As I understand it, historical evidence suggests there was a Jesus, and he was executed by the Romans.
The son of god, virign birth deal? No. My guess would be that it was either fabricated by the church after the fact, or his mom was screwing someone she shouldn't have been, spun that story, and somehow it was believed.
Here's a classic example of where skeptical argumentation regarding the virgin birth breaks down. It can't even get out of the gate. Skeptics typically demand evidence...well:
1. Where's the evidence that the church fabricated the VB after the fact?
2. Where's the evidence that his mother lied.
FYI, Number 2 is actually discussed in the AnteNicene literature. I might behoove some folks to actually look into how that was addressed before raising that objection.
It might behoove you to actually read where he said "My
guess would be..." and then stated his opinion about what he thinks
probably happened. Kind of a different thing from stating it as fact, isn't it?
And how exactly would one go about finding proof that Jesus' mother lied about the circumstances of his birth? Is there a 2,000 year old HebrewTube video I'm not aware of that contradicts her story? Demanding nearly impossible standards of evidence to support an opinion doesn't exactly help your cause if you're trying to make a reasonable argument.
I
believe there was a real Jesus, that he built quite a following, had many positive ideas to teach, and accomplished some great though not supernatural things. But I also think that the circumstances of his birth and many of his more amazing and supernatural achievements were greatly embellished by his followers and later scholars in order to fit the details of preexisting messianic figures in Hebrew (and other belief systems such as Mithras worship) lore.
That is not to say that there is no value in his teachings or in subsequent interpretations of his teachings by the way. The fact that I don't think he is the son of God doesn't mean you can't honor the spirit or wisdom of his teachings.
Thank you for this uterly inept post.
1. I actually told you how... by researching the AnteNicene literature. This objection is actually recorded in it. It is also an objection to which they responded. You might want to actually try to familarize yourself with the relevant literature before asking such easily answered questions. Give it a try, you may learn something.
2. Ah yes, the infamous "pagan copycat theory" well by all means if you're going to bring that one up, then you've brought it up to the right person since I wrote a chapter on this along with another person on very thing for
This Joyful Eastertide by Steve Hays. Been there, done that. I've been interacting with that theory longer than most of the people on this board have been members of this board.
If you think that they were borrowing from Mithras worship, to take just one example, why don't you show us, chapter and verse which texts from which legends were borrowed. In fact, why don't you provide some evidence for us that these legends didn't borrow in the opposite direction. You see, the big gaping wide hole in that theory is simply this: the evidence we have
postdates the NT narratives themselves. I tell you what, why don't you actually read the relevant material from, oh let me see, Edwin Yamauchi to see how far the pagan copy cat theory will get you.
For example, you might start
here and then
here.
The copycat theory is a theory that is academically dead, but that's what people around here get for relying on internet skepticism and not the actual literature on the subject.
It's not up to the skeptic to prove that something didn't happen. It's up to the person making the claim to prove that it did. I can claim that my great-great-grandfather was born from a virgin. You can't prove that I'm lying. That doesn't make it true.
False, each side has its own burden of proof to discharge. In this case, we have the NT narrative to disprove as well as the claims of the SubApostolic writers. The skeptic must disprove the authenticity of the NT narratives and argue against the Subapostolic writers.
He must also propose an alternative theory. Therefore, he must present evidence for that theory and an argument for why we should accept that theory. If one is going to argue that the VB was fabricated after the fact, then it's up to the person arguing that position to actually, you know, discharge his burden of proof. Simply saying, "It's not up to the skeptic to prove that something didn't happen. " is a case of begging the question - you know, assuming what you need to prove, namely that x did not happen. When you then say, that the VB was fabricated after the fact, you've additionally entered the realm of proposing an alternative. Try, in the future, to follow along.
Try again.
A virgin birth would be a miracle. And as Hume pointed out a long time ago, reports of miracles require strong proof to substantiate them--proof stronger than the uniformity of experience. In fact, we should never believe reports of miracles, unless it would be more miraculous if those reports were mistaken of misleading.
Ah, at last a serious reply. Finally.
That's nice. Unfortunately, appealing to Hume is problematic on several levels. First, it's a classic example of begging the question against the miraculous, one what would one accept as strong enough proof?
Second, it reasons from the general to the particular. That's an elementary logical fallacy. All it takes is one reliable historical record to corroborate a historical event.
Third, apropos 1, you're assuming, without benefit of argument uniformitarianism.
Natural law is not a Biblical category. Christians believe in ordinary providence (e.g. Gen 8:22), but that allows for the miraculous.
You are acting as though the universe is a box, so that nothing can enter or leave without tearing open the box.
But Christians don’t operate with such a crude, primitive conception of the universe.
Again, if you redefine the principle of uniformity as a closed system of cause and effect, you thereby exclude the miraculous, but this confuses a semantic ploy with a reasoned argument.
Lastly, it is also illogical to say that I need an unusual amount of evidence for an unusual event. How could there be more evidence for a rare event than for a commonplace event? One reason we believe that snow leopards are rare is the rarity of their sightings. It is unclear how Hume would establish any out-of-the ordinary event. Moreover, how many inductive instances to I need? The only evidence I need of a four-leaf clover is a four-leaf clover. One will do—no more, no less.
Hume discounts the testimony to miraculous incidents on the grounds that the witness pool is recruited from the backward and barbarous peoples. One can’t help but sense a suppressed circularity in this objection: Why don’t you believe in miraculous reports? Because the reporters are ignorant and barbarous! How do you know they are ignorant and barbarous? Because they believe in miracles! At most, all Hume’s argument amounts to is that dumb people believe dumb things. But that is hardly argument for the proposition that any particular witness is dumb.
Oh, and one more thing. You may want to update your material on Hume. Hume’s argument against miracles was already refuted in the 18th century by Paley, Less, and Campbell, and most contemporary philosophers also reject it as fallacious, including such prominent philosophers of science as Richard Swinburne and John Earman and analytic philosophers such as George Mavrodes and William Alston. Even the atheist philosopher Antony Flew, himself a Hume scholar, admits that Hume’s argument is defective as it stands. So, if you're going to rely on Hume, you might want to interact with this set of individuals.
Nice try though. I'll give you applause for at least making a serious attempt.
As to Celsus:
Of course, we know what Celsus wrote, not because we have a record of his material qua material, but because of
Against Celsus. You might want to go back and check your citation. That translation itself is actually lifted from the pages of Origen. It's a common mistake to cite OTD by Celsus as if that's the actual source material. It's not. We only possess it because Origen quoted from it. Try to keep up...how did Origen respond?
In addition, though Celsus rejects the virgin birth account, as we would expect, he attributes the virgin birth claim to
Jesus Himself (Origen, Against Celsus, 1:28). Why would Celsus do that, if a large percentage of people credibly claiming to be Christians rejected it or if the VB narratives were made up after the fact.
You see, appealing to Celsus gets the counterclaim that the VB was invented later on into trouble.
Celsus also attributes the VB narrative to the legend of Danae. Where does that get us? Let's see:
In the myth of Danae, the mother of Perseus, is not a virgin birth. The fact that Zeus assumes the form of a gold shower to gain access to her chamber does not mean that he impregnates her in that same form. He assumed that form because the chamber was otherwise inaccessible. But having chosen that modality to gain access to Danae, we would expect Zeus to reassume the normal form in which he deflowers young maidens. That's not a virgin birth.
At the very least, the account is completely ambiguous at precisely the point where we need it to be quite specific to establish a parallel.
So much for a competing theory, like the pagan copycat theory proposed by another taker.
But it wouldn't be a miracle. And that, in itself, makes it more likely than the virgin birth.
Only if you begin with the false premise you introduced in your opening paragraph. Thanks for begging the question. Try again.
