Why I Affirm The Virgin Birth

[Gary]

Peasant fishermen did not have hired servants (Mk 1:20) and were not known to the high priest (John 18:15).

My wife's family is from Central America. In an agrarian culture, one can be illiterate and a peasant and still have hired servants to help with the cattle, pigs, etc. It doesn't mean you are wealthy and upper class. In the first century, typically only the very elite received an education. Also, on Pentecost, the Jews asked how "unlearned" men like John et al. could speak in foreign languages, etc.

Again, possible? Yes. Probable? Not at all.

[Gary]

False. We have the consistent evidence of the church fathers. You might not think that's good evidence, but it is a far cry from no evidence.



No. It's not odd. It's not any more odd than Paul quoting the OT or Greek poets without saying who he's quoting. These books were read regularly and would be well known. Do you need it spelled out?



What you're pretty much telling me is you don't know how to sift through evidence on your own and will prefer to say the majority is right because they're the majority. I don't say that on anything. I say it should be taken seriously and I do have a case for what I think and it isn't refuted by saying "The majority disagrees!"

And once again, I presented a scholarly source and you disregarded it.

I guess it just doesn't have the intellectual caliber of that unknown person on YouTube.

Consistent evidence of the Church Fathers?? Maybe after circa 180 AD, but not before.

Name one Church Father pre-Ireneaus who specifically refers to the authorship of the four canonical gospels.

[Apologiaphoenix]

Consistent evidence of the Church Fathers?? Maybe after circa 180 AD, but not before.

Name one Church Father pre-Ireneaus who specifically refers to the authorship of the four canonical gospels.

I never said they did nor did I said they needed to. I just said we do have evidence. These are names consistently apply, there's not a debate over their authorship, they come from all over the Roman Empire, and many of these were not popular figures that are prominent in the life of Jesus.

Again, you're ignoring everything given to you.

Gary is always more interested in a monologue than a dialogue. Sad really.

[Gary]

False. We have the consistent evidence of the church fathers. You might not think that's good evidence, but it is a far cry from no evidence.



No. It's not odd. It's not any more odd than Paul quoting the OT or Greek poets without saying who he's quoting. These books were read regularly and would be well known. Do you need it spelled out?



What you're pretty much telling me is you don't know how to sift through evidence on your own and will prefer to say the majority is right because they're the majority. I don't say that on anything. I say it should be taken seriously and I do have a case for what I think and it isn't refuted by saying "The majority disagrees!"

And once again, I presented a scholarly source and you disregarded it.

I guess it just doesn't have the intellectual caliber of that unknown person on YouTube.

No, you seem to believe that you are already an authority when all you have is a BA or BS in general education. Most educated people accept the overwhelming consensus position on matters regarding which they themselves are not experts. You on the other hand consider yourself an expert without a degree in the field and so much of an expert that you believe that you can defy consensus positions right and left if they are not congruent with your preconceived beliefs. That is the epitome of arrogance and foolishness (and fundamentalist thinking).

[Apologiaphoenix]

No, you seem to believe that you are already an authority when all you have is a BA or BS in general education.

False.

I have an education in the field and I also have been recognized by NT scholars. What do you have in comparison that people should take you seriously?

Most educated people accept the overwhelming consensus position on matters regarding which they themselves are not experts. You on the other hand consider yourself an expert without a degree in the field and so much of an expert that you believe that you can defy consensus positions right and left if they are not congruent with your preconceived beliefs. That is the epitome of arrogance and foolishness (and fundamentalist thinking).

Yes. I consider myself an expert because I went out and did the reading on the topic and still keep reading.

Now if that's arrogance and foolishness, consider how arrogant and foolish it is to go out and debate with others on a topic that you do not do the reading on and publish on a topic when you don't do the reading and think you should be an authority?

And yes Gary, I do know that you don't do reading when you're told that you should and want to be taken as an authority anyway.

If I'm arrogant and foolish, I'd hate to see where that leaves you.

[Gary]

I never said they did nor did I said they needed to. I just said we do have evidence. These are names consistently apply, there's not a debate over their authorship, they come from all over the Roman Empire, and many of these were not popular figures that are prominent in the life of Jesus.

Again, you're ignoring everything given to you.

Gary is always more interested in a monologue than a dialogue. Sad really.

What are you talking about, Nick? Are you really trying to infer that the traditional authorship of the four gospels is a settled fact in NT scholarship?? If so, that is the most blatant lie I have seen you make yet. The consensus opinion of NT scholars is that the traditional authors did NOT write the gospels, and you darn well know it. Drop your arrogant pride and admit it.

You are NOT an expert Nick. Sorry to break the news to you. For you to defy the consensus opinion of NT scholars on the authorship of the Gospels, and the consensus opinion that the Exodus did not happen, is like some guy who says that doctors don't know what they are talking about when they say that smoking causes cancer. He knows this as fact because the Tobacco Industry has doctors who have done research demonstrating no clear link between smoking and cancer.

Any such person who buys bogus "research" that smoking does not cause cancer is a fool. A fool with an agenda looking for evidence to support that agenda.

I suggest Nick that you are doing the same. You only care about evidence and expert opinion when it agrees with the highest authority on any issue that you choose to discuss: NICK.

Very foolish, arrogant thinking, Nick.

[Gary]

False.

I have an education in the field and I also have been recognized by NT scholars. What do you have in comparison that people should take you seriously?



Yes. I consider myself an expert because I went out and did the reading on the topic and still keep reading.

Now if that's arrogance and foolishness, consider how arrogant and foolish it is to go out and debate with others on a topic that you do not do the reading on and publish on a topic when you don't do the reading and think you should be an authority?

And yes Gary, I do know that you don't do reading when you're told that you should and want to be taken as an authority anyway.

If I'm arrogant and foolish, I'd hate to see where that leaves you.

I have never once claimed to be an expert on the Christian holy book or its teachings. However, unlike you, I do NOT question the overwhelming consensus expert opinion regarding ANY issue related to the Bible. That is what educated people do, Nick. If they are not an expert in a particular field, they find out what the consensus opinion of experts is, and if that opinion is overwhelming, educated people accept the overwhelming consensus position of experts. Most educated people do NOT attempt to become experts in every field upon which they choose to have an opinion. You do not need to be a medical doctor to take the position that smoking causes cancer. You do not need to be a geologist to know that there never has been a world wide flood. You do not need to be a biologist to believe that natural selection occurs in nature. You do not have to be an expert in these fields to hold these positions because educated people, who trust the scientific method and reason, are willing to accept overwhelming expert consensus opinion as sufficient evidence to determine facts.

When you receive a PhD in New Testament studies or in Near East studies, Nick, THEN you can claim to be an expert, but until then you are just a layperson who has done a lot of reading. Just as someone who has spent the last 20 years reading medical journals every day is not qualified to be considered an expert (physician) in medicine, no matter how smart he may be, so too someone who has read and studied books by NT scholars for the last 10-20 years, is NOT an expert in the New Testament.

You are a well-read LAYPERSON, Nick. That's it. You are NOT an authority until you have the degree!

[Apologiaphoenix]

What are you talking about, Nick? Are you really trying to infer that the traditional authorship of the four gospels is a settled fact in NT scholarship??

No. If you bothered listening to what people said you you would have known that.

If so, that is the most blatant lie I have seen you make yet. The consensus opinion of NT scholars is that the traditional authors did NOT write the gospels, and you darn well know it. Drop your arrogant pride and admit it.

When did I say otherwise? Maybe before you fly off with accusations you should read what other people tell you. Oh wait. You don't read disagreeing opinion. That's right.

You are NOT an expert Nick. Sorry to break the news to you.

Because you say so? I guess that settles it. Gary has spoken from Sinai!

For you to defy the consensus opinion of NT scholars on the authorship of the Gospels, and the consensus opinion that the Exodus did not happen, is like some guy who says that doctors don't know what they are talking about when they say that smoking causes cancer. He knows this as fact because the Tobacco Industry has doctors who have done research demonstrating no clear link between smoking and cancer.

Except I give these things called reasons. Ever heard of them?

Any such person who buys bogus "research" that smoking does not cause cancer is a fool. A fool with an agenda looking for evidence to support that agenda.

I suggest Nick that you are doing the same. You only care about evidence and expert opinion when it agrees with the highest authority on any issue that you choose to discuss: NICK.

Very foolish, arrogant thinking, Nick.

And again, if I'm being foolish and arrogant for speaking on a topic that I have read on, what does that say about you who refuses to read and just puts up YouTube videos?

[Gary]

No. If you bothered listening to what people said you you would have known that.



When did I say otherwise? Maybe before you fly off with accusations you should read what other people tell you. Oh wait. You don't read disagreeing opinion. That's right.



Because you say so? I guess that settles it. Gary has spoken from Sinai!



Except I give these things called reasons. Ever heard of them?



And again, if I'm being foolish and arrogant for speaking on a topic that I have read on, what does that say about you who refuses to read and just puts up YouTube videos?

Nick: Every guy on the internet who believes that smoking does NOT cause cancer believes that he has very good reasons for not believing the overwhelming consensus opinion of medical experts on this issue. Having "good" reasons (in your layperson's opinion) is NOT sufficient evidence to defy the overwhelming consensus position. It's foolish. If you were a pulmonologist (lung specialist) who states that he has new research that demonstrates that smoking does not induce cancer in the human body, that would be one thing, but you are the equivalent of some guy who has read a lot of books on smoking and lung cancer, but has no degree, yet is spouting off his personal opinion AND claiming he is an expert.

That is the difference between you and me, Nick. I am not an expert and I admit it. You are not an expert but pretend and purport to be one.

[One Bad Pig]

My wife's family is from Central America. In an agrarian culture, one can be illiterate and a peasant and still have hired servants to help with the cattle, pigs, etc. It doesn't mean you are wealthy and upper class. In the first century, typically only the very elite received an education. Also, on Pentecost, the Jews asked how "unlearned" men like John et al. could speak in foreign languages, etc.

Again, possible? Yes. Probable? Not at all.

You ignored half of my evidence. And the (120 or so) disciples at Pentecost weren't described as "unlearned" - they were identified by dress as Galileans, who were stereotyped as unlearned. You're rigidly applying a blanket stereotype as literally true for every single disciple, which is highly unreasonable.

[Gary]

You ignored half of my evidence. And the (120 or so) disciples at Pentecost weren't described as "unlearned" - they were identified by dress as Galileans, who were stereotyped as unlearned. You're rigidly applying a blanket stereotype as literally true for every single disciple, which is highly unreasonable.

"Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were uneducated, common men, they were astonished. And they recognized that they had been with Jesus." Acts 4:13

Correction: this passage has to do with healing the blind man, not with speaking in tongues at Pentecost. The text is clear: John and Peter were uneducated commoners in the year of Jesus' crucifixion which means they were uneducated commoners when they worked as fishermen. But we are asked to believe that sometime in the years after Pentecost, in-between evangelizing and being persecuted, both these guys obtained a college level education and enrolled in Greek prose composition classes.

Preposterous.

[psstein]

I was not aware that there is any evidence that supports the idea that Papias had contact with any eyewitnesses to the events described in the Gospels. My understanding is that Papias reports that he received all his information from "elders" who were allegedly disciples of the disciples of the apostles. That would mean that Papia's sources were, at best, third hand sources. I am not aware of any evidence where Papias states that he received any information directly from an apostle or other eyewitness to the crucifixion and post-death appearances.

Could you give me a link to your sources?

Papias is talking to a guy named John the Elder/Presbyter, who is likely one of the lesser-known disciples of Jesus (certainly outside the Twelve).

See Bauckham's The Testimony of the Beloved Disciple or his recent work on Papias. Papias says "The presbyter says..." and then relates it. There's sadly a lack of current scholarship on Papias, just because we have so little of what he wrote.

[psstein]

"Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were uneducated, common men, they were astonished. And they recognized that they had been with Jesus." Acts 4:13

Correction: this passage has to do with healing the blind man, not with speaking in tongues at Pentecost. The text is clear: John and Peter were uneducated commoners in the year of Jesus' crucifixion which means they were uneducated commoners when they worked as fishermen. But we are asked to believe that sometime in the years after Pentecost, in-between evangelizing and being persecuted, both these guys obtained a college level education and enrolled in Greek prose composition classes.

Preposterous.

The Greek of the NT is often (with the exception of Luke-Acts and Hebrews) very Semitic. The other issue is that you're doing what Bart Ehrman does, the Bible is reliable when I need it to be, but unreliable when it needs to be.

[psstein]

I have never once claimed to be an expert on the Christian holy book or its teachings. However, unlike you, I do NOT question the overwhelming consensus expert opinion regarding ANY issue related to the Bible. That is what educated people do, Nick. If they are not an expert in a particular field, they find out what the consensus opinion of experts is, and if that opinion is overwhelming, educated people accept the overwhelming consensus position of experts. Most educated people do NOT attempt to become experts in every field upon which they choose to have an opinion. You do not need to be a medical doctor to take the position that smoking causes cancer. You do not need to be a geologist to know that there never has been a world wide flood. You do not need to be a biologist to believe that natural selection occurs in nature. You do not have to be an expert in these fields to hold these positions because educated people, who trust the scientific method and reason, are willing to accept overwhelming expert consensus opinion as sufficient evidence to determine facts.

When you receive a PhD in New Testament studies or in Near East studies, Nick, THEN you can claim to be an expert, but until then you are just a layperson who has done a lot of reading. Just as someone who has spent the last 20 years reading medical journals every day is not qualified to be considered an expert (physician) in medicine, no matter how smart he may be, so too someone who has read and studied books by NT scholars for the last 10-20 years, is NOT an expert in the New Testament.

You are a well-read LAYPERSON, Nick. That's it. You are NOT an authority until you have the degree!

I don't have the PhD yet, but Nick is probably more knowledgeable on some things than I am. I know he and I would disagree about the Exodus, the infancy narratives, and the authorship of the Gospels. However, he supports his arguments with actual scholarly work, which means that he's reading in the field and actively engaging material, rather than making it up as he goes along. I respect that.

[Apologiaphoenix]

I don't have the PhD yet, but Nick is probably more knowledgeable on some things than I am. I know he and I would disagree about the Exodus, the infancy narratives, and the authorship of the Gospels. However, he supports his arguments with actual scholarly work, which means that he's reading in the field and actively engaging material, rather than making it up as he goes along. I respect that.

Agreed with Stein and he and I are both doing work to get our educations. Do we disagree? Yes. Such is the nature of scholarly debate. if we never disagreed, it wouldn't be much fun. The difference is when we disagree, we seek to provide data and show why the data on the other side is false.

Let's use a medical example. How about the anti-vaccine position? Do I think there's anything to this position? No. Not at all. It is also a position I would take personally very seriously and I know people who do advocate it. What do I do when I meet their arguments. I try to show them to people who know better because thinking the position is false is far from saying "This position has no argument whatsoever." It could be hideously misinterpreted data, but it's by looking at the claim that is false that one can better understand a true position. Interestingly, this is what makes arguing against Jesus mythicists so hard for many scholars. It's not that mythicists have good arguments. It's that their arguments depend on data that most scholars don't really study because it's not a debate.

I think the YEC position is false, but I do think that when they bring arguments, you have to answer them. I think the anti-tobacco lobby is false of course, but when they present data, data must be answered.

Also, this won't apply at all when I present a link to my podcast. When I link to that, that is an interview with a scholar in the field, normally two hours long. If you want something directly from the source, you go there.