>
VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, [9], 10 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 13:06:11 04/08/02 Mon
Author: Adilbrand
Subject: Re: To Adilbrand: My reply to your questions
In reply to: Abba's Son 's message, "To Adilbrand: My reply to your questions" on 12:19:27 04/04/02 Thu

The Christmas Story:
First, you made reference to Paul's two statements about the birth of Jesus. The Romans 1:3 reference actually confirms the virgin birth. "...as to His human nature was a descendant of David,".

That has nothing to do with viginity! This is a Non Sequitur Argument.

Paul is saying a lot in what he is not saying. Because, Jesus Christ is 100% man and 100% God, Paul would have to separate his 'human naute' from his 'God nature'.

It is not proven that 'Jesus Christ is 100% man and 100% god'. Even if Paul believed this, it doesn't follow that Mary was a virgin. Heck, the original version of Mark had Christ becoming the Son of God at baptism. It was at that time that he gained his "godhood". You are not making a valid argument here.

Paul's letter was to the Jews at the Church at Rome. He was laying the foundation. AS for the Galatians 4:4 reference, there is no contradiction here. Jesus' birth WAS COMPLETELY NATURAL. He was born the same way you and I were. Unless of course, you were a breech baby or C-Section. Mary was likely dialated 10cm's, she likely had some severe labor pains, she gave a natural, vaginal birth to Jesus Christ. It was His conception that was supernatural!

If Paul had believed in the Virginal Conception, he would have mentioned it. Paul didn't leave stones unturned. Perhaps my argument has its flaws, but you still have not established a virginal conception belief of Pauls. Interesting how people refer to it as the "Virgin birth of Christ", not the "Virgin Conception of Christ". Odd how when Paul refers to the birth he isn't also making the same error all sorts of Christians make...

Second, authorship. Mostly concerning Mark and Matthew. (I believe we have already talked about John, and have agreed to disagree.)

Mark was written by John Mark, the same one that Paul and Barnabas fought over. John Mark went with Barnabas and Peter. Peter assisted John Mark in the writing of the Gospel. Why no birth story? That wasn't the focus of this Gospel. It was written to tell of what He had done. Including the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ.

We are going to have to agree to disagree on the authorship of all the Gospels. There is no evidence other than circular logic to support the authors you give.


Next. you have several instances of the birth story and possible contradictions there. I will answer all of those here.

1. Contradictions in genealogy from Barnes' Notes on the NT: "No two scriptures have caused more difficult than these, and various attempts have been made to explain them. All that can be done is to suggest the various ways in which attempts have been made to explain them. 1) It is remarked that in nothing are mistakes more likely to occur than in such tables. From similarity of names, and the various manes by which the same person is often called, and from many other causes, errors would be more likely to creep into the text. (Personal note: that's an honest evaluation)

Good argument. But it does go to show that human error can creep into the Bible.

2) Most interpreters have supposed that Matthew gives the genealogy of Joseph and Luke of Mary. Both lines go back to the Davidian heritage.

Patently false. Matthew 1:16 states that the geneology ends with Joseph, and Luke 3:23 states that the geneology is Joseph's. Whoever is arguing this one hasn't read the Bible, or doesn't believe it is literally true.

3) Jacob and Heli (Eli) could have been brothers. One may have died without an heir, and per Jewish custom, the other could have conceived a child with the others wife. Here's what we know from both lists: Jesus was a descendant of David, fulfilling prophecy.

What prophecy? Again, you need to show the prophecy fits the required parameters.

All that can be asked now is whether they copied the tables of those families correctly. It is clear that no man can prove that they did not so copy them, and, therefore, that no one can adduce them as an argument against the correctness of the NT"

I would argue that if every word of the Bible is divinely inpired and literally true, then it all must be accurate, and one error proves that not every word is true, inspired, and literally true.

2. Virgin Birth: Why wouldn't Joseph have divorced Mary unless he clearly heard from God not to? Joseph's grace eases my mind that something supernatural had happened. I believe that virgin implies never having had sex, not simply young woman.

The author of Matthew quoted the Septuagint (Greek) version of the Hebrew Scriptures. The Septuagint contains a translation error made when the Hebrew of Isaiah 7:14 was converted into Greek. Isaiah used almah to describe a young girl who would give birth. In Hebrew, an almah is a young woman of marriageable age. If he wanted to refer to a virgin, he would have used the word bethulah. The creators of the Greek translation, the Septuagint, mistranslated the Hebrew almah into the Greek parthenos, meaning virgin. The authors of Matthew and Luke were probably unable to read Hebrew; they would have relied on the Septuagint translation. They based part of their writing on the error in the Greek. They were obviously creating a story in order to make the prophecy come true.

Jesus was the first child of many conceived by Mary and Joseph via sexual intercourse, as any for other human. In Galilee, this often happened before marriage (statements to the contrary are putting modern mores onto the story, not the mores of the time referred to). A couple lived together in a type of trial marriage until the woman became pregnant or had a child. At that point, they got married. Perhaps Joseph's "grace" was because the child was his.

The virgin birth may have been copied from another religion. History records that:

1) Buddha was born of the virgin Maya after the Holy Ghost descended upon her.

2) The Egyptian God Horus was born of the virgin Isis; as an infant, he was visited by three kings.

3) In Phrygia, Attis was born of the virgin Nama.

4) A Roman savior Quirrnus was born of a virgin.

5) In Tibet, Indra was born of a virgin. He ascended into heaven after death.

6) The Greek deity Adonis was born of the virgin Myrrha, many centuries before the birth of Jesus. He was born "at Bethlehem, in the same sacred cave that Christians later claimed as the birthplace of Jesus." (B.B. Walker, "The Woman's Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets," Harper & Row, (1983), Page 10.)

7)In Persia, the god Mithra was born of a virgin on DEC-25. An alternate myth is that he emerged from a rock. Also in Persia, Zoroaster was also born of a virgin.

8) In India, the god Krishna was born of the virgin Devaki.

9) Virgin births were claimed for many Egyptian pharaohs, Greek emperors and for Alexander the Great of Greece.

Patrick Campbell, author of "The Mythical Jesus," is quoted as saying that there were many mythological figures: Hercules, Osiris, Bacchus, Mithra, Hermes, Prometheus, Perseus and Horus who share a number of factors. All were believed to have:
been male.
lived in pre-Christian times.
had a god for a father.
human virgin for a mother.
had their birth announced by a heavenly display.
had their birth announced by celestial music.
been born about DEC-25.
had an attempt on their life by a tyrant while they were still an infant
met with a violent death.
rose again from the dead.

Interesting how the writers of the NT followed all these traits as well.


3. The Magi, star, and Herod: My son was born a little over a year ago. We called him a "baby". He is now a "toddler". Soon, he will be a "child". The Magi had visited a child, the shepherd saw that baby. The Manger scenes we see at Christmas time with all present are incorrect. Matthew and Luke are referring to two different times. Herod was covering his tracks. He didn't know exactly when this new King would be born, he wanted to be sure the baby was killed. (Remember Moses?)

There is no evidence that Herod instituted any mass murder. If the children were killed, then historians of the era would have been certain to have recorded the event. Josephus would have been one. He wrote in great detail about even minor actions and decisions of Herod. The mass murder was never mentioned.

The story of the Magi coming to Palestine to give homage to the King of the Jews was freely adapted from the story of Mithra's birth. He was mythical Persian savior, also allegedly born of a virgin on December 25, who was worshiped many centuries before Jesus' birth

4. Bethlehem/Nazareth/Egypt/Census: Again, baby vs. child. In two years Joseph and Mary were able to return to Israel, and settle in Bethlehem. The left Nazareth to register for the census, which I believe did happen. Why would the authors lie about something that could be checked so easily? Again, here is what Barnes has to say: "There is much difficulty respecting this passage, from the fact that no such taxing of 'all the world' is mentioned by ancient writers. It should have been rendered 'the whole land.' The whole land is mentioned to show that it was not Judea only, but that it included also Galilee, the place where Mary and Joseph dwelt." I'm okay with this explanation.

There is no evidence of a census in Judea or Galilee at that time. Even if a census did occur at the time of Jesus' birth, the people would not have been required to return to their ancestral home. That would be a totally impractical arrangement. The Romans were pretty efficient.

Your last statement was concerning the authorship of JOhn. I continue to hold fast concerning that topic.

Will you read two books for me?
The first is "The Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel. The title gives an obvious idea of what it is about.

Read it. He makes a lot of logic errors in his "Case".

The second book is "Dangerous Wonder" by Mike Yaconelli. You can probably find this at www.youthspecialties.com

Your problem is you want facts. My friend, you are stuck in the 20th century. In a post-modern world, most people don't care about facts. They don't care what you know until they know that you care. I care. That's why I've spent the time recently on this site. Dangerous Wonder is a great book about the adventure of childlike faith. Please read it. I beg you with all that is within me to read it. I can't stress enough how much you should read that book. It's about 150 pages and an easy read. I knocked it out in two days. In fact, I will buy you a copy and send it to you if you wish.

That's what I have to offer. Thank you for the opportunity to strengthen what I believe.

No problem. Thanks for the opportunity to strengthen my disbelief in Christianity.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Post a message:
This forum requires an account to post.
[ Create Account ]
[ Login ]
Forum timezone: GMT-5
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.