Critic's Claim #4: The idea of a virgin birth is BIBLICALLY UNCONVINCING
Some critics cite the fact that the Apostle Paul is silent on the subject of the Virgin Birth, and the fact that Mary's virginity is never mentioned in the Gospel According to John, as evidence that Jesus was never born of a virgin.
35 comments
the writing of Paul predated the other gospels, and the names Matt, Mark, Luke and John were added onto already written later texts.
Ok, this is so wrong I want to slap whoever came up with it. Matthew and Luke's gospels were written after Paul died. And John's gospel is too far advanced theologically, akin more to second century xtian theology, to be considererd a source for the first century. So, go do a little history homework, and then admit that you're an asshat.
Agreed, fudgethis. Any argument reliant on a single occurence of a single, specific word, especially as opposed to almost synonymous possible alternatives, in such a text as the modern bible is about as reliable as a Trabant that's been at the bottom of a lake for a century.
"Some works have had the hazards of translation more than doubled by passing from the original to a second language before being rendered from that into English, a process in which the style and character of even a laundry list could hardly be expected to survive." - Theodore Sturgeon
Sturgeon's Law probably also applies strongly to the bible.
Even if all the gospels harmonized - which they don't - they're still all just quoting the (third- or fourth-hand) words of a knocked-up teenager who told her fiance, "Uh ... Goddidit. Not that cute shepherd you saw leaving our house, or that buff Roman soldier who winked at me, or your horny old Uncle Judah who always wants me to sit on his lap. Nope, just God. Invisibly. While you were asleep."
Would you buy that line from your own daughter or wife?
"Hi everybody!"
"Hi, Dr. Luke!"
Not especially fundie. Most mainstream Christians accept the NT as valid, and the NT says that Mary was a virgin (the main controversy is over whether Matthew and Luke misread Isaiah's prophesy and "fudged" their story to agree with their error). The NT says Paul and Luke knew each other and that Luke was a physician.
Most mainstream Christians accept the NT as valid
Um, are there any mainstream Christians that don't?
As I recall though the Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams doesn't believe in a good part of the Nativity either, the virgin birth, a star rising in the east etc are all bunkum as far as he's concerned.
There is no indication whatsoever that Paul knew anything of an actual historic personage named Jesus. The savior he refers to existed only in a spiritual realm, just as the gods of the other mystery religions did. And Paul was dead
Luke may have been a physician, but that would have been ~2000 years ago. Medicine then would've been very unlike medicine now. Granted, some of their cures worked for some things, but generally not for the reasons they believed. It was the best they had at the time. A doctor in the period might have had no reason to believe a virgin birth would be impossible. That doesn't mean he was right. (And as others pointed out the word translated virgin doesn't always mean just that, kind of like lots of English words that have multiple meanings.)
false. matthew and mark were written in turkey 40 and 60 years respectively, after the supposed death of jesus. then the other two written a number of years after that. matthew and luke were written 50 years apart. either you don't know your history, or you sir, are a liar.
almost any decent bible study group, or gospel commentary will tell you that we cannot conclusivly tell who wrote the gospels. we can give educated guesses and an estimated date, but the are several good candidates for each gospel. We simply use the names assigned to each gospel by earlier church traditions.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
