Whats the facination with Born Of a Virgin?

[Breathe]

I am unfamiliar with Buddha, but Odion seems to know his stuff, so perhaps it's best to leave that to him. He did mention a few points which I was unaware of (thanks Odion! )He did say it was a very oral tradition, so I don't know what would be reliable or not.

Exactly.

 

[Breathe]

D.M. Murdock (Acharya S)

Acharya S. Scourge of intellectual atheism, supporter of Jesus myth at any price, even to twisting and destroying the truth. Save yourself some time and don't read anything from that moron - she blatantly lied about Krishna and Buddha and probably "stretched the truth" towards other, less known deities, but if she's daft enough to write that Krishna and Buddha were crucified, two prominent people within two VERY large religions of today, one of which I am an ex-follower of, she's blatantly up to no good. I've seen how she talks to people who disagree with her, as well, calling them retards and stuff.

Save yourself some time. Read someone better.

 

[logician]

Acharya S. Scourge of intellectual atheism, supporter of Jesus myth at any price, even to twisting and destroying the truth. Save yourself some time and don't read anything from that moron - she blatantly lied about Krishna and Buddha and probably "stretched the truth" towards other, less known deities, but if she's daft enough to write that Krishna and Buddha were crucified, two prominent people within two VERY large religions of today, one of which I am an ex-follower of, she's blatantly up to no good. I've seen how she talks to people who disagree with her, as well, calling them retards and stuff.

Save yourself some time. Read someone better.

I prefer to look at the big picture, there a just too many elements of the gospels that make the Jesus story hard to swallow as anything other than a myth.

For example in the Luke acount:

In the Gospel of Luke account, Mary learns from the angel Gabriel that she will conceive and bear a child called Jesus. When she asks how this can be, since she is a virgin, he tells her that the Holy Spirit would "come upon her" and that "nothing will be impossible with God". She responds: "Here am I, the servant of the Lord; let it be with me according to your word".[7]

The style here is first person, yet who is recording this event? It is told as if a cameraman is standing in the background. This is a common theme in the NT, like the narrative of JEsus in the wilderness or the garden of Gethsemane. All are told in first person, but there could have been no witnesses present. Did Jesus and Mary later on say, hey guys, let me tell you the story about the virgin birth, or about the garden? I don't think so. These were written in this manner as stories of fiction, not historical records of fact.




There were only 2 accounts of the Jesus' birth, in Matthew and Luke, the writers of MArk and John are totally silent on the matter. Since th writers of Matthew and Luke based their text on Mark, they can only be taken as added stories for effect only.



From Wiki:
Many modern scholars consider that the two Gospel accounts present two different and conflicting narratives, and view both stories as "pious fictions".[5] E. P. Sanders describes them as "the clearest cases of invention in the Gospels".[6]

 

[Breathe]

Nevertheless, she is not trustworthy my friend. If she lies about Krishna and Buddha, then she will no doubt lie about other things.

You raise a good point - I've often wondered it. Have you seen the Simpsons Christmass episode where one of the characters says "No-one will speak or write of this again" - and one of the gospel authors is in the background, writing it down? This made me laugh.

You're right - how do they know? I doubt Mary said "Hey, guys, when I was pregnant, y'know, this happened, and all this." - I suppose she might've said it though, but who said about Gehethsemane? - Maybe they are for literary effect only, but it hardly makes a difference to me - it's not my faith. I just accept that a man named Yeshua, who later became mystified, existed. But what is myth, what is reality, is a tricky one.

 

[logician]

"I just accept that a man named Yeshua, "

That's the whole point, there is no hard evidence that such a man did exist, it's just tradition and orthodoxy to accept that he did. Those that claim he didn't have historically been burned at the stake, declared heretics, classified as lunatics, etc. No wonder there are few scholars that take on the subject.

 

[Breathe]

"I just accept that a man named Yeshua, "

That's the whole point, there is no hard evidence that such a man did exist, it's just tradition and orthodoxy to accept that he did. Those that claim he didn't have historically been burned at the stake, declared heretics, classified as lunatics, etc. No wonder there are few scholars that take on the subject.

But such things do not happen now.
There's no proof Jesus did not exist either, though - after all, would a society in which only the powerful were literate write about a normal man? Nobody wrote down information on the Buddha, either. But generally it's agreed he existed now.

 

[logician]

But such things do not happen now.
There's no proof Jesus did not exist either, though - after all, would a society in which only the powerful were literate write about a normal man? Nobody wrote down information on the Buddha, either. But generally it's agreed he existed now.

Proving a negative is generally quite difficult, I can state pretty much with certainty that there is no green cheese on the moon, but to "prove" it, I would have to a thorough search of the moon's surface, not an easy prospect. Likewise, there certainly must have been a number of men in Jerusalem around the time of the supposed Christ named Jesus, do I have a camera and time machine to go back and examine each one?

In any case, the onus is always on the positive assertion to prove its case, not on everyone else to disprove the assertion. See Bertrand Russell's teapot analogy, sometimes the Celestial Teapot, on why this is so.

 

[Charity]

I prefer to look at the big picture, there a just too many elements of the gospels that make the Jesus story hard to swallow as anything other than a myth.

For example in the Luke acount:

In the Gospel of Luke account, Mary learns from the angel Gabriel that she will conceive and bear a child called Jesus. When she asks how this can be, since she is a virgin, he tells her that the Holy Spirit would "come upon her" and that "nothing will be impossible with God". She responds: "Here am I, the servant of the Lord; let it be with me according to your word".[7]

The style here is first person, yet who is recording this event? It is told as if a cameraman is standing in the background. This is a common theme in the NT, like the narrative of JEsus in the wilderness or the garden of Gethsemane. All are told in first person, but there could have been no witnesses present. Did Jesus and Mary later on say, hey guys, let me tell you the story about the virgin birth, or about the garden? I don't think so. These were written in this manner as stories of fiction, not historical records of fact.




There were only 2 accounts of the Jesus' birth, in Matthew and Luke, the writers of MArk and John are totally silent on the matter. Since th writers of Matthew and Luke based their text on Mark, they can only be taken as added stories for effect only.



From Wiki:
Many modern scholars consider that the two Gospel accounts present two different and conflicting narratives, and view both stories as "pious fictions".[5] E. P. Sanders describes them as "the clearest cases of invention in the Gospels".[6]

Logician, I must admit that it does make me wonder just how these events were recorded and just who supplied the information. Did Mary tell others of her visit by the angel? Did Jesus tell the events to His disciples about his time in the wilderness. Also if the disciples were sleeping in the Garden of Gethsemane how did they know about His sweat becoming as drops of blood? I guess we all will just have to form our own conclusions. You did make a logical point, food for thought.

 

[Breathe]

do I have a camera and time machine to go back and examine each one?

Well.. do you?
If you do, can I come with?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

In any case, the onus is always on the positive assertion to prove its case, not on everyone else to disprove the assertion.

You have clearly, if not religiously, maintained a staunch ignorance when it comes to historiography.

The historicity of Jesus is clearly a case of abduction, of inference to best explanation, as are huge swaths of early history.

 

[logician]

Logician, I must admit that it does make me wonder just how these events were recorded and just who supplied the information. Did Mary tell others of her visit by the angel? Did Jesus tell the events to His disciples about his time in the wilderness. Also if the disciples were sleeping in the Garden of Gethsemane how did they know about His sweat becoming as drops of blood? I guess we all will just have to form our own conclusions. You did make a logical point, food for thought.

The point here is there was never any "recording" going on, ever. The stories about Jesus are complete fabrications taken from various existing mythos, with the writer's bias thrown in for good measure. We don't know who wrote the gospels, and only know vaguely the general time they came to be "circulated".

Not really a strong case for the existence of anybody.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The stories about Jesus are complete fabrications taken from various existing mythos, ...

A mantra you zealously chant but for which you have zero evidence.

 

[logician]

A mantra you zealously chant but for which you have zero evidence.

I just gave some, maybe you missed it. Try reading for comprehension.

 

[Ringer]

I just gave some, maybe you missed it. Try reading for comprehension.

If you're talking about the copy and paste article you had, I thought Odion already debased the validity of the whole article. The ones he didn't address have an explanation for them that probably won't go in your favor.

 

[Breathe]

If you're talking about the copy and paste article you had, I thought Odion already debased the validity of the whole article. The ones he didn't address have an explanation for them that probably won't go in your favor.

Why thank you

 

[logician]

If you're talking about the copy and paste article you had, I thought Odion already debased the validity of the whole article. The ones he didn't address have an explanation for them that probably won't go in your favor.

Sorry, not what I was talking about. Try something else.

 

[crystalonyx]

Sorry, not what I was talking about. Try something else.

I've always thought it odd that theists(or whoever) insist someone prove the supposed Jesus did not exist. Logically, such a thing can't be done, (Russell's celestial teapot), it's their way of trying to end the debate. Of course, why they care if Jesus existed ever existed or not is beyond me, since their religion is based upon faith to being with.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Isn't adam technically a virgin birth? He had no mother but only a father....

Could we count the mythical Eve in there too?

No mother nor father and was a clone of Adam (Twin Sister)....

 

[Breathe]

I've always thought it odd that theists(or whoever) insist someone prove the supposed Jesus did not exist. Logically, such a thing can't be done, (Russell's celestial teapot), it's their way of trying to end the debate. Of course, why they care if Jesus existed ever existed or not is beyond me, since their religion is based upon faith to being with.

If an atheist is allowed to say "Jesus did not exist", a theist is allowed to say "prove it". Otherwise it's just a cop-out. One cannot prove Jesus existed or did not exist, these are useless and idle words, mere speculation.

To me, it does not matter if Jesus did not exist as I am not Christian, but to say Jesus did not exist, now, that is a big claim, and it better be backed up.

 

[Storm]

One of the Signs You Might Be An Atheist Fundie is...

You insist that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." You then go on to claim that Jesus never existed.