Whats the facination with Born Of a Virgin?

[logician]

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.

Ah, but in science one does not ASSUME the existence of anything, it must be proven. The base assertion must be that a Jesus did not exist, until it is proven he did, not that he probably did, so prove that he didn't. Read Dawkin's "The God Delusion" which has a long discussion concerning this topic.

Nowhere have I said I have proven a supposed Jesus didn't exist, I've only given some reasons why I think he didn't.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

This is a medieval text, and the person saying it, isn't Mithras; it's Zarathrustra.

page 103
[FONT=Times, Times New Roman, Serif][FONT=Times, Times New Roman, Serif][FONT=Times, Times New Roman, Serif]Vermaseren, M. J. Mithras the Secret God. New York: Barnes and Noble, 1963[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

Even so..wouldn't the quote still predate the quote that the biblical Yeshua was supposed to have uttered?

 

[Ringer]

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 faith had nothing to do with reason then you'd be right. Unfortunately, or fortunately, whatever way you look at it, faith and reason are not mutually exclusive. Why would I want to put my faith in someone my reason tells me didn't exist?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

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]

Also remember.....Luke admits not being an eyewitness to any of these events. He writes it the same way he did Acts.....as a long winded letter to Theopolis....basically saying he got his information from those "Who said they were eyewitnesses"......And they all look like they copied a lot of their info from Mark...

 

[Dirty Penguin]

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.

Then is it safe to say....Given the current evidence or lack thereof the historical Yeshua did not exist? What we are saying is that outside of the bible very little is written about the man and the info that is seems to have been written well after his supposed death. Maybe there is external info written about him but I've never seen any. Also remember that one Atheist is not a representation or spokesperson for (ALL) atheist.

 

[logician]

Also remember.....Luke admits not being an eyewitness to any of these events. He writes it the same way he did Acts.....as a long winded letter to Theopolis....basically saying he got his information from those "Who said they were eyewitnesses"......And they all look like they copied a lot of their info from Mark...

Will the real eyewitness please stand up. LOL

 

[Ringer]

Also remember.....Luke admits not being an eyewitness to any of these events. He writes it the same way he did Acts.....as a long winded letter to Theopolis....basically saying he got his information from those "Who said they were eyewitnesses"......And they all look like they copied a lot of their info from Mark...

I think of all authors of the Bible, Luke is the most trustworthy of a source you can find and is probably considered by many to be an exceptional historian.

 

[logician]

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.

Likewise, if one claims that Jesus DID exist, he/she had better be prepared to back it up. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

 

[Sententia]

Could we count the mythical Eve in there too?

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

Hmmm... Well technically of course you are right. She would be another example of a virgin birth myth. Created from adam and god but adam was created from god so really its just god.

Why did he need the rib anyways? Must have just been easier maybe... I know when I cook tandoori chicken I sometimes go a little heavy on the cayenne pepper so maybe he was just getting the recipe right. There is probably some obvious allegorical interpretation. Based on how the bible normally paints women and man's little helper it is probably something along those lines... Or keeping them close to heart. (People used to believe your memories were stored in your heart.... Hence phrases like I know it by heart etc)

The rib is weird... I remember when I was little I was told if I checked I would see girls have one more rib then boys because god took one. I wonder if anyone still believes that.

Anyways implying the most powerful being in the universe would make eve a genetic clone save making her have female parts would fit with the whole we were created perfect bit. But then it does raise incestuous issues which in my experience makes some christians edgy and upset or in some cases loud and boisterous. It also turns it into a topic you dont really want to discuss around impressionable minds and thus is not good family table talk... (I have brought up the story of Lot before to some of my friends and they have become quiet or just upset.)

Still something to ponder.

 

[DOTE]

if you were to say that christ did not exist to what truth are you justified. You can't say Christ does not exist because whether or not he lived people believe in their salvation through him. Then if you are saying that he is created by some person's mind then to what end did they conjure this "god". Obviously you can't be redeemed in some imaginary savior you merely thought of. Then if Christ did live but was not divine, how can you say that he was not divine. If you don't believe in him then you obviously can't be saved this being opposite to your belief in him. Frankly he is divine if you have faith and ordinary if you don't believe

 

[DOTE]

oh! and my opinion on the virginity issue...
i would say that because of the fall of man (adam and eve) any human being is not able to live life perfectly due to the fact that they are created in sin. Adam and Eve committed the first (sexual) sin, therefore any child born afterwards would be subjugated to that same sexual sin. They could not stop it from happening because that's just anatomy. So if Christ was born in a virgin he would have never commited that sin making him able to perform the atonement.
My thoghts anyways...

 

[Darkness]

I could not have asked for a better Christmas episode of House.

 

[kai]

Oh come on people no self respecting son of a god would go for anything else ,i mean what are the options here?

 

[Breathe]

Ah, but in science one does not ASSUME the existence of anything, it must be proven.

Your opinion =/= science

The base assertion must be that a Jesus did not exist, until it is proven he did, not that he probably did, so prove that he didn't. Read Dawkin's "The God Delusion" which has a long discussion concerning this topic.

There's plenty of material, but you've said it's all forgery. It's impossible to prove anyone existed from those times, though - so you will never be satisfied - what kind of things do you need? Within Christianity, Jesus did not die, so there's no bones - within Catholicism Mary did not die, therefore no mother's bones.

Nowhere have I said I have proven a supposed Jesus didn't exist, I've only given some reasons why I think he didn't.

You've not said you think he didn't, you've said he didn't - the way you have said and the hostility you have given those whom have disagreed with you shows that you think you've been proven right - using people like Achraya S as sources.

 

[Breathe]

Then is it safe to say....Given the current evidence or lack thereof the historical Yeshua did not exist? What we are saying is that outside of the bible very little is written about the man and the info that is seems to have been written well after his supposed death. Maybe there is external info written about him but I've never seen any. Also remember that one Atheist is not a representation or spokesperson for (ALL) atheist.

I know what you are saying - I've been on your side of the fence myself.

There is some material, Josephus, Tacticus, you know the ones - but their authenticity is doubted and their timeline, thereby making a much more difficult - especially since if there was a person who did not do miracles, in a society which was not amazingly literate, it's quite difficult, if not unfair, to expect that 2000 years later, there will still be much material found on it - much of it could have easily been succumbed to time.

Either way, it's a wasted subject. You can't prove he didn't, and they can't prove he did.

 

[Breathe]

Likewise, if one claims that Jesus DID exist, he/she had better be prepared to back it up. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

It's only fair that Jesus' existence be backed up, but for the reason I have cited above, this is a subject which will go nowhere fast. It's wasted and unprovable either way.

 

[crystalonyx]

Your opinion =/= science

There's plenty of material, but you've said it's all forgery. It's impossible to prove anyone existed from those times, though - so you will never be satisfied - what kind of things do you need? Within Christianity, Jesus did not die, so there's no bones - within Catholicism Mary did not die, therefore no mother's bones.


You've not said you think he didn't, you've said he didn't - the way you have said and the hostility you have given those whom have disagreed with you shows that you think you've been proven right - using people like Achraya S as sources.

I think you're mistaking forthrightness for hostility. Just because you disagree with somebody doesn't make them "hostile".

 

[crystalonyx]

Probably a more important question is if one believes some Jesus existed, what Jesus was it?
The miracle worker of the bible, a rabbi, a revolutionary, a teacher, a madman? Seems like there's a lot of possibilities here.

 

[Breathe]

I think you're mistaking forthrightness for hostility. Just because you disagree with somebody doesn't make them "hostile".

Not so I know full well that disagreeing with someone does not make them hostile- but towards some of the earlier posters it seems quite harsh, so if not hostile, then certainly bordering on it.

 

[Breathe]

Probably a more important question is if one believes some Jesus existed, what Jesus was it?
The miracle worker of the bible, a rabbi, a revolutionary, a teacher, a madman? Seems like there's a lot of possibilities here.

That's what I'm getting at.
I believe there is someone whom the stories are based off - but who is open for discussion. Personally, a revolutionary teacher/rabbi who has absorbed mystery religion influences.