming first in the clause, "in the Christ" is given emphasis.

ζωοποιηθησονται, "they will be made alive" conjugated from "I enliven" for

the third person plural (they),
future
indicative (statement of fact)
passive = action is received, not performed, by the nominated party.
"they" will get enlivening.

παντες, "all", is an ADJECTIVE: declined for the nominative case. It isn't preceded by an article that might press it into service as a noun - it simply delimits.
"They - all of them - will be given life." Which "they"? - the ones in Christ.

The resurrection of all is not referenced in the passage, except extremely indirectly through "then comes the end". The passage contrasts those in Adam with those in Christ ... and the focus is restricted to outcomes regarding the latter.

While all will be resurrected - not all will be given life.

[The Pixie]

Pixie you have grossly misrepresented the NT teaching here so of course its nonsenscial - because its not what the NT teaches. You really should understand a concept before you go off making claims like that . The NT teaching is we are raised because of our identification with Christ. He was not raised from the dead merely on the basis of his divinity but because thats the plan of salvation. IF you wish to understand how that works Romans 6 is about the best passage for it. He dies and he is buried - we die to sin, he is raised -we rise to a new life now and in the future to a new body as he had. Its all because we are IN HIM (A powerful concept most predominantly expressed through the book of ephesian but found all over the NT.

You are assuming the NT teaches a consistent theology, and by implication that all the NT authors had the same theology. I see good reason to suppose that was not the case.

As for the whole thing with God not explaining his full nature - thats pretty much near impossible, We are never going to fully grasp eternal aspects of God. there is a plural aspect to God very early on represented in one of his Hebrew names however strictly speaking it is not important to accept the word "trinity" - the word never appears in the BIble and over half the problem of this issue comes in using the term "three in one". You do NOT have to embrace that to embrace Jesus as divine.

I accept that, but God could have laid out the nature of the trinity to Adam, even if a simplified version.

The plain fact is that you have a version of the trinity, and therefore humans have contrived to teach that to you. If humans can teach it, why imagine God cannot? And yet he chose not to tell Adam, Abraham, Moses, etc. Even over three years teaching his disciples we see nothing to suggest Jesus mentioned it at all.

The most likely explanation is that the concept was alien to Jesus, and was invented decades after his crucifixion.

the whole Jesus as divine was a late invention is futile. Phillipians 2 alone puts a stake through the heart of the claim. Any close reading of the greek has to go through twists and gymnastics to explain Kenoo in the verse. It doesn't even matter what he emptied himself of - its a clear indication of preexistence and a choice Christ made in that preexistence.

I originally said Paul hints at adoptionism; I accept that Philippians 2 suggests otherwise. I would not like to say either way.

The idea that Mark does not allude to Jesus as God is also mythical - by the second chapter of Mark and vs 6 the book makes clear that in contemporary Jewish thought the claims of Jesus were tantamount to equality with God. Mark 1 starts out the Gospel of Jesus Christ as son of God and explains John is a herald for Jesus quoting Isaiah 40 which speaks of preparing the way for the lord and in my Hebrew lexicon at least that Lord is the Divine name in Isaiah 40:3 expressly invoked. Its quite a stretch, to say the least, to Read Mark 1 and not see that John is preparing the way for jesus as a fulfillment of Isaiah 40 and the way being prepared in Isaiah 40 is for YHW.

If you are refering to the forgiving of sins, I find it significant that Jesus says he has that authority from God, not that he is part of the godhead.

Why not say that he is part of the trinity if that was the case? Because no one had invented the concept at this point.

Isaiah 40:3 A voice cries:[b]

You position, I take it, is that Mark cites this verse because Jesus was God. And yet if you are correct then Jesus was already around before John was preaching in the wilderness. The timing is all wrong.

I would suggest that Mark saw it like this: Although Jesus was already around, he was no God's adopted son. The voice in the wilderness preceded Jesus arriving as God's adopted son.

Thats another problem with Biblical scholarship today - its somewhat sophomoric. If a word or phrase does not appear in a book the fact that the same concept is expressed in other ways becomes immaterial and brushed aside - which is nonsense

It is also sophomoric in scholarship to assume your conclusions.

[The Pixie]

Irrelevant. Even if he had made the claim, "you are the temple of the Holy Spirit" would prevent any claim of godhood being inferred from being "the place where God dwells."

AP claimed " Jesus is claiming that He is the place where God dwells", so it was relevant to that.

Much relies on a prophet (or a person prophesying, as the case may be) accurately transmitting what he is given. If he converts it to what he understands rather than passing on the raw message, problems can arise. Likewise the listener (or reader), failing to make sense of a raw message, will try to convert it to something that does make sense to him. The process is evident in explanations proffered for the correct interpretation of Genesis 1:2. (not to mention that I have come close to pulling my hair out in Bible Study sessions on occasion, when people soto voce convert what is written to conform with what they have previously understood through several stages of reworking.) The trinity IS present in the Old Testament, and even more strongly in the Targum, "Memra of God" in particular being uniquely identifiable, than in the Hebrew texts. The Gospel of John uses the Koine Greek rough equivalent of Memra, "Logos", in explanation of the Christ's origins.

Jesus was teaching his disciples for three years, and yet there is no sign he mentioned the trinity.

Adam talked directly to God. Why did God not make his nature clear to Adam?

Similarly various patriarchs spoke directly to God, and at each instance God could have made his nature known.

If God is all powerful, why does he allow his prophets to get this stuff wrong? If people are not understanding, tell them again. It sounds like you teach people in Bible study groups; do you teach the trinity? Do your students understand the trinity? What are you getting right that God failed to do for thousands of years?

This relies on an opinion of how much information is sufficient.

A lack of mention of the trinity throughout the OT and much of the NT is very good evidence the concept was not invented until decades after Jesus died. Whether you accept the conclusion that evidence points to or not, the evidence is good ammunition for arguing against Christianity. This discussion illustrates the truth of that.

No opinion on how much information is sufficient required.

Assume that God can impose understanding on an unwilling person - How much force should he exercise to impart unwanted knowledge and understanding? Mark 4:14-20 ... People are likened to various kinds of soil, and information about the Kingdom of Heaven is likened to seed. The seed will only prosper in receptive soil: the information is of no use when imparted to the unreceptive person. And some information is imparted in a way that only receptive people will understand it. The whole point of having humans in the field is that they indulge in rock picking, weed pulling, and ploughing of hard trodden ground.

Let us comparing God imposing understanding on an unwilling person and hardening Pharoah's heart...

In the former case, the end result is the individual gains understanding and has a far higher chance of getting to heaven.

In the latter case, the end result is a lot of innocent people dying, and presumably not getting to heaven.

In the light of that, please explain why god chose to do the latter, but not the former. And then we can discuss this myth of people unwilling to have understanding...

Prior to institution of the Christian Covenant, the trinity wasn't a particularly vital doctrine. God is God: he is one, would - without the particular identity of the Christ becoming an issue - be enough.

Which coincidentally then looks exactly what we would expect if the trinity was a late invention. Like Satan was not an important concept early in the OT, not until the concept was borrowed from the Babylonians.

The position is far from incoherent, and in fact barely causes a blip in the paradox scale. Man is created in the image and likeness of God (Old Testament record) - with even humans being triune (body, soul, and spirit), there should be no problem with man's nature, analogous to that of God, being a pointer for the triune nature of God.

Easy. So no reason for God not to make it clear to Adam. Or Moses or Abrabam. Or Jesus to mention it to the disciples.

No reason other than it had not been invented at that point.

This, according to rumour, is actually a call to a prophecy regarding the messiah. If the rumour is accurate, then "Son of Man" is indeed a declaration of being God.

The messiah the Jews awaited was a man who would be adopted as God's son.

The underscore marks a weakness in the argument: Matthew 7:22, Luke 9:49 + 10:17, each saying that demons are cast out in your (Jesus') name, with Matthew adding prophesying and performing miracles.

Actually it seems a strength of the argument. by the time matthew and Luke were written, Jesus was born as the Son of God, so sure demons are cast out in his name. Not so in Mark (as far as know, anyway). Not cast out in Jesus' name in Mark because in the gospel Jesus' is a man adopted by God.

This piece acknowledges Jesus as the creator. Which is why John was able to bend "Logos" to use for explaining who Jesus was. It is also why the people of Athens were initially of the opinion that Paul was proclaiming a demon (lesser god) at the Areopagus - Acts 17:24, 28. In Greek philosophy, IMPORTANT gods didn't mess around with making things. (And this is not the only place, nor even the most significant, where Paul identifies the Christ as the Logos. Even without the gospels, and well before 70 AD, we have record that Christian teaching identified the Logos as the creator and as the Christ.)

I am certainly less sure of Paul's position here.

[Mikeenders]

You are assuming the NT teaches a consistent theology, and by implication that all the NT authors had the same theology. I see good reason to suppose that was not the case.

Actually you are making the assumptions and whenever you make an assumption in order to validate something as nonsensical you are on thin ice. Basically the entire concept of messiah dying for the world (or any individual) within the Mosaic context of a sacrificial system is an identification framework - He dies For us - so the concept of identification with and in could hardly be a later invention. Besides you have lost your way in your own argument - your argument was on the logic of it but the logic of it is fine.

I accept that, but God could have laid out the nature of the trinity to Adam, even if a simplified version.

A) One of the very words for God Adam would use is in plural form.
b) We have no evidence that Adam didn't have even a simplified version.
c) At that point there is no compelling reason for Him to know that aspect of God. It affects him in no real way.

The plain fact is that you have a version of the trinity, and therefore humans have contrived to teach that to you. If humans can teach it, why imagine God cannot? And yet he chose not to tell Adam, Abraham, Moses, etc. Even over three years teaching his disciples we see nothing to suggest Jesus mentioned it at all.

Neither you nor I know what Adam, Abraham Or Moses knew about God. The REAL plain fact is that plurality of God is baked into one of his Hebrew names from prior to the New Testament - so to use your own appeal (but with some actual solid evidence) - I have "good reason" to believe its a biblical concept. Second you keep appealing to the importance of the issue as something humans should know as some valid point by which to make an absence argument for . Its not a strong point.Its basically a strawman. The "trinity" makes little difference to anything in the Old testament so it not being fully elucidated means nothing. As a matter of fact in the Torah theres little on the omnipresence of God and nothing on his immutability but it would be desperate begging to claim Early Jews didn't believe God was omnipresent or that he was mutable

The most likely explanation is that the concept was alien to Jesus, and was invented decades after his crucifixion.

Yes and the plural form of the Hebrew name for God was just incidental I suppose. "likely" is hardly an objective term.

If you are refering to the forgiving of sins, I find it significant that Jesus says he has that authority from God, not that he is part of the godhead.

No I was referring to a contemporary understanding of that forgiving and what it meant in the social context and clearly stated in the text

"Mark 2:6-7 (KJV)
6 But there were certain of the scribes sitting there, and reasoning in their hearts,
7 Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only? "

SO we are to believe that The jews of the day took the action as divine but it was missed by the Jewish early church for decades and had nothing to do with thinking Jesus is God. Thats mighty convenient and like it or not - its an evidence against your position right there in Mark - the book allegedly that is not supposed to have any such indications.

I find it significant that Jesus says he has that authority from God, not that he is part of the godhead.

You mean You COULD HAVE found it significant if it were in that text. It isn't. What has the pharisees noting that only God can forgive sins is that Jesus says nothing about God forgiving them just him

Mark 2:10 (KJV)
10 But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (he saith to the sick of the palsy,)

Says nothing about authority from God. Thats PRECISELY why they took it the way they did

Why not say that he is part of the trinity if that was the case? Because no one had invented the concept at this point.

Why in the world should he state that he is part of the trinity in a discussion about Forgiveness?? Again there is nothing in that passage about authority from God. You have invented it in the text

Isaiah 40:3 A voice cries:[b]

You position, I take it, is that Mark cites this verse because Jesus was God. And yet if you are correct then Jesus was already around before John was preaching in the wilderness. The timing is all wrong.

At this point I have to wonder if you have even read the NT. John's ministry starts before Jesus. The timing is all right and obviously all right to anyone who actually has read about what they are talking about, being around has nothing to do with when ministries began. Plus john was also older than Jesus.

It is also sophomoric in scholarship to assume your conclusions.

WHen I see anyone else making the assumption I'll be sure to let them know. Until then no need to get snippity. IF you don't understand something ask and I will bring you up to speed ;). I don;t have to assume any conclusion in Mark chapter one - Isaiah 40 is a reference to the divine name God (as opposed to Lord). It CLEARLY is stating John fulfills the passage making straight a highway for YHW and yet it is equally clear the he is making a way for none other but Jesus.

Simple Logical equivalence

making straight a way for YHW
Making straight a way for J

within the parameters YHW=J

I realize this is disturbing to your thesis and the mythical "truth" you have been taught about Mark, but Mark gives GREAT evidence that the divinity of Christ was no later invention of the church and we have just gone two chapters in

As I stated -Thats another problem with Biblical scholarship today - its somewhat sophomoric. If a word or phrase does not appear in a book the fact that the same concept is expressed in other ways becomes immaterial and brushed aside - which is nonsense.

[tabibito]

AP claimed " Jesus is claiming that He is the place where God dwells", so it was relevant to that.

Jesus was teaching his disciples for three years, and yet there is no sign he mentioned the trinity.

For a person who does not accept that the gospels accurately report the teachings of Christ, nor accurately report the events of his life - how would such an argument come into play? It would be necessary to rely on the epistles that are accepted as being written prior to AD 70. Those epistles do not (for the most part) recount the elementary teachings of the gospel, being addressed to people who already know those teachings. So - basic teachings regarding the trinity aren't going to feature strongly - if at all - in any writing that the person will accept as being written early in the history of the faith. Any call to John would be futile - it was written late (according to that person's belief). So rather than play the game by rules that make it impossible to demonstrate anything about anything:
John taught that the Logos was God, as did Paul. John taught that the Christ was the Logos, as did Paul. Those teachings are in the Bible, whether or not the Bible itself is considered authoritative.
Jesus

declared that he existed before Abraham (John 8:58). Whether or not he was God - he said he existed before his conception.
asked that he be restored to the glory that he had in the beginning with the Father. (John 17:5) - he existed in the presence of God in the beginning.

Then there are Old Testament records attesting that the messiah to come would be God.

"They shall look upon me whom they have pierced", yes they shall mourn him. (Zechariah 12:10).
His name shall be called Wonderful Counsellor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.(Isaiah 9:6)

Further references in the Old Testament:

Michael, the archangel, is identified as God.
The angel of the Lord is identified as God. Care needs to be used in distinguishing between THE angel of the Lord and AN angel of the Lord. The latter will be identified as "an" on first appearance (An angel of the Lord appeared ... The angel _{(previously mentioned)} said, "...)

Writings of the intertestament period were accepted by the founding apostles as authoritative - some being cited in the Bible.

Adam talked directly to God. Why did God not make his nature clear to Adam?

If He tells me the answer, I'll pass it on.

Similarly various patriarchs spoke directly to God, and at each instance God could have made his nature known.

The patriarchs prior to Moses didn't leave written records.

If God is all powerful, why does he allow his prophets to get this stuff wrong?

If people are not understanding, tell them again.

It sounds like you teach people in Bible study groups; do you teach the trinity? Do your students understand the trinity?

I do teach Bible Study groups. I don't teach the trinity, or any other doctrine (per se) in those groups. The procedure is to provide copies of a representative sample of passages with questionnaires directly related to the passages. After two or three sessions on a given topic, the procedure changes to having the students work out what questions the passages are answering. And yes, the basic principle of the Trinity is understood and accepted by them.

What are you getting right that God failed to do for thousands of years?

See the underlined in your prior question of this section.

A lack of mention of the trinity throughout the OT and much of the NT is very good evidence the concept was not invented until decades after Jesus died.

It is mentioned, it is just that it is not a particularly critical issue - unless and until someone bright spark comes up with the idea that Jesus is not God. After that, it is becomes a problem.

Whether you accept the conclusion that evidence points to or not, the evidence is good ammunition for arguing against Christianity.

Change "arguing against Christianity" to "arguing against some of the teachings of the churches", and you might find me agreeing.

This discussion illustrates the truth of that.

Actually, it illustrates (as do so many discussions on TWeb and other Christian venues) just how difficult it is to get a glaringly obvious truth past preconceptions.

No opinion on how much information is sufficient required.

Sufficient for the needs of the day would seem to be sufficient.

Let us comparing God imposing understanding on an unwilling person and hardening Pharoah's heart...

Indeed. God tells Moses "I perceive that Pharaoh will by no means let you go, so I will harden his heart so that he will not let you go." This is one that I use in Bible Studies - "Does the passage say when God will harden Pharaoh's heart?" Present the detailed passage - "Pharaoh hardened his heart, pharaoh hardened his heart, pharaoh hardened his heart ... God hardened Pharaoh's heart." Ample demonstration that God's patience can be tried too far.

In the former case, the end result is the individual gains understanding and has a far higher chance of getting to heaven.

Seems kind of pointless to me. Heaven is for people who choose to live under God's sovereign reign.

In the latter case, the end result is a lot of innocent people dying, and presumably not getting to heaven.

Well now, that might perchance be the basis of an argument for disliking God, or for the way he does things - but it doesn't argue against his existence.

In the light of that, please explain why god chose to do the latter, but not the former. And then we can discuss this myth of people unwilling to have understanding...

If he gives me an explanation, I'll pass it on. This isn't a matter of being flippant - I just have an aversion to introducing speculation willy nilly into theological explanations.

Which coincidentally then looks exactly what we would expect if the trinity was a late invention. Like Satan was not an important concept early in the OT, not until the concept was borrowed from the Babylonians.

Coincidentally, yes. A hill on Mars coincidentally bears a striking similarity to a human face.

Easy. So no reason for God not to make it clear to Adam. Or Moses or Abrabam. Or Jesus to mention it to the disciples.

How often do I go around pointing out to people that I am not flesh and blood alone, but also soul and spirit. If the basic concept of the Trinity had NOT been revealed, how is that people of the Old Testament readily understood that they were speaking to God, yet knowing that they were speaking to the Angel of the Lord, or to Michael.

The messiah the Jews awaited was a man who would be adopted as God's son.

Opinion is divided on that. Can you cite anything prior to circa 200 AD that says as much?

Actually it seems a strength of the argument. by the time matthew and Luke were written, Jesus was born as the Son of God, so sure demons are cast out in his name. Not so in Mark (as far as know, anyway). Not cast out in Jesus' name in Mark because in the gospel Jesus' is a man adopted by God.

I am certainly less sure of Paul's position here.[/QUOTE] Well, of course, Mark 16:17 is supposedly a late interpolation. But the gospels were all supposedly written late in the piece anyway, and likewise revelation: also identifying Christ as God. However, all that folderol is kind of pointless: even enough of the epistles - those which assuredly were not written subsequent to the death of the authors - also attest that Christ existed prior to his conception, and that he is the one by and through whom all things were created.

[Gary]

If you're going to claim the virgin birth is related to pagan myths, you need to be very, very careful.

Most of the so-called "parallels" are either a) later or b) not what you think. For example, mythicists love to talk about Mithraism. However, from what we know of Mithraism, it adapted in the face of Christian practice, not the other way around.

The issue of whether or not pagan religions employed virgin births prior to Christianity, thereby giving Matthew and Luke a pagan concept to adapt into their story of Jesus is debatable. However the larger concept of Jesus' "miraculous" birth fits in very well with previous Roman and Greek mythology: a god indulging in sexual intimacy with a female human to produe a demi-god son or sons. We see this "activity" repeatedly in the mythology of the ancient world. I realize that Christians do not like to even consider the idea that Yahweh copulated with Mary, but the possibility cannot be ruled out. When a male being is described as "overshadowing" a female being, giving rise to a conception, that sounds like the act of intercourse to me. But regardless, even if Yahweh simply said some magic words and ***poof*** Jesus was conceived, by definition, Jesus was a demi-god. I know Christians will argue that Jesus was all god and all man, but non-Christians see him as a demi-god, and demi-gods come a dime-a-dozen in the ancient world.

Christians argue that the reason that the author of Mark and Paul never mention a virgin birth is that it does not fit with the "theme" of their writings. This, once again, is nothing but speculation/assumption. Christians can try to convince themselves of the veracity of this argument but they can't be sure. It is very, very possible, that neither the author of Mark nor Paul had ever heard of a virgin birth.

Non-Christians who read the two virgin birth narratives in Matthew and Luke do not see them as reconcilable. So add all the evidence together and it is obvious that the virgin birth story developed sometime in the second half of the first century. It was not part of the original "Jesus story". Why did it develop? I believe that a very likely reason is that Christian christology was moving at a fever pitch and Adoptionism was no longer an acceptable position for the ultimate winners of the early Christian civil war: the proto-orthodox. They needed a means of explaining how Jesus could be God, and if Jesus had a human father, he could not be God. So Joseph was dumped as Jesus' father and replaced by a new, divine, father: the spirit form of Yahweh.

So Christians may not need to bother themselves with comparisons between ancient mythology and a virgin birth, but they should be staying awake late at night worrying about the obvious pagan mythology of a demi-god "rescuer" or "savior" who comes to the aid of mere mortals, who are in some type of peril, needing their "savior's" supernatural powers to defeat a great, threatening "evil".

[Mikeenders]

I'll be gone on vacation for a week

I'd like to lodge a formal complaint against your travel agent.


Apparently neither you nor they know the truth about weeks either

[Gary]

I'd like to lodge a formal complaint against your travel agent.


Apparently neither you nor they know the truth about weeks either

Hey Mike!

Miss me?

I purposely did not take my laptop on my trip, but...I found out today that there is FREE internet access in the lobby. So...I hopped on to see what my good friends on TW were up to, and couldn't resist not responding to Stein's comment on the questionable lack of virgin births in ancient mythology.

I only get a half hour of free internet time at one sitting, and there are usually others waiting, so I'll say "so long" for now and keep my comment brief (much to your utter dismay, I'm sure).

Off to the pool.

Gary

[Christianbookworm]

Have fun at the pool, Gary! Don't drown!

[lilpixieofterror]

Have fun at the pool, Gary! Don't drown!

That might make him smarter.

[Apologiaphoenix]

Alright. Let's have some fun.

Who's the pagan that was born of a virgin like Jesus was?

[Christianbookworm]

That might make him smarter.

How? He'd be dead if he drowned...

I don't think Gary would change his mind even if Jesus "kidnapped" him and proved that Gary was incorrect and answered all of Gary's questions. Would Jesus even bother to do that???

[lilpixieofterror]

The issue of whether or not pagan religions employed virgin births prior to Christianity, thereby giving Matthew and Luke a pagan concept to adapt into their story of Jesus is debatable. However the larger concept of Jesus' "miraculous" birth fits in very well with previous Roman and Greek mythology: a god indulging in sexual intimacy with a female human to produe a demi-god son or sons. We see this "activity" repeatedly in the mythology of the ancient world. I realize that Christians do not like to even consider the idea that Yahweh copulated with Mary, but the possibility cannot be ruled out. When a male being is described as "overshadowing" a female being, giving rise to a conception, that sounds like the act of intercourse to me. But regardless, even if Yahweh simply said some magic words and ***poof*** Jesus was conceived, by definition, Jesus was a demi-god. I know Christians will argue that Jesus was all god and all man, but non-Christians see him as a demi-god, and demi-gods come a dime-a-dozen in the ancient world.

My dear sweet Gary, the gods of pagan myth had sexual relations with mortal women in the pagan religions. Can you show me where the Bible says that God had sexual relations with Mary? Oops...

Christians argue that the reason that the author of Mark and Paul never mention a virgin birth is that it does not fit with the "theme" of their writings. This, once again, is nothing but speculation/assumption. Christians can try to convince themselves of the veracity of this argument but they can't be sure. It is very, very possible, that neither the author of Mark nor Paul had ever heard of a virgin birth.

Ironic considering that you just have an argument from silence here, do you have any evidence they 'never heard of a virgin birth' or are you doing a little bit of speculation and assumption of your own?

Non-Christians who read the two virgin birth narratives in Matthew and Luke do not see them as reconcilable. So add all the evidence together and it is obvious that the virgin birth story developed sometime in the second half of the first century. It was not part of the original "Jesus story". Why did it develop? I believe that a very likely reason is that Christian christology was moving at a fever pitch and Adoptionism was no longer an acceptable position for the ultimate winners of the early Christian civil war: the proto-orthodox. They needed a means of explaining how Jesus could be God, and if Jesus had a human father, he could not be God. So Joseph was dumped as Jesus' father and replaced by a new, divine, father: the spirit form of Yahweh.

That's because most of them are idiots, like you. Go ahead, explain why they have to be contradictory and second, there's no evidence of a 'early Christian civil war' of any kind sweety. People make it up because they want it to be true, but go ahead and present your evidence of this 'early Christian civil war' please or are you the only one allowed to speculate and make up things and nobody else can?

So Christians may not need to bother themselves with comparisons between ancient mythology and a virgin birth, but they should be staying awake late at night worrying about the obvious pagan mythology of a demi-god "rescuer" or "savior" who comes to the aid of mere mortals, who are in some type of peril, needing their "savior's" supernatural powers to defeat a great, threatening "evil".

And fundy atheist don't need to bother themselves with facts or figures. I look forward to you actually backing up your claims with facts.

[lilpixieofterror]

How? He'd be dead if he drowned...

I don't think Gary would change his mind even if Jesus "kidnapped" him and proved that Gary was incorrect and answered all of Gary's questions. Would Jesus even bother to do that???

Which wouldn't make him any dumber than he already is.